Climbing and Rafting in the Arctic Refuge

[wfinley]

Below are pictures from a float trip down the Hula Hula River in the Arctic Refuge from a trip in 2004. We went for 10 days in early July. We spent 7 days on the river and 3 days climbing - including a climb of Mt Michelson - the 4th highest peak in the Brooks Range.

 

The route up Michelson was a moderate couloir that pretty much started right off the glacier. We carried a rope and screw but never used them (although we did rope up on the glacier)

 

For those of you who are unaware, our own (I live in Alaska) Ted Stevens recently moved the ANWR provision from the Budget Bill and attached it to the Defense Bill. This was done because the ANWR bill cannot gain enough support on it's own - thus Steven's is resorting to other tactics to push his own agenda. The Defense Bill was approved by the House this morning and is now being debated in the Senate.

 

For those of you who haven't been to the Arctic Refuge I encourage you to go. The climbing is excellent, the boating superb, the hiking out of this world - and I hear the ski touring is amazing as well.

 

Please call your Senator and ask them to remove the ANWR provision from the Defense Bill. ANWR needs to be debated openly and honestly.

 

More pictures are here: http://www.couloirgraphics.com/images/misc/ANWR/index.htm

 

Here's a link to a map of our trip.

 

Arctic Poppies near our put in point.

 

Looking north down the the Hula Hula Valley.

 

Floating down the Hula Hula.

 

Camp II along the Hula Hula.

 

Leaving our High Camp enroute to climb Mt Michelson.

 

Route up Mt Michelson.

 

Summit of Mt Michelson.

 

Another summit shot

 

Looking south up the Hula Hula Valley from Camp III.

 

Looking north onto the coastal plain (site of proposed development)

 

Rafters and Musk Ox Skull a few miles from the Arctic Ocean.

[Jake]

Sweet Pics! Defitely want to check that area out sometime.

 

I wonder how many people have truly done their homework on ANWR and aren't just jumping on the bandwagon.

 

This site, a pro-ANWR site, does seem to have good facts.

http://www.anwr.org/

 

"Lastly at the top of ANWR, there is a special area of 1.5 million acres on the Arctic Coastal Plain called the “10-02” Area. The 10-02 Area takes its name from the section of the Congressional bill, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), that expanded ANWR in 1980. In Section 10-02 Congress set aside 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Coastal Plain specifically for “oil and gas exploration”. This 10-02 Area is classified legally neither as “refuge” nor as “wilderness”, rather defined and separated by Congress for oil and gas exploration due to its well-known geological evidence of potential large hydrocarbon deposits. The 10-02 area, is bordered on the north by the Beaufort Sea, on the east by ANWR “wilderness” area and the U.S. Canadian border, and on the west by the Canning River and ANWR outer border. It is completely flat and barren with no trees, hills, or mountains. Nine months of the year is covered with snow and ice and practically void of life. Three of those months are in total 24 hour darkness. In the 6 weeks of summer the coastal plain is dotted with thousands of lakes and is covered by boggy tundra on permafrost (permanently frozen ground).

 

The 10-02 Area is a further anomaly within ANWR’s border in that it contains 92,000 acres of private land owned by the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC) of Kaktovik, ANWR’s only settlement and population. The subsurface rights of this 92,000 acres are owned by the Inupiat native organization the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC).

 

To say or suggest then that “the Refuge” (meaning ANWR’s entire area) would be opened for oil and gas exploration is completely false. The Congressional definitions of “refuge” and “wilderness”, which comprises over 92% of the ANWR area, forbids any development of any kind.

 

To further specify the definition of land that could be used in ANWR Congress has limited any future development footprint size to 2000 acres. This means that within the 1.5 million acres of the 10-02 Area and with in the total 19.6 million acres of ANWR …..ONLY 2000 ACRES CAN BE USED! That’s less than ½ of 1% of the total area of ANWR.

 

The 10-02 area however, cannot be explored despite its specific oil and gas definition without Congressional approval. And it is at this point that the debate now stands. "

[wfinley]

Just a quick note. ANWR.org is a site owned and operated by Arctic Power - a pro-drilling lobby group funded by the Alaska Legislature. They used to receive approximately $3 million a year (has since been cut to $1 million) to lobby for drilling in the Refuge. Thus take the information on their site with a grain of salt and consider reading other sources.

