Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc.

Feb20 07

R E V I E WRESOURCE

A PERIODIC PUBLICATION OF THE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR ALASKA, INC. www.akrdc.org

This Edition Sponsored By:

The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService has proposed listingthe polar bear as “threatened”under the Endangered SpeciesAct (ESA), posing potentiallyserious ramifications for fu-ture resource development ac-tivities in Alaska and theLower 48. The proposed list-ing responds to a petitionfrom the Center for BiologicalDiversity to list the bear asthreatened and to designatecritical habitat.

The primary threat to polarbears as identified by theService is the decrease inArctic sea ice coverage. TheService has linked melting sea

ice in the Arctic to global cli-mate change and the agencyfears the bears’ habitat may bemelting away. Some computermodels predict summer seaice, which polar bears use tohunt for ringed seals, may de-cline 50 to 100 percent by asearly as 2040.

Interior Secretary DirkKempthorne emphasized toNorth Slope Borough MayorEdward Itta and AlaskaGovernor Sarah Palin that thelisting is in no way intended toblock oil and gas developmenton the North Slope or disruptsubsistence hunting. How-ever, environmental groups

have made it clear they intendto use a listing as leverage, per-haps eventually through litiga-tion, to restrict developmentand push for new initiatives toreduce greenhouse gas emissions.

If the decision is to list, fed-eral agencies must ensure anyactivities they authorize mustnot jeopardize the bears ortheir habitat. That could

include activities such as ship-ping, local community devel-opment, and oil exploration.Even projects in the Lower 48that produce or release carbondioxide into the atmospherecould come under additionalscrutiny.

In a letter to Kempthorne,Governor Palin warned thatlisting the polar bear under the

Past issues of Resource Review (1978-2007) are available at www.akrdc.org/newsletters/

I N S I D E

Polar Bear Listing 1, 4-5

Alaska Fisheries 1, 6-7

ESA Implications 3

Tongass Plan 8

Pebble Group Forms 9

Pebble Fish Refuge 9

Full Plate In Juneau 10

RDC News Digest 11

(Continued to page 4)

POLAR BEARSPOTENTIAL STATUS OF “THREATENED”MAY POSE SERIOUS RAMIFICATIONS

The federal government is concerned melting sea ice will pose a future threat topolar bears. The current polar bear population is near historic highs.

Photo: Susanne Miller/USFWS

SUSTAINING ALASKA’S GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

The North Pacific Fishery ManagementCouncil is one of the eight regional councils es-tablished by the Magnuson-Stevens FisheryConservation and Management Act in 1976 tomanage fisheries in the U.S. 200-mile ExclusiveEconomic Zone. The Council’s jurisdiction in-cludes all of the federally-managed fisheries offAlaska, with a focus on groundfish species har-vested by trawl, longline, jig, and pot gear. The

By Stephanie MadsenChair, North Pacific Fishery Management Council

(Continued to Page 6)The F/V Gun Mar leaves the port of Dutch Harbor.

Photo: Mark Fina

121 W. Fireweed, Suite 250, Anchorage, AK 99503

PRSRT STDU.S. Postage

PAIDAnchorage, AKPermit No. 377

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

Dowland - Bach

Resource Review is the official periodic publication

of the Resource Development Council (RDC),

Alaska's largest privately funded nonprofit economic

development organization working to develop

Alaska's natural resources in a responsible manner

and to create a broad-based, diversified economy

while protecting and enhancing the environment.

Resource Development Council121 W. Fireweed, Suite 250Anchorage, AK 99503Phone: (907) 276-0700Fax: (907) 276-3887E-mail: [email protected]: www.akrdc.org

Material in this publication may bereprinted without permission providedappropriate credit is given. Writer & Editor Carl Portman

Executive Committee OfficersPresident John ShivelySr. Vice President Rick RogersVice President Wendy LindskoogSecretary Tom MaloneyTreasurer Stephanie Madsen

StaffExecutive Director Jason BruneDeputy Director Carl PortmanFinance/Membership Deantha Crockett

February 2007 Resource Review www.akrdc.org (907) 276-0700 February 2007 Resource Review Page 11

GROUP TO LITIGATE, CLAIMS INSUFFICIENT

CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATIONS FOR EIDERS

The Center For Biological Diversity has given notice it in-tends to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for what itconsiders insufficient critical habitat designations for theSpectacled and Steller’s Eider. Both are listed as threatenedunder the Endangered Species Act.

The environmental group claims the Service violated theESA by excluding habitat essential to the recovery of the ei-ders. The group considers significant portions of the NorthSlope, Norton Sound, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and is-lands in the Bering Sea as key to the recovery of the eiders.

PROPOSED RULE PUBLISHED FOR LISTING NORTH

PACIFIC RIGHT WHALE UNDER ENDANGERED ACT

The National Marine Fisheries Service has published itsproposed rule to list the North Pacific right whale as an “en-dangered” species under the Endangered Species Act. TheService also intends to designate critical habitat for the whale.

RDC has opposed such a listing and the designation of crit-ical habitat. However, RDC has maintained its support for acomprehensive management and recovery plan for thespecies, as well as additional studies.

The proposed rule stems from a petition filed by the Centerfor Biological Diversity to list both the North Pacific and theNorth Atlantic right whale. In the past, the group has putspecific industries, including oil and gas, fishing and trans-portation, on notice that litigation will be initiated if criticalhabitat is designated.

Critical habitat designations for the Steller Sea Lion haveresulted in litigation and delays in projects, as well as the clo-sure of prime areas of the North Pacific to fishing.

RDC pointed out economic activities that are not impact-ing the recovery of the right whale will be negatively affectedby critical habitat designations, if not stopped entirely, withno added benefit to the species.

BELUGA POPULATION ESTIMATE RELEASED

The National Marine Fisheries Service estimates the CookInlet beluga whale population has increased to 302, up from278 in 2005. The whale is listed as depleted under the MarineMammal Protection Act.

The agency is currently comparing available data on thebelugas with requirements of the Endangered Species Act todetermine whether the population meets the act’s listing cri-teria for either endangered or threatened. The finding is ex-pected by April.

Additional information on the proposed listing is availableat: www.afsc.noaa.gov/.

BRISTOL BAY MORATORIUM LIFTED

President George Bush has lifted the moratorium barringoil and gas development in federal waters off Bristol Bay.Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne intends to include theNorth Aleutian Basin in the 2007-2012 five-year leasing plan,which also includes lease sales in the Beaufort and Chukchiseas.

The North Aleutian Basin had been blocked from federalsales since 1990 under U.S. Senate appropriations rules, re-pealed in 2003, and under presidential moratorium.

The Bristol Bay basin contains similar geology to upperCook Inlet and has a high potential for the discovery of nat-ural gas. The federal government estimates the basin holds753 million barrels of technically recoverable oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas.

Since the federal moratorium was put in place, the salmonfishery in the region has declined, leading local communitiesto take a renewed interest in the potential for oil and gas de-velopment. While support for onshore development isstrong, offshore development is more controversial, given thecontinuing importance of fishing to the region.

Governor Sarah Palin welcomed the news, noting develop-ment in the Bristol Bay region could provide the jobs, eco-nomic diversification and energy the people of this regionneed. However, she emphasized that development mustoccur in a way that does not harm the region’s rich salmonfishery.

CLIMATE CHANGE MEETING SET

RDC, the Municipality of Anchorage, ConocoPhillips, theEPA, the Nature Conservancy, Green Star and other organi-zations are teaming up to sponsor the Anchorage BusinessRoundtable on Climate Change February 15 from 8 a.m. to 2p.m. at the Egan Convention Center. The purpose of themeeting is to bring Anchorage businesses together with cli-mate change and energy experts to highlight successful strate-gies to reduce energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Toregister, go to www.akrdc.org.

AMEREF UPDATE: SOUTHWEST ALASKA

PRESENTATIONS CONDUCTED ON CD AND KIT

AMEREF Executive Director Lee Clune recently returnedfrom Southwest Alaska, specifically the Lower Kuskokwimand Lower Yukon school districts, where he visited ToksookBay, Tuntatuliak, and Marshall to provide an overview andorientation of the AMEREF interactive CD and kit materialsto staff and administration. Local officials have committed tofurther training in the near future.

In other news, an AMEREF course syllabus was recentlyapproved and adopted by the UAA College of Education.

The Annual Coal Classic Golf Tournament in support ofAMEREF will be held June 13 at the Anchorage GolfCourse. Detailed information on the event and the AMEREFprogram is available at www. ameref.org.

RDC NEWS DIGEST

JASON BRUNEA MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

(907) 276-0700 February 2007 Resource Review

ENDANGERED SPECIES OR DEVELOPMENT--IS IT A CHOICE?RDC supports development—responsible development—in

Alaska. Not development at any cost; not development that willcompromise the things we all value. Developers and environmen-talists alike live in Alaska because they love the outdoors, thewildlife it supports, and the economic opportunities it provides.Unfortunately, the aforementioned wildlife is often used to blockeconomic opportunities, all under the guise of the EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA).

Polar bears, beluga whales in Cook Inlet, sea otters in SouthwestAlaska, and Spectacled/Steller’s eiders, to name a few, are some ofthe hypothetical dodo birds of Alaska. The problem, however, isthat none of these species is actually in imminent danger of goingthe way of the dodo bird. Even so, many would like the rest of usAlaskans, or better yet, the rest of the United States, to believe theyare. Here’s some interesting information about these species youmay not have heard.

