FR 2020-29006

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has put forward a proposal to designate critical habitat for a specific population of the bearded seal found in the Arctic waters of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. This proposed rule aims to safeguard the areas crucial for the survival and conservation of this distinct population segment of the bearded seal under the Endangered Species Act. The areas in focus are those with sea ice conditions necessary for the seals to whelp, nurse, molt, and communicate during breeding.

Significant Issues and Concerns

The document is lengthy and heavily laden with legal and scientific terminology, which could pose comprehension challenges to the general public. Simplifying this language could enhance accessibility and understanding. Furthermore, while the document outlines various provisions and features required by the seals for their survival, the economic implications stemming from designating critical habitat are less clearly conveyed. Providing a more detailed analysis, particularly concerning implications for small businesses, would be beneficial.

Another focus of the document is the call for public comment on highly technical issues, such as acoustic conditions affecting bearded seal breeding communication. However, the presentation of such issues might deter meaningful input from non-specialists. Offering clear examples or additional background information could increase public engagement.

The discussion regarding the potential impact on local subsistence hunting, notably by Alaska Natives, feels somewhat cursory. A more thorough exploration of how this designation could interact with Native cultural practices would foster a greater understanding and empathetic insight into the designation's broader cultural effects.

Broad Public Impact

The proposed rule's primary impact on the public will likely revolve around environmental conservation and ensuring the longevity of the bearded seal population in these Arctic regions. It emphasizes proactive protections that might resonate with those concerned about wildlife preservation and the environmental health of oceanic ecosystems.

However, the document lacks details on how these critical habitat designations might lead to changes in regulations for activities involving Federal involvement—such as construction projects, oil and gas exploration, and broader shipping activities. While the document indicates that consultations with Federal agencies would be necessary, it does not account for the extent to which these consultations might affect these practices or the timelines for conducting such projects.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Stakes are high for individual stakeholders ranging from environmental groups to industries like oil and gas and commercial fisheries. While environmentalists might view the designation as a positive step toward conserving marine biodiversity, industries in oil, gas, and commercial fishing might perceive the designated habitats as an obstacle requiring more stringent compliance burdens to ensure activities do not infringe on protected areas.

Moreover, the impact on Alaska Native communities, particularly regarding their cultural practices like subsistence hunting, is another key factor to consider. While the document states that no restrictions on subsistence hunting are proposed, the interplay between habitat protection and ancestral practices requires careful management to avoid cultural disruption.

In conclusion, while the proposed rule aims to enhance protections for the Beringia DPS bearded seal, it presents complex issues via dense regulatory and scientific language. Breaking down these items further could ensure better public understanding and engagement, ensuring that all stakeholders are adequately informed about both the regulatory framework and how they might be affected.

The Federal Register document outlines a proposed rule by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to designate critical habitat for the Beringia distinct population segment of the bearded seal. This designation is proposed under the Endangered Species Act, and it includes financial references primarily related to the economic impact of this designation over the next decade.

Summary of Financial References

The document estimates that the total incremental costs associated with this critical habitat designation over the next ten years are approximately $786,000, when discounted at a 7 percent rate. This figure is considered in present value terms, which takes into account how money's value decreases over time due to inflation and other factors.

On an annual basis, the financial impact is estimated to range from $57,000 to $105,000. These costs are expected to primarily arise from section 7 consultations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which require federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.

It is notable that the document indicates specific financial thresholds that are not expected to be exceeded. For instance, the rule is not expected to produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or more in any year, thus not constituting a "significant regulatory action" under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Implications Related to Identified Issues

The document’s financial references highlight some concerns regarding the economic implications of the proposed critical habitat designation, particularly its impacts on small businesses and small government jurisdictions. The Small Business Administration defines small businesses as those with no more than 1,250 employees in the crude petroleum and natural gas extraction industry or with annual receipts of no more than $41.5 million in support activities for oil and gas operations. Given these metrics, only a small number of parties involved in oil and gas activities appear to qualify as small businesses and thus may be indirectly affected by the critical habitat designation.

Additionally, the document references incremental annual third-party costs associated with considering the critical habitat's impact under ESA section 7 consultations. These costs, estimated to range from $32,000 to $59,000 annually over the next decade, relate primarily to the oil and gas sector’s activities, reflecting the broader economic interplay between environmental protection efforts and commercial interests.

The overall economic impact on small government jurisdictions is estimated to be less than $1,000 over ten years. This reflects the minimal direct financial burden anticipated on these entities concerning the additional administrative effort required to consider the critical habitat in future consultations involving one port of entry.

The document indicates that additional administrative costs are the primary direct economic impact foreseen from the critical habitat proposal, suggesting that the regulatory burden might be modest. However, this highlights an important issue regarding the document's clarity and detail in explaining how these costs will affect small entities and what specific management measures may incur such costs.

The financial references, while summarized and quantified, point to a broader discussion on the balance between conservation efforts and economic impacts, especially on smaller businesses and communities that might interact with the designated areas. As the rule calls for public comments, there is a clear opportunity for stakeholders to provide input on the economic assessments and how the measures are implemented.