RDC's Comment Letter (pdf)
Economic Analysis (large pdf)
Comment deadline was March 3, 2010
Additional testimony, comment letters and information on the Cook Inlet beluga whale
Overview:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing to designate more than 3,000 square miles of Cook Inlet as critical habitat for the beluga whales. The entire upper half of Cook Inlet, the mid-Inlet, all of the Inlet’s western shores and Kachemak Bay have been included as critical habitat.
According to NMFS biologists, the sole cause of the Cook Inlet beluga whale
population decline is the subsistence harvest that transpired in the 1990s. In 2000, NMFS declared the belugas depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and a co-management agreement was put in place, strictly limiting the subsistence harvest. In 2008, beluga whales in Cook Inlet were listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), despite an annual growth of four percent in their population since 2005. NMFS has not identified any development activity that has impeded the recovery of the whales.
The ESA requires economic effects to be taken into account for critical habitat designations. Areas may be excluded from critical habitat if it is determined that the benefit of such exclusion outweighs the benefit of specifying such areas as critical habitat unless failure to designate these areas will result in the extinction of the whales. Extensive mitigation and regulatory measures are in place which make designation of critical habitat unnecessary and extinction of the Cook Inlet beluga whale highly unlikely. The proposed critical habitat designation will likely have a significant economic impact on the Cook Inlet region without clear corresponding benefits to beluga whales. The proposed designation could put at risk billions of dollars in future projects and could ultimately cost Southcentral Alaska residents and companies hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with new requirements and standards. The proposed designation will likely lead to costly delays in permitting and construction, as well as lengthy litigation, ultimately discouraging future investment.
Action Requested:
Please testify at one of the upcoming public hearings and submit comments by March 3 opposing the proposed critical habitat designation. Encourage NMFS to exclude the entire Cook Inlet from critical habitat. In your comments, please be sure to explain the economic effect critical habitat designation would have on you or your activities in the Inlet.
Send written comments to:
Kaja Brix, assistant regional administrator, Protected Resources Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Identify your comments with "RIN 0648-XT72" and submit by any of the following methods:
Electronic: Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site – Regulations.gov
Mail: Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802 FAX: 907-586-7557
Public hearings were held:
Soldotna: Wednesday, February 3, 2010 between 6:00 pm and 9:00 pm at the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly Chambers
Homer: Thursday, February 4, 2010 between 6:00 pm and 9:00 pm at the Alaska Islands and Ocean Visitor Center
Wasilla: Thursday, February 11, 2010 between 6:00 pm and 9:00 pm at the Best Western Lake Lucille Inn
Anchorage: Friday, February 12, 2010 between 6:00 pm and 9:00 pm at the Loussac Public Library, Wilda Marston Room
Comment deadline was March 3, 2010
Points to consider for your comments:
- The ESA requires NMFS to designate areas as critical habitat that are truly “essential to the conservation of the species” and it “shall not include the entire geographical area which can be occupied.” NMFS lacks the scientific information necessary to accurately designate all of the extensive areas proposed as critical habitat. More research is needed on the primary constituent elements of the belugas to accurately differentiate between critical habitat and general habitat.
- The ESA requires economic effects to be taken into account for critical habitat designations. NMFS must conduct a more robust economic analysis before any critical habitat designation is finalized.
- Critical habitat designation in Cook Inlet will have significant adverse effects on community and economic development without providing a corresponding benefit to beluga whales. Extensive mitigation and regulatory measures are in place which make designation of critical habitat unnecessary and extinction of the Cook Inlet beluga whale highly unlikely.
- In its economic analysis, NMFS estimates the proposed designation will cost local communities and businesses $600,000 over the next decade in additional regulatory oversight. This estimate is grossly inadequate as it does not factor in additional costs existing and future operations will have to pay to meet unnecessary regulatory requirements.
- The economic analysis failed to consider legal costs businesses and local communities would incur from lawsuits challenging agency permits for activities inside or near critical habitat. One single project alone could easily incur millions of dollars in litigation expenses.
- Industries tend to avoid investing in projects within critical habitat areas, fearing substantial delays, higher costs, regulatory uncertainty, and litigation. This economic impact must be considered before critical habitat areas are finalized.
- Activities likely to be negatively affected by critical habitat designation in Cook Inlet include shipping, oil and gas exploration, development, and production, renewable energy projects, wastewater utility discharges, commercial and industrial coastal development, commercial and sport fishing, mining, tourism, military operations, and community infrastructure development, including Port of Anchorage expansion, the Knik Arm Bridge, Port MacKenzie, and much more, all with no added benefit to the whales.
- Ninety percent of all goods coming into Alaska comes through the Port of Anchorage, so restrictions resulting from critical habitat designation may lead to higher costs for residents of rural Alaska who already suffer from exorbitant prices with no added benefit to the whales.
- Southcentral Alaska heats its homes and generates electricity through natural gas produced in Cook Inlet. This critical habitat designation could deter future oil and gas exploration and development, leading to greater costs for residents with no added benefit to the whales.
- Municipal utilities could be forced by this critical habitat designation to increase treatment for discharges, costing hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, leading to much higher consumer bills with no added benefit to beluga whales.
- Commercial, sport, and subsistence fishing could be curtailed by this proposed critical habitat designation, having a significant impact on Alaska’s fisheries and tourism activities with no added benefit to the whales.
- Lost development opportunities resulting from critical habitat designation will result in declines in both state and local tax revenue, jobs, as well as every Alaskan’s Permanent Fund Dividend with no added benefit to the whales.
- Scientists have concluded that the sole cause for the population decline of beluga whales in Cook Inlet was the unsustainable subsistence harvest of the 1990s. In fact, NMFS has not identified any community or economic development activity that has impeded the recovery of the whales or led to the population decline. Further, contaminant levels for the Cook Inlet belugas are lower than those found in similar populations elsewhere.
- NMFS has previously stated: “No information exists that beluga habitat has been modified or curtailed to an extent that it is likely to have caused the population declines observed within Cook Inlet.” Three thousand square miles of critical habitat will not change this fact.
- National security could be compromised by designation of critical habitat as military operations will likely be affected with no added benefit to the whales.
Additional testimony, comment letters and information on the Cook Inlet beluga whale
Comment deadline was March 3, 2010
Return to Action Alerts
