Close your eyes and imagine what our country looked like before the arrival of white settlers -- great herds of animals roaming the plains, huge flocks of migratory birds, and limitless expanses of wilderness. Sadly, these places of vast beauty and abunda nce have just about disappeared. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one stunning exception. But if certain politicians and the oil industry get their way, this "refuge" of wilderness, this remnant of our nation's aboriginal heritage, will be changed f orever for a poker-hand chance of a 200-day supply of oil.
The 19 million acre Arctic Refuge stands alone as our nation's last undisturbed expanse of arctic wilderness and intact ecosystems. Grizzly and polar bears, caribou, wolves, Dall sheep, wolverines, arctic foxes, and countless other animals make their home within the refuge. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages the Arctic Refuge, calls it "the only conservation system unit that protects, in an undisturbed condition, a complete spectrum of the arctic ecosystems in North America."
The coastal plain is a relatively small region within the Arctic Refuge, about 1.5 million acres or eight percent of the refuge. Yet, is rich swath of plain, running between the Arctic Ocean and the foothills of the Brooks Range, supports the refuge's gre atest concentrations and diversity of wildlife. It is the refuge's ecological heart, a summertime wildlife mecca, which sustains the biological productivity of the entire Arctic Refuge.
In late May and early June, as many as 75,000 female caribou of the Porcupine herd arrive at the coastal plain to give birth to their calves and feed on the rich summer plant growth. On their way, the pregnant cows journey across hundreds of miles of thei r winter range, which extends south of the Brooks Range and into the Ogilvie Mountains of Canada's central Yukon Territory. In June, the remainder of the herd join the females on the coastal plain for a post-calving aggregation.
Archeological evidence suggests that ancestors of today's herd have made this migratory journey for at least two million years. Such a strong and persistent drive is no accident. Biologists believe that the Porcupine herd has chosen the coastal plain of t he Arctic Refuge as its preferred birthplace for several reasons:
*Relative to the adjacent mountains, the coastal plain has a scarcity of predators, and the early patchy snow and tussocks provide better camouflage.
*During the brief summer, the caribou eat three times as much forage as they consume during the long winter months. The coastal plain provides an excellent variety of high-quality forage during June and July. This is especially important for nursing cows' milk production and for calf growth.
*The wide gravel bars along rivers and the ocean's edge provide caribou relief when mosquitoes are at their worst and calves are the most vulnerable.
This combination of attributes is unique to the refuge's coastal plain. In a 1993 study, scientists from the International Porcupine Caribou Board concluded that there is no acceptable substitute to the coastal plain's critical calving and post-calving gr ounds.
While the migration and calving of the Porcupine caribou may be the most dramatic display of the coastal plain's annual eruption of life, over 200 other species also rely on its unique habitat. When the caribou congregate, birds are hatching; voles scampe r out, providing food for snowy owls, peregrine falcons and other predators; foxes search out newly laid eggs; and wildflowers bloom in profusion. Wolves and grizzly bears, drawn to the plain by the masses of caribou, make meals of the less fortunate. Fro m late August through mid-September, as many as 325,000 lesser snow geese arrive to feed and gather strength for their long journey south.
The coastal plain also provides crucial habitat for the Beaufort Sea polar bear population. USFWS researchers have found that the coastal plain has the highest concentration of land-denning polar bears on the entire North Slope, making it the most signifi cant onshore denning site in the U.S. The distinct geography of the refuge's coastal plain appears to provide preferable conditions for denning, in part because the topography is more rolling and the pack ice is closer to the coastline than anywhere else on the North Slope. Female polar bears give birth in their winter dens and are extremely sensitive to human disturbance. Nearby human activity has caused some polar bears to leave their dens and abandon their young cubs.
In addition to being an ecological treasury, the Arctic Refuge is of international importance. Together with the protected caribou lands in adjacent parts of Canada (the Iwavik and Vuntut national parks), it comprises one of the world's largest remaining blocks of wilderness and intact ecosystems. To fulfill its responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty, International Porcupine Caribou Treaty, and other international obligations, the United States needs to protect this sensitive habitat for the Por cupine caribou, denning polar bears, and migratory birds that flock from all six continents to the coastal plain to nest and raise their young.
