Testimony of the Alaska
Oil and Gas Association
By Marilyn Crockett
TESTIMONY OF THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION
TO U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ON PROPOSED LISTING OF POLAR BEAR
AS THREATENED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
March 1, 2007
Anchorage, Alaska
My name is Marilyn Crockett and I am Deputy Director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA). AOGA is a private nonprofit trade association whose 16 member companies account for the majority of oil and gas exploration, development, production, transportation, refining, and marketing activities in Alaska. AOGA's members are the principal industry stakeholders that conduct operations within the range of polar bears in Alaska, and have done so for 30 years, over which time, the population of polar bears has remained healthy. We are longstanding supporters of polar bear conservation, management, and research in Alaska and western Canada.
We are concerned about the polar bear listing for a number of reasons. First, the listing will likely hurt investment in Alaska, even though it is not clear how or if it will help polar bears. Second, the polar bear listing will lead to additional listings of species that might be impacted by climate change, likely overwhelming the ability of the FWS to manage the Endangered Species Act, and therefore harming other species. Third, the listing likely will force anyone in America whose business requires the emission of greenhouse gases to go through an additional layer of consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, creating delays and expenses.
While there is scientific consensus regarding the occurrence of global climate change, there is no scientific consensus regarding the reliability of the models now used to project future climate scenarios. The current scientific consensus is that the range of uncertainty regarding the timing, extent, and location of future climate impacts is enormous. AOGA strongly urges the FWS not to list polar bears as threatened under the ESA. It is inappropriate under the ESA to list a species based on risk factors that have not been linked to demonstrable effects on species populations. ESA requires that adverse effects on species populations be determined to be probable, not simply possible.
Further, should FWS determine a listing is warranted, it will be the first listing of a species which is healthy both in terms of population and distribution. We are extremely fortunate to be in a position of having an extensive understanding of polar bears, thanks in large part to the success of existing regulatory programs and extensive research conducted and funded by the oil and gas industry over the 30 years of operations in the Arctic.
The effectiveness of current regulatory mechanisms under the MMPA, as well as the commitment of Alaska's oil and gas industry to polar bear conservation, is evident from implementation of polar bear mitigation and avoidance programs, as well as past and continuing funding and logistical support for important polar bear studies. Polar bear studies funded by the oil and gas industry have included programs undertaken by the USGS in Alaska, and the Canadian Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct annual population surveys and identify and map polar bear den locations.In fact, industry-supported research undertaken by USGS scientists resulted in the development of methods to locate dens using infrared detectors similar to those used by firefighters. When activities are planned in denning habitat during the denning season, infrared detectors are used to locate dens so that those areas can be avoided. This information is annually updated with data from Winter surveys of polar bear dens.
The FWS issues regulations governing incidental interaction between polar bears and industry during oil and gas operations. These regulations are issued only after a thorough analysis by the Service that the operations will not negatively impact the polar bear populations. Under these regulations, companies conducting operations in the Arctic secure Letters of Authorization, or LOAs, from FWS, which contain extensive mitigation measures and monitoring requirements which are implemented by those companies during their specific operations. The Service acknowledges in the Federal Register notice that "LOA requirements have also increased our knowledge of polar bear activity in the developed areas."
In addition, North slope workers are routinely provided with annual training in polar bear awareness, with select groups of workers receiving additional training from USGS biologists on MMPA-approved hazing techniques. A trained polar bear monitor is placed at exploration drilling sites located in areas of polar bear habitat, and security personnel monitor polar bears that are observed within the vicinity of oil field operations. Polar bear encounter reports are submitted within 24 ours of any sighting, and a summary is submitted annually to FWS so that the effects of oil and gas activities on polar bears may be assessed. These strict operational protocols, which have been designed in compliance with the MMPA with the involvement of federal, state, and local governments, and native organizations, are credited with limiting interactions between polar bears and people.
Given the success of these initiatives and regulatory requirements, FWS, in its analysis of oil and gas industry development in making this proposal, concluded "... based on mitigation measures in place now and likely to be used in the future, historical information on the level of oil and gas development activities occurring within polar bear habitat in the Arctic, the lack of direct quantifiable impacts to polar bear habitat from these activities noted to date, and because of the localized nature of the development activities, or possible events such as oil spills, they do not threaten the species throughout all or a significant portion of its range." Potential impacts from future oil and gas development will continue to be adequately managed by the MMPA.
It seems odd to us that the FWS would list the bear without clearly identifying how the listing will improve conservation of the bear. Given that current practices adequately protect the bear, that population data for the bear do not show a decline, and that FWS representatives do not have a clear path forward indicating what measures will be taken to improve polar bear conservation if the listing goes forward, we fail to see the value of the listing.
While continued vigilance and conservation efforts are warranted, FWS should resist special interest pressure urging it to list the polar bear. FWS can, and should, place principal reliance upon current available knowledge about polar bear population health. Speculation about the loss of sea ice over the next forty-five years, confounded with further speculations about the response of polar bears to this loss of sea ice, should not outweigh data that show no negative trend in polar bear numbers. Accordingly, the proposed listing of polar bears as a threatened species under the ESA is not warranted.
Comment on this article | Printer friendly version