Polar Bears: RDC acknowledges that polar bear habitat, throughthe melting of sea ice, may be decreasing. However, RDC objectsto the current attempt to list the bears because they are already pro-tected by numerous international and domestic agreements, regula-tory mechanisms, and laws. As a result of these protections, thepolar bear population in Alaska is healthy in size and distribution.In addition, it should be noted polar bear numbers have not beenimpacted by oil and gas development on the North Slope. As theCentral Arctic Caribou herd has shown (its population has in-creased 11 fold since development at Prudhoe began), wildlife anddevelopment can co-exist. Once the bears are listed under the ESA,any threat to the polar sea ice would lead to third party lawsuits, de-manding federal mandates to reduce greenhouse gases. These man-dates should be debated up front and not legislated through thebackdoor by the ESA.

Beluga Whales In Cook Inlet: These animals, whose populationswere substantially reduced by subsistence hunting in the 90s, haveshown signs of recovery with increasing numbers of juvenile whalesbeing reported in a recent National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) report. In fact, prior to the large hunts, the whales thrivedboth in number and in physiology while oil and gas development,fishing, transportation, and other industrial activities occurred inthe Inlet. Moreover, these animals possess the lowest contaminantlevel of any Alaskan beluga populations in tissue sampling studies.

Southwest Alaskan Sea Otters: Sea otters thrive all overSoutheast Alaska, Prince William Sound, and elsewhere around theworld. But, their numbers have taken a dive in Southwest Alaskawhere killer whales are having a feast in what appears to be a pred-ator-prey cycle, not at all human-induced. Interestingly, there areseveral potential development projects proposed in SouthwestAlaska, so it should not be a surprise that a petition has been filedrecently to designate additional critical habitat. The likely result?Areas desperate for economic diversification might be potentiallyclosed to development without any positive impact to the otters.

Spectacled And Steller’s Eiders: The Center for BiologicalDiversity (CBD) has recently given notice of its intent to sue to in-crease the amount of critical habitat for Spectacled and Steller’s

Eiders. They argue that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service excludedkey areas of the North Slope from critical habitat designations.Primary constituent elements for designating critical habitat exist inmany areas in the eiders’ ranges and over 40,000 square miles havealready been designated—that’s bigger than the area of 13 individ-ual states! Fortunately, the ESA requires consideration of the eco-nomic impact of critical habitat designation. According to the lawitself, areas may be excluded from critical habitat unless “the failureto designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinctionof the species concerned.” This is not the case with respect to theeiders on the North Slope. It appears the CBD’s litigation may havethe unintended (or intended) consequence to delay or prevent newoil and gas opportunities on the North Slope.

Too many resources from both interest groups and the govern-ment are invested in the ESA listing process and critical habitat des-ignations rather than on the science and research needed to trulyunderstand and assist at-risk populations. More could be done iftrue partnerships among industry, the government, and the conser-vation community were developed, both prior to, and after a listing.Of course, this would require a conservation community willing tosupport some development and to accept some environmental im-pact, a government empowered to be flexible and proactive, andbusinesses consistently reaching out to other stakeholders.

Today, much of the very best research is being done by industryeither as part of the National Environmental Policy Act analysis oras ongoing monitoring. Unfortunately, much of the private sectorscience is immediately discounted because of its funding source.

Take, for example, the beluga whales in Cook Inlet. The studiesbeing done by the agency responsible for their oversight (NMFS)are limited to one, and I repeat, ONE annual population survey.Yet, this past year, several million dollars have been spent on belugaresearch by the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, the Port ofAnchorage, the Chuitna Coal project, and Chevron. In fact, a studyrecently funded by Chevron to identify individual belugas by flukepatterns showed more animals in both the Susitna River drainageand Knik Arm than the NMFS’ survey indicated for the entire Inlet.More importantly, this study shows a proportion of sub-adultsgreater than 40%. These animals will soon be reaching sexual ma-turity and adding to the population. This study provides a signifi-cant addition to our collective knowledge about these whales.

Both the conservation and development communities should besupporting the use of sound, peer-reviewed science to make man-agement decisions. Ultimately, I would like to see as much energyspent helping the management agencies identify research and fund-ing needs as is spent getting the species listed in the first place.

We all want healthy fish and wildlife populations. Industries havedemonstrated that development and wildlife can co-exist in Alaskaand a willingness to help better understand at-risk species. If wework together before a listing occurs, ultimately we may not needto resort to the Endangered Species Act. However, when the ESAdoes come into play, the conservation and development communi-ties must both work to recover these animals, rather than continueto use them as a tool to stop development.

Page 10 February 2007 Resource Review www.akrdc.org

I have recently finished my first trip to Juneau for 2007. Idid try for a second trip to attend the RDC dinner for fresh-man legislators, but the weather gods were not with me.

I sense the mood in the capital is both positive and expec-tant. It is positive because there is a new legislature and newadministration, each with high hopes for doing great thingsfor Alaskans. There seems to be a spirit of cooperation be-tween the two branches of government, and the clearly stateddesire of Governor Palin to work with the legislature has cer-tainly improved the atmosphere in the capitol building.

The positive attitude is also helped by the surplus we have,partially due to oil prices and partially due to the new pro-duction tax the legislature adopted last summer.

The mood is expectant because there are a number of challenging issues facing the legislature. At the top of every-one’s list is the gasline. The governor has announced that shewill submit a piece of legislation called the Alaska GaslineInducement Act that will provide a framework for new pro-posals from those interested in constructing and operating thismulti-billion dollar project. Thereare many interested parties waitingto see what the governor has inmind.

However, the gasline is only thebeginning of a relatively long list ofimportant issues facing the legisla-ture this session. The huge esti-mated deficit in the publicretirement programs affects notonly our state government, butevery municipal government andschool district in the state. I haveto admit I have yet to be convincedthe problem is as large as somehave projected, but it is an issue that will need to be addressedand the costs will be significant.

The governor has indicated she wants to re-establish thelongevity bonus and municipal revenue sharing programs and“fully fund” education. These programs have considerablepublic and political support, but also require substantial fund-ing.

At the same time the governor is asking her commissionersand the legislature to find $150 million in reductions from theoperating budget, a difficult task at best. I do have one rec-ommendation in this regard. You have heard this refrain fromme before, but the government cannot make dynamic reduc-tions in the operating budget unless the legislature and the ad-ministration are willing to repeal some of the laws that drivethe cost of government and show some restraint with new

laws the legislature adopts each year.Most new laws drive new costs. Reducing the number of

news laws and getting rid of some of the old ones is the onlyresponsible way to reduce the size of government.

All discussion of budget issues leads inevitably to a discus-sion of the state’s fiscal regime. The governor has suggestedthe legislature use $1.3 billion of the surplus to repay part ofthe debt owed to the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund asa result of previous withdrawals from that savings account.Saving some of this year’s surplus certainly makes sense, giventhe continued volatility of oil prices and the continuing de-cline in North Slope production.

However, I am disappointed that there seems to be little dis-cussion of an overall fiscal plan. I thought we might see somediscussion of changing the distribution system from thePermanent Fund to the percent of market value approach(POMV) favored by the fund’s trustees and most of us in thebusiness community. However, I have heard no discussion ofthe POMV, a first logical step in giving the state’s future rev-

enue structure a more stable base. Iam hopeful that situation willchange before the session ends.

There are many other issues thelegislature will be considering.Revised ethics legislation seems tobe on the top of most everyone’slist, including the governor’s, andthe issue should result in some veryspirited debate.

I would be remiss if I didn’t takea paragraph to be somewhatparochial and suggest that thecruise industry is hoping to workwith the new administration and

the legislature to make some changes in the cruise ship ballotinitiative passed by the voters last August. The framers of ourconstitution provided that an initiative cannot be repealed fortwo years, but granted the legislature authority to fix prob-lems, if they saw fit to do so. The industry believes that a fewsurgical changes could make the initiative more functional andhelp avoid the kind of contentious litigation that could takeplace if the new law is left as is.

There will be hundreds of bills introduced and many ofthem will get at least one hearing. As usual, the legislature willhave a full plate and more to eat off of. With issues such as thegasline and the significant fiscal issues on that platter, whatthey choose to digest may well determine whether we haveeconomic feast or famine in our future.

A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

JOHN SHIVELY

A FULL PLATE IN JUNEAU THIS SESSION

“As usual, the legislature willhave a full plate and more to eatoff of. With issues such as thegasline and the significant fiscalissues on that platter, what theychoose to digest may well deter-mine whether we have economicfeast or famine in our future.”

February 2007 Resource Review www.akrdc.org

ESA has the potential todamage Alaska’s and the na-tion’s economy without anybenefit to polar bear numbersor their habitat.

“We know listing polarbears as endangered orthreatened will not impactpolar bear numbers or causesea ice to freeze,” Palin wroteKempthorne. “What wedon’t know are all the unin-tended effects of listing. It ishighly probable that amongthem will be third-party law-suits from litigants with a va-riety of motivations to listlarge portions of Alaska’sNorth Slope as critical habi-tat or to limit emissions ofgreenhouse gases throughoutthe United States.”

The Service has acknowl-edged that its opinion regard-ing the impact of melting seaice on polar bears is not uni-versally shared in the scien-tific community. Moreover,the proposed listing is un-usual since the bears areabundant and their popula-tion in Alaska is healthy insize and distribution.Worldwide, the population isnear historic highs and hasincreased from 8,000-10,000between 1965-1970 to asmany as 25,000 today – allduring a trend of warmingtemperatures.

