Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): An Overview

Summary

In the ongoing energy debate in Congress, one issue has been whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR, or the Refuge) in northeastern Alaska—and if so, under what conditions—or whether to continue prohibiting development to protect the area's biological, recreational, and subsistence values. ANWR is rich in fauna, flora, and oil and natural gas potential, but energy development is currently prohibited by law. Its development has been debated for more than 50 years, and sharp periodic increases in energy prices have intensified the debate at times. Low energy prices, such as those currently being experienced, negate the short-term incentives for developing ANWR as Alaskan production is relatively costly. According to the American Petroleum Institute, in 2009 Alaskan drilling costs were nearly 18 times more than drilling costs in the lower 48 states. This report provides a primer on this debate, which has been given new impetus in 2015 by a presidential proposal to designate the area as wilderness. If approved by Congress, this designation would reinforce the existing prohibition on energy development.

Procedurally, the status quo of no energy development in ANWR can be changed toward development or toward additional protection only by congressional action. Over the years, controversies have prevented any change in current law, either to open the Refuge to development or to give it further protection.

A number of issues have been raised. Development advocates assert that

Wilderness advocates counter that

development of oil from other sources and lower world oil prices have obviated the need for production from ANWR, which would have a negligible effect on oil prices and job creation, while irreparably damaging the environment;

• intrusion on this ecosystem cannot be justified on any terms; and
• if economically recoverable oil is found, it would provide little additional energy security.

This primer provides background for analyzing the various claims through an examination of ANWR's history and an analysis of its geological, biological, human, and economic resources.

Introduction

The promise of oil in the midst of a biologically rich Arctic ecosystem has been a centerpiece of the American energy debate for more than 35 years. The cornerstone of the debate is a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR, or the Refuge) with potentially significant oil resources as well as a wealth of species such as polar bears, caribou, musk oxen, waterfowl, and others. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages the area and must periodically update plans that guide management of the Refuge; the last plan was finalized in 1988.¹

On January 25, 2015, the Obama Administration announced a final decision on the Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (RCCP) for ANWR.² Public notice and comment on a draft plan, as well as consultation with state agencies and Native corporations, is required. The RCCP recommended that Congress designate the Coastal Plain³ of the Refuge as wilderness. The designation, if approved, would mean that there would be no commercial development, except to meet the minimum requirements for managing the area as wilderness. Under the Wilderness Act, a "recommendation of the President for designation as wilderness shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress."⁴ In the meantime, under the new RCCP, the Coastal Plain is managed as it has been—under the Minimum Management Policy (MMP), which provides for minimal human intervention.

Energy development is currently prohibited in ANWR, and the recommendation does not overturn this prohibition. However, the recommendation has sparked renewed interest by some in opening ANWR for energy development. A sharp drop in oil prices during 2014 and 2015 may affect the amount of oil that might be economically recovered if low prices persist, as well as the timing of any exploration were the Refuge to be opened by Congress. In the 114^th Congress, three bills have been introduced concerning the Coastal Plain. H.R. 239 would designate the area as wilderness; H.R. 339 and S. 494 would authorize energy exploration and development in the area.⁵

This report discusses the history of the Refuge, the basic issues in the debate over wilderness versus development, the Native interests, and the energy and biological resources at stake.

Old Geological Data, Old Prices, and New Interest

Moreover, the debate over ANWR has been relatively quiescent in recent years, with fewer congressional documents, shorter hearings, and less floor consideration. As a result, wider exploration of issues may be found in sources that are more than a few years old.

The analysis below provides the legislative history of ANWR; the economic and geological factors that have triggered interest in development; the Native interests in the area; and the biological and environmental quality factors that have been issues in past Congresses.¹³

The conflict between high oil potential and nearly pristine nature in the Refuge creates several dilemmas. 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?

The balance between oil and natural gas development and the preservation of biological resources of northern Alaska has been controversial for decades, even before Alaska became a state. In 1943, the federal government withdrew all lands on the North Slope (the land north of the crest of the Brooks Mountain Range and between Canada and the Chukchi Sea) by Public Land Order (PLO) 82 to prevent certain types of development. In November 1957, Interior Secretary Fred Seaton filed a document protecting some of those lands (plus some additional lands south of the crest of the Brooks Range) for the benefit of wildlife and migratory birds.¹⁴ Alaska was admitted to the Union in 1959. In 1960, PLO 2214 reserved the 1957 segregated area as the Arctic National Wildlife Range. The PLO withdrew the lands from "all forms of appropriation ... including mining but not the mineral leasing laws," thus leaving oil and natural gas development as a possibility.

Despite these withdrawals, not all of ANWR is owned by the federal government. The history of ANWR (and its energy development restrictions) is intertwined with congressional efforts to settle land claims of Native Alaskans. As part of those efforts, some ANWR property was transferred to Native corporations. The next section provides a short history of those transfers to help explain the restrictions on development.