Edited December 20, 2005 by wfinley

[Jake]

Agreed. You have to get info from everywhere. Does the state of Alaska directly fund it? Or, does money come from the interest groups etc? Nevertheless, is their information incorrect? That is the question I am interested in.

 

By the way, I'm not trying to hijack your thread, though you did put in the bit about writing your Senator. I'm just interested in trying to get an accurate account of what is going on.

Edited December 20, 2005 by Jake

[wfinley]

Hijacking is alright - in case you didn't notice the trip report is from 2004 so my intentions were fairly obvious.

 

To answer your questions -- Arctic Power is directly funded by the State of Alaska. Since 1992 they have received about $9 million in funding which they have used for lobbying efforts in Washington.

 

The paragraph you posted is correct in describing the boundaries of section 1002 - as well as the intentions. However they take a lot of liberties when they describe the area as "flat and barren with no trees, hills, or mountains...and practically void of life." This barren plain is the calving grounds of the 150,00+ Porcupine caribou herd, nesting grounds to millions of birds and denning territory of a dwindling polar bear population. To state that it's a barren wasteland because of the migratory nature of northern animals is a pretty weak argument.

 

The second point is the footprint. Arctic Power (and Gale Norton) like to point out that this foot print will be only 2000 acres - however they are only telling a half truth. Here's a great factoid often pointed out: "The 12-lane-wide New Jersey Turnpike, which stretches more than 100 miles across the state, covers only 1,773 acres." Supporting infrastructure for development would have to stretch across the coastal plain. Visit this page (http://www.inforain.org/maparchive/anwr_2.htm) to see a speculative development scenario of this "footprint".

 

Below are some good links. Carter's column in particular is an excellent piece. I saw him speak a few years ago and found him to be an incredible intelligent man.

 

Arctic Folly By Jimmy Carter

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/12/AR2005091201347.html

 

History of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

http://www.alaskawild.org/campaigns_arctic_history.html

 

In short I would say the only person jumping the bandwagon is Senator Stevens. The prospect of developing ANWR should be addressed as an open and intelligent debate - not hidden within a defense spending bill.

[Jake]

I'll check out the links, though I'm curious just how much impact it would have on animals. Hasn't the caribou heard dramatically increased since the '70s and the onset of North Slope operations? And what about pics of bear and caribou wandering around by drilling operations and pipelines apparently undisturbed? You are right though that ANWR shouldn't be attached to Def. Approps.

[lI1|1!]

Maria Cantwell vows fillibuster

 

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/252683_anwr20.html

 

w00t!

 

 

 

 

on an unrelated note i think i'll check some really interesting facts about gas guzzling vehicles creating more CO2 for plants to do photosynthesis with

Edited December 20, 2005 by lI1|1!

[dkemp]

Hasn't the caribou heard dramatically increased since the '70s and the onset of North Slope operations? And what about pics of bear and caribou wandering around by drilling operations and pipelines apparently undisturbed?

Its different. The 1002 Area is a caribou calving ground and the effects of industry on that delicate process are unknown. The polar bears that make dens and have cubs are there in winter - the same time that industry will explore. The grizzly bears will almost certainly be affected by industry. The musk oxen, once extirpated in a heartbreaking display of greed and wonton destruction, may not survive global warming and industrial efforts might put them over the edge. Oh, and, um, this is a national wildlife refuge.

 

I know the tribes want the money. I know Ted wants the money. I know Alaskans want the money. I know the feds want the money. I know the industry wants the money.

 

But its literally at the ends of the earth. Can we not leave one freakin' place alone? I guess we can't.

[wfinley]

I'll check out the links, though I'm curious just how much impact it would have on animals. Hasn't the caribou heard dramatically increased since the '70s and the onset of North Slope operations? And what about pics of bear and caribou wandering around by drilling operations and pipelines apparently undisturbed? You are right though that ANWR shouldn't be attached to Def. Approps.