A number of scientists haveindicated polar bears wouldnot become extinct as icecoverage is likely to remainduring the winter. They pointout polar bears have adaptedto change and have survivedat least two major warming

periods in the past. Polar bears are currently

well managed and protectedby numerous internationaland domestic agreements,regulatory mechanisms andlaws, including the MarineMammal Protection Act, theNational EnvironmentalPolicy Act, the OuterContinental Shelf Lands Actand the Coastal ZoneManagement Act.

On the international front,this species receives addedprotection from treaties suchas the International Agree-ment for the Conservation ofPolar Bears and the recentagreement between theUnited States and Russia forthe Chukchi-Bering Sea pop-ulation. In addition, thespecies receives further pro-tection from the self-regulat-ing agreement for subsistencetake between Native polarbear hunters in Alaska andCanada.

“Considered together, theextensive legal authorities inplace make the polar bear oneof the most protected species

in the world, and they pro-vide a more than adequatebasis for addressing all realis-tic threats,” said EricFjelstad, an environmentaland natural resources attor-ney with Perkins Coie inAnchorage.

Fjelstad said the Fish andWildlife Service has notshown that polar bears areexperiencing problems underany of the factors set forth inthe ESA other than the spec-ulative risk associated withglobal warming and sea iceloss. “The listing is unprece-dented and will be controver-sial because of the lack ofconsensus on global warmingand its impact,” Fjelstad said.

The proposed listing de-pends on projections basedon computer modeling of therate and extent of sea ice de-cline, rather than on the ac-tual numbers of bears today.

In Alaska, there are 4,700polar bears living along thecoastline or offshore in theBeaufort and Chukchi seas.In Canada, the populationhas increased 25 percent dur-

ing the past decade to 15,000with 11 of 13 populations sta-ble or increasing. Where thenumbers are decreasing,some biologists believe theproblem is not global warm-ing, but overpopulation inareas where the bears arecompeting for food.

Outside Canada, only twopopulations, accounting for16 percent of the total num-ber of bears, are decreasing.In contrast, another two pop-ulations, 13.6 percent of thetotal number, are growing.

Critical habitat designa-tions could ultimately coverportions of the coastal plainsof ANWR and the NationalPetroleum Reserve-Alaska(NPR-A), as well as areas ofthe Chukchi and Beaufortseas. America’s largest oilfields are located on theNorth Slope and future ex-ploration and developmentactivities will likely focus onthe NPR-A and some areasoffshore.

The U.S. MineralsManagement Service esti-mates the Beaufort Sea con-tains more than 6.94 billionbarrels of recoverable oil and32 trillion cubic feet of natu-ral gas. The Chukchi Sea of-fers great promise with amean estimate of 15.4 billionbarrels of oil and 60 trillioncubic feet of natural gas.NPR-A likely contains 10.6billion barrels of oil, as muchas the mean estimate ofANWR.

In the Federal Register, theService noted oil develop-ment has not had a direct ad-verse impact on polar bears,

(Continued from page 1)

LISTING OF POLAR BEAR WOULD SET PRECEDENT

While the polar bear population in Alaska is healthy in size and distribution, theUSFWS is concerned about melting sea ice and its impact on the bears. Thephoto above was taken along the Beaufort sea coast. Photo: Susanne Miller

(907) 276-0700 February 2007 Resource Review Page 9

Editor’s Note: The following is a condensed versionof remarks delivered by Gail Phillips, formerSpeaker of the Alaska House, at the January 18 RDCbreakfast meeting in Anchorage. Phillips was one ofthree speakers presenting on behalf of a new organ-ization, Truth About Pebble.

Since 1912 when Alaska was officiallydesignated a Territory of the UnitedStates, the development of our re-sources, including mining, has providedthe major source of Alaska’s wealth.

Mining has continually provided jobsand income for Alaska’s families – including mine – throughout most re-gions of our State – from the FarNorthwest to the tip of the SoutheastPanhandle.

Alaska is one of the richest resourcestates in the Union. With many typesand vast amounts of natural resources todevelop, we have created comprehensivepolicies that now ensure their safe andprofitable development. Laws pertain-ing to Alaska’s permitting process arecontinually updated and refined as newtechnologies become available.

When I was the Speaker of the House,the revision and updating of our well-es-tablished permitting policies was a highpriority. We did not do this in a vacuum– all of these policy refinements were ac-complished in an open public process.The best scientific advice was applied,while conforming to State and Federalguidelines and the adamant direction ofthe people to “do things right.”

As a result of Alaska’s permittingprocess, we now have major resourcedevelopment projects throughout thestate that are the most environmentallysafe in the nation. Our permitting sys-tem is commonly used as a model forother states and nations.

This brings me to the crux of my re-marks which concern the integrity ofour established resource developmentpermitting system and the reveredFairness Doctrine treasured by mostAlaskans.

I want to focus on three points whichI hope Alaskans will take into consider-

ation as they make decisions regardingthe future of mining in Alaska andspecifically how the permitting systemwill affect the Pebble Mine developmentproject:

1. Alaska’s Fairness Doctrine: Wherewould we be today if Alaska had al-lowed the permitting process to be cor-rupted in the past and projects such asthese had not been developed?

• Major oil fields: Prudhoe Bay,Endicott, Kuparuk, Kenai Peninsula,Cook Inlet gas

• Major working mines: Red Dog,Usibelli, Fort Knox, Greens Creek,Pogo

• Major power projects: Terror Lake,Bradley Lake, 4-Dam Pool, Snetisham

• Major construction projects: expan-sion of the Anchorage airport, comple-tion of the Parks Highway to Fairbanksand the Dalton Highway to the NorthSlope

2. The integrity of our state’s estab-lished permitting system for resourcedevelopment: What happens to any fu-ture project such as another hydroelec-tric facility, a major bridge crossing awaterway to open up new areas ofAlaska for development, a major port orharbor that needs to be expanded or anew road that needs to be built – if wecannot assure investors that our permit-ting policies are safe, fair, inclusive andapplied equally to all people and to allprojects?

3. Alaska’s credibility as a reasonableplace to do business: If we allow onegroup to influence and buy off thosethat must ensure our fair and equitablepermitting process, how will this affectprivate sector investment in future de-velopment projects? The only answer is“negatively,” and it would be a disaster.

What truly bothers me are the organ-ized attempts underway to block thepermitting process from moving for-ward for the Pebble Mine. This attemptto limit due process is so unfair it is trulyun-Alaskan and un-American.

The United States and the State ofAlaska have valid workable permitting

processes in place and if NorthernDynasty and the Pebble Mine can meetthe hurdles contained in this process,then and only then will they be given theopportunity to develop the world-classresources contained in this deposit.

I would urge all of you to join TruthAbout Pebble and publicly state yoursupport for a fair and informed debate.Please visit us at: truthaboutpebble.org.

GAIL PHILLIPS GUEST OPINION

NEW GROUP DEFENDS DUE PROCESS FOR PEBBLE

PEBBLE FISH REFUGE IS

TABLED FOR NOW

Alaska’s Board of Fisheries has es-tablished a three-person committeeto review current protections for fishand habitat in the Bristol Bay region.The Board had considered a proposalto create a fish refuge near the Pebblecopper and gold prospect, but choseto study the issue further.

The Board does not have the au-thority to create a refuge, but it canforward a recommendation to thelegislature. A draft bill has been cir-culated in Juneau to create a gamerefuge in the area. Opponents con-sider the proposals as yet another attempt to ultimately block develop-ment of minerals in the area.

The specific area proposed forrefuge status has been managed formultiple use and open to mineralentry for decades. The Bristol BayArea Plan, revised in 2005 afterlengthy public comment, recognizesthe Pebble prospect and notes “thestate selected much of the land in theplanning area because of its mineralpotential.” In fact, the plan states“the general resource managementintent for the Pebble Copper area isto accommodate mineral explorationand development and to allow DNRto make specific decisions as to howdevelopment may occur, through theauthorization process.”


but warned melting sea icewill push more bears on-shore. It also warned that off-shore development wouldencroach on bear habitat.

Industry believes mitiga-tion measures can continue tohelp reduce the potential ef-fects of development on thepolar bear. No lethal take as-sociated with industry hasoccurred during the periodcovered by incidental takeregulations, which includemeasures that minimize im-pacts to the species.

A recent editorial posted atthe Wall Street JournalOnline said the proposedlisting appears to be moreabout the politics of globalclimate change. The newspa-per warned once the bears arelisted under the ESA, anythreat – perceived or real – tosea ice would likely lead tothird-party lawsuits demand-

ing federal mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions. The newspaper saidany government decision tolimit greenhouse gasesshould be debated in theopen and not legislated orregulated through the backdoor by the Endangered

Species Act.RDC Executive Director

Jason Brune said the federalgovernment has an obligationto ensure a listing decision isbased on real science and theactual polar bear population,rather than speculativecomputer modeling.

“Conservation programsand laws that promote polarbear protection alreadyexist,” Brune said. “I believean ESA listing cannot be jus-tified.”

A final decision to list is ayear away. The Service is ac-cepting comments on theproposed listing until April 9.It is seeking information re-garding measures to considerand reasons why areas wherepolar bear hunt prey and denshould or should not be des-ignated critical habitat.

Comments may be submit-ted to Supervisor, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, MarineMammals ManagementOffice, 1011 East TudorRoad, Anchorage, AK 99503.Comments may also be sentto the following email address:[email protected].

More than 100,000 com-ments have been received.

Worldwide, the polar bear population is at approximately 25,000, near historichighs. Between 1965-1970, there were 8,000 to 10,000 polar bears.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., ispushing federal legislation to designatethe 1.5 million-acre coastal plain ofANWR as Wilderness, a move thatwould permanently ban oil and gasdrilling in the refuge.

