Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Photos courtesy of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Contents: History | Energy | Wildlife | Impacts | Gwich'in More information on ANWR: Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy On The Cantwell Amendment  Protecting The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge From Oil Exploration March 16, 2005 Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (March 19, 2003) Press Release Official USFWS ANWR Site

Vermonters' love of nature does not stop at our borders. We value strong environmental protection around the country and around the world. We love our national parks, monuments, forests, and wildlife refuges, regardless of where they are located. One such place is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), thousands of miles from Vermont in northeast Alaska. This vast, remote refuge, with its wide range of arctic ecosystems, is home to such a diverse array of wildlife that it is often called the "American Serengeti." At three times the size of Vermont, it is the largest untouched wildlife refuge in the United States. Some members of Congress and the Administration would open a part of this refuge - the 1002 area - to oil development. Such short-sighted action would produce only small benefits to the United States, at the cost of irreparable harm to one of our last great wilderness areas. In response, I have cosponsored a bill (S 411) which would designate this part of ANWR as wilderness and close it to development. I will continue to fight against those who would despoil this national treasure.

History of ANWR

In 1960 President Eisenhower established the 8.9 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Range, in order to protect its "unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values." In 1980 Congress and President Carter expanded the Range and renamed it the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Further additions enlarged the Refuge to 19.5 million acres. Congress permanently protected most of the Refuge but set aside 1.5 million acres in the coastal 1002 area for oil exploration and potential development, subject to further Congressional approval. Several subsequent efforts to open the 1002 area for development failed in Congress, one after the Exxon Valdez disaster and one by presidential veto. The 1002 area is the last 5% of Alaska's northern coastal plain that is not open to oil and gas development.

ANWR and American Energy Resources

Proponents of oil development in the 1002 area of ANWR have made expansive claims in arguing their case. They claim that huge amounts of oil from ANWR would greatly reduce our nation's dependence on imported oil, reduce the price of gasoline and home heating oil for consumers, and rescue California's troubled electric utilities. Some say it is the best way to solve our current "energy crisis." However, the facts do not support these assertions. Consider the following:

• Recent assessments indicate that the 1002 area of ANWR probably holds roughly 3.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil (at ~$22/barrel) (USGS, 1998). By contrast, the United States uses more than 19 million barrels per day (DOE, 2000a), which is about 7 billion barrels per year. Spread over many years of production, ANWR oil would not significantly increase available oil resources, nor would it greatly reduce the need for imported oil.

• Oil production from ANWR would not begin until 7-12 years after Congressional approval (DOE, 2000b), so it would have no effect on current supplies and prices of oil and gasoline.

• The price of oil is determined by the global market. The U.S. produces 9% of the world's oil (DOE, 1999) and holds less than 3% of the world's oil reserves (DOE, 2000c). A small increase in domestic production would not significantly affect the price of oil on the global market, nor would it decrease the price of gasoline or heating oil in the U.S.

• Alaskan oil does not make its way to the Northeast United States. Instead, it is mostly transported to the West Coast or exported to Asia (GAO, 1999). ANWR oil would have no effect on the supply and price of home heating oil in Northeast states like Vermont.

• California generates less than 1% of its electricity from oil (DOE, 2000d). The corresponding number for the Unites States is only 3% (DOE, 2000a). ANWR oil would have no effect on California's ongoing electricity crisis, nor would it significantly affect electricity supplies elsewhere in the U.S.

• The United States uses roughly two-thirds of its petroleum for transportation, primarily in motor vehicles (DOE, 2000a). In the long term, a modest increase in vehicle fuel efficiency could save far more oil than ANWR could ever produce (NRDC, 2001).

