Climate Law Update: Climate Change & Sustainable Energy News : Thelen Reid Law Firm : Renewable Energy, Construction, Project Finance Lawyers & Attorneys

In an e-mail to Climate Law Update, Shell Exploration and Production Company spokesman Curtis Smith said:

"Shell has already conducted safe and environmentally responsible seismic programs in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas during 2006 and 2007. We will continue to do so in 2008 while meeting or exceeding all regulatory requirements."

He added that the prior explorations "were successfully completed without any recordable safety incidents or known negative impact to the environment or local communities." The company spent $2.1 billion earlier this year acquiring oil and gas leases in the Chukchi Sea. 

A BP spokesman, Steve Rinehart, who noted that the company was not active in the Chukchi Sea,  told Climate Law Update:

"BP does have a well-considered seismic survey planned for this summer. It's a survey that will be conducted in a way, and is designed in a way to not harm or conflict with fish, sea birds, marine mammals or other wildlife."

He also said that the timing of the explorations means they would not occur during whale migrations, and would take place at a time of lessened ice, meaning fewer bears should be present. 

Although the latest lawsuit has little explicitly to do with global warming, that issue was clearly not far from the minds of some of the protagonists. Brendan Cummings, a California attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, and one of the plaintiffs in the litigation, said in a statement issued by the groups (see text here):

"All of the marine mammals of the Arctic are under severe threat from global warming and should not be subjected to further harm. Yet the planned seismic surveys would subject literally tens of thousands of these already imperiled animals to dangerously loud sounds."

Cummings' group, along with the Natural Resources Defense Council, another plaintiff in the latest litigation, recently won a judge's ruling ordering federal wildlife officials to quickly decide whether to grant Endangered Species Act protection to the polar bear because of threats posed by climate change. Such a move also could require heightened environmental scrutiny for oil exploration operations, the groups contend (see Climate Law Update stories here, here, here and here).

The center is also pressing federal officials to extend the protections of the endangered species law to four seal species that inhabit the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, both as a result of global warming and oil development (see Climate Law Update story here).

Shell and BP are also among the defendants in a separate lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco alleging global warming damage to Kivalina, an Alaskan village (see lawsuit here).

 (Photo: Minerals Management Service)

Wilken rejected a request by the government that would have pushed the effect of any final decision to protect the animals under the law until about Aug. 1. The government had wanted to wait to issue any decision until June 30 and then to allow another 30 days before it actually took effect. At the same time, federal officials had agreed that the environmental group's motion requiring action should be granted -- but disagreed on the timing.

The judge, who sits in Oakland, Calif., however, didn't buy any of the arguments asking for more time:

"Other than the general complexity of finalizing the rule, defendants offer no specific
facts that would justify the existing delay, much less further delay. To allow defendants more time would violate the mandated listing deadlines under the [Endangered Species Act] and congressional intent that time is of the essence in listing threatened species."  

She also found that the endangered species law would be much more protective of the bears than another federal statute, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, because the former law also covers the bears' habitat. Federal officials had argued that the marine mammal law would give the bears adequate coverage while a decision was pending on whether to extend endangered species protection to the bear.

Wilken also noted a rule had been proposed to exempt oil industry operations in part of the bears' habitat, in the Chukchi Sea region of the Arctic Ocean, from the marine mammal law's prohibition against harming protected animals. 

In addition to the Center for Biological Diversity, other plaintiffs in the case include the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace.

(Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Wilken is presiding over a lawsuit brought by environmental groups who contended that the government, as a result of prior litigation, was supposed to have formally issued its decision by Jan. 9 (see text of lawsuit here; see Climate Law Update story here; ). More recently, the environmentalists filed a summary judgment motion asking Wilken to order officials to act within a week of the next hearing on the matter, now scheduled for May 8 (see motion here).

In court filings Thursday, Justice Department lawyers representing Interior argued that Wilken should grant the plaintiff’s motion – but “adopt the [wildlife] service’s proposed deadline of June 30, 2008 for submission of the final listing determination for the polar bear to the Federal Register.” The government acknowledged that as far back as December 2006 officials had proposed listing the bear as threatened. Additional studies were ordered, however, and a draft decision is now in the hands of Lyle Laverty, the department’s assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks. Laverty “anticipates a final listing decision will be completed” by the June date, the department's lawyers wrote.

They also asked the court to allow the decision to go into effect 30 days after its publishing in the register, meaning no protections would kick in until about Aug. 1. The filing noted that 670,000 public comments have been received on the issue.

“The assistant secretary must ensure that the final determination has addressed the public comments, is supported by the best available scientific and commercial data, and is legally sufficient,” the government attorneys wrote. Additionally, they argued that a 30-day waiting period “will have a negligible effect” on the bear, which they contended is adequately covered in the short term by the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The move came barely a day after President Bush warned against attempts to use the endangered species law and other federal statutes to prod action on climate change (see Climate Law Update story here).

Kassie Siegel, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, told Climate Law Update the government has handed out oil and gas leases in the region and is also issuing permits for related seismic exploration. Officials, she charged, do not want to go through the additional steps “on any of that stuff” that they would be required to take if the bear were listed. The plaintiffs also issued a written statement criticizing the administration (see text here). 

In a statement (see text here), the Sierra Club, which is not a plaintiff in the case, charged that the government’s delay has “allowed just enough time for the Interior Department to open polar bear habitat to oil drilling.” It added that seismic tests in the Chukchi Sea, a part of the Arctic Ocean, could begin this summer.

Shane Wolfe, an Interior Department spokesman, told Climate Law Update Friday that the court filings, including a sworn statement from Laverty, would speak for themselves “because there’s a lot of information” in them. He added, however, that the Chukchi Sea lease sale had been “long-scheduled” and constituted only a “very early step in the process of producing oil and natural gas.” He pointed to Laverty’s court declaration, which noted that the government had previously determined that oil and gas development, among other potential dangers, “do not threaten the polar bear throughout its range.”

In light of that finding, Wolfe said Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has argued that to cancel the lease sale “would really say that what we said [earlier] wasn’t true.” 

(Photo: Steve Hillebrand, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)