Markey introduced H.R. 39 in theHouse Resources Committee lastmonth. He has introduced similar legis-lation before, but with a Democraticmajority now in place, his bill couldgain some traction. Under Republicancontrol over the past decade, the Houseapproved ANWR drilling ten timesonly to see the effort fail in the Senatewhere supporters fell short of thesuper-majority needed to overcome afilibuster.

When ANWR was established in1980, Congress set aside the coastalplain for possible oil development. Inexchange, 8 million acres elsewhere inthe refuge were designated Wilderness,permanently banning any development.

The coastal plain is believed to con-tain 10.5 billion barrels of oil, ap-proaching the magnitude of PrudhoeBay reserves.

Congressman Don Young does notbelieve the bill will gather enough sup-port to pass the House.

In response to the bill, fellowDemocrat and Anchorage Mayor MarkBegich wrote a letter to Markey askinghim to reconsider his proposal to per-manently ban oil and gas developmentin ANWR. Begich noted he supports anational energy policy which includesboth conservation measures and in-creased access to domestic energy sup-plies. Begich said a permanent ban onfuture oil and gas development is short-

sighted, given the coastal plain isAmerica’s best prospect for a major dis-covery, and that development there canoccur in an environmentally-responsi-ble manner.

Senator Ted Stevens has introducedlegislation in the Senate to boost fueleconomy standards for automobiles toan average of 40 miles per gallon by2017, emphasizing America can signifi-cantly reduce its reliance on foreign oilby significantly increasing fuel econ-omy and boosting domestic energyproduction.

ANWR WILDERNESS BILL LIKELY TO GO NOWHERE

The 1.5 million-acre Coastal Plain of ANWR was intentionally set aside by Congress in 1980 for potential oiland gas exploration and development while 8 million other acres were designated Wilderness.

Page 8 February 2007 Resource Review www.akrdc.org

Editor’s Note: The following is a condensed versionof remarks by Forrest Cole, Tongass National ForestSupervisor, at a news conference, January 12, 2007.The comment period on the Tongass plan is openuntil April 12.

I’ve lived in Southeast Alaska fornearly thirty years, and I believe thereare two features that make it outstand-ing. One is the beauty, bounty and rich-ness of the natural landscape thatsurrounds us. The other is the diversityand vitality of the human communitiesnestled within it.

In the time I’ve lived here, I’ve seensome changes, too. I’ve watched popula-tion loss in communities cripple theirability to provide services like schoolsand health care. At the same time, I’veseen the big timber companies leave thearea, and watched small, family-ownedwood products businesses struggle tosurvive and grow. I’ve watched recre-ation and tourism boom and becomemajor players in the economies andlifestyles of Southeast. And, I’vewatched new trees in clearcuts growback into thriving stands of young trees.

The Tongass National Forest repre-sents about seven-eights of the land areaof Southeast Alaska. Maintaining thestunning beauty and other natural val-ues while still providing access to anduse of public resources is our challenge.It is also critical to achieving economicstability for local communities. TheTongass National Forest LandManagement Plan provides the frame-work to meet both goals.

Today I am releasing a DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement(DEIS) that corrects the deficiencies inour Forest Plan found by the NinthCircuit Court. In addition, I’m releasinga draft Forest Plan that incorporates anumber of updates identified in our“Five-Year Review.”

The Pacific Northwest ResearchStation prepared a new timber demandanalysis as a result of the Court’s deci-sion. The demand analysis is a key com-ponent of the amendment process

because it is the science that lets us di-rectly address one of the Court’s find-ings. We have studied this analysiscarefully, along with a number of otheranalyses, and have used them to developthe alternatives in the DEIS.

The centerpiece of our current ForestPlan is a conservation strategy that pro-tects the biological heart of the Tongass.It was designed to assure sustainabilityfor all resources and values, while allow-ing development on a relatively smallportion of the Tongass to make oppor-tunities available to communities.

One challenge, and one area where weneed your assistance, is how best to in-corporate conservation of resources intoa selected alternative that also supportscommunity economic viability, throughan integrated timber industry, yet with-out impacting other uses.

The Tongass Timber Reform Act of1990 requires the Tongass NationalForest to seek to provide a supply oftimber to meet annual and planningcycle timber demand. The short term (orannual) demand for timber is calculatedeach year. The longer term demand fortimber (or planning cycle demand) is asignificant component of the TongassForest Plan that looks out 15 years ormore. Several independent demandanalyses have indicated the potentialplanning cycle demand could be ap-proximately 360 million board feet peryear.

The challenge is how to have an avail-able land base large enough to meet tim-ber demand if it materializes, withoutimmediately impacting other resourcesand values. This land base could allowtimber demand to progress over timefrom a relatively stable source of timbersupply as the industry elects to make in-frastructure investments. At the sametime, it makes sense to think about de-signing an implementation strategy thatfocuses timber harvest primarily in theminimum land base necessary to sustainit, with expansion into more sensitiveareas only if demand increases.

Alternative 6 updates the Forest Planrelative to the 5 Year Review, but maynot provide a large enough land base toachieve an integrated timber industry.Alternative 4 offers an opportunity toaccommodate a more integrated timberindustry while balancing other resourceeffects, thus assisting the communitieswith economic development.Alternatives 1 and 2 focus on muchlower levels of timber harvest from asmaller land base.

I intend to complete the planningprocess by August to maintain stabilityfor southeast Alaska’s wood productsindustry and the Forest’s timber pro-gram. Currently, the wood supply nec-essary to operate existing mills ishanging in the balance until we finishthis process.

The 1997 Plan took 13 years andnearly 13 million dollars to produce.Combined with litigation, claims andtime spent on the 1999 ModifiedDecision, the 2001 Roadless Rule, the2003 Wilderness analysis decision andthe current Court order, the cost addsup to nearly $20 million.

I believe the money spent on thisplanning effort, litigation, claims, not tomention people’s time, could be put tobetter use. I also believe communitiesdeserve to know what can and cannot becounted on for their future.Communities are tired of waiting forsomething to happen when opportuni-ties surround them.

What we’ve been doing the past tenyears clearly is not working, for anyone.The only way I see out of the “conflictpit” we’re mired in, is for all of us towork creatively to build a plan thatmeets our cumulative interests in the“radical center.”

A new website has been openedspecifically for the project athttp://tongass-fpadjust.net.

Forrest Cole is the Supervisor for the TongassNational Forest in Southeast Alaska. He is based inKetchikan.

FORREST COLE

TONGASS FOREST PLAN: CHALLENGES, OPPORTUNITIES

GUEST OPINION


primary purpose of theCouncil is to develop fisherymanagement plans to providesustainable fisheries, througha partnership with theNational Marine FisheriesService, with input from theAlaska Department of Fishand Game, other state andfederal agencies, and the public.

A sustainable and viablefishing industry is extremelyimportant to Alaska’s econ-omy. Fisheries are the num-ber one private sectoremployer in Alaska, and aresecond only to oil in generat-ing revenue to the State.Commercial harvest ofgroundfish off Alaska’s coasthas averaged from 3 to 5 bil-lion pounds annually since1976. This equates to aboutone half of the total U.S. fishand shellfish harvests.Dockside value of these fish-eries is currently about $1billion annually, prior to anyvalue-added processing andre-sale.

The framework for manag-ing federal fisheries lieswithin the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which was re-

cently reauthorized and willguide federal managementover the next several years.Major revisions to the Act in-cluded tighter conservationrequirements for setting an-nual catch limits, rebuildingoverfished stocks, and incor-porating more rigid scientificinput into management sys-tems. Many of these newprovisions were based on themanagement program devel-oped for Alaska, which hadbeen heralded as a model forsustainable fisheries by theU.S. Commission on OceanPolicy.

The primary basis for thisrecognition, and the reasonthat Alaska’s groundfish fish-

eries remain vibrant, stemsfrom a reliance on sound sci-ence and a policy of strict an-nual catch limits. Catchlimits are established wellbelow the levels deemed ‘bio-logically acceptable.’ In the30 years this system has beenin place, the Council hasnever set a catch limit exceed-ing the recommendations ofits Scientific and StatisticalCommittee, whose member-ship includes over a dozenworld-class fisheries and ma-rine scientists. The in-seasonmanagement of these fish-eries, based on data from acomprehensive on-board ob-server program and real-time,electronic catch reporting ad-ministered by NMFS, en-sures that both catch andbycatch limits are not ex-ceeded. All catch, whetherretained or discarded, countstoward the annual limits, andfisheries are closed whenthose limits are attained.

To protect habitat from po-tential degradation due tofishing, the Council has im-plemented a number of large

closures over the years, in-cluding a ban on trawling inthe entire eastern subarea ofthe Gulf of Alaska and nu-merous areas in the BeringSea designed primarily toprotect important areas forjuvenile king and tanner crab.More recently, the Councilclosed 95% of the AleutianIslands management area tobottom trawling, and desig-nated several smaller areas inthe Aleutian Islands and Gulfof Alaska as closed to allcommercial fishing to protectspecific coral gardens anddeep-sea pinnacles. Theseclosure areas total nearly400,000 square miles, ornearly 40% of the area man-aged by the Council andNMFS. Additional habitatprotection areas in the BeringSea are currently under con-sideration by the Council.

