October 22, 2007
Dr. Rosa Meehan
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Marine Mammals Management Office
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, AK 99503
Attention: Polar Bear Finding
Dear Dr. Meehan:
This letter is in response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s request for comments on the nine U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) research papers analyzing polar bear population status and threats. These papers will be used by the Service in conjunction with other information gathered over the past year in reaching a final decision on whether to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The Resource Development Council (RDC) strongly opposes such a listing as the polar bear is clearly not a species in need of recovery, given its healthy population status and extensive protections now in place. Polar bears and their habitats are sufficiently managed and protected by international and domestic agreements, conservation programs, regulatory mechanisms and laws, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
RDC is a statewide, non-profit business association comprised of individuals and companies from Alaska’s oil and gas, mining, forest products, tourism and fisheries industries. RDC’s membership includes Alaska Native corporations, local communities, organized labor and industry support firms. Our purpose is to encourage a strong, diversified private sector in Alaska and expand the state’s economic base through responsible resource development.
RDC and its members support ongoing polar bear research, management and conservation. A number of our members include major industry stakeholders operating within the historic and current range of the polar bear. These stakeholders have been major contributors to the extensive research conducted on polar bears and have played a significant role in advancing the scientific community’s understanding of the polar bear and its habitat.
RDC submitted comments on the proposed listing of polar bears April 9, 2007. Given the USGS papers suffer from the same shortcomings and limitations of the proposed listing, we believe our comments on the proposed listing remain relevant. As a result, we are incorporating portions of those comments in this letter, and attaching our spring comments, as well.
The Service’s Information Quality Guidelines require peer review of influential scientific information with respect to the proposed rule. RDC questions whether the agency has complied with these guidelines in regard to the nine USGS reports. It is apparent through the timing of the reports that there has not been a thorough peer review of this new information. Such a review must be done, and to our knowledge, one has not occurred as of the present.
Our review of the USGS reports shows their conclusions to be extreme. These conclusions, whether valid or not, will be used by non-development interests in their efforts to list the polar bear. Such a listing will be used to advance their agenda on global climate change and block energy development in the Arctic and elsewhere. (See page five and six of these comments)
Listing Will Have No Effect On Status Of Polar Bears
As noted in our April comments, it is not clear how, or if, an endangered species listing would help polar bears. Given the limitations of the ESA itself, the listing will not stop sea ice from melting. In fact, the USGS concludes that restrictions on human activities would not prevent polar bear habitat – Arctic sea ice – from disappearing during the summer months and the bears themselves from becoming extinct in the Polar Basin Divergent and Seasonal Ecoregions. This extreme conclusion alone calls into doubt the usefulness of the ESA and should invalidate its application.
If an ESA listing is not going to stop polar bear habitat from melting away and arrest the threat to the bears themselves, why spend the time and money and impose significant burdens on industry, society, landowners and others when there is no benefit to the species? If there is nothing humans can do to reverse the effects of climate change, protections given under the ESA are meaningless.
RDC urges the Service not to list the polar bear if there is no direct benefit to the species. While scientists are unable to find meaningful solutions to head off further melting of sea ice, RDC agrees with the Alaska Oil and Gas Association and other organizations that invoking the ESA as a policy fix is not the answer. However, if further consideration is given to an ESA listing, the Service should clearly identify and make public – prior to making a decision – how the ESA and the designation of critical habitat for polar bears will slow the loss of sea ice. Specifically, we would like to know how critical habitat designations – required by an ESA listing for the recovery of a species – will reverse the global phenomena of climate change. Ironically, if the conclusions cited in the USGS papers ultimately prove accurate, polar bears will inevitably decline in population until they are extinct. Under such an outcome, the Service will fail in any recovery efforts under the ESA.
Studies Are Filled With Uncertainty And Doubt
Like the proposed listing itself, all of the major studies conducted by USGS are filled with uncertainty and doubt. The USGS itself admits to the limitations inherent in their papers and concedes that “uncertainty in projections of Arctic climate change is relatively high.” These limitations and high levels of uncertainty in climate change models call into question any conclusions and severely compromise the overall effort.
The USGS papers have little or nothing of substance to offer with regard to listing the polar bear. Rather, they reaffirm the issues raised in our spring comments and those of others with regard to the ability to determine with a degree of certainty that polar bears are truly threatened.
The USGS papers do not change the fact that the proposed listing is unprecedented and based on highly-speculative risks outlined in carbon-emission scenarios and various climate change models. In fact, the USGS admits its models are highly unreliable and its papers reaffirm that there continues to be a lack of science demonstrating in a reliable manner that polar bears are likely to become extinct in the foreseeable future. A key principal issue in this debate continues to be whether the extent and pace of summer sea ice decline in the Arctic over the next century is reliably predictable and, if so, is likely to threaten the polar bear with extinction.
