ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Fairbanks, Alaska

' ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Fairbanks, Alaska

AJ'~'NUAL N~:\RRA.T1VE REPORT fJ<4lemiar Year 1996

U:1iteu States Dcparhnent of Interior :Fish and Wild_life Service

National \Vi!dlife Refuge System

T""

0 0 1.() 1.()

""' C')

C')

ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Fairbanks, Alaska

ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1996

United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge System

ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Fairbanks, Alaska

REVIEW AND APPROVALS

ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1996

Date

Date

INTRODUCTION

Size

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge, Arctic Refuge, or Arctic NWR) includes nearly 19.8 million acres, including eight million acres of wilderness. The Refuge spans more than 200 miles west to east from the Trans-Alaska pipeline corridor to Canada, and 200 miles north to south from the Beaufort Sea to the Venetie Indian Tribal Lands and the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).

Geography

Major land forms include the coastal plain, the Brooks Range mountains, and the boreal forest south of the mountains. The Refuge extends south from the Beaufort Sea coast, including most offshore islands, reefs, and sandbars. It extends across the mostly treeless, rolling tundra of the coastal plain to the Brooks Range, located 8-50 miles inland from the coast. The Brooks Range runs roughly east to west through the Refuge, creating a natural north-south division. The Refuge contains the four tallest peaks (led by Mt. Isto, 9049 feet) and the only extensive glaciation in the Brooks Range. The mostly mountainous and hilly south side of the Refuge is cut by numerous stream and river valleys dominated by sub-arctic boreal forest of spruce, birch, and willow.

Facilities

No permanent facilities are located on the Refuge. The headquarters office is located in Fairbanks, 180 miles from the southern border of the Refuge. Other facilities include a modern bunkhouse and field station at the Native village of Kaktovik on Barter Island, a few miles north of the Refuge coastal plain.

Enabling Legislation

On December 6, 1960, Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton signed Public Land Order 2214 establishing the 8.9 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Range (original wildlife range), closing it to entry under existing mining laws.

The original wildlife range was redesignated the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with the signing of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) on December 2, 1980. Under ANILCA, the Refuge more than doubled in size to 18 million acres. In addition, three Refuge rivers were designated as Wild rivers and eight million acres (most of the original wildlife range) were designated as Wilderness. Section 1002 of ANILCA directed a resource assessment, including limited seismic testing, of approximately 1.5 million acres of the Refuge coastal plain (the 1002 area), pending a future Congressional decision on oil and gas leasing or Wilderness designation for the area.

The State of Alaska relinquished selection of approximately 971,800 acres within the Refuge in 1983. In 1988, the lOOth Congress enacted Public Law 110-395 which added another 325,000 acres, bringing the Refuge to its current size.

Refuge Purposes

Public Land Order 2214 stated that the purpose of the original wildlife range was to preserve unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values. This purpose was added to by Section 303(2)(B) of ANILCA, which specifies that the Refuge was established and shall be managed:

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to, the Porcupine caribou herd (including participation in coordinated ecological studies and management of this herd and the Western Arctic caribou herd), polar bears, grizzly bears, muskox, Dall sheep, wolves, wolverines, snow geese, peregrine falcons and other migratory birds, and Arctic char and grayling;

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats;

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in subparagraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge."

In Section 101 of ANILCA, Congress made clear its intent to preserve within conservation system units in Alaska, including the Refuge, "nationally significant" scenic, wilderness, recreational, wildlife, and other values for the benefit of present and future generations." Section 101 further states that "it is the intent of Congress in this Act to preserve ... wilderness resource values and related recreational opportunities including but not limited to hiking, canoeing, fishing, and sport hunting, within large arctic and subarctic wild lands and on free flowing rivers

"

Refuge Resources

The Arctic Refuge includes a unique diversity of habitats offering exceptional wildlife, wilderness, recreation, scientific, and aesthetic values. The area includes an assemblage of plant and animal life found nowhere else in the circumpolar region.

Major habitat types include alpine tundra and rocky areas, wet and moist arctic tundra, boreal forest, muskeg, brackish coastal lagoons, shrub thickets, and numerous types of wetlands.

The Refuge contains an unusual diversity of arctic and subarctic wildlife, including the Porcupine and Central Arctic caribou herds. The Porcupine herd, numbering some 152,000

animals, winters in the southern portion of the Refuge and in Canada. Calving and post-calving activities occur on the coastal plain from late May to late June. Up to one-fourth of the Central Arctic herd, which numbers about 18,000 animals, utilizes the northwestern part of the Refuge. All three species of North American bears (black, grizzly, and polar) are found on the Refuge. Grizzlies, which den in mountainous areas, exist throughout the Refuge. They are thought to number between 130 and 150 on the north slope. Black bears inhabit the south side boreal forest. A few polar bears annually den on the coastal plain. The Refuge contains about 400 muskoxen, which often are observed along rivers on the coastal plain. Large Dall sheep populations occur in the mountainous areas of the Refuge, although a reliable population estimate does not exist. Other mammals found on the Refuge include moose, wolverine, wolf, arctic fox, lynx, marten, and snowshoe hare. Grayling and Arctic char are the primary sport fish that inhabit Refuge rivers.

Approximately 180 species of migratory birds have been seen on the Refuge. The coastal plain is especially important for shorebirds and waterfowl that nest on or otherwise use the area during summer. Oldsquaw is the most common waterfowl species in coastal lagoons, but king and common eiders, pintails, brant, and other species also are found. Some 75 pairs of tundra swans nest on the coastal plain, concentrating on wetland dotted river deltas. From mid-August to midSeptember, the eastern part of the coastal plain serves as the fall staging area for an average 117,000 snow geese. The Refuge also supports the northernmost breeding population of golden eagles and includes critical habitat for the endangered peregrine falcon, much of it along the Porcupine River.

Local Residents

Residents of several Native villages harvest subsistence resources on the Refuge. Kaktovik, located on the northern edge of the coastal plain, is an Inupiat Eskimo village with about 210 people. Villagers utilize bowhead whale, caribou, polar bear, waterfowl, walrus, seal, Dall sheep, muskox, wolves, ptarmigan, and several species of fish. Arctic Village, an Athabascan Indian village with about 130 residents, is located on the East Fork of the Chandalar River just outside the Refuge's southern boundary. Although villagers rely mainly on the Porcupine caribou herd, they also take moose, Dall sheep, wolves, marten, beaver, lynx, fox, and several other species. Limited fishing occurs, primarily for whitefish and lake trout. Residents of Fort Yukon, Venetie, and Chalkyitsik also use Refuge resources, but to a lesser degree.

Public Access and Use

Public access is unrestricted except for all-terrain vehicle use. Almost all visitors get to the Refuge by bush plane. Subsistence users rely on boats, snowmobiles, and occasionally dog sleds.

The Refuge is open to public use year-round. Due to the isolated, pristine nature of the area, wilderness related activities predominate. Hunting, river floating, and backpacking are the most popular. Weather limits almost all visitation to June through early October. Trips generally range from one to three weeks, partly due to the remoteness of the Refuge and the high cost of getting there. Peak use occurs in July (floating, backpacking) and August-September (hunting).

The rugged alpine slopes of the Brooks Range are cut by shallow braided streams throughout the central portion of the Refuge. P. Garrett

Unique flatwater rivers like the Porcupine meander through the boreal forest and taiga in the southern portion of the Refuge. T. Edgerton

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. HIGHLIGHTS 1

B. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS ....................................... . 2

c. LAND ACQUISITION .......................................... . 3

1. Fee Title ................................... (Nothing to Report) 2. Easements .................................. (Nothing to Report) 3. Other...................................................... 3

D. PLANNING ................................................... . 5

1. Master Plan ................................. (Nothing to Report) 2. Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Public Participation .......................... (Nothing to Report) 4. Compliance with Environmental and Cultural Resource Mandates . . . . . . 5 5. Research and Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Other ...................................... (Nothing to Report)

E. ADMINISTRATION ............................................ . 15

1. Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2. Youth Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3. Other Manpower Programs .................... (Nothing to Report) 4. Volunteer Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5. Funding............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7. Technical Assistance ......................... (Nothing to Report) 8. Other...................................................... 20

F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT ..................................... . 21

1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2. Wetlands ................................... (Nothing to Report) 3. Forests .................................... (Nothing to Report) 4. Crop lands .................................. (Nothing to Report) 5. Grasslands ................................. (Nothing to Report) 6. Other Habitats ............................... (Nothing to Report) 7. Grazing .................................... (Nothing to Report) 8. Haying .................................... (Nothing to Report) 9. Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

10. Pest Control ................................ (Nothing to Report) 11. Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

12. Wilderness and Special Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 13. WPA Easement Monitoring .................... (Nothing to Report)

G. WILDLIFE .................................................... . 26

1. Wildlife Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2. Endangered and/or Threatened Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3. Waterfowl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4. Marsh and Water Birds ........................ (Nothing to Report) 5. Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns, and Allied Species ....... (Nothing to Report) 6. Raptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7. Other Migratory Birds ........................ (Nothing to Report) 8. Game Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9. Marine Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

10. Other Resident Wildlife ....................... (Nothing to Report) 11. Fisheries Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 12. Wildlife Propagation and Stocking .............. (Nothing to Report) 13. Surplus Animal Disposal ...................... (Nothing to Report) 14. Scientific Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 15. Animal Control .............................. (Nothing to Report) 16. Marking and Banding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 17. Disease Prevention and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

H. PUBLIC USE .................................................. . 36

1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2. Outdoor Classrooms - Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3. Outdoor Classrooms- Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4. Interpretive Foot Trails ........................ (Nothing to Report) 5. Interpretive Tour Routes ....................... (Nothing to Report) 6. Interpretive Exhibits/Demonstrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 7. Other Interpretive Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 8. Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 9. Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

10. Trapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 11. Wildlife Observation ......................... (Nothing to Report) 12. Other Wildlife Oriented Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 13. Camping ................................... (Nothing to Report) 14. Picnicking .................................. (Nothing to Report) 15. Off-Road Vehicling .......................... (Nothing to Report) 16. Other Non-Wildlife Oriented Recreation .......... (Nothing to Report) 17. Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 18. Cooperating Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 19. Concessions ................................ (Nothing to Report)

I. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES .................................. . 59

1. New Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 2. Rehabilitation ............................... (Nothing to Report) 3. Major Maintenance........................................... 60 4. Equipment Utilization and Replacement .......... (Nothing to Report) 5. Communications Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 6. Computer Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 7. Energy Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 8. Other...................................................... 62

J. OTHER ITEMS ................................................ . 62

1. Cooperative Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 2. Other Economic Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 3. Items of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 4. Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

K. FEEDBACK .................................................. . 66

APPENDIX- Newspaper and magazine articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tab 1

INFORMATION PACKET - Refuge brochures, flyers, and handouts . . . . . . . Tab 2

LIST OF TABLES

1. 1996 temperature data (degrees F) for Barter Island, Arctic Village, and Old Crow, Yukon Territory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Funding summary FY91-FY96 (figures expressed to the nearest $1,000) . . . . . . 19 3. Training received by employees in 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4. Wildland fires on the Arctic NWR in 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5. Peregrine falcon productivity, Porcupine River, AK, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6. Information on muskoxen captured and marked in the Arctic NWR in

August 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7. Peregrine falcon nestlings banded on the Porcupine River on the Arctic

NWR, July 14-19, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8. Hunting guide-outfitter special use permit report data, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 9. Recreation guide special use permit data, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

10. Commercial recreation use days, 1987-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 11. Private recreation reported in charter aircraft and transporter special use

permit reports, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

A. HIGHLIGHTS

Army Corps of Engineers continued cleaning up DEW sites (see C.3, p. 4, and E., pp. 16-18).

Extensive muskox and moose surveys were conducted (see D.5, pp. 6-8, and G.8, pp. 30-31).

Long-term ecological monitoring began at the Coleen River boreal forest and Jago River arctic tundra sites (see D.5, pp. 8-11).

Sheenjek River was surveyed for recreational impacts (see D.5, p. 11).

Staff inventoried bluffs at the Lower Ramparts of the Porcupine River (see D.5, pp. 12-13, and G.l4, p. 33).

UAF Upward Bound students cleaned up the Big Ram Lake mill-site (see E.2, pp. 16-18).

Four fires occurred on the Refuge (see F.9, pp. 22-25).

Refuge Wilderness was designated the Mollie Beattie Wilderness Area (see F.12, p. 25).

Three new peregrine nesting sites were found; golden eagle productivity rose dramatically (see G.2, pp. 26-27, and G.6, pp. 28-29).

Alaska Board of Game closed the north slope to moose hunting (see G.8, p. 30).

Ten muskoxen were captured on the Refuge (see D.5, pp. 6-8, and G.16, p. 34).

Refuge established state-of-the-art site on the World Wide Web (see H.l, p. 36).

Justice Department attorneys toured the Refuge coastal areas to prepare for Supreme Court case (see H.l, p. 37).

Staff directed Fairbanks' 1st International Migratory Bird Day Celebration (see H.6, pp. 43-44).

Fairbanks Refuges threw big NWR Week bash at the Bentley Mall and with KIAK radio (see H.6, pp. 44-47).

Staff moved to a new office space in the Federal Building, co-located with Kanuti and Yukon Flats Refuge personnel (see I.l, p. 59).

Staff began using satellite telephones in the field (see 1.5, p. 60).

Permit was issued to dredge gravel near Kaktovik (see J.2, pp. 63-64).

1

B. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

Weather stations at Barter Island, Arctic Village, and Old Crow, Yukon Territory, are the only reliable sources of climatic data for the Refuge. Barter Island, on the Beaufort Sea coast, represents the north side. Arctic Village, on the Refuge's southern boundary, represents the south side and Old Crow, 30 miles east of the Refuge border in Canada, represents the southeast side. Table 1 shows monthly temperature data for these three stations.

Table 1. 1996 Temperature data (degrees F) for Barter Island, Arctic Village, and Old Crow, Yukon Territory. M =missing data.

Barter Island Arctic Village Old Crow

Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave.

Jan M M M -19.5 -32.7 -26.2 -25.9 -33.4 -29.5

Feb M M M -8.3 -24.0 -14.0 -0.9 -18.9 -11.5

Mar M M M 7.9 -16.5 -4.3 7.0 -16.9 -3.5

Apr -7.2 -4.7 2.0 22.2 -0.9 12.4 18.8 -0.9 10.9

May 34.5 27.5 31.2 45.2 28.3 37.8 45.1 27.2 37.7

June 40.4 33.1 36.4 59.7 43.3 52.9 64.1 48.9 57.2

July 48.8 37.7 42.6 62.1 48.4 55.6 65.8 49.2 58.1

Aug 40.0 32.5 35.9 51.5 35.0 43.7 52.8 38.2 46.0

Sept 28.7 23.2 26.5 36.9 25.2 30.1 37.4 27.8 32.4

Oct 14.2 4.6 8.6 6.8 -9.8 -0.6 13.2 1.5 6.3

Nov -2.0 -15.5 -7.2 -1.2 -16.3 -8.1 -5.0 -13.6 -10.0

Dec 2.8 -9.9 -3.7 1.5 -15.7 -7.1 -15.2 -23.0 -19.5

2

Winter conditions dominate the Refuge and its inhabitants almost nine months of the year. P. Garrett

C. LAND ACQUISITION

1. Fee Title

Nothing to Report

2. Easements

Nothing to Report

3. Other

Native Allotments

Under the Native Allotment Act of 1906, qualified Alaska Natives each could claim up to 160 acres of unreserved land until December 18, 1971. Each 160 acre claim (allotment) could consist of up to three parcels. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ALRS computer records system indicates that about 95 individuals have approximately 150 active (not rejected) allotment parcels on the Refuge comprising some 14,000 acres.

The BLM transmitted 18 allotment status changes this year including three approvals, two surveys, 11 certificates of ownership, and two requests for additional evidence. All

3

the allotment actions were examined and will be summarized in the Refuge's computer information system.

Native Allotments present a significant management challenge since the owners can do virtually anything they wish with the land after it is conveyed. It is important for the Refuge to maintain up-to-date files on locations and sizes of the allotments because they are considered private land upon acceptance of the application. Management decisions must consider all possible conflicts that could occur with allotments. Significant allotment use changes that have occurred to date include the building of a communal cabin along the Hulahula River on the coastal plain and the offering for sale of an allotment on the shore of Old John Lake on the Refuge's south side. There also is rumor of an allotment for sale on the Coleen River.

Remains of New Rampart, a former Hudson Bay trading post on the Porcupine River. The site is not a Refuge allotment since it lies just across the border in Canada. T. Edgerton

Mining Claims

A cleanup project to eliminate the large amount of trash remaining at several mining claims of the Big Ram Lake mill-site that BLM disallowed in 1993 occurred in July (see E.2, pp. 16-18).

Records from the BLM show that two mining claims remain on the Refuge. Both are placer claims owned by large active mining interests who, so far, have left the claims undeveloped.

4

D. PLANNING

1. Master Plan

Nothing to Report

2. Management Plan

Completion of the River Management Plan remained on hold throughout 1996. Refuge staff held several discussions regarding how best to put the planning effort to rest while holding onto a reasonable level of trust from the numerous individuals and groups that followed the seven year planning process. Resolution of this dilemma is expected in 1997.

3. Public Participation

Nothing to Report

4. Compliance with Environmental and Cultural Resource Mandates

Compatibility determinations and subsistence use evaluations were completed for all activities on the Refuge requiring special use permits.

Cleanup and remedial work by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) began at the Griffin Point Distant Early Warning (DEW) site, but was not completed. Barrels were removed and remedial work was done at the Beaufort Lagoon and Collinson Point sites, but large equipment and junk has not yet been removed.

The current state of cleanup at the Collison Point DEW site. H. Heffernan

5

Cleanup and remedial work at Demarcation Bay is complete. We await the Corps final report on that site. Planned cleanup work on the Brownlow site was canceled due to higher priorities for the Corps elsewhere in Alaska. All the sites were inspected by Heffernan and Kaye, either by aircraft or on the ground. As the contracts for all these sites expired by the end of the year, the Corps is seeking additional funds to complete the cleanups. The Corps also plans to have a contractor remove barrels from Drum Island (next to Barter Island) in 1997.

5. Research and Investigations

Research on wildlife and vegetation continued on the Refuge in 1996. Work was conducted by biologists from the Refuge and the Biological Research Division of the United States Geological Survey (BRD-USGS). Scientific permits were issued to the University of Alaska-Fairbanks (UAF) for studies of glaciers, caribou and fluvial processes, and drainage channel formation, and to the University of Massachusetts for Pleistocene glaciation and interglacial Paleoclimatic history. A permit was again issued to the USGS for work reevaluating the oil potential of the 1002 area. The Poker Flats Rocket Range annually receives a permit to infrequently impact rocket debris and parachute instrument payloads onto the Refuge during winter as part of its aurora and other atmospheric research.

I. Population status and distribution of muskoxen on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Patricia E. Reynolds, Arctic NWR, Fairbanks, AK

Population abundance, distribution, and sex and age structure were determined for the Refuge muskox population in 1996. During a pre-calving census in late March, animals were counted along all major drainages on the Refuge coastal plain, drainages west of the Refuge between the Sagavanirktok and Canning Rivers, and along the Clarence River on the United States-Canada border. In early July, sex and age composition of the population was determined from ground observations of muskox groups. A total of 239 muskoxen were classified; 195 in the Refuge and 44 west of the Refuge. Calf production was estimated from calf/adult female ratios and observations of marked female muskoxen. Adult male/adult female ratios also were calculated. Radio-relocation surveys were flown in October, April, June, and August to determine distribution and range expansion of muskoxen in and near the Refuge. In August, 10 adult muskoxen were captured to replace radio-collars. Results of muskox investigations are summarized in Section G.8 (pp. 30-31).

Analyses of information collected during the past several years continued in 1996. Rates of population growth, productivity estimates, survival, emigration, and range expansion all were used to determine changes in abundance and distribution, and to generate population models to study past and future population growth.

6

Examination of information on seasonal distribution, habitat use, activity patterns, and patterns of dispersal for muskoxen also continued this year. This information is being summarized in a series of technical papers. Data on muskox biology was provided to biologists from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Subsistence Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), BLM, the North Slope Borough, Canadian wildlife agencies, and UAF, as well as interested members of the public. Muskox information also was incorporated into the "Management Plan for the Harvest of Muskoxen on the North Slope," prepared in cooperation with the North Slope Game Management Department, ADF&G, and other federal agencies.

Ecologist Reynolds tagging a female muskox. H. Reynolds

Reports, papers, and publications

Reynolds, P.E. Range expansion and dynamics of a re-established muskox population in northeastern Alaska. Paper submitted to the Journal of Wildlife Management.

Reynolds, P .E. Seasonal strategies of muskoxen. Draft in review.

7

Reynolds, P.E. Expanded abstracts for the Final 1002 Report: Iva. Distribution, movements and habitat use of muskoxen., and Ivb. Dynamics and range expansion of muskoxen.

II. Population and harvest significance of southern Brooks Range moose concentrations

Francis J. Mauer, Arctic NWR, Fairbanks, AK

This was the second year of data collection for this four year study of moose movements and population identification in the eastern part of the Refuge. Nine relocation surveys were conducted during 1996, documenting the seasonal migration of radio-collared moose from winter ranges in Alaska to summer habitat in Old Crow Flats, Canada, and back to Alaska during the fall. Biologists with Yukon Renewable Resources and the Canadian Wildlife Service assisted by conducting two surveys during the summer. Production and survival of calves of marked females and mortality of marked adults were also monitored for the second year.

III. 1 002-area caribou and bear studies

Thomas R. McCabe, BRD-USGS, Anchorage, AK Brad Griffith, FWS Cooperative Research Unit, Fairbanks, AK Donald D. Young, ADF&G, Fairbanks, AK

Field research on these projects has been completed. The final report is being prepared and manuscripts for submission to scientific journals are in various stages of completion.


Young, D. D. and T. R. McCabe. Grizzly bear predation rates on caribou calves in northeastern Alaska. (In press) Journal of Wildlife Management.

Young, D. D. and T. R. McCabe. Grizzly bears and calving caribou: what is the relationship with river corridors? (In press) Journal of Wildlife Management.

McCabe, T. R., B. Griffith, and J. C. Jorgenson. Determining habitat use by calving caribou at the landscape level. Presented at the Third Annual Conference of The Wildlife Society, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1-5, 1996.

IV. Long-term ecological monitoring

Janet Jorgenson, Arctic NWR, Fairbanks, AK Mike Emers, Arctic NWR, Fairbanks, AK Beverly Reitz, Arctic NWR, Fairbanks, AK

8

A goal of the FWS and Refuge staff is to develop a standardized, long-term approach to monitoring the environmental health of Refuge ecosystems. Much emphasis has been placed on the large vertebrates whose horne ranges cover large areas. Habitats, vegetation communities, species with small horne ranges, and species closer to the bottom of the food chain have been largely ignored in this monitoring effort. For this reason, five permanent monitoring sites are being established on the Refuge, one in each of the main ecological zones: coastal arctic tundra, inland arctic tundra, Brooks Range alpine tundra, south slope taiga, and boreal forest. These sites will enable Refuge staff to monitor and detect changes in flora, fauna, and other ecological components through the years. Objectives of the study are to:

- obtain baseline data on ecosystem components such as weather, vegetation, soils, small mammals, birds, and invertebrates.

- accumulate a long-term spatial and temporal data base to allow elucidation of the relationships between these components.

- detect natural and human-caused changes by repeated monitoring of permanent plots through the years.

- provide a framework for determining if changes warrant management action.

Monitoring programs will be established as needed at the sites, depending on management concerns and available funding. The first ones proposed include:

- a weather station for monitoring soil and air moisture and temperature. - permanent vegetation plots for monitoring plant cover and density, species

diversity, and structural characteristics - a small mammal trapping grid - bird census stations compatible with the annual breeding bird census for

neotropical migrants. - invertebrate and seed traps - furbearer scent stations

Methods will be consistent with those used at other monitoring stations in Alaska, principally the Long-term Ecological Research sites at Toolik Lake on the north slope and Bonanza Creek near Fairbanks, administered by UAF, and the BRDUSGS study at Rock Creek in Denali National Park and Preserve. Although bird census and weather station maintenance will need to be done every year, not all components will be monitored each year. For example, vegetation data will only be collected every five years.

The five sites were chosen after a field reconnaissance in 1995. Each site is representative of its ecosystem and has reliable access by fixed-wing aircraft on a durable surface.

9

During a two week period in summer 1996, a pilot-scale study was conducted at the sites established in the boreal forest (Coleen River) and the inland arctic tundra (Jago River). A reconnaissance of vegetation was done at each of the two sites to enable completion of a preliminary map of their vegetation and landforms. Two intensive vegetation plots were permanently marked and sampled at each site.

At the Coleen River boreal forest site, fire history was researched using BLM records, aerial photographs, and field checks. The site includes an excellent mix of forest stand ages, including areas burned in 1950, 1986, and 1991, and long-time unburned areas. Other natural disturbances to be monitored at the site include river bank erosion and a spruce bark beetle infestation in old-growth spruce. Locations for breeding bird surveys were tentatively chosen at the site.

Staffers Boyle, Jorgenson, and Reitz prepare to set up the Coleen River site. S. Nelson

At the J ago River inland arctic tundra site, breeding bird plots were located, marked, and described. A remote weather station also was installed, the only one currently in operation on or near the Refuge. Other weather stations currently in storage will be installed at other long-term monitoring sites as funding allows.

10

Refuge botanists conduct vegetation sampling at the Jago River site. J. Jorgenson

V. Baseline survey of recreational impacts along rivers of the Arctic NWR

Mike Emers, Arctic NWR, Fairbanks, AK Beverly E. Reitz, Arctic NWR, Fairbanks, AK Janet C. Jorgenson, Arctic NWR, Fairbanks, AK

The survey of recreational impacts along high use rivers in the Refuge continued in 1996. The purpose of the study is to determine baseline levels of impact to riparian habitats in high use recreational areas, establish permanent plots to detect changes over time, and provide a baseline for determining limits of acceptable change in high use areas. Nineteen campsites were located along 37 kilometers of the Sheenjek River. Sites were mapped, photographed, and evaluated for impacts to riparian and tundra habitats. Two sites had high disturbance, three had moderate disturbance, and 14 had little or no disturbance. Campsites were most disturbed at access points (airstrips) and areas with high vegetative cover. Campsites were least disturbed where the rivers were braided (providing a wider choice of sites) and where vegetation was more open. Site information was recorded using a system that facilitates re-evaluation in the future.

11

Jorgenson documents campsite impacts near Last Lake along the Sheenjek River. B. Reitz

VI. Rare and endemic plant inventory of the Lower Ramparts of the Porcupine River

Michael Emers, Arctic NWR, Fairbanks, AK Janet Jorgenson, Arctic NWR, Fairbanks, AK Barbara Murray, UAF, Fairbanks, AK David Murray, UAF, Fairbanks, AK

South facing bluffs at the Lower Ramparts of the Porcupine River were inventoried for rare and endemic species. Previous reconnaissance had located several populations of wild buckwheat (Eriogonum jlavum Nutt.), a former Category 2 species, a disjunct population of townsendia (Townsendia hookeri Beamon), and several collections of a fleabane new to science (Erigeron sp. nov.). The objectives of the investigation were: 1) to thoroughly examine the bluff system to locate new populations of these species, and 2) to determine what makes this area unique.

The bluff system, which lies on the border of the Arctic and Yukon Flats Refuges, extends for 12 miles on different tiers above the river, from 600 feet (river level) to 1300 feet grading into the subalpine at benchmark Eagle. The majority of the substrate is carbonate with the exception of the far eastern end which is quartzite. Vegetation communities on south-facing bluffs in Interior Alaska are steppe communities dominated by sage (Artemisia frigida) and grasses (Agropyron spicatum and Calamagrostis puprurescens). They are thought to be relict plant communities from the Pleistocene (10,000 to 1.5 million years ago) and have elements of flora from the Asian steppes and North American prairies. These

12

communities are now restricted to relatively warm, dry sites along Interior Alaska river drainages. What distinguishes the plant communities along the Lower Ramparts of the Porcupine from other steppe bluffs are the presence of phlox (Phlox richardsonii and P. hoodii) and alyssum (Alyssum americanum) as major components. This plant assemblage does not occur on other known steppe bluffs in Alaska.

Daisies carpet a bluff along the Lower Ramparts of the Porcupine River. M. Emers

Several more populations of the new species of Erigeron were found. The plant was abundant where it occurred, most often towards the top of the bluffs. In some places densities exceeded 100 per square meter. All of the rarer plant species occurred on bluffs of carbonate lithology. The quartzite bluffs (dominated by Phlox and Alyssum) were comparatively depauperate. The carbonate lithology contributes to the uniqueness of the Lower Ramparts' bluff system, as species diversity is often richer on soils derived from limestone. The relative isolation of the Lower Ramparts' bluffs also may help explain why this particular area is so different from other steppe bluffs in Alaska.

Refuge botanists were fortunate to get assistance from Barbara Murray, one of the leading authorities on arctic cryptogams. She made 178 collections (80 lichens, 15 liverworts, and 83 mosses), including a lichen specimen tentatively identified as Psora testacea, a species not known to occur in North America. She also found a probable new species of liverwort in the genus Asterella.

13

VII. Long-term effects of winter seismic exploration on the vegetation of the coastal plain of the Arctic NWR.

Mike Emers, Arctic NWR, Fairbanks, AK Janet C. Jorgenson, Arctic NWR, Fairbanks, AK

No field work was conducted in 1996.


Emers, M. and Jorgenson, J. C. Effects of winter seismic exploration on tundra vegetation and the soil thermal regime in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. In: Crawford, R. M. M. Ed., 1996. Disturbance and recovery in Arctic lands: an ecological perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

Jorgenson, J. C. Tundra disturbance and recovery nine years after winter seismic exploration in northern Alaska. Submitted to Arctic.

VIII. Effects of global climate change on ungulate resources of the arctic coastal plain.

Thomas R. McCabe, BRD-USGS, Anchorage, AK

No field data was collected due to the loss of funding. In July 1996, all the experimental sites were dismantled and weather stations removed from the coastal plain. Final analyses and report writing will be conducted during 1997.

IX. Wetlands mapping at United States Air Force radar sites

Jonathan Hall, Ecological Services, Anchorage, AK

The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) project was funded by the United States Air Force to prepare detailed, large-scale wetlands maps of 21 Long Range Radar Sites throughout Alaska. In addition to the site maps, the agreement specified production of standard NWI maps for the USGS 1:63,360 scale quadrangle(s) containing the radar sites. Two of the sites, Barter Island and Bullen Point, are surrounded by Arctic Refuge property. NWI field staff conducted ground truthing of aerial photography covering the two radar sites. The team also visited sites on Refuge property in the Barter Island (A-5) and Flaxman Island (A-5) quadrangles. The 1996 field work will result in updates of these two maps.

6. Other

Nothing to Report

14

E. ADMINISTRATION

1. Personnel

Permanent Appointments

1. James W. Kurth, Refuge Manager, GS-14, Entered on Duty (EOD) 8/21/94. 2. Donald P. Garrett, Deputy Refuge Manager, GS-13, EOD 3/18/84. 3. Roger W. Kaye, Public Use-Subsistence Coordinator/Pilot, GS-12, EOD 12/23/84. 4. David C. Sowards, Pilot, GS-12, EOD 2/28/88. 5. Janet S. Jorgenson, Botanist, GS-12, EOD 5/24/88. 6. Francis J. Mauer, Wildlife Biologist, GS-11, EOD 6/28/81. 7. Patricia C. Reynolds, Ecologist, GS-11, EOD 1111/81. 8. Harvey A. Heffernan, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, GS-11, EOD 6/5/88. 9. Thomas R. Edgerton, Outdoor Recreation Planner, GS-11, EOD 3/25/90.

10. Catherine H. Curby, Wildlife Biologist, GS-09, EOD 411/83. 11. Barbara Boyle, Computer Specialist/Biologist, GS-11, EOD 4-1-96. 12. Eleanore B. Patterson, Budget Assistant, GS-07, EOD 10116/94. Transferred 7-6-96. 13. Julia M. Mcisaac, Office Automation Assistant, GS-05, EOD 6/2/91. 14. Donna L. Christensen, Financial Assistant, GS-05, EOD 10/6/91. 15. Patrick Scannell, Computer Specialist, GS-11, EOD 4-1-96. 16. Perry Grissom, Wildlife Biologist/Fire Management Officer, GS-11, EOD 6/26/96. * 17. Greg McClellan, Refuge Operations Specialist/Subsistence Coordinator, GS-11,

EOD 10/27/96.* * On staff of Yukon Flats NWR, but shared with Arctic and Kanuti NWRs.

Term Appointments

la. Michael Emers, Botanist, GS-11, EOD 617/91 (NTE 6118/97). 2a. Beverly E. Reitz, Biological Technician, GS-07, EOD 6116/91 (NTE 6/15/97). 3a. Dale L. Dufour, Maintenance Worker, WG-08, EOD 6118/93 (NTE 6/2/97).

Contract Employee

lb. Cheryl Evans, Secretary, EOD 11120/96 (NTE 7/2/97).

Volunteers

lc. Ardis J. Kluth, Oregon, 6/16/96-9/5/96. 2c. Ronald W. Kluth, Oregon, 6/16/96-9/5/96. 3c. Mike Reitz, Fairbanks, AK, 822/96-8/27/96.

15

Back (L-R): Kurth, Scannell , Reitz, Heffernan, Kaye, Mcisaac. MIDDLE (L-R): Christensen, Boyle, Edgerton, Mauer, Jorgenson. FRONT (L-R): Evans, Curby, Sowards, Emers, Reynolds, Garrett. (Dufour not shown).

2. Youth Programs

In mid-June, Kaye led a group of 15 rural high school students and four instructors from UAF's Upward Bound program to Big Ram Lake to undertake a massive cleanup and restoration project. The lake had been the site of several inactive and illegal mining claims, a trapping operation, an alleged guiding operation, and a base for several Fairbanks hunters. The previous occupants left behind several thousand pounds of barrels, cans, equipment, and assorted refuse. There also was a partial case of old, unstable dynamite scattered about the area. Prior to the students arrival, bomb disposal experts from the Fort Richardson Army Base were flown in to dispose of the dynamite.

The students worked like Trojans, persevering in high temperatures and unrelenting mosquitoes. In ten days they dismantled four buildings, an all-terrain vehicle, and a snow machine. They also cleaned several dump areas and naturalized the sites. After the group burned everything they could, there were 13 Cessna 206 and Beaver loads of junk to haul out. The students hauled everything to the shore of Big Ram Lake, a huge undertaking. The debris then was flown to Fort Yukon, where the city transported everything to the dump. Pilot Bill Bowman from Tetlin NWR was a resident pilot and

16

guest lecturer, and biologist Rod Simmons from the Fairbanks Fisheries Office taught aquatic biology at the site. Both men interacted well with the students and gave them valuable insight to the work of the FWS, important secondary goals of the project.

The students remove trash from one of the many dump sites. R. Kaye

On the last day, Kaye led the group on an arduous "Bob Marshall Adventure Hike" to the peak of a nearby mountain. The purpose of the hike was to set a challenging goal and persevere to attain it, an experience Upward Bound leaders feel is particularly valuable for the disadvantaged and underachieving teens they work with. Along the way, the students stopped to read and discuss Marshall's inspiring writings about the value of wilderness and adventure. All who began the long trek were rewarded with an awesome view of the Refuge and the inner glow that comes from a new accomplishment.

17

The students' outward expression of their inner glow upon reaching the summit of their adventure hike. R. Kaye

3. Other Manpower Programs

Nothing to Report

4. Volunteer Program

Edgerton collaborated with personnel from the BLM and National Park Service (NPS) to recruit, interview, hire, and train summer volunteers to staff the Coldfoot Interagency Visitor Center. Ron and Ardis Kluth, a retired couple from Oregon, were selected as the ones sponsored by the FWS. They worked at the visitor center for 12 weeks, mid-June through early September.

Mike Reitz assisted staff botanists with the recreational impacts study of the Sheenjek River for six days in late August.

18

Volunteer Mike Reitz "working" on the Sheenjek River. Tough duty, eh? J. Jorgenson

5. Funding

Refuge funding decreased approximately 3% in fiscal year (FY) 96 (see Table 2). The total allocation of $1,433,000 funded a variety of projects including continued work on the Dall sheep inventory, north and south slope moose surveys, environmental education, muskox studies, ecological monitoring, data network, rare plant survey, peregrine survey, repair and cleanup of field facilities, replacement of field gear, and the Coldfoot operation. Fire Program funds for training, travel, equipment, and maintenance totaled $496.

Table 2. Funding summary FY91-FY96 (figures expressed to the nearest $1,000).

Program FY9I FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96

I I20 I60 I221 69 I26I I,I27 I,194 I , 10I I,122 I,04I I,206 I262 557 480 54 I 606 4I8 I74 I4I I 92 4960 8610 1 9110 I 6I 2 I4 9I20 9 20 I6 8 925I 3 923I 0.5

Total 2,0I4 1,695 I ,7I 9 I,740 I ,473 I,433

19

Employee Awards

On-the-Spot Awards were given during the year to Donna Christensen, Cathy Curby, and Tom Edgerton; a Performance Award was given to Fran Mauer; and a Special Act Service Award was given to Tom Edgerton.

6. Safety

Refuge staff enjoyed another accident-free year. They attended safety training on a required or as-needed basis, including CPR/First Aid, aircraft refresher, bear safety, and firearms requalification. Mentor pilot Sowards again enhanced the Region 7 safety program by providing 35 hours of training to Service pilots.

7. Technical Assistance

Nothing to Report

8. Other

Table 3. Training received by employees in 1996.

Course Title

Nat. Resource Appl. Remote Sensing Internet & Electronics Resources Flight Instructor Refresher Emergency Maneuvers New Performance System Law Enforcement Refresher Design Brochures Accounting Discipline The Mediation Process Computer Appl. Fish & Wild. Mgt. Acquisition Reform ll Remington Arms Refresher Understanding & Dealing w/Change Team Effectiveness Wilderness Management Remote Data Entry Supporting Microsoft Windows 95 Windows 95 Solaris 2.X System Administration OASIFWS Aviation Ground School

Date(s)

1/7-5/2 1/18-5/1 1127-28 2110-15 2112-15 2/6-26 3/25 3/25 4110-11 4115-19 4/16-18 4119 4/30-5/3 5113 5117-20 5/31-6/7 7/29-8/2 8/26-30 10/9-11 10/21-25 12/2-6

20

Employee(s)

Emers Kaye Sowards Sowards Patterson, Edgerton, Kurth Garrett, Heffernan, Kaye, Sowards Mcisaac Christensen, Patterson Patterson Curby Christensen, Patterson Patterson Garrett All staff All staff Kurth Christensen Mcisaac All staff Boyle Sowards, Kaye

F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT

1. General

The Arctic Refuge is the Nation's only conservation area that includes an undisturbed continuum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems from the Beaufort Sea to the Yukon River drainage. Management is focused on preserving and maintaining these systems in their original state, allowing for natural processes to continue with minimum human intervention. Collection of baseline information on Refuge plant and animal communities is essential to current and future management activities. There are no habitat manipulation practices currently employed on the Refuge.

The natural, undisturbed condition shown here is prevalent throughout the Refuge. B. Reitz

2. Wetlands

Nothing to Report

3. Forests

Nothing to Report

21

4. Crop lands

Nothing to Report

5. Grasslands

Nothing to Report

6. Other Habitats

Nothing to Report

7. Grazing

Nothing to Report

8. Haying

Nothing to Report

9. Fire Management

Wildland fire helps create a mosaic of plant communities on the Refuge, which supports a diverse wildlife community. Fire is especially important in the boreal forest region in the southern part of the Refuge. About 98% of the Refuge is under Limited Protection, operating under a near-natural fire regime. Fires in those areas are usually only monitored by air. The remainder of the Refuge is in Modified Protection. Fires there are suppressed early in the season, but are usually only monitored later on. Sites with specific value (e.g. permitted cabins) are protected regardless of the fire protection category of the land surrounding them.

In late May, Mauer reported a tundra fire burning a few square feet east of Arctic Village. By mid-June, fires in the White Mountains and east of the Yukon Flats Refuge produced a large amount of smoke. Visibility was poor in those areas and in the Sheenjek and Coleen river drainages. Refuge pilots on other resource management flights assist in monitoring fire behavior and watching for new starts. They reported several fires during the summer, both on the Refuge and adjacent lands.

22

Sowards and Kurth "checkin on things." P. Garrett

The Refuge had four fires, all started by lightning within a four-day period, June 17-20 (see Table 4). The fires burned 5,524 acres on the Refuge. Nearly all of that acreage was consumed by June 21st. Three of the four Refuge fires were only monitored; the other had suppression action taken.

Table 4. Wildland fires on the Arctic NWR in 1996. (Data from Alaska Fire Service).

Area Burned Protection Date Declared Cause Cost* Acres AFS (FWS) Level Reported Out Burned

A481 (7562) Limited 06/17 07/02 Lightning $90 248 A483 (7565) Modified 06/17 07112 Lightning $71,110 576 **

A497 (7571) Limited 06/18 07112 Lightning $370 4,690

A510 (7572) Limited 06/20 07/02 Lightning 0 10

Total $71 570 5 524

* Cost to date, subject to change ** Fire also burned 192 acres on the Yukon Flats NWR and 1,060 acres on Doyon

Ltd. lands.

Monitoring action on fires A481, A497, and A51 0 cost less than 10¢ per acre. Suppression action on fire A483 cost about $4 per acre.

23

Coastal Marine

Tundra

Mountains

Taiga

• Boreal Fot·est

• Fires

0 50 Miles

Fires occur primarily in the boreal forest zone of the Refuge.

When it was discovered on June 17th, Fire A483 was threatening Federal Aviation Administration and FWS radio repeaters on Frozen Calf Mountain. The fire was managed with a containment strategy. One load of retardant was dropped, and a helitack crew burned out around the repeaters. The fire burned fairly vigorously in old spruce, but different fuels prevented the fire from spreading into spruce stands that burned in 1950. Smokejumpers were put on the fire on June 26th to keep it from becoming a problem later. A fire about 10 miles south was proving difficult to manage, and the Alaska Fire Service did not want two problem fires near the village of Chalkyitsik.

Fire A481 also was discovered on the 17th between White Snow Mountain and Helmet Mountain. By the 19th it was putting up a smoke column visible from Fort Yukon. A permitted cabin was potentially threatened, but the heavy fire load further south meant that no surveillance aircraft were available. Grissom flew to monitor the fire with Special Agent Corky Roberts in a law enforcement aircraft on the 20th. They found that the fire had burned off a small peak and used up most of the fuel available to it. Fire A51 0 was found near Fire A481 on that flight.

24

Fire A497 was quite active early on, burning about 4,500 acres (96% of its total acreage) near David Creek from June 18-21. All four fires calmed down with the onset of humid weather and some precipitation in late June. The remote automated weather site on Helmet Mountain received about 0.1 inches of rain from June 17-24, over an inch more by July 1st, and another two inches by mid-August. None of the fires showed much activity after June 21st, and they were all declared out by mid-July.

10. Pest Control

Nothing to Report

11. Water Rights

During 1996, the Region 7 Water Resources Branch filed an in stream water right for Lake #6 (according to the numbering system described in "Criteria for Instream Water Rights for Selected 1002 Area Lakes," by Keith Bayha) in the 1002 area of the Refuge

12. Wilderness and Special Areas

The vastness, remoteness, scenic grandeur, wildlife, and opportunity to experience wilderness combine to make the Arctic Refuge America's premier wilderness refuge. The eight million acres of designated Wilderness within the Refuge is more than in all the "lower 48" refuges combined. It is now officially called the Mollie Beattie Wilderness Area, designated by Congress and approved by President Clinton in late July.

The spirit and presence of wilderness defines the Refuge. J. Jorgenson

Recognizing the importance of wilderness on the Refuge, the decision was made to designate a wilderness position on the Refuge staff. Kaye is expected to officially become Wilderness Coordinator/Pilot in 1997.

This year Region 7 established a Leave-No-Trace (LNT) program and coordinator. The LNT program was developed as a partnership of natural resource agencies and

25

organizations, outdoor equipment manufactures and vendors, and the National Outdoor Leadership School. It is an educational program that seeks to reduce the impacts of outdoor activities though programs that emphasize outdoor skills, ethics, and stewardship. In November, Kaye participated in the national LNT workgroup meeting in Arizona. He worked with FWS's newly appointed national coordinator, Sue Matthews, to develop a LNT program for the FWS and obtain a level of funding. Kaye is currently editing slide shows and video scripts for the LNT program.

13. WPA Easement Monitoring

Nothing to Report

G. WILDLIFE

1. Wildlife Diversity

The proximity of the Brooks Range to the Arctic Ocean in northeast Alaska and northern Yukon Territory affords a unique assemblage of Arctic plant and animal communities repeated nowhere else in the circumpolar region. The southern boundary of the Arctic Refuge extends well into the northern boreal forest zone, combining Arctic and subarctic life forms. This provides for an unusual diversity of wildlife. For example, all three species of North American bears (black, brown and polar) occur in the Refuge. Ungulates such as moose, Dall sheep, muskox, and caribou often are found in close proximity, occasionally overlapping in certain habitats. The Refuge also supports the northernmost breeding populations of golden eagles and Dall sheep in North America. Several plant species are at their extreme limits of distribution on the Refuge. About 180 bird species have been recorded on the Refuge. Some come from distant places such as Africa, India, Australia, and Patagonia. The Refuge supports an unusual diversity of wildlife and habitats; the majority exist in a relatively undisturbed condition.

2. Endangered and/or Threatened Species

Peregrine falcon

The 18th consecutive annual survey of cliff-nesting raptors on the Porcupine River was conducted by Refuge personnel from July 13-19 (see G.6, pp. 28-29, and G.l6, pp. 34-35). Nineteen of 30 pairs of peregrine falcons produced a minimum total of 43 young (see Table 5, p. 27). Three pairs with young were observed at new sites. A single adult peregrine also was observed at a historic nest territory. Although the 1996 totals did not exceed previous records, the finding of three new sites suggests continued growth of the region's peregrine population.

26

3.

Young peregrines at one of the new nest sites. Exciting, but not particularly aesthetic! T. Edgerton

Table 5. Peregrine falcon productivity, Porcupine River, AK, 1996.

Productivity parameter 1995 1996 17 year ave.

Total pairs 30 30 17.0 Pairs with young 24 19 12.3 Total young 55 43 28.6 Young fledged/Total pairs 1.83 1.43 1.68

Waterfowl

During the last week in June, Rod King and Alan Brackney (Fairbanks Office of Migratory Bird Management) flew aerial waterfowl surveys over portions of the Refuge coastal plain. This was part of a larger effort to monitor waterfowl on Alaska's entire north slope. This appeared to be a relatively normal year for waterfowl production on the north slope. Data from 1986-1996 indicate an approximate 10% annual increase in active tundra swan nests. Annual monitoring of tundra swan populations on the Refuge has not been funded for several years. Given the regional increases in tundra swan activity, additional monitoring on the Refuge is warranted.

Reports from sport hunters suggest that very large numbers of snow geese staged on the Refuge coastal plain in early September. The hunters reported a major exodus of geese during the evening/night of September 7. The migration diminished on September 8.

27

Efforts to conduct the annual snow geese staging survey on the Refuge coastal plain were unsuccessful in 1996. This survey has not been completed for several years due to logistical problems. The situation has been reviewed and steps taken to better ensure that this data is collected in future years.

4. Marsh and Water Birds

Nothing to Report

5. Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species

Nothing to Report

6. Raptors ' "'

A golden eaglet hunkers down in a nest along the Porcupine River. T. Edgerton

The annual survey of cliff-nesting raptors on the Porcupine River was conducted in midJuly (see G.2, pp. 26-27, and G.l6, pp. 34-35). Nine of21 golden eagle nest territories

28

on the Porcupine River were occupied by adults; seven nests produced a total of nine young. This is a dramatic change from 1995 when only one nest produced young. A possible increase in snowshoe hare populations, which have been low the past several years, may be providing more food for the eagles, resulting in higher eagle productivity.

7. Other Migratory Birds

Nothing to Report

8. Game Mammals

Caribou

Most of the Porcupine caribou herd spent the winter of 1995-96 in Canada in the vicinity of Eagle Plains and the Richardson Mountains. By late winter, the animals appeared to be in excellent condition, probably due to light snowfall during most of the winter. Spring migration to the calving grounds also was helped by light snow conditions in northern Yukon Territory.

Part of the Porcupine Caribou Herd during migration. F. Mauer

Most of the herd calved on the Refuge in 1996. Calving was distributed west from the international border to Marsh Creek. A major calving concentration occurred south of Barter Island in the uplands of the Jago River.

29

Post calving aggregations formed along the north base of the Brooks Range from June 15-21. A cold front brought 4-6 inches of snow on June 22, stimulating an early movement of caribou into the mountains. By June 24, most of the Porcupine herd had moved east into Canada, where they stayed for the rest of summer and fall.

In early August scattered groups of caribou occurred in the southeastern part of the Refuge. Early, mid-August snow storms stimulated the animals to move southeast and across the border on the Porcupine River. Word of the caribou crossing the Porcupine River spread rapidly, and several parties of hunters traveled by boat to hunt the animals in late August and early September. In mid-October, large numbers of caribou crossed the Dempster Highway in Canada, apparently headed for the upper Ogilvie Basin. It appears that most of the herd spent the winter of 1996 in Canada.

Moose

Fall moose surveys conducted by staff on the north slope of the Refuge between the Dalton Highway and the Canning River documented low numbers (141), similar to those measured in 1995 (145). These numbers represent a significant decline from 1989 when approximately 600 moose were counted. The 1996 survey found a greater abundance of calves (221100 cows), up from 71100 cows in 1995. The increased calf abundance may be related to the light snow pack during winter 1995-96.

In response to this severe decline, the Alaska Board of Game and the Federal Subsistence Board closed the north slope to moose hunting in 1996 (except for a limited subsistence hunt near the village of Nuiqsut). This closure is expected to remain in effect until north slope moose populations increase.

Results of moose studies initiated in the southern Brooks Range (see D.5, p. 8) suggest moderate calf production and survival. Thirty-one percent of radio-collared females had calves in late September. Mortality of radio-collared adults from November 1995 to October 1996 was 19%. A fall moose count in the southern Brooks Range was not possible due to poor weather conditions.

Muskox

During the pre-calving census in late March, 332 muskoxen were counted on the coastal plain of the Refuge. Approximately 217 muskoxen were west of the Refuge; 182 were between the Canning and Sagavanirktok rivers; and 35 were west of the Sagavanirktok River. Sixty eight muskoxen also were counted along the Clarence River in northwestern Canada. In the Refuge, the population has been stable at less than 350 animals for several years. Numbers of muskoxen are increasing throughout their range as animals disperse into new regions.

In late June, 195 muskoxen were classified on the Refuge; 51 calves/100 cows older than two years were seen, compared to an average of 45 calves/100 cows from 1990-1995.

30

Nineteen percent of all the animals classified were calves. The trend in calf production on the Refuge has declined in the past decade, contributing to the stabilization of the population. Adult males made up 16% of the population and 41 adult males /100 cows >two years were observed on the coastal plain of the Refuge.

Muskoxen are well adapted to survive the often extreme conditions on the Refuge.

Annually, 10 residents of Kaktovik are issued federal permits to hunt male muskoxen. At least six adult males were killed during the 1996 hunt. One female was illegally killed by a hunter who also took the animal in the wrong zone. The animal was confiscated and the hunter was cited.

Radio-tracking surveys showed that muskoxen continued to use regions along the Sadlerochit, Tamayariak, and Okerokovik rivers which have been occupied since shortly after their re-introduction to the Refuge in 1969 and 1970. Muskoxen also have expanded their range into the Aichilik, Kongakut, and Clarence drainages to the east and the Kavik and Sagavanirktok drainages to the west. Mixed-sex groups are now becoming established along the Ribdon River and along the Sagavanirktok River near Happy Valley.

Dall sheep

Efforts to monitor age and sex composition of Dall sheep at established trend areas was hampered due to poor weather and an aircraft mechanical problem. Data collected in the Atigun area in early June documented 54 lambs/100 ewes, suggesting relatively good initial productivity in that area. Limited field observations in the Cane Creek area also

31

suggested good lamb production. The light snow fall during most of the 1995-96 winter may have positively influenced productivity.

Reported 1996 sport hunter harvest of Dall sheep in the Refuge was the lowest in recent times. This may be due to the general decline of sheep abundance, hunter perceptions of lower sheep abundance, poor weather in mid-August, the moose hunting closure on the north slope, and improved hunting opportunities elsewhere in Alaska.

9. Marine Mammals

Polar bears and bowhead whales are protected by federal law. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, only Alaska Natives can hunt and use polar bears, bowhead whales, and other marine mammals for food, clothing, and traditional crafts.

Polar bears

From September through November, polar bears occur along the coastal areas of the Arctic Refuge. Bears were seen near Kaktovik in September, attracted by whale carcasses harvested by the local Inupiat hunters. This year no polar bears were radio-collared or marked near the Refuge, and no maternity dens were located on Refuge lands. One polar bear was killed by Kaktovik hunters in September.

Bowhead whales

Inupiat Eskimo whaling crews from Kaktovik harvested three bowhead whales near the Arctic Refuge in 96. Whales are hunted by Kaktovik residents only during fall because sea ice conditions preclude spring whaling. Spring is the most important hunt in other north slope communities, including Barrow, Wainwright, and Point Lay.

