Defenders of Wildlife Blog

Wetlands in Izembek National Wildlife Refuge (©USFWS)

Isabel Ricker, Landscape Conservation Coordinator

A few months ago we told you about an important milestone being reached in the battle to preserve the wilderness and wetland integrity of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. This occurred when the Fish and Wildlife Service released its final environmental impact statement (EIS) recommending against building a $30 million road through the refuge. When a federal agency issues a final EIS, it has to wait at least 30 days before it can finalize its recommendation and begin its implementation. When the Service issued the Izembek EIS, the final decision rested in the hands of then-Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, but he subsequently retired from office without resolving the dispute over the proposed Izembek road.

So where do things stand at this point with regards to that road? Despite having fallen off the political radar screen in recent weeks, the future of this incredible wildlife refuge remains as uncertain as ever. And for that we can thank Congressional politics playing out as usual.

The problem stemmed from Salazar’s retirement and the need for the Senate to confirm his proposed successor, Sally Jewell. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska threatened to block Jewell’s nomination unless the Department reversed the Service’s recommendation against the Izembek road. So at the last moment before a vote on her nomination, an unfortunate deal was struck by the Department which agreed to seek further public comment from the supporters of the road. The deal between Senator Murkowski and Interior will likely delay a final decision on Izembek for many months, but it does not bind or force the Department to ultimately approve the road. So the fate of Izembek now rests in Sally Jewell’s hands.

Many species of birds, especially the Pacific black brant, rely on Izembek’s protected habitat (©Ryan Hagerty/USFWS)

Izembek was established in 1960 to protect some of the most distinctive and important wetlands in the world, and is home to an abundance of wildlife, including 98% of the world’s population of Pacific black brant (a sea bird), as well as grizzly bear, caribou, and salmon. The proposed road would bisect refuge and designated wilderness lands in order to connect the communities of King Cove and Cold Bay, crossing sensitive wetlands as well as steep slopes prone to avalanches. Numerous studies – by the federal government, the state of Alaska and wildlife experts – have concluded since the 1980s that a road through Izembek would permanently and significantly damage the wilderness and wildlife habitat value of the refuge. Furthermore, the road would set a dangerous precedent of sacrificing our nation’s protected wilderness national wildlife refuges for indefensible development projects.

The damage from the road is not being exaggerated. In the final EIS for the project, which was released earlier this year, the Service determined that the road would require the construction of eight bridges, 19 culverts and 254 stream crossings. Despite this unambiguous assessment by the Service, proponents of the road continued to push for its approval, saying that the road is a public health necessity for King Cove. Ironically, the village of King Cove had previously been provided with a $9 million all-weather hovercraft to cross the bay in medical emergencies to the air strip at Cold Bay, but the community ultimately gave the hovercraft away.

The hovercraft that they no longer wanted was able to reach Cold Bay in 20 minutes in a medical emergency. By contrast, the proposed road would take more than two hours to travel, even in the best of weather conditions. The hovercraft had a 100% success rate with 30 medical evacuations, while the road would be impassable for much of the year due to frequent icing, high winds, blizzards and other inclement weather. Pete Mjos, the region’s former U.S. Public Health Service director, has said that attempting to travel on the proposed road during the region’s extreme winter storms would be “foolish beyond reason” and “would clearly jeopardize life.”

The Aighleen Pinnacles in Izembek NWR (©John Sarvis/USFWS)

The best estimates suggest that between past efforts to enhance medical services to King Cove and the construction of the proposed road, the final bill to the American taxpayer would be close to $75 million, an extraordinary expense in a time of federal budget austerity. Two weeks ago, Defenders of Wildlife CEO Jamie Rappaport Clark and former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt co-authored an op-ed in the Washington Post that details the decades-long history of King Cove’s pork-barrel projects and the environmental consequences of this road.

Secretary of the Interior Jewell will face many tough decisions in her new position, but the Izembek road should not be one of them. While Izembek may be politically challenging to decide, from an economic and environmental perspective, it is easy and self-evident – the road must be rejected. We urge the new secretary to make the right decision – the honest and responsible decision – and preserve this iconic wilderness wildlife refuge. Both American taxpayers and the Izembek wildlife will thank her.

