Alaska Natives and the Environment: A Contrast in Practices

Kristen Minter

There are many different perspectives on the treatment of the environment within the Alaska Native community. This results from the unusual political status that Alaska Natives have been given. Native corporations dominate environmental practices in Alaska. However, not all Alaska Natives subscribe to the same brand of environmentalism as the Native corporations. There are many Alaska Native organizations, most notably the Eyak Preservation Council (EPC) and the Alaska Rainforest Campaign, that work to combat environmental practices of Native Corporations in Alaska. There are also numerous individual tribes and villages that maintain their own widely varied environmental philosophies and practices. The contrast among Alaska Native environmental perspectives results from the contrast among beliefs of land value. To some, the land is only valuable if it is rich in resources like timber or minerals. To others, the value is based on the preservation of the land.

Many Alaska Native Corporations, like Chugach Alaska Corporation (CAC) and the Eyak Corporation, use the land as an investment and participate in resource extraction. These corporations view the land and its minerals as a renewable resource to which they are entitled and enabling them to profit. In contrast, Dune Lankard, a shareholder in the Eyak Corporation, feels that people are charged with being stewards of the land. Dune, along with other members of EPC, is concerned with the preservation of the land resources for future generations, not short-term exploitation for profit. Members of the Gwich’in Tribe in the Coastal Plain region of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge view development of resources as a threat to the land and their subsistence way of life. They want to preserve the land so that future generations may continue to participate in the subsistence lifestyle of their culture.

Who determines which environmental practices are best? The corporations feel that their environmental enterprises are superior because of the profits they produce. Those focused mainly of preservation of the environment insist that they maintain sound environmental practices because they are preserving the environment for future generations. Can justification be found for each of the contrasting, dominant Native environmental practices?

Native Lands: A Brief History

In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, commonly referred to as ANCSA. ANCSA granted land and money to Alaskans with at least one-fourth Native ancestry. In addition, ANCSA abolished all aboriginal land claims and revoked the Alaska Native Allotment Act. One-ninth of the state’s land and $962.5 million ($462.5 million from the Federal Treasury and the rest from oil revenue sharing) was designated for the approximate 80,000 Alaska Natives enrolled in ANCSA. (Chance, 1990).

In order to administer the settlement, ANCSA established twelve regional corporations. One hundred and sixty-eight village corporations were also established and were placed under the supervision of the twelve regional corporations. Under this system, Alaska Natives that lived in villages (approximately two-thirds of the Alaska Native population) would receive one hundred shares in both a regional corporation and one of the village corporations. The remaining one-third of Alaska Natives was designated as “at large” shareholders. The “at large” shareholders were given one hundred shares in a regional corporation and additional rights to the revenue from regional corporation mineral and timber resources. In addition, ANCSA established a thirteenth corporation. The thirteenth regional corporation, comprised of Alaska Natives who had moved out of the state, received only monetary compensation (Chance, 1990).

ANCSA also outlined measures designed to regulate and protect the Native corporations. For twenty years, until 1991, no Native corporate shares could be sold to non-Natives. This was established to protect the corporations from outside interest and possible hostile takeover by other corporations. In 1991, non-Natives became eligible to be shareholders and the Native lands became liable for taxation by the state of Alaska (Chance, 1990).

In addition, ANCSA gave regional corporations the ability to earn income from their investments. In the “shared wealth” provision of the Act [Section 7(i)], seventy percent of income received by regional corporations from their resources was to be shared annually with the other corporations. The village corporations were given the opportunity to be non-profit entities, but all of them chose the profit-making route (Chance, 1990).

In 1988, President Reagan passed an amendment to shield the Native corporations. All undeveloped corporately owned Native lands were placed in a state-regulated “land bank” and were protected from taxation and loss through bankruptcy as long as they remained undeveloped. In addition, Alaska Natives born after 1971, who were previously denied benefits, were made shareholders of the corporations (Chance, 1990).

Now, thirty years later, the twelve regional corporations are multi-million dollar corporations. In fact, in 2000 alone, the twelve Native corporations and eleven of the village corporations had combined revenues of $2.5 billion, employed 10,600 people, and distributed $64.5 million in dividends to shareholders (Bradner, 2002).