ANWR and Wildlife

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is exactly what its name implies: a safe haven for a spectacular variety of wildlife. It is home to numerous large animal species and more than 160 bird species. Some have tried to portray the coastal 1002 area as a barren wasteland. In reality, it is a rich ecosystem that is the "most biologically productive part" of ANWR and is the "center of wildlife activity" (DOI, 1987). Consider some examples:

• The Porcupine caribou herd spends many of its summers on the coastal plain, primarily in the 1002 area of ANWR. Each year, these 129,000 caribou migrate more than 700 miles from their winter range far to the south, drawn to their traditional calving grounds on the coastal plain. Many of the smaller Central Arctic herd also calve on the coastal plain. They depend on this area for abundant forage, fewer predators, and insect relief, and their annual visit is an important part of their life cycle (FWS, 2000). Calving caribou are sensitive to human activity, which can displace them from their traditional calving grounds (FWS, 2000)

• While polar bears spend most of their time on ice floes, female polar bears often come ashore to bear their cubs. Many do so in the 1002 area of ANWR (FWS, 2000). In fact, the 1002 area is "the most important land denning area for the Beaufort Sea polar bear population" (FWS, 1995). Denning polar bears are very sensitive to the presence of humans. Brown bears also den in the 1002 area and are similarly sensitive to human activity.

• About 350 muskoxen live in ANWR. These holdovers from the last Ice Age live year-round on the coastal plain, having been reintroduced in 1969 after their extermination by hunters in the 1800's. The need to conserve energy in winter reduces their mobility and slows their reproductive rate, making them sensitive to changes in their environment.

• For at least part of the year, the coastal plain of ANWR is also home to such diverse species as wolves, moose, wolverines, snow geese, tundra swans, and peregrine falcons.

Impacts of Oil Development

Oil exploration and development is a messy business. Even when conducted in an "environmentally sensitive" fashion, it leaves its mark on the land through infrastructure, pollution, and disturbed ecosystems. There is abundant evidence of this at the oil drilling sites around Prudhoe Bay, and there is every reason to expect it would be true of the 1002 area of ANWR. A report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service predicted "major environmental impacts from oil and gas development on the coastal plain" (FWS, 1995). Such impacts might last for decades, because Arctic habitats are slow to recover from damage. Consider some examples:

• Oil development requires extensive infrastructure: drilling platforms, roads, power stations, pipelines, and processing, maintenance, and storage facilities. This sort of infrastructure has spread like a web over the Prudhoe Bay area, seriously degrading hundreds of square miles of arctic habitat. (See AWL's photo tour.) Similar infrastructure would be required in ANWR. Because the ANWR oil deposits are predicted to be more dispersed than the Prudhoe Bay deposits, these facilities would spread over vast distances, interrupting wide tracts of habitat.

• Drilling and transporting oil inevitably involves some spillage. There are hundreds of oil spills per year in the Prudhoe Bay area, plus numerous toxic and non-toxic chemical spills. Processing facilities and power stations produce air pollution, and the entire system produces tons of garbage and abandoned equipment. Spills and pollution would scar ANWR just as badly.

• Building roads and oil well pads in ANWR would require immense amounts of gravel, which would be mined from stream beds and elsewhere, permanently altering hydrology and fragile ecosystems.

• Building ice roads, drilling, and domestic use would require millions of gallons of water, which would be drawn from the area's sparse lakes and rivers, degrading water quality and critical fish habitat. Ice roads alone require about one million gallons per mile.

• Infrastructure, physical changes to the land, pollution, noise, and the presence of humans would be certain to push wildlife away from affected areas. The Porcupine caribou herd would be displaced from its safe calving grounds, polar bears would be displaced from their denning areas, and muskoxen would be displaced from their streams and winter forage. Habitat destruction would impact countless species of mammals, birds, and fish.

ANWR and Indigenous People

While oil development in ANWR would provide valuable revenue for some Native Americans, such as the Inupiat, it would have potentially disastrous impacts on other Native Americans, in particular the members of the Gwich'in Nation who live near ANWR. As they have for thousands of years, the Gwich'in depend on the Porcupine caribou herd for food, clothing, and tools. The caribou are central to their spiritual life. Oil development in the 1002 area of ANWR, the calving grounds of the Porcupine herd, would likely reduce the size of the herd and alter its annual migration patterns. This would, in turn, threaten the very survival of the Gwich'in culture.

In summary