May 30, 2006
Ms. Kaja Brix
National Marine Fisheries Service
Protected Resources Division
709 W. 9th Street
PO Box 21668
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1668
Attn: Ellen Walsh
Re: Status Review of the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale under the Endangered Species Act
Dear Ms. Brix:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Status Review of the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
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. In addition, we intervened, on behalf of NMFS in a lawsuit less than 5 years ago when the agency determined the Cook Inlet belugas should be listed as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Together with NMFS, we prevailed in that case.
NMFS acknowledged the sole cause for the decline of the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale was the subsistence harvest and a co-management agreement was developed to limit the subsistence take of belugas to one or two animals per year. Following the court decision, RDC participated in the comment process for the beluga conservation plan and have been awaiting its release. As we indicated in our comments of June 27, 2005 we continue to believe that given the beluga’s life history, gestation period, age to sexual maturity, and the establishment of the co-management agreement, it is inappropriate for NMFS to so quickly abandon the conservation measures already in place under the MMPA. We therefore oppose listing the stock of Cook Inlet beluga whales as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Such a listing, so soon after NMFS’ original designation under MMPA and subsequent court approval, will only lead to additional burden on economic and community development activities in and around Cook Inlet with no clear, corresponding benefit to the stock. We strongly encourage NMFS to maintain the listing under the MMPA.
The recent NMFS report from the August 2005 aerial survey reports, “Several Natives approached belugas near Big and Little Susitna Rivers where whales were later observed by the aerial crew; unusually high numbers of juveniles and calves were present with the white adult belugas.” It is obvious that juvenile belugas, which match perfectly with the color of Cook Inlet waters, are impossible to see and subsequently count from an airplane. These animals will turn white and will be easier to count when they reach 5-8 years old. At that point, they will also be closer to the age of sexual maturity and subsequently be able to help grow the population. The report also states, “The counts from August 2005 were higher than uncorrected estimates from June during the past seven years.” Given these positive trends, a new status review seems completely unwarranted. However, the August raw counts did not lead to a larger population estimate. RDC believes the methodology for converting the raw aerial counts and the accompanying video footage of the whales to the final population estimate is poor at best. They are derived in part from methodologies used in Bristol Bay where there is significantly higher clarity to the water column. In fact, a study recently funded by Chevron to identify unique individuals by fluke patterns showed more animals in one confined area than NMFS says exist in the entire Cook Inlet. Clearly, the counting methodologies need to be revised.
The Agency’s request for information in the Federal Register is a testament to its lack of knowledge about the whales. RDC remains disappointed at the level of research dollars that have been requested by NMFS to study the Cook Inlet beluga whales since their listing under the MMPA. On more than one occasion, RDC and our members have offered to assist the agency in securing additional federal and corporate funds to conduct such studies. Unfortunately, the only government-funded research being done on the Cook Inlet belugas is an annual survey in June along with a single August survey. This lack of due diligence is troubling. RDC has queried NMFS as to why additional satellite tracking has not been done since listing under the MMPA. The responses have been unacceptable, including lack of funding, staff time, and concern for the well-being of the animals. While such concerns are admirable, satellite tracking of cetaceans is a scientifically acceptable, unobtrusive, relatively inexpensive and not incredibly time intensive method to provide a better understanding of the range, demographic movements, and trends in foraging habits. We encourage NMFS to aggressively move forward with such research.
Regardless of the outcome of this status review, RDC expects more research work from the Agency in the future. RDC expects all available data, including this year’s June survey, will be used in making the status determination. RDC endorses the studies, funded by industry, which will be submitted for the record by the funding organizations. These include studies by Chevron, KABATA, the Port of Anchorage, and DRven Corporation. Millions of dollars of private funds are being spent annually by the private sector to better understand the role of beluga whales in the Inlet. We encourage the Agency to follow the wording of the ESA to use “the best scientific and commercial data available” in making this decision and not unilaterally discount these studies. (Emphasis added)
Specific comments with respect to NMFS’ request for information
(1) Current known range of the Cook Inlet beluga whale, with a particular focus on current and historical habitat use; (2) demographic movements; (3) trends in foraging habits and seasonal prey abundance
As defined in the ESA, the term ‘‘endangered species’’ means any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Unilaterally stating in the federal register that “this group is a distinct population segment and thus, a separate species as defined by the ESA” is wrong. Beluga whales exist throughout Alaskan Coastal waters and by no means are they in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range as defined by the ESA.
