NMFS lists ringed and bearded seals

Says that shrinking Arctic sea ice extent threatens survival of species; Alaska state administration considers suing the agency

Alan Bailey

Petroleum News

The National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS, has listed under the Endangered Species Act, or ESA, four subspecies of ringed seals and two population segments of bearded seals. One of the types of ringed seal, the Arctic ringed seal, and one of the bearded seal population segments, the Beringia bearded seal, exist in U.S. Arctic waters and have been listed as threatened.

The listings come as part of a trend to list animals that depend on Arctic sea ice as part of their habitat, on the assumption that the decline in the extent of sea ice as the climate warms will ultimately threaten the species’ existence. Ringed seals, for example, nurse and protect their young in snow caves that are threatened by factors such as late ice formation in the fall and early break-up of spring ice, NMFS says.

In 2008 the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned NMFS to list the seals and in October 2009 the agency proposed listing the animals. Following a public comment period on the proposal, in March 2011 NMFS decided to ask four scientists with appropriate expertise to review the proposal. Then, given disagreements over parameters such as model projections of future Arctic sea-ice and snow cover, NMFS extended the deadline for the listing decision, to allow time for independent peer reviews.

Court order

“Our scientists undertook an extensive review of the best scientific and commercial data. They concluded that a significant decrease in sea ice is probable later this century and that these changes will likely cause these seal populations to decline,” said Jon Kurland, protected resources director for NMFS’ Alaska region, when announcing the listing decision on Dec. 21. “We look forward to working with the State of Alaska, our Alaska Native co-management partners, and the public as we work toward designating critical habitat for these seals.”

The state administration, which views the succession of climate-change-related ESA listings as federal overreach, threatening economic activity in the state, is rather less enthusiastic about the listings than the federal regulators — Gov. Sean Parnell announced Dec. 21 that the state is considering legal action against NMFS over the decision.

“The ESA was not enacted to protect healthy animal populations,” Parnell said. “Despite this fact, the NMFS continues the federal government’s misguided policy to list healthy species based mostly on speculated impacts from future climate change, adding additional regulatory burdens and costs upon the State of Alaska and its communities, and wresting away Alaska’s sovereign interest in managing its own wildlife and resources.”

Murkowski alarmed

“I believe that Alaska’s wildlife must be protected, but not by relying on overbroad, overreaching analysis that runs counter to the abundant seal populations we presently see,” Murkowski said. “There is something misguided about policy that is guaranteed to cause real economic impact on the horizon based on a hundred-year hunch. No wonder NOAA decided to release this decision the Friday before Christmas, hoping it won’t register with Alaskans.”

“NMFS’ decision is, in our opinion, not consistent with the text and policy of the ESA or the best available science,” said Kara Moriarty, executive director for the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. “The decision to list ringed and bearded seals is based on how climate change might affect these species 100 years from now, despite their populations currently being healthy and abundant. That’s bad precedent for making evidence-based decisions that have real impacts for Alaska.”