In 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)¹⁵ to resolve Native claims against the United States. One purpose of ANCSA was to distribute land to Native corporations, which were created in the act. Native village corporations (for example, the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, based at the northern shore of the coastal plain of the Refuge) usually were entitled under the terms of ANCSA to select the surface estate of lands; they received the surface estate of approximately 22 million acres of land that had been held by the federal government.¹⁶ Native regional corporations (for example, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, covering the area north of the Brooks Range from the Chukchi Sea to Canada) were entitled to the selected subsurface estate, meaning they got the mineral rights. Usually the regional corporations could receive the lands beneath the village corporations in their area, but subsurface lands beneath pre-1971 refuges were not available, so other lands were substituted for them. ANCSA Section 22(g) also provided that surface lands that were conveyed within a refuge created before 1971 were subject to that refuge's regulations. The restriction on subsurface selections and Section 22(g) limit Native claims regarding oil development.

Note: Red-brown colors indicate Brooks Range.

In the 110^th Congress, there was a concurrent resolution (S.Con.Res. 70) to adjust budget levels to assume that there would be increased revenues from opening ANWR to leasing and exploration. However, on May 14, 2008, the House rejected the measure.²⁵ During debate on S. 2284 (a bill originally concerning flood insurance) on May 13, 2008, the Senate rejected S.Amdt. 4720 to open ANWR to energy development .²⁶ Rising gasoline prices during 2008 intensified interest in opening ANWR to development, and a number of bills to open the 1002 Area to development were introduced during the second session. Two bills (H.R. 39 and S. 2316) would have designated the area as wilderness. In the end, Congress did not send any bill with ANWR provisions to the President.

Although 17 bills concerning the Refuge were introduced in the 111^th Congress, no bills were reported by committees in either House or Senate.

Only one bill regarding the Arctic Refuge was reported from committee during the 112^th Congress. H.R. 3407 was reported from the House Committee on Natural Resources on February 9, 2012.²⁷ Under its provisions, the Coastal Plain (defined in Section 2) would have been opened to energy leasing (Section 3). The bill named the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior as the lead agency, which would have reduced the role of FWS as the managing authority.

Section 3(a)(2) of H.R. 3407 would have required the Secretary of the Interior 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" for energy exploration, development, and production. However, Section 3(a)(2) would have further required 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." The bill did not clarify how the two goals of environmental protection and fair market value were to relate to each other (e.g., if environmental restrictions had made some fields uneconomic). Sections 6(a)(3) and 6(a)(5) would have required lessees to be responsible and liable for reclamation of lands within the Coastal Plain (unless the Secretary approved other arrangements), and they would have required the lands to support pre-leasing uses, or a higher use approved by the Secretary. These provisions also included requirements for mitigation, stipulations regarding the development of regulations, prohibitions on public access to service roads, and other transportation restrictions. (See "Judicial Review.")

Section 8(a)(3) would have limited the surface area covered by specified facilities to 10,000 acres per 100,000 acres of leased area. If the entire 1002 Area were leased, then such facilities would have been limited to a total of 157,000 acres. (Leasing the entire 1002 Area is unlikely, however.)

Like previous development bills, H.R. 3407 would have limited the venue and scope of challenges. The bill (Section 9) would have required that any challenges be brought before the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Section 10 would have allocated 50% of revenues from bonus bids, royalties, and rents to the U.S. Treasury. Unlike most previous bills, however, H.R. 3407 would not have directed these funds to any specific purpose. The two bills (H.R. 139 and S. 33) that would have designated the area as wilderness were not reported.

In the 113^th Congress, 15 bills relating to the Arctic Refuge were introduced. There were 13 promoting development in some form and 2 promoting wilderness designation, but no bills were reported by House or Senate committees.

For some oil companies, interest in ANWR likely will decrease as oil prices decline, while other companies may maintain capital budgets for exploration and development in high cost areas. Sustained low oil prices make development of more expensive oil resources less economically feasible. Even the perception of sustained low oil prices will prompt companies to reconsider their resource development plans and capital budgets, as has been seen with current oil prices. Additionally, the smaller fields thought to be present in the 1002 Area might be less attractive if prices are low.

(January 2000 through January 2015)

Notes: Units = nominal U.S. dollars per barrel of oil. WTI is the U.S. benchmark crude oil, while Brent is the international benchmark. WTI and Brent lost their correlation between 2011 and 2014, in part, because of U.S. infrastructure constraints. As prices have fallen the correlation has been restored.

The industry has looked for ways to adapt its practices to the harsh and changing environment of the Arctic region. The cost of operating in Arctic conditions has increased beyond the higher industry costs in other parts of the United States, in part due to the remoteness of the area. Environmental concerns have prompted companies to reduce their footprint in the region, which has resulted in smaller production sites, among other changes.

