ANWR's biological value was recognized in the early 1950s, leading President Eisenhower to declare it a National Wildlife Refuge in 1960. But the potential oil and gas reserves beneath its tundra soils have also been known for many years, precipitating a decades-long debate about whether it should be opened for fossil fuel drilling or protected forever as a wilderness area. Now, with the election of President Bush, this debate has intensified.

This SSI Information Update provides basic information on the Arctic Refuge, including:

• a description of its geography
• an explanation of its ecological importance
• a look at how this area is already being affected by global warming
• a review of the politics that preceded the current debate, and
• some concrete suggestions for alternatives to oil drilling in the refuge

Since drilling in the refuge is likely to be one of the most significant environmental debates of the Bush Administration, SSI will be monitoring this issue closely. We will identify those strategic times when scientists' voices -- especially conservation biologists' -- might be particularly influential and will bring them to your attention with an action alert. Heads Up! It seems likely that the Bush Administration energy plan will be released next week and will include ANWR drilling. With all the media attention and comments from Capitol Hill that this release will generate, this is likely a good time for an alert.

A special note: The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has considerable expertise in energy and transportation issues, and has developed analyses proposing how the country might get the same energy benefit from different approaches that are not environmentally harmful. You may or may not feel comfortable advocating these approaches with the media or your elected officials, but at least you can feel confident that there are indeed alternatives to ANWR oil.

And finally, in this Information Update, we highlight the irony of drilling for oil in the Arctic, which is already experiencing significant impacts of global warming. Your communications with the public and policymakers are a good opportunity to "connect the dots" between fossil fuel use and our already warming world.

THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE: IS LOSS OF A PRISTINE WILDERNESS WORTH THE OIL THAT MIGHT BE GAINED?

ANWR's unique geography and ecology combine to make this refuge one of the world's great wild treasures. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) managing the refuge, "The Arctic Refuge is among the most complete, pristine, and undisturbed ecosystems on earth. Here coastal lagoons, barrier islands, arctic tundra, foothills, mountains, and boreal forests provide a combination of habitats, climate, and geography unmatched by any other northern conservation area." [http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic/] The recently delivered Scientists' Sign-On Letter to President Bush describes the importance of the Arctic Refuge's narrow coastal plain, "This unique compression of habitats concentrates the occurrence of a wide variety of wildlife and fish species…. In fact, according to FWS, the Arctic Refuge coastal plain contains the greatest wildlife diversity of any protected area above the Arctic Circle."

Situated in the northeast corner of Alaska, ANWR is bounded by the Beaufort Sea (part of the Arctic Ocean) and the border of Canada's Yukon Territory. The reserve is comprised of the coastal plain of the sea and the foothills and mountains of the Brooks Range. Geographically, the region is part of a mountain-and-plain system that extends eastward into Canada and is protected there in the Ivvavik and Vuntut National Parks. (Click here to see a map of ANWR.)

From a geologic and mineral exploitation perspective, the Arctic Refuge lies to the east of the Prudhoe Bay oil fields, from which the Trans-Alaska Pipeline extends south across Alaska to the port of Valdez. Further west is the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. All these other parts -- 95% of the total area of Alaska's Arctic coastal plain -- are already open for oil and gas exploration.

The coastal plain area of ANWR now being considered for opening to drilling is the so-called "1002 area," defined by Section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA). Although the mountainous parts of the reserve are not directly threatened with drilling and are even more strongly protected as Wilderness Area, all parts of the reserve are intimately linked to the 1002 area by the migration of wildlife. In particular, the 1002 area and adjacent territory in Canada is the major calving ground for the Porcupine River caribou herd, which migrates to the coastal plain in late spring to give birth. A few weeks later the herd migrates south again into the mountainous parts of the Reserve. Click here to see the herd's migration route.