Studies Ignore Fundamental Fact: Polar Bears Are Highly Adaptive
Our previous comments noted that polar bears have survived other periods of global warming – some so severe that the Arctic lost most of its ice, including vast areas of Greenland, which are now ice-covered. Unfortunately, the USGS failed to acknowledge previous warming periods and the polar bears’ adaptability and survival during these times. In its study, “Predicting the Future Distribution of Polar Bear Habitat in the Polar Basin…” the USGS instead focused on “optimum” habitat and was designed for a species with “specialized habitats.” As a result, the study has little or no relevance to adaptive species like polar bears, given it ignored any adaptation of the bears to their environment. In our opinion, the lack of recognition of polar bear adaptability is a fatal flaw in this study.
While the matter of global warming requires continued monitoring, a proposed listing of the polar bear under the ESA is not warranted, for a number of reasons, as outlined in our April comments. These factors and concerns place this species in a position where an ESA listing cannot be justified.
Polar Bear Population Is Stable
The proposed rule is unprecedented in that it would invoke the ESA to list a species whose population worldwide has more than doubled over the past 40 years. In fact, polar bear populations are stable or increasing, despite the warming trend of the past 20-plus years and the recession of sea ice. This fact is a strong indication that protections in place today are effective in protecting polar bears.
No species has ever been listed under the ESA where the scientific consensus indicated the species continued to occupy its entire historical range at sustaining population levels. In Alaska, polar bears are abundant and are near historic population highs. Of all the animals and plants currently listed, no listings occurred when the animal or plant was at the level of health the polar bear finds itself in today.
In its petition to list the polar bear under the ESA, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) claims that the species’ current health is irrelevant. It argues that climate change will threaten polar bears in the future. However, the leading indicators of a species risk in ESA listings are current population, trend and the range of the species. Because of their healthy status in these leading indicators, a listing of the polar bear would be unprecedented.
The USGS papers point out that the loss of sea ice is greater than anticipated in most models, but they are silent on a key point: despite the greater loss in sea ice, polar bear populations remain stable and healthy across their historic range. If the population hasn’t shown a corresponding fall with the reduction in Arctic sea ice, then how can the USGS predict with any degree of certainty that further reduction in sea ice will cause a population fall so extreme as to cause extinction of the species?
The State of Alaska in its preliminary comments on the proposed rule took exception to the presumption that sea ice is the most important factor for the survival of polar bears. The State agreed with the Inupiat Eskimos that polar bears do not use the majority of the ice cap, but favor near-shore ice, and that any warming of the arctic may create new near-shore ice or other suitable habitat for the bears. The State also noted polar bears are adaptable to use land for hunting and to den. Data from several areas indicate that bears are already adapting to alternative food sources.
Unintended economic consequences and impacts to energy production
RDC is very concerned that a listing of polar bears under the ESA could result in severe unintended economic consequences to both the national and Alaska economies and significantly impact U.S. energy production. The listing could even jeopardize the economic viability of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline and therefore kill prospects for its construction and delivery of gas to Lower 48 markets.
If the Service decides to list polar bears, all federal agencies must evaluate their actions to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the bears or are not likely to result in adverse modifications to any critical habitat. Depending upon how a final listing is codified, requirements under Section 7 of the ESA could be expanded to include consultations with the Service for any federal permitting and funding that involves air quality, transportation and emissions. Thus, a listing could make it difficult to obtain any federal or state permits that have the potential to affect polar bears and their habitat – directly or indirectly. This could discourage investment in new energy projects in Alaska and elsewhere, and at the very least, result in delays and higher costs with no corresponding benefit to polar bears.
Proponents of the proposed listing have openly called for the entire energy-rich North Slope of Alaska to be designated critical habitat and have admitted their goal is to force the U.S. government to address global climate change. Some have made it clear they intend to push the Service to use the ESA to force consultations on power plants and other projects that could contribute to global warming, and therefore endanger polar bear habitat. They want to use the ESA to limit production of fossil fuels and impose mandatory controls and taxes on carbon emissions. As noted in our April comments, such actions would be an improper use of the law and well beyond its limitations.
RDC applauds the Interior Department for acknowledging that it does not intend to use an ESA listing to address carbon emissions or other issues of global climate change. The department has correctly assessed the law gives it no room to address the broader issues that may be causing receding ice. However, our concern is if a listing moves forward, “open season” will likely occur as any threat, whether it is perceived or real, would invite third-party litigants to challenge virtually any project that involves, directly or indirectly, carbon dioxide emissions.
For example, lawsuits, using the listing as a mechanism to address the broader issue of global climate change could target development of coal deposits and the construction of new coal plants. Plants that burn coal now supply more than 50 percent of the nation’s electricity. It is a low-cost and abundant fuel, but burning less of it would drive up the cost of electricity and impact all Americans. While Americans generally agree they should do their part to reduce greenhouse gases and limit the impacts of climate change, most are not aware they will personally have to pay for it.
In addition, it is highly probable that among the effects of a listing will be lawsuits to force the agency to designate large portions of Alaska’s arctic, including the coastal North Slope, Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea as critical habitat. These areas, which include the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska, hold immense oil and gas potential and are the future for the oil and gas industry in the 49th state. Such development would greatly benefit Alaska and its residents, and would play a major role in boosting domestic energy production. However, once critical habitat designations are in place, more litigation challenging development in or near those designations would likely occur and have a negative effect on new energy exploration in highly prospective areas.