10. Other Resident Wildlife

Nothing to Report

11. Fisheries Resources

No fisheries work was done on the Arctic Refuge in 1996. Future studies of fish and aquatic systems is addressed in the Refuge Ecological Monitoring Plan.

12. Wildlife Propagation and Stocking

Nothing to Report

13. Surplus Animal Disposal

Nothing to Report

32

14. Scientific Collections

During the summer field season, Emers, Jorgenson, and Reitz collected 309 plant specimens for the Refuge herbarium. Of particular significance were collections from the Porcupine River bluffs in the southern part of the Refuge. These included a new species of fleabane (Erigeron sp. nov.), currently being described by Drs. Dave Murray of UAF and Ron Hartman of the University of Wyoming. These collections will help characterize this new species which will be described in a professional paper to be published in 1997. Also collected on the Porcupine Bluffs were vascular species of restricted regional distribution: Phlox richardsonii, P. hoodii, Townsendia hookeri, Eriogonumflavum, Carexfilifolia, and C. obtusata. Non-vascular species collected on the bluffs include rare lichens (Psora testacea and Solorinella astericus), a new species of liverwort in the genus Asterella, and several rare mosses (Bryoerythrophyllum recurvirostre var. latinervium, Microbryum davallianum var. conicum, and M. curvicolle, Schistidium cryptocarpum, and Encalypta vulgaris).

This fleabane species was first identified in 1995. How many more remain to be discovered? M. Emers

33

Other plant collections in 1996 came from the long-term ecological plots along the Coleen and Jago rivers.

15. Animal Control

Nothing to report

16. Marking and Banding

Muskox

In August, 10 adult muskoxen were captured on the coastal plain of the Refuge by Reynolds as part of her on-going monitoring studies of population dynamics, seasonal distribution, and movements. Radio-collars were replaced on two females and five new females were collared to replace animals which had died or left the study area during the year. One young male was captured and marked but not radio-collared. One female was captured and released without tags or a radio-collar. Muskoxen were marked with large colored cattle ear tags with black numbers (see Table 6). Reproductive status of all females was determined and three females were weighed. Body weights ranged from 430-560 kg (mean = 492 kg).

Table 6. Information on muskoxen captured and marked in the Arctic NWR in August 1996.

ID Sex Age Left Ear Tag Right Ear Tag Location

93 F >7 white 93 white 93 Kongakut Delta

97 F 4 red 97 white 97 Flaxman Island

104 F 5 white 104 red 104 Canning River

105 F 5-7 yellow 105 red 105 Egaksrak River

106 F >7 orange 106 yellow 106 Angun River

107 M 2 white 107 yellow 107 Niguanak River

108 F >10 red 108 red 108 Niguanak River

109 F >10 white 109 orange 109 W Canning River

Peregrine falcon

From July 13-19, Mauer captured and banded nine peregrine falcons at nest sites on the Porcupine River. The birds were estimated to be 18-25 days old. They were marked with an aluminum leg band, size 7 A, on the right tarsus and a color-coded aluminum leg band (auxiliary marker), on the left tarsus (see Table 7, p. 35). This banding effort contributes to continent-wide peregrine falcon studies, in accordance with peregrine recovery plans and Refuge wildlife inventory plan procedures.

34

17.

A "peregrine' s eye view" from its nest site on the lower Porcupine River. T. Edgerton

Table 7. Peregrine falcon nestlings banded on the Porcupine River on the Arctic NWR, July 14-19, 1996.

Age (Days) Sex Right Tarsus Left Tarsus

18 unknown 1807-02171 OE(VH Blk)

25 unknown 1807-02172 OG(VH Blk)

25 unknown 1807-02173 OH(VH Blk)

20 unknown 1807-02174 OK(VH Blk)

20 unknown 1807-02175 OL(VH Blk)

20 unknown 1807-02176 OM(VHBlk)

25 unknown 1807-02177 OP(VH Blk)

25 unknown 1807-02178 OR(VH Blk)

18 unknown 1807-02179 OS(VH Blk)

Disease Prevention and Control

Following a discovery of relatively high exposure to brucellosis in north slope moose by ADF&G (Barrow), frozen sera collected from moose captured on the Refuge in 1995 were tested for brucellosis antibodies. All moose sera collected on the Refuge tested negative. Positive brucellosis tests were subsequently confirmed for moose sera collected in northwestern Alaska. It is not known if the high incidence of exposure to

35

brucellosis had a causalive relalionship with the decline of moose populalions on Lhe Alaskan north slope.

H. PUBLIC USE

1. General

Because of the remoteness and expense of getting there, relatively few people visit the Arctic Refuge. Many, however, are interested in this magnificent place. As a consequence, Refuge staff invested a great deal of time in 1996 to produce a site on the World Wide Web. Staff defined the focus of the web site to be on information and education, with much attention to the significance of wilderness in the Refuge. The web site became accessible in early summer. It is being served from the FWS computer center in Denver. By December, the site contained information about the Refuge, photographs, maps, and extensive natural history information. When the web site moves to a server in Alaska, the address will be shortened. Until that time, the Arctic Refuge web site can be reached at: http://www.fws.gov/-r7hpirrn/nwr/arctic/arctic.htrnl

Visitation to the Refuge web site remains limited because announcement of the site is being restricted until a shorter address is obtained. Use is nevertheless increasing. In August, when statistics were first available, the site received an average of 31 requests per day. By December the site averaged more than 100 requests per day.

As they do every year, Refuge personnel answered several hundred letter, phone, e-mail, and in-person requests for information about recreational opportunities, natural resources, management issues, guides, permit requirements, employment, and potential oil development on the Refuge. Several organizations and individuals also asked to borrow slides to use in publications and programs.

During the year, staff reviewed information about the Refuge for publications and articles produced by the National Geographic Society, Reader's Digest, and several other organizations.

Kurth and Garrett were unable to float the Kongakut River with Dick Pospahala (Northern Geographic Assistant Regional Manager) and Torn Boyd (Assistant Regional Director for Subsistence) in July. They hoped to show Pospahala and Boyd public and subsistence use areas along the river, but flooding washed out the airstrip they planned to land at. Attempts on two other rivers also failed due to flooding and water saturation problems at the landing sites. After two days of trying, they changed plans and spent three days at the Peter's Lake field station in the Brooks Range.

36

On August 28-29, Mauer accompanied Justice Department attorneys Mike Reed and Jeffery Minear on a tour of the northern coastal areas of the Refuge. The purpose of the tour was to familiarize the attorneys with these areas to help them prepare arguments for an upcoming court case. "No. 84 Original" is a case before the Supreme Court dealing with state-federal disputes over ownership of submerged lands along the arctic coast of Alaska. The case has extremely important ramifications related to possible oil development of the coastal waters (lagoons) of the Refuge. Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are expected in February 1997.

Media

Brownlow Point borders two of the lagoons within the Refuge whose ownership will be decided by the Supreme Court. H. Heffernan

This year, numerous news reports, opinions, and stories about the Arctic Refuge were published in newspapers and magazines in Alaska and the "lower 48" states. A sampling of these pieces is included in the Appendix (see Tab 1).

Section H.6 (pp. 44-46) includes information about media activities associated with NWRWeek.

In December, Karen Hollingsworth's World Wide Web site, "Refugenet" (http://www.refugenet.com), highlighted the Arctic Refuge as its Refuge of the Month in celebration of the Refuge's 36th birthday (December 6).

Refuge staff prepared and sent out a press release summarizing the results of the International Porcupine Caribou Board meeting held in Fairbanks December 9-10.

37

Meetings

Throughout the year, various staff met with commercial operators to answer questions and discuss issues of concern. Edgerton participated in several statewide teleconferences of the Alaska Recreation and Parks Association. Kaye represented the FWS on UAF's Wilderness Education Committee, attending several meetings oriented toward developing a minor in wilderness studies, and integrating wilderness into the wildlife, forestry, and education programs. Kaye also met repeatedly with Dr. Michael Hooper, a psychologist working with at-risk youth, to explore opportunities for therapy/service projects on the Refuge. Curby attended monthly meetings as a member of the Board of Directors of the Fairbanks School District Partners in Science Program. The program, funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation, tries to link students and teachers to scientists using computer network technology. Finally, staff from Arctic, Kanuti, and Yukon Flats Refuges met and worked with employees of the General Services Administration to plan and design a space on the second floor of the Federal Building for the three offices to be co-located (see 1.1, p. 59).

In January, Edgerton attended meetings of the Dalton Highway Advisory and Planning Board and the Dalton Highway Outreach and Information Committee.

On January 25, Refuge staff met with personnel from the North Slope Borough, and the Ecological Services office to discuss a permit application for gravel dredging in East Lagoon (part of Kaktovik Lagoon) for a public works project in Kaktovik (see J.2, pp. 63-64).

In January and February, the administrative staffs of Arctic, Kanuti, and Yukon Flats Refuges discussed ways to streamline and consolidate their work assignments. Curby facilitated the meetings.

During February and March, Refuge personnel met several times with staff of the Northern Alaska Environmental Center to discuss management issues and concerns.

On March 18, several Refuge employees met with Kevin Tournbough to discuss a cooperative agreement to use participants from UAF's Upward Bound program on a cleanup of the old Big Ram Lake mill site.

On March 27, Kurth, Kaye, and Mauer met with the village council of Arctic Village to discuss Refuge Dall sheep studies and the proposed expansion of the Arctic Village Sheep Management Area to include the Red Sheep Creek drainage. A packet of information about population trends and status of Dall sheep was given to council members at the meeting.

From April 3-5, Jorgenson, Emers, and Reitz attended meetings of the Alaska Rare Plants Working Group in Fairbanks.

38

On April 10 and several times thereafter, Edgerton met with Regional Office, BLM, NPS, and Alaska Department of Transportation personnel to discuss the potential for expanded interagency cooperation on interpretive projects such as a new interagency visitor center at Coldfoot.

On April 18, Mauer and Edgerton joined Kaye in a meeting with Dr. Michael Hooper to discuss using "at-risk" youth to clean up the old Big Ram Lake mill site.

From late March through mid-May, Edgerton and Curby met regularly with staff from other Fairbanks FWS offices, ADF&G, and the Alaska Public Lands Information Center (APLIC) to plan the International Migratory Bird Day celebration. Edgerton also met often with staff from the Noel Wien Public Library to discuss arrangement, timing, and coordination of the activities.

From March through July, Edgerton met regularly with BLM and NPS personnel to plan and coordinate volunteer training and operation of the Coldfoot Interagency Visitor Center, and discuss other related Dalton Highway issues.

The Refuge cabin at Galbraith Lake is used by FWS, BLM, and NPS personnel conducting activities along the Dalton Highway. P. Garrett

On May 2 at the Gates of the Arctic National Park office, Kaye made a presentation and participated in a day-long round-table discussion on management of the park wilderness. Kaye described the history and evolution of wilderness advocacy for the park to a group of NPS employees, conservationists, and commercial operators.

39

Also on May 2, Mauer briefed the residents of Old Crow, Yukon Territory about the southern Brooks Range moose study.

Kurth attended the National Wildlife Refuge System outreach team meeting May 22-23 in Hadley, MA.

Reitz provided information about the Refuge at two briefings hosted by the Northern Alaska Environmental Center in Fairbanks: one on June 21 for representatives of four national foundations investigating opening the Refuge to oil development; the other on June 30 for four aides to republican Senators on a fact-finding tour of the Refuge.

Kurth participated in a June 25-26 meeting of refuge managers and Washington staff to develop the concept and outline of the new "Promises" document.

On July 3, Curby joined employees from Kanuti and Yukon Flats Refuges in a meeting with staff of the National Audubon Society to hear and talk about partnership activities between Audubon and National Wildlife Refuges.

On July 18-19, Reynolds attended the joint meeting of the North Slope Borough Game Management Advisory Committee and Federal Subsistence Advisory Board to present information about muskox and discuss the draft Muskox Management Plan.

On August 22, Reynolds met with other federal and state biologists, and a group of Russian scientists to discuss biological work in northern Alaska. Her presentation concerned muskoxen of the Arctic Refuge and other wildlife studies.

Reynolds met in Barrow on September 10 with the Muskox Management Team. The team worked on re-drafting the "Management Plan for the Harvest of Muskoxen on the North Slope of Alaska."

Kurth, Garrett, Edgerton, and Curby attended the Region 7 Refuge Outreach Workshop in Anchorage October 31-November 2.

On November 18-19, Mauer attended the Porcupine Caribou Harvest Data Workshop in Whitehorse, Yukon Territory. The workshop, hosted by the Porcupine Caribou Management Board, was well attended by local users and agency representatives from Canada and the United States. There was broad recognition of a need for improved coordination of harvest data collection for the Porcupine Caribou Herd, and considerable progress was made toward developing a system to accomplish this.

Reynolds met with BLM biologist Anne Morkill on November 23 to discuss muskox biology and survey techniques.

Kurth was one of four refuge managers that presented concerns about the Refuge System to the FWS Directorate at its November meeting in Tuscon, AZ.

40

In November and December, Garrett represented the Refuge at weekly meetings of the Alaska Outdoor Council.

Boyle attended the Boreal Partners in Flight meeting in Anchorage on December 4-5, the Shorebird Working Group meeting in Anchorage on December 6, and the GIS Implementation Planning meeting at the Regional Office on December 17.

On December 9-10, the Arctic Refuge sponsored a meeting in Fairbanks of the International Porcupine Caribou Board. The Board agreed on two initiatives at the meeting. They established a subcommittee of Board user representatives to provide recommendations on how reported caribou harvest data could be coordinated/compiled annually, and they asked the Porcupine Caribou Technical Committee to outline a report on the importance of calving and post-calving habitats based on studies conducted in the last 10 years.

2. Outdoor Classrooms - Students

In early May, Jorgenson and Reitz gave presentations to fifth grade students at Twin Bears Camp near Fairbanks, providing information and activities about vegetation mapping and photo interpretation.

Fairbanks Outdoor Days is an annual multi-agency program that gives 6th grade students hands-on experience with the natural resource work of various agencies. This year the event, which occurred May 14-16, involved 870 students from 14 schools. Each student participated on one of the three days, visiting six activity stations on one of three different trails. This year Boyle, Reitz, and Reynolds worked a radio telemetry station and Emers worked a "plant walk" station all three-days. Curby conducted classroom visits from May 6-10 to prepare the students for Outdoor Days.

Earth Quest

Earth Quest, the multi-agency/organization youth camp initiated in 1994 by the Arctic Refuge, was held June 18-26. Twenty-two teens from rural Alaska attended. Goals of the camp are to introduce rural youth to resource agency missions, resource management concepts and the ecological approach to decision making, hands-on scientific field work, collaborative approaches to resolving resource issues, resource management careers, and agency personnel.

This year students participated in eight different learning modules. The fire, forestry, fisheries, aquatics, and environmental dispute resolution modules were conducted at and near Central. The public use, wildlife, and mining modules were held at Coal Creek in the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve. Student evaluations indicated that the program was a success.

41

The Earth Quest steering committee hired a part-time coordinator this year to try and reduce logistical problems. Despite the change, several committee members spent more time dealing with issues (e.g. hiring the cook, arranging transportation) than they will have time for in the future. For this reason, the steering committee hopes to create a three-month coordinator position for Earth Quest 97. Planning for next year's camp began in October.

Other Activities

On January 24, Curby talked with second and third graders at Pearl Creek Elementary School about the importance of field notebooks to scientists. On January 26, she spoke about the Arctic Refuge to students at Weller Elementary School. Curby also presented programs about the Refuge to the elementary, junior, and senior high students at Barter Island from January 31-February 3.

Refuge biologists served as judges for school and District-wide science fairs throughout Fairbanks in February and March. On March 30, Curby helped judge the state-wide science fair in Anchorage.

In March, Reitz discussed the pros and cons of oil development on the Arctic Refuge with a class at Lathrop High School.

Kaye talked about the perceptions of wilderness with a U AF graduate class in April.

In May, Reynolds presented a lecture about muskox research and FWS organization to a wildlife management class at UAF.

On July 29, Reynolds gave a presentation about the natural history of muskoxen at an evening program at the Chena River campground.

In September, Kaye gave a program about Refuge wildlife to two classes at Pearl Creek Elementary School. On September 19-20, Curby presented a program on how trees work to two first grade classes at Badger Road Elementary School.

Reynolds discussed the design and implementation of animal behavior studies with a student, parent, and teacher at Ryan Junior High School on October 30.

In November, Kaye talked to a UAF class about Robert Marshall's influence in wilderness policy.

In December, Kaye spoke to a UAF graduate class about the life-ways of people in the Arctic Refuge.

42

3. Outdoor Classrooms - Teachers

In March, the Refuge sent National Wildlife Week packets, along with additional activities focused on Alaska, to schools in Arctic Village and Kaktovik.

4. Interpretive Foot Trails

Nothing to Report

5. Interpretive Tour Routes

Nothing to Report

6. Interpretive Exhibits/Demos

Migratory Bird Day Celebration (May 11)

Two FWS employees barely escaped capture in the mist net on International Migratory Bird Day. B. Whitehill

Refuge staff collaborated with Kanuti and Yukon Flats Refuges, the Noel Wien Public Library, the local Audubon chapter, ADF&G, artists, storytellers, and other individuals and organizations to produce Fairbanks' first Migratory Bird Day Celebration. Activities, held at the library (both inside and outside on the lawn), included early morning bird walks, the Junior Duck Stamp Awards Ceremony (see below), a puppet show, music about birds, storytelling, a book reading, slide programs, art activities, and live bird

43

presentations. There also were demonstrations on bird painting/sketching, bird carving, bird song recording, and mist netting. Visitors had the opportunity to use binoculars and spotting scopes, see bird-related educational software, become familiar with bird field guides, get advice on bird feeders and feeding, and learn about building/installing nest boxes to attract local species. Craft activities and displays helped families learn firsthand about bird migration, bird adaptations, and bird identification. The event proved to be quite successful, partly because it occurred on one of the first really warm, sunny days of spring.

Junior Duck Stamp Recognition and Awards Ceremony (May 11)

Refuge staff helped Alaska Junior Duck Stamp Coordinator Betsy Whitehill (Region 7 External Affairs office) plan and conduct Alaska's 1996 Federal Junior Duck Stamp Contest Recognition and Awards Ceremony at the Migratory Bird Day Celebration. They also arranged for the winning entries to be displayed in the main reading area of the Noel Wien Public Library for two weeks after the ceremony.

Coldfoot

The Coldfoot Interagency Visitor Center, along the Dalton Highway 250 miles north of Fairbanks, offers exhibits, interpretive programs, free publications, and a small sales outlet of the Alaska Natural History Association. The facility is run cooperatively with the BLM and NPS. This year, the Center was open June 4-September 5 from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily (three hours more than 1995). During that time, services were provided to 4,742 visitors, a 1% decline from 1995.

The FWS-sponsored volunteers (see E.1, p. 15, and E.4, p. 18) worked with BLM and NPS seasonal/volunteer staff to maintain the visitor center, provide information to visitors, conduct interpretive programs, and work the sales outlet.

National Wildlife Refuge Week (October 5-13)

Refuge staff collaborated with the Kanuti and Yukon Flats Refuges, the Fairbanks APLIC, the Noel Wien Public Library, and the Bentley Mall to celebrate NWR Week. A great deal of effort was spent this year promoting the event. Invitations were sent to some 240 individuals, groups, schools, PT As, and the media. The three Refuges paid for twenty-four 30-second spots to be broadcast during the week on KIAK radio (102.5 FM), with messages about NWR Week and special activities at the Bentley Mall (see below). Television spots were aired on the Fairbanks Evening News (KTVF-11) on October 2 and 9. Public service announcements/ads were put in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and on KUAC radio (104.7 FM) and television (channel 9). The Fairbanks APLIC distributed more than 400 copies of their October schedule, which contained information about NWR Week activities. The three Refuges also developed a flyer that was distributed with the invitations and at the Fairbanks APLIC.

44

Three new displays were created for the 1996 NWR Week celebration. A 40' banner (designed by Refuge staff and made by the U AF sign shop) was hung over the Cushman Street bridge in downtown Fairbanks (the prime location) to announce NWR Week to

\

the community. The banner was up from September 30-0ctober 13. Staff from the three Refuges put together an extremely attractive exhibit about the Refuges and their importance in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The exhibit was displayed in a large glass-enclosed case in the entryway of the Noel Wien Public Library during the month of October. Eight free-standing plywood road signs were set up October 12 and 13 to encourage Fairbanksans to "Celebrate National Wildlife Refuges" at the Bentley Mall (see below).

Oodles of wildlife nic nacs, carvings, mounts, pins, pictures, and other items were enjoyed by visitors to the Noel Wien Public Library. J. Jorgenson

On October 8, the three Refuge Managers participated in an interview/call-in radio program (KCBF's "A Closer Look" with Lori Bacus) about the Refuges. KIAK radio also interviewed nine FWS employees during their three-hour live broadcast at the Bentley Mall (paid for by the FWS) on October 12.

The three Refuges hosted a NWR Week Discovery Day at the Fairbanks APLIC on October 5. There were films, slide programs, free handouts, and various activities for children (e.g. crafts, bean bag toss). Approximately 165 people participated in the event; 55 people attended slide programs about the three Refuges.

45

Young artists use their creative skills to create their own refuges at "Discovery Day" L. Devaney

An evening slide show about people living in the Arctic Refuge was presented by Kaye on October 9 at the Noel Wien Public Library. Unfortunately, only five people attended.

The crowning event of the Fairbanks NWR Week was a two-day celebration the Bentley Mall October 12-13. An estimated 10,000 people heard the live KIAK radio broadcast and 4,500 to 6,000 people participated in the activities at the Mall. Visitors had the opportunity to view seven different exhibits, several magic shows, and a computer driven photographic display. They spoke to Teddy Roosevelt (Chuck Fulleton of the Region 7 External Affairs office - a "Teddy" look-alike and history buff), Alaska Regional Director Dave Allen, the three Refuge Managers and their staffs, and several clowns (one had a live parrot and rabbit). Children tried three different art activities, made hand puppets, had their faces painted, and enjoyed a bean-bag toss. People received free cake, handouts, NWR Week posters, and new bumper stickers. Approximately 1,300 balloons (with an educational message) were distributed to the enthusiastic crowd. One hundred

46

sixty-eight people also entered a drawing to win a chance to volunteer at one of the three Refuges during summer 1997 (the winner was Vanessa Horace of Fairbanks).

Alaska Public Lands Information Center (APLIC)

The Fairbanks and Anchorage APLICs provide VISitors with exhibits, programs, information, and brochures about various public lands in Alaska, including the Arctic Refuge. Refuge staff ensure that the information at the APLICs is updated and complete.

Other Activities

In June, Refuge staff completed a bird checklist containing the habitat preferences, status, and abundance of the 180 bird species reported on the Refuge.

Edgerton continued to serve as the FWS northern representative to the Alaska Watchable Wildlife Steering Committee.

7. Other Interpretive Programs

Refuge staff worked with other FWS employees to produce and staff an information booth at the Tanana Valley State Fair August 2-10. The booth featured an attractive counter built by Edgerton and Assistant Manager Deines of the Yukon Flats Refuge.

Reitz encourages visitors to enter the FWS "census" contest at the fair. C. Curby

47

Many fairgoers again participated in the annual census contest at the booth, this year guessing (from a winter photo) the number of male spectacled eiders shown packed together in a patch of open water in the Chukchi Sea. On Kid's Day, several Refuge staff provided free face painting of endangered species. FWS personnel contacted and provided information to 3,289 fairgoers, less than half the number in 1995. The decrease was due to stormy weather which kept fairgoers away all week.

8. Hunting

Sport hunting continues to be one of the most popular recreational activities on the Refuge. Dall sheep is the most popular species, followed by moose, grizzly bear, and caribou. Wolverine and wolf are usually taken when encountered by residents and nonresidents. The few muskox available for harvest were declared a subsistence-only species and may now be hunted only by rural villagers. Moose season was closed by the State of Alaska north of the Brooks Range in response to low moose numbers (see G.8, p. 30).

Hunting activity on the Refuge has continued to grow, although the number ofDall sheep and moose hunters has dropped the last few years. The decline may have occurred due to changes in guides and guide areas, and the downward fluctuation in sheep numbers shown by surveys. The moose season closure north of the Brooks Range this year also had an effect.

The number of non-resident hunters, required by Alaska state law to have a guide when hunting sheep or brown bear, is now limited by the operations plans submitted by guideoutfitters and incorporated into their special use permits. Multi-species hunts are quite common with some guides, especially those catering to European hunters. Maximum guided-hunter client limits resemble recent harvest numbers in most areas.

The number of resident hunters is not limited on the Refuge, except perhaps by everincreasing air transporter costs. Most resident hunters must purchase air "transporter" fares which are significantly higher than the hourly air charter rates to reach hunting areas.

Hunting Guide-Outfitters

The Refuge has been divided into 18 exclusive guiding areas since July 1993. Until rnid-1995, all the areas were held by a total of 13 guides. Two areas were shared by two adjacent guides. During summer 1995, one guide was asked to relinquish his area for non-use, as required by FWS policy. The vacant area was advertised this year but no applications were received. As a result, in 1996 all but one area were held by guides.

48

)

Hunting guide camp along the Kongakut River. H. Heffernan

Draft regulations proposing changes to special use permits, including changes to the guide areas, were published on November 1, 1996. Among the most significant changes in the draft is the provision to allow current guides to keep their areas another five years.

Hunting guide-outfitter special use permit report data for 1996 is summarized in Table 8 (p. 50).

49

Table 8. Hunting guide-outfitter special use permit report data, 1996.

NON-HUNTING BLACK CLIENT NO. OF AVE. CLIENTS

SHEEP GRIZZLY BEAR MOOSE CARIBOU WOLF WOLVERINE DAYS CLIENTS HUNT PERIOD Number Days

Andreis, Art (A&L Outdoor Enterp.) NO ACTIVITY

Buist, Pete (Ciea1water Outdoor Serv.) NO ACTIVITY

Hendricks, Joe (Fair Chase Hunts) 5 2 49 5 9.8

Jacques, Jerry (Jacques Adven. Co.) 4 6 40 6 6.7

Jamieson, Sandy (Bushcraft Guide) 3 28 3 9.3

Koontz, Keith (Chandalar River Out.) 4 9 112 10 11.2

Mackler, Len (AK Wilderness Vent.) 10 5 115 15 7.7

Peterson, John (Bristol Bay Out.) 4 3 3 5 123 II 11.0

Rivers, Larry (A.W. Enterprises) 9 2 39 II 3.6

Schetzle, Harold (Kichatna Guide) 4 2 43 5 8.6

Schwab, Max NO ACTIVITY

Want, Joe 2 55 4 11.0

Witt, Eugene (Brooks Range Hunts) 3 48 4 12.0

Witt, Patton NO ACTIVITY 8 8.0

TOTALS 39 14 0 15 19 0 652 74 8.7 0 0

50

9. Fishing

Sport fishing for grayling, Arctic char, lake trout, and northern pike occurs incidental to other recreational activities, particularly river floating. Fishing is not a primary recreational activity because of the Refuge's remoteness and the fact that better fishing is found elsewhere in the State. One permit was issued for sport fish guiding in 1995, but it was not used.

Subsistence fishing for both saltwater and freshwater species is important to local residents. Whitefish, grayling, and Arctic char are the primary subsistence species sought on the Refuge. Kaktovik residents fish in the coastal lagoons during summer and at several traditional fishing holes, primarily on the Hulahula River, in spring. Residents of Arctic Village net whitefish and grayling in the Chandalar River during summer and pursue lake trout at Old John Lake in winter.

10. Trapping

Trapping is allowed Refuge-wide without a permit. Trapping effort on the Refuge has declined in the last decade and is perhaps now stable, but at its lowest level since the Hudson Bay era of the 1860's. At the tum of the century there were active trapping camps all along the Porcupine River within the Refuge. Ten years ago there were just four. This year none are active. Low fur prices are a major factor. Federal and state money in the villages has reduced the incentive for many villagers, and there just seems to be less interest. Proposed restrictions on leg-hold traps may further discourage young Natives from trapping, an activity that has been the primary incentive to develop winter travel skills and learn snowshoe and sled construction.

The Refuge does not actively administer a trapping program although trappers are visited when flights occur in their vicinity.

11. Wildlife Observation

Nothing to Report

12. Other Wildlife Oriented Recreation

Visitors continue to seek the superlative river floating, backpacking, camping, wildlife viewing, photography, and related activities for which the Refuge is renowned. Due to logistical difficulties and perhaps the desire to avoid intrusive managerial activities, Refuge staff does not closely monitor public use. However, staff observations and commercial guides and air taxi operators indicate that 1996 visitation was similar to previous years.

51

It doesn't get any better than this on the coastal plain of the Refuge. J. Jorgenson

Recreation guide special use permit data for 1996 is summarized in Table 9 (pp. 53-55). Commercial recreation use days (primarily floating and backpacking) from 1987-1996 are shown in Table 10 (p. 56). Private recreation reported in charter aircraft and transporter special use permit reports for 1996 is shown in Table 11 (p. 57).

52

Table 9. Recreation guide special use permit data, 1996. Page 1 of 3.

PERMITTEE I PERMIT I USE* I PUT IN** I TAKE-OUT** I TRIP# I JUN I JUL I AUG I SEP I TRIP I PARTY I USE I TOTAL I TOTAL USE NUMllER DAYS SIZE DAYS PERSONS DAYS

Adams. Macgill 96-R3 H U SHEENJEK R GRASSERS LS I 7-17 II 5 55

(Wilderness Alaska) F DRAINCRK CARIBOU PASS 2 17-26 10 8 80

F CARIBOU PASS MAICHIUKR 3 26 6 11 5 55

H SCHRADER LK SCHRADERLK 4 29 2 5 5 25

H CHAMBERLIN CRK SCHRADER LK 5 31 2 3 3 9

H RED SHEEP CRK RED SHEEP CRK 6 7-16 10 4 40 30 264

Jcumar. Karen 96-RIO F GRASSERS LS AREYIS I 14-23 10 4 40 4 40

(l~quinox Wilderness J:xncditions)

Dittrick, Bob 96-Rl2 F DRAINCRK CARIBOU PASS I 22 I 10 6 60

(Wilderness Birding Adn~nturcs) H CARIBOU PASS TURNER R 2 2-7 6 4 24

F U AICHIUKR M AICHII.IKR 3 19·25 7 6 42

F U MFCANN!NG R PLUNGECRK 4 27 2 7 6 42

F DRAINCRK CARIBOU PASS 5 20·29 10 6 60 28 228

Jamieson. Sandy AC ESKIMO LK ESKIMOLK I 5-9 5 2 10

mushc-:Jii) AC YANKF' .K llllWADDY .K ? 20-29 10 2 20 7 10

Koontl:. Keith 96-RD NO TRII'S

(Chandalar R Outliners)

l:inno!T. Ramona 96-R2 H AICHIUKR DRAINCRK I 4-14 II 7 77

(AilECs Alaska Adventures) F DRAINCRK CARIIlOU PASS 2 15-24 10 12 120

H U CHANDALAR R GRASSERS LS 3 17-23 7 5 35

I' GRASSERS LS L HULAHAULA R 4 24 5 12 10 120

F UCANNINGR LCANNINGR 5 15-25 11 II 121

H MFCANNINGR U CANNINGR 6 24-30 7 3 21

F UCANNINGR LCANNINOR 7 31 9 10 3 30 48 524

53


PERMIHEE I PERMIT I USE* I PUT IN** I TAKE OUT** I TRIP# I JUN I JUL I AUG I SI:P I TRIP I PARTY I USE I TOTAL I TOTAL USE NUMBER DAYS SIZE DAYS PERSONS DAYS

Kasza. Carol 96-R7 H JAGOR JACiOR I 1-7 7 2 14

(Arctic Treks) F GRASSERS LS LHULAHULA R 2 16-25 10 7 70

F MF CANNING R LCANNINGR 3 20-30 11 9 99

F GRASSERS LS LHULAHULA R 4 18-28 II 4 44

H DRAINCRK SHEENJEK R 5 19-27 9 2 18

H U MF CANNING R SPRINGCRK 6 8-17 10 5 50 29 295

Weller. Steven T. 96-RI4 F U SHEENJEK R OLD WOMAN CRK I 22-31 10 7 70 7 70

(Alaska Wilderness Journeys)

Denson. Hulda 96-Rl H SAG R SAGR I 4(APR) 10 40

(Sourdough Oulliltcrs) F IVISHAKR IVISHAKR 2 X 6 2 12 12 52

Hardy, Charles 96-RS F MJAGOR JAGO I.K I 22 I 10 12 120

(Sierra Cluh) H SCHRAIJERLK CAMDEN DAY 2 10-21 12 12 144

H M AICHILIKR M AICHILIK R 3 11-22 12 12 144

H HWECHOOKAR HWECHOOKAR 4 17-25 9 7 63

H U AICHli.IKR MJACiO R 5 24 5 12 12 144

H LJAGOR MJAGOR 6 28 6 10 7 70

H ACCOMPLISHMENT CRK GALBRAITH LK 7 1-12 12 9 108 71 793

Leghorn, Ken 96-R6 F DRAINCRK CARIBOU PASS I 14-23 10 12 120

(Alaska Discovery) F DRAINCRK CARIBOU PASS 2 23 2 10 12 120

F DOUDLEMT OLD WOMAN CRK 3 11-20 10 12 120

F DOUDLEMT OLD WOMAN CRK 4 20-29 10 12 120 48 480

54


PERMITEE I Ron Yarnell

(Wilderness Alaska/Mexico)

Ford. Don

(Nat. ()utdoor I .cadership SL:hool)

Rohcrt Parker

(North Star)

Hill. Alan

(AK Wiklcrncss Studies)

TOTALS AND AVERAGES

'Usc Types: H - Hiking/Backpacking F- Floating AC Camping HC - Horseback Camping

PERMIT I USE* NUMBER

96-R4 H

I'

I'

H

H

H

96-R5 H

I'

1-1

I'

96-R9 I'

96-R11 H

H

I PUT IN** I M AICHILIK R

GRASSERS LS

DRAINCRK

U IVISHAK R

ACCOMPLISHMENT I ,K

CAMDEN BAY

El' CHAND ALAR R

U SHEENJEKR

U SHEENJEK R

NEAR LASTLK

DRA!NCRK

RED SHEEP CRK

ORASSERS LS

**Ahhrcviations used: CRK- Creek E East EF - East Fork IS Island

TAKE-OUT**

DRAIN CRK

AREY IS

CARIBOU PASS

MI'CANNINGR

U !V!SHAKR

SUNSET PASS

U SHEENJEK R

REFUGE BORDER

M JAOO R

KONESS R

CARIBOU I' ASS

GRASSERS LS

RED SHEEP CRK

I.HI,owcr LK- Lake

I

LS - Landing Strip

TRIP# I JUN

I 10-21

2 10-21

3 22

4 24

5

6 21

I

2

_1

4

I 14-23

I

2

40

M- Middle MT- Mountain

MF- Marsh Fork or Middle Fork

55

I JUL

I

I

20

I

12-22

23

29

27

-'

I AUG

3

9

II

5-17

3

10

R- River U- Upper

I

HW - Headwaters WI'- West Fork

SEP I TRIP I DAYS

12

12

10

8

15

II

II

18

14

13

10

8

8

PARTY I USE I TOTAL I TOTALUSE SIZE DAYS PERSONS DAYS

4 48

7 84

II 110

3 24

2 30

3 33 30 329

15 165

15 270

9 126

9 117 48 678

5 50 5 50

10 80

12 96 122 176

389 4009

Table 10. Commercial recreation use days, 1987-1996. (F=floaters; H=hikers; HC=horseback camping; AC=aircraft camping)

Area Users

Kongakut River

Hulahula River

Sheenjek River

Canning River

Aichilik River

Jago River

Wind River

Chandalar River

Coleen River

Junjik River

Ivishak River

Turner River

Katakturuk River

Okpilak River

Sadlerochit/Shublik Mtns.

Other Areas/Brooks Range

Schrader/Peters Lake

Sub Totals

Totals

F

H

H

H

F

H

F

H

F

H

F

H

F

H

F

H

HC

F

F

H

F

H

F

H

H

H

H

H

AC

H

F

H

HC

AC

1987

425

81

167

36

607

153

36

134

1235

404

1639

1988

786

28

410

126

461

10

190

123

52

24

106

70

24

182

2023

569

2592

1989

1684

10

1032

220

424

494

90

120

163

140

53

167

278

3774

1101

4875

1990

731

184

671

112

274

211

308

12

94

81

160

7

6

24

28

60

196

608

390

2136

2021

4157

56

1991

1014

74

736

60

580

40

486

36

104

238

42

35

12

521

768

317

3125

1938

5063

1992

955

129

545

42

586

123

680

40

86

187

192

12

50

8

15

228

834

130

3043

1799

4842

1993

1021

92

535

44

250

60

158

36

232

219

48

30

91

10

47

47

70

60

616

72

2274

1464

3738

1994 1995

854

52

461

58

364

142

525

62

90

78

114

25

80

314

12

26

133

711

50 6

2319

1468

314

50

4151

785

50

523

30

551

103

209

48

105

24

109

100

53

85

391

10

2092

1031

53

6

3182

1996

720

48

358

141

697

56

292

42

42

104

120

137

131

12

14

93

932

30

40

2241

1738

30

4009

Table 11. Private recreation reported in charter aircraft and transporter special use permit reports, 1996.

Company Use Type Animals transported for private hunters

Hunters I Floaters I Hikers I Camping I Other Rec. I Unknown Rec. Sheeo l Caribou I Moose I Wolf I Grizzly

Bursiel, Bob (Wright Air) 18 24 6 2 5

Neel, Dave (Arctic Wild. Lodge) 16 1 2 8 1 1

Audi, Walt (Alaska Flyers) II 4 7 2 I 3

Stirling, Eric (Pyxis Ltd.) I5 4 9 2

Smith, Ray (Umiat Enterprises) 9 6 4

Ross, Don (Yukon/Canning Air) 9 4 73 2 2 2

Ruff, Steve (Sourdough/Brooks Range) 2 2 17

Foster, Dawn B. (Circle Air) 4 2 I I

Warbelow, Art (Warbelow's Air) 5 I

Salmon, Woodie (Sheenjek R. Air) No Flights

Thompson, G. B. (Cape Smythe Air) No Flights

Totals* 89 17 84 16 19 33 21 I2 6 I 4

* Warbelow Air, a relatively low-volume operator, is not included

57

13. Camping

Nothing to Report

14. Picnicking

Nothing to Report

15. Off-Road Vehicling

Nothing to Report

16. Other Non-Wildlife Oriented Recreation

Nothing to Report

17. Law Enforcement

The Refuge has four officers; Sowards, Kaye, Heffernan, and Garrett. In January they attended law enforcement training in Tucson, Arizona. Garrett, Sowards, and Special Agent Roberts conducted law enforcement patrols during the first week of sheep season.

The law enforcement supercub readies to take off from the gravel strip at Caribou pass on the Kongakut River. P. Garrett

58

Hunting pressure appeared to be down from previous years. Due to the unavailability of a Super Cub, the patrols were conducted with a Cessna 185 which didn't allow access to some of the airstrips the officers would normally have gone into.

Sowards helped Alaska State Trooper Wolstead and New Mexico Special Agent Suazo (detailed to Alaska for the hunting season) with the investigation of wanton waste of a caribou in the Shungnak area. Heffernan assisted the Koyukuk Refuge with law enforcement patrols during moose season.

18. Cooperating Associations

The FWS supports an Alaska Natural History Association sales branch that includes the main store at the Coldfoot Interagency Visitor Center and a smaller outlet at the Yukon River Crossing. The branch, administered by the BLM, brought in $9,430 during 1996, an increase of24% from 1995. Sales items included a variety of wildlife posters, books, post cards, note cards, natural history slides, videos, and topographic maps.

19. Concessions

Nothing to Report

I. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES

1. New Construction

This year, major office redesign and construction projects were completed on the first and second floors of the Fairbanks Federal Building. The work was done so that offices regularly visited by the public (e.g. the Credit Union) could be relocated on the first floor, the Ecological Services office could have more space, and the Arctic, Kanuti, and Yukon Flats offices could be co-located. Several staff had input to the project, which was coordinated through the General Services Administration by Fred Deines of the Yukon Flats Refuge. The main design phase of the project occurred from May through July; most of the construction occurred in August and September.

Refuge staff began to occupy its new space in early October, but the office was in a state of disarray until approximately mid-December. Staff had to finish moving, consolidate, sort through, and dispose of old, outdated equipment and resources, learn a new phone system and computer network, wait for the installation of new Tab Systems furniture (more than $250,000 worth), and adjust to their new work areas. By years end, things were getting back to normal.

59

Mcisaac attempts to conduct business amid the chaos of the move. C. Curby

2. Rehabilitation

Nothing to Report

3. Major Maintenance

The Refuge Cessna 185 (# N24164) received a factory overhauled engine in October. The old engine, with 1,700 running hours on it, will be returned to the factory to be remanufactured. The 185 and the Refuge 206 (# N9623R) both had NAT intercoms installed in 1996, a vast improvement over the old Sigtronics Intercoms.

4. Equipment Utilization and Replacement

Nothing to Report

5. Communications Systems

This year the Refuge experimented with satellite telephones as the primary means of field communications. Staff was very satisfied with both the reliability and the signal reception of the units. The Refuge had been spending approximately $10,000 per year chartering helicopters to service the FM repeater stations. With the purchase of the satellite telephones, we hope to phase out the repeater system.

60

6. Computer Systems

That's right- thick crust, canadian bacon, and pineapple! What do you mean you don't know where the Coleen River is?

S. Nelson

This year the Refuge led a successful campaign to update and improve the computer facilities for all five FWS offices in the Fairbanks Federal building. All the computers were upgraded to a minimum standard of at least a 486-66. The Refuge purchased seven new computers; 32 others were purchased for the other offices.

Patrick Scannell set up a new Novell Network file server, made sure that lOOBaseT wiring was installed to every desktop, and manages the network for all five FWS offices. The Refuge advanced its GIS capabilities by hiring a GIS specialist (Boyle), and acquiring a Unix workstation and GIS software.

61

Printing, e-mail, file sharing, and Internet access (in 1997) will be handled through the network. These long awaited tools ease the use of our computer based information handling so that we can focus less on technology and more on the FWS mission.

7. Energy Conservation

To reduce fuel oil costs, the heat was again turned off for the winter at the Barter Island Field Station and bunkhouse, except for the garage where equipment and supplies are stored.

8. Other

Edgerton and Sowards led the effort to complete the disposal, orgamzmg, and consolidation of equipment and supplies in the Refuge warehouse and storage cage. After weeks of effort throughout the year, the work was finally completed at the end of December. The re-organization will have major benefits including cost savings, smoother field preparations, and more room for storage.

J. OTHER ITEMS

1. Cooperative Programs

North Slope Borough- Refuge staff attended meetings and communicated often by phone regarding Refuge issues and projects with various officials, leaders, biologists, and other personnel. This included a major public works project for Kaktovik (see J.2, p. 62-63).

Research - Staff from the Refuge, ADF&G, and USGS cooperated on a wide range of studies and projects within the Refuge.

University of Alaska and other Projects- Special use permits were issued for glacier and geological studies, and rocket research projects on the Refuge.

Public use - Numerous presentations and activities were conducted at village and Fairbanks area schools. Refuge personnel also worked with other agency and FWS offices to conduct activities such as International Migratory Bird Day, Fairbanks Outdoor Days, Earth Quest, the Tanana Valley State Fair, and NWR Week.

Fairbanks Facilities - FWS offices now share a contiguous office space and conference room on the second floor of the Federal Building. Each office has its own warehouse and storage areas.

62

Coldfoot Interagency Visitor Center- Joint operation of this facility with the NPS and BLM continued under a cooperative agreement signed in 1991.

Alaska Public Lands Information Center - Refuge personnel coordinated with staff of the Fairbanks APLIC on a variety of activities, including the dissemination of wildlife and wildlands information, International Migratory Bird Day, and NWR Week.

Other - Cooperative efforts with other federal and state offices included wildlife research and inventories, law enforcement, environmental compliance, and permitting. Refuge personnel shared information as needed or by request with American and Canadian natural resource agencies, biologists working on arctic issues and species, local residents, visitors, the media, and a variety of public and private organizations.

2. Other Economic Uses

Guided recreation is the main economic use on the Refuge. Guided hunting probably grosses the most money, followed by guided float and backpacking trips. Fourteen nonhunting recreation, 14 hunting guide, and 11 air charter permits were active during 1996. Other, non-wildlife/wildlands uses continued at a low level. Only one fact-finding permit was issued; none were issued for surface geology or temporary navigation towers. Two permits were issued for commercial sea ice travel, and one permit each for gravel testing, gravel dredging, and commercial filming.

East Lagoon gravel dredging, Barter Island

During winter 1995, the North Slope Borough contacted Refuge staff regarding a proposal to use gravel dredged from East Lagoon (part of Kaktovik Lagoon) for a large water and sewer public works project in Kaktovik. After numerous telephone calls and letters, a meeting was held in January to discuss a permit application. The application proposed moving equipment to Kaktovik from Deadhorse, sampling the East Lagoon for gravel in late winter and spring, then dredging up to 500,000 cubic yards of gravel over the next three years. The lagoon was determined to be the only practicable source for gravel of the quality needed for the project. Three permits were issued before summer, allowing the project to begin. The permit to dredge gravel was issued in June, after an environmental assessment prepared by Refuge staff resulted in a finding of no significant impact. Gravel dredging occurred throughout the summer.

63

The arrow shows where gravel is being dredged a few miles south of Kaktovik. The radar towers in the foreground were dismantled this year.

3. Items of Interest

On July 25, Kurth accompanied Rick Schwolsky (Mollie Beatties's husband), Don Berry, Tako Satta, Jamie Clark, and Regional Director Dave Allen on a flight to Peter's Lake within the Refuge's eight million acrea wilderness area. Mr. Schwolsky was on a trip across the United States to scatter Mollie's ashes in several of her favorite areas, including Peter's Lake which she visited in 1995. Peter's Lake is now within the eight million acre Mollie Beattie Wilderness Area (see F.12, p. 25).

4. Credits

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phil Garrett Table of Contents and List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tom Edgerton A. Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tom Edgerton B. Climatic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harvey Heffernan C. Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harvey Heffernan D. Planning

1-3 ................................................. Tom Edgerton 4, 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roger Kaye 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Individual Researchers/Compiled by Janet Jorgensen

E. Administration 1,3,5,8 ............................................ Donna Christensen 2,6,7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roger Kaye 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tom Edgerton

64

F. Habitat Management 1-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fran Mauer 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perry Grissom 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harvey Heffernan 11 .................................................. Tom Edgerton 12, 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roger Kaye

G. Wildlife 1-8, 12, 13 ............................................. Fran Mauer 9-11, 14-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patricia Reynolds

H. Public Use 1-7, 18, 19 ............................................. Cathy Curby 8, 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harvey Heffernan 10-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roger Kaye 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dave Sowards

I. Equipment and Facilities 1-5, 7, 8 ............................................. Dave Sowards 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patrick Scannell

J. Other Items 1, 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harvey Heffernan 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phil Garrett 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tom Edgerton

K. Feedback ................................................ Jim Kurth Appendix and Information Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tom Edgerton

Word processing: Individual section contributors Tables 1, 8, and 11: Harvey Heffernan Tables 2 and 3: Donna Christensen Table 4: Perry Grissom Tables 5 and 7: Fran Mauer Table 6: Patricia Reynolds Tables 9 and 10: Tom Edgerton Compiling and formatting: Cheryl Evans and Tom Edgerton Editing: Tom Edgerton Computer editing and cropping of photographs: Cathy Curby Photo selection, layout, and insertion: Tom Edgerton Captions: Tom Edgerton, Bev Reitz, and Roger Kaye

65

K. FEEDBACK

The midnight sun over the northern coast of the Refuge.

66

JAN 0 2 1996 Date ,

SITKJ\ SENTINEL

Climt No. [1....d" __....._ ___ _

Stevens: A WREffort Needs New President

I '<> {, J-o

FAIRBANKS (AP)- If the effort to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling fails this time, it probably will take a change in the White House to open the area. U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens said.

Stevens, speaking Friday, said the Senate isn't likely to provide the 60 votes necessary to insert a pro-drilling measure into a seven-year budget

blueprint next year. President Clinton has vetoed one

budget proposal in part because of the provision to allow drilling in the refuge.

On top of Clinton's opposition, it's always difficult to muster" votes on Alaska land issues, Stevens said.

"Remember we got the pipeline by just one vote. All our votes are very narrow," he said. "It would probably take a change in administration.''

Republicans so far have kept the ANWR provision in their budget, but negotiations with the administration continue.

Stevens said it was Clinton himself who initially wanted leasing revenue

·from federal land as part of the budget document.·

Republicans inserted the ANWR drilling measure because it was esti:mated to generate $1.3 billion in leas~ ing revenue over seven years, Stevens !said. \ Alaska's congressional delegation 1 also has pushed the proposal as a way : to boost flagging oil production from i the North Slope. ' Stevens played down his past re-marks that Alaska should accept a

. 50-50 split now on ANWR lease rev-1 enues and sue later for the 90-10 share guaranteed by the Statehood Com-

.pact.

~orne critics say that if the effort to 1drill-in the refugo·fails this· year its ·demise can be traced in part to ques·tions about the state and the revenue split

But Stevens said his initial "sue .later'' comments were ''over-report-·ed." .

After all, a deal's a deal, he told the :group of about 350 people, mostly · women, gathered at the event. • 'The 1 more we looked at it, the more we saw ~ that was not right," Stevens said. : "These people back in Washington I didn't just fall off the garbage truck." ;

Gov. Tony Knowles and legislative !leaders indicated no problem with the ; 50-50 level, and that's where it will remain, he said.

Stevens said he thinks ANWR :eventually will be opened because of the growing sentiment among Westem states that they need more control overfederalland within their borders.

Date JAN 0 4 1996

CORDOVA TIMES

Client No. I .2-D

AP journalists explain choosing of top 1995 Alaska· stories /.;LO oLt/CJ o<(.:J..<J

By Maureen Clark

Associated Press

ANCHORAGE- It was just one small provision in the Republican's massive federal budget-balancing plan. But the proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development gave new life to an issue that lay dormant for years.

Suddenly scores of Alaska lawmakers were heading to Washington to lobby for passage of the measure and a remote, potentially oil-rich comer of the state was the subject of national debate.

"Everywhere you went, people were talking about it. Will it make it this year or won't it," said Kelly Bostian, managing editor of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.

The ANWR story led the list of the top Alaska news stories for 1995, chosen by Associated Press members statewide. Despite a presidential veto in early December, eight of the 18 subscribers chose the effort to open the refuge to drilling as the year's most important story.

"It's the closest they've ever come to cracking it open," said Joel Southern, Washington reporter for the Alaska Public Radio Network, who tracked the movement of the ANWR proposal as it made its way through Congress.

Another story chosen as the year's most significant was the September crash of an Air Force. AWACS plane at Elmendorf Air Force Base. The crash claimed the lives of all 24 crewmen aboard.

Many of those killed left families behind. It was an event that left both the military and civilian communities shaken.

"Budgets can be fixed, financial woes can tum around, but the loss ·of human lives is something that can never be reversed," said Sheila Balistreri, news director at KFQD radio in Anchorage who picked the AWACS crash as the year's top story.

"The families who lost their loved one will never recover. And for that reason, the impact of the

.crash is by far the number one sto~ ry of the year," Balistreri said.

The lifting of the bari on the export of North Slope crude oil was ranked the second most important story of the year. President Clinton signed a bill in November that lift-

ed the 20-year ban, a move state and industry officials said would create news jobs and more revenue'.

John Woodbury, editor of the seven rural newspapers published· by Alaska Newspapers, chose it as the year's top story. He cited the potential economic benefits.

"This is going to have a trickledown effect, from powerful Native corporations already involved in oil development to how much a person can spend at K-mart next Christmas," said Woodbury.

The journalists' choices reflected the varied interests of the communities that make up Alaska.

The collapse of Mark Air was ranked as one of the year's top sto-· ries by rural news organizations. The carriers liquidation in October and the subsequent bankruptcy filing by its Mark Air Express Subsidiary was felt most keenly in Bush Alaska.

r-

"It involved local jobs and a lot of confusion and pain when flights were canceled," said Jim Paulin, news director at. KOTZ radio in Kotzebue. "There was a rapid and dramatic increase in fares."

The salmon harvest dispute with C:anada got high ran kings from new organizations in fishing-dependent communities. The Canadian government and the states of Washington and Oregon accused Alaska of overfishing and won a federal court order putting the Southeast commercial chinook salmon season on hold.

"It comes down to who controls the Alaskan fishery, said Dave Kiffer, news director at KRBD radio in Ketchikan. "I think a lot of fishermen in this area arc very con· cerned about that because they've seen a chipping away at what they're allowed to do."·

As the year drew to a close. it was the unusual winter weather that was uppermost in at least one editor's mind.

In case i")g village of Ven~tia,'.: limiting ·

· authority of tribal gov-' . emments. ,:~·;. · '·· · · ·'

6. Barrow residents . vote to lift year.:.Jong ban · on alcohol.

· 7. Canada and northwest states accuse Alaska of overfishlng, win court order putting Southeast commercial Chinook salmon season on hold.