The average cost of drilling and completing an onshore well in Alaska is approximately 31 times greater than drilling and completing an onshore well in the lower 48 states, according to American Petroleum Institute data.³⁹ In 2009, the average cost of drilling and completing a well to an average depth of 6,617 feet in the lower 48 states was almost $4 million, for an average cost of $595 per foot. In Alaska, the cost per well was just over $122 million to an average depth of 11,484 feet, for an average cost of $10,628 per foot or nearly 18 times as much.⁴⁰ (In 2005, Alaskan drilling costs per foot were 6.4 times higher than those in the lower 48 states.⁴¹) This cost differential highlights the difficulties and challenges of producing oil and natural gas in Arctic conditions and the need for substantial finds of oil and natural gas to cover the higher costs. The presumed dispersed nature of ANWR's oil and natural gas resources may make development a difficult financial choice.

According to EIA, "the main impact of such approaches [enhanced recovery techniques and development of smaller fields] on the amount of oil actually recovered from ANWR is likely to occur after 2030, the current time horizon for EIA analyses."⁴² EIA further states that

[t]he 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 resources notwithstanding the recent run-up in world crude oil prices.⁴³

Source: ConocoPhillips presentation, April 19, 2011.

Notes: Although the graphic shows that the down-hole operations can be up to eight miles in diameter, the normal area is still five miles in diameter according to ConocoPhillips.

Development and operating technologies have advanced over earlier decades and could reduce or mitigate some of the environmental impacts of petroleum operations, but would not eliminate such impacts. Advocates of wilderness protection 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. Instead of seeing the Alpine development (see box, "The Alpine Development Example") as an advance, they see its growing collection of footprints as indicative of the spread that would occur if the Refuge were opened for exploration and if commercial fields were developed over time.

The Native community, both between and within its villages and organizations, is significantly divided on the question of energy development in the Refuge, but some patterns can be discerned. Generally, the Alaska Natives along the North Slope (Inuit) have supported ANWR development, whereas the Natives of interior Alaska (Gwich'in) have opposed it, though neither group is unanimous. Some parts of the Native community are heavily dependent for their subsistence uses on the caribou herd that calves in the 1002 Area, and because of the lengthy migration of the caribou herds, this dependency is an important factor for them even if they live at a considerable distances from the coastal plain. Seeing energy development as a threat to the safety or success of calving season, these groups oppose drilling the Refuge. Among these opponents are most members of the Gwich'in tribe, whose members are found both south and east of the Refuge in Alaska and Canada.⁴⁶

Among the Native groups supporting ANWR development are the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) and Doyon Limited (both Native regional corporations) and the Native Village of Kaktovik (a Native organization in Kaktovik, the only town within the coastal plain of ANWR). The chief arguments cited by these groups are the increases in both North Slope employment and revenues from increased business activity. According to ASRC, "Chevron Texaco and BP currently hold leases to all of the ASRC/KIC acreage within the ANWR coastal plain."⁴⁷ In support, they note that the Central Arctic Herd of caribou has increased in the last 10 years and that this herd is found seasonally in the lands around Prudhoe Bay. (See "The Biological Resources," on caribou.)

The 1002 report, issued in 1987, 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."⁴⁸ It also stated that "[t]he 1002 area is the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife and is the center of wildlife activity."⁴⁹ 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 biological 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. Among the other species most frequently mentioned are polar bears (which were listed under the Endangered Species Act⁵⁰ ( ESA) as threatened after the publication of the 1002 report), musk oxen, and the 135 species of migratory birds that breed or feed there. In addition, the effects of energy development on marine mammals (many of which are protected under ESA and all of which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act⁵¹) could become an issue if infrastructure development onshore made offshore development more economically attractive.⁵²

Industry supporters counter that impacts on wildlife can be reduced or mitigated by various measures. Among these are (1) restricting activities at the exploration phase to the winter season, with maximum use of ice roads and ice platforms; (2) careful placement of gravel roads and platforms to minimize wetlands disturbance; (3) re-injection of wastes below the permafrost layer; (4) limiting human access to the oil field; (5) management of garbage to avoid build-up of scavenger populations; (6) reducing the footprint of development; and (7) other measures already in effect in the current oil fields.⁵⁷

(1981-2001)

In December 2010, FWS established a wide area in northern Alaska, including the 1002 Area and a considerable area offshore, as critical habitat under ESA for polar bears.⁶⁰ The designation provided a stronger role for the ESA in any federal agency activities, such as energy development, taking place in critical habitat. Under ESA, federal agencies must avoid actions that jeopardize listed species or that destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat.⁶¹ The action agency must consult with FWS (or the National Marine Fisheries Service for some species) to determine whether such jeopardy or destruction might occur. If there is such a risk, the action agency must modify the action to reduce the risk.⁶² Scientists cite research on the risk to polar bears: many female polar bears have responded to thinning or vanishing offshore ice by moving more of their dens to locations onshore, and many females that historically denned on land to the west of Prudhoe Bay have moved their dens to the east, into or nearer the Refuge.⁶³ This shift increases the importance of the Refuge's coastal plain to the polar bear population and adds to the significance of consultation under ESA in any exploration, because exploration and development are more cost-effective in the winter season—the time when denning female polar bears are likely to be present.

