Wildlife Promise » critical habitat

Judge Takes Away Critical Polar Bear Habitat

Aislinn Maestas — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:04:15 +0000

A polar bear mother and her two cubs near Churchill, Manitoba. National Wildlife Photo Contest Entry by James Seith.

A federal judge in Alaska has decided to deny polar bears something they desperately need—critical habitat.

The timing of this announcement could not be worse. The bears saw their Arctic ice habitat melt to a record-shattering low this past summer, a sign that climate change is altering the planet at a much faster pace than previously projected.

To make matters worse for polar bears, in response to a lawsuit by the Alaska Oil and Gas Association and the state of Alaska, a judge overturned a federal rule aimed at protecting critical habitat for polar bears in the U.S. The decision, if not reversed, means that notwithstanding the disturbance to bears from oil and gas drilling and extraction activities, as well as the outright danger of oil spills, oil and gas development will likely accelerate in prime polar bear habitat.

Protect the Home, Protect the Species

After the polar bear was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated more than 187,000 square miles as critical habitat for the struggling Arctic polar bears in 2010. This science-based decision included both Arctic sea ice and terrestrial habitat, including denning areas, for polar bears in Alaska. The designation facilitated greater scrutiny of oil and gas development and stronger safeguards in critical habitat.

Because it helps protect the places where polar bears live, the designation of critical habitat was welcomed as a way to give polar bears a fighting chance against the threats of global warming. The judge’s decision means that polar bears now face the double whammy with their habitat: the sea ice is literally melting away because of global warming and what is left faces increasing disturbance from oil and gas development in the areas they require to hunt, den and rear their young.

Speak Up to Help Polar Bears

Helping polar bears requires protecting them from disturbance, including the threat of oil spills, in their critical habitat. It is imperative that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service take action to get the bears’ critical habitat reinstated, by making a few corrections to its original proposal.

Helping polar bears also requires action to reduce the carbon pollution that is accelerating the melting of their Arctic home. You can help polar bears by sending a message to the Environmental Protection Agency in support of limiting carbon pollution from coal-burning power plants.

EPA Warns Pebble Mine Would Harm Alaska’s Salmon

Tony Turrini — Tue, 22 May 2012 16:52:28 +0000

On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a draft of its long-awaited ecological risk assessment of large-scale mining in the pristine Nushagak River and Kvichak River watersheds of Alaska’s Bristol Bay. This 339-page scientific evaluation covers a lot of ground, but ultimately reminds us that when it comes to the environment, it’s all about habitat.

Bristol Bay supports the largest runs of wild sockeye salmon in the world, a historic complement of other wildlife species, and more than two dozen Alaska Native communities that have maintained a salmon-based culture for at least 4,000 years. According to EPA, the watershed is exceptional because of its high-quality, diverse and free-flowing aquatic habitats.

Bristol Bay also contains large deposits of copper, gold and other minerals which have attracted the interest of mining corporations. The Pebble Partnership has proposed the controversial Pebble mine, but there are other potential mining sites in the region, including several adjacent to the Pebble development. The Pebble mine, the first of this new generation, would be the largest open pit mine in North America and would churn out over a billion tons of mining waste.

After reviewing the data, EPA concluded that large-scale mining would have significant impacts on salmon and salmon habitat in the vicinity of the mines. EPA’s finding was hardly a surprise to anyone familiar with the dismal environmental track record of the hardrock mining industry or the richness and fragility of the Bristol Bay watershed. What was unexpected was how deftly EPA framed the debate.

The arguments about Pebble and other large mines tend to revolve around “what ifs.” What if one of the massive tailings dams collapsed and sent a tidal wave of toxic waste down the watershed? What if industry applied state-of-the-art technologies and avoided the problems seen in older mines?

EPA addressed these “what ifs” but first reminded us that there is a more fundamental question: even if there is no human or engineering failure, is it worth developing Pebble and other large mines if it means losing extensive areas of important aquatic habitat? According to the risk assessment, the construction and routine operations of one Pebble-like mine would destroy between 55 and 87 miles of streams and between 2,512 and 4,386 acres of wetlands. These are huge numbers and essentially represent the inevitable cost of developing large mines in a region laced by a system of prolific wetlands, streams and rivers.

So, is it worth degrading the sustainable salmon fishery, rich wildlife, and Native cultures of Bristol Bay in order to develop mines that will play out in decades? Not to me or approximately 80% of the residents of the watershed. Even if I assume that mining companies could do things like build tailings reservoirs that last forever, the unavoidable destruction of aquatic ecosystems due to construction and routine operations–in this unique region–is too great to justify.

My hat’s off to EPA for conducting this rigorous assessment. Now I urge the agency to use its discretion under the Clean Water Act and take the steps needed to protect the public’s interest in the waters, fish, wildlife and communities of Bristol Bay. At least in this instance, large-scale mining isn’t worth the tradeoff.

Urge the EPA to protect our nation’s waters and wildlife from toxic mine pollution.

Shell Oil Threatens Polar Bear Habitat

germanom — Wed, 19 May 2010 13:22:02 +0000

The iconic polar bear already faces many threats- from melting sea ice, shrinking food supply, and climate change. The polar bear was even listed as a threatened species is 2008. To make matters worse, Shell Oil may soon start drilling in critical polar bear habitat.

This summer, Shell Oil will begin offshore drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in the North Slope of the Arctic, unless we speak up.

Speak up now!

Last year, 10,000 NWF supporters pushed the U.S. Department of Interior to finalize a proposal that would designate 202,541 square miles of critical habitat for the polar bear. Under the Endangered Species Act, this would require our government to protect polar bears in this habitat from the threats posed by offshore drilling, and a potentially catastrophic oil spill.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported, "A major Beaufort Sea oil spill would have major effects on polar bears and their primary prey, ringed seals." In an oil spill disaster, polar bears would be particularly at risk for hypothermia, oil poisoning and starvation. The challenges presented by a harsher Arctic ecosystem make an oil spill like the BP disaster even more likely. Offshore drilling in critical polar bear habitat is an unacceptable risk.

The fact that these plans have not been halted in the wake of the BP spill, which is still spewing oil in the Gulf, is outrageous. Our government must include Shell Oil in the moratorium on offshore drilling and stop the plans for drilling in the Arctic.

Stop Shell Oil from drilling in the Arctic this summer! Take action now!

NWF is celebrating Endangered Species Day on May 21, by highlighting ways that you can learn about and advocate for endangered species. Visit www.nwf.org/esday to get a free polar bear photo for your Facebook profile and show your support for endangered and threatened wildlife.