Testimony of Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich
NOAA Fisheries Public Hearing on Cook Inlet Belugas
3:30 p.m.; July 20, 2007; Wilda Marston Theater

Thank you, Assistant Administrator Brix, to you and your staff for scheduling an ample round of public hearings on this issue, which is critical for the people of our region. Your care and hard work are appreciated.

As mayor of Anchorage, I speak for Alaska’s largest local government and for a quarter-million Alaskans who treasure the marine environment.

Anchorage is an ocean city. The survival of the beluga whale is not an abstract scientific topic here.

If you’ve ever seen the lines of cars pulled off the Seward Highway when the beluga are passing along Turnagain Arm, you know that this animal holds a special place in our hearts.

Extinction of beluga whales in Cook Inlet is not an option, and we will work with NOAA Fisheries to prevent it.

We have already teamed up with NOAA and many other agencies, businesses and citizens to highlight the importance of our natural assets and to implement projects to protect and restore our coastal environment.

I don’t have time to list all our initiatives now, but I will present for your review a Position Paper which outlines many of them.

These initiatives include $6 million in monitoring at the John Asplund Wastewater Treatment plant, which led to a determination by the EPA that the plant is not affecting belugas.

They include aggressive work to halt industrial discharges to the sewer system, to collect household hazardous waste and to improve water quality in our streams and storm drains. And they include efforts to protect and improve fish habitat in each of the creeks that flow through our city.

The success of our environmental work is validated by your tissue sample tests of Cook Inlet belugas. Last November’s Status Review showed contaminant levels below what has been found in other beluga populations.
At our strategic port, a lifeline for 80 percent of Alaska and a key resource for Fort Richardson’s Stryker brigade serving in Iraq, we have invested in extensive scientific research to determine the use of the area by whales and the potential impact of noise.

We’ve developed a program to stop work on our port expansion project whenever whales are too close.

Our record of what we have not done is strong, too.  I doubt any other city our size in the industrial world has our miles of undisturbed coastal wetlands and mudflats. The vast majority of our shoreline is unchanged from a century ago.

I highlight these actions to make a simple point: We do not believe our community is affecting beluga whales.

While whale numbers declined from 1999 to 2005, Anchorage’s environmental practices were improving. There doesn’t seem to be any link between the two.

With that understanding, I am concerned by comments in this year’s draft Marine Mammal Assessment Report for Alaska speculating that urbanization or wastewater treatment could be a cause of the beluga decline. There’s no definitive evidence for that statement.

In the same document, your aerial surveys showed an increase between 2005 to 2006 from 278 to 302 whales, an increase of 9 percent in a single year. That’s good news, but it also highlights our lack of understanding of these whales.

It’s clear that we simply have no idea why beluga numbers rise and fall, we don’t know their critical habitat, or even their winter range. We can’t even say with confidence if they stay in Cook Inlet.

After reviewing the record of research on Cook Inlet belugas, we are left with unknowns and the mysterious decline in numbers, and almost no hard information.

NOAA Fisheries is wise to defer designation of critical habitat for the whales. That deferral should last until solid information is in hand, not until any arbitrary deadline is set in regulations.

Our ignorance also demands caution in making an endangered designation.

The consequences of an ESA listing for Anchorage are potentially huge. For example, in reviewing a permit renewal for the Asplund Treatment Plant, EPA could be required to prove that it does not affect whales.

It has been said that it’s impossible to prove a negative. But if we failed do so, Anchorage ratepayers could be stuck with a bill for facility upgrades of $400 million to $600 million, with no apparent benefit for the city or the environment. That would be the largest single capital expenditure in our city’s history.

Likewise, the expansion of our Commercial Strategic Seaport could be delayed or increased in price, indirectly affecting nearly every Alaskan north of Cordova and our ability to support our troops.

I understand NOAA Fisheries is following its mandate by responding to a petition for listing of the beluga whale with the best available science. However, your good judgment is also called into play.

A listing could have severe unintended consequences, setting in motion legal and administrative requirements that could entangle the people of Anchorage for many years to come, potentially burdening them with enormous costs and divert our collective efforts from the important task of preventing further decline of beluga whales.

Listing of the species should be deferred. We offer to join you in redoubling our efforts to study the beluga and to continue our proactive actions to reduce the impact on our beloved marine environment.

On behalf of the Municipality of Anchorage, thank you again for providing an opportunity for the public to comment on this important decision. I appreciate the chance to provide our perspective on this important issue.