8. Alaska Federation of Natives votes to support oil exploration in ANWR.

9. Aviation accidents and fatalities'reach fiveyear high.

10.Aiaska Zoo's popular polar bears, Binky and Nuka, die.

1.

)

Date JAN Q 4 1996

TUNDRA DRllMS

Client No. / d D

Stop using Alaska as the political game ball

IX> 34.>./1 {p/-<> b?o · . What has now been described as the worst budget crisis in the

nation's history, is partially caused by Lower 48 politicians in Washington playing political games over Alaska.

One of the reasons cited by President Bill 'Clinton for his failure to sign the budget bill is Medicare cutbacks. Another is the debate over oil and gas drilling in theArctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is tied to a federal balanced budget. · ·

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported last week that bolh of Alaska's senators- Frank Murkowski and Ted Stevenswould not support a compromise budget bill without an ANWR provision. We believe that is needed.

Oil money built many schools in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta in the 1970s. So, why not in the 1990s?

State revenue from ANWR could, should, and most likely would, be passed around the state for all Alaskans to benefit from. Proposed new school projects in Bethel, Chevak, Akiachak and other Bush locations remain unfunded, with a dismal outlook for state Department of Education funding. Oil money flowing into the state coffers could fund those needed projects in the coming years. Bethel's long-needed nursing horne is another proposed project that could and should benefit from the opening of ANWR.

Here's the reality check. The playing of political games wilh Alaska as the game ball to kick around, may keep us from getting our schools and nursing homes built, keep the door closed on thousands of potential jobs and prevent the Arctic Slope Regional Corp., and its shareholders from benefiting from the minerals they own beneath the surface.

Clinton is bowing to pressure from the powerful environmental movement in the Lower 48. With an election looming, it's no wonder he's taking the cowardly way· out. · · · ·

Don't forget that when our lnupiat neighbors from the Arctic Slope Regional Corp., paid Clinton a visit at the White House last year to ask for his support for opening ANWR, Clinton didn't have the courtesy to meet with them. He chose to leave them· waiting while he met wilh Lower 48 environmental leaders. That, in our opinion; sent a resounding message that the President didn't care about the Alaskan Eskimo, but rather the Lower 48 cov i-.

ronmental camp that could muster million of votes from heavily populated states this fall. Alaska ·s total population accounts for less than one third of I percent of the total population of the United States and the Natives arc only 15 percent of Alaska's total populous.

While environmentalists argue thcirpoints, the realities are that 99 percent of the 19 million-acre refuge would not be effected by oil and gas drilling. While statistics vary, depending on who prepared them, those furnished to us by Rep. Don Young say that two decades of oil development at Prudhoe Bay have proven· that oil drilling can be done in an environmentally-safe manner, lhe caribou herd lhat migrates through the existing oil field has tripled· since development began about 20 years ago, while Prudhoe Bay currently accounts for 24 percent of U.S. oil production, the United States still imports more than $50 billion worth of oil each year. and if estimates by federal geologists are correct, ANWR oil could have an economic benefit of $325 billion.

It's time for Washington politicians to stop the political rhetoric, stop playing politics with Alaska's future and stop listening to Lower 48 environmentalists who have no business hav-ing any.opinion about ANWR.- ·

53.

Date JAN 0 8 1996 ALASKA JOURNAL

OF COMMERCE

Client No.--l.! ..:::1.-><-(1 __ _

An important stand /:k> .!l'/..1"11 ~39 03J..'f

T he leadership of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations

should be applauded for joining other labor unions, · including Alaska's AFL-CIO, in Laking a stand that makes

good sense. The department's president, Robef1A. Georgine, wrote

President IJiU Clinton a letter just before Christmas, urging that the provision to lease a small part of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be included in any compromise on the budget reconciliation package. The package is currently being negotiated by the administ.raJ.ion and Congress.

Georgine knows ClinLOn is opposed to opening the arctic coastal plain to oil exploration and production. But as head of a group that represents over 3 million hardworking Americans, Georgine must look at the big picture, one that clearly shows the importance of oil development in the Arctic.

II ere's what he told Clinton: "The economic benefits of leasing the arctic coastal

plain are tremendous. Studies show that oil exploration and production on tl1e coastal plain has the potential of creating 250,000 to 735,000 jobs nationwide-as many ·as 80,000 Jobs·tn··Califomla,""'34,0004ob:5•in•Florida>

34,000 jobs in Pennsylvania, 33,000 jobs in Illinois, 48,000 jobs in New York, 25,000 jobs in Michigan, 32,000 jobs in Ohio and 22,000 jobs in New Jersey. The leasing is estimated to generate $1.3 billion in bonus bid revenues and tens of billions in royalty and tax revenue if oil is discovered, without any cost to the taxpayers and reducing our dependence on imported oil by as much as $14 billion a year. Currently our country is over 50 percent dependent on foreign oil-and becoming more dependent. During the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the U.S. was only 36 percent dependent on foreign oil."

Georgine goes on to cite other important facts about proposed drilling in ANWR. Then he asks the president to support allowing responsible leasing of a small part of the ANWR coastal plain, noting that American working families "depend on your support."

Let's hope that Georgine succeeds wllere so many otlJCrs have failed and persuades Clinton to change his mind about ANWR. It might cost him tl1e votes of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and a few thousand environmentalists, who despite their loud voices adually speak for very few Americans. Clinton, meanwhile, could retain the support of tlte nation's powerful labor unions, a valuable constituency he should not take for granted.

;25.

QUALITY SERVICES

Date JAN 1 2 1996

Anchorage Daily News

Client No. /..z{)

Clinton. agrees to talk ANWR with Alaskan 1.>--c J'inJ ~-~

By DAVID WHITNEY Daily News reporter

WASHINGTON - With budget negotiations between President Clinton and the Republ!can-led Congress on the brink of collapse, the White House is now ready to talk to Alaska lawmakers about their top budget priority - opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil develop· ment.

Alaska Sen. Frank Murkowski said in a W press release that a meeting with the ":-president will be held this month. It

probably won't occur before Jan. 23, when Clinton delivers the annual State of the Union speech to a joint session of Congress.

It is considered highly unlikely that the talks will result in agreement on the arctic refuge. The president reaff!nned his opposition to drilling in the refuge at a news conference Thursday.

Oil leasing In the refuge's narrow coast· al plain is expected to raise about $1.3 billion for the federal treasury under legislation the Alaska delegation added to

the budget measure. The state would receive about $1.3 billion from leasing.

The budget measure is intended to erase the federal deficit in seven years. It was vetoed by President Clinton, who objected to cuts in Medicaid, Medicare, education and environmental programs.

Clinton also cited the refuge drilling provision in his veto message and repeated hls opposition to drilling during Thursday's press conference.

"I don't see why we should cloud this budget agreement with controversial items like dri!llng in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," Clinton told reporters. "These things aren't necessary to balance the federal budget."

Clinton has offered Republicans his own seven-year budget-balancing blueprint, which they have rejected. Negotiations to bridge the differences were suspended Tuesday.

Clinton said Thursday he hopes the talks can be revived because "historic agreement is within reach." But Republican leaders this week expressed pessi-

mlsm that a deal can be reached because of wide philosophical differences with the president.

Without an agreement on the broader budget package, chances of opening the refuge are next to nil because there aren't enough votes. in the Senate to pass a

. free-standing development bill. The state's all-Republican congressional

delegation asked for a meeting with the president last month when there was greater promise of reaching a budget deal.

Murkowski said in his press release that he was pleased White House advisers "have seen fit to recognize that this is, indeed, an important issue to Alaska and an important issue to the nation."

"We hope to convince the president on the merits of opening ANWR," the senator said.

Debbie Reinwand, head of pro-development Arctic Power, said in a telephone interview that she hopes the meeting can be used by the delegation to offer "concessions" to the president that will win him over to the development side.

Among the ideas are stronger environmental safeguards, additional land protections or wilderness designations outside the refuge and dedication of some o! the development proceeds to environmental programs.

"There's no lack of things to offer," she said. "This administration is good at finding middle ground and making some deals. I think the delegation sees its mission as finding that middle ground."

Wi~h pessimism growing about any budget deal, however, even Reinwand wasn't holding out much hope. She said she heard that the pro-development lobby should start preparing for a 1997 round of budget talks. .

Environmentalists didn't seem too worried that Clinton would meet with the Alaskans.

"lt makes sense for him to listen," said Brian O'Donnell, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League. "But In the end, I think he'll realize that this area can't be developed in an environmentally friendly way."

D;1(c JAN 1 6 1996 Fairbanks

Daily News-Miner

Cliem ~o. I Lo -'--~---

Stevens expla.ins budget fight, wants to brief Clinton on ANWR

(.:J.o 1~

1M Associated Press ANCHORAGE-U.S. Sen. Ted Steveru; says it is

important that Americans understand what congressional Republicans hope to accomplish in pressing the Clinton administration for a balanced budget agreement.

In a wide-ranging news conference in Anchorage Monday, Stevens said that, without some effort to rein in federal spending, the federal government will eventually go bankrupt.

"This is not an easy fight. This involves a lot of philosophy. But clearly, the goal is something that I think every American ought to understand," Stevens said ....

Stevens rioted that entitlement programs and interest on the national debt make up 70 percent of the fede~al budget, with Congress controlling only 30 percent of the budget through the appropriations procesa.

"U~ess~ we can find a way. to get a balanced budget ·and stop the ever-increasing interest on the ever-increasing debt, we're going to get to the point,...:....rul the medicare trustees point out-where we'll be a ballkrupt xiatio"n," he said.

The White House and GOP leaders are due toresume budget talks on Wednesday, after suspending discussions last week..

Stevens also said he hopes to set President Clinton straight on development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Alaska congressional delegation haS been invited to meet next week with the preSident to discuss ANWR. The fact that President Clinton is willing to discuss development of the refuge is an indication that the issue is not dead yet, said Stevens.

"I don't think the people that have been informing him have been truthful," Stevens said. "I don't think he understands that it was a democratic senator, Sen. Scoop Jackson, who authored the amendment that set that area aside. It was the only

;;_J.

area set aside in the 1980 (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation) act for development. All of the other land covered by that act was preserved.'·

President Clinton has said that the budget-balancing package is not the proper forum for dealing with the issue of development in the refuge. Stevens expressed frustration with the Clinton administration, saying the White House doesn't seem to recognizeAlaska's statehood.

"They act as though we're still a territory," said StevenR. "they do not coruiult with us."

On thil'8ubjci:(<Jf his re-election bid, Stevens said his respansibilities : m Washington, i..r).cluding his chaiririariahip of the powerful Senate Governmental Affairs Committee/would limit the amount of time he will have· to spend campaigning in Alaska.

"I don't expect to have the time to come up here that I might have had if I was a freshman senator and · I hope· AlaakB.ns understand that," Stevens said: "I will come:her~!"to the extent t.b.ftt I can to be involved in the primary process." Anchorage banker Dave Cuddy is challenging Stevens for the Republican nomination for Senate.

Steveru; is supporting Sen. Bob Dole's presidential bid. He said Dole would be able to implement a balanced budget agreement.

With the idea of a flat-tax gaining greater acceptance among the Republican presidential candidates, Stevens said he believes ·the Uriited States is moving towards a flat tax. But he said he has some reservations about the flat tax as proposed by Republican presidential hopeful Steve Forbes. Forbes' flat tax would eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and would exempt unearned income from taxation.

"I will not support a bill that will exempt totally unearned income. People who inherit a billion or two dollars never have to pay taxes. That's got to be w()rked out,'' said Stevens. "!.

QUALITY SERVICES

Date JAN 1 6 1!396


Client No. /.2 0

The Anchorage Times Publisher: BILL f. t\LLE:-.1

"Bdieving in /\la.,kuns. put/in[: Alaska first" t'<iJtur .• rli::\:!':IS FX:\IlLEY. PAl'! IEI\:KI~S. \\'II.I.IAM I T<llJI:--

1 !J, \111 !.,1.-:J:."t· Tu'"?' ( unlflH"flltU'\ 10 tfu~ ~mcrH nf lht" .·\w ltunl.!..'t' l.J.nly .\"rll' dL"""' n••l n·l'w·-...·nl '.l~·· \'It'\\' td the LXul\ .\'t·u:-. ll 1:;. hlllh:n anJ putJIL-.heJ under .ln oi)..!Jl''t'llh'OI \ .... ,,. '••llllt"l 1 1\\lhT) ••I flu• Tutu:>. 111 tlw inlcr\"~1:- uf p~t·n·rng .-t tli\'L"f"'ll\ r,f \'II'Wixunb tn th·· 1 lllllJtliUIII\

Quotes of note ...

'TIIE COASTAL PLAIN of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a disma.l, flat, treeless, featureless. greenish-brown, barren, mosquito-ridden, permafrosted armpit of the universe. Josef Stalin would unhesitatingly have sited a gulag there." -John McCaughey. a consu.lt<.·nt from Alexandria, Va.~ in an editorial commentary in Barron~ endorsing the opening ANWR to oil and gas exploration and development.

tfq.

Dale JAN 1 8 1996 Fairbanks

Daily News-Miner

CliciH :\u .. _,_/· _;:l..~d~---

Senator: 50-50 vote up to state

C. .l.Ll I 2..0

The Associated Press JUNEAU-State law

makers will have to decide whether it is worthwhile to take formal action accepting a smaller share of oil royalties from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Sen. Frank Murkowski said Wednesday.

Alaska le;;ders have informally agreed to split the revenues 50-50 with the ft·der:ll government instead of the 90 percent cut Alaska traditionally gets from oil under the 1959 Statehood Act.

After Murkowski's an-

nual address to the st.:Jte Legislature, Rep. Mike Navarre, D-Kenai, asked the senator whether enacting a formal measure on the 50-50 split would help win federal approval to open the refuge.

Murkowski said he is satisfied with tile state's verbal commitment to accept the lower rovalt\· share. But he saic! putiing. the agreement 011 record might ease the minds of crittcs back in Washington who worry Alaska might renege and sue for the 90 percent cut on royalties if the refuge eventually is opened to oil drilling.

President Clinton opposes the measure and vetoed a budget bill that contained a provision to permit oil-drilling in the refuge. Murkowski said the opening of the refuge "may possibly have to await a new president.··

State Sen. AI Adams, DKotzebue, has proposed a bill that would fonnalize Alaska's acceptance of the 50-50 split.

Date JAN 2 4 1996 Fl\IRB/\NKS

lli\Tl.Y NEWS-M!Nl:R

Clic11t No. (1..~ ---'-----''------

Delegation fu~es away at president By ANDREA CHIPMAN States Nev.s Service t-.::4J C. !Ia f;;..V -'~'IS"A

WASHINGTON-President Clinton presented an upbeat vision of bipartisan approaches to America's problems in his State of the Union address Tuesday, but Alaska lawmakers reacted skeptically to the president's conciliatory tone.

"It was a good speech, but we've heard it all before," said Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska. "On the one hand, he caJled for an end to the era of big government, but then he spent. the next 60 minutes calling for new programs."

Rep. Don Young said Clinton's speech was "public relations."

"This guy is very smooth," said Young, R-Alaska. ·rf anything stood out, it was presentation. He used

See REACT10N, PaQe A-10

REACTION: Delegation t.;LO t,SO /.:J...O ..34-"SA

Continued from Page A-1 the Ronald Reagan format. That's good on national television."

Reflecting the realities of a Republican-dominated Congress and election year politics, Clinton eschewed detailed legislative proposals in favor of broad themesvalues, education, economic security, crime, health care, and the environment.

But Alaska lawmakers argued the president's comments contained inherent contradictions or were transparently political.

"I heard the president trying to turn toward the middle of the road, and doing so in a way that is difficult to understand," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.

"He wants a balanced budget in seven years, and we gave him one and he vetoed it. The continuing resolution and debt ceiling extension were sent ·down on a consent basis--it was 100 percent bipartisan and he vetoed it," Stevens added.

"The era of big government is over," Clinton said, in a line that got the most enthusiastic response from the Republican side of the aisle. The president went on to call for deficit reduction, a family oriented tax credit, and greater self-reliance through "bipartisan welfare reform.

But Clinton also warned against a return "to the time when our citizens were left to fend for themselves," and he proposed a "GI Bill" for American workers that would consolidate 70 existing job training Programs into a $2600 voucher for retraining of unemployed or underemployed workers.

"It's amazing, if I'd heard this speech from·: Jimmy Carter, I'd have been ecstatic," Young said. "Big government over, smaller government, tax cuts, welfare re-

form, now does that sound familiar? "He's co-opting (the Republican message)."

Regarding Clinton's proposal for a new GI bill, Young responded, "That's something that interests me, but how does this come out of a balanced budget? Where does the money come from?"

Stevens attacked Clinton's proposal for a $1,000 merit scholarship for the top 5 percent of high school graduates. "That's a tremendous entitlement.''

"At the same time he asked for increased money for the Pell Grant. but he's the one that cut Pell Grants to increase his national service program," Stevens added. "It's the inconsistencies that stand out."

Murkowski criticized Clinton's warning to Congress not to pass legislation allowing companies to endanger their workers' pension funds.

"I think he has again failed to recognize that if we don't cut runaway spending, we're simply going to increase the deficit," Murkowski added.

Clinton listed the protection of the environment as one of his top priorities, and the president insisted, "We can expand the economy without hurting the environment."

But Alaska lawmakers noted that Clinton failed to mention the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an issue they said highlighted his hypocrisy.

"He said precisely what we've been saying," Stevens said. "That we ought to be able to use our lands. We're telling him we ought to be able to develop th_e arctic without harming the enVIronment, and yet he won't agree."

SATURDAY. January 27, 1996 ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS SECTION D

ir For e cancels refuge training plan By DAVID WHITNEY in the Air Force decision. Daily News reporter Musk oxen often calve about the time

WASHINGTON - Bowing to·. public of the planned exercises. Noise from the pressure, the Air Force has scrubbed fightersalso could have disturbed caribou plans to conduct joint exer·. that often migrate in April through the cises with Canada over ' Brooks Range en route to their calving erally protected grounds in the refuge's coastal plain. areas on Alaska's North Environmentalists had prodded the In-Slope. . . terior Department, which manages the

The April exercises could areas, to object to the exercises because of have involved :fighter. air· the :potential impact of sonic booms on craft scrambling over the wildlife, according to Allen Smith, Alaska Gates of. the Arctic National regional director of the Wilderness Sod-Park and the Arctic National ety. :·_': Wildlife Refuge, including . "The decision that the North Slope has the refuge's coastal plain Boese_ . . . be~n .. deleted i~ genuinely. good news," where· oil development is opposed by :the sa1d Jack Hess10n of the S1erra Club. White House because of the po_tential· . Lt. ;pen. Lawrence Boese, commander harm to wildlife. · . , . ·. · ·· · · of the-Alaskan Command, witl1drew the

Potential wildlife impacts were a factor request· for airspace over the wilderness

'We believe the Air Force made an excellent decision.'

-Deborah Williams, Interior Secretory Bruce Babbitt' a apeclal assistant tor Alaska

areas this week after a meeting with Deborah Williams, Interior. Secretary Bruce Babbitt's special assistant for Alaska.

"We believe the Air Force made an excellent decision," Williams said Friday. "This is a splendid example of the military responding to a broad array of concerns, consistent with their military requirements."·· . .

Maj. Brad Peck, Alaskan Command spokesman; 's'aid Friday that Boese con-

,•

,j

;:.

eluded that the wilderness "was not a place where we ought to be asking for air space at this time" because "the areas might be particularly sensitive."

The exercise, called Amalgam Warrior involves fighters scrambling to intercept · bombers posing as enemy aircraft invading over the Arctic Ocean, which usually is frozen during the spring exercises.

Peck said the wilderness areas were ·: p;oposed as a backup because single-en-.: gme F-16s will be used for the first time.·If. there is an early ocean thaw, he said,:: overland exercises are safer if an F-16 has:: mechanical problems. .•

In cas; of an early breakup this year,:-: Peck sa1d the exercises will be movedsouth over the Yukon-Charley Rivers Nit-:: tiona! Preserve where the Air· Force.:has.::: permanent air space for si.teh training. ·

l

As this issue goes to press. Congress is still pressuring !'resident Clinton to Uf1f1TI!l'<' 11

budget that ullrm·s j(Jr oil and gas drilling u1 the fmgilc coastal elain of the ;\relic National \Vi/dllfe Refuge-though Clin1on fws promised to 1'C/u it. I fc has good rcasuns for keeeing Ins tvon!. including o recent unul1·sis {J_~·

!he US. Fish and 11'1/dhfe Ser'''cc finding !hut sud1 drilling i II'UUid take un ,.,.,·n !'JC,I/Cr loll 011 ll'ildlife tlwn f'T<'I'inusl\· lhouglu. liut u l'elo tlus tunc around 11'lill.t stop the f!Ush to drill in !he (ulurc

In the fu!loll'ing ('(/itonal. /eSSICll Matheii'S. u .\CIIior fellow a/ the Council ()II rurcign Relations. takes on tlzc unending argument for oil and gas drilling in tlu• refuge.

Alaskan~ lhin/.; 1hn h<JI'c a :cr-rible financi;d prublcl!L fo solve II. 1hcv propo~C IO

ruin 1he las1 protcciL'ci r,·agmenl of I he /\ret ic coa~1al

plain-pan of the Arctic Nalionzd Wildlife Rcfu?e (1\NWRl---by opening ittu uii drilling.

llcre·~ the problem. ;\lasb has no state income tax. no ;,;de~ 1<1\ ;1nd lhe lowest fuel taxes in the nation. It has the

' highest per-capil<l income from lhc i'ccleral government uf any Slilll'. Stille SjlCilUIIlg i~ [1\'iC!: lhe n<llional <IICri!gc .'\ml it h;;s an S 18 billion ''"·ings account.

! lhe l'erm<lnL·nt hmcl. thai pru vide;, ;111 <Hillli<Ji Christlll<Js-in Scplcmbcr chec/.; of a lillie lcs~ th<lll $I .000 fur evt:ry llli!n. WOIIJilll and child. You rni>Cht lhin/.; of it a~/A Saudi ;\/as/.;a !.

Here's the I'

lusting After Black Gold By Jessica Mathews

Slope oil revenues th<Jt u;h!,·: ·

write this easy living arc urying up, and the state now has a half-billion-dollar deficit th<Jt\ heading s/.;ywi!rd.

One Gill still thin!,; t>flha!Jd ul· <Jhuut 49 governors who would love 10 ha\·e a fiscal problem /i/.;e Aliisb's. Solutions leap lo lhc mind. lmpusc a Slllilfl ~;1ics lax. Raise the fuel lax a bil. Cut lhc most q';r·cgious spending frills. Usc some of the income from thL· uilfuncled savings account fur the j)lli·posc for unil·cr·~;i/ huiiUS cnl i !Iemen t. ,.\ /;h/.;;1 ns ha' c: a difl'crent <l!lswer: Drill t\N\VJ( ---and hope that puts off the day of reckoning for J few more years.

In Jn unguarded moment ul honesty. !\lasb 's congressional clclcgalion-Scnalors Ted Sievens (R) <lllcl Fran/.; MurKowski (R) and Representative Don Young (Rl-maclc the linbge explicit in a reccnl l.:tler 10 constituents. lllC relc,.,1111 p;rss;1ge S<Jys. in f'u/1: "Oil lc'l·c·nue funds about 85 fk'l'·

cent uf the Stelle's budget. but /'rudlioe Bay is in decline. The .1dmini~tra1ion is threatening to ,.clu lcgislatiL1n to open 1he u ''isla/ plain ...

The other zngurnents lur drilling in the refuge range lrum flimsy lo specious Fur _~-L·ars. a f;JVoritc has been thai it would enhance national securitv by r·eclucing the country's oil 11npon dependence. ·n1a1 won't w<1sh anymore since CongTL·ss <IIIli the adminislralion ha1·L· <~(:reed lo lift the 22-year-old h111 on cxporling r\I;J~K<IIl oil. II we need 10 reduce oil irll· pol'l~. why cxporl our O\\·n'i

.-/~ The hL'q case r /'residents l~c;r

gan {ll1d Bu:-::h could llliiKL' fur opening t\!'i\VR was that chances were onL' in 11\'Ll

Ill<!\ It> pro d uc 1 ion

would rise in a few years to 4 percent of U.S. oil usc, dropping to one percent five years /;llu and less lhercafler. Not surprisingly, Congress clidn'1 lind that a compelling reason to make an irTcvcrsiblc S<lcliflce of the wilclemcss. If in some presently unimaginJblc fu-lure I he nation absolutely re- sup po r1.

quired i\N\VR's oil. il would in \Va:d1 s1ill be ther·e lor the laking. ington. So the

Since then. the lJ ~- Ge- slate's powerful con ological Sun'C\' (USGS) gressional dclegatioJJ. hz1s slashed the expected whose members chair buth lind by more than half. !\n off. the House Jnd Senate NJtural sho1-c well clrilfcd in one of I he l<.esources Committee~. caine most promising areas was a up with a sweetener. They pro-bust. Anolher hi I oil but not in pose to give half of the hoped-developable quanlity. !hough for leasing revenue to Wash-the company. Ailantic Rich- ington. which helps ma/.;e lhc field. is stiff enthusiastic. ' numbers work in the Rcpubli-

Meanwhilc. the expected cans' dcficit-reduclion plan. markel in which !\NWR oil If Congress counts on lhe would have to compete hJs money. however, it is playing a turned from 1igh1 to squishy. chump's game. The state has Projected oil prices for the year p10111ised to sue for any sr· 2000 m·c down f1·orn $38 to less than the 90 perccnl il SllJ per barrel. That tums lhc lines is guaranteed by 1.

induslry':; fl\'c-year-old projec- Slzilchood !\ct. lion. which it i~ now shame- i !\Iaska's congressmen want lcssly 1-ccycling. of 700.000 i the rwme of I he Arctic National jobs created nationwide. from \Vildlife Refute chJnged to the highly unlikely to i<1Ughable. .'\rei ic Oil Reserve. It's revcal-

'fl1c last -resort claim is that ing th<ll what's gone is not jus I drilling won't ma/.;e much dif- wildlil'e. but the nalionJI inter-ference to this narrow plain e~.t as well. Until Congress acl,, lhat is the biologically crucial they unilaterally have adoplcd pan-the binhing. dcnning. the new acronym, AOR. If the feeding and nursery ground--- i\N\VR proposJI docs pass. the of a much lar·gc,·. fragile and delegation has a lot more to unique ;\relic ccusystcm 1-\ut follow. including development no matler ho\1· envirPnmental- in the· Tongass National Forest ly scnsili\c lhe efforl. 400 and !uming bac/.; 70 million miles of roads. II production auc:; of federal lands :o lhc facililies. fom <Jirstrips. two -;t:IIL'. pons. rnas~ive gr<J,·el mining lnqcml. Congrc~s ~houlcl and housing fm :-;e\eral 1/iou gi1e the ;\NWR propo~;~l lhc sand. plus associated emission~ tr,_:at!llC!JI il deserves. In I he and toxic wastes arc ;1ot \\'hal :;p11i! ,,f adopting !lC\1' <:~1-(1-

most people expel'! ()r \\'iidcr 11\111> il ,:ould send ai<J:Jg <l

ness. Neither will tile' plants tl;C5>agc as well: GRA. Get , ;mel animals. Rca!. Alasb. The re~l or us

What's left') 1\ short-lcrm would lrade for your trouble~ fix that might nr 111igli1 nut Fac•.' the real choices ncn\'--prolong the od-weii<Jie' st;!le I ;\NWR isn't the answer. Not much there lo ar__oL~~:l. ~~2'e\Vasl~~~"-~~''_

Voice Oj'·w·'·fhe Times The Anchorage Times ARCO in Alaska: A partner for 40 more years

PufJ/t,.;hnr: BILL J, ALLEN "lldw~·'''X 111 lllcn•kuns. puflin~ tllusku fir,. I"

l.•f,;., ill.'.'.f'·,! 1{.\!li.LY 1':\l;J j!·:;-...'KI.\:~ \\'lll.lt\~1/ 1'\li!L\: '1'1••· l1u I!JJnl:.~· IIIII<'• I ·'"'"'"'111.11' HI ltu-. '''gllh'Jl! ••! th•• ;\/11/tuiH-..;•·I.AIIfl ,\',."' ,],,,., "''' !1']"'"'''111 1Jw I'll'\'' "lth·· /Jul/1 \•·u, lr I• "11111'11 .on.! p•d•ll,l•nluudo·l .HI ·•}:P't'llh'!ll w1lh !t•itiWI ""II''" ••I Tho· "1'1111•'~. Ill \]w 1111• w .. h ,,f JH'''' o\ 111~ ,, dl\'<'1'111\ ,.j 1 ~<'HI" tlllh 111llw LtJIIlflliHIII\.

No free rides T HE LEGISLATIVE Affairs Agency's annual report of travel

and per diem expenses this year puts a spotlight on something to cheer about -- the fact that a number of Alaska lawmakers took to the road tu do business for the state in places that business had tu be done

The report, required by law to be issued ever)'·Jan. 31, includes expenses involved m moving leg~slators <md their families to and from .JU11eau for the four-month lawmaking session, the per diem costs while on the job i11 the capital and chaz·gcs made while on offi-cial travel during the year. . ..

In the paslithere)ilisi~ criticism of big-spending-lawmakers, i.ncludi11g those who racked up more than a norrnal amount of travel expenses.

Not so this year. The lawmakers who spent a tad more than usual m 1995 had a couple of valid reasons to do so. They're called ANWR and the export ban.

BipartlS<li1 g~·oups oCicgislators, including the leadership of both houses, made frequent trips to Washington last year. There are no free rides for coast-to-coast travel - it costs a bundle. But it was necessary to lobby Congress on two big issues: the opening of the Arctic National Wtldlife Refuge for oil and gas development, and the lifting of the ban on the export of North Slope crude.

Lawmakers also traveled to a number of diifereht states to meet with other legislators, newspaper editorial boards, business leaders and comrmmity officials. especially to solicit supp01t for the opening ofANWR.

THE AGENCY, i.n fact, created a new category of official travel e.,-penses in the 1995 report, speciftcaUy labeled "ANWR." It helped identify Uw pricey necessity oflong-dist..'lrlce lobbying.

Hou,;t• ;.lpeakcr Gail Phillips and St'nate !'resident. Druc Pearce. for exarniJic. each spent more than $10,000 in travel t.o Washington <Jnd elsewhere across l.hl' country to give Alaska's pitch in support of operung the coastal pla111.

Other 1\NWR traveling was charged to Sens .. John 'Ibrgenson, Judy SaJo, Mike Miller and Loren Leman, and Heps. Nonn Rakeberg, Mike NavmTe, Beverly Masek. Jerry Mackie .. Joe Green, Gcu-y Davis and Bettye Davis It was all for a good cause.

According to the Alaska congressional delegation and tu officwls 11t Arcl!c Power. the non-partisan organization responsible for coordinating the staLe's lobbv111g effort u; open AJ~\VR, the participation by state legislawrs was c1·uc1al. The fact that AN\VR legislation made it through Congr0ss for the fu·st time ever. and that. the expon ban was lifled and s1g-ned into law by the pres1dent, attests to the \';tlu1· nf t h~· ·.;t:Jtl ·~, f'11il t• ·.~ fll f•fTiwt

Th~.· jiJI!utl rng un· ,·_rr,'tjJt ..... jinrll a Jan. '.!! :·:pccch ;:u·~·n In· :Hd.·~· .'t nutdin, chotr nlilll o11d clu•{•·.u·cullV<' ujfica of'ARCO. ul the Ul/11/l(lillll'<'{/1(" u(lhe Alasha Suv fX)t'( Industry .'\1/l(ul(·e.

By MIKE R. BOWLIN

Let me prdi1ce rny wmmenLs by saying that AHCO may be headquartered in Los Ang~les, but Alaska is really our home base. We're planning on being her<> for a vpry long Linw to coml'. I cM't emphasize t.ltat <:IHl\lglt w,. th1nk 1'\Lska ha~ a Vl'f)' :-:.lrorJg l'Hvq.;y l"llltln·. and we'll be here, helptng tu m;tk<· 11 lwpp<:n.

That':=; why we'r·l· W11rk1ng :-;u hard to keep ARCO Alaska lw:dtltv and comJX'LI· tive. We're dulflg tilt' i.>y llllproving our existing Ojx~r<~t iuns -- thr"ugh disci pi ined capital 'IX!nd1ng - :liHI through deVl'lopmenL and appl!c;~llon ol new tk<:hnologies that lowl•r cost~. :1dd reserves nnd inl'l'l.'iiSl'

product. ion On t.he polittcnl

scene, too, a lot ol' g<Xxi things are happening. The relallonsh1p between governrnent and industry in this sta~ really needed fixing up. For too many years, we spent too much time fighting, and too liLLie time cooperating. Fmtunatdy. that's changing.

There will always be tensions and compromises, Md that's OK But as far as the overall bus1ness atmosphere in Alaska goes, it's a 180-degree change from the past. Tiu! political leadership in Lhe swt.e is really doing some very good things.

Lifting tht• oil export ban was a big step. And I've l><!en really amazed by the way l'Vt'I')'Dill' has Jlltllt·d togel her Itt ll) LO open llJ! :\NWI\ -- member,; or Congress, the governor, legislaLive lead· t.•rs. 1\t~publ ie:111,, llt·tnoc-rnts. N'ative,, i>usmess. org;li11Zed l:1hor the who!" kit and c;lixxxllv.

We don't know wlwt will happen. The administnltton 111 Wnshin:,,'1on is strongly opposed w openmg up Al"'WR But as for the etron here 111 Alaska - well. you just couldn't :tsk f(ll· more.

. JurH'<-lll h;IS gone uut of its way, ll ,l'L'Il1S t.o 111l'. to L~ll the world that AJ;1ska ~~"open f'o1· bustrH .. ·s~." t\nd 1 think the best exam pi<' or tlw new attitude is in t.he toughc>sl arl';\ of all !'rom the oil indus-

,·,·'-., (l• q 111 '>I \'!< "\\ l '!'\!''-.

d1dn't likt• tht• way North Slope crude was be1ng valued lot· 1m; purposes. Before 19~1~. l<LXp<lyel-,.; waitt,d years before findIng out what the Department of I:Wvenue wanted to apply t.o the oil.

In those years. iL was a fight every inch of the way, with govenuncnt <md industry spending tens of millions of doUars for legal l'Olll1$<?l during complex <md confusing Lax calculation clispuws. Finally, we arrived al a wav to estnblish a fair market value forth~ oil -by averaging Llw monthly spot p1ices f(>r Nm1.h Slope cmde.

Now, l<lXp<I)'CI"S know ;ll the time they file their tax rl'turns the value they should put on the oil. That's a realistic. market-based, l~Juiwble appmach - and at a stroke it eliminawd one of the largest and most conlt'nllous issues 1n the long hist.ory of tax disputes in this state.

A bill newly pa,sc•cl by the I .Ch~slature and signed by Lil<' govemor oil("" tJw kmd of mL-cnllvt• I'm t;llking ;dx~tll. It t'!l1!)(l\U'I:-

Lhe Department of N;~tural lu,sourcb tu adjust myalt.~' ratt•s f(tr marginal fil'ids - 1f they Judge it to l:x· 1n the• st;ttl-'s intet\"l.

The Legislature is ;dso proposing <I

heavy od ~1x incentive to speed development of West Sak and Shrnde1· Bluff And they have another good idea - areawide leasing un the North Slope.

BecmJS(' of dt'lays built mto the sUllt' k:t:«• sale pm~;r:1111.-it can l:lke I 0 vears tn gu !ium IdL'llllf~·ing H pn>~JXX't to pnx:iucmg 1L .-\n!U·\\'Jde k·;L..;lng c-ould cut UwL m half - and n1ake U\'<lil~lble more prospectivl' at'l\'<<ge 111 mn: an:as on the N01th SlofX'·

\Vt• n{'t•d thi:-; kind of t'f1l'OUI'il~~C'I1ll'!1t If\ \!.I._,\\ ' ! ! \1 'i "' ! ~!I'\' !!: t ,;.__ I~

pnrl do we plav·: I t!11nk the best an,w1:r· 1~ that \\'l! openltL' our bu:;messes in tht' best wuy pu~siblt· - vllictently. creatively, cost effectively Th"t means rnaximiz· ing the benefit or oil development w the state by investing in new production, by employing Alaskans, and by doing busi· ness with Alaska-based, Alaskan-owned eompanies.

We must. also continue to operate in ways that minimize tht· impact of otu· activities on the envirwHHL*nt. I assure you. no one is more cummiltl'cl to the sale ·pn>duction and tram;ponauun of Alaska oil than AHCO and our JJartners.

Finally. we mu:;L stay competitive. \Vl''re going to continue to be very cost·

con!'Cious. but we're also willing to invest.. Over t.he next fiVl' year,;, we1l spend about $1.1 billion 111 Alaska. Included is $600 million i(,,· cuntmued cle,·elopmcnl of exist-111;: lil'ids :!nclltuther cl1·,·elopmenl dJilhng <1l 1\up:<ntk, Point ~klm,·n• and Pn,dhtx.· lbv

\Ve're spendm~ S!U tnillion at. West Sak to trv out '<lllle new ideas. If they work. 11L'~l year Wl''ll hH\'l' a "pay as ym; gu" systetn - clrdl :;e,·c"·al- wells, if they pay out. clt·ill several more. and so on.

:\t Lhl' exploration end, our five-year capJtal plan allocates $150 million to :\la . .;kn. We'll l>l' looklll.>! nenr cxistin>! pnxiucl!on or wh(•n• \\'t' h;l\'l' transfXJ!'t:l·

lion 111 pl:!t't' . Sumnung up t.l1c· uti snu:<Uon in 1\Jask.t.

I tJ<ink if you conside1· all the possibilitil·~. 1t's pretlv evident that the North Slope i> ~m,'thing hul dL';Id. :\.'-' f(Jl' life e:qx•ctanc:·• '' t • n · t h 111k ltl~! tn tt ·:·r n.-.. 1 d , 1not !wr -10 \'f•: 11·~

-:'l

QUALITY SERVICES

Date FEB 1 6 1SSS


Client No. f 7...cr ----"""---

Stevens expects n ANWR''flip-flbp Alaska's senators to meet with Clinton

L· :>-<.> I .2.-0 :3 'I s-f1 ..; <U By DIRK MILLER The Associated Press

JUNEAU - Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, says he doesn't think President Clinton will change his mind this year on opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.

Stevens spoke . before a joint session of the Legislature Thursday, giving a speech that focused on the federal government's treatment of Alaska, including refuge development, wetlands and military base closings.

The Clinton administra

last year that would have opened the refuge's coastal plain to oil exploration. Stevens said Alaska's congressional delegation is to meet with Clinton on Feb. 28 to talk about the issue.

"Being pragmatic, I do not expect the president to change his mind on the matter," Stevens said. The refuge provision is still intact in the Republicans' latest • balanced-budget ef-fort · -· , .... ·· ·· , HclU~s~ re~ders a;e .:.~~lti~g' to,. see -~'how ·. the meeting turns out before' deciding whether to take the refuge

tion blocked legislation Please see Page 8-3, STEVENS

STEVENS: ANWR meeting set C. X? (~ ...- '<'R'l ~ tf.d " ...

I Continued from Page B-1 J s1;1ch ~s tl)~:: effort to build~ . . p1pelme to pump naturat provision out of the budget plan.

Senate President Drue Pearce, an Anchorage Republican, said Alaska's delegation has not given up on the refuge legislation, but they are concerned that it will be caught up in presidential election politics.

"They will continue to fight for it and do everything at every turn that they can," Pearce said.

Rep. Mike Navarre, a Kenai Democrat who was involved in the Legislature's effort to convince Congress to open up the refuge, said Stevens was not completely down on its chances.

"I think he also put in the caveat that it could still happen," Navarre said. "We've got to look at 'it beyond this year."

Stevens said Clinton might be willing to help Alaska out on other issues,

gas from the North Slope, to Valdez, where it could.; be sold to Asian countries .. ·

The sale of natural gas:. could help ease the state's{i budget problems, Stevens:

1 said, until the coastal plain: could be developed.

In tesponse to a question~. fr.,m 3en. Loren Leman, arr:· An-.:horage Republican,'. Stev.;r,s said the state's .. military bases appear. to be'_; safe from base-closing at-:1 tempts for at least the next'. five years. .

The state's senior sena-: tor said he expects Con-; gress to work out a welfare· reform bill that Clinton would support. ·

I

Stevens told lawmakei'S· that he expects to be the: next chairman of the pow-: erful Senate Appropria-: tions Committee, which· should help him shield. agencies important to Alas-: ka from budget cuts.

\1 FEB 2 2 1996 FAIRBANKS

DAILY NEWS-MINER

Client No. ( 2._ 0

Is it reall a pu lie h wh n the public isn

C.;;J.<J l:l4 3'fS:t1'1 t.30 oto 1 t-30 t, vo

• ar1ng heard?

Public hearings are fast becorning a farce here in Alaska. Supposedly, a "public" hearing is designed to give the public a chance to testify and offer their opinions and information for the benefit of policy makers. However, when the policy makersin thM case the AIB.Bka Congressional . delegation-are totally committed to their own strongly held views, any public hearing they sponsor seems to permit input only from those who will uphold their positions.

What about the democratic process? Forget it-we're in charge now, and we will do as we please. In various fonns, this is the message Alaska citizens are getting from their elected representatives on a host of issues having to deal with the management and/or disposition of our public landB.

Look at the recent past. Back in August, Sen. Murkowski announced a Field Hearing in Washington, D.C., of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee (which he now headB) on SB 1054, the "Southeast Alaska Jobs and Communities Protection Act," which Murkowski authored. Known in Southeast Alaska as the "Timber Baron Revival Bill," it was designed to wipe out the compromises achieved in the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 by mandating the Forest Service to supply enought timber harvest to maintain 2,400 timber jobs at the expense of all other uses of the Tongass.

Sen. Murkowski read some of the testimony Alaskans were journeying to WB.Bhington, D.C., to present, discovered his bill was in trouble, then canceled the public hearing and held a "workshop" which doesn't have a mandate to place testimony in the public record. Alaskans who had spent their own money to get to Washington, D.C., to testify were understandably outraged.

On another issue, that of opening the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, which Murkowski and Stevens slipped into the controversial budget bill, Murkowski used taXpayers money to set up a televised program featuring only

------------------Celia

Hunter

those in favor of this move, including British Petroleum's Roger Herrera and representatives of the North Slope Borough, Arctic Slope Regional Corp. and Kaktovik Native Corp. No qualified biologists or wildlife management experts, no one from the Gwich 'in villages, no one from the environmental communityand he practically put words into the mouths of those speaking to make sure they kept to his script.

In December, Sens. Stevens and Murkowski put on another "dog and pony show" at a press conference in Washington, D.C., accompanied by state Legislature leadership, and the same corporate Natives from the North Slope, beating the drum for oil development in ANWR.

When a local Fairbanksan had the temerity to question Stevens and the state Senate president about their saying that all Alaskans support oil drilling on ANWR, mentioning that the refuge is ·federal land belonging to all Americans, and that a CNN poll ~d resulted in two out of three people opposing drilling there, Stevens grabbed the microphone from Sen. Pearce and called the Fairbanksan "a liar!"

When the Fairbanksan commented quietly: "I am offended by that." Stevens replied: "Good. Be offended," and the press conference ended abruptly.

During the most recent series of hearings, carried out by Rep. Don Young in Southeast Alaska on his proposal to transfer ownership of the Tongass National Forest to the state of Alaska, testimony was limited by Don to two Southeast cities most supportive of increased timber harvestingWrangell and Ketchikan-with only bona fide residents of those two cities allowed to speak.

Even so, Don got some negative feedback on his audacious scheme from folk representing

development interests, who ob jected to the trashing of mon than 100 years of federal rna nagement of these public lando belonging to all the citizens o: the United States.

Sen. Ted Stevens carried oc: an equivalent foray into Alash tD get support for his propose<: reorganization of the federal go· vemment and all its agencies, departments and programs, strictly limiting testimony to a hand· picked list of folk who had hto blessing to present the most ne· gative possible view of federal activities and policies in Alaska.

He also failed to obtain 100 percent negative testimony Doyon's representative expressee the Native corporation's appreCl· ation of the excellent cooperation they have received from the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management in their various ventures. And one person actually pointed out that the con· gressional seniority system is the culprit, particularly the way in which one person and one state can tie up powerful chairman· ships over many years, thu.s downgrading the ability of other individuals and states to influ· ence legislative activities.

He also struck another blow at a favorite tactic of our Congressional delegation-that of tacking irrelevant amendments or riders that have no relation to the subject of the bill onto important legislation. If each bill had to b<: germane to its title, ordinary citi· zens could follow legislation more intelligently, and our elected representatives could not carry out underhanded campaigns to push their self-serving legislative goals.

Probably the most dangerou.s tactics being tried by the new Republican majority in the U.S House and Senate is the coldly calculating campaign being waged by such aB Rep. Istook ffiOklahoma) to eliminate the public's ability to present their opinions on legislative proposalB. That's downright scary. We've always said a dictatorship can't happen in America, but such measures could lead the way.

C..lil! Hurrt!H" has b&on activo in ~ Alaska comervation mov~ dnce 1960.

Anchorage Daily News Tuesday, February 27, 1996

·The--AJ)chorage Times . Pdblisher: BILL J. ALLEN

. ?Believing inAia~kans, putting Alaska first" 'Editor$: ·,DENNIS FRADLEY. PAUL JENKINS. WILLIAM f. TOBIN

The Anchofoie Times COmmentary in· thls segment of the 1\nchoroge Daily News does not represent the views of the Daily News. II is written and published under an agreement with fonner owners of The Times, in the interests of preserving a diversity of viewpoints in the conummity.

Clinton meeting WHEN THE three members of Alaska's congressional delega

tion sit down to talk with President Bill Clinton at the White House this week, the main topic will be the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Many Alaskans maybe wondering: Why bother? Only the most die-hard ofbpf;i.rriists ~Congress taking action this year as it did last fall to authoiize th~ production of oil and gas on·the coastal plain. .. . . .

Last y~'s vote was. a,n"extraordinaiy ~ccomplislunent - dne that requjred the harQ. work and coordinated efforts of hundreds of Alaskans, lhrJ.l1q!Qgt;J;l~_g9vernor, state legislators, la,bor and Native officials, busiriess andcrviCieaders and countless individual Alaskans - not to mention Sens. Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski and Rep. Don Young.

Unfortunately, the ANWR legislation got sidelined along with Congress' efforts to balance the budget following the long standoff with the administration.

'lbday, even if Congress could be motivated to act favorably on ANWR again, few conSider it likely that the legislation could get past the preside'ht .:__ given tlie administration's outspoken opposition.

After all, the argument goes, this is Clinton's last year of a fouryear term and he's campaigning for re-election. One of his principal support groups - the riationaJ enVironmental lobby - would never allow him to approve legislation to open ANWR.

SO WHY, then, are Stevens, Murkowski and Young heading to the White House to talk with the president on the subject?

The answer is: For one thing, ~aska's trio in Congress is among those die-hard optirriiSts on ANWR who don't intend to give up the fight.

For another, the three lawmakers are not so sure that Bill Clinton is as committed agahi:st developing America's most promising onshore oil reservoir as are the vice president and the secretary of Interior. Al GDre and Bruce Babbitt have been the most outspoken antagonists in the adnllnistration. Perhaps Mr. Clinton, cognizant of his responsibilities as president of the United States, can be persuaded to take a more pragmatic position.

Clinton knows, for instance, that opening ANWR is a top priority of the 14 milliqn-member AFL-CIO national labor organization. Like environmentalists, blue collar workers are a primary group of voters Clinton will be counting on to return him to office. He may listen more closely, therefore, to the Alaska delegation's pitch about h<;>w. ,ANWR can be developed safely.

It certainly can't hUrt to try.

orage~o all

I VOL U, N0.60 66 PAGES o ANCHORAGE. AlASKA. THURSDAY. FEBRUARY 29. 1996 PRIC~- ·.5'?.· :crms

wa li t pitch fails to . I

By OAVIO WHITNEY Daily News repone<"

WASHINGTON - Alaska's congressional delegation emerged !rom a 30-mi.nute meeting with Pre-sident Clinton Wednesday and reported they thought they made progiess in convincing him o! the wl.sdom o! oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildll!e Re!uge.

all-Republican delegation, Clinton has not promisi.ng location for a giant oil discovmodified his longtime opposition to o~n- ery ln North America. The devdopro<.'.nt Is ing the refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal backed by the oil industry and tht! state. plain to oil development. wWch could reap billioc..s of dollars ln

'The president was pleased to listen." leasing revenues a.nd royo.ltie~ it huge said Ba.rTy Toiv, spokesman for Wbite amounts o! oil were found. Ho~ Chld of Stat! Leon Panetta. who But opposition to driUine is fier-ce attended the meeti.ng along with Vice beca~ o! the co us tal plain·~ l.mportancc President Al Gore. to wUdlite. Environmentalists regard pro·

of the House Resources Commlttee and, with Murkowski heading the co=pond:~ ing Sen.ate panel, the two lawmakers commanded the top two congressional· committees w:-iti.n.g Mtural resources law.

Tb e twa 1 a wr:o..a.k e rs lose rte<l ln to a budget bill legislation that would o~n the retuge and share the esllm.ated -$2.6 billion in lease lncome equally ~tween the state and tbe !e<!e.ml governments. Clinton vetoed that measun: lor a number o( reasons. lndud.ing the drilling provi- · sion.

"It wa:~ a very worthwhile m~ting and I'm optimistic," said Sen. Frank Murkows.kl, ch.oJ.rm.an ot the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Comm1ttee.

"The president understands how tectlon o! the retuge as one ot tht!ir most strongly they !eel about this," Toiv said. sacred causes and Clinton has been on "But he did not give them any reason to their side. belleve be ls changing his views - and be The drilling debate intensified last year

However, the Whl~ Hou:se !>aid Iuter that while the pr=ident listene<i to the

ls not." with the a=sion ln power ol the Alas-The roastal plain is considered the· most kans. Rep. Don Young ~arne chairman

------~------~--------------------

A R: President listens, remains unswayed ,..L_---=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-~-=--=---=--=--=--=----=1

Con 111'1 u«J tram p tiQ6 B- 1 .

But the Alaskans could be in an even better position next year to press !or drilling it Republicans hold control of the Howe and Senate after the November electlon:s. Sen. Te<l Stevens, now a senior m=ber o! the Senate Appropriations Comm1ttee, Is in line to bec-ome chairman o! the powerful sp-ending panel.

The projected $1.3 billloo. in federal revenue:s !rom le11.s!.ng and the jobs that development would create were key elements o! Wednesday's Wblte House meeting. The A.l.a5 kans s.a.i d Clinton list en e<! care!ully.

"I think he was very courteous in listenln.g to us and very interested in the jobs Issue, very interested in .some of the suggestions about what we could do with that money i! we developed the oil :reserve in the arctic - money, tor i.n.stance, to help pay !or the Everglades n..-storation and other projects that we know he wants," Steven.s ,;uid.

"As chairman o! the appropri.atioD$ comm1ttee, I had to tell him there isn't goi.ng to be any money unless we get a new stream a! money," Stevens $aid i.n a prem11ture re!erence to his potential com· mitt<--e status i.n the 1997.

Not everyone was openly upbeat about the prospects of turning Clinton around on the dril.Ung issue.

Stevens said: "You don't make progress with presidents, you make suggestions and outllne the Issues."

Even Murkow-ski held out little ho~ that opening the refuge could occur this year with Clinton up !or re--election.

"We're not that tar along to suggest that we've gotten anything other than a good opportunity to brief the president on the fact.s," Murkowsk.i sal d.

But the delegation's mood was more positive than was Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles' after a IS-minute m~tlng with Clinton last November on the re!uge.

"We agreed to d~." Knowles, a Democrat, said then.

The Alaska RepubUca.n.s, who have cri.ticl.zed the environmental policies ot the Clinton admln.istration, had nothing but good words to $aY about the president.

"I think thAt was the longest time I've se<!D a president give an Alas.k.an issue ln a long time." Stevens :tal d.

Murkowsk.l called the president "very gracious." And even Young, among the president·, most unr-elenting critic:;, lett the meeting smlli.ng and joking.

"We played thre-e ga.rncs o! gin and had a great time," Young quip~d

Debbie Reinwand. former executive director and now a board member o( pro-development Arctic Power, said she ~s good oe ws in all th.J.s .

"I don't think anyone can expect any president to go back on a campaign position," she said in a telephone interview. "It won't h.app-e.n with a snap o! the !lngen. It's going to take some long-term cultivation tor this to change and everyone i.s working wdl on thls together."

Reinwand sa.id the pu.radc o! support for d.rUling b<~gun with Knowles' Novt!Illber trip to the Wbite House. continu~"<l

with letter:; ot support from lnbor leader.; backing a lea.~e sale and expand~ with the delegation's meeting Wednesday.

But Pam Miller, dir-ect<:>r of the Alaska Coalition ot environmental organ.iz.ations oppose<! to drlllLng, said the pro-development lobby i.s deluding itso>.lf tf it thinks they've begun to crack the White House.

"The president knows where the A=eri.can JX"'ple stand on this - and it's tor

protection ot Lhe refuge," s.be said. "Any spinning the Alaska del.:gut1on may do that the president may chat'4:e his mind is simply dreaming."