Native corporations, like the majority of corporations, are profit-driven enterprises. Among the twelve regional corporations in Alaska, the investments and business ventures are diverse, from providing technical services to construction. Many of the corporations engage in resource development, profiting from the land they own. However, the profits do not come without their own environmental costs. In some cases, the environment and natural resources are treated as merely another investment opportunity that can be exploited for profit, regardless of the negative impact on the environment and natural resources.

To Drill or Not to Drill: ANWR's Future

Approximately nineteen million acres of land in the northeast corner of Alaska are designated as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). One and a half million acres on the northern edge of ANWR comprise the Coastal Plain. Geologists believe that the Coastal Plain is home to the highest petroleum potential onshore area yet to be explored in North America. It has been estimated that the Coastal Plain region could contain up to seventeen billion barrels of oil. In 1987, the Interior Secretary issued a report directed by Congress that identified 26 major oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain study area (Arctic Power, 2004).

Just a hundred miles to the west of ANWR lies Prudhoe Bay, North America’s largest oil field. Prudhoe Bay, along with Kuparuk, Lisburne, and Endicott accounts for about twenty-five percent of United States domestic oil production. Many people believe that the success of oil production in Prudhoe Bay could be repeated in the Coastal Plain of ANWR. However, there are also many people and organizations that feel the drilling is neither economically viable nor environmentally stable. Two of the largest caribou herds migrate through the Coastal Plain Region and many other species reside predominantly in the proposed drilling area. In 1998, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) study estimated that “…only 3.2 billion to 6.3 billion barrels would be ‘economically recoverable’ from the refuge over the 50-year life of the oil field” (Union of Concerned Scientists website, 2002). In addition the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) wrote, “This 3.2 to 6.3 billion barrels represents a mere six-to-eight month national supply” (UCS, 2002).

Despite controversial scientific data about the amount of recoverable oil, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation still believes that development and exploration of the Coastal Plain is the right direction of development for American oil interests. They are one of the largest proponents for drilling and oil production, primarily because they are the group that stands to profit the most from the development and oil production in the Coastal Plain.

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) has a focus to preserve Inupiat culture and represents eight villages along the north slope of Alaska: Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Anaktuvuk Pass. The corporation claims to have a goal of preserving their culture and the environment. In the “ASRC Company Profile,” they write,

ASRC, one of the twelve regional corporations created by ANCSA, is owned by approximately 7,000 shareholders who reside primarily in villages along the North Slope. Two hundred and forty of these shareholders reside in Kaktovik, a small village within the study area of the Coastal Plain of ANWR. In a land exchange with U.S. government in 1983, ASRC gave up 101,000 acres of surface land neighboring the Gates of the Arctic National Park. In return, they received the subsurface rights to 92,000 acres of land owned by Kaktovik Village Corporation, a village corporation that is under the supervision of ASRC (Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, “Lands Today”). To the shareholders of ASRC, the Coastal Plain represents their best opportunity to participate in the economic benefits of oil and gas development on their lands. In a personal statement promoting drilling in the Coastal Plain, ASRC President Jacob Adams wrote,

Not all Alaska Natives support drilling in ANWR. The Caribou People, members of the Gwich’in language group of the Athabascans, maintain their fight to prevent drilling in the Coastal Plain. Gwich’in villages depend on the 123,000-member Porcupine caribou herd to continue their subsistence lifestyle. In fact, Gwich’in villages are strategically located to overlap with seasonal migration routes of the herd. Proposed drilling could disrupt the migration route and calving grounds of the caribou in ANWR and negatively affect the subsistence lifestyle of the Gwich’in people. In a March 2002 Geotimes article, Lisa M. Pinkser quoted a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report as stating, “The caribou could face substantial risk of decline under certain oil development scenarios for ANWR.” (Pinkser, 2002). In 1988, all of the Gwich’in villages signed a pledge to protect the Porcupine Caribou herd and their home of the Coastal Plain. In 1999, the Tanana Chiefs Conference, which represents 43 Alaska Native villages, passed an oil and gas resolution voicing opposition to drilling in ANWR. In the article “ANWR’s Caribou People Stand”, Gwich’in spokesperson Sarah James of Arctic Village shared, “It’s pretty sad that some Alaska Natives think oil will help our people – that is a fantasy. All improvements industry and government promised from oil haven’t happened.” (“ANWR’s Caribou People Stand”).

