THe assumption is that the development will be such that the calving herds will be displaced by an average of 65 killometers from their existing locations. This even though their only comparable data point was Prudhoe Bay, a much larger development of a vastly different type, in which the herds displaced 4km from development areas.
2000 acres is about 8 000 000 square meters, or about 8 square kilometers. How does an 8 square kilometer footprint, even assuming a 4km offset, push herds 63 kilometers from their breeding grounds?
Actually, reading the study is important for all. You have to understand the speculation, the misleading comparisons, and the extrapolations taken to generate the scare tactics of the anti-ANWR folks.
You think that in 1973, when this 11 million acres was set aside, that anybody had any idea of how critically important every single tiny part of this place was to the survival of our world? They were sure smart.
But somehow, in the rest of the world, we all survive while oil wells are drilled all around us and our wildlife.
And somehow we can build a huge bridge costing millions of dollars and the environmentalists aren't removing it from the budget because of all the wildlife that will no doubt be displaced.
This all presumes that we should care about a population of a subspecies that is doing just fine, simply because we doubt it's ability to adapt to a minor chance in its environment.
this does it for me - never will I vote Republican again - I am totally embarrassed i voted for them this time with this Anwar fiasco - I am pissed. These idiot Republican Senators call the oil companies into question about profits - these blowhard bastards....Oil companies make a profit of 10%, roughly .25 per gallon, while government makes more, MUCH more from taxing every gallon...who the hell are they to question a private companies profits when they are perfectly happy taxing the American people into the ground on every gallon and making more $$$$ than the oil companies that run the business. Government has prevented the building of new refineries (which is why we have the oil "bottleneck" we have), they have prevented drilling in the Eastern Gulf as well as innumerable other places, and now Anwar. The party PRIMARILY responsible for our dependence on foreign oil is the GOVERNMENT, yet they question and cast blame on oil companies when the price is set in the WORLD markets...screw the republicans - it seems these guys in the Senate are so stupid as to not even know basic economics - how these jackasses get elected is beyond me, but I for one, will NEVER vote for another repub - they are a total embarrassment....and I have been a republican for my entire life - this is the last frickin' straw..give these guys the Senate, the Congress and the White House, and they haven't done squat......screw 'em....
I would hardly characterize USGS as anti-ANWR, but everybody can seize on parts of a report and say that it argues for their cause.
As for the bridge, given where it's located, impact on wildlife would be *very* minimal.
Ketchikan's a nice place to visit, but it's not a wildlife refuge.