I

No ground gained on Arctic oil drilling 11 Congressional delegation didn't budge Clinton

By BETTY MILLS -WA&HI~ aUftaAU

WASHINGTON Alaska's congressional delegation did not convince President Clinton to approve oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge at a Wednesday night meeting.

The delegation, however,.came away knowing they provided the president with new information.

"No, we didn't change his mind," said Sen. Ted Stevens after the 45-minute session in the White House Oval Office. "We didn't go in there thinking we could change his mind.''

" ... I do think he is better infonned," said Rep. Don Young.

egation requested a meeting with the Democratic president as the ANWR issue came to a critical stage in federal budget negotiations. The budget bill passed by Congress and vetoed by the president included a provision authorizing drilling in the 1.5-millionacre ANWR coastal plain.

In addition to the president and the Alaska delegation, att~ndees included Vice President A1 Gore, White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, and Katie McGinty chief White House environmental adviser.

Clinton seemed particularly interested in a large photo depicting the frozen tundra of the Arctic coastal plain, the delegation said. He also was unaware of the land ownership of part of the area by Natives in. Kaktovik.

The delegation came away impressed at the amount of time

granted to them by President Clinton, and the cordial reception they encountered. Gore's strong opposition to ANWR development was evident, however, they said.

"President Clinton never stated a negative about our position," Stevens. said. "But we saw a glower in the face of the vice president."

Sen. Frank Murkowski also made a pitch for greater timber harvests in the Tongass National Forest as part of a general appeal to lift restrictions on Alaska resource development.

"This is really a jobs issue. These are high-paying union jobs," Murkowski said of ANWR development.

The delegation, accompanied by one staff aide, displayed a series of maps and charts to illustrate the size of.the coastal plain In comparison with the rest of

__ ,, I do think he is better ~\ informed. ~

___ R,.,on Young r Alaska. Young also presented a book on Alaska Natives and Stevens turned over a series of letters from union leaders who back ANWR development.

As for what happens next on ANWR, the delegation is continuing to push for inclusion of ANWR development in the second round. of budget negotiations.

During the White House meeting, President Clinton also asked the delegation for ideas to deal with the stalled negotiations on a Pacific salmon treaty.

f --.:;,

-.~ The all-Republican Alaska del-................ ~ ...................................... ~~--------~~~~·=-~= '

fir/ 1111 /) n h n ly

The Arctic National Wildlife RefL1ge: the l)est oft l1e last vvild places

( I ~-

Beneath peaks of Alaska's Brooks Range, shallow fork ofSheenjek River snakes past yellowing willow stands.

There are other glorious wilderness areas in

America but none quite as magnificent,

as controversial or as Jar north as this one

Bears, bears, bears. ivly backpacking partner and I ha\T bcc11 011 the loosc

for more than a week now in a splendid chunk of northe-astern .-\Iaska only slightly smaller than the statc of Maine. This is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, commonly known as ANWR or "the Arnie." It's nne of the two or three largest protected wildernesses in thc United States and by far the most controversial. Oil companies are pushing hard to get in, presen·ationists are battling to keep them out, and the clash has been frontpage news for months. We came here to sec what all the fuss is about, but ever since we rendeznlused ,,·ith our bush pilot in Fort Yukon, we've been distracted, if that's the right word, by the presence of bears. Grizzly bears, to be precise.

It began when the hunting guide who helped us load our gear into Don Ross' Cessna 185 recounted how a surly sow had charged him a week earlier on the Kongakut River, not far from where we \vere headed.

"I shouted at her, but she kept coming, .. he said. "Next I threw my hat, and she still kept coming. Then I whipped off my backpack and heaved that at her, and she finally stopped." He smiled innocemlr.

"Thank you for sharing that with us." [ said. On the way up, Ross spotted a mother and a pair of

cubs moseying around near Last Lake. Making an approach for a landing on the meadow next to Joe Creek, we flew over a dark, humpbacked figure lurking in a stand of willows. It ran off into a nearby ravine. A couple of days later, we roused a magnificent she-grizz with her nvo youngsters several miles downstream. The same thing happened again when we were camped on the west branch of the Sheenjek River, only this time the creatures were in no hurry to leave.

You can encounter grizzlies just about anywhere in Alaska, but somehow it seems almost obligatory to get spooked by them in the Arctic Refuge. Like the bear, it is huge, exciting and full of surprises. It extends all the way from the shrubby flats of the Porcupine River northward across the majestic Brooks Range to the Beaufort Sea, 200 miles away. It contains nearly 20 million acres of mountains, valleys and tundra, 18 major river systems and a vivid swath of coastal plain that serves as the summer range of the Porcupine caribou herd. It is home to wolves and Dall sheep, musk-oxen and moose, sea lions, whales and walruses. It's a jumble of peaks and ridges, an infinity of tawny hillsides.

Unlike the grizzly, however, the Arctic is not as tough as it looks. Its solitude and silence are easily disrupted. Underlaid by permafrost, much of the land is fragile, and the arid northern climate makes it exceptionally vulnerable to physical abuse.

The folks who created the preserve back in the 1950s understood this. Development was not what they had in mind. They knew that wildlife refuges in "the lower 48"

33

1\cr<.: open to mining, logging and many other kinds of private enterprise. But the Arctic was ~upposed to be special-no mere table scrap of habitat but a sumptuous feast of wilderness, not a refuge in any conventional sense of the word but "an inviolate wildlife sancwary," as 0ne of its founding fathers put it, large enough to be biologically self-sufficient and strictly off-limits to commercial use.

Until now, at least, that's pretty much the way it has 1vorked out. Notwithstanding repeated attempts to chip away at it for one thing or another, the Arctic Refuge remains basically intact-a bit bloodied, perhaps, but unbowed. And to thousands of conservationists and other

-!....----·--·---.. -·- --· admirers all over the country, it is indeed more than a park or a refuge, more than a preserve. It's different

Fantastic shapes chiseled out oflimcs10ne mount<~ins by frost and water cast long shado1,·s in the Arctic sun.

from anything that has ever existed. It is, in a very real sense, hallowed ground, a sacred trust-the biggest and best of the last wild places.

The struggle to set aside this jewel of the North began not long after the end of\Vorld War II, a time when a lot of things were happening at once in Alaska. The drive for statehood was well under way, with all that implied for future disposal of the Territory's 570,000 square miles of land, and the search for oil across the North Slope was on in earnest. In 1950, an Arctic expert warned Olaus Murie about the dire implications of industrialization for the wilderness there. Murie, a wildlife biologist based in Moose, Wyoming, was the president of a small but potent national group that called itself the Wilderness Society. He in turn shared his concerns with George Collins and Lowell Sumner, who were spearheading an effort by the National Park Service to idemify areas in Alaska worthy of protection.

Collins, a big, outgoing man with an impish sense of humor, was a senior planner in the agency's San Francisco office.- The tall, balding Sumner (Collins called him "Doc") was a biologist, photographer and pilot. Sumner was less extroverted than Collins arid much more the pure scientist, but the two men shared a boyish enthusiasm for the outdoor life that prompted a mutual acquaintance to refer to them, years later, as "soul mates." They traveled all over Alaska, invenLorying plants and animals and taking note of outstanding features. After a ' · while, they began to pay special attention to the im-mense region north of Fort Yukon, between the Can-ning River and the Canadian border.

Collins had been advised by the U.S. Geological Surl·ey that this part of Alaska would remain well beyond the reach of any future oil and gas exploration. "(It) seemed to us to be the very best we could find for major park purposes anywhere in the Arctic," he later recalled. It boasted the region's highest peaks and most extensive glaciers. It was, he and Sumner discovered, a "completely undisturbed" cross section of Arctic terrain. As for the scenery, Collins enthused, it was "enthralling ... simply stupendous, beyond description." He and Sumner decided the area should be preserved-all of it.

They spent one summer camping in Sheenjek River country, at Last Lake, and at Schrader Lake, where they hooked up with the eminent Scottish ecologist F. Fraser Darling and zoologist A. Starker Leopold. The next year thev scouted the Kongakut and Firth River drainages.

Collins ventured into the Firth area for the first time with Hugh House, a colorful pilot from Fairbanks who had done some prospecting near joe Creek and knew a meadow where he could land. After establishing a base camp not far from the dense stands of willows that gre1,· beside the creek, Collins and Sumner were entertained there by moose and several dozen mountain sheep, and

.\krt l<> ti~<· p1 ,.,,.lit,. "I .til 11111 udt'l. llltllhl'l .~riul1

.t11rl ctdh J"lll!i<-1 1dwtlwr l<t Ike''" st;tndtht·it ).!;l<tillld

a rcsic!t'lll grillh \1 ho h.tllkd on ;!!ld \\ ii<lckcd lwr l'<llll·

hunnious ndh 'dlt'llt·H·r thn got otllol'line.

FielcJ,,·ork 11;1, lt~ugh 111 !l1.1t 1·uggcd COllllll'\ .. IIHitr:ll·

cl hazardous. In his book /'dill/1/ 111 rhr \\'i/dnlll'.\1. Dar

ling tells "·hat happt'llcd OIH' d;l\ 11hcn tile pl<lllc thai

was carrying the pan1· thruugl1 uni<llllili;tr lllOlllll.lilb

fle11· into a ,·icious ciOI,·ndr;d't. .-\lin the pilot ol lilt· old

:'\!orscman cool !I· al't:rtccl <t uash. Si!lllllt'r ;nlnount·ccl: "I

,,·;Isn't frightCilcd heel the l thoughtt,·c ll'crc finished."

Once StllllllCr and Collins had clone all they e<~uld in

side dw Park Scn·ice I<> Ll\· the foundation for some

killcl or .\relic presenT. Collins. ,,·Jw ,,·;~s kill>llll for his

pcrsist<:ncc and politicd s;1n;·. bt·gan looki11g for out

sitk lwlp. It was time for somt·onc tu "[lake J oHT frt>lll

us. sponsoring a lllOI't:lllt'lll ltm·arc! appropri<~tt· 'l<t·

IllS ... C:olli11S told i\[uric. "l.o11TII <Ulcl [ bclinT 1·ou <llld

Starker ;1rc the lliH'S 1" "''" k th;ll out." l.eopt>ld "'"'<Ill

inllucntialmcmber ol <t t t>llst·l , . .tlitHl .tlld hiking gr"liJJ

in C;difornia cdlcd the Sinr;1 Club. and \!uril' ,,·as 'lill

jim /Jolu·rtv, 11 11/t'lllhl'l of tlu· lionul ofl:'dilon. fun

it•ri//t'/1 rrrrllf!r {f/Joul l>rt'/' \jniug.' C:o!lt•,!!J'. tlu·

tJ·II "'/'i'/rr /)urfl!nsr/ll ruul tlu· ( ;u·rn lirl\' /'({r/;t'"·

1111111ing tht.: \\'ildt·rlll''' Socic·11 l1 ll'<l'll.t long bt.:forc

their t>rganit.atioll' . .111d a llll!lli>l'l ul others. a,; ''Tll.ltacl

ndi,ted in the Cit~'<'. ;tnd \!ttrit· l'"'k llll' lc1d.

! k "'"' tht.: peilnl 111<111 for the juh. Tlte prcsen·;uion ul 11ilckrnc,;s for i1s 01,·11 '<~kt· ,,,1, still :t no1·cl icka in

!hose d.ll·s. e,;pc:ci;dil in the Ltr :\unit. \Lun· .--\laskans

.;tn<,d n·<~ch· 1o figil1 till\ kckraillH>I·es in that direction,

IJUl \!uric knell' ho11· to handle them. Before seuling in

\\\·otnitlg. he and hi-; 11·ifc. \Luth'. ,,·lw grt'll' up in Fair

banks. had spent six 1·ears in r\lasb, 1dwre he studied

c1rihou <ltld led expeditioll:' inl<> the Bwoks Range b1·

dog:dnl. I Ie ,,·as a high !I- regarckd scientist, an accom

plished .1r1ist and a f'tll<: 1\'rit~..:r. hut it ,,.,t, his Lincoln

esque prt·scnce th;ll manl· of l1is admirers found so

compelling. ·'OL!us :\·Iurie is <Hit' uf .-\n1crica's grcll

lllelt. ... 1 colic;lguc once procl<titncd. <~dding: "He has the

ll't'IUt'll(lotiS asset of simplicil\ ...

The \!urit.:s spctlt a sunHncr c;unping ;tnd exploring

in 1lw SIH't'lljek rcgiott. .-\ftt'rll·;rrd lht·,· talked to spons-

111<'11·, gr"llj>S and olhl'l org<~llit.tli,ns in .-\l;tsk;l ;tboul

,,1!.11 lilt'~ 1l;1cl seen :tnd klL <IIHI do11c up there. They re·

lurnt'<l ilw follo11·ing n·;tr to tonlillllt' lilt' dialogue. ·'[

lt.ll<' ·"'"JHt·d <1 gtt·t';l,l lllt'lil<>d ... Ol.tu, \!11rit· !old

Collins. "I can't remember a time when I came right out and said: 'Support this wilderness proposal.' ... [I wam] them to make up their own minds. Without the sincere backing of people who have thought the thing through, I feel we can get nowhere."

The strategy worked. People responded to Murie's go-easy approach. The grass-roots support he deemed so essemial gained momenwm, even as the idea of an Arctic wilderness began to receive serious consideration in Washington. Clarence Rhode, a charming old Alaska hand who was the regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shrewdly arranged to fly one of Interior Secretary Fred Seaton's wp aides over the proposed area. Thereafter, Interior came up with a bill to establish the Arctic National \Vildlife Range (later Refuge).

Earlier Murie, Collins, Rhode and a handful of other prime movers had met to consider who should run the preserve. Collins and Sumner were reconciled by then w certain political facts of life that pretty much ruled out national park status. Indians and Eskimos in the area would have to be allowed to continue subsistence hunting and trapping. Sport hunting and prospecting were issues, too. "It was concluded that it would have the least development if we put it in the Fish and Wildlife Service," Murie reponed afterward, adding somewhat uncertainly: "I hope we were right."

At one point Rhode, leaving nothing to chance, had dragooned Seaton himself in10 joining him for a per-

son:li pbne lOUr. Evidently the boss liked ,,·hat he saw. b·entuallv, once it became clear that the necessary legis· lation would not pass Congress. due mainly to the opposition of Alaska's Senators, Seaton wok maners inw l1is own hands. He issued an executive order establishing the predecessor to the present-day refuge. When the i\<1 uries heard the news, they wept for joy.

Nearly a decade passed before the Arctic had its first manager, a tall, taciturn biologist and pilot named Averill Thayer. At first, Thayer didn't have a staff, but he did ha1·e a fierce commitment to keeping development out of the refuge. He also had a staunch ally in the Alaska Comervation Society.

Orgahized at the outset of the Arctic campaign, the society 11·as a tiny watchdog group, but it had sharp teeth and plenty to chC\1' on. Over the years, it defended the refuge against one cockamamy scheme after another-a huge hydroelectric dam, a natural-gas pipeline, a .. ,,·olf control" program, a mind-boggling plan to use atomic explosions to create a deepwater port.

T\,·o mainstays of the group, Celia Hunter and Ginny Wood, became friends while serving as WASPs (Women's Air Force Service Pilots) in World War II. After the war, they flew cargo and tourists in Alaska, where they started what would become a famous backcountry camp near Mount McKinley. Throughout the wrenching process of Alaskan land settlement, they were in the vanguard of the fight for wilderness preservation.

The 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the capswne of settlement. set aside 100 million-plus acres in the 49th state for national parks and refuges, more than doubling the size of the Arctic alone. But it left the coastal plain open to development. The refuge was not, it turned out, beyond the reach of oil and gas exploration after all.

The reasons were not hard to find. In the 1970s, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was built to convey oil from the wells at Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope to the port of Valdez in the south. Sooner or later, Prudhoe was bound to play out, and when it did, the pipeline would still be there. Geologists had long entertained second thoughts about whether the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain might be worth exploring. With the country importing so much of its oil from overseas, developers and their allies in Congress invoked the national interest to

justify going in there. More than once in the past 20 years, leasing has

seemed imminent. Each time, Wood, Hunter and other conservationists in Alaska joined forces with national coalitions to oppose it. Thanks to political good fortune and the Exxon Valdez, they prevailed. "I really do believe someone or something must be watching over the Arctic," Hunter told me in Fairbanks last fall, "because it has taken a series of miracles to keep it intact.~

At the time, it was beginning to look like another miracle was due. Congress had made oil revenues from the

At left, long before geodesic tents and freeze-dried food, Olaus(left) and Mardy Murie dined with biologist Robert Krear on Sheenjek River. The Muries generated grass-roots support among Alaskans for creating an Arctic preserve.

Investigating the possibility of setting up some kind of wilderness refuge in the Far North, George Collins (left), Starker Leopold and Fraser Darling prepared to board an early "all-terrain vehicle" for an exploratory trip in 1952.

coastal plain part or the 1996 budget bill. and the debate over the refuge ,,·as back in the headlines. Developers cited declining production at Prudhoe and insisted that the impact of exploration and drilling would be tolerable. Environmentalists disputed the production figures and argued that disruption on such a massive scale would threaten both the Porcupine caribou herd and the subsiste nee I ikstylc of the native peoples who depend on it. The refuge's fate remained in doubt as the new year got under way. with President Clinton and Congress locked in a seemingly hopeless stalemate over the budget bill.

So, what is all the fuss about? It's about bears. yes, and fresh wolf tracks in the

black, wet sand of a rocky creekbed. It's about bleached moose antlers. caribou horns and Dall sheep skulls scattered across the tundra like toys. It's about 60 mountain peaks in the 50-mile sweep of horizon visible from your campsite, and the certain knowledge that you and your companion are the only human beings on the face of the Earth who can see them. It's about polar light-the blinding majesty of the Arctic sun at8 o'clock on an autumnal evening. the color golden, the angle flat. It's about 50 kinds of weather in a single day. all bad. It's about the scream of an eagle and the arc of a falcon slicing across the lavender sky. It's about slogging through icy streams and knee-deep bogs that suck your boots off, staggering over tussock-studded plains and dragging

37

\lllll 'tlll \ J,tlllC' 11p :1 ..;JipJH'I \ !.i!'t' ,jt,!ll' Ill t>Jdt : ..

Ill( lilt • ·!I .t t tcl~t'!tJp !lt.ll ln<~kt·d !!<Itt l1"111' t',!~ !Jt

il II \\!'It' :_'II 111111111\'' .1\\';J\'. 11·, ,Ji><dll ,Jill! 1111~ Ill'''\'

\Plll h :tl till ,I 'll<l\\'\ .dicl"lltltlll. \\I IIIII~ iiJ• \\jltlt ·•'ll

.11 , .• 1111\ 1\\J.il IIIII \'(' i>l'l'll d\1111~ '" i\i.ll \.ilt·l 11\11 II

\ltll .!It' \\,tltll .ttHl dr\ ·Ill \0111 ,(ttd\ .ti ll•>IIH' \tl\1 ·-.:ll

ILl\<. !ill'''' hlood--;t;tilll'd. '"lilT 'Jdl<l> Ill'<!. l h.11• ,,_,\

'11\ltd.~t·t! '-llut~,f!H',\I't'd lltllt'..;. It• ICilll!HI \1tl! \\JJ.:l tl '··.1'

'"'"' '"\,-Ill ill\' .\lltil Rt'rtlg(' I).,, ( lrtc /Jnntg. /NJillg. hntn.!!. "I· 1 t't t't't·k' l·t·t·t t t t k ·

F,,-,. ('(' ,., ('(' ('('(' l' (' k!"

.\\1 l 'I R"" drups us lll'rt' at I Ill. < I( I k. '-.>IIIII .1111\ I . \ I)('} I(' Ill (. till· :'-dIll(' kind "' I 11,1! :11.11 t.llllt" 11\t I

\I til It'' ll"'""'ing their trip !1 II Ill ,,,,, \'Jiktlll ,,, l d !(,

l.;tb· ill l'llil . .. , \('ill Ill'\ l'r I u rt~ t .~

l l\11\\ I i<-11. l! !i.l'

\\ !'t l(t· '\t ll lkitlg I 1\·(..'r tlli'\ j}t II 1! It': l! f.t I l< \,i .\,It' .t\ :, i : j it

Jll.lll\' I: 1(1 lt-11 ,lllrl 1\'l' \\Trt· ,tl<>ill' "i' h ,,.

( l\.1\:' I" llh,Jhh· 1\Tillkkd IIJI '"' "' "t' .II \I.<J •!\ ·;.! .... ttd .. ( ·t·t··· Bci11g '\OI11t'\\h.t! Ill' If!. dt !ttllfl,ft,t!;-., "i

lc'' lll.t!tltt \\hit hc\Tr the Ll'-t' 1111\ !){·I tl~t· l\\ 1 • 11 i :1,

IH)p ,IJI!IIfld nl.tking strange !llih~·, l1k1 .1 '<~tt!dt ~~: ·~~~

ll.ltll' llit'll. h;11·ing gotten IIJ.tl ""' .. : ""' ,,,,,·;;:, · .. ,

g{l {II \\II/ k \l.t· J, •l .Ill fJillll'lll nc;11· \1h;11 I l.ih> I• • IH' llw ,_,;,,. ··.:

J,,,,, ( ~~llill" .tlld Sumner CIIIIJ>>·cl "''" '" I , .rl!, .\

(:"II ill' ll"t hdore 1\'C icfl. fIt- I' 11:; 11> '''· 1 <'J t·n;l-. ,.,,,J.

()\\t·cl,tlitlll'·ing in a retircn1crlt ttoJiltllltttll\ 111 l'lttlt i:t\

I 1<- t • d ri IIH · he I'll\' i c cl u' ... l 1 hi 11 k . d" • "' It ,. ( · 1 < '· ~ ' • ' , •

d,11 "' 1111 Irk ... he o;aid. \\'c C:lll ,,., "'''

llw 1.dk' L'.\tL'Ilds c;tst-l,·eSI '"' .d'""' ,t·"·" """ · :., llllTil illl· ht·llds ,,-hl'rl'Joe ('rel'k l ;lit'' !tt•Jil 1111 ,,,., !\,

;u11l ,.,j,, tfl the south. heading'"'. tilt· \'1tk"" """It-,

\\·l'·ll. 'ill;!( kin the middle of il. 'iiiii<IIIHI('(\ ll\ Ill«'"'

t;tins tl1.1t ;dreadr silo,,· a ligf11 dusiJIIC: '" ''''"'

Jol' i' Iilii 11Clllidl\· one <reck hut ltllll or li~t· ,J~.~J\.,,,

Sil'i'.lill' braiding thcir\\·;11 through·'-~'·"''' h!'ll ,,,,,.~Iii<

;1 litiJHired 1·ards across. The slre.Jllls ilwtn,,-!1,-, 11111

fnllll "'' lT;d feet to 4 0 or :iO il'l·t i 11 " i d 111 l ·I w 1 , · . 11 t · 1 '"'

distinct drainages in the nwllnLtins hl'hind 11,_ '" ill('

north. ;IJHlthrcc in the nwlltll;titl' l.trin~ tts <lll lilt',,''""

sick or the creek. The grizzh \IT s;j\1' in the ,,·ill<,,,''"'

lor,· 1\T hndecl ran into the middJ,. otw olthos<' tlll<'t·

I a111 sitting on the ground in lr"11t olilw tl'lll \"-'"'' ·'

SJJLJII cit ifl\\·ood lirl'. S;uHh- is ,,;JJHkrillg ;u ottll<l dt ,,, 11

ili<·rt• Jlt';lJ tfll' lll<Jlltll or IiLII lllidd\t- dt,lill;l).!,l'. l<~«hlll~

''" J'rl'ltl· stolll'S. \,\'e hrnugl11 '"." CIIII'I<T' "' I" 1'1"'' 'Jli';J\ Ill usc in case lll hear ;llU< k .. \1 tlw llll>illl'lll ""II' "' till'lll h<IPP<'Il Ill ill' IIJl IH'I'l' ill I ill' It'll!. II \1( tIll' ,, '

llll' ;ts I l,·atdJ Ill\' dckn.sl'k'' 11·ik 11i.JI. lr\Jtll ''"' ""·

l;llll \'.'ill' COliJd l'<tsih hl' llli\l.lk.t·ll 1\JI .1 iitlk ,JIIilli.JI.

< :111.1 lwlp \1'\JtHlcring iltlll' lw.11 '' 11;11< hJttg lwt. '"" /:. ,, ".fi/11;/11 1

( :;Jriht>ll '''drill .!(TOSS po11d Oil l'l'fllgt··, (<>,JSt;J\ ,,\,rill .. 1

I" itll ip;tl < .th·ing ground i'"r ih(' t<'t'lllillg l'o1 <it pill,. lwr ,;

The oil industry wants to start exploring in the area. Environmentalists say drilling would disturb caribou.

A gray wolf (left) pauses on its lonely trek across a brushy plain. A snowy owl (above) swoops down beside fuzzy chicks in its unconcealed nest on the tundra.

On second thought, maybe ['d better stroll down there and st;tnd guard.

Day Three. [ emerge from the tent into the frosty nwrning. stretch and S(juint. There. on the hillsidethree black rats1 \Neird. I fetch the binoculars and discol·cr th<tt I <till actu<tl!l -;ccing thrt:e caribou about. what. a half-mile away. It's that distance thing again. It takes time to get used to it ttp here.

Faking lite tundra in strirlr•

This is my first look at caribou in the ~~·ild. At first. they" rc just ambling along. grazing as they go. Then they seem to become aware of us. They shift from a walk to a wary trot, disappear into a draw and reappear moments later. running. Big racks. \\•hite collars. \luch larger than deer. and surprisinglv gr<tccful. They arc covering a tremendous amount of ground 1·cry quickly. \Ve kno1,· from our own hike yesterday how rough that terrain is. but they are gobbling it up. L!nforgeuable~

Later, back at camp. exhausted after an exhilarating trek, I am gathering firewood when Sand1· announces that there is a "black fox""jumping up and down behind the willows on the other side of the creek. The binoculars expose another case of mistaken identity. It is a wolf, almost pitch black.

When Sandy first noticed the critter, it was nonchalantly loping up the creekbed in our direction. Then it stopped, looked toward us and began to creep closer. At that point, it had to jump above the willows in order to see us. What we see is this head popping up and down. Ridiculous. If Little Red Riding Hood had run into this character she would have died laughing.

Day Five. It is midafternoon and I am staring at a limestone mountain. The mountain is a mile or so away and its south side, the one I am studying, is exposed to the direct glare of the sun. You need illumination to appreciate what a geological wonderland this region is. On a cloudy day, you lose relief and the striking incongruities of light and shadow.

I am an itchy kind of guy. Not the type to sit and stare at anything. An action guy-go, go, go. But after you've been in this environment for a few days, you get over that nonsense. You realize there's nothing wrong with sitting and staring if what you're staring at is good. And everything up here is good. This mountain is good.

The most fantastic things are sticking out of it. There are pegs, pinnacles. teeth, inverted cones, tombstones, pillars, crags, turrets, minarets. This is what frost and water do to limestone; they erode it into these spectacular embellishments. In this light, their shadows arc elongated and absurd. As the clouds come and go. so, too. do the shadows.

I have only to shift my gaze slightly to enjoy an entirely different perspcctin-.. This longview presents me with

39

The saga of the A rrtic Refuge

a succession of shadow-and-light shows displayed on the receding mountainsides, one after the other. Each is different, and all are seen through a veil of mist rising from the creek and surrounding wetlands, and descending from the sky. Is this what artists call "chiaroscuro"? It has the effect here of transforming rock into silk.

This is the essence of the refuge-always changing yet always the same.

Day Seven. Bear time again. We just made camp at the foot of a mountain here on the west branch of the Sheenjek. This is, what, our fourth or fifth move in a week. It's beginning to get a little old, this nomadic life. Up tent, down tent. Unroll sleeping bags, roll sleeping bags. Blow up mattresses, deflate mattresses. I cut my fingertips the other day, and I'm having trouble with zippers and knots. I am going on in this vein, bitch, bitch, bitch, when I emerge from the tent and see them about 200 yards away.

These three are not galloping in headlong flight like the grizzlies we surprised the other day. True, they arc skirting us, but they are taking their own sweet time about it. The cubs, if you can still call them that, are almost as large as Mama-2 or 3 years old, probably. In the binoculars, they look much too close and inexpressibly huge. The sunset burnishes their mustard-colored fur into something like the vivid red of the fireweed growing on the hillside behind them. As they plod into the shadows, however, they become browner, darker. We are talking big rear ends and massive heads here, but we are definitely not talking roly-poly.

When Mama picks up the pace, one of the cubs, Gallant, dutifully breaks into a trot to keep up; the other one, Goofus, lags behind. He acts like the hyperactive teenager he is, poking around, swatting, stopping to peer back at us and make faces. Is this thrilling? Yes. Does Goofus make me uneasy? Yes.

We continue watching them for a long time. Even at a

40

..

distance of a quarter-mile or so, they remain conspicuous. And alert. When Sandy breaks a stick for the fire, all three instantly pause and look back. Sandy does not break any more sticks.

Once they have deposited themselves on a rock pile, we crank up our little gas stove, eat and turn in. It is disquieting to have them so close, and Don Ross inadvertently flew off with our pepper spray after bringing us here today. But we're too tired to worry about it.

In the night we hear noises. A search with the flashlight turns up nothing. This morning we discover that the food pack I had hidden in a nearby gully is missing.

The bears are still there. Two are lying down; Goofus appears .. to be doing calisthenics. They're certainly acting iri'nocent. But even if they are not the culprits, what if word gets around that the two geezers in the blue tent are good for lunch?

We decide to break camp and move again. We have ample food in a second pack cached elsewhere, but we are running low on stove fuel.

Day Nine. We are packed and waiting for Ross to take us back to Fort Yukon.

The other afternoon we braved snow and ice to fly over the coastal plain. It is a strip of tundra about 30 miles wide and 75. miles long. From the air the whole thing appears to be marked off in polygons, the result of frost heaving; it looks like a big green waffle iron. It's also finely etched by thousands of meandering caribou trails. Sandwiched between the Beaufort Sea and the Sadlerochit Mountains, it is hauntingly beautiful.

I thought about it again early this morning when I heard the faint but unmistakable sound of an approaching helicopter. It was a big orange-and-white job. I tracked it with the binoculars as it passed high overhead, veered east and disappeared.

Clatter; clatter; clatter-there goes the neighborhood. It was true. The copter didn't leave a mark on the land, but it changed everything. It broke the spell. Arid it made us think. If the din and disruption of a single aircraft can do that, imagine what another Prudhoe would do to the coastal plain.

Worse things could happen. It wouldn't be the end of the world. It wouldn't be the end of the refuge. It would only be the end of the wilderness.

I look at it this way. It isn't every day you hop on a plane and travel to the far northeastern corner of Alaska. I may never see the Arctic Refuge again. But now that I have been there, I am quite sure that, like Ge~rge Collins, I will think of it every day for the rest of my life. I would like to be able to think of it the way it is now.

Frost-tinged plants on the boreal-forest floor arc a certain sign that another Arctic winter is on its way.

~ ---~ ~- ·---~-~- --

Platt, s Oilgram News L

Friday, March 1, 1996

The view hardens: ANWR is dead for '96 Washington~ongressional efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain to oil and gas drilling are dead this ye2r, thanks to lingering uncertainty over larger budget issues, and concern among some Republican leaders that the GOP's "deregulation" agenda is huning the environment, opponents of ANWR development say.

''The final nail is in the coffin," said Pam Miller of the Alaska Coalition, a group of environmentalists and Native Americans opposed to .ANWR development

US Congressional~ last year included in their balanced budget plan a provision to allow ANWR exploration. President Ointon, however, vetoed the plan citing ANWR as one of several reasons for his action. Despite the initial veto, ANWR drilling supportets throughout last year's lengthy budget negotiations between the White House and Capitol Hill said they were "reasonably" optimistic the open·ANWR P!'Ovision could be included in a revised budget plan. ·

But now even the most ardent supportets of ANWR development co~ Clinton's compliance may neva" come: to win support for their position, the ~ Congressional delegation met earlier this week with. the President in what members admiued \VaS a failed attempt tO urge 1$1 to change his mind over ANWR.. .

"It was a worthwhile meeting. But I want to make it clear that! don't believe we've cbanged his mind," US House Resources cbaiiman Don Young (Republican-Alaska) said Feb 29.

Still, ANWR is too important an issUe~ the minds of Young and fellow Alaskan Senate Energy chaiiman Frank Murkowski to remain buried for long, ANWR development supponers told Platt's. ''This issue will not go away. It will be resurrected sooner ralher than later either by Congress or administratively if a Republican wins this year's presidential race," a-Congressional aide said.

-~ Quulity Service!

~ (907) 27/o-1056

Date HAR o 7 1996

TUNDRA DRUMS

Client No. /"!...,-______ ---·

Calista joins ANWR suit G 3/} I~ j'l)_>-.'J

Drums staff tion formed by Calista, Klukwan Calista Corp. and two other Inc. and Koniag Inc. filed an

regional Native corporations have amendment to an existing suit in joined a lawsuit against the Interior U.S. District Court in Anchorage Department over federal recom- last week. Calista, Klukwan and mendations concerning the pro- Koniag together represent more posed opening of the Arctic than 30,000 Alaska Natives. The National Wildlife Refuge to oil largest of the three, Calista, has exploration. 13,300 shareholders and land hold-

Originally filed by Cook Inlet ings of more than 6.5 million acres. Region Inc., Kaktovik lnupiat The suit states- that Alaska Corp. and Arctic Slope Regional Corp. in December 1995, a coati- See Suit, page 11

From page 1

Natives should be consulted in formulating Interior Department reports and recommendations regarding oil and gas development in the ANWR coastal plain and states that federal statutory and fiduciary responsibilities to do so were breached. It also charges that Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs Ada Deer and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Director Mollie Beattie failed to consult with Alaska Natives prior to issuing a report opposing the proposed opening of the ANWR coastal plain to oil and gas exploration.

Additionally, the lawsuit charges that Deer, by opposing the opening of ANWR, failed to represent the interests of all Al~ska Natives.

The federal government is expected to respond to the court report by mid-March.

'/OL. L1 N0.85 54 PAGES "

orageDai~ fi.NCHORAGE. ALASKA. MONDAY. MARCH 25. 1996

AB THE BACK PAGE

<at<ti~il/ ..... • NOW r -.r

Spill anniversary About 150 demonstrators gathered Sunday across the street from the White House to mark the seventh anniversary oi the Exxon Valdez disaster. Carrying signs with slogans such as "Remember the Exxon Valdez" and "Oil and wilderness don't mix," the demonstrators also cnticized renewed efforts in Congress to open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and r ... rifling.

--·----------------

PRICE 50 CENTS

/

By CALVIN WOODWARD The Associated Press

And then there were two. Breaking clear in a once-crowded con

what they do have, after Clinton's three years in the White House and Dole's 27 years in the Senate, are records. And since January they've answered questions on a variety of subjects. Here are their answers, plus summaries of their words and actions on a variety of issues. Positions may change, but as of now, this is where they stand and what they've said.

test, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole has secured the Republican nomination and won the right to engage P~esident Clinton in the fall. Neither man at this point has a comprehensive platform. But

ENVIRONMENTWILDLIFE REFUGE

Do you favor proposals to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil explo-ration and drilling? .

Clinton: No. Threatens veto of GOP bill authorizing exploration. "The Arctic Refuge is a rare, pristine wilderness that should be preserved for future generations. There are substantial state and federal lands that can be developed in Alaska without disturbing the refuge. And since there is more oil in energy efficiency t;han can be extracted from the Arctic Refuge, drilling is as unnecessary as it is unwise."

Dole: Yes, because development "can be done safely and responsibly without damage to the environment and because careful development of America's oil and natural gas resources contributes to economic growth, creates American jobs, en_hances our nation's economic security and reduces dependence on foreign oil." / :J..o ...3 <1-.01

I I I

I I j I

MILLION ACRES OF

, splendor, Alaska's Arctic National

·Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is proof of

· /:An:erica 's.determination to preserve its

diminishing natural heritage. A pristine

wilderi1ess, the ANWR is inhabited by

polar bears and grizzly bears, wolves, snow

geese, nesting birds, and many other species of

wildlife. The most biologically productive part of the refuge is ,•:

the coastal plain, )Vhich provides important habitat for more

iBab 200 species, but.the ANwR also includes a complete

range of arctic and subarctic ecosystems. Yet, since President

·r:Ywight D. Eisenhower first set aside this :lr•~a for federal pro-

I! l

tcction in 1960, the ANWR 's integrity has been threatened repeatedly.

Federal lands such as the ANWR are critical to the survival of many species of wildlife. From the beginning of the European colonization of the American continent, animals were hunted for food, pursued lor the fur trade, and evicted from their homes when forests were cleared to provide timber and make room for farms and towns. Increasingly, habitat has disappeared and with it the wildlife.

The setting aside of federal lands was a key to the restoration of America's wildlife, and these lands now provide a diversity of habitat and varying degrees of protection for wild species. National wildlife refuges, in particular. were established for that spcci fie purpose.

Unfortunately, wildlife refuges do not protect wildlife completely. Activities such as the oil drilling now being contemplated on the ANWR threaten the future of wildlife on many refuges.

The threat to the ANWR is not unprecedented. Less than I 00 miles away lies Prudhoe Bay, where the discovery of oil fields led to the construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline. It is an ominous example of the devastation to wildlife that development can cause.

As the trans-Alaska pipeline was built, Prudhoe Bay quickly became industrialized. with 500 miles of roads, 150 drilling pads, and numerous buildings and pumping stations springing up practically overnight. The resulting degradation has been extensive: 12JJOO acres of wildlife habitat have been destroyed.

Alaska's Department of Fish and Game has found that female caribou in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay/North Slope oil activities have fewer calves than do those in undisturbed areas. Prudhoe Bay was once a calving area for the central Arctic caribou herd, but few caribou calves can be found there today. Scavenger populations of gulls and arctic foxes have increased dramatically around garbage dumps in the North Slope oil fields. These scavengers prey upon the eggs and chicks of rare seabirds. According to a 19R8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report on the impact of oil fields on the North Slope and Prudhoe Bay, "Impacts not predicted . . [but which J have been documented, include increased hunting pressure, elimination of nuisance polar bears associated with drilling operations, reduced polar bear denning activity within oil fields, and temporary displacement of clcnning ringed seals."

32

Another consequence of the trans-Alaska pipeline has been oil spills. Alaska's Department of Environmental Conservation reports that I 00,098 gallons of petroleum products were spilled in the oil fields in 1993 and 24,968 in 1994. Studies reveal that a drop of fresh crude oil on the body of a mother bird can kill the embryo in an egg she has laid. Seabird, seal, and sea otter populations still have not recovered from the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, another catastrophic but unsurprising consequence of the construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline.

Thus, there is good reason to fear opening the ANWR to oil drilling. The coastal plain, the area most sought after by oil companies, is a critical calving area for its 160,000-mcmber Porcupine River caribou herd as well as the most important polar bear denning habitat on land in the United St;llcs.

Although some protection was allorded the ANWR in 1980, when the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act closed the ANWR to activities such as oil drilling, efforts to exploit the ANWR did not stop. In 1995 Congress proposed a balanced budget bill that contained a provision for revenue from leasing the ANWR tor oil drilling. This provision would have led the way for the ANWR to be opened to drilling. Fortunately, President Bill Clinton vetoed the bill and has vowed to veto any budget bill that contained a similar provision regarding the ANWR.

There are various estimates regarding the amount of oil that could be extracted from the ANWR and how much money and how many jobs might be gained, but one thing is certain: oil development will irreparably destroy the ANWR's wilderness qualities; bring widespread pollution of air, water, and land; and devastate wildlife populations.

Legislative and agency efforts are under way to exploit and destroy other public

lands and the wildlife that inhabir turn them over to private intcres

1

interest in wildlife protection,' weaken, or eliminate the laws tuat l111

it their exploitation: and to rcnw·. funding for their maintenance.

Hunting on national wildlil\.· r,· uges is now allowed if it would 11• conflict with a refuge's stated pt:

pose (such as providing a sanctu;t: and breeding ground for migr;1J."

birds). The HSUS believes this situ;JI;, is inherently unsatisfactory, but a bill 'rently before Congress, H.R. 1675, \\'''' make hunting a primary purpose or entire National Wildlife Refuge S:·>'~k · The bill would strip from the refuge sy~;,·, any vestige of sanctuary for beleagul'l, wildlife.

The National Park System also ha~ hL·, under attack recently by the ~o-callcd \1"'

usc movement and others who believe :!;

the federal government should not cont:. land. H.R. 260 would establish a comm: sion to evaluate each area in the park systc·· for possible closure. This bill also seeb : put state and local governments, rather tlu the federal government, in charge ofJ2:11 k Often state and local govemments'' / · concerned with the health of the , } .i· the wildlife they contain than the; gaining greater public access to those 1,1':•

for recreational or commercial plllvoscs In the American West. meanwhile. !11

stock growers arc threatening to take :·· control of public lands that now sene protect wildlife, wild hor~es, and the habitat. Ranchers \vho graze cattle on p;:,

lie lands pay the government a nom1:;. sum for that privilege. In the past the~'" ernment has attempted to raise these k, because of the devastation caused by 01 c: grazing. However, the recently introdur,·. Public Rangeland Management Act. " 852, would turn over management of gr,1; ing on public lands to the livestock indu' try. It would require that public land~ h managed to increase livestock product~<· to the exclusion of other uses, such .: maintenance of wild I i fe habitat. Wild h< '', cs and other wildlife would be exclud .. from traditional watering spots. c:w~::•

extreme suffering as well as ecol(l~;,;:

damage to the water holes themselves. Congress has set its sights on 1

ANWR, a land of spect;1ct!lar beaut'' prodigious wildlife. If the ;\NWR• nerable, then none of our public safe and the future of our wildlik .111

certain. I

Amy Weinhouse, Esq., is assistant tr11.1 counsel, the HSUS Wildfi/e Land Trust.

HSUS NEWS • Spring 199(:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 1996

Contact: Bruce Franks Media Relations

(800) 93-PEACE

ARCTIC REFUGE: A Gathering of Tribes Native American Album to Benefit the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and

the Gwich 'in People Who Depend on [t.

Tucson, AZ-- Out of concern for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--threatened by oil develorment--Native American artists and friends from the U.S. and Canada have gathered together in music to celebrate the beauty and the reorle of the Refuge. and to heir raise money to increase awareness. Arcnc Re!i1ge: A Gathering o/Tribes IS ;1

rowcrful offering ofrraycrs. songs. native Outc. drumming and chanting from many tribes. A rortion of the rrocccds from album sales and artist royalties will surrort the Gwich'in Steering Committee and the Alaska Wilderness Lea~:,rue in their ongoing efforts to save the Refuge and the Gwich'in Peorlc of northern Alaska who depend on it for their subsistence.

The message is in the music. Arctic Re/ilge features a diverse selection of musical styles that sing of the earth and its native rcoplcs. Chanting voices echo as if conveying words of guidance from ancient elders. bright nutes rcrfonning original and sacred tribal melodies seem to sing out from the earth's future. and native drums spur one to walk rcsronsibly in the present. These rare selections of new compositions and old favorites from Native American artists. ceremonialists and their non-Indian friends honor and defend the earth and all its creatures.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of North America's last wilderness areas. suprorting a stunning array of wildli fc and serving as a summer harbor for countless birds from around the globe. For the 160.000-member Porcupine River Caribou Herd that travels there eachspring to give birth to it'> next generation. the Refuge is the most precious and vulnerable link in its I .000-milc seasonal migrations. The caribou migration area is also the current and ancestral homeland of the Gwich 'in Indian Nation. which has practiced a subsistence lifestyle directly tied to the caribou migrations in this same locatio.n for over 20.000 years. In their own language. the Gwich'in arc "the caribou people." lt,is this special place--rich with natural beauty and cultural heritage--that oil industry seeks to drill in order to maximize the investment return on its massive oil development infrastructure Much Alaskan oil is not even used in the U.S.!--it's sold to Asian countries converting from sustainable economics to petroleum-based economics.

Billboard-charting artist Dean Evenson first met Gwich'in spokesperson Sarah James when they perforn1cd together at the United Nations 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil. After learning about the threats facing the Gwich'in People and the Refuge. Soundings of the Planet cofounders Dean and Dudley Evenson decided to work with James to rroduce this benefit album. They sought out Native American artists and friends whose work promotes respect for the earth and who felt a kinship with the Gwich 'in struggle. Rcrrc..c:;cnting diverse Native American tribes

"If we destroy the land and l resources on which we I depend ... then we are destroying ourselves. "

--Norma Kassi Gwich'in leader

Old Crow. Yukon

and musical traditions along with their non-native suprorters. the artists on this album include Sarah James. Grammy finalists R. Carlos Nakai and William Eaton. Billboard-charting artist Dean Evenson. Cha-das-ska-dun1 Which-ta-lum. Dik Darnel. Juno nominee Jerry Alfred. Tsa'nc Dos'e. Tzc'Ec. Come! Pcwcwardy and Lorcllci. This is truly a gathering of many tribes--both native and European--for the preservation of the land and the cultural heritage of northern Alaska.

The Gwich ·in Nation adamantly opposes development of this arctic jewel. even though the tribe would stand to profit handsomely from such a venture. Environmentalists have already conceded 90% of the northern Alaska coastline for oil development with the understanding that the Refuge would remain rrotected. Now. with its seemingly endless arpetite for oil. big industry is detennined to pry open this last I 25-milc fragment.

To reoplc who care about the land. to lovers of heartfelt music and to those concerned about Native American issues--this album is a celebration of all that is beautiful about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. and a plea for heir and awareness. For more information, please contact and support the Gwich'in Steering Committee, P.O. Box 202768, Anchorage, AK, 99520, (907) 258-6814; and the Alaska Wilderness League, 320 Fourth St., N.E., Washington, DC 20002, (202) 544-5205.

170

WINDOW ON THE WEST

Savi11g ~1.laska 's ~1.t~c tic Refttge-agaiii

Til" r:•.tilfi1 pllf(.'llf1ll\C l_.~tf!bt):J hL'~!il !ht-'!r Jllfltt:li :ntg_r~ttHH1 frOJI1 \\trHCr!::~ ~t:,'.!' :rl 1ll1rthCrl1

\Lhl-...t .1nd 1hc: Yukun I<' ..:.11' Ill:! ;:rnunch nn illc C<l,hl~tl platn elf .·\l.t:<k.! ·, -\r.·:k '\auurul

\\ • 1.~!l!l.: R.cfu.:;c lr JS ~~ f!il.' 11! 'f'rln:: .1...: l!l'l[ 1 Prl~tf1t ld !IlL'· "tH\ ivai of rhz.· ~.trd'~I\J "' ... p.t\1.!1111~

, 11 ,tiiJ1tlll C.th·:n~ t:-<lt )\·. ri·· !:1r1n! !he !J,[ ,l,:._··:h: d( \Li\ :lfh! trL.; ·.~_,, '.~.-...·.._•\.,_, tlf

.l!l' [}tl[ \\h\ t/h.' \rl·th: k.t.:(Ugl' h~h f•CCI111llih.' !ll'\\" l,ttl·l~ c~.lllgrc...;s 1"1 pu ... !Jtn~ fllf t'l! lk\t'!~'rlilll'llllhL~rl'.

lll!Jc'h .h rlh:n :-lt:(!'cl.li'\ ,q the: lrllcrlc'l Dnn.dd f!,,,kJclid fllllc :c·ar, ,ti-!0. Put>llc ,,,n,·c·rrt .llhil'r~s,u:c' h

,:r•'UI" ,uch .h l'l!c· \\ rldcrnc:s.s Soctcl\ ,k(!,·.-:;;,1 1ha1 pl~tn Thh tunc .1round. Prc'•t,ktli C':'t'•'ll cnuld

prntcc·t '\••rill \rn,·rt,_,·, l.t:'l tlli:IC! .-\rclt, ,.,.,,.\,[,·Ill b: clc:ci,lflllg II ;r natron:li f11(llllllllc'ill \L•,Jil'-'ililc: rile:

c~lrlh<HJ ar<: Jllll'c· ,tgatll ,,n rhc 1110\c'. The qu<>!ll>il 1-; "hcthcr 1hc1r clivH1:! gr<lunch will ~" the: ",J\ ni'

th~ \\c,!·, ~r-.:.1! --.ilnJ,lll -..pav.rung. ~rnun.~-

S U N S E T

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Tuesday, April 16•1996

Cli.ritOh noncommittal on ANWR The Associated Press

ANCHORAGE-President Clinton says oil and gas drilling on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and logging on the Tongass are at the top of his agenda as he tries to balance development with protecting the environment.

The president made the comments during a brief refueling stop early today a~ Elmendorf Air Force Base.

Clinton was beginning a week-long, round-theworld journey where he'll be dealing with a number of security problems involving the Koreas, Japan and Russia.

The president was noncommittal when asked whether he. would change his mind and allow oil and gas drilling on ANWR.

"I don't know," Clinton said, indicating that he had listened to the views of Alaska's congressional delegation.

"We have continued to work not only in Alaska but all acroSs America on the whole issue of reconcili~g development and the environment. We continue to look for ways to do it.

"As you kiiow right now, the more imminent issue in Congress is whether we can pass a budget for the Interior Department that deals with the question of the Tongass. And that is the one I think

that concerns Alaska that will be up on the plate in the next couple of weeks.

"And we work very hard out here to try to deal the legitimate interests of the small loggers and try to do some work there while preserving the old growth trees that are virtually irreplaceable," the pres,i,dent said. ''I'm hoping that can be worked out.

Clinton also said during his news conference on the Elmendorf tarmac that the situation on the Korean peninsula was "much better than it was three years ago."

He was scheduled to arrive in Seoul later Monday for his first official stop on the foreign policy journey.

Reinforcing the administration's theme, the trip comes at a time of troubling tensions on the Korean peninsula and just weeks after China's menacing missile tests off the coast of Taiwan.

"We're working on ways not only to keep the nuclear problem under control and eventually eliminate it but also to try to do what we can to promote an ultimate reconciliation and an end to the (Korean) conflict," Clinton said. "If that rould happen, then the world would be ·a much safer. place-the whole world."

~~·; ,, ........ .

~) (W7) ~7t,.JO'i6

APR 2 4 1996 Date ______________ __

SITYJ-1 SENTINEL

Client No. · /.:J..o

~eport May Help. State Get Oil Lands · .. :j

; '·1 ."\

. ,j

ANCHORAGE (AP) - A recom- acre coastal plain, regarded as the under the coastal plain also could lte Stat~ Attorney General Bruce: mendation made to the U.S. Supreme most promising site for a giant all dis- beneath those lagoons and river Botelho declined comment, saying l Court could give Alaska a piece of the covery in North America. . mouths. · · Mann had directed lawyers not to talkj potentially rich oil fields along the Mann recommends that the land It's unclear whether gaining such about the case. _;·i coast of the Arctic National Wildlife under the tidal areas between banier · title would permit the state to begin Ownership of the North Slope is Refuge and $280 million in lease rev- islands and the refuge's shore belongs exploration without Congress and the complex because of federal land or:·. enue from disputed land off Prudhoe to Alaska under the Statehood p,ct, White Ho'use. agreeing to open the ders that were in place or pendiri!f Bay. d' · · f d a1 1 · th t th refuge to drilling when Alaska became a state. .,,

tsnussmg e er c rums a , e ar- , · · · It w'sn't untt'l after ot'l was dt'scov· .1. The 500-page report was delivered eas were withheld from the state when Mann s recommendations are not u

to the high court by J. Keith Mann,·a · the refuge was created by e;>t:_ecutive binding on the .s~pre;ne Court. ered at Prudhoe Bay in 1968 that the·,; retired dean of the Stanford University order in 1960. If ~e :ourt -~~re_·es, -~-e _Nonetheless, a d;~-~~.10(\ tn" th~. case cn~!roversy over the ownership~of the.: Law -School who was appointed sp,e- ··· state ·would• get ·tJtle to ·the-·lag~-coul~ set preceden!s.'thal.~ttl.e:~tl\et. --~·oft:'tlore .a.reas bec:tmc heated .. cia I master in· a complex, 16-year~old .. tidelands and river mouths . .,- an9 ·any pendmg North Slope land d1sputes. tlian hold up lease sales in the dispi.Jt~ land dispute between the state and the oil under thein. · · · · .:: . . . "We are concerned about the AN- ed Prudhoe Bay areas in 1979, :the·. federal governments. •' . According to a 1987 Interior De- w~·. conclusio~s," said. Deborah state and federal governments decided!

