February 12, 2010 - Anchorage, Alaska

Delivered by Jason Brune, RDC Executive Director

Good evening. For the record, my name is Jason Brune and I am the executive director of the Resource Development Council for Alaska. RDC members include all of the major, and many of the minor, parties who will be adversely impacted by the proposed designation of over 3,000 square miles of critical habitat in Cook Inlet. From local communities, to oil and gas, mining, tourism, and fisheries members, all stand to be negatively affected by this proposal. Meanwhile, this designation will result in no added benefit to the belugas.

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. RDC members have funded millions of dollars in research on the belugas over the last decade and I am honored as a biologist to have recently been invited to serve on the Cook Inlet beluga recovery stakeholder panel.

It is important to remember that NMFS’ biologists have acknowledged the sole cause for the population decline of Cook Inlet beluga whales was the subsistence harvest that transpired in the 1990s. The multitude of activities in Cook Inlet that will absolutely be impacted by this proposal were not the cause of the decline, nor are they an ongoing threat to the whale’s recovery. Indeed, by my assessment, the population is recovering, at a rate of nearly 4%/year as was hoped for by the agency, in the timeline of 5-7 years following cessation of the subsistence harvest as predicted by Litsky and cited previously by NMFS, which begs the question of why critical habitat designation is even necessary.

The Service's broad designation of critical habitat in the Proposed Rule for the beluga whale is inconsistent with the ESA's definition of critical habitat. Congress amended the ESA in 1978 to provide an express and narrow definition of critical habitat. That definition was added in response to growing concerns that the Services were designating critical habitat "as far as the eye can see and the mind can conceive," and that such broad designations could collectively have a crippling economic impact.

First, Congress provided that critical habitat "shall not include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by the . . . species.” Second, Congress limited critical habitat to those "specific areas" that contain the "physical or biological features . . . essential to the conservation of the species." Third, those physical or biological features, called primary constituent elements, must actually be found in the specific geographic areas. Fourth, Congress required the Service to make a finding that the designated critical habitat "may require special management considerations or protections." If any one of these required elements are absent in a particular area, then the Service cannot designate that area as critical habitat.

Unfortunately, this proposal appears to not have followed these requirements. The agency must differentiate between those areas that are critical habitat as opposed to just habitat.

Since statehood, economic and community development activities have occurred in Cook Inlet. Indeed, these activities have long co-existed with the belugas. Responsible community and economic development have in no way adversely impacted these whales or impeded their recovery. Unfortunately, this designation, if finalized will lead to additional requirements, costly delays, and lengthy 3rd party litigation. There is no other way to put it.

The ESA requires economic effects to be taken into account when designating critical habitat. In fact, 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.

The economic analysis that has been completed as part of this proposal is grossly inadequate. In fact, only direct consultation costs are acknowledged as “costs” in this analysis. Nothing further is considered.

Because of this, RDC has hired a contractor, Resource Dimensions, to undertake an independent economic analysis to attempt to more accurately identify the costs of this proposal. These economists have been conducting in person and telephone interviews with many of the potentially affected entities. We will be providing the results of this analysis to the agency. NMFS should use these results as a boilerplate to conduct a more robust economic analysis.

Overreaching critical habitat is being advocated by many predatory, non-Alaskan environmental interests. Indeed, some are even advocating for additional inland critical habitat where salmon spawn. We absolutely oppose this recommendation and applaud the agency for not including inland areas in this proposal.

In conclusion, the benefits of designating critical habitat in most, if not all of the areas that have been proposed is outweighed by the economic impacts it will have. I urge the agency to take a critical look at the available data, both scientific, and economic, and only designate areas that are truly critical. Over 50 years of responsible community and economic development are proof that these activities can continue to occur without the added burdens of critical habitat designations. I urge you to reconsider most of the proposed areas in your final ruling. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.