In fact, questions exist to this day as to whether this stock is indeed a distinct population segment (DPS.) There is little to no evidence showing where these animals reside in the winter, and hence members from this stock may even intermix with Bristol Bay beluga whales. If indeed they are a DPS, it is important to remind the agency the ESA states,
“The term ‘‘species’’ includes any subspecies of fish or wild-life or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species or vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.”
If these animals are shown to interbreed with the Bristol Bay population, then this population should not be listed as a DPS.
(3) trends in foraging habits and seasonal prey abundance
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.” The Port, KABATA, and DRven are studying seasonal prey abundance and we encourage the agency to take this data into account during the status review. We continue to urge NMFS to complete additional research to determine prey abundance and to not make significant policy recommendations without any supporting data. Until the agency is able to determine the amount of fish necessary to sustain this population, development activities should not be limited.
(4) trends in environmental contamination
As mentioned in the Draft Conservation Plan, Cook Inlet belugas have much lower concentrations of PCBs and DDT than other stocks found in Alaska, Greenland, Arctic Canada and the Saint Lawrence estuary in eastern Canada. In fact, Becker et al. (2000) compared tissue levels of total PCBs, total DDT, chlordane compounds, hexachlorobenzene, dieldrin, mirex, toxaphene, and hexachlorocyclohexene and found the Cook Inlet beluga whales had the lowest concentrations of all. In addition, hepatic concentrations of cadmium and mercury were lower in the Cook Inlet population as compared to the Arctic Alaska populations. Unfortunately, the draft conservation plan discounts these extremely positive trends in environmental contamination by stating “the effects of lower concentrations of PCBs and chlorinated pesticides on animal health may be of less significance for the Cook Inlet animals than for other beluga whale populations.” Using contaminant levels as indicators of health when convenient is not sound science.
(5) contaminant burdens in prey species, especially salmonids and eulachon
Commercial, sports, and subsistence fisheries have long taken salmon and eulachon from Cook Inlet. Contaminant burdens have never been an issue. In fact, wild Alaskan salmon is considered the best in the world.
(6) impacts caused by human recreational activities (e.g., boating)
Human recreational activities such as boating or jet skiing may have a minimal impact on the whales due to their high frequency noise which is more detectable to beluga whales. However, we do not believe this is a serious threat to the Cook Inlet belugas. There is absolutely no documented evidence of harm to the whales from recreational boating.
(7) current and planned activities and their possible impacts to the Cook Inlet beluga whale (e.g., habitat modification)
If indeed the population of Cook Inlet belugas 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 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.
To that end, there are many activities planned for Cook Inlet. Each of these may have a small impact on some beluga habitat. However, like all animals, belugas have and will continue to adapt and will ultimately not be adversely impacted by these activities. It is important to note these development activities will 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 and the associated public process.
(8) efforts to protect the Cook Inlet beluga whale or improve its habitat
Currently, companies operating in the Inlet are working to protect belugas. Many projects staff biologists or whaling captains to serve as observers for belugas. If one is spotted, the operations are stopped. These actions are already in place and switching to an ESA listing will provide no added benefits to the recovery of the whales. In addition, companies are currently spending upwards of $10 million to do research on beluga movement, habitat, and life history. Much of this funding may go away if a listing occurs and critical habitat is designated as companies may choose to invest elsewhere.
As listed in the Federal Register the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms can be reason for listing of a species under the act. The restrictions and mitigation measures in place for activities including the Anchorage Port Expansion, seismic activity completed by Veritas, piledriving at Point MacKenzie, and many others clearly indicate adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place for this stock of belugas.