The dispute involves pinpointing partment. report, it appears that some:, ~ Wllh~s, In tenor S_ecretary Bruce to put all the lease revenue in esc'row j where state ownership of offshore wa- of the most promising oil prospects · Babbitt stop Alaska rude. while they asked the Supreme Court I ters ends and federal ownership be-·: to sort out the mess. · -:~.::1 gins. Ordinarily, the state gets the first · Those lease sales, as well as 1~~~ three miles off the coast. But off the . sales. resulted in huge sums deposited North Slope, ownership has been , in interest-bearing accounts milO:' clouded by pre-statehood federal land I tainetl by the federal Minerals Ma-9,'-' orders as well as tidal land that ex- agement Service. Under Mann's rec-tends beyond the three-mile limit. · ommendations. it appears Alas'ka'

Mann's report clears the way for would get only $280 million fof';·4 the Supreme Court to schedule argu- 1979 lease sale within three miles off~ ments on the dispute in its ne;>t:t term, shore from Area's mile-long West.Sa~ which begins in October. The case dock. which Mann concluded becatne could be decided within a year or so, state land. -~); according to Supreme Court chief There are many parts to the l~7

deputy clerk Frank Lorson. dispute, which became known as. ·th Some of the disputed lands off "Dinkum Sands" case. That's ·the

Prudhoe Bay have already been leased name of a sandy shoal off Prudhoe for oil development. Money from Bay that occasionally is visible at very those lease sales, dating as far back as low tide and so got caught up in the 1979, has been held in an interest· land dispute. Because the shoal _;is earning escrow account and the sum is more than three miles offshore. it w'iis approaching$ 1.5 billion. · claimed by the United States. Biii

If the high court agrees with Alaska contended it was an island and Mann's recommendations, the state therefore its ownership shifted to''tiie would get about $280 million and the state under the Statehood Act. :;t: federal government ·about $1.2 billion. Mann sided with the federal gov~·

The case also has large implications ernment. concluding it can't be an 'j"' for the A.rctic refuge's J .5-million- land because it's not exposed at hf''

tide. If the Supreme Court agrees wi the state that Dinkum Sands ,_ ,;.(js'; land, Alaska picks up anot' '(). acres of subsea property 1 ;;j mik r:td1u, {lr thl· ,ho:ll ~

QUI\Ll'l'Y SERVICES

Date HAY 0 1 1995


Client No. 1 1..11

The Anchorage Times· ['uillhlwr: 1111.1. f. t\I.I.EN

''lJdim·ing in t\luskcms. pulling ti/us/.:u fir,r· bill•·•·-' IIENNIS 1·1:.-\111.1-:Y 1'.-\I'I.IENKI:JS. \\'11.1.1,\~11 TIJIII\.

"JJ,. :\nrlu111r:-"'· T,,,~·(:.unnu~ntan II\ tl1i:-- ":.!1111'1llul til.· :\ur/uuu.'-."1~ /)uiJ,· S· "'d .... ,''''' ,.,.,,,, ... ,.111 ,, ... \jo•w..; llillu- /lui/\· .Vt·u·..:. It i:-- wdth·u ;uull'ol•li-.lll~d Hlldt•f olll ;to~rt"t'll!O'III \ni!J '•·fllh'( oo\\'110'(" "'

1111' 'J ;,.,.,_ 111 Ill" inh.·n·~h uf pp~·aTiug., dn r·r..;il\· ol ,-it~\''lw•inl:-> in llu- 11>111111111111\

A better fix I 2..c 3 <-1 :>71

DOESN'T BILL Clinlon realize there is a much better way to clemons! rate lo voters his concem for a reliable and non-ex-

. pensive gasoline supply for the nation than dmwing 12 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petrolewn Reserve'?

That's what the president did Monday as a means to increase domestic petroleum supplies. But it's akin to Alaska siphoning off the state's savings accounts each year to pay some costs of running the govemment. The plan works only as long as the reserves hold out.

The better way to provide a more stable supply of oil to the nation's refineries is to allow the exploration and development of the country's most promising onshore region: the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which we prefer to call the Arctic Oil Reserve.

In the 1970s, when the U.S. suffered a gasoline shortage and escalating costs at the pump. a return to stable prices and .supply coincided with the start up of production at Prudhoe Bay_ And for the last

If a crisis comes. environmental concems might be sacrificed in the msh to develop a new domestic supply. The president should act now.

two decades, oil from the North Slope.has accounted for 25 percent of all domestic production.

But pruduction from Pmdhoe Bay is on the decline- each year si&rzlificantly less than the year before. TI1e abundant reserves m·e running out, forcing the industry to tw-n its attention to more expensive-to-produce marginal fields.

The Arctic Oil Reserve, on the other hand, holds the potential to become another giant field in the magnitude of Prudhoe Bay, according lo govemmcnl and induslt}' geolot,,rists. ll vet}· likely could fuel the nation's future domestic supply, holding dovm gasoline ptices and enswing a level of energy secmity for America.

If the Clinton administration could only muster the courage to support the responsible development of ANWR- consistent with Lhe legitimate concern to protect the environment- it would do more to st:'lbilize gasoline prices than can be done by opening the tap on the Strategic Qi\ Reserve.

TI1e optimum time to balance concems for protc.:cting ecosystems \vith the need to develop new energy sources is before the nation finds itself in an energy crisis. It will be too late if we wait until there is a crisis- when gasoline ptices escalate much more than they are now and motmists are required to queue up in long lines at service st:'ltions.

Ira crisis comes, environmental concerns might be sacrificed in the msh to develop a new domestic supply. The president should act now.

-~ Qunlity So•o"Vin•<

~ (907) 274·10~(.

Date ·· MAY 11 'IS96 ·~!Y·J J.

i·~r'· KETCHIKAN (:..,..,_..: ...

,. ·.: _ __,D::.:A.:.:I::..:L::..Y:......:.N:.::E:.:.W:.::S:...---..• i~; ..... , ..... .

:k Cli~:nt' No. /.20 . ·

'Mlf~koWsk~ to push ANWR oil again; veto Iikel) r ANCHORAclE (AP) - The recent surge . in "After ANWR p8.$5ed both the House and Sen· "They know that opening the refuge is not a Many Democrats charged the elimination oft

gasoline~prices apparently won't be enough. to ate laSt year, it WM vetoed b:( President Clinton," popular idea with the public," said Pam Miller of tax was follx because it would lead to a higl brelik'.the _i.mp8.$5e over allowing oll.and gas c:fevel· Murkowski said Thursday m a prepared state· the anti-drllling AlMka Coalition. ·~I don't think federal defiClt. Even former Energy Secretary J= opmen:t on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:·.. ment· "I see n6 indication he hM changed his this is going anywhere this year." Schlesinger, the leadoff witness at Murkowsk · TbeANWRissueemergedagalnThurn:laywith mind .. :. We'll just have to see what is possible." At an energy committee hearing Thursday, hearing, testified that he thought removal oft

the release of House and Senate budget-balancing Others concede that the race to develop the Murkowski described ANWR development as a gasoline tax was a bad policy that would not ha plans for 1997. . . . ·.. refuge probably won't get far this year. . solution to the recent surge in gasoline prices, any immediate effect on pump prices. . ·

·Last year, both the Senate and the House called. "It's not a favorable situation," said Roger which have risen an average 20 cents a gallon since With the United States importing more than h for drilling in the refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal Herera,lobbyiStforpro-<IevelopmentArcticPower. February. its oil, Murkowski ·argued that opening the refu P,laln in,: their proposals to balance the federal Heri:=rii· Said he'll CQncentrate on making sure Time with gas-tax debate could increase domestic production and bet b~dget.by 2002 .. The meMure plWed both cham· e:mtirig supporffor:dril.l.iD.g doesn't erode.' · · .. · The session WM ti.medto ecindde with i:ongre~- pr?tect the n~tion. from foreign .dependence a bel'S but:~M vetoed by President Clinton., ~ o; /'.l: 0.~7_'!1~ p~ciposa! ~uldl~ if it came to ~.yot~fu the sional debate over eliminating a 4.3-cent~per-gal- pnce fluctuations m the world oil markets: . <

'ii.:Tlils.year,onlytheHousebudgetplancountson senAte. · .. c:· . •: :; T .. · .. ~ ,,, ,?.,····· Ion tax on gasoline in order to bring some priee But Hazel O'Leary, Clinton's energy,sede_tru money from,oil and gM leases in the refuge .. That :rri~e,chamber backed ~g by a ~"!·51-48 r~ef: to consumers. As it turned out, th~ timing said the administration isn't about to (:}Wige leaves it up to Sen. Frank Murkowski, R·AlMka voteJast year. Slnce then, oregon Demociat,Ron c:Ouldn't have been worse. · · · : ·mini! about the refuge because of higher g~ll and chaln:D.an of the Senate Energy and Natural Wyiien;adrlllingopporient,hasbeenelectedto·the :Murkowski warned last week that gasoline prices. Even if the refuge were openedt~, Resources Committee, to decide whether to push chamber and other senators on the b8llot'l.ri.No-: prices could reach $3 a gallon by August. Since would be a decade or more before any oil Start the issue. vember could defect from the development aide in then, however, spot prices have begun to. fall and flowing down the pipeline, she said. · .1.\!;

Muted enthusiasm the usual election-year alliance with environme.n- the decline accelerated Thursday with the settle- The Clinton administration's answer to dW: ;•: Murkowski said he probably would, but his talists. . , .• , · · ment of an oil workers' strike in Norway that had dling domestic production is to increase drilling

enthusiasm seems muted in the face of an antid· EnvironmentalistsseemedconfidentthatAlaska been keeping more than a million barrels of oil a the Gulf of Mexico, where reserves far surpasS t P,ated election-year veto. lawmakers' development bandwagon Is stalled. day off the world market. best estimates of refuge production, O'Leary saJ

.··.i{.:.';:i(.";..[•.t: .

. ~.,..;.:..: ~1 ......... ·' '

t'....: ~:. .. i

Delegation fights td: keep options onANWRopen ByANDREA CHIPMAN State's'News Service

WASHINGTON-Alaska's congressional delegation this week demonstrated its unwillingness to let the debate over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge die d\)spite the difficulty of acquiring election-year support for oil leasing in the refuge.

Tfie. 1997 federa,l budget resolution requires the Senate. Energy and Natural Resources Committee, chair~. by Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, to find $1.4 .'billion. in savings through program cuts .or rel'enu~:~enhlincement. Alaska's congressional delega:ion be'lfeyes opening ANWR's coastal plain to irillhlg'is•bire way to achieve that. •

But the budget resolution, which the Senate took JP this week, doesn't mention ANWR Murkowski .s likely to reintroduce a provision to change that, lccording to his press secretary, Chuck Kleeschulte.

A new complication manifested itself on Monday n the, fo.rm of a budget bill amendment offered by )en. Dale" Btimpers, D-Ark. The amendment would >rohl~!tHlie government from counting in the mdgetprocess revenues earned through the sale of ederal assets, including ANWR

The Bumpers amendment, which would make it nore difficult for the delegation to win

See REFUGE, Page A-10

Fairbanks Daily News-MinE ,ay, May 23, 1996 "····~· ..... ·-------

REFUGE: Delegation Continued from Page A-1 legislative approval for opening ANWR, provoked a two-day debate between Bumpers, Murkowski, and Sen. Ted Stevens, RAlaska.

Stevens said the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 had specifically set aside 1.5 million acres in ANWR for oil and gas exploration and development. "Every time we wnnt to bring about development in my state we face horrendous odds," he said.

"I hope that we can go on with the process of trying to use the federal lands that are available for oil and gas exploration, mineral development and basic utilization to develop the economies of our Western states," Stevens added.

Stevens said income from ANWR and other public lands "could go a significant way toward balancing. the budget."

Murkowski also assailed the Bumpers amendment.

"It is absurd to suggest that if we sell something that produces a billion dollars-that we have to borrow money to balance the budget because we can't count the money that comes into the

treasury against the nation's deficit," he said.

The Senate ultimately passed a provision that would effectively exempt ANWR from the Bumpers ban. The chamber was expected to vote on the Bumpers amendment later in the day.

But one observer said the action won't mean much as election-year politics take on a greater significance.

"I don't seriously expect that there will be a budget reconciliation signed by President Clinton this year," said Roger :&Ierrera, a Washington spokesman·{or Arctic Power, a group promoting opening of the refuge. '!If one believes that, then the chances of ANWR progressing this year are pretty minimal." ·

Murkowski conceded that presidential opposition gives the pro,: vision an uphill fight.

"It's clear that only . on~· person is preventing ANWR from · being reality right now and tha:t· person is Bill Clinton," Mur-' kowski said. "And we'll just have to see where things stand later in the year, but for right now we are fighting to keep our options totally open."

Ultimate hypocrisv May22, i996

To the editor: Our governor, after dropping

the Alaska vs. Babbitt lawsuit (which would have defended Alaska's sovereignty by challenging the federal government's takeover of fish and wildlife. rna· nagement) has now joined a lawsuit' legally challenging the Columbia River Salmon Manage· ment.

It is unconscionable that our governor is willing to join litigation regarding fish and game management in Washington and Oregon when he is unwilling to defend and litigate Alaska's sove· reignty (which he is sworn to pro· teet) and our state's ability to manage its own wildlife resources.

Maybe it is time for impeach· ment hearings. Sincerely, Jim Roland Fairbanks

QUALITY SERVICES

Date JUN 2 6 1996

Anchorage Daily Nc~s

Client No.~/2~~----~

Alaska delegation proposes honoring fg<Jrfrp~~rqf!Qency boss By DAVID WHITNEY Daily News reporter

WASHINGTON - Eight million acres of wilderness in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will be named after Mollie Beattie, the former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under legislation sponsored by Alaska's congressional delegation.

Beattie recently stepped down from her position because of brain cancer.

As director of the agency, Beattie was responsible for overseeing the national wildlife refuge system, of which the arctic refuge is the largest u·nit, and administering such laws as the Endangered Species Act.

Beattie, appointed to the post by President Clinton, hasn't always been popular with the state's all-Republican congressional delegation. The administration has steadfastly opposed the delegation's efforts to open the refuge's coastal plain opened for oil development.

But Sen. Ted Stevens said in a statement on the Senate floor Monday that the delegation's relation-ship with Beattie improved steadily. .

"As the days went on, we thought maybe she was listening to us more and we might be able to find some middle ground between the position we had taken and our own," Stevens said.

Rep. Don Young said Beattie developed a strong attachment to the refuge's wilderness in the Brooks Range.

QUALITY SERVICES

Date JUL 1 8 1996 Fairbanks

Daily News Miner

Client No._../_2._0 __ _

Land swap plan involves arctic refuge State fears exchange with Eskimos would hurt oil nro~ects

t-UJ ,~or 12..0 :J.l(t The Associated Press

ANCHORAGE-Alaska Rep. Don Young is working to lay the groundwork for a land swap that could put the state's best oil prospects into the hands of a Native regional corporation.

The proposal could involve as many as 3 million acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve.Alaska, ~d could i,nvolve billions in.oil ~ ·- '~'-- .,

Arctic Slope Regional Corp. last year proposed giving qp title to about 1.5 million acres north of the Gates of the Arctic National Park and ruljacent to the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge in exchange for an equal number of acres along the north coast of the petroleum reserve.

The land exchange idea grew out Interior Secretary Brute Babbitt's willingness to open the 23-million-acre national petroleum reserve to compensate for President Clinton's refusal to allow drilling in the arctic refuge's coastal plain.

Babbitt initially seemed interested in·negotiating such an exchange, but prospects collapsed when Alaska lawnuikers pressed to open the arctic refuge to dril-ling. .

The Knowles administration is trying to get the state cut into the deal for a geographic extension of what is known as the "Barrow Ridge," which includes Prudhoe Bay ..

The administration sees a massive land trade with the Eskimos as bad news for the state's future oil receipts. The state now would share half the proceeds from any federal oil leasing in the petroleum reserve, but if the property .. is transferred to Arctic Slope, the state would get

See LAND, Page A-5

LAND t,;J...C tra 1J...O .:wt

Continued from Page A-1 nothing.· · ~t month 'Knowles sent a

letter to Baabitt asking that the state be given consideration in exchanging lands it owns north of the Gates of the Arctic park for petroleum-reserve property.

Environmentaliats angrily denounced Young's proposal, which if approved would go into effect without public hearings or appraisals to ensure the federal government gets a fair deal.

"This is a pernicious sneak attack on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," charged Allen Smith, Alaska regional director of the Wilderness Society. Jack Hes~-€1ah-called.-the· proposal "Arctic Stealth Regional Corp.'s bid to get into the arctic refuge.•:

Everi development-minded Sen. Frank Murkowski, RAlaska, was keeping his distance politically.

"Don't presume we will be supporting this," said Murkowsk:i's PJ"688 aide, Chuck Kleeschulte ..

Young's proposal is part pf a 421-page House offer to the Senate as· the two chambers negotiate a fmal version of an omnibus national parks bill. Young, :chairman of the House Resources Committee, and Murkowski, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, are the lead negotiators~ <.

The measure includes several long-sought Alaska deals, including a land exchange between Natives and the National Park &irvice that would better control the use of all-terrain vehicles during subsistence hunts in the Gates of the Arctic park.

Young has also proposed reducing protections for the Fortymile River to allow more placer mining.

QUALITY SERVICES

Date. __ J_U_L _3_l_l:~_·s_6 _


Client No. (L.d -----Part of ANWR bears Beattie name WASHINGTON - President Clinton on Monday signed into law a bill that names part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge the Mollie Beattie Wilderness Area. The area in the Brooks Range was named after the late director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Beattie, who came from Vermont, died recently after a yearlong fight with cancer. She was the first woman to hold the top federal fish and wildlife position. The bill was sponsored by · members of the Alaska congressional delegation, who said they opposed many of Beattie's positions on many issues, but they respected her because she listened to their concerns. /.:7-o .3 '(r,:t &.:u:>

I

I I

r1 I Alaska's Arctic National \'Vildlife Refuge is the largest

wilderness area in the United States

by Michael Hofferber

ne day in late spring, just as the sun is making a respectable reappearance in the southern sky, the caribou of the

Arctic begin to stir. Having endured the deep darkness and terrible cold of winter in the

20 JULY/i\UGUS1 1996 J.I[ARTLAHD USA

forests just south of the Arctic I undra, the ungainly looking caribou, with their oversized racks and heavy, gray·brown fur, turn their noses to the frozen north and start \'\'a I king.

Led by pregnant cows drawn by some ancient inner urge, herds of several thousand animals migrate hundreds of miles through deep snow to their ancestral calving grounds on the tundra. Many of the caribou perish in spring blizzards or icy river crossings, and the survivors are often lean and scruffy-looking; but, once reached, the tundra offers a refuge from wolves and plentiful forage during the vulnerable calving period.

Alaskan adventurer Keith Nyitray, who mushed, hiked and canoed 1,500 miles across the Brooks Range with his wolf-dog

"Smoke" in 1989, recalls his close encounter with one of these migrations:

"The day a caribou herd crossed my path, bound for grazing grounds, I felt like a human rock surrounded by a torrent of life. I stood still and ordered Smoke to do the same. The graceful animals showed little fear. They rumbled by - 200, 400, then thousands moving down a tundra valley in waves, wanderers like me."

The caribou Nyitray met on his trek were part of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, a massive congregation of about 150,000 animals

PHOTO BY SCOTT T. SMITH

~

p.\.P..s~P.

' /ft:' ~ ,;--

HrARTLAHD USA JULY/ AUGUST 1996 21

PHOTO BY 0 ROBfMT PJ~NZ/IUSTOCK

th:lt 1:11grates each yeiir d\ 1-Jss the 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife F\cfuge in far northeast 1\lilsk:l During th<e w,:,:ks ht2 spent crossing the refuge, Nyitray also counted 11 grizzlies, 75 woke:3, hundreds of Dall sheep, dozens Clf moose. eagles, foxes, lvnx, and otters !lad he ventured o:lt onto the c'•JiJStaJ plain bmdcring the Bec:ufnrt he \~vould hk('ly h<iVe

illS•> c'l1COU!llerecJ hear, mu;:l•.t1X, :\relic hares. iliid lclll·

as well as great f](,cks of snow geese, t undr<:t swans, and up to 178 (lther migrating of birds from four continents.

r u oil wilderness

stretching from horizon to horizon.

just as the Great Pl;cnns once supported teeming herds of buffa· lo, and the free-flowing Columbia River once accommodated thick swarms of 50-pound salmon, the Arctic Refuge is home to the last of North America's great surface migrations and dozens of associ· ated plant and animal speci<es. Nicknamed "America's Se1 t>ngeti,' it is the largest and probably the most complete wilderness ':cos1·s !em in the United Stales.

"These very large ;neas of undisturbed habitat scrvv to pro· teet naturally iuncticllling ecosy~· ll:ms," says Jim Kurth, n1;nwgc! uf tlw 1\rctic Refuge ·In tlw Lower '1 R slates, rei uge., an: g~'ncra I !v smaller and protect :·ompot:cnts nf lmger ecosystems.·

Visitors to must wildcrne:os areas and national parks in the Lower 48 are never nwrc than five n1ilcs from a highw<Jy 01 ro<Id ,,f some ktnd. The 1\1< lie !\,·luge lti!S no roads, no developmc11ts, no

Although hunting is essential to both human

and animal inhabitants of the Arctic Refuge,

some roly-poly members of the ecosystem find

the time to sneak in a little roughhousing.

\·isitor facilities. You must pack in y"ur own food and suppli,o.o. erect ~:our own tent, and smvivc by \·uur own wits. To get there, you must fly, take a boat, mush a clog

or walk in on foot. 'Sometimes I feel like I've taken

a juurney back in time," Nyitray wrote in the journal of his 1989 :\rctic trek. "As if I've bcl'n transported to an earlier day somewhere in our ancient pa~t with just what I carry on my back. I wander a world where the reality of the present (outside world) is neither seen, heard, nor felt. Were it not for this journal, I would surely lose all sense of time."

PHOTO BY f.~ASLOWSKI PHOTO

The Arctic Eefuge is what the rest of Nnrth America once wa:; -a vast, unspoiled wilderness stretching from horizon to horizon. Despite its barren-looking landscapes, it is a place rich with meaty game and hungry fish. A man or woman skilled with a rifle or a fishing pole need never go hungry.

The best hunters are the natives, an Eskimo people known as the Gwich'in, who have fished for salmon in the Yukon Eiver and hunted the caribou of the Porcupine herd for many generations. Their population is small, maybe 7,000, and most live in tiny outposts along the edges of the Eefuge.

I

PHOTO BY DOUG Pl UML1E R!PHOTO RESEARCHERS. INC

Social anthropologi:.t David Murray, who has studir::d several Gwich'in villages. explains that although few modern-day residents are dependent on game or

PIIOTO BY DAVID DE VRIES/8PU(f COI.FMAN INC.

24 JULY/AUGUST 1996 HtARTLAHD liSA

fish for subsistence, hunting and fishing allow families to "gain access to traditional foods that are regarded as almost comparable to medicines in their capacity to

ITstc;rc pt~ople to well being." According to Murray, as envi

r,)nmcntalists fight to keep oil companies from driiling on the Arctic Refuge, the c;wich'in are being pulled in two directions. They want the byproducts of resource development, such as hospitals and schools, but they also realize that the cost could be the caribou herds and salmon runs they treasure.

"Their lives are in genuine turmoil," Murray says. "Most want to enter the 20th century, but they want it to be on their terms, with some self-determination. That usually requires economic wherewithal, which implies [some] development."

Nyitray was introduced to the Gwich'in while making his trek across the Brooks Range. During "spring breakup," a time when neither rivers nor back country are fit for travel, he stayed with a ?0-year-olcl Gwich'in elder at his remote, sod-roufecl log cabin. Together the two hunted caribou, cut and hauled vvooci, and made repairs to the old man's homestead

"At any homestead a spare pair of hands is always welcome; and, as it's been said, when one lives isolated from people, loneliness becomes the fountainhead of hospitality," Nyitray says.

During his month-long stay, the

Wallace Stegner's thoughts should

serve as a warning as oil companies lobby to drill for

oil in the Arctic Refuge: "Something

will have gone out of us as a people

if we ever let the remaining wilderness

be destroyed, ... because it was

the challenge against which our

character ... was formed."

. PHOTO BY DAVID J JOB/KEN GRAHAM AGENCY

The 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has no roads and no visitor facilities. If you want to visit, you'll have to pack in your own food and supplies, erect your own tent; and survive by your own wits.

young adventurer was introducl'd to Gwich'in culture and herilii!lce After learning first-hand IJ(l\\"

closely the people's lives arc tied to the annual migrations of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, Nyit1 ay became deeply committed to stup ping the proposed oil rnent, which threatens to put an end to their way of life.

"The Gwich'in are a very open and generous people, with strong ties to the land and a high degree of respect for their elders and children," Nyitray explains. "Their culture is so strong, and the programs they've established to combat the social ills of alcoholism and drug abuse in their community !are so effective], that they \'C

become role models for other

i.

[groups of] Native Americans." Would Americans knowingly

allow the Grand Canyon to be dammed for hydropower, Nyitray asks, or would they agree to let developers tap the geothermal resources of Yellowstone? Would they allow oil wells on the Arctic Refuge if they knew that it would interrupt the caribou migrations, exterminate the Gwich'in culture, and violate this precious wilderness?

"(Mainly], what exists in the Lower 48 today are remnants or pockets of wilderness," Nyitray points out. "As we continually divide ecosystems (for the sake of development], we lose sight of the intricate, interwoven beauty of the world as it was created. The Arctic Refuge is a true wilderness,

in a world where little wilderness remains."

After calving, the great caribou herd slowly begins moving south from the tundra again, breaking up into smaller groups as it heads toward the short-timbered forests that will serve as shelter for the winter. The migration parallels the sun's retreat from the heavens and the lengthening darkness that will become, by mid-November, allencompassing.

In this place, time as we know it ceases to exist. Seemingly without end, the slow passages of the sun, the migrations of fish and animals, the freezing and thawing of rivers, and the ethereal lights of the aurora borealis come and go. And yet, even here, unless development is stopped at the boundary,

time will start running out for this pristine wilderness. -

Wordsmith Michael Hofferber lives and ulorks in the small, centralIdaho town of Shoshone.

information, contact:

Refuge Manager Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

101 12th Ave., Box 20 Fairbanks, AK 99701

e-mail address-R7 [email protected].

I![ARTLAND USA JULY/AUGUST 1996 27

oate AUG 0 1 1996


Client No. I La-

The Arichorage·Time's.: Publisher: BILL J. ALLEN

"Believing in Alaskans, putting Alaska first" Editor"$: DENNIS FKAIJI.EY. PAUl. JENKINS. WILLIAM f. TODIN

·.

ThP. 1\nchomgr. Timr.s Commcnlary in this segmcnl of the t\nchorogr. Daily NP.ws does ool represenl clw views of the Voily Ntm-s. It is wrillcn and puhlishrd undr.r an agrecmenl with former owners of 71u' Tim,;. in che interc.<ts nf pn=rving a divcrsitv of viewpoinls in the community.

Beattie tribute /2-<> .=I<{SA Lz.o £.11'0 oi<</0

PRESIDENT BILL Clinton has signed legislation giving a new name to 8 million acres of the Arctic National WJ..ldlife.

Refuge that he describes as "one of the most wild and beautiful places on this planet." .

The bill designated the wilderness portion of ANWR's total19 million acres as the "Mollie Beattie Alaska WJ..lderness Area," paying tribute to the former director of the U.S. Fish and WJ..ldlife Service, Mollie Beattie, who died of cancer this summer. . ·

The president's approval of the bill was in contrast to the action by former President Jimmy Carter some 20 years ago when he locked up more than 100 million acres of Alaska land in new federal parks and refuges. Then, Alaskans were outraged; this time there was no controversy.

The administration's arbitrary move back then had been initiated by a special interest group - the national environmental industry. Thesday's presidential action was initiated by the Alaska congressional delegation.

Beattie was the first woman to hold the director's post. She was recognized not only for her dedication to conservation of wild creatures and their habitat, but for her ability to include people in the mix. As Rep. Don Young said, "She combined her role as the chief steward of America's fish and wildlife programs with her compassionate belief that people were an inseparable part of the natul-al environment."

Beattie is given credit for encouraging employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service to recognize their public service responsibilities, bringing a sensitivity to a bureaucracy not historically known for its compassion.

"While Mollie and I often differed on legislative issues, we were able to work closely together because she was a person ofthe utmost integrity and professionalism," Young said. "I respected the fact that when she took a position on an issue it was because she truly believed it was the right thing to do. She was a straight shooter who earned the respect of all of. us in Congress."

Ironically, by naming ANWR's wilderness area after Beattie, the delegation and the president have made it possible for her legacy as a mediator to live on.

Future public policy debates about the Arctic refuge now have a better chance of being kept in perspective as a result of the separate designation for the Mollie Beattie Alaska Wilderness Area.

It should help clarify Congress' original intention for ANWR: to protect from development 8 million acres as permanent wilderness; to manage 9.5 million acres as a non-wilderness refuge; and, to allow, based on the recommendation of the secretaiy oflnterior, future oil and gas development on the 1.5 million acres of the

QUALITY SERVICES

nate AU6 0 2 199b


Client No.--L.-1 -z_D __ _ Facts against opening ANWR

The Daily News' welcome editorial opposing oil leasing in lower Cook Inlet is marred by its hypocritical support for developing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ·

Contrary to the Daily News' claims, the overwhelming majority of local residents oppose development in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. In Alaska, four Native communities are heavily reliant on the Porcupine caribou herd for the nutritional needs and cultural lives of their people. Arctic Village is most dependent on caribou with few alternative sources of food. Kaktovik is the closest, but depends less on caribou. Kaktovik formally supports development, but the community remains divided. Arctic Village, Venetie and Fort Yukon all oppose development.

The Daily News' assertion of lower environmental risk in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is equally.mistaken. As the News has partially reported (for example, on Aug. 18, 1995), after more than two decades of research, the verdict is in. Oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will likely result in major, long-lasting negative effects on the health and productivity of the Porcupine caribou herd. (This is largely a consequence of oil development activities displacing pregnant cows and cows with calves away from their traditional birthplace and nursery grounds into marginal areas.) To claim these and other environmental costs of developing the Arctic Wildlife Refuge are less significant than, say, the effects of a marine spill in Cook Inlet is doubtful. More important, these are expected environmental costs of developing the Arctic Wildlife Refuge ahd assume the oil industry will do everything right. To compare them with concerns about Cook Inlet, which focus on the consequences of a possible accident, and conclude lesser environmental "risk" i_n the Arctic Refuge defies logic - or at least Webster's.

The Daily News should reconsider its support for Arctic Refuge oil development. The facts are just not on its side.

d'-IS1l (k .:><J{ - Bob Childers, adviso1 · Gwich'in $!~ring Committee

QUALITY SERVICES

Date AUS 0 3 19SS


Client No. tZO

Nativ s' suit over NWR ·gets tossed Corporations wanted say in federal drilling report

/>0 J'{s'lf f/1 OJ/.:J

By NATALIE PHILLIPS Daily News reporter

A federal court judge bas tossed out a lawsuit filed by a group of Native corporations against the Interior Department over a 1995 report that opposes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Each side is reading the order differently and both are claiming victory.

The corporations - which stand to make money if an oil field is developed on the refuge's coastal plain - sued in December after the Interior Department issued a report critical of ANWR development. Deborah Williams, the top Interior Department official in Alaska, said the report was put together quickly when the ANWR issue came before Congress at the last moment.

The corporations argued that the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 guarantees them a say in decisions about the refuge. They sued

because they weren't consulted for the 1995 report. The lawsuit asked the court to force the agency to redo the report, taking the corporations' ideas into account.

U.S. District Judge John Sedwick wrote that ANILCA requires the Interior Department. to publish a report on the coastal plain's fish and wildlife and their habitat before Congress makes any decision about development of oil or gas. The same law requires that the state governor, Native villages, Native regional corporations and interested people within the area be consulted for the report, according to the court order.

The judge also found that a prodevelopment report issued in 1987 still stands as the "final agency action," because the 1995 report was simply "an in-house assessment regarding whether the ·1987 report needs to be supplemented or revised."

"We are very pleased," Williams said. The court upheld the agency's right to review earlier reports and positions and advlse Congress if new infonnation on an issue is available, Williams said.

The Native corporations contend that even though Sedwick dismissed their suit, he agreed with their position that the Interior Department can't change its stance on ANWR development without consulting them.

The companies - Arctic Slope Regional Corp., Cook Inlet Region Inc. and Kaktovik Inupiat.Corp. -were seeking to have

Please see Page C-3, ANWR.

ANWR: Lawsuit thrown out t?D J'iSS <u e'll3

i Continued from Page C-1 I the 1987 report designated · as the Interior Department's official position on ANWR development, said Mark Kroloff, general counsel for Cook Inlet Regional Inc. ·

"So we are very satisfie<:l with the ruling," Kroloff said.

Williams said the lawsuit was never about revoking or substantiating the 1987 report. She said the 1987 report is a "historical fact" and that can't be

changed. But during the past 10 years, new biological information has been developed and should be considered in the ANWR decision, Williams said.

"The report we did last year was in fact preliminary," Williams said. "We are, as we speak, working on a final report and will be doing consultations" with Native groups. "But it won't supersede the 1987 report. It will just have current information. We already know that the president and the (Interior) secretary oppose drilling."

QUALITY SFXVICES

fu te AUG 1 6 1996

:chikan fuily News

0. ient No .--"l_,;::<-;;...:o"----

Legis}ative -Candidates Express--ANWR-Vie" 1 }-J ;w 1 u >o & kJ & rv

ANCHORAGE (AP) Responses op ANWR, defeating every amend-by U S. Senate and U.S. House candi- ment to kill the proposal. We elimi-d:lle> to The Associated Press ques- nated the "blackmail clause" pre-tionn:~ire regarding support for oil ex- venting Alaska from getting its fair pi oration in the Arctic National share of revenues and blocked wilder-Wild lift: Refuge's coastal plain: ness legislation. When President Clin-

Q For years, drilling in the Arctic ton vetoed ANWR, we met with him National Wildlife Refuge's coastal and offered proposals to provide addi-plain has been touted as the state's tiona! protections for the environment. last best chance for another oil boom. The vast majority of Alaskans favor 'uch drilling, yet effortS led from the Lower 48 have prevailed in keeping r\NWR closed to oil and gas explor:llion. Do you f:~vor opening ANWR to dnlllng? If so. wh:~t would you do differently from wh:n the state's curl cnt congression:~l delegation is doing to open it"!

U.S. SENATE: REPUBLICAN Dave Cuddy: I f:~vor opening ANWR to envi

r·"'nlentally sound and safe oil explo-1. According to our statehood act. Alaska receives 90 percent

,,, the revenue from ANWR. Ted Stevens. on the Ooor of the Senate, proposed to reduce that to 50 percent. I will resolutely fight for 90 percent. I al'o beli.:ve that we must sell the idea of opening ANWR to the rest of America. One does not accomplish tim by calling Interior Secretary llruce Babb1tt a liar on national television. Stevens' uncontrollable temper w:.~stcd a precious opportunity to talk to the nation.

Charles McKee: Did not respond to the question. Ted Stevens: Absolutely ANWR should be

opened. Working with Senator Murkowski and Congressman Young, I authorized seismic exploration of ANWR, which led the Interior Department to recommend that it be developed. The Alaska congressional delegation passed legislation w devel-

The Alaska delegation has done everything possible to enact ANWR, but unless President Clinton changes his mind, the only way to get ANWR signed into law is to elect Bob Dole.

DEMOCRATIC Michael Beasley: I will open the coastal plain for de

velopment and I will ensure the 90 percent-10 percent revenue split with the federal government. I have spoken to those who live closest to the area planned for development and those farthest away. There is no doubt Alaska is in favor of developing, and de-. velopment can and will be done in an environmentally safe manner. I have reviewed the concerns of the Gwichin and the Lower 48 activists - they don't have a leg to stand on. I will not allow jealously and misguided interests to stand between Alaskans and their right to work.

Hank Blake: First we should put in the gas

pipeline. Then we should develop the ANWR oil fields. We need to show 'the environmentalists that the environment is not ruined by the development of the oil fields. There should be extensive safeguards to ensure that this continues to be the case. I would work to educate the members of Congress on the need for this development, and the safe ways it can be done. The idea of trading some of the land where there is oil for land without oil, to keep the refuge and still allow the development of the new oil

fie!ds is very good. Larry Freiberger: I oppose the 50-50 royalty split

with the federal government. The last thing we need is for Congress to start viewing Alaska resources with covetous eyes. I will hold talks with Native leaders opposed to drilling to see if there is any way to persuade them to drop their objections. I see no prospect of development under the original 90-10 terms without their cooperation.

Bob Gigler: Open 1 percent to exploration on

Native land and make 99 percent a wilderness refuge. Any monetary benefit to the state is 10 to 15 years away.

Theresa Obermeyer: I (avor drilling in the Arctic Na

tional Wildlife Refuge and believe that this bill was vetoed this spring because of the ineptitude of the incumbent. I am positive I can do a better job than Senator Stevens has done on this and other issues.

Joe Sonne man: Petroleum resources are non-re

newable. America should use more mass transit, more hydroelectric and other renewable energy sources. Opening ANWR is OK if Alaskans also refine crude oil into value-added petroleum products to get manufacturing profits. While photographing Alaska's pipeline construction. I learned that aerial views more accurately show Alaska· s large - and development's small- size to Outsiders. Environmentalists help developers do it right, so I'd ask them for least-harm plans. Indirect grass-roots lobbying most effectively moves Congress; videotape best directly presents information on distant subjects to Congressional committees.

Frank Vondersaar: I support opening ANWR to oil

drilling. As opposed to the current delegation, I would try to work with.

:md as much as possible accommodate, "those who have environmental concerns about ANWR drilling.

GREEN Jed Whittaker: The real issue is jobs. I am opposed

to opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and exploration because heavy hydrocarbon fuels are dinosaurs and a vision for the future means manufacture of natural gas cars and conversion and natural gas stations. The new demand would make a natural gas pipeline economically feasible. Jobs for Alaskans, not special-interest legislation for the oil industry. Natural gas cars will create thousands of jobs.

U.S. HOUSE REPUBLICAN Jim Dore: I support opening ANWR to oil ex

ploration. There is no constitutional authorization for any federal land in the United States except for military purposes and the I 0 square miles of Washington, D.C. All other federal land by definition is unconstitutional. That includes about 60 percent of Alaska, including ANWR, which must properly be given to the state. With ANWR under state control, the revenues would be I 00 percent Alaskan - not 90-l 0, or even worse, 50-50 split-the-pot with ·the feds. Alaskans would then have sovereign rights equal to the 13 original states and be in complete control of their land, as the Founding Fathers intended.

Sybil Skelton: Did not respond to the question. Don Young: Representing the wishes of the vast

majority of Alaskans, I support allowing limited oil and gas leasing in the coastal plain of ANWR. With senators Stevens and Murkowski, I successfully included an authorization to open ANWR as part of budget legislation that was vetoed by the president. The legislation includes assurances that wildlife, habitat and subsistence resources are protected, and that when necessary, the Interior secretary may close portions of the coastal plain to exploratory drilling, on a seasonal basis, to protect caribou calving areas and other species of wildlife and fish. As long as Alaska has three committee chairmen, ANWR has a good chance of being opened.

DEl\lOCH.ATIC Georgianna Lim·oln: l h:tvc consistently ~upporteJ open

ing ANWR to drilling ;~,, lu11g ;J\ ,;;Jfc

guards arc in place fnr the: residcll!s. habllat and wildlife <lf the :tre:L In the: stale Senate, I supported ltfltll~~ tho.: oil export han. which is :1 trc!llcndou~

economic stinwbtiun l<~ .t\I:I'LL C'Ptl trary to our congrC\\Ill:tii-1S nq~oti:llc:J

50-50 royalty split. l will h<>ld 111 the YO-I 0 royally split until Al:i~k:ub \'Plc differently. Unckr 50-50. wc 1;ive the federal e.ovanment millions ;Jild million-; of dollars. That docsn' t m;tke sen~e with our decli111nl:! oil rcn:nuc~. ·

GREEN John Grames: Refused to answer the quc,tion. ALASKAN INDEPENDENCE William Nemec: Part of ANWR needs to be included

in Native sovereign lands ~o that the oil development can put an eco!lomy in the Native interior and we can export more oil. Sovereignty will support ANWR in Washington.

Anchorage Daily News Monday, August 19, 1996

Slope's tiny moose population dying off By CRAIG MEDRED Daily News outdoors editor

When adult moose mysteriously started to drop dead on the tundru or the North Slope last summer, wildlife biologist Geoff Carroll had a puzzle.

in Alaska has left him instead with the proverbial riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

"This is all I've been thinking about for the last year," the Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologist said by telephone from his office in Barrow fast week. "I've got lots of theories."

Some biologists <JJ'L: wondenng if this could be the end for moose north of the Brooks Range. Moose h<.tbitat there always has been marginal, and it is only in relatively recent times that the animals managed to stake a foothold.

What could be killing these animals in the kindest and most bountiful of Alaska's often hostile seasons 1

As yet, he has no answer. A year of trying to figure out what is dev

astating the northernmost moose population

During the past three years, Carroll has watched a North Slope moose population of about 1,600 animals drop to perhaps just a third of that number, and the decline continues.

"The story of the North Slope moose (is that) they only moved into this area relatively recently," Carroll snid. "There were very few north of the Brooks Range prior to the

1940s. Then they moved over (from the south side) and established breeding popula-. tions, and they seem to have been gradually expnncling."

By the late 1970s, almost every North Slope river valley with willow bushes - the tallest growing plants i.n the area - had moose. The food supply was limited and the weather notoriously harsh, but the moose seemed to thrive in every available niche.

"From 1970 to 1991," Car:· roll said, "there was just a very stable population. It was unusually stable for moose."

During that period, the moose on the eastern portion of the North Slope, the animals' main habitat north of the Brooks Range, fluctuated from 1,300 to 1,600 animals.

Then, in 1993 came the first hint of trouble.

Six calves per 100 cows were noted in surveys that fall, down from an average of 41 to 45 calves per 100 cows in previous years, Carroll said. By 1994, the cow-to-calf ratio had declined to three rer 100.

"L<~st year," Carroll said, "I could not find a single calf in (the trend area). That was pretty dramatic. . . There was obviously ~~Jmething going on there."

An expanded survey this spring found half to threequarters of the entire moose population had disappeared.

"We've had a lot of adult mortality as well as poor calf survival," Carroll said.

Biologists have been pondering those adult deaths since 18 mature moose turned up dead in one river valley last summer. Summer dieoffs are highly unusual, and

these animals keeled over ~u quickly and in such a small area that scavenging bears. wolves and wolverines couldn't even consume the bouJll). of suddenly available protein

Carroll has several theories as to what harpened:

•Copper deficiencies. Cop· per deficiencies have rav. aged moose populations in parts of Sweden. and some North Slope moose tested lo11· on copper. But on the utlli.:r hand, the copper deficiency in Alaska moose doesn't appear as serious or widespread as in Sweden, where the chemical treatment of lakes to buffer acid rain apparently started problems.

•Brucellosis. An infectious, bacterial disease, brucellosis can cause havoc among domestic cows and sheep. Fish and Game veterinarian Randy Zarnke of Fair-

banks sa1d vets were shocked to find a high incidence of brucella bacteria in live North Slope moose examined this spring.

"Any (moose) that get it usually die," Carroll said, which could be why the bacteria appears rarely in live moose here. Zarnke once checked more than 1,000 Alaska moose in a search for the bacteria and found three animals that had been exposed.

Veterinarians working with Carroll on radio-collaring moose this spring found twice that many indications of brucella in 30 cows. One out of five had been exposed.

"\Ve did find that thev hnd a very high, very high -(rilte of infection)," Carroll said. "That's real unusual for lllUOSC

Caribou on tilL: North Slope are often infected with brucellosis, and caribou populations ar-c boom inS! And ·a lingering problem ~~·ith brucella in moose would be expected to first manifest itself in pregnant moose, by causing spontaneous abortions.

Four of the brucella-infected cows tested this spring, however, were pregnant. ;md all four seem to have birthed healthy cal\·es.

•Predation. "Both the bear and wolf populations appear quite high," Carroll. said, and both species are efficient pt·edators, particularly on moose calves. The deaths of half to three-quarters of the calves born on the North Slope each year could be due to predators that thrive on the old, the weak, and, most of all, the young

1 Determin

ing predation rates, however, is costly and time-consuming. With neither the time nor the money, Carroll is forced to rely primarily on anecdotal evidence.

Some of this anecdotal evidence - the field observations of biologists, big-game guides, trappers and others who call the North Slope home - points not only to predators but to insects as well.

. •Bugs. The biting bugs were as bad as anyone can remember on the North Slope last summer, Carroll said. He had reports of bedraggled moose running from swarms of flies and mosquitoes. It's possible. he saiJ. that the insects literally buggcJ moose to Jcath. though biologists generally consider this unlikely. Moose are well adapted to survive against most insects.

•Range deterioraJion. It's possible, biologists agree, that the North Slope moose population simply has grO\vn too big for the limited shrubbery available to support it. If that were the case, howev-

CT. adults would he expected to end the 11·inter in poor condition, and North Slope moose die! not look bad at the start of this summer, Carroll said. And range deteriot·ation alone cannot explain the summer die-off of adults, a phenomenon that seems to have ended.

•A little of everything. Food-stressed tnoose, endur-ing long winters with harsh weather and cc;~selessly hat·'-lssed by summer bugs, could become more vulnerable to predators, brucellosis or even copper deficiencies, some biologists said.

Biologists are beginning to learn more, Carroll added. They tranquilized, examined and radio-collat·ed more than 30 adult moose this spring with an emphasis on cows

"Before this we really didn't know if they just weren't getting pregnant or they were having weak calves or if it was a predation problem," Carroll said. "The pregnancy rate wasn't great, but it was adequate."

Birthing seemed normal, and adult moose did better than expected. ''I'm kind of surprised at how little adult mortality we've had," he said.

But the calves are again dying for reasons Carroll has yet to pinpoint.

"Now, every timell go (fly the radio collars) there's just a few less calves," he said_ "We're down to nine out of 23. We've kind of answered a few questions, but we've got a lot more.

"We've had 1,000 moose die ... (and) I really don't know why. It's kind of tough at this point.

"The other thing that's really interesting is that it's been such a widespread thing.

:\II the \\'ay across the North Slope and down onto the Sc\\·;.ml Peninsula ant.! the Noatah [ l{iver). It's been ;:!II over Nonhern Alaska."

The big question is why.

QUALITY SERVICES

nate AUS 2 2 1996


Client No. /"Z {) ::-=----.:~--

Alaska Democrats rebel over ANWR

I.)<> J '1--'>fl By NATALIE PHILLIPS Daily News reporter

When Democrats gather in Chicago next week the platform they are expected to adopt includes a pledge to fight all efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development.

And that has Alaska Democratic Party officials hopping mad. ·

They've complained. They've written letters. They've made phone calls. All to no avail. "It doesn't sit well with the

Alaska delegation," said former Gov. Bill Sheffield, who is chairman of the state's Clinton-Gore campaign. "(Alaska Democrats) are probably pretty much in fa-

vor of opening ANWR, just like at least 70 percent or more of Alaskans." ·

But the national party going against local wishes isn't a huge surprise, considering most Americans are against opening the refuge, and the president has been "pretty steadfast" with the same sentiments, Sheffield said.

National party ieaders met in early August and came up with the platform plank, according to Joelle Hall, executive director of the Alaska Democratic Party. When local party representatives learned about it, they began arguing against it.

"We wrote a rather force-

Please see Back Page, ANWR

ANWR: Stand riles Democrats /~ 3<1->"'1'1

J Continued from Page A-1 J

ful letter that we absolutely rejected (the position) and resented not being consulted," Hall said. "We tried to get it deleted or modified. Basically we were told that was not going to happen.'-'

That letter was followed by a formal letter of protest, Hall said.

The governor's office also joined the battle.

"I think we let the party know exactly where we are coming from on it," said Bob King, a spokesman for Gov. Tony Knowles, who has lobbied the president to open the refuge to exploration.

But the fuss made no difference.

Now local party officials are downplaying the significance of the national party's position. ·

"We're certainly disappointed," King said. "But we are not too overly worried about the impact of this specific line in a document that will probably be gathering dust for a long time .... We don't think the mere fact that it appears in there is going to hinder in any way our ability to work toward our goal for seeking responsible development of ANWR."

"We are not happy with it, but we can't be a one-issue party," Sheffield said. "There are lots of other things that the president is doing well as far as I am concerned."

"There's nothing left for us to do," Hall said. "We have expressed our displeas~re

with the DNP, and now we are moving on. We still support opening ANWR."

(g \.

QUALITY SERVICES

Date AUG 2 8 m5 Fairbanks

Daily News Miner

.A1~Skans go down quietly on ANWR By JIM CLARKE ern or and the governor and decided not to dp Associated Press Writer ·· anything tonight," Gattpn said. "People

CHICAGO-;-Alaska's .delegates . to the . made the effort when they thought it would Democratic National Convention cast a help," while the platform was being drafted, muted 'aye' on a voice vote Tuesday ap- she said. proving a party platform opposed tQ oil Alaska is one of just two states singled out drilling in the Arctic National, Wildlife in the platform's environmental section. The Refuge. · .. · · other is· Florida,· Where the Clinton adminis-

Thus it took only a few seconds for the tration is promising to protect the EvercOnvention, by unanimous roar, to approve a glad~. · · . . .~ .. : . ·· · , ~ · platform giving many Alaskans a reason to . But that's not. a measure opposed by 70 vote against President qiinton. Poorgia Gov. . percent of Floridians. Polls indicate about Zell Miller, the platform committee chairman,. that percentage of Alaskans favor opening didn't even ask for dissenting votes. · ANWR's coastal plain to drilling.

Alaska delegation chairwoman Gail Gatton The region hasn't been widely explored, said delegates discussed staging some sort of but it could hold billions of barrels of oil. Geprotest. But what good would their 19 votes ologists say the area has the right elements do against the 4,301 other delegates on the for a big field, and the results of the one ex-floor, she asked. ploration well are a closely guarded secret. ·

"We discussed (it) with the lieutenant gov- In vetoing a Republican-backed budget bill

last year, Clinton cited a provision allowing oil drilling in ANWR as one of his reasons for rejecting the measure.

Supporters of the drilling say oil leases would bring $1.3 billion to the federal treasury. Opponents say development would

. harm the caribou that feed and give birth there during the Arctic's brief summer.

Delegate Glenn Meidinger of Valdez, a i maintenance planner with Alyeska Pipeline ·~Services Co., said the anti-drilling plank troubled him but he wasn't up to raising a fuss' over it. ;

"I got all my ya-yas out in 1968," he said,' referring to the last Democratic convention inJ tim0llc~wo. "I'm going to behave myself thi~·s

e. Other Alaska delegates have said tha

while the platform disappoints them, the won't allow a single issue to tarnish the' support for Clinton.

Anchorage Daily News Wednesday, September 25, 1996 137

)zce of The Times Iraq illustrates folly of Clinton's ANWR stanc By FRANK MURKOWSKI

Once again. American military per$0nnel ru-e engaged in the Persian Gulf for the sole purpose of keeping oil Oowing. And just as Iraqis saw their radar in~tallations explode earlier this month. Aml'ricans arc ~"Cing another cxplo~ion 111 the price of ga;oline at their local filling ~tat ion pump:-;.

Many Americans wonder why we keep fighting the Persian Gulf war thnt we won in 1991. Perhaps ;oon they will start asking why we keep fighting price hikes at the gasoline pumps every time there is a hiccup in world supplies. Or, as is the case this time. why prices jump only because .. r the threat the future new supplies -the :50 million ba1Tels a quarter. or $1 billion worth of oil that Iraq was about to sell on the world market - won't come on line as quickly as projected.

The reason is simply that even with America's considerable improvements in energy conservation of recent years, the world is consuming more and more oil, while the United States continues to produced less and less of it.

Worldwide consumption is up, especially in Asian nations. World oil consumption is up to 69 million barrels a day, from just 62 million barrels six Murkowski years ago. At the san1e time. American oil production has fallen nearly 30 percent since 1973. America now produces less crude oil than we did in 1955.

.-\s American production .falls. our imports rise. While we were only dependent on foreign sources for 36 percent of our oil at the time of the Arab oil embargo of 1973, we now spend more than $150 million a day to buy the 52 percent of the oil we import. Estimates by the Encqzy lnl;_,.mation Agency are that ".,. could be two-thirds dependent on foreign nations b,· the new century - a dependence that h;,_, ,;e1iou~ implications for uur economy, energy security and foreign policy.

Even if we escape the future blackmail threat of an oil cutoff. unless we drop our opposition to terrmism, we fat-e the continued economic bleeding that comes from spending $50 billion a year '"·erseas to buy oil - roughly a third of c.•ur balance of trade deficit.

This state of affairs is especially sad since there is a ready solution that can come without harm to our environment. It is simply to allow America to meet more of its oil needs, helping to stabilize our domestic supply, thus re· clueing price hikes. while keeping our money at home and creating jobs here -not in Iraq.

Alaska, the home of the nation's largest oil field - the giant Pmdhoe Bay field - also is home to what likely will prove to be the nation's second-largest oil find - oil lying under a small area of the Arctic coastal plain. According to estimates by the federal Bureau of Land Management. just a small part of the 1.5 million-acre co:~stal plain contains as much as 9.2 billion banels - enough to equal about a quaner of the nation's domestic re~en.·p::;

By permitting d,,velopment of.1ust ~ fe,"· thou:'and .h::·l· . ..; - lcs...::. than a hun· dredth of I pen-..·nt of the 19 million-acre Arctic National \\'ildlift! Hefuge - we would stabiltzc ••ur oil production. increase our gro:-; . ..:. naLional product ln $50.4 billion_-dL'<:rense our balance of pa;·. ment.s deficit h\' more than :5l0 billion a year. and genCratc an improvement to our economy of about $325 billion over the life of the anticipau:d field.

On top of tho:-;e benefit..~. as organiz"-·d labor well knows. oil development will

produce tens of thousands of new jobs -ur to 735.000 in all 50 states by one estimate.