There are only two human settlements near the reserve: Kaktovik, on the coast, populated mostly by the Inupiat (Eskimo) people; and Arctic Village, on its south boundary in the Yukon Valley, inhabited by the Gwich'in (American Indian) people. The economy of the Inupiat traditionally has depended on sea mammals, while that of the Gwich'in has been critically linked to the Porcupine caribou herd. Additional Gwinch'in communities in theYukon Territory (Old Crow) and Northwest Territories (Aklavik, Ft. McPherson) are also dependent on caribou that calve in the Arctic Refuge.

ECOLOGY OF ANWR

The 1002 area of the Refuge is the major protected area of Arctic coastal plain within the territorial boundary of the United States. (Section 1002 of ANILCA defined the area, and Section 1003 prevents drilling in it without further Congressional action.) Ecologically, it is largely comprised of tundra -- grass- and sedge-dominated vegetation underlain by a permanently frozen layer beneath the surface, the permafrost. This layer restricts the drainage of water through the soil, making it moist in the short summer growing season. The permafrost also produces a variety of unusual landforms, including ice wedges, small temporary hills called "pingos," and large-scale regular "polygons" of alternating bog and ridge vegetation.

The permafrost is also the reason for the tundra's extreme vulnerability to disturbance. It is easily broken by road construction or the seismic explosions used in oil exploration, changing the water drainage patterns of the soil and thus retention of moisture. In fact, despite the public's impression of the Arctic climate as overwhelmingly snowbound, precipitation levels in the high Arctic are low. Sometimes called a "frozen desert," the average winter snow cover on the coastal plain of ANWR is only a foot or two.

The vulnerability of the 1002 area's tundra to oil exploration and drilling is demonstrated by the long-term impacts of exploration in the mid-1980s -- impacts on the tundra that are still clearly visible. The short Arctic growing season and restricted drainage of the tundra mean that recovery after disturbance can take many years. Exploration impacts can be reduced by driving vehicles over the landscape in winter in a grid pattern, but of course drilling installations would be present year-round.

Despite the short growing season and sensitive vegetation, the tundra supports a variety of spectacular wildlife species, which has lead to its nickname, "America's Serengeti." Most abundant is the Porcupine caribou herd, numbering somewhat less than 130,000, which ranges over approximately 117,000 square miles in northeastern Alaska and the Yukon. Although this herd migrates over a large area, the caribou concentrate in a small part of the coastal plain each spring to give birth. The 1002 area is critical to the caribou, as they depend on the more nutritious vegetation there to build up their fat and milk to bear and nurse their calves. They are also particularly sensitive to disturbance when calving. The Porcupine herd is more vulnerable than other caribou herds because its calving ground is a narrow plain between the mountains and the sea. The Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded that: "A reduction in annual calf survival of as little as five percent would be sufficient to cause a decline in the Porcupine caribou population" (USFWS 2001).

The caribou are by no means the only wildlife populations in the Arctic Refuge. The area's large mammals also include grizzly bears, polar bears, Dall sheep, wolves, moose, and a herd of rare muskoxen. 135 species of birds are known to use the 1002 area, including large flocks of snow geese which feed on the area's nutritious vegetation in the fall in preparation for their long flight to their wintering grounds in the Central Valley of California. Other animal species of the area include shorebirds, loons, songbirds, and raptors, as well as fish such as the Arctic char and Arctic grayling. Taken altogether, ANWR is truly a pristine wilderness, one of the most unique and undisturbed ecosystems on earth.

Yet the potential for disturbance in this wilderness is high. In 1987, during the Reagan Administration, a report to Congress from the Department of the Interior (the Legislative Environmental Impact Statement, LEIS) concluded that oil development in the 1002 area would have major impacts on the caribou and muskoxen. "Major" was defined as "widespread, long-term change in habitat availability or quality that would likely modify natural abundance or distribution of species." Moderate impacts on wolves, wolverine, polar bears, snow geese, seabirds and shorebirds, arctic grayling, and coastal fish were also predicted.