Protection of the Porcupine caribou herd is not the only point of contention to drilling for Alaska Natives. Alaska Natives, including the Gwich’in and the Nuiqsut, are also alarmed by the vulnerability of ANWR to toxic spills. According to an article entitled “ANWR’s Caribou People Stand” the Wilderness Society claimed that, “Under state permits during one year alone oil-rigs discharged over 100 million gallons of arsenic, lead, and toxin laced waste into and onto Arctic tundra. Since 1973, thousands of oil-spills happened, and some as large as hundreds of thousands of gallons” (“ANWR’s Caribou People Stand”).

The risk of oil spills also doubles as the reasoning behind some other Arctic residents support for drilling in ANWR. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission voted to support the opening of ANWR to oil. In the “ANWR’s Caribou People Stand” article, Commission Chairman Thomas Napageak stated, “Better ANWR on-shore drilling than Beaufort Sea off-shore development because cleaning oil from the ocean is impossible. We hope industry targets ANWR and not our whaling waters” (“ANWR’s Caribou People Stand”).

There are many different viewpoints and positions on ANWR among the Alaska Native population. From shareholders and corporations to Native subsistence Gwich’in villages and the Tanana Chiefs Conference, all stand to gain or lose a considerable amount if the Coastal Plain is opened to oil production.

Eyak Preservation Council: Preserving the 'Redzone'

The Eyak Preservation Council (EPC) is a “grassroots consortium of dedicated local Natives, fishers and world citizens who became activists when the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill changed [their] life… Some of [them] are original tribal Eyak, Aleut, and Tlingit members, and are now also [ANCSA] corporate shareholders” (EPC, 2001b) The EPC works to preserve the Prince William Sound area and the Copper River Delta area and to safeguard both areas against threats of exploitation and degradation. Their mission is

Specifically, the EPC has been very successful in protecting these areas against clearcutting. In 1998, EPC succeeded in preserving 150,000 acres of old-growth forest in Prince William Sound. However, it seems that each victory is followed by yet another staggering threat challenging the environment.

Throughout the past year, one current preservation issue has been the Exxon Valdez oil spill follow-up campaign. As a part of the 15th anniversary, in its Fall/Winter 2003 “Preservation Update” newsletter, EPC wrote their two demands stating, “On this dark day we demand: The Spill Trustee Council pursue the $100 million re-opener. Exxon Mobil pay the $5.3 billion punitive damage award” (EPC, 2003).

Another EPC response to Exxon Valdez oil spill was to form Community Unity, “…a grassroots network of watershed residents who share a vision of protection for the Copper River, and who will stand united to resist habitat destruction and unsustainable development in the region” (EPC, 2003). The group works to improve inadequate oil spill response contingency plans for the 200 miles of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) that stretches through the Copper River watershed. The greatest concern is the occurrence of an oil spill in the watershed area. If oil were spilled into the river, it would be near impossible to clean up and restore the watershed to pre-spill conditions. An oil spill in the Copper River watershed would completely devastate the salmon hatcheries and fishing industry in the entire Copper River Delta region.

Currently, EPC is fighting to maintain a roadless Copper River Delta. They are working to design and implement a comprehensive conservation easement proposal to keep the 700,000 acres of the Copper River Delta roadless. This project developed as a result of the Chugach Road rider that was designed solely to benefit the Chugach Alaska Corporation (CAC) and was attached to the Appropriations Bill of the 105th Congress. The rider proposed a 250-foot wide, 27-mile long road easement across the Copper River Delta in the Chugach National Forest. The rider facilitated the easement by allowing construction of it without the required public and federal environmental procedures, like Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). The Chugach Road rider was drafted to facilitate Chugach Alaska Corporation’s attempt to gain access to their land to aid in their commercial timber harvesting enterprises (EPC, 1998b).

In response to the Chugach Road rider, EPC and other concerned citizens rallied and participated in an act of civil disobedience that focused on Clear Creek, the first of the potential 250 streams the proposed road would cross. The EPC and concerned citizens also went to Washington, D.C. to lobby against the Chugach Road rider. They worked to voice their opposition to the rider by writing letters, making phone calls and meeting congressional representatives. As a result of the efforts of the EPC and other protestors, the Chugach Road rider was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 302 opposed and 123 in favor. According to the Eyak Preservation Council article, “The Clinton Administration remained firm that it would NOT allow the Chugach Road rider to be included in any Appropriations Bill” (EPC, 1998b). This Chugach Road rider victory was not the last of the road rider attempts however. Chugach Alaska and Alaska political representatives continued to push for the attachment of the rider. In an EPC press release entitled “Chugach Alaska Corporation Granted Land Easement” Alice Aguilar wrote,

Another current EPC project is the protection of the Bering River Coal Fields. EPC and the current owner of the coalfields, Joe Shin of the Korean Alaska Development Corporation (KADCO) are discussing a possible conservation deal to purchase and to retire the coalfields. This conservation deal would leave three billion tons of coal in the ground in the Chugach National Forest in the east Copper River Delta and return the coalfields to the protection of the Eyak people. Currently, the coalfields have not been purchased due to a lack of financial resources. However, the EPC is currently working to acquire the necessary financial resources to make the coalfield conservation deal with Joe Shin and KADCO (EPC, 2001a).

The Eyak Preservation Council also works to educate others on the beauty of the Copper River Delta. For the past seven years, EPC has been leading non-profit rafting and camping adventures in the Copper River Delta to inspire the diverse participants and guests, including locals, fishers, artists, journalists, lawyers, nationally recognized activists, and musicians to become involved in the protection of the region (EPC, 2003).

Logging: Renewable Resource or Forest Exploitation

Alaska Native Corporations profit from developing the lands they acquired under ANCSA. Commercial timber harvesting on Native lands has been an option only since 1979. Despite the short time allowed for logging, Alaska Native Corporations already have logged over half of their potential commercial grade timber. According to the Alaska Rainforest Campaign (ARC), a coalition of activist environmental groups and other concerned citizens in Alaska,

In 1989, commercial logging started on the 1.2 million acres of eligible Native Corporation land in the Prince William Sound area. The Alaska Rainforest Campaign has estimated that “…tens of thousands of acres [have been] already cut and the same unsustainable logging rate [is] expected to continue” (Alaska Rainforest Campaign, 1997). Native Corporations, like Chugach Alaska Corporation (CAC), treat the environment as a renewable resource that should be utilized for profit. This philosophy extends to their commercial harvesting practices. CAC lands are rich with Sitka Spruce and Western Hemlock forests and CAC maintains that these timber resources are a profitable asset for their corporation and its shareholders. However, CAC and other Native corporations are logging their lands at an unsustainable rate. Clearcutting in Alaska is being practiced much faster than nature can renew the resources.

Mining: Digging Up Profits or Stripping the Environment

Alaska Native Corporations hold extensive land rich in valuable mineral resources as a result of ANCSA. For example, Chugach Alaska Corporation owns “…the Central VMS Belt, which hosts both Besshi and Cyprus type deposits…mineralized property along the southern tip of the Kenai Peninsula, in the Kenai Fjords, Cordova, the Copper River Valley, and the Gulf Coast” (Chugach Alaska Corporation, 2001).

Mining greatly contributes to the staggering and ever-increasing levels of pollution in Alaska. In an article entitled, “Vital Statistics: Alaska Oil, Mining and the Environment”, the journal Drillbits and Tailings states,

With this evidence, it is obvious that mining is devastating to the environment. Alaska Native corporations that invest in mining are subjecting to the environment to the releases of hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic chemicals. This does not exactly seem to be aligned with the projected conservation-oriented image of ‘environmental stewardship’ that is promoted by the websites of the majority of the twelve regional corporations.

A Delicate Balance

It is fair to say that each Native environmental perspective has been given its own justification. Each argument is not without its own merit or reasoning. The Gwich’in want to preserve their subsistence lifestyle. The EPC wants to preserve their land and natural resources in a pristine condition to pass down to future Eyak generations. And, of course, Native corporations want to profit from their own natural resources and lands.

However justified, the environmental practices unavoidably conflict with one another. Native environmental practices are subject to much controversy and opposition from other Native groups, political parties, and environmental organizations. Looking at the different positions and practices, there seems to be no middle ground or gray area. However, it may be possible that the best Native environmental practices are those that do not exclude anyone, but rather are those that are composed with the consideration of all affected. This compromise does not give permission to exploit the environment. And it certainly isn’t the green light to make up new environmental philosophies to justify environmental degradation. However, it does mean that, when necessary, it is possible to profit from the environment while protecting it.

