Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New Directions in the 110th Congress







Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress



One part of the ongoing energy debate has been 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 2004-2008, 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 explicitly prohibits oil and gas leasing
in the Refuge.
Changes in party control in the 110th Congress encouraged those who seek wilderness protection
for this portion of ANWR. However, any change from the status quo appears just as difficult for
proponents of wilderness designation who seek to provide additional statutory protection as it did th
for development advocates in the 109 Congress.
As gasoline prices increased, those Members who advocate increasing supplies as a method of
lowering energy prices have renewed their focus on ANWR development as one response to the
increase. However, opponents of opening the Refuge have succeeded in stopping these attempts. th
In the first session of the 110 Congress, the House rejected a motion to recommit H.R. 3221 to
the Energy and Commerce Committee with instructions that it be reported back with language
authorizing ANWR development. In the second session, the House rejected a motion to adjust
budget levels to assume increased revenues from opening ANWR to development. Also in the
second session, the Senate rejected an amendment (S.Amdt. 4720) to S. 2284 to open ANWR to
energy 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.






Most Recent Developments.............................................................................................................1
Background and Analysis................................................................................................................1
Legislative History of the Refuge.............................................................................................2 th
Actions in the 109 Congress.............................................................................................3 th
Actions in the 110 Congress.............................................................................................3
The Energy Resource................................................................................................................3
The Current Market.............................................................................................................4
Oil ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Natural Gas.........................................................................................................................5
Advanced Technologies......................................................................................................6
The Biological Resources.........................................................................................................7 th
Major Legislative Issues in the 110 Congress.........................................................................8
Environmental Direction.....................................................................................................8
The Size of Footprints.........................................................................................................8
Native Lands.......................................................................................................................9
New Maps...........................................................................................................................9
Revenue Disposition.........................................................................................................10
Project Labor Agreements (PLAs)....................................................................................10
Oil Export Restrictions.....................................................................................................10
NEPA Compliance.............................................................................................................11
Compatibility with Refuge Purposes.................................................................................11
Judicial Review..................................................................................................................11
Special Areas......................................................................................................................11
Non-Development Options...............................................................................................12
Legislation in the 110th Congress..................................................................................................12
For Additional Reading.................................................................................................................14
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................15






On May 13, 2008, the Senate rejected the McConnell amendment (S.Amdt. 4720) to S. 2284 to
open ANWR to energy development (42-56, Roll Call #123). On May 14, 2008, the House
rejected a motion to adjust budget levels to assume increased revenues from opening ANWR to
leasing and exploration (185-229, Roll Call #321). The President’s FY2009 budget assumed
legislation to open ANWR to development, and that the recoverable oil would be between 5.7 and
16 billion barrels. It assumed that the first sale would be held in FY2009, and would generate $7
billion in new revenues, to be shared equally with the state of Alaska. Rising gasoline prices
during 2008 intensified interest in opening ANWR to development.

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 by development proponents 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 1
2003 dollars) on the federal lands is 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 estimate 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 discussion.)
The Refuge, especially the nearly undisturbed coastal plain, also is home to a wide variety of
plants and animals. The presence of caribou, threatened 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.

1 Equivalent to $62.70 in 2008 dollars.





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 any 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, coordinated by M. Lynne Corn, (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
http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/products/maps/maps.htm. An extensive presentation of
development arguments can be found at http://www.anwr.org, sponsored by a consortium of
groups. Opponents’ arguments can be found variously at http://www.alaskawild.org/,
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-a m/ washingt on/s hared_env/default-en.asp,
http://www.protectthearctic.com/, or http://www.tws.org/OurIssues/Arctic/
index.cfm?TopLevel=Home.
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 withdraw lands in northeastern Alaska to create an “Arctic National Wildlife Range.”
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 village 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 that 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) 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 2
though these lands are geographically part of the coastal plain.
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 3
act of Congress. (For more history of legislation on ANWR and related developments, see CRS
Report RL31278, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Background and Issues, by M. Lynne Corn et
al.; for legal issues, see CRS Report RL31115, Legal Issues Related to Proposed Drilling for Oil
and Gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). For specific actions, including key votes,
see CRS Report RL32838, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative thth
Actions, 95 Congress through 110 Congress, by M. Lynne Corn and Beth A. Roberts.)

The ANWR debate took 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 to open the Refuge to 4


development), which can be. These bills all provided for an expedited opening of the Refuge to
development to address national energy needs. For details of these bills, and of House and Senate
actions on them, see CRS Report RL33523, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): th
Controversies for the 109 Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela Baldwin.
In the end, Congress did not send any of these bills to the President.

As in the 109th Congress, there was an effort in the second session to assume ANWR revenues in
the budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 70), through a motion to adjust budget levels to assume
increased revenues from opening ANWR to leasing and exploration. However, on May 14, 2008,
the House rejected the motion (185-229, Roll Call #321). In the Senate, during debate on S. 2284
(a bill originally concerning flood insurance) on May 13, 2008, the Senate rejected the
McConnell amendment (S.Amdt. 4720) to open ANWR to energy development (42-56, Roll Call
#123). In addition, rising gasoline prices during 2008 intensified interest in opening ANWR to
development, and a number of bills to open the coastal plain to development have been
introduced during the second session.
The developed parts of Alaska’s North Slope suggest promise for ANWR’s energy prospects. Oil-
bearing strata extend eastward from structures in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska through

2 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 identical.
3 The requirement is statutory, and therefore cannot be overridden by an Executive Order.
4 For more on the budget process and budget enforcement, see CRS Report RS20368, Overview of the Congressional
Budget Process, by Bill Heniff Jr.; and CRS Report 98-815, Budget Resolution Enforcement, 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.





the Prudhoe Bay field, and may continue into and through ANWR’s 1002 area. Both the recent oil
price increases and changing costs affect oil prospects.
Higher oil prices may increase interest in oil development in ANWR and increase the hope of
higher oil production, particularly since higher prices might support more expensive oil recovery
techniques. In addition, the smaller fields thought to be present in the 1002 area might be more
attractive in a booming oil market, particularly if they are near any larger, more promising fields
that would be developed first. According the Energy Information Administration (EIA), “the main
impact of such approaches on the amount of oil actually recovered from ANWR is likely to occur 5
after 2030, the current time horizon for EIA analyses.” In addition, drilling costs have increased
in recent years, particularly in northern Alaska, where costs increased 564% between 2000 and

2005 to $1,880 per foot drilled, compared to a 165% increase to $294 per foot in the lower 48 6


states. EIA further states:
The basic intuition that higher crude oil prices would likely result in higher ultimate recovery
from whatever resource exists in place is sound. However, given the timing and cost
considerations outlined above, EIA does not expect the recent increase in oil prices to affect
the projected profile of ANWR development and production activities prior to 2030....
Therefore, this current analysis of projected production from ANWR through 2030 parallels
our prior recent analyses ... that have used similar or identical information on ANWR 7
resources notwithstanding the recent run-up in world crude oil prices.
Estimates of ANWR’s 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, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Background and Issues.) The
most recent government geologic study of oil and natural gas prospects in ANWR, completed in 8
1998 by the USGS, 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 7.6 billion bbl.)
But the amount that would be economically recoverable depends in part on the price of oil, and
crude oil prices have increased substantially in the last three years, bringing about $130/bbl in the
futures market in late June 2008. In its latest economic assessment, USGS estimated that, at 9
$55/bbl in 2003 dollars, there is a 95% chance that 3.9 billion bbl or more could be economically

5 P. 6 in US. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration,Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” May 2008. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/
sroiaf(2008)03.pdf. Hereafter referred to as EIA 2008.
6 P. 7 in EIA 2008, citing American Petroleum Institute.
7 EIA 2008, p. 8.
8 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.
9 $62.70 in 2008 dollars.





recovered and a 5% chance of 10.7 billion bbl or more on the federal lands.10 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 11
waters and Native lands. 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 12
support facilities, due to fewer restrictions on surface development.
EIA estimated that if development began in 2008, production would begin in about 2018, and 13
grow to a peak in about 2028. The peak would range from about 510,000 bbl/day to 1,450,000 14
bbl/day, depending on the size of the resource. If so, in 2030 ANWR production would range
from 0.4% to 1.2% of world oil consumption, and would reduce the world price of low-sulfur
crude by $0.41/barrel to $1.44/barrel in 2026. (EIA further notes that these reductions could be
neutralized by a corresponding decrease in production among other oil producers.) ANWR
production at these levels would help to hold fuel imports steady at about 51% between 2018 and
2025, by causing a corresponding reduction in crude oil imports. It would also help to spread the
costs of operating the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) over a larger number of barrels. EIA
reported that the operation of TAPS is considered uneconomic if flows fall below 200,000
bbl/day.
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 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 th
liquified form in tankers. The 108 Congress acted to facilitate such a pipeline through loan
guarantees (P.L. 108-324). (See CRS Report RL33716, Alaska Natural Gas Pipelines: Interaction
of the Natural Gas and Steel Markets, by Stephen Cooney and Robert Pirog, for more
information.)

10 USGS, Economics of 1998 U.S. Geological Survey’s 1002 Area Regional Assessment: An Economic Update, Open-
File Report 2005-1359 (Washington, DC: 2005).
11 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.
12 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.
13 This discussion is condensed from EIA 2008, p. 8-11. For economic impacts of development, see also CRS Report
RS21030, ANWR Development: Economic Impacts, by Bernard A. Gelb.
14 Current U.S. petroleum consumption is about 20.9 million bbl/day.





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 7 miles at one site in China. (See CRS Report
RL31022, Arctic Petroleum Technology Developments, by Bernard A. Gelb, M. Lynne Corn, and
Terry Rayno 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 over 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 or gravel 15
structures. Approximately 150 miles of roads would be constructed if the field is fully
developed. If ANWR development follows a similar pattern, it is 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.

15 See Figure 2.4.6-1, Alternative F, Preferred Alternative, in Alpine Satellite Development Plan Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Appendix 3, and p. S-8, S-19, and S-30 of Summary (Sept. 2004). (Document available at
http://www.blm.gov/eis/AK/alpine/.) Figures given here do not represent full development of the field over the next 20
years.





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 16
2002 by the Biological Research Division of USGS. The report analyzed new information about
caribou, musk oxen, snow geese and other species in the Arctic Refuge, and concluded that 17
development impacts would be significant. A follow-up memo 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 18
development at Prudhoe Bay on arctic ecosystems. Among the harmful environmental impacts
noted were changes in the migration of bowhead 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 recently listed polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.19 (See CRS
Report RL33941, Polar Bears: Listing Under the Endangered Species Act, by Eugene H. Buck,
M. Lynne Corn, and Kristina Alexander.) Among the information considered in listing the species
was the effect 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 bears.

16 USGS, Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries, Biological Science Report,
USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0001.
17 Brad Griffith, Memorandum to Director, USGS, “Evaluation of additional potential development scenarios for the
1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (April 4, 2002).
18 National Research Council, Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaskas North Slope
(March 2003), 452 p. (See http://www.nas.edu/.)
19 Listing: 73 Fed. Reg. 28211-28303, May 15, 2008; 50 C.F.R. § 17.11(h). Special rule: 73 Fed. Reg. 28305-28318,
May 15, 2008; 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(q).





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 expansive 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.

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 issues that
have been raised repeatedly in past legislation.
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.
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 20
structures, roads, gravel mines, port facilities, etc.). In addition, it is unclear whether exploratory
structures, or structures on Native lands, would be included under any provision limiting

20 See CRS Report RL32108, North Slope Infrastructure and the ANWR Debate, by M. Lynne Corn, for more
information.





footprints.21 The map accompanying S. 1932 in the 109th Congress (and subsequently cited in th
various other bills in the 110 Congress) 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. 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.
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 specifically address development on the Native lands in ANWR. (See also CRS
Report RL31115, and “New Maps” below.)
During the 109th Congress, both the House and Senate created new maps of the “Coastal Plain”
that would be subject to leasing. (See CRS Report RS22326, Legislative Maps of ANWR, by M.

21 For discussion of an acreage limit, 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.





Lynne Corn and Pamela Baldwin, hereafter cited as CRS Report RS22326.) 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.
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.)
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 would 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.
Export of North Slope oil in general, and any ANWR oil in particular, has been an issue,
beginning at least with the authorization of 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 internationally, but only under restrictive conditions.
When California prices fell in the mid-1990s, causing complaints from both North Slope and
California 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 to none, due to high demand domestically.
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.
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
21-year gap and changed circumstances since the last analysis necessitates a thorough update, and
stress the flaws they found in the 1987 FLEIS.
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. Many past bills have addressed this issue by stating 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 centers.
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(s) of review, curtailing the scope of the review, or
increasing the burden imposed on challengers.
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.





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 greater certainty about any energy resources in the area
would lead to a better decision 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. 39 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.”

H.R. 39 (Markey)
To designate the Coastal Plain as wilderness. Introduced Jan. 9, 2007; referred to Committee on
Natural Resources.
H.R. 2415 (Paul)
To repeal the withdrawal of the ANWR coastal plain from mining and mineral leasing acts and to
repeal prohibition in ANILCA on leasing in ANWR. Introduced May 21, 2007; referred to
Committees on Ways and Means, Natural Resources, and Financial Services.
H.R. 3089 (Thornberry)
To repeal current prohibition against development in ANWR; and for other purposes. Introduced
July 18, 2007; referred to Committees on Natural Resources, Ways and Means, and Energy and
Commerce.
H.R. 5437 (Ross)
Title III to open ANWR coastal plain to development. Introduced Feb. 14, 2008; referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Science and





Technology, Oversight and Government Reform, Armed Services, Agriculture, Natural
Resources, and Ways and Means.
H.R. 6001 (Buyer)
Title I, Subtitle B to open ANWR coastal plain to development. Introduced May 8, 2008; referred
to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and
Commerce, Ways and Means, Armed Services, and Science and Technology.
H.R. 6009 (English)
Title III, Subtitle A to open ANWR coastal plain to development. Introduced May 8, 2008;
referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Energy
and Commerce, the Judiciary, Ways and Means, and Foreign Affairs.
H.R. 6107 (Young of Alaska)
To open ANWR coastal plain to development. Introduced May 21, 2008; referred to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce
and Science and Technology.
H.R. 6165 (Whitfield)
Title III, Subtitle B to would open ANWR coastal plain to development. Introduced May 22,
2008; referred to Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Natural
Resources, Oversight and Government Reform, Armed Services, and Science and Technology.
H.R. 6207 (Akin)
Title III, Subtitle C to open ANWR coastal plain to development. Introduced June 9, 2008;
referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and
Means, Rules, and Natural Resources.
S. 2316 (Lieberman)
To designate ANWR coastal plain of ANWR as wilderness. Introduced Nov. 11, 2007; referred to
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
S. 2758 (Murkowski)
To open ANWR coastal plain to development. Introduced March 13, 2008; referred to Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 2973 (Domenici)
Title I, Subtitle B to open ANWR coastal plain to development. Introduced May 2, 2008; placed
on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, May 6, 2008.
S.Amdt. 4720 (McConnell) to S. 2284





Title I, Subtitle B to open ANWR coastal plain to development. Submitted May 7, 2008; pursuant
a unanimous consent agreement requiring 60 votes for passage, the amendment was not agreed to
(Yeas 42 - Nays 56; Roll call # 123), May 13, 2008.

CRS Report RL33941, Polar Bears: Listing Under the Endangered Species Act, by Eugene H.
Buck, M. Lynne Corn, and Kristina Alexander.
CRS Report RL33716, Alaska Natural Gas Pipelines: Interaction of the Natural Gas and Steel
Markets, by Stephen Cooney and Robert Pirog.
CRS Report RL33523, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th
Congress, by M. Lynne Corn, Bernard A. Gelb, and Pamela Baldwin.
CRS Report RS22304, ANWR and FY2006 Budget Reconciliation Legislation, by Bill Heniff Jr.
and M. Lynne Corn.
National Academy of Sciences Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on
Alaska’s North Slope (March 2003). 452 p. (See http://www.nas.edu/.)
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 Energy. Energy Information Administration. “Analysis of Crude Oil
Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” May 2008. 18 p. (See
http://www.eia .doe.gov/oiaf/servicer pt /a nwr/pdf/s roia f( 2008)03.pdf.)
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 USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0001.
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.
M. Lynne Corn Kristina Alexander
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy Legislative Attorney
lcorn@crs.loc.gov, 7-7267 kalexander@crs.loc.gov, 7-8597
Bernard A. Gelb