Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR):
Controversies for the 109 Congress
July 7, 2006
M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Bernard A. Gelb
Specialist in Industry Economics
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Pamela Baldwin
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR):
Controversies for the 109th Congress
One part of the energy debate is whether to approve energy development in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska, and if so, under
what conditions, or whether to continue to prohibit development to protect the area’s
biological, recreational, and subsistence values. ANWR is rich in fauna, flora, and
oil potential. Its development has been debated for over 40 years, but sharp increases
in energy prices from late 2000 to early 2001, terrorist attacks, more price increases
in 2004-2006, and energy infrastructure damage from hurricanes have intensified
debate. Few onshore U.S. areas stir as much industry interest as ANWR. At the same
time, few areas are considered more worthy of protection in the eyes of conservation
and some Native groups. Current law prohibits oil and gas leasing in the Refuge.
In the first session of the 109th Congress, development advocates added ANWR
development to the conference report for the Defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2863).
The House passed the conference report with the ANWR provision, but the ANWR
title was removed from the bill (P.L. 109-148) after failure of a cloture motion in the
In the second session, on March 16, 2006, the Senate passed S.Con.Res. 83, the
FY2007 budget resolution. Its sole reconciliation instruction was to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and it assumed revenues from leasing
in ANWR. On May 25, 2006, the House passed the American-Made Energy and
Good Jobs Act (H.R. 5429), which would open ANWR to development.
Development advocates argue that ANWR oil would reduce U.S. energy
markets’ exposure to Middle East crises; lower oil prices; extend the economic life
of the Trans Alaska Pipeline; and create jobs in Alaska and elsewhere in the United
States. They maintain that ANWR oil could be developed with minimal
environmental harm, and that the footprint of development could be limited to a total
of 2,000 acres. Opponents argue that intrusion on such a remarkable ecosystem
cannot be justified on any terms; that economically recoverable oil found (if any)
would provide little energy security and could be replaced by cost-effective
alternatives, including conservation; and that job claims are exaggerated. They
maintain that development’s footprints would have a greater impact than is implied
by a limit on total acreage. They also argue that limits on footprints have not been
worded to apply to extensive Native lands in the Refuge, which could be developed
if the Refuge were opened.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Background and Analysis...........................................1
Legislative History of the Refuge.................................2th
Actions in the 109 Congress, First Session.....................3
Actions in the 109th Congress, Second Session...................5
The Energy Resource...........................................5
Oil .....................................................5
Natural Gas..............................................6
Advanced Technologies.....................................7
The Biological Resources.......................................8
Major Legislative Issues in the 109th Congress.......................9
Environmental Direction....................................9
The Size of Footprints.....................................10
Native Lands............................................11
New Maps..............................................12
Revenue Disposition......................................12
Project Labor Agreements (PLAs)............................13
Oil Export Restrictions....................................14
NEPA Compliance........................................14
Compatibility with Refuge Purposes..........................14
Judicial Review..........................................15
Special Areas............................................15
Non-Development Options.................................15
Selected Legislation in the 109th Congress.............................16
For Additional Reading............................................18

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR):
Controversies for the 109 Congress
Most Recent Developments
On May 25, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5429 to open ANWR to development
(yeas 225, nays 201, Roll Call #209). On March 16, 2006, the Senate passed the
FY2007 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 83; yeas 51, nays 49, Roll Call #74; no
written report). Its sole reconciliation instruction (§201) directed the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources to reduce budget authority by an amount equal to
predicted revenues from ANWR development. The House budget resolution, as
passed (H.Con.Res. 376, H.Rept. 109-402), did not have any ANWR language, nor
direction for the House Resources Committee. If the Senate version is retained in the
conference report, the language would facilitate inclusion of ANWR development in
a reconciliation bill; reconciliation bills are not subject to Senate filibusters.
However, it is unclear whether agreement will be reached, and the House is
proceeding on appropriations bills in the absence of a final agreement.
Background and Analysis
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) consists of 19 million acres in
northeast Alaska. It is administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the
Department of the Interior (DOI). Its 1.5-million-acre coastal plain is viewed as one
of the most promising U.S. onshore oil and gas prospects. According to the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), the mean estimate of technically recoverable oil on the
federally-owned land in the Refuge is 7.7 billion barrels (billion bbl), and there is a
small chance that over 11.8 billion bbl could be recovered on the federal lands. The
mean estimate of economically recoverable oil (at $55/bbl in 2003 dollars) on the
federal lands id 7.14 billion bbl and there is a small chance that the federal lands
could have over 10.7 billion bbl of economically recoverable oil. That amount would
be nearly as much as the single giant field at Prudhoe Bay, found in 1967 on the
state-owned portion of the coastal plain west of ANWR, now estimated to have held
almost 14 billion bbl of economically recoverable oil.
Moreover, if Congress opens federal lands in ANWR to development, current
law would also open Native lands. In addition, nearby onshore development would
also make state lands (already legally open to development) along the coast more
economically attractive, and as a result, these state lands might also become more
attractive to industry. While only the federal lands would produce income from
bonus bids, rents, and royalties, USGS figures show that when state and Native lands
are considered, the mean estimates of economically recoverable oil rises to 9.7 billion
bbl, and there is a small chance that economically recoverable oil in the three