Steller sea lions have longbeen a key consideration inmanagement of the NorthPacific fisheries, beginning inthe late 1980s when closureareas were enacted aroundrookeries and haul-out sites.More recently, beginning in2001, the Council imple-mented a sweeping array ofmanagement measures in-cluding spatial and temporalclosures of fisheries for pol-lock, Pacific cod, and Atkamackerel throughout theGulf of Alaska, Bering Sea,and Aleutian Islands, in orderto reduce potential competi-tion for sea lion prey andminimize overlap with sealion critical habitat. Theseclosures, implemented at

ALASKA IS A WORLD MODEL FOR

SUSTAINABLE GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

(Continued from Page 1)

The F/V American Eagle tied to the dock in Unalaska. Photo: Peggy Kircher


great economic expense tothe fishing industry, total anadditional 58,000 squaremiles.

The management approachfor North Pacific fisheriesalso takes into account the ef-fects of fisheries on the entireecosystem. Natural mortal-ity, due to predation by ma-rine mammals, seabirds, andother fish species, is ac-counted for in the annualstock assessment processupon which annual catch lim-its for each fish species arebased. As an additional layerof precautionary manage-ment, an overall ‘optimumyield’ cap limits the overallcatch of all species combined,even if the cap is lower thanscientifically determined safelevels of removals.

For example, catch limits inthe Bering Sea are held to atotal limit of 2 million metrictons annually, while scientifi-

cally acceptable catch levelshave ranged from 2.5 to 4million metric tons over thepast several years. Recentinitiatives to even more ex-plicitly embrace ecosystemconsiderations include devel-opment of a fishery ecosys-tem plan specifically for theAleutian Islands.

The Council initiated theAlaska Marine EcosystemForum, a collaboration offederal agencies with variousjurisdictions and resourcestewardship responsibilities,with the Aleutian Islandssubarea as the initial focus.The Council also initiated de-velopment of a fishery man-agement plan for the ArcticOceans area, including theChukchi and Beaufort seas,in order to explore manage-ment approaches and meas-ures necessary to controlpotential development offisheries in those waters.

North Pacific fisheries inparticular, have thrived underthe Council management sys-tem for 30 years. Yet chal-lenges on the horizon willundoubtedly further test theefficacy of this managementprogram in maintaining sus-tainable, healthy fish stocksand marine ecosystems. Keycommercial species in theNorth Pacific, including pol-lock, cod, and halibut, havebeen at historic all-time highabundance levels for severalyears. It is likely that quotasfor these species will decreaseover the next few years in re-sponse to changing environ-mental conditions. Managerswill need the continued sup-port of the North Pacificfishing industry to adhere toour scientifically-driven sys-tem, and adjust accordinglyto the ebb and flow of re-source abundance.

The Magnuson-Stevens

Act and the regional Councilprocess provide the toolsnecessary for responsiblestewardship of our marine resources. The process is sci-ence-based, deliberative, andtransparent, and provides forsubstantial public input dur-ing decision-making.

The process also givesmanagers the many toolsthey need to manage for eco-nomic benefit and long-termsustainability in a dynamicenvironment. It is critical thatmanagement programs con-tinue to be tailored to re-gional conditions, withsignificant input from affected constituencies.

New provisions of the recently reauthorizedMagnuson-Stevens Act willencourage better use of theprocess and tools necessaryto achieve sustainability ofour nation’s fisheries.


but warned melting sea icewill push more bears on-shore. It also warned that off-shore development wouldencroach on bear habitat.

Industry believes mitiga-tion measures can continue tohelp reduce the potential ef-fects of development on thepolar bear. No lethal take as-sociated with industry hasoccurred during the periodcovered by incidental takeregulations, which includemeasures that minimize im-pacts to the species.

A recent editorial posted atthe Wall Street JournalOnline said the proposedlisting appears to be moreabout the politics of globalclimate change. The newspa-per warned once the bears arelisted under the ESA, anythreat – perceived or real – tosea ice would likely lead tothird-party lawsuits demand-

ing federal mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions. The newspaper saidany government decision tolimit greenhouse gasesshould be debated in theopen and not legislated orregulated through the backdoor by the Endangered

Species Act.RDC Executive Director

Jason Brune said the federalgovernment has an obligationto ensure a listing decision isbased on real science and theactual polar bear population,rather than speculativecomputer modeling.

“Conservation programsand laws that promote polarbear protection alreadyexist,” Brune said. “I believean ESA listing cannot be jus-tified.”

A final decision to list is ayear away. The Service is ac-cepting comments on theproposed listing until April 9.It is seeking information re-garding measures to considerand reasons why areas wherepolar bear hunt prey and denshould or should not be des-ignated critical habitat.

Comments may be submit-ted to Supervisor, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, MarineMammals ManagementOffice, 1011 East TudorRoad, Anchorage, AK 99503.Comments may also be sentto the following email address:[email protected].

More than 100,000 com-ments have been received.

Worldwide, the polar bear population is at approximately 25,000, near historichighs. Between 1965-1970, there were 8,000 to 10,000 polar bears.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., ispushing federal legislation to designatethe 1.5 million-acre coastal plain ofANWR as Wilderness, a move thatwould permanently ban oil and gasdrilling in the refuge.

Markey introduced H.R. 39 in theHouse Resources Committee lastmonth. He has introduced similar legis-lation before, but with a Democraticmajority now in place, his bill couldgain some traction. Under Republicancontrol over the past decade, the Houseapproved ANWR drilling ten timesonly to see the effort fail in the Senatewhere supporters fell short of thesuper-majority needed to overcome afilibuster.

When ANWR was established in1980, Congress set aside the coastalplain for possible oil development. Inexchange, 8 million acres elsewhere inthe refuge were designated Wilderness,permanently banning any development.

The coastal plain is believed to con-tain 10.5 billion barrels of oil, ap-proaching the magnitude of PrudhoeBay reserves.

Congressman Don Young does notbelieve the bill will gather enough sup-port to pass the House.

In response to the bill, fellowDemocrat and Anchorage Mayor MarkBegich wrote a letter to Markey askinghim to reconsider his proposal to per-manently ban oil and gas developmentin ANWR. Begich noted he supports anational energy policy which includesboth conservation measures and in-creased access to domestic energy sup-plies. Begich said a permanent ban onfuture oil and gas development is short-

sighted, given the coastal plain isAmerica’s best prospect for a major dis-covery, and that development there canoccur in an environmentally-responsi-ble manner.

Senator Ted Stevens has introducedlegislation in the Senate to boost fueleconomy standards for automobiles toan average of 40 miles per gallon by2017, emphasizing America can signifi-cantly reduce its reliance on foreign oilby significantly increasing fuel econ-omy and boosting domestic energyproduction.

ANWR WILDERNESS BILL LIKELY TO GO NOWHERE

The 1.5 million-acre Coastal Plain of ANWR was intentionally set aside by Congress in 1980 for potential oiland gas exploration and development while 8 million other acres were designated Wilderness.


Editor’s Note: The following is a condensed versionof remarks by Forrest Cole, Tongass National ForestSupervisor, at a news conference, January 12, 2007.The comment period on the Tongass plan is openuntil April 12.

I’ve lived in Southeast Alaska fornearly thirty years, and I believe thereare two features that make it outstand-ing. One is the beauty, bounty and rich-ness of the natural landscape thatsurrounds us. The other is the diversityand vitality of the human communitiesnestled within it.

In the time I’ve lived here, I’ve seensome changes, too. I’ve watched popula-tion loss in communities cripple theirability to provide services like schoolsand health care. At the same time, I’veseen the big timber companies leave thearea, and watched small, family-ownedwood products businesses struggle tosurvive and grow. I’ve watched recre-ation and tourism boom and becomemajor players in the economies andlifestyles of Southeast. And, I’vewatched new trees in clearcuts growback into thriving stands of young trees.

The Tongass National Forest repre-sents about seven-eights of the land areaof Southeast Alaska. Maintaining thestunning beauty and other natural val-ues while still providing access to anduse of public resources is our challenge.It is also critical to achieving economicstability for local communities. TheTongass National Forest LandManagement Plan provides the frame-work to meet both goals.

Today I am releasing a DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement(DEIS) that corrects the deficiencies inour Forest Plan found by the NinthCircuit Court. In addition, I’m releasinga draft Forest Plan that incorporates anumber of updates identified in our“Five-Year Review.”

The Pacific Northwest ResearchStation prepared a new timber demandanalysis as a result of the Court’s deci-sion. The demand analysis is a key com-ponent of the amendment process

because it is the science that lets us di-rectly address one of the Court’s find-ings. We have studied this analysiscarefully, along with a number of otheranalyses, and have used them to developthe alternatives in the DEIS.

The centerpiece of our current ForestPlan is a conservation strategy that pro-tects the biological heart of the Tongass.It was designed to assure sustainabilityfor all resources and values, while allow-ing development on a relatively smallportion of the Tongass to make oppor-tunities available to communities.

One challenge, and one area where weneed your assistance, is how best to in-corporate conservation of resources intoa selected alternative that also supportscommunity economic viability, throughan integrated timber industry, yet with-out impacting other uses.

The Tongass Timber Reform Act of1990 requires the Tongass NationalForest to seek to provide a supply oftimber to meet annual and planningcycle timber demand. The short term (orannual) demand for timber is calculatedeach year. The longer term demand fortimber (or planning cycle demand) is asignificant component of the TongassForest Plan that looks out 15 years ormore. Several independent demandanalyses have indicated the potentialplanning cycle demand could be ap-proximately 360 million board feet peryear.

