	Introduction

Congress is currently considering whether to permit drilling for oil and gas in the coastalplain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), to designate the area as wilderness, or toretain the status quo of maintaining the Refuge without drilling. On April 28, 2005, both theHouse and Senate agreed to H.Con.Res. 95 , a budget resolution that may necessitateoil and gas drilling in the Refuge to meet the budget reconciliation targets, and could permitlegislation on such drilling to be enacted on a simple majority vote, without the possibility of afilibuster. 6, that would impose a 2,000 acre limit on the surface of the Coastal Plain thatcan be covered with support structures associated with oil and gas development. However, this limitmay not apply to some or all of the more than 100,000 acres of Native lands in the Refuge. This report will be updated as circumstances warrant. Issues

		I. Some of the most critical elements in an analysis of environmental provisions of any billsare: 1) the agency that would administer the leasing program; 2) the compatibility of leasing withthe purposes of the Refuge; 3) the standard for environmental protection and how might it functionin practice; 4) the level of industrial technology required; 5) the protections that would be statutorilyprovided with respect to the wildlife resources of the Refuge; 6) compliance with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act; 7) the 2,000 acre "footprint" limitation; and 8) the extent to whichadministrative decisions and actions implementing a leasing program would be judicially reviewable. 6 states in Â§ 2203(a) that leasing is to be under the Mineral Leasing Act(MLA) (24) andadministered by the Secretary of the Interior acting through the Director of the Bureau of LandManagement (BLM). Environmental Standard. (In practice this has been interpretedas addressing only significant adverse effects.) H.R. Special Areas. Exploration. H.R. Under a 1983 Agreement,separate environmental controls would apply to Native oil exploration activities, unless the termsof the Agreement are superseded by statute or regulations. The committee report accompanying this act states that one purpose of the act is to "ratifycertain land exchanges and other agreements ...." (54) It also states that lands received by ASRC are to be regarded asthough they had been obtained by an ANCSA exchange:
Subsection (d) provides that all lands or intereststherein conveyed to the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation pursuant to this section or the RegionalCorporation's 1984 agreement and pursuant to the August 9, 1983 Agreement Between the ArcticSlope Regional Corporation and the United States are to be deemed conveyed and received pursuantto exchanges under section 22(f) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as amended, inaddition to other applicable authority. Current Bill Provisions and Issues. In considering this question, the various Native property interests must be consideredseparately: 1) the interests of KIC in the surface estate of lands, within the coastal plain and theRefuge as a whole; 2) the interests of ASRC in the subsurface (and related use of the surface), withinthe coastal plain and the Refuge; and 3) individual allotments in the coastal plain and Refuge. 7. the covenant that ASRC "shall not use those lands,or the surface of those lands, in any manner that significantly adversely affects the fish and wildlife,their habitats, or the environment of those lands or Arctic National Wildlife Refuge lands...."
Therefore, it appears that as a general matter, the environmental constraints of any billsapplicable to the coastal plain arguably would apply to development of all ASRC lands, both withinthe coastal plain and outside it. H.R. 6 . 6 would repeal the Â§ 1003 prohibition against oil and gas development in the Refuge, therebyallowing such development, but would not place any time limitations on activities on Native landsleading to development or production, even though leasing regulations for the federal lands are notto be finalized for 15 months. The rights of way language in H.R. H.R. H.R. If so, then the oil normally could be exported. Another issue that has arisen during debates over leasing in the ANWR is that of dispositionof possible revenues -- whether Congress may validly provide for a disposition of revenues otherthan the 90/10 percent split mentioned in the Alaska Statehood Act.
Congress is again considering whether to permit drilling for oil and gas in the coastal plainof the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Alaska, to designate the area as wilderness, or toretain the status quo of maintaining the area as a Refuge without drilling. This area is rich in wildlifeand wilderness values, but may also contain significant oil and gas deposits. H.R. 567 and S. 261 have been introduced in the 109th Congress to designate the coastal plain ofANWR a wilderness, but H.R. 6 has passed the House. Title XXII of the bill wouldauthorize oil and gas leasing in ANWR. Both the House and Senate have approved H.Con.Res. 95 , a budget resolution that may necessitate revenues from oil and gasdevelopment in the Refuge to meet the budget reconciliation targets, and allow enactment of suchlegislation without filibuster. This report provides background on the legal issues surroundingANWR development proposals, and will be updated as circumstances warrant. For an updatedsummary of current actions on bills, see CRS Issue Brief IB10136, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge(ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress .
H.R. 6 would authorize leasing in ANWR and contains a 2,000 acre limitationon the "footprint" of leasing development in the Coastal Plain. However, if the current statutoryprohibition against production of oil and gas anywhere in the Refuge is repealed, then oil and gasdevelopment and related activities could occur not only on the federal lands, but also on Native landswithin the Refuge. Absent express language on the point, an acreage limitation would not apply tosome, and possibly not to any, of the Native lands, in which case some or all of the more than100,000 acres of such lands in the Refuge (inside and outside the officially designated Coastal Plain)could be developed. A 1983 Agreement with the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), aNative Regional Corporation, would govern oil exploration on ASRC subsurface and associatedsurface rights in the Refuge, unless these provisions are superseded by statute or regulations, andsome assert that the environmental terms of the agreement are lenient. ASRC agreed to comply withstatutes and regulations to protect wildlife, habitat, and the environment of the Coastal Plain. It isunclear whether some or all of ASRC's lands are subject to the 2,000 acre limit, and how that acreagemight be allocated among ASRC and federal lessees.
H.R. 6 gives primary responsibility for leasing to the Secretary of the Interioracting through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management rather than the Fish And WildlifeService, the agency that implemented the oil exploration program for the Coastal Plain. Theenvironmental standard in H.R. 6 -- "no significant adverse effect" -- has been used in the past, butcould allow a range of adverse effects compared to other standards that have also been used. H.R.6 also would limit the NEPA process applicable to leasing in ANWR, and limit and expedite judicialreview. The bill states that leasing is to be under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), yet wouldestablish a 50/50 revenue sharing formula different from the 90/10 formula in the MLA, a fact thatmight raise issues related to the Alaska Statehood Act.