(9) non-human factors that may have contributed to its decline (i.e., disease, biotoxins, climatic or oceanographic regime shifts)
RDC continues to object to the NMFS’ defined carrying capacity of 1,300 animals and we continue to question the recovery goal of 780 animals. The carrying capacity of the Cook Inlet for beluga whales has likely declined. A potential cause for this decline in carrying capacity may be the constant release of fine silts from glaciers, filling the Inlet up at a steady rate. This is documented by the increased frequency of dredging that occurs. Thus, it is likely the Cook Inlet is able to support fewer animals than may have historically been found in the Inlet. In addition, Pacific Decadal Oscillation combined with increased orca predation on many large marine mammals throughout Alaskan waters may also have an impact on the population.
(10) industry effects from oil and gas, municipal wastewater, commercial fishing, commercial shipping, etc., and associated noise.
We are concerned with the implication that there are “industry effects from oil and gas, municipal wastewater, commercial fishing, commercial shipping, etc. and associated noise.” Prior to the large subsistence harvest which decimated the population, this stock of beluga whales co-existed with all of the aforementioned activities. NMFS has no documented evidence that these activities have adversely affected the belugas.
The effects from economic activities in the Cook Inlet are minimal. In fact, according to the October 19, 1999 Federal Register, NMFS reviewed “existing information on fish runs, oil and gas activities, sewage problems, and other sources of contaminants”…and found … “the existing information suggests that beluga are not stressed by anthropogenic factors in Cook Inlet.” NMFS has no documented reason to believe this situation does not remain true today.
Unfortunately, in several instances throughout the 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. NMFS must use sound, peer-reviewed science in determining if there is any effect from these activities, on either the initial decline or the continued recovery.
Additional Points
As mentioned in our letter of May 19, 2006, many of our members are confused regarding the overlap of the NMFS status review and the formal petition filed by the Trustees for Alaska. NMFS must clarify what the public is being asked to comment on at this point in the process — the NMFS’ initiated status review or the Trustees petition. We continue to encourage the agency to synchronize the two processes together for clarity.
RDC remains frustrated at the timeline NMFS has established for the completion of its conservation plan. It has been over two years since the draft conservation plan was initially released and to date, it is still not finished. There must be a priority given to completion of this document. To that end, RDC wishes to reiterate that 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.
The ESA requires the consideration of the economic impact of critical habitat designation. If indeed the Agency does determine listing is necessary, the Secretary has the authority to exclude areas from critical habitat “if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned.” We encourage the exclusion of the entire Cook Inlet as it is clear with the mitigation and regulatory measures already in place under the MMPA, the extinction of the species will not likely occur.
As part of our comments, we reference the May 24, 2006 Federal Register decision not to list the California spotted owl under the ESA. In its decision, the agency stated, “We found that the petitioned action was not warranted because the overall magnitude of the threats to the species did not rise to the level requiring protection under the Act.” The record of decision states the “best-available data do not show statistically significant declines.” According to NMFS, the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale have not shown statistically significant declines either. The spotted owl decision concludes, “Impacts…from activities are not at a scale, magnitude, or intensity that warrants listing and that the overall magnitude of threats…does not rise to the level that requires the protections of the Act.” We encourage NMFS to consider this logic when making its decision.
Finally, RDC is concerned that listing the Cook Inlet beluga whales under the ESA is a foregone conclusion. Meetings and discussions with members of NMFS’ Anchorage staff indicate the strong likelihood of listing these animals under the ESA. The public process exists for a reason.
Thus, at the present time, we emphatically oppose listing the stock of Cook Inlet beluga whales as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Such a listing, so soon after NMFS’ original designation under MMPA will only lead to additional burden on economic and community development activities in and around Cook Inlet with no clear, corresponding benefit to the stock. We strongly encourage NMFS to maintain the listing under the MMPA.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
for Alaska, Inc.
