Although Arctic Refuge drilling proponents repeatedly profess that oil development in the Refuge would be done in an “environmentally sensitive” way, the proposed legislation is actually riddled with clauses that weaken existing standards, exempt drilling from key rules, or otherwise allow oil development activities to sidestep environmental protection laws.

Some of the more blatant examples*:

Exempts parts of oil and gas program from environmental review requirements - Section 2203(c)(2) -- Declares that the Department of Interior’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared in 1987 satisfies the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for preparation of the regulations that will guide the leasing program. NEPA is supposed to ensure that public and federal decision makers have the most recent, accurate information concerning the environmental impacts of projects, but this clause seems to ensure the opposite. In fact, as long ago as 1991, a federal court found that due to new scientific information, Interior should have supplemented this very same 1987 EIS analysis before recommending to Congress that it allow development on the Coastal Plain (see NRDC v. Lujan 768768 F. Supp. 870 (D.D.C. 1991)).

Example of new scientific information -- In 2002 (15 years after the 1987 EIS), the U.S. Geological Survey released a significant report detailing 12 years of study about the potential impacts of oil drilling on the wildlife of the Arctic Refuge.
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/  

Substantially weakens environmental review requirements - Section 2203(c)(3) – Includes specific provisions that significantly diminish the comprehensive analysis traditionally required by NEPA, by stating that the Secretary of Interior need consider only its preferred action and a single leasing alternative. The “alternatives analysis,” which is all but eliminated by this section of the bill, is considered to be the heart of NEPA.

Undermines the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s authority to impose conditions on leases - Section 2203(c)(1) – The oil and gas leasing program are “deemed to be compatible” with the purposes of the Arctic Refuge. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS, pg. 7, see link below), this provision “appears to eliminate the usual compatibility determination process for purposes of refuge management.” CRS notes that without the compatibility process, the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Service to impose conditions on leases is called into question.

Mandates large-scale, accelerated leasing – Section 2204(d)(e)- Mandates that the first lease sale be of no less than 200,000 acres and occur within 22 months of enactment. Setting a minimum required acreage and an accelerated timeframe is not consistent with a precautionary approach to oil development in a sensitive area. As the CRS explains in its analysis (pg. 10), such an “accelerated leasing schedule” is achievable only due to “the fact that other provisions in the bill would eliminate comprehensive new environmental studies.”

* Referenced in these examples:
- Sections from the 2005 HR 6 EH, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.6: (select HR 6 EH and scroll down to referenced sections)
- CRS report, "Legal Issues Related to Proposed Drilling for Oil and Gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)," http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/05May/RL31115.pdf