Claire Colegrove, Alaska Representative

©Flickr/Tdawg

When picturing our national forests, it is most common to think of endless expanses of trees and other vegetation dotted by lakes, rivers and staggering mountain peaks. We picture iconic North American wildlife like bears and deer inhabiting these expanses. The Chugach National Forest is a stark contrast to this more familiar image. The Chugach is the northernmost coastal forest – over a third of its nearly 7 million acres is made up of rock and ice. Visitors coming to this area expect to see salmon, orca and a wide variety of sea and shorebirds. A majority of the Chugach’s 500,000 annual visitors are heading to the Kenai Peninsula, the Copper River Delta or Prince William Sound, all places known for their coastal and marine recreation opportunities. This is a forest with strong ties to ice and the ocean, both for its dominant ecosystems and for human use.

In the spring of 2012, the United States Forest Service released their new planning regulations in accordance with the National Forest Management Act. This new planning rule represented a significant shift in federal forest policy. Most important to Defenders is the Service’s new approach to managing for biodiversity: they plan to look at the entire ecosystem as a whole. The Service’s new planning rule uses what is called a “coarse filter” method, which examines the overall ecosystem integrity. Ecosystem integrity is essential if you want to maintain a healthy and diverse population of plants and animals in a forest like the Chugach, especially in light of the continuing impacts of a changing climate.

Sea lions in Prince William Sound, © Flickr/J. Stephen Conn

The Forest Service selected eight “early adopter” forests throughout the country to lead the way, and the Chugach National Forest is one of them. Though the Chugach is equal in size to the state of New Hampshire, it has only 90 miles of Forest Service roads. The Chugach National Forest is commonly referred to as a “custodial forest” meaning the Forest Service’s management of it is largely for recreation and conservation purposes rather than timber harvest.

The management plan is executed in three phases: assessment, revision and monitoring. The Chugach Forest Service staff is currently in their assessment phase, collecting and examining the best available information on the current forest condition and how the forest is used. Next, they will revise their management plan over the next two years, and then set up a monitoring process to study how effective the new management practices are.

In the first phase, Defenders is working with the Service to determine how vulnerable the forest is to climate change, which will help determine the Service’s long-term plans for addressing it. We are trying to identify what areas of the forest will be most impacted by climate change, and what those impacts will look like both for the forest’s plant and animals species, and for the people who rely on them. This is called a climate vulnerability assessment. I will be leading the climate vulnerability assessment chapter examining the effects of climate change on the coasts and seascapes.

Short-billed dowhitcher, one of many species that rely on the tidal flats in Chugach NF © Flickr/Melissa Gabrielson, USFWS

In a coastal forest like the Chugach, there are a lot of ways climate change can affect the ecosystem, including sea level rise, glaciers and snow and ice melt, habitat composition changes and ocean acidification. All these factors have the potential to greatly impact habitat and wildlife survival, as well as human use of the forest. Sea level rise can increase habitat for some species and diminish it for others. Low-lying tidal flats along the Chugach comprise important nesting habitat for a large number of shore and seabirds, which means that even slight sea level shifts could have vast impacts on these species. As glaciers melt, they alter the composition of and access to the land. For example when a glacier melts, it not only exposes habitat previously covered by snow and ice, but it also causes the terrain that was compressed to rebound or rise up, which diminishes the effects of subsequent sea level rise. Ocean acidification can inhibit the ability of creatures like mollusks to form shells, which diminishes food for larger species (click here for more on this climate change impact). These are just a few examples of the many changes occurring in the Chugach that require us to put in place the best possible forward-thinking management practices and monitoring procedures so that we can know how wildlife in the Chugach is being affected, and what might be done to help them adapt.

The Forest Service is slated to complete their assessment phase late this summer. Once that is complete, they will begin a two-year plan revision process to update their 2002 management plan. We are looking forward to working with the Forest Service throughout this process to ensure the Chugach remains a thriving habitat for wildlife.

