October 30, 1987

Additional Testimony of Martin B. Hayden

1988 Callaway Fork Rd.

Defiance, MO 63341

There were a couple of points raised at the hearing which I would like to address as part of my testimony.

I. What is the problem with developing the 1002 area while the balance of the refuge, which is many times larger, will not be developed?

The 1002 area cannot simply be considered as a separate part of ANWR. In my opinion, it is the single most important habitat in the entire ANWR ecosystem. I would like to site a few statistics on three species given in the Dept. of Interior final E.I.S. on the coastal plain which highlight the importance of this area.

1. The percentage of cows in the 180,000 member Porcupine Caribou Herd (PCH) which utilized the 1002 area for calving in the last few years

74%

35% and one week after calving an additionaly 38% moved onto the 1002 area (cum - 73%)

82%

1986 24% and essentially the entire herd moved onto the 1002 after

calving (cum 100%)

Post calving season is the low point of the annual physiological cycle when the energy reserves of the cows are especially low. If denied access to insect relief habitat at this time the herd may stop feeding and herd productivity will be impacted. The 1002 area contains the majority of insect relief habitat for the PCH and it is precisely these cows and their offspring which are most sensitive to the disturbance which development would cause.

2. The Muskox population of ANWR as estimated by Interior would be forced to avoid 71% of their high use year round habitats including calving areas due to oil and gas development, this is listed as an unavoidable impact.

3. An average of 105,000 Lesser Snow Geese utilize the 1002 area every year to stage and build energy reserves prior to fall migration, (maximum usage was 325,760 in 1978). Oil development will unavoidably decrease the habitat value of 162,000 to 236,000 acres of this preferred staging habitat.

In my mind, an area that exhibits such usage by these species can hardly be considered an insignificant part of the entire ANWR.

II. I would also like to address the comparisions raised between Prudhoe Bay and the 1002 area with respect to the caribou population at Prudhoe Bay.

The primary difference between the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CAH) found in the Prudhoe Bay Region and the PCH in the 1002 area is some 165,000 animals. It is not reasonable to compare the dynamics of a population of animals in which the population size differs by a factor of 12. In addition, according to Interior the CAH has NEVER used Prudhoe Bay for concentrated calving and little or no calving has occurred in the TAPS - Prudhoe area since 1973. The PCH on the otherhand utilizes 78% of the 1002 area for concentrated calving.

Another key difference between 1002 and Prudhoe is the distance between the sea and the mountains, at Prudhoe Bay that distance is some 90 miles, while the 1002 area varies from 18 to 40 miles. So, not only are we looking at more animals utilizing the 1002 area, but also less space for them to avoid the impacts of development. I firmly believe that the development of the coastal plain will have the major impacts and population declines predicted in the Draft E.I.S. not the "no appreciable decline" it was ammended to in the final report.

Points 1 through 4 of original written testimony dated 19 October 87

of Martin B. Hayden for attachment to 22 October 87 testimony as

1) Of our approximately 1100 miles of arctic coastline almost 89% of it is currently available for oil and gas development, while the remaining 125 miles is protected within the ANWR.

According to the Dept. of Interior, the coastal plain area has outstanding wilderness qualities and is the most biologically productive part of the ANWR as well as the center of wildlife activity on the refuge. Yet, it is precisely this last 11% of our arctic coast which the oil industry must have.

2) The Secretary of Interior made his recommendation using oil prices of $33.00 per barrel to achieve the 19% probability of finding any economically recoverable 011. This economic standard appears greatly different from the trend that has been seen in the oil industry over the last few years. In addition, should the 3.2 billion barrel mean volume be indeed discovered, it would at $33.00 per barrel. amount to 3.52 billion dollars a year over the 30 year life of the field. At first this seems like a large figure, except when you compare it to the $400 billion plus which we currently expend annually on energy in this country. So it appears that we are being asked to sacrifice our last protected segment of the arctic coast for less that one percent of our annual energy expenditures.

