|
Beluga territory NMFS designates 3,016 square miles of CI beluga whale critical habitat Alan Bailey Petroleum News
While controversy has reigned over the National Marine Fisheries Service October 2008 listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whale under the Endangered Species Act, NMFS has moved ahead with making a determination of the whale’s critical habitat, a determination that is a legal requirement under the ESA. And on Dec. 1 the agency published its proposed critical habitat designation for public review — comments are required by Jan. 31.
The complete habitat area encompasses the whole of upper Cook Inlet, including the waters surrounding all offshore oil and gas installations; the whole of Knik Arm; the whole of Turnagain Arm; the middle part of Cook Inlet, south to an east-west line south of Kalgin Island; Kachemak Bay; and the nearshore areas of the entire western coast of lower Cook Inlet.
Best available science “We have used the best available science and the traditional knowledge of Alaska Natives to identify areas essential to helping 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.”
NMFS has said that the Cook Inlet beluga whale population, a distinct beluga whale subspecies, has declined to some 300 animals in recent years and now has just a 26 percent chance of surviving through the next 100 years, although some people have challenged this finding, saying that there has not yet been sufficient time to determine whether the population is starting to recover from over-hunting in the 1990s.
Under the terms of the ESA, federal agencies must not fund, authorize or carry out any activity that would destroy or adversely modify the whale’s critical habitat. So, any proposed activity in the Cook Inlet region that could impact the habitat and that requires any kind of federal permit could run into the need for new environmental impact mitigation measures related to beluga whale conservation, once the critical habitat designation is finalized.
Cost estimates NMFS says that it has estimated the economic impact of the critical habitat designation as somewhere in the range $157,000 to $571,000 over a 10-year period, a cost that the agency says is insignificant when compared to the wildlife conservation benefits that the designation will bring.
However, these costs are essentially those estimated for ESA consultations required in connection with the critical habitat designation, costs which would largely accrue to the federal government and which do not take into account the consequences to industry or the public of any mitigation measure requirements resulting from the consultations.
For example, were beluga whale NMFS consultations for water discharge permits to lead to a requirement to upgrade the main Anchorage wastewater treatment plant, the cost of that upgrade could amount to $500 million to $800 million, Brett Jokela, assistant general manager of Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility, told the Alaska Association of Environmental Professionals in February.
Serious concerns “I have serious concerns,” Bill Popp, president and CEO of the Anchorage Economic Development Corp., told Petroleum News Dec. 2. NMFS is not taking into account the costs likely to be incurred by the local economy as a consequence of project delays and added effort, as well as the impact of the cancellation of projects that become uneconomic as a result of the beluga whale listing, Popp said.
Popp particularly cited concerns about possible impacts on the operation of the Port of Anchorage, and on Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, where airport noise has already been mentioned as possibly impacting beluga whales. The fact that the critical habitat envelopes all of the offshore oil and gas facilities is also a major concern.
“Given the energy challenges that we face in the Cook Inlet right now, now is not the time to make it even more expensive and more difficult to bring a new gas reserve on line,” Popp said.
But the agency stands by its cost estimates, saying that it does not have specific future activity proposals on which to base further cost evaluations.
“My guidance on this was essentially that a bad number is worse than no number at all,” Lewis Queirolo, senior regional economist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Alaska region, told Petroleum News Dec. 2. “If we generate completely specious and unsupported numbers, simply to put a number in the document, we don’t do service to anybody’s interest.”
Besides, NOAA’s experience of implementing the Endangered Species Act across the United States is that critical habitat designations rarely require proposed activities to be substantially modified or delayed, and ultimate prevention of an activity is rare, Queirolo said. NMFS principally seeks compromise solutions that allow activities to proceed without placing the habitat at risk, he said.
“We would not anticipate that any of the actions would result in very substantial financial dislocation,” Queirolo said.
In fact, NMFS has looked into the situation at the Anchorage wastewater plant and the agency thinks it improbable that the critical habitat designation would force an upgrade at the plant, he said.
Environmental praise Environmental groups have lauded the NMFS findings.
“If we quickly act to designate and protect the critical habitat of the Cook Inlet beluga, this highly imperiled whale has a real chance of recovery,” said Brendan Cummings, senior attorney at the Center of Biological Diversity.
