The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
designating more than 200,000 square miles
in Alaska and off its coast as critical habitat
for polar bears, an action that will put future
oil and gas development and the expansion
of community infrastructure in the Arctic in
jeopardy.
Federal law prohibits government agencies
from permitting actions that may affect the
critical habitat for polar bears, which were
placed on the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
last year. While designation of critical habitat
would not, in itself, prohibit oil and gas
development and other activities, it would
make an analysis of an activity’s effect on
polar bears and their habitat an explicit part
of any government review process.
Moreover, national environmental groups
have signaled they are likely to go to court to
block any proposed development in or near
critical habitat.
The total area proposed for critical habitat
would cover about half of the Chukchi Sea
off Alaska’s northwest coast, as well as vast
areas of the Beaufort Sea. About 93 percent
of the area proposed for the polar bear is sea
ice, with the remaining seven percent made up of barrier islands or land-based dens on
the North Slope.
A 60-day comment period will end
December 28.
Governor Sean Parnell and Alaska
Attorney General Dan Sullivan warned that
resource development onshore and offshore
of Alaska’s North Slope is being challenged
through misuse of the ESA.
“Some are attempting to use the
Endangered Species Act to shut down
resource development,” said Parnell. “I won’t
let it happen on my watch.”
Sullivan said it is important to understand
the dire consequences of the legal theory being
advanced by groups that are misapplying the
ESA and distorting its purpose.
“There are two competing visions of the
future of Alaska,” Sullivan said. “Ours is one
in which responsible resource development
proceeds apace and protections remain in
place for wildlife, including polar bears,
which we treasure. The other vision is one in which Alaska’s resources are locked up,
our economy languishes, we lose population
and we lack the capacity to maintain schools,
roads, bridges, harbors and airports, or to
provide public safety. It is imperative that the
latter vision does not become a reality.”
The State has filed two legal briefs urging
the U.S. District Court in Washington,
D.C., to reject the listing of the polar bear.
The State is questioning the modeling used
to project the loss of sea life and impacts to
the bears. Polar bear numbers have actually
remained healthy throughout their Alaska
range and oil and gas development has not
had an impact. In fact, the industry has spent
millions of dollars on studies, which have
greatly advanced research on the bears.
Return to newsletter headlines
