June 27, 2005

Re: Draft Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale

Dear Ms. Brix:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Draft Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale.

The Resource Development Council (RDC) is a statewide private economic development organization with the mission to grow Alaska’s economy through responsible resource development. RDC’s membership encompasses all of Alaska’s basic industries — oil and gas, tourism, fisheries, mining and timber. Our membership also includes construction companies, labor organizations, Native corporations, local communities and a wide variety of industry support firms.

RDC members who live, recreate, and work in and around Cook Inlet are committed to the recovery of the beluga whale. Over the years, we have worked closely with our members and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on a number of initiatives to assist in the recovery of the stock. While we appreciate the agency’s work on the draft plan, there are significant weaknesses that must be addressed before a final plan is adopted.

GENERAL COMMENTS

RDC is concerned the draft conservation plan incorporates a number of significant policy recommendations without proper supporting data or analysis. As currently drafted, the plan’s recommendations will not lead to the recovery of the Cook Inlet Beluga. Instead, the plan is likely to adversely impact a number of economic and recreational activities in and around Cook Inlet without a corresponding benefit to the beluga whale.

NMFS acknowledges the sole cause for the decline of the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale was the subsistence harvest. Further, according to the October 19, 1999 Federal Register, NMFS has specifically reviewed “existing information on fish runs, oil and gas activities, sewage problems, and other sources of contaminants”…and found that… “the existing information suggests that beluga are not stressed by anthropogenic factors in Cook Inlet.”

However, in several instances throughout this draft conservation plan, NMFS offers mitigation measures “where development has impacted the beluga population.” Stating as fact that development has significantly impacted the beluga population or recovery is inaccurate. There is a substantial legal and administrative track record with respect to the Cook Inlet belugas. Agency and judicial determinations up to this point should serve as the foundation of the conservation plan. The conservation plan must identify specific factors that caused the population decline based on sound, peer-reviewed science, and make recommendations to promote the beluga’s recovery. Unfortunately, NMFS has included in the plan recommendations for activities not linked to the decline and not documented to be impeding recovery.

The purpose of a conservation plan according to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) is to restore the species or stock to its optimum sustainable population. The MMPA states the secretary shall model such plans on recovery plans required under section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Section 4(f) of the ESA requires the plans to incorporate “Objective, measurable criteria, which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with the provisions of this section, that the species be removed from the list.” Much of the agency’s proposed plan is neither objective nor measurable.

Further, the ESA states, “The Secretary shall develop and implement plans for the conservation and survival of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to this section, unless he finds that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species.” The Draft Conservation plan addresses primarily those factors that will not have a significant impact on the species. The co-management agreement for the subsistence harvest should be the basis for the conservation plan.

RDC continues to object to the NMFS’ defined carrying capacity of 1,300 animals and therefore we question the recovery goal of 780 animals. This number may far exceed the true carrying capacity for Cook Inlet and may ultimately lead to a more severe natural crash in the Cook Inlet beluga population.

However, if indeed the population was 1,300 animals in 1979, given the life history of a beluga, most of these whales would have lived most if not all of their lives with the same development as is mentioned in the plan: oil and gas activity, NPDES discharges, commercial fishing, vessel traffic, coastal development, etc. The whales have co-existed with all of these activities without significant impact for nearly half a century, and it wasn’t until pressure from the subsistence harvest that their numbers dramatically declined. It is important to note these development activities do not occur in a regulatory vacuum, as they are strictly regulated under numerous state and federal environmental laws. Belugas have been and will continue to be an important part of state, federal, and local oversight.

Finally, RDC is extremely concerned that NMFS plans to re-assess this stock for possible listing under the ESA because, “The population has not shown significant response (growth). ” (p. 4) Given their life history and the fact that the root cause for their population decline has been identified and significantly diminished, it is inappropriate for NMFS to so quickly abandon the current co-management agreement and conservation measures already in place.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Subsistence Harvest

The Draft Conservation plan contradicts itself with respect to the impact of subsistence on the beluga population. The plan states the “subsistence harvest within the CI beluga whale population…may impair recovery.” (p. 48) However, it also states, “Continuation of a harvest within this depleted stock of whales may appear inconsistent with the goal of recovery. It is not.” (p. 28) The agency provides no data or analysis to support this conclusion. Meanwhile, the plan states predation by killer whales may impact the population and “The annual removal of even a few beluga whales could impede recovery.” (p. 24) Taken together these statements create a pattern of inconsistencies. RDC encourages NMFS to continue to work with experts, including subsistence hunters, to employ the best available science and traditional knowledge to enhance the beluga population.

The MMPA states, “In the case of taking for subsistence uses…[the act] does not permit the taking of a number of animals that would be inconsistent with the maintenance of the species at its OSP.” Further, Daniel Goodman, an advisor to the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) testified that the current harvest and strike rates are too high for the Cook Inlet beluga population to recover, and the MMC recommended no harvest until there are signs of recovery. This recommendation must be central to the final conservation plan and future co-management agreements.

Commercial Fishing

NMFS proposes to manage fishing operations likely to have an impact on beluga whales. As the state is responsible for management of fisheries from 0-3 miles offshore, NMFS must follow the guidance of the Marine Mammal Protection Act which specifically states the agency “shall, to the maximum extent practicable, avoid interfering with existing state or regional fishery management plans.”