More recently, in a letter to President Bush signed by 506 scientists, the scientists expressed concern about drilling impacts not only on Porcupine caribou but also on other wildlife in ANWR, most particularly polar bears, muskoxen, ad snow geese. The Scientists' Sign-On Letter outlines these concerns: "Although many polar bears den on the pack ice, the refuge's coastal plain is the most important land denning area for Beaufort Sea bears in Alaska. Muskoxen are year-round residents of the coastal plain, and disturbance from industrial development, particularly in winter, holds the potential to increase energetic costs and result in decreased calf production. Also, snow geese might be displaced from important feeding and staging habitats prior to autumn migration, increasing energy expenditure and reducing their ability to accumulate the fat needed for migration."

Furthermore, the environmental consequences of drilling in ANWR go beyond its wildlife. "Data from the Alaska Department of Conservation show that the Trans-Alaska and Prudhoe Bay oil fields have had an annual average of 409 spills since 1996 of everything from crude oil to acid. Current oil operations in Alaska's North Slope every year emit about 56,427 tons of nitrous oxides, which cause smog and acid rain, and release up to 110,000 tons of methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming" (Boston Globe 2001). The Prudhoe Bay Complex also emits 11,400,000 metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere per year (Brooks et al. 1997).

POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

The desire to drill in ANWR -- with the express purpose of extracting oil that, when burned, releases greenhouse gases -- is surely ironic. The global atmosphere doesn't care whether the carbon dioxide comes from Alaska or Saudi Arabia; and so, unless greenhouse gas emissions are actually reduced, global warming will continue whether or not drilling occurs in the Arctic. And yet, it is ironic that the area of the world that is undergoing the most rapid climatic and ecological change as a result of human-induced warming should be tapped for the very substance causing the changes.

Significant climate changes are projected for the Arctic; and indeed, major impacts from climate change are already occurring. Temperatures in Alaska have risen by about 5°F (3°C) since the 1960s, and by 8°F (4.5°C) in winter. The warmer temperatures have led to a marked reduction in extent and duration of snow cover, shorter seasons of river and lake ice, extensive melting of glaciers, thawing and retreat of permafrost, and reduction of sea-ice extent and thickness. The climate has also become wetter; precipitation increased by roughly 30% between 1968 and 1990 (Weller et al. 1999).

This regional warming -- the largest experienced by any US state -- is part of a larger warming trend throughout the Arctic and is connected to the process of global warming affecting all regions of the Earth to varying extent. Arctic regions are expected to experience the largest and most rapid warming of any region on the Earth (IPCC 2001). Climate models used in the Alaska National Assessment project warming of about 3-5.5°F (1.5-3°C) by 2030 and 9-18°F (5-10°C) warming by 2100, with the largest changes occurring during winter months (Weller et al. 1999). The model-projected warming is similar to the warming that would occur if the current observed warming trend were to continue.

Alaska is also projected to grow wetter in some areas, with annual precipitation increases ranging from 20-25% in the north and northwest to little change in the southeast. The projected increases in precipitation are not enough, however, to compensate for the enhanced evaporation that will occur under warmer summer temperatures; hence, summer soil moisture is expected to decrease throughout the state.

Ecological Impacts

The large projected warming in Alaska will likely accelerate the already evident trends of melting ice and permafrost, northward movement of the permafrost line, shorter snow and ice cover seasons, and rapid melting of glaciers. These changes will likely cause widespread alterations to the region's important ecosystems -- e.g., forests and marine fisheries. Subsistence livelihoods, already threatened by reduced or displaced wildlife populations, may be further harmed. Melting permafrost has also led to widespread damage of buildings, costly road repairs, and increased maintenance for pipelines and other infrastructure -- impacts that will continue to grow in magnitude. Permafrost also stores large amount of ancient carbon and methane; thawing is likely to release some of this stored carbon and methane back into the atmosphere, amplifying the risk of further climate change.