The challenge is how to have an avail-able land base large enough to meet tim-ber demand if it materializes, withoutimmediately impacting other resourcesand values. This land base could allowtimber demand to progress over timefrom a relatively stable source of timbersupply as the industry elects to make in-frastructure investments. At the sametime, it makes sense to think about de-signing an implementation strategy thatfocuses timber harvest primarily in theminimum land base necessary to sustainit, with expansion into more sensitiveareas only if demand increases.

Alternative 6 updates the Forest Planrelative to the 5 Year Review, but maynot provide a large enough land base toachieve an integrated timber industry.Alternative 4 offers an opportunity toaccommodate a more integrated timberindustry while balancing other resourceeffects, thus assisting the communitieswith economic development.Alternatives 1 and 2 focus on muchlower levels of timber harvest from asmaller land base.

I intend to complete the planningprocess by August to maintain stabilityfor southeast Alaska’s wood productsindustry and the Forest’s timber pro-gram. Currently, the wood supply nec-essary to operate existing mills ishanging in the balance until we finishthis process.

The 1997 Plan took 13 years andnearly 13 million dollars to produce.Combined with litigation, claims andtime spent on the 1999 ModifiedDecision, the 2001 Roadless Rule, the2003 Wilderness analysis decision andthe current Court order, the cost addsup to nearly $20 million.

I believe the money spent on thisplanning effort, litigation, claims, not tomention people’s time, could be put tobetter use. I also believe communitiesdeserve to know what can and cannot becounted on for their future.Communities are tired of waiting forsomething to happen when opportuni-ties surround them.

What we’ve been doing the past tenyears clearly is not working, for anyone.The only way I see out of the “conflictpit” we’re mired in, is for all of us towork creatively to build a plan thatmeets our cumulative interests in the“radical center.”

A new website has been openedspecifically for the project athttp://tongass-fpadjust.net.

Forrest Cole is the Supervisor for the TongassNational Forest in Southeast Alaska. He is based inKetchikan.

FORREST COLE

TONGASS FOREST PLAN: CHALLENGES, OPPORTUNITIES

GUEST OPINION


ESA has the potential todamage Alaska’s and the na-tion’s economy without anybenefit to polar bear numbersor their habitat.

“We know listing polarbears as endangered orthreatened will not impactpolar bear numbers or causesea ice to freeze,” Palin wroteKempthorne. “What wedon’t know are all the unin-tended effects of listing. It ishighly probable that amongthem will be third-party law-suits from litigants with a va-riety of motivations to listlarge portions of Alaska’sNorth Slope as critical habi-tat or to limit emissions ofgreenhouse gases throughoutthe United States.”

The Service has acknowl-edged that its opinion regard-ing the impact of melting seaice on polar bears is not uni-versally shared in the scien-tific community. Moreover,the proposed listing is un-usual since the bears areabundant and their popula-tion in Alaska is healthy insize and distribution.Worldwide, the population isnear historic highs and hasincreased from 8,000-10,000between 1965-1970 to asmany as 25,000 today – allduring a trend of warmingtemperatures.

A number of scientists haveindicated polar bears wouldnot become extinct as icecoverage is likely to remainduring the winter. They pointout polar bears have adaptedto change and have survivedat least two major warming

periods in the past. Polar bears are currently

well managed and protectedby numerous internationaland domestic agreements,regulatory mechanisms andlaws, including the MarineMammal Protection Act, theNational EnvironmentalPolicy Act, the OuterContinental Shelf Lands Actand the Coastal ZoneManagement Act.

On the international front,this species receives addedprotection from treaties suchas the International Agree-ment for the Conservation ofPolar Bears and the recentagreement between theUnited States and Russia forthe Chukchi-Bering Sea pop-ulation. In addition, thespecies receives further pro-tection from the self-regulat-ing agreement for subsistencetake between Native polarbear hunters in Alaska andCanada.

“Considered together, theextensive legal authorities inplace make the polar bear oneof the most protected species

in the world, and they pro-vide a more than adequatebasis for addressing all realis-tic threats,” said EricFjelstad, an environmentaland natural resources attor-ney with Perkins Coie inAnchorage.

Fjelstad said the Fish andWildlife Service has notshown that polar bears areexperiencing problems underany of the factors set forth inthe ESA other than the spec-ulative risk associated withglobal warming and sea iceloss. “The listing is unprece-dented and will be controver-sial because of the lack ofconsensus on global warmingand its impact,” Fjelstad said.

The proposed listing de-pends on projections basedon computer modeling of therate and extent of sea ice de-cline, rather than on the ac-tual numbers of bears today.

In Alaska, there are 4,700polar bears living along thecoastline or offshore in theBeaufort and Chukchi seas.In Canada, the populationhas increased 25 percent dur-

ing the past decade to 15,000with 11 of 13 populations sta-ble or increasing. Where thenumbers are decreasing,some biologists believe theproblem is not global warm-ing, but overpopulation inareas where the bears arecompeting for food.

Outside Canada, only twopopulations, accounting for16 percent of the total num-ber of bears, are decreasing.In contrast, another two pop-ulations, 13.6 percent of thetotal number, are growing.

Critical habitat designa-tions could ultimately coverportions of the coastal plainsof ANWR and the NationalPetroleum Reserve-Alaska(NPR-A), as well as areas ofthe Chukchi and Beaufortseas. America’s largest oilfields are located on theNorth Slope and future ex-ploration and developmentactivities will likely focus onthe NPR-A and some areasoffshore.

The U.S. MineralsManagement Service esti-mates the Beaufort Sea con-tains more than 6.94 billionbarrels of recoverable oil and32 trillion cubic feet of natu-ral gas. The Chukchi Sea of-fers great promise with amean estimate of 15.4 billionbarrels of oil and 60 trillioncubic feet of natural gas.NPR-A likely contains 10.6billion barrels of oil, as muchas the mean estimate ofANWR.

In the Federal Register, theService noted oil develop-ment has not had a direct ad-verse impact on polar bears,

(Continued from page 1)

LISTING OF POLAR BEAR WOULD SET PRECEDENT

While the polar bear population in Alaska is healthy in size and distribution, theUSFWS is concerned about melting sea ice and its impact on the bears. Thephoto above was taken along the Beaufort sea coast. Photo: Susanne Miller


Editor’s Note: The following is a condensed versionof remarks delivered by Gail Phillips, formerSpeaker of the Alaska House, at the January 18 RDCbreakfast meeting in Anchorage. Phillips was one ofthree speakers presenting on behalf of a new organ-ization, Truth About Pebble.

Since 1912 when Alaska was officiallydesignated a Territory of the UnitedStates, the development of our re-sources, including mining, has providedthe major source of Alaska’s wealth.

Mining has continually provided jobsand income for Alaska’s families – including mine – throughout most re-gions of our State – from the FarNorthwest to the tip of the SoutheastPanhandle.

Alaska is one of the richest resourcestates in the Union. With many typesand vast amounts of natural resources todevelop, we have created comprehensivepolicies that now ensure their safe andprofitable development. Laws pertain-ing to Alaska’s permitting process arecontinually updated and refined as newtechnologies become available.

When I was the Speaker of the House,the revision and updating of our well-es-tablished permitting policies was a highpriority. We did not do this in a vacuum– all of these policy refinements were ac-complished in an open public process.The best scientific advice was applied,while conforming to State and Federalguidelines and the adamant direction ofthe people to “do things right.”

As a result of Alaska’s permittingprocess, we now have major resourcedevelopment projects throughout thestate that are the most environmentallysafe in the nation. Our permitting sys-tem is commonly used as a model forother states and nations.

This brings me to the crux of my re-marks which concern the integrity ofour established resource developmentpermitting system and the reveredFairness Doctrine treasured by mostAlaskans.

I want to focus on three points whichI hope Alaskans will take into consider-

ation as they make decisions regardingthe future of mining in Alaska andspecifically how the permitting systemwill affect the Pebble Mine developmentproject:

1. Alaska’s Fairness Doctrine: Wherewould we be today if Alaska had al-lowed the permitting process to be cor-rupted in the past and projects such asthese had not been developed?

• Major oil fields: Prudhoe Bay,Endicott, Kuparuk, Kenai Peninsula,Cook Inlet gas

• Major working mines: Red Dog,Usibelli, Fort Knox, Greens Creek,Pogo

• Major power projects: Terror Lake,Bradley Lake, 4-Dam Pool, Snetisham

• Major construction projects: expan-sion of the Anchorage airport, comple-tion of the Parks Highway to Fairbanksand the Dalton Highway to the NorthSlope

2. The integrity of our state’s estab-lished permitting system for resourcedevelopment: What happens to any fu-ture project such as another hydroelec-tric facility, a major bridge crossing awaterway to open up new areas ofAlaska for development, a major port orharbor that needs to be expanded or anew road that needs to be built – if wecannot assure investors that our permit-ting policies are safe, fair, inclusive andapplied equally to all people and to allprojects?

3. Alaska’s credibility as a reasonableplace to do business: If we allow onegroup to influence and buy off thosethat must ensure our fair and equitablepermitting process, how will this affectprivate sector investment in future de-velopment projects? The only answer is“negatively,” and it would be a disaster.

What truly bothers me are the organ-ized attempts underway to block thepermitting process from moving for-ward for the Pebble Mine. This attemptto limit due process is so unfair it is trulyun-Alaskan and un-American.

The United States and the State ofAlaska have valid workable permitting

processes in place and if NorthernDynasty and the Pebble Mine can meetthe hurdles contained in this process,then and only then will they be given theopportunity to develop the world-classresources contained in this deposit.

I would urge all of you to join TruthAbout Pebble and publicly state yoursupport for a fair and informed debate.Please visit us at: truthaboutpebble.org.