The conservation plan specifically states, “Whether the escapement into these rivers, having passed the gauntlet of the commercial fisheries, is sufficient for the well being of the CI beluga whales is unknown. The amount of fish required to sustain this population is unknown.” (p. 31) In this case, NMFS is making significant policy recommendations without any supporting data. Until the agency is able to determine the amount of fish necessary to sustain this population, RDC believes future commercial fishing opportunities should not be limited.

Vessel Traffic

RDC agrees with the plan’s statement, “NMFS does not believe large vessels, commercial shipping, or commercial fishing vessels are presenting significant concerns with respect to the recovery of the CI beluga whale.” (p. 56) RDC also believes NMFS should study the impact of small vessels, including jet skis, to determine their impact on beluga whales. However, RDC is wary of non-specific language in the plan that may not accommodate future vessel traffic or Port of Anchorage expansion. NMFS must collect data to support the agency’s working hypotheses prior to instituting significant new policy measures.

Tourism and Whale Watching

The conservation plan specifically states, “No strong conclusive scientific evidence has been presented to demonstrate that whale watching presents an important threat to beluga whales.” (p. 36) However, it also proposes to “Prohibit commercial whale watching vessels from High Value/High Sensitivity habitat.” (p. 59) These two statements are inconsistent and the latter likely eliminates any potential business opportunities for beluga viewing in the future. Until NMFS can demonstrate with confidence whales will be impacted by whale watching and tourism ventures, RDC requests this restriction be eliminated.

Noise

The conservation plan specifically states, “Anthropogenic activities may increase ambient noise levels in the water, which could reduce the ability of CI beluga whales to feed, communicate and navigate. High levels of noise have the potential to harm or kill these animals.” (p. 60) However, it also states, “Whether real-life sources of noise negatively impact behavior to the point that it diminishes reproductive success and population productivity is unclear.” (p. 86) In fact, the plan references a 2001 acoustic research study by Blackwell and Greene that concludes, “…the sounds measured in Cook Inlet would not be expected to have more than a minor effect on the beluga whales living in the vicinity.” (p. 40) These statements are inconsistent and, lacking sound science proving otherwise, should not be the basis for a multitude of restrictions.

RDC also disagrees with NMFS’ desire to address noises which fall below the Level A threshold on a case by case basis. Specific science and documentation must be used as the basis for when NMFS may provide recommendations. RDC also disagrees with NMFS’ recommendation for seasonal and other stipulations on development activities with no indications of impact from industrial noise on belugas. The plan also seems to limit any future seismic activity from occurring in Cook Inlet. Oil and gas development is critical to Southcentral Alaska’s economy. Seismic exploration will help reduce the number of unsuccessfully drilled wells, ultimately leading to less environmental impact.

Oil and Gas

RDC disagrees with the conservation plan’s recommendation to restrict oil and gas activities within high value beluga whale habitats. The plan states Cook Inlet belugas contain lower levels of cadmium and mercury, the metals of concern in oil and gas discharges, than other beluga populations worldwide. Each of the whales currently living in Cook Inlet have co-existed with oil and gas activities for their entire lives. Such restrictions are unnecessary.

In addition, RDC disagrees with NMFS’ desire to address oil and gas-related activities on a case by case basis. Specific science and documentation must be used as the basis for when NMFS may provide recommendations. Further, the plan asserts that chronic leaks from pipelines are contributing to pollutants in the whales’ habitat. This assertion is not supported by any analysis or documentation and therefore should not be the basis for a policy recommendation. Finally, RDC would like to endorse additional comments submitted by the Alaska Oil and Gas Association.

Marine Discharges and Pollution

RDC disagrees with the conservation plan’s recommendation to deny NPDES permit requests within High Value/High Sensitivity habitat. State and federal water quality studies and NMFS research have ruled out exposure to pollutants as a factor in the decline of the beluga population. Each of the whales currently living in Cook Inlet have co-existed with municipal and industrial discharges for their entire lives. Future needs by the Municipality of Anchorage’s Water & Wastewater Utility may include additional secondary wastewater treatment facilities near Peter’s Creek, from which the effluent would be discharged directly or indirectly into Type I habitat. Current monitored discharges into Cook Inlet have shown there has not been any measurable impact on beluga whale habitat.

Habitat Alteration and Coastal Development

The conservation plan states, “Despite insufficient information, it seems reasonable and prudent to advocate some standards relating to coastal development.” (p. 37) There is no documented evidence indicating a need for this requirement. It is important to note that coastal development within Cook Inlet is already strictly regulated under numerous state and federal environmental laws. These recommendations will impact potential Anchorage Port expansion, Knik Arm Crossing, and other coastal development, without a corresponding positive impact on the beluga’s recovery.

Research

RDC believes further research is needed before many of the recommendations in this conservation plan are enacted. In the final conservation plan, it is imperative that NMFS acknowledge the facts, admit the data gaps, and propose scientific studies to fill these gaps. Studies need to be proposed, funded, and conducted by NMFS to establish clear links between the beluga population and anthropogenic activities as well as determining their basic biology, ecology, and population dynamic. Until this is done, any restrictions on activities in Cook Inlet aside from the subsistence harvest, are unnecessary.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important issue.

Sincerely,

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

for Alaska, Inc.