 

Again these reports are pretty subjective. Drilling proponents will cite increased numbers as evidence caribou are not disturbed. Opponents will counter and say that caribou numbers were weakened by poor weather when the initial counts took place before development - and they will likewise offer data showing that the breeding grounds have shifted away from drilling sites (http://magazine.audubon.org/features0109/arctic.html). Polar bear numbers are rapidly decreasing with many scientist saying that they will be extinct within 100 years.

 

However... the crux of the argument isn't about science - it's about aesthetics. A drilling operation in the Arctic Refuge wouldn't necessarily drive caribou to extinction (polar bears are already doomed due to the melting polar ice cap) - but it would take away the aura of wilderness. Think of it in the same way that a tram up Mt. Rainier wouldn't really hurt the mountain but would most likely disturb visitors.

[Thinker]

In case anyone wants to pinpoint the location of the Hulahula River, its mouth is roughly 10 miles west of Kaktovik (Barter Island), AK. The nearby Jago River is another one commonly rafted.

 

It seems to me that the coastal natives are much more pro-drilling than the inland natives. Different tribes, different origins, different migrations from Asia, and different means of supporting their lifestyles. In very simplified terms, I think the dynamics boil down to whaling vs totally dependent on Caribou.

 

I've seen first-hand the dole-out the major oil companies gave the villagers in Kaktovik so they could conduct high-intensity sonar surveys of the ocean bottom in the area ....shameless. It was driving the migrating whales further out to sea and stressing them terribly.

 

Finley, did you fly with Walt Audi?

[Jake]

OK, but then explain these pictures, which, in the interest of full disclosure, are from anwr.org. About it being in a national wildlife refuge, so what? When Congress designated the area as a refuge, it also specifically set aside an area for oil exploration. Both the refuge and the area for exploration were created together. Hence, arguing that drilling is wrong based solely on the designation of the region as a refuge doesn't make sense. The refuge was created with the possibility of drilling in mind.

 

Bears

 

caribou

 

map

Edited December 20, 2005 by Jake

[wfinley]

The biggest difference between the tribes is that the village of Kaktovik owns the land directly around Kaktovik thus they stand to make alot of money. The Gwich'in tribe relies on the caribou herd for subsistence. They won't make any money off the deal and if the caribou herd dwindles their lifestyle will as well.

 

We flew with Kirk / Coyote Air out of Coldfoot. Walt no longer flies (he's too old and has crashed too many planes) but he has someone working for him now.

[Jake]

However... the crux of the argument isn't about science - it's about aesthetics. A drilling operation in the Arctic Refuge wouldn't necessarily drive caribou to extinction (polar bears are already doomed due to the melting polar ice cap) - but it would take away the aura of wilderness. Think of it in the same way that a tram up Mt. Rainier wouldn't really hurt the mountain but would most likely disturb visitors.

 

Ok, this argument makes sense. So the question is whether or not to leave it alone, or develop it. Should we have some drilling operations and some piplines in the middle of nowhere where not many people will see them, or should we leave it undisturbed?

[wfinley]

Area 1002 s was not "specifically set aside an area for oil exploration". Section 1020 does not state that the area is open for development, but instead that it is open for study. There is a big difference between these two readings. The opening paragraph of Section 1002 states:

 

The purpose of this section is to provide for a comprehensive and continuing inventory and assessment of the fish and wildlife resources of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; an analysis of the impacts of oil and gas exploration, development, and production, and to authorize exploratory activity within the coastal plain in a manner that avoids significant adverse effects on the fish and wildlife and other resources. (http://arctic.fws.gov/anilcabits.htm)

 

This is one of the last great wilderness areas on earth. Virtually every visit to the refuge takes you through the Coastal Plain - thus oil development won't necessarily be in the middle of nowhere - but instead in one of the most biologically diverse areas in the world that hundreds of people enjoy every year. If we take it away it's gone forever.

 

To quote President Carter, "We cannot drill our way to energy security or lower gasoline prices as long as our nation sits on just 3 percent of world oil reserves yet accounts for 25 percent of all oil consumption... The pathway to a better, more sustainable energy future does not wind through the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."

 

PS - Here are more links:

 

Aurora Wilderness Project

http://www.auroraeducationproject.org/Aurora%20wilderness%20home.html

 

Being Caribou

http://www.beingcaribou.com/