Recent action by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to place the Cook Inlet beluga whale under the protection of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has left state and local officials with serious concerns about the potential statewide economic implications of the listing.
The decision drew immediate criticism from Governor Sarah Palin, Fish and Game Commissioner Denby Lloyd, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, Alaska’s congressional delegation and others.
“The State of Alaska has had serious concerns about the low population of belugas in Cook Inlet for many years,” Palin acknowledged. “However, we believe this endangered listing is premature.”
The state, as well as local communities, RDC and the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, supported the agency’s decision in 2000 to designate the beluga population “depleted” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This designation, along with federal legislation passed in 1999, ended the high levels of subsistence hunting of Cook Inlet beluga whales that had been the sole cause of a severe decline in their population during the 1990s.
“This endangered listing could result in hugely expensive new requirements to Anchorage wastewater treatment, which the EPA has long determined does not affect belugas,” said Anchorage Mayor and Senator-elect Mark Begich. “It could endanger the ongoing expansion of the Port of Anchorage, a vital lifeline for 80 percent of Alaskans and for our military.”
“We would have preferred that NOAA delayed this endangered listing decision for a few years to get more population counts, and determine whether the cutback in hunting is working to help the beluga population recover,” said Commissioner Lloyd. “Our analysis of NOAA’s data indicates the population has been growing steadily in the last few years, just as studies had predicted.”
After high levels of subsistence harvest ended in 2000, studies predicted that Cook Inlet belugas would begin to climb again in 2004. Since 2004, NOAA’s counts show an increase of more than 30 percent in the population, from 278 to 375.
Between 1994 and 1998, the estimated population of belugas in Cook Inlet declined from about 650 to about 350. Both state scientists and NOAA agreed that the sole cause of the population decline was an unregulated and unsustainable subsistence harvest of up to 338 whales.
State biologists believe current restrictions in place under the MMPA are working. They believe the listing of the species was premature since it just recently entered the time frame where the juveniles are reaching reproduction age and can have a positive impact on the population.
They noted it was expected that harvest restrictions would take time to show effects due to the slow reproductive cycle of belugas. “NOAA’s own counts of belugas indicate that the species has been increasing since 2005,” said Doug Vincent-Lang, ESA Coordinator for Fish and Game. “This is what we expected would happen starting six to seven years after the harvest was cut.”
Vincent-Lang said a critical piece of information in assessing the potential for an increase in abundance is an estimate of the belugas’ population age structure. “NOAA has done counts of beluga calves for several years, but has not yet analyzed the data. These counts need to be analyzed to increase our understanding of the factors that may be influencing survival and reproduction and the whales’ potential rate of recovery.”
RDC Executive Director Jason Brune agreed that the age and number of calves are critical pieces of information in assessing the potential for further increases in the population and that these data should have been analyzed prior to making as ESA determination.
Moreover, Brune pointed out NOAA uses a methodologically different (and some argue technically-flawed) survey from 1979 to set its desired population to nearly 1,300 animals. NOAA’s Fisheries Service has said the belugas will not be down-listed from endangered to threatened until it has seen a population that surpasses 800 animals. “Amazingly, in all of its population counts, the agency has never once had a population estimate that surpassed even 700, so they may have set an unattainable goal,” Brune said. “Getting off the endangered species list entirely will require an even larger population.”
A listing of endangered under the ESA requires designation of critical habitat, a recovery plan and a review of all federally funded or permitted activities in Cook Inlet that may affect the whales.
The decision could have negative impacts on industries and development in and around Cook Inlet. Commercial activities that could be adversely affected
by the listing, its habitat designations and subsequent third-party litigation include subsistence, recreational and commercial fishing; the Port of Anchorage and the Port MacKenzie expansion projects; construction of the Knik Arm Bridge; construction and operation of a coal mine and marine terminal near Tyonek and oil and gas exploration.
Other activities that could be impacted include military operations; state regulated timber and mining activities; air transportation into local airports and for access into remote sites; shipping; cruise ships and many other routine activities with the potential to impact upland activities, including permits for home construction.
Attorney General Talis Colberg said the state is considering a legal challenge to the listing. “We disagree with the decision to list a species that is stable or increasing when NOAA has not analyzed its data on beluga calf populations or given the harvest restrictions time to work. It is especially troubling because NOAA’s own models show only a one percent chance that the whales may go extinct within 50 years.”
NOAA said recovery of the whales is potentially hindered by strandings; disease; predation by killer whales; continued development within and along Cook Inlet and the cumulative effects on beluga habitat; oil and gas exploration, development and production, and other industrial activities. The agency will identify habitat essential to the belugas in separate action within a year.
Oil and gas development is cited by the agency as a threat, despite the fact that the government’s own studies have shown tissue samples taken from local belugas show much lower levels of contamination from heavy metals than whales sampled in remote, undeveloped areas such as the arctic and St. Lawrence Island.
“This announcement shows me the agency does not understand the implications of this listing on Alaska,” said Congressman Don Young. He said the decision “ignores science” and suspects NOAA “has its own agenda by basing their decisions not on science, but on whether they will get sued.”
“We all want a healthy beluga population in Cook Inlet,” noted RDC’s Brune. “But an endangered species listing at this time is unwarranted and will only lead to additional restrictions on activities in the Inlet with no added benefit to the belugas.”
Return to newsletter headlines