ownerships might total over 14.6 billion bbl. (See “Oil,” below, for further
The Refuge, especially the nearly undisturbed coastal plain, also is home to a
wide variety of plants and animals. The presence of caribou, polar bears, grizzly
bears, wolves, migratory birds, and other species in this wild area has led some to call
the area “America’s Serengeti.” Some advocates have proposed that the Refuge and
two neighboring parks in Canada become an international park, and several species
found in the area (including polar bears, caribou, migratory birds, and whales) are
protected by international treaties or agreements. The analysis below covers, first,
the economic and geological factors that have triggered interest in development, then
the philosophical, biological, and environmental quality factors that have generated
opposition to it.
The conflict between high oil potential and nearly pristine nature in the Refuge
creates a dilemma: should Congress open the area for energy development or should
the area’s ecosystem continue to be protected from development, perhaps
permanently? What factors should determine whether, or when, to open the area?
If the area is opened, to what extent can damages be avoided, minimized, or
mitigated? To what extent should Congress legislate special management to guide
the manner of development, and to what extent should federal agencies be allowed
to manage the area under existing law?
Basic information on the Refuge can be found in CRS Report RL31278, Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge: Background and Issues, by M. Lynne Corn, coordinator,
(hereafter cited as CRS Report RL31278). For legal background, see CRS Report
RL31115, Legal Issues Related to Proposed Drilling for Oil and Gas in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), by Pamela Baldwin (hereafter cited as CRS Report
RL31115). State lands on the coastal plain are shown at []. An extensive presentation of development
arguments can be found at [], sponsored by a consortium of
groups. Opponents’ arguments can be found variously at [http://www.alaskawild.
org/], [],
[], or [
cfm ? TopLevel =Hom e] .
Legislative History of the Refuge
The energy and biological resources of northern Alaska have been controversial
for decades, from legislation in the 1970s, to a 1989 oil spill, to more recent efforts
to use ANWR resources to address energy needs or to help balance the federal
budget. In November 1957, an application was filed to the withdraw lands in
northeastern Alaska to create an “Arctic National Wildlife Range” was filed. On
December 6, 1960, after statehood, the Secretary of the Interior issued Public Land
Order 2214 reserving the area as the Arctic National Wildlife Range. The potential
for oil and gas leasing was expressly preserved at that time.
In 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA,
P.L. 92-203) to resolve all Native aboriginal land claims against the United States.
ANCSA provided for monetary payments and created Village Corporations that

received the surface estate to roughly 22 million acres of lands in Alaska, including
some in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Under §22(g) of ANCSA, these lands
in Refuges were to remain subject to the laws and regulations governing use and
development of the particular Refuge. Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC, the
Native corporation in the ANWR area) received rights to three townships in the
geographic coastal plain of ANWR (and a fourth was added later). ANCSA also
created Regional Corporations which could select subsurface rights to some lands
and full title to others. Subsurface rights in Refuges were not available.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA, P.L.

96-487, 94 Stat. 2371) renamed the Range as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,

and expanded the Refuge, mostly south and west, to include another 9.2 million
acres. Section 702(3) designated much of the original Refuge as a wilderness area,
but not the coastal plain, nor the newer portions of the Refuge. Instead, Congress
postponed decisions on the development or further protection of the coastal plain.
Section 1002 directed a study of ANWR’s “coastal plain” (therefore often referred
to as the 1002 area) and its resources. The resulting 1987 report (by FWS, USGS,
and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)) was called the 1002 report or the Final
Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (FLEIS). ANILCA defined the “coastal
plain” as the lands specified on an August 1980 map — language that was later
administratively interpreted as excluding many Native lands, even though these lands
are geographically part of the coastal plain.1
Section 1003 of ANILCA prohibited oil and gas development in the entire
Refuge, or “leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from
the range” unless authorized by an act of Congress. (For more history of legislation
on ANWR and related developments, see CRS Report RL31278; for legal issues, see
CRS Report RL31115. For specific actions, including key votes, see CRS Report
RL32838, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Legislative Actions Through the 109th
Congress, First Session, by Anne Gillis, M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and
Pamela Baldwin.)
Actions in the 109th Congress, First Session. As explained below, the
ANWR debate has taken two basic routes in the 109th Congress: (a) reconciliation
bills (S. 1932 and H.R. 4241) under the budget process, which cannot be filibustered;
and (b) other bills (H.R. 6, an energy bill; H.R. 2863, Defense appropriations; and
H.R. 5429, a bill in the second session to open the Refuge to development) which can
be.2 (See “Omnibus Energy Legislation,” below.) The FY2006 Senate budget
resolution (S.Con.Res. 18) passed by the Senate Budget Committee included

1 This report will use Coastal Plain when referring to the area defined in statute, legislative
maps, or regulation. It will use coastal plain when referring to the broad area sloping north
to the Arctic Ocean from the foothills of the Brooks Range. The terms overlap but are not
2 For more on the budget process and budget enforcement, see CRS Report RS20368,
Overview of the Congressional Budget Process; and CRS Report 98-815, Budget Resolution
Enforcement, both by Bill Heniff, Jr. For ANWR and reconciliation, see CRS Report
RS22304, ANWR and FY2006 Budget Reconciliation Legislation, by Bill Heniff, Jr., and M.
Lynne Corn.

instructions to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to “report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce outlays by $33,000,000 in
FY2006, and $2,658,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.” This
resolution assumed that the committee would report legislation to open ANWR to
development, and that leasing would generate $2.5 billion in revenues for the federal
government over five years. An amendment (S.Amdt. 168) on March 16, 2005, to
remove these instructions was defeated (yeas 49, nays 51, Roll Call #52). The House
FY2006 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 109-17), while instructing the
House Resources Committee to provide somewhat smaller reductions in outlays, did
not include assumptions about ANWR revenues.
The conference agreement (H.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 109-62) approved by the
House and Senate on April 28, 2005, contained reductions in spending targets of $2.4
billion over FY2006 to FY2010 for the House Resources and Senate Energy
Committees that would be difficult to achieve unless ANWR development legislation
were passed. The inclusion of the Senate target particularly set the stage for
including ANWR development legislation in a reconciliation bill, since reconciliation
bills cannot be filibustered. (Reconciliation bills require only a simple majority,
rather than the 60 votes to stop a filibuster.)
Under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Titles I-IX of P.L. 93-344, as
amended; 2 U.S.C. §§601-688), while the target reductions of the budget resolutions
are binding on the committees, the associated assumptions are not. The Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee did choose to meet its target by
recommending ANWR legislation, and the Budget Committee incorporated the
recommendation as Title IV of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.3 The
House Resources Committee included ANWR legislation, and other spending
reductions and offsetting collections, thereby more than meeting the Committee’s
targets. These measures were incorporated by the House Budget Committee into an
omnibus reconciliation bill. However, before the House bill came to the floor,
considerable opposition to the ANWR provision developed among a number of
Republicans, 24 of whom signed a letter to the Speaker opposing its inclusion. The
provision was removed before floor consideration; S. 1932 (with the text of H.R.
4241 inserted in lieu — i.e., minus an ANWR provision) passed the House on
November 18, 2005 (yeas 217, Nays 215; Roll Call #601). ANWR was a major issue
in conference. In the end, the conference report (H.Rept. 109-362) omitted ANWR
development, and the President signed the measure on February 8, 2006 (P.L. 109-


ANWR in the Defense Appropriations Bill. As Congress moved toward
the December recess, and the chance of an agreement on reconciliation with an
ANWR provision seemed to fade, Senator Stevens (Chair of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee) added an ANWR development title to the “must-
pass” FY2006 Defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2863) during conference. Senators
opposing ANWR were forced to choose between filibuster of the popular measure

