LegiStorm

Summary:

The rich biological resources and wilderness values of northeastern Alaska have been widely known for about 50 years, and the rich energy resource potential has been suspected for much of that time. The future of these resources in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been debated in Congress for over 40 years. One aspect of the debate in recent years has been proposals to limit the footprint of energy development. The term "footprint" has not been formally defined and the variety of features it might include varies with observers. Yet the word is used regularly in discussions regarding impacts of infrastructure on the natural environment. Without attempting to fix a definition or suggest consensus where it may not exist, this report catalogues the range of features of development that various observers might include in their use of the word, beginning with features that nearly all parties would consider as part of development's footprint. It should be emphasized that the report does not give an overview of the ANWR development/wilderness controversy as a whole, the impacts of development, the portion of the Refuge that might be affected by an acreage limitation, or specific provisions of any legislation. Rather, it seeks to provide an understanding of the terms used only in this aspect of the ANWR debate. As background, the report considers current and planned development at the Alpine complex, the most advanced energy development on the North Slope, and how its lessons might apply to development in the Refuge. Trends in technology and the emphasis on more compact development could aid in reducing development's footprint. Over the last two decades, the size and number of structures in newly developed areas have gotten smaller or fewer: drill pads are substantially smaller, and support facilities and roads are fewer than in older areas. Some of this reduction occurred because of regulation (e.g., to limit wetlands impacts or reduce waste discharge), but some also occurred because smaller structures are usually cheaper: gravel, water, culverts, waste pits, and so on can all be costly to build, use, and/or maintain. The result is a certain degree of incentive to industry to consolidate and to make structures smaller (or, in the case of waste pits, eliminate them), even in the absence of regulation. On the other hand, key distinctions between the coastal plain of the Refuge and the coastal plain of currently developed areas are worth noting. Among these differences are the Refuge's more rolling terrain with far less standing water, and its relatively large distance from much of the existing North Slope infrastructure, which could force the building of additional, closer infrastructure to make development more economically practical. These differences, combined with possible constraints on development that might imposed in the 1002 area to limit environmental impacts, should Congress decide to open the area to development, suggest that any generalization about footprints drawn from modern existing developments such as Alpine, although instructive, may be qualified. Ultimately, the presence, distribution, and economic recoverability of any oil will combine with local conditions to determine the significance and impact of any footprint limitation. (For a broader treatment of this issue, see CRS Report RL31278, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Background and Issues.) This report will not be updated.