Now, if this were required to come at the expense of our Arctic em-ironment. it might not be worth the cost. But our experience at Prudhoe Bay has shown that careful de,·elopment can fit hand in glove with the environment. In Alaska. tr caribou herd at Prudhoe Bav is n< more than three times larger than it " before construction struted on the Pruc. hoe Bay field. Bird nesting population> are larger than they were before the od field. and there has been no damage l•.>

polar bears. It is past time that .-\rnerit<llb luok <!:

all the new technology that ha~ lx-en cit' ''eloped to penn.it .\rctic oil de,·clu!)men: to occur safely and explode tlw nn'tl" tha~ haq~ st0pped us from t~1~dng the o~· k n.·alistic step availahle to U::' to help "-'lntrol \·olatile U.S. oil supjJiit·;-;. ·:nat :.; to producc alit he oil thi!it we :;at\:1;. L<in 1:~

:\merica. bri\·ing U$ time to continuL' l'-.

_..;·~·.:rd1 to dt.:\·elop new energy ~~Jure!::' .md fuel con3erv:1tion h.'<..'IU1olugit::; fUr ti~c

~lake no mistA.lke. our t.'Ontinuin5 pn.·:-:· encc in the Gulf is to keep an unintencqx · ed ;upply of oil Oo"ing to the Free World

, Frank ~~ur~ows.ki rcpn..~nrs tho.· ,;l.tk ,,fALL~

..... ::\tlll'l.~. ~·n:ttt•.

)lcphone (907)- Fradley 264-8791 - Jenkins 264-8792- Tobin Z64-a793 - FAX ZfH-117!1~- e-mail AnchTimes@:cormm.com

ALASKA Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Monday, December 9,1996

Boundary case linked to refu e oil The Associated Press

ANCHORAGE-An Alaska victory in a U.S. S;uprem~ Court case over the state s precise northern boundary would have the side effect of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to development despite a congress~onal

ban on oil drilling there, enVIronmentalists are telling the high court.

A coalition of national and Alaska environmental organizations asked the Supreme Com:t recently to let its views be considered when . the justices take up the 16-year-old case next ye~. The court said Friday that It would hear their concerns, clearing the way for them to file a brief with the high court.

The court is expected soon to set a date to hear the case.

The case involves a complex dispute over which areas off the

. northern Alaska coast belong to the state and which to the feder.al government. At stake are ~llions of acres of lagoons, nver mouths and coastal areas, some of which are known or believed to contain oil. The lands are referred to as "submerged lands" because they are under water.

More than a decade ago the federal government leased dispute~ property next to the state-ownea Prudhoe Bay, the largest oil field in North America. Oil since has been discovered on those leases,

including British Petroleum's big North-star field.

More than $1.4 billion in proceeds from the lease sales is being held in escrow until the case is decided. ·

A special master appointed to make recommendations to the Supreme Court concluded in April that most of the disputed land belongs to the United States. Based on that outcome, Alaska would l;>e entitled to about $4 million of the escrowed money.

But the special master said Alaska owns tidal areas between the arctic wildlife refuge andibarrier islands just offshore. A 1987 Interior Department report on the refuge's oil potential found those tidal areas could overlay rich oil deposits.

Drilling on the refuge's coastal region is prohibited, a controversial ban that has frustrated oil companies and otheryro-devel?pment interests while cheermg many environmentalists, who say oil drilling could upset the area's ecological balance.

But if the Supreme Court agrees with the special master, Alaska could allow drilling at the nearshore lands. Environmentalists said in their petition th~t the coastal plain then could be mdustrialized.

Development could creep onto

the coastal plain under provisions of the 1980 Alaska Lands Act, a federal law that ensures access to state property through federal land, they said.

"The actual reach of development would extend beyond the submerged lands and include roads and other transportation systems, pipelines and other infrastructure on the coastal plain," the petition said.

Petitioners included the Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, the Alaska Wilderness League, the Porcupine Caribou Management Board, the Alaska Center for the Environment, the Northern Alaska Environmental Center and Trustees for Alaska.

In briefs filed with the high court, the U.S. solicitor general argued that the refuge tidal areas were reserved for the federal government by the Alaska Statehood Act.

But Alaska said in its filings that land reservations have to be clearly spelled out by Congress, and that because neither the refuge areas nor coastal areas · off the National Petroleum Reserve-

Alaska to the west were clearly reserved by Congress, they should go to Alaska under the federal Statehood Act.

A key issue in the case is how to draw the state-federal boundary around offshore islands and whether a particular shoal, called Dinkum Sands, is an island.

Ordinarily, the state's border is three miles offshore. Mapping of the North Slope border was complicated by the barrier islands beyond the three-mile limit. State ownership of the islands is not in dispute.

Alaska maintains that under the federal policy in place at the time of statehood, the barrier_·islands form a line from whicn .the state's border should be drawn three miles seaward.

The federal government claims, however, that the court should measure out three miles from the coastline to set the state's boundary, and then draw three-mile circles around the barrier islands. That approach, endorsed by the special master, would leave leave large areas between the coast and the islands in federal hands.

Celebrate NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES during

ATIO AL WILDLIFE REFUGE WEEK October 5-13

Discovery Day for Kids Alaska Public Lands Information Center

Saturday October 5 - 1 0 am to 4 pm

7r Games and crafts for children to do with an adult

Refuge and Wildlife Programs Shown during the week at the Fairbanks Public Lands Information Center

and the Noel Wien Public Library

National Wildlife Refuge Celebration Bentley Mall

Saturday and Sunday, October 12 and 13

7r Games and crafts 7r Face painting 7r Exhibits, photo displays, and information 7r Mr. Checker's magic show - Sunday at 2 pm 7r Free balloons, posters, bookmarks, and more 7r Guest appearance by Teddy Roosevelt

Admission is FREE to all activites.

America 's National Wildlife Refuges - where wildlife comes naturally!

PRESS RELEASE

May 2, 1996

From: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 101 12th Ave., Rm 266, Fairbanks, AK 99701 907/456-0250

Contact: Tom Edgerton

Migratory Bird Day Celebration Planned

A Migratory Bird Day celebration is planned at the Noel Wien Public Library for Saturday, May 11th from 10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. This family-oriented event will provide Fairbanks and other Alaskan residents the opportunity to celebrate and learn about the migratory waterfowl, songbirds, and shorebirds that are a sure sign of spring in interior and northern Alaska.

"Fairbanks is a good place to hold such an event," said Philip Martin, a local bird biologist. "Interior winters cause most species to migrate from the Fairbanks area every fall. After seven months ofwinter, their return in spring is something that we should and do celebrate."

Morning bird walks will be held at 8:30a.m. and 9:30a.m. to help kick off the celebration. Another key event will be a Recognition and Awards Ceremony to honor the winners of Alaska's Federal Junior Duck Stamp Contest. All the winning entries will be displayed in the main reading area of the library. Other plans include a puppet show, songs about birds, storytelling, a book reading, slide programs, art activities, and live bird presentations. There will be demonstrations of bird painting and sketching, bird carving, bird song recording, and mist netting. People will get the opportunity to use binoculars and spotting scopes, see bird-related educational software, become familiar with different field guides, get advice on bird feeders and feeding, and learn about building and installing nest boxes to attract local species. Craft activities and other displays will help children and others learn first-hand about bird migration, bird adaptations, and bird identification.

Holding this event at the Noel Wien Public Library will help remind people that birds can be seen in areas throughout our community," said Tom Edgerton, an event organizer. "People will get the chance to share the excitement and learn about the importance and value of migratory birds simply by going to enjoy the public library."

Many community-minded organizations and individuals are volunteering their services and expertise to help make the celebration a success. Organizers of the event include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Noel Wien Public Library, Alaska Department ofFish and Game, Alaska Public Lands Information Center, Arctic Audubon Society, and Alaska Bird Observatory.

###

REFUGE BULLETIN Arctic, Kanuti, and Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuges 101 12th Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE WEEK CELEBRATION. The second annual National Wildlife Refuge Week is scheduled for October 5 to 13. National Wildlife Refuge Week is a time for all Americans to learn about and celebrate the magnificent collection of public lands and waters that we call National Wildlife Refuges. All Americans (and particularly those who live near and use National Wildlife Refuges frequently) can take pride in knowing that our refuge system is the best and most diverse system of conservation lands in the world set aside primarily to protect wildlife, for the benefit of present and future generations.

Surprising to many people is the fact that the National Wildlife Refuge System is larger than our National Park System. There are currently 508 National Wildlife Refuges (over 92 million acres) with some in every state. Refuges provide important habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species including over 700 birds, 220 mammals, 250 reptiles and amphibians, and more than 200 species offish. Millions of people visit National Wildlife Refuges each year to enjoy and learn about wildlife through hunting, fishing, hiking, and a variety of other activities.

The Arctic, Kanuti, and Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuges, headquartered in Fairbanks, are an important part of this extraordinary system of refuges. Together they comprise nearly onethird of all the lands in the entire National Wildlife Refuge System. To recognize this fact, and celebrate the refuge system, a number of activities have been scheduled in Fairbanks during National Wildlife Refuge Week.

HOW YOU CAN PARTICIPATE. The celebration begins on Saturday, October 5 with a "Discovery Day" for kids at the Alaska Public Lands Information Center (250 Cushman Street). Several programs are planned during the week at the Alaska Public Lands Information Center and the Noel Wien Library. The finale is scheduled for the weekend of October 12 - 13 at the Bentley Mall. There will be a wide variety of fun exhibits, interactive displays, and hands-on activities related to National Wildlife Refuges, with emphasis on Alaska Refuges. National Wildlife Refuges also will be showcased in a display at the Noel Wien Library during the entire month of October. For more information about National Wildlife Refuge Week, or to learn more about the National Wildlife Refuge System, please call one of the following numbers.

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 456-0250 Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge 456-0329

Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge 456-0440

AMERICA•s ~ATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES •••

where wildlire comes naturally!

IN REPLY REFER T Q,

Greetings:

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Federal Building & Courthouse

101 12th Avenue, Box 20 Fairbanks, Alaska 9970 1-6267

Visit the Arctic Refuge web site at: http://www.fws.gov/~r7hpirm/nwr/arctic/arctic.html

Or contact the Refuge Manager at: Jim_ [email protected]

Thank you for your request for information about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Enclosed are several brochures and other handouts that should answer most of your questions. As a potential visitor to the area, please be aware that little information is available regarding specific hiking routes and rivers in the refuge.

Consequently, you will find no packaged trip plans or trail maps pointing the way. Rather, an experience in the Arctic Refuge is one you must search out for yourself Perhaps more than anywhere in America, the refuge is a place where the sense of the unknown, of horizons unexplored, of nameless valleys remains alive.

These rare qualities place the symbolism of wilderness before the visitor, not as an abstract image, but as a real place where decisions have consequences. Be aware that where the wild has not been taken out of the wilderness, there are risks. Where freedom, discovery, and exploration prevail, experience and self-reliance are required.

If you seek the wilderness opportunity the Arctic Refuge has to offer, and are willing to make the mental, physical, and material preparations necessary, we encourage you to read the enclosed information and begin planning. Be aware that permits are not required for non-commercial trips in the refuge.

If you make a trip to the refuge, feel free to call or stop by the office on your way through Fairbanks. Office hours are 8:00-4:30, Monday through Friday. The telephone number is (907) 456-0250. Please let me know if I can provide further assistance.

Sincerely,

James W. Kurth Refuge Manager

LITERATURE.LIST Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Books:

Nameless Valleys, Shining Mountains - by John P. Milton. Walker and Co., New York. 1970~

Earth and the Great Weather - the Brooks Range - by Kenneth Brower. McCall Publishing Co., New York. 1971.

Two in the Far North - by Margaret E. Murie. Alaska Northwest Publishing Co., Anchorage. 1978.

A Whaler and Trader in the Arctic -.by Arthur James Allen. Alaska Northwest Publishing Co., Anchorage. 1978.

Caribou and the Barren Lands - by George Calef. Firefly Books Ltd., Toronto. 1981.

Arctic Wildlife - by Monte Hummel. 1984.

Key Porter Books, Toronto. \

Kingdom of the Ice Bear: A Portrait of the Arctic - by Hugh Miles. British Broadcasting, London. 1985.

Alaska Paddling Guide - by Jack Mosby and David Dapkus. J & R Enterprises, ·P.O. Box 140264, Anchorage AK 99514. 1986.

Arctic Dreams - by Barry Lopez. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 1986.

The Arctic and its Wildlife - by Bryan Sage. Facts on File Publication, New York. 1986.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Its People, Wildlife Resources, and Oil and Gas Potential - Arctic Slope Consulting

Engineers, 313 E Street, Suite 2, Anchorage AK 99501. 1986.

Reminiscences of Four Years in Arctic Alaska - by Roy Sylar. North Slope Borough Planning Dept. (Alaska), Inupiat History, Language and Culture Division. 1987.

America's Hidden Wilderness: Chapter 5 Arctic Awakening - by George F. Mobley. National Geographic Society Special Publications Division, Wash. D.C. 1988.

Vanishing Arctic: Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge - by T.H. Watkins. Aperture Book~/The Wilderness Society, Wash. D.C. 1988.

North Slope Now - Alaska Geographic Society, Vol. 16, No.2, Anchorage AK. 1989.

To the Arctic: An Introduction to the Far Northern World - by Steven Young. Wiley, New York. 1989.

Midnight Wilderness: Journeys in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - by Debbie Miller;. Sierra Club Books, San

Francisco. 1990.

Alaska's Brooks Ranqe: The Ultimate Mountains - by John M. Kauffmann. The Mountaineers, Seattle Wash. 1992.

Children's books:

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - by Alexandra Siy. Dillon Press, New York. 1991.

Our Living World of Nature: The Life in the Far North - by William Fuller and John Holms. McGraw-Hill, New York. 1972.

The Arctic and the Antarctic: What Lives There - by Lee Huntington. coward, McCann .and Geoghegan, New York. 1975.

A Closer Look at Arctic Lands -by J.L. Hicks. Franklin Watts, New York. 1977.

Tundra: The Arctic Land - by Bruce Hiscock. Atheneum, Macmillan Pub. Co., New York. 1986.

Living in Polar Regions - by Theodore A. Rees Cheney. Franklin Watts, New York. 1987.

Journey to the Top of the World ~ by Janet Foster. Prentice Hall Books for Young Readers. 1987.

Magazine Articles:

"We Hiked Across the Arctic" by Bernd Gaedeke. Alaska Sportsman Magazine, Vol. XXXIII. No. 1, January 1967.

"Canoeing theSheenjek" by Averill S~ Thayer. Alaska Magazine, october 1970.

"Our Last Arctic Wilderness - A Gift Denied?" by George Laycock. Audubon Magazine, Vol. 78, No. 4, July 1976.

"Numbers Beyond Counting, Miles Beyond Measure" by George Calef. Audubon Magazine, Vol.78, No. 4, July 1976.

"Arctic Range at a Crossroads" by Don Ross. Alaska Magazine, Vol. XLIII. No. 6, June 1977.

"A Passage of.Caribou" by Wilbur Mills. The Living Wildernef Vol. 41, No. 410, January/March 1978.

"Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Range - Our Wildest · Wilderness" by Douglas Chadwick. National GeograJ?hic

Magazine, Vol. 156, No. 6. December 1979.

"Arctic International Wildlife Range - Last Chance for the Porcupine Caribou Herd" by Nancy J. Russell-LeBlond and William E. Rees. Northern Perspectives, Vol. 7, No. 7, Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Ottawa. 1979.

"The Finding of N720" by Debbie Miller. The Living Wildernef Vol. 43 No. 147, December 1979.

"Refuges on the Rocks" by Jim Doherty; Audubon Magazine, Ju: 1983.

"The Last Pork Chop" by Edward Abbey. Outside Magazine, Mar< 1984.

"Across Arctic Mountains" by Ted Kerasote. Sports Afield Magazine, February and March 1984. \

"Flying for 1002" by Ted Kerasote. Alaska Magazine, Vol. L 1 7, July 1984.

"Refuge in the Arctic: Special Issue" Wilderness, Vol. 50 N< 174, Fall 1986.

"Fuel for·an Arctic controversy" by L. Williamson. Outdoor l Vol. 179, March 1987.

"High stakes in a land of plenty" by T.A. Lewis. ,National Wildlife, Vol. 25, JunejJuly 1987.

"Confrontation in the North" by Tom Kizzia. Defenders - Mag< of Defenders of Wildlife, Vol. 62 No. 2, SeptemberjOctol 1987.

"Summer on the Sheenjek" by Margaret E. Murie. Defenders -Magazine of Defenders of Wildlife, Vol. 62 No. 2, September/October 1987.

"Polar Opposites" by James R. Udall. Sierra, Vol. 72 No. 5, September /October 1987. ·

"Preserving Alaska's wildlife" by M. Udall. National Parks, 61, November/December 1987.

"Cumulative impacts of oil fields on northern Alaskan landsc< by D.A. Walker and others. Science, Vol. 238, November 1987.

General

The refuge or trains. aircraft to the rivers.

FLOAT TRIP PLANNING INFORMATION Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

has no roads and therefore no access for cars, buses Summer recreationalists generally use charter access the refuge, then backpack or float down one of

Transportation to nearby villages that serve as departure points to the refuge is by commercial aircraft from Fairbanks or Anchorage. In past years, charter aircraft have been available from Ft. Yukon, Kaktovik and Deadhorse. Planes land on the refuge at various unimproved upland airstrips, river gravel bars and lakes (in float equipped aircraft). Extra time should be allowed for air travel into and out of the refuge due to possible weather delays, especially if visitors travel through the village of Kaktovik. Visitors are encouraged to correspond directly with the various air charter companies and commercial guides regarding availability and entryjexit locations. Information on various trip rates and equipment rentals can also be obtained from commercial guides.

River Floating

Rafts, canoes, kayaks and Klepper boats can all be used on the rivers. However rafts are the most popular due to their easy portability in aircraft. Canoes and kayaks are very expensive to transport (unless they are collapsible) and are more hazardous in whitewater sections found on many rivers, especially on the north slope.

Refuge rivers must always be evaluated and run according to current conditions. River ratings are somewhat subjective and can change slightly depending on the stage of the river at any one time. Although rivers are generally open June through September, the safest water levels and best weather occur during July and early August. Visitors should be cautious of higherthan-average flows which can be encountered anytime of the year, especially after localized heavy rains upstream. Low water can be a concern on the Kongakut and Hulahula in August but is generally not a serious problem. It is possible to line through or portage the most difficult sections of the rivers.

Spring breakup generally occurs on north slope rivers during late May and early June. Water levels are often at flood stage during this time with ice floes and "aufeis" that make navigation hazardous. Aufeis are thick layers of ice formed by successive freezing of stream overflows during winter. During breakup, rivers carve vertical walled canyons through aufeis fields that can be a mile or more in length. During early summer or high

water later in the season, it can be dangerous to attempt travel through such areas. By mid to late June, the channels are generally carved and melted wide enough to allow passage. However, aufeis fields can be dangerous any time during the summer if river levels rise due to rains upstream. Therefore visitors should scout all ice areas prior to floating through to ensure that the river is not flowing under or through tunnels in the ice.

Refuge Rivers

Scenic grandeur, a variety of habitats and landscapes, wildlife, and opportunities for solitude, adventure and challenge all make refuge rivers appropriate and highly sought after for wildernessoriented recreation. Most refuge rivers are relatively swift and possess boulder-strewn or braided gravel beds, especially on the north slope. Water quality is considered excellent, although rivers are high and turbid during spring and after summer storms. Some rivers, particularly the Hulahula and Okpilak, carry a substantial glacial silt load in the summer. Following is a brief introduction to the primary rivers used by refuge floaters and hikers.

Aichilik River - The Aichilik begins among the high glaciated peaks of the Romanzof Mountains and flows north to the Arctic Ocean. Steep sided valleys of the river's upper reaches provide scenic hiking, but poor access, rapids, braiding and low flows combine to discourage floating. On the coastal plain, the river is the eastern boundary between the 1002 area and designated wilderness.

Canning and Marsh Fork Canning Rivers - The Canning is the longest and has the greatest volume of the refuge's north flowing rivers. Both the Canning and its major tributary, the Marsh Fork, have good headwaters access and flow through scenic glaciated valleys. Through the mountains, the river contains generally flat steady current. The Marsh Fork has short stretches of whitewater. Some 15 miles before the Canning empties into the Arctic Ocean, it becomes extensively braided, widening up to three miles in some areas.

Hulahula River - The Hulahula originates in the highest peaks of the Brooks Range, flows north 40 miles through steep-walled glacial valleys, then abruptly breaks out onto the coastal plain. Swift and turbid with glacial silt in the summer, the river is the most technically challenging of the regularly run north slope rivers. At average flow rates, rapids on the Hulahula are generally class I and II, although there are stretches of class III. Since the lower river is a prime area to see caribou, most floaters travel through at least a part of the coastal plain and some travel all the way to Kaktovik.

Due to its scenery, accessibility and floatability, the Hulahula is the second most popular recreational river in the refuge. The river is generally accessed fairly high in the headwaters at a place called Grassers Strip. A narrow twisting pass across the continental divide between the headwaters of the Hulahula and Chandalar Rivers provides a natural hiking route and a frequently used corridor for airplanes. The river is heavily hunted and fished by Kaktovik villagers.

Ivishak River - A designated wild river, the Ivishak flows from the Philip Smith mountains north for some 60 miles through the refuge. Fed by flows from relic hanging glaciers, the river develops a broad, braided flood plain typical of other north slope rivers. Although scenic, the river's shallow water, poorly defined channel and marginal access results in low use by floaters.

Kongakut River - The Kongakut is the only major refuge river whose entire course is within designated wilderness. Originating high in the mountains of the eastern Brooks Range, the river flows east for some 25 miles before heading north through 60 miles of rugged mountains to the coastal plain. Clear water, scenery, wildlife, fishing and fair access combine to make the Kongakut the most sought after and heavily used recreational river in the refuge.

The river is generally accessed fairly high in the headwaters at a place called Drain Creek. At average flow rates, rapids on the Kongakut are generally class I and II, although there are stretches of class III. Most floaters take out at Caribou Pass (an 8-10 day trip) although a few float all the way to the Beaufort Sea.

Okpilak River - The Okpilak travels north through a classic Ushaped valley in the heart of the most active glacial area of the refuge. The silt-laden river was recommended as a national natural landmark because of its prominent moraines, fans, sand dunes, outwashes and other glacial features. The upper river is too wild and dangerous for most river floaters and the terrain precludes aircraft access. These factors, however, offer hikers an uncommonly tranquil and scenic experience.

Coleen River - The clear, shallow Coleen, which flows south on the east side of the refuge, was a traditional route for Eskimos seeking trade with the Athabascan Indians. The river's upper tributaries are braided, have poor aircraft access and flow through scenic, but undramatic mountains. Although its forested middle and lower sections have good access, the Coleen is one of the refuge's less floated rivers.

East Fork Chandalar River - The Chandalar is a major Yukon River tributary. The East Fork of the river flows swiftly south from its high mountainous headwaters nearly 60 miles through a wide, mountain-rimmed valley. From there it meanders slowly through a

forested lake-dotted valley. The river passes Arctic Village and serves as a highway to subsistence hunting, fishing and trapping areas.

Sheenjek River - The Sheenjek, originating from glaciers at the continental divide, drains the south side of the Brooks Range's highest and most massive mountains. This designated wild river flows nearly 200 miles through dramatic mountains and forested foothills to join the Porcupine River in the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge. Single-channeled and relatively calm with numerous access points, the Sheenjek is the most popular of the refuge's south-flowing rivers. Most of the river is class I although a stretch in the upper reaches near Table Mountain is class II.

Wind River - This designated wild river begins across the divide from the headwaters of the Ivishak and flows 94 miles southeast to the East Fork of the Chandalar. Open tundra valleys fringed by limestone and shale mountains characterize its upper reaches. Forested hills, lakes and meadows dominate the lower river.

Other rivers - Many other rivers are scenic and have good wildlife viewing opportunities, but are not generally suitable for floating because of low water levels, extensive braiding andjor lack of aircraft access sites in the headwaters. They include the Aichilik, Egaksrak, Firth, Jago, Katakturuk, Sadlerochit and Tamayariak on the north slope and the Junjik on the south side. Stretches of these rivers may be navigable at certain times but it is difficult to anticipate when such conditions may occur. As a result, one cannot plan successful trips in advance.

3/92

Aircraft Access and Transportation Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Most visitors access the refuge by flying to Arctic Village, Fort Yukon, Deadhorse or Barter Island, then chartering a bush plane to their starting location. Aircraft also may be chartered from Fairbanks, but this is more expensive. Attached is a list of air charter companies that are authorized to operate on the refuge.

What type of aircraft do you need? The type of plane depends on the number and weight of people in your party, the amount of gear, the size and condition of the landing area, and weather conditions. Shorter, rougher landing areas require lighter loads. Do not pressure the pilot into taking more weight than hejshe feels the aircraft can safely handle for the existing conditions.

Where can you land? Although you are allowed to land anywhere within the refuge, including sensitive tundra sites, we recommend that you consider using the more durable surfaces (e.g. gravel and sand bars, lakes) that can withstand repeated landings with less aesthetic and environmental impact.

How much will the charter cost? The cost depends on the aircraft's hourly rate and round trip flying time. Poor weather and winds can increase flying time. Some companies have a fixed rate to the more popular locations. Be sure that you understand how costs will be figured before you leave Fairbanks.

What about pickup arrangements? Make sure there is no confusion about where and when you should be picked up. The pilot should know the landing area and be certain that his plane can land there. Discuss options with the pilot in case the area becomes unlandable due to flooding, rain, wind, etc. If multiple trips are needed, be sure that you are not left in the field without survival gear.

What about the weather? Inclement weather is common, especially north of the Brooks Range. Plan an extra day or two on each end of your trip for weather delays. Remember that the weather can be fine at your pickup site but unflyable where the plane is based. If your pilot feels that it is unsafe to fly, believe himjher.

Can aircraft carry canoes and rafts? Float planes may transport canoes, but usually only when there are no people on board. Canoes also must be chartered from Fairbanks since the cost of shipping them to a bush community is extremely high. For these reasons, canoes are not practical in the refuge. Collapsible watercraft are preferred since they readily fit in Cessna and larger aircraft.

Other concerns? Remember that the altitude and flight path of your trips into and out of the refuge can affect wildlife and other refuge visitors. Work with your pilot to minimize visual and noise impacts that result from your flights.

8/94

Your

Arctic

Adventure

Arctic Alaska, with its delicate balance of tundra, boreal forest, coastal wetlands, and mountains, contains some of the greatest wilderness in the world. Although it is vast, the arctic ecosystem is extremely fragile, easily impacted by human activities.

Certain standards of behavior are required to preserve the Arctic ecosystem - standards unnecessary in areas with more resilient systems. The techniques presented here will help ensure your safety and minimize your impact on the environment.

Preparations

The Arctic wilderness requires that you be well-prepared and selfsufficient. Equipment, supplies, and emergency services may not be readily available. In many areas it can be weeks or months before you encounter another person.

Your equipment should be sturdy and functional, with adequate repair kits. First aid knowledge and supplies are a must. Signaling devices (smoke flares, mirrors, strobes, signal cloths) should be carried for emergencies.

Leave your itinerary with a dependable person and make firm arrangements with an air taxi operator. Planes may be delayed several days due to weather, so carry extra food. Consult a good backpacking guide for more information.

Groups

Sharing enhances a wilderness trip. However, groups should be small enough to enrich the wilderness experience. Large groups can have especially noticeable and lasting impacts on arctic ecosystems.

Trails

Trails can form quickly in the Arctic, scarring the land. Healing, if it occurs at all, can take years. Groups should travel in fan pattern whenever possible to limit trail formation. Use game trails, but be alert for wildlife in brushy areas. Leave your route unmarked.

campsites

Campsite selection is the most critical part of minimizing your impact. Gravel bars make excellent campsites. They are durable, welldrainEi!d, and often have fewer mosquitoes than upland sites. High water in the spring will also erase signs of your presence. Remember that high water can occur at any time so locate your camp well above current water levels.

If you must choose a vegetated site, select a location with hardy vegetation such as moss or heath plants, rather than fragile lichens. Soft-soled shoes will help minimize impacts. Trenching around tents and using branches for beds or caches are unnecessary.

Move your camp every 2-3 days, or before signs of your presence become noticeable. Make every effort to return the campsite to its natural appearance.

water

Water sources may contain Giardia lamblia or other intestinal parasites. Take preventive measures by treating or boiling your water. Use a collapsible water jug - fewer trips for water reduces trail formation. Bathe and wash dishes at least 100 feet from water sources and use biodegradable soaps.

Latrines

Bury human feces at least 150 feet from all potential water sources. On the tundra, remove a fist-full of vegetation and scoop out a small depression. Mosses, leaves, and snow are natural toilet papers. Burn or pack out all paper products, including tampons and sanitary napkins. Replace the tundra.

Fires

Trees grow slowly in the Arctic; a spruce tree only inches in diameter may be hundreds of years old. This and other factors makes wood scarce or nonexistent in some areas. Gas or propane stoves are recommended for cooking and emergencies.

If you need an open fire, build it on exposed inorganic soil. Fire at other locations will kill plants and create long-term scars. Burn only dead and downed wood.

Erase all traces of the fire before you lea~e. Remove all foil, wire, and other unburned materials from the ashes and pack them out. Deposit ashes and charcoal in the main current of a river, if possible. Return rocks to their original locations. Using a fire pan will prevent fire scars.

Litter

You can help keep the Arctic pristine. Please pack out what you pack in. If you find litter, carry it out if possible. Do not bury garbage, as it will resurface due to frost action or curious animals. Bears that dig up garbage can begin associating people with food, a potentially dangerous situation. Check with local residents before disposing of garbage in a rural community.

Private Property

Private lands and property are scattered throughout remote Alaska. Check with the area land manager to determine land status.

Private cabins, caches, traplines, and fishnets should not be disturbed. The use of cabins in emergencies is acceptable. If you use supplies or firewood, you must notify the cabin owner and replace the items. The owner may depend on them, especially in winter.

Prehistoric or historic sites usually hold great significance for the local Native people. Respect their heritage and leave the sites undisturbed.

If you visit a rural community during your trip, remember that community privacy is important to many residents. Be sensitive to their lifestyle and activities. Obtain permission to use community facilities and photograph residents or private property.

Wildlife

Observing wildlife in its natural habitat can be one of the most rewarding aspects of your trip. Remember that you are a visitor. Help ~nsure your safety and protect the wildlife by following these practices:

* Cook and cache food away from sleeping areas.

* Avoid strong smelling foods and keep yourself free of food odors.

* Select campsites away from game trails and fresh bear sign. If a bear repeatedly visits or shows unusual interest in a campsite, move to another area.

* Give wildlife the right-of-way on game trails.

* Avoid bears with cubs and moose with calves.

* Make noise and stay alert in bear country.

* The Arctic produces fewer fish than other areas. Take only what you will eat; practice catch and release.

* Use binoculars, spotting scopes and long lenses for watching and photographing wildlife. Keep away from nests and dens.

Natural Heritage

Wilderness areas belong to everyone. By using them wisely and gently, we can preserve their remote, pristine nature for both ourselves and future generations.

,., .................. u •.

""'".

' ..... ~·

FISHES OF THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Freshwater species

Sheefish (Stenodus leucichthys) Round whitefish (Prosopiurn cylindraceurn) Lake trout (Salvelinus narnaycush) Dolly Varden (Salvelinus rnalrna) Angayukaksurak char (Salvelinus anaktuvukensis) Arctic grayling (Thyrnallus arcticus) Northern pike ((Esox lucius) Lake chub (Couesius plurnbeus) Longnose sucker (Catostornus catostornus) Trout-perch (Percopsis orniscornaycus) Burbot (Lota lota) Ninespine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) Slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus)

Anadromous Species

Least cisco (Coregonus sardinella) Bering cisco (Coregonus laurettae) Arctic cisco ((Coregonus auturnnalis) Broad whitefish (Coregonus nasus) Humpback whitefish (Coregonus pidschian) Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Churn salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) Coho salmon (oncorhynchus kisutch Rainbow smelt (Osrnerus rnordax) Arctic lamprey (Larnpetra japonica)

Marine Species

Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) Capelin (Mallotus villosus) Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) Saffron cod (Eleginus gracilis) Fourhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus quadricornis) Arctic sculpin (Myoxocephalus scorpioides) Snailfish (Liparis spp.) Pacific sand lance (Arnrnodytes hexapterus) Slender eelblenny (Lurnpenus fabricii) Stout eelblenny (Lurnpenus medius) Eelpouts (Lycodes spp.) Arctic flounder (Liopsetta glacialis) Starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus)

Mammals of the Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is located in the northeast corner of Alaska. In this region of extensive cold, much of the Refuge's soils are underlain with permafrost.

The Beaufort Sea washes against the north coast of the refuge. These waters remain ice-covered for eight or more months each year. The ice pack is the winter home for polar bear and numerous seals. During the summer, whales migrate through these waters.

South of the coast lies a broad expanse of flat arctic tundra composed mostly of sedges and low shrubs. Musk oxen live year-round on this coastal plain, and caribou produce their calves here in late spring.

The arctic tundra rises to the south through foothills to the rugged, rocky mountains of the Brooks Range. Dall sheep search for winter forage along windblown slopes, while marmots hybernate within stony crevices for nine months each year.

Further south, the mountains gradually merge into the spruce and shrubs of the boreal forest. Beaver, mink, and moose, as well as numerous small rodents, inhabit the wet meadows, bogs, and rivers within this forested region.

SHREW FAMILY

Masked Shrew (Sorex cinereus) Moist tundra, bogs, and forests.

Dusky Shrew (Sorex obscurns) Wet meadows south of the mountains.

Arctic Shrew (Sorex arcticus) Wet sedge tundra.

Pygmy Shrew (Sorex hoyi) Forests and bogs south of the mountains.

RABBIT FAMILY

Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus) Forests and shrub thickets.

SQUIRREL FAMILY

Alaska Marmot (Marmota broweri) Rocky, mountainous areas.

Arctic Ground Squirrel ( Spermophicus penyii) Dry, sandy areas.

Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurns hudsonicus) Spruce forests.

BEAVER FAMILY

Beaver (Castor canadensis) Wooded streams.

MOUSE FAMILY

Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) Meadows and open forests south of the mountains.

Tundra Vole (Microtus oeconomus) Meadows near water south of the mountains.

Yellow-cheeked Vole (Microtus xanthognathus) Spruce forests near bogs.

Singing Vole (Microtus miurns) Tundra and shrub thickets near water.

Brown Lemming (Lemus sibiricus) Wet tundra north of the mountains.

Northern Bog Lemming (Synaptomys borealis) Bogs, spruce forests, and meadows south of the mountains.

Collared L;.mming (Dicrostonyx torquatus) Sedge tundra.

JUMPING MOUSE FAMILY

Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zap us hudsonius) Moist meadows and shrub thickets south of the mountains.

PORCUPINE FAMILY

Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) Forests, shrub thickets, and tundra.

DOG FAMILY

Coyote (Canis latrans) Rare in open areas.

Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) All plant communities throughout the refuge.

Arctic Fox (Alopex lagopus) Tundra north of the mountains.

Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) All plant communities throughout the refuge.

CAT FAMILY

Lynx (Felis lynx) Forests throughout the refuge.

BEAR FAMILY

Black Bear (Ursus americanus) Forests throughout the refuge.

Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) Open areas throughout the refuge.

Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Along the coast and on ocean ice.

WEASEL FAMILY

Martin (Martes americana) Spruce forests.

Ermine (Mustela erminea) Open forests and tundra.

Least Weasel (Mustela nivalis) Open, wet areas.

Mink (Mustela vison) Near wet areas south of the mountains.

Wolverine (Gulo gulo) Forests and tundra.

River Otter (Lutra canadensis) Rivers and lakes mainly south of the mountains.

DEER FAMILY

Moose (A lees a lees) Willow thickets and wet areas.

Canbou (Rangifer tarandus) All plant communities throughout the refuge.

CATTLE FAMILY

Muskox ( Ovibos moschatus) Tundra north of the mountains.

Dall Sheep ( Ovis dalli) Rocky slopes and tundra in the mountains.

WALRUS FAMILY

Walrus (Odebenus rosmarus) Rare along the coast.

HARLESS SEAL FAMILY

Spotted Seal (Phoca largha) Coastal waters and on drifting ice.

Ringed Seal (Phoca hispida) Ice along the coast.

Bearded Seal (Erignathus barbatus) Coastal waters and on drifting ice.

Hooded Seal ( Cystophora cristata) Coastal waters and edge of ice pack.

WHAlE FAMILIES

Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) Coastal waters.

Narwhale (Monodon monoceros) Rare in coastal waters.

Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus) Rare in coastal waters.

Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) Coastal waters.

An:tic National Wildlife Refuge 101 12th Ave., Box 20 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701

4/1994

WEATHER Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Snow persists on the refuge for nearly eight months of the year, although snow and freezing temperatures can occur during any month. Spring and fall are brief. Thawing begins in late April, breakup in early to mid-May (later north of the Brooks Range). Ice remains in most coastal lagoons until early July. Cold temperatures and snow return in September; rivers and lagoons freeze by early October. November through February brings the lowest temperatures and strongest winds.

Tne Beaufort Sea has a major influence on the arctic coastal climate. The water moderates both the warming effects of the summer sun and the extreme temperatures of winter. In summer the coast experiences cool temperatures, frequent cloudiness, fog, high humidity, and strong winds. Inland (sometimes only a few miles), clear skies are more common, with moderate temperatures and variable winds.

The climate south of the Brooks Range is more typical of the northern Alaskan Interior, with higher rainfall, greater temperature extremes, and lighter winds than the coastal plain.

VALUES, GOALS AND MANAGEMENT Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with 19.28 million acres of federal land, is the largest refuge in the Nation. The premier feature of the refuge is the diversity of undisturbed arctic and subarctic ecosystems, including the south side boreal forests, the rugged Brooks Range mountains and the arctic tundra of the coastal plain. These habitats exist in close proximity, supporting an outstanding mix of flora and fauna including 36 fish, 169 bird, 36 terrestrial mammal, and eight marine mammal species. The refuge contains the greatest biodiversity of any conservation area in the circumpolar north. Other special features include an abundance of magnificent scenery, the four tallest peaks and most glaciated region of the Brooks Range, numerous prominent geological formations, and several warm springs.

The refuge's wilderness qualities stand out among its many special values. The need to preserve these qualities in an arctic environment formed the basis for establishing the original Arctic National Wildlife Range. The Range was established in 1960 to preserve the area's unique wildlife, wilderness and recreational values, a purpose that remains today. In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), which enlarged and renamed the refuge. The ANILCA also expanded the purposes of the refuge, specifying that it shall be managed:

• to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity;

• to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife;

• to provide continued subsistence opportunities for local residents; and

• to ensure water quality and quantity within the refuge.

The ANILCA designated three wild rivers within the refuge and established much of the original wildlife range as an eight million acre wilderness area (the largest in the National Wildlife Refuge system). The wilderness area is managed in accordance with the ANILCA and the Wilderness Act of 1964, emphasizing primitive recreation, solitude, and preservation of the area's natural integrity. The remaining 11 plus million acres, as de facto wilderness, are managed to maintain the refuge's undeveloped state, existing fish and wildlife populations, and their habitats.

The refuge supports recreational activities that are dependent on the wilderness environment of the refuge. Visitors are drawn by the refuge's wilderness qualities, remoteness, scenery, wildlife and pristine environment to float rivers, hike, hunt and conduct other wildlife-oriented activities. The activities are concentrated along the rivers, which have a limited number of access sites. Management works to minimize the adverse effects of this concentrated use on refuge resources, wilderness qualities and users.

Information is collected from permit reports and monitoring activities to help direct and manage public use activities on the refuge, using only the minimum amount of regulation required. Management works to ensure, through permits and law enforcement activities, that public use activities are compatible with refuge purposes and that refuge users adhere to Federal and State laws and policies.

Research on refuge fish and wildlife populations and habitats is important to increase our knowledge of the resources and our understanding of the effects of human disturbance on fragile arctic and subarctic environments. The refuge helps facilitate and conduct this research with other international, Federal, State, and private organizations. Research activities focus on fish, climate, geology, water resources, caribou, muskox, bears, snow geese, and other wildlife.

Section 1002 of the ANILCA directed that the natural resources of 1.5 million acres of the coastal plain be studied to determine the potential impacts of oil and gas leasing. The main study was completed in 1986. Followup studies and activities occur as need and funding allow. When the oil development controversy fades, staff redirect their energy toward other management issues of concern to the refuge.

To help ensure that refuge wildlife populations and habitats remain healthy, and to warn management if species numbers decline or resource damage occurs, the refuge monitors various wildlife populations and public use areas.

The international Porcupine caribou herd (160,000 animals) uses much of the refuge, especially the coastal plain in early summer for calving and foraging. The northernmost population of Dall sheep and numerous moose live on the refuge. Surveys of these three species are conducted to determine their abundance, productivity and population trends. The information is used to help establish sport and subsistence hunting regulations.

The refuge supports a population of muskoxen that is expanding and reestablishing itself on Alaska's north slope. The animals and their habitats are studied to provide information that helps the Service maintain the longterm viability of the muskoxen and their value to refuge users.

The two subspecies of peregrine falcon on the refuge are listed as either threatened or endangered. Annual surveys are conducted to determine the abundance and productivity of these birds as part of a long-term program to monitor the health and recovery of their populations.

Botanists study plant communities on the refuge to obtain information about areas especially important for wildlife. They also monitor plant recovery in areas disturbed by past seismic work to obtain information that can be used to minimize disturbance from future human activities.

The refuge tracks caribou, sheep, and muskox harvests, designates subsistence hunting areas, and analyzes the need for restrictions to preserve important subsistence activities mandated by the ANILCA.

Refuge staff meet with individuals, conduct public meetings, answer public inquiries, and take public comment on management issues of concern to help facilitate communication with and obtain the support of interested parties. The refuge works with Kaktovik and Arctic Village residents and other local users to resolve conflicts pertaining to refuge management, subsistence, and public use.

Interpretive programs and education activities are conducted in Fairbanks, Kaktovik, and Arctic Village to provide information about the refuge and promote an understanding of wildlife needs, the importance of habitat, and wildlands issues.

7/94

LARKS Horned Lark: Common breeder in Brooks Range. Rare breeder and visitor

on coastal plain. Uncommon visitor along coast.

SWALLOWS Tree Swallow: Uncommon breeder on south slope. Casual visitor on north

slope. _Violet-green Swallow: Uncommon breeder on south slope and in Brooks

Range. Casual visitor on north slope. _ Bank Swallow: Uncommon visitor and probable breeder on south slope.

Casual visitor on north slope. _ Cliff Swallow: Common breeder on south slope and in Brooks Range.

Casual visitor on north slope. Barn Swallow: Rare visitor on north slope.

JAYS, CROWS _ Gray Jay: Uncommon to common resident breeder on south slope. Rare

breeder in Brooks Range. Casual visitor on north slope. _Common Raven: Uncommon resident throughout Refuge. Uncommon

breeder on south slope and in Brooks Range.

CIDCKADEES _ Black-capped Chickadee: Probable resident on south slope. _ Siberian Tit: Rare breeder in Brooks Range. _ Boreal Chickadee: Uncommon resident breeder on south slope.

DIPPERS _ American Dipper: Uncommon resident throughout Refuge, except along

coast.

OLD WORLD WARBLERS A.t'ID FLYCATCHERS, KINGLETS, THRUSHES

Arctic Warbler: Uncommon breeder on south slope and in Brooks Range. Accidental visitor on north slope.

_ Ruby-crowned Kinglet: Common breeder on south slope and in Brooks Range.

_ Blue throat: Uncommon migrant and breeder on western coastal plain. _Northern Wheatear: Common breeder in Brooks Range. Rare visitor on

north slope. _Townsend's Solitaire: Uncommon visitor and probable breeder on south

slope and in Brooks Range. Gray-cheeked Thrush: Common breeder on south slope and in Brooks

Range. Casual visitor on north slope. _ Swainson's Thrush: Uncommon \~sitor and probable breeder on south slope _Hermit Thrush: Possible breeder on south slope. Accidental visitor on north

slope. American Robin: Abundant breeder on south slope. Uncommon breeder in

Brooks Range. Casual visitor on north slope. Varied Thrush: Common breeder on south slope. Rare visitor on north

slope.

WAGTAILS, PIPITS _Yellow Wagtail: Uncommon breeder on coastal plain. Probable breeder

along coast. Rare visitor on south slope.

_ American Pipit: Common breeder in Brooks Range. Rare breeder and uncommon fall migrant on coastal plain.

W A.X\Vlt'<GS Bohemian Waxwing: Common visitor and probable breeder on south slope.

_ Cedar Waxwing: Accidental visitor on north slope.

SHRIKES Northern Shrike: Uncommon breeder on south slope and in Brooks Range.

Rare visitor and possible breeder on coastal plain.

WOOD WARBLERS, SPARROWS, BUNTINGS, BLACKBIRDS _Orange-crowned Warbler: Uncommon breeder on south slope. Casual

migrant on north slope. _Magnolia Warbler: Accidental visitor on north slope. _Yellow Warbler: Uncommon breeder on south slope. Rare breeder in

Brooks Range. Probable rare breeder on coastal plain. Casual visitor along coast.

_ Y ellow-rumped Warbler: Common breeder on south slope. Rare breeder in Brooks Range. Accidental visitor on north slope.

_Palm Warbler: Accidental or casual visitor on south slope. _ Blackpoll Warbler: Uncommon visitor and probable breeder on south slope.

Accidental visitor on north slope. _ Northern Waterthrush: Uncommon visitor and probable breeder on south

slope. _ Kentucky Warbler: Accidental visitor on north slope. _Wilson's Warbler: Uncommon breeder on south slope. Casual fall migrant

on north slope. _Canada Warbler: Accidental visitor on north slope. _ American Tree Sparrow: Abundant breeder on south slope and in Brooks

Range. Uncommon breeder on coastal plain. Casual visitor along coast. _ Chipping Sparrow: Casual visitor on north and south slopes. _ Clay-colored Sparrow: Accidental visitor on north slope. _ Savannah Sparrow: Uncommon to common breeder throughout Refuge. _ Fox Sparrow: Common breeder on south slope and in Brooks Range. Rare

visitor and possible breeder on coastal plain. Casual visitor along coast. _ Song Sparrow: Accidental visitor on north slope. _ White-throated Sparrow: Accidental visitor on north slope. _ Golden-crowned Sparrow: Rare visitor in Brooks Range. _ White-crowned Sparrow: Abundant breeder on south slope. Common

breeder in Brooks Range. Uncommon breeder on coastal plain. Casual visitor along ccast.

_Dark-eyed Junco: Abundant breeder on south slope. Rare migrant on north slope.

Lapland Longspur: Abundant breeder in Brooks Range and on north slope. Common migrant on south slope.

_Smith's Longspur: Common breeder in Brooks Range. Rare visitor on north slope.

Snow Bunting: Common to abundant breeder along coast. _Red-winged Blackbird: Casual visitor on north slope. _Western Meadowlark: Casual visitor in Brooks Range. _Rusty Blackbird: Common breeder on south slope. Uncommon breeder in

Brooks Range. Casual migrant and visitor on north slope. Brown-headed Cowbird: Accidental visitor on north slope.

FINCHES _Rosy Finch: Uncommon breeder in Brooks Range. _Pine Grosbeak: Uncommon resident and probable breeder on south slope. _'White-winged Crossbill: Uncommon to abundant breeder on south slope

and in Brooks Range. _ Common and Hoary Red polls: Uncommon breeders on south slope and in

Brooks Range. Rare to abundant breeders on coastal plain. Uncommon breeders along coast. Residents on south slope.

_ Pine Siskin: Uncommon visitor on south slope and in Brooks Range. Rare visitor on north slope.

61%

Observation Notes

Bird observation data from visitors will help update and improve this list. Please send information on species, number, date, and location to:

Refuge Manager Arctic National Wildlife Refuge I 0 I l 2th Ave., Room 266 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701

Birds of the Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge

180 bird species have been recorded on the Arctic Refuge. This list describes their status and abundance.

REGIONS OF THE REFUGE

North Slope- The coast and the coastal plain. Coast - The area within six miles of the Beaufort Sea, including

nearshore waters. Coastal Plain - The area between the coast and the Brooks

Range. Brooks Range -The mountains, valleys, and foothills north and south

of the continental divide. South Slope -The area south of the Brooks Range.

STATUS

Resident - Present throughout the year. Migrant- Travels through on the way to wintering or breeding areas. Breeder- Occurs as a breeding species (prefixed by "possible" or

"probable" if concrete evidence is unavailable). Visitor- Occurs as a non-breeding species.

ABUNDANCE

Abundant - Occurs in suitable habitats, with some areas heavily used. Common - Occurs in nearly all suitable habitats, with some areas

sparsely used. Uncommon- Occurs regularly, but uses little of the suitable habitat. Rare - Occurs regularly, but in very small numbers. Casual - Beyond its normal range, but irregularly observed. Accidental- Far from its normal range. Further observations unlikely.

LOONS Red-throated Loon: Uncommon breeder and common migrant along coast.

Rare visitor in Brooks Range and on coastal plain. _Pacific Loon: Common breeder on north and south slopes. Uncommon

breeder in Brooks Range. Common migrant along coast. _ Common Loon: Uncommon breeder on south slope. Rare migrant or visitor

along coast. _ Yellow-billed Loon: Possible breeder on north slope. Uncommon migrant

along coast. Rare migrant on coastal plain.

GREBES Horned Grebe: Common breeder on south slope. Casual visitor on north

slope. _Red-necked Grebe: Uncommon breeder on south slope. Casual visitor on

north slope.

SHEARWATERS Short-tailed Shearwater: Casual summer and fall visitor along coast, mostly

offshore.

SWANS, GEESE, DUCKS _Tundra Swan: Common breeder along coast. _Trumpeter Swan: Rare breeder along coast _ Greater \\'bite-fronted Goose: Uncommon spring migrant. Possible

breeder and common fall migrant on north slope. _ Snow Goose: Uncommon spring migrant throughout Refuge. Rare breeder

and abundant fall migrant on north slope. _Ross' Goose: Casual spring visitor on north slope. _ Brant: Uncommon breeder and abundant migrant along coast. _Canada Goose: Uncommon breeder on north and south slopes. Uncommon

migrant on north slope. _ Green-,.,inged Teal: Common breeder on south slope and in Brooks Range.

Uncommon breeder on coastal plain. Rare breeder and migrant along coast _ Mallard: Uncommon breeder but common visitor on south slope and in

Brooks Range. Rare breeder and uncommon visitor on north slope. _Northern Pintail: Common breeder on south slope. Uncommon breeder but

common visitor and migrant on north slope. _ Northern Shoveler: Uncommon breeder on south slope. Rare visitor and

migrant on north slope. _ Eurasian Wigeon: Casual visitor on north slope. _American Wigeon: Common breeder on south slope and in Brooks Range.

Uncommon migrant and visitor on north slope. _Canvasback: Rare visitor on south slope. Casual migrant on north slope.

Greater Scaup: Uncommon migrant along coast. Uncommon visitor on north slope and in Brooks Range.

Lesser Scaup: Abundant breeder on south slope. Common breeder in Brooks Range. Rare breeder and visitor on coastal plain.

_ Common Eider: Uncommon breeder and visitor along coast Common migrant along coast, especially offshore.

_ King Eider: Uncommon breeder along coast. Uncommon migrant along coast, especially offshore.

_Spectacled Eider: Rare to uncommon breeder along coast. _ Steller's Eider: Casual visitor along coast. _Harlequin Duck: Uncommon breeder on south slope and in Brooks Range.

Rare breeder on coastal plain. Uncommon visitor on north slope. _ Oldsquaw: Common breeder on north slope. Uncommon migrant on south

slope. Abundant visitor and migrant along coast. _ Black Scoter: Uncommon migrant along coast _ Surf Scoter: Uncommon breeder on south slope. Uncommon visitor and

migrant along coast. _White-winged Scoter: Common breeder on south slope and in Brooks

Range. Possible breeder on coastal plain. Uncommon visitor and migrant along coast

_ Common Goldeneye: Probable breeder on south slope. Rare visitor along coast.

_Barrow's Goldeneye: Probable breeder on south slope and in Brooks Range. _ Bufflehead: Common breeder on south slope. _Common Merganser: Casual visitor on north slope. _Red-breasted Merganser: Common breeder in Brooks Range. Uncommon

breeder on coastal plain. Rare breeder and uncommon migrant along coast.

HAWKS, EAGLES, HARRIERS _ Bald Eagle: Rare breeder and uncommon visitor on south slope. Rare

visitor in Brooks Range and on coastal plain. _Northern Harrier: Common probable breeder in Brooks Range. Rare visitor

on north slope. _ Sharp-shinned Hawk: Uncommon visitor on south slope. _ Northern Goshawk: Uncommon breeder on south slope. Rare visitor in

Brooks Range and on coastal plain. _ Swainson's Hawk: Rare breeder and visitor on south slope. _ Rough-legged Hawk: Common breeder in Brooks Range. Rare breeder on

coastal plain. Uncommon visitor on north slope. _ Golden Eagle: Common breeder in Brooks Range. Probable breeder on

coastal plain. Uncommon visitor along coast.