In addition to the basic issue of whether development should be permitted at all, key aspects of the past legislative debate have included restrictions that might be specified in legislation: limits on the 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 (NEPA);⁶⁴ and other matters. (References below to the "Secretary" refer to the Secretary of the Interior, unless stated otherwise.)

The basic and most contentious ANWR question Congress has considered has been whether to permit energy development in the 1002 Area at all. Taking no action has left current prohibitions on development in place; proposals have ranged from designating the 1002 Area as wilderness to designating it as a national monument to allowing partial or full development. The analysis below describes some of the issues that have been raised most frequently in the past legislative debate. If Congress chooses to add further protection to the 1002 Area, any development options would become moot. Therefore, protection options and issues will be considered first, followed by development options and issues.

Interest in the protection of ecosystem of the Arctic Refuge and its coastal plain has focused on protecting the array of wildlife found within its borders or using the 1002 Area of the Refuge seasonally. (See "The Biological Resources.") To date, three options have been discussed to achieve that end: (1) wilderness designation; (2) designation as a national monument; and (3) taking no action.

The strongest environmental protection for the 1002 Area would be wilderness designation by Congress.⁶⁵ As noted previously, the Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan (RCCP), approved in January 2015, recommended this protection.⁶⁶ However, the recommendation does not change current management policies. Energy development is not permitted in wilderness areas unless there are preexisting rights or unless Congress specifically allows it.⁶⁷ Wilderness designation generally prohibits commercial activities and may tend to preserve existing recreational opportunities and related jobs, as well as the existing level of protection of subsistence resources. (In the 1002 Area, this protection of subsistence resources would include the Porcupine Caribou Herd, for example.) The practical effect of the RCCP wilderness recommendation appears limited however, because it produces little, if any, change in current management policy and no change in the Alaskan National Interest Lands Conservation Act's (ANILCA's) Section 1003, which already prohibits energy exploration and development.⁶⁸ Unless Congress acts, FWS will manage the area to preserve its wilderness values:

Until Congress makes a decision regarding their designation, lands recommended for Wilderness status are managed under the Minimal Management category. If Congress were to designate recommended lands, only then would their management convert to Wilderness Management as defined in the Revised Plan.⁶⁹

The Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. §§1131-1136), directly and by cross-reference in virtually all subsequent wilderness statutes, generally prohibits commercial activities, motorized uses, and roads, structures, and facilities in units of the National Wilderness Preservation System designated by acts of Congress. Specifically, Section 4(c) states,

Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

Section 4 thus prohibits most businesses, except "for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas" (§4(d)(6)). It also effectively prohibits development of commercial resources, such as timber, although the Wilderness Act permits livestock grazing and some mineral development.

Some groups seeking to preserve the 1002 Area advocate proclaiming the area as a national monument, using the President's power under the Antiquities Act.⁷⁰ However, ANILCA's Section 1326 limits withdrawals from the public lands in Alaska to 5,000 acres unless Congress passes a joint resolution to approve the withdrawal within one year of the President's proclamation. Congress could designate the 1002 Area a national monument, a designation which does not necessarily convey the more clearly defined statutory protections provided in the Wilderness Act.⁷¹ Consequently, it is unclear how a congressional monument designation could restrict development any more than ANILCA already does. If Congress wished to protect the area, designating it as wilderness arguably would have a bigger impact.

Another option is to continue to take no action. Those supporting the compromise of delay often argue that not enough is known about either the probability of discoveries of recoverable oil or the environmental impact if development is permitted. Others argue that oil deposits should be saved for an unspecified "right time."⁷² Because current law prohibits development unless Congress acts, the no-action option also prevents energy development on both federal and Native lands because of the provisions of ANILCA and the 1983 Agreement. (See "Legislative History of the Refuge.")

Development is the other basic option. Within this option, Congress might choose simply to authorize development, or it could set specific restrictions or relaxations of other laws that would apply. Below are several of the options and issues that could be addressed in development legislation.

If Congress authorizes development, it could address environmental matters in several ways. Congress could impose a higher standard of environmental protection than is currently required 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 that agency also could affect the approaches to environmental protection. For example, Congress could make either FWS or BLM the lead agency (possibly assuming that FWS management would give more support to protecting wildlife values). It could include provisions requiring use of "the best available technology," "the best commercially available technology," or some other standard. Existing laws such as NEPA and the Endangered Species act (ESA)⁷³ already require consideration of various environmental impacts of federal actions. Congress could choose to limit judicial review under NEPA, ESA, or other laws, of some or all of a development program, including standards and implementation. Or, to facilitate development, Congress could leave much of the environmental direction to the Secretary. A number of bills in various Congresses contain language that would require the Secretary to ensure that leasing, development, and production have "no significant adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence resources, and the environment ... by requiring the application of the best commercially available technology." However, the provision would also require "the receipt of fair market value by the public for the mineral resources to be leased."⁷⁴ The language appears to subordinate environmental protection to fair market value by specifying that the Secretary's duty to the former must be carried out "in a manner that ensures" fair market value for the mineral resources.

