Kaja Brix, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Alaska Region
NMFS: Attn Ellen Sebastian RIN 0648-XT72
Box 21668
Juneau, AK 99802

Comments submitted electronically 2/17/2010 – receipt 80ab22175

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration: National Marine Fisheries Service Docket # 090224232-91321-03
Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of Critical Habitat for Cook Inlet Beluga Whale

The following testimony also presented at the public hearing February 12, 2010 reflects the position of the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce.

My name is Caroline Higgins and as the 2010 Chair of the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce I am here to testify about the concerns our members have regarding the listing of the Cook Inlet Beluga Whales and the resulting designation of critical habitat and what that may mean to the business community.

The State Chamber is very concerned that critical habitat designation in Cook Inlet will have a significant adverse impact on communities and commerce throughout much of Alaska and more specifically on economic development in and around Cook Inlet

The Port of Anchorage is a vital link for commerce throughout the state where 90% of the goods coming into Alaska cross the Port. These goods travel far beyond the port and Anchorage ultimately reaching Alaskans in the railbelt and rural Alaska. Additional costs added to the supply chain due to critical habitat will be borne by the people of Alaska.

The Port of Anchorage is designated as a strategic port by the US military and is essential to our national security.

The designation of critical habitat and the implications for commerce are of great concern. Any restrictions in the Cook Inlet commerce corridor routes or at the Port of Anchorage will lead to higher costs for residents of both urban and rural Alaska. The potential impacts to service levels would have implications for almost all Alaskans as they could result in increased costs to the consumer along with slower or less reliable service for delivery of consumer goods and bulk cargo at the Port of Anchorage.

The National Marine Fisheries Service lacks the scientific information necessary to accurately designate all of the extensive areas proposed as critical habitat. The Endangered Species Act requires that critical habitat is “essential to the conservation of the species” and it “shall not include the entire geographic area which can be occupied.” Additional research is necessary on the primary constituent elements of the Cook Inlet belugas in order to differentiate critical habitat and general habitat.

A robust economic analysis needs to be conducted before critical habitat is designation is finalized. The current analysis is inadequate and a comprehensive economic analysis needs to be conducted before critical habitat designation is finalized. NMFS estimated cost to local communities and businesses of $600,000 over the next decade in additional regulatory oversight is inadequate and does not factor in additional costs existing or those that future operations will have to pay to meet unnecessary regulatory requirements.

Should NMFS’ proposed rule pass, any activity in the area would require additional permitting and mitigation measures that would increase construction and operating costs without any direct benefit to the beluga whale.

In fact the population decline of the beluga whales had not been attributed to development activities. Scientists have concluded that the sole cause for the population decline was unsustainable subsistence harvest and the beluga population has increased by nearly 16% in the four years since the unsustainable subsistence harvest ended. NMFS has not identified any community or economic development activity that has impeded the recovery of the whales or led to the population decline. In NMFS’s own words “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.”

Critical habitat designation threatens to negatively impact many activities such like 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 developments such as the Port of Anchorage expansion, the Knik Arm Bridge, Port MacKenzie.

These industries and developments are critical to Alaska’s economic growth and prosperity. Extensive mitigation and regulatory measures are in place today which makes the designation of critical habitat unnecessary.