February 3, 2010 - Soldotna, Alaska

Delivered by Carl Portman

Good evening. My name is Carl Portman. While I am employed by the Resource Development Council, my comments today are on my own behalf. RDC will present its comments at the Anchorage hearing next week and in writing.

First permit me to point out that I am a life-long Alaskan and a 33-year resident of the Cook Inlet region. My livelihood, like many Alaskans, is derived from the development and production of Alaska’s resources, but I also fully appreciate Alaska’s other natural resources – its stark beauty, clean environment, wilderness, and wildlife. Like other Alaskans, I enjoy watching beluga whales from both urban and wilderness settings and I have a deep desire to see the belugas recover and thrive in Cook Inlet. The companies that make up the business association that I work for also want to see the belugas recover. They have a vested interest in the whale’s recovery and have spent millions of dollars on research that will give scientists a better understanding of the belugas and their habitat.

I am here this evening to express my opposition to the overly broad critical habitat designations. I do not believe they are necessary as the extensive mitigation and regulatory measures in place today through the Marine Mammal Protection Act make extinction of the Cook Inlet whales highly unlikely. Yet the proposed designations will likely have a significant economic impact on the Cook Inlet area – without a clear corresponding benefit to beluga whales.

My view would be different if activities currently taking place in Cook Inlet posed a real and present danger to beluga whales. But this isn’t the case as ongoing operations and activities, including oil and gas development, shipping and fishing, have coexisted with beluga whales for decades. According to NMFS biologists, the sole cause of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population decline is the subsistence harvest that occurred in the 1990s. In fact, NMFS has not identified any community or industry activity that led to the population decline or has impeded the recovery of the whales. Moreover, contaminant levels for the Cook Inlet belugas are lower than those found in similar populations elsewhere in Alaska. So why would you take this step of designating an area larger than two other states

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. The proposed designations will likely have a significant economic impact on the region from here in Soldotna all the way up to the Mat-Su, all with no added benefit to the whale. They 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 regulations and standards. The proposed designations will likely lead to costly delays in permitting and construction, as well as lengthy litigation, ultimately discouraging future investment and development. Lost development opportunities will result in declines in both state and local tax revenue, as well as fewer new jobs in the future, except maybe for the lawyers who will be suing to stop responsible project after responsible project.

In conclusion, all, or a majority of the 3,000 square miles that your agency has proposed for critical habitat should be excluded. The benefits of excluding this acreage clearly outweigh the benefits of designating these areas as critical and imposing additional restrictions on responsible activities that have been co-existing with these whales since statehood.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.