As impressive as its wildlife is, the coastal plain's significance extends far beyond its beauty and biology. Indeed, the coastal plain is vital to the very survival of a people and its culture. The continent's northernmost Indians, the Gwich'in have spen t ten thousand years in the region thanks to the largesse of the Porcupine caribou. They call themselves "people of the caribou" because they rely so heavily on the caribou not only for physical sustenance, but as a central component of their culture.
Sarah James, a Gwich'in leader from Arctic Village, describes the importance of the caribou:
"The Gwichtin are Caribou People. For thousands of years, we have lived with the caribou right where we are today. In the museum in Ottawa, you can see a famous caribou leg bone scraper from Old Crow that is 1350 years old. It is just the same as the one my mother used.We're talking about an Indian nation that still lives on the land and depends on this herd. In my village, about 75 percent of our diet comes from wild meats, mainly from caribou. It's not just what we eat; it is who we are. Caribou are our life. It is in our stories and songs and the whole way we see the world.
People don't understand what is at stake. The Porcupine herd migrates across two countries. It helps feed fifteen communities. So this is not just an environmental issue, it is about the survival of an ancient culture that depends on the caribou. It is ab out the basic tribal and human right to continue our way of life."
In 1988, Gwich'in from Canada and Alaska gathered in Arctic Village for the first time in 100 years; the Gwich'in nation took a unanimous stand against oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Refuge. Chiefs from all 15 Gwich'in villages in Alaska and Canada fo rmed the Gwichtin Steering Committee to protect caribou, land, and water, and take their message to the outside world. The Steering Committee has worked hard to educate people about the caribou and the survival of Gwich'in culture.
The Arctic Refuge has long been recognized as an unparalleled place of natural beauty and ecological importance. As early as the 1930s, leading biologists and conservationists, such as Olaus and Margaret Murie and Robert Marshall, were captivated by the b eauty and wildlife diversity of Alaska's northeastern Arctic. In the early 1950s, George Collins conducted a recreational survey for the National Park Service to determine which Alaska lands merited protection. After travelling across the whole state, Col lins called the northeastern corner the finest park prospect he had ever seen.
People like Collins, the Muries, A. Starker Leopold, and Bob Marshall knew from firsthand experience that the northeastern Arctic was an irreplaceable ecological and recreational treasure. Along with masly others, they worked for decades to convince the n ation.
Finally, after years of political battles and grassroots activism, supporters of the Arctic Refuge achieved victory. On December 6, 1960, in the waning hours of the Eisenhower administration, Secretary Seaton signed Public Land Order No. 2214 which establ ished the 8.9 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Range and closed the area to mineral entry.
Twenty years later, Congress passed and President Carter signed the landmark Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), doubling the size of the range to 19.2 million acres and renaming it the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The purposes o f the Arctic Refuge are to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity; fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats, such as migratory waterfowl agreements and the Canada-United States Porcupine caribou herd agreement; provide the opportunity for local residents to continue their subsistence way of life, and to protect water quality and quantity.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate refused, because of industry interest in oil development, to designate the critically important coastal plain as wilderness. Section 1002 of ANILCA directed the Department of Interior (DOI) to prepare a report on oil and gas potential and the effect development would have on the coastal plain's natural values. ANILCA clearly stated that the 1.5 million acre coastal plain would remain protected unless Congress specifically authorizes development.
In April of 1987, DOI released its 1002 report. DOI concluded that oil development in the coastal plain would cause major impacts to the Porcupine caribou herd, musk ox, water quality and quantity, subsistence hunting and fishing, and wilderness. In other words, development on the coastal plain would destroy the very qualities for which the refuge was established. Nonetheless, the report recommended opening the entire coastal plain to fullscale development.
The report's dubious assumptions and unexplained omissions, combined with a massive public outcry in favor of protection for the refugeJ fueled a bitter Congressional debate which culminated in the fall of 1991. In spite of heavy lobbying by the oil indus try and the Reagan and Bush administrations, the Senate deleted the provision in the proposed national energy policy which called for drilling in the coastal plain. The hard work of concerned citizens across the country gained another reprieve.
Now, however, industry is once again poised to launch a major campaign to open the coastal plain for oil and gas exploration. With pro-development Alaskans controlling the natural resources committees in both the Senate and House, the coastal plain has ne ver been more threatened. Indeed, Senator Murkowski has already predicted that come this fall he'll pass legislation opening the coastal plain to oil drilling.