Newer technologies permit greater consolidation of leasing operations, which tends to reduce the size and the environmental impacts of development. Since the 1980s, an area of debate in Congress has been the size of the footprints—or physical area—in the development and production phases of energy leasing. The term footprint does not have a universally accepted definition (e.g., the inclusion of exploratory structures, drilling pads, roads, gravel mines, port facilities, etc.), and therefore the types of structures falling under a footprint restriction are arguable.⁷⁵ In addition, it is unclear whether exploratory structures, or structures on Native lands, would be included under any provision limiting footprints.⁷⁶

For over a decade, development bills have proposed a 2,000-acre limit on the acreage of surface disturbance.⁷⁷ Development facilities have to be dispersed, because one single consolidated facility of 2,000 acres (3.1 square miles) would not permit full development of the 1002 Area. Dispersal is necessary due to the limits of lateral (or extended-reach) drilling. If the North Slope model of about 4 miles out from the point of origin for this technology were matched on all sides of a single pad, at most about 4% of the 1002 Area could be developed. Even if the current world record (7 miles) for lateral drilling were matched, only about 11% could be accessed. 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. However, it is important to remember that the location and dispersal of any potential oil and natural gas in ANWR remains unknown.

Although the cost of lateral drilling has declined somewhat, it remains more expensive than simpler methods. As a result, strict adherence to a 2,000-acre limit could make some marginal fields uneconomic or inaccessible. If so, a policy choice could be between not developing such fields, and expanding the allowed limit on the footprint of development. If no new technology were developed to enable economical drilling with greater extended-reach, industry would likely prefer to expand the footprint, rather than to allow otherwise economic resources to be neglected.

The structures themselves have the potential for impacts over a much larger portion of the 1002 Area. Research evidence indicates that the roads, pads, airfields, gravel mines, pipelines,⁷⁸ and other structures, plus associated human activity, may deter caribou cows from calving in areas that have been most frequently used in the past, cause avoidance by cows with very young calves, or deter other species that use the 1002 Area. ⁷⁹ Expansion beyond 2,000 acres likely would be opposed based on impacts on recreation, subsistence, vegetation, and wildlife beyond areas actually covered by development.⁸⁰

In some previous bills, the 2,000-acre limit was dropped in favor of a more expansive provision to limit surface occupancy to 10,000 acres for every 100,000 acres leased.⁸¹ A footprint restriction at this standard would allow for development of more remote areas. Moreover, if the length of the winter season, when ice-based technology is feasible, continues to decline, this provision would allow more gravel surfaces generally and could make more prospects attractive to industry.

As noted ("Chandler Lake Agreement of 1983"), if oil and natural gas development were authorized for the federal lands in the Refuge, then development also would be allowed or would become feasible on the nearly 100,000 acres of Native lands. Any acreage limitation applying to development on the federal lands might or might not affect Native lands, depending on how development legislation was framed. The extent to which the Native lands might fall under any management restrictions on the 1002 area as a whole, and therefore could be regulated to protect the environment is uncertain, given the status of allotments and some of the language in the 1983 Agreement cited above.⁸²

The coast plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an area that has been prized for decades for its biological and geological resources, and for generations by the people who have lived in it or depended on it for their livelihoods. Energy development has been prohibited since 1980, and the Obama Administration has recommended further protection through congressional designation as wilderness. Basic choices for the last 35 years have focused on the relative value of all of the resources and, if energy development were to be legislated by Congress, the degree to which the environment and Native interests would be protected and at what cost. At issue is whether relevant factors and priorities have changed in a manner sufficient to affect policy decisions and significantly to alter the debate going forward.

Author Contact Information

Acknowledgments

[author name scrubbed], former legislative attorney, and [author name scrubbed], specialist in Industry Economics (retired), contributed to an earlier version of this report.

Footnotes

Plans are required under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA, P.L. 96-487, §304(g)).

In the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) debate, the term coastal plain can have two meanings. First, it can be used in a geographic sense, to refer to the broad area extending from the northern foothills of the Brooks Range and north to the ocean, and from the Canadian border in the east to the Chukchi Sea in the west. Second, it is used by many (including authors of many bills that have been introduced in the past) to refer to the specific area in ANWR defined in statute, legislative maps, or regulation. When used in the latter sense, the term is generally capitalized: in effect, the Coastal Plain is a small, eastern portion of the coastal plain. To avoid possible confusion, this report will use the term 1002 Area when referring to the area at issue for development in legislation (See "Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act," below, for the origin of this term).

16 U.S.C. §1132(c).

Specific legislation will not be explored in detail in this report.