Claire Colegrove, Alaska Representative

Of all my significant life choices, I’ve never made one that elicited such strong looks of concern and confusion than when I decided to move to Anchorage, Alaska in January. The bizarre nature of my choice seemed to hit people on two fronts: first, why Alaska and second, why move to Alaska in the dead of winter?  My response generally came in the words of the great explorer and mountaineer George Mallory: “because it’s there.”  There indeed. Despite being our nation’s largest state by far and containing some of the most stunning and diverse ecosystems in North America, Alaska is quite often literally left off the map. Sitting 500 miles north of Washington, Alaska appears to many a remote wilderness.  Alaska had always been a place I fantasized about getting to know and, as always, there’s no substitute for just going there.

After I became Defenders of Wildlife’s new Alaska Representative, things moved quickly. I arrived in Anchorage with a few too many bags and no place to live. And what I experienced in my first week has carried through every day I have been here.  Yes, Alaska is a place of extremes – the coldest weather, the tallest mountains, smallest population density – but these factors have helped cultivate a culture of endless generosity and kindness.  Life is hard in Alaska, so people rely on each other.  The challenge also weeds out most people who would rather not be here, and it has been my experience that those who settle here unconditionally love it.  And there is a lot to love.  I can ski to work, wave hello to a moose when I walk out my door, and everywhere I turn there are stunning views of the mountains and ocean.  Never before, have I lived somewhere that I felt so immediately connected to.

The view from my backyard – the Chugach National Forest.

From my backyard, I can see the mountain range surrounding the Chugach National Forest, one of our nation’s most magnificent treasures.  It is the second largest national forest in the U.S. and a crucial habitat for many important species, from brown bear to salmon to marbled murrelet. Often referred to as the “backyard” for half of Alaska’s residents, it provides nearly endless opportunities for hiking, skiing, biking, wildlife viewing, fishing, boating, and many other forms of outdoor recreation.  This vast forest is home and playground to wildlife and humans alike.  It is also a place of industry, from commercial fishing to gold mining to adventure tours.  As with many places in Alaska, it is a land with vital interests to a broad range of people. Ensuring this forest remains a place of pristine habitat for wildlife is a priority of Defenders’ and a focus of my work.  And this is what I came here for, the opportunity to work in my own backyard.  Tune in next week when I’ll be sharing more about how we work with the Forest Service to keep wildlife a priority as they begin to develop a new management plan for the Chugach National Forest.

Karla Dutton, Alaska Program Director

(c)Joan Cambray

I recently attended the 11th Alaska Marine Science Symposium (AMSS) in Anchorage. This year, the AMSS brought together almost 1,000 marine science researchers, educators, students and policy folks like me from Alaska, the Pacific Northwest and other Arctic regions to learn the latest in the fields of climate, oceanography, the benthos (collection of organisms living on or in the sea bottom), fish, seabirds, marine mammals and local and traditional knowledge. The week-long symposium presentations were grouped in three marine regions: the Gulf of Alaska, the Arctic and the Bering Sea.

We heard from several leading scientists and researchers about how small marine animals (lower on the food chain) are changing, and how that change is (and will likely continue to) impact marine mammals. Dr. Jeremy Mathis, who works for the Pacific Marine Environmental Lab and the Institute of Marine Science at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, provided the keynote address.  He told us that glacial melt (water from melting glaciers into coastal areas) is mixing with seawater, resulting in lower levels of oxygen and higher rates of carbon dioxide (CO2) in seawater, which makes it more acidic. As the planet warms in Arctic regions that contain glaciers, we can expect to see more glacial melt, lower oxygen and higher CO2 levels in the ocean, and that means increasing ocean acidification.

Sea butterfly (c)USGS

Because of Dr. Mathis’s work and others, we know that some marine organisms are sensitive to changes in acidity and lower pH can affect these organisms’ ability to survive, build shells and reproduce. The ones we need to be concerned about are called pteropods. These are small marine gastropod mollusks – sea snails that can swim, with winglike lobes on their feet giving them the nickname “sea butterflies.” These animals are also sensitive to ocean acidification — when the pH of the water is low enough, the acidic water dissolves their shells, slowly killing them. Why do we care? Because these tiny creatures are the building blocks of the food web in the region. All kinds of organisms eat them, from tiny krill to fish to whales. And other animals like seals (primary prey for polar bears) rely on the fish that eat the pteropods. These “sea butterflies” are also a major food source for North Pacific juvenile salmon, which we humans enjoy.  Pteropods may be tiny, but their importance can’t be overstated – many species rely on them in one way or another.