FALCONS American Kestrel: Uncommon breeder on south slope. Rare breeder in

Brooks Range. Casual visitor on north slope. _ Merlin: Uncommon breeder in Brooks Range. Possible breeder on coastal

plain. Rare visitor elsewhere on the Refuge. _Peregrine Falcon: Common breeder on south slope. Uncommon visitor or

breeder on coastal plain. Rare breeder along coast. Uncommon summer visitor and/or migrant throughout Refuge.

_Gyrfalcon: Uncommon resident breeder in Brooks Range. Uncommon visitor elsewhere on the Refuge.

GROUSE, PTARMIGANS _Spruce Grouse: Uncommon resident and probable breeder on south. slope. _Willow Ptarmigan: Uncommon resident breeder along coast. Uncommon to

abundant resident breeder elsewhere on the Refuge. _Rock Ptarmigan: Common resident breeder throughout Refuge, except rare

in winter along coast.

COOTS American Coot: Rare visitor on south slope.

CRANES Sandhill Crane: Rare breeder on north slope. Probable breeder on south

slope. Rare spring migrant on coastal plain. Uncommon visitor along coast and on south slope.

PLOVERS Black-bellied Plover: Rare breeder on north slope. Uncommon migrant

along coast. Rare migrant on coastal plain. _American Golden-Plover: Uncommon breeder on north slope and in Brooks

Range. Abundant fall migrant along coast. _ Semipalmated Plover: Common breeder on south slope and in Brooks

Range. Rare breeder on north slope. Rare visitor and migrant along coast. _ Killdeer: Casual visitor on north slope.

Eurasian Dotterel: Casual visitor on north slope.

SANDPIPERS _ Lesser Yellowlegs: Abundant breeder on south slope. Casual visitor along

coast. _ Solitary Sandpiper: Abundant breeder on south slope. _Wandering Tattler: Common breeder in Brooks Range. Uncommon breeder

on coastal plain. _ Spotted Sandpiper: Common breeder on south slope and in Brooks Range.

Uncommon breeder on coastal plain. Rare visitor along coast. _Upland Sandpiper: Common breeder in Brooks Range. _ Whlmbrel: Uncommon breeder in Brooks Range. Uncommon visitor and

migrant on north slope. _ Hudsonlan Godwit: Casual visitor on north slope. _ Bar-tailed Godwit: Rare migrant along coast. _Ruddy Turnstone: Uncommon breeder on north slope. Uncommon to

common fall migrant along coast. _ Surfbird: Rare breeder in Brooks Range. _ Red Knot: Rare migrant along coast. _ Sanderling: Casual breeder on coastal plain. Rare spring and uncommon fall

migrant along coast. _ Semipalmated Sandpiper: Abundant breeder on north slope. Common fall

migrant along coast. _Western Sandpiper: Casual spring and uncommon fall migrant along coast. _ Least Sandpiper: Common breeder on south slope and in Brooks Range.

Rare migrant on north slope. _White-romped Sandpiper: Possible breeder along coast. Rare spring

migrant and uncommon fall migrant along coast. _Baird's Sandpiper: Uncommon breeder on north slope and in Brooks Range.

Uncommon migrant on north slope. _Pectoral Sandpiper: Abundant breeder across north slope. Abundant fall

migrant along coast. _ Sharp-tailed Sandpiper: Casual migrant on north slope. _Donlin: Uncommon to rare breeder along coast. Uncommon fall migrant

along coast. _ Stilt Sandpiper: Uncommon breeder and fall migrant on north slope. _ ButT-breasted Sandpiper: Uncommon breeder on north slope. _Ruff: Casual visitor on north slope. _ Long-billed Dowitcher: Uncommon breeder on north slope. Common fall

migrant on north slope. _ Common Snipe: Common breeder on south slope and in Brooks Range.

Rare breeder and visitor on north slope. _Red-necked Phalarope: Common breeder on south slope and in Brooks

Range. Uncommon breeder on north slope. Common fall migrant along coast.

_Red Phalarope: Uncommon breeder on north slope. Uncommon fall migrant along coast

JAEGERS, GULLS, TERNS _ Pomarine Jaeger: Rare to common breeder on north slope. Common spring

migrant and uncommon fall migrant on north slope. _Parasitic Jaeger: Uncommon breeder on north slope. Rare breeder in

Brooks Range. _ Long-tailed Jaeger: Common breeder in Brooks Range. Uncommon spring

migrant and breeder but common visitor on north slope. _ B<lnaparte's Gull: Uncommon breeder on south slope. Casual visitor on

north slope. _ Mew Gull: Common breeder on south slope and in Brooks Range. Probable

breeder or. coastal plain. Rare spring migrant and summer visitor on north slope.

_Herring Gull: Uncommon breeder on south slope and in Brooks Range. Rare migrant and visitor on north slope.

_ Thayer's Gull: Rare migrant and visitor on north slope. _ Slaty-backed Gull: Casual visitor along coast. _Glaucous Gull: Common breeder and migrant along coast. Uncommon

visitor and probable breeder on coastal plain. Uncommon visitor in Brooks Range.

_ Black-legged Kittiwake: Rare migrant along coast, mostly offShore. _Ross' Gull: Rare fall migrant along coast. _Sabine's Gull: Uncommon breeder along coast. Uncommon fall migrant

along coast, mostly offshore. _ Ivory Gull: Rare migrant along coast _ Arctic Tern: Uncommon breeder but common visitor on south slope and in

Brooks Range. Uncommon breeder and migrant along coast Rare breeder on coastal plain.

ALCIDS _Thick-billed Murre: Rare migrant along coast. _ Black Guillemot: Uncommon migrant and rare breeder along coast.

Horned Puffin: Casual visitor along coast.

OWLS Great Horned Owl: Uncommon resident breeder on south slope.

_ Snowy Owl: Rare visitor to common breeder along coast. _Northern Hawk-Owl: Uncommon resident breeder on south slope.

Great Grny Owl: Resident and probable breeder on south slope. Short-eared Owl: Rare spring visitor or migrant to common breeder

throughout Refuge. _ Boreal Owl: Probable resident breeder on south slope.

GOATSUCKERS _ Common Nighthawk: Casual visitor on north slope.

HUMMINGBIRDS _Rufous Hummingbird: Casual visitor on south slope and in Brooks Range.

KINGFISHERS _ Belted Kingfisher: Uncommon visitor and possible breeder on south slope

WOODPECKERS _Downy Woodpecker: Uncommon resident breeder on south slope. _Hairy Woodpecker: Resident and probablebreeder on south slope. _Three-toed Woodpecker: Uncommon breeder on south slope. _Northern Flicker: Uncommon breeder on south slope and in Brooks Range.

TYRAJ\T FLYCATCHERS _Olive-sided Flycatcher: Uncommon breeder on south slope. _Alder Flycatcher: Common breeder on south slope. _Hammond's Flycatcher: Accidental visitor on north slope. _ Eastern Phoebe: Accidental visitor on north slope. _Say's Phoebe: Common breeder in Brooks Range. Casual visitor on north

slope. _ Eastern Kingbird: Accidental visitor on north slope.

BEAUFORT SEA

Camden Bay

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

1002 Area CJ Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Lands

~ Kaktovik Inupiat Corp. Selected or Conveyed Lands

•··•·· 1002 Boundary - Possible Developments

miles 0 5 10 15

0 8 16 24 kilometers

Possible Facilities • Central Production

Facility (90 acres)

+ Central Production Facility (40 acres)

• Drill Pad (23 acres)

o Port Facility

- HaulRoad

---- Connecting Road

Pipeline ':' Airstrip

(30 or 130 acres)

A. Seawater Treatment Plant

Prudhoe Bay and Other Central Arctic Oil Development Overlaid on the 1 002 Area

The central arctic development data depicted on this map includes existing roads, pipelines, drill pads, exploration pads, gravel sites, and mine sites, circa 1987. The possible I 002 area developments shown here were taken from the 1987 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain Resource Assessment and Legislative Environment Impact Statement. These possible developments include production facilities, drill pads, roads, piplelines, airstrips, ports, and seawater treatment plants.

ALASKA

Camden Bay


Polar Bear Den Locations On Land or Shorefast Ice

1981-1992 8 Den locations

D Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Lands

~ Kaktovik lnupiat Corp. Selected or Conveyed Lands

••·••· 1002 Boundary - Possible Developments

miles 0 5 10 1S


BEAUFORT SEA

Polar Bear Den Locations

This map shows the distribution of maternal dens occupied by radio-collared polar bears between 1981 and 1992 on the mainland coast of Alaska and Canada. Of 46 dens located along the mainland coast, 20 (43%) were within the bounds of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Including 2 dens on land-fast ice adjacent to the coast, and 1 on Kaktovik Village lands, 23 (50%) of the dens were on or immediately adjacent to the Arctic Refuge. Fifteen of the 46 dens (33%) were within the bounds of the 1002 area.

Other dens have been located on the Alaska north slope since the turn of the century, but these observations cannot be considered to have an unbiased distribution since visual searches only locate dens in areas where investigators look. However, the dens shown on this map do represent an unbiased estimate of denning distribution because the radio-collared bears led investigators to the den sites. Statistical tests (see below) confirmed that the distribution of these dens was not biased by the distribution of the sampling (radio-tagging) efforts.

The distribution of dens shown here does not materially differ from that reported in 2 recent scientific publications on polar bear maternal denning in Alaska (1. Arctic 46:246-250, Human disturbances of denning polar bears in Alaska; 2. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 1-10, Polar bear maternity denning in the Beaufort Sea). Interested parties are strongly encouraged to consult those publications for information on the locations of dens, descriptions of the research methods, interpretations of the data, and evaluations of their management ramifications.

BEAUFORT SEA

Camden


Muskox Year- Round High Use Area In and Near the 1002 Area

1990-1993 ~ High Use by Mixed- Sex Groups

c=J Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Lands


···••· 1002 Boundary Possible Developments

miles 0 510152025

0 8 16 24 32 40 kilometers

N

t

Muskox Year-Round Use Area 1990-1993

This map is based on locations of mixed-sex muskox groups seen during standardized radio-relocation surveys flown in Feb., Mar., May, Jun., Aug., and Oct. in 1990-1993. The high use area was defined using an adaptive kernel technique which enclosed 70% of all locations. This contour was selected because it contained the highest density of locations. The surveys were flown between the Sagavanirktok River and the Canadian border and represent the year-round distribution of the reproductive segment of the muskox population in northeastern Alaska.

Camden Bay

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Frequency of Use by Staging Snow Geese

1982-1993

.. High Use Area (5 or more years)

.. Medium Use Area (3 to 4 years)

c::=J Low Use Area (1 to 2 years)

c=J Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Lands


······ 1002 Boundary - Possible Developments

0 miles

5 10 15 20

N

t 0 8 16 24 32 kilometers

Lesser Snow Goose Distribution During Fall Staging

Lesser snow geese use a 450-mile strip of the Alaskan and Canadian Beaufort Sea coastal plain to build fat reserves necessary for migration to wintering areas in California. The number of snow geese using the Alaskan coastal plain each fall varies from 12,000 to 300,000 birds. Geese arrive on the Alaskan coastal plain in late August, numbers of birds peak in early to mid September, and birds depart by late September.

The snow goose distribution and frequency of use map on the reverse side is based on data from aerial surveys flown in September from 1982 to 1993. During each survey a pilot flew a fixed-wing aircraft from the Katakturak River to the Canadian border, and for each snow goose flock seen, observers recorded the location and number of birds in the flock on a topographic map. The surveys were used to determine the number and distribution of snow geese using the Alaskan coastal plain. A map of the coastal plain was then overlain with a grid of 3-mile by 3-mile blocks, and the frequency of use of each block was classified as low use (snow geese observed in block 1 or 2 years), medium use (3-4 years), or high use (5 or more years). Over 80% of the high use blocks occur within the 1002 area.

The wide distribution and high variability in the numbers of snow geese using the Alaskan coastal plain is primarily due to variable habitat conditions in Alaska and Canada. Snow geese build fat reserves from carbohydrate-rich tall cotton-grass stem bases growing at the flooded edge of small, ice-wedge formed pools (thermokarst pits), which are found in small patches across the Alaskan coastal plain. When snow geese eat tall cotton-grass they pull up a plant by the roots, eat just the stem base, and discard the rest. It takes at least 4 years for a stand of tall cotton-grass to re-establish after being eaten by a flock of snow geese. Therefore, each fall snow goose flocks must locate different patches of thermo karst pits with vigorous stands of tall cotton-grass for feeding and building fat reserves for migration.

The large area of coastal plain used by snow geese to build fat reserves does not indicate that their feeding habitat is unlimited. On the contrary, the size of the area, variability in food resources, and wide distribution of birds indicates that feeding habitat is widely distributed, patchy, and necessary as a whole to fall staging snow geese.

Camden Bay


Dolly Varden Char Rearing Areas

lml! Coastal Feeding and Migration Areas

D Arctic National Wtldlife Refuge Lands


•··•·· 1002 Boundary Possible Developments

tiJ miles 5 10 0 15


Dolly Varden Char

Dolly Varden char have adapted to the rigors of the climatic and physical environment. For almost nine months of the year char are confined to relatively small reaches of stream and river channels for overwintering. The available overwintering habitat is critical to their survival and is considered to be the major limiting factor for populations of arctic fishes. After break-up, which begins in late may or early June, the distribution of Dolly Varden char expands to streams and river channels that were previously frozen and to the nearshore coastal waters for feeding and rearing. Unobstructed migration to feeding areas is important if char are to optimize the limited open water season in the Arctic. It is during this short period that fish growth occurs and lipids are accumulated to aid survival through ~~~ -Juvenile Dolly Varden char remain in the rivers for several years. Between the ages of two and four years, juvenile anadromous char complete the developmental process of parr-smolt transformation. Thereafter, these fish then migrate to nearshore coastal waters where they spend the summer months feeding on macroinvertebrates. Dolly Varden char maintain a strong fidelity to overwintering and spawning areas in the rivers where they return in late August through September. Char generally mature after five years. Spawning may occur from late August through late September. Overwintering and spawning areas are associated with springs which flow year round.

References

Craig P. 1984. Fish use of coastal waters of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea: a review. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:265-282.

Craig, P. 1989. An introduction to anadromous fish in the Alaskan Arctic. In D.W. Norton, editor. Research advances on anadromous fish in arctic Alaska and Canada. Biological papers of the University of Alaska Number 24:27-54.

McCart, P. 1980. A review of the systematics and ecology of Arctic char, Salvelinus a/pinus, in the western Arctic. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Science Number 935.

Underwood, T.J., J.A. Gordon, M.J. Millard, L.A. Thorpe, and B.M. Osborne. 1995. Characteristics of selected fish populations of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal waters, final report, 1988-1991. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fishery Resource Office, Alaska Fisheries Technical Report Number 28, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Wiswar, D.W. 1992. Summer distribution of arctic fishes in the Okpilak, Akutoktak, Katakturuk, and Jago rivers, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 1990. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fisheries Technical Report Number 17, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Wiswar, D.W. 1994. Summer Distribution of Arctic Fishes in the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 1991 with emphasis on selected lakes, tundra streams, and the Sadlerochit River drainage. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fisheries Technical Report Number 27, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Camden Bay


Arctic Grayling ••••• Spawning and Rearing Areas

(including migration routes)

D Arctic National Wtldlife Refuge Lands


1002 Boundary Possible Developments

miles 5 10 0 15

0 8 16 kilometers

24

N

t

Arctic Grayling

Arctic grayling have adapted to the rigors of the climatic and physical environment. For almost nine months of the year grayling are confined to relatively small reaches of stream and river channels for overwintering. The available overwintering habitat is critical to their survival and is considered to be the major limiting factor for populations of arctic fishes. After break-up, which begins in late May or early June, Arctic grayling expand their distribution to include streams and rivers that were previously frozen. Glacial rivers are used as migration corridors to tundra streams where grayling spawn and rear. There appears to be a fidelity for fish to return to their natal stream to spawn. Young of the year fish emerge from the gravel in late June and early July. Grayling mature between the age of six and nine years. Arctic grayling begin their return migration to overwintering areas in August which continues through September. Overwintering areas are in river channels associated with year round springs and deep pools.

References

Daum, D., P. Rost, and M. W. Smith. 1984. Fisheries studies on the north slope of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1983. Pages 464-522 in G.W." Garner and P.E. Reynolds, editors. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain resource assessment: 1983 update report, baseline study of the fish, wildlife, and their habitats. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.

West, R.L., M.W. Smith, W.E. Barber, J.B. Reynolds, and H. Hop. 1992. Autumn migration and overwintering of Arctic grayling in coastal streams of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:709-715.

Wiswar, D.W. 1992. Summer distribution of arctic fishes in the Okpilak, Akutoktak, Katakturuk, and Jago rivers, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 1990. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fisheries Technical Report Number 17, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Wiswar, D.W. 1994. Summer Distribution of Arctic Fishes in the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 1991 with emphasis on selected lakes, tundra streams, and the Sadlerochit River drainage. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fisheries Technical Report Number 27, Fairbanks, Alaska.

---

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Porcupine Caribou Herd Calving Areas

1996 High Density Calving Area

D Extent of Calving Area

D Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Lands


- - - 1002 Boundary Possible Developments

~8--.~f' miles tN rJ~ lv~ En I rse~ 0 5 10 15 20 25 ""'

LASKA , o 8 16 24 32 40 ~~

~ ~--~

BEA.

s E A.

Porcupine Caribou Herd Calving Areas - 1996

The Porcupine Caribou Herd Calving Areas- 1996 map shows two areas: 1) a high density calving area, and 2) the extent of the calving area. The areas are based on locations of pregnant radio-collared cows. Collared cows were followed regularly during the calving season, and the first place a cow was seen with a calf was recorded as the calving location.

A computer program was used to calculate an adaptive kernel estimate of the calving grounds based on these observed calving locations. This analysis generated map contours which, from the center outward, included 10%, 20%, 30%, etc., 95%, and 100% of the calving locations. Calving density was highest within the central 50% contour, and this area was called the high density calving area. The extent of calving is the outer perimeter of the 95% contour.

1983 CANADA 1984 CANADA

CANADA

CANA D A

CANADA

ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

1995 CANADA 1996 CANADA

CANA D A

1991 C,\NA D A

ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

1994 CANA D A

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Porcupine Caribou Herd Calving Areas

1983-1996 - High Densily Calving Area

D Extent of Calving Area

D Arctic National Wildl ife Refuge Lands

CZl Kaktovik Inupiat Corp. Selected or Conveyed Lands

- • 1002 Boundary - fussiblc Developments

miles 0 20 40 60

kilometers 0 32 64 96

Porcupine Caribou Herd Calving Areas

The Porcupine Caribou Herd Calving Areas maps show two areas: 1) a high density calving area, and 2) the extent of the calving area. The areas are based on locations of pregnant radio-collared cows. Collared cows were followed regularly during the calving season, and the first place a cow was seen with a calf was recorded as the calving location. The number of calving locations ranged from 18 in 1983 to 79 in 1994. These sample sizes were sufficient to provide statistically valid estimates of the size and location of the calving ground for the entire herd.

A computer program was used to calculate an adaptive kernel estimate of the annual calving grounds based on the observed calving locations for each year. This analysis generated map contours which, from the center outward, included 10%, 20%, 30%, etc., 95%, and 100% of the calving locations. Calving density was highest within the central 50% contour, and this area was called the high density calving area. On the composite map for 14 years of data from 1983 to 1996, the high density area is the outer perimeter of all superimposed annual 50% contours. The extent of calving is the outer perimeter of all superimposed annual 95% contours.

.AMERIC.A•s NATIONAL \NILDLIFE REFUGES •••

where wild!ije come naturally!

If you ravel much in the wilder sections of our country, soone or later you are likely to meet the sign of the flying goo e -- the emblem of the National Wildlife Refuges.

You may meet it by the side of a road crossing miles of flat prairie in the Middle West, or in the hot deserts of the Southwest. You may meet it by some mountain lake, or as you push your boat through the winding salty creeks of a coastal marsh.

Wherever you meet this sign, respect it. It means that the land behind the sign has been dedicated by the American people to preserving, for themselves and their children, as much of our native wildlife as can be retained along with our modern civilization.

Wild creatures, like men, must have a place to live. As civilization creates cities, builds highways, and drains marshes, it takes away, little by little, the land that is suitable for wildlife. And as their space for living dwindles, the wildlife populations themselves decline. Refuges resist this trend by saving some areas from encroachment, and by preserving in them, or restoring where necessary, the conditions that wild things need in order to live.

- Rachel Carson

This essay introduced the series, "Conservation in Action," a marvelously written collection of narratives about Refuges and the Refuge System. Rachel Carson was a scientist and chief editor for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1939-1952. (Photograph used by permission of Rachel Carson History Project.)

Mountains to meadows

The closeness of the Brooks Range to the Arctic Ocean in northeastern Alaska creates a combination of landscapes and habitats unique m North America. The area has exceptional scemc, wildlife, wilderness, recreation, and scientific values. This is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the only protected area in the Nation where people can explore a full range of arctic and subarctic ecosystems.

First set aside in 1960 to preserve its unique values, the Refuge more than doubled in size with passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980. Today the Refuge encompasses nearly 20 million acres, an area about the size of South Carolina.

The Refuge extends more than 200 miles west to east from the Trans Alaska pipeline corridor to Canada, and nearly 200 miles north to south from the Beaufort Sea to the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge. The rugged, spectacular Brooks

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

REGION 7 - ALASKA

~lDl~flE IREfUGlE

luge Description ·"'""'".U""''"'' with peaks to 9,000 feet, extends east-west through the Refuge 15-100 miles from the Beaufort Sea Coast. The Range's four highest peaks and only extensive glaciers are found on the Refuge ..

A rich and fragile land

The Refuge includes alpine and arctic tundra, barren mountains, boreal forests, shrub thickets,

and wetlands. The coast has numerous points, shoals, mud flats, and barrier islands that shelter shallow, brackish lagoons. The tundra is typically

a layer of peat overlain by a carpet of mosses, sedges, and flowering plants. Spruce, poplar, and willow trees shade the south slope valleys.

Continuous summer daylight produces rapid but brief plant growth. Underlying permafrost and low evaporation cause many areas to remain wet throughout the summer. These factors, along with shallow

plant roots and a slow revegetation rate, result in a fragile landscape easily disturbed by human activities.

AMERICA'S ~ATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES •••

where wild lire comes naturally!

Ill 1 002 Area

Wilderness Area

.___ Wild River

~lDl~f[E lRlEflUGlE

Arctic Village

0 50 100 Miles


REGION 7 - ALASKA

AMERICA'S NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES •••

where wildlife comes naturally!

~lDl~flE ~lEfUGlE

SPECIAL ABOUT

• It is the Nation's largest and most northerly national wildlife refuge; South Carolina could almost fit inside its borders.

• Eight million acres are designated as Wilderness, more than on any other national wildlife refuge.

• The majestic Brooks Range rises from its coastal plain only 10-40 miles from the Beaufort Sea.

• It includes the four highest peaks and most of the glaciers in the Brooks Range.

• There are 18 major rivers; three designated as Wild (Sheenjek, Ivishak, and Wind).

• It includes three major physiographic areas (arctic tundra, Brooks Range, and boreal forest), which contain a full range of arctic and subarctic habitats.

• Numerous sites have been recommended as National Natural Landmarks.

• It contains the greatest variety of plant and animal life of any conservation area in the circumpolar north.

• 180 bird species from four continents have been seen there.

• Peregrine falcons, endangered or threatened in the lower 48 states, are common there.

• It is home to 36 species of land mammals.

• It protects most of the calving grounds for the Porcupine caribou herd, the second largest herd in Alaska.

• It contains all three species of North American bears (black, brown, and polar).

• Nine marine mammal species live along its coast.

• 36 fish species inhabit its rivers and lakes.

• There are no roads, developments, or trails. You must fly, boat, or walk to get there.

• The spirit of wilderness prevails there.

• It offers outstanding scenery and recreation.


REGION 7 -ALASKA


where wildliye comes naturally!

~lDl~f[E ~EfUGE

CTIC REFUGE • It is as primitive and undisturbed as any

conservation area in the Nation.

• North America's farthest north Dall's sheep population lives there.

• It is the only national conservation area that provides a complete range of arctic ecosystems.

• It has two designated Research Natural Areas.

• More than 300 archaeological sites have been found there.

• It contains North America's two largest and most northerly alpine lakes (Peters and Schrader).

• Kaktovik, an Inupiaq Eskimo village, and Arctic Village, an Athabascan Indian community, border its north and south sides.

• Its coast is a major migration route for several waterfowl species.

• Numerous prominent geological formations, including a range of permafrost and glacial features, are found there.

• It contains several warm springs, which support plant species unique to the area.

• The Nation's northernmost breeding population of golden eagles occurs there.

• It borders two Canadian national parks.

• It is used by two different caribou herds.

• Continuous light prevails there from late April to mid-August; the sun stays below the horizon from mid-November to mid-January.

• It has no introduced species.

• Permafrost underlies most of it, helping to keep the landscape wet and productive in summer.

• Huge fields of overflow ice ("aufeis") form along many of its rivers every winter.

• It is open to public use year-round, offering unparalled opportunities to experience solitude, challenge, and adventure.


REGION 7- ALASKA



The coastal plain only 10 percent of the Refuge. Yet from May to July, it is the center of biological activity on the Refuge. For centuries, animals from the Porcupine caribou herd have used the coastal tundra to calve, obtain nourishment, avoid insects, and escape predators.

The calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd include the northern foothills of the Brooks Range and the arctic coastal plain from the Tamayariak River in Alaska to the Babbage River in Canada. The most often used calving area, however, is on the Refuge coastal plain between the Katakturuk and Kongakut Rivers. Commonly, one-half to three quarters or more of the calves are born within this area.

The Refuge coastal plain is very important to calving success and calf survival in the Porcupine caribou herd. There are two main reasons for th~

First, fewer brown bears, wolves, and golden eagles live on the coastal plain than in the adjacent foothills and mountains. As a result, the newborn calves have a better


REGION 7 - ALASKA

~lDl~flE lRlEfUGE D THE COASTAL PLAIN to survive their first

week, until they become strong enough to outrun their pursuers.

The Refuge coastal plain also provides an abundance of plant species preferred by caribou. Nutrition is very important to the pregnant cows, particularly after the long winter. The timing of snow melt and plant "green up" on the coastal plain coincides with their calving period. This gives the new mothers access to the most

nutritious food when it is most important for their health and the proper development of nursing calves.

The entire Porcupine caribou herd and up to a third of the

Central Arctic herd use the Refuge coastal plain when calving is completed. This essential area contains forage and a variety of habitats that provide insect relief, including the coast, uplands, ice fields, rocky slopes, and gravel bars.

Their annual visit to the Refuge coastal plain brings new life and vitality to the caribou. It is an important part of their life cycle. The coastal plain provides the caribou vital

nourishment and a better chance of avoiding predators and insects. This relationship is part of the unaltered system that makes the Arctic Refuge such a wondrous place.



Like antlered gypsies, ground caribou are always the move. Exactly when and where they go is impossible to predict. Most herds, however, are drawn to a specific calving area. The 152,000 member Porcupine caribou herd has such a connection with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Named for the maJor nver within its range, the Porcupine herd uses an area the size of Wyoming m the Refuge, Yukon, and Northwest Territories. The herd winters in the southern portion of its range, including the Refuge, where they are an important resource for the Gwichin people.

Twice a year the herd migrates more than 700 miles to and from its traditional calving grounds on the arctic coastal plain. Sometime in April, the caribou head north. The route they take depends on snow and weather conditions.

By early June, the pregnant females reach the calving areas and give birth. Shortly thereafter, most, and often all,


REGION 7- ALASKA

~lDl~frE lRlEfUGrE

INE CARIBOU HERD the herd joins the cows and

calves on the coastal plain of the Refuge. In late June and early July, when hordes of mosquitos hatch, the caribou gather in huge groups numbering in the tens of thousands. Seeking relief from the insects, they move along the coast, onto ice fields, and to uplands in the Brooks Range.

The herd leaves the coastal plain by mid-July, heading back

east and south toward its fall and wintering areas. Just as no one knows in advance precisely where most of the caribou will drop their calves in the spring, no one knows until it happens whether the majority of the

herd will winter on the south side of the Refuge or in Canada.

Hunted by local residents, chased by predators, harassed by insects, challenged by river crossings, and faced with difficult terrain and weather, the Porcupine herd confronts many hardships. Yet it thrives, every summer staging a magnificent wildlife spectacle on the arctic coastal plain. The

caribou are a vital part of the natural system that operates there. Unalterably linked to the area, the herd both depends on and enhances the dynamic wilderness that is the Arctic Refuge.



It's a magnificent, powerful, fearless animal; the largest land carnivore. The polar bear is a unique part of our natural heritage - directly connected to the Arctic Refuge. How? Every year, several of these impressive animals come to the Refuge to den and give birth. Many others congregate along the coast of the Refuge in October and November.

These bears are part of the Beaufort Sea population, estimated at 2,000 animals. They use an area extending more than 800 miles along the north coasts of Alaska and Canada. The bears spend most of their time on the drifting pack ice, feeding, resting, and denning. Each year, however, many of the pregnant females come to shore to dig maternity dens in snow drifts.

The pregnant females move onshore in late fall. When and where they go depends on weather, formation of sea ice, and snowdrift patterns. The pregnant bears dig their dens in November, then give birth to one or two tiny cubs in December or January. The


REGION 7 - ALASKA

~lDl~f(E REfUGlE

POLAR BEAR nurse and care for the

young until March or early April, when they emerge from the dens. After several days getting used to the outside environment, including short trips to strengthen the cubs, the families leave the dens. They

move back to the sea ice to hunt ringed seals and other prey. The cubs stay with their mothers, learning to hunt, for about the next two and a half years.

Along Alaska's coast, the highest density of polar bear land dens occurs within the Refuge. Many more dens have been found here than would be expected if bears denned

uniformly along the coast. One reason may be that the Refuge coastal plain and northern foothills have more uneven terrain than areas to the west, allowing snow drifts to form more readily. Within the Refuge, bears have denned in

the Canning River Delta, Camden Bay area, and Pokok Lagoon bluffs.

The Arctic Refuge is the only national conservation area where polar bears regularly den and the most consistently used polar bear land denning area in Alaska. These are just two of many reasons the Refuge is such an incredible natural area.



Brown bears are the UH'-'""~-'

monarchs of the open tuuu•......_- and mountains of Alaska. On the Arctic Refuge, they live farther north than any others of their species. Also called grizzlies because of the "grizzled" blond tips of their fur, brown bears can be shades of cream, brown, or black.

Brown bears escape the Refuge's long winters by hibernating for up to eight months each year. During this long sleep, bears do not eat or drink. They do, however, give birth and nurse their cubs.

Outside the den, brown bears explore widely for foods that are often in short supply. While spring snows remain, bears eat carrion, ground squirrels, and roots. In early June, some bears, especially sows with young, prey on newborn caribou. This opportunity lasts only a few weeks, until the calves are too nimble to catch. During the summer, brown bears feed mainly on greens. Some search high into the mountains for new growth emergmg from late-melting snows. Later, the bears consume large quantities of

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

REGION 7 - ALASKA

~lDl~flE lRlEfUGlE

BROWN BEARS When snows return,

by mid-September, the bears again dig for ground squirrels and roots.

Most Refuge brown bears den in the mountains south of the coastal plain. Because the Refuge is underlain by permanently frozen ground, bears select rock caves, or sandy soils that have thawed more than four feet deeo. The

soils can collapse easily unless the top four inches are frozen, so bears must wait, usually until mid-October, for a hard freeze before excavating their dens.

Brown bears on the Refuge are faced with a long winter hibernation and limited food

resources. As a result, they have small bodies, low reproduction rates, and slowly maturing young. This northernmost population has remained remarkably stable, however. The only enemies these monarchs have are old age, other brown bears, and occasionally man.

Brown bears are plentiful on the Refuge. Listening at night

through paper-thin tent walls, walking through dense willows, or cresting a hilltop - the possibility of meeting a bear heightens our senses. Without these magnificent animals, the special wilderness quality of the Arctic Refuge would be greatly diminished.



Wolves have long lightning rod for They evoke passionate feelings in many of us. Some people love them, a few fear them, others prefer that they be shot. On the Arctic Refuge, however, these differences are seldom voiced. Why? The wolf is wild, beautiful, and inspiring. So is the Refuge. The two belong together. People know it and expect it.

Cousin to the dog, the gray wolf is a highly social animal, preferring to live in packs. The pack, dominated by a male/female pair, may include their pups of the year, wolves born the previous year, and other adults.

Gray wolves may be shades of gray, brown, black, or white. Wolves of all these colors roam the Refuge. Some five packs totalling 25 to 30 animals live on the Refuge's north slope east of the Canning River. The wolves are found primarily in the mountains and foothills along major rivers.

The makeup of wolf packs on the Refuge's north slope varies. In summer, many wolves hunt


REGION 7- ALASKA

~lDl~f[E rRrEfUGrE

GRAY WOLF or in pairs. Some are

"drifters." Others may switch packs or move to new areas, perhaps following the caribou migration. In winter the packs stay together more to hunt.

Gray wolves mate in late February and March. The pairs then move to maternity dens near rivers in the foothills and mountains. About four to seven pups are born in late May or early June. The pups are weaned during the summer, and the dens are abandoned in July

or August. By early winter, the pups can travel and hunt with the adult wolves.

Although to date, no dens have been found on the Refuge coastal plain, wolves make

frequent trips there from May to July when the Porcupine caribou herd is present. After the caribou leave the coastal plain, the wolves stay in the mountains and foothills hunting caribou, along with Dall sheep and moose. Wolves, however, are opportunistic feeders. They will catch small rodents, birds, and ground squirrels if they can.

Natural relationships between predator and prey still prevail on the Arctic Refuge. Here the

wolfs connection to the caribou and the land continues as it has for centuries. Untamed and free, the wolf is a symbol for the Refuge - a truly remarkable place.



Inupiaqs call it " "the bearded one." Shaggy <~n'l'~,,..

social, with an almost surreal quality, the muskox, more than any other animal, conjures up images of the cold, remote arctic. Seeing one takes you back . . . to the time of the mammoth, the short-faced bear, and the saber-toothed cat.

Muskoxen thrive on the Arctic Refuge coastal plain. This was not always so. They disappeared from Alaska's north slope more than 100 years ago. They were brought back to the Refuge in 1969. Today about 350 muskoxen live on the Refuge, and they have expanded to areas both west and east.

As the only large mammals that Jive year-round on the Refuge coastal plain, muskoxen are uniquely adapted to a frigid environment. They have to be. Winter lasts nine months of the year, temperatures routinely drop to minus 30 or colder, and winds blow almost constantly. Yet muskoxen stay warm. How? Their long, skirt-like guard hairs and thick "quiviut" wool provide insulation, and


REGION 7 -ALASKA

~lDl~flE rRlEfUGlE

MUSKOXEN short -legged The animals

also don't move around much in winter to conserve energy.

In summer, muskoxen feed along rivers on a wide variety of plants. In winter they move to areas with low snow cover to feed on sedges and shrubs.

Adult females, young animals, and some males live in social groups year-round. Other males are solitary in summer and live together in winter. When threatened, muskoxen typically run together to form a tight circle or line. This unusual defensive technique is quite effective against predators.

The entire Refuge coastal plain has muskoxen. In summer, they are concentrated along major rivers including the Canning, Tamayariak, Sadlerochit, Jago, Aichilik, and Kongakut. Muskoxen are an important part of the Refuge ecosystem, adding to the area's diversity and providing a year-

round food source for predators and other animals.

The once endangered muskox brings a special majesty and aura to the Refuge, one not offered by any other animal. The Arctic Refuge protects habitats for this ice-age relic. It's one of the many reasons this special Refuge was created.



Watchful and approach, Dall sheep y .. ,u ........ "",,._.

the hunters, wildlife watchers, and photographers who pursue them. The sheep too are challenged - by the harsh alpine environments of Alaska and northwestern Canada. The animals meet this challenge because of several unique adaptations. One place they do well is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Refuge contains North America's northernmost Dall sheep population. Year-round residents of the Refuge, the sheep live mostly above timberline on ridges, dry meadows, and steep mountain slopes. There are always rocky outcrops and cliffs nearby. The sheep rarely venture far from this rugged terrain, using it to escape predators, including wolves, golden eagles, bears, and humans. Natural mountaineers, sheep negotiate this terrain with speed and agility. They rarely fall.

Dall sheep eat grasses, sedges, forbs, and dwarf willows. In winter, when these foods are scarce, the sheep add lichens to their diet. The distribution and


REGION 7- ALASKA

~lDl~f[E fR[EfUGE DALL SHEEP

u. ...... Ln ... ty of forage requires sheep to move seasonally

between traditional summer and winter ranges. On the Refuge, the animals supplement their diet with regular visits to mineral licks. The sheep usually roam in small social units, either maternal ewe, lamb and yearling groups, or groups of rams.

Sheep forage is limited by the cool temperatures and nutrient poor soils of the northern alpine environment. Under these conditions, the sheep mature slowly and have low reproductive rates. Females reach breeding age at three to

four years and produce only one lamb per year. Males breed when their horns are large enough for them to establish a dominant position in the ram hierarchy, usually at seven to nine years.

Winter weather is the main factor that affects Dall sheep numbers. In sheep habitat, temperatures normally stay below freezing, snowfall is light, and winds sweep many ridges and slopes, keeping snow cover light. These conditions allow the sheep good access to winter forage . However heavy snows, temporary thaws, and freezing rains can create a frozen barrier preventing the sheep from digging for the plants. Conditions like these can cause population "crashes."

Dall sheep walk a survival tightrope, although they do it

rather effectively. They have lived since the Pleistocene in places such as the Arctic Refuge. They are one of the special wildlife assets of this magnificent place.

A rtERICA'S ~ATIONAL WILfi'LIFE REFUGES •••

wnere wildlire comes naturatly!

To those who have seen · cottongrass means beauty perhaps a dried flower arrangement. But to a snow goose, the plant means fat, energy, and survival. To get it, thousands of these birds fly hundreds of miles to dine at a very special table - the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The geese come from their nesting grounds in Canada. They gather on the Refuge and the Canadian coastal plain for only a few weeks in late August and September.

Having just raised their young, the adult geese are low on energy. The young geese are still growing. All of the birds need to put on fat quickly. Why? Winter storms will soon drive them south along Canada's Mackenzie River to California and Mexico. When the geese leave, they'll fly nonstop more than 1 ,200 miles before they rest and feed again. The fat will supply the energy they need.

The geese get much of it by eating the underground stem bases of cottongrass, a highly nutritious and digestible plant


REGION 7- ALASKA

~lDl~flE l~JEfUGE

SNOW GEESE They look for areas of

tundra where there are few other plants growing.

The birds feed like crazy - up to 16 hours a day. They eat as much as a third of their weight every day, increasing their body fat by 400% in only two to three weeks - the same as a 150 pound person gaining 30 pounds of fat.

The geese gather in different places each fall. In some years, many of the birds feed on the

Refuge coastal plain, often between the Okpilak and Aichilik rivers. In other years, a majority stay on the coastal plain in Canada. Numbers seen on the Refuge range from 13,000 to more than 300,000 birds.

Good cottongrass feeding sites are small, patchy, and widely dispersed; there's never much food at one place. The sites make up only about three percent of the Refuge coastal plain. Snow geese, especially young birds, need access to large, undisturbed areas so they can find these sites and get enough food - and fat - to survive migration.

The patchwork of gold and crimson tundra, the cool, crisp air, the waves of snow-white

birds against a cobalt blue sky -together this is what makes fall on the coastal plain such a magical time, and the Arctic Refuge such a wonderful and important place.

Af4ERICA'S ~ATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES •••

wnere wildli re comes naturally!

Each summer, birds use the

~lDl~f[E [~JEfUGlE

ch Arctic Refuge birds travel to or through

y area?

to destinations in the States and na\M'\n""'

, feed, or rest. They then migrate ~"'"'~.~~some birds that may visit your area.


REGION 7 - ALASKA


where wildliye comes naturally!

Always on the lookout tasty insect morsel, grayling are popular with anglers for their willingness to take a lure. This characteristic, however, is more than a special gift from nature. It is one of the grayling's unique adaptations to arctic Alaska.

Sporting an elegant sail-like dorsal fin, Arctic grayling are freshwater cousins of the trout. During the short summer season, they feast on huge numbers of drifting aquatic insects. They prefer to feed in clear flowing rivers so they can see their prey. Grayling use silty glacial rivers as summer migration corridors and for overwintering.

Summer feeding frenzies prepare grayling for the frozen, foodless months of winter. By fall, the fish have large stores of fat, which will provide the energy they need to survive eight months under the ice. Mature grayling also begin producing eggs and sperm in anticipation of spawning the following June.

Many rivers on the Arctic Refuge coastal plain are less


REGION 7 · ALASKA

~lDl~flE lRlEFUGlE

ARCTIC GRAYLING waist deep, and freeze to bottom each winter.

Grayling are found only in the few river systems with deep pools that remain unfrozen under six feet of ice. The grayling survive here because they tolerate the low levels of dissolved oxygen lethal to many other fish.

In late May or June, when spring meltoff opens the rivers, mature grayling swim upstream to their traditional spawning

areas. After spawning, they continue upstream to their summer feeding grounds. There they remain until fall, when they return to the overwintering pools.

The grayling eggs remain in the gravel stream beds for three weeks, releasing their half-inch

fish by early July. Poor swimmers, these young fish usually stay in the waters near their spawning areas. Biologists don't know where the juveniles overwinter.

The Refuge's short summers and long winters slow grayling growth. On the coastal plain, grayling don't reach their spawning length of 11 inches for six or seven years, although they can exceed 16 inches and live more than 12 years.

An angler's dream, a caddis fly's nightmare: grayling are well adapted to survive in the harsh arctic environment. They depend on the clean gravel and water supplies of the Arctic Refuge, and are a valuable component of its diverse natural resources.


where wildlire ·comes naturally!

Bright green, with red spots a flaming red belly; the Varden gets attention. Known until recently as the Arctic char, the Dolly Varden is a renowned sport fish on rivers and lagoons of the Arctic Refuge.

Dolly Varden live in northflowing Refuge rivers that have year-round springs. The fish use the springs to spawn and spend the winter. Many Dolly Varden are anadromous, wintering in the rivers and summering in coastal marine waters. Others never visit the sea, spending their entire lives in the rivers of their birth.

In late summer and fall, Dolly Varden deposit their eggs in nests scraped into the gravel. The nests are located just downstream from springs, where fresh, cold water percolates up through the river gravel. The eggs mature slowly, hatching into fry in March. These tiny fish remain hidden in the gravel, absorbing nutrients from their yolk sacs, until they emerge in late May. The young fish feed on insects in the water.


REGION 7 - ALASKA

~lDl~frE lR.rEfUGrE

DOLLY VARDEN '""'"''-'""" Dolly Varden may

migrate to the sea as early as their second year, but most wait until they are three or four. Fish from the Refuge disperse into nearshore waters west of the Refuge and east into Canada, where they mix with Dolly Varden from other river drainages. They return to freshwater springs each fall.

Dolly Varden in the Refuge usually spawn by age eight, but only half survive to spawn a second time. Those who do may wait two years, while they rebuild the energy reserves they need.

Although they can live 16 years or more, Dolly Varden over 10 are uncommon in the Refuge. The anadromous fish grow

faster and larger than their freshwater comrades. For example, one non-migratory fish measured 12.5 inches, while anadromous fish of the same age and from the same drainage measured 18 and 20 inches. An exceptional Dolly Varden caught in Beaufort lagoon was 32 inches long and weighed 10.6 pounds.

Sparkling like brilliant gems in pristine waters, Dolly Varden provide recreational enjoyment to Refuge VISitors, and nourishment to local residents. The fish depend on the freshwater springs and nearby

marine waters of the Arctic Refuge, and are an integral part of its spectacular natural resources.



It is not a game fish, obscure name, can't easily 1'\e··-" seen, and has no great claim to fame. Yet the Arctic cisco plays a big role in the arctic. It is a critical link in the marine food chain, provides food for local residents, and brings money to commercial fishermen.

Cousin to Interior Alaska's sheefish, Arctic cisco feed and migrate in summer through the nutrient rich waters of the Arctic Refuge coast. These metallic silver fish eat marine invertebrates, and are themselves an important food source for larger fish and marine mammals. Arctic cisco can reach 20 inches and weigh up to two pounds.

Mature Arctic cisco begin spawning at age eight or nine, continuing beyond 13 years of age. They lay their eggs in Canada's Mackenzie River. After hatching, the fingerlength juveniles migrate west along the Refuge coast. Prevailing easterly winds help "push" the young fish to the Sagavanirktok River west of the Refuge, more than 200

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

REGION 7- ALASKA

~lDl~f[E lREfUGE

ARCTIC CISCO from where they began.

Juveniles overwinter in this river for a few years until they reach the sub-adult stage. They then travel another 100 miles west to overwinter in the Colville River. When they mature, Arctic cisco return each year to the Mackenzie River to spawn and overwinter.

Although fish of different ages overwinter in separate river drainages east and west of the refuge, in summer Arctic cisco of every age are found in

abundance in the nearshore waters of the Refuge coast.

An important food resource for Kaktovik Natives, Arctic cisco are netted or seined from August through early September. The fish brings more to the village than

sustenance, however. The Inupiaq name for Kaktovik ("Qaaktugvik") means seining place. The word is a constant reminder of the cisco ("Qaaktag"), and the villager's seining efforts ("Qaaktug"), to catch them.

Sub-adult Arctic cisco from the Colville River are an important commercial resource. Overwintering fish taken from there are sold in Barrow, Anchorage, and a few other locations in Alaska.

Little-known away from Alaska's northern coast, Arctic cisco help sustain the wildlife and people of the arctic. Similarly, the Arctic Refuge contains coastal waters which sustain this important natural resource.



IN REPLY REFER TO.

ARW

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE lOll E. Tudor Rd.

:\nchorage. Alaska 9950:'>-6199

AIJ3 2 9 1995

Memorandum

To:

From:

Subject:

Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior for Alaska

Regional Director Region 7

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Report

Attached is a copy of "A Preliminary Review of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska Coastal Plain Resource Assessment: Report and Recommendation to the Congress of the United States and Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement." This report was prepared by staffs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with input from the National Biological Service in Alaska.

The report was prepared to determine if the original conclusions of the 1987 LEIS remain valid considering the significant new information that has been collected since the LEIS was prepared. While much new information exists, all studies and analyses have not been completed. This preliminary review can be update

1d when additional

reports are completed. The document is intended to update you, and other Department of the Interior personnel, on the best available information concerning the potential environmental impacts of oil development on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Please contact me if you have questions at (907) 786-3542.

Attachment

A Preliminary Review of The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska

Coastal Plain Resource Assessment: Report and Recommendation

To the Congress of the United States and

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement August 29, 1995

I. INTRODUCTION

In April 1987, the Department of the Interior released the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain Resource Assessment: Report and Recommendation to the Congress of the United States and Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS). The report was prepared in accordance with section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared the report in cooperation with U. S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Land Management. Within the report, sections for each of the features being reviewed contained definitions of major, moderate, minor or negligible impacts for each of the subjects evaluated. The report concluded that the full leasing and development of the coastal plain would have major environmental impacts.

In the eight years following the report, many additional studies of fish, wildlife, and habitats have been conducted to better understand the ecology of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and potential effects of oil and gas development. The Service conducted the following preliminary review of the LEIS to determine if the original conclusions of the 1987 LEIS remain valid, considering significant new data. While all studies and analyses have yet to be completed, additional information strengthens the fundamental conclusion that the Arctic Refuge coastal plain is a vital area for a rich mix of Arctic flora and fauna. This review supports the LEIS finding that there would be major environmental impacts from oil and gas development on the coastal plain.

The following discussion features sections focusing on the biological environment, physical environment, and human environment.

II. BIOLOGICAL ENVffiONMENT

A. Caribou

The LEIS concludes that full leasing and development of the refuge coastal plain would have a major effect on the Porcupine caribou herd (PCH). The impacts described include direct habitat modification, displacement, obstructions to movements which could reduce access to important habitats, and disturbance or harassment. The LEIS predicted a decline in caribou use within 3 kilometers of full development. It further stated that, "Significant declines in

use by maternal cows and calves could occur within at least the 2-km zone. • These conclusions remain valid for all the reasons cited in the LEIS, and are supported by research since 1987.

1. Caribou Use of the Coastal Plain

The coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge, including much of the 1002 area, is the most important area for high-density, concentrated calving by the PCH. In 1995, 92 percent of the PCH calved in the 1002 area.

The LEIS does not adequately portray the full extent of caribou use on the coastal plain. For example, the LEIS states, "From yearto·year, the distribution of caribou (PCH) on these calving grounds varies considerably, with most calving usually taking place in the area between the Hulahula River and the Canadian border." This implies that the area west of the Hulahula is of low importance for caribou.

Although from 1972 to 1986, concentrated calving occurred west of the Hulahula River in 4 of 15 years, data collected between 1987 and 1995 show that concentrated calving occurred in this area in 5 of 9 years. In addition, the distribution and habitat of the Central Arctic caribou herd (CAR) includes nearly the entire 1002 area west of the Hulahula. It is significant that additional data collected since 1987 show important calving areas west of the Hulahula River. The generalized development scenario used to assess environmental impacts included three major prospects, one of which is located entirely west of the Hulahula River. These new data indicate that a more extensive area than identified in the LEIS is important to caribou when considering the impacts of oil and gas production.

While the LEIS provides considerable discussion on calving distribution and habitat, very little information is presented regardipg caribou use of the coastal plain after the calves are born. The LEIS simply says, "Postcalving movements and aggregatio\ls show considerable annual variation." No specific examples or maps are provided. Information regarding caribou distribution and movement during the post-calving period was available in the Baseline Report Series, but was not included in the LEIS. Nearly every year, all PCH females and calves use the 1002 area for postcalving activities and, in most years, the majority of bulls also use the area during late June and early July.

Caribou movements studied after the LEIS illustrates a more extensive and dynamic use of the area by the PCH than the LEIS presents. Large post-calving aggregations of PCH caribou, sometimes consisting of most of the herd, gathered in the Canning River delta area from late June to early July in 6 of the last 9 years.

2. Habitat

The LEIS determined relative habitat values using an aerial approach involving a polygon generated by overlapping multiple years of calving concentration maps. Since only calving

2

. distribution maps were used, information about post-calving distribution and movement was not included, and thus the analysis inappropriately truncated the geographic scope and frequency of caribou interaction with the development infrastructure.

Habitat research since 1987 provides new data about the distribution of various coastal plain habitats and the quality of their forage. In addition, use of satellite imagery has permitted study of the movement of caribou on the coastal plain relative to snow melt and vegetation phenology. Although some of these data are still being analyzed, research has documented that:

e the caribou have a broader use of the coastal plain for calving than the LEIS depicted

• snowmelt and "green-up patterns" influence caribou-calving sites each year

• the concentrated calving area, where 50 percent of the calves are born, in any year imparts a higher level of predator protection

e the primary forage species (Eriophorum vaginatwn) is higher in nutrition, more digestible, and more available within the 1002 area than in the peripheral areas when caribou are present

• caribou seek ridge tops on the coastal plain for insect-relief habitat, in addition to the coastline and mountains the LEIS noted.

Analysis of the multi-year data set from radio-collared adult females indicates that birth sites and caribou distribution are associated with snow melt patterns and early plant phenology. The PCH selects the high density portion of the calving ground annually based on areas with the highest rate of plant growth in the two weeks immediately following calving. The new plant growth is highly digestible with a high protein content. This is the period when protein and energy demands on caribou cows, for lactation, are the highest of any time of the year.

3. Development Impacts

The LEIS assessed the effects of development on caribou as being related to the actual acreage impacted by roads, pipelines, and drill pads, often called the "footprint" of development. The LEIS assumed a 3-kilometer sphere of influence from development would affect 37 percent of the PCH concentrated calving area. Both the effects on calving and post-calving habitats caused by the development infrastructure should be considered. When caribou's complete use of the coastal plain is considered, development affects a larger area than. the LEIS depicted by considering only areas of concentrated calving.

By focusing on the "footprint" and a sphere of influence immediately adjacent to it, the real impact of the development infrastructure is minimized and underestimated. The effects the

3

development infrastructure have on movements and access to preferred habitats are the primary factors that will determine the impact to the herd's population dynamics. The development scenario used to assess impacts is oriented on a general east - west axis with two corridors connecting to marine facilities at Camden Bay and Pokok Lagoon. This alignment would interact with caribou movements from uplands to the coast to avoid insect harassment as well as westward movements before calving, and eastward movements when the herd moves toward the British Mountains in Canada. If the infrastructure were oriented north - south, there would also be extensive interaction with these predominant east - west caribou movements. Investigations with the CAR at Prudhoe Bay have shown that the propensity of caribou to cross structures is inversely proportional to the size of the group encountering the structure--that is, large groups have lower success in crossing structures. Since the PCH is 10 times greater in size than the CAR, the probability of large groups occurring in the 1002 area suggests a greater incidence of negative interactions between caribou and the infrastructure. In this case, the "footprint" becomes a barrier and reduces access to habitats beyond the 1-, 2-, or 3-kilometer sphere of influence identified in the LEIS.

In all probability, a barrier effect will occur to some extent, causing displacement of the herd. The LEIS agreed that a change in distribution of the PCH could reasonably be expected. There is limited coastal plain habitat available because of the proximity of the mountains to the sea. Therefore, displacement would be to the foothills south and east of the 1002 area. This would:

• displace the herd to the area of highest predator density

• reduce the amount and quality of preferred forage species available during calving, and

• restrict access to important coastal insect-relief habitat.