The potential economic implications to Alaska of a polar bear listing under the ESA are frightening. Ninety percent of the Alaska’s revenue base comes from North Slope oil production. An ESA listing and third-party lawsuits from litigants with a variety of motivations would, at a minimum, discourage investment, which would likely result in less exploration, translating into lower production, which in turn would constrict revenues to the state, compromising its ability to provide services to rural and urban Alaskans. A more dire outcome would likely occur if litigants were to challenge virtually every oil and gas lease sale and project near or in critical habitat areas. On a national scale, litigants could effectively hold the nation’s best onshore and offshore energy prospects hostage as they move to block virtually any new oil, gas and other fossil fuel development in the Arctic. This could bring the economy, especially in Alaska, to its knees and sharply raise the cost of energy for all Americans.
One only needs to look at the impact third-party litigation has had on the forest products industry in Southeast Alaska. Timber sales in this region are routinely litigated by non-development interests. As a result, the U.S. Forest Service has been unable to supply adequate amounts of timber allowed by the current Tongass National Forest land management plan to the few surviving local saw mills. The industry is now a mere shadow of itself, losing thousands of jobs over the past ten years. Local communities have experienced severe economic downturns and the annual harvest from the Tongass has fallen beyond 50-year lows.
In response to those who claim an ESA listing of polar bears would have no negative impact on Alaska, the oil industry and local communities, the Service should consider the severe impacts the forest products industry experienced from the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl under the ESA. Beginning in the late 1980s, lawsuits to protect the habitat of the spotted owl withdrew huge acreage of national forests from timber harvesting. President Clinton’s Northwest Forest Plan set aside 24.5 million acres for spotted owl recovery under the ESA. This caused an 80 percent drop in overall timber harvests in the Pacific Northwest, which must be considered an opportunity loss. The estimated losses alone resulting from the owl recovery plan ranged from a low of $33 billion to a high of $46 billion. Those losses were borne out by mill closures and job losses. Since 1989, when environmental lawsuits began, through 1994, 424 lumber mills closed in the Pacific Northwest alone. More than 27,000 loggers and mill workers lost their jobs. Furthermore, as logging communities across the Northwest lost direct timber-related jobs, the jobs of thousands of other employees – private and public – providing goods and services to local timber-dependent communities dried up.
Additionally, numerous local communities lost major revenues derived from the forest products industry. As mills closed and employees lost their jobs, the revenue base of many communities fell sharply. Lower revenues to state and federal governments also resulted when the sale of national forest timber products fell sharply. Even local school districts lost funding as timber-dependent counties lost tax income, population and commercial activity.
The economic costs of mill closures and lost jobs also had severe social consequences. As more logging families lost their incomes and became unable to pay their debts, the pressures within families increased, leading to alcohol and drug abuse, drunk driving arrests, school dropouts, domestic violence, and family breakups.
The unwarranted listing of polar bears could result in similar economic and social impacts, especially in Alaska, without any added benefit to the bear.
Listing could jeopardize Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline
An ESA polar bear listing could jeopardize the long-term economics of the proposed Alaska gas pipeline. The pipeline is a top national energy priority and is considered vital to Alaska’s future. The gas pipeline is projected to begin generating revenues to the state about the time oil production and corresponding revenues from such production falls below levels required to sustain state services to residents.
New natural gas discoveries beyond the North Slope’s 35 trillion cubic feet of known reserves are vital to ensuring the long-term profitability of any gas pipeline. But an ESA listing with its subsequent critical habitat designations and third-party lawsuits could potentially block access to highly prospective areas that may hold up to 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. If this were to happen, investors would simply direct their capital toward other opportunities in their global portfolios. Unfortunately, this would only serve to crimp domestic production and result in an increase in America’s reliance on foreign sources of energy. Moreover, since environmental laws and regulations tend to be weaker outside America, an increase in foreign energy production to satisfy America’s domestic energy needs would likely result in increased carbon emissions abroad.
Conclusion
Polar bears and their habitat are well managed and protected by numerous international and domestic agreements, regulatory mechanisms and laws, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the National Environmental Policy Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and coastal zone management programs at the federal, state and local levels. These extensive legal authorities and agreements make the polar bear one of the most protected species in the world, and provide more than adequate basis for addressing realistic threats. In fact, these regulatory mechanisms have resulted in the successful conservation and management of polar bears on a global scale. One only needs to look at population levels today and compare them to 30 years ago.
A decision on whether or not to list polar bear should be based on reality, not on highly uncertain and unreliable computer modeling that does not consider historical and observational data. The USGS studies ignore the fundamental facts that polar bears are healthy in population size and distribution, existing laws and regulatory mechanisms are working, polar bears are adaptive to change and they are one of the most protected species in the world.
RDC suggests the Service give serious consideration to the appropriate use of the ESA and recognize the precedent a polar bear listing would set. RDC strongly opposes listing the polar bear under the ESA and respectfully requests the Service to acknowledge such a listing is an inappropriate use of the law and that application of the ESA would fail to halt the loss of sea ice in the Arctic.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Resource Development Council
