lowlands to support the wildlife that lived only part of the year there. Senator FORD. Many who say that it will not disturb the area and that sort of thing cite the Alaskan pipeline. And we see pictures. I've never been there. I'm not as fortunate as you, Doctor, and others. So, I have to kind of take the word description or the word picture that is painted by those who testify. And they show us pictures of caribou grazing near the pipeline and it hasn't disturbed them. And they continue to move freely. They say that it would stay the same. Dr. JONES. Well, I think there is a big difference, apparently, between bulls and barren cows and their willingness to participate in grazing and activity around development compared to cows who have calved. They are very leery and have a much different attitude about intrusions. Senator FORD. Their instincts are different. Dr. JONES. Very different, very much so. Senator FORD. So, you would say that a mother caribou would have a different approach. They would not go by the pipeline. Dr. JONES. At least from what I understand from the studies that have been done by those people who are experts in caribou, they have said that they react very differently to intrusions into the area in which they calve than what you see with the typical pictures of bulls and barren cows without calves and their contact with development. Senator FORD. How do you answer then those who say that the calving areas are not always the same place every time? They vary from year to year. They don't always go back to the same area to calve. It could be 20 miles away or 50 miles away. Dr. JONES. Well, the percentages are roughly 60 percent of the time the porcupine caribou herd calves in the coastal plain that is in question here and 40 percent of the time-these are the statistics that I'm aware of. Forty percent of the time they calve on the Canadian side of the coastal plain, and that the coastal plain is very narrow at this point. It's not very wide. It is only 25 miles wide or less. And there is a large congregation of animals that have to function within that narrow area. So, it's a much more critical calving ground than the calving ground in the Prudhoe Bay area further west, which is a much wider plain. And they have other alternative sites in which to calve. Senator FORD. Am I correct that they come to the U.S. side to calve and then in the wintertime go back over to the Canadian side? Dr. JONES. It's a combined herd that involves animals from both Canada and the U.S. They don't all migrate to the Canadian side. A large number of them do, but a number of them do stay on the U.S. side. Senator FORD. Fine. I thank you all very much. Senator WIRTH. Senator Murkowski. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 81-660 0 88 - 22 I would like to compliment the witnesses. I listened to the testimony with a reminiscence, if you will, of my own wilderness experiences in Alaska since childhood. And I certainly feel that they have portrayed vividly the extraordinary experiences that can be gained by viewing the magnificent nature of the State and certainly the coastal plain. I find the responsibility, not only as a member of the Alaskan delegation, but a member of the Energy Committee, as we debate the merits of opening up the coastal plain, balanced with the reality associated with the current situation in the Persian Gulf where we have got some 30 to 35 naval vessels and probably 15,000 to 16,000 Americans that are prepared to sacrifice their lives if necessary to keep oil flowing in the Persian Gulf and the merits of whether or not we initiate exploration in this particular million and a half acres or whether we leave it in its natural state. I think it is fair to say for the record that we do know factually whether there is substantial reserves that would warrant a development, and we will not know unless the area is leased. And the consequences of development have been outlined here by these qualified witnesses from the standpoint of how they would envision the occurrence of development. Part of the contrast of reality causes one to reflect on the Canadians and what they have done. I believe one of the witnesses made reference to the northern Yukon National Park, the area east of the refuge, and what has happened there where the Canadians have recommended that the United States refrain from development. What is not known by many is the fact that the Canadians saw fit to drill approximately 80 wells in that area. They built the highway across a large part of western Canada which the caribou cross. It's called the Dempster Highway. That's the porcupine caribou herd. So, as we reflect on what Canada has done, I think it is important for the record to note that they initiated the park after they had drilled 80 wells in the area and determined that there was little likelihood of any major finds. That's neither here nor there. It's just an important point to keep in mind. Another witness indicated that he has flown into the areas five times. And of course, to fly into an area, you have got to use fuel. And there is a reference that we continue to squander our