Comment from Matt Gray

Hello I totally support the NMFS roposed rule (reference # RIN 0648-AX50) to establish the Critical Habitat Area needed to help the beluga recover to a healthy population size. · NMFS’s proposed rule relies on the best available science to identify the physical, chemical and biological factors needed to identify critical habitat for the Cook Inlet beluga whale. Now NMFS must move quickly to develop and implement a recovery plan to give the beluga whale a fighting chance. · NMFS’s proposed rule identifies two distinct critical habitat areas (i.e. Areas 1 & 2). Yet as NMFS’s Conservation Plan notes, both areas are important habitat for the beluga whale. Science and law require both areas to be protected, and NMFS should clearly include these areas in the final critical habitat rule. · All upriver areas where belugas have been known to feed should be included in the critical habitat area, as should all upriver areas supporting beluga prey habitat, because they are “essential for conservation.” There are substantial benefits for protecting these habitats and the vital economies they support. · The critical habitat designation will not hamper responsible development. Based on tens of thousands of reviews across the nation on development projects in areas containing endangered species, less than 1% of projects are significantly curtailed, because responsible development and endangered species protection can and do go hand in hand Thank you for considering my input.