On the positive side, the warming climate has already lengthened the growing season and growing degree days for agriculture and forestry by 20% in recent years, creating the potential for new crops and higher yields. Also, boreal forests are expanding northward at the rate of 60 miles for each 2°F increase, thus increasing potential yields in the long term (Weller et al. 1999).

If the projected changes in temperature and precipitation and melting of permafrost come to pass, they will undoubtedly lead to profound changes in ANWR's varied habitats. The boreal forest will advance northward into present coastal plain tundra, and mixed forest into present boreal forest. Forest fires and insect outbreaks, both of which have increased sharply in recent years, will further increase. Coastal areas -- freed from sea ice and thus exposed to high tidal variation and storm impacts -- will be subject to great erosion as permafrost thaws. The tundra's hydrologic regime will be altered with warming and loss of permafrost. Without the impenetrable permafrost layer, the region is likely to dry out during the summer, thereby altering plant communities and use by wildlife.

A recent study of climate change effects on the Porcupine caribou herd shows both positive and negative impacts from recent changes in habitat conditions (Griffith et al., submitted). A trend towards earlier green-up on the calving grounds was observed over the period 1985-1999, probably due to higher spring temperatures. High density calving was located in areas where the rate of growth of new green vegetation was high -- lactating cows prefer highly digestible new plant growth -- and calf survival was strongly related to the amount of plant biomass available at the peak of lactation.

Despite improved calf summer survival, however, the caribou population has not shown a consistent increase. The Porcupine herd increased at about ~5% per year through 1989, but has decreased by ~3.5% per year since. A possible explanation is that warmer spring and fall temperatures have led to an increasing frequency of icing events in spring and fall, and this may have restricted access to forage or have had other adverse effects. Other hypotheses for the decline in the herd in the face of warming spring conditions include the herd exceeding carrying capacity of the winter range, and/or increasing winter range mortality for as yet unknown reasons. The effects of climate change on the Porcupine herd are thus complex and may vary and be counteracting among seasons.

Possible Impacts on Oil Production

Warming temperatures also pose a serious problem for the proposed oil drilling. Proponents of drilling describe the new technology of "ice pads" for holding drilling rigs and "ice roads" for transporting equipment as one of the major advancements used by oil companies to reduce damage to the tundra. Under climate warming, these ice pads and roads may not be thick enough or last long enough in the future to provide this advantage (Weller et al. 1999).

POLITICAL HISTORY AND CURRENT CONTEXT OF THE ANWR DEBATE

In 1960 President Eisenhower was persuaded to create the Arctic Refuge by a campaign led by biologists Olaus and Margaret Murie, George Collins, and Lowell Sumner, and by Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas -- all of whom recognized the area's unique biological value and pressed for its protection. Strategically it was decided that the area would be better off as a National Wildlife Refuge rather than a National Park, since the Park Service's mission includes recreation and tourist development. The founders feared that even limited development could harm the tundra and thus endanger the area's wildlife.

30 Years of Development Pressure

Although the existence of oil and gas deposits on the Arctic coastal plain had been known for decades, the discovery of the Prudhoe Bay oil field west of ANWR in 1968 was critical to the pressure for ANWR exploration and development. Prudhoe Bay, with the 800-mile-long Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) carrying oil to the Pacific at Valdez, led to a boom in Alaska's economy. Every Alaska citizen receives a direct annual payment of hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars as their share of the oil revenue.

As Prudhoe Bay and TAPS were developed, debate over extending the petroleum industry throughout all the coastal plain increased. Congress reached a compromise on this question in passing the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in 1980. ANILCA set aside a substantial part of ANWR as wilderness, and created the 1002 area along the refuge's coastal plain. But while Section 1003 of ANILCA states that "production of oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from the [Refuge] shall be undertaken until authorized by an act of Congress," it also authorized further exploration and studies of the petroleum potential of the 1002 area.

The disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 and the low oil prices of the 1990s relieved some of the pressure for development of ANWR. The rise in oil and then natural gas prices in 2000, however, brought the ANWR issue to public attention again. In his presidential campaign, George W. Bush advocated oil drilling in ANWR. Both before and after his election, conservation groups urged President Clinton to declare ANWR a National Monument. Clinton declined to do this, however, arguing that Section 1003 of ANILCA already gave the area as much protection as National Monument status would.

How the Current Debate Stacks Up

President Bush has repeatedly stated his intention to ask Congress to open the 1002 area. The new Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, reiterated this view in her confirmation hearings. Republican-introduced energy bills include Arctic Refuge drilling, and the soon-to-be-released Cheney energy plan is also likely to do so -- a clear indication that this is likely to be an important struggle in coming months.

Repeal of Section 1003 of ANILCA, which currently forbids drilling, is necessary to open up the 1002 area to the oil industry. This can only be done by passage in both houses of Congress; the Administration cannot do it alone. The 50-50 Democratic-Republican split in the Senate, and the fact that 60 votes are required to stop a Senate filibuster, put defenders of ANWR in a potentially strong political position. Already Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has promised to filibuster if necessary on this issue. The debate does not necessarily split along traditional party lines, as most of the northeastern republican Senators oppose drilling while some southern democratic Senators are for it.

Public Opinion

Polls of the American public have repeatedly shown large majorities against oil drilling in ANWR. Many Americans believe the Refuge should be preserved, not only for the wildlife but also for the aesthetic and spiritual legacy of the region for future generations. Canada has protected its adjacent part of the coastal plain in National Parks and opposes drilling in ANWR. The Yukon provincial government opposes drilling, as do the Gwich'in people, who call themselves "Caribou People" and are deeply concerned about the impact on the Porcupine River caribou herd.

Alaskans as a whole, on the other hand, support drilling because it would increase their income from the annual payments and create local jobs. The Inupiat people, whose traditional economy is based on the sea rather than the 1002 area's wildlife, also support drilling because they would derive direct economic benefit from development around Kaktovik.

An initial test of strength in Congress on the issue was the FY 02 Budget Resolution, in which pro-drilling forces wanted to include estimated costs and revenues from future ANWR exploration and drilling in government spending estimates. Both houses of Congress, however, refused to allow this in their consideration of the Budget Resolution in April 2001. Although this does not settle the issue, it is a positive sign, showing that at present there is not a majority in favor of opening up ANWR in either the House or the Senate.

THE CURRENT ENERGY CRISIS

Americans consume 25 percent of the world's petroleum but possess only two percent of the world's supply. In 2000, the United States imported 54 percent of its oil products, sending nearly $200,000 overseas each minute. Depending so heavily on energy imports leaves Americans vulnerable to oil's price volatility. After the energy crisis of the 1970s, most areas of the economy reduced their reliance on oil substantially. Today, only two to three percent of US electricity is generated from oil. Thus oil from ANWR would have virtually no impact on US electricity-generation issues, including California's electricity crisis.

Estimates about ANWR's oil potential vary widely, although they almost all use the same study from the US Geological Survey. Using data compiled in 1998, the USGS study estimated that only 3.2 billion to 6.3 billion barrels would be ''economically recoverable'' from the refuge over the 50-year life of the oil field (USGS Fact Sheet 1998). This 3.2 to 6.3 billion barrels represents a mere six- to eight-month national supply. Or put another way, 3.2 billion barrels is only enough oil to fuel the US economy for seven months (Energy Information Administration, 2000). [Note: Market prices, of course, determine the amount of economically recoverable oil, which is defined in the USGS report as "That part of the technically recoverable resource for which the costs of discovery, development, and production, including a return to capital, can be recovered at a given well-head price" (USGS 1999).]

