FR 2020-29008

Summary of the Document

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has put forward a proposed rule revising the designation of critical habitat for the Arctic subspecies of the ringed seal, known scientifically as Pusa hispida hispida. These seals are considered threatened under the Endangered Species Act, which necessitates providing them with certain protections. Key areas identified as crucial for the seals' habitat are in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas, and are essential for various life functions of the seals, such as breeding, basking, and feeding.

Significant Issues and Concerns

The document is exceedingly lengthy and technical, which may hinder accessibility for the general public. Legal terminologies and highly specific geographic descriptors, suited more for experts, might leave readers confused about the exact areas being protected and the specifics of proposed actions.

A notable concern is the balancing of ecological protections with national defense interests. The proposal includes the exclusion of a particular region used by the U.S. Navy for training and testing. The rationale for this exclusion, primarily based on national security concerns, might not be clearly communicated to those unfamiliar with such regulatory nuances, leading to potential misunderstandings about the importance of this exclusion.

Moreover, the potential impacts of designating these areas on local economies, especially how small businesses might be affected, are not thoroughly quantified or explained, leaving room for anxiety among stakeholders who may be directly impacted by the rule.

Public Impact

For the general public, this rule underscores ongoing efforts to protect vulnerable marine species. While it highlights the need for habitat preservation, it also raises questions about the interaction between environmental conservation and other governmental obligations, like national defense.

Broadly, the document indicates important implications for environmental policy in Arctic regions. By protecting critical habitats, it aims to ensure the long-term survival of the Arctic ringed seal, an emblematic species for the region's ecological health. However, this comes alongside occasional land and economic trade-offs, particularly for communities and industries operating in these sensitive areas.

Stakeholder Impacts

Different stakeholders will feel the ripple effects of this proposal in varied ways. Environmental groups might appreciate the focused conservation effort, seeing it as a victory for biodiversity conservation in a rapidly changing Arctic landscape. They may, however, push for more transparent justifications regarding certain exclusions.

Businesses, especially in oil, gas, and shipping sectors, may be wary of increased regulation. With the potential imposition of strict guidelines to avoid disturbing these critical habitats, business operations could face adjustments or relocations, leading to economic concerns.

The U.S. Navy and other military groups might find the proposed exclusion positive, as it allows for continued operations without additional regulatory hurdles. This aspect showcases the ongoing challenge of balancing ecological priorities with logistical and defense needs.

Alaska Native communities engaged in traditional hunting and fishing could see both positive and negative outcomes. While habitat protection is crucial for ensuring long-term availability of traditional resources, the possibility of restrictions might affect subsistence practices unless clearly exempted.

This complex interplay of ecological preservation and human activity highlights the necessity for thorough stakeholder engagement and a clear communication strategy to ensure all concerned parties understand the implications and provisions of the rule.

The document under discussion references several financial aspects related to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Arctic subspecies of the ringed seal. The financial commentary in this section aims to highlight these references and provide clarity on their implications, especially concerning the document's complexity and potential impacts on small businesses and government jurisdictions.

Financial Estimates and Impacts

The document states that the total incremental costs associated with designating this critical habitat over the next ten years are estimated to be approximately $800,000, discounted at a 7 percent rate. When calculating annually, the costs are estimated to range from $58,000 to $106,000. This cost mainly stems from administrative overheads involved in adding critical habitat analyses to section 7 consultations.

Furthermore, if a particular area is excluded from the designation (primarily due to national security concerns), the estimated ten-year incremental costs are slightly reduced to about $786,000. The adjusted annual cost range is then reported as $57,000 to $105,000.

Economic Impact on Businesses and Government Jurisdictions

The document addresses the potential economic impacts on small businesses, particularly those involved in oil and gas activities, by referencing the Small Business Administration's size standards: businesses with no more than 1,250 employees or $41.5 million in average annual receipts are considered small. The expected annual third-party administrative costs over the decade, mainly associated with oil and gas activities, are estimated to be between $32,000 to $59,000.

Additionally, the document notes two small government jurisdictions, indicating that their total potential incremental costs, over ten years with the proposed habitat consultation, are estimated to be less than $1,000.

Issues and Clarity

One of the significant issues that emerge from the financial discussion is the potential ambiguity surrounding the economic implications for small businesses and government jurisdictions. The document provides broad financial estimates but lacks detailed examples and explanations of how these estimates might affect specific stakeholders. This absence leaves room for misunderstanding about the real-world implications of the proposed critical habitat designation.

Moreover, while the federal mandate is not expected to exceed $100 million annually, thus not a significant regulatory action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the lack of clarity regarding local economic impacts might raise concerns among those potentially affected, especially smaller entities that are indirectly involved through consultations or federal funding.

Overall, the financial references indicate modest expected costs associated with regulatory changes, but further transparency and detailed impact assessments would be beneficial to enhance understanding and acceptance among stakeholders.