U.S. rejects study by its own Arctic scientists

[Guest guest]

U.S. rejects study by its own Arctic scientists

 

Experts warn of danger to wildlife from oil drilling

 

Saturday, March 30, 2002

 

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER NEWS SERVICES

 

WASHINGTON -- The Interior Department on Friday disputed a study in

which its own scientists warned that oil exploration in Alaska's Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge could endanger wildlife, especially musk oxen

and the huge Porcupine caribou herd.

 

A spokesman for Interior Secretary Gail Norton said the report was not

relevant to President Bush's proposal to open the area, known as ANWR,

to oil drillers.

 

Norton, whose department has jurisdiction over the refuge, has been an

outspoken advocate of allowing the oil exploration.

 

Authors of the study, which was based on 12 years of research, were

given 10 days to come up with another study that would take into account

environmental safeguards that the administration contends its plan would

include.

 

The study was written by biologists in the Alaska Science Center of the

U.S. Geological Survey, a division of the Interior Department.

 

The authors warned that ANWR wildlife, including caribou, musk oxen,

polar bears and migrating birds, would be vulnerable to oil development.

 

It said risks to the Porcupine caribou, a herd named for Alaska's

Porcupine River, would range from negligible to substantial, depending

on the type of exploration involved.

 

The herd " may be particularly sensitive to development " because it has

little quality habitat elsewhere, and the survival of calves born on the

refuge's coastal plain is linked to the animals' ability to move freely,

the report said.

 

As with the case of the caribou, the study found that development of the

refuge's coastal plain may pose risks to other wildlife:

 

Musk oxen were described as particularly " vulnerable to

disturbances " from oil and gas exploration because they live in the

region year-round, including winter when oil exploration would be most

intense.

 

Snow geese, among millions of migratory birds on the coastal plain,

could be displaced because of increased activity. It cannot be assumed

that the geese would find adequate feeding areas elsewhere, the study

said.

 

Denning polar bears also might be adversely affected, the

assessment said. It said, however, that " aggressive and proactive

management " could minimize or even eliminate most of the problem.

 

The authors were blocked for several hours Friday from posting the study

on the Internet.

 

During that time, Norton's press secretary, Mark Pfeifle, issued

statements saying that the study did not take into account environmental

protections anticipated by the president's plan and relied on " science

fiction " scenarios to reach its conclusions.

 

" The report bolsters the administration's mandate that ANWR production

must require the most stringent environmental protections ever imposed.

It demonstrates that with new technology, tough regulations and

commonsense management,

we can protect wildlife and produce energy, " Pfeifle said.

 

A White House spokesman said the report did not address the kind of ANWR

exploration Bush would allow.

 

But environmentalists and other opponents of the plan lost no time in

praising the study.

 

" This is one more brick in a wall of science that tells us that turning

a magnificent wildlife refuge into an industrial oil complex is going to

be bad for wildlife, " said William Meadows, president of the Wilderness

Society. " The oil industry

wants to drill in the biological heart of this sanctuary, and anyone who

claims that the wildlife will do just fine either is on an oil company's

payroll or specializes in wishful thinking. "

 

Ending Congress' long-standing ban on oil exploration in the wildlife

refuge was a major plank in both Bush's presidential campaign in 2000

and his administration's energy plan announced a year ago.

 

The Republican-controlled House voted last year to allow drilling in the

Alaska refuge. Supporters have been reluctant to bring it up in the

Senate, but a Senate vote could come as early as the second week of

April.

 

" Once again the administration has released a report undermining its own

case, " said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. He said the findings confirm

" the environmental destruction that would occur " if oil drilling is

allowed in the refuge.

 

Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, said every time

biologists study drilling in the refuge, they find that it would have a

serious impact on wildlife.

 

" There's no new scenario in the (House) bill, " Pope said. " The entire

area would be open for drilling. The new science still does not enable

you to develop the refuge without destroying its habitat. "

 

© 1998-2002 Seattle Post-Intelligencer