3 There was some question procedurally as to whether Senate rules would permit ANWR
legislation to be part of a reconciliation bill. See CRS Report RL30862, The Budget
Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”, by Robert Keith.

or acquiescing to opening the Refuge. Members began a filibuster, and a cloture
motion failed (yeas 56, nays 44, Roll Call #364). While the conference report was
approved, the relevant two Divisions (C and D) were removed through House and
Senate passage of S.Con.Res. 74, correcting the enrollment of the bill (P.L. 109-148).
Omnibus Energy Legislation. The House Resources Committee
considered and marked up its portion of the omnibus energy bill on April 13, 2005,
before the bill was introduced. The provisions, including an ANWR development
title, were approved by the committee and incorporated into the House version of
H.R. 6, introduced on April 18. The House passed H.R. 6 on April 21 (yeas 249,
nays 183, Roll Call #132). The Senate passed its version of H.R. 6 on June 28, 2005
(yeas 85, nays 12, Roll Call #158). The Senate’ bill contained no ANWR provisions.
The ANWR title was omitted in the final measure (P.L. 109-58).
Actions in the 109th Congress, Second Session. On May 25, 2006, the
House passed H.R. 5429, to open ANWR to development (yeas 225, nays 201, Roll
Call #209). In nearly all respects, the bill was similar to the ANWR title in the
House version of H.R. 6. (See “Major Legislative Issues,” below, for details.)
Previously, the Senate passed the FY2007 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 83;
yeas 51, nays 49, Roll Call #74; no written report) on March 16, 2006. Its sole
reconciliation instruction (§201) directs the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources to reduce budget authority by an amount equal to predicted bonus bids,
royalties, and rental revenues from ANWR development. According to press reports,
some Senators hoped that if the final budget resolution has such instructions — on
this topic alone — there would be (a) an FY2007 reconciliation bill on ANWR alone;
and (b) sufficient bipartisan support for this single-purpose reconciliation bill in the
House to counterbalance opposition of the 24 Republican Members who opposed its
inclusion in a much larger FY2006 reconciliation measure in the first session. The
FY2007 budget resolution as passed by the House on May 18, 2006, did not include
any such instruction (H.Con.Res. 376, H.Rept. 109-402; yeas 218, nays 210, Roll
Call #158). By late June 2006, no conference agreement had been reached on the
FY2007 budget resolution, and a reconciliation bill will not be expected without prior
agreement on a budget resolution.
The Energy Resource
The developed parts of Alaska’s North Slope suggest promise for ANWR’s
prospects. Oil-bearing strata extend eastward from structures in the National
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska through the Prudhoe Bay field, and may continue into and
through ANWR’s 1002 area.
Oil. Estimates of ANWR oil potential, both old and new, are based on limited
data and numerous assumptions about geology and economics. Recent interest has
centered especially on parts of the 1002 area west and north of the Marsh Creek
anticline, roughly a third of the 1002 area. (See Figure 5 in CRS Report RL31278.)
The most recent government geologic study of oil and natural gas prospects in

ANWR, completed in 1998 by the USGS,4 found an excellent chance (95%) that at
least 11.6 billion bbl of oil are present on federal lands in the 1002 area. (For
comparison, annual U.S. oil consumption from all sources is about 7.5 billion bbl.)
But the amount that would be economically recoverable depends on the price
of oil, and crude oil prices have increased substantially in the last two years, bringing
about $70/bbl in the futures market in late June 2006. In its latest economic
assessment, USGS estimated that, at $55/bbl in 2003 dollars, there is a 95% chance
that 3.9 billion bbl or more could be economically recovered and a 5% chance of 10.7
billion bbl or more on the federal lands.5 These estimates reflect new field
development practices, and cost and price changes since USGS’s 1998 assessment.
Moreover, as noted earlier, about one-third more oil may be under adjacent state
waters and Native lands.6 The state waters adjacent to the 1002 area are far from any
support system or land-based development and any oil under them is not presently
economic. If onshore development were to occur, allowing leases in state waters to
benefit from onshore transportation systems (airstrips, haul roads, pipelines, etc.) and
supply bases (gravel mines, water treatment plants, staging areas, etc.), these areas
might become more attractive to industry. In addition, a lifting of the statutory
prohibition on oil and gas development in the Refuge would not only lift the ban on
Native lands but might make smaller fields on Native lands more attractive, if they
were able to share facilities with nearby development, or if they became preferred
locations for support facilities, due to fewer restrictions on surface development.7
The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that, at a relatively fast
development rate, production would peak 15-20 years after the start of development,
with maximum daily production rates of roughly 0.015% of the resource. Production
at the slower rate would peak about 25 years after the start of development, at a daily
rate equal to about 0.0105% of the resource. Peak production associated with a
technically recoverable resource of 5.0 billion bbl at the faster development rate
would be 750,000 bbl per day, roughly 4% of current U.S. petroleum consumption
(about 20.5 million bbl per day). (For economic impacts of development, see CRS
Report RS21030, ANWR Development: Economic Impacts, by Bernard A. Gelb.)
Natural Gas. Large quantities of natural gas are also estimated to be in the
1002 area. Being able to sell this gas probably would enhance development
prospects of the 1002 area and the rest of the North Slope — oil as well as gas.
However, there currently is no way to deliver the gas to market. Higher gas prices

4 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS), The Oil and Gas Potential of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area, Alaska, USGS Open File Report 98-34
(Washington, DC: 1999). Summary and Table EA4.
5 USGS, Economics of 1998 U.S. Geological Survey’s 1002 Area Regional Assessment: An
Economic Update, Open-File Report 2005-1359 (Washington, DC: 2005).
6 According to the same USGS report, if state and Native lands are included, there is a 95%
chance that 5.4 billion bbl or more could be economically recovered and a 5% chance that

14.6 billion bbl or more could be economically recovered at this price.

7 For more detail on possible oil under Native lands and state waters, see CRS Report
RS21170, ANWR Oil: Native Lands and State Waters, by Bernard A. Gelb.

in the last few years increased interest in the construction of a pipeline to transport
natural gas from the North Slope to North American markets — directly and/or via
shipment in liquified form in tankers. The 108th Congress acted to facilitate such a
pipeline through loan guarantees (P.L. 108-324).
Advanced Technologies. As North Slope development proceeded after the
initial discovery at Prudhoe Bay, oil field operators developed less environmentally
intrusive ways to develop arctic oil, primarily through innovations in technology.
New drilling bits and fluids and advanced forms of drilling — such as extended
reach, horizontal, and “designer” wells — permit drilling to reach laterally far beyond
a drill platform, with the current record being seven miles at one site in China. (See
CRS Report RL31022, Arctic Petroleum Technology Developments, by Bernard A.
Gelb, M. Lynne Corn, and Terry R. Twyman, for more information.)
Reducing the footprints of development has been a major goal of development.
Improved ice-based transportation infrastructure can serve remote areas during the
exploratory drilling phase on insulated ice pads. However, for safety reasons, use of
ice roads and pads may be limited in the more hilly terrain of the 1002 area: on a
slope, gravel structures provide greater traction than ice structures, and have been
permitted for exploration on state lands south of Prudhoe Bay. In addition to ice
technology, industry has been experimenting with essentially modified offshore
platforms mounted on supporting legs to hold exploration rigs above the tundra.
These rigs may offer access for exploration in areas lacking sufficient water or too
hilly to permit ice technology.
At the same time, warming trends in arctic latitudes have already shortened
winter access across the tundra by 50% over the last 30 years and led to changes in
the standards for use of ice roads. If these trends continue, heavy reliance on ice
technology could be infeasible and might force greater reliance on gravel structures,
with inherently longer-lasting impacts. Rigid adherence to ice technology (instead
of gravel construction) might put some marginal fields out of reach due to the high
cost of exploration, development, or operation. Moreover, fields that begin with few
roads may expand their gravel road network as the field expands.
Because it is held as a model of modern development, the history of the Alpine
field, located along the border of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA)
west of Prudhoe Bay, is relevant. Run by ConocoPhillips, it was considered
innovative because of the short road connecting the two initial pads, and the lack of
a road connection with the remainder of North Slope development, except in winter
via ice road. However, with the approval of five additional pads, the expansion of
the field will add roughly 27.5 miles of gravel roads to the existing 3 miles of roads,
and create 1,845 acres of disturbed soils, including 316 acres of gravel mines or8
gravel structures. Approximately 150 miles of roads would be constructed if the
field is fully developed. If ANWR development follows a similar pattern, it is

8 See Figure 2.4.6-1, Alternative F, Preferred Alternative, in Alpine Satellite Development
Plan Fianl Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix 3, and p. S-8, S-19, and S-30 of
Summary. Sept. 2004. (Document available at [].)
Figures given here do not represent full development of the field over the next 20 years.

unclear whether energy development could be held to a stringent limit on road or
other gravel construction and still allow producers to have access to otherwise
economic fields.
Proponents of opening ANWR note that these technologies would mitigate the
environmental impact of petroleum operations, but not eliminate it. Opponents
maintain that facilities of any size would still be industrial sites and would change the
character of the coastal plain, in part because the sites would be spread out in the

1002 area and connected by pipelines and (probably) roads.

The Biological Resources
The FLEIS rated the Refuge’s biological resources highly: “The Arctic Refuge
is the only conservation system unit that protects, in an undisturbed condition, a
complete spectrum of the arctic ecosystems in North America” (p. 46). It also said
“The 1002 area is the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for
wildlife and is the center of wildlife activity” (p. 46). The biological value of the
1002 area rests on intense productivity in the short arctic summer; many species
arrive or awake from dormancy to take advantage of this richness, and leave or
become dormant during the remainder of the year. Caribou have long been the center
of the debate over the biological impacts of Refuge development, but other species
have also been at issue. Among the other species most frequently mentioned are
polar bears, musk oxen, and the 135 species of migratory birds that breed or feed
there. (For more information on biological resources of the 1002 area, see CRS
Report RL31278.)
An updated assessment of the array of biological resources in the coastal plain
was published in 2002 by the Biological Research Division of USGS.9 The report
analyzed new information about caribou, musk oxen, snow geese and other species
in the Arctic Refuge, and concluded that development impacts would be significant.
A follow-up memo10 on caribou by one of the assessment’s authors to the Director
of USGS clarified that if development were restricted to the western portion of the
refuge (an option that was being considered by the Administration), the Porcupine
Caribou Herd (PCH) would not be affected during the early calving period, since the
herd is not normally found in the area at that time. Any impacts that might occur
when the herd subsequently moves into the area were not discussed in the memo.
A March 2003 report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) highlighted
impacts of existing development at Prudhoe Bay on arctic ecosystems.11 Among the
harmful environmental impacts noted were changes in the migration of bowhead

9 U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain
Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries, Biological Science Report, USGS/BRD/BSR-


10 Brad Griffith. Memorandum to Director, USGS, “Evaluation of additional potential
development scenarios for the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” April 4,


11 National Research Council. Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities
on Alaska’s North Slope (March 2003). 452 p. (See [].)

whales, in distribution and reproduction of caribou, and in populations of predators
and scavengers that prey on birds. NAS noted beneficial economic and social effects
of oil development in northern Alaska and credited industry for its strides in
decreasing or mitigating environmental impacts. It also said that some social and
economic impacts have not been beneficial. The NAS report specifically avoided
determining whether any beneficial effects were outweighed by harmful effects.
FWS has recently begun a review to determine whether polar bears should be
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (71 Fed. Reg. 6745, Feb. 9,
2006). Among the information to be considered are the effects of accelerated polar
climate change on polar bears and their prey (primarily seals), threats to denning
habitat, and effects of oil and gas development. The listing of polar bears could have
a significant impact on energy development in ANWR, since the FLEIS stressed the
unusual importance of the 1002 area as a location for dens of pregnant female polar
In a larger context, many opponents of development see the central issue as
whether the area should be maintained as an intact ecosystem — off limits to
development — not whether development can be accomplished in an
environmentally sound manner. In terms that emphasize deeply held values,
supporters of wilderness designation argue that few places as untrammeled as the
1002 area remain on the planet, and fewer still on the same magnificent scale. Any
but the most transitory intrusions (e.g., visits for recreation, hunting, fishing,
subsistence use, research) would, in their view, damage the integrity and the “sense
of wonder” they see in the area. The mere knowledge that a pristine place exists,
regardless of whether one ever visits it, can be important to those who view the
debate in this light.
Major Legislative Issues in the 109th Congress
Some of the issues that have been raised most frequently in the current ANWR
debate are described briefly below. In addition to the issue of whether development
should be permitted at all, key aspects of the current debate include restrictions that
might be specified in legislation, including the physical size — or footprints — of
development; the regulation of activities on Native lands; the disposition of revenues;
labor issues; oil export restrictions; compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act; and other matters. (References below to the “Secretary” refer to the
Secretary of the Interior, unless stated otherwise.) The analysis below describes H.R.
5429 as passed by the House; the provisions of Division C of the conference report
on H.R. 2863 (the Defense bill), and §4001 of S. 1932, the Senate reconciliation bill.
Because of the lack of detail in §4001, many aspects of ANWR leasing would be left
to administrative decisions, with levels of public participation in some instances
curtailed along with judicial review, as noted below.
Environmental Direction. If Congress authorizes development, it could
address environmental matters in several ways. Congress could impose a higher
standard of environmental protection because the 1002 area is in a national wildlife
refuge or because of the fragility of the arctic environment, or it could legislate a
lower standard to facilitate development. The choice of administering agency and
the degree of discretion given to it could also affect the approaches to environmental

protection. For example, Congress could make either FWS or BLM the lead agency
(with many observers assuming that FWS management would give more support to
protecting wildlife values.. It could include provisions requiring use of “the best
available technology” or “the best commercially available technology” or some other
general standard. Congress could also limit judicial review of some or all of a
development program, including standards and implementation. Or, Congress could
leave much of the environmental direction to the Secretary.
H.R. 5429 would name BLM as the lead agency. Section 7(a) would require the
Secretary to administer the leasing program so as to “result in no significant adverse
effect on fish and wildlife, their habitat, and the environment, [and to require] the
application of the best commercially available technology....” Section 3(a)(2) would
also require that this program be done “in a manner that ensures the receipt of fair
market value by the public for the mineral resources to be leased.” It is unclear how
the two goals of environmental protection and fair market value are to relate to each
other (e.g., if environmental restrictions make some fields uneconomic). Subsections
6(a)(3) and (5) would require lessees to be responsible and liable for reclamation of
lands within the Coastal Plain (unless the Secretary approves other arrangements),
and the lands must support pre-leasing uses or a higher use approved by the
Secretary. There are requirements for mitigation, development of regulations, and
other measures to protect the environment. These include prohibitions on public
access to service roads, and other transportation restrictions. Other provisions might
also affect environmental protection. (See “Judicial Review,” below.) H.R. 2863
(§7) was similar to H.R. 5429. S. 1932 (§4001(b)(1)(B)) directed the Secretary to
establish and implement an “environmentally sound” leasing system, but did not
provide further direction.
The Size of Footprints. Newer technologies permit greater consolidation of
leasing operations, which tends to reduce the size and the environmental impacts of
development. One aspect of the debate in Congress has focused on the size of the
footprints in the development and production phases of energy leasing. The term
footprint does not have a universally accepted definition, and therefore the types of
structures falling under a “footprint restriction” are arguable (e.g., the inclusion of
exploratory structures, roads, gravel mines, port facilities, etc.).12 In addition, it is
unclear whether exploratory structures, or structures on Native lands, would be
included under any provision limiting footprints.13 The new map accompanying S.
1932 includes the Native lands in its definition of the Coastal Plain leasing area, but
how the federal leasing program will apply to those lands is not clear. See “New
Maps,” below.
Development advocates have emphasized a limit on the acreage of surface
disturbance, while opponents have emphasized the dispersal of not only the structures
themselves but also their impacts over much of the 1.5 million acres of the 1002 area.

12 See CRS Report RL32108, North Slope Infrastructure and the ANWR Debate, by M.
Lynne Corn, for more information.
13 See CRS Report RS22143, Oil and Gas Leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR): The 2,000-Acre Limit, by Pamela Baldwin and M. Lynne Corn, for discussion of
an acreage limit.

One single consolidated facility of 2,000 acres (3.1 square miles) would not permit
full development of the 1002 area. Instead, full development of the 1002 area would
require that facilities, even if limited to 2,000 acres in total surface area, be widely
dispersed. Dispersal is necessary due to the limits of lateral (or extended reach)
drilling: the current North Slope record for this technology is 4 miles. If that record
were matched on all sides of a single pad, at most about 4% of the Coastal Plain
could be developed from the single pad. Even if the current world record (7 miles)
were matched, only about 11% of the 1002 area could be accessed from a single
compact 2,000-acre facility. In addition, drilling opponents argue that energy
facilities have impacts on recreation, subsistence, vegetation, and wildlife well
beyond areas actually covered by development.
H.R. 5429 (§7(d)(9)) would provide for consolidation of leasing operations to
reduce environmental impacts of development. Section 7(a)(3) would further
require, “consistent with the provisions of section 3” (which include ensuring receipt
of fair market value for mineral resources), that the Secretary administer the leasing
program to “ensure that the maximum amount of surface acreage covered by
production and support facilities, including airstrips and any areas covered by gravel
berms or piers for the support of pipelines, does not exceed 2,000 acres on the
Coastal Plain.” The terms used are not defined in the bill and therefore the range of
structures covered by the restriction is arguable (e.g., whether roads, gravel mines,
causeways, and water treatment plants would be included under this provision). In
addition, the wording might not apply to structures built during the exploratory
phase. An essentially identical provision is in S. 1932 (§4001(f)) and H.R. 2863
(§7(a)(3)). H.R. 2863 also called for facility consolidation (§7(d)(4)) and for the
Secretary to develop a consolidation plan (§7(f)).
Native Lands. Generally, the Alaska Natives (Inuit) along the North Slope
have supported ANWR development, while the Natives of interior Alaska (Gwich’in)
have opposed it, though neither group is unanimous. ANCSA resolved aboriginal
claims against the United States by (among other things) creating Village
Corporations that could select surface lands and Regional Corporations that could
select surface and subsurface rights as well. Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC)
selected surface lands (originally approximately three townships) on the coastal plain
of ANWR, but these KIC lands were administratively excluded from being
considered as within the administratively defined “1002 Coastal Plain.” A fourth
township was added by ANILCA, and is within the defined Coastal Plain. The four
townships, totaling approximately 92,000 acres, are all within the Refuge and subject
to its regulations. The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) obtained
subsurface rights beneath the KIC lands pursuant to a 1983 land exchange agreement.
In addition, there are currently thousands of acres of conveyed or claimed individual
Native allotments in the 1002 area that are not expressly subject to its regulations.
Were oil and gas development authorized for the federal lands in the Refuge,
development would then be allowed or become feasible on the nearly 100,000 acres
of Native lands, possibly free of any acreage limitation applying to development on
the federal lands, depending on how legislation is framed. The extent to which the
Native lands could be regulated to protect the environment is uncertain, given the
status of allotments and some of the language in the 1983 Agreement with ASRC.
None of the current bills address development on the Native lands in ANWR. (See
also CRS Report RL31115, and “New Maps,” below.)

New Maps. During the 109th Congress, both the House and Senate have
created new maps of the “Coastal Plain” that will be the subject of leasing. (See CRS
Report RS22326, Legislative Maps of ANWR, by M. Lynne Corn and Pamela
Baldwin (hereafter cited as “CRS Report RL22326”).) The Coastal Plain was
defined in §1002 of ANILCA as the area indicated on an August, 1980 map. An
administrative articulation of the boundary was authorized by §103(b) of ANILCA,
and has the force of law. The 1980 map is now missing. Since the 1980 map is
missing, evaluating whether the administrative description properly excluded the
Native lands is impossible, and, as noted, the fourth Native township (selected later)
is not excluded from the Coastal Plain by that description. The legal description
required under ANILCA was completed in 1983 (48 Fed. Reg. 16858, Apr. 19, 1983;
50 C.F.R. Part 37, App. I), but questions also surround this description. (See CRS
Report RL31115.) The description excluded three Native townships from the
articulated Coastal Plain. Some bills in various Congresses also have excluded these
same Native lands by referring to the 1980 map and the administrative description.
S. 1932 (§4001(a)) provided a new map, dated September 2005, to accompany
its submission to the Budget Committee for reconciliation. This map included all
Native lands in the term Coastal Plain to which the leasing provisions would apply.
(See Figure 1 in CRS Report RS22326.) However, the bill text did not refer to the
Native lands, and the extent of federal control of Native lands intended or
accomplished by the map change is not clear. For example, the bill directed a 50/50
revenue split between the State of Alaska and the federal government, thereby
possibly giving rise to Native claims for compensation for revenues from their lands.
If this revenue provision was not intended to apply to Native lands, it is not clear
whether other provisions also might not apply. Also, some of the terms in the 1983
Agreement call for an express congressional override to negate some of its terms, and
the text of the bill did not discuss the Native lands or the Agreement. The Defense
bill also rested on a USGS map dated September 2005 (§2(4)); it is not clear whether
the map is the one referred to in the Senate bill.
H.R. 5429 does not refer to a map, but instead defines the Coastal Plain as the
area described in 50 C.F.R. Part 37, App. I (the administrative articulation of the
Coastal Plain). As discussed, this regulation currently excludes three Native
townships, but leaves the fourth within the Coastal Plain, and arguably the leasing
provisions would apply to it. The House bill raises the possibility that the defined
Coastal Plain could be expanded or reduced at some later time through rule-making
Revenue Disposition. Another issue is whether Congress may validly
provide for a disposition of revenues other than the (essentially) 90% state - 10%
federal split mentioned in the Alaska Statehood Act. A court in Alaska v. United
States (35 Fed. Cl. 685, 701 (1996)) indicated that the language in the Statehood Act
means that Alaska is to be treated like other states for federal leasing conducted
under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), which contains (basically) a 90%- 10% split.
Arguably, Congress can establish a different, non-MLA leasing regimen — for
example, the separate leasing arrangements that govern the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska, where the revenue sharing formula is 50/50 — but this issue was not
before the court and hence remains an open issue. (For more on this issue, see CRS
Report RL31115.)

Under §3(a) of H.R. 5429, the Secretary is to establish and implement a leasing
program for ANWR in accordance with the bill, and §9 states that “notwithstanding
any other provision of law,” revenues are to be shared 50/50 between the federal
government and Alaska (with some special provisions on the federal share). It can
be argued that the leasing program is not “under the MLA” and hence the different
revenue-sharing provisions are not contrary to the Alaska Statehood Act. However,
if a court struck down the revenue-sharing provision, it would then have to determine
if that provision was severable — whether Congress would have enacted the rest of
the statute without the flawed provision. H.R. 5429 does not have a “severability”
provision that states the intent of Congress in this regard. If a court both struck down
the revenue-sharing provision and found it to be severable, then Alaska could receive

90% of ANWR revenues.

Similarly, S. 1932 also did not state that leasing would be under the MLA, and
also set out many requirements that differ from those of the MLA. “Notwithstanding
any other provision of law,” it too directed that receipts from leasing and operations
“authorized under this section” be divided equally between the state of Alaska and
the federal government. Because of the change in the Senate definition of Coastal
Plain and the accompanying map, the bill might have included revenues from Native
lands in the 50/50 split. The Defense bill (Division D, §1) also provided for a 50/50
split, and contained various provisions for distribution of certain percentages of the
federal share to various purposes, including hurricane relief. In addition, §14 of
Division C of the Defense bill contained a severability provision that provided
explicitly that if any portion of either Division C or D were held to be
unconstitutional, the remainder of the two divisions would not be affected. It is not
clear to what provisions the severability language might have applied. As discussed,
some issues regarding the revenue split might remain, but those issues might rest on
contractual interpretations, rather than constitutional concerns. However, if the 50/50
revenue split were struck down, Alaska could receive 90% of the ANWR revenues
and, if so, fewer federal funds would be available for programs premised on the 50%
federal share.
Project Labor Agreements (PLAs). A recurring issue in federal and
federally funded projects is whether project owners or contractors should be required,
by agreement, to use union workers. PLAs establish the terms and conditions of
work that will apply for the particular project, and may also specify a source to
supply the craft workers. Proponents of PLAs, including construction and other
unions, argue that PLAs ensure a reliable, efficient labor source, help keep costs
down, and ensure access for union members to federal and federally funded projects.
Opponents, including nonunion firms and their supporters, believe that PLAs inflate
costs, reduce competition, and unfairly restrict access to those projects. There is little
independent information to weigh the validity of the conflicting assertions.
H.R. 5429 (§6(b)) would direct the Secretary to require lessees in the 1002 area
to “negotiate to obtain a project labor agreement” — “recognizing the Government’s
proprietary interest in labor stability and the ability of construction labor and
management to meet the particular needs and conditions of projects to be
developed....” H.R. 2863 (§6(b)) contained similar provisions, but S. 1932 had no
similar provision.

Oil Export Restrictions. Export of North Slope oil in general, and any
ANWR oil in particular, has been an issue, beginning at least with the authorization
of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) and continuing into the current ANWR
debate. The Trans Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (P.L. 93-153, 43 U.S.C.§1651
et seq.) specified that oil shipped through it could be exported, but only under
restrictive conditions. When California prices fell in the mid-1990s, causing
complaints from California and North Slope producers, Congress amended the MLA
to provide that oil transported through the pipeline may be exported unless the
President finds, after considering stated criteria, that exports are not in the national
interest (P.L. 104-58, 30 U.S.C. §185(s)). North Slope exports rose to a peak of
74,000 bbl/day in 1999, or 7% of North Slope production. These exports ceased
voluntarily in May 2000, and have since been minimal. If Congress wished to limit
export of oil from the 1002 area by applying the restriction to oil transported through
TAPS, the restriction might not be effective: oil shipment via tanker could become
practical if current warming trends in the Arctic continue and if crude oil prices
provide sufficient incentive.
Recent proposed bans on export of ANWR oil have not been tied to shipment
through TAPS. H.R. 5429 (§6(a)(8)) would prohibit any export of oil produced in
the 1002 area as a condition of a lease. S. 1932 (§4001(g)) contained a similar
provision, as did H.R. 2863 (§12). However, inasmuch as other North Slope oil is
allowed to be exported, it would appear that prohibiting the export of ANWR oil
could be moot: producers aiming to tap the export market would substitute other
North Slope oil to meet the demand.
NEPA Compliance. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA,
P.L. 91-190; 43 U.S.C. §§4321-4347) requires the preparation of an environmental
impact statement (EIS) to examine major federal actions with significant effects on
the environment, and to provide public involvement in agency decisions. The last
full EIS examining the effects of leasing development in ANWR was completed in
1987, and some observers assert that a new EIS is needed to support development
now. NEPA requires an EIS to analyze an array of alternatives, including a “no
action” alternative. Some development supporters would like to see the process
truncated, in light of past analyses and to hasten production. Development
opponents, and NEPA supporters, argue that the 19-year gap and changed
circumstances since the last analysis necessitates a thorough update, and stress the
flaws they found in the 1987 FLEIS.
Section 3(c) of H.R. 5429 would deem the 1987 FLEIS to satisfy NEPA
requirements with respect to prelease activities and the development and
promulgation of leasing regulations, and require the Secretary to prepare an EIS of
all other actions authorized by the subtitle before the first lease sale. Consideration
of alternatives would be limited to two choices, a preferred leasing action and a
“single leasing alternative.” Compliance with the subsection would be deemed to
satisfy all requirements to analyze the environmental effects of proposed leasing.
H.R. 2863 (Division C, §3(c)) was essentially identical. S. 1932 (§4001(c)) had
similar provisions, but did not expressly require an EIS for leasing.
Compatibility with Refuge Purposes. Under current law for the
management of national wildlife refuges (16 U.S.C.§668dd), and under 43 C.F.R.

§3101.5-3 for Alaskan refuges specifically, an activity may be allowed in a refuge
only if it is compatible with the purposes of the particular Refuge and with those of
the Refuge System as a whole. Section 3(c) of H.R. 5429, §3(c) of H.R. 2863, and
§4001(c) of S. 1932 state that the energy leasing program and activities in the coastal
plain are deemed to be compatible with the purposes for which ANWR was
established and that no further findings or decisions are required to implement this
determination. This language appears to eliminate the usual compatibility
determination processes. The extent of leasing “activities” that might be included as
compatible is debatable and arguably might encompass necessary support activities,
such as construction and operation of port facilities, staging areas, and personnel
Judicial Review. Leasing proponents urge that any ANWR leasing program
be put in place promptly and argue that expediting, curtailing, or prohibiting judicial
review is desirable to achieve that goal. Judicial review can be expedited through
procedural changes such as reducing the time limits within which suits must be filed,
avoiding some level of review, curtailing the scope of the review, or increasing the
burden imposed on challengers. H.R. 5429 (§8) would require that any complaints
seeking judicial review be filed within 90 days. Section 8(a)(2) provides that suits
are to be filed in the Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, as did H.R. 2863 (§8(a)).
H.R. 5429 (§8(a)(3)) would also limit the scope of review by stating that review of
a secretarial decision, including environmental analyses, would be limited to whether
the Secretary complied with the terms of the ANWR subtitle, that it would be based
on the administrative record, and that the Secretary’s analysis of environmental
effects is “presumed to be correct unless shown otherwise by clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary.” This standard is unclear, but in this context arguably could
make overturning a decision of the Secretary more difficult. S. 1932 and H.R. 2863
(§4001(c) and §8(a) respectively) were similar. S. 1932 omitted the presumption
concerning the Secretary’s analysis of environmental effects.
Special Areas. Some have supported setting aside certain areas in the Coastal
Plain for protection of their ecological or cultural values. This could be done by
designating the areas specifically in legislation, or by authorizing the Secretary to set
aside areas to be selected after enactment. The FLEIS identified four special areas
that together total more than 52,000 acres. The Secretary could be required to restrict
or prevent development in these areas or any others that may seem significant, or to
select among areas if an acreage limitation on such set-asides is imposed. H.R. 5429
(§3(e)) would allow the Secretary to set aside up to 45,000 acres (and names one
specific special area) in which leases, if permitted, would forbid surface occupancy.
Because the four special areas are larger than this total, the Secretary would be
required to select among these areas or any others that may seem significant. Section
3(f) also states that the closure authority in the ANWR title is to be the Secretary’s
sole closure authority, which might limit possible secretarial actions under the
Endangered Species Act. H.R. 2863 (§3(e)) was essentially identical. S. 1932 had
no provision for special areas.
Non-Development Options. Several options are available to Congress that
would either postpone or forbid development, unless Congress were to change the
law. These options include allowing exploration only, designating the 1002 area as
wilderness, and taking no action. Some have argued that the 1002 area should be