To help marine mammal species survive the impacts of climate change, we must understand their food chain better, and that means learning how organisms like pteropods live, and how changes in their marine environment are affecting these tiny but important marine animals.

Defenders’ Alaska office continues to ensure that climate change data collection, modeling and decision-making always take the impacts to wildlife into consideration. We have served on the USFWS Connecting the Landscapes effort to use climate change models to better predict what land areas will be important to wildlife and plants as they navigate changing habitats. We also participated in the Governor’s Sub-Cabinet for Climate Change natural systems working group, which focused on preparing guidelines for wildlife and fish that are being impacted by a changing climate. And moving forward, we’re working to protect necessary habitat for polar bears, walrus and other wildlife as climate change continues to affect the landscape.

Learn more about how climate change is affecting the Arctic food chain in this article from the latest issue of Defenders magazine: The Heat Is On

Karla Dutton, Alaska Program Director

A surfacing beluga whale (©Ansgar Walk)

Beluga whales have called Cook Inlet home for a long time – some say they’ve been here as long as 10,000 years. Stretching 180 miles from the Gulf of Alaska to Anchorage, Cook Inlet provides them room to roam, but isolates them from beluga whales elsewhere. Of the five populations of beluga whales in U.S. waters, all found off the coast of Alaska, Cook Inlet belugas are the only population that is endangered.

Each summer, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) conducts aerial abundance estimate surveys over the Inlet in search of Cook Inlet beluga whales. Scientifically-trained observers on board the plane use wide angle and zoomed video to record belugas, then compare the two videos to determine how many whales may have been missed. Two other analysts also count whales from the plane – all of this to ensure that the count is as accurate as it can be. The data is analyzed at NOAA labs in Seattle, and the results tell us how many whales are living in Cook Inlet.

Last week, the Alaska Fisheries Science Center of NOAA announced its 2012 abundance estimate, or population number, for the Cook Inlet belugas. The estimated population for last year was 312 whales — slightly up from last year’s estimate of 284 whales. But even though the population increased this year, if you examine the past 10 years of population estimates as NOAA scientists do, you see a trend: the population is declining at an average of 0.6 percent each year. Considering how small the current population is, this trend could threaten the survival of Cook Inlet belugas.

But there is good news! During the 2012 survey, scientists found Cook Inlet belugas in a part of Cook Inlet where they haven’t been seen since 2001. “A group of belugas was observed just offshore of West Foreland swimming north into upper Cook Inlet,” said Kim Shelden, a NOAA scientist and the chief scientist for this survey. This could mean that the population is expanding further into Cook Inlet, and reclaiming more of the species’ historic range. Until recently, we have watched these whales occupy only a small part of their original range in the waters off of Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska. It would be wonderful to see these whales traveling, feeding and raising their young in more diverse areas of Cook Inlet. If they spread out, it could reduce the chance of many whales being stranded when trying to escape predators like Orcas. It is too early to tell if this year’s survey means we’ll see Cook Inlet belugas expanding into their former range across more of the inlet or not, but good news is certainly welcome for a species already at risk.

A pod of beluga whales seen from the air (©NOAA)

Cook Inlet belugas were listed as an endangered species in 2008, and in 2011 NOAA designated two areas of Cook Inlet as their critical habitat, for a  total of 3,016 square miles. Cook Inlet belugas are top predators in their food chain, which means that their decline could be a sign of a deeper problem in their ecosystem. To find out what’s affecting them, we have to look at their habitat, their food sources and availability, and many other issues including noise, pollution, fishing, ship traffic, disease and climate change. It is important that we learn what is keeping the beluga population from growing so that we can craft a plan to help them recover.

That’s where the Cook Inlet Recovery Plan process comes in. The process uses information in the National Marine Fisheries Service Conservation Plan, which determines that for a “healthy, viable population,” there need to be at least 780 belugas in Cook Inlet – a far cry from last year’s numbers, I’m afraid. This makes the work that we’re doing for Cook Inlet belugas all the more important.