GAIL PHILLIPS GUEST OPINION

NEW GROUP DEFENDS DUE PROCESS FOR PEBBLE

PEBBLE FISH REFUGE IS

TABLED FOR NOW

Alaska’s Board of Fisheries has es-tablished a three-person committeeto review current protections for fishand habitat in the Bristol Bay region.The Board had considered a proposalto create a fish refuge near the Pebblecopper and gold prospect, but choseto study the issue further.

The Board does not have the au-thority to create a refuge, but it canforward a recommendation to thelegislature. A draft bill has been cir-culated in Juneau to create a gamerefuge in the area. Opponents con-sider the proposals as yet another attempt to ultimately block develop-ment of minerals in the area.

The specific area proposed forrefuge status has been managed formultiple use and open to mineralentry for decades. The Bristol BayArea Plan, revised in 2005 afterlengthy public comment, recognizesthe Pebble prospect and notes “thestate selected much of the land in theplanning area because of its mineralpotential.” In fact, the plan states“the general resource managementintent for the Pebble Copper area isto accommodate mineral explorationand development and to allow DNRto make specific decisions as to howdevelopment may occur, through theauthorization process.”

JASON BRUNEA MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR


ENDANGERED SPECIES OR DEVELOPMENT--IS IT A CHOICE?RDC supports development—responsible development—in

Alaska. Not development at any cost; not development that willcompromise the things we all value. Developers and environmen-talists alike live in Alaska because they love the outdoors, thewildlife it supports, and the economic opportunities it provides.Unfortunately, the aforementioned wildlife is often used to blockeconomic opportunities, all under the guise of the EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA).

Polar bears, beluga whales in Cook Inlet, sea otters in SouthwestAlaska, and Spectacled/Steller’s eiders, to name a few, are some ofthe hypothetical dodo birds of Alaska. The problem, however, isthat none of these species is actually in imminent danger of goingthe way of the dodo bird. Even so, many would like the rest of usAlaskans, or better yet, the rest of the United States, to believe theyare. Here’s some interesting information about these species youmay not have heard.

Polar Bears: RDC acknowledges that polar bear habitat, throughthe melting of sea ice, may be decreasing. However, RDC objectsto the current attempt to list the bears because they are already pro-tected by numerous international and domestic agreements, regula-tory mechanisms, and laws. As a result of these protections, thepolar bear population in Alaska is healthy in size and distribution.In addition, it should be noted polar bear numbers have not beenimpacted by oil and gas development on the North Slope. As theCentral Arctic Caribou herd has shown (its population has in-creased 11 fold since development at Prudhoe began), wildlife anddevelopment can co-exist. Once the bears are listed under the ESA,any threat to the polar sea ice would lead to third party lawsuits, de-manding federal mandates to reduce greenhouse gases. These man-dates should be debated up front and not legislated through thebackdoor by the ESA.

Beluga Whales In Cook Inlet: These animals, whose populationswere substantially reduced by subsistence hunting in the 90s, haveshown signs of recovery with increasing numbers of juvenile whalesbeing reported in a recent National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) report. In fact, prior to the large hunts, the whales thrivedboth in number and in physiology while oil and gas development,fishing, transportation, and other industrial activities occurred inthe Inlet. Moreover, these animals possess the lowest contaminantlevel of any Alaskan beluga populations in tissue sampling studies.

Southwest Alaskan Sea Otters: Sea otters thrive all overSoutheast Alaska, Prince William Sound, and elsewhere around theworld. But, their numbers have taken a dive in Southwest Alaskawhere killer whales are having a feast in what appears to be a pred-ator-prey cycle, not at all human-induced. Interestingly, there areseveral potential development projects proposed in SouthwestAlaska, so it should not be a surprise that a petition has been filedrecently to designate additional critical habitat. The likely result?Areas desperate for economic diversification might be potentiallyclosed to development without any positive impact to the otters.

Spectacled And Steller’s Eiders: The Center for BiologicalDiversity (CBD) has recently given notice of its intent to sue to in-crease the amount of critical habitat for Spectacled and Steller’s

Eiders. They argue that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service excludedkey areas of the North Slope from critical habitat designations.Primary constituent elements for designating critical habitat exist inmany areas in the eiders’ ranges and over 40,000 square miles havealready been designated—that’s bigger than the area of 13 individ-ual states! Fortunately, the ESA requires consideration of the eco-nomic impact of critical habitat designation. According to the lawitself, areas may be excluded from critical habitat unless “the failureto designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinctionof the species concerned.” This is not the case with respect to theeiders on the North Slope. It appears the CBD’s litigation may havethe unintended (or intended) consequence to delay or prevent newoil and gas opportunities on the North Slope.

Too many resources from both interest groups and the govern-ment are invested in the ESA listing process and critical habitat des-ignations rather than on the science and research needed to trulyunderstand and assist at-risk populations. More could be done iftrue partnerships among industry, the government, and the conser-vation community were developed, both prior to, and after a listing.Of course, this would require a conservation community willing tosupport some development and to accept some environmental im-pact, a government empowered to be flexible and proactive, andbusinesses consistently reaching out to other stakeholders.

Today, much of the very best research is being done by industryeither as part of the National Environmental Policy Act analysis oras ongoing monitoring. Unfortunately, much of the private sectorscience is immediately discounted because of its funding source.

Take, for example, the beluga whales in Cook Inlet. The studiesbeing done by the agency responsible for their oversight (NMFS)are limited to one, and I repeat, ONE annual population survey.Yet, this past year, several million dollars have been spent on belugaresearch by the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, the Port ofAnchorage, the Chuitna Coal project, and Chevron. In fact, a studyrecently funded by Chevron to identify individual belugas by flukepatterns showed more animals in both the Susitna River drainageand Knik Arm than the NMFS’ survey indicated for the entire Inlet.More importantly, this study shows a proportion of sub-adultsgreater than 40%. These animals will soon be reaching sexual ma-turity and adding to the population. This study provides a signifi-cant addition to our collective knowledge about these whales.

Both the conservation and development communities should besupporting the use of sound, peer-reviewed science to make man-agement decisions. Ultimately, I would like to see as much energyspent helping the management agencies identify research and fund-ing needs as is spent getting the species listed in the first place.

We all want healthy fish and wildlife populations. Industries havedemonstrated that development and wildlife can co-exist in Alaskaand a willingness to help better understand at-risk species. If wework together before a listing occurs, ultimately we may not needto resort to the Endangered Species Act. However, when the ESAdoes come into play, the conservation and development communi-ties must both work to recover these animals, rather than continueto use them as a tool to stop development.


I have recently finished my first trip to Juneau for 2007. Idid try for a second trip to attend the RDC dinner for fresh-man legislators, but the weather gods were not with me.

I sense the mood in the capital is both positive and expec-tant. It is positive because there is a new legislature and newadministration, each with high hopes for doing great thingsfor Alaskans. There seems to be a spirit of cooperation be-tween the two branches of government, and the clearly stateddesire of Governor Palin to work with the legislature has cer-tainly improved the atmosphere in the capitol building.

The positive attitude is also helped by the surplus we have,partially due to oil prices and partially due to the new pro-duction tax the legislature adopted last summer.

The mood is expectant because there are a number of challenging issues facing the legislature. At the top of every-one’s list is the gasline. The governor has announced that shewill submit a piece of legislation called the Alaska GaslineInducement Act that will provide a framework for new pro-posals from those interested in constructing and operating thismulti-billion dollar project. Thereare many interested parties waitingto see what the governor has inmind.

However, the gasline is only thebeginning of a relatively long list ofimportant issues facing the legisla-ture this session. The huge esti-mated deficit in the publicretirement programs affects notonly our state government, butevery municipal government andschool district in the state. I haveto admit I have yet to be convincedthe problem is as large as somehave projected, but it is an issue that will need to be addressedand the costs will be significant.

The governor has indicated she wants to re-establish thelongevity bonus and municipal revenue sharing programs and“fully fund” education. These programs have considerablepublic and political support, but also require substantial fund-ing.

At the same time the governor is asking her commissionersand the legislature to find $150 million in reductions from theoperating budget, a difficult task at best. I do have one rec-ommendation in this regard. You have heard this refrain fromme before, but the government cannot make dynamic reduc-tions in the operating budget unless the legislature and the ad-ministration are willing to repeal some of the laws that drivethe cost of government and show some restraint with new

laws the legislature adopts each year.Most new laws drive new costs. Reducing the number of

news laws and getting rid of some of the old ones is the onlyresponsible way to reduce the size of government.

All discussion of budget issues leads inevitably to a discus-sion of the state’s fiscal regime. The governor has suggestedthe legislature use $1.3 billion of the surplus to repay part ofthe debt owed to the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund asa result of previous withdrawals from that savings account.Saving some of this year’s surplus certainly makes sense, giventhe continued volatility of oil prices and the continuing de-cline in North Slope production.

However, I am disappointed that there seems to be little dis-cussion of an overall fiscal plan. I thought we might see somediscussion of changing the distribution system from thePermanent Fund to the percent of market value approach(POMV) favored by the fund’s trustees and most of us in thebusiness community. However, I have heard no discussion ofthe POMV, a first logical step in giving the state’s future rev-

enue structure a more stable base. Iam hopeful that situation willchange before the session ends.

There are many other issues thelegislature will be considering.Revised ethics legislation seems tobe on the top of most everyone’slist, including the governor’s, andthe issue should result in some veryspirited debate.

