Lesson Plan: The Conservation Movement
Conservation vs Preservation
Lesson designer :
Rhonda Webb
School: Lassiter High School
Lesson Origin: Modified from Library of Congress Lesson –
Conservation at a Crossroads: Hetch Hetchy Controversy
Georgia Performance Standard:
SSUSH13 f:Describe the conservation movement and the development of national parks
and forests; include the role of Theodore Roosevelt
Essential Question: (Learning Question)
In what ways did the conservation movement and its leaders (Theodore
Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, and John Muir) of the early 20th century transition
from a unified movement to maintain the resources and natural treasures of
the United States into two differing philosophies of conservation and
preservation? How do those same philosophies continue to be debated today?
Materials: (include at least one primary source)
Background Information and conservation timeline
Graphic Organizer : Conservation Movement Philosophies and Leadership
Primary Documents
Common Core Historical Literacy Standards/Skills (LDC Module)
What Task?
After reading various primary sources from the early 20th century
conservation movement, students will trace the philosophical split between
the conservationists and preservationists concerning the Hetch Hetchy Valley
controversy. Students will also draw parallels between the Hetch Hetchy
conflict and the modern conflict surrounding oil drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
What Skills?
Critical Reading of Primary and Secondary Sources
Analysis of events from different time periods to discover relationships.
What Instruction?
1. Students in pairs will use close reading of the Background Information to complete the
Conservation Movement Main Idea Sheet (10 minutes)
2. Student pairs will use close reading of the primary sources from the early 20th century
conservation movement to determine the different philosophies that emerged.
(15 minutes)
3. Student will use either close reading of the PBS Newshour transcript from the Alaska
National Wildlife Refuge Oil Drilling Conflict or watch the video segment and complete
the Analysis Sheet as a formative assessment. On the Analysis Sheet, students are
asked to relate information across time periods by associating the early Conservation
Movement leaders (Roosevelt, Pinchot, and Muir) with the viewpoint from the current
Alaska oil drilling perspective to which they would most likely subscribe. (20 minutes)
What results?
In relating the early Conservation Movement leaders with the current oil drilling conflict,
students will be demonstrating through a formative assessment their understanding of the
conservation and preservation perspectives of the Conservation Movement as it continues
today. They will be supporting their analysis with evidence identified in the readings.
Technology use: Optional video segments

Ken Burns’ National Park video series (Episode 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z7_wf28UCs&feature=player_detailpage
(PBS Newshour segment on the Hetch Hetchy from 2005)

Another PBS Newshour segment --- this one is on the Arctic Drilling
http://vsx.onstreammedia.com/vsx/newshour/search/NHPlayer?assetId=86866&ccst
art=1131978&pt=0
Suggestions for differentiation/modification:
The lesson could be differentiated for students by providing guiding questions to the
primary source readings to help students determine the critical points.
Differentiation could also be achieved by working through the lesson as a whole class
exercise with primary sources being read aloud.
Extensions (advanced students):
For more in depth study, students could investigate the National Parks in Georgia and the
regulations that govern them.















Andersonville National Historic Site
Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area
Augusta Canal National Heritage Area
Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area
Chickamauga National Military Park
Cumberland Island National Seashore
Fort Frederica National Monument
Fort Pulaski National Monument
Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor
Jimmy Carter National Historic Site
Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park
Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site
Ocmulgee National Monument
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail
Depth of Knowledge level 4 (rationale)
Students will be analyzing and synthesizing information from multiple sources.
Modeling/Guided Practice/Independent Practice elements:
Students will have Guided Practice in this lesson through the completion of the analysis
with the Hetch Hetchy documents.
Students will have Independent Practice in this lesson through the analysis of the Alaska Oil
Drilling sources and their subsequent justification for linking of the specific early Conservation
Movement leaders with a specific sides of the modern controversy.
Elements of Teaching American History Grant activities incorporated into the lesson:
Sourcing: Students will need to consider the sources used in this lesson. Questions related to
possible bias and verifiable witnesses to the actual event should be considered.
Contextualization: Students will be investigating the Conservation Movement in conjunction
with President Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Policies of the early 20th century.
Close Reading; Students should use this technique as presented to them to address the attention
given to background, detail and characters involved.
Theodore Roosevelt and the Conservation Movement
Background Information
Textbook Selection From : America – A Narrative History by Tindall & Shi (pp. 983-984)
One of the most enduring legacies of the [Theodore] Roosevelt years was his energetic support for the conservation movement.
Concern for protecting the environment grew with the rising awareness that exploitation of natural resources was despoiling the
nation’s natural wonders. As early as 1872, Yellowstone National Park had been set aside as a public reserve (the National Park
Service would be created in 1916 after other parks had been added). In 1881 Congress had created a Division of Forestry in the
Department of Agriculture, and Roosevelt’s appointment of Gifford Pinchot, one of the country’s first scientific foresters, as
chief brought vigorous administration of forests on public lands. The president strove to halt the unchecked destruction of the
environment by providing a barrier of federal regulation and protection. To do so, Roosevelt added fifty federal wildlife refuges,
approved five new national parks, and initiated the system of designating national monuments such as the Grand Canyon. He
also used the Forest Reserve Act (1891) to exclude from settlement or harvest some 172 million acres of timberland. Lumber
barons were irate, but Roosevelt held firm. As he bristled, “I hate a man who would skin the land.”
Forestry chief Gifford Pinchot worked vigorously, with the president’s support, to develop programs and public interest in
conservation. Congressional resistance to their proposals led Pinchot and Roosevelt to publicize the cause through a White
House Conference on Conservation in 1908, and later that year by setting up a National Conservation Commission, which
proposed a thorough survey of the nation’s resources in minerals, water, forests, and soil. Within eighteen months, some fortyone state conservation commissions had sprung up, and a number of private groups took up the cause. The movement remained
divided, however, between those who wanted to set aside areas as wilderness preserves. Pinchot, for instance, provoked the
wrath of famous naturalist John Muir in 1906 when he endorsed a water reservoir in the wild Hetch Hetchy Valley of Yosemite
National Park to supply the needs of San Francisco.
Theodore Roosevelt and Conservation
By Sean Kaeser (Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History)
In the early twentieth century, President Theodore Roosevelt was a dynamic force in a relatively new movement known as
conservationism. During his presidency, Roosevelt made conservation a major part of his administration. As the new century
began, the frontier was disappearing. Once common animals were now threatened. Many Americans, including Roosevelt, saw a
need to preserve the nation's natural resources. He wanted to protect animals and land from businesses that he saw as a threat.
Roosevelt said, "the rights of the public to the natural resources outweigh private rights, and must be given its first
consideration." By the end of his time as president, he had created five national parks, four game refuges, fifty-one national bird
reservations as well as the National Forest Service. It could be said that Theodore Roosevelt, through laws, executive orders, and
his strong personality, opened the nation's eyes to the natural wonders of the land. Roosevelt had changed the attitude of
America. As we begin the twenty-first century, conservation is once again an issue that the United States faces.
Hetch Hetchy Timeline









1890 - Yosemite National Park established
1890 - San Francisco Mayor James Phelan first proposed damming Hetch Hetchy
to create a reservoir for San Francisco.
1903 - Mayor Phelan applied to the Interior Department for rights to Hetch
Hetchy's water -- denied
1905 - Mayor Phelan applied for water rights to Hetch Hetchy -- denied
1906 - The San Francisco Earthquake and Fire
1908 - Interior Department approved the City's request -- 86% of San Francisco
voters approve the project and $600,000 to purchase the "lands, rights, and
claims" of Hetchy Hetchy
1909 - Taft administration Secretary of the Interior Richard Ballinger suspended
the Interior Department's approval
1913 - Woodrow Wilson appointed former San Francisco City Attorney Franklin
Lane as Secretary of the Interior - - Congress passed the Raker Bill
1923 - Dam completed
BEFORE
AFTER
Conservation Movement Information Sheet Main Ideas
Using the underlined portions of the passage, determine the main ideas presented by
putting the statement in your own words.
1. “The president strove to halt the unchecked destruction of the environment by
providing a barrier of federal regulation and protection.”
2. “Lumber barons were irate, but Roosevelt held firm. As he bristled, I hate a man who
would skin the land.”
3. “The movement remained divided,” ……
(Explain using context information, the two point of views present in the conservation movement.)
Pinchot and Roosevelt’s Point of View
John Muir’s Point of View
Label the Following Quotes With the Appropriate Conservation Movement Leader.
Underline evidence within the quote that helped you identify the speaker.
Gifford Pinchot
Theodore Roosevelt
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
Preservation or Conservation?
Preservation or Conservation?
John Muir
Preservation or Conservation?
Differing Views of the Environment
A.
C.
"Conservation means development as much as it does
protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation
to develop and use the natural resources of our land but I do
not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful
use, the generations that come after us... Moreover, I
believe that the natural resources must be used for the
benefit of all our people, and not monopolized for the
benefit of the few... Of all the questions which can come
before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its
existence in a great war, there is none which compares in
importance with the great central task of leaving this land
even a better land for our descendants than it is for us, and
training them into a better race to inhabit the land and pass
it on. Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the
patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the
nation."
- Speech at Osawatomie, Kansas, on August 31, 1910
Any fool can destroy trees. They cannot run away; and if
they could, they would still be destroyed - chased and
hunted down as long as fun or a dollar could be got out of
their bark hides. Branching horns, or magnificent bole
backbones. Few that fell trees plant them; nor would
planting avail much towards getting back anything like the
noble primeval forests. It took more than three thousand
years to make some of the trees in these Western woods trees that are still standing in perfect strength and beauty,
waving and singing in the mighty forests of the Sierra.
Through all the wonderful, eventful centuries God has
cared for these trees, saved them from drought, disease,
avalanches, and a thousand straining, leveling tempests and
floods; but he cannot save them from fools - only Uncle
Sam can do that.
~ The American Forests , August 1897
B.
Taking it altogether, then, it will be seen that a
National Forest does not act like a wall built around the
public domain, which locks up its lands and resources and
stops settlement and industry. What it really does is to take
the public domain, with all its resources and most of its
laws, and make sure that the best possible use is made of
every bit of it. And more than this, it makes these vast
mountain regions a great deal more valuable, and keeps
them a great deal more valuable, simply by using them in a
careful way, with a little thought about the future.
~ From Use of National Forests p. 15
D.
In utilizing and conserving the natural resources of the
nation, the one characteristic more essential than any other
is foresight….. The conservation of our natural resources
and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem
which underlies almost every other problem of our national
life.
~ Address to the National Editorial Association
Jamestown, Virginia June 10, 1907
SO….. Define the FollowingPreservation:
Conservation:
The Hetch Hetchy Controversy
Overview (From Library of Congress)
The debate over damming the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park marked a crossroads in the American
conservation movement. Until this debate, conservationists seemed fairly united in their aims. San Francisco's need
for a reliable water supply, along with a new political dynamic at the federal level, created a division between those
committed to preserving the wilderness and those more interested in efficient management of its use. While this
confrontation happened nearly one hundred years ago, it contains many of the same arguments which are used today
whenever preservationists and conservationists mobilize.
The Debate Over Hetch Hetchy:
Gifford Pinchot Testimony to the House of Representatives:
Conservation or Preservation
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my testimony will be very short. I presume that you very seldom
have the opportunity of passing upon any measure before the Committee on the Public Lands which has been so
thoroughly thrashed out as this one. This question has been up now, I should say, more than 10 years, and the
reasons for and against the proposition have not only been discussed over and over again, but a great deal of the
objections which could be composed have been composed, until finally there remains simply the one question of the
objection of the Spring Valley Water Co. I understand that the much more important objection of the Tuolumne
irrigation districts have been overcome. There is, I understand, objection on the part of other irrigators, but that does
not go to the question of using the water, but merely to the distribution of the water. So we come now face to face
with the perfectly clean question of what is the best use to which this water that flows out of the Sierras can be put.
As we all know, there is no use of water that is higher than the domestic use. Then, if there is, as the engineers tell
us, no other source of supply that is anything like so reasonably available as this one; if this is the best, and, within
reasonable limits of cost, the only means of supplying San Francisco with water, we come straight to the question of
whether the advantage of leaving this valley in a state of nature is greater than the advantage of using it for the
benefit of the city of San Francisco.
Now, the fundamental principle of the whole conservation policy is that of use, to take every part of the land and its
resources and put it to that use in which it will best serve the most people, and I think there can be no question at all
but that in this case we have an instance in which all weighty considerations demand the passage of the bill.
John Muir Letter in Opposition to the Hetch Hetchy Dam: 1907
To the American Public:
Conservation or Preservation
The famous Hetch Hetchy Valley, next to Yosemite the most wonderful and important feature of our
Yosemite National Park, is again in danger of being destroyed. Year after year attacks have been made on this Park
under the guise of development of natural resources. At the last regular session of Congress the most determined
attack of all was made by the City of San Francisco to get possessin of the Hetch-Hetchy Valley as a reservoir site,
thus defrauding ninety millions of people for the sake of saving San Francisco dollars.
As soon as this scheme became manifest, public-spirited citzens all over the country poured a storm of
protest on Congress. Before the session was over, the Park invaders saw that they were defeated and permitted the
bill to die without bringing it to a vote, so as to be able to try again.
The bill has been re-introduced and will be urged at the coming session of Congress, which convenes in
December. Let all those who believe that our great national wonderlands should be preserved unmarred as places of
rest and recreation for the use of all the people, now enter their protests. Ask Congress to reject this destructive bill,
and also urge that the present Park laws be so amended as to put an end to all such assaults on our system of
National Parks.
Faithfully yours,
John Muir
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Oil Drilling Controversy
When looking at the development of the Conservation Movement of the early 1900s, it is clear that a division
existed between the Conservationists and the Preservationists. This lesson has explored the philosophies of both
groups and used the Hetch Hetchy Valley of Yosemite National Park as an example of how these two groups were
pitted against one another.
A current conflict exists that draws very similar arguments from Conservationists and the Preservationists. With a
strong reliance on foreign oil, the United States has been for many years seeking alternatives. While some look to
althernative energy sources such as wind and solar power, others are looking to fulfill the oil demands of Americans
through drilling within the United States. The area identified as the most promising oil production field is located
within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northern Alaska. The remote area is embroiled in significant
controversy over the use of resources within lands designated as a National Wildlife Refuge.
By watching the PBS Newshour segment from November 2, 2005 the similarities between the conflict of today and
that of the Hetch Hetchy Valley in 1913 are vividly seen.
Watch the segment or read the attached transcript.
To demonstrate your understanding of the roles Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, and John Muir played in the
Hetch Hetchy debate, you will identify with whom each would most cloesly identify in the current Arctic national
Wildlife Refuge oil drilling debate.
From PBS Newshour – Oil Drilling Segment
http://vsx.onstreammedia.com/vsx/newshour/search/NHPlayer?assetId=86866&ccstart=1131978&pt=0
Guest Eleanor Huffines---------Who would support her point of view most closely and why? Roosevelt, Pinchot, or Muir.
Is she a Conservationist or a Preservationist?
Guest Fenton Rexford----------Who would support his point of view most closely and why? Roosevelt, Pinchot, or Muir.