Multiple witnesses in multiple hearings have expressed this view, beginning with the legislative debate over ANILCA in the late 1970s; for a sample, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Establishment of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Oil and Gas Leasing Program, 104^th Cong., 1^st sess., August 2, 1995, S.Hrg. 104-333 (Washington: GPO, 2006). The part of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) that is under debate is called the 1002 area. See "Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act," below, for the origin of this term.

Technically recoverable means the quantity of oil or natural gas assessed as being in a formation that can be recovered using current technology without regard to cost and prices.

E. D. Attanasi, Economics of 1998 U.S. Geological Survey's 1002 Area Regional Assessment: An Economic Update, USGS Open-File Report 2005-1217, 2005, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1359/OF2005-1359.pdf.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, Weekly Cushing, OK WTI Spot Price FOB, accessed January 29, 2015, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=rwtc&f=w.

Economically recoverable means the portion of technically recoverable resources that could be produced at a given price and accounting for costs, including a return on capital. It is not accurate to assume that the amount of economically recoverable resources will go up in the same proportion as prices may rise (i.e., if prices double, the amount of economically recoverable resources does not necessarily double).

E. D. Attanasi, Economics of 1998 U.S. Geological Survey's 1002 Area Regional Assessment: An Economic Update, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Open-File Report 2005-1359, 2005, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1359/OF2005-1359.pdf. See "Current Market Conditions: Low Oil Prices Hinder Project Economics," below, for a discussion of price effects on oil prospects.

This characterization is widespread. For an example from the adventure tourism industry, see http://www.alaskaalpineadventures.com/alaska-destinations/anwr.

Under the regulations in effect at that time, this document (called an application) was to "segregate" the lands in question (i.e., to remove them from disposal). This fact is important because just eight months later, the Alaska Statehood Act was passed, and on January 3, 1959, Alaska was formally admitted to the Union. Submerged lands in the Refuge that might have been treated as state property under the Equal Footing Doctrine were deemed federal property instead. The Supreme Court held that the segregation of lands before statehood prevented Alaska from owning certain submerged lands (such as river beds) in the refuge upon statehood. United States vs. Alaska, 521 U.S. 1 (1997).

P.L. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688, 43 U.S.C. §§1601 et seq.

The Bureau of Land Management provides this discussion of the difference between surface and subsurface estates:

In split estate situations, the surface rights and subsurface rights (such as the rights to develop minerals) for a piece of land are owned by different parties. In these situations, mineral rights are considered the dominant estate, meaning they take precedence over other rights associated with the property, including those associated with owning the surface. However, the mineral owner must show due regard for the interests of the surface estate owner and occupy only those portions of the surface that are reasonably necessary to develop the mineral estate.

Available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/split_estate.html.

P.L. 96-487, variously codified; provisions relating directly to ANWR are found at 16 U.S.C. §§3141-3144.

U.S. Dept. 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., 1987; hereafter known as the 1002 report.

The requirement is statutory and therefore cannot be overridden by an executive order. (For more history of legislation on ANWR and related developments, see CRS Report RL31278, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Background and Issues, by [author name scrubbed] 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), by [author name scrubbed]. For specific actions, including key votes, see CRS Report RL32838, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions Since the 95th Congress, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].)

For example, see statements of Rep. Don Young, "Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001," House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 147 (August 1, 2001), p. H5160.

Agreement Between Arctic Slope Regional Corporation and the United States of America (Aug. 9, 1983). This agreement is also known as the Chandler Lake Agreement, referring to some of the property transferred as a result of the agreement. A copy is available from the authors of this report. Also see U.S. General Accounting Office (now U.S. Government Accountability Office), Federal Land Management: Chandler Lake Land Exchange Not in the Government's Best Interest, GAO/RCED-90-5. October 1989.

Contact authors for a more extensive historical review; also see CRS Report RL32838, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions Since the 95th Congress, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

For details of these bills, and of House and Senate actions on them at that time, see CRS Report RL33523, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed].

Roll Call #321, 185-229.

Roll Call #123, 42-56.

H.Rept. 112-393. Frequently mentioned controversies are discussed here. For more on this bill and how it compares with past controversies, see individual headings under "Development Options and Issues."

U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Alaska North Slope Oil and Gas: A Promising Future or an Area in Decline?, April 8, 2009, at http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Oil_and_Gas_Energy_Program/Resource_Evaluation/Reserves_Inventory/2009DOENorthstarPotential.pdf.

Emil D. Attanasi and Philip A. Freeman, Economic Analysis of the 2010 U.S. Geological Survey Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey, May 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1103/ofr2011-1103.pdf.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), "Petroleum & Other Liquids: Crude Oil Production," at http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm.

CRS Report R41683, Middle East and North Africa Unrest: Implications for Oil and Natural Gas Markets, by [author name scrubbed].

