Alaska editorial: Federal government needs to justify habitat designation

Alaska's political leadership has condemned the National Marine Fisheries Service's proposed designation of the "critical habitat" needed for Cook Inlet's beluga whale population to recover. The federal agency needs to take these concerns seriously and modify its proposal.

The state's detailed comments, delivered by Gov. Sean Parnell last week, described numerous flaws in the designation. The comments point out numerous instances where NMFS has failed to adequately justify its vast proposed critical habitat designation. The federal agency has also failed to consider how existing regulations and measures protect the beluga's habitat.

At the same time, the agency greatly overstates the benefits of the designation. For example, the federal proposal stated the designation could result in "reduced levels of pollution in Cook Inlet, with associated benefits accruing to a suite of ecological services, culminating in an improved quality of life for Cook Inlet residents and visitors, alike."

As the state noted, this is gross speculation. There is no scientific information to support the idea that Cook Inlet is suffering environmental harm from pollution. On the contrary, evidence indicates Cook Inlet is doing fine. That's in part why the beluga population's failure to expand following the cessation of hunting a decade ago is such a mystery.

In fact, NMFS itself notes in another section of its proposal that Cook Inlet lacks "toxins or other agents of a type or amount harmful to beluga whales."

Ironically, that last statement is one with which the state actually took issue in its comments. The inlet lacks such problems, the state agreed, but much more specific information about a variety of potential toxins is available and should be outlined, the state said.

That particular state comment demonstrates an important point. The state has described the flaws in the NMFS proposal not simply to deny the possibility of any and all environmental impacts resulting from Anchorage and other localized urban or industrial developments. Rather, the state primarily argues that these impacts should be much more specifically established by federal agencies, and in specific locations, if they are to be used as a basis to designate critical habitat and add a corresponding layer of bureaucratic permitting and regulation.

Many people might want to dismiss the objections from Alaska's political leaders as self-serving statements designed solely to protect economic interests. That misses a few important points.

First, under the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies are supposed to consider economic impacts before they designate critical habitat.

Second, while the strenuous objections from state leaders reflect the economic importance of the issue, their arguments are not just about money. They have numerous legitimate objections based on the biological and procedural issues involved. Those arguments should be judged on their merits and not dismissed as simply motivated by economics.

Alaska's top officials - from the bipartisan congressional delegation to the governor - have made solid arguments against the proposed critical habitat designation. Federal managers should heed them well.