On the other hand, proponents of drilling claim that the ANWR recoverable amount is in the 10 to 16 billion barrels range. The USGS, however, calculated only a five percent chance that there are actually 16 billion barrels in the coastal plain and surrounding area; and only a portion of that oil -- however much it actually is -- could be recovered economically (USGS 1999). Also to be considered is the reality that even if ANWR were opened to drilling immediately, the oil would not reach refineries for another 10 years, and it would take approximately 15 more years before the region reached maximum production levels (EIA 2000).

Even then, over its 50-year lifespan, ANWR would contribute less than one percent of the oil this country will consume. Furthermore, many drilling proponents try to downplay the impacts by stating that only 2,000 acres will be affected -- yet this acreage is spread over 35 discrete sites on the coastal plain, requiring roadbuilding and pipeline construction between the sites and between ANWR and Prudhoe Bay facilities (USGS 1999; USFWS 2001).

FEASIBLE, AFFORDABLE ALTERNATIVES TO ANWR DRILLING

Not only would drilling in ANWR produce a small return, but there are in fact viable alternatives to this country's energy needs. In its call for a comprehensive national energy discussion, a Boston Globe editorial of February 21, 2001 framed the issue nicely: "If the goal [of a national energy policy] is truly to reduce US dependence on foreign oil and not simply squeeze every drop of profit from the nation's resources, then a debate on conservation, research into alternative fuels, and clean energy technologies is crucial." We describe below some feasible options.

Transportation Solutions

Fuel-Efficient SUVs and Alternative Fuels. Transportation is the largest consumer of oil in the country (67%), and thus is highly vulnerable to volatile oil prices. With the fuel economy of new passenger vehicles at a 20-year low, American drivers feel the pinch when gas prices soar. Booming sales of SUVs and light trucks (including minivans) are responsible for this plummeting fuel efficiency.

If we opened the Arctic Refuge today, oil would not begin flowing until 2010. But if we start to increase SUV and light truck fuel economy today, by 2015 we could save as much oil as is economically recoverable from ANWR over 50 years. At the same time, drivers of SUVs and other light trucks would save $25 billion a year at the pump. To give automakers the incentive to make these technologies available to consumers, policymakers must close the fuel-economy loophole that allows SUVs and light trucks to burn 33 percent more gasoline per mile than passenger cars. Affordable technologies are currently available to boost SUV and light truck fuel economy without sacrificing power.

Other, more advanced technologies -- some already in production and others available in the near future -- can make even greater impacts on US oil dependence. Hybrid engines, for example, by combining an electric motor and gasoline engine, can boost the fuel efficiency of any vehicle; and fuel cells, which could be in showrooms this decade, provide a zero-emission, gasoline-free method to power all cars and trucks.

Energy Solutions

A better answer to power outages and price spikes than drilling in the Arctic Refuge is to simultaneously decrease demand through efficiency and to increase electricity production from renewable sources. Because renewable power does not rely on fossil fuels, it is not subject to the price volatility that plagues power plants, most of which run on coal and natural gas.

By enhancing energy efficiency in buildings and industry and acquiring more energy from renewable sources, the United States could save about 580 million barrels of oil annually by 2010. At this rate, in just 5.5 years we could save as much oil as is economically recoverable from ANWR. In addition, leaving this oil in the ground will keep nearly 1.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide from reaching the atmosphere and contributing to global warming. Click here to access UCS Issue Brief Will Drilling in the Arctic Refuge Really Solve Our Oil Woes?"