I serve as the representative for Defenders on the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Recovery Team (CIBRT) Stakeholder Panel. Since March 2010 we have been working to help draft a recovery plan for Cook Inlet belugas. The draft plan will be shared with the public later this year, and the public will have a chance to review and comment on it, so stay tuned. We hope that this plan will help us find out why the belugas are not recovering, and provide us with a plan of action so that we can all work towards the successful recovery of this important and beloved species.

Our office provides field data collection equipment and outreach brochures for some of the 75 trained citizen scientists who collect shore-based observations of Cook Inlet belugas as part of the Anchorage Coastal Beluga Survey, which Defenders helped found in 2008 along with Friends of the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge. The data from both of these research efforts helps fill in gaps and gets us closer to answering the question of why the Cook Inlet beluga population is not recovering. We’ll continue to work with scientists and the public to find a way to help these iconic whales recover and thrive in Cook Inlet once again.

Forty foot waves.  60 mile-per-hour winds.  Freezing temperatures.  A fragile, pristine environment.  As if we needed another example of why drilling in the Arctic Ocean is a very bad idea, we sure got one when the Shell drilling ship Kulluk ran aground on Monday.

The problems began last Thursday, when the Kulluk, a conical Arctic drilling ship on its way to Seattle for repairs, broke away from its towing vessel and was set adrift.  Things only got worse from there:  The tow vessel, Aiviq, lost function in all four of its engines due to mechanical issues.  This is the vessel Shell heralded as a symbol of its commitment to doing things right in the Arctic. It is the vessel company president and CEO Gary Chouest described as “the world’s largest and most powerful anchor-handling icebreaker.”  It was designed to operate in minus-40 degrees and is apparently a state of the art vessel. And yet it could not keep control of Kulluk.  As winter seas continued to pummel the drill ship and its now two attendant tow vessels, the Coast Guard was called in to evacuate all of the Kulluk’s crew members.

But the Kulluk wasn’t just carrying crew members.  While the ship pitched up and down in the icy waters, about 150,000 gallons of fuel were sloshing around inside it, too, in the form of sulfur diesel, hydraulic fluid, and lube oil.  In effect, the Kulluk was an oil spill waiting to happen.

By Monday afternoon, the Kulluk was reattached to a repaired Aiviq and a new tow vessel, Alert. The ships were headed for safe port in Kodiak to weather the storm.  But the relentlessly rough water separated the Kulluk from the Aiviq, forcing the crew of the Alert to sever their line, as well.  Kulluk was adrift again, and this time, grounding was all but inevitable.  The ship ran aground around 9 pm on New Year’s Eve on a small island off the coast of Kodiak.

As of this writing, there have been no reports of leakage from the ship or oil sheen on the water.  But the event serves to remind us that drilling attempts in the Arctic will be costly and difficult at best and an environmental tragedy at worst.

Polar bears and other large mammals could suffer damage to their eyes, mouth, skin and lungs from petroleum exposure. Like bird feathers, polar bear fur loses its insulating and water-repelling properties when coated with oil.

This time, the Kodiak Coast Guard station was close enough to respond quickly, with plenty of helping hands and the right equipment. The Coast Guard station can also provide a base for personnel to coordinate efforts or to hunker down when the weather gets too bad to send response vessels.   But the drill sites in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas are over 1,000 miles away from Kodiak, and there’s no Coast Guard station nearer than that.  Shell claims their spill response ship Arctic Challenger can contain an underwater leak, but external support could take days or weeks to reach an out of control vessel, or even worse, a spill.

If something like the 2010 BP Oil Spill were to occur in the Arctic Ocean, the environmental damage would be truly unimaginable: iconic arctic species like whales, polar bears and walruses could all suffer. There is also a huge risk of damaging the intricate and pristine ecology of the Arctic Ocean in ways we don’t fully understand yet.  Combine that with the danger to spill response crews, and it’s hard to believe Shell is willing to risk drilling in the Arctic Ocean at all.

This latest fiasco with the Kulluk could have been a New Year’s oil spill.  The incident surely shows that Shell, even with state of the art equipment, cannot  prevent accidents in the remote Arctic. We can only hope that this and Shell’s other recent travails will convince lawmakers and the administration to put an end to offshore drilling in the Arctic before it’s too late.