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, USGS, The Oil and Gas Potential of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area, Alaska, USGS Open File Report, 1999, Summary and Table EA4. Because ANWR is not open to "leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from the range" unless authorized by an act of Congress, new geological field research in the 1002 area has not occurred since 1987. Any studies published after 1987 are based on field data from earlier investigations, inferences from newer drill sites offshore or on adjacent lands, or improved modeling of older data. As a result, the best available information is often old.

E. D. Attanasi, Economics of 1998 U.S. Geological Survey's 1002 Area Regional Assessment: An Economic Update, USGS Open-File Report 2005-1217, 2005). See Table 4. The three figures shown here include very minor amounts of natural gas liquids, which would be produced along with any oil.

According to the 1998 USGS report, if state and Native lands are included, there is a mean estimate that 9.7 billion bbl could be economically recovered at this price, a 95% chance of 5.4 billion bbl or more, and a 5% chance of 14.6 billion bbl or more.

For more detail on possible oil under Native lands and state waters, contact author for a copy of out-of-print CRS Report RS21170, ANWR Oil: Native Lands and State Waters.

For more information, see CRS Report R40963, The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline: Background, Status, and Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed].

EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2014 with Projections to 2040, April 2011, p. MT-22, at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2014).pdf.

Ibid. Figures were based on more than 30,000 wells in the lower 48 states and about 40 Alaskan wells.

Ibid., p. 6.

Ibid., p. 8.

S. R. Bull, D. E. Bilello, J, Ekmann, M. J. Sale, and D. K. Schmalzer, 2007: Effects of climate change on energy production and distribution in the United States (Box 3.3.) in Effects of Climate Change on Energy Production and Use in the United States. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, DC.

Bureau of Land Management, Alpine Satellite Development Plan: Final Environmental Impact Statement, September 2004, Figure 2.4.6-1, http://www.blm.gov/eis/AK/alpine/dspfeisfig.html. Figures given here do not represent full development of the field over the next 20 years.

See http://www.asrc.com/Lands/Pages/Oil.aspx, viewed on Jan. 30, 2015. Many Native supporters argue that development and production practices can be carried out so as to avoid damage to the caribou that calve in the area. For a sample of Native expressions of support, see statement of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation regarding ANWR development at http://www.anwr.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=52.

1002 report, p. 46.

1002 report, p. 46.

16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544. For more information on the Endangered Species Act, see CRS Report RL31654, The Endangered Species Act: A Primer, by [author name scrubbed].

16 U.S.C. §1361ff. For more information on the Marine Mammal Protection Act, see CRS Report R41613, Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress, by [author name scrubbed].

For more information on biological resources of the 1002 area, see. The changes in the polar environment due to climate change are affecting polar ecosystems. How these changes will affect the ecosystem of the ANWR coastal plain is uncertain. For more on climate change effects on the polar environment, see CRS Report R41153, Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress, coordinated by [author name scrubbed], and discussion of "Polar Bears" in this report.

USGS, Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries, Biological Science Report: USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0001. 2002.

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).

National Research Council (NRC), Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska's North Slope, March 2003, p. 452, at http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Cumulative-Environmental-Effects/10639.

Examples of impacts include changes in cultural traditions to both inland (Gwich'in) and coastal (Inupiat) peoples, dependence on a monetary economy that would eventually require significant sources of external revenue to maintain, lack of jobs in industry, effects on subsistence hunting and whaling, health impacts, and more. See NRC report, p. 214-240.

See, for example, Fact Sheet "Strategic Energy Resources: ANWR, Alaska," American Petroleum Institute, at http://www.api.org/~/media/files/policy/exploration/energy-resources/08_04_21_strategic_energy_res_anwr.pdf.

Fish and Wildlife Service, "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions," 73 Federal Register 28211-28303, May 15, 2008; 50 C.F.R. §17.11(h); Fish and Wildlife Service, "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Special Rule for the Polar Bear; Interim Final Rule," 73 Federal Register 28305-28318, May 15, 2008; 50 C.F.R. §17.40(q). Also see CRS Report RL33941, Polar Bears: Listing Under the Endangered Species Act, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed].

50 C.F.R. 17.3.

Fish and Wildlife Service, "Designation of Critical Habitat for the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) in the United States; Final Rule," 75 Federal Register 76086, Dec. 7, 2010.

16 U.S.C. §1536.

For a more detailed discussion of consultation under ESA §7, see CRS Report RL31654, The Endangered Species Act: A Primer, by [author name scrubbed].

The proportion of dens on pack ice declined from 62% in 1985–1994 to 37% in 1998–2004. See A.S. Fischbach, S.C. Amstrup, and D.C. Douglas, "Landward and eastward shift of Alaskan polar bear denning associated with recent sea ice changes," Polar Biology, 30 (2007), pp. 1395-1405. The authors concluded that the changes in denning related to changing ice conditions.

42 U.S.C. §§4321-4347.

Only Congress can designate an area as wilderness, but as with any legislation, a later Congress could still reverse the designation and authorize development.