The potential increase in predation from this scenario with the herd at its present population level would have a negative, albeit minimal, impact on the population. On the other hand, reduced food resources due to displacement and potential increased energy expenditure, due to encountering the infrastructure, could have a more noticeable impact. Failure to obtain insect relief would contribute to poor physical condition. The Alaska Department of Fish & Game, in conjunction with the 1002 research program, found that viability of the calf was associated with fall weight of the female. Reduced parturition rates or calf survival will have a negative impact on the population dynamics of the PCH.

The LEIS acknowledged the potential for a population decline resulting from loss of habitat and reduction in habitat values. It simply concluded, "No appreciable decline is expected as a result of development." That conclusion is speculative, cannot be substantiated scientifically, and does not logically flow from the concerns about habitat. Likewise, attempts to precisely predict a numerical population decline would also be speculative. Current studies indicate,

4

however, that the ability to freely locate the calving ground where conditions are most favorable influences calf survival. Small disruptions to free calving ground location may have demonstrable repercussions for herd dynamics. A reduction in annual calf survival of less than 5 percent would be sufficient to change a positive rate of increase in the PCH population to a declining rate. It is reasonable to conclude that the cumulative effects of reduced access to habitat providing preferred forage, predator avoidance, or insect relief for the PCH caused by full development of the 1002 area would result in a major, adverse impact on the herd.

B. Muskoxen

The LEIS predicted a major impact on muskoxen as a result of full development. Information gained from 1987 to the present adds to the understanding of the scope of impacts that would be expected. Additional supporting information provides further insights.

The extirpation of the muskox in Alaska and concern that the species might become extinct worldwide resulted in the return of this animal to the State in the 1930's. After 60 years, the species has been reestablished in areas of its former range in northern Alaska. The muskox population centered in the 1002 area of the Arctic Refuge is the source of animals that colonized adjacent areas in northern Alaska and northwestern Canada.

Muskoxen are one of only two ungulate species adapted to arctic conditions, and the only large mammal present year-round in the 1002 area. This important component of the arctic ecosystem provides continuous food for scavengers and predators and contributes to the biodiversity of the system. Muskoxen are energetically conservative, with a high fidelity to relatively small home ranges, limited daily and seasonal movements, and relatively low rates of reproduction. Most females do not reproduce annually. A single calf is born in late April to May under winter conditions. Females must provide milk to sustain the calf for several weeks before green plants are available in early to mid-June. 1

The portion of the muskox population that resides within the 1002 area increased throughout the mid-1980's, reaching a maximum in 1986, then decreased and stabilized at fewer than 300. Muskoxen have expanded their range both within and beyond the 1002 area. About 100-120 muskoxen currently occupy the portion of the 1002 area between the Tamayariak and Canning Rivers (west), similar numbers occur along the Sadlerochit River (central) and fewer than 60 muskoxen live between the Jago and Aichilik Rivers (eaSt). Regionally, population numbers continue to increase. Over 700 currently live between the Sagavanirktok River in Alaska and the Babbage River in Canada.

The muskox population on the refuge now supports a limited subsistence hunting opportunity for residents of Kaktovik. As many as 10 bulls may be taken each year. Muskoxen provide a protein source during spring when whales and caribou are not present.

5

Mixed--sex groups have a high fidelity to relatively small geographic areas, and major shifts in distribution are rare. When dispersing, mixed-sex groups move into areas already colonized by bulls; they are unlikely to move into areas devoid of muskoxen.

In winter, muskoxen select locations where snow cover is minimal and dried sedges and willows are available. In winter, muskoxen stay in small areas and reduce their movements and activities to conserve energy. By contrast, in summer, muskoxen are more active, moving longer distances and using larger areas and a greater diversity of habitats as a strategy to regain body weight lost during the long winter, pregnancy, and lactation. Unless females reach a threshold weight before the rut in August, they do not reproduce.

Muskoxen are vulnerable to potential impacts from oil and gas exploration and development because they are present in the area year round and would be subjected to cumulative effects in both winter and summer. Unlike other large vertebrates that migrate or hibernate, muskoxen actively use the arctic coastal plain during winter. This is possible because of their adaptations to cold, their ability to process low-quality forage, and their energyconserving strategies including low rates of movement and activity. Energetic costs will be increased if animals move or become more active in response to construction or facilities operations, aircraft and vehicle traffic, and other human activities. Shifts in distribution in winter, caused by human activities, are also likely to result in less forage availability and higher energetic costs to obtain food if muskoxen move into areas of higher snow cover. Increased energetic costs will likely result in decreased calf production and may cause some additional winter mortalities.

The discussion in the LEIS about the effects of stress and disturbance on muskoxen and on the effects .of habitat loss on ungulates is still valid, but more information is available on the response of muskoxen to oil field facilities. Muskoxen dispersing into areas adjacent to the Trans Alaska Pipeline corridor are found in locations about 5 miles from a pump station, and 2 miles from the haul road and pipeline. 1

Assuming a 2-mile sphere of influence, the amount of muskox high-use range that could be affected under full leasing exceeds that described in the LEIS, as muskoxen have extended their range throughout the 1002 area. The full development scenario would result in the loss of availability of a large percentage of high-use habitat. This would have an adverse affect on muskox productivity and population size.

Muskoxen are often found along rivers that would likely be used for extensive gravel extraction and creation of water storage basins. These activities in drainages the animals use would result in their displacement and. in permanent habitat loss. If muskoxen are displaced from portions of the 1002 area, subsistence hunters will have reduced opportunities. Areas vacated by muskoxen may not be recolonized by mixed-sex groups for some unknown period of time.

6

Because numbers of muskoxen within the 1002 area are small, and the animals live in social groups, negative impacts on only a few groups could be significant. If only a few groups of animals are displaced or disturbed, a large percentage of the population would be affected. Small increases in female mortalities can cause a decline in population numbers. Muskox distribution, reproduction and survival are influenced by winter weather and snow depth; effects from oil and gas development will likely be additive in severe winters.

C. Polar Bears

The conclusion in the LEIS that development might have a moderate level of impact on polar bears is still reasonable. Since completion of the LEIS, considerable data have been collected regarding polar bears. Results of radio-telemetry studies spanning 11 years indicate that 45 percent of maternal polar bear dens found on land for the Beaufort Sea population were within the Arctic Refuge, and 34 percent were within the 1002 area. Considering the broad region involved (approximately from Wainwright, Alaska to the Bailee Islands in Canada) the refuge coastal plain is a disproportionately small area for the number of dens documented. These results indicate that the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is the most important land denning area for the Beaufort Sea polar bear population.

The LEIS does not include a consideration of the effects of a major oil spill (chronic, acute, and secondary) on polar bear populations, nor does it consider the effects of other intensive developments along coastal areas of Alaska and Canada. If oil development occurs on the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge, it would provide infrastructure that could encourage new drilling in adjacent offshore waters. The cumulative impacts of Beaufort Sea oil development are a concern with the polar bear population.

D. Brown Bears

I

According to the LEIS, a moderate decline in the numbers of brown bears using the 1002 area or a change in the distribution could result from the additive effects of direct mortality, decreased prey availability, harassment, and disturbance in denning areas. Brown bears use the coastal plain extensively, particularly east of the Sadlerochit River. Development would result in increased encounters with humans causing additional hunting and mortality attributed to defense of life and property: Concerns about reduced prey availability are specUlative and are dependent on effects of development on the PCH.

E. Snow Geese

The LEIS predicted that snow geese would be moderately impacted by full development. It further concluded that direct loss of snow goose habitat to infrastructure would be minimal. The major impact would be aircraft disturbance that displaces geese from feeding

7

. habitats, increases energy expenditure, and reduces the ability of geese to accumulate lipids. The LEIS noted that impacts would be highly variable each year, depending on the size of the staging population.

These conclusions are essentially correct. The most important snow goose feeding habitats occur in small patches that are widely distributed but comprise < 3 percent of the 1002 area east of the Hulahula River. Because of the widespread distribution of these sites, they are not likely to be significantly affected by infrastructure. However, the heterogeneous distribution of feeding habitats requires that snow geese have access to large areas of tundra so that they can search for forage. For that reason, disturbance that displaces geese will have a greater affect than habitat loss to infrastructure.

Without controls on aircraft activity, disturbance would have widespread effects on snow goose distribution. Studies in Canada and our observations on the Arctic Refuge indicate that small fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters flush snow geese at distances of up to 4 miles from the flight line. Larger aircraft associated with petroleum development could flush geese at greater distances. The distance that flocks are displaced following disturbance is highly variable but often exceeds one mile. Distribution of snow geese in areas near flight corridors would likely be significantly affected.

The disturbance of staging snow geese would reduce the time they spend feeding, and the loss of habitat in which to feed would adversely affect their accumulation of energy reserves essential for migration, threatening their survival.

The LEIS suggests that approximately 60 percent of the preferred staging area on the Arctic Refuge lies within the 1002 Area. Using a slightly different analysis based on frequency of use, we concluded that approximately 80 percent of the most frequently used area on the refuge is within the 1002 Area. Because of this larger value, the percentage of preferred staging area impacted by development would be slightly higher than indicated in the LEIS.

The LEIS is correct in stating that impacts would be highly variable among years. The numbers of geese on the Arctic Refuge has ranged from approximately 12,800 to 325,000 individuals. Impacts would be greater in years of larger staging populations.

The conclusions of the LEIS regarding impacts to snow geese are still valid and are supported by additional research conducted since 1987. ·

F. Wolves

The LEIS predicted that the cumulative impact of full development could cause a moderate decline in the wolf population of the 1002 and surrounding area. The number of active dens adjacent to the coastal plain has varied from 3 to 7. Wolf use of the coastal plain is limited and generally associated with the foothills south of the 1002 area. The conclusion in the LEIS that the wolf population· could decline due to reduced prey (e.g., caribou) is

8

questionable, when the LEIS earlier had concluded there would be no appreciable decline in the caribou. Although the conclusion that there will be no appreciable decline in PCH is speculative, it is unlikely, given the present size of the PCH and the relative number of predators, that development would greatly impact wolf populations by changes in herd movement, distribution, or size. The LEIS predicted that additional direct mortality from shooting and trapping could occur because of increased human access. It is reasonable to conclude the effect of development on wolves would be moderate.

G. Wolverine

The LEIS concluded that, "The cumulative effects of displacement, avoidance and reduced food resources could result in localized, long-term changes (a moderate effect) in wolverine distribution. Inadequate controls on access and harvest could possibly reduce by half or more the 1002-area wolverine population. If this occurred, it could result in a major effect on that population." Few data are available on the wolverine population of the 1002 area, and no estimate of total numbers. The conclusion of the LEIS remains a reasonable estimation of impacts on wolverines.

H. Seals and Whales

Since the full development scenario does not involve shipping the oil by tankers, and the development is onshore, the effects on whales and seals is expected to be minor. Barge traffic may increase somewhat during the summer after the whale spring migration has passed and while the ·seals are pelagic. Seismic work on ice could cause some displacement of ringed seals locally, with the possible loss of some pups.

Again, there is no discussion of the likelihood of onshore production facilities encouraging oil development in adjacent offshore waters. If offshore development is facilitated by the construction of onshore infrastructure, then cumulative impacts need to be considered. Large increases in marine traffic and potential oil spills are the greatest oil development threats to seals and whales.

I. Arctic Peregrine falcon

Since completion of the LEIS, newly collected information regarding status of peregrine falcons in the area indicates the species is increasing and using new nest sites. --Pairs with young have been documented at Clarence River, Kongakut River, Ekaluakat River, Hulahula River, Canning River, and on Barter Island, all outside the 1002 area. These locations, except for the Canning River are new nest sites since the LEIS was completed. Adult peregrines have also been observed at locations on the Jago River, and Igilatvik Creek, within the 1002 area, where nesting is likely. Because of the improved status of the Arctic peregrine falcon populations, particularly on habitats located west of the refuge, the species was removed from the threatened list in November 1994. Populations on the refuge coastal plain have been the last to show increase, and are still recovering.

9

J. Vegetation

1. Landsat-TM Map

The interrelationship of wildlife species and their habitat is complex. The Service conducted many studies examining this interrelationship, including forage availability, snowmelt chronology, phenology, plant biomass and nutritive values. This research was designed to quantify the value of habitats used by caribou and other wildlife species on the arctic coastal plain. The research tried to identify portions of coastal plain that are important during and after calving.

Tofacilitate this research, the Service produced a LANDSAT-TM map that provides more accurate information on the vegetation types of the coastal plain. Previous maps, from the 1980's, depicted the general distribution of land-cover types. Additional assessment, however, indicated that their site-specific accuracy was inadequate for studies of wildlife habitat. The recently completed LANDSAT-TM map is more accurate. Therefore, the Service now has better knowledge of the distribution and composition of vegetation types of the arctic coastal plain and a better understanding of why these habitats are important to caribou and other species.

2. Seismic Exploration

Previous studies of disturbance from winter seismic exploration on tundra predicted shortterrn and mainly aesthetic impacts. The Arctic Refuge seismic study has tracked disturbance and recovery from the seismic exploration conducted in 1984 and 1985, with the most recent field data gathered in 1993 and 1994. A random sample of plots on the seismic trails showed that 10 percent of all trails still had measurable disturbance a decade after the exploration. Based on the length of the original trails, including seismic lines and campmove trails, this translates to approximately 400 kilometers of disturbed

1trails remaining.

Not all visual impacts are readily apparent to casual observers. Three percent of trails (or 120 kilometers, total) had medium- to high-level disturbance remaining. Recovery of these areas is likely to take many more years. Based on permanent study plots, we found that sites that had been moderately to severely impacted during seismic exploration still showed impacts in 1994. Plots still have changes in plant species· composition and increased melting of perrnafrost, compared to control plots. Over one half of the plots still have increased depth to permafrost a decade after disturbance, even at plots with low levels of initial disturbance where changes to the vegetation were no longer visible, indicating long-term changes to the soil temperature regime.

In some areas, ruts or troughs have formed on seismic trails. This is caused by melting of perrnafrost and settling of the ground surface, which causes a long-term change in plant composition and the elimination of some plant species.

10

In the summary of recommended mitigation in the LEIS, no mitigation measures appear to address these concerns. Regulation of any future exploration should include more protective stipulations regarding adequate protective cover of snow, types of vehicles used, and routes used for trails.

3. Rehabilitation (Revegetation)

The summary of recommended mitigation for the 1002 area briefly mentions habitat restoration. However, the document stated earlier that literature reviews of revegetation in Alaska had concluded that areas north of the Brooks Range are the most difficult to revegetate, and successful rehabilitation techniques have not been developed for these areas. This remains true today. Extensive experiments on revegetation techniques at Prudhoe Bay, conducted by contractors for the oil companies, have involved great effort and expense and often have been disappointing or have provided only limited success in small areas. Failure to revegetate naturally or with human help is mainly due to the presence of permafrost, the slow growth and propagation of arctic plants, and the short, cool growing season, particularly close to the arctic coast.

The exploratory drill site that Chevron created on Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation land on the coastal plain in the mid-1980's is the site of the only revegetation effort in the Arctic Refuge. The most advanced techniques were used in this showcase effort, including the construction and later removal (after only a year and a half) of a foam-timber pad on top of flat tundra with no gravel and no disturbance to the tundra surface. Nevertheless, the well-site was still a visible scar on the tundra in 1995.

The pad was reseeded in 1987 when drilling was completed. After that reseeding failed, contractors for Chevron visited the site and continued reseeding almost every summer until at least 1992. Service botanists measured the amount of vegetative cover on the pad as 6 percent in 1990 and 23 percent in 1992. A visual estimate in 1994 indicated 25-50 percent cover. The area of the buried reserve pit adjacent to the pad has much better growth of grasses than the pad. However, the surface, originally dry and graded flat, is now very uneven due to subsurface melting. Ponding of surface water has increased each year since 1987; about 25 percent of the surface area is now covered with ponds. The drilling wastes are supposed to remain frozen to be immobilized, raising the concern that drilling wastes will leach into vegetation and ponds.

4. Cumulative Impacts to Vegetation, Wetlands and Terrain TypeS

In the LEIS summary of effects, a rating of moderate would be more accurate than minor for impacts on vegetation, wetlands, and terrain types. Studies at Prudhoe Bay have documented extensive cumulative impacts to tundra vegetation from oil development. The impacts cover far larger areas than the surface areas of the pads, roads, and development structures, and have been clearly documented by aerial photographs. The most extensive

11

impacts are due to changes in water flow through the area due to Ndamming" by roads-that is, inundation above roads and drying below them, causing changes in vegetation, wetlands distribution, wildlife feeding, and bird nesting habitat over very large areas.

Another cause of vegetation change at Prudhoe Bay is the "dust shadow" along roads. Road dust on the tundra causes earlier snow-melt in the spring, increases melting of permafrost resulting in thermokarst pits, and raises the pH of the soil, killing many common tundra plants and dramatically changing the plant species composition for about 35 feet on either side of the road. Replacement plants are often pioneering, "weedy" species.

Studies of the effects of development on a landscape rarely take into account the cumulative impacts of many phases of development. The industrial complex at Prudhoe Bay clearly has had landscape-scale impacts on the ecosystem. Studies mapping historical changes to the Prudhoe Bay oil field found that indirect impacts can lag behind planned developments by many years and the total area eventually disturbed can greatly exceed the planned area of construction. For example, in the wettest parts of the oil field, flooding and thermokarst covered more than twice the area directly affected by roads and other construction activities.

K. Fisheries

A significant amount of fisheries data from inland and coastal waters of the 1002 area has been collected and analyzed since 1987. Most notably, the documented distribution of Arctic char (or Dolly Varden) in freshwater systems has been expanded. We now know that the Okpilak River provides important habitat for Arctic char. Arctic char were also found in the Ak:utoktak River, a tributary to the Okpilak River, in small numbers. These rivers were not identified in the LEIS as supporting char.

With respect to coastal fisheries, biologists have synthesized a large amount of data since 1987, both on the Arctic Refuge coast and from the Prudhoe Bay develppment area. The most noticeable shortcoming of the LEIS is the lack of recognition of the importance of the Arctic cisco fishery in the region, coupled with the dependence of Arctic cisco, for migration purposes, on the nearshore environment of the central Beaufort Sea coast. The Arctic cisco is a significant subsistence resource for the villages of Kaktovik and Nuiqsut. Past surveys show that Kaktovik natives often harvest more Arctic cisco than Arctic char/Dolly Varden. As stated in the LEIS, Arcmc-Cisco are knownto migrate from Canada's Mad(efiZ1e:River to the central Beaufort Sea (the Colville River delta) region for rearing.· The harvest in Kaktovik occurs as the adults migrate eastward to return to the Mackenzie River to spawn. The size of this return migration run is dependent on the number of juveniles that were successfully recruited to the Colville River region several years earlier. Thus, the original westward migration by juvenile Arctic cisco is an extremely critical period in the fishery. It is essential to maintain the integrity of the coastal brackish water zone, which is used by numerous anadromous fish species as a migration corridor. The effects of any specific causeway on the local hydrography, as well as the cumulative impact of additional causeways on migrating fish, are unknown.

12

Except for accidental spills, the most potentially threatening aspect of oil and gas development on coastal fishes is the construction of docks or causeways. Their potential for disrupting the integrity of the brackish nearshore corridor during summer has been a focus of study in the Prudhoe Bay region. While much of the literature from Prudhoe Bay suggests minimal effects of causeways, caution is required in directly extrapolating those results to the 1002 coastal area. The coast of the Arctic Refuge is situated differently in the migration corridor than is Prudhoe Bay and presents a different hydrographic regime. The proximity and volume of freshwater input are different for the two areas. As stated earlier, the cumulative effects of additional causeways on migrating fish are potentially significant. Direct a priori application of conclusions concerning causeways in Prudhoe Bay to the entire arctic coast is not supported by the recent literature.

The conclusion of minor effects on coastal and freshwater fisheries in the LEIS is inappropriate unless the recommended mitigation measures can be strictly met. With the current knowledge of the potentially affected aquatic systems, it is uncertain that mitigation measures can be adequately addressed. For example, mitigation measure #8 states that docks and causeways are to be constructed so as not to impede fish movement or alter the coastal hydrography. This would certainly be a sufficient measure--if it were realized. Whether this is possible, or feasible, appears uncertain at this time. To biologically demonstrate the "no effect" status of any given causeway, prior to construction, is problematic. Also especially problematic, considering that all the rearing habitat has almost certainly not been identified, is the mitigative measure listed in the LEIS, "Prohibit spring and summer water removal from fish-bearing waters to levels that maintain quality of rearing habitat." The LEIS conclusion of minor effects on coastal and fresh-water fishery resources is dependent on the general premise of maintaining quantity and quality aquatic habitat. There remains, however, great concern about the feasibility and actual compliance with this requirement, as it remains a biological target that has yet to be clearly defined.

III. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

A. Water Quantity

The LEIS concluded that the dedicated industrial use of the limited natural freshwater sources of the 1002 area would be a major effect. Additional investigations since 1987 substantiate the factthat water in the 1002 area is very limited and the impact upon water resources should be 'considered major. Ice road construction creates the most s_ignificant demand on the water resources during oil and gas explorations. Studies show that at the time of maximum ice development in rivers and lakes (March and April) the quantity of available water in 237 miles of river across the coastal plain is enough to build and maintain only 6.6 miles of ice road. Ice mining-scraping and hauling lake and river ice--would be required as a source of ice particles for ice road construction. Ice mining and diversion of water from lakes and rivers earlier in the winter would increase the depth of freezing within the thaw bulb. This deep freezing would kill mud-dwelling invertebrates important in the food chain of waterbirds and fish during'the summer months.

13

In addition~ 10 miles has been considered the limit of economic feasibility for hauling ice and water for road construction. There are only 3 or 4 small lakes in the transportation corridor between the Okpilak: River to the Canning River, a distance of 60 miles. Sufficient ice and water are not available. Thus, gravel roads may be necessary.

A transportation system consisting of gravel roads would have significant impacts on water resources. Roads through the coastal plain and to Prudhoe Bay would lie across slope. They would dissect the natural flow of water during breakup, melt permafrost, act as dams, trap water upslope, and cause the downslope areas to become dry. Sheetflow across the tundra during spring snow melt is the primary source of water to recharge the lakes and small ponds important to water birds. A road system would interrupt this recharge of the lakes and cause secondary impacts-to-habitat for waterbirds that breed in the area;

A road system could also have significant effects on the tundra, both downslope and upslope of the roads. When microsite characteristics (moisture and topography) are altered, the resulting species composition differs from the original community. Surface impacts related to gravel fill usually extend beyond the direct loss of the area covered by the fill. These include impoundments of snowmelt, dust, gravel spray from snow removal, small construction spills, thermokarst, and contaminants from road oiling. The recovery of vegetation following disturbance is related to the intensity of the disturbance and the resulting changes in moisture regimes.

During the winter months, water is more abundant in lakes than in pools located beneath ice hummocks along major river drainages of the 1002 area. In April, when ice is at maximum thickness, 90 percent of the available water is contained in 9 of the 119 lakes surveyed. The lakes are not evenly distributed across the 1002 area. Many lakes are congregated near the mouth of the Canning River, and only .two lakes are located in the region between the Katakturak and Sadlerochit Rivers. Observation of fish presence in lakes was more frequent and widespread than previous! y suspected.

Although winter water occurs over a widespread area in most of the major river drainages in the 1002 area, the quantities are low. Ice cover of river channels is generally frozen to the river bed in all areas of the coastal plain. Only 9 million gallons of water were estimated to be available along the 237 miles of river channel inventoried. It takes approximately 1.35 million gallons of water to construct and maintain each mile of ice road ·used to support oil exploration activities and 30,000 gallons of water per day to support.an oil exploration drill.

B. Water Quality

Very little information is provided in the LEIS regarding water quality. Most of the descriptive information, other than that for springs, is based on studies elsewhere on the North Slope. Most of that information, particularly descriptions of seasonal changes in water quality, is accurate. Since the LEIS, the Service has obtained a large volume of data about the water quality of ponds and lakes on the Arctic Refuge and at Prudhoe Bay including

14

impacts of contaminants there. These data provide additional useful information and document the poor buffering capacity (hence susceptibility to water quality changes) of many Arctic Refuge JX>nds and lakes. These data also disprove one statement made in the LEIS regarding water quality, "Some shallow lakes are turbid during summer, when wind and wave action disturb bottom sediments." Turbidity measurement data from the refuge did not reveal any turbid conditions in any of 36 Arctic Refuge shallow ponds and lakes sampled six times over two years of open-water conditions. The original source of this statement in the LEIS was a study in the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska and was not supported by any measurement data.

The industrial infrastructure required for oil development would produce sewage that would need to be treated and disposed of properly. Currently 7 large and approximately 10 small sewage treatment plants are working in northern Alaska oilfields. All plants discharge under permits from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and several have NPDES permits from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Six of the large plants discharge into tundra ponds and one, Endicott, discharges to the Beaufort Sea. At the end of 1987, 47 sewage treatment plants were permitted to discharge a maximum of 1 ,201, 650 gallons per day. The reduction in the number of plants is a result of decreased activity in the region and consolidation of some facilities.

Environmental effects of sewage effluent discharges include localized nutrient enrichment of wetland areas, in some instances resulting in algal blooms that increase suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand, increased metals deposition, and discharges of chlorine.

C. Air Quality

No air quality data for Prudhoe Bay or (!djacent oilfields were presented in the LEIS. The close proximity of the Brooks Range to the coast within the Arctic Refuge would create greater chances for inversions and poor air quality episodes and could n;sult in greater entrapment of poor air. The composition of the crude oil and emission equipment design would influence air quality impacts from gas/water/oil separations on the refuge.

Regarding heavy metal and nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) impacts, studies have documented enrichment of nutrients and several trace elements in Prudhoe Bay snowpack. The Service has also recently gathered data at Prudhoe Bay and on the refuge to assess the effects of atmospheric deposition on snowpack contaminant concentrations and on the moss, Hylocomiwn splendens. We are still analyzing these 1994 data. However, the- snow data indicate significant inputs of some major and trace elements, including heavy metals at Prudhoe Bay at two sites, one near drilling operations and the central compression plant, and the other near the North Slope Borough solid waste incineration facility. Effects appear to be local in that the metal enrichment patterns at the two sites differ substantially and no eastwest effects are observed extending into the Arctic Refuge. However, the data suggest significant inputs of nutrients with likely significant effects on the vegetative community. Uptake of certain heavy metals by moss is also occurring.

15

D. Reserve Pits

The LEIS reviews some of the contaminant impacts of reserve pits and mitigation measures, such as closeout under Alaskan solid waste regulations and requirements. The Service has documented additional impacts of reserve pit fluids. It has also been suggested, but not documented, that caribou may utilize abandoned reserve pits and exploratory sites as salt licks, adding a potential contaminant impact not considered in the LEIS. However, new techniques in waste management now allow for pitless drilling (i.e., no reserve pits). Disposal of drilling wastes can now occur by subpermafrost injection, and drilling cuttings have also been successfully ball-milled, with injection of the fines. If these technologies were to be stipulated for development on the refuge, the impacts from reserve pit fluids would be minimized beyond those estimated in the LEIS.

Statements in the LEIS regarding State of Alaska solid waste requirements for closeout of reserve pits are no longer accurate. The State no longer requires closeout of all abandoned pits, and requirements for closeout have been substantially "loosened" when closeouts are required. To provide the same level of mitigation as described in the LEIS, stipulations would be needed regarding closeouts and solid waste management.

E. Oil Spills

The ADEC has continued to maintain records on the number and volume of oil and other hazardous waste spills on the North Slope since 1987. In general, reporting of spills has increased, indicating a need to revise the description of spills presented in the LEIS. Also, at least two well-blowouts have occurred on the North Slope since the LEIS was prepared. The potential for blowouts and their possible consequences in the refuge were not detailed in the LEIS. Furthermore, the Exxon Va/d.ez oil spill occurred after the LEIS was produced and therefore was not discussed in the LEIS.

F. Mitigation

The LEIS relied on mitigative measures to offset many of the adverse environmental impacts of potential oil development within the Arctic Refuge. Many of these mitigative measures are unproven. The LEIS discussion of mitigation states, "Surface effects of seismic surveys can be minimized by confining operations to the winter after the active soil layer is frozen to a depth of at least 12 inches and the average snow depth is about 6 inches." Use of the words "average" and "about" are examples of word choices that reduce the impression of problems. If snow-depth only averages 6 inches, there must be significant areas that have less than 6 inches. In most years . that is the case, due to the topography and wind characteristics of the area. The patterns of light snow-cover make it virtually impossible to traverse some areas with surface vehicles without damaging vegetation and soils. The 1984-1985 seismic study resulted in extensive damage precisely because of these factors. In reality, vehicles could not avoid all the areas of light snow-cover as permit stipulations implied. These stipulations are the same ones proposed in the preferred alternative.

16

Further, statements that the stipulations used for 1984-1985 seismic studies "would result in avoidance or minimization of impacts to vegetation" are optimistic. Experience has shown and extensive data exist to illustrate that damage to vegetation was not avoided in spite of stipulations. Observations at study plot sites in 1994 indicate that the recovery trend at some disturbed sites has reversed towards greater deterioration. This new information requires further study to more accurately predict consequences of future exploration activities.

In terms of mitigating impacts of gravel removal, the LEIS states, "Gravel removal should be prohibited from active fish-bearing watercourses and their tributaries." This does not indicate that it would be prohibited. Furthermore, if removal of gravel were limited to non-fishbearing watercourses, then few riparian gravel sources would ultimately be used, in which case most of the gravel would be extracted from upland sources, resulting in greater impact to landscapes where the visual effects would be very long-lasting.

As for vegetation, the LEIS says, "Localized removal or destruction of tundra vegetation resulting from the construction of gravel pads, gravel roads and gravel mines could occur." Vegetation destruction would occur. The issue of gravel and water required for development and production needs further evaluation. Analysis of data regarding predicted versus actual impacts of Prudhoe Bay oilfields and the Trans Alaska Pipeline completed after the LEIS indicate that the amount of gravel used was 400 percent greater than had been predicted.

In describing surface geological surveys within the 1002 area only, the LEIS does not explain that past surveys have largely focused in the mountain terrain to the south, where various rocks are exposed for investigation and testing. Congress designated this region as wilderness under provisions of the Wilderness Act. It is likely that if full development were authorized, there would be some work in the adjoining Wilderness area. The effect of noise associated with helicopter access in the Wilderness area is not adequately discussed. Accordingly, the LEIS underestimates the impacts to wilderness recreation and the disturbance of wildlife in the wilderness area.

Statements that docks and causeways should be constructed so that along the shore, water transport and water lagoon chemistry are not affected, and fish movements are not impeded, imply that the Prudhoe Bay experience is directly applicable to the Arctic Refuge coast. The coast of the Arctic Refuge is situated differently in the migration corridor than is Prudhoe Bay and presents.a different hydrographic regime. Whether such an endeav:oris possible, or feasible, is uncertain at this time.

IV. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT A. Wilderness

The LEIS acknowledged that full development of the coastal plain would result in the irretrievable loss of the wilderness character of the area.

17

1. Hhiorical Perspective

In the early 1950's, senior National Park Service planner George Collins visited the coastal plain. He found "a magnificent place of beauty ... not the spectacular beauty of the mountains to the south, but a subtle beauty that comes largely from being part of a much larger, varied and interconnected natural system."

Collins was leading an extensive survey designed to determine which areas in Alaska most deserved formal protection. After traveling extensively throughout Alaska, he concluded that the area now established as the Arctic Refuge provided the nation's finest opportunity to preserve a vast arctic wilderness.

Collins was but the first of many to extol the presence of a complete and undisturbed spectrum of Arctic ecosystems as a primary value of the refuge. Based on Collins' research, in 1957 Bureau of Sport Fisheries Director, D.H. Janzen, declared the proposed range " .. an ideal opportunity, and the only one in Alaska, to preserve an undisturbed portion of the Arctic large enough to be biologically self-sufficient."

Two years later, before a U.S. Senate hearing on the Arctic National Wildlife Range proposal, Interior Secretary Fred Seaton repeated Janzen's summation, adding,

"It would comprise one of the most magnificent wildlife and wilderness areas in North America . . . Certain portions of the Arctic coast and the north slope river .valleys, such as the Canning, Hulahula, Okpilak:, Aichilik, Kongakut, and Firth, and their great background of lofty mountains, offer a wilderness experience not duplicated elsewhere."

Wilderness values, along with wildlife and recreational values, are among the three stated purposes of Public Land Order 2214 that established the Arctic Nationa1 Wildlife Range in 1960. Those values came into focus again in 1973 when, following an agency wilderness review, the entire Range, including the coastal plain, was recommended for wilderness designation.

The issue of refuge wilderness was extensively debated during the ANILCA hearings of the late 1970's. In 1978 the administration's position was stated by Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus in a speech before the Outdoor Association of America: ·

"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."

18

The LEIS acknowledged the 1002 area's "outstanding wilderness qualities: scenic vistas, varied wildlife, excellent opportunities for solitude, recreational challenges, and scientific and historical values." It did not, however, expand on these values, nor discuss the uniqueness and national importance in the area.

2. Wilderness Qualities

The refuge is the only conservation area in the nation that provides a complete range of Arctic ecosystems, functioning in balance to perpetuate wildlife populations. The area offers more wildlife diversity than any other region of the Arctic. The LEIS states that the 1002 area is the most biologically productive part of the refuge and the heart of wildlife activity. This productivity results from the combination of factors that make the area a unique wilderness: the proximity of mountains to ocean, the landscape diversity, the climate, and the permafrost. The coastal plain has unique ecological qualities vital to species such as caribou, brown bears, muskox, wolves, swans, and snow geese. Several species, such as the caribou, use the area during sensitive and critical periods in their life cycle. Many of the species also are of international significance--for example, the massing of the Porcupine caribou herd is one of North America's greatest wildlife spectacles. Many of these species are sensitive to human activities and require large areas of essentially unaltered habitat.

The 1002 area provides more diverse landforms and varied scenery than any other part of Alaska's coastal plain. Here the Brooks Range is only 20 to 40 miles from the Arctic Ocean. From many vistas within this area, visitors can enjoy awe-inspiring views of 9,000 foot snow-clad peaks, glacial valleys, braided rivers, rolling tundra meadows and terraces, shallow lakes, beaded streams, and sea ice--an opportunity not available elsewhere on American soil. The effect of standing water over permafrost adds further interest and dynamic change to the landscape. Rivers rise rapidly, creating cut banks and new gravel bars. In winter, the frozen soil moves and cracks the surface, exposing underground ice structures, forming polygons and other permafrost features, and creatiqg micro-environments for new plants and animals.

Remote and roadless, the 1002 area and the adjacent fragment of refuge coastal plain Wilderness east of the 1002 area comprise the most pristine of any large segment of arctic tundra remaining in the nation.

3. Impacts on the Wilderness Resource

The LEIS states that, "losses in ... wilderness values on the 1002 area would be the consequence of a long-term commitment to oil and gas development in the area." However, the LEIS did not address, in any significant way, what those losses would be.

Development also would substantially reduce wilderness qualities in large parts of the adjacent Wilderness, significantly reducing its value. An oil field would be seen by recreationists from the many northern foothills and mountains within sight of the 1002 area.

19

An oil· field would destroy the wilderness value that people derive from seeing the coastal plain. Hearing the attendant sounds of the oil industry, the helicopters and aircraft traffic, would erode the sense of wilderness for miles beyond the 1002 boundary.

The LEIS accurately states that "most recreationists currently visit the 1002 area for a wilderness experience." However, the LEIS significant! y understates the effects of oil development on their experience. The fact is that an oil field would eliminate the wilderness experience for almost all of the recreationists, primarily hikers and floaters, who currently use the 1002 area and areas in the adjacent Wilderness.

4. Regional Uniqueness

Almost all of the Nation's coastal arctic environment is open to oil development or currently leased. Along Alaska's entire north slope, only the Arctic refuge coastal plain is currently protected from development. The 1002 area represents only about five percent of the Nation's arctic coastal plain. Protection of the area's unique wildlife and wilderness resources would help to ensure a needed balance with current and expanding development of Alaska's north slope. This is especially important because no other coastal areas in northern Alaska or the Nation provide the unique mix of landscapes, wildlife, habitats, and scenery that the 1002 area does. For these reasons, the area has incomparable and irreplaceable scientific, ecological, historical, and educational values for the American people. The LEIS acknowledged that development would result in an irretrievable loss of the wilderness character of the coastal plain.

V. CONCLUSIONS

The 1987 LEIS assessment of environmental effects of full development of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain predicted a number of major impacts. Reviewing scientifiy information subsequent to the 1987 report, the information provided in this review concludes that the prediction of major impacts is still valid. This review also concludes that the 1987 LEIS adapted a highly compartmentalized assessment, and considered impacts to species in isolation rather than as interconnected components of a complex ecosystem; a more scientifically sound evaluation requires consideration of the interrelationship of the species and the surrounding environment of the coastal plain. Further, this review concludes that the major impacts predicted in the 1987 report were characterized as acceptable risks in reliance on mitigative measures, some of which are speculative and unproven. Finally, an examination of biological and historical data indicate that, contrary to the 1987 conclusion, the Arctic Refuge coastal plain is unique among the refuges and parks of the United States.

Information received since the 1987 report confrrms that impacts from development would be major, and that measures to reduce or remediate those impacts are uncertain. For its biological richness, undisturbed vastness, and fragility as an arctic ecosystem, the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a national treasure, and would be irreparably altered by development.

20

Executive Summary

Review of Potential Impacts of Oil Development on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has conducted a preliminary review of the 1987 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain Resource Assessment, Report and Recommendation to the Congress of the United States and Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS). In the eight years following the report, many additional studies of fish, wildlife, and habitats have been conducted to better understand the ecology of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and potential effects of oil and gas development.

The 1987 LEIS assessment of environmental effects of full development of the coastal plain predicted many major impacts. Reviewing scientific information subsequent to the 1987 report, the information provided in this review concludes that the prediction of major impacts is still valid. This review also concludes that the 1987 LEIS adapted a highly comparmentalized assessment, and considered impacts to species in isolation rather than as interconnected components of a complex ecosystem. Further, the major impacts on significant resources predicted in the 1987 report were characterized as acceptable risks in reliance on mitigative measures, some of which are speculative and unproven. An examination of biological and historical data indicate that, contrary to the 1987 conclusion, the Arctic Refuge coastal plain is unique among refuges and parks of the United States.

Caribou - Full leasing and development of the refuge coastal plain would have a major effect on the Porcupine caribou herd (PCH). Research since 1987 has documented that:

• a reduction in annual calf survival of less than 5% would be sufficient to change a positive rate of increase in the PCH population to a declining rate; • caribou have a broader use of the coastal plain for calving than depicted in the LEIS; • each year the PCH selects the concentrated calving grounds based on snow melt and rate of plant growth. The primary forage species (Eriophorum vaginatum) is higher in nutrition, more digestible, and more available within the 1002 area than in the peripheral areas during calving season; • the concentrated calving area (where 50 percent of the calves are born) in any year imparts a higher level of predator protection; • nearly every year, all PCH females and calves use the 1002 area for post-calving activities, and, in most years, the majority of bulls also use the area during late June and early July; • displacement of the PCH to the foothills south and east of the 1002 area would subject the herd to the area of highest predator density, reduce the amount and quality of preferred forage species available during calving, and restrict access to important coastal insect-relief habitat.

Muskoxen - Major impacts on muskoxen are predicted because: • they are present in the area year round and would be subjected to cumulative effects in both winter and summer; • disturbance could increase energetic costs resulting in decreased calf production; • full development would result in the loss of availability of a large percentage of high use habitat, which would have an adverse affect on muskox productivity and population size.

Snow Geese - Snow geese would be moderately impacted by oil development on the coastal plain. Without controls on aircraft activities, disturbance would have widespread effects on snow goose distribution. Such disturbance would displace geese from feeding habitats, increase energy expenditure, and reduce the ability of geese to accumulate fats.

Polar Bear - The coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is the most important land denning area for the Beaufort Sea polar bear population. A moderate impact on refuge polar bears is predicted because:

• polar bears might avoid important denning habitat on the refuge if large-scale industrial activity occurs there; • cumulative impacts of potential off-shore developments is an important concern for the Beaufort Sea polar bear population.

Brown Bear - A moderate decline in the numbers of brown bears using the area or a change in the distribution could result from the additive effects of direct mortality, decreased prey availability. harassment, and disturbance in denning areas.

Vegetation - Impacts on vegetation, wetlands and terrain types would cover far larger areas than the surface areas of the pads, roads and development structures. The most extensive impacts are due to:

• changes in water flow through the area due to "damming" by roads (inundation above roads, drying below them, causing changes in vegetation and distribution of wetlands, wildlife feeding and bird nesting habitat over very large areas); • road dust on the tundra causing earlier snow-melt in the spring, increased melting of permafrost resulting in therrnokarst pits, and increased pH of the soil, which kills many common tundra plants and dramatically changes the plant species composition for about 35 feet on either side of the road.

Fisheries - A conclusion of minor effects on coastal and freshwater fisheries is appropriate only if recommended mitigation measures can be strictly met. With current knowledge, it is uncertain that mitigation measures can be adequately addressed. Fisheries may be affected by:

• decreases in quantity and quality of the coastal brackish water zone, which is used by numerous anadromous fish species as a migration corridor; • the unknown impact of any specific causeway on the local hydrography, as well as the cumulative impact of additional causeways on migrating fish; • spring and summer water removal from fish-bearing waters which would adversely affect the quality of rearing habitat.

Water- Water in the 1002 area is very limited and impacts upon water resources should be considered major. Investigations since 1987 substantiate that:

• ice road construction requires 1.35 million gallons of water per mile. It takes 30,000 gallons of water per day to support an oil drill rig- as much as 15 million gallons may be required to drill one exploratory well. • at the time of maximum ice development, only 9 million gallons of water are available in 237 miles of river across the coastal plain- enough to build and maintain only 6.6 miles of ice road. Gravel roads may be necessary. · • ice mining and water diversion from lakes and rivers results in an increased depth of freezing, which kills invertebrates important to fish·and waterbirds.

Wilderness - Full development of the coastal plain would result in the irretrievable loss of the wilderness character of the area. The refuge, including the coastal plain, is a world-class natunti area with incomparable and irreplaceable ecological, scientific, historic, and educational values for the American people. It is the outstanding example of remaining American wilderness.

TESTIMONY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE

ON THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

August 2, 1995

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee,

I very much appreciate the Chairman's personal invitation to appear before the Committee to discuss the Administration's position on maintaining the integrity of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing and providing all interested parties an opportunity to be heard. And I urge this Committee to follow these hearings with a full debate of legislation independent of the Budget Resolution and reconciliation process. The fate of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a matter of great national significance, and it should not be summarily treated by this Congress as just another revenue item. The wildlife and wilderness values of the refuge are irreplaceable resources that we have the opportunity to pass on to future generations.

I would like to briefly state the Administration's perspective on the fundamental question before us and then turn to the issue of the revenue projections which appear to be driving this issue in the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, the Clinton Administration supports the U.S. domestic oil and gas industry. We have supported Senator Johnston's efforts to increase oil recovery in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico by allowing appropriate royalty incentives. We have also supported the repeal of the ban on exporting Alaskan crude oil, subject to conditions, in order to increase production in Alaska and prolong the life of existing oil fields. We have conducted a number of extremely successful environmentally sound OCS lease sales -- and we plan to conduct more. We have leased more onshore oil and gas acreage annually than was leased in the previous administration. We have worked cooperatively with the industry to address ongoing problems and issues and to streamline necessary regulatory oversight -- both at my Department and at the Energy Dephrtment.

Yet this Administration opposes allowing oil and gas development on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and I would recommend to the President that he veto any legislation that would authorize it. This Administration believes that the best interest of the American people and the oil and gas industry is served by a balanced policy consisting of promoting exploration and development, protecting our natural heritage, and fostering the development of conservation and alternative energy sources. So far the proponents of drilling have not offered td consider the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge System in the context of an overall national energy policy, encompassing a review of alternative energy sources and the prospect for conservation.

Instead, the proponents are asking us to offer up the last protected part of the Arctic coastline as part of a plan to eliminate the deficit and balance the budget in seven years, instead of ten years as President Clinton has proposed. In effect, we are being asked to jeopardize an irreplaceable piece of our national heritage over a three year difference in budget projections by the people in green eyeshades.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the last protected fragment of the great coastal plain where America goes down to the polar ocean. More than 85% of the Arctic coastal plain has already been 9pened to oil exploration and development. The story ofPrudhoe Bay in the central coastal plain is

well known. Less known is that the entire coastal plain west from Prudhoe Bay to Icy Cape and the shores of Siberia is also designated for oil development, most of it within the Congressionally designated Arctic National Petroleum Reserve.

The oil companies could go west from Prudhoe Bay under existing law. Instead they are clamoring to go east, straight into the last protected fragment of the Arctic slope. Perhaps it is a sign of the times that certain segments of the oil and gas industry, emboldened by electoral changes, are now asking for everything, for the right to invade our last Arctic sanctuary for the sake, even by most optimistic estimates, of the equivalent of six months of national oil consumption.

Recognition of the unique wilderness character of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and of the refuge's coastal plain goes back a long way. In 1959, Fred Seaton, the Eisenhower Administration Interior Secretary testified before the Senate calling the proposed Arctic National Wildlife Range "One of the most magnificent wildlife and wilderness areas in North America ... a wilderness experience not duplicated elsewhere."

Another of my predecessors, Cecil Andrus, in 1978, encapsulated it most eloquently: "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 may 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." It was true then!, Mr. Chairman, and it remains true today. I spent some time in the refuge during my trip to Alaska in 1993.

What I saw and heard and felt as I crossed the tundra and followed the streams up toward the mountains can hardly be described. The tundra, a thousand shades of emerald and jade, sparkled in the soft light of the midnight sun. On a field of cotton flowers and saxifrage, musk oxen circled to protect their calves as a pack of wolves stalked nearby. It was late summer and the caribou had already trekked southward into the passes of the Brooks Range; the tundra was already touched with the scarlet hues of autumn, and the snow geese would soon be coming down from Wrangell Island to fatten up before the long flight southward.

One night at Peters Lake, I read the words of Barry Lopez: "Twilight lingers -- the ice f1oes, the caribou, the musk oxen, all drift -- the stillness, the pure light -- you can feel the silence stretching all the way to Asia."

The Congress is now Proposing to interrupt this ancient pageant of wildlife moving through the seasons of an enchanted landscape. Its action will inevitably shatter the delicate balance of land and life into a thousand fragments, like pan ice in the spring breakup.

Mr. Chairman, it is easy to see why so many Americans want this special place protected. It is harder to understand why we would want to develop it --because, of the many arguments that have been made for development, none has stood the test of time.

The proposal to develop oil in the Arctic Refuge has most often been justified on national security grounds. This argument was never very strong, for the simple reason that no single oil discovery, even a large one, can be expected to fundamentally alter our nation's oil security situation.

History has shown that national efforts to improve energy efficiency and to buffer short term disruptions through the creation of the strategic petroleum reserve and other mechanisms have had much more impact on our oil security that have additions to domestic supply.

This is so because U.S. production is limited largely by the world price of oil. As stated in a recent Commerce Department report on the issue, "The United States is a high-cost produce

compared to other countries because we have already depleted known low-cost reserves."

The Administration recognizes the importance of U.S. energy security, and will continue to support steps that, as shown by past experience, can help us minimize the risks associated with short-term supply disruptions. We also continue to support a variety of supply enhancement and energy efficiency policies to help limit our long-term oil dependence.

The environmental arguments traditionally made by supporters of development seem to have expired along with the national security argument. Proponents of development have consistently argued that drilling and producing oil on the fragile Arctic coastal plain can be accomplished without damage to the wildlife values for the protection or which the refuge was established.

But this year, I note, your delegation has declared that the very name of the refuge-- the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge-- should be changed, so that the coastal plain -- the biological heart of one of America's greatest wildlife refuges -- would, in your new nomenclature, be called the "Arctic Oil Reserve."

The American people will see right through this name change, Mr. Chairman, and will understand immediately what it really signifies: that even those who are dedicated to opening this area to the oil industry understand that to do so will be its death knell as a wildlife refuge.

The Arctic Refuge is the only conservation area in the Nation that provides a complete range of Arctic ecosystems, functioning in balance to perpetuate wildlife populations. The area offers more wildlife diversity than any other region of the Arctic. The Coastal Plain, as noted in the 1987 Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS), is the most biologically productive part of the refuge and the heart of the refuge's wildlife activity.

The centerpiece of this living system, the Porcupine River Caribou Herd, depends upon the coastal plain for the most important part of its life cycle, for giving birth to its young, and harboring them until they are able to make the long journey south through the Brooks range to the interior.

The 1987 LEIS, on the basis of which Secretary Hodel made his recommendation to lease the coastal plain, contains a wealth of information on the potentially serious impacts to wildlife and habitat resources that are likely to occur from extensive oil and gas develop merit of this fragile area. Biological studies since 1987 have, if anything, enlarged our understanding of wildlife use of the coastal plain, including by caribou and polar bears, and confirmed the likelihood of significant impacts. There was no question, even in 1987, that full-scale development would devastate the area's wilderness character, and there is no reason to doubt that result now.

For these and many other reasons, Mr. Chairman, it is the view of the Administration, from the President on down, that the wise and responsible course would be to continu~ to protect the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness, for its wilderness and wildlife values.

Mr. Chairman, I must also tell you that, in the view of the Administration, the revenue estimate of $1.4 billion in receipts over a five year period is wishful thinking. In our view, this revenue projection is too high as a result of four factors:

o The State of Alaska has given every indication that it will challenge in court any revenue split other than the 90% share it believes it is guaranteed in the Alaska Statehood Act;

o World oil prices are far below the levels projected in earlier estimates, thus increasing the necessary size of any viable commercial deposits;

o Congress should take into account the fact that net returned to the Treasury from projected royalty income are likely to be significantly lowered by offsetting tax losses; and, as you heard at your earlier technical hearing,

o New information regarding the geological structures underlying the coastal plain has led the USGS to conclude that earlier high estimates of petroleum resources should be revised downward.

Let me review each of these factors in slightly more detail.

The revenue projections from proposed Arctic Refuge leasing and development assume that the Federal Government would share revenues with the State on a 50-50 basis. Current law, which is referenced in the Alaska StatehoodA.ct, gives Alaska 90% of Federal revenues from mineral leasing. The Department has long taken the position that Congress has the authority to change this revenue split. The State of Alaska has long taken the opposite position; namely, that the 90-10 split was in effect a commitment made as part of the Statehood compact that cannot be modified by the Congress without Alaska's consent.

The State of Alaska is currently trying to persuade the Federal courts that its position is correct. Its claim is part of an omnibus lawsuit the State has brought seeking $29 billion in damages from the Federal treasury for assorted wrongs allegedly committed by the Federal Government. While the Department has full confidence in the legal position we are defending, any litigation involves some element of uncertainty, which has to be taken into account in making revenue projections from leasing of the Arctic Refuge.

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, previous versions of legislation authorizing the development of the coastal plain have contained provisions to prevent the State of Alaska from bringing suit to force a 90% revenue split for the State. Considering the fact that, if successful, such a suit would reduce the Federal revenue split to 10%, which even in an optimistic projection would amount to only $28- million in the budget period for which Congress has assumed receipts of $1.4 billion, the Administration presumes that Congress would include similar language in any leasing authorization.

Your revenue estimates are also questionable because of changes in the economics of oil. The most notable and important change has been in oil prices and our expectations for future oil prices, As Figure 1 shows, oil prices in real or constant dollars have declined since 1984 instead of increasing as was then forecast.

Furthermore, oil prices projected for 2000 have dropped nearly 50% since preparation of the 1987 study of the 1002 area.

o In 1987 when the Reagan Administration proposed leasing the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge, oil prices in 2000 were expected to be $33 (in 1984 dollars) Adjusted for inflation and expressed in 1995 dollars, this oil price assumption for 2000 would be $38.60.

o Now in 1995, however, oil prices in 2000 are expected to be less than $20.00 ($19 .13 in 1995 dollars is the average of High and Low World Oil Price Projections from EIA Annual Energy Outlook, 1995).

This sharp decline in oil price expectations must inevitably affect the willingness of industry to invest in expensive new prospects, no matter how attractive. Clearly,jtshould give pause for

thought regarding the revenues being shown for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge leasing in the current proposal.

An additional uncertainty regarding the projected revenue arises from the fact that the net gain to the Treasury is very much affected by the relationship between bonuses, royalties, State severance and conservation taxes and the State's share of Federal leasing revenues. The State of Alaska has many opportunities to take a piece of this pie. Furthermore, since bonuses, royalties and State taxes are deductible expenses in computing Federal income taxes, the net gain to the U.S. Treasury may tum out to be much less than the estimated revenue from sale of these leases.

Given all of these factors, Mr. Chairman, I urge this Congress to reconsider its rush to lease the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Opening the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling is the equivalent of offering Yellowstone National Park for geothermal drilling, or calling for bids to construct hydropower dams in the Grand Canyon. We can surely find a better way to both produce energy and conserve our natural heritage.

ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Fairbanks, Alaska

Documents

Transcript of ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Fairbanks, Alaska