3) I am concerned about the direct adverse effects on the environment that would be generated through oil and gas production. Alaska's Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has reported that 521 oil spills occurred in Alaska's Arctic Region in 1985 alone. In addition, the Department of Interior has stated that some 17,000 spills have occurred since 1973. In a sampling by ADEC, all but one of the 21 drilling mud reserve pits tested violated effluent standards for arsenic, manganese, chromium, lead and other pollutants. With each well drilled in the Arctic producing some 840,000 gallons of wastes per year, oil and gas production in the coastal plain hardly seems to be compatible with the overall purpose of a wildlife refuge.

4) I have to wonder if this proposal is part of some National Energy Policy, and if so, what is the role of energy conservation in that plan? Is it not more cost effective and faster to implement energy conservation measures than to develop a new oil field in the Arctic? I've heard the statistic that we could save up to $200 billion a year if we were as energy efficient as Western Europe. Does this not appear to be potentially a much larger pay off than the development of the ANWR? National Security and dependence on foreign oil have been held up as banners for ANWR development on one hand, yet we raise the speed limit on our nation's highways, thereby increasing our dependence on the other.

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. Hayden.
Did I get your name right? Is it Mr. Sawtelle?

Mr. SAWTELLE. Correct.

Senator BUMPERS. Mr. Sawtelle, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF ALLAN SAWTELLE, CINCINNATI, OH

Mr. SAWTELLE. Mr. Chairman and concerned lawmakers, we do appreciate your concern on this matter of importance to all of us. I am Allan Sawtelle from Cincinnati. My interest in Alaska was whetted when a friend, now an Alaskan, determined that there was a profitable market for used pianos in the Fairbanks area. We bought eight used pianos and a truck in Cincinnati, drove to Fairbanks, where he sold them, leaving me free to experience the area before returning.

I subsequently went back to Alaska without piano accompaniment, thoroughly impressed with the sights, the vastness and the indescribable feel of Alaska, an experience that I want for my children and grandchildren. I only hope that Senator Murkowski and the rest of you who have been there have had the chance to be out in this great expanse and to feel its majesty and the presence of the good Lord in this land with which he has so richly endowed us. It is a birthright that we must pass on to our children for their enjoyment and for the part that it plays in the ecology on which we are all dependent.

We are told by Senator Murkowski and others that we can have our cake and eat it, that we can extract oil without destroying this landscape and its creatures. However, the Interior Department's report acknowledges that oil and gas development would have a major adverse impact on the area's wildlife. Despite all of the care built into the Prudhoe Bay complex, air pollution, oil spills and hazardous waste disposal problems have given us a grim picture of what we may expect.

The oft-cited increase in the caribou herd is irrelevant to 1002. There are different animals with different patterns with a far greater dependence here on this limited ocean front area. I can't speak too well from other caribou, but I would have considerable difficulty bringing my offspring up in the shadow of an oil well. Sadly, there is much evidence that we have an either/or choice to make.

We must not sell this birthright for a mess of pottage.

I do not mean to under-estimate the seriousness of our dependence on foreign oil by this comparison, but must note that like the pottage or the 19 percent perceived chance of finding it, it will be consumed in a short time and for this time will serve to enhance the appetite of an already overweight patient.

Nor will it be a cheap alternative. The oil, if the 19-percent chance is realized, at $33 per barrel will be nearly in line with synthetic fuels from which support has been withdrawn. Where the staying power is long-term, probability is 100 percent, and where costs may be expected to decrease with time and experience. It is certainly less cost-effective than the conservation measures that are presently in place and which can be enhanced.

The Cincinnati Reds just released their general manager for making trades much less damaging than the trade being considered here.

I strongly urge that we protect our birthright and our long-term energy interests and keep our oil-question mark-in the 1002 underground and the indigenous animals above ground in this great land as God created it.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sawtelle follows:]