Tundra Swan in flight (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Tens of thousands of ducks and geese prized by sportsman, including Northern Pintails, Snow Geese, Greater White-fronted geese, Tundra Swans, Long-Tailed Ducks and more depend on the Reserve for nesting, feeding and molting each summer before heading south once again.  And the Reserve’s two major caribou herds, including the largest in Alaska, provide a vital subsistence resource for Native Alaskans as well as recreational hunting opportunities for sportsmen.

BLM’s draft management plan identifies an “Alternative B” that does the best job of protecting critical wildlife habitat in the Reserve – let BLM know you support that alternative.

Tell the Bureau of Land Management to Preserve the Best Places in the Reserve!

Lend your voice to the thousands of sportsmen, birders, subsistence users and others weighing in to ensure that the spectacular wildlife of the Reserve is protected for generations to come.

In the northwest corner of the northwestern-most state in the union lies the misnamed National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska (“Reserve”).  Well, the Alaska part is right, but the rest of it, not so much.

Contrary to the image conjured by its name, the Reserve is actually a place of unparalleled wildlife habitat supporting a wildly diverse and spectacular array of creatures.  Caribou, grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines, musk ox, walrus, seals, polar bears . . . the iconic wildlife of the Arctic are all well-represented in the Reserve.  But the wildlife that occurs in the most staggering numbers  – and probably the most familiar to folks in the 48 states – are the millions of migratory birds that summer in the Reserve and then fly south to almost every state in the nation.

A pair of Northern Pintails takes flight. Photo by Larry Hitchens.

Surprisingly, there’s not much oil in the Reserve – enough for about a month at the current U.S. consumption rate according to the U.S. Geological Survey.  The Obama Administration is currently deciding how much of the Reserve’s wildlife habitat to protect, and how much to lease to the oil companies.  Given the abundance and diversity of wildlife at stake, and the relatively minimal oil resource, National Wildlife Federation supports a balanced approach that protects the most important habitat while allowing careful oil development where appropriate. 

Tell the Bureau of Land Management to protect crucial wildlife habitat in the Reserve.

NWF helped create that policy, and also participated in developing the regional energy plan that identified the Fire Island project as one of a diverse and economically viable set of projects and efficiency measures that will achieve the 50% goal.

Murkowski's Arctic Refuge drilling bill bring adverse impacts to polar bears and other Arctic wildlife

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has introduced another Arctic Refuge directional drill bill that she claims “should silence any potential controversy over ANWR development.”  Here’s how the controversy would be silenced:

Allow intrusive seismic testing and surface exploration activities with no mandatory seasonal restrictions to protect wildlife or wilderness in the coastal plain, the “biological heart” of the Arctic Refuge;

Waive fundamental legal requirements to consider new studies and information and instead deem a 1987 environmental analysis adequate to support drilling the Refuge today.  Mandate a lease sale of at least 200,000 acres within 18 months and another within two years;

 Authorize the Bureau of Land Management to hold further lease sales in regardless of the opinion of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency charged with managing the Arctic Refuge;

Ensure a rubberstamp for BLM decisions by instructing courts that they ”shall be presumed to be correct unless proven otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.”

So let’s see: disruptive activities in the Arctic Refuge like seismic testing and exploratory drilling; mandatory lease sales, with mandatory dates and sizes, to be run by the BLM regardless of what the Refuge managing agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, thinks? 

And regardless of what the socio-economic, environmental and other studies say?  Oh wait, there won’t be any studies.  A 1987 study will be deemed all we ever needed to know, despite the fact that it’s 24 years old and incapable of assessing the wildlife, habitat, climate change and other relevant issues of today.  And if all this might lead to some underinformed decisions?  Not to worry, the bill tells the courts to presume everything is OK.  

Silence the controversy?  I don’t think so.  Reminds me of her attempt to silence the climate change controversy by gutting the EPA’s ability to do anything about carbon pollution . . . but that’s another story.

In related news not announced by Shell, the company continues its efforts to limit environmental oversight of its operations.  Shell has twice tried to obtain “minor source” air quality permits under the Clean Air Act, for example, which unlike “major source” permits do not require the application of “best available technology,” usually considered a component of “world-class” equipment and operations.  Each time, the Environmental Appeals Board rejected the less-stringent permit for not complying with the Clean Air Act.  Shell also voluntary withdrew a third “minor source” permit it had persuaded EPA to issue. 

Shell blames EPA for five years of permitting delay rather than its own insistence on weak permits resting on shaky grounds, and the oil industry’s friends in Congress are singing the same tune.  Shell testified at a recent hearing of the House Energy and Power subcommittee in support of a bill that would conveniently eliminate the pesky Environmental Appeals Board, also arguing that the “focus is on air quality at the onshore locations, not the offshore locations.  This is consistent with the purpose of the Clean Air Act, i.e., to protect public health and the environment.”

Um, right, because unlike pollution on land, pollution in the water is not important for public health or the environment.

These are the people we’re supposed to trust to operate safely and responsibly in the Arctic?

Santa Barbara Oil Blowout, 1969, photo by USGS

Historically, environmental disasters have tended to prompt introspection, learning and some level of commitment to do a better job in the future.

When an oil blowout blackened the waters near Santa Barbara in 1969, the nation galvanized in its support for protecting our coasts and oceans, and a grassroots movement leading to the first Earth Day was begun.

Later that year, the burning Cuyahoga River led us to question our widespread practice of simply dumping pollution into rivers and streams, a process that led to the Clean Water Act and the modern architecture of environmental law.

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill shocked and horrified us, and our political leaders responded by demanding better oil spill prevention and response, double-hulled tankers, better surveillance and more oversight.

One year after the largest oil spill disaster in our history, however, the loudest cries from our elected leaders are not for a sober assessment of our energy options, or even for improvements in oil drilling safety or emergency preparedness.  Instead, we see a mad rush for decreased regulation and taking even more risks in the hopeless pursuit of drilling our way to energy security.

The Deepwater Horizon disaster led to...ever-riskier offshore drilling?

Despite extensive evidence of ecological damage in the Gulf and no evidence of any improved ability to prevent and respond to oil spills, drilling has simply resumed apace. Worse, pressure has only increased to push into other frontier areas like the Arctic Ocean, a sensitive and productive environment where the oil industry has not demonstrated an ability to clean up an oil spill.

Congress has made no move to implement the recommendations of the National Commission on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. The U.S. House of Representatives will likely pass legislation to speed up offshore drilling and reduce or eliminate the environmental safeguards.

It’s beyond ironic that our national response to the Deepwater Horizon tragedy has largely been to drill more, faster, riskier, and with less concern for the environment. It’s desperate, and it’s doomed to fail us.

TAKE ACTION! Urge Congress to mark the oil spill anniversary by passing legislation that dedicates BP’s fines from the spill toward restoring the Gulf.