I think that when resource profit is a necessity to afford to maintain ownership of the land, limited development can be justified. However, I think that this condition can only be met when all other profit-making options are exhausted. It is this instance, and only this instance, that merits resource extraction. I also believe that resource extraction can be conducted with consideration to the environment. Mining could be conducted without releasing grotesque amounts of toxins and hazardous wastes into the environment. In addition, some reports have stated that logging does not harm the environment or the forests as severely as previously thought. Many of the forests have a fast re-growth and maturation rate that replace the forest area that has been logged. Whether or not these recent reports are just propaganda that serves as an excuse to justify logging remains to be seen. However, some measures can be taken to slow the process of timber resource depletion. Obviously, corporations will not voluntarily halt their commercial timber harvesting operations. However, they can slow the speed with which they log. This would give the old-growth forests a chance to re-grow. This will not eliminate the problem of old-growth forest depletion, but it is a practical reasonable measure that regional corporations can undertake voluntarily.

There are some instances of resource extraction in which it is never appropriate to jeopardize the environment. For example, the Coastal Plain should remain closed to all drilling because of the potential damaging impact to the Porcupine River Caribou herd. The herd would not only be threatened, but the stability of the Gwich’in lifestyle would also be vulnerable. Threatening the lifestyle of the Gwich’in people as well as the livelihood of the entire herd is not worth any potential profits that can be gained from oil production. From another view, the drilling in ANWR is estimated to produce only about enough oil to sustain U.S. oil needs for about six to eight months. Even if the environmental damage were projected to be minimal, the impact of the recoverable oil on U.S. foreign oil dependence would be negligible.

In the interest of protecting the environment, everyone should place guidelines upon their own environmental practices. If we are to be true stewards of the environment, we must look at each decision not just solely for its potential economic rewards, but with regard to its impact on the environment and our natural resources.

Works Cited

Adams, Jacob. 1995. “Personal Statement.” http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/VirtualClassroom.asrcadams.html. (May 28, 2004).

Aguilar, Alice. 2000. “Chugach Alaska Corporation Granted Road Easement.” http://www.redzone.org/v2/alerts/roadgranted.shtml. (May 27, 2004).

Alaska Rainforest Campaign. 1997. “Private Lands Logging in Alaska.” http://forests.org/archive/america/privloga.htm. (May 28, 2004).

“ANWR’s Caribou People Stand.” http://www.thebushblade.com/monthly10.htm. (May 29, 2004).

Arctic Power. 2004. “What is ANWR and Where is the Coastal Plain?” http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/where.html. (May 28, 2004).

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. “Company Profile.” http://www.asrc.com/home/home.asp. (May 31, 2004).

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. “Lands Today.” http://www.asrc.com/lands/lands.asp?page=entry. (May 30, 2004).

Bradner, Tim. 2002. “Report Details Native Economic Impact.” Alaska Journal of Commerce. April 1. http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/040102/10c_native_eco_impact.shtml. (May 28, 2004).

Chance, Norman. 1990. “The Land Claims Settlement Act of 1971.” http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/Landclaims/ansca6.html. (May 27, 2004).

Chugach Alaska Corporation. 2001. “The Lands Department Mission Statement.” http://www.chugach-ak.com/landsmain.html. (May 29, 2004).

Drillbits and Tailings. 2003. “Vital Statistics: Alaska, Oil, Mining and the Environment.” http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/drillbits/8_02/vx\s.html. (May 31, 2004).

Eyak Preservation Council. 1998a. “Our Mission.” http://www.redzone.org/v2/about/mission.shtml. (May 27, 2004).

Eyak Preservation Council. 2003. “Preservation Update.” http://redzone.org/EPCupdate/newsletter.version2m.pdf. (May 29, 2004).

Eyak Preservation Council. 2001a. “The Bering River Coal Fields.” http://www.redzone.org/v2/pandc/coal.shtml. (May 27, 2004).

Eyak Preservation Council. 1998b. “Unpaving the Way Towards Keeping the Copper River Delta Region a Roadless Wild Place.” http://www.redzone.org/v2/educationmaps/unpave.shtml. (May 27, 2004).

Eyak Preservation Council. 2001b. “Who We Are.” http://www.redzone.org/v2/about/index/shtml. (May 27, 2004).

Pinkser, Lisa M. 2002. “Caribou Study Charges Energy Debate.” Geotimes. http://www.geotimes.org/june02/resources.html. (May 29, 2004).

Union of Concerned Scientists. 2002. “The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Is loss of pristine wilderness worth the oil that might be gained?” http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/archive/page.cfm?pageID=780. (May 31, 2004).

Top of Page