Is he a Conservationist or a Preservationist?
Oil Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Transcript From PBS Newshour Segment (aired Nov. 2, 2005)
GWEN IFILL: This pristine stretch of Alaska was first set aside as wilderness in 1960 by the outgoing Eisenhower
administration. The aim: "To preserve unique wildlife, wilderness and recreational values". It's known as the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. The 19 million acres lie on the edge of the Beaufort Sea in the northeast corner of Alaska.
Proposals to drill on 2,000 acres within its coastal plain have been in the works in Congress for years.
In the past, filibusters in the Senate have blocked that legislation. But now the fate of arctic drilling is tied to a Senate
budget resolution, which requires only a simple majority to pass. Senators debated that issue today.
Washington Democrat Maria Cantwell said Republicans were trying to slip the legislation through the Senate.
SEN. MARIA CANTWELL: There's no reason we should be doing this in the Budget Reconciliation Act and it really
does set a precedent for what I hope is not another attempt to drill in other parts of the United States, whether it's off
the coast of Washington, the coast of Florida, or anywhere else.
GWEN IFILL: Missouri Republican Jim Talent disagreed.
SEN. JIM TALENT: Regardless of whether you're a liberal or conservative, I don't understand what coherent
philosophy would advocate cutting your own nation off from oil within its borders.
GWEN IFILL: There's no agreement on how much oil actually exists within the coastal plain. Estimates vary from 3
billion to 16 billion barrels.
Alaska Republican Ted Stevens supports the drilling move and disputed environmental groups who call the refuge a
pristine wilderness.
SEN. TED STEVENS: This is the area in wintertime. And I defy anyone to say that that is a beautiful place that has
to be preserved for the future. It is a barren wasteland, frozen wasteland and no caribou there during that period of
time at all.
The porcupine caribou herd uses the coastal plain for only six to eight weeks. This is what it looks like in the
summertime. With one well drilled, there's a six-foot pipe sticking up, the rest of it is just constant, constant, constant
tundra, no trees, no beauty at all.
GWEN IFILL: Illinois Democrat Richard Durbin disagreed. He flew over the area while on a camping trip.
SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: And as you looked to the west you could see the state lands that had been drilled for oil
and gas, and then to the east the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that had not been drilled. It was easy to tell the two
apart because the scars that were left on that state land that had been drilled were still there years and years later.
They didn't gingerly step in and drill and leave. They cut scars across that land that will be there forever.
GWEN IFILL: Democrats are attempting to strike the drilling language from the budget bill. A vote is scheduled for
tomorrow.
So which is true? Is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge a barren wasteland or a fragile and vibrant wilderness in need
of protection?
We turn to two people who know the region well. Fenton Rexford is an Inupiat Eskimo and president of the native
village of Kaktovik, the only settlement on the coastal plain. And Eleanor Huffines is Alaska regional director for the
Wilderness Society. She lives in Anchorage, Alaska, and has traveled to the wildlife refuge many times, most recently
this summer. You both are familiar with the region.
GWEN IFILL: Mr. Rexford, you actually live there. Describe it for us.
FENTON REXFORD: Yes. There's 300 Inupiats that live there in Kaktovik and it is a -- it is a nice place for the
residents there, but we -- you know, it's tundra, there's the mountains about 70 miles south of us and it is a coastal
plain there.
GWEN IFILL: You heard what Senator Stevens just said; he said it's not beautiful at all, that there's not much there.
FENTON REXFORD: Yes. Well, in the wintertime it's -- it is a wasteland. I mean, it is, you know, barren. There's no
animals -- hardly any animals there in wintertime. So -GWEN IFILL: So you think it would be a good idea to drill there?
FENTON REXFORD: It is. The activity would happen -- occur in the wintertime where there's no animals, like the
senator said, Senator Stevens said. Right now we are looking for caribou up in the foothills or up in the mountains.
GWEN IFILL: Eleanor Huffines, you have been there. You describe it.