TALKING POINTS

• Those who call for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are looking for quick fixes rather than sustainable solutions. --
• The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has unique biological and aesthetic value, found nowhere else in the United States.
• Arctic tundra is a particularly sensitive ecosystem, due to its vulnerable permafrost layer, short growing season, and dependence on moisture.
• The "1002 area" of ANWR is the only protected part of Alaska's Arctic coastal plain; the other 95% of Alaska's Arctic coastal plain is already open for oil and gas drilling.
• The "1002 area" is the calving ground of the nearly 130,000-strong Porcupine River caribou herd. The caribou are dependent on this protected area and are especially sensitive to disturbance in the calving season.
• The amount of additional oil that might be found in ANWR is very small relative to the current rate of energy use in the United States.
• The real solution to our energy crisis is not drilling and deregulation, but conservation and renewables. Through fuel-efficient automobiles, energy efficiency, and increased renewable energy, we can lower the demand for oil.
• Any oil extracted from ANWR will do virtually nothing to solve the California or other potential electricity energy crises, since only two to three percent of this country's electricity is generated by burning oil.
• If we start to increase SUV and light truck fuel economy today, by 2015 we could save as much oil as is economically recoverable from ANWR over 50 years.
• By enhancing energy efficiency in buildings and industry and acquiring more energy from renewable sources, by 2015 we could save as much oil as is economically recoverable from ANWR over 50 years.
  

REFERENCES

Boston Globe. February 26, 2001. Joseph Lieberman & Edward Markey. "Alaska Refuge Oil Isn't the Answer" (p. 15).

Brooks, Steven B., Timothy L. Crawford and Walter C. Oechel. 1997. Measurement of carbon dioxide emissions plumes from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska oil fields. Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry 27(2):197-208.

Energy Information Administration. 2000. "Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." SR/O&G/2000-02. Available in HTML format

Energy Information Administration. December 2000. "Annual Energy Outlook 2001."

Griffith, B., Douglas, D.C., Russel, D.E., White, R.G., McCabe, T.R., and Whitten, K.R. In press. Effects of recent climate warming on caribou habitat and calf survival. in No Place to Go? The Impact of Climate Change on Wildlife. Edited by R. Green, M. Harley, M. Spalding, and C. Zockler.

Griffith, B., Douglas, D.C., Russel, D.E., White, R.G., McCabe, T.R., and Whitten, K.R. Submitted. Climate, Habitat Selection, and Performance of a Migratory Arctic Caribou Herd. Science.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Summary for Policymakers, Working Group II, Third Assessment Report. [online] http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm19-02.pdf

National Resources Defense Council. 2001. "A Responsible Energy Policy for the 21st Century." Available in PDF format at http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/rep/repinx.asp

US Geological Survey, The Oil and Gas Resource Potential of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area, Alaska. USGS Open File Report 98-34 (1999). [For more easily accesible information, see a summary at USGS Fact Sheet FS-040-98; available in HTML format at http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/ANWR/ANWR.html. See also, USGS Press Release. 1998. "New Estimates of Petroleum Resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." HTML version found at http://www.usgs.gov/public/press/public_affairs/
press_releases/pr517m.html.]

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. "Potential Impacts of Proposed Oil and Gas Development on the Arctic Refuge's Coastal Plain: Historical Overview and Issues of Concern." Available in HTML format at: http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.html and in Adobe PDF format at: ftp://164.159.151.4/arctic/issues1.pdf (15 megabytes).

Weller, G., Anderson, P, and Wang, B. 1999. Preparing for a Changing Climate: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change: Report of the Alaska Regional Assessment Group. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Center for Global Change and Arctic System Research, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 42 pages. [online] http://www.besis.uaf.edu/regional-report/regional-report.html

Internet Resources

The ANWR Web site of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the agency administering the refuge): http://www.r7.fws.gov/nwr/arctic

To view the Scientists Sign-On Letter and signatories, go to: http://www.defenders.org/releases/pr2001/sciletter.pdf

April, 2001

This report may not be reprinted or posted to electronic networks without permission and acknowledgement.

Acknowledgements 

This Information Update was prepared by UCS consultant Douglas Boucher and UCS staff Lisa Sorenson, Michelle Hersh, and Nancy Cole. Jason Mark, Susanne Moser, and Alan Nogee provided review comments.