“Beluga whales are an intrinsic part of Alaska’s natural heritage, but today less than 350 of these iconic creatures remain,” said Defenders of Wildlife Executive Vice President Jamie Clark. “They are literally at the brink and we hold their future in our hands. Today hopefully marks the beginning of a long overdue effort to save these animals from the tragic permanence of extinction.”
But some Alaska politicians are a good deal less enthusiastic.
“This is just another attempt to halt resource production and development in Alaska, and a step towards making the whole state a national park for the enjoyment of Outsiders,” said Rep. Don Young in response to the Dec. 1 NMFS announcement. “This is just one more instance in a pattern of misuse of the Endangered Species Act for purposes wholly unrelated to the health and welfare of the animals.”
“Listing more than 3,000 square miles of Cook Inlet as critical habitat would do little to help grow the beluga population, but it would devastate economic opportunities in the region,” said Gov. Sean Parnell. “The beluga whale population has been coexisting with industry for years. The main threat facing belugas was over-harvest, which is now regulated under a cooperative harvest management plan. Belugas are also protected under the Marine Mammal Act.”
Better understanding Sen. Lisa Murkowski said that she shares concerns about the possible impact of activities in the Cook Inlet on the beluga whales but that she wants a better understanding of the economic impacts of the critical habitat designation.
“I appreciate that the National Marine Fisheries Service has tried to identify the most important areas for the beluga whale in Cook Inlet, using the limited but available science,” Murkowski said. “I have not had an opportunity to read the economic analysis that estimates the low economic impact of the proposed rule, but I sincerely hope they are correct that it will not cause economic harm to the region. I remain concerned, however, since our experience with critical habitat in other areas of the state is that a designation can sometimes lead to costly delays in permitting, construction and protracted litigation … I encourage Alaskans to read the proposed rule and provide comments on the economic impacts that this proposed designation might have on them.”
“Every Alaskan who has enjoyed watching beluga whales from the shoreline along Turnagain Arm knows these animals are important to us,” said Sen. Mark Begich. “That’s why Alaskans are committed to protecting the beluga whales in Cook Inlet. At the same time, development in Cook Inlet is necessary for Alaska’s economy and we’ve taken numerous steps to ensure that it can coexist with the fish and wildlife of the region.”
Designation of habitat But how did NMFS arrive at its critical habitat designation?
The agency decided that the complete geographic range of the whales encompasses the whole of the Cook Inlet, from the Anchorage area south to a line between Cape Douglas, on the south side of Kameshak Bay, and Cape Elizabeth, at the extreme southern end of the Kenai Peninsula.
Within that range, the agency identified two critical habitat areas: area 1, consisting of the extreme northern part of the inlet, Knik Arm and Turnagain Arm, and containing prime whale foraging areas adjacent river mouths, with the highest observed concentrations of beluga whales during the spring and summer; and area 2, extending south from area 1 and encompassing areas thought to be important to the whales for fall feeding and winter habitat.
The critical habitat does not include man-made structures already in existence at the time of the critical habitat designation. But NMFS says that it has not yet determined whether to exclude the Port of Anchorage from area 1.
Under the terms of the Endangered Species Act, NMFS has to specify habitat features, rather than just designating critical habitat as a geographic area. And NMFS has listed five features that characterize the Cook Inlet beluga whale critical habitat:
• Intertidal and subtidal waters of Cook Inlet within five miles of high- and medium-flow andromous fish streams;
• The presence of primary beluga whale prey species, consisting of chinook, sockeye, chum and coho salmon; Pacific eulachon (hooligan); Pacific cod; walleye pollock; saffron cod; and yellowfin sole;
• The absence of toxins or other agents of a type or amount harmful to beluga whales;
• Unrestricted passage within or between the critical habitat areas; and
• The absence of in-water noise at levels resulting in the abandonment of habitat by Cook Inlet beluga whales.
During an ESA consultation over a proposed activity, the agency would assess any possible adverse impacts on these habitat features. For example, an activity that might restrict whale movements between critical habitat areas, or that would create excessive in-water noise, would presumably prove problematic.
| 