ELEANOR HUFFINES: I have spent quite a bit of time there, Gwen. I'm not as fortunate as Fenton to live there but
over the past 15 years I've traveled there numerous times and every time the arctic refuge surprises me: Wolves
hunting caribou, nesting swans, the light on the Arctic Ocean. It's quite an incredible natural ecosystem in motion.
And then one of the more incredible things is that people often misrepresent drilling. It does not occur just in the
winter. So during those critical summer months -- it happens all year round -- exploration, development, and
production occurs.
GWEN IFILL: So you think it would be a bad idea to extend the exploration into that area?
ELEANOR HUFFINES: We do have significant concerns both for the Gwich'in Nation as well as for the ecosystem.
People have -GWEN IFILL: Describe what you mean when you say the Gwich'in Nation; everybody doesn't know.
ELEANOR HUFFINES: The Athapaskan people from arctic villages as well as all the way farther east into Canada
are concerned about the future of the coastal plain for the Porcupine Caribou herd, which is important. I cannot speak
for the Gwich'in, but as they've communicated to me in the past, concerns for the future that of herd both for their
culture and their livelihoods.
GWEN IFILL: Mr. Rexford, why don't you respond to that?
FENTON REXFORD: Yes, I will respond to that very well. There are four caribou herds in the North Slope of
Alaska: The Western Arctic Caribou herd, the Pacific Caribou herd and then Central Arctic Caribou herd, which also
goes into 1002 and Porcupine Caribou herd that migrate.
When these caribou co-mingle together, they bring several hundred caribou along with each other. In fact, the caribou
herd that went to Kaktovik 300 miles from west of us went to 1002 area winter, they brought along the central arctic
herd as well.
GWEN IFILL: So you're saying the caribou are vibrant, there's a lot of them?
FENTON REXFORD: Yes. There's several hundred thousand caribou up on the arctic slope. So when we hear that
the Porcupine Caribou heard is when 1002 is open -GWEN IFILL: What is 1002?
FENTON REXFORD: 1002 is the area GWEN IFILL: That we're talking about.
FENTON REXFORD: That's the million and a half acres that is going to be open, and when we talk about the
central arctic herd, or the Pacific herd, they commingle with each other and they bring along, you know, several
hundred caribou that -- so you know, central arctic herd that we depend on are right there in Prudhoe Bay and they've
multiplied many, many times over, over the past several years.
GWEN IFILL: In a broad sense, and I'll start with you, Ms. Huffines, what would be lost and what would be gained if
this region were opened to exploration?
ELEANOR HUFFINES: Unfortunately, the National Academy of Sciences recently documented the cumulative
impacts of oil and gas development to this region. There's no mistaking the harm to the caribou, to the birds, to the
clean water and the clean air. And it doesn't take science to prove that to you. If you go to the oil fields, it's pipelines,
it's roads; it's gas flaring, it's industrial sprawl over a thousand square miles.
GWEN IFILL: That's the Prudhoe Bay area where it's already begun?
ELEANOR HUFFINES: That's the Prudhoe Bay area moving west, and so the harm to the wildlife and the culture is
quite clear if anyone spends time up there, and that's the unfortunate part.
GWEN IFILL: It's your wildlife and your culture, Mr. Rexford. What is to be lost or gained if this were to happen?
FENTON REXFORD: Well, I'll just let the people know, I live in Kaktovik all year round and we're very afraid when
Prudhoe Bay was first -- when oil was discovered in 1968. We were opposed to the oil and gas development. Now that
it's been over 35 years the caribou are still there and the water foul are coming back so I don't know what the fears are
of the environmental and the folks that have been saying that once 1002 is open these things will be gone, will
disappear. And we still -- we're still getting caribou.
GWEN IFILL: What do you gain if it happens?