See out-of-print CRS Report R41649, Wilderness Laws: Statutory Provisions and Prohibited and Permitted Uses, available upon request from the author.

For more on wilderness uses, see out-of-print CRS Report R41649, Wilderness Laws: Statutory Provisions and Prohibited and Permitted Uses, available upon request from the author.

RCCP, Executive Summary, p. S-47; also see Table 1, S-25-26 for details on a range of activities that are permitted in the ANWR areas recommended for wilderness status. Section 707 of the Alaskan National Interest Lands Conservation Act also directs management of wilderness areas in accordance with the Wilderness Act.

16 U.S.C. §431. See, for example, Sierra Club Press Release of Dec. 6, 2010, "Arctic 50^th Anniversary: Make It a Monument, Citizens Say," at http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageNavigator/E-Newsletters/Pressroom.

For a description of the protection options afforded by national monument designation, see CRS Report R41330, National Monuments and the Antiquities Act, by [author name scrubbed].

Both of these arguments have been elements in bills directing a preliminary exploration program in the 1002 Area. See, for example H.R. 3601 in the 100^th Congress. As introduced, this bill contained a provision for a limited exploration program directed by DOI; the resulting data were to be used in shaping a subsequent leasing and development program. The idea appears not to have been contained in bills introduced in later congresses.

16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544.

For example, in the 114^th Congress see Section 3(a) of H.R. 339.

See CRS Report RL32108, North Slope Infrastructure and the ANWR Debate, by [author name scrubbed].

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 [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

It is unclear where the specific figure of 2,000 acres originated. It first appeared in legislation in the 107^th Congress on August 1, 2001, when the House passed the Sununu amendment to H.R. 4 to limit specified surface development of the 1002 area to a total of 2,000 acres (228-201, recorded vote #316). With small variations (e.g., see S. 352 in the 112^th Congress), it has been a common feature of ANWR development bills since that date. The language of the provision is not entirely clear on whether all surface disturbances necessary to development would be included under the restriction.

There is debate on how to count the footprint of a pipeline. To date, legislative limits on footprints have uniformly counted only the area covered by pipeline supports: S. 494 in the 114^th Congress refers to "piers for support of pipelines" in its provision limiting the footprints of development. Wilderness advocates would count, at minimum, the entire area underneath a pipeline, and usually some area beyond that, to account for disturbance to wildlife, any changes in vegetation, or any other effects.

Displacement of caribou during the calving period has been one of the most frequent issues raised in this debate, and has been documented in various studies. See, for example, C. Nellemann and R.D. Cameron, "Cumulative impacts of an evolving oil-field complex on the distribution of calving caribou," Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 76 (1998), p. 1435.

A variety of effects are commonly cited by environmental or scientific groups. A list of such effects beyond the immediate physical footprint of structures may be found at http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/anwr_fws.htm.

For example, see H.R. 3407 (Section 8(a)(3)) in the 112^th Congress.

See also CRS Report RL31115, Legal Issues Related to Proposed Drilling for Oil and Gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), by [author name scrubbed], and "Evolving Maps" below.

See CRS Report RS22326, Legislative Maps of ANWR, by [author name scrubbed].

Felicity Barringer, "Arctic Map Vanishes, and Oil Area Expands," New York Times, October 21, 2005. The cause of the map's disappearance is not known, and it is still missing. (Personal communication with FWS, March 4, 2015.)

48 Fed. Reg. 16858, Apr. 19, 1983; 50 C.F.R. Part 37, App. I.

Questions continue to surround this description. See CRS Report RL31115, Legal Issues Related to Proposed Drilling for Oil and Gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), by [author name scrubbed].

For more on the sharing of federal revenues with states, see CRS Report R41770, Leasing and Selling Federal Lands and Resources: Receipts and Their Disposition, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

Alaska v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 685, 701 (1996).

For more on this issue, see CRS Report RL31115, Legal Issues Related to Proposed Drilling for Oil and Gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), by [author name scrubbed].

P.L. 93-153; 43 U.S.C. §§1651 et seq.

Very minor amounts also went through the Panama Canal to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.

P.L. 104-58, 30 U.S.C. §185(s).

For additional information on U.S. crude oil export policy, see CRS Report R43442, U.S. Crude Oil Export Policy: Background and Considerations, by [author name scrubbed] et al.

Michael Muskal, "Alaska oil, exported for first time in a decade, heads to South Korea," Los Angeles Times, September 30, 2014, at http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-alaska-oil-export-south-korea-20140930-story.html.

Only four years after the 1002 report was issued, a court in a declaratory judgment action (NRDC v. Lujan, 768 F. Supp. 870 (D.D.C. 1991) held that DOI should have prepared a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) at the time to encompass new information about the 1002 Area in connection with the Department's recommendation that Congress legislate to permit development. With the passage of 24 additional years, it is still more likely that an SEIS or a new EIS would have to be prepared, absent specific direction to the contrary.