resources. Well, this is the part of the problem. I think there were 300 to 400 visitors in the area. It's an extraordinary area. Most of the visitors were members of various committees that went up to see what it really looked like. But as we know, it's expensive. It is remote, and it contains an extraordinary ecosystem. But as we reflect on the ecosystem, one has to keep it in parameters because the coastal plain, while a large area of approximately-well, the national wildlife area is about 18 to 19 million acres. It is important to keep in mind that there is designated in perpetuity out of that approximately 8 million acres that will remain a wilderness regardless of what may happen with regard to the million and a half acres that is proposed to be put up for lease. The comparison of the arguments that are being used today and the arguments that were used in the late 1960s with reference to whether or not we should allow Prudhoe Bay to be open all have a bearing in comparison because that's all part of an arctic ecosys tem. We have seen the experience of the caribou in Prudhoe Bay where in the early 1970s we had herds of 3,500 to 4,000 animals, and the reality that we currently have in the Prudhoe Bay central arctic herd is 14,000 to 15,000 animals. These are facts that have been substantiated by biologists. Obviously, there are reasons for that: predators, a lack of hunting. But as we reflect on what we are going to do in the arctic, why, we have to keep in mind that there is a significant portion already set aside in perpetuity. Eight million acres is a large area. I might add it is as much as-certainly larger than the State of Maryland and almost as much as Maryland and New Jersey put together. We have got another 8 million acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There has been a set-aside in a refuge area. It has been estimated that if the area of a million and a half acres is leased in its entirety and all the leases produce oil, which hardly ever happens, there will be about 1200 acres utilized simply because of the technology that is available and the ability to make a smaller print. So, I think as we reflect on the merits of what we are trying to accomplish here in relationship to whether or not the area should be opened up, we should recognize that indeed in Alaska we have made some giant strides in the right direction that unfortunately other States did not have the opportunity to do. We have in Alaska approximately 57 million acres of wilderness that is permanently designated as wilderness. That is as much as the land mass of Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. So, we haven't done everything in a manner that would imply that we have been hell bent on a magical development scenario. And that's appropriate and that's correct. So, as we reflect on the uniqueness of the ecosystem, it is a given fact that it is a unique ecosystem. As we reflect on the coastal plain acreage, we have to keep in mind that there is a village there, 400 people, Kaktovik. So, it is not an untouched area. There have been caribou activities. There have been biologists. There have been DEW-line sites that have already been there. We have seen the migration of the caribou in an inconsistent manner this year with previous years as a consequence of their calving pattern. And the question is, is it in the national interest of this country to inventory the resources that are believed to be there? I happen to believe that the experience that we have had in Prudhoe Bay in maintaining the development in harmony with the environment and the ecology is one that can be improved upon if indeed there is oil in ANWR. So, while the panel through one witness has expressed the opinion that there is no compromise, I would venture to say that as one reflects on the accuracy of the record, indeed there has been a compromise. The compromise is that we are only talking about a million and a half acres of 18 million acres. The reality is that the footprint is going to be much smaller if the oil is there than it was on Prudhoe Bay. One has to ask one's self where would this Nation be today if we didn't have Prudhoe Bay which contributes about 23 percent of the domestic oil into the United States. Would we be able to fly into ANWR? It's a good question. Would it be an extraordinary luxury that just a few Americans could possibly get into if we were paying $3 and $4 and $5 a gallon for fuel? These are harsh realities. And as we reflect on the matter before us today, I think it bears consideration that we are not talking about opening up the entire coastal plain to development. Those of you who have been there know that it is a huge, huge area, that Alaska is a huge, huge area. Those of you who have visited Prudhoe Bay and visited ANWR and observed the wildlife would, I think, come to the conclusion that many of the members of this committee did when they visited both Prudhoe Bay and ANWR this year that the abundance of wildlife currently in Prudhoe Bay exceeds that in ANWR. And there is no good reason for that, simply because it's just nature's dominance of wildlife at any given time. So, I would urge, as we proceed with this hearing, to keep in mind that Alaskans are concerned. Alaskans are diligent and Alaskans do support a wilderness. And we are proud of the record we have made because no other State has done anything in a comparative manner to our sensitivity in maintaining our wilderness. Senator WIRTH. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski. And we thank this panel very much for being with us this morning. Again, the record will remain open for any further comments that you all might like to make. Thank you very much. If our second panel could please join us: Mr. Jim Campbell from Fairbanks, Alaska; Mr. Bob Dittrick from Anchorage, Alaska; Mr. Mike Smith, the Chairman of the Council for Yukon Indians from Whitehorse, Yukon; and Mr. Howard Linklater from Whitehorse, Yukon. While the panel is joining us, perhaps Senator Ford, we might just note for the record that in terms of legislation introduced on the House side, there have been at least two bills introduced on this. One bill was introduced and referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries that was an attempt to do something not dissimilar from the legislation here, to have a 1002 study, a different kind of a formula for dividing the spoils, and it has a lot of environmental protection and some exploration-only provisions in it. That's one bill that has been introduced by some people over there. Another bill was introduced by Congressman Udall, the Chairman of the Interior Committee, to create wilderness in the area. Senator FORD. What I was referring to, Mr. Chairman, as I read the article-and I'm not sure where I read it, but that it was heralded around the committee as a possible compromise that apparently would fly at least on that side. And I'm not sure whether John Dingell was involved in that or not. Senator WIRTH. I think it might go through the Merchant Marine Committee, but I would be surprised if that bill were to get through any time soon in the Interior Committee. Senator FORD. I'm asking about it because by reading it appeared that the compromise had been reached, and that apparently will move on. And there was exploration in that compromise. Senator WIRTH. That's right. Senator FORD. That's proposed, and that's the reason I wanted to pose that question. Senator WIRTH. The House has at least two committees of jurisdiction: one, the Merchant Marine and Fisheries where this bill has been introduced; the other, the Interior- Senator FORD. Which is Udall. Senator WIRTH [continuing]. Udall's committee and I think Congressman Young from Alaska is also on that committee. And he has introduced legislation to allow exploration. So, there are a number of bills over there. All right. If you could all identify yourselves for the purposes of the recorder perhaps from right to left. Mr. DITTRICK. I'm Bob Dittrick from Eagle River, Alaska. It says Anchorage on there, but I'm a little outside of Anchorage. Mr. CAMPBELL. I'm Jim Campbell from Fairbanks, Alaska. Mr. SMITH. I am Mike Smith from the Yukon. Mr. LINKLATER. Howard Linklater from Old Crow, Yukon, and not Whitehorse as it says there. Senator FORD. What's the difference? Mr. LINKLATER. I live in the northern Yukon, and Whitehorse is in southern Yukon. Senator FORD. One is north; one is south. Mr. LINKLATER. And it is a small Indian village. Senator WIRTH. Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. You are familiar with the rules of the committee in which we would hope that you would be able to summarize your statement in five minutes or less. That will be included in full in the record. And the record will be open for further comments, questions that you might like to add. If we could just start from right to left. And Mr. Dittrick, if we could start with you, that would be helpful, and move right down. Please proceed. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF BOB DITTRICK, EAGLE RIVER, AK Mr. DITTRICK. Thank you, sir. I have come down from Alaska to talk to you because of many reasons, but one being that I am worried that there is a potential that my livelihood may be in jeopardy to some degree by the decisions that are before you today. I own Wilderness Birding Adventures, a company that guides people into ANWR. ANWR is where I do most of my business right now. And the refuge is very important to me. And because I run rivers, I spend quite a bit of my time out on the coastal plain. The economic benefits and the income that are generated by my modest business don't grab the imagination like the big bucks that we hear about that would be pumped into the economy by the oil companies. But I feel like that is a short-term vision and that when I go into the wilderness and take people into the wilderness, my industry is using the resource in a nonconsumptive way. And we leave the wilderness area there in as much value as the time that we went in there. And that leaves the wilderness there to be used over and over and over again at no decreased value where if the oil companies go in, they are going to be in there for a relatively short period of time, 30 years or so. They are going to leave the area in a |