FENTON REXFORD: Oh, there's many things that we will gain as Inupiats. We have the North Slope -- it's a county
type government that provides services from the taxing powers of its authority on the infrastructure. There will be -you know, we just recently got flush toilets and running water in the year 2000. We're in the new millennium and
these are the things that we just gained a couple years ago that you folks take for granted in the lower 48.
GWEN IFILL: But economically this would be a boom to the region?
FENTON REXFORD: Yes, economically, jobs, schools, good clinics, good, you know, modern communications. We
didn't have that just in the 1970s era.
GWEN IFILL: Ms. Huffines, you heard Senator Talent say it should be a no-brainer -- that we should be allowed to
look for oil within our borders considering the fact that there are so many shortages and prices are going up. What's
your response to that?
ELEANOR HUFFINES: Just this summer the Energy Department released new statistics on the amount of oil in
the arctic refuge and our own government found that at peak production in 20 years at best it will only reduce the
price of gas by about a penny. And our imported oil will still be above 60 percent. So it would be a shame to sacrifice
this national treasure for such little to no impact on our national security or energy supply.
GWEN IFILL: Mr. Rexford, there's much discussion about the footprint. How much room -- how much of the land
there would actually be affected by any kind of drill organize any kind of exploration -FENTON REXFORD: Yes, in 1970 when the Prudhoe Bay was discovered they used 65 acres to drill.
GWEN IFILL: And now how much?
FENTON REXFORD: They're using five acres today. So there's minimal impact. You know, the advantage in
technology I've seen. I've lived there and I've seen it. And so from 65 acres to five acres in the Alpine area is quite
substantial.
GWEN IFILL: That includes all the pipes that take you to the pipeline and everything else as well?
FENTON REXFORD: I'm not sure what it is, but it is the drilling pads.
GWEN IFILL: What do you say to that, Ms, Huffines -ELEANOR HUFFINES: I've actually had the opportunity to visit Alpine. Alpine, which is the newest oil field on
Alaska's North Slope; when it was first proposed it was promised to be 115 acres. Today the proposal has been
expanded and we're looking at 133 miles of projected roads, permanent gravel roads, pipelines and into important
subsistence buffer zones that were promised to be kept clear of permanent facilities. So the industrial sprawl is simply
moving west despite the promises of new technology.
GWEN IFILL: But if this is supposed to be only drilling in the winter and ice roads, which melt away come spring,
what kind of footprint will it leave?
ELEANOR HUFFINES: There is not one oil field in Alaska's North Slope that does not have permanent gravel
roads, including Alpine. The ice roads are sometimes used for exploration but recently the government is allowing
permanent gravel roads as well. There is some improved technology but doesn't erase the roads that already exist and
are needed.
GWEN IFILL: I want to talk to you a little bit Mr. Rexford, since you live there, about quality of life -- hunting,
whaling, the traditions that you have in the area which you live as well as what you expect for the future, whether this
might lead to offshore drilling. What is your sense when you hear these arguments?
FENTON REXFORD: The arguments -- all of us in the North Slope -- I say all of us, there are many residents that
live on the North Slope -- and there are eight villages. We are all opposed to offshore drilling.
GWEN IFILL: So you don't think that's going to happen as a result of this?
FENTON REXFORD: That's not going to happen because of this. They have already sold leases and this does not tie
directly into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge debate.
GWEN IFILL: Quality of life for you?
FENTON REXFORD: Quality of life has been very well for us. Past 1970 I graduated from high school in Oregon.
Now in 1980, our first graduate of high school happened in a community school. I do not want to send my daughter
who is 15 or 14 years old to Oregon or Oklahoma now. The quality of life K-12 are at home and, again, I just
mentioned a little a while ago, in the year 2000 we have running water and flush toilets and here we are in the new
millennium. We were just finally able to flush and have running water.
GWEN IFILL: Okay. Well, we will see what the Senate and the House do. Thank you both very much for
enlightening us.
ELEANOR HUFFINES: Thank you.
FENTON REXFORD: Thank you very much, Gwen. I appreciate it.