opened to exploration first, before a decision is made on whether to proceed to
leasing. Those with this view hold that with greater certainty about any energy
resources in the area, a better decision could be made about opening some or all of
the 1002 area for leasing. This idea has had little support over the years because
various interests see insufficient gain from such a proposal. (CRS Report RL31278
discusses the pros and cons of this approach.)
Another option is wilderness designation. Energy development is not permitted
in wilderness areas, unless there are pre-existing rights or unless Congress
specifically allows it or reverses the designation. Wilderness designation would tend
to preserve existing recreational opportunities and related jobs, as well as the existing
level of protection of subsistence resources, including the Porcupine Caribou Herd.
H.R. 567 and S. 261 would designate the 1002 area as part of the National
Wilderness System.
Under ANILCA and the 1983 Agreement, development of the surface and
subsurface holdings of Native corporations in the Refuge is precluded as long as oil
and gas development is not allowed on the federal lands in the Refuge. Because
current law prohibits development unless Congress acts, the no action option also
prevents energy development on both federal and Native lands. Those supporting
delay often argue that not enough is known about either the probability of discoveries
or about the environmental impact if development is permitted. Others argue that oil
deposits should be saved for an unspecified “right time.”
Selected Legislation in the 109th Congress
P.L. 109-58 (H.R. 6, Barton)
An omnibus energy act; Title XXII opens ANWR coastal plain to energy
development. Introduced April 18, 2005; considered and marked up by Committee
on Resources April 13, 2005 (no report). Considered by House April 20-21, 2005.
Markey/Johnson amendment (H.Amdt. 73) to strike ANWR title rejected (yeas 200,
nays 231, Roll Call #122) April 20. Passed April 21, 2005 (yeas 249, nays 183, Roll
Call #132). Passed Senate, with no ANWR development provision, June 28, 2005
(yeas 85, nays 12, Roll Call #158). Conference agreement omits ANWR title; signed
by President August 8, 2005.
P.L. 109-148 (H.R. 2863)
Provides for Defense appropriations. Conference report (H.Rept. 109-359) filed
December 18, 2005 (Division C & D provided for ANWR development and revenue
disposition). Cloture motion on filibuster on ANWR provision failed December 21,
2005 (yeas 56, nays 44, Roll Call #364). S.Con.Res. 74 corrected enrollment of the
bill to delete Divisions C and D. Passed Senate December 21, 2005 (yeas 48, nays
45, Roll Call #365). Passed House December 22, 2005 on voice vote. Signed by
President, December 30, 2005.
P.L. 109-171 (S. 1932)
Omnibus budget reconciliation; Title IV would have provided for ANWR
development. Introduced, referred to Committee on Budget, and reported October

27, 2005 (no written report). Passed Senate November 3, 2005 (yeas 52, nays 47,

Roll Call #303). Passed House (amended) November 18, 2005. (For House action,
see also H.R. 4241.) Title IV dropped in conference. House approved conference
report (H.Rept. 109-362; yeas 212, nays 206, Roll Call #670). Senate approved
report with an amendment (yeas 51, nays 50, Roll Call #363), December 21, 2005.
House agreed to Senate amendment (yeas 216, nays 214, Roll Call #4), February 1,

2006. Signed by President, February 8, 2006.

H.Con.Res. 95 (Nussle)
FY2006 budget resolution, included spending targets for Committee on
Resources. Introduced, referred to Committee on Budget, and reported March 11,
2005 (H.Rept. 109-17). Passed House March 17, 2005 (yeas 218, nays 214, Roll Call
#88). Passed (amended) Senate in lieu of S.Con.Res. 18 (no report). April 28, 2005,
House approved conference report (H.Rept. 109-62; yeas 214, nays 211, Roll Call
#149), and Senate approved conference report (yeas 52, nays 47, Roll Call #114).
H.Con.Res. 376 (Nussle)
FY2007 budget resolution, included spending targets for Committee on
Resources. Introduced, referred to Committee on Budget, and reported March 31,
2006 (H.Rept. 109-402). Passed House May 18, 2006 (yeas 218, nays 210, Roll Call
H.R. 4241 (Nussle)
FY2006 budget reconciliation. Title to open ANWR struck before floor
consideration. Introduced November 7, 2005; passed House November 18, 2005
(yeas 217, nays 215, Roll Call #601). Inserted in lieu of the text of S. 1932.
H.R. 5429 (Pombo)
Would create a leasing program to open ANWR to energy development.
Introduced May 19, 2006; referred to Committee on Resources; passed House May

25, 2006 (yeas 225, nays 201, Roll Call #209).

S.Con.Res. 18 (Gregg)
FY2006 budget resolution; includes spending targets for Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources. Introduced January 31, 2005; referred to Committee on
Budget. Reported March 10, 2005 (no written report). Cantwell amendment
(S.Amdt. 168, relating to ANWR) defeated March 16, 2005 (yeas 49, nays 51, Roll
Call #52). Passed Senate March 17, 2005 (yeas 51, nays 49, Roll Call #81). Senate
incorporated measure in H.Con.Res. 95 as an amendment; passed H.Con.Res. 95 in
S.Con.Res. 83 (Gregg)
FY2007 budget resolution; direction for cuts in mandatory spending targets only
for Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Introduced and reported by
Committee on Budget on March 10, 2006 (no written report). Passed Senate March

16, 2006 (yeas 51, nays 49, Roll Call #74).

For Additional Reading
National Academy of Sciences Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas
Activities on Alaska’s North Slope (March 2003). 452 p. (See
[ h ttp://] . )
Nellemann, C. and R. D. Cameron. Cumulative Impacts of an Evolving Oil-field
Complex on the Distribution of Calving Caribou. Canadian Jour. of Zoology.

1998. Vol. 76, p. 1425.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. Overview of the

1991 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Recoverable Petroleum Resource Update.

Washington, DC, April 8, 1991. 2 maps.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service, Geological Survey, and
Bureau of Land Management. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, Coastal
Plain Resource Assessment. Report and Recommendation to the Congress of
the United States and Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement.
Washington, DC, 1987.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Geological Survey. The Oil and Gas Resource
Potential of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area, Alaska. 1999. 2
CD set. USGS Open File Report 98-34.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Geological Survey. Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain
Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries. Biological Science Report
U.S. Department of the Interior. Geological Survey. “Evaluation of additional
potential development scenarios for the 1002 Area of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge.” Memorandum from Brad Griffith, Assistant Leader, Alaska
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, to Charles D. Groat, Director,
U.S. Geological Survey. April 4, 2002.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Geological Survey. Economics of 1998 U.S.
Geological Survey’s 1002 Area Regional Assessment: An Economic Update.
USGS Open File Report 2005-1359. Washington, DC, 2005.
U.S. General Accounting Office. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: An Assessment
of Interior’s Estimate of an Economically Viable Oil Field. Washington, DC.
July, 1993. GAO/RCED-93-130.
U.S. National Energy Policy Development Group. National Energy Policy.
Washington, DC. May, 2001.