By Jim Magowan
Turnagain Times Correspondent
In a move hailed by conservation or environmental groups as a move to manage belugas based on science, not politics, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has proposed designating upper Cook Inlet, including all of Turnagain Arm, as beluga whale critical habitat.
“We have used the best available science and the traditional knowledge of Alaska natives to identify areas essential to helping the endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales survive,” said Doug Mecum, acting administrator of NOAA's Fisheries Service Alaska region. “Protecting these endangered whales is one of our top priorities.” (taken from the NOAA website).
Bob Shavelson of Cook Inlet Keepers says, “Critical habitat designation will not have severe impacts or affects” on development in Cook Inlet. “Tens of thousands of projects have been reviewed in critical habitats. Less than one tenth of one percent of projects couldn't go forward.”
Shavelson added, “Development is not an issue of industry versus the beluga if we truly believe we can do it right.”
Shavelson characterized much of the objection to critical habitat designation as, “Wild eyed panic statements.”
Shavelson thought the additional level of review provided by the designation would prevent actions that might damage beluga habitat citing the recent filling of 135 acres, without an environmental impact statement, for the Port of Anchorage.
What actual impact critical habitat designation will have on specific parts of Cook Inlet or on specific projects seems to be mostly conjecture at this time. Critical habitat designation means that any project requiring federal government permits must undergo an additional level of approval. It does not automatically prohibit development.
“There doesn't appear to be a lot of activity in Turnagain Arm that would be affected by the designation,” said Barbara Mahoney a biologist with NOAA's National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS), “It might affect highway projects and possibly some mining in the Hope area.”
Turnagain Arm is designated critical habitat because beluga feed on hooligan and salmon runs in the Arm.
However questions about impacts on the beluga remain, such as the impact of sport fishing on beluga? Could designation affect sport fishing?
As of now, no one is able to give a definite answer to these questions.
Could critical habitat designation have an impact on safety upgrades on the Seward Highway? Again it is too early to tell.
Listing the Cook Inlet Beluga as endangered was extremely controversial. Critical habitat designation may be even more controversial.
In a June 27, 2005 letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service drafted by Shavelson and endorsed by numerous other conservation groups, NMFS was urged to examine many activities that might have an impact on Cook Inlet belugas including Girdwood sewer discharge, Seward Highway projects and even sport fishing. This letter indicated that too much emphasis may have been placed on the importance of subsistence hunting in the population decline because the curtailing of subsistence hunting has not resulted in the population recovering.
Jason Brune, Executive Director of the Resource Development Council of Alaska, Inc., (RDC) and a biologist, disagrees.
According to Brune, the results of annual NOAA population surveys indicate that the population may actually be recovering. This is due to the wide error limits in the surveys. While the population estimate from the 2009 survey has been published as 321, a drop of 54 from 2008's 375, due to counting uncertainty, NOAA's figures indicate the actual population could be as high as 450 or as low as 200.
By comparing current population estimates with earlier high estimates Brune also feels that NMFS incorrectly shows a declining trend in the population when using a later year with a lower population as the starting point shows a growing population.
The proposal to list the Cook Inlet beluga as endangered posted in the Federal Register on April 20, 2007 contains this statement, “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.”
Brune cites this NOAA finding in his opposition to the listing as well as opposition to the critical habitat designation. He adds that the peak beluga numbers were during the period of maximum oil development and exploration in Cook Inlet and Cook Inlet beluga have lower levels of toxins than beluga from other populations.
On May 14, 2009, Brune drafted a letter on behalf of RDC to Kaja Brix, National Marine Fisheries Service in which he states, “Critical habitat designation could threaten the entire Cook Inlet sport fishery as the beluga's primary food source is fish.”
There seems to be a consensus that the beluga population was over 1,000, probably about 1,300, in 1979. There seems to be no disagreement that the current population is about a third or less of that number.
There is little disagreement that over harvest by subsistence hunters prior to 1999 was responsible for a precipitous decline in the Cook Inlet beluga population.
There is disagreement over whether the beluga population is currently declining, increasing or remaining the same. Counting beluga in cook Inlet is an inexact science at this time. Both sides interpret the same numbers differently. Those who believe the population is declining do not know what is causing the continued decline.
There is disagreement also over whether critical habitat designation is necessary or will help the beluga. No specific research as been done to show exactly how critical habitat designation will affect the beluga.
Opinions on the impact of critical habitat designation range from almost no impact, other than an additional level of review on projects involving the federal government, (which means anything in Turnagain Arm since the Arm is largely bounded by a national forest) to a complete disruption of, halt to or tremendous increase in the cost, of development throughout Cook Inlet and curtailment of recreational activities from boating to fishing.
The public has until Jan. 31, 2010 to comment on this proposal. Information on how to submit comments is available on the NOAA website.