The drilling and transportation of oil would result in a sprawling industrial complex, requiring hundreds of miles of roads and pipelirres, dozerts of gravel drill pads and waste pits, production facilities, seawater treatment plants, airports, seaports, worker housing, and more. One exploratory well alone could require 35,000 cubic yards of gravel dredged from important riparian habitat and 15 million gallons of fresh water, a scarce and vital resource in this arid region.
The oil industry counters that they can safeguard the environment and drill for oil, pointing to nearby Prudhoe Bay as an example. Yet Prudhoe has averaged 500 oil spills a year; allowable emissions of air pollutants exceed the total emissions of at least six states; and a once pristine environment has been turned into a pollutionplagued industrial complex. No matter how well done or how strict the mitigation efforts, development in the coastal plain would destroy one of our last true wildernesses and int act arctic ecosystems.
Drilling advocates argue that we must open the coastal plain to development to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, stimulate the national and state economy, and ensure our national security. Under close scrutiny, however, these claims simply do not ho ld up:
*The DOI predicts only a 19 percent chance of finding an economically recoverable amount of oil (Today's odds would be even lower since the calculation was based on $33 per barrel prices; Alaska oil currently sells for about $18).
*If oil is found, it will most likely be no more than 3.2 billion barrels (bbls). This would supply less than 2 percent of U.S. oil needs over the life of the field, or a total of 200 days of oil at current rates of consumption.
*The United States will remain dependent on foreign oil whether or not we drill in the coastal plain. The U.S. accounts for 26 percent of the annual world oil consumption, while U.S. reserves comprise merely 3.5 percent of the world's supplies. Even under the most optimistic estimates of recoverable oil from the Arctic refuge, it could only add 0.4 percent to world oil reserves, a drop in the bucket.
*Simple energy conservation measures could save much more oil than the refuge could ever produce. For example, increasing fuel efficiency standards to 30 mpg would, by the year 2020, save twice as much energy as the government believes might be recovered from the coastal plain. According to the World Watch Institute, every year as much energy leaks through American windows as moves through the Trans-Alaska pipeline. Improving the energy efficiency in buildings could decrease national energy use by one-thi rd by 2010, saving in a single year twice the probable 3.2 bbls of the Arctic Refuge.
*Energy conservation creates more jobs than drilling for oil in the refuge. Cost-effective and technically feasible methods of reducing the nation's energy use could yield over a quarter million jobs in a few years, compared with 15,000 from drilling. By 2010, the energy efficiency industry could produce 1.3 million jobs.
*The oil industry's national security arguments for opening the coastal plain cannot be taken seriously. It is illogical to argue that the United States needs the coastal plain's oil while the state of Alaska and industry concurrently lobby for permission to sell the oil overseas. The two positions are contradictory. The common element is the profit that the industry stands to reap from both.
As a candidate, President Clinton pledged his support for wilderness for the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. He recently reaffirmed his opposition to drilling. During a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Chretien in February of this year, Clinton an d Chretien both confirmed their support for protecting the Porcupine caribou herd's nursery grounds. President Clinton also personally wrote the Gwich'in Steering Committee that "my administration remains opposed to the exploration and development of any resources that may be under the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." While such expressions may be comforting, President Clinton has taken few real steps toward permanently protecting the coastal plain, and he is already under a great de al of pressure to reverse his position.
Despite the first sympathetic administration in a dozen years, protecting the Arctic Refuge faces an uphill battle. The Clinton administration has shown little environmental leadership, while the new Republicancontrolled Congress is moving fast on an anti environmental agenda that includes drilling in the Arctic Refuge. The Alaskan Congressional delegation is using their new-found power as chairmen of the House and Senate resources committees to push development legislation.
Those in support of wilderness have made it clear that they are equally adamant and willing to fight for protection for the Arctic Refuge. On February 16, 1995, Congressman Bruce F. Vento (D-MN) and Senator William Roth (R-DE) introduced legislation to de signate the coastal plain as wilderness (H.R. 1000 and S. 428, respectively). Both bills are off to a strong start, with a current total of 72 co-sponsors in the House and 15 Senate co-sponsors.
The next two years will be ugly for the Arctic Refuge. Given the stance of the new majority in Congress, the wilderness bills undoubtedly face a tough journey. Likewise, any development bill will confront a strong cadre of wilderness supporters ready to b lock passage. The fate of this stunning sanctuary hangs in the balance as both sides sharpen their political blades. Ultimately, it will be up to Alaskans to rally the American people to the cause and ensure that Congress and the President do the right th ing and protect our nation's premier Arctic wilderness.