I would be remiss if I didn’t takea paragraph to be somewhatparochial and suggest that thecruise industry is hoping to workwith the new administration and

the legislature to make some changes in the cruise ship ballotinitiative passed by the voters last August. The framers of ourconstitution provided that an initiative cannot be repealed fortwo years, but granted the legislature authority to fix prob-lems, if they saw fit to do so. The industry believes that a fewsurgical changes could make the initiative more functional andhelp avoid the kind of contentious litigation that could takeplace if the new law is left as is.

There will be hundreds of bills introduced and many ofthem will get at least one hearing. As usual, the legislature willhave a full plate and more to eat off of. With issues such as thegasline and the significant fiscal issues on that platter, whatthey choose to digest may well determine whether we haveeconomic feast or famine in our future.

A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

JOHN SHIVELY

A FULL PLATE IN JUNEAU THIS SESSION

“As usual, the legislature willhave a full plate and more to eatoff of. With issues such as thegasline and the significant fiscalissues on that platter, what theychoose to digest may well deter-mine whether we have economicfeast or famine in our future.”

Resource Review is the official periodic publication

of the Resource Development Council (RDC),

Alaska's largest privately funded nonprofit economic

development organization working to develop

Alaska's natural resources in a responsible manner

and to create a broad-based, diversified economy

while protecting and enhancing the environment.

Resource Development Council121 W. Fireweed, Suite 250Anchorage, AK 99503Phone: (907) 276-0700Fax: (907) 276-3887E-mail: [email protected]: www.akrdc.org

Material in this publication may bereprinted without permission providedappropriate credit is given. Writer & Editor Carl Portman

Executive Committee OfficersPresident John ShivelySr. Vice President Rick RogersVice President Wendy LindskoogSecretary Tom MaloneyTreasurer Stephanie Madsen

StaffExecutive Director Jason BruneDeputy Director Carl PortmanFinance/Membership Deantha Crockett

Page 2 February 2007 Resource Review www.akrdc.org (907) 276-0700 February 2007 Resource Review

GROUP TO LITIGATE, CLAIMS INSUFFICIENT

CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATIONS FOR EIDERS

The Center For Biological Diversity has given notice it in-tends to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for what itconsiders insufficient critical habitat designations for theSpectacled and Steller’s Eider. Both are listed as threatenedunder the Endangered Species Act.

The environmental group claims the Service violated theESA by excluding habitat essential to the recovery of the ei-ders. The group considers significant portions of the NorthSlope, Norton Sound, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and is-lands in the Bering Sea as key to the recovery of the eiders.

PROPOSED RULE PUBLISHED FOR LISTING NORTH

PACIFIC RIGHT WHALE UNDER ENDANGERED ACT

The National Marine Fisheries Service has published itsproposed rule to list the North Pacific right whale as an “en-dangered” species under the Endangered Species Act. TheService also intends to designate critical habitat for the whale.

RDC has opposed such a listing and the designation of crit-ical habitat. However, RDC has maintained its support for acomprehensive management and recovery plan for thespecies, as well as additional studies.

The proposed rule stems from a petition filed by the Centerfor Biological Diversity to list both the North Pacific and theNorth Atlantic right whale. In the past, the group has putspecific industries, including oil and gas, fishing and trans-portation, on notice that litigation will be initiated if criticalhabitat is designated.

Critical habitat designations for the Steller Sea Lion haveresulted in litigation and delays in projects, as well as the clo-sure of prime areas of the North Pacific to fishing.

RDC pointed out economic activities that are not impact-ing the recovery of the right whale will be negatively affectedby critical habitat designations, if not stopped entirely, withno added benefit to the species.

BELUGA POPULATION ESTIMATE RELEASED

The National Marine Fisheries Service estimates the CookInlet beluga whale population has increased to 302, up from278 in 2005. The whale is listed as depleted under the MarineMammal Protection Act.

The agency is currently comparing available data on thebelugas with requirements of the Endangered Species Act todetermine whether the population meets the act’s listing cri-teria for either endangered or threatened. The finding is ex-pected by April.

Additional information on the proposed listing is availableat: www.afsc.noaa.gov/.

BRISTOL BAY MORATORIUM LIFTED

President George Bush has lifted the moratorium barringoil and gas development in federal waters off Bristol Bay.Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne intends to include theNorth Aleutian Basin in the 2007-2012 five-year leasing plan,which also includes lease sales in the Beaufort and Chukchiseas.

The North Aleutian Basin had been blocked from federalsales since 1990 under U.S. Senate appropriations rules, re-pealed in 2003, and under presidential moratorium.

The Bristol Bay basin contains similar geology to upperCook Inlet and has a high potential for the discovery of nat-ural gas. The federal government estimates the basin holds753 million barrels of technically recoverable oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas.

Since the federal moratorium was put in place, the salmonfishery in the region has declined, leading local communitiesto take a renewed interest in the potential for oil and gas de-velopment. While support for onshore development isstrong, offshore development is more controversial, given thecontinuing importance of fishing to the region.

Governor Sarah Palin welcomed the news, noting develop-ment in the Bristol Bay region could provide the jobs, eco-nomic diversification and energy the people of this regionneed. However, she emphasized that development mustoccur in a way that does not harm the region’s rich salmonfishery.

CLIMATE CHANGE MEETING SET

RDC, the Municipality of Anchorage, ConocoPhillips, theEPA, the Nature Conservancy, Green Star and other organi-zations are teaming up to sponsor the Anchorage BusinessRoundtable on Climate Change February 15 from 8 a.m. to 2p.m. at the Egan Convention Center. The purpose of themeeting is to bring Anchorage businesses together with cli-mate change and energy experts to highlight successful strate-gies to reduce energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Toregister, go to www.akrdc.org.

AMEREF UPDATE: SOUTHWEST ALASKA

PRESENTATIONS CONDUCTED ON CD AND KIT

AMEREF Executive Director Lee Clune recently returnedfrom Southwest Alaska, specifically the Lower Kuskokwimand Lower Yukon school districts, where he visited ToksookBay, Tuntatuliak, and Marshall to provide an overview andorientation of the AMEREF interactive CD and kit materialsto staff and administration. Local officials have committed tofurther training in the near future.

In other news, an AMEREF course syllabus was recentlyapproved and adopted by the UAA College of Education.

The Annual Coal Classic Golf Tournament in support ofAMEREF will be held June 13 at the Anchorage GolfCourse. Detailed information on the event and the AMEREFprogram is available at www. ameref.org.

RDC NEWS DIGEST

Feb20 07

R E V I E WRESOURCE

A PERIODIC PUBLICATION OF THE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR ALASKA, INC. www.akrdc.org

This Edition Sponsored By:

The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService has proposed listingthe polar bear as “threatened”under the Endangered SpeciesAct (ESA), posing potentiallyserious ramifications for fu-ture resource development ac-tivities in Alaska and theLower 48. The proposed list-ing responds to a petitionfrom the Center for BiologicalDiversity to list the bear asthreatened and to designatecritical habitat.

The primary threat to polarbears as identified by theService is the decrease inArctic sea ice coverage. TheService has linked melting sea

ice in the Arctic to global cli-mate change and the agencyfears the bears’ habitat may bemelting away. Some computermodels predict summer seaice, which polar bears use tohunt for ringed seals, may de-cline 50 to 100 percent by asearly as 2040.

Interior Secretary DirkKempthorne emphasized toNorth Slope Borough MayorEdward Itta and AlaskaGovernor Sarah Palin that thelisting is in no way intended toblock oil and gas developmenton the North Slope or disruptsubsistence hunting. How-ever, environmental groups

have made it clear they intendto use a listing as leverage, per-haps eventually through litiga-tion, to restrict developmentand push for new initiatives toreduce greenhouse gas emissions.

If the decision is to list, fed-eral agencies must ensure anyactivities they authorize mustnot jeopardize the bears ortheir habitat. That could

include activities such as ship-ping, local community devel-opment, and oil exploration.Even projects in the Lower 48that produce or release carbondioxide into the atmospherecould come under additionalscrutiny.

In a letter to Kempthorne,Governor Palin warned thatlisting the polar bear under the

Past issues of Resource Review (1978-2007) are available at www.akrdc.org/newsletters/

I N S I D E

Polar Bear Listing 1, 4-5

Alaska Fisheries 1, 6-7

ESA Implications 3

Tongass Plan 8

Pebble Group Forms 9

Pebble Fish Refuge 9

Full Plate In Juneau 10

RDC News Digest 11

(Continued to page 4)

POLAR BEARSPOTENTIAL STATUS OF “THREATENED”MAY POSE SERIOUS RAMIFICATIONS

The federal government is concerned melting sea ice will pose a future threat topolar bears. The current polar bear population is near historic highs.

Photo: Susanne Miller/USFWS

SUSTAINING ALASKA’S GROUNDFISH FISHERIES

The North Pacific Fishery ManagementCouncil is one of the eight regional councils es-tablished by the Magnuson-Stevens FisheryConservation and Management Act in 1976 tomanage fisheries in the U.S. 200-mile ExclusiveEconomic Zone. The Council’s jurisdiction in-cludes all of the federally-managed fisheries offAlaska, with a focus on groundfish species har-vested by trawl, longline, jig, and pot gear. The

By Stephanie MadsenChair, North Pacific Fishery Management Council

(Continued to Page 6)The F/V Gun Mar leaves the port of Dutch Harbor.

Photo: Mark Fina

121 W. Fireweed, Suite 250, Anchorage, AK 99503

PRSRT STDU.S. Postage

PAIDAnchorage, AKPermit No. 377

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

Dowland - Bach

Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc.

Documents

Transcript of Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc.