Draft RIR/ESA Section 4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) of the Bearded Seal

December 2020

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

Alaska Region
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 i Table of Contents

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Listing and Critical Habitat Designation Background .......................................................1-1

1.2 Purpose and Need............................................................................................................1-2

1.3 Objectives.........................................................................................................................1-3

1.4 Regulatory Impact Requirements.....................................................................................1-3

1.4.1 Requirements of Regulatory Impact Review ....................................................1-3

1.4.2 Requirements of Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA ....................................................1-4

1.4.3 Requirements of Regulatory Flexibility Act .......................................................1-4

1.5 Description of Critical Habitat Designation Alternatives ...................................................1-5

1.6 Structure of the Report .....................................................................................................1-5

2 Methodology and Framework for Analysis..................................................................2-1

2.1 General Framework for the Analysis ................................................................................2-1

2.2 Categories of Potential Economic Effects of Critical Habitat Designation .......................2-1

2.2.1 Efficiency Effects...............................................................................................2-2

2.2.2 Net Benefits.......................................................................................................2-3

2.2.3 Distributional and Regional Economic Effects ..................................................2-3

2.3 Framework for Estimating Benefits ..................................................................................2-4

2.3.1 Benefit Valuation Methods ................................................................................2-5

2.4 Baseline and Incremental Effects.....................................................................................2-6

2.4.1 Baseline for the Analysis...................................................................................2-6

2.4.2 Types of Economic Costs and Benefits of Critical Habitat Designation ...........2-7

2.5 Analytic Time-Frame ........................................................................................................2-9

2.6 Potentially Affected Economic Sectors and Groups.........................................................2-9

2.7 Information Sources .......................................................................................................2-10

3 Types of Economic Costs of Critical Habitat Designation .........................................3-1

3.1 Direct Costs ......................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Administrative Section 7 Consultation Costs ....................................................3-1

3.1.2 Section 7 Project Modification Costs ................................................................3-2

3.2 Indirect Costs....................................................................................................................3-3

3.2.1 Other State and Local Laws (Trigger Effects)...................................................3-3

3.2.2 Time Delays ......................................................................................................3-4

3.2.3 Regulatory Uncertainty .....................................................................................3-4

4 Types of Economic Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation..............4-1

4.1 Categories of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Benefits.......................................................4-1

4.2 Use Benefits .....................................................................................................................4-2

4.2.1 Direct Use Benefits ...........................................................................................4-3

4.3 Nonuse or Passive Use Benefits......................................................................................4-7

4.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................4-10

5 Contextual Information .................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Geographic Scope (Study Area) ......................................................................................5-1
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 ii Table of Contents

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

5.2 Description of Affected Economies ..................................................................................5-1

5.2.1 Population Trends and Projections ...................................................................5-1

5.2.2 Race and Ethnicity ............................................................................................5-4

5.2.3 Alaska Native Corporations and Communities .................................................5-4

5.2.4 Income-Related Measures of Social Well-Being ..............................................5-6

5.2.5 Major Economic Sectors ...................................................................................5-7

5.3 Regulatory Baseline .......................................................................................................5-19

5.3.1 Federal ............................................................................................................5-19

5.3.2 State Regulations............................................................................................5-23

5.4 Current and Projected Economic and Social Activity.....................................................5-25

5.4.1 Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production ................................5-25

5.4.2 Mining..............................................................................................................5-36

5.4.3 Ports and Coastal Construction ......................................................................5-37

5.4.4 Commercial Fisheries .....................................................................................5-38

5.4.5 Alaska Native Subsistence Use and Personal Use ........................................5-41

5.4.6 Recreation and Tourism..................................................................................5-46

5.4.7 Commercial Shipping and Marine Transportation ..........................................5-47

5.4.8 Military Activities..............................................................................................5-49

5.4.9 Interactions between Bearded Seal Habitats and other Protected Species 

and their Habitats ............................................................................................5-51

5.4.10 Educational, Scientific, Non-Consumptive Use of the Beringia DPS and its 

Habitat.............................................................................................................5-52

5.5 Summary and Projected Number of Future Actions that May Affect Beringia DPS 

Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................5-53

6 Costs and Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation .............................6-1

6.1 Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production..................................................6-2

6.1.1 Potential Costs to Oil and Gas..........................................................................6-2

6.1.2 Potential Benefits to Oil and Gas ......................................................................6-3

6.2 Mining ...............................................................................................................................6-3

6.2.1 Potential Costs to Mining ..................................................................................6-3

6.2.2 Potential Benefits to Mining ..............................................................................6-3

6.3 Ports and Coastal Construction........................................................................................6-3

6.3.1 Potential Costs to this Sector............................................................................6-3

6.3.2 Potential Benefits to this Sector........................................................................6-4

6.4 Commercial Fisheries.......................................................................................................6-4

6.4.1 Potential Costs to Commercial Fisheries..........................................................6-4

6.4.2 Potential Benefits to Commercial Fisheries ......................................................6-4

6.5 Alaska Native and Subsistence Use ................................................................................6-4

6.5.1 Potential Costs ..................................................................................................6-5

6.5.2 Potential Benefits ..............................................................................................6-5

6.6 Recreation and Tourism ...................................................................................................6-5

6.6.1 Potential Costs ..................................................................................................6-5

6.6.2 Potential Benefits ..............................................................................................6-5

6.7 Commercial Shipping and Marine Transportation............................................................6-5

6.7.1 Potential Costs to Commercial Shipping and Marine Transportation ...............6-6
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 iii Table of Contents

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

6.7.2 Potential Benefits to Commercial Shipping and Marine Transportation ...........6-6

6.8 Military Activities ...............................................................................................................6-6

6.8.1 Potential Costs ..................................................................................................6-6

6.8.2 Potential Benefits ..............................................................................................6-7

6.9 Interactions between the Beringia DPS and other Protected Species and their 

Habitats ............................................................................................................................6-7

6.9.1 Potential Costs ..................................................................................................6-7

6.9.2 Potential Benefits ..............................................................................................6-7

6.10 Educational, Scientific, Non-Consumptive Use of the Beringia DPS and its Habitat.......6-7

6.10.1 Potential Costs ..................................................................................................6-7

6.10.2 Potential Benefits ..............................................................................................6-7

6.11 Summary of Benefit-Cost Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation ..................................6-8

7 Expected Net Benefit to the Nation of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat 

Designation....................................................................................................................7-1

8 Distributional Impacts of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation........................8-1

8.1 Potential Distributional Impact Considerations.................................................................8-1

8.2 Environmental Justice Impacts on Low Income and Minority Populations ......................8-2

9 Area Exclusions - A Section 4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment of Beringia DPS 

Critical Habitat Designation..........................................................................................9-1

9.1 Synthesis: Impacts of the Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation.............................9-2

9.1.1 Economic Impacts.............................................................................................9-2

9.1.2 National Security Impacts .................................................................................9-3

9.1.3 Other Relevant Impacts ....................................................................................9-3

10 Potential Impacts on Small Entities - A Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis of 

Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation ................................................................10-1

10.1 Contents of IRFA............................................................................................................10-2

10.1.1 Definition of a Small Entity ..............................................................................10-2

10.1.2 Reason Why the Action is Being Considered .................................................10-4

10.1.3 Objectives of, and Legal Basis for the Rule....................................................10-4

10.1.4 Description of Small Entities Potentially Impacted by the Rule ......................10-4

10.1.5 Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements...............10-7

10.1.6 Identification of all Relevant Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, 

or Conflict with the Rule ..................................................................................10-7

10.1.7 Description and Analysis of Significant Alternatives to the Critical Habitat 

Designation .....................................................................................................10-8

10.2 Statement of Energy Effects...........................................................................................10-8

10.2.1 Oil and Natural Gas Production ......................................................................10-9

11 List of Preparers..........................................................................................................11-1

11.1 Agency Personnel ..........................................................................................................11-1

11.2 Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA Consultant ........................................11-1
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 iv Tables

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

12 References...................................................................................................................12-1

Tables

Table 3-1 Estimates of Attributable Administrative Costs per Consultation by Consultation 

Type (in 2019 dollars) ......................................................................................................3-3

Table 5-1 Population and Population Growth, 1990-2010 ...............................................................5-2

Table 5-2 Population Projections (2010-2035).................................................................................5-3

Table 5-3 2016 Workforce by Residency .........................................................................................5-4

Table 5-4 Population by Ethnic and Racial Groups (2014-2018 Average)......................................5-5

Table 5-5 Income (2018 Dollars), Poverty Rates, and Unemployment Rates .................................5-8

Table 5-6 Historic Median Household Incomes (2011 dollars) ........................................................5-8

Table 5-7 2017 County Business Patterns and Non-Employer Statistics for the Bethel 

Census Area ....................................................................................................................5-9

Table 5-8 2017 County Business Patterns and Non-Employer Statistics for North Slope 

Borough..........................................................................................................................5-11

Table 5-9 2017 County Business Patterns and Non-Employer Statistics for Northwest Arctic 

Borough..........................................................................................................................5-13

Table 5-10 2017 County Business Patterns and Non-Employer Statistics for Nome Census 

Area................................................................................................................................5-15

Table 5-11 2017 County Business Patterns and Non-Employer Statistics for the Kusilvak 

Census Area ..................................................................................................................5-17

Table 5-12 Alaska North Slope Oil Production by Lease Area, Fiscal Year 1978-2027 

Historical and Projected. ................................................................................................5-26

Table 5-13 Ice Seal MMPA Oil and Gas Related IHAs and ITRs Issued between 2010 and 

2019 ...............................................................................................................................5-28

Table 5-14 2018 Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area Groundfish .........................5-41

Table 5-15 2018 Groundfish and Halibut Harvest within the Potential Beringia DPS Critical 

Habitat............................................................................................................................5-41

Table 5-16 Estimates of Future Section 7 Consultations by Activity Type Expected to 

Consider Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Within the 10-Year Period of Analysis ............5-54

Table 6-1 Total Costs of the Potential Critical Habitat Designation, in 2019 Dollars .......................6-8

Table 10-1 Small Business Size Standards matched to North American Industry 

Classification System.....................................................................................................10-3

Table 10-2 Entities that May Require Consideration of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat in ESA 

Section 7 Consultations .................................................................................................10-6

Figures

Figure 1-1 Area Under Consideration for Designation as Critical Habitat for the Beringia 

DPS of the Bearded Seal.................................................................................................1-7

Figure 2-1 Identifying Incremental Effects of Critical Habitat Designation ........................................2-8
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 v Acronyms

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Figure 4-1 Types of Benefits of the Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation................................4-2

Acronyms

AAC Alaska Administrative Code

APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships

ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game

ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources

AGIA Alaska Gasline Inducement Act

AIDEA Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

AOGCA Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Act

AOGCC Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

ANS Alaska North Slope

AS Alaska Statute

AIAN American Indian or Alaskan Native

AMSA Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment

ANWR Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

ASRC Arctic Slope Regional Corporation

A-Y-K Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim

Boe Barrels of oil equivalent

Bpd Barrels per day

BCA Benefit Cost Analysis

BSAI Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

BSNC Bering Straits Native Corporation

Bcf Billion cubic feet

BOF Board of Fisheries

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BOEM Burea of Ocean Energy Management

BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

CWA Clean Water Act

CV Contingent Valuation

CH Critical Habitat

CHD Critical Habitat Designation

ESA Endangered Species Act
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 vi Acronyms

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EO Executive Order

FMP Fishery Management Plan

FRFA Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

G&G Geological and Geophysical

GHG Greenhouse Gas

ISC Ice Seal Committee

ITS Incidental Take Statement

IFQ Individual Fishing Quota

IHA Incidental Harrassment Authorization

ITR Incidental Take Regulation

ITQ Individual Transferable Quota

IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

IPHC International Pacific Halibut Commission

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Act

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MPPRCA Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act

MHW Mean High Water

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPR-A National Petroleum Reserve Alaska

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NPFMC North Pacific Fisheries Management Council

OPA Oil Pollution Act

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

PARS Port Access Routing Study

RPA Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RIR Regulatory Impact Review

RP Revealed Preference

RHA River and Harbors Act

SBA Small Business Administration

SP Stated Preference

SAFE Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 vii Acronyms

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Tcf Thousand cubic feet

TAC Total Allowable Catch

TAPS Trans-Alaska Pipeline System

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USCG United States Coast Guard

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

WTP Willingness to Pay
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Introduction 1-1

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

1 Introduction

This Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Endangered Species Act Section 4(b)(2) Preparatory 

Assessment/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) (hereinafter together, “RIR/4(b)(2) 

Preparatory Assessment/IRFA”) addresses the designation of critical habitat (CH) for the Beringia distinct 

population segment (DPS) of the bearded seal in waters of the northern Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and 

Beaufort Sea, adjacent to the coast of Alaska, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The 

purpose of this RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA is to identify and evaluate the economic, 

socioeconomic, and other costs and benefits associated with designating CH for the Beringia distinct 

DPS, and assist the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) in determining whether the benefits of excluding 

any particular area from the CH designation (CHD) outweigh the benefits of inclusion.1 This information 

allows the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to address the requirements of Executive Orders 

(EOs) 12866 and 13211, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.2

1.1 Listing and Critical Habitat Designation Background 

The Beringia DPS of the bearded seal was listed as threatened under the ESA on December 28, 2012, 

primarily due to threats associated with long-term reductions in sea ice expected to occur within the 

foreseeable future.3 In the United States, bearded seals of the Beringia DPS are found in the northern 

Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, generally in areas of relatively shallow water. Bearded seals are

highly associated with sea ice, and use the ice as a platform for whelping, nursing, molting, and resting.

At the time of listing, NMFS announced its intention to designate CH for the Beringia DPS under the ESA 

in a separate rulemaking, as it was not then determinable. Subsequently, the listing of the bearded seal 

as a threatened species was challenged in court. On July 25, 2014, the listing was vacated by the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Alaska.4 This decision was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit on February 12, 2018,5 and the listing was reinstated on February 22, 2017.

On June 13, 2019, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Alaska alleging that NMFS had failed to timely designate CH for the Beringia DPS. Under a 

court-approved stipulated settlement agreement between the parties (which was subsequently amended 

to extend the date specified in the original order), NMFS agreed to submit a proposed determination 

concerning the designation of CH for the Beringia DPS to the Federal Register by March 15, 2021, and 

(to the extent a proposed rule has been published) a final rule by September 15, 2022.

Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA defines CH as:

(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on 

which are found the physical and biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species 

and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas 

 1 16 U.S.C. §1533.

2 Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, September 30, 1993; Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning 

Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, May 18, 2001; 5.U.S.C. §601 et seq; and P.L. 104-

121.

3 77 FR 76740; December 28, 2012.

4 Alaska Oil and Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 2014 WL 3726121 (D. Alaska 2014).

5 Alaska Oil and Gas Ass’n v. Ross, 840 F.3d. 671 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S.Ct. 924(2018).
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Introduction 1-2

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed that are determined by 

the Secretary to be essential for the conservation of the species.6

Section 3(3) of the ESA defines the terms “conserve,” “conserving,” and “conservation” to mean “to use, 

and the use of, all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or 

threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer 

necessary.”7

NMFS has identified the following physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 

Beringia DPS of the bearded seal and that may require special management considerations or protection:

1. Sea ice habitat suitable for whelping and nursing, which is defined as areas with waters 200 m or less 

in depth containing pack ice of at least 25 percent concentration and providing bearded seals access 

to those waters from the ice.

2. Sea ice habitat suitable as a platform for molting, which is defined as areas with waters 200 m or less 

in depth containing pack ice of at least 15 percent concentration and providing bearded seals access 

to those waters from the ice.

3. Primary prey resources to support bearded seals in waters 200 m or less in depth: benthic organisms, 

including epifaunal and infaunal invertebrates, and demersal and schooling pelagic fishes.

4. Acoustic conditions that allow for effective communication by bearded seals for breeding purposes

within waters used by breeding bearded seals.

One specific area of marine habitat in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas has been identified by 

NMFS where the identified essential features occur (Figure 1-1). This area is under consideration for 

designation as CH for the Beringia DPS. For simplicity, this report refers to this area as “critical habitat” 

(CH). However, a proposed rule to designate CH for the Beringia DPS had not yet been issued at the 

time this report was prepared, and this area may change as NMFS continues to developed the proposed 

and final rules.

1.2 Purpose and Need

Before designating CH, Section 4 of the ESA requires that NMFS consider the economic, national 

security, and other relevant impacts of the CHD. Section 4 of the ESA also provides the Secretary with 

discretion to exclude any particular area from the CH if she determines that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of designation, unless exclusion will result in the extinction of the species 

concerned [Section 4(b)(2)]. NMFS must also address the requirements of EO 12866 and EO 13211, and 

the RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.8 

EO 12866 requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review proposed regulatory actions 

that are considered to be “significant”. OMB makes this determination based primarily upon the analysis 

contained in the RIR that accompanies the proposed action. A significant regulatory action is one that is 

likely to:

 6 Endangered Species Act of 1973, Section 3(5)(A) (as amended by P.L. 94–325, June 30, 1976; P.L. 94–359, July 12, 1976; 

P.L. 95–212, December 19, 1977; P.L. 95–632, November 10, 1978; P.L. 96–159, December 28, 1979; 97–304, October 13, 

1982; P.L. 98–327, June 25, 1984; and P.L. 100–478, October 7, 1988; P.L. 100–653, November 14, 1988; and P.L. 100–707, 

November 23, 1988).

7 Endangered Species Act of 1973, Section 3(3) (as amended by P.L. 94–325, June 30, 1976; P.L. 94–359, July 12, 1976; P.L. 

95–212, December 19, 1977; P.L. 95–632, November 10, 1978; P.L. 96–159, December 28, 1979; 97–304, October 13, 1982; 

P.L. 98–327, June 25, 1984; and P.L. 100–478, October 7, 1988; P.L. 100–653, November 14, 1988; and P.L. 100–707, 

November 23, 1988).

8 Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, September 30, 1993; Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning 

Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, May 18, 2001; 5.U.S.C. §601 et seq; and P.L. 104-

121.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Introduction 1-3

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way 

the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health 

or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. 

2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another 

agency.

3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights 

and obligations of recipients thereof. 

4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the 

principles set forth in EO 12866. 

RFA requirements serve to inform the agency, as well as the public, of the expected and potential 

economic impacts of a proposed action, to ensure that the agency considers alternatives that minimize 

significant adverse economic impacts of the rule on a substantial number of small entities, while meeting 

the goals and objectives of the final action, consistent with applicable law. 

This document contains the RIR analysis, required under EO 12866; Section 4(b)(2) Preparatory 

Assessment, required under the ESA; and the IRFA, required by the RFA. 

1.3 Objectives

To consider the potential economic, national security, and other impacts associated with the designation 

of CH for the Beringia DPS, NMFS has identified the following primary objectives for this report: 

1. Describe existing regulations and policies that provide baseline protection to the Beringia DPS of the 

bearded seal and its habitat (i.e., baseline conditions without CHD);

2. Identify, compile, characterize, and synthesize economic, capital investment, and associated 

information for activities in and around the Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea, and adjacent 

coastal areas of Alaska, that may be affected by the CHD;

3. Determine the incremental economic and other relevant impacts of the CHD relative to the baseline 

without CHD; and

4. Apply the information compiled through the first three objectives to prepare an RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory 

Assessment/IRFA of the Beringia DPS CHD and any alternative CHDs.

1.4 Regulatory Impact Requirements

Below we summarize the requirements of each of the three components of this document: RIR, 4(b)(2) 

Preparatory Assessment, and the IRFA.

1.4.1 Requirements of Regulatory Impact Review

The following statement from EO12866 summarizes the requirements of an RIR: 

In deciding whether and how to regulate, agencies should assess all costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating. Costs and 

benefits shall be understood to include both quantifiable measures (to the fullest extent that 

these can be usefully estimated) and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are 

difficult to quantify, but nevertheless essential to consider. Further, in choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, agencies should select those approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential economic, environment, public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and equity), unless a statute requires another regulatory 

approach.9

 9 Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, Section 1(a), September 30, 1993.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Introduction 1-4

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

The following are the minimum requirements for an RIR document:

1. A complete quantitative description (to the extent practicable) of the problem being addressed;

2. A clear description of the management objectives;

3. A comprehensive description of each alternative (including the No Action alternative);

4. A thorough description of the expected effects (both positive and negative) of each alternative, on 

each potentially impacted group; and

5. A qualitative analysis of the benefits and costs of each alternative, with a summary of the net National 

benefit (possibly negative). When adequate data are available, expected benefits and costs should be 

quantified to the fullest extent that these can be usefully estimated. 

1.4.2 Requirements of Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA

Section 4(b)(2)10 of the ESA requires NMFS to consider the economic, national security, and any other 

relevant impacts of the CHD. Section 4(b)(2) also provides NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, with 

discretion to exclude any particular area from the CH if she determines that the benefits of exclusion

outweigh the benefits of designation, unless exclusion will result in extinction of the species.

A Section 4(b)(2) analysis consists of two components: 

1. An initial mandatory requirement that the agency consider certain impacts of CHD; and 

2. A discretionary component, wherein the Secretary, informed by those considerations, may exclude

any particular area from CH. 

The ESA’s legislative history explains the broad latitude afforded NMFS in its consideration of impacts:

Economics and any other relevant impact shall be considered by the Secretary in setting the 

limits of critical habitat for such a species. The Secretary is not required to give economics or 

any other “relevant impact” predominant consideration in his (sic) specification of critical 

habitat...The consideration and weight given to any particular impact is completely within the

Secretary’s discretion.11, 12

In exercising its discretion under Section 4(b)(2), NMFS may:

1. Identify particular areas for possible exclusion from CHD;

2. Determine the benefit of designation (e.g., biological, economic, or other benefits) of each particular 

area;

3. Determine the benefit of exclusion of each particular area;

4. Determine whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation; and

5. Determine whether the exclusions (if any) will result in extinction of the species.

1.4.3 Requirements of Regulatory Flexibility Act

Major goals of the RFA are as follows: 

1. To increase agency awareness and understanding of the impact of its regulations on small entities13; 

 10 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A).

11 H.R. Rep. No. 95-1625, at 16-17 (1978), 1978 U.S.C.A.N. 9453, 9466-67.

12 The provisions requiring consideration of impacts were originally discussed as applicable only to critical habitat designations for 

invertebrate species. However, section 4(b)(2) as enacted is not limited to invertebrates, and NMFS and FWS have applied 

the provision to designations for vertebrate and invertebrate species. 13 The RFA recognizes and defines three kinds of small entities: (1) small businesses, (2) small non-profit organizations, and (3) 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Introduction 1-5

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

2. To require that agencies communicate and explain its findings to the public; and 

3. To encourage agencies to use flexibility and to provide regulatory relief to small entities. 

The RFA emphasizes predicting impacts on small entities as a group, distinct from other entities, and on 

the consideration of alternatives that may minimize adverse economic impacts, consistent with all 

applicable law, while still achieving the stated objective of the action. Under 5 U.S.C., Section 604(a) of 

the RFA, each IRFA is required to contain the following elements: 

1. A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered; 

2. A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule; 

3. A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply; 

4. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the 

requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; 

5. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule; 

6. A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives 

(of the proposed action), consistent with applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant 

adverse economic impact of the proposed rule on directly regulated small entities. 

1.5 Description of Critical Habitat Designation Alternatives 

The analysis of economic impacts of the Beringia DPS CHD considers two alternatives: 

> Alternative 1. No Action (status quo) “Without CH”: This alternative represents the baseline for 

the analysis, considering the protections already afforded to Beringia DPS bearded seals. The 

baseline for this analysis is the state of regulation, absent CHD, that provides protection to the 

Beringia DPS under the ESA, as well as under other Federal, state, and local regulations.

> Alternative 2. Designate CH for the Beringia DPS: This alternative analyzes the incremental 

impacts due specifically to the designation of CH for the Beringia DPS as described in Section 1.1. 

CH under consideration for the Beringia DPS under this alternative includes all the contiguous marine 

waters of one specific area in the Bering, Chukchi ,and Beaufort Seas, extending from the line of 

mean lower low water to an offshore limit within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (this area 

does not extend into tidally-influenced channels of tributary waters of these three seas) (Figure 1-1). 

The impacts associated with this CHD are those not expected to occur absent this CHD.

1.6 Structure of the Report 

The remainder of this report is organized as follows:

> Section 2: Methodology and Framework for Analysis

> Section 3: Types of Economic Costs of Critical Habitat Designation

> Section 4: Types of Economic Benefits of Critical Habitat Designation

 small government jurisdictions. Section 601(3) of the RFA defines a “small business” as having the same meaning as “small 

business concern” which is defined under Section 3 of the Small Business Act (SBA). The SBA has established size criteria for 

all major industry sectors in the U.S., based on such factors as annual gross receipts and number of employees. The RFA 

defines “small organizations” as any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. The RFA defines “small governmental jurisdictions” as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school 

districts, or special districts with populations of fewer than 50,000.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Introduction 1-6

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

> Section 5: Contextual Information

> Section 6: Costs and Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation

> Section 7: Expected Net Benefit to the Nation of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation

> Section 8: Distributional Impacts of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation

> Section 9: Area Exclusions– A Section 4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment of Beringia DPS Critical 

Habitat Designation

> Section 10: Potential Impacts on Small Entities (Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis) and Energy 

Impact Assessment of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation

> Section 11: List of Preparers

> Section 12: References
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Introduction 1-7

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It 

does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

Figure 1-1 Area Under Consideration for Designation as Critical Habitat for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Methodology and Framework for the Analysis 2-1

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

2 Methodology and Framework for Analysis

This section describes the general framework for the analysis. It then describes, in economic terms, the 

general categories of economic effects that are the focus of regulatory impact analysis, including a 

discussion of both net benefit and distributional effects. Next, it describes the specific framework and 

methods to evaluate benefits of CHD. This is followed by sections that define the baseline and 

incremental effects of the Beringia DPS CHD, and the potentially affected economic groups, entities, and 

sectors associated with the CHD. It concludes with a presentation of the time-frame for the analysis and 

information sources relied upon in the analysis.

2.1 General Framework for the Analysis

A benefit-cost analysis (BCA) has been prepared to evaluate the alternatives under consideration in the 

designation of CH for the Beringia DPS. This framework is preparatory to and supports the ESA’s 

Section 4(b)(2) decision-making process, by allowing NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, to compare an 

estimate of the “benefits of exclusion” of any particular area from the designation, against an estimate of 

the “benefits of inclusion” of that area.14 In addition to having strong scientific support, this approach has 

support from OMB, through its guidelines on regulatory analysis.15 A BCA is a well-established procedure 

for assessing the “best” course or scale of action, where “best” is that course which maximizes net 

benefits. Because an analysis of benefits and costs seeks to empirically measure the value of an activity 

in net benefit terms, it typically requires that a single metric, most commonly U.S. dollars, be used to 

gauge both benefits and costs. While all efforts are made to monetize the net benefits associated with 

the Beringia DPS CHD, these benefits and costs are quantified and/or discussed qualitatively where 

sufficient data with which to monetize are not available. EO 12866 explicitly provides for, and OMB 

guidance concurs in, use of a non-quantitative BCA that is consistent with economic theory and with the 

best available information, when meaningful quantification is not possible.

2.2 Categories of Potential Economic Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

This economic analysis considers the net benefit to the Nation, economic efficiency, and distributional 

effects that may result from designation of habitat determined to be “critical” to the conservation and 

recovery of the Beringia DPS. Economic efficiency effects generally reflect “opportunity costs” associated 

with the commitment of resources required to accomplish, in this context, habitat conservation. For 

example, if the set of activities that may take place on a parcel of land in the vicinity of Beringia DPS CH 

is limited as a result of the CHD (because that set of activities would be expected to destroy or adversely 

modify CH), the market value of the land may be reduced. This reduction in value represents one

potential measure of opportunity cost or change in economic efficiency attributable to the CHD. The 

opportunity costs, attributable to the aforementioned limits, are in contrast to the welfare gains that accrue 

from not allowing unconstrained actions to destroy or adversely modify CH without considering 

alternatives and trade-offs. (It is also possible that the market value of adjacent parcels could rise as a 

result of the protections afforded by CHD.) Economic efficiency effects may also include indirect costs 

associated with changes in economic activities due to regulatory uncertainty, time delays, and additional 

state and local legislation or regulation triggered by CHD. 

 14 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Final Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for 12 West Coast Salmon 

and Steelhead ESUs. Northwest Fisheries Science Center Processed Report.

15 Office of Management and Budget. 2003. Circular A-4, September 17, 2003. Website: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars/.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Methodology and Framework for the Analysis 2-2

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Similarly, the costs of a Federal action agency’s consultation with NMFS on actions that may affect CH, 

under Section 7 of the ESA, represent opportunity costs of the designation. These consultation 

provisions were expressly established in law, recognizing their inherent costs, but were deemed of 

sufficient benefit to society’s interests (under ESA) to justify incurring this administrative commitment of 

resources (i.e., the benefits exceed the costs). The BCA framework is intended to comprehensively 

identify and assess all such trade-offs.

This analysis also addresses the distribution of costs and benefits associated with the designation, to the 

extent a Federal nexus exists, including an assessment of any local or regional economic effects of 

habitat conservation, and the potential effects of conservation efforts on small entities and the energy 

industry.16 This information may be used by decision-makers to assess whether the costs and benefits of 

designation of CH for the Beringia DPS inequitably burden or benefit a particular group or economic 

sector. For example, while conservation efforts may have a relatively small effect on the national 

economy as a whole, individuals employed in a particular sector of the regional or local economy may 

experience substantially greater economic effects. The differences between economic efficiency effects 

(i.e., changes in consumers’ and producers’ surpluses), net benefits (i.e., net social welfare), and 

distributional effects (i.e., measures of change in economic activity), as well as their application in this 

analysis, are discussed in greater detail below.

2.2.1 Efficiency Effects

At the guidance of the OMB and in compliance with EO12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” Federal 

agencies measure changes in economic efficiency in order to understand how society, as a whole, will be 

affected by a regulatory action. Economic efficiency is typically measured against a “baseline” or status 

quo condition (e.g., the No Action alternative), with all attributable gains and losses compared for each 

alternative regulatory path. In the context of regulations that would designate CH for the Beringia DPS, 

society seeks to accrue benefits from the conservation, recovery, and stewardship of this threatened

species (reflected in the provisions of the ESA) specifically attributable to avoidance of destruction or 

adverse modification for its CH. At the same time, these welfare gains come at a cost to society. These 

costs reflect the opportunity cost of resources used or benefits foregone by society, as a result of the 

specific CHD regulatory alternatives considered. Economists generally characterize opportunity costs in 

terms of changes in producer and/or consumer surpluses in affected markets.17 Economic efficiency 

analyses seeks to measure, to the extent practicable, the relative trade-offs of each competing regulatory 

alternative (including the No Action alternative) to assure: 1) that a full accounting of all relevant costs and 

benefits is made; and 2) that the most economically efficient available18 alternative is identified.

It is, however, not always possible to measure each cost and each benefit in a common metric (e.g., U.S. 

dollars). When the regulatory action results in welfare changes with both market and non-market 

characteristics, as is the case for threatened and endangered species management, conservation, and 

recovery efforts, markets (and, therefore, prices) do not exist for many important components of resource 

management. The results of an analysis can be severely biased by excessive reliance on price signals 

from traditional markets and their interpretation in a BCA, especially within the context of environmental 

assets with complex and significant attributes not reflected in traditional market structures. 

In some instances, compliance costs may provide a reasonable approximation of the economic burden 

associated with a regulatory action. For example, a Federal agency, such as the U.S. Army Corps of 

 16 A critical habitat designation does not set up a refuge or sanctuary for the species, and has no specific regulatory impact on 

activities that do not require a permit, funding, or other action from a Federal agency.

17 For additional information on the definition of "surplus" and an explanation of consumer and producer surplus in the context of 

regulatory analysis, see: Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, December 

2010 (updated May, 2014). Website: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/guidelines-preparing-economic-analyses.

18 It is occasionally the case that a specific alternative is mandated by law, even though it may not be the most economically 

efficient solution.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Methodology and Framework for the Analysis 2-3

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Engineers (USACE), may enter into a consultation with NMFS to ensure that a particular activity it plans 

to undertake, fund, or permit will not adversely modify CH. The effort required for the consultation (which, 

in practice, may be quite small), is an economic opportunity cost; because the manager's time and effort 

could have been spent on an alternative activity, absent the consultation. However, this “burden” 

captures only one side of the equation. The investment of time and resources spent on consultation also 

“yields” social benefits, by assuring that inadvertent, unintentional, or inappropriate actions that could

destroy or adversely modify CH are not permitted, sanctioned, funded, or undertaken by a Federal 

agency, without objective public scrutiny, as required under ESA and other relevant law.

This analysis begins by measuring the costs and benefits associated with designation of CH for the 

Beringia DPS. Compliance costs may, under certain limiting assumptions, provide a first approximation of 

the direct “cost” side of the change in economic efficiency. However, if the cost of conservation efforts is 

expected to significantly affect markets, the analysis will be expanded to consider potential changes in 

consumers’ and/or producers’ surpluses in such affected markets.

2.2.2 Net Benefits

Having examined and assessed the size and scope of market-based effects of the CHD on economic 

efficiency, the analysis moves beyond this narrow characterization of “value,” to evaluate the 

comprehensive net benefits attributable to CHD. Net benefits are the benefits that remain after adjusting 

for the costs associated with CHD. As will become apparent, ESA CHD affects a complex suite of market 

and non-market, consumptive and non-consumptive, direct, indirect, and passive use values, inherent in 

conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species and protection of associated CHs. 

2.2.3 Distributional and Regional Economic Effects

Measurements of change in economic benefits and costs focus on the net welfare outcome attributable to 

a specific regulatory action, without consideration of how certain users, sectors, or other groups of people 

are affected. Thus, an analysis of net benefit effects, alone, may miss important distributional 

considerations. The OMB encourages Federal agencies to consider distributional effects, separately from 

benefits and costs.19 This analysis considers several types of distributional effects, including effects on 

small entities; effects on energy supply, distribution, and use; regional economic effects; and 

environmental justice effects. It is important to note that these measures are fundamentally different 

economic attributes from benefits and/or costs and, thus, cannot be added to or compared with estimates 

of net economic changes. Distributional effect estimators describe changes in “economic activity,” not 

economic benefits and costs.

2.2.3.1 Effects on Small Entities and Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use

This analysis also considers how small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, 

and governments, as defined by the RFA, might be affected by incremental conservation efforts

attributable to CHD.20 In addition, in response to EO13211 “Actions Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” this analysis considers the future effects of CHD 

for the Beringia DPS on the energy industry and its customers.21

2.2.3.2 Regional Economic Effects

Regional economic impact analysis can provide an assessment of the potential localized effects of CHD. 

Specifically, regional economic impact analysis produces a quantitative estimate of the potential 

 19 Office of Management and Budget. 2003. Circular A-4, September 17, 2003. Website: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars/. 

20 5 U.S.C. §§601 et seq.

21 Executive Order 13211. May 18, 2001. Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, 

or Use.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Methodology and Framework for the Analysis 2-4

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

magnitude of the initial change in regional economic “activity”, resulting from a regulatory action. 

Regional economic impacts are commonly measured using regional input/output models. These models 

rely on multipliers that represent the relationship between a change in one sector of the economy (e.g., 

expenditures by fishermen) and the effect of that change on economic output, income, or employment in 

other local sectors (e.g., suppliers of goods and services to those fishermen). These economic data 

provide a numerical estimate of the magnitude of growth or contraction of jobs, income, and transactions 

in a specific local economy. These economic impacts reflect “activity” (i.e., they characterize “transfers” 

among local or regional components of the broader economy), not “net” changes in the economy, as a 

whole. 

The use of regional input/output models in an analysis of the economic impacts of CHD can overstate the 

long-term effects of a regulatory change. Most importantly, these models provide a static view of the 

economy of a region or locality. That is, they attempt to measure the initial impact of a regulatory change 

on aspects of a specific local economy, but do not consider long-term adjustments that the economy will 

make in response to this change. For example, these models often provide estimates of the number of 

jobs lost in a given local or regional market, as a result of a regulatory change, but do not consider reemployment of these individuals over time or other adaptive responses by impacted businesses. In 

addition, the flow of goods and services across the regional boundaries defined in the model may change 

as a result of the regulation, compensating for a potential decrease in economic activity within the region.

Despite these and other limitations, in certain circumstances, the regional economic impact analysis may 

provide useful information about the scale, scope, and distribution of localized changes in economic 

activity. It is important to remember that measures of regional economic activity generally reflect shifts in 

resource use and transfers of economic activity, rather than net welfare losses or gains. Thus, these 

types of distributional impacts are reported separately from net benefit effects (i.e., not summed), and 

cannot be compared with estimates of net benefits.

2.2.3.3 Environmental Justice Effects

The analysis considers whether CHD will result in disproportionately high adverse effects on minority or 

low income populations. The concept of environmental justice is rooted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

which prohibited discrimination in federally-assisted programs, and in EO 12898, “Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations,” issued February 

11, 1994. EO 12898 was intended to ensure that Federal actions and policies do not result in 

disproportionately high adverse effects on minority or low-income populations. Environmental justice 

concerns may arise from effects on the natural and physical environment that produce human health or 

ecological outcomes, or from adverse social or economic changes. 

To conduct the environmental justice analysis, it is necessary to determine whether there are adverse 

human health, environmental, social, or economic effects anticipated as a result of CHD, and then it is 

necessary to determine if low-income or minority groups would be disproportionately impacted by such 

adverse effects.

2.3 Framework for Estimating Benefits 

The CHD will generate economic benefits if it increases individual well-being, or “utility,” aggregated 

across all individuals in the Nation, as compared with what would otherwise occur absent CHD. In the 

following discussion, a brief conceptual overview is provided of how economists measure an increase in 

well-being from consumption of a good or service. This understanding is useful in that it explains: 1) how 

the CHD might translate into a source of economic benefit or increased individual well-being; and 2) how 

this benefit could be empirically measured (i.e., quantified). 

Economists measure the increase in well-being to consumers of a good or service as the difference 

between the price consumers pay for the good or service, and the benefit they derive from it. For 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Methodology and Framework for the Analysis 2-5

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

example, if a tourist would be willing to pay $100 for, say, a guided fishing trip, but only has to pay $75, 

then the tourist has an increase in well-being (i.e., a “consumer surplus”) from the trip equal to $25. 

Assuming all other things equal, a change, or increase, in this well-being from the consumption of goods 

and services can, thus, occur either because the price falls, or because the quality of the good or service 

rises and results in increased value to the consumer (i.e., an increase in consumer surplus). In the case 

of the CHD, this may result in increased well-being if CHD results in habitat enhancements that increase 

the quality of goods and services related to or deriving from habitat of Beringia DPS bearded seals. 

2.3.1 Benefit Valuation Methods 

Economists typically rely on observed trades between willing buyers and willing sellers to identify the 

market-clearing price of a good or service. As described in the introduction to this section, environmental 

goods for which no market exists (non-market goods) are particularly challenging to value, because 

absent an observable market, no such “price” is revealed. 

The value of non-market goods may be estimated using either revealed preference (RP) or stated 

preference (SP) valuation approaches. RP valuation methods use information on observed behavior to 

infer the value of the non-market good or service.22 As such, these methods require data on observable 

behavior to be linked to the non-market good in question. SP methods, on the other hand, involve asking 

individuals carefully worded hypothetical market questions to either directly or indirectly infer the value 

they place on a non-market good or service.23 Thus, the principal difference between RP and SP 

methods is the type of data used. RP methods use data on observed behavior to infer economic values, 

while SP methods use data on stated or intended behavior to infer economic values. Due to its reliance 

on observable behavior, RP methods are generally less able to estimate nonuse values, which, by 

definition, are not tied directly to observable behavior.24 Thus, researchers generally utilize SP methods 

to estimate nonuse values.

The most commonly used and best-known stated preference method is the contingent valuation method 

(CV), which in actuality is a class of methods. In CV, economic values for a non-market good or service 

are revealed through survey questions that set up hypothetical markets for a non-market good or service, 

and involve asking the respondent to indicate their (willingness to pay, WTP) (or willingness-to-accept

compensation) for (or to forgo) the good or service. In a typical CV survey, a public good is described, 

such as a program to protect one or more “Threatened or Endangered” species, or their CH, and 

respondents are asked questions to elicit their WTP for the public good through a payment vehicle, like 

 22 Bockstael, Nancy E., and Kenneth E. McConnell. 1983. Welfare Measurement in the Household Production Function 

Framework. American Economic Review. 73(4); and Boyle, Kevin J. 2003. Introduction to Revealed Preference Methods. 

Patricia A. Champ, Kevin J. Boyle, and Thomas C. Brown editions. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Kluwer Academic 

Publishers.

23 Mitchell, Robert C., and Richard T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. 

Resources for the Future; and Carson, Richard T., Nicholas E. Flores, and Norman F. Meade. 2001. Contingent Valuation: 

Controversies and Evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics-19.

24 However, Larson (1992) has shown that under the assumption of what is termed Hicks-neutrality, the nonuse value is 

measurable from an analysis of market demand, though Flores (1996) has shown that the conditions for Hicks-neutrality to 

occur are unlikely to be met in practice. In addition, Carson, Flores, and Mitchell (1999) point out that any “technique capable 

of constructing the missing market for these types of goods is potentially capable of obtaining total-value estimates,” (page 

109) and since total value is the sum of use and nonuse values, the total economic value estimate would include nonuse value. 

Simulated markets where actual transactions occur (generally in experimental conditions) for the non-market good and actual 

referenda involving the non-market good are the other methods for estimating these values.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Methodology and Framework for the Analysis 2-6

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

taxes or contributions to a trust fund.25, 26 In practice, SP techniques are technically demanding to 

implement, and results are often challenging to interpret. However, their use has been affirmed by 

Federal Courts, employed by numerous Federal and state agencies, and refined through over more than 

25 years of research, leading to a rich body of peer-reviewed literature. 

2.4 Baseline and Incremental Effects 

This analysis examines the state of the world with and without the designation of CH for the Beringia 

DPS. The "without CHD" scenario represents the baseline (i.e., the No Action alternative) for the 

analysis, considering habitat protections already extended to the Beringia DPS of the bearded seal under 

its ESA Federal listing or under other Federal, state, and local regulations, including collateral protections 

resulting from protection afforded other listed species, such as the polar bear. The "with CHD" scenario 

attempts to describe the incremental effects associated specifically with, and unique to, the CHD for the 

Beringia DPS. This aspect of the analysis also provides an overview of costs and benefits that may be 

considered co-extensive with the listing of Beringia DPS bearded seals and other baseline protections. 

The focus of the analysis, however, is determining the increment of effects that can be uniquely attributed 

to CH, to the fullest extent practicable. 27

The first step in the economic analysis is to identify the baseline level of protection currently afforded the 

Beringia DPS and its habitat by existing regulations, absent the CHD. This section provides a description 

of the methodology used to identify baseline conditions, against which incremental effects stemming from 

the CHD for the Beringia DPS (i.e., with the CHD) will be contrasted. It also describes the incremental 

effects in more detail. 

2.4.1 Baseline for the Analysis 

The baseline for this analysis is the existing state of regulation that provides protection to bearded seal of 

the Beringia DPS under the ESA, as well as under other Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and 

guidelines, absent the CHD. The baseline includes the protections of Sections 7, 9, and 10 of the ESA, 

and economic effects resulting from these protections, in the absence of CHD for the Beringia DPS. 

Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with the Secretary, through her designee 

NMFS, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out will not likely jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or threatened species (i.e., the “jeopardy standard”). The portion of the 

administrative costs of consultations under the jeopardy standard and the effects of any project 

modifications resulting from consideration of this standard (e.g., project modifications, such as date 

restrictions, that may be required to address impacts to bearded seals) are considered baseline effects.

The protection of listed species and habitat is not limited to the ESA. Other Federal statues, as well as 

state and local laws, may also seek to protect the natural resources under their jurisdiction. If compliance 

with the Clean Water Act (CWA) or state environmental quality laws, for example, protects habitat for the 

species, such protective efforts are considered to be baseline protections and costs associated with these 

efforts are categorized accordingly. Of particular relevance to this report, the Marine Mammal Protection 

 25 Cummings, Ronald G., David S. Brookshire, and William D. Schultz. 1986. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of 

the Contingent Valuation Method. Rowman & Allanheld Publishers; Mitchell, Robert C., and Richard T. Carson. 1989. Using 

Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future; and Arrow, Kenneth, Robert 

Solow, Paul R. Portney, Edward E. Leamer, Roy Radner, and Howard Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on 

Contingent Valuation. Federal Register-58.

26 While willingness-to-accept is sometimes the more relevant welfare measure, empirical and experimental evidence has pointed 

to a preference for use of WTP welfare measures in stated preference surveys (e.g., Arrow, et al. 1993, Adamowicz, Bhardwaj, 

and McNab, 1993; Mansfield, 1999).

27 We note that although the focus of this analysis is on the incremental effects of the rule, due to uncertainties with regard to 

future management actions associated with Arctic CH, it was difficult in some cases to exclude potential impacts that may 

already occur under the baseline. Thus, the analysis may include some costs which would have occurred under the baseline, 

regardless of this rule (i.e., co-extensive costs). An effort to explicitly identify the presence of co-extensive cost estimates and 

distinguish them from uniquely incremental CH costs, whenever possible, has been made herein.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Methodology and Framework for the Analysis 2-7

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Act (MMPA) provides strong baseline protection for Beringia DPS bearded seals. Many of the relevant 

existing regulations are discussed in Section 5.3.

2.4.2 Types of Economic Costs and Benefits of Critical Habitat Designation 

This analysis separately monetizes, quantifies, or qualitatively assesses the “incremental” costs and 

benefits identified as deriving from this CHD action, to the fullest extent practicable (a description of the 

types of costs is provided in Section 3, while descriptions of types of benefits are provided in Section 4). 

This incremental analysis seeks to determine the effects on human uses and activities uniquely 

attributable to the CHD that are above and beyond those effects due to existing or planned (required or 

voluntary) conservation efforts being conducted under other Federal, state, and local regulations or 

guidelines, including the ESA listing.

When CH is designated, Section 7 requires Federal agencies to ensure that their actions will not result in 

its destruction or adverse modification (in addition to, and separate from, considering whether the actions 

are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species). The added administrative costs of 

including consideration of CH in Section 7 consultations, and the additional costs of implementing project 

modifications, uniquely resulting from the designation of CH, are the direct compliance costs of CHD. 

These costs are not in the baseline and are appropriately considered attributable costs of the CHD.

Figure 2-1 depicts the decision analysis regarding whether an effect should be considered incremental. 

The following sections describe this decision tree in detail.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Methodology and Framework for the Analysis 2-8

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Figure 2-1 Identifying Incremental Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Incremental costs may be the direct compliance costs associated with additional effort for forecasted

consultations, reinitiated consultations, new consultations occurring specifically because of the CHD, and 

additional project modifications that would not otherwise have been required under the jeopardy standard. 

Additionally, indirect incremental costs of CHD to activities that do not have a Federal nexus may accrue 

as a result of: 1) changes in activities that do have a Federal nexus (e.g., reduced expansion at a 

federally permitted port facility affecting growth of businesses associated with the Port or using Port 

facilities); 2) triggering of additional requirements under state or local laws intended to protect sensitive 

habitat; and 3) uncertainty and perceptional28 effects on markets. The nature of these costs is described 

in greater detail below. 

This report considers activities that may be affected by the designation of CH for the Beringia DPS. The 

Beringia DPS of the bearded seal was listed as threatened primarily due to threats associated with long-

 28 While listed here under incremental costs, perceptional effects on the market need not be limited to adverse impacts. 

Generally, it is assumed that property values for parcels adjacent to CH will fall upon designation, owing to perceived limits on 

use. However, it may be equally possible that proximity to designated CH may enhance the market value of a parcel (e.g., a 

home site abutting an area designated as CH may command a premium price, because CHD assures that no action with a 

Federal nexus will be allowed to destroy or adversely modify the essential features of the CH).
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Methodology and Framework for the Analysis 2-9

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

term reductions in sea ice expected to occur within the foreseeable future stemming from climate change. 

Activities that release carbon dioxide and other GHGs into the atmosphere are a major contributing factor 

to climate change and loss of sea ice. However, this analysis addresses only those costs and benefits 

that are reasonably predictable and attributable to the CHD. Accordingly, in analyzing the costs and 

benefits of the CHD, this report does not include consultations on any potential project simply because it 

may involve GHG emissions.

2.5 Analytic Time-Frame

The analysis estimates costs and benefits based on activities that are reasonably predictable, including, 

but not limited to, activities that are currently authorized, permitted, or funded, or for which proposed plans 

are currently available to the public. Recent guidance from OMB indicates that “if a regulation has no 

predetermined sunset provision, the agency will need to choose the endpoint of its analysis on the basis 

of a judgment about the foreseeable future”.29 This analysis considers economic effects of activities and 

estimates economic costs over the next 10 years. This interval of 10 years, widely employed in the policy 

analysis arena,30 allows sufficient scope over which longer-cycle trends may be observed (e.g., loss of 

seasonal ice cover), yet is short enough to allow “reasonable” projections of changes in “use patterns” in 

an area, as well as exogenous factors (e.g., world supply and demand for petroleum, U.S. inflation rate 

trends) that may be influential. OMB supports this time frame stating that “for most agencies, a standard 

time period of analysis is ten to 20 years, and rarely exceeds 50 years.”31

The analysis recognizes that diminishing sea ice is a trend with longer-cycle impacts beyond the 10-year 

period. Although not quantified or analyzed in detail due to the high level of uncertainty regarding longerterm environmental conditions and future activities, discussion is included regarding the potential types of 

costs and benefits that may accrue beyond the 10-year timeframe.

2.6 Potentially Affected Economic Sectors and Groups

The following is a brief listing of the economic sectors and groups potentially affected by Beringia DPS

CHD in that participants in these sectors may seek some Federal action that requires consultation under 

Section 7 of the ESA. Section 6 of this document analyzes the costs and benefits of CHD to these 

sectors and groups, while Section 7 is an IRFA of potential impacts to small entities within these sectors. 

The potentially affected economic sectors and groups include:

> Oil and Gas Sector. There are exploration, development, and production activities of oil and gas 

resources within and adjacent to Beringia DPS CH in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.

> Mining Sector. There are in-water dredging mine sites near Nome as well as mines that depend on 

the use of a port terminal near Kotzebue.

> Ports and Coastal Construction. There are several public ports in Beringia DPS CH waters, including 

the Port of Nome, the Port of Kotzebue, and the DeLong Mountain Terminal Port. Comments 

 29 Office of Management and Budget, 2011. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), February 7, 2011. 

Website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/assets/OMB/circulars/a004/a-4_FAQ.pdf.

30 For example, see: Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014. Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation of Marine Habitat for 

the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Distinct Population Segment of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle; Entrix, Inc. 2010. Final RIR/4(b)(2) 

Preparatory Assessment/FRFA for the Critical Habitat Designation of Cook Inlet Beluga Whale; and NMFS. 2009. Final 

Endangered Species Act Section 4(b)(2) Report, Impacts Analysis for Critical Habitat Designation for the Endangered U.S. 

Distinct Population Segment of Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinate).

31 Office of Management and Budget. 2011. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), February 7, 

2011. Website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/assets/OMB/circulars/a004/a-4_FAQ.pdf.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Methodology and Framework for the Analysis 2-10

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

submitted on the 2014 proposed CHD, including from the North Slope Borough, also noted planned

projects to address coastal erosion and other construction projects.32

> Commercial Fishing. There is commercial finfish and shellfish fishing in the southern areas of Beringia 

DPS CH in the Bering Sea.

> Alaska Native Subsistence Use and Personal Use. Alaska Native peoples and non-Native residents of 

Native communities in the region participate in subsistence use activities, including hunting and 

fishing, in nearshore areas of the CH. 

> Recreation and Tourism. A limited but increasing number of cruise ships bring tourists to CH waters 

both south and north of the Bering Strait. There are also limited recreation/tourism activities, such as 

fishing and wildlife viewing, taking place in nearshore CH waters and areas adjacent to CH waters.

> Commercial Shipping and Marine Transportation. Commercial vessels transiting the CH during icefree summer months include oil tankers, cargo vessels, research vessels, fishing vessels, and cruise 

ships.

> Military Activities. Military activities in and adjacent to the CH include marine vessel and aircraft traffic, 

use of sonar and radar, emergency response, icebreaking, and training exercises.

> Educational/Scientific/Passive Users. Research on Arctic ecosystems is occurring, and there is 

interest by educational/scientific/passive users in increased scientific knowledge about, and 

preservation of, the Arctic environment within the CH area.

2.7 Information Sources

The primary sources of information for this report are communications with, and data provided by, 

personnel from NMFS, other Federal action agencies, non-governmental organizations, potentially 

affected private parties, and state and municipal agencies. In addition, this analysis relies upon the ESA 

section 7 consultation history of NMFS, as well as public comments, and published journal sources.

 32 Comments submitted by the North Slope Borough on the 2014 Arctic ringed seal proposed critical habitat, “Re: Endangered 

and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Arctic Ringed Seal NOAA-NMFS-2013-0114”, dated March 31, 

2015.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Types of Economic Costs of Critical Habitat Designation 3-1

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

3 Types of Economic Costs of Critical Habitat 

Designation

This section presents the different types of economic costs that may stem from the CHD. These costs 

are categorized as direct and indirect costs. 

3.1 Direct Costs

The direct, incremental costs of CHD stem from the consideration, during Section 7 consultations, of the 

potential for destruction or adverse modification of CH. The two categories of direct incremental costs of 

CHD are: 1) the administrative costs of conducting Section 7 consultation; and 2) implementation of any 

project modifications requested by NMFS through Section 7 consultations to avoid or minimize potential 

destruction or adverse modification of the CH. 

3.1.1 Administrative Section 7 Consultation Costs

Parties involved in Section 7 consultations for Beringia DPS bearded seals include NMFS,42 in its role as 

“consulting” agency, a Federal “action” agency (i.e., the Federal action, such as a permit or other 

authorization, provides the “Federal nexus” requiring consultation), and in some cases, a private (or nonFederal public) entity (“third-party”) involved in the project or use activity. The Federal action agency 

serves as the liaison with NMFS. While consultations are required for activities with a Federal nexus that 

may affect a listed species, regardless of whether CH is designated, the CHD may increase the cost and 

complexity of consultations in cases where the project or activity in question may adversely modify CH. 

Administrative expenditures associated with consultation may, therefore, result in both baseline and 

incremental costs.

For contextual purposes, Table 3-1 presents generalized per-event administrative costs of consultations. 

In general, three different scenarios associated with the CHD may trigger incremental administrative 

consultation costs:

1. Additional effort to address adverse modification in a new consultation - New consultations 

taking place after CHD may require additional effort to address CH issues, above and beyond those 

raised due to the ESA listing status. In this case, only the additional administrative effort (i.e., 

expenditure of resources) required to address CH is considered an incremental cost of the CHD. 

2. Re-initiation of consultation to address CHD - Consultations that have already been completed on 

a project or activity may require re-initiation, specifically to address CH considerations. In this case, 

the costs of re-initiating the consultation, including all associated administrative and project 

modification costs, are appropriately attributed to the CHD. 

3. New consultation resulting entirely from CHD - CHD may trigger consultations that would not have 

occurred, absent the designation (e.g., for an activity for which adverse modification may be an issue, 

while jeopardy is not). All associated administrative and project modification costs of incremental 

consultations are considered directly attributable to the CHD.

The administrative costs of these consultations vary, depending on the specific details of the project. One 

way to address this variability is to show a range of possible costs of consultation. Table 3-1 provides 

estimated mid-point consultation costs representing effort required for all types of consultation, including 

 42 In cases where Federal management actions governing fisheries are proposed that “may adversely modify” CH, NMFS may be 

both the “action” agency and the “consulting” agency, although different Divisions within NMFS would perform these respective 

roles.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Types of Economic Costs of Critical Habitat Designation 3-2

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

those that consider both adverse modification and jeopardy. To estimate the fractions of the total 

administrative consultation costs that are baseline versus incremental, the following assumptions were 

applied:

> Efficiencies exist when considering both jeopardy and adverse modification at the same time (e.g., in 

staff time saved for project review, logistical expenses, data gathering and synthesis, and report 

writing) and, therefore, incremental administrative costs of considering adverse modification in 

consultations that will already be required to consider jeopardy, result in the smallest attributable 

incremental expenditure of these three consultation categories, roughly half that of a re-initiation.

> Incremental costs of a re-initiation of a consultation, because of the CHD, are assumed to be 

approximately half the cost of the original consultation that considered only jeopardy. This assumes 

that re-initiations are less time-consuming, as the groundwork for the project has already been 

considered in terms of its effect on the species (i.e., jeopardy standard);

> Costs associated with an incremental consultation (one occurring because of the designation of CH) 

would be attributed wholly to CHD;

> Consultations associated with oil and gas activities are expected to be more complex, and are 

therefore estimated to involve greater third party administrative costs.

It is important to note that the estimated costs represent the mid-point of a potential range that may result

from different levels of effort for specific consultations. Third-party costs listed in Table 3-1 may in some 

cases be borne by the Federal agency, a third party, or a combination of these parties. In addition, the

higher third party administrative costs estimated for oil and gas activities may not be realized in all cases 

because the administrative effort required for a specific consultation depends on factors such as the

location, timing, nature, and scope of the potential effects of the proposed action on the essential 

features.

3.1.2 Section 7 Project Modification Costs 

Section 7 consultations considering CH may also result in additional project modifications, specifically to 

ensure that a proposed action would avoid destruction or adverse modification of CH (i.e., project 

changes that would not likely be necessary to avoid jeopardy). The economic costs of such project 

modifications, undertaken specifically to avoid destruction or adverse modification of CH, are attributable 

as incremental costs of CHD. If a jeopardy or adverse modification determination is made, the biological 

opinion will include reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs), if any, that are economically and

technologically feasible, and that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of 

listed species or resulting in the destruction or adverse modification of CH. The action agency may 

choose to 1) implement an RPA, 2) modify the proposed action and consult with NMFS again, 3) decide 

not to authorize, fund, or otherwise proceed with the action, or 4) apply for an exception, a process rarely 

undertaken. 

Costs of associated project modifications assumed to be attributable to CHD differ by consultation type. 

This is summarized below.

1. Additional effort to address adverse modification in a new consultation - Only project 

modifications associated solely with avoiding adverse modification are considered incremental.

2. Re-initiation of consultation to address adverse modification - Only project modifications 

associated solely with avoiding adverse modification are considered incremental.

3. Incremental consultation resulting entirely from CHD - Costs of all project modifications are 

considered incremental.

As discussed in Section 6 of this report, NMFS does not expect that the CHD for Beringia DPS bearded 

seals will result in additional project modification costs beyond those required due to the “jeopardy 

standard” of the threatened status of the species.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Types of Economic Costs of Critical Habitat Designation 3-3

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Table 3-1 Estimates of Attributable Administrative Costs per Consultation by Consultation 

Type (in 2019 dollars)

Consultation Type NMFS Federal Agency Third Party,

Oil and Gas

Third 

Party,

Other

Activities

Total 

Costs,

Oil and 

Gas

Total 

Costs,

Other 

Activities

Additional Effort to Address Adverse Modification in a New Consultation 

Technical Assistance $230 $340 $450 $0 $1,020 $570 

Informal Consultation $680 $2,040 $5,670 $0 $8,380 $2,720 

Formal Consultation $1,590 $3,290 $17,000 $1,020 $21,870 $5,890 

Programmatic 

Consultation $4,870 $5,670 N/A N/A $10,540 $10,540

Re-Initiation of Consultation to Address Adverse Modification 

Technical Assistance $340 $680 $450 $0 $1,470 $1,020 

Informal Consultation $1,470 $4,310 $5,670 $0 $11,440 $5,780 

Formal Consultation $3,170 $6,570 $17,000 $2,150 $26,740 $11,900 

Programmatic 

Consultation $9,740 $11,440 N/A N/A $21,190 $21,190 

Incremental Consultation Resulting Entirely from Critical Habitat Designation 

Technical Assistance $680 $1,250 $450 $0 $2,380 $1,930 

Informal Consultation $2,950 $8,500 $5,670 $0 $17,110 $11,440 

Formal Consultation $6,460 $13,030 $17,000 $4,200 $36,480 $23,680 

Programmatic 

Consultation $19,370 $22,890 N/A N/A $42,260 $42,260 

Source: Cost estimates are based primarily on data from the Federal Government General Schedule Rates; and a review of 

consultation records from several USFWS field offices across the country, conducted in 2002 by Industrial Economics, Inc.

Applicants seeking a permit or authorization from a Federal agency may participate in a consultation as a third party (the primary 

parties being the Federal action agency and NMFS). Cost estimates for biological assessments and third-party participation in 

consultations also take into account recent cost estimates provided in public comments on the CHD for the polar bear. Specifically, 

a maximum third-party cost of $37,500 $42,100 in 2019 dollars) for formal consultations involving oil and gas activities was identified 

in the economic analysis for polar bear critical habitat (Industrial Economics, Inc., and Northern Ecnomics, 2010). Taking into 

consideration the anticipated effort required to address the specific CHD in this case, for formal consultations third-party costs were 

estimated at 75% of the rounded mid-point of this maximum cost, and informal consultation costs were estimated at 25% of this 

rounded mid-point value. Totals may not sum due to rounding. Estimates reflect the average hourly time required by staff.

Acronym: N/A – not applicable.

3.2 Indirect Costs

CHD may, under certain circumstances, affect actions that do not have a Federal nexus and, thus, are not 

subject to the provisions of Section 7 under the ESA. Indirect costs are those changes in economic 

behavior that may occur outside of the ESA, through other Federal, state, or local actions that are 

motivated by the CHD. This section identifies common types of indirect costs that may be associated with 

the CHD. Importantly, these types of costs are not always considered incremental. In the case that these 

types of conservation efforts and economic effects are expected to occur regardless of CHD, they are 

appropriately considered baseline costs. In particular, attribution of indirect costs can be problematic, 

difficult to measure, and involve considerable uncertainty. For these reasons, no estimates of these costs 

are provided, although that does not necessarily mean they are small.

3.2.1 Other State and Local Laws (Trigger Effects)

Under certain circumstances, CHD may provide new information to a community or political jurisdiction

about the sensitive ecological nature of a geographic region, potentially triggering additional economic 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Types of Economic Costs of Critical Habitat Designation 3-4

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

effects under state or local laws. In cases where these effects would not have been triggered in the 

absence of a CHD, they are appropriately considered indirect, incremental effects of the designation, for 

purposes of the RIR.43

3.2.2 Time Delays

Both public and private entities may incur incremental delays associated with projects and other activities, 

due to requirements associated with the need to reinitiate the Section 7 consultation process and/or 

comply with other laws triggered by CHD. To the extent that delays result from the CHD, they are 

appropriately attributable as incremental costs of the designation.

3.2.3 Regulatory Uncertainty

NMFS conducts Section 7 consultations on a case-by-case basis, and issues a biological opinion on 

formal consultations, based on species-specific and site-specific information. As a result, in cases where 

Federal government agencies must consult with NMFS under Section 7 on proposed actions that may 

affect listed species or designated CH, private or public parties who seek permits or authorizations from 

those agencies may face uncertainty concerning whether project modifications will be recommended by 

NMFS; and, if so, what the nature of such modification recommendations may be. This uncertainty may 

diminish as consultations are completed and additional information becomes available on the effects of 

CHD on specific activities. Where information suggests that this type of regulatory uncertainty, stemming 

from CHD, may affect a project or allied economic behavior, associated costs are considered indirect, 

incremental results, attributable to the CHD. As above, identification, attribution, and estimation of such 

costs are fraught with uncertainties.

 43 Enhanced scientific information and understanding of sensitive ecological assets also yield benefits to society, facilitate 

sustainable management, and reduce risks that uninformed actions will impose subsequent high mitigation costs, or result in 

irreparable damage.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Types of Economic Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 4-1

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

4 Types of Economic Benefits of Beringia DPS 

Critical Habitat Designation

The primary intended benefit of critical habitat for the Beringia DPS is to support the conservation of this

species. The ongoing loss of sea ice and changes in ocean conditions associated with climate change 

will be increasingly experienced by the Beringia DPS, and the significance of other habitat threats will also 

likely increase as a result. As discussed in detail in Section 6 of this report, NMFS does not anticipate 

that the Beringia DPS CHD will result in any incremental project modification requirements above and 

beyond those that would be required due to the threatened status of the species. Nevertheless, benefits

of CHD are expected due to enhanced awareness of the identified habitat features essential to the 

conservation of the Beringia DPS, including knowledge of their location. Prior to consultation, this 

awareness may influence the design, location, or other aspects of proposed projects or activities in ways 

that benefit conservation of the species and its habitat. Specifying the geographic location of CH can also 

facilitate implementation of section 7(a)(1) of the ESA by identifying areas where Federal agencies can 

focus their conservation programs and use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA. 

Additionally, benefits of the CHD are expected to accrue related to education, scientific knowledge, and

passive-use values. As discussed below, benefits may also extend to direct uses, such as those 

associated with the region’s subsistence-based economy, tourism, wildlife viewing and filming; and to 

indirect uses such as commercial or sport fishing. 

To provide context to the economic cost analyses discussed in subsequent chapters, this section 

describes the types of economic benefit that may accrue from conservation of Beringia DPS CH, and 

reviews information from the economic literature on the potential value of these types of benefits. The 

studies reviewed in this section are not specific to Beringia DPS bearded seals or the question of 

economic benefits of conservation of this species or its habitat. Consequently, these values cannot be 

directly used to estimate the economic benefits of Beringia DPS CHD. Rather, the literature and values 

cited in this section provide a general sense of the possible magnitude of the use and non-use benefits 

individuals and society derive from the attributes provided by resources such as Beringia DPS CH. 

Unless otherwise noted, values from the studies reviewed in this section are adjusted to 2019

dollars for comparison purposes.44 

This section includes four subsections. The first subsection provides a brief overview of the types of use 

and passive use benefits that may arise from Beringia DPS CHD, the second subsection presents 

examples from the peer-reviewed literature on the value of use benefits (i.e., consumptive and nonconsumptive), the third subsection presents examples from the literature on passive use benefits, and the 

final subsection provides a brief summary of the benefits that may accrue from the CHD.

It is important to note that many of the values that are associated with the CHD are non-market, meaning 

that they cannot be directly measured in the marketplace (e.g., typical economic goods and services that 

have a market price), but rather must be ascertained either indirectly through observing the behavior of 

people (i.e., revealed preference), or directly through asking people how much they value the resource 

(i.e., stated preference). 

4.1 Categories of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Benefits

The benefits generated by a natural resource, such as Beringia DPS CH, can be classified into several 

categories (see Figure 4-1). One important distinction is between use benefits that are generally 

associated with people’s present use of the habitat resource, and nonuse (or passive use) benefits that 

 44 Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Consumer Price Index (CPI) Inflation Calculator.” Website: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Types of Economic Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 4-2

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

do not require present use and, instead, are derived through the knowledge that Beringia DPS bearded

seals and their habitat exist and, if threatened, steps are being taken for their protection. Within the use 

and nonuse benefit categories there are further subcategories, which are described below. Economists 

differ on the ways that these values are organized, in terms of use and nonuse classification, and subclassifications. However, as the aim of this analysis is to account for all potential benefits, the specific 

categorical labels are less important than ensuring that all types of potential benefits accruing from the 

Beringia DPS CHD are identified and addressed. 

Figure 4-1 Types of Benefits of the Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation

In addition to the categories shown in Figure 4-1 above, economic benefits arising from the use and 

passive use of Beringia DPS CH can be divided into consumptive and non-consumptive uses. 

Consumptive use or extraction benefits of the Beringia DPS CH includes subsistence use by Alaska 

Natives, commercial fishing, oil and gas extraction, mining, shipping, etc. Non-consumptive uses, which 

are uses associated with a good or service independent of its consumption, include use benefits from 

public education, and scientific study and associated literature, as well as passive use benefits (e.g., 

values associated with the existence of the Beringia DPS CH for present and future generations). There 

are also potential non-consumptive direct use benefits related to wildlife watching, photography, etc. 

Previous economic studies have estimated the economic value of the types of benefits that could accrue 

from CHD. A selection of these studies is reviewed below for each primary type of use value or activity 

associated with CHD, including subsistence values, wildlife viewing, fishing, education, and scientific 

knowledge. 

4.2 Use Benefits

Use benefits are described below in four distinct (i.e., additive), but related, categories: direct, indirect, 

option, and cultural. Direct use value would accrue from any positive change in the level of utility (e.g., 

enjoyment or profitability) accruing from activities enhanced by CHD. For example, compared to the 

“without CHD” conditions, the designation of CH could increase the value of wildlife viewing, including but 

not limited to, observing Beringia DPS bearded seals and other marine species. Waters of the Beringia 

DPS CH support and sustain a myriad of species, including several other ESA-listed species, such as 

polar bears, Arctic ringed seals, several species of great whales, and Steller sea lions that people gain 

utility from viewing. Viewing marine species (e.g., birds, as well as mammals) is highly valued as a 

primary component of the aesthetic reward, cultural heritage, and ‘quality of life’ benefits associated with 

living in and visiting Alaska. Supplying access, support, and logistical resources to would-be users 

provides commercial opportunities, benefiting remote, rural communities. Enhancing non-consumptive 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Types of Economic Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 4-3

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

direct use opportunities may contribute to private and public investment in infrastructure, increasing the 

quality of the experience for users and improving the welfare of the region’s residents. Additionally, the 

rapid changes occurring in polar regions have brought the Arctic to the forefront of public attention, and 

significantly elevated government and private sector interest in scientific research, monitoring, and 

mitigation activities in these regions, includes areas within and adjacent to the Beringia DPS CH. 

Supporting these activities will further benefit local economies and drive public and private investment in 

infrastructure.

A variety of ecological service flows, attributable to Beringia DPS CH, support and benefit other uses and 

users. CHD provides resource managers with additional means to administer, enhance, and conserve 

marine resources and services for the benefit of the Nation. For example, Beringia DPS CH supports an 

abundant fish and shellfish biomass within a complex, dynamic oceanographic, ecological, and 

climatological web. Many of these species are targeted by commercial users, and support subsistence, 

personal use, and recreational fisheries, as well. Because many marine species are highly migratory 

during their life-cycle, Beringia DPS CH may be crucial to a life phase, but attributable benefits actually 

accrue to users in areas outside the CHD.

Indirect use benefits also accrue from scientific and educational advancements attributable to the CHD. If 

the CHD results in new and enhanced scientific understanding of the biology of Beringia DPS bearded 

seals or the impacts of human interactions, then natural resource managers and scientists, as well as the 

population as a whole, benefit in a number of ways. The Beringia DPS CHD also may contribute to 

education, informing individuals on the biological and ecological implications of species preservation, as 

well as oceanographic and climatological changes in the Arctic. Sustaining these living marine resources, 

by effectively managing the habitat service flows they rely upon, in the face of climatic changes and 

growing anthropogenic demands, presents a significant challenge. CHD enhances the Nation’s prospects 

for optimally responding to an uncertain future.

Option use values derive from the preservation of the opportunity for future use of a resource. The 

designation of Beringia DPS CH has the potential to sustain the option for individuals to ‘use’ (i.e., 

access) the species and its habitat in the future. Conceptually, option value reflects an individual’s WTP 

to avoid foreclosing future access to a resource or activity. Here, WTP reflects the current value to an 

individual of preserving the opportunity, at some unspecified point in the future, of ‘using’ (in the broadest 

sense of that term) Beringia DPS CH. 

Cultural values can be derived from both use and non-use of the resource. Cultural values do not readily 

lend themselves to monetary measurement or approximation, as they are specific to each group of 

people. Economic monetization, in general, is typically based upon the premise that markets exist, or at 

least, can be approximated, within which trade can occur between willing parties. This is not a valid 

assumption in the case of cultural values. Nevertheless, changes in individual well-being connected with 

enhanced cultural welfare of Native and other Alaska residents through protection of marine resources 

constitute real, potentially significant, economic benefits attributable to the Beringia DPS CHD.

4.2.1 Direct Use Benefits

This section describes the types and potential magnitude of direct use benefits from CHD related to 

subsistence and wildlife viewing activities.

4.2.1.1 Subsistence

The economics of subsistence activities in Alaska have been studied with increasing intensity since the 

Exxon Valdez spill and resulting class action lawsuit by Alaska subsistence harvesters. Three methods 

are used to estimate the economic benefits of subsistence activities: 1) nutritional value, 2) replacement 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Types of Economic Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 4-4

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

cost, and 3) non-market valuation.45 Depending on the method of estimation, estimates of the value of 

subsistence harvest range from $4 to $315 per pound. The replacement cost method was ultimately used 

to value Alaska Native subsistence losses in the case of the Exxon Valdez.46 It is important to note that 

replacement cost does not take into account the cultural and/or social value of subsistence activity. Thus, 

replacement cost represents, at best, a crude lower bound estimate of the value of subsistence activity.47 

In his 1997 publication, John Duffield reviewed the research that led up to the valuation of Alaska Natives’ 

subsistence harvest losses following the Exxon Valdez spill. The studies included: (a) a 1987 pre-spill 

study48 that estimated the value of Alaska subsistence harvest at $315 per pound, based on the tradeoff 

between subsistence use and income, and (b) a 1993 study49 that, using the same data as the 1987 

study (from the Alaska Subsistence Division on subsistence activities in 98 Alaska communities),

estimated the economic value of subsistence harvest at $81 per pound. 

For settlement purposes in the Exxon Valdez case, the defendants presented the economic value of 

subsistence harvest at $18 per pound, based on replacement cost. The plaintiffs provide a range of $21

to $24 per pound for the replacement cost of subsistence harvest. The damages awarded to the plaintiffs 

for subsistence harvest was within the plaintiffs’ range of proposed replacement costs.50 

Subsistence use in Arctic Alaska is widespread, benefiting almost all residents. The Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Division of Subsistence, estimated in 2017 that 96 percent of Arctic Alaskan

households used fish and 92 percent used game that was procured through subsistence activities.51 In 

terms of subsistence participation, it was estimated that approximately 78 percent of households 

participated in subsistence fish harvests and 63 percent participated in subsistence game harvests. In 

terms of nutritional and replacement value, ADF&G estimated that the 25,531 Arctic Alaska residents in 

rural areas harvest approximately 10,269,886 pounds of useable wild food annually, with replacement

value in 2017 dollars of between $51.3 million to $102.7 million.52 A number of communities in the 

western region of Alaska also participate in subsistence harvest of fish and game, and so the estimate for 

Arctic residents provides a minimum indication of the value of subsistence harvest in communities 

adjacent to Beringia DPS CH. 

 45 Colt, Steve. 2001. The Economic Importance of Healthy Alaska Ecosystems. Institute of Social and Economic Research,

University of Alaska Anchorage. Alaska Conservation Foundation. 

46 Duffield, John. 1997. Nonmarket Valuation and the Courts: The Case of the Exxon Valdez. Contemporary Economic Policy15.

Replacement costs were based on Anchorage prices, plus delivery to villages for marketed commodities. For some 

commodities, such as seal and deer, retail markets did not provide equivalent foods, so instead, cost for delivery of fresh whole 

carcasses from a broker was used instead.

47 Colt, Steve. 2001. The Economic Importance of Healthy Alaska Ecosystems. Institute of Social and Economic Research,

University of Alaska Anchorage. Alaska Conservation Foundation. 

48 Wolfe, Robert J. and Robert J. Walker. 1987. Subsistence Economies in Alaska: Productivity, Geography, and Development 

Impacts. Arctic Anthropology-24. As reported in: Duffield, John. 1997. Nonmarket Valuation and the Courts: The Case of the 

Exxon Valdez. Contemporary Economic Policy-15.

49 Hausman, Jerry A. 1993. Report of Professor J. A. Hausman. Presented at the Exxon Valdez consolidated court case. As 

reported in: Duffield, John. 1997. Nonmarket Valuation and the Courts: The Case of the Exxon Valdez. Contemporary 

Economic Policy-15. 

50 Duffield, John. 1997. Nonmarket Valuation and the Courts: The Case of the Exxon Valdez. Contemporary Economic Policy15. 

51 Alaska Department of Fish and Game; Division of Subsistence. 2017. Subsistence in Alaska: A Year 2017 Update. Website: 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/subsistence/pdfs/subsistence_update_2017.pdf.

Arctic Alaska is not defined in the publication, but is one of seven rural areas of Alaska described in the publication. The other 

six rural areas are: Southcentral, Kodiak Island, Southeast, Southwest-Aleutian, Interior, and Western.

52 The study uses a range of $5.00 to $10.00 as the replacement cost per pound in 2017 dollars.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Types of Economic Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 4-5

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

4.2.1.2 Subsistence Hunting / Cultural Use 

Alaska Natives living along the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas rely on ice seals for food, clothing, 

equipment, and handicrafts.53 In addition to providing nutritional sustenance and materials, hunting ice 

seals is culturally important to Alaska Natives. As described by Sue ‘Ainana’ Steinacher, subsistence 

hunting is about identity, learning, patience, self-reliance, belonging, family, community, and nourishing

bodies, family, and spirit.54

Hunting seals and other animals provides people and the community a connection to each other and an 

identity as Native people. Seal hunting is also important because it brings people in the community 

together, to share and celebrate.55 Measures to conserve Beringia DPS CH could result in enhanced 

bearded seal populations or species health, which in turn, could contribute to maintaining or enhancing 

Alaska Native subsistence activities associated with this species. 

Similarly, any increases in bearded seal populations due to CHD may also benefit marine mammal 

species important to subsistence hunting that prey on bearded seals, such as polar bears. Polar bear 

populations are known to fluctuate with prey abundance (Stirling and Lunn 1997), and local declines in 

ringed and bearded seal numbers and productivity have resulted in marked declines in polar bear 

populations.56 If conservation of the Beringia DPS CH results in enhanced conservation of other species

that are important to Alaska Native subsistence users, such as polar bear, walrus, whales, sea lions, and 

other ice seals, then this may beneficially contribute to maintaining or enhancing the Alaska Native 

subsistence community’s wellbeing. 

4.2.1.3 Wildlife Viewing and Sightseeing

The Beringia DPS of the bearded seal and other Arctic wildlife populations, including a wide variety of bird 

species, walrus, polar bears, sea lions, whales, and other seal species, are valued for wildlife viewing, 

photography, and sightseeing. Viewing of these species is marketed as an attraction for tourism cruises 

within Beringia DPS CH. These cruises are, at present, limited in number, and habitat of the Beringia 

DPS is remote and relatively difficult to access, but their frequency may increase with continued sea ice 

diminishment. The CHD for the Beringia DPS would be expected to maintain or improve wildlife viewing 

opportunities, for a wide range of marine species that inhabit these areas, which would benefit wildlife 

viewers. 

There are no known studies of the economic value of wildlife viewing in Arctic Alaska. This section 

instead considers a study on seal viewing in England, as well as a study that summarized the value of 

other types of wildlife viewing in several different parts of Alaska. These studies illustrate the type of 

values for wildlife viewing that have been estimated in other contexts; as these contexts are quite different 

from Arctic Alaska, these values cannot be applied to estimate the value of wildlife viewing 

experiences within the area being considered for Beringia DPS CH. Nonetheless, these estimates 

demonstrate that such non-consumptive use values do exist, can be meaningfully measured with 

sufficient resources and effort, and may represent important sources of utility (i.e., benefits) to users.

A working paper by Valentina Bosetti and David Pearce57 used the CV method to estimate the economic 

value of seal conservation, focused on the Cornish Grey Seal population in southwest England. The 

 53 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2007. A Student Guide to Seal Hunting and Safety (grades 4-6): Yup’ik Region. 

Website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/educators/curricula/pdfs/ice_seal_student_guide.pdf.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

56 Cameron, Michael, et al. 2010. Status Review of the Bearded Seal (Erignathus barbatus).

57 Bosetti, Valentina, and David Pearce. 2003. A Study of Environmental Conflict: The Economic Value of Grey Seals in 

Southwest England. Biodiversity and Conservation-12:12.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Types of Economic Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 4-6

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

study found a mean WTP of about $1858 per person per year to view seals in a sanctuary and a slightly 

higher WTP of $20 per person per year to view seals in the wild. While this paper measures the value of 

viewing a different species, to residents of a different country, it indicates that some people derive value 

from the experience of viewing seals, and may derive increased value from doing so in the seal’s natural 

habitat. To the extent that the CH determination increases the likelihood that people can view seals in 

their habitat, an increase in social welfare would result. 

Loomis (2005) compiled a database of over 1,200 estimates of consumer surplus values per person per 

activity-day (an activity day represents the typical amount of time a person pursues an activity within a 24-

hour period) for outdoor recreation activities, including from eight studies estimating the benefits of wildlife 

viewing on Alaska National Forest and other public lands.59 Consumer surplus is the value of a 

recreation activity (in terms of WTP) beyond what must be paid to enjoy it. There was significant variation 

in the estimates of consumer surplus per person per activity-day among those eight studies, with values 

ranging from $14 to $123 (averaging $68 overall). This variation is due, in part, to use of different 

methodologies that may produce differing value estimates for very similar wildlife viewing experiences. 

This range of values also underscores the fact that the value of wildlife viewing may vary significantly, 

based on such factors as the species being viewed, site characteristics, and demographics of the wildlife 

viewers. The relevant information to draw from these analyses, as it bears on the CHD, is that these nonconsumptive uses can increase consumer surplus.

This section discusses the types and potential magnitude of indirect use benefits from CHD, including 

those related to fishing, environmental education, and scientific knowledge.

4.2.1.4 Fishing [Recreational, Commercial, Subsistence, Personal Use]

Fishing benefits may result from the CHD, as protection of Beringia DPS CH may also benefit fish 

populations important for commercial, subsistence, recreational, and person-use fisheries. Because 

many fish species are highly migratory during their life-cycle, benefits may accrue to fisheries and anglers 

beyond the boundaries of the CH.

The economic benefits of fishing have been studied extensively by economists, resulting in a wide range 

of value estimates. There are numerous studies of the value of recreational fishing in Alaska, but NMFS 

is not aware of studies of the value of recreational fishing within the Beringia DPS CH. (Values from other 

locations have not been applied to fishing in the CH as the fishing experience, and, thus, its value, may 

widely differ between locations.) For example, the 2005 study by Loomis,60 referenced above, included

four consumer surplus values for recreational fishing in Alaska. These values (per person per activityday) ranged from $63 to $113 (averaging $85 overall), with variation based on differences in such 

attributes as location and the angler population. Personal use fishing and subsistence use fishing are 

also widespread throughout Alaska, including Arctic Alaska, see discussion above in Section 4.2.1.1 on 

the prevalence and value of subsistence fishing activities in Arctic Alaska. 

In Bering Sea waters, predominantly to the south of the CH, there is extensive, year-round commercial 

fishing. For example, in 2018, the total gross ex-vessel value of commercial groundfish fishing in the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Management Area was estimated at $784 million61. While there 

 58 One British pound = $1.625946 on 1/1/2013. Website: http://www.xrates.com/historical/?from=EUR&amount=1.00&date=2013-01-01.

59 Loomis, John. 2005. Updated Outdoor Recreation Use Values on National Forests and Other Public Lands. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-658.

60 Loomis, John. 2005. Updated Outdoor Recreation Use Values on National Forests and Other Public Lands. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-658.

61 Fissel, Ben, et al. 2019. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska 

and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Area: Economic Status of the Groundfish Fisheries off Alaska, 2018. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/ecosystems/economicstatus-reports-gulf-alaska-and-bering-sea-aleutian-islands.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Types of Economic Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 4-7

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

is currently no federally-managed commercial fishing in the Chukchi Sea or Beaufort Sea due to limited 

data on fish populations in these waters, there is some federally managed commercial harvest in the 

areas of the northern Bering Sea, within Beringia DPS CH. Groundfish harvest there in 2018 was less 

than two percent of the total BSAI harvest.62 Halibut is also commercially harvested within Beringia DPS

CH. In 2018, halibut harvest within the CH totaled 438 round metric tons (valued at $4 million).63 In 

addition, State-managed commercial harvests of salmon, herring, and crab occur in waters of the CH in 

Norton and Kotzebue Sounds. The gross ex-vessel value of these fisheries in 2019 totaled about $4.2

million (see Section 5.4.4).

4.2.1.5 Environmental Education and Scientific Knowledge Benefits

The CHD for the Beringia DPS may lead to scientific and educational benefits. If CHD results in new and 

enhanced scientific understanding of the biology of bearded seals or their habitat, then natural resource 

managers and scientists, as well as the public as a whole, benefit in a number of ways. For example, 

improvements in documenting and inventorying geological, oceanographic, hydrological, and ecological 

aspects of the CH areas may address questions about finfish and shellfish communities, stock 

abundance, growth and distribution patterns, or the potential for commercially harvestable surpluses. 

There may be advances in energy production, transportation, or alternative technologies. It may be 

possible to more precisely and accurately monitor changes of all types taking place in the Arctic 

environment. Increased knowledge may also contribute to public education, informing individuals, 

communities, organizations, and governments (local, regional, state, and Federal) of the biological,

ecological, social, and economic implications of human actions. 

Empirical research reports indicate that environmental education and increased scientific knowledge can 

provide substantial benefits to individuals and society as a whole. Many economic studies focus on the 

value of general education, including wage, health, and improved social relationship benefits. However, 

studies specifically focusing on the benefits of environmental education and increased scientific 

knowledge, such as those that may accrue from CHD are few. Still, one study by Dalrymple (2003) 

highlighted the value to society of increasing public access to scientific knowledge. Dalrymple described

scientific knowledge as a public good, with importance to the economy and innovation.64

Stakeholders often seek to inform and/or influence the political process of any measure pertaining to 

species conservation by developing and disseminating pertinent scientific information. The individuals 

involved in these efforts (e.g., marine mammal researchers, natural resource economists, non-profit 

organizations, trade and industry groups, conservation groups, and other special interests) are presumed 

to derive net welfare gains from their participation in such activities. Examples of these types of efforts 

include scientific studies and monitoring of Beringia DPS bearded seal populations and habitat; informing 

public resource management policy development, decision-making, and implementation; public education 

campaigns; and informational lobbying.

4.3 Nonuse or Passive Use Benefits

The ESA, states that species threatened with extinction are of “esthetic, ecological, educational, 

recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people”.65 The primary benefit of the CHD and 

other baseline regulations protecting the Beringia DPS and its habitat is, thus, the value accruing to the 

 62 Steve Lewis, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region, Catch in Areas Database query results, March 19, 2020.

63 Ibid.

64 Dalrymple, Dana. 2003. Scientific Knowledge as a Global Public Good: Contributions to Innovation and the Economy. In J.M. 

Esanu and P.F. Uhlir (Eds.). The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain: Proceedings of a 

Symposium. The National Academies Press. The author discussed that a public good, in the context of scientific knowledge, 

has two key characteristics: “ ... (1) It is tangible in the sense that it is capable of being treated as a fact, or understood and 

realized; and (2) it has intrinsic value in terms of relating to the fundamental nature of a thing.”

65 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. Website: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESAall.pdf. 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Types of Economic Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 4-8

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

public of fulfilling the ESA National policy of species conservation and recovery. In all but the case of 

recreational value, the use types described in the ESA are considered nonuse or passive use values.

A number of peer-reviewed, empirical studies have sought to estimate society’s nonuse or passive use 

value, (e.g., WTP), to protect rare species, unique habitats, or whole ecosystems. As they pertain to the 

Beringia DPS CHD these values are discussed here. 

Existence value is defined as individual utility or well-being derived from the knowledge of the existence of 

a natural resource, without the expectation of any form of use. For example, the mere knowledge of the 

existence of a relatively few California condors in the wild may elicit a large WTP (i.e., generate a large 

benefit) to assure the continued existence of that species in its natural ecological setting. This benefit 

derived by an individual, may be substantial, even though the individual has no expectation of ever seeing 

the bird or visiting its habitat. The protections offered by the Beringia DPS CHD under the ESA could be 

expected to also elicit passive use values. Passive use values may accrue to residents of Alaska, as well 

as the Nation (as no interaction with the species is required for benefits, residents of other states that are 

interested in marine habitat conservation may experience a benefit from CHD).

Passive use benefits are also generated by the preservation for future generations of natural resources, 

such as plant and animal species, habitat, and ecosystems. It has been empirically demonstrated that 

individuals derive utility from the knowledge that society preserves resources, so that they will be extant 

for the next generation. These welfare gains, known as bequest value, represent an important conceptual 

element of passive use valuation. The potential change in the bequest value of Beringia DPS bearded

seals and their habitat, due to conservation efforts, is one element of the total benefit society may derive 

from CHD. 

The intrinsic non-use benefit of habitat and wildlife conservation is difficult to measure. Attempts to 

measure total value (use and non-use) may use survey methods that elicit hypothetical or contingent 

values of WTP (or WTA). Because of the technical challenges and cost associated with these methods, 

to the best of our knowledge, none has been performed assessing habitat valuation in the region being 

considered for designation under this action. While techniques, such as “benefits transfer”, have been 

employed in resource valuation analyses elsewhere, following the guidance of OMB, we have determined 

they are not appropriate to apply in the CHD analysis for the Beringia DPS. OMB’s Circular A-466 (p. 25) 

states:

Finally, you should not use benefit transfer in estimating benefits if:

• Resources are unique or have unique attributes. For example, if a policy change affects 

snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park, then a study valuing snowmobile use in the State 

of Michigan should not be used to value changes in snowmobile use in the Yellowstone National 

Park.

• If the study examines a resource that is unique or has unique attributes, you should not transfer 

benefit estimates or benefit functions to value a different resource and vice versa. For example, if 

a study values visibility improvements at the Grand Canyon, these results should not be used to 

value visibility improvements in urban areas.

• There are significant problems with applying an "ex ante" valuation estimate to an "ex post" policy 

context. If a policy yields a significant change in the attributes of the good, you should not use the 

study estimates to value the change using a benefit transfer approach.

• You also should not use a value developed from a study involving, small marginal changes in a 

policy context involving large changes in the quantity of the good.

 66 Office of Management and Budget. 2003. Circular A-4, September 17, 2003. Website: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars/.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Types of Economic Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 4-9

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

We determined that in the case of Beringia DPS CH, the resources are unique and there are no studies 

available that provide value estimates for resources with similar attributes. Therefore, we did not attempt 

a benefit transfer extrapolation.

Nevertheless, we considered WTP values found in the literature to provide empirical context for 

understanding passive use estimates. We emphasize that, following OMB’s guidance, the dollar amounts 

derived from empirical studies of other assets, in other locations, have no direct applicability to the 

passive use values deriving from Beringia DPS bearded seals and/or the CH under consideration for 

designation. The estimates presented below are consistently stated in 2019 dollars. Adjustments were 

made as needed to the nominal estimates presented in the original underlying study using the United 

States Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI. 

Original research work has been completed to value several species, including mammals, fish, birds, and 

crustaceans. In a meta-analysis involving 31 valuation studies of threatened, endangered, or rare 

species, Richardson and Loomis (2009) found that values range considerably among studies and depend 

on the set-up of the valuation question, including the proposed payment frequency (e.g., one-time or 

annual payments) and the proposed change to the species population (e.g., doubling in size, avoiding 

extinction), as well as characteristics of the species itself, such as whether the species is a charismatic 

megafauna (defined as large vertebrates that are appealing to humans and often the subject of 

conservation campaigns) and species type (mammal, marine, fish, or bird). 67 In an undated study 

entitled “Threatened and Endangered Species Valuation Literature Review and Assessment”, Wallmo 

lists values for several fish and marine mammals that ranged between $67 to prevent a decrease in the 

gray and blue whale population to $25 to prevent a loss in the bottlenose dolphin population.68 In both 

studies the surveys were conducted of California residents and the payment was to be made through an 

increase in Federal taxes.

In general, passive use research has found that the estimated value for a species tends to increase if the 

species is a “charismatic” and recognizable species, if it is a bird or mammal or fish, and if the survey 

respondent is a visitor or recreational user in the conservation location (i.e., would hold use values, as 

well as non-use values). WTP also varies, based on the percent change in the resource being evaluated

and the survey design and method. Richardson and Loomis (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of 31 

economic studies on the value of protecting U.S threatened or endangered species. They found that 

annual WTP for the protection of rare, threatened, or endangered species ranged from $10 per Wisconsin 

household for the striped shiner (a fish) based on a 1984 survey, to $401 per Washington household for 

western Washington and Puget Sound migratory fish, based on a 1998 survey. Values cited in this study,

highlight how estimates of value for a given species can vary, based on differences in levels of species 

protection, survey design, and survey population. For example, the annual WTP for northern spotted owl 

conservation ranged from $49 per Washington household for a 100% avoidance of loss (based on a 1987 

survey), to $166 per U.S. household for a 50% increase in chance of survival (based on a 1990 survey). 

This is not surprising, given that both the population being sampled, and the outcome being valued, were 

significantly different.

Of particular relevance to the assessment of the intrinsic non-use economic value of conservation of 

Beringia DPS bearded seals are non-market valuation studies that focus on estimating the public’s WTP 

for protecting marine mammals in the U.S. Five of these recent studies, all using CV methods, are 

described here. 

 67 Richardson, Leslie and John Loomis. 2009. The Total Economic Value of Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species: An 

Updated Meta-Analysis. Ecological Economics-68:5.

68 Wallmo, K. Undated. Threatened and Endangered Species Valuation: Literature Review and Assessment. National Marine 

Fisheries Service. URL: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/economics/documents/Protected_Resources_Valuation%20.pdf.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Types of Economic Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 4-10

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

A 2011 study produced value estimates for three ESA-listed species: the Hawaiian monk seal, the 

smalltooth sawfish, and the Puget Sound Chinook salmon. 69 WTP estimates ranged from approximately 

$42 per U.S. household per year for improving only the status of the smalltooth sawfish from endangered 

to threatened, to $204 per U.S. household per year for recovering all three species. The WTP value of 

improving the Hawaiian monk seal from endangered to recovered ranged between $67 to $97 per U.S 

household per year. 70

Also, a 2010 study utilized a stated preference approach to estimate U.S. households’ WTP for enhanced

protection of two distinct population segments (DPSs) of the Steller sea lion.71 At the time this research 

was conducted, the western DPS was listed as endangered under the ESA and the eastern DPS was 

listed as threatened under the ESA. WTP for additional protections ranged from $38 per U.S. household 

per year for 10 years to $223 per household per year for 10 years, depending upon the resulting ESA 

listing status (i.e., endangered, threatened, or recovered) and trends in population size.

A third study conducted by Loomis and Larson (1994) used in-person interviews and household mail 

surveys of California residents and whale watchers to evaluate WTP for a 50 percent to 100 percent 

increase in whale stocks.72 This study estimated that whale watching visitors to California were willing to 

pay $38 per year on average; whereas, California residents were willing to pay $24 to $27 per year per 

household.73

In addition, Samples and Hollyer (1990) conducted an in-person survey of Hawaii residents to estimate 

their one-time WTP for protection of humpback whales and Hawaiian monk seals.74 They found that the 

WTP, in terms of a one-time payment per respondent, for the protection of humpback whales ranged from 

$319 to $363; whereas, the one-time WTP for the protection of monk seals ranged from $158 to $263 per 

respondent.

Finally, a 1985 study estimated the willingness of California residents to pay for the protection of 

bottlenose dolphins, California sea otters, Northern elephant seals, gray whales, and blue whales.75 WTP

to avoid a reduction in whale populations, determined through a mail survey, ranged between $55 and 

$73 per year per household, depending on the species. 76

The WTP values estimated in these studies suggest that there is a positive non-use value associated with 

conservation of Beringia DPS bearded seals and protection of their habitat through designation, although 

the magnitude of this value is not quantified in this study.

4.4 Summary

There are numerous types of economic benefits that may accrue to residents living near the Beringia DPS 

CH, and to citizens throughout the U.S. These benefits are expected to include enhanced

 69 Wallmo, Kristy, and Daniel K. Lew. 2011. Valuing Improvements to Threatened and Endangered Marine Species: An 

Application of Stated Preference Choice Experiments. Journal of Environmental Management 92-7.

70 For reference, the U.S. Census Bureau estimate that there were over 119 million U.S. households, 2014-2018

(http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219).

71 Lew, Daniel K., David F. Layton, and Robert D. Rowe. 2010. Valuing Enhancements to Endangered Species Protection under 

Alternative Baseline Futures: The Case of the Steller Sea Lion. Marine Resource Economics-25.

72 Loomis, John and Douglas Larson. 1994. The Total Economic Value of Increasing Gray Whale Populations: Results from a 

Contingent Valuation Survey of Visitors and Households. Marine Resource Economics-9.

73 For reference, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that there were over 12.9 million California Households, 2014-2018

(http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA,US/PST045219).

74 Samples, K. C., and J. R. Hollyer. 1990. Contingent Valuation of Wildlife Resources in the Presence of Substitutes and 

Complements. In R. L. Johnson and G. V. Johnson (Eds.). Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: Issues, Theory, and 

Applications. Westview Press.

75 Hageman, R. K. 1985. Valuing Marine Mammal Populations: Benefit Valuations in a Multi-Species Ecosystem. 

Administrative report LJ-85-22. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Center.

76 For reference, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that there were over 12.9 million California households, 2014-2018 (http:// 

www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA,US/PST045219).
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Types of Economic Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 4-2

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

education/public awareness and scientific knowledge, as well as passive-use values. Benefits may also 

extend to direct uses, such as, subsistence, commercial, and sport fishing, subsistence hunting and 

gathering, and wildlife viewing/documenting. While the magnitude of many of these types of benefits has 

been studied, none of these types of benefits has been studied in direct association with the CHD for 

Beringia DPS bearded seals. Further, in all cases, the types of economic benefits associated with CHD

are partially co-extensive with listing the Beringia DPS as threatened. As a result, at this time sufficient 

economic information and scientific data are not available to accurately quantify the total economic 

benefits expected from CHD.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-1

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

5 Contextual Information

This section presents information regarding the geographic areas and human activities that may affect or 

be affected by the Beringia DPS CHD. First, the geographic area of analysis is introduced. Then, a 

socioeconomic profile of this area is presented. This is followed by the regulatory baseline. Finally, the 

present economic activities in the area and actions being taken to protect Beringia DPS bearded seals 

are discussed and synthesized.

5.1 Geographic Scope (Study Area)

The geographic scope of the analysis includes the specific area being considered for Beringia DPS CH

and nearby and adjacent coastal boroughs and U.S. census areas (see Figure 1-1 in Section 1). The 

analysis focuses on activities within or affecting this area, and presents costs and benefits at the lowest 

level of resolution feasible, given available data. Note that economic activities affecting (or affected by) 

CH may be sited outside of the boundaries of the CHD (e.g., activities in shoreline areas in the vicinity of 

CH, but outside the water); these activities are considered relevant to this analysis. Activities and projects 

that have the potential to affect the essential features of CH, but are located outside the boundaries of the 

CH, may trigger Section 7 consultation(s) under ESA. 

5.2 Description of Affected Economies 

This section describes the socioeconomic environment in the five coastal Alaska boroughs and U.S. 

census areas adjacent to the CH. From south to north these are: Bethel Census Area, Kusilvak Census 

Area, Nome Census Area, Northwest Arctic Borough, and North Slope Borough (hereafter, Study Area). 

For comparison, the section also presents socioeconomic data for the State of Alaska, and the U.S., as a 

whole. The focus of this section is the socioeconomic parameters that could be affected by the CHD: 

demographic characteristics of local residents, and employment and income levels. 

These data are presented in four subsections: 1) population trends and projections; 2) race and ethnicity; 

3) income-related measures of social well-being; and 4) employment by major economic sector. The data 

used for the economic and socioeconomic analyses are the most recent available published data from 

reliable sources. 

5.2.1 Population Trends and Projections 

Although the Study Area accounts for approximately 35 percent of total land area in Alaska, it has only 

seven percent of the total State’s population. The Bethel Census Area is the most populous 

borough/census area in the Study Area, with a population of approximately 17,000 people in 2010; 

followed by the Nome Census Area, with approximately 9,500 people in 2010; and the North Slope 

Borough with just over 9,400 people. Larger communities within the Study Area include Utqiaġvik

(Barrow) (North Slope Borough, 4,212 people), Kotzebue (Northwest Arctic Borough, 3,201 people), 

Nome (Nome Census Area, 3,598 people), Hooper Bay (Kusilvak Census Area, 1,093 people), and 

Kipnuk77 (Bethel Census Area, 639 people). Communities with the largest populations are located on or 

near the coast.

As shown in Table 5-1, each borough/census area in the Study Area experienced growth in the number 

of residents between 1990 and 2010, ranging from 14.5 percent (Nome Census Area) to 29.9 percent 

growth (North Slope Borough). The significant increase in the North Slope Borough population over this 

 77 Bethel is a larger community within the Bethel Census Area, but Kipnuk is the largest coastal community bordering proposed 

CH.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-2

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

time period can be attributed to families returning to the North Slope due to increased employment 

opportunities.78 The other boroughs/census areas experienced slower, but still significant population 

growth, especially during the 1990s, when the population grew by about 21 percent in Kusilvak and about 

18 percent in the Northwest Arctic Borough. Between 1990 and 2010, the population growth rate in the 

Study Area was 4.4 percent higher than the growth rate for the Nation, but was 1.3 percent less than the 

statewide growth rate. 

Table 5-1 Population and Population Growth, 1990-2010

Area

Population Population Growth (%)

1990 2000 2010 1990-2000 2000-2010 1990-2010

Bethel Census Area 13,656 16,006 17,013 17.2% 6.3% 24.6%

 Kipnuk 470 644 639 37.0% -0.8% 36.0%

Nome Census Area 8,288 9,196 9,492 11.0% 3.2% 14.5%

 Nome 3,500 3,536 3,598 1.0% 1.8% 2.8%

Kusilvak Census Area 5,791 7,028 7,459 21.4% 6.1% 28.8%

 Hooper Bay 845 1,022 1,093 21.0% 6.9% 29.3%

Northwest Arctic 

Borough 6,113 7,208 7,523 17.9% 4.4% 23.1%

 Kotzebue 2,751 3,082 3,201 12.0% 3.9% 16.4%

North Slope Borough 5,979 7,385 9,430 23.5% 27.7% 29.9%

 Utqiaġvik 3,469 4,581 4,212 32.1% -8.1% 21.4%

Study Area Total 39,827 46,823 50,917 17.6% 8.7% 27.8%

State of Alaska 550,043 626,931 710,231 14.0% 13.3% 29.1%

U.S. 250,181,000 282,459,000 308,747,508 12.9% 9.3% 23.4%

Sources:

U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Population Estimates, National and State Population Estimates.

U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3 – Sample Data.

U.S. Census Bureau, Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900-1990.

U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Public Law 94-171 Data (Official), Age by Race and Hispanic Origin.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010, 2010 Demographic Profile 

Data.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000.

Population projections through 2035 for residents of the five Study Area boroughs/census areas, the 

State of Alaska, and the U.S., as a whole, are shown in Table 5-2. The total population across the Study 

Area is projected to grow throughout this time period, albeit with reductions in growth rates projected in 

the long term. Projected Study Area population growth rates are slightly lower than the State growth rate

(with the exception of the 2030-2035 time period). 

 78 North Slope Borough. 2010. North Slope Borough 2010 Economic Profile and Census Report, Volume X. Website: 

http://www.north-slope.org/assets/images/uploads/North_Slope_Borough_Census_and_Economic_Profile_2010.pdf.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-3

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Table 5-2 Population Projections (2010-2035)

Area

Population Population Growth (%)

2010 2020 2030 2035 2010-

2020

2020-

2030

2030-

2035

Bethel Census Area 17,013 18,162 19,596 20,423 6.75% 7.90% 4.22%

Kusilvak Census Area 7,459 8,184 9,181 9,721 9.72% 12.18% 5.88%

Nome Census Area 9,492 9,812 10,193 10,447 3.37% 3.88% 2.49%

Northwest Arctic 

Borough 7,523 7,642 7,860 8,002 1.58% 2.85% 1.81%

North Slope Borough 9,430 9,505 10,544 10,948 0.80% 10.93% 3.83%

Study Area Total 50,917 53,305 57,374 59,541 4.69% 7.63% 3.78%

State of Alaska 710,231 731,566 771,767 808,367 3.00% 5.50% 4.74%

U.S. 308,747,508 332,639,000 355,101,000 364,862,000 7.74% 6.75% 2.75%

Sources:

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section. Alaska Population Projections 2019-

2045, April 2020: http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/projections/pub/popproj.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Projected Population Size and Births, Deaths, and Migration, Projections for the United 

States, 2017-2060, (NP2017-T1).

The population statistics from the Census are for permanent residents of the Study Area and do not 

include non-resident workers. In 2016, according to the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce 

Development, nearly 50 percent of the workforce, or 21,507 workers, were not residents of the Study 

Area (see Table 5-3). This non-resident worker population is equivalent to approximately 42 percent of 

the resident population in the Study Area. It should be noted that this representation of non-resident 

workers primarily reflects the workforce in the North Slope Borough, where there are an estimated 16,101

non-local workers, largely employed in the oil operations and support services industries. (Most nonresident North Slope oil and gas workers fly into Prudhoe Bay and work a one to two-week shift before 

returning home for a one to two-week break.) 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-4

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Table 5-3 2016 Workforce by Residency

Region

Local 

Residents

Non-Local 

Residents Nonresidents Total Workers Percent Non-Local

Bethel Census Area 7,983 1,086 1,135 10,204 21.8%

Kusilvak Census Area 3,162 277 234 3,673 13.9%

Nome Census Area 4,373 527 706 5,606 22.0%

Northwest Arctic Borough 3,030 687 754 4,471 32.2%

North Slope Borough 3,483 9,297 6,804 19,584 82.2%

Study Area Total 22,031 11,874 9,633 43,538 49.4%

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section, 2016 Residency of Alaska 

Workers, https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/reshire/historical/NONRES16.pdf.

5.2.2 Race and Ethnicity 

The racial and ethnic compositions of the five boroughs/census areas in the Study Area, the State of 

Alaska, and the U.S., as a whole, are presented in Table 5-4 below. 

The predominant resident racial group in each borough/census area is American Indian or Alaska Native

(AIAN), with 77 percent of the total Study Area population (compared to 14.5 percent statewide). By 

borough/census area, the proportion AIAN ranges from 91.2 percent (Kusilvak Census Area) to 51

percent (North Slope Borough). 

The second largest racial group in each Study Area borough/census area is white, comprising 14.7

percent of the total resident Study Area population. Relative to statewide totals, there are few other 

minority groups in the Study Area.

5.2.3 Alaska Native Corporations and Communities 

In 1971, President Richard Nixon signed into law the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). 

Under ANCSA, aboriginal financial and land claims were settled in exchange for $962.5 million in 

compensation, as well as approximately 40 million acres of land.79 The ANCSA established twelve forprofit Alaska Native regional corporations (a thirteenth corporation was later added for Alaska Natives 

living outside the State), which administer the claims from the settlement. In addition, more than 200 

Alaska Native village corporations were created. Both the regional and village corporations own land in 

and around Native villages, with ownership proportionate to the enrolled populations of these corporations 

during the 1970s. Surface rights to the land are owned by the village corporations, with subsurface rights 

controlled by regional corporations. In turn, the village and regional corporations are owned by enrolled 

Alaska Natives.80 Approximately 80,000 Natives are enrolled under ANCSA, and receive 100 shares for 

the village corporation in which they are enrolled and the same amount for the regional corporation in 

which they are enrolled.81

 79 Norris, Frank. 2002. Alaska Subsistence: A National Park Service Management History. Alaska Support Office, National Park 

Service. U.S. Department of Interior, Anchorage, Alaska. 

80 Linxwiler, James D. 2007. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act at 35: Delivering on the Promise. Paper 12, 53rd Annual 

Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute.

81 Ibid.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-5

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It 

does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

Table 5-4 Population by Ethnic and Racial Groups (2014-2018 Average)

Race Ethnicity

Area Population White Black AIAN Asian

Native 

Hawaiian 

or OPI

Other

Two or 

More 

Races

Hispanic 

or Latino

Bethel Census Area 18,040

1,986 119 14,927 187 3 124 694 429

(11.01%) (0.66%) (82.74%) (1.04%) (0.02%) (0.69%) (3.85%) (2.38%)

Kusilvak Census Area 8,198

319 60 7,480 32 2 3 302 81

(3.89%) (0.73%) (91.24%) (0.39%) (0.02%) (0.04%) (3.68%) (0.99%)

Nome Census Area 9,925

1,601 89 7,396 160 43 23 613 253

(16.13%) (0.90%) (74.52%) (1.61%) (0.43%) (0.23%) (6.18%) (2.55%)

Northwest Arctic 

Borough 7,734

859 87 6,382 76 0 41 289 89

(11.11%) (1.12%) (82.52%) (0.98%) (0.00%) (0.53%) (3.74%) (1.15%)

North Slope Borough 9,797

3099 84 5,093 548 175 98 700 207

(31.63%) (0.86%) (51.99%) (5.59%) (1.79%) (1.00%) (7.15%) (2.11%)

Study Area Total 53,694

7,864 439 41,278 1003 223 289 2,598 1,059

(14.65%) (0.82%) (76.88%) (1.87%) (0.42%) (0.54%) (4.84%) (1.97%)

State of Alaska 738,516

478,834 24129 106,660 46,556 8,849 11,027 62,461 51,186

(64.84%) (3.27%) (14.44%) (6.30%) (1.20%) (1.49%) (8.46%) (6.93%)

U.S. 322,903,030

234,904,818 

(72.7%)

40,916,113 

(12.7%)

2,699,073 

(0.8%)

17,574,550 

(5.4%)

582,718 

(0.2%)

15,789,961 

(4.9%)

10,435,797 

(3.2%)

57,517,935 

(17.8%)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: 2006-2018 Table DP05, accessed April 8, 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-6

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Waters in CH for the Beringia DPS are adjacent to land owned and managed by four ANCSA Regional 

Corporations and some of their related Village Corporations. These four ANCSA Regional Corporations 

are: the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), NANA Regional Corporation, the Bering Straits 

Native Corporation (BSNC), and the Calista Regional Corporation. We note that while these four regional 

corporations own land adjacent to Beringia DPS CH, through Section 7(i), of ANCSA, all of the twelve 

land-owning Alaska Native Regional Corporations share a large portion of their resource revenues. The 

shared funds benefit village corporations and shareholders.

The ASRC represents the business interests of its approximately 13,000 Iñupiaq shareholders who 

primarily reside in the eight villages in the region.82 Corporate headquarters are in Utqiaġvik, which, with 

4,212 residents, is the largest village represented by the ASRC. Of Utqiaġvik residents, 61.2 percent 

identify themselves as AIAN.

The NANA Regional Corporation has more than 14,500 Iñupiaq shareholders.83 Within the NANA region 

there are approximately 7,500 people residing in eleven communities or villages. The population in the 

region is approximately eighty-five percent Iñupiat Eskimos.84 Kotzebue is the largest community in the 

Regional Corporation with over 3,200 residents, about seventy-three percent of whom are Iñupiat 

Eskimos.85 

The BSNC, headquartered in Nome, serves more than 8,000 shareholders.86 Approximately 9,500 

people reside in the BSNC region, of which approximately one-third reside in Nome (pop. 3,500). Areas 

in the north and west of the Corporation’s Region are occupied by Iñupiat speakers, while the eastern and 

southern areas are the home of the Yup’ik. The Unaliq people occupy the coastal margin of Norton 

Sound.87

The Calista Regional Corporation has over 32,000 shareholders Southwest Alaska, in a region southeast 

of the CH.88 The Calista Region includes approximately 56 villages (48 communities and 8 seasonallyoccupied). Eighty-four percent of 24,472 people in the Calista Region identify themselves as Alaska 

Native (Yup’ik, Cup’ik, and Athabascan). The largest village represented by Calista, and located along 

the coast adjacent to the Beringia DPS CH, is Hooper Bay (2010 population of 1,093), where 94.6 percent 

of residents identify themselves as AIAN. 

5.2.4 Income-Related Measures of Social Well-Being 

Per capita and median household income, poverty rates, and unemployment rates are widely used 

indicators of economic well-being. Table 5-5 presents these socioeconomic data for the Study Area, the 

State of Alaska, and the U.S., as a whole. In general, these indicators show that the Study Area has 

lower rates of economic well-being than other areas of the State of Alaska or the Nation, with higher 

overall unemployment and poverty, and lower per capita income. The exception to this is the North Slope 

Borough, which has higher per capita income and lower unemployment, but still has a higher poverty rate 

than the State average.

In 2018, per capita personal income in the Study Area averaged nearly $10,000, less than the Statewide 

average of $35,874 and the National average of $32,621 (2018 dollars, see Table 5-5). Only in the North 

Slope Borough does per capita income ($49,903) exceed the Statewide average. Similarly, median 

household income in the North Slope Borough in 2018 was the highest in the Study Area at $75,431

 82 Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. “About – Arctic Slope Regional Corporation.” Website: https://www.asrc.com/about/.

Accessed April 2020.

83 NANA Regional Corporation, Website: https://nana.com/about-us/. Accessed April 2020.

84 Northwest Arctic Borough, Website: https://www.nwabor.org/about/. Accessed April 2020.

85 Northwest Arctic Borough. “Kotzebue Qikiqtagruk.” Website: https://www.nwabor.org/village/kotzebue/. Accessed April 2020.

86 Bering Straits Native Corporation. “Our Region.” Website: http://beringstraits.com/. Accessed April 2020.

87 Ibid. 

88 Calista Corporation, Website: https://www.calistacorp.com/. Accessed April 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-7

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

(2018 dollars), exceeding the same figures for the other Boroughs/Census Areas in the Study Area (which 

range from $35,539 in Kusilvak Census Area to $62,949 in Northwest Arctic Borough), the Study Area as 

a whole ($57,309), and the State ($76,715). Table 5-6 provides the trends in median household incomes 

from 1989 to 2018. As shown in the table, the Study Area median household income growth (73.5

percent) surpassed the growth rate for the State of Alaska (66.7 percent) but was slightly under the U.S.

growth rate (75.5 percent) between 1989 and 2011. However, from 2011 to 2018 median household 

incomes declined by just under one percent while Statewide median household incomes increased by 

more than 11 percent.

A third indicator, poverty rate, represents the percentage of an area’s total population living at or below 

the poverty threshold established by the U.S. Census Bureau. Based on available data for 2018, poverty 

rates for the boroughs/census areas within the Study Area, aside from the North Slope Borough, were 

higher (ranging from 21.1 percent to 35.1 percent) than the Statewide and National rates (10.9 percent 

and 11.8 percent, respectively). 

Finally, the unemployment rate represents the percentage of the labor force that is unemployed and is 

actively seeking employment. In 2019, the North Slope Borough experienced an unemployment rate of 

4.7 percent, the only Borough/Census Area in the study below the State levels (5.9 percent). The 

borough/census area unemployment rates elsewhere in the Study Area ranged from 10.4 percent (Nome 

Census Area) to 19.3percent (Kusilvak Census Area). 

5.2.5 Major Economic Sectors 

Alaska’s Northern Region, including the North Slope and Northwest Arctic boroughs and the Nome 

Census Area, is characterized by two types of economies: one is village-based with most workers 

employed by local government or service industries, augmented with subsistence production, while the 

other is based on mineral and oil and gas resource extraction (predominantly at Prudhoe Bay and the 

Red Dog Mine near Kotzebue).89 Moving farther south in the Study Area, the economies in the Bethel 

and Kusilvak census areas are also dependent upon natural resources, primarily commercial fishing and 

subsistence activities.90 The town of Bethel within the Bethel Census Area also includes a significant 

service industry base as the town is a service center for the surrounding region. 

Tables 5-7 through 5-11 provide information on the number of employees, by sector, as well as on 

employer establishments, annual payroll, number of non-employer firms, and non-employer receipts for 

the various industry sectors within the five boroughs. Industry sectors are defined by the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS). Unlike employer establishments, non-employer firms have no 

paid employees; however, non-employer receipts contribute substantially to a number of sectors. 

 89 Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section. 2018. Nonresidents Working in 

Alaska: 2016. Website: https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/reshire/historical/NONRES16.pdf.

90 Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section. “Alaska Local and Regional 

Information.” Website: http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/alari/. Accessed April 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-8

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Table 5-5 Income (2018 Dollars), Poverty Rates, and Unemployment Rates

Area

Per Capita 

Income 

(2018)

Median 

Household 

Income 

(2014-2018)

Poverty Rate 

(2014-2018)

Unemployment 

Rate 

(to Feb. 2020)

Bethel Census Area $19,760 $54,212 32.7% 12.6%

Kusilvak Census Area $12,578 $35,539 35.1% 19.3%

Nome Census Area $22,293 $58,987 22.0% 10.4%

Northwest Arctic Borough $23,230 $62,949 21.1% 13.7%

North Slope Borough $49,903 $75,431 11.1% 4.7%

Study Area2 $25,086 $57,309 25.5% 11.9%

State of Alaska $35,874 $76,715 10.9% 5.9%

U.S. $32,621 $60,293 11.8% 3.8%

1 The data presented here is the most recent data available from reliable sources that is consistent across the various geographic 

levels analyzed. 

2 Weighted average based on population in each census area/borough.

Sources:

U.S. Census Bureau, State and County Quickfacts, http://quickfacts.census.gov, accessed April 8, 2020.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, CA04 Personal Income and Employment Summary.

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development: Research and Analysis, http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/labforce/, 

accessed April 8, 2020.

Table 5-6 Historic Median Household Incomes (2011 dollars)

Area

Median

Household 

Income

(1989)

Median

Household 

Income

(1999)

Median

Household 

Income

(2007-2011)

Median

Household 

Income

2014 to 2018

Income 

Change 

1989-

2011

Income 

Change 

2011 to 

2018

Bethel Census Area $25,402 $35,701 $52,063 $54,212 105.00% 4.13%

Kusilvak Census Area $20,586 $30,184 $39,583 $35,539 92.30% -10.22%

Nome Census Area $30,144 $41,250 $52,435 $58,987 74.00% 12.50%

Northwest Arctic 

Borough $33,313 $45,976 $59,893 $62,949 79.80% 5.10%

North Slope Borough $50,473 $63,173 $76,667 $75,431 51.90% -1.61%

Study Area1 $34,167 $45,715 $57,737 $57,309 73.50% -0.74%

State of Alaska $41,408 $51,571 $69,014 $76,715 66.70% 11.16%

U.S. $30,056 $41,994 $52,762 $60,293 75.50% 14.27%

1 Weighted average based on population in each census area/borough.

Sources:

U.S. Census Bureau, Table C1, Median Household Income by County: 1969, 1979, 1989, 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/county/county1.html, accessed January 28, 2013.

U.S. Census Bureau, Table DP-3, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000U.S. Census Bureau American FactFinder, 

DP03, Selected Economic Characteristics, 2007-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

U.S. Census Bureau, State and County Quickfacts, http://quickfacts.census.gov, accessed April 10, 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-9

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Table 5-7 2017 County Business Patterns and Non-Employer Statistics for the Bethel Census 

Area

NAICS 

Codea

Industry Code 

Description

Number of 

Employeesb

Employer 

Establishmentsc

Compensation 

of Employees 

Receivedd

NonEmployer 

Firmse

NonEmployer 

Receipts 

($1,000)f

Government and 

government enterprises 3049 Not Reported $114,944,871 Not Reported

Not 

Reported

44-45 Retail Trade 836 51 16,547 57 4,762

62 Health Care and Social 

Assistance 500-999 52 S 34 728

48-49 Transportation and 

Warehousing 302 17 16,880 102 2,917

61 Educational Services 20-99 5 Unavailable 34 211

81 Other Services (except 

Public Administration) 79 28 1,970 101 1319

71 Arts, Entertainment, 

and Recreation 69 5 1,383 23 350

51 Information 66 5 3,587 3 24

53 Real Estate and Rental 

and Leasing 66 9 1934 32 1840

56

Administrative and 

Support and Waste 

Management and 

Remediation Services

64 17 3,012 38 502

31-33 Manufacturing 57 3 543 22 157

22 Utilities 40 6 966 N N

72 Accommodation and 

Food Services 40 18 898 23 1588

52 Finance and Insurance 35 5 1908 11 39

11 Agriculture, Forestry, 

Fishing and Hunting 0-19 6 Unavailable 114 2512

54 Professional, Scientific, 

and Technical Services 18 6 826 50 3064

42 Wholesale Trade 17 4 1006 6 540

23 Construction 14 10 760 31 1024

21 Mining, Quarrying, and 

Oil and Gas Extraction Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Not Reported

Not 

Reported

Total 2,909 251 139,024 683 21,799

Notes:

a The U.S., Canada, and Mexico developed North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the new industry 

classification system, which replaces the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system to provide comparable statistics 

across the three countries.

b “Number of employees” are number of jobs, full-time plus part-time, by place of work. Full-time and part-time jobs are counted at 

equal weight. Employees, sole proprietors, and active partners are included, but unpaid family workers and volunteers are not

included. 

c “Employer establishments” consist of full and part-time employees, including salaried officers and executives of corporations, 

who were on the payroll in the pay period including March 12. Included are employees on sick leave, holidays, and vacations; 

not included are proprietors and partners of unincorporated businesses.

d “Compensation of employees, received” is the sum of Wage and Salary Disbursements and Supplements to Wages and Salaries.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-10

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

e A “non-employer firm” is defined as one that has no paid employees, has annual business receipts of $1,000 or more ($1 or 

more in the construction industries), and is subject to Federal income taxes. Most non-employers are self-employed individuals 

operating very small unincorporated businesses, which may or may not be the owner’s principal source of income.

f “Receipts” (net of taxes) are defined as the revenue for goods produced, distributed, or services provided, including revenue 

earned from premiums, commissions and fees, rents, interest, dividends, and royalties. Receipts exclude all revenue collected

for local, state, and Federal taxes.

Sources: 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2019, Combined County Business Patterns and Non-Employer Statistics, 2017

U.S. Census Bureau, 2019, Quarterly Employment Census, January 2019 to December 2019.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-11

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Table 5-8 2017 County Business Patterns and Non-Employer Statistics for North Slope 

Borough

NAICS 

Codea

Industry Code 

Description

Number of 

Employeesb

Employer 

Establishmentsc

Compensation 

of Employees 

Receivedd

NonEmployer 

Firmse

NonEmployer 

Receipts 

($1,000)f

Government and 

government enterprises 3049 Not Reported $114,944,871 Not Reported

Not 

Reported

44-45 Retail Trade 836 51 16,547 57 4,762

62 Health Care and Social 

Assistance 500-999 52 S 34 728

48-49 Transportation and 

Warehousing 302 17 16,880 102 2,917

61 Educational Services 20-99 5 S 34 211

81 Other Services (except 

Public Administration) 79 28 1,970 101 1319

71 Arts, Entertainment, and 

Recreation 69 5 1,383 23 350

51 Information 66 5 3,587 3 24

53 Real Estate and Rental 

and Leasing 66 9 1934 32 1840

56

Administrative and 

Support and Waste 

Management and 

Remediation Services

64 17 3,012 38 502

31-33 Manufacturing 57 3 543 22 157

22 Utilities 40 6 966 N N

72 Accommodation and 

Food Services 40 18 898 23 1588

52 Finance and Insurance 35 5 1908 11 39

11 Agriculture, Forestry, 

Fishing and Hunting 0-19 6 S 114 2512

54 Professional, Scientific, 

and Technical Services 18 6 826 50 3064

42 Wholesale Trade 17 4 1006 6 540

23 Construction 14 10 760 31 1024

21 Mining, Quarrying, and 

Oil and Gas Extraction Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Not Reported

Not 

Reported

Total 2,909 251 139,024 683 21,799

Notes:

a The U.S., Canada, and Mexico developed North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the new industry 

classification system, which replaces the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system to provide comparable statistics 

across the three countries.

b “Number of employees” are number of jobs, full-time plus part-time, by place of work. Full-time and part-time jobs are counted at 

equal weight. Employees, sole proprietors, and active partners are included, but unpaid family workers and volunteers are not 

included. 

c “Employer establishments” consist of full and part-time employees, including salaried officers and executives of corporations, who 

were on the payroll in the pay period including March 12. Included are employees on sick leave, holidays, and vacations; not 

included are proprietors and partners of unincorporated businesses.

d “Compensation of employees, received” is the sum of Wage and Salary Disbursements and Supplements to Wages and Salaries.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-12

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

e A “non-employer firm” is defined as one that has no paid employees, has annual business receipts of $1,000 or more ($1 or more 

in the construction industries), and is subject to Federal income taxes. Most non-employers are self-employed individuals 

operating very small unincorporated businesses, which may or may not be the owner’s principal source of income.

f “Receipts” (net of taxes) are defined as the revenue for goods produced, distributed, or services provided, including revenue 

earned from premiums, commissions and fees, rents, interest, dividends, and royalties. Receipts exclude all revenue collected for 

local, state, and Federal taxes.

Sources: 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2019, Combined County Business Patterns and Non-Employer Statistics, 2017

U.S. Census Bureau, 2019, Quarterly Employment Census, January 2019 to December 2019.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-13

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Table 5-9 2017 County Business Patterns and Non-Employer Statistics for Northwest Arctic 

Borough

NAICS 

Codea

Industry Code 

Description

Number of 

Employeesb

Employer 

Establishmentsc

Compensation 

of Employees 

Receivedd

NonEmployer 

Firmse

NonEmployer 

Receipts 

($1,000)f

Government and 

government 

enterprises

1056 Not Reported 50,069,620 Not Reported Not Reported

21 Mining, Quarrying, and 

Oil and Gas Extraction 500-999 3 Unavailable Not Reported Not Reported

62 Health Care and Social 

Assistance 250-499 5 Unavailable 17 194

44-45 Retail Trade 194 12 4,971 20 1838

48-49 Transportation and 

Warehousing 188 11 13,007 16 2040

56

Administrative and 

Support and Waste 

Management and 

Remediation Services

154 7 7,057 12 93

72 Accommodation and 

Food Services 131 11 4,087 9 181

23 Construction 59 7 6936 15 386

81 Other Services (except 

Public Administration) 51 10 1117 21 569

51 Information 39 4 2630 Unavailable Unavailable

53 Real Estate and Rental 

and Leasing 3 3 22 13 706

11 Agriculture, Forestry, 

Fishing and Hunting Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 48 814

31-33 Manufacturing Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Unavailable Unavailable

42 Wholesale Trade Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Unavailable Unavailable

52 Finance and Insurance Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 9 15

54

Professional, 

Scientific, and 

Technical Services

Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 44 1,677

61 Educational Services Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 6 171

71 Arts, Entertainment, 

and Recreation Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Unavailable Unavailable

0 Total 2012 81 171009 242 9291

Notes:

a The U.S., Canada, and Mexico developed North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the new industry 

classification system, which replaces the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system to provide comparable statistics 

across the three countries.

b “Number of employees” are number of jobs, full-time plus part-time, by place of work. Full-time and part-time jobs are counted at 

equal weight. Employees, sole proprietors, and active partners are included, but unpaid family workers and volunteers are not

included. 

c “Employer establishments” consist of full and part-time employees, including salaried officers and executives of corporations, who 

were on the payroll in the pay period including March 12. Included are employees on sick leave, holidays, and vacations; not 

included are proprietors and partners of unincorporated businesses.

d “Compensation of employees, received” is the sum of Wage and Salary Disbursements and Supplements to Wages and Salaries.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-14

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

e A “non-employer firm” is defined as one that has no paid employees, has annual business receipts of $1,000 or more ($1 or more 

in the construction industries), and is subject to Federal income taxes. Most non-employers are self-employed individuals 

operating very small unincorporated businesses, which may or may not be the owner’s principal source of income.

f “Receipts” (net of taxes) are defined as the revenue for goods produced, distributed, or services provided, including revenue

earned from premiums, commissions and fees, rents, interest, dividends, and royalties. Receipts exclude all revenue collected for 

local, state, and Federal taxes.

Sources: 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2019, Combined County Business Patterns and Non-Employer Statistics, 2017

U.S. Census Bureau, 2019, Quarterly Employment Census, January 2019 to December 2019.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-15

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Table 5-10 2017 County Business Patterns and Non-Employer Statistics for Nome Census 

Area

NAICS 

Codea

Industry Code 

Description

Number of 

Employeesb

Employer 

Establishmentsc

Compensation 

of Employees 

Receivedd

NonEmployer 

Firmse

NonEmployer 

Receipts 

($1,000)f

Government and 

government 

enterprises

1696 Not Reported 76,431,535 Not Reported Not Reported

62 Health Care and 

Social Assistance 1000-2,499 29 Unavailable 12 223

44-45 Retail Trade 336 31 7,830 33 1456

48-49 Transportation 

and Warehousing 184 10 13,384 28 814

72

Accommodation 

and Food 

Services

146 19 4,770 22 1023

21

Mining, 

Quarrying, and 

Oil and Gas 

Extraction

20-99 3 Unavailable 25 1827

31-33 Manufacturing 20-99 3 Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable

81

Other Services 

(except Public 

Administration)

75 18 2,428 45 599

51 Information 51 6 1748 6 101

56

Administrative 

and Support and 

Waste 

Management and 

Remediation 

Services

43 6 1,101 22 235

71

Arts, 

Entertainment, 

and Recreation

41 5 323 31 424

52 Finance and 

Insurance 39 5 3,495 17 275

23 Construction 38 13 4,224 24 684

42 Wholesale Trade 35 4 2,080 5 445

53

Real Estate and 

Rental and 

Leasing

14 10 929 28 2136

54

Professional, 

Scientific, and 

Technical 

Services

11 6 339 70 1361

11

Agriculture, 

Forestry, Fishing 

and Hunting

Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 141 4,233

61 Educational 

Services Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 15 38

Total 2183 172 120359 528 16825
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-16

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Notes:

a The U.S., Canada, and Mexico developed North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the new industry 

classification system, which replaces the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system to provide comparable statistics 

across the three countries.

b “Number of employees” are number of jobs, full-time plus part-time, by place of work. Full-time and part-time jobs are counted at 

equal weight. Employees, sole proprietors, and active partners are included, but unpaid family workers and volunteers are not

included. 

c “Employer establishments” consist of full and part-time employees, including salaried officers and executives of corporations, who 

were on the payroll in the pay period including March 12. Included are employees on sick leave, holidays, and vacations; not 

included are proprietors and partners of unincorporated businesses.

d “Compensation of employees, received” is the sum of Wage and Salary Disbursements and Supplements to Wages and Salaries.

e A “non-employer firm” is defined as one that has no paid employees, has annual business receipts of $1,000 or more ($1 or more 

in the construction industries), and is subject to Federal income taxes. Most non-employers are self-employed individuals 

operating very small unincorporated businesses, which may or may not be the owner’s principal source of income.

f “Receipts” (net of taxes) are defined as the revenue for goods produced, distributed, or services provided, including revenue 

earned from premiums, commissions and fees, rents, interest, dividends, and royalties. Receipts exclude all revenue collected for 

local, state, and Federal taxes.

Sources: 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2019, Combined County Business Patterns and Non-Employer Statistics, 2017

U.S. Census Bureau, 2019, Quarterly Employment Census, January 2019 to December 2019.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-17

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Table 5-11 2017 County Business Patterns and Non-Employer Statistics for the Kusilvak 

Census Area

NAICS 

Codea

Industry Code 

Description

Number of 

Employeesb

Employer 

Establishmentsc

Compensation 

of Employees 

Receivedd

NonEmployer 

Firmse

NonEmployer 

Receipts 

($1,000)f

Government and 

government 

enterprises

1,665 Not Reported 39,083,164 Not Reported Not Reported

44-45 Retail Trade 331 26 5607 12 360

62 Health Care and 

Social Assistance 100-249 15 I 8 29

61 Educational 

Services 20-99 8 Unavailable 14 34

48-49 Transportation and 

Warehousing 61 5 2395 20 340

71

Arts,

Entertainment, and 

Recreation

19 3 59 Unavailable Unavailable

81

Other Services 

(except Public 

Administration)

18 7 733 47 296

53 Real Estate and 

Rental and Leasing 6 3 308 4 84

11

Agriculture, 

Forestry, Fishing 

and Hunting

Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 361 3651

23 Construction Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 11 60

51 Information Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Unavailable Unavailable

52 Finance and 

Insurance Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Unavailable Unavailable

54

Professional, 

Scientific, and 

Technical Services

Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 19 71

56

Administrative and 

Support and Waste 

Management and 

Remediation 

Services

Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 22 115

72 Accommodation 

and Food Services Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Unavailable Unavailable

Total 679 79 17901 525 5165

Notes:

a The U.S., Canada, and Mexico developed North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the new industry 

classification system, which replaces the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system to provide comparable statistics 

across the three countries.

b “Number of employees” are number of jobs, full-time plus part-time, by place of work. Full-time and part-time jobs are counted at 

equal weight. Employees, sole proprietors, and active partners are included, but unpaid family workers and volunteers are not 

included. 

c “Employer establishments” consist of full and part-time employees, including salaried officers and executives of corporations, who 

were on the payroll in the pay period including March 12. Included are employees on sick leave, holidays, and vacations; not 

included are proprietors and partners of unincorporated businesses.

d “Compensation of employees, received” is the sum of Wage and Salary Disbursements and Supplements to Wages and Salaries.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-18

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

e A “non-employer firm” is defined as one that has no paid employees, has annual business receipts of $1,000 or more ($1 or more 

in the construction industries), and is subject to Federal income taxes. Most non-employers are self-employed individuals 

operating very small unincorporated businesses, which may or may not be the owner’s principal source of income.

f “Receipts” (net of taxes) are defined as the revenue for goods produced, distributed, or services provided, including revenue 

earned from premiums, commissions and fees, rents, interest, dividends, and royalties. Receipts exclude all revenue collected for 

local, state, and Federal taxes.

Sources: 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2019, Combined County Business Patterns and Non-Employer Statistics, 2017

U.S. Census Bureau, 2019, Quarterly Employment Census, January 2019 to December 2019.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-19

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

5.3 Regulatory Baseline

This section provides relevant information about the baseline regulatory elements that may provide 

conservation protections for Beringia DPS bearded seals. Where proposed activities directly affect CH 

areas, these existing regulations may provide a level of protection to the species, even in the absence of 

Section 7 of the ESA.

5.3.1 Federal

This section summarizes Federal regulatory elements.

5.3.1.1 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

Bearded seals of the Beringia DPS benefit from protections afforded by the MMPA. The MMPA prohibits 

the taking and importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products in U.S. waters, subject to a 

number of exceptions.91 Some of these exceptions include take for scientific purposes, public display, 

subsistence use by Alaska Natives, and unintentional incidental take coincident with conducting lawful 

activities. Take is defined in the MMPA to include the “harassment” of marine mammals. “Harassment” 

includes any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which “has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild” or “has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including but not limited to, migration, 

breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.”

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity other than commercial fishing (which is specifically and 

separately addressed under the MMPA) within a specified geographical region may petition the Secretary 

to authorize the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals within that 

region for a period of not more than five consecutive years. If the Secretary makes certain MMPArequired findings, regulations (i.e., incidental take regulations or ITRs) are prescribed that specify

permissible levels of take, means of effecting the least adverse impact on the species and its habitat, and 

requirements for monitoring and reporting. Similar to promulgation of incidental take regulations, the 

MMPA also established an expedited process by which U.S. citizens can apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals where the take will be limited to harassment (i.e., 

incidental harassment authorizations or IHAs). These authorizations are limited to one year and, as with 

incidental regulations, the Secretary must make certain MMPA-required findings for issuance of such 

authorizations.

Any marine mammal listed as an endangered or threatened species under the ESA automatically has 

depleted status under the MMPA, which triggers certain MMPA provisions for depleted stocks. In the 

future, if NMFS expressly concludes that the harvest of bearded seals by Alaska Natives is materially and 

negatively affecting the species, NMFS may regulate such harvests pursuant to sections 101(b) and 

103(d) of the MMPA. NMFS would have to hold an administrative hearing on the record for such 

proposed regulations. NMFS concluded that currently, the subsistence harvest of bearded seals by 

Alaska Natives appears to be sustainable, and NMFS does not expect that the listing of the Beringia DPS

under the ESA will lead to any regulation of subsistence harvest of these seals by Alaska Natives.92 

5.3.1.2 Endangered Species Act

The listing of the Beringia DPS under the ESA results in protection under Section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or destroy or adversely 

modify designated CH.93 “Action,” in this case, is defined broadly to include Federal grants, permitting, 

 91 The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended.

92 75 FR 77476; December 10, 2010.

93 16 USC 1536(a)(2).
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-20

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

licensing, or other regulatory actions. In general, if a listed species may be present in an action area, the 

Federal action agency must determine whether the proposed action may affect listed species or 

designated CH. If the action agency’s assessment shows, and NMFS agrees, that the proposed action is 

not likely to adversely affect listed species or CH, then NMFS provides concurrence in writing and the 

consultation (informal to this point) is concluded.

If consultation cannot be concluded because the proposed action is likely to adversely affect listed 

species or CH, the Federal action agency must request formal consultation. To initiate formal 

consultation, the action agency must provide NMFS with information that includes the purpose of the 

proposed action, location of the action, description of the action, information on the listed species and CH 

that may be affected, and information on how the species and CH may be affected by that action. Once 

complete information is received by NMFS, NMFS has up to 135 days to complete consultation and 

prepare a biological opinion that contains an analysis of whether the Federal action agency has insured 

that its action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of designated CH. When a Federal action agency has not insured that its action 

is unlikely to avoid jeopardizing listed species or to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

CH,, the biological opinion will include RPAs, if any, that are economically and technologically feasible, 

and that that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the listed species or destruction or adverse 

modification of CH. As noted in Section 3.1.3, the action agency may choose to 1) implement an RPA; 2) 

modify the proposed action and consult with NMFS again; 3) decide not to authorize, fund, or proceed 

with the action; or 4) apply for an exception, a process rarely undertaken. 

A biological opinion includes an incidental take statement (ITS) that identifies the level of take that is 

anticipated from implementation of the proposed action and exempts the action agency from the ESA 

section 9 prohibition on take for the amount or extent of take specified in the ITS. Incidental take is a take 

that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. The ITS also specifies nondiscretionary reasonable and prudent measures, considered necessary or appropriate to minimize the 

impact of the anticipated incidental take on the species.

ESA-listed species that occur within potential Beringia DPS CH include polar bear, spectacled eider, 

Steller’s eider, bowhead whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Pacific right whale, Steller sea lion, and 

Arctic ringed seal. Designated CH exists within the Beringia DPS CH for the spectacled eider (Units 3 

and 4, Norton Sound and Ledyard Bay, respectively, polar bear (Unit 1, sea ice habitat), and Steller sea 

lion (haulouts and associated 20-nm aquatic zones at St. Lawrence and Hall Islands). The essential 

feature of the polar bear sea ice CH unit is sea ice habitat used for feeding, breeding, denning, and 

movements, which is sea ice over waters 300 m or less in depth that occurs over the continental shelf,

with adequate prey resources (primarily ringed and bearded seals) to support polar bears.94 In addition,

the area under consideration by NMFS for designation as CH for the Arctic ringed seal provides sea ice 

essential to this species for birth lairs and molting, as well the species’ primary prey resources.

Measures that protect these species or designated CH may also provide some protection to Beringia DPS 

bearded seals, where the species co-occur. Similarly, designating CH for the Beringia DPS may benefit 

other sensitive species by protecting habitat they share. In particular, given the extensive range overlap 

between the Beringia DPS and polar bears, it is likely that some consultations on polar bears may overlap 

with areas designated as CH for bearded seals. For example, activities with the potential to modify polar 

bear sea ice CH, such as offshore oil and gas exploration and development, also have the potential to 

affect the essential features of Beringia DPS CH.

In areas where there is existing CH, activities with potential adverse impacts on these habitats would 

already result in consultations with NMFS or the USFWS, depending on species management agency. 

As such, in these areas, the incremental costs of consultations required due to the Beringia DPS CHD

 94 75 FR 76086; December 7, 2010.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-21

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

may be reduced due to cost efficiencies in addressing potential impacts to multiple species 

simultaneously.

5.3.1.3 Public Law 110-243

Public Law 110-243 is a 2008 joint resolution that directs the U.S. to “initiate international discussions, 

and take necessary steps with other Arctic nations to negotiate an agreement or agreements for 

managing migratory, transboundary, and straddling fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean and establishing a new 

international fisheries management organization (or organizations) for the region.”95 Consistent with this 

Congressional direction, in 2015, the five nations that surround the central Arctic Ocean signed a 

declaration to prevent unregulated commercial fishing in the high seas portion of the central Arctic Ocean.

5.3.1.4 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Essential Fish Habitat

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (as amended) (MSA) mandates that 

fishery management plans (FMPs) be developed by the Regional Fishery Management Councils to 

prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished fisheries. The MSA includes provisions requiring the Councils

to describe and identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for the managed species, minimize to the extent

practicable adverse effects on EFH caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the 

conservation and enhancement of EFH. EFH is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish 

for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (16 USC § 1802(10)). In January 2007, the MSA

was amended to mandate the use of annual catch limits in federally-managed fisheries, and 

accountability measures to end overfishing, provide for widespread market-based fishery management 

through limited access programs, and to call for increased international cooperation.

The MSA requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS regarding any action they authorize, fund, or 

undertake that may adversely affect EFH, and NMFS must provide conservation recommendations to 

Federal and state agencies regarding any action that would adversely affect EFH. After receiving a 

conservation recommendation from NMFS, the Federal agency must respond in writing, describing 

measures the agency proposes to mitigate or offset the adverse impacts on EFH, or explain its reasons 

for proposing to proceed in a manner inconsistent with NMFS’ recommendations. 

EFH has been designated in a number of areas for certain life stages of some prey species of the 

Beringia DPS, such as Arctic cod, saffron cod, tanner crab, and snow crab.

The MSA may provide indirect conservation benefits to Beringia DPS bearded seals by imposition of 

measures to prevent overfishing of bearded seal prey species, and by improving conditions for these prey 

species.

5.3.1.5 Arctic Fishery Management Plan

Changing ecological conditions and warming trends in the Arctic could lead to development of a 

commercial fishery in the U.S. Arctic. Recognizing this, in 2009, under the MSA the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (NPFMC) approved a new FMP for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area 

(Arctic FMP) to be implemented by NMFS. The Arctic FMP covers all marine waters in the U.S. EEZ of 

the Chukchi and Beaufort seas from three nautical miles offshore of the coast of Alaska, to 200 nautical 

miles offshore, north of the Bering Strait, west to the 1990 U.S/Russia maritime boundary line, and east to 

the U.S./Canada maritime boundary. Under the Arctic FMP, no federally managed commercial fisheries 

will be authorized in the Arctic Management Area until sufficient information is available to support the 

sustainable management of a commercial fishery. The Arctic FMP does not regulate subsistence fishing, 

 95 122 STAT. 1569.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-22

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

recreational fishing, or State of Alaska-managed fisheries in the Arctic, nor does it regulate the harvest of 

marine mammals and birds.96

5.3.1.6 Rivers and Harbors Act

The Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA; 33 USC §§ 401 et seq.) authorizes the USACE to issue permits for 

dams or dikes in intrastate waters of the U.S. (Section 9) and construction or other work, such as 

construction of docks/piers and aquaculture structures and work such as dredging or disposal of dredged 

materials, in or affecting navigable waters (Section 10). In issuing these permits, USACE conducts a 

“public interest balancing,” which can include evaluation of beneficial and detrimental effects of a project 

on fish and wildlife values. As a general matter, adverse impacts to bearded seals are considered to be 

detrimental to the public interest, and the USACE findings for Section 10 permits must document how 

these impacts would be avoided. Through this evaluation, USACE requires applicants to avoid and 

minimize impacts of a project by altering its design or by including mitigation measures.

The RHA also authorizes the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to protect U.S. navigable waters, which are 

considered those waters that, at some time in the past, present, or future, are used to transport interstate 

or foreign commerce. Protection of navigable waters also includes regulating bridge-related activities. In 

general, a bridge cannot be constructed across any navigable water(s) until the USCG has approved the 

location and construction plans. Under 14 USC § 81, the USCG is also charged with establishing, 

maintaining, and operating aids to navigation to serve the needs of U.S. Armed Forces and maritime 

commerce, and when those aids are electronic, air commerce as well, when requested by the Federal 

Aviation Administration. 

5.3.1.7 Clean Water Act (CWA)

The purpose of the CWA is to restore the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of the waters of the 

U.S., using two basic mechanisms: (1) direct regulation of discharges pursuant to permits issued under 

the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Section 404 (discharge of dredge or fill 

materials); and (2) the Title III water quality program. 

Under the NPDES program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets pollutant-specific limits 

on the point source discharges for major industries and provides permits that apply these limits to 

individual point sources. EPA has delegated responsibility for the NPDES permitting program to most 

states, including the State of Alaska. State-issued NPDES permits are treated as non-Federal actions. 

As such, the issuance of NPDES permits by states is not subject to the consultation requirements of the 

ESA.

Under the water quality standards program, EPA has issued water quality criteria to establish limits on the 

ambient concentration of pollutants in surface waters that will still protect the health of the water body. 

States issue water quality standards that reflect the Federal water quality criteria and submit the 

standards to EPA for review. State water quality standards are subject to review every three years 

(triennial review). States apply the standards to NPDES discharge permits to ensure that these 

discharges do not violate the state water quality standards.

Under Section 401 of the CWA, all applicants for a Federal license or permit to conduct activity that may

result in discharge to navigable waters of the U.S. are required to submit a state certification to the 

licensing or permitting agency. Section 404 of the CWA prescribes a permit program for the discharge of 

dredged or fill material into navigable waters that requires permit applicants to show that they have “taken 

steps to avoid wetland impacts, where practicable, minimized potential impacts to wetlands, and provided 

compensation for any remaining, unavoidable impacts through activities to restore or recreate wetlands.” 

 96 North Pacific Fishery Management Council. “Arctic Fishery Management Plan.” Website: https://www.npfmc.org/arctic-fisherymanagement/. Accessed online February 7, 2013.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-23

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

The CWA will influence activities occurring within the Beringia DPS CH, because some of these activities 

(e.g., dredging, filling, road/bridge construction) may require NPDES or Section 404 permits.

5.3.1.8 Clean Water Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act and Oil Pollution Act of 1990

The CWA; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 USC §§ 9601 

et seq.); and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990 (33 USC §§ 2701 et seq.) mandate that parties that 

release hazardous materials or oil into the environment are responsible not only for the cost of cleaning 

up the release, but also responsible for restoring any injury to natural resources that results from the 

actual or threatened release, or from response actions. These provisions would be applied to address 

impacts to Beringia DPS CH from release incidents.

5.3.1.9 Water Resources Development Act

The Water Resources Development Act (33 USC §§ 2201 et seq.) authorizes the construction or study of 

USACE projects, and applies to all features of water resources development and planning, including 

environmental assessment and mitigation requirements. 

5.3.1.10 Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) as amended by the Marine Plastic 

Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA)

The APPS, as amended by the MPPRCA, protects Beringia DPS CH by requiring all U.S. ships and all 

ships in U.S. navigable waters or the EEZ to comply with the International Convention for the Prevention 

of Pollution from Ships (33 USC §§ 1901 et seq.). Under the regulations implementing APPS, as 

amended by MPPRCA, the discharge of plastics, including synthetic ropes, fishing nets, plastic bags, and 

a biodegradable plastic, into the water is prohibited. Discharge of floating dunnage, lining, and packing 

materials is prohibited in the navigable waters and in areas offshore less than 25 nautical miles from the 

nearest land. Food waste or paper, trash, glass, metal, bottles, crockery, and similar refuse cannot be 

discharged in the navigable waters or in waters offshore inside 12 nautical miles from the nearest land. 

Finally, food waste, paper, rags, glass, and similar refuse cannot be discharged in the navigable waters or 

in waters offshore inside three nautical miles from the nearest land. There are some exceptions for 

emergencies. USCG has the primary responsibility for enforcing regulations under the APPS, and the 

APPS applies to all vessels, including cruise ships, regardless of flag, operating in U.S. navigable waters 

and the EEZ.

5.3.1.11 The Lacey Act

The Lacey Act, as amended in 1981 (16 USC §§ 3372 et seq.), prohibits the trade of fish, wildlife, or 

plants taken in violation of any foreign, state, tribal, or other U.S. law. For example, it is a violation of the 

Lacey Act for a retail store in New York to sell bearded seal parts taken illegally from Alaska. 

5.3.2 State Regulations

Alaska Statutes (AS) 16.05.841 and 16.05.871 provide a measure of protection to habitat for prey species

of the Beringia DPS, by requiring Fish Habitat Permits for activities that may impact the habitat of 

anadromous fish species, including some species upon which bearded seals prey (e.g., rainbow smelt). 

These statutes are discussed below. For activities that are low impact, practiced by several members of 

the public in a defined area, and traditional in use (such as boat launches and stream crossings along 

popular trail systems), General Permits may be issued in place of Fish Habitat Permits.97 Also, the 

Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Act (AOGCA), and associated statutes require practices by the oil and 

gas industry that provide protection to natural resources such as CH.

 97 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat. “Habitat Permits.” Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=uselicense.main. Accessed April 2020. 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-24

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

5.3.2.1 Alaska Statute 16.05.841 (Fishway Act)

The Fishway Act requires that private parties or government agencies notify and obtain authorization from 

ADF&G, Division of Habitat, for activities that cross or occur within a stream that fish use if the activity 

might impede the efficient passage of resident or anadromous fish.

98

5.3.2.2 Alaska Statute 16.05.871 (Anadromous Fish Act)

Pursuant to the Anadromous Fish Act, private parties and government agencies must provide prior 

notification and obtain permit approval from the ADF&G, Division of Habitat, for all activities that occur 

within or across specified anadromous water bodies. Activities that “use, divert, obstruct, pollute, or 

change the natural flow or bed” of a specified anadromous water body (quoted portions from AS 

16.05.871 (b)) may include construction; bank stabilization; blasting; road crossings; mining; water 

withdrawals; the use of vehicles or equipment in the waterway; gravel removal; stream realignment or 

diversion; and the placement, excavation, deposition, or removal of any material.99 This may provide a 

measure of protection to some of the species preyed upon by bearded seals (e.g., rainbow smelt).

5.3.2.3 Alaska Statute 31.05 (Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Act)

In 1955, the AOGCA created the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC). The 

regulatory authority is listed in Title 20, Chapter 25, of the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC).100 The 

purpose of the AOGCC is to “protect the public interest in exploration and development of Alaska’s 

valuable oil, gas, and geothermal resources”. 101 Examples of the AOGCC stipulations are the 

requirements that an application for a Permit to Drill be submitted and approval obtained from the 

AOGCC prior to drilling, re-drilling, or re-entering a well102; and that a complete proposed well casing and 

cementing program be submitted with the Permit to Drill application that is designed, among other things, 

to prevent contamination of freshwater.103

The AOGCC’s authority extends to all oil and gas operations within the state, including operations that 

occur on Federal and privately owned lands.104 The commission may take enforcement action if it is 

deemed that an individual violated or failed to comply with a provision of AS 31.05, chapter 25, or a 

commission order, permit, or other approval.105 The potential enforcement actions may include one or 

more of the following as applicable: corrective action or remedial work, revocation or suspension of a 

permit or other approval, payment under the bond required by 20 AAC 25.025, or imposition of penalties 

under AS 31.05.150.106

 98 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Fish Habitat Regulations.” Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=habitatregulations.prohibited. Accessed April 2020. 

99 Ibid. 

100 Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 

“Statutes and Regulations.” Website: https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/aogcc/StatutesandRegulations.aspx. Accessed 

April 2020.

101 Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 

“Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC).” Website: https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/aogcc. Accessed 

April 2020.

102 20 AAC 25.005.

103 20 AAC 25.030.

104 Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 

“About Us.” Website: https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/aogcc/AboutUs.aspx. Accessed April 2020.

105 20 AAC 25.535. 

106 Ibid.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-25

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

5.4 Current and Projected Economic and Social Activity

This section discusses the economic and social activities within, and in the vicinity of, the Beringia DPS 

CH. A discussion of the expected costs and benefits of the Beringia DPS CHD to the various sectors and 

projects identified in this section is provided in Section 6.

5.4.1 Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production

One of the primary economic activities within and adjacent to Beringia DPS CH is oil and gas exploration, 

development, and production. The Alaska North Slope (ANS), located on the northern slope of the 

Brooks Range with coastline running along the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, is a major oil production area. 

This area contains State and Federal lands that border the CH waters. ANS production is primarily 

onshore in State lands adjacent to the Beringia DPS CH. Approximately eight percent of current ANS 

production comes from offshore facilities within CH, primarily in State of Alaska waters. However, as 

onshore ANS production areas drain into CH, pollution from various potential sources associated with 

ANS activities, such as hydrocarbon or other spills, have the potential to affect the CH. Depending upon 

the location and type of onshore oil and gas activities (such as increased marine traffic or construction, 

and maintenance), there may be other effects on the CH.

Oil and gas revenue for Alaska totaled about $2.6 billion, or about 78 percent of the State’s general fund 

revenue in fiscal year 2019 (not including Permanent Fund transfer). In this fiscal year, ANS onshore and 

offshore oil production averaged 496.9 thousand barrels per day (bpd), accounting for about 97 percent of 

Alaska’s total oil and gas output.107 Historically, approximately 50 percent to 55 percent of Alaska’s total 

oil production came from units producing on land with leases that included State waters within the area 

under consideration for CH.108 Of the 526.5 thousand bpd produced in ANS in fiscal year 2017, 281.9 

thousand bpd came from units producing on land with leases that include State waters within proposed 

CH; production platforms located offshore within the State and Federal waters of the CH produced a total 

of 52.9 thousand bpd.109

Currently, the majority of oil production occurs in the Prudhoe Bay oil field, which was discovered in 1968. 

Prudhoe Bay, located in the North Slope Borough, originally contained over 25 billion barrels of oil, 

making it the richest oil field in all of North America.110 Infrastructure to bring these reserves to market 

was quickly developed and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) started delivering ANS oil to the ice 

free Port of Valdez, in 1977. Oil production from ANS fields peaked in 1988, when over 2 million barrels 

of oil flowed through TAPS every day. Production from ANS onshore fields has been declining steadily 

since the late 1980s. As shown in Table 5-12, production has been declining in almost all areas, with the 

exception of new production at Point Thomson and projected production at NPR-A, and this decline is 

projected to continue into the future, with total production declining to 492.9 bpd in 2027.

 107 State of Alaska Department of Revenue, Tax Division. 2019. Revenue Sources Book: Fall 2019. Website: 

http://tax.alaska.gov/r.

108 State of Alaska Department of Revenue, Tax Division. 2013. Alaska Oil Production History FY 1959-2012, November 8, 2013. 

Website: http://www.tax.alaska.gov/sourcesbook/AlaskaProduction.pdf.

109 Alaska Department of Revenue, Tax Division, Economic Research Group: 2017. Production History and Forecast by 

Production Area from Fall 2017 RSB, December 19, 2017. Website:

http://www.tax.alaska.gov/sourcesbook/alaskaproduction.pdf.

110 BP. August, 2006. Factsheet: Prudhoe Bay. Website: 

https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/ppr/response/sum_fy06/060302301/factsheets/060302301_factsheet_PB.pdf.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-26

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Table 5-12 Alaska North Slope Oil Production by Lease Area, Fiscal Year 1978-2027 Historical 

and Projected.

Lease Location

Production Fiscal Year (Average in Thousands of Barrels per Day)

History Projected

1978 1988 1998 2008 2017 2018 2027

Onshore production with leases entering State Waters

Prudhoe Bay 786.9 1602.6 704.2 291.1 239.8 228.6 206.7

Point Thomson 0 0 0 0 3.1 3.1 7.4

PBU Satellites 0 0 53.6 67.5 39.0 57.5 43.1

Offshore platform production in State and/or Federal Waters

Endicott 0 77.1 57.2 14.1 8.6 8.2 7.4

Offshore, other 0 0 0 34.4 44.3 35.8 33.3

Onshore production from leases outside CH Boundaries

Alpine 0 0 0 114.9 58.9 63.1 34.3

NPR-A 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 16.3

Greater Point McIntyre Area 0 37.4 151.7 44.3 27.7 30.5 24.9

Kuparuk 0 287 260.4 112.6 80.6 82.6 73.3

Kuparuk Satellites 0 0 28 36.5 24.4 23.9 22.6

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 23.6

Total, All Leases 786.9 2004.1 1225.2 715.4 526.5 533.4 492.9

Source: Alaska Department of Revenue, Tax Division, Economic Research Group: Production History and Forecast by Production 

Area from Fall 2017 RSB, December 19, 2017.

Declines in onshore ANS production, along with generally rising oil prices in the early 2000s through 2014

spurred interest in developing the expected offshore oil resources in the Beaufort Sea OCS and the 

Chukchi Sea OCS.111 Since 2014 per barrel oil prices have fallen and some firms have abandoned

leases, or at least have placed them on long-term deferment. Notwithstanding current oil prices, longterm demand is expected to continue to grow. 

Although as yet largely not in production, Federal Arctic OCS waters, located within the CH boundaries, 

are projected to contain vast oil and gas resources. Together, the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas are 

estimated to contain 42.18 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe), over 97 percent of the estimated OCS oil 

resources in Alaska.112 The Beaufort Sea OCS is estimated to contain 8.22 billion barrels of technically 

recoverable oil and 26.74 thousand cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas (as there has been little exploration in 

the area, these estimates are based on geologic, geophysical, and engineering data and modeling).113

The currently undeveloped Chukchi Sea OCS is thought to have even greater resource potential. 

 111 Oil prices fell in 2002 and 2008, but recovered within the following years and continued increase until July 2014 when the price 

of oil fell from approximately $98 per barrel to under $30 per barrel in early 2016. 

112 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Factsheet: Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-

2017. Website: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oil-and-gas-energy-program/Leasing/Five-Year-Program/2012-

2017/Factsheet.pdf.

113 Minerals Management Service. 2006. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources, Alaska Federal Offshore, as of 2006. 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-27

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Estimates anticipate 15.38 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and 76.77 Tcf of natural gas.114 

Development of these regions could help offset declining onshore oil production, and maintain adequate 

TAPS throughput in the future. TAPS was originally designed to move 1.5 million bpd, and is currently 

operating at about 39 percent of this capacity. Studies performed by the pipeline operator, Alyeska 

Pipeline Service Company, identified potential challenges at throughput between 300,000 and 600,000 

bpd. There are mitigation measures, such as using heaters along the pipeline to keep oil flowing, which

can offset these problems, if throughput doesn’t increase.115

In addition to oil reserves, ANS contains substantial natural gas deposits. However, commercial 

production of natural gas from the ANS is not feasible until a natural gas pipeline is constructed. The 

status of development of such a pipeline is discussed in Section 5.4.1.5.

The remainder of this section describes oil and gas management, including information on the Federal 

nexus and the leasing process, and then describes current and projected future exploration, development, 

and production activities within and adjacent to the Beringia DPS CH. 

5.4.1.1 Oil and Gas Management: Federal Nexus

Oil and gas activities within and adjacent to the Beringia DPS CH fall under State and Federal 

management. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of Oil and Gas manages all 

oil and gas activities within three miles of the shoreline, including nearshore areas in the Beaufort Sea. 

Oil and gas activities in areas farther than three miles offshore are considered part of the OCS and are 

permitted and regulated by the Federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The BOEM 

manages the exploration and development of offshore resources by balancing economic development, 

energy independence, and environmental protection through oil and gas leases, renewable energy 

development, and environmental reviews and studies.

The CH includes six BOEM planning areas: Navarin Basin, St. Matthew-Hall, Norton Basin, Hope Basin, 

Beaufort Sea, and Chukchi Sea. Navarin Basin, St. Matthew-Hall, Norton Basin, and Hope Basin have 

been excluded from BOEM leasing plans due to low resource potential and/or low support for potential 

new leasing. The Beaufort Sea planning area is currently the only areas with existing leases within the 

Beringia DPS CH.

The OCS Lands Act provides for the jurisdiction of the U.S. over the submerged lands of the OCS, and 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to lease them for certain purposes. It requires that all operations 

on the OCS be conducted in a safe manner, by trained personnel, using technology, precautions, and 

techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillage, 

physical obstruction to other users, or other occurrences that may cause damage to the environment, 

property, or endanger life or health. It gives the Secretary the right to cancel a lease or permit at any time 

if he/she determines that continued activity pursuant to that lease or permit would probably cause serious 

harm or damage to life (including fish and other aquatic life), property, any mineral, national security or 

defense, or to the marine, coastal, or human environment.

The BOEM issues permits for oil and gas exploration activities, called geological and geophysical (G&G) 

permits. Permits require that all G&G activities for mineral exploration or scientific research must not: 

interfere with or endanger operations under any lease or right-of-way or permit issued or maintained 

pursuant to the OCS Lands Act; cause harm or damage to aquatic life or to the marine, coastal, or human 

environment; cause pollution; create hazardous or unsafe conditions; unreasonably interfere with or harm 

 114 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012. Factsheet: Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 

2012-2017. Website: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oil-and-gas-energy-program/Leasing/Five-Year-Program/2012-

2017/Factsheet.pdf.

115 Low Flow Study Project Team. 2011. Low Flow Impact Study. June 15, 2011, Final Report prepared at the request of Alyeska 

Pipeline Service Company. Website: http://www.finebergresearch.com/pdf/LoFIS_Summary.pdf.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-28

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

other uses of the area; or disturb archaeological resources. Between 1998 and 2019, the BOEM issued 

14 G&G permits (for activities that were completed) for the Beaufort Sea OCS and seven G&G permits for 

the Chukchi Sea OCS.116

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers Federal onshore oil and gas leasing and issues 

permits for geophysical exploration, permits to drill oil and gas wells, and authorizations to construct pads 

and install production facilities. Oil and gas leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) is 

authorized under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, as amended. In 2018 the BLM 

initiated the development of a new Integrated Activity Plan and associated Environmental Impact 

Statement for the NPR-A (the first Integrated Activity Plan for the NPR-A was completed in 2013). A

range of alternatives are under consideration that could open new areas to oil and gas leasing; and new 

or revised lease stipulations and best management practices are also under consideration.117 In addition, 

the BLM completed an Environmental Impact Statement in 2019 to implement an oil and gas leasing 

program for the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.118

As discussed in Section 5.3.1.1, NMFS is responsible for issuing authorizations for incidental “takes” 

under the MMPA. Table 5-13 summarizes IHAs and ITRs issued by NMFS for activities associated with 

Arctic OCS oil and gas development between 2010 and 2019. 

Table 5-13 Ice Seal MMPA Oil and Gas Related IHAs and ITRs Issued between 2010 and 2019

Commercial 

Operator Activity

Location of Authorized Activity

Chukchi Beaufort Chukchi and 

Beaufort

All 

Areas

BP

Artificial Island facility operation 1 1

Surveys 3 3

Shell

Surveys 1 2 3

Exploratory drilling 2 1 3

Fairweather (for 

Shell) Anchor retrievals 1 1

SAExploration Surveys 2 2

Statoil Surveys 2 2

TGS Surveys 1 1

ION Geophysical Surveys 1 1

Hilcorp and Eni Ice roads 1 1

Hilcorp Artificial island development and 

production 1 1

Hilcorp Surveys 1 1

Total All 6 10 4 20

 116 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. “Alaska G&G Permits.” Website: http://www.boem.gov/About-BOEM/BOEMRegions/Alaska-Region/Resource-Evaluation/Permits/Index.aspx. Accessed April 2020.

117 Bureau of Land Management. 2019. Draft National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement, November 2019. Website: https://www.blm.gov/planning-and-nepa/plans-in-development/alaska/npr-a-iapeis.

118 Bureau of Land Management. 2019. Final Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Environmental Impact Statement, 

September 2019. Website: https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/plans-in-development/alaska/coastal-plain-eis.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-29

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

5.4.1.2 State and Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Process

The BOEM implements a leasing process that uses scientific information and stakeholder feedback to 

determine which specific areas offer the greatest resource potential while minimizing conflicts with 

environmental and subsistence considerations.119 Once leases are purchased, lease owners can apply 

for exploration permits and retain the right to develop a resource if economically viable deposits are 

discovered. Lease sales are managed according to a five-year leasing plan designed to balance social, 

economic, and environmental considerations. 

All BOEM lease sales include environmental controls on lease operations. Additionally, the Bureau of 

Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) has broad permitting and monitoring authority over 

lessees. Permits require use of the best available and safest technologies during exploration, 

development, and production. They also require various measures to avoid environmental damage. 

Monitoring occurs over the life of the lease.120

BOEM lease sales in 2007 (Beaufort Sea) and 2008 (Chukchi Sea) showed increased industry interest in 

Arctic OCS regions within Beringia DPS CH.121 However, the potential lease sales scheduled for the 

Chukchi Sea in 2016, and for the Beaufort Sea in 2017, were cancelled in October 2015 due to market 

conditions and low industry interest.122 One lease sale each in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea were 

originally included in the proposed program for 2017-2022, but these were removed from the final 

program.123

In 2015, a 25-mile nearshore zone in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas was withdrawn from disposition for 

leasing or development activities due to its importance for Native Alaskan subsistence use.124 The Hanna 

Shoal area in the Chukchi Sea was also withdrawn from leasing and development at that time. 

Subsequently, in 2016 the Chukchi Sea and much of the Beaufort Sea were withdrawn from future oil and 

gas leasing indefinitely.125 In 2017, Executive Order 13795 was issued, which opened all Alaska region 

areas for consideration in a revised leasing program, except for the North Aleutian Basin. The 2019-2024 

National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Draft Proposed Program released in 2018 

proposed lease sales in all of the available areas in Alaska, with three sales each for the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas.126 However, the proposed timeline for these lease sales has been affected by a March 

2019 decision issued by the U,.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, which reinstated the 2016 oil 

and gas leasing withdrawals in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.127

 119 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017 Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, July 2012. Website: https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/leasing/2012-2017-

ocs-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.

120 Ibid.

121 Northern Economics. 2009. Economic Analysis of Future Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, 

and North Aleutian Basin, prepared for Shell Exploration and Production.

122 United States Department of the Interior (DOI). 2015. “Interior Department Cancels Arctic Offshore Lease Sales.” Press 

Release. Website: https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-cancels-arctic-offshore-lease-sales. Accessed 

November, 2015.

123 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2016. 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Final 

Program, November 2016. Website: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oil-and-gas-energy-program/Leasing/Five-YearProgram/2017-2022/2017-2022-OCS-Oil-and-Gas-Leasing-PFP.pdf. Accessed April 2020. 

124 Presidential Memorandum for the Secrtary of Interior. 2015. Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United States Outer 

Continental Shelf Offshore Alaska from Leasing Disposition. 2015 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 00059 

(January 27, 2015). Website: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/DCPD-201500059/.

125 Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Interior. 2016. Withdrawal of Certain Portions of the United States Arctic Outer 

Continental Shelf from Mineral Leasing. 2016 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 00860 (December 20, 2016). 

Website: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/DCPD-201600860/.

126 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2018. 2019-2024 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Draft 

Proposed Program, January 2018. Website: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oil-and-gas-energyprogram/Leasing/Five-Year-Program/2019-2024/DPP/NP-Draft-Proposed-Program-2019-2024.pdf. Accessed April 2020.

127 League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, 363 F. Supp. 3d 10113 (D. Alaska 2019).
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-30

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

In 1999, the BLM held its first lease sale within the NPR-A since 1984 within the northeast planning area; 

and the BLM has since held lease sales within the northwest and northeast planning areas, as well as in 

the southern area of NPR-A. Lease sales have been held annually for the NPR-A since 2010. Leases 

have a primary term of 10 years. Once leases are purchased, applicants can apply for land use 

authorizations and permits to conduct activities such as seismic operations, drilling, pipeline construction, 

etc.128

On July 12, 2019, the ADNR Department of Oil and Gas released the Beaufort Sea Areawide Oil and Gas 

Lease Sales Final Finding of the Director. This document applies to Beaufort Sea lease sales in State 

waters, which are to be held from 2019 to 2028. The director found that holding lease sales is in the best 

interest of the State of Alaska, and decided to offer all available State-owned acreage in the Beaufort Sea 

for lease over this period.129

State lease sales are held on an annual basis. Before any oil and gas lease sale is executed, the ADNR 

must prepare a written document on whether the sale is in the best interest of the State. This document 

describes the existing environment; assesses the potential effects of issuing leases; lists the applicable 

laws and regulations to oil and gas exploration, development, production, and transportation; and 

describes mitigation measures with which lessees must comply. Mitigation measures identified in the 

best interest finding must be included as terms of the lease.

State and Federal leasing decisions are based on several analytical factors, including environment, 

critical species habitat, intensity of subsistence activities, and hydrocarbon potential. In the Beaufort Sea,

the areas containing high petroleum potential are within 75 miles of the shoreline. This zone contains 

historical and active leases, as well as important areas for subsistence use. In the Chukchi Sea, the 

majority of high petroleum potential is farther offshore. Most of the historical and all of the active leases 

fall in this region, between 25 and 200 miles offshore. 

5.4.1.3 Current Oil Production

Onshore oil production in the ANS has been the primary oil producing region in Alaska since the 

discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in 1968. In 2017, the three largest producing oil and gas units in Alaska 

(Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk, and Colville River) were all located in this region, and accounted for 82 percent 

of State oil production.130

In the northeast corner of the NPR-A, oil development is expanding westward from the Colville River 

Delta. Production at the Alpine Colville Delta-5 (CD5) began in 2015. The Greater Mooses Tooth One 

(GMT1) project, which was approved by the BLM in 2015, began construction in 2017, and first 

production occurred in late 2018.131 In 2018, the BLM approved development of the Greater Mooses 

Tooth Two (GMT2) project, which is expected to have peak production of 30,000 BPD. First oil is 

anticipated from GMT2 in 2021.132 In 2018, the BLM also initiated preparation of a Master Development 

Plan for the Willow oil and gas prospect, which is located within the northeast corner of the NPR-A.

 128 Bureau of Land Management. “Alaska Oil and Gas Lease Sales.” Website: https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-andminerals/oil-and-gas/leasing/regional-lease-sales/alaska. Accessed April 2020.

129 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. 2019. Beaufort Sea Areawide Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 

Final Finding of the Director, July 2019. Website: http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Documents/Leasing/BIF/Beaufort_Sea/2019-04-

12_Signed_BIF_Document_BS_Preliminary_Web_v1_0.pdf.

130 Alaska Department of Revenue, Tax Division, Economic Research Group: 2017. Production History and Forecast by 

Production Area from Fall 2017 RSB, December 19, 2017. Website: 

http://www.tax.alaska.gov/sourcesbook/alaskaproduction.pdf.

131 Bureau of Land Management. 2015. Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Alpine Satellite Development Plan 

for the Proposed Greater Mooses Tooth One Development Project, Record of Decision, February 2015. Website: 

http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/energy/oil_gas/npra/GMTU_proposed_dev_proj.html.

132 ConocoPhillips Alaska. “Projects.” Website: http://alaska.conocophillips.com/who-we-are/projects/. Accessed April 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-31

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is not currently offered for oil and gas leasing, exploration, or 

development. 

There are currently nine producing oil and gas units that include State waters in the Beaufort Sea within 

the Beringia DPS CH (a unit is composed of a group of leases covering all or part of a deposit of oil or 

gas). These include three producing units located entirely in State offshore waters, one producing unit 

located offshore in State and Federal waters, and one producing unit located offshore entirely in Federal 

waters.133 

Offshore oil production in the Beaufort Sea occurs on manmade gravel islands. Wells are drilled from 

these island platforms to extract oil from surrounding leases. Extracted resources are transported to 

shore via causeways, ice roads, and subsea pipelines where they make their way into TAPS and 

eventually to market. All production in the ANS and adjacent waters utilizes three different types of wells 

to obtain oil. The production well is where oil and gas are extracted from the reservoir. Additionally, there 

are injection wells designed to maintain reservoir pressure. Here water and extracted gas are pumped 

back into the reservoir, replacing pressure and maximizing the amount of oil extracted.134

Processing facilities are needed to support oil extraction. When a production well (onshore or offshore) 

brings fluids to the surface they are a mixture of oil, gas, and water. Facilities must separate the water, 

gas, and oil. The resulting water can be re-injected into the reservoir and the oil transported to TAPS. 

Gas is piped to a gas processing facility which removes heavy natural gas liquids to send through TAPS. 

Some gas is also used to power on-site field operations, but over 90 percent of the gas is typically reinjected into the reservoir.135

This section summarizes information on the current and anticipated future units with leases that are within 

the Beringia DPS CH.

Units Onshore With Leases that Include State Waters within Critical Habitat

The Prudhoe Bay Unit is the largest producer of oil on the North Slope. The majority of acreage and 

facilities are located onshore, but the lease extends into State-regulated Beaufort Sea waters. Production 

in fiscal year 2017 from Prudhoe Bay and its satellite facilities averaged 278.8 thousand bpd. The facility 

is operated by BP Exploration Alaska Inc., with ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron all holding 

working interests. BP is negotiating the sale of its Alaska operations to Hilcorp Energy.136 It is estimated 

that this field still contains 2 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 26 Tcf of natural gas.137

The Badami Unit is located east of Prudhoe Bay and spans both onshore and offshore State lands. 

Savant Alaska LLC, a subsidiary of Glacier Oil and Gas, has been operating this unit since it took over 

from BP in 2010, with ASRC Exploration LLC as a working partner. Production in May 2018 from the 

Badami Unit averaged 1,721bpd.138 This unit has an estimated recoverable reserve of 33 million barrels 

of oil.

 133 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. 2019. “North Slope Unitized Lease Working Interest 

Ownership (PDF November 2019).” Website: http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Information/MapsAndGis. Accessed April 2020.

134 Puder, M. G., B. Bryson, and J. A. Veil. 2003. Compendium of Regulatory Requirements Governing Underground Injection of 

Drilling Wastes. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Petroleum Technology Office.

135 Ibid.

136 Hanlon, Tegan. 2020. “BP says sale to Hilcorp is still on, but under revised terms.” Website: 

https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/04/27/bp-says-sale-to-hilcorp-is-still-on-but-under-revised-terms/. Accessed April 2020.

137 Anchorage Economic Development Corporation. 2014. Resource Extraction Projects 10-Year Projection 2014 Report. 

Website: http://aedcweb.com/project/resource-extraction-report-2014/.

138 Cashman, Kay. 2019. “Producers magazine preview Glacier looking for Killian sands investor after successful well.” 

Petroleum News. Website: https://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/583403511.shtml. Accessed April 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-32

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

The Milne Point Unit is located northwest of Prudhoe Bay and draws on onshore and offshore reservoirs 

within State jurisdiction. From January through August 2019, average production from the Milne Point 

Unit was 23,322 bpd.139 In 2014, BP Exploration Alaska Inc. sold half of its interest in the Milne Point Unit 

to Hilcorp Energy. Milne Point originally had 3.1 billion barrels of oil reserves, but has been producing 

since the eighties. Hilcorp and BP also developed a viscous oil project at the Milne Point Moose Pad, 

which began producing in 2019.140

The Point Thomson Unit is located east of Badami, bordering the Beaufort Sea adjacent to the ANWR. 

This unit, which is operated by ExxonMobil, began producing in 2016, with reported production averaging 

5,200 bpd (condensate) between January and July 2018.141 Peak production from the first stage of 

development at this facility is estimated to be 10,000 bpd (condensate). The Point Thomson Unit is 

estimated to contain 200 million barrels of condensate and eight Tcf of natural gas.142

Units Offshore With Leases Entirely in State Waters within Critical Habitat

The Endicott field (Duck Island Unit) is produced from an offshore island located to the northeast of 

Prudhoe Bay. From January through November 2018, the unit produced an average of 7,267 bpd.143 

This unit was originally estimated to have 1 billion barrels of oil reserves, but has been producing since 

1987. Production facilities are located on two artificial islands with a causeway connecting the islands to 

shore. In 2014, BP Exploration Alaska Inc. sold its interest in the Endicott Unit to Hilcorp Energy.144

The Oooguruk Unit is near Harrison Bay within the Beaufort Sea west of Prudhoe Bay. The unit is 

thought to contain 120 million to 150 million barrels of oil equivalent (Boe). Production facilities and wells 

are located on a six-acre manmade gravel island. Production was reported in 2019 to be approximately 

10,000 bpd. In 2019, Eni U.S. Operating Company Inc. acquired full ownership of the Oooguruk field.145

The Nikaitchuq Unit is located in nearshore Beaufort Sea waters northwest of Milne Point and Prudhoe 

Bay. This unit uses a pipeline bundle to carry oil from its Spy Island drill site to an onshore processing 

plant.146 The Nikaitchuq Unit is operated by Eni U.S. Operating Company Inc. and averaged 20,78 bpd in 

in 2017 and 16,508 bpd in 2018.147 Eni suspended drilling of new wells in 2015, then commenced 

exploration drilling at Spy Island again in 2018.148

 139 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. 2019. Letter to Hilcorp, “Milne Point Unit 38th POD –

Approved,” dated December 5, 2019. Website: http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Library/. Accessed April 2020.

140 Sutherlin, Steve. 2019. “Producers 2019: Hilcorp boosts North Slope output.” Petroleum News. Website: 

https://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/206176133.shtml. Accessed April 2020.

141 ExxonMobil. 2019. Point Thomson Unit Progress Report and Plan of Development (POD), January 1, 2020 to December 31, 

2021. Website: http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Library/. Accessed April 2020.

142 Anchorage Economic Development Corporation. 2012. Resource Extraction 10-Year Project Projection. Accessed April 2020.

143 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. 2019. Letter to Hilcorp, “Duck Island Unit 2019 37th Plan of 

Development – Approved,” dated January 14, 2019. Website: http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Library/. Accessed April 2020.

144 Anchorage Economic Development Corporation. 2014. Resource Extraction Projects 10-Year Projection 2014 Report. 

Website: http://aedcweb.com/project/resource-extraction-report-2014/.

145 Eni. 2019. ”Eni Acquires 70% and Operatorship of the Oooguruk Oil Field in Alaska.” Website: https://www.eni.com/enIT/media/press-release/2019/01/eni-acquires-70-and-operatorship-of-the-oooguruk-oil-field-in-alaska.html. Accessed April 

2020.

146 Anchorage Economic Development Corporation. 2014. Resource Extraction Projects 10-Year Projection 2014 Report. 

Website: http://aedcweb.com/project/resource-extraction-report-2014/.

147 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. 2019. Letter to Eni, “Nikaitchuq Unit Twelfth Plan of 

Development – Approved,” dated August 26, 2019. Website: http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Library/. Accessed April 2020.

148 Eni. 2018. Eleventh Plan of Development, Nikaitchuq Unit, October 1, 2018 – September 20, 2019. Website: 

http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Documents/Units/2018/20180710_NQ_POD_2018.pdf. Accessed April 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-33

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Offshore Units with Leases in Federal Waters within Critical Habitat

The Northstar Unit, owned and operated by Hilcorp Energy (previously by BP Exploration Alaska Inc.), is 

located entirely offshore to the north of Prudhoe Bay. Its lease includes not only State but also significant 

Federal OCS acreage. Oil production occurs from an artificial island. Northstar produced an average of 

10,361 bpd from January through November 2019.149 Original reserves are estimated at 310 million 

barrels and the unit has been producing since 2001. The Northstar Island is located in about 39 feet of 

water and uses a 6-mile sub-sea pipeline to transport oil to land.150

5.4.1.4 Future Oil Production

Future oil and gas production within the Beringia DPS CH and surrounding areas depends largely on 

technological advances. Recent advancements in exploration and production technologies have 

increased interest in developing OCS resources, potentially offsetting at least some of the declines in 

ANS output. Arctic OCS operations present challenges due to weather and water depth. The presence 

of pack ice throughout much of the year makes drill ships with ice breaker support vessels the likely 

method of exploration. Operations occur during the open water season (July to October) and industry 

analysis suggests that one drill ship could drill one or two wells over this period.151

Development in the Chukchi Sea will likely require new drilling and production technologies, as well as 

significant investment in pipeline and support infrastructure. There are currently no platforms operating 

in conditions similar to the Chukchi Sea, where year-round ice movements and seafloor depths of over 

100 feet make operation challenging.152 Structural designs for platforms have been proposed that utilize

a wide base platform, anchoring system, and ballast in concrete cavities to stabilize and resist ice 

forces.153 The Arctic Offshore Technology Assessment of Exploration and Production Options for Cold 

Regions of the US Outer Continental Shelf determined such bottom-founded structures would be safe and 

economical in waters of up to 250 feet in depth in the Chukchi Sea.154 Using subsea wells and pipelines 

installed under the seafloor could greatly expand the reach of offshore platforms. Extracted fluids could 

be processed on the platforms with re-injection prior to transport of oil. Miles of onshore and offshore 

pipeline and supporting infrastructure would be required to bring oil to TAPS. Economically feasible 

development scenarios are consequently based upon the discovery and development of large 

reserves.155

Extended reach drilling is a new technology which is allowing producers to extract oil from a variety of 

deposits while minimizing environmental disturbance. This method allows a well to be drilled laterally 

several miles away from the drill rig. It can allow production of deposits located three to four miles away 

from the drilling platform, thereby increasing the range of extractable deposits.156 This can reduce the 

 149 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. 2019. Letter to Hilcorp, “Northstar Unit 2019 15th Plan of

Development – Approved,” dated January 14, 2019. Website: http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Library/. Accessed April 2020.

150 Anchorage Economic Development Corporation. 2012. AEDC 2012 Resource Extraction 10-Year Project Projection. 

Website: http://aedcweb.com/project/resource-extraction-report-2012/.

151 Northern Economics. 2009. Economic Analysis of Future Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, 

and North Aleutian Basin, prepared for Shell Exploration and Production.

152 Ibid.

153 Ibid.

154 IMV Projects Atlantic (IMVPA). 2008. Arctic Offshore Technology Assessment of Exploration and Production Options for Cold 

Regions of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Project No. C-0506-15, Report TR-001. Prepared for U.S. Department of Interior, 

Minerals Management Service.

155 Northern Economics. 2009. Economic Analysis of Future Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, 

and North Aleutian Basin, prepared for Shell Exploration and Production.

156 IMVPA. 2008. Arctic Offshore Technology Assessment of Exploration and Production Options for Cold Regions of the U.S. 

Outer Continental Shelf. Project No. C-0506-15, Report TR-001. Prepared for U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals 

Management Service.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-34

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

need for building new offshore facilities as offshore deposits can be accessed from shore or existing 

offshore facilities within the extended reach drilling range. 

This section describes expected oil and gas production in offshore State and Federal waters within the

Beringia DPS CH.

Onshore Units with Leases that Include State Waters within Critical Habitat

The Pikka Unit is located both onshore and in nearshore State waters between the Colville River Unit and 

the Oooguruk Unit. Based on the results of two exploration wells drilled during the 2015-2016 season, 

Repsol and Armstrong Oil and Gas announced a significant discovery of the Nanushuk field within the 

Pikka Unit in 2016. Oil Search Alaska LLC bought out Armstrong Oil and Gas and became the project 

operator in 2018. The Nanushuk project will include three drill sites with up to 151 production and 

injection wells, a processing facility, and other associated infrastructure. The project will be located on 

coastal plains and wetlands near the Colville River and Colville River Delta. Drilling is scheduled to begin 

in 2021 and early production of 30,000 bpd is expected in 2022. Full production is scheduled in 2024 

following the development of facilities to manage production of about 120,000 bpd.157

Offshore Units in Federal OCS Waters within Critical Habitat

The Liberty Unit is located offshore in Federal Beaufort Sea OCS waters. In 2014, Hilcorp Energy 

acquired primary ownership and operatorship of the Liberty Unit, which was previous fully owned and

operated by BP Exploration Alaska Inc. Hilcorp subsequently submitted to BOEM a Development and 

Production Plan for the Liberty Prospect; BOEM approved this plan with the inclusion of additional 

mitigation measures in 2018.158 Development would include construction of a gravel drilling and 

production island. Output could reach a peak of 60,000 to 70,000 bpd, and it is estimated that the Liberty 

Unit holds 80 million to 150 million barrels of recoverable oil.159

The Taktuk Unit is located offshore in Federal Beaufort Sea OCS waters north of Point Thomson near 

Camden Bay. The Taktuk Unit leases, which were acquired by ASRC Exploration from Shell in 2016, 

were set to expire in 2017. However, the BSEE approved suspension of operations in 2018, with 

submission of an exploration plan to the BOEM required in 2023.160

Nikaitchuq North is located in Federal Beaufort Sea OCS waters immediately north of the Nikaitchuq Unit. 

Eni plans call for wells to be drilled from the existing Spy Island drill site using extended reach drilling 

techniques. BOEM approved a revised Exploration Plan for this project in 2018.161

In 2008, the Federal government held the first OCS lease sale in the Chukchi Sea since 1991. The sale 

auctioned over 2.7 million acres of oil and gas leasing blocks, with lease sales totaling over $2.6 billion. 

Shell purchased $2.1 billion of leases and ConocoPhillips purchased most of the remainder.162 The 

 157 Bureau of Land Management. 2019. National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement Draft, November 2019. Website: https://www.blm.gov/planning-and-nepa/plans-in-development/alaska/npr-a-iapeis.

158 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2018. Beaufort Sea Outer Continental Shelf Liberty Development and Production Plan 

Record of Decision. Website: https://www.boem.gov/about-boem/hilcorp-alaska-llc.

159 Hilcorp Alaska, LLC. 2017. Liberty Development Project Development and Production Plan Amendment 3. Submitted to 

BOEM by Hilcorp Alaska LLC. Website: https://www.boem.gov/about-boem/hilcorp-alaska-llc. Accessed April 2020.

160 Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. 2018. “BSEE Approves Arctic Offshore Suspension Requests for Alaska 

Native Corporation.” Website: https://www.bsee.gov/newsroom/latest-news/statements-and-releases/press-releases/bseeapproves-arctic-offshore-suspension. Accessed April 2020. 

161 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. “Eni US Operating Co., Inc. – 2017 Beaufort Sea EP.” Website: 

https://www.boem.gov/about-boem/eni-us-operating-co-inc-2017-beaufort-sea-ep. Accessed April 2020.

162 Ground Truth Trekking. 2015. “Chukchi Sea Oil and Gas Development.” Website: 

http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/Issues/AlaskaOilandGas/ChukchiSeaOilandGasDevelopment.html. Accessed April 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-35

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

litigation measures resulting from the Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico, equipment 

issues, and declines in global demand and prices limited exploratory drilling on OCS leases.163

Shell was conditionally approved to drill up to six exploration wells on Chukchi Sea leases. Shell also 

gained conditional approval to conduct exploration drilling on OCS leases in the Beaufort Sea located 

north of Point Thomson near Camden Bay. Shell had planned to drill five wells in Chukchi and Beaufort 

OCS leases in 2012, but by the end of the season had only drilled the tops of two wells (one in the 

Beaufort Sea and one in the Chukchi Sea).164 Shell’s efforts were hampered by lingering sea ice and 

incidents leaving both its drillship and drill rig requiring repairs. 165 A revised exploration plan was 

developed by Shell, and after a comprehensive review, this plan was conditionally approved by the BOEM 

in 2015. Shell successfully drilled an exploration well in the Chukchi Sea during the summer of 2015; but 

subsequently announced that it is ceasing exploration activity in offshore Alaska for the foreseeable 

future.166

ConocoPhillips submitted an exploration plan to begin exploratory OCS drilling in the Devil’s Paw area of 

the Chukchi Sea in 2012. However, in 2013, ConocoPhillips announced it was putting its plan on hold.167 

Statoil had been planning to drill its first well in the Chukchi Sea in 2014. Subsequently, during the fall of 

2015, it announced its decision to abandon this effort.168

There is currently a high level of uncertainty regarding the volume and timing of oil production in Federal 

OCS waters within CH. As discussed above, although the 2019-2024 draft proposed leasing program 

released in 2018 scheduled three sales each for the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, a 2019 court decision 

reinstated the 2016 withdrawal of the Chukchi Sea and most of the Beaufort Sea from consideration for oil 

and gas leasing.

5.4.1.5 Natural Gas Production

There are currently no wells operated within the Beringia DPS CH solely for natural gas production. 

However, units that include State-regulated Beaufort Sea waters have substantial natural gas deposits. 

Combined, the onshore and offshore areas within the Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson units are believed 

to hold 31.8 Tcf of natural gas and hundreds of millions of barrels of condensate.169 G&G data suggest 

there may be much larger deposits of undiscovered recoverable natural gas in Arctic OCS waters. The 

BOEM estimates that there could be 26.74 Tcf of undiscovered, technically recoverable natural gas in the 

Beaufort Sea OCS and 76.77 Tcf in the Chukchi Sea OCS. Combined, there could be an estimated 130 

Tcf of recoverable natural gas deposits in offshore areas within the Beringia DPS CH.170

 163 Ibid.

164 Ibid.

165 Anderson, Ben. 2013. “Swift reaction as Shell suspends 2013 Arctic Alaska offshore drilling.” Anchorage Daily News. 

Website: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/swift-reaction-shell-suspends-2013-arctic-alaska-offshore-drilling. Accessed 

April 2020.

166 Shell. 2015. “Shell Updates on Alaska Exploration.” Website: http://www.shell.com/global/aboutshell/investor/news-andlibrary/2015/shell-updates-on-alaska-exploration.html. Accessed April 2020.

167 ConocoPhillips Alaska. 2013. “Regulatory Uncertainty Leads ConocoPhillips to Put 2014 Chukchi Sea Exploration Drilling 

Plans on Hold.” News release. Website: http://static.conocophillips.com/files/resources/nr-ak-chukchi-sea-final-4-9-2013.pdf. 

Accessed April 2020.

168 Equinor. “Statoil Exits Alaska.” News release. Website: 

https://www.equinor.com/en/news/archive/2015/11/17/17NovAlaska.html. Accessed April 2020.

169 Thomas, C. P., W. B. North, T. C. Doughty, and D. M. Hite. 2009. Alaska North Slope Oil and Gas, a Promising Future or an 

Area in Decline. Addendum Report DOE/NETL-2009/1385 (April 8, 2009). Department of Energy, National Energy 

Technology Laboratory.

170 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012. Factsheet: Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 

2012-2017. Website: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oil-and-gas-energy-program/Leasing/Five-Year-Program/2012-

2017/Factsheet.pdf.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-36

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Natural gas currently being produced in the ANS and Beaufort Sea is used to facilitate oil production. 

Some is burned as fuel for oil field activities, but the vast majority is re-injected into reservoirs to maintain 

pressure and optimize oil production.171 A small amount of natural gas is sent through TAPS, 

approximately 30,000 bpd of heavier gas liquids or about 5 percent of total transport. None of the other 

natural gas produced is available for commercial sale. Large scale natural gas production for use outside 

of the North Slope will not be feasible unless or until a gas pipeline is constructed.

There has been serious consideration of an ANS natural gas pipeline since the 1970s. In March 2020, 

the FERC issued a final Environmental Impact Statement for the Alaska Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) 

project, involving construction and operation of facilities by Alaska Gasline Development Corporation

(AGDC).172 BP and ExxonMobil signed an agreement with the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation 

in 2019 to collaborate on ways to advance the project.173 Alaska LNG has an estimated cost of $45 

billion to $65 billion, 174 and would include a gas treatment plant on the North Slope (Prudhoe Bay) and 

associated pipelines, a 62-mile long Point Thomson Unit transmission line, approximately 800 miles of 

pipeline (and associated facilities) to transport the natural gas to a new 20 million metric-ton per annum 

liquefaction plant in the Nikiski area, and an associated storage and marine terminal.175

In March 2019, the USACE and BLM issued a join record of decision for the proposed Alaska Stand 

Alone Gas Pipeline (ASAP) being advanced by the AGDC.176 The ASAP would include a gas 

conditioning facility near Prudhoe Bay, a buried 733-mile long natural gas pipeline connecting to the 

existing ENSTAR Natural Gas Company pipeline system in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, a buried 30-

mile long small-diameter lateral line connecting the main pipeline to Fairbanks, and associated facilities. 

AGDC has stated that the ASAP project would not be required if the Alaska LNG project moved forward.

177

5.4.2 Mining

Currently, mining activity within the Beringia DPS CH is limited to offshore gold dredging in Nome, Alaska. 

Offshore dredging occurs on claims within three miles of the State shoreline and in two recreational 

areas: 250 acres located to the west of Nome and 320 acres located to the east of Nome. The ADNR 

holds lease sales every 10 years for the Nome offshore site. A lease sale was most recently held during 

the winter of 2020.178 Dredging operations occur during the open-water period, as well as under the ice,

under permits from Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and the ADNR. A USACE 

permit is required for suction dredge operations in marine waters deeper than 20 feet.179

 171 Thomas, C. P., W. B. North, T. C. Doughty, and D. M. Hite. 2009. Alaska North Slope Oil and Gas, a Promising Future or an 

Area in Decline. Addendum Report DOE/NETL-2009/1385 (April 8, 2009). Department of Energy, National Energy 

Technology Laboratory.

172 U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2020. Alaska LNG Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. (FERC 

Docket CP17-178-000). Website: https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis/2020/03-06-20-FEIS.asp. Accessed April 

2020.

173 Alaska Gasline Development Corporation. 2019. “Alaska LNG Collaboration Agreement with BP & ExxonMobil.” Website: 

https://agdc.us/alaska-lng-collaboration-agreement-with-bp-exxonmobil/. Accessed April 2020.

174 U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2015. Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Planned Alaska LNG Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues. (FERC Docket PF14-21).

175 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2020. Alaska LNG Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Website: 

https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis/2020/03-06-20-FEIS.asp. Accessed April 2020

176 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Land Management. 2019. ASAP Project Joint Record of Decision. Website: 

http://www.asapeis.com/index.html. Accessed April 2020.

177 U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2020. Alaska LNG Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. (FERC 

Docket CP17-178-000). Website: https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis/2020/03-06-20-FEIS.asp. Accessed April 

2020.

178 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining. “2020 Nome Offshore Lease Sale.” Website: 

http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mining/nome/. Accessed April 2020.

179 Ibid.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-37

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

In its comments on the 2014 proposed Arctic ringed seal CHD180, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 

highlighted the North Slope coal resources, noting that it has evaluated future development of this 

resource. Estimated to be one-ninth of the world’s known coal resource and one-third of the U.S. 

resource, the Northern Alaska Coal Province extends across a broad belt 3,000 mile eastward from the 

Chukchi Sea.181

Mining activities in Alaska are regulated primarily by the State, but are also overseen by Federal Agencies 

such as the EPA and the USACE. Types of State required permits include: waste management, air 

quality, pollutant discharge, storm water, and temporary use permits. Additionally, various permits from 

the EPA and USACE may be required.182

5.4.3 Ports and Coastal Construction

Primary port facilities serving summer vessel traffic within the Beringia DPS CH include the Port of Nome

(medium-draft port), the Port of Kotzebue (shallow-draft port), and the Delong Mountain Terminal Port 

(shallow-draft port). There are also numerous docks located throughout the CH, servicing barges and 

small vessels, including at Prudhoe Bay and Utqiaġvik.

The Port of Nome is a regional transportation hub located on the southern side of the Seward Peninsula 

in Norton Sound. It is the closest U.S. port to the Bering Strait. The USACE has been conducting annual 

maintenance dredging of the Nome Harbor entrance channel and inner harbor basin for the period 2013 

through 2022 to maintain safe access to the harbor. 183 Activity at the Port of Nome has increased in 

recent years with large barges, fishing boats, and gold dredgers competing for space at the City dock and 

berthing facilities, and the port has insufficient draft to accommodate new, deeper drafting vessels. The 

USACE and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities jointly sponsored a three-year 

study to determine the feasibility of constructing navigation improvements as part of a larger system of 

port facilities in the Arctic and sub-Arctic region. A Draft Integrated Feasibility Report, Draft 

Environmental Assessment, and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact was completed for this study in 

2015. 184 Informed by this analysis and reports from other related assessments, the USACE released an

Integrated Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Assessment for its Port of Nome Modification 

Feasibility Study in March 2020. This assessment identifies a recommended plan to improve navigation 

access by creating a new deep water basin and modifying the existing outer basin (harbor) to make the 

basin larger, and with a wider entrance channel.185

The Delong Mountain Terminal Port is used to transport lead and zinc concentrate from the Red Dog 

mine, which is located near Kotzebue. Concentrate is stored year-round at the terminal site, and in the 

summer months is loaded onto barges and transported to ships anchored offshore. The terminal, which

is owned by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), is located on property 

 180 79 FR 73010; December 9, 2014.

181 Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. “Coal.” Website: https://www.asrc.com/about/our-lands/coal/. Accessed April 2020.

182 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land, and Water. “Large Mine Permitting.” Website: 

http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mining/largemine/. Accessed April 2020.

183 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact,

Maintenance Dredging of Nome Harbor Entrance Channel. Website: 

http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Portals/34/docs/civilworks/publicreview/NomeHarborOMDredgingEAOct2012.pdf.

184 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. 2015. Draft Integrated Feasibility Report, Draft Environmental Assessment 

(EA), and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), Alaska Deep-Draft Arctic Port System Study, Alaska District, Pacific 

Ocean Division. Website: https://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Library/Reports-and-Studies/Alaska-Regional-Ports-Study/.

185 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. 2020. Integrated Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Assessment, Port 

of Nome Modification Feasibility Study, Nome, Alaska. Website: https://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Library/Reports-andStudies/Alaska-Regional-Ports-Study/.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-38

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

owned by NANA Regional Corporation (which is leased by AIDEA), and is operated by Teck Resources 

Limited.186

Residential and commercial development projects occur in areas adjacent to the Beringia DPS CH. For 

example, the North Slope Borough noted in its public comments on the 2014 proposed Arctic ringed seal 

CHD187 that it is planning the construction of sea walls or bulkheads to mitigate coastal erosion in Point 

Hope and Utqiaġvik; water and sewer upgrades in Utqiaġvik, Point Hope, Point Lay, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, 

and Kaktovik; fuel pipeline construction in Kaktovik and tank farm upgrades area-wide; construction of a 

new airport in Kaktovik, and airport improvements in Wainwright; construction of a new landfill in Kaktovik, 

and power plant renovation in Point Hope, power plant replacement in Wainwright, and power plant 

upgrades in Kaktovik.188 Such actions would not trigger ESA Section 7 consultation with respect to CH,

unless they have a Federal nexus and the specific actions have the potential to adversely affect the CH.

5.4.4 Commercial Fisheries

There is extensive, year-round commercial harvest of fish in the Bering Sea, with some commercial 

harvest in the areas of the northern Bering Sea within the Beringia DPS CH. Currently, recorded 

commercial catch from waters in the Beringia DPS CH includes flatfish, halibut, Pacific cod, pollock, 

several species of crab, and salmon. As noted in Section 5.3.1, there is currently no commercial fishing 

of federally-managed fish resources in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas due to limited data on fish 

populations in these waters. However, as more data become available, commercial fishing may be 

allowed in these waters. Also, as commercial fisheries follow target stocks that expand their range in 

association with changes in climatic and oceanographic conditions, total tonnage and species caught 

within Bering Sea waters of the CH may increase. This section describes management of all primary 

species commercially harvested within the Bering Sea, then provides available data on the tonnage and 

value of fish currently harvested commercially within the portions of State and Federal management 

areas, respectively, that overlap with the Beringia DPS CH. 

5.4.4.1 Management of Commercial Fisheries: Federal Nexus

Fisheries in and off Alaska are collaboratively managed by the State, the Federal government, and 

through international cooperation. ADF&G has jurisdiction to manage commercial fisheries (except 

Pacific halibut fisheries) within three miles of the shoreline. NMFS manages fisheries in the U.S. EEZ, 

from 3 nautical miles off the coast line of Alaska to 200 nautical miles offshore, as well as Pacific halibut 

from the shoreline to 200 nautical miles offshore. NMFS enforces commercial harvest limits established 

by the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC). The ADF&G enforces harvest allocations 

set by the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF). 

Management of fish species that are present in both state and Federal waters is typically allocated to 

either a state or Federal agency. For example, NMFS defers management of salmon fisheries in Federal 

waters to the State of Alaska, while retaining Federal oversight.189 Groundfish fisheries, including cod, a 

large number of flatfish species, a similar variety of rockfish and ‘other’ species, and pollock, are generally 

managed by NMFS. King crab, Tanner crab, and snow crab fisheries are jointly managed by ADF&G and 

NMFS. All commercial halibut fisheries in and off Alaska, from zero to 200 nautical miles, are managed 

by NMFS, under terms of the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC).

 186 Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority. 2017. Delong Mountain Transportation System Asset Management 

Review. Website: http://www.aidea.org/Portals/0/PDF%20Files/2017Dec-DMTSFinalReport.pdf.

187 79 FR 73010; December 9, 2014.

188 Comments submitted by the North Slope Borough on the 2014 Arctic ringed seal proposed critical habitat, “Re: Endangered 

and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Arctic Ringed Seal NOAA-NMFS-2013-0114”, dated March 31, 

2015.

189 There are very small areas in which salmon fisheries occur in Federal waters. Under the Federal Fishery Management Plan, 

NMFS defers management in Federal waters to the State of Alaska, while retaining Federal oversight. The same management 

arrangement is in place for commercial crab fisheries in and off Alaska. 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-39

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Federal fisheries are managed in accordance with 50 CFR Part 679: Fisheries of the EEZ off Alaska. 

Every federally managed species has an FMP, which requires a stock assessment and fishery evaluation 

(SAFE) to be prepared each year. The NPFMC uses the FMPs, as amended, and SAFE evaluations to 

determine the total allowable catch (TAC) for the various commercial fisheries, by area, by target species. 

Increasing numbers of Federal fisheries in and off of Alaska have come under one or another form of 

dedicated allocations. Many rely upon a catch share system, wherein, after a TAC is set, individual 

transferable quotas (ITQs) are distributed among individual qualifying fishermen, while others allocate 

TAC shares to a specific gear-group or operational mode (e.g., trawlers, Catcher/Processor vessels). 

These shares determine the quantity of fish the recipient or sector may harvest, by management area, for 

the year. Under some forms of these catch share programs, recipients may buy, lease, and sell these 

shares or operate cooperatively to optimize harvest of the allotted shares. 

5.4.4.2 State Fisheries Harvest Information

Commercial harvest data in State fisheries are reported by ADF&G management area. Portions of the 

Beringia DPS CH are located in the ADF&G Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim (A-Y-K) Management Region, 

which includes the coastal waters of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, as well as the rivers and

streams draining into these bodies of water. Within the A-Y-K Management Region there are four 

ADF&G fisheries management areas, two of which overlap with the Beringia DPS CH: Norton Sound & 

Kotzebue Management Area and the Arctic Management Area. ADF&G issues commercial fishing 

permits in these areas for salmon, crab, and herring.

The ADF&G management boundaries for State fisheries do not align well with the CH boundaries. 

ADF&G management units include in-river commercial catch, as well as catch within the State-managed 

nearshore coastal waters (within the three-nautical-mile boundary). Much of the commercial fisheries

harvest reported by the ADF&G is in-river catch, rather than catch from marine waters. However, the 

ADF&G also provides data specific to several of the nearshore areas (bays and sounds) within the CH. 

As available, these harvest data, specific to the Beringia DPS CH, are provided below.

The ADF&G fisheries harvest reports generally include species, pounds landed, and ex-vessel value. 

Salmon harvest accounts for most of the commercial fishing within the A-Y-K Management Region, with 

most of this harvest occurring in-river. The value of commercial fish harvest in the A-Y-K, including inriver harvest, is small compared to total State harvest value. For example, the total ex-vessel gross value 

of the salmon harvest in this management unit (including in-river harvest) was estimated to be $3.6 million 

in 2019, accounting for about 6 tenths of a percent of the total State-wide harvest gross ex-vessel value of 

$658 million.190

Norton Sound & Kotzebue Management Area

The Norton Sound & Kotzebue Management Area includes all waters from Point Romanof in Norton 

Sound to Point Hope in Kotzebue Sound, and St Lawrence Island. This region supports a population of 

around 17,000 persons, nearly all of whom depend to some degree on fish and game for their 

livelihood.191 Chum and pink salmon are the predominant salmon species found in the Norton Sound and 

Kotzebue Sound areas, with smaller stocks in these areas of sockeye, coho, and Chinook. In 2019, the 

 190 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2019. Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Commercial Salmon Harvests and Exvessel 

Values. Website: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/pdfs/commercial/2019_preliminary_salmon_summary_table.pdf. 

Accessed April 2020.

191 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2013. “Commercial Fisheries Overview: Norton Sound & Kotzebue Management 

Area.” Website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=commercialbyareanortonsound.main. Accessed April 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-40

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

total gross ex-vessel value of salmon harvested in Kotzebue Sound (within CH) was approximately 

$1,538,976192, and in Norton Sound (within CH) was $2,073,586193.

There is an important commercial king crab fishery in Norton Sound (within CH) with ex-vessel gross 

value of approximately $535,000 in 2019. 194 Management of this king crab fishery has imposed limits on 

vessel size, and designated this fishery as a “super exclusive” fishery, which prohibits vessels registered 

for the Norton Sound king crab fishery from participating in any other king crab fishery in the same year.

Between 2009 and 2014, the commercial herring fishery in Norton Sound had a total value ranging from 

$10,000 to $270,000.195 However, while a small commercial bait fishery was authorized in 2017 there 

has been minimal commercial herring fishing in the area since 2006 due to limited market interest196. 

Northern Management Area

The Northern (Arctic) Management Area includes all Alaskan waters north of the western tip of Point 

Hope, including waters draining into the Arctic Ocean and Chukchi Sea. Small populations of chum, pink,

and Chinook salmon have been reported along the northern coast. There are no commercial fisheries for 

salmon species in the Northern Area.197 Although not reported in ADF&G catch data, publications by 

ADF&G indicate that Arctic cisco and least cisco are commercially caught in this region, with such fishing 

generally occurring in October and November using set gillnets operated under the ice.198

5.4.4.3 Federal Fisheries Harvest Information

The southern portion of the Beringia DPS CH overlaps with a limited part of the northern portion of the 

Federal Bering Sea and Aleutian Island (BSAI) Management Area. Catch data from NMFS indicate that 

pollock, Pacific cod, flatfish, and halibut are commercially caught within the Beringia DPS CH. As noted 

above, the IPHC sets the allocation limits for halibut harvest in and off Alaska, but NMFS manages and 

enforces commercial halibut harvest. 

Total catch within the BSAI Management Area in 2018 was 1,908.7 metric tons (round weight), or 89 

percent of the total 2.14 million metric tons of groundfish commercially caught in 2018 off Alaska (Table 

5-14).

 192 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. 2019. 2019 Kotzebue Sound Salmon Season 

Summary. News Release. Website: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/dcfnewsrelease/1117378618.pdf. 

Accessed April 2020.

193 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. 2019. 2019 Norton Sound Salmon Season 

Summary. News Release. Website: https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/dcfnewsrelease/1120134109.pdf. 

Accessed April 2020.

194 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. 2019. 2019 Norton Sound Winter and Summer Crab 

Season Summaries. News Release. Website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/dcfnewsrelease/988597530.pdf. 

Accessed April 2020.

195 Menard, Jim, et al. 2015. 2014 Annual Management Report Norton Sound-Port Clarence Area and Arctic-Kotzebue Area. 

Fishery Management Report No. 15-39. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisions of Sport Fish and Commercial 

Fisheries. Website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMR15-39.pdf.

196 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. 2017. 2017 Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Herring 

Outlook. News Release. Website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/dcfnewsrelease/772983588.pdf. Accessed 

April 2020.

197 Estensen, Jeffrey L., et al. 2013. Annual Management Report Yukon and Northern Areas 2011. Fishery Management Report

No. 13-52. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisions of Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries. Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMR13-52.pdf.

198 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Commercial Fisheries Overview: Arctic Management Area.” Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=commercialbyareanorthern.main. Accessed April 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-41

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Table 5-14 2018 Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area Groundfish

Species

Total Catch

(1,000 Metric Tons, Round Weight)

Ex-Vessel Value

($ Millions)

Pollock 1,369.8 $408.24 

Sablefish 1.5 $4.47 

Pacific Cod 217.9 $196.29 

Other Groundfish 13.8 $7.56 

Flatfish 197.3 $95.76 

Rockfish 38.7 $18.40 

Atka Mackerel 69.5 $53.42 

Total 1,908.7 $783.87 

Source: Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea / 

Aleutian Islands Area: Economic Status of the Groundfish Fisheries Off Alaska, 2019. NPFMC Economic SAFE. Seattle, WA. 

November 2019.

Table 5-15 summarizes 2018 data on the portion of BSAI groundfish, halibut, and sablefish commercial 

fishing activity within the Beringia DPS CH. The table presents retained tonnage and value within the 

potential CH. In 2018, commercial vessels harvested 311,844 round metric tons of groundfish from 

waters of the potential CH, with total gross ex-vessel value of $97.2 million; this represents approximately 

12 percent of the total ex-vessel value of the BSAI groundfish fishery. Pacific Cod accounts for 52

percent of the gross ex-vessel value of groundfish commercially caught in this area. Halibut is also 

harvested within the Beringia DPS CH; in 2018, 513 metric tons of halibut, valued at $4.7 million was 

harvested in this area.

Table 5-15 2018 Groundfish and Halibut Harvest within the Potential Beringia DPS Critical 

Habitat

Target Species Round Metric Tons Ex-Vessel Value

Groundfish

Flatfish 48,532 $26,748,527 

Pacific Cod 56,060 $50,425,305 

Pollock 51,306 $15,269,857 

Rockfish 17 $12,373 

 Sablefish 7 $2,410 

 Other 155,922 $4,719,160 

Groundfish Subtotal 311,844 $97,177,632 

Halibut 513 $4,672,893 

Total Within Proposed CH 312,537 $101,850,525 

Source: Lewis, Steve. 2020. NMFS. Catch in Areas Database query results. March 19, 2020.

5.4.5 Alaska Native Subsistence Use and Personal Use 

Subsistence hunting and fishing activities within Beringia DPS CH are very important to the culture and 

local economies of Northern Alaska coastal villages and communities. Alaskan residents with 12 

consecutive months of residency, both Alaska Natives and non-Natives, may participate in subsistence 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of 

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-42

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

fisheries and subsistence hunts (except for marine mammals, of which subsistence use is limited to 

Alaska Natives who live on the coast of the North Pacific or Arctic oceans.) Many residents who work fullor part-time for wages continue to hunt and fish for much of their food. Within the CH, marine resources 

are integral to a majority of the communities’ traditions and culture, including those of communities that lie 

inland. This section covers the traditional and current uses of bearded seals and other species in the CH

by indigenous people and others for purposes of personal consumption and for customary and traditional 

uses. 

As discussed in Section 5.2 (Description of Affected Economies), the coastal population adjacent to the 

CH is predominantly Alaska Native. This section, thus, primarily focuses on the Native population and 

their subsistence use.

Identifying Federal Nexus 

Subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska by Alaska residents are regulated by the State and the Federal 

government, with management responsibility depending upon where the harvests occur. This is a “dual 

management system” because of overlapping State-Federal jurisdictions in many areas. In general, the 

State of Alaska regulates subsistence fishing and hunting on all State of Alaska lands and waters while 

the Federal government regulates these activities on Federal public lands and federally-reserved waters 

in Alaska.199

State and Federal laws define subsistence uses as the “customary and traditional uses” of wild resources 

for food, clothing, fuel, transportation, construction, art, crafts, sharing, and customary trade.200 State and 

Federal programs recognize “traditional and cultural use” as a unique element of subsistence use. 

Subsistence guidelines for both State and Federal programs restrict subsistence uses last, only after 

restricting other uses, such as sport or commercial. Federal and State subsistence programs are 

operated in a coordinated fashion in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding between the 

Federal Subsistence Board and the State of Alaska. 

Federal jurisdiction over subsistence programs stem from the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the MMPA. ANILCA provides rural Alaskans priority access to traditional 

and customary uses of wild renewable resources. In order to administer the ANILCA subsistence on 

Federal public lands and waters, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture established the Federal 

Subsistence Management Program. The program provides for public participation through the Federal 

Subsistence Board and 10 regional advisory councils. The Federal Subsistence Board is the decisionmaking body that oversees the program. The program provides opportunities for a subsistence way of life 

by rural Alaskans on Federal public lands and waters, while maintaining healthy populations of fish and 

wildlife.201 

The Fisheries Resource Monitoring Program was established to help provide information for management 

of subsistence fisheries on Federal public lands in Alaska. The Monitoring Program funds projects that 

address research priorities identified by management agencies and local users. The Division of 

Commercial Fisheries, ADF&G, handles the management of subsistence fisheries in the State of Alaska 

in conjunction with the Federal government.

Section 101(b) of the MMPA provides an exemption from its take prohibitions that allows Alaska Natives 

to harvest marine mammals for subsistence use for traditional Native handicraft purposes, provided that 

the taking is not done in a wasteful manner. Alaska Native subsistence hunting of species listed as 

 

199 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. 2017. Subsistence in Alaska: A Year 2017 Update. Website: 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/subsistence/pdfs/subsistence_update_2017.pdf. Accessed April 2020.

200 Ibid 201 Office of Subsistence Management. 2016. The Federal Subsistence Management Program: An Overview. Website: 

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/subsistence_management_program_brochure_2016_weblayout_508_reduced.p

df. Accessed April 2020. 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of 

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-43

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

threatened and endangered is also exempted under section 10(e) of ESA, which allows for taking of listed 

species if it is primarily for subsistence purposes, so long as it is not done in a wasteful manner. 

Designation of CH will not affect the continued subsistence harvest of bearded seals, nor the harvest of 

other subsistence species and resources found within the CH.

NMFS is the primary Federal agency responsible for research, management, and conservation of ice 

seals. NMFS, along with the Ice Seal Committee (ISC), co-manages ice seals by monitoring harvest and 

cooperating on needed research and education programs pertaining to these seals. The ISC is an Alaska 

Native organization devoted to conserving ice seal populations, habitat, and hunting, along with 

preserving Native cultures and traditions. 

Native Peoples Subsistence and Cultural Use

As discussed in Section 5.2.3, the Beringia DPS CH is adjacent to land owned and managed by four 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Regional Corporations and some of their related Village 

Corporations. These ANCSA Regional Corporations include: the ASRC, NANA Regional Corporation, the 

BSNC, and the Calista Regional Corporation. Villages in the region balance their economies between 

subsistence hunting and fishing, and wage employment. 

Reliance on subsistence harvests in the ASRC region is evident in data for several communities, 

including Kaktovik. In 1998, subsistence resources made up at least half of the food consumed in 83 

percent of the households in Kaktovik, although this decreased to 69 percent in 2003.202 In Point Lay, a 

subsistence survey conducted in 2012 estimated 595 pounds of wild foods were harvested per capita.203 

Marine mammals accounted for the most estimated pounds harvested by Point Lay households that year

(53 percent of the total harvest), and fish (e.g., salmon, Dolly Varden, and Arctic grayling) made up about 

9 percent Point Hope households surveyed in 2014 harvested an estimated 451 pounds of wild foods per 

capita. Marine mammals constituted 70 percent of the total harvest, while fish (e.g., salmon, Dolly 

Varden, and Arctic grayling) accounted for 19 percent of the harvest.204 Utqiaġvik households surveyed 

in 2014 harvested an estimated 362 pounds of wild food per capita. Similar to Point Lay, marine 

mammals accounted for 53 percent of the total harvest, and fish (e.g., whitefish and salmon) comprised

13 percent of the harvest.205 Inland villages, such as Anaktuvuk Pass and Atqasuk in the North Slope 

Borough, do not rely as heavily on marine resources as other villages on the North Slope, but marine 

resources are still integral to the community’s traditions and culture. Shares of marine resources are 

commonly brought into inland communities from coastal villages and this occurs with Anaktuvuk Pass and 

Atqasuk. 

Within the NANA region, subsistence fishing occurs in the State of Alaska’s Kotzebue Sound 

Management Area. There are comprehensive subsistence harvest studies available for seven of the 

eleven Kotzebue Sound communities. The top ten species of fish and wildlife harvested in these seven 

communities during the time period 1980 to 2007 were: caribou, sheefish, chum salmon, bearded seal 

(“ugruk”), whitefishes, moose, Dolly Varden (“char”), Arctic ringed seal, berries, and beluga (“white”) 

whale. Bearded seals represented 11 percent of the total subsistence harvest by weight.206 More 

recently, subsistence surveys were conducted in Deering in 2013 and in Kotzebue from June 2014 to May 

 

202 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. 2011. Chapter 5: Current and Projected Uses in the North 

Slope Foothills Area. In North Slope Foothills Areawide Oil and Gas Lease Sales, Final Finding of the Director, May 26, 2011. 

Website: http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Documents/Leasing/BestInterestFindings/FBIF_TOTAL_DOCUMENT_FINAL_5-26-2011. 203 Braem, N. M., E. H. Mikow, and M. L. Kostick, editors. 2017. Chukchi Sea and Norton Sound Observation Network: Harvest 

and Use of Wild Resources in 9 Communities in Arctic Alaska, 2012-2014. Technical Paper No. 403. Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence.

204 Ibid. 

205 Brown, C. L., et al. 2016. Harvests and Uses of Wild Resources in 4 Interior Alaska Communities and 3 Arctic Alaska 

Communities, 2014. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Technical Report No. 426.

206 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Subsistence Fishing, Information by Area, Kotzebue Sound Management Area.” 

Website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ByAreaSubsistenceKotzSound.main. Accessed April 2020. 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-44

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

2015.207 Deering households harvested an estimated 663 pounds of wild foods per capita, with fish 

accounting for 18 percent of the total harvest (e.g., salmon, Dolly Varden, and sheefish) and marine 

mammals constituting 11 percent of the harvest. Kotzebue households harvested an estimated 203 

pounds of wild food per capita, with marine mammals accounting for 15 percent of the total harvest and 

fish (e.g., salmon, sheefish, and Dolly Varden) and marine invertebrates comprising 44 percent of the 

harvest.

Within the BSNC region, subsistence fishing occurs in the State of Alaska’s Norton Sound-Port Clarence 

Management Area. Subsistence hunting for marine mammals in the area includes harvest of walrus, 

polar bear, and seals, including bearded seals. A comprehensive subsistence survey conducted in the 

Bering Straits Region by Kawerak, Inc.208, estimated that in fall of 2005 to spring of 2006, about two-thirds 

of the respondents living in the this region consumed wild foods at least three days a week; and about 20

percent consumed wild foods six or seven days a week.209 In addition, subsistence surveys were 

conducted in the communities of Golovin in 2012, Diomede and Stebbins in 2013, and Shishmaref in 

2014. Golovin households harvested 315.5 pounds of wild food per capita, with fish and marine 

invertebrates comprising more than half the total harvest (54 percent), and marine mammals accounting 

for 19 percent of the total harvest. For Diomede, the estimated per capita harvest of wild food was 299 

pounds. Marine mammals were the largest contribute to the total subsistence harvest (75 percent), and 

marine invertebrates accounted for 10 percent of the harvest. Stebbins households harvested 343 

pounds of wild food, with fish constituting 55 percent of the total harvest (e.g., salmon, Pacific herring, and

saffron cod) and marine mammals constituting 22 percent of the harvest. Finally, for Shishmaref, the 

estimated per capita harvest of wild food was 633 pounds. More than half the total harvest was 

accounted for by marine mammals (55 percent) and fish (e.g., salmon, saffron cod, and Dolly Varden) 

constituted 22 percent of the harvest.

The Calista Regional Corporation has the largest total population out of the four Regional Corporation

regions adjacent to the CH. A portion of the Calista Regional Corporation is adjacent to the CH. 

Emmonak and Hooper Bay are the largest villages within the Calista region located adjacent to the CH. 

In 2008, subsistence use in Emmonak was widespread, with 510 usable pounds of wild resources 

harvested per capita.210 Wild resources included wild plants, shellfish, birds, eggs, marine mammals, 

land mammals, salmon, and other fish. Approximately 16 percent of the total harvest was marine 

mammals, while fish accounted for approximately 53 percent of the total harvest.

Traditional and Current Bearded Seal Harvest Practices

As noted above, subsistence hunting of bearded seals by Native peoples residing on the coast is exempt 

under section 10(e) of the ESA and section 101(b) of the MMPA. Designation of CH for the Beringia DPS 

of bearded seals will not prohibit or limit subsistence hunting of these seals.211 Bearded seals are 

 207 Braem, N. M., E. H. Mikow, and M. L. Kostick, editors. 2017. Chukchi Sea and Norton Sound Observation Network: Harvest 

and Use of Wild Resources in 9 Communities in Arctic Alaska, 2012-2014. Technical Paper No. 403. Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence.

208 After the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971, Bering Straits Native Association organized Kawerak as 

the regional non-profit corporation (incorporated under State Law in 1973) to provide services throughout the Bering Straits 

Region.

209 Ahmasuk, Austin, et al. 2007. Bering Strait Region Local and Traditional Knowledge Pilot Project: A Comprehensive 

Subsistence Use Study of the Bering Strait Region. North Pacific Research Board Project 643. Website: 

https://www.fwspubs.org/doi/suppl/10.3996/112016-JFWM-086/suppl_file/fwma-08-01-10_s01.pdf.

210 Fall, James. 2011. “Continuity and Change in Subsistence Harvests in Three Bering Sea Communities: Akutan, Emmonak, 

and Togiak.” Presented at the Fishing People of the North Symposium, Anchorage Alaska, September 16. Website: 

http://seagrant.uaf.edu/conferences/2011/wakefield-people/presentations/fall-akutan-emmonak-togiak.pdf. Accessed April 

2020.

211 79 FR 73010; December 8, 2014.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-45

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

predominately hunted by coastal Alaska Natives from Bristol Bay to Kaktovik for human consumption 

(meat and seal oil) and for pelts to make clothing, rope, and handicrafts. 

Sharing of subsistence resources, including bearded seals, is one of the most important traditions in 

Inupiat culture along the North Slope. Hunters share with community members and guests during 

community feasts or potlatches. For example, in the North Slope village of Nuiqsut, researchers found 

that all subsistence hunters shared part of their harvest at least once, and that 87 percent of the harvests 

resulted in sharing.212

Approximately 64 coastal communities in Alaska, from Bristol Bay to the Beaufort Sea, harvest bearded 

seals for subsistence uses. Ice seal harvest data collected from 1992 to 2014 for 41 of 55 communities 

that regularly hunt ice seals and per capita removal estimates from the surveyed communities were used 

to estimate the average regional and statewide subsistence harvest. The estimated average number of 

bearded seals harvested in 2015, including struck and lost animals, is 6,707 seals.213

Subsistence Fisheries

Of the estimated 34.3 million pounds of wild foods annually harvested in rural Alaska, subsistence 

fisheries contribute about 53 percent from finfish and about 3 percent from shellfish.214 The ADF&G 

Division of Commercial Fisheries manages the State subsistence fisheries, with the exception of fisheries 

on all Federal public lands and waters that are under Federal management. 

Under State of Alaska subsistence fishing regulations, finfish may be taken for subsistence purposes at 

any time in any area of the State, with the exception of salmon, rainbow trout, and steelhead trout, which 

have seasonal limitations215, 216 Finfish species taken for subsistence purposes in waters within or 

adjacent to the CH include salmon, herring, sheefish, whitefish (i.e., species of cisco and “broad” and 

“humpback” whitefish), Arctic char/Dolly Varden (locally called “trout”), saffron cod, capelin, rainbow 

smelt, northern pike, starry flounder, yellow fin sole, Arctic flounder, Alaska plaice, Arctic grayling, burbot, 

and halibut.217 Some subsistence fisheries within the CH require a permit issued by the ADF&G. These 

fisheries are primarily salmon, halibut, shrimp, and crab.

Salmon and herring are the most important fisheries in the A-Y-K region. In addition, white fish are 

important to residents in this region and extensive monitoring of non-salmon species has been done in 

the Kotzebue Sound, Norton-Sound-Port Clarence, Yukon, and Kuskokwim Management areas by the 

ADF&G.218

Household surveys of subsistence harvest of fish were conducted in 2014, in five North Slope coastal 

communities: Utqiaġvik, Nuiqsut, Point Hope, Point Lay, and Wainwright. These surveys indicated that an 

 212 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. 2011. Chapter 5: Current and Projected Uses in the North 

Slope Foothills Area. In North Slope Foothills Areawide Oil and Gas Lease Sales, Final Finding of the Director, May 26, 2011. 

Website: http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Documents/Leasing/BestInterestFindings/FBIF_TOTAL_DOCUMENT_FINAL_5-26-

2011.pdf. 213 Nelson, Mark. A., Lori T. Quakenbush, Brian D. Taras, and Ice Seal Committee. 2019. Subsistence Harvest of Ringed, 

Bearded, Spotted, and Ribbon Seals in Alaska is Sustainable. Endangered Species Research-40:1.

214 Fall, James A., et al. 2020. Alaska Subsistence and Personal Use Salmon Fisheries 2017 Annual Report. Technical Paper 

No. 451. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence.

215 5 AAC 01.005.

216 5 AAC 01.180.

217 Menard, Jim, et al. 2015. 2014 Annual Management Report Norton Sound-Port Clarence and Arctic-Kotzebue. Fishery 

Management Report No. 15-39. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisions of Sport and Commercial Fisheries. 

Website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMR15-39.pdf.

218 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim.” Website: 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishingcommercialbyarea.interior. Accessed April 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of 

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-46

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

estimated 12,504 salmon, 64,492 Arctic cisco, 58,901 whitefish, 26,597 Arctic grayling, 26,903 least 

cisco, and 7,019 Dolly Varden were harvested in these communities 219

Household surveys of subsistence harvest of fish in the Kotzebue region were conducted in 2004 in six 

Kobuk River communities: Ambler, Kiana, Kobuk, Noatak, Noorvik, and Shungnak. In addition to salmon, 

major fisheries take place in the Kotzebue region for sheefish, other whitefishes, and Dolly Varden. The 

surveys indicated that an estimated 26,181 salmon, 10,835 sheefish, 50,501 whitefish, and 11,697 Dolly 

Varden were harvested in the six surveyed communities for subsistence.220 Kotzebue region data from 

household surveys of subsistence harvest of fish conducted in 2014 are more complete than for any year 

since 2004, missing only three communities (Deering, Shishmaref, and Wales).221 The 2014 surveys 

indicated that an estimated 72,595 salmon, 31,909 sheefish, 82,335 whitefish, 13,059 Dolly Varden, and 

17,616 saffron cod were harvested in the surveyed communities for subsistence. 

In addition, in the Norton Sound-Port Clarence District, the estimated subsistence harvest of salmon in 

2014 based on data from household surveys and permits issued was 84,210 fish.222 

Shellfish, particularly crab, are also used for subsistence purposes in areas within the CH. The main 

subsistence fishery within CH that requires an ADF&G permit for participation is the Norton Sound 

subsistence king crab fishery, which has both a summer and winter harvest. Residents utilize red king 

crab for subsistence mainly in the winter. During the 2017-2018 winter crab season, 123 permits were 

issued, and the 82 permit holders that actually fished harvested 4,424 crab, down from 6,039 crab 

retained in 2016-2017. During the 2018 summer crab season, 32 permits were issued, and the 14 permit 

holders that set pots reported harvesting 673 crab, down from 1,777 crab harvested in 2017.223

5.4.6 Recreation and Tourism 

There are few recreation or tourism activities within the CH boundaries due to the presence of ice and 

overall hazardous conditions in these Arctic waters. Even when the area is ice-free during warmer 

months, navigation can be treacherous due to powerful tidal currents and weather events. There are, 

however, several companies (including Heritage Expeditions, Zegrahm Expeditions, and Hapag-Lloyd) 

that offer tourist cruises during summer months through the CH. Cruise offerings in expedition vessels 

include trips from Nome south along the Alaskan coastline, as well as trips in and out of Nome to Russian 

waters. Recently, cruise ships have been venturing farther north as well. Until recently, there was too 

much ice for cruise ships to navigate the Northwest Passage, but with sea ice receding there is greater 

opportunity for such voyages. For example, one tour company offers a voyage from Nome through the 

Northwest Passage along the Beaufort Sea coastline, continuing on to eventually reach Iceland.224 

These cruises are marketed partly based on the opportunity to view marine mammal wildlife, including ice 

seals, polar bear, sea otter, Steller sea lions, walrus, whales, and dolphins. Bird-watching, particularly in 

 

219 Fall, James A., et al. 2017. Alaska Subsistence and Personal Use Salmon Fisheries 2014 Annual Report. Technical Paper 

No. 427. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence.

220 Fall, James A., et al. 2007. Alaska Subsistence Salmon Fisheries 2004 Annual Report. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game, Division of Subsistence. Technical Paper No. 317.

221 Fall, James A., et al. 2017. Alaska Subsistence and Personal Use Salmon Fisheries 2014 Annual Report. Technical Paper 

No. 427. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence

222 Ibid. 

223 Menard, Jim, et al. 2020. 2018 Annual Management Report Norton Sound, Port Clarence. and Arctic, Kotzebue Areas. 

Fishery Management Report No. 20-05. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisions of Sport and Commercial Fisheries. 224 Hapag Lloyd Cruises. “Expedition Northwest Passage – Re-Discovered: A Legendary Sea Route.” Website: https://www.hlcruises.com/destinations/thearctic#currency=EUR&template=teaser&sorting=departureDate&filter:regions=7;destinations=632. 

Accessed April 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of 

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-47

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

the Bering Sea, is also a key attraction.225 Tourism in the Arctic is expanding rapidly. In 2004, an 

estimated 1.2 million vessel passengers visited the Arctic; by 2007 this number had doubled.226

There are also tourism activities in coastal communities bordering CH waters, particularly in Kotzebue, 

Nome, and Utqiaġvik. For example, Nome attracts visitors with its wildlife, scenery, and Native cultural 

history.227 Visitors are also attracted to events in the area such as the Iditarod and the Midnight Sun 

Festival.228 In Kotzebue, favorite recreational activities include hunting and fishing that peak during 

August and September.229 Tour companies charter flights to visit these communities and offer tourists the 

opportunity to learn about native culture and life in the Arctic, as well as experience the natural wonders 

of the region, including wildlife. One key cultural attraction in Kotzebue is the Northwest Arctic Heritage 

Center, run by the National Park Service in conjunction with the Noatak National Preserve. The Noatak 

River “features some of the Arctic’s finest arrays of plants and animals” and also provides world class 

float-trip opportunities from the Brooks Range to the Chukchi Sea.230

Tourists as well as residents participate in bird-watching and fishing in coastal and inland areas near 

these communities. Birders are drawn to the region in the spring, summer, and fall months to view 

migratory species,231 while anglers fish in the region’s rivers for such species as Arctic grayling, salmon, 

Dolly Varden, Arctic char, least cisco, Northern Pike, burbot, and various types of whitefish.232 Due to the 

short summer tourist season and relatively expensive cost (in the range of $700 to $800 for a one-day 

excursion from Anchorage),233 tourism visits to these communities are fairly limited.

5.4.7 Commercial Shipping and Marine Transportation

Marine vessels transiting the Beringia DPS CH include oil and gas tankers, container ships, cargo ships, 

cruise ships, fishing vessels, research vessels, and icebreakers. Commercial shipping activity occurs 

mainly in the summer months when sea ice is at a minimum. Arctic vessel traffic is classified as 

destinational (vessels traveling within the region) or non-destinational (vessels using the Arctic area as a 

passageway between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans using either the Northern Sea Route or the 

Northwest Passage). Destinational vessels include cargo ships and barges providing supplies to Arctic 

communities.

Most Arctic marine traffic is destinational, shipping supplies to the region and exporting minerals out of the 

region. Nearly all cruise ships passenger vessel traffic within CH occurs in the ice-free waters in the 

summer season, mostly along the North American continent, south of the Bering Strait or within the 

Canadian Arctic Archipelago. However, cruise ship and other vessel traffic north of the Bering Strait is 

also expanding. For example, Automatic Identification System data indicate that the number of unique 

 

225 Abercrombie & Kent. “Meet the Wildlife of the Arctic.” Website: https://www.abercrombiekent.com/travel-destinations/arcticcruise/meet-the-natives. Accessed April 2020. 

226 Alaska State Legislature, Northern Waters Task Force. 2012. Findings and Recommendations of the Northern Alaska Waters 

Task Force. Website: http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdmno/ports/assets/pdf/northern_waters_final.pdf.

227 Belleville, Richard. Nome Discovery Tours. Personal communication with Elizabeth Harrison, Staff Economist, Cardno 

ENTRIX. March 25, 2013.

228 Alaska.Org. “Nome Fairs and Festivals.” Website: https://www.alaska.org/destination/nome/festivals. Accessed April 2020. 

229 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Selawik National Wildlife Refuge. Plan Your Visit.” 

https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Selawik/visit/plan_your_visit.html. Accessed April 2020. 

230 National Park Service. “Noatak National Preserve Alaska Wilderness Adventure.” Website: 

http://www.nps.gov/noat/index.htm. Accessed April 2020.

231 Hapag Lloyd Cruises. “Expedition Northwest Passage – Re-Discovered: A Legendary Sea Route.” Website: https://www.hlcruises.com/destinations/thearctic#currency=EUR&template=teaser&sorting=departureDate&filter:regions=7;destinations=632. 

Accessed April 2020.

232 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2006. Nome Roadside Fishing Guide. Website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/staticsf/Region3/PDFs/nome07.pdf. 233 Northern Alaska Tour Company. “Utqiagvik (Barrow) Adventures & Expeditions.” Website: 

http://www.northernalaska.com/utqiagvik-barrow/. Accessed April 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-48

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

vessels operating annually in U.S. waters north of the Bering Sea in 2015 to 2017 increased 128 percent 

over the number recorded in 2008.234 

The two major shipping routes through Beringia DPS CH are the Northwest Passage and the Northern 

Sea Route. The Northwest Passage runs parallel to the Alaskan Coast cutting through the Bering Strait,

then up through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. The Northern Sea Route runs parallel to the Russian 

Coast through the Bering Strait and into the Bering Sea.

Currently there is little activity by ice breakers and research vessels in the Arctic. Russian and Canadian 

icebreakers are used along the Northern Sea Route and within the Canadian Arctic Archipelago to clear 

shipping passageways. The U.S. currently does not engage in icebreaking activities for commercial or 

navigational purposes outside of emergency response activities carried out by the USCG.235 There are 

no current U.S. or Alaska regulations on icebreaking activities. Such activities may increase with 

increases in shipping and marine transport in the area if an alternative trade route connecting the Atlantic 

and Pacific oceans becomes economically and operationally viable.236 Numerous studies indicate that 

the Arctic Ocean is moving toward an ice-diminished condition, particularly a reduction of thick, unmoving, 

multi-year ice, resulting in greater maritime access to and through the region, longer navigable seasons, 

and generally less difficult ice conditions for marine operations. While the expected ice would be less 

thick than the multi-year ice, increased ice mobility may increase hazards for ships operating in the

region.237

There is potential for highly increased shipping activity if changes in sea ice patterns open new shipping 

lanes and allow for a longer navigable season. Increased marine traffic directly over the pole is possible

via the theoretical Trans-Arctic Shipping Route. A number of future polar shipping scenarios are 

presented in the 2009 Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA), including the “Arctic Race” and “Arctic 

Saga” scenarios. In both scenarios there is high demand for trade and Arctic resources. However, in an

“Arctic Race” scenario this demand results in ad-hoc, un-mitigated rush for Arctic wealth and resources,

while in an “Arctic Saga” scenario there is a healthy rate of development, including rules-based concern 

for preservation of Arctic ecosystems and culture. A “Polar Lows” scenario results from low demand and 

unstable governance, with an under-developed future for the Arctic. A “Polar Preserve” scenario results 

from low demand for resource and trade, but with stable governance and slow development in the region

with an extensive eco-preserve program and stringent “no-shipping zones.”238

Major uncertainties identified by AMSA for these scenarios include the legal climate, global trade 

dynamics, rate of sea ice change, safety of new routes, oil prices, global agreements on construction 

rules and standards, shipping technology, escalation of maritime disputes, shift to nuclear energy, new 

resource discoveries, potential loss of the Suez or Panama canals, and the maritime insurance industry 

engagement, among others.239 The 2009 AMSA makes the following predictions: 

> Bering Strait will become a chokepoint for marine traffic in and out of the Arctic Ocean from the Pacific 

Ocean,

 234 U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System. 2019. A Ten-Year Projection of Maritime Activity in the U.S. Arctic 

Region, 2020-2030. Website: https://www.cmts.gov/downloads/CMTS_2019_Arctic_Vessel_Projection_Report.pdf.

235 Committee on the Assessment of U.S. Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Roles and Future Needs. 2013. Polar Icebreakers in a 

Changing World: An Assessment of U.S. Needs. Website: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11753.

236 U.S. Coast Guard. “USCGC Polar Star (WAGB 10).” Website: https://www.pacificarea.uscg.mil/OurOrganization/Cutters/cgcPolarStar/. Accessed April 2020. 237 ABS Consulting, Potomac Wave Consulting, and Systems Planning and Analysis. 2010. High Latitude Region Mission 

Analysis Capstone Summary. July 2010. Prepared for U.S. Coast Guard. Website: 

http://assets.fiercemarkets.com/public/sites/govit/hlssummarycapstone.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2013.

238 Arctic Council, 2009. Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA). 

239 Ibid.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of 

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-49

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

> New Arctic resource discoveries are highly probably and most new explorations and developments will 

require marine transport and increased operational support, 

> Longer seasons of navigation will have significant implications for multiple uses in regional Arctic 

waterways, and

> New Arctic ship technologies will set a norm for more independently operated, icebreaking commercial 

ships.240

AMSA notes that there are few aids to navigation in the U.S. Arctic and no vessel routing measures in the 

Bering Strait. In response to the potential for increased vessel traffic in U.S. Arctic waters in the future, 

the USCG completed a Port Access Route Study (PARS) to evaluate the need for new vessel routing 

measures in the Bering Strait.241 242 Subsequently, in 2017 the United States and the Russian Federation 

submitted a proposal to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to establish voluntary two-way 

routes and precautionary areas to be avoided around ecologically sensitive island groups in the Bering 

Sea and Bering Strait. The IMO approved these measures in 2018.243 A primary purpose of all PARSs is 

to ‘reconcile the need for safe access routes with other reasonable waterway uses, such as renewable 

energy sites.’244 The USCG is currently conducting a PARS focused on the U.S. Arctic Coast to evaluate 

the need for establishing a vessel routing system for this region.245

5.4.8 Military Activities 

Alaska is home to a number of military operations, including those of the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Coast 

Guard, and U.S. Navy, that conduct operations within the Beringia DPS CH. These Arctic operations are 

conducted in the context of the security interests in the region, including missile defense and earlywarning systems, deployment of sea vessels and aircraft for strategic deterrence, maritime presence, 

security operations, and navigation support.246 Military activity in the Arctic has increased in recent 

years247 due to growing commercial importance, international competition, and possible strategic 

challenges. Activities within the Beringia DPS CH include military vessel traffic (marine, submarine, and 

aircraft), sonar, radar, icebreaking, and training exercises.248 

This section summarizes the types and, where possible, locations of military activities within the Beringia 

DPS CH. 

5.4.8.1 Air Force

The U.S. Air Force has several facilities and conducts activities along the coasts of the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas. The Distant Early Warning Radar Line, a system of 63 radar stations constructed between 

1954 and 1957, was decommissioned during the 1990s. However, the Barter Island and Bullen Point 

 

240 Ibid

241 75 FR 68568; November 8, 2010.

242 79 FR 72157; December 5, 2014.

243 Rosen, Yereth. 2018. “With marine traffic growing, international shipping agency approves US-Russia plan for Bering Strait 

shipping lanes.” Arctic Today. Website: https://www.arctictoday.com/marine-traffic-growing-international-shipping-agencyapproves-us-russia-plan-bering-strait-shipping-lanes/. Accessed April 2020.

244 U.S. Coast Guard. “Port Access Route Studies (PARS).” Website: https://www.dco.uscg.mil/PARS. Accessed April 2020. 

245 83 FR 65701; December 21, 2018.

246 Carafano, James Jay, Ariel Cohen, Sally McNamara, and Richard Weitz. 2011. EUCOM Should Lead U.S. Combatant 

Commands in Defense of National Interests in the Arctic. The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder No. 2536, March 28, 2011. 

Website: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2011/pdf/bg2536.pdf. 

247 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/environmental-impact-statement-eiseffects-oil-and-gas-activities. Accessed April 2020.

248 Ibid.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of 

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-50

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

radar sites on the Beaufort Sea coast remain active and radar operations, aircraft, and barge traffic are 

ongoing.249 Air Force activities within the CH include military aircraft training exercises, aircraft traffic over 

open water, and radar surveillance of Arctic airspace. 

5.4.8.2 Coast Guard and Navy

The U.S. Navy’s primary mission is to maintain, train, equip, and operate combat-ready naval forces 

capable of “accomplishing American strategic objectives, deterring maritime aggression, and assuring 

freedom of navigation in ocean areas”.250 Naval operations in the Arctic are primarily limited to submarine 

operations conducted at various locations within Arctic waters. Submarine activity includes vessel traffic 

and sonar activity. The Navy also conducts ice exercises (ICEXs) on top of and below the ice; 

accompanying camps are typically built in the Beaufort Sea 150 to 200 nm north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. 

ICEXs typically last 30 to 45 days. In addition, the Navy expects to work collaboratively on research and 

testing activities in the Arctic to better understand oceanographic conditions.251 Navy activities are 

ongoing and expected to increase in the future.252 

USCG operations and activities within the Beringia DPS CH are primarily responsive actions to safety, 

environmental, or national security threats, including those related to search and rescue, ice patrolling, 

homeland security response, pollution incident investigation and response, and monitoring of tanker and 

shipping transit. Currently, the USCG has very limited Arctic emergency response capabilities to support 

its mission in the Arctic, and no permanent bases on the ANS. In response to increased Arctic vessel 

traffic, in July of 2012 the USCG established a summer Arctic base in Utqiaġvik (active through 

October).253 This base enabled the USCG to better respond and assist mariners in distress in areas off of 

the north coast of Alaska during the ice-free summer months. Since 2016, the USCG has used Kotzebue

as its base of summer operations.254The recommendations by the Alaska State Legislature’s Alaskan 

Northern Waters Task Force include establishment of a permanent Arctic base, and funding of 

icebreakers and other ice-capable vessels.

The USCG also occasionally conducts ice breaking activities in the Arctic. The USCG Cutters Healy, and 

Polar Star, based in Seattle, are the U.S.’s only active polar icebreakers (ice breaker Polar Sea is 

nonoperational).255 Demand for icebreaking activity in the Arctic is limited, but expected to increase as 

future needs arise.256 The Healy, which entered service in 2000, has only medium icebreaking capability 

and is used primarily to support scientific research. In April 2019, the USCG awarded a contract to build 

a heavy icebreaker to be delivered in 2024.257

 

249 Ibid.

250 84 FR 7186; March 1, 2019. 

251 Comments submitted by the U.S. Navy on the 2014 Arctic ringed seal proposed critical habitat, “U.S. Navy Comments on 

Proposed Critical Habitat for the Arctic Subspecies of Ringed Seal NOAA-NMFS-2013-0114”, dated March 30, 2015.

252 Navy Task Force Climate Change. 2014. U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap 2014-2030. 

https://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf. Accessed April 2020. 

253 Medred, Craig. 2012. “Coast Guard boosts Arctic presence with summer base in Barrow.” Anchorage Daily News. Website: 

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/coast-guard-boosts-arctic-presence-summer-base-barrow.

254 Rosen, Yereth. 2019. “U.S. Coast Guard’s Arctic season underway with station opened at Kotzebue.” Arctic Today. Website: 

https://www.arctictoday.com/u-s-coast-guards-arctic-season-underway-with-station-opened-at-kotzebue/. 

255 O’Rourke, Ronald. 2020. Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program: Background and Issues for 

Congress. Congressional Research Service, Report RL34391, Version 193. Updated March 22, 2020. Website: 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=RL34391. 

256 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/environmental-impact-statement-eiseffects-oil-and-gas-activities. Accessed April 2020. 

257 Schreiber, Melody. 2019. “U.S. Coast Guard awards contract for first new heavy icebreaker in four decades.” Arctic Today. 

Website: https://www.arctictoday.com/u-s-coast-guard-awards-contract-for-first-new-heavy-icebreaker-in-four-decades/. 

Accessed April 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of 

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-51

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Due to its currently limited icebreaking abilities, the USCG may seek assistance from polar icebreakers 

operated either commercially or by other countries. With potential increases in commercial activity in the 

Arctic region due to climate change, the demand for USCG regulatory and support services would likely 

also increase. Primary drivers for future activity are oil and gas exploration and recovery, and increased 

shipping between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (on potential new shipping routes made feasible by 

reduced sea ice) and within the Arctic Basin.258

For the USCG to continue to meet its mission objectives, USCG operation of polar icebreakers is likely 

going to become essential. Thus, reduced sea ice associated with global warming is likely to actually 

increase the frequency and geographic range of ice breaking activities.

As established by the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the USCG is responsible for “designation of 

fairways and traffic separation schemes to provide safe access routes for vessels proceeding to and from 

ports.259 In fulfilling this responsibility, as noted above in Section 5.4.7, the USCG is currently conducting 

a PARS focused on the U.S. Arctic Coast to evaluate the need for establishing a vessel routing system. 

Although potentially mitigated to some extent by vessel routing measures, increased shipping activity 

could lead to more oil spills in the waters of the CH. Oil spill response is regulated by the OPA of 1990. 

OPA addresses the prevention, response, and payment of oil pollution incidents in navigable waters of 

the U.S. Alaska Statute 46.04 also requires the ADEC to develop a statewide response plan and 

individual response plans for ten geographic subareas spanning the State.260 Federal, State, and local 

entity response to discharge of oil and other hazardous substances is governed by the Alaska Regional 

Contingency Plan, along with four Area Contingency Plans. The plans are reviewed annually and revised 

as necessary. Version 1 of the Alaska Regional Contingency Plan, which superseded the Alaska Federal 

State Preparedness Plan for Responding to Oil and Hazardous Substance Discharges/Releases (Unified 

Plan), was issued in 2018. The Arctic and Western Alaska Area Contingency Plan was most recently 

revised in 2019.261

5.4.9 Interactions between Bearded Seal Habitats and other Protected Species and their 

Habitats 

The Beringia DPS CH also contains habitat that supports a number of other federally protected species. 

Habitat protections for these other species benefit bearded seals of the Beringia DPS, while the protection 

of Beringia DPS CH may provide some conservation benefit to these other species. The ESA-listed 

species that occur within the Beringia DPS CH include polar bear, spectacled eider, Steller’s eider, 

bowhead whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Pacific right whale, Steller sea lion, and Arctic ringed

seal. Designated CH exists within the Beringia DPS CH for spectacled eiders (Units 3 and 4, Norton 

Sound and Ledyard Bay, respectively), Steller sea lions (haulouts and associated 20-nm aquatic zones 

on St. Lawrence and Hall Islands), and polar bears (Unit 1, sea ice habitat). In addition, the Beringia DPS

CH overlaps extensively with the area under consideration by NMFS for designation as CH for Arctic 

ringed seals. 

 

258 ABS Consulting, Potomac Wave Consulting, and Systems Planning and Analysis. 2010. High Latitude Region Mission 

Analysis Capstone Summary. July 2010. Prepared for U.S. Coast Guard. Website: 

http://assets.fiercemarkets.com/public/sites/govit/hlssummarycapstone.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2013. 

259 Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978, P.L. 95-474, October 17, 1978; 33 U.S.C. §1223. 

260 U.S. Coast Guard. “Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).” Website: https://www.uscg.mil/Mariners/National-Pollution-FundsCenter/About_NPFC/OPA. Accessed April 2020. 

261 Alaska Regional Response Team. 2018. Alaska Regional Contingency Plan, Verion 1, Final. Website: 

https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/ppr/contingency-plans/response-plans/regional-contingency-plan. 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of 

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-52

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

5.4.10 Educational, Scientific, Non-Consumptive Use of the Beringia DPS and its Habitat 

This section discusses recent scientific and educational efforts associated with conservation of the habitat 

of Beringia DPS bearded seals. Such efforts are fairly limited, likely due to the fact that bearded seal

habitat is located in a remote and challenging environment. As NMFS noted in the final rule to list the 

Beringia DPS, “recreational, scientific, and educational uses of bearded seals is currently at low levels

and is not expected to increase to significant threat levels in the foreseeable future”.262 However, a 

group, formed through a partnership of NMFS, the ISC (an Alaska Native Organization), and ADF&G, 

meets and discusses research and management related to ice seals. 

5.4.10.1 State and Local Efforts

The ADF&G has been conducting research on the bearded seals since the 1960s.263 State research 

projects, conducted in collaboration with NMFS and the ISC, and in cooperation with local communities, 

include the following activities: 

> Biosampling the subsistence harvest to monitor bearded seal population health. 

ADF&G is currently collecting tissues and measurements from harvested bearded seals in 

collaboration with 8 villages: Utqiaġvik, Point Hope, Shishmaref, Diomede, Nome, Gambell, Savoonga, 

and Hooper Bay. 

> Satellite telemetry to study movement, habitat use, and behavior of bearded seals. 

Satellite tracking efforts are focused on working with seal hunters in multiple villages to capture seals 

and outfit them with satellite transmitters.264

> Harvest monitoring to document subsistence needs.

ADF&G is working with ISC, Bristol Bay Native Association, Association of Village Council Presidents, 

and Maniilaq to collect ice seal harvest information in interested communities.265

> Surveys of local knowledge. 

ADF&G conducts surveys to document what hunters know about marine mammals and sea ice and 

compiles this information in reports. 

ADF&G also publishes educational materials on bearded seals, including information on their biology, and 

their subsistence and cultural importance.266

The North Slope Borough’s Department of Wildlife Management also conducts research to further 

understand movements, habitat use, and foraging behavior of bearded seals, and to document 

subsistence harvest (including of bearded seals).267

5.4.10.2 Federal Efforts

The Polar Ecosystems Program of NMFS’s Marine Mammal Laboratory conducts research and 

monitoring on ice seals, including bearded seals, and harbor seals of the coast of Alaska. The primary 

purpose of the program is to support management and assessment of marine mammal population status 

 

262 77 FR 76745; December 28, 2012. 263 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Bearded Seal (Erignathus barbatus), Research.” Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=beardedseal.research. Accessed April 2020.

264 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Ice Seal Research, Movements and Habitat Use Studies.” Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=marinemammalprogram.icesealmovements. Accessed April 2020.

265 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Ice Seal Research: Harvest Monitoring.” Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=marinemammalprogram.icesealmonitoring. Accessed April 2020.

266 Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2008. Bearded Seal. Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/bearded_seal.pdf.

267 North Slope Borough. “Studies and Research Projects.” Website: www.north-slope.org/departments/wildlifemanagement/studies-and-research-projects. Accessed April 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-53

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

under the MMPA, and to better understand factors affecting marine mammal populations and their 

ecological roles in the Arctic.

5.5 Summary and Projected Number of Future Actions that May Affect 

Beringia DPS Critical Habitat

To produce a reasonable estimate of future Federal actions that may require Section 7 consultation to 

address effects on Beringia DPS CH, NMFS’ record of consultations over the last 10 years was reviewed 

to identify Federal activities that occurred within or adjacent to the area being considered for designation 

as Beringia DPS CH and that, if implemented in the future, could affect one or more of the identified 

essential features (or both the CH and bearded seals). Relatively few relevant consultations were 

identified for the 3 years prior to when the Beringia DPS was listed as threatened in December 2012. 

Given this, this analysis estimates the number of consultations over the next 10 years based primarily on 

the average annual consultation rate for each activity type between 2013 and 2019.268 Consultations for 

a few potential activities were also included based on preliminary information indicating they could affect 

Beringia DPS CH within the next 10 years. In addition, the number of consultations that may require reinitiation to address Beringia DPS CH was estimated by activity type based on the timeframe, location, 

and potential effects of the actions addressed in the existing consultations.

Based on the information discussed above, Table 5-16 presents a summary of the estimated number of 

consultations by activity type expected to consider Beringia DPS CH over the next 10 years. NMFS

determined that all of the future consultations identified in Table 5-16 would be expected to address 

effects on both Beringia DPS bearded seals and the species’ CH, and as such, administrative costs would 

be limited to the additional effort required to consider CH in those consultations.

 268 Although the listing of the Beringia DPS of the bearded seal as threatened was vacated in July 2014 and was subsequently 

reinstated in February 2017 due to litigation, NMFS continued to consider effects on these seals in consultations during the 

period in which the listings were vacated.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-54

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It 

does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

Table 5-16 Estimates of Future Section 7 Consultations by Activity Type Expected to Consider Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Within

the 10-Year Period of Analysis

Activity Status Location

Sources of Potential 

Effects on 

Beringia DPS CH

Future Section 7 

Consultations

Total Number of Future Consultations

Formal Informal

New Re-init. New Re-init.

Oil and Gas 

Onshore Oil Four producing units (Prudhoe, 

Badami, Milne, and Point 

Thomson) and two units in 

development located onshore 

with leases that include State 

waters of the Beaufort Sea 

(Oooguruk and Pikka).

Adjacent to Beaufort 

Sea waters.

• Oil and other hazardous 

material spills; vessel 

discharges.

• Habitat alteration from 

footprint of new in-water 

structures.

• Water quality and other 

impacts of dredging 

associated with vessel 

landings/docks.

• Noise from seismic 

surveys, construction, 

development and 

production activities, 

and associated maritime 

and aircraft traffic.

• Seismic or other 

geophysical surveys 

(including on-ice); and 

oil development and 

production –1 formal 

consultation and 14 

informal consultations; 

and re-initiation of 1 

formal programmatic 

consultation (ANWR 

1002 leasing) and 1 

informal consultation 

(Nanushuk project) to 

address Beringia DPS

CH.

• NPR-A Integrated 

Activity Plan – 1 

formal consultation.

Action Agency: BLM, 

NMFS, USACE, USCG 

(spill drills)

2 1 Progr. 14 1

Offshore Oil, 

Beaufort and 

Chukchi 

seas 

Beaufort Sea:

Three producing units offshore 

in State waters. One producing 

unit in both State and Federal 

waters. One unit under 

development in Federal waters. 

One active exploration plan in 

Federal OCS region.

All current production and 

development within Federal 

waters in the CH boundaries is 

located in the Beaufort Sea. 

Exploration is also occurring in 

the Beaufort Sea.

Beaufort Sea:

All current production 

and development 

within the CH 

boundaries is located 

in the Beaufort Sea; 

exploration and 

production is occurring 

in the Beaufort Sea.

Chukchi Sea:

No exploration or 

production is currently 

• Oil and other hazardous 

material spills; vessel 

discharges.

• Physical alteration of 

sea ice by ice-breaking 

or other through-ice 

activities.

• Habitat alteration from 

new in-water structures 

and artificial islands.

• Noise from seismic 

surveys, through-ice 

activities, in-water 

construction, drilling, and 

• Seismic and other 

geophysical surveys; 

and oil development 

and production, 

including operation of 

artificial islands – 21 

formal consultations 

and 6 informal 

consultations; and reinitiation of 3 formal 

consultations (Hilcorp 

Liberty development 

plan authorization and 

associated ITR, 

ENI/Hilcorp ice roads 

ITR, Northstar ITR) to 

21

+1 Progr.

3

+1 Progr.

6 0
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-55

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It 

does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

Activity Status Location

Sources of Potential 

Effects on 

Beringia DPS CH

Future Section 7 

Consultations

Total Number of Future Consultations

Formal Informal

New Re-init. New Re-init.

BOEM lease sale schedule 

under the draft 5-year OCS 

proposed program for 2019-

2024 lists potential sales in 

2019, 2021, and 2023). The 

proposed program has been 

affected by a 2019 court 

decision (see Section 5.4.1.2).

Chukchi Sea:

No current exploration or 

production occurring.

BOEM lease sale schedule 

under the draft 5-year OCS 

proposed program for 2019-

2024 lists potential sales in 

2020, 2022, and 2024). The 

proposed program has been 

affected by a 2019 court 

decision (see Section 5.4.1.2).

occurring in the 

Chukchi Sea.

production, and 

associated maritime and 

aircraft traffic.

address Beringia DPS

CH.

• OCS oil and gas 

leasing and 

exploration program, 

Beaufort and Chukchi 

Seas – 1 

programmatic 

consultation; and 1 reinitiation of formal 

consultation to 

address Beringia DPS

CH.

Action Agency: NMFS, 

BOEM, BSEE (others 

may include USACE, 

EPA, and possibly 

Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) for pipelines, but 

these may be co-action 

agencies under shared 

consultations)

Natural Gas No current commercial 

production. Potential 

development and distribution 

from Beaufort Sea, only after a 

natural gas pipeline is built. In 

2020, FERC released a final

Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Alaska LNG 

project proposed by the Alaska 

Gasline Development 

Corporation. A key component 

of the project facilities would be 

modification of the West Dock 

causeway.

Beaufort Sea and 

nearshore areas.

• Oil and other hazardous 

material spills; vessel 

discharges.

• Footprint of West Dock 

causeway modifications; 

water quality and other 

marine habitat 

alterations from subsea 

screeding.

• Noise from in-water 

construction and projectassociated maritime and 

aircraft traffic

Three informal 

consultations; and reinitiation of 1 formal 

programmatic 

consultation (AK LNG 

project) to address 

Beringia DPS CH.

Action Agency: EPA, 

FERC, USACE, (some 

may be cooperating 

agencies).

0 1 Prog. 3 0
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-56

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It 

does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

Activity Status Location

Sources of Potential 

Effects on 

Beringia DPS CH

Future Section 7 

Consultations

Total Number of Future Consultations

Formal Informal

New Re-init. New Re-init.

Mining

Nome 

Offshore 

Dredging

Recreational and commercial 

offshore suction dredging in 

State waters within the 3 mile 

boundary. 

Norton Basin. • Through-ice dredging, 

associated vehicle traffic 

and physical alteration of 

sea ice.

• Noise, water quality 

impacts, and other 

marine habitat 

alterations from suction 

dredging operations.

Commercial dredging –

1 informal consultation.

Action Agency: USACE

0 0 1 0

Commercial Fisheries

Mostly State fisheries, although 

some Federal Fisheries and 

State-Federal parallel fisheries 

do occur (halibut and crab). 

Federal fisheries 

currently present in 

northern Bering Sea 

portion of the potential

CH.

• Removal of bearded

seal prey biomass.

• Modification of benthic 

habitat by bottom-trawl 

gear.

• Oil or other hazardous 

material spills; 

wastewater and other 

vessel discharges.

• Federal fisheries 

management – 1 

formal consultation 

and 1 informal 

consultation; and reinitiation of 1 formal 

consultation (Bering 

Sea/Aleutian Islands 

groundfish fisheries) 

to address Beringia 

DPS CH.

Action Agency: NMFS

1 1 1 0
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-57

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It 

does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

Activity Status Location

Sources of Potential 

Effects on 

Beringia DPS CH

Future Section 7 

Consultations

Total Number of Future Consultations

Formal Informal

New Re-init. New Re-init.

Commercial Shipping and Marine Transportation

Vessels traversing CH waters 

during ice-free summer months 

include oil and gas tankers, 

cargo ships, research vessels, 

fishing vessels, and cruise 

ships. The number of marine 

vessels traversing CH is 

projected to increase with 

diminishing future sea ice.

Two major sea 

shipping lanes are 

currently utilized during 

ice free summer 

months (and, to a 

lesser extent, fall and 

spring months): 

Northwest Passage 

(runs along Alaska 

Coast through the 

Bering Strait up to the 

Canadian Arctic 

Archipelago), and 

Northern Sea Route 

(runs along the 

Russian Coat through 

the Bering Strait and 

into the Bering Sea).

Oil or other hazardous 

material spills; wastewater 

and other vessel 

discharges; vessel noise; 

and ice-breaking activities.

None anticipated. 0 0 0 0

Ports and Coastal Construction 

Ports and 

Harbors

An integrated feasibility report 

and environmental assessment 

of proposed navigational 

improvements at the Port of 

Nome was completed in 2020. 

The recommended plan would 

include creating a new deep 

water basin and modifying the 

existing outer basin (harbor) to 

make the basin larger, and with 

a wider entrance channel.

Vicinity of coastal 

communities in the 

northern Bering, 

Chukchi, and Beaufort 

Seas.

• Oil or other hazardous 

material spills; 

wastewater and/or other 

discharges from vessels 

or land equipment.

• Noise from in-water 

construction, dredging, 

and associated vessels.

• Water quality and other 

marine habitat 

alterations from 

dredging.

• Port of Nome 

proposed navigational 

improvements – 1 

formal consultation.

• Other port/harbor 

projects – 1 formal 

consultation (Crowley 

fuel dock, Kotzebue 

Sound) and 4 informal 

consultations.

Action Agency: NMFS, 

USACE

2 0 4 0
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-58

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It 

does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

Activity Status Location

Sources of Potential 

Effects on 

Beringia DPS CH

Future Section 7 

Consultations

Total Number of Future Consultations

Formal Informal

New Re-init. New Re-init.

Other 

Coastal

Construction 

Infrastructure construction, 

maintenance, and 

improvements associated with 

coastal communities adjacent to 

CH may involve Federal funding 

and/or permitting/authorization. 

Examples include coastal village 

airport replacement/relocation 

projects, construction of an 

evacuation access road at 

Kivalina, and subsea cablelaying.

Primarily within the 

vicinity of coastal 

communities of the 

northern Bering, 

Chukchi, and Beaufort 

Seas.

• Oil or other hazardous 

material spills; 

wastewater and/or other 

discharges from vessels 

or land equipment.

• Noise from in-water 

construction and 

associated vessels.

Three formal 

consultations and seven 

informal consultations.

Action Agency: FAA, 

FHWA/ADOT, USACE

3 0 7 0

Subsistence

Subsistence hunting and fishing 

in CH and adjacent areas, 

primarily by Alaska Natives, 

includes caribou, moose, and 

numerous species of fish and 

shellfish. Subsistence hunting in 

CH by Alaska Natives also 

includes marine mammals, such 

as ringed and bearded seals. 

Subsistence hunting and fishing 

is managed by Federal and 

State entities; harvest of marine 

mammals is co-managed by 

Federal entities and Alaska 

Native organizations.

Coastal areas of the 

northern Bering, 

Chukchi, and Beaufort 

Seas.

Effects on CH are not 

expected.

None anticipated. 0 0 0 0
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Contextual Information 5-59

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It 

does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

Activity Status Location

Sources of Potential 

Effects on 

Beringia DPS CH

Future Section 7 

Consultations

Total Number of Future Consultations

Formal Informal

New Re-init. New Re-init.

Military

Military training, safety, law 

enforcement, and icebreaking 

activities in CH involve vessel 

(marine, submarine) and aircraft 

traffic. These activities are 

expected to increase with 

diminishing future sea ice.

Bering, Chukchi, and 

Beaufort Seas.

• Oil or other hazardous 

material spills; and 

wastewater and other 

vessel discharges.

• Ice breaking activities.

• Noise from vessels and 

ice-breaking activities.

• USCG icebreaker 

program – 1 formal 

programmatic 

consultation.

• U.S. Navy and USCG 

Arctic training and 

testing activities –11 

informal consultations; 

and re-initiation of 1 

informal consultation 

(USCG Arctic Shield 

operations) to address 

Beringia DPS CH.

• Alaska Regional 

Contingency Plan –

Re-initiation of 1 

formal programmatic 

consultation to 

address Beringia DPS

CH.

Action Agency: NMFS, 

USCG; U.S. Navy

1 Progr. 1 Progr. 11 1

Scientific Research

Scientific research activities are 

generally managed to avoid 

affecting listed species or their 

habitats; however, some 

scientific research, e.g., 

research involving the removal 

of bearded seal prey species, 

may affect designated CH.

Bering, Chukchi, and 

Beaufort Seas.

• Noise from vessels and 

seismic surveys.

• Removal of bearded

seal prey biomass.

• Modification of benthic 

habitat by bottom-trawl 

gear or other bottomsampling.

• Oil or other hazardous 

material spills; 

wastewater and other 

vessel discharges.

AK Fisheries Science 

Center fisheries and 

ecosystem research – 1 

programmatic formal 

consultation; and reinitiation of 1 formal 

programmatic 

consultation to address 

Beringia DPS CH.

Other research – I 

informal consultation.

Action Agency: NMFS

1 Progr. 1 Prog. 1 0
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Costs and Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 6-1

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

6 Costs and Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat 

Designation

This section provides a discussion of the expected costs and benefits of the Beringia DPS CHD to the 

various sectors and projects outlined in Section 5.4. These expected costs and benefits primarily stem 

from consideration of the CH as part of future Section 7 consultations,269 which are summarized in the 

last column of Table 5-16. All monetized costs and benefits summarized in this section are expressed in 

2019 dollars.

NMFS projections of such future consultations are based on the best available data on historical activity 

and permitting, planned projects, and projections of future activity within each sector. However, there is 

uncertainty regarding the number of future consultations. There is also uncertainty regarding whether a 

consultation will result in incremental project modifications due to CHD that would be above and beyond 

any such restrictions that would be imposed to avoid jeopardy to the species. In addition, third-party 

costs identified in this section may in some cases be borne by the Federal agency, a third party, or a 

combination of these parties.

As discussed in Section 2.4.2, the direct costs of Section 7 consultations may include both administrative 

costs and project modifications. Although potential project modifications resulting from future 

consultations must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, on the basis of how protections are currently 

being implemented for bearded seals of the Beringia DPS under the MMPA, and as a threatened species 

under the ESA, NMFS does not expect that the CHD will result in incremental project modifications (i.e.,

NMFS does not anticipate restrictions or modifications to activities additional to those that would be 

required because of the Beringia DPS’s ESA-listing status and the requirement that Federal agencies 

avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the species). NMFS determined that all of the future 

consultations identified in Table 5-16 would be expected to address effects on both bearded seals and 

the species’ CH. The expected costs of Section 7 consultations over the 10-year period of analysis are 

therefore limited to the additional administrative costs of considering Beringia DPS CH in future 

consultations involving Beringia DPS bearded seals.

The CHD may also result in indirect costs (such as those described in Section 3.2 related to regulatory 

uncertainty, and additional legislation triggered by CHD) to the sectors outlined in Section 5.4. Concern 

exists, as evidenced in public comments submitted on the 2014 proposed Arctic ringed seal CHD by the 

oil and gas industry, the State of Alaska, Alaska Native communities, and other stakeholders, that the CH 

may be used in litigation to delay or prevent projects; and that potential litigation, increased regulatory 

uncertainty, and potentially prolonged time frames for project reviews; could result in reduced investment 

and development and loss of revenues. Additionally, some public comments suggested delays could 

have cascading effects on other projects. These indirect costs are not quantified in this analysis due to 

significant uncertainty and information limitations, but they are acknowledged as possible, if not probable 

outcomes.

Section 4 of this report discusses the types of benefits than can be expected from, and a range of 

possible values associated with, the CHD. Though these estimates provide insight into the potential 

“types” and associated “values” of the benefits that may be generated from the CHD, they are specific to 

the activity, location, and point-in-time of the cited study. Thus, it is inappropriate to broadly apply these 

“specific” values to the CHD. Therefore, only a brief qualitative discussion of the types of benefits 

 269 In addition to costs and benefits arising from Section 7 consultations, indirect costs may also arise that are not associated with 

a consultation, while some educational/scientific/passive use benefits may arise from the designation itself.

A critical habitat designation does not set up a refuge or sanctuary for the species, and has no specific regulatory impact on 

activities that do not require a permit, funding, or other action from a Federal agency.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Costs and Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 6-2

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

expected from the Beringia DPS CHD is provided below, as there is insufficient information currently 

available to derive “point estimate” monetized values for these benefits.

The Arctic region is undergoing habitat alteration due to climate change. As sea ice cover diminishes, 

there is potential for a greater diversity and level of activity within and adjacent to the CH area, including 

increased oil and gas exploration, development, and production; commercial fishing; recreation/tourism;

shipping; and military activity. This potential long-term increase in economic activity is beyond the 10-year 

temporal scope of this analysis. However, as discussed below, increased economic activity may increase 

both the frequency and the types of actions that are subject to Section 7 consultations regarding potential 

effects on Beringia DPS CH, with potentially greater future costs and benefits associated with CHD.

6.1 Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production 

One of the primary economic activities within and adjacent to the Beringia DPS CH is oil and gas 

exploration, development, and production. The oil and gas industry has been active in areas adjacent to 

the CH since the 1960s. However, offshore production is currently limited to nearshore waters of the

Beaufort Sea. Exploration and potential future development activities are ongoing within and adjacent to 

the CH. Section 5.4.1 and Section 5.4.2 describe oil and gas activities in more detail.

6.1.1 Potential Costs to Oil and Gas

The oil and gas sector faces potential additional administrative costs to address Beringia DPS CH in 

Section 7 consultations. NMFS estimates that one programmatic consultation, three re-initiations of

programmatic consultations, 23 formal consultations, three re-initiations of formal consultations, 23 

informal consultations, and one re-initiation of informal consultation on oil and gas activities may occur 

over the next 10 years. These include consultations on seismic and other geophysical surveys, oil and 

gas leasing and exploration, oil development and production, including operation of artificial islands, and 

natural gas project activities (see Table 5-16).

> Formal consultations

- 1 for seismic or other geophysical surveys associated with onshore exploration and development

- 20 for seismic and other geophysical surveys associated with offshore exploration and 

development

- 3 re-initiations of formal consultations (Hilcorp Liberty development plan authorization and 

associated ITR; ENI/Hilcorp ice roads ITR; Northstar ITR)

> Programmatic consultations

- 1 for the OCS oil and gas leasing and exploration program 

- 2 re-initiations of programmatic consultations (OCS oil and gas leasing and exploration program; 

Alaska LNG project)

> Informal consultations 

- 14 for activities occurring in the NPR-A and in the three actively producing onshore units with 

leases entering State waters of the Beaufort Sea

- 6 for minor activities associated with offshore oil and gas exploration and development activities

- 3 for minor activities associated with the Alaska LNG project

As discussed above, although potential project modifications resulting from future consultations must be 

reviewed on a case-by-case basis, NMFS does not expect that CHD will result in incremental project 

modifications for oil and gas activities (i.e., NMFS does not anticipate additional project modifications to 

oil and gas activities above and beyond any that would be required because of the Beringia DPS’s listing 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Costs and Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 6-3

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

status and the jeopardy standard). The total incremental administrative costs associated with the 

projected consultations, in undiscounted dollars, are estimated to be $861,500 of which $283,700 (33 

percent) will be borne by Federal agencies and the remainder will be borne by the oil and gas sector.

While this analysis recognizes that some potential exists for indirect impacts to occur, such as from “third 

party” litigation, whether and to what extent oil and gas related projects would be subject to litigation and 

delays is considerably uncertain, and precludes meaningful quantification. Furthermore, the act of 

designating CH, would not, in and of itself, induce or dissuade third party litigants.

6.1.2 Potential Benefits to Oil and Gas 

No substantive additional benefits of CHD are expected to accrue to oil and gas activities in the affected 

area.

6.2 Mining 

Commercial mining within the CH is, at present, limited to offshore gold dredging in waters adjacent to 

Nome, Alaska. A USACE permit is required for suction dredge operations in marine waters deeper than 

20 feet.270 271

6.2.1 Potential Costs to Mining 

One informal consultation is anticipated on activities related to offshore gold dredging. The incremental 

administrative cost of this informal consultation is estimated to be $2,720, will be borne by USACE, as the 

Federal action agency, and $680 will be borne by NMFS as the consulting agency. 

6.2.2 Potential Benefits to Mining 

No substantive additional benefits of CHD are expected to accrue to mining activities in the affected area.

6.3 Ports and Coastal Construction

Primary port facilities serving summer vessel traffic within the Beringia DPS CH include the Port of Nome 

(medium-draft port), the Port of Kotzebue (shallow-draft port), and the Delong Mountain Terminal Port 

(shallow-draft port). There are also numerous docks located within the CH servicing barges and small 

vessels, including at Prudhoe Bay and Utqiaġvik. 

In March 2020, the USACE released an Integrated Feasibility Report and Final Environmental 

Assessment for its Port of Nome Modification Feasibility Study that identifies a recommended plan to 

improve navigation access by creating a new deep water basin and modifying the existing outer basin 

(harbor) to make the basin larger, and with a wider entrance channel.272 Funding is not yet in place for 

this project, but potentially could be within the next 10 years. Residential and commercial construction, 

maintenance, and improvements associated with coastal communities, such as airport improvement

projects and construction of sea walls or bulkheads to mitigate coastal erosion, may occur in areas 

adjacent to Beringia DPS CH. In addition, activities such as cable-laying may occur within the CH.

6.3.1 Potential Costs to this Sector 

Over the next 10 years, one formal consultation is projected for the proposed navigational improvements

at the Port of Nome. A formal consultation is also projected for a dock improvement project near 

 270 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining. “2020 Nome Offshore Lease Sale.” Website: 

http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mining/nome/. Accessed April 2020.

271 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land, and Water. 2014. Fact Sheet, Nome Offshore Suction 

Dredging, April 2014. Website: http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/factsht/mine_fs/nomefaq.pdf. Accessed April 2020.

272 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. 2020. Integrated Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Assessment, Port 

of Nome Modification Feasibility Study, Nome, Alaska. Website: https://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Library/Reports-andStudies/Alaska-Regional-Ports-Study/.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Costs and Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 6-4

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Kotzebue, although this work may be completed prior to the designation of CH for the Beringia DPS, in 

which case re-initiation of the consultation would be expected instead. In addition, four informal

consultations on other activities associated with ports and harbors are projected over the next 10 years.

NMFS also estimates that three formal consultations and seven informal consultations on coastal 

construction, maintenance, or improvement activities associated with coastal communities (and that have 

a Federal nexus) could occur within this timeframe.

The total incremental administrative costs of consultations for ports and coastal construction, in 

undiscounted dollars, are estimated to be $59,375, of which $54,271 will be borne by the government and 

$5,104 by third party participants.

6.3.2 Potential Benefits to this Sector 

No substantive additional benefits of CHD are expected to accrue to port activities in the affected area.

6.4 Commercial Fisheries 

Commercial fishing within the Beringia DPS CH is currently limited to the Bering Sea. (Under the Arctic 

FMP, no commercial fisheries will be authorized in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in the Arctic 

Management Area until sufficient information is available to support the sustainable management of a 

commercial fishery.) Halibut fishing, which is managed by NMFS under terms of the IPHC, occurs in 

Federal waters throughout the Bering Sea portion of the CH. Federal waters salmon and crab 

commercial fisheries management is deferred to ADF&G, with Federal oversight. Catch data indicate that 

commercial salmon catch within CH is primarily, if not exclusively, from State waters in Norton and 

Kotzebue sounds. There is also an important crab fishery in Norton Sound. Some groundfish and halibut 

fishing has taken place in northerly regions of the Bering Sea, and expectations are that fishing activity 

within CH may expand in the future, if climate change results in commercially important fish stocks 

moving northward. 

6.4.1 Potential Costs to Commercial Fisheries

NMFS estimates that over the next 10 years, one formal consultation and one re-initiation of formal

consultation on the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands groundfish fisheries could occur. One informal

consultation on commercial fisheries activities is also projected for this timeframe. With continued sea ice 

diminishment, and the potential for commercially important fish species to move into more northern 

waters, interest in commercial fisheries north of the Bering Strait has increased. Consequently, beyond 

the 10-year analysis time period, it is possible that the frequency and nature of consultations on 

management of commercial fishing may change.

The total incremental administrative costs of consultations for commercial fisheries, in undiscounted 

dollars, are estimated to be $20,511, with the government portion being $17,335, and the third party cost 

of $3,176. 

6.4.2 Potential Benefits to Commercial Fisheries

It is possible that commercial fisheries, as well as the related market sectors, will experience small 

benefits from the CHD, as several commercially important fish stocks rely upon their shared habitat with 

Beringia DPS bearded seals. Stocks of these other fish species may directly benefit as a result of the 

protected habitat (e.g., food web and associated ecosystem service flows). Healthy, abundant fish stocks 

have the potential to yield economic benefits to those that harvest, process, market, and consume them. 

6.5 Alaska Native and Subsistence Use

Subsistence use is managed by State and Federal entities. Subsistence use of resources found within 

the CH includes fish, shellfish, marine mammals, and other marine life forms. Subsistence harvest of 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Costs and Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 6-5

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

bearded seals and other marine mammals is a traditional practice among Alaska Native peoples in the 

area. 

6.5.1 Potential Costs

NMFS does not anticipate consultations on subsistence activities, so there are no expected costs to 

subsistence users attributable to the CHD.

6.5.2 Potential Benefits

Subsistence users will likely experience increased use values from the CHD, with potential for accrual of 

both direct and indirect use benefits. Subsistence harvest of bearded seals is a traditional practice of 

Alaska Native populations. To the extent that the CHD reduces degradation of bearded seal habitat and 

enhances the conservation of the Beringia DPS, it also preserves the opportunity for future generations of 

Alaska Natives to engage in their traditional subsistence practices, a direct use benefit with social, 

cultural, economic, and nutritional values.

Subsistence users may also indirectly benefit from the CHD, if populations of fish, shellfish, marine 

mammals, and other marine resources important to such subsistence users are maintained or enhanced 

by the CHD. For example, if the CHD increases the abundance of fish stocks targeted by subsistence 

users, subsistence fishermen may experience increased catch rates and lower cost-per-unit effort of 

acquiring food resources. The increased catch rate could provide use benefits to subsistence users, both 

inside and outside of CH. First, trading traditions among subsistence communities may distribute benefits 

of increased catch success across a much wider region of rural Arctic Alaska. And, second, since many 

species of fish and shellfish migrate as populations increase or life cycles progress, there may be transfer 

and, thus, increases in fish stocks, to areas outside of the CH. Furthermore, subsistence users may 

benefit from other environmental quality enhancements that may result from the CHD, such as improved 

aesthetics associated with water quality, limited disturbance, etc.

It is also the case that increased catch rates by subsistence users enhances their relative “efficiency”, 

which in a mixed-economic system, makes more time available for employment in wage-earning 

endeavors; or, which in a strict subsistence economic-system, allows additional opportunities to 

undertake other life-tasks, such as acquisition of other subsistence necessities (e.g., hunting, gathering). 

6.6 Recreation and Tourism 

Limited recreation and tourism activities occur in the CH waters (cruises) and in and near population 

centers adjacent to the CH (wildlife viewing, rafting, sport fishing). It is not expected that there will be any 

consultations required for these activities due to the CHD. None of these activities appear to have a 

Federal nexus triggering consultation under the ESA.

6.6.1 Potential Costs 

The Beringia DPS CHD is not anticipated to result in costs to recreation or tourism.

6.6.2 Potential Benefits 

Several aspects of recreation and tourism may benefit from the CHD. As recreation and tourism activities 

within and adjacent to the CH areas are limited, these benefits are also likely limited. 

6.7 Commercial Shipping and Marine Transportation

Marine vessels operating within the Beringia DPS CH include oil and gas tankers, container ships, cargo 

ships, cruise ships, research vessels, fishing vessels, icebreakers, and, occasionally, private vessels 

operated by adventurers transiting the NW passage route. Commercial shipping and most other vessel 

traffic, particularly in CH waters north of the Bering Strait, occurs mainly in the summer months when sea 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Costs and Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 6-6

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

ice is at a minimum. Marine vessel activity within the CH is highest south of the Bering Strait, but vessel 

traffic north of the Bering Strait is expanding. Vessel traffic within the CH, along established shipping and 

proposed transit routes, is predicted to increase in the future in response to a longer ice-free shipping 

season (as sea ice melts earlier in the spring and reforms later in the fall) is predicted by climate models.

6.7.1 Potential Costs to Commercial Shipping and Marine Transportation

NMFS does not anticipate any additional costs to the commercial shipping and marine transportation 

sector over the next 10 years due to the Beringia DPS CH. Section 7 of the ESA does not apply 

generically to vessel movement or activity. As described in Section 3.1, Section 7 consultation 

requirements apply only when there is a Federal action (actions authorized, funded, or carried out by a 

Federal agency).

Although vessel traffic in the Arctic is not anticipated to increase significantly in the near-term273, it may 

increase substantially in the long-term (i.e., past the 10-year timeframe of this economic impact analysis) 

with continued Arctic sea ice reduction (see discussion in Section 5.4.4). With continued growth in 

vessel traffic, the USCG or other Federal agencies may issue regulations on shipping and marine 

transportation activities by U.S. vessels within Beringia DPS CH. Such Federal actions may require 

consultation. Whether such consultations would occur is not known, but it is possible given the potential 

interaction of shipping and marine transportation with the habitat of the Beringia DPS. As NMFS notes in 

the final rule listing the Beringia DPS: 

The most significant risk posed by shipping activities to bearded seals in the Arctic is the accidental or 

illegal discharge of oil or other toxic substances carried by ships, due to their immediate and 

potentially long-term effects on individual animals, populations, food webs, and the environment. 

Shipping activities can also affect bearded seals directly through noise and physical disturbance (e.g., 

icebreaking vessels), as well as indirectly through ship emissions and the possibility of introducing 

exotic species that may affect bearded seal food webs.274

6.7.2 Potential Benefits to Commercial Shipping and Marine Transportation

No substantive benefits of CHD are expected to accrue to shipping activities in the affected area. 

6.8 Military Activities 

Military activities in the CH include military vessel traffic (marine, submarine, and aircraft), sonar, radar, 

icebreaking, emergency response, and training exercises. Military activity in the Arctic has increased in 

recent years due to growing commercial activity, international competition, and possible strategic 

challenges in the region. There are currently no year-round military bases adjacent to the CH. However, 

the USCG establishes a summer base in the region. The Alaska State Legislature’s Alaskan Northern 

Waters Task Force has recommended establishment of a permanent Federal Arctic base, potentially in 

an area adjacent to the CH.

6.8.1 Potential Costs 

Over the next 10 years, for USCG activities, NMFS anticipates one programmatic consultation on the 

USCG icebreaking program, one re-initiation of a programmatic consultation on the Alaska Regional 

Contingency Plan (which governs Federal, State, and local response to oil and other hazardous material 

discharges), and one informal and one re-initiation of an informal consultation on Arctic Shield 

operations. For Navy training and testing activities ten informal consultations are projected.

 273 Arctic Council. 2009. Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment.

274 77 FR 76747; December 28, 2012.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Costs and Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 6-7

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

The total incremental administrative costs for consultations on military activities, in undiscounted dollars,

are estimated to be $67,414. All costs will be borne by NMFS, as the ‘consulting’ agency, and the USCG 

(and/or EPA in the case of the Alaska Regional Contingency Plan) and the U.S. Navy, as the Federal 

‘action’ agencies.

6.8.2 Potential Benefits 

No additional benefits of CHD are expected to accrue to military operations in the affected area. 

6.9 Interactions between the Beringia DPS and other Protected Species and 

their Habitats 

The Beringia DPS CH includes habitat that supports a number of other federally protected species. ESAlisted species that occur within the Beringia DPS CH include polar bear, spectacled eider, Steller’s eider, 

bowhead whale, fin whale, humpback whale, North Pacific right whale, Steller sea lion, and Arctic ringed

seal. Designated CH exists within the Beringia DPS CH for spectacled eiders (Units 3 and 4, Norton 

Sound and Ledyard Bay, respectively), Steller sea lions (haulouts and associated 20-nm aquatic zones 

on St. Lawrence and Hall Islands), and polar bears (Unit 1, sea ice habitat). 

6.9.1 Potential Costs 

The Beringia DPS CHD is not anticipated to adversely impact other protected species or their habitats.

6.9.2 Potential Benefits 

Because other protected species share common elements of the habitat of the Beringia DPS, several 

may benefit from the CHD. In turn, there are economic benefits to species protection, in general, that 

accrue to local, State, and national populations, in the form of passive use benefits and ecological service 

flows.

6.10 Educational, Scientific, Non-Consumptive Use of the Beringia DPS and 

its Habitat 

Scientific and educational efforts associated with the Beringia DPS CH include those of the ISC (an 

Alaska Native Organization), the ADF&G, and the Marine Mammal Laboratory. 

6.10.1 Potential Costs

The Beringia DPS CHD is not anticipated to results in costs to educational or other non-consumptive use 

of the Beringia DPS or its habitat. Over the next 10 years, NMFS anticipates one programmatic

consultation on Alaska Fisheries Science Center scientific research, one re-initiation of programmatic

consultation on this research, and one informal consultation on other scientific research activities.

The total incremental administrative costs for consultations related to scientific research, in undiscounted 

dollars, are estimated to be $34,000, with the government bearing all costs.

6.10.2 Potential Benefits 

There are scientific and educational benefits to the Nation that are generated as the ESA is carried out. It 

is likely that the CHD will benefit education and public awareness through the designation process, which 

includes public involvement; as well as through efforts that occur as a result of the CHD. It is very difficult 

to clearly credit the CHD, itself, with specific additional educational or scientific benefits, because the 

study of Beringia DPS bearded seals is motivated by scientists and other interested citizens, largely 

irrespective of the ESA listing or CHD. Still, the specific identification of features essential to the 

conservation of the Beringia DPS, and where they occur, can help focus, inform, and promote education 

and scientific efforts by other parties. 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Costs and Benefits of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 6-8

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

6.11 Summary of Benefit-Cost Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation 

Table 6-1 provides a summary of the total incremental costs that are anticipated over the next 10 years

due to the designation of the area being considered for Beringia DPS CH. These costs stem from the 

Section 7 consultations, outlined in Sections 6.1 to 6.10. The incremental costs are estimated to range 

from $786,000 to $919,000 in present value terms, depending on the discount rate employed.275 In 

annual terms, the estimated range of discounted impacts is $57,000 to $105.000. Federal agencies are 

anticipated to bear at least 45 percent of these costs.

Table 6-1 Total Costs of the Potential Critical Habitat Designation, in 2019 Dollars

Entity Bearing Cost PV 3% PV 7%

Federal Agency $404,000 $346,000

Third Party $515,000 $440,000

Total $919,000 $786,000

Notes:

For estimating Section 7 consultation costs with uncertain or unclear timelines (or ranges), it is assumed that there is an equal 

probability of these occurring over the specified range of time. 

Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Reduced or avoided degradation of the habitat of the Beringia DPS that may result from CHD would 

benefit Beringia DPS bearded seals, as well as many other wildlife and fish species that share the habitat, 

in ways that could, in turn, provide benefits to a number of sectors and user groups, including commercial 

fisheries, subsistence use, recreation/tourism, and education/scientific knowledge. It is expected that the 

CHD will also enhance passive-use benefits among those who value the species and the habitat essential 

for its conservation. The benefits of the CHD described above cannot be fully quantified or monetized, 

and in some instances may be co-extensive with benefits of the listing of the Beringia DPS as threatened. 

Still, incremental benefits of the CHD will likely result from the designation, and these incremental benefits 

are not negligible.

 275 For each sector/activity/project, this analysis compares economic costs incurred in different time periods in present value 

terms. The present value represents the value of a payment or stream of payments in common dollar terms. That is, it is the

sum of a series of future cash flows expressed in today’s dollars. This analysis captures the projected future costs over a 10-

year period; the number of projected consultations is summarized in the last column of Table 5-16.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Expected Net Benefit to the Nation of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 7-1

7 Expected Net Benefit to the Nation of Beringia DPS

Critical Habitat Designation

As per the requirements of the ESA and EO 12866, all effort is made in this RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory 

Assessment/IRFA to comprehensively identify (and, wherever possible, quantify or monetize) benefits 

and costs associated with the CHD. As is evident in Section 6, it is not possible to provide quantitative 

estimates of the projected benefits that may be uniquely attributable to CHD for the Beringia DPS. The 

primary expected benefits of the CHD include enhanced education, scientific knowledge, support of 

subsistence activities, cultural maintenance/support, as well as non-use values associated with habitat 

protection. There are no incremental project modifications expected to result from any of the anticipated 

consultation processes due to the CHD; however, enhanced public awareness of the habitat features 

essential to conservation of the Beringia DPS and where they are found, which is expected to result from 

the CHD, could still influence the design, location, or other aspects of proposed projects or activities, such 

that incremental conservation benefits are realized through changes in human behavior.

The magnitude, timing of accrual, and duration of both benefits and costs of this action are uncertain. It is, 

however, appropriate to point out that, while the benefits from CHD accrue immediately, and potentially

perpetually, because of the renewable nature of the ecological, biological, and socio-cultural service-flows 

deriving from CH (e.g., sustained populations of ice seals and other marine mammals, food-web and fish 

resources, cultural and subsistence economic structures), the costs of this CHD action, though 

sporadically incurred over time, pertain primarily to exhaustible resources (e.g., fossil fuels). With at least 

one oil field in the area adjacent to CH already showing signs of exhaustion, and given recent events in 

the global petroleum marketplace, such as excessive supplies worldwide, unprecedented price instability, 

reduced petroleum demand and substitution, production shutdowns, relinquishing of OCS leases, 

abandonment of planned lease sales, etc., it is highly uncertain when, or even if, the projected number of 

Section 7 consultations that would be required to address potential effects of oil and gas activities on 

Beringia DPS CH would occur. This suggests that the discounted present value of benefits exceeds the 

discounted present value of costs, at least over the ten-year horizon of this economic analysis, and 

probably much longer. NMFS believes, based upon the best scientific data and commercial information 

available, that the Beringia DPS CHD can be expected to result in a net benefit to the Nation.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Distributional Impacts of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 8-1

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

8 Distributional Impacts of Beringia DPS Critical 

Habitat Designation

This section identifies the distribution of impacts by economic sector, and also provides an evaluation of 

environmental justice, based on the proportion of impacts expected to be borne by low-income and/or 

minority populations.

8.1 Potential Distributional Impact Considerations

A benefit cost analysis, measuring economic efficiency, is not the only or the overriding public policy 

objective. Executive Order 12866 encourages consideration of distributional effects separately from 

efficiency effects. As clarified in OMB Circular A-4 (page 14):

Your regulatory analysis should provide a separate description of distributional effects (i.e., 

how both benefits and costs are distributed among sub-populations of particular concern) so 

that decision makers can properly consider them along with the effects on economic 

efficiency.... Where distributive effects are thought to be important, the effects of various 

regulatory alternatives should be described quantitatively to the extent possible, including the 

magnitude, likelihood, and severity of impacts on particular groups. .... Your analysis should 

also present information on the streams of benefits and costs over time in order to provide a 

basis for assessing intertemporal distributional consequences, particularly where 

intergenerational effects are concerned...Distributional effects may arise through “transfer 

payments” that stem from a regulatory action as well. For example, the revenue collected 

through a fee, surcharge in excess of the cost of services provided, or tax is a transfer 

payment.

Potential distributional impacts of the costs of the CHD are minimal. An example of a distributional impact 

in general would be the effects on the distribution of income that are transmitted through changes in 

market prices. This CHD is not expected to change the market price of resources found within the CH;

therefore, there are not income effects to consider for sub-populations of concern. The costs of this CHD 

consist of estimated Section 7 consultation costs, with third party costs primarily borne by the oil and gas 

sector. Consultation costs could create a distributional impact if the third parties which were bearing 

those costs were a population of concern, for example, small, local businesses. Costs to the oil and gas 

industry are expected to be limited to administrative costs of consultation, with no anticipated incremental 

project modifications above and beyond requirements related to the ESA listing status of the species. 

Including a CH analysis in consultations would slightly increase operating costs for oil and gas sector 

activities (with minor impacts on profitability for shareholders276); but such costs are not anticipated to 

change the level of oil and gas sector activities within CH, owing to the CHD. As such, there are no 

anticipated impacts of CHD to oil and gas-related employment, income, or taxes and, thus, no anticipated 

adverse social or economic impacts to Study Area residents. 

Potential distributional impacts of the benefits of the CHD could be considerable. Because the expected 

benefits of CHD occur beyond the ten-year study period, there are intertemporal distributional 

consequences, particularly related to intergenerational effects. The benefits of CHD have been qualified 

in this analysis and are acknowledged to persist beyond the ten-year study period.

 276 There is no reason to believe that oil and gas company shareholders are disproportionately low-income or minority.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Distributional Impacts of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation 8-2

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

8.2 Environmental Justice Impacts on Low Income and Minority 

Populations

The EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice offers the following definition of environmental justice:

“The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, 

or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental 

consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of 

Federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.”

The concept of environmental justice is rooted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited 

discrimination in federally-assisted programs, and in EO 12898, “Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations,” issued February 11, 1994. 

EO 12898 was intended to ensure that Federal actions and policies do not result in disproportionately 

high adverse effects on minority or low-income populations. It requires each Federal agency to 

incorporate environmental justice into its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including social or economic 

effects, of its programs, policies, and activities implemented both directly and indirectly (for which it 

provides permitting or funding), on minority populations and low-income populations of the U.S.

(President’s Council on Environmental Quality 1997). Additional guidance from the President’s Council 

on Environmental Quality clarifies that environmental justice concerns may arise from effects on the 

natural and physical environment that produce human health or ecological outcomes, or from adverse 

social or economic changes. 

No adverse human health effects are anticipated from CHD, and only positive environmental effects are 

anticipated to accrue from the additional protections provided to the essential features of Beringia DPS

CH. Therefore, the relevant remaining question is, are there potential adverse social or economic effects 

to minority and low-income populations due to CHD. To identify whether potential disproportionately high

adverse social or economic effects will occur within minority or low-income populations as a result of 

CHD, first it is necessary to determine whether or not any of the potentially affected activities have high 

rates of participation among any minority or low-income groups, and then to determine whether there are 

any adverse impacts anticipated as a result of CHD. 

As discussed in Section 5.2, compared to the State and the Nation, the Study Area is characterized by a 

disproportionately high proportion of minority residents and low-income residents. As presented in Table 

5-4, residents in all boroughs and census areas in the Study Area are disproportionately minority, 

specifically AIAN. Across the Study Area, minorities account for 88.8 percent of the population. Also, as 

presented in Table 5-5, with the exception of the North Slope Borough, data on the poverty rate, per 

capita income, and unemployment rate in all boroughs and census areas in the Study Area indicate that 

residents are disproportionately low income compared to the State and the Nation. Based on the 

relatively high proportion of low-income and minority residents in the Study Area, any adverse social or 

economic impacts of CHD that would be incurred by Study Area residents would likely be 

disproportionately felt by low-income and minority individuals.

While no disproportionate adverse economic impacts are anticipated, it is important to note that AIAN 

minority populations disproportionately participate in subsistence activities in the Study Area. CHD will 

not adversely affect the continued subsistence harvest of bearded seals. No costs are, therefore,

anticipated for subsistence users due to the CHD.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Section 4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment 9-1

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

9 Area Exclusions -

A Section 4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment of 

Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation

As discussed above, Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary to designate CH for threatened 

and endangered species on the basis of the best scientific data available after taking into consideration

the economic, national security, and any other relevant impacts, of specifying any particular area as CH. 

Section 4(b)(2) also provides NMFS discretion, as delegated by the Secretary, to exclude any area from 

CH if the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the CH, so 

long as the exclusion will not result in extinction of the species.277 A synthesis of the economic, national 

security, and other relevant impacts of designating CH for the Beringia DPS is presented in this section,

followed by a discussion of NMFS’s consideration of whether to engage in the discretionary 4(b)(2) 

exclusion analysis. Because NMFS elected to undertake such an analysis based on national security 

impacts, a summary of NMFS’s evaluation is also provided. The detailed information presented in the 

other sections of this report regarding potential impacts of the CHD and the analysis and conclusions in 

the preamble of the proposed rule regarding specific areas being considered for CHD for the Beringia 

DPS informed the synthesis and summaries presented in this section, and thus should be read in 

combination with this section.

Impacts may result from a CHD primarily through compliance with Section 7 of the ESA. Section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA requires Federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated CH. If a 

Federal action may adversely affect a species listed under the ESA or its designated CH, the responsible 

Federal agency must enter into consultation with NMFS (or the USFWS, as applicable). The added 

administrative costs of including consideration of CH in Section 7 consultations, and the additional costs 

of implementing any project modifications resulting from consultations with NMFS to avoid destruction or 

adverse modification of CH, above and beyond those NMFS would already recommend because of the 

ESA listing status of the species, are the direct compliance costs of a CHD.

Comments on previous CHDs have suggested that secondary costs to regional economies can also result 

from project modifications associated with Section 7 consultation. For example, concerns have been 

raised in cases in which CH is being designated in areas of residential development. The concern is that 

the designation will lead to reduced property values, lost revenue and employment in construction-related 

firms, potential lost tax revenue associated with decreased residential development, and even impairment 

of regional growth.278 In other designations, concerns have been expressed that CHD may require 

alteration in shipping channel dredging projects or commercial fishing activities to such an extent that it 

would result in regional economic impacts.279 These do not appear to be relevant concerns in the present 

Beringia DPS CHD context. 

Because CH is, by definition, “essential to the conservation” of the species, conservation benefits to the 

listed species occur as a result of the consultation process when project modifications are implemented 

 277 16 U.S.C. §1533.

278 See, e.g., Elliott D. Pollack and Company. 1999. The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Designation of 60.060 Acres of Privately 

Owned Land in Pima County, Arizona as Critical Habitat for the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl. Prepared for Southern 

Arizona Homebuilder’s Association. As reported in: McKenney, B., R. Unsworth, and R. West. July 1999. Economic Analysis 

of Critical Habitat Designation for the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl. Prepared by Industrial Economics, Inc., for U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service.

279 See, e.g., Industrial Economics, Incorporated. 2003. Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Gulf Sturgeon. 

Final Report. January 2003. Prepared for the Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Section 4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment 9-2

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

that avoid destruction or adverse modification of CH. Such project modifications may also moderate 

adverse impacts to other components of the ecosystem. In the case of the Beringia DPS CHD, NMFS 

does not anticipate that the CHD will result in any additional project modifications above and beyond 

those required due to the species’ listing status under the ESA and the requirement that Federal agencies 

avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the species. Therefore, the benefits of CHD are likely to be 

primarily those associated with education/outreach, subsistence, and nonuse/passive-use value. User 

groups, such as recreation/tourism and fishing, may also experience benefits. It is also possible that 

enhanced awareness of the habitat features essential to conservation of Beringia DPS bearded seals and 

where they are found, which is expected to result from the CHD, could proactively influence the design, 

location, or other aspects of proposed projects or activities in ways that are beneficial to the conservation 

of the Beringia DPS.

Aside from the protections provided through Section 7, the ESA imposes no other requirements or 

limitations on any entities or individuals as a result of CHD. Benefits to the listed species and its CH may 

nonetheless result from a designation if state or local governments enact protective legislation or 

regulations to complement the ESA protections. Similarly, a designation may raise public awareness and 

sensitivity to the status of listed species and the importance of designated CH areas for the conservation

of listed species. As a result, individuals or entities may modify their activities to avoid harm to the 

species or habitat, contribute to conservation efforts, or seek to view the species in the wild.

9.1 Synthesis: Impacts of the Beringia DPS Critical Habitat Designation

9.1.1 Economic Impacts

The projected economic costs of the CHD stem, primarily, from the projected Section 7 consultations 

associated with ongoing and planned activities with a Federal nexus that may affect the essential features 

of the CH (see Section 6 for details). At this time, on the basis of how protections are currently 

implemented for Beringia DPS bearded seals under the MMPA and as a threatened species under the 

ESA, additional requests for project modifications are not expected to result specifically from the CHD. 

Therefore, direct incremental costs of this CHD are expected to be limited to the additional administrative 

costs of considering Beringia DPS CH in future Section 7 consultations that would already occur to 

address effects on the species. In present value terms, over the next 10 years, the total incremental 

administrative costs of these consultations are estimated to be $786,000 using a discount rate of seven

percent, and $919,000 using a discount rate of three percent.

The largest share of the estimated costs (~80 percent) are associated with consultations on NMFS and 

BOEM authorizations and permitting of oil and gas activities. In assessing costs associated with oil gas

activities, a conservative approach was taken by estimating that future formal and informal consultations 

addressing these activities would be more complex than for other activities, and would therefore incur 

higher third party (i.e., applicant/permittee) incremental administrative costs per consultation to consider 

effects to Beringia DPS CH. These higher third party costs may not be realized in all cases because the 

administrative effort required for a specific consultation depends on factors such as the location, timing, 

nature, and scope of the potential effects of the proposed action on the essential features. There is also 

considerable uncertainty regarding the timing and extent of future oil and gas exploration and 

development in Alaska’s OCS waters, as indicated by Shell’s 2015 withdrawal from exploratory drilling in 

the Chukchi Sea and BOEM’s 2017-2022 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program. Although NMFS 

completed formal consultations for oil and gas exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea in all but two 

years between 2006 and 2015, no such activities or related consultations with NMFS have occurred since 

that time.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Section 4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment 9-3

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

9.1.2 National Security Impacts

As noted above, section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires NMFS to take into consideration the impact on 

national security of specifying any particular area as CH. National security impacts resulting from the 

designation depend on whether the designation would add new burdens beyond those related to 

consideration of effects on the species in future consultations. Anticipated interference with missionessential training, testing, or unit readiness, either through delays in critical training and testing activities 

or through expected requirements to modify the action to prevent adverse modification of CH, are 

possible negative impacts of CH designations.

NMFS has prepared a preliminary analysis to address the requirement of Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA 

concerning evaluation of national security impacts. This analysis is presented in the preamble to the 

proposed rule to designate CH for the Beringia DPS. In summary, the Navy provided a written 

assessment of potential national security impacts and descriptions of training and testing activities 

occurring within the Arctic region, and requested exclusion of a particular area north of the Beaufort Sea 

Shelf from the designation of CH based on national security impacts. This particular area does not 

overlap with CH being considered for the Beringia DPS, and the information provided by the Navy 

suggests that very minimal added time and effort would be required to evaluate effects of the Navy’s 

activities on Beringia DPS CH in addition to effects on the species. The Air Force also requested that 

NMFS consider excluding CH located adjacent to a number of radar sites based on national security 

impacts. NMFS anticipates that the time and costs associated with consideration of the effects of future 

Air Force activities associated with these radar site on Beringia DPS CH would be limited if any.

9.1.3 Other Relevant Impacts

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, NMFS also must consider "other relevant impacts" of the CHD. For 

example, NMFS may consider potential adverse effects on tribal lands or tribal trust resources. In 

preparing the proposed CHD, NMFS did not identify any existing management or conservation plans that 

benefit listed species, tribal lands or resources, or anything else that would be adversely affected by the 

CHD.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 10-1

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

10 Potential Impacts on Small Entities - A Regulatory 

Flexibility Act Analysis of Beringia DPS Critical 

Habitat Designation

The RFA, first enacted in 1980, was designed to place the burden on the government to review all 

regulations to ensure that, while accomplishing their intended purposes, they do not unduly inhibit the 

ability of small entities to compete. The RFA recognizes that the size of a business, unit of government, 

or nonprofit organization frequently has a bearing on its ability to comply with a Federal regulation. Major 

goals of the RFA are: (1) to increase agency awareness and understanding of the impact of their 

regulations on small business, (2) to require that agencies communicate and explain their findings to the 

public, and (3) to encourage agencies to use flexibility and to provide regulatory relief to small entities. 

The RFA emphasizes predicting impacts on small entities as a group, distinct from other entities, and on 

the consideration of alternatives that may minimize the impacts while still achieving the stated objective of 

the action. 

On March 29, 1996, President Clinton signed the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

Among other things, the new law amended the RFA to allow judicial review of an agency’s compliance 

with the RFA. The 1996 amendments also updated the requirements for a final regulatory flexibility 

analysis, including a description of the steps an agency must take to minimize the significant economic 

impact on small entities. Finally, the 1996 amendments expanded the authority of the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA to file amicus briefs in court proceedings involving an agency’s violation of the RFA. 

In determining the scope, or ‘universe’, of the entities to be considered in an IRFA, NMFS generally 

includes only those entities that can reasonably be expected to be directly regulated by NMFS through 

the rule. If the effects of the rule fall primarily on a distinct segment, or portion of the industry (e.g., user 

group, gear type, geographic area), that segment would be considered the universe for the purpose of 

this analysis. NMFS interprets the intent of the RFA to address negative economic impacts, not beneficial 

impacts and, thus, such a focus exists in analyses that are designed to address RFA compliance. 

The regulatory mechanism through which CH protections are enforced is Section 7 of the ESA, which 

directly regulates only those activities carried out, funded, or permitted by a Federal agency. By 

definition, Federal agencies are not considered small entities, although the activities they fund or permit 

may be proposed or carried out by small entities. As discussed in previous sections, other entities, 

including in some cases small entities, may participate as third parties during ESA Section 7 consultations 

(the primary parties being the Federal action agency and NMFS). Thus, small entities may be indirectly 

affected by the CHD. The SBA, in its guidance on how to comply with the RFA, acknowledges that 

consideration of indirectly affected small entities is not required by the RFA. It nonetheless encourages 

agencies to include these small entities when performing an RFA. In the present IRFA, NMFS has 

adopted this approach.

Data on cost structure, affiliation, and operational procedures and strategies in the sectors regulated by 

the CHD are insufficient, at present, to permit preparation of a “factual basis” upon which to certify that the 

preferred alternative does not have the potential to result in significant adverse economic impacts on a 

substantial number of small entities (as those terms are defined under RFA). Because, based on all 

available information, it is not possible to ‘certify’ this outcome, should the CHD be adopted, a formal 

IRFA has been prepared and is included in this package for Secretarial review.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 10-2

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

10.1 Contents of IRFA280

Under 5 U.S.C., Section 603(b) and (c) of the RFA, each IRFA is required to contain:

> A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered;

> A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;

> A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply;

> A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the 

requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record;

> An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with the proposed rule;

> A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated 

objectives (of the proposed action), consistent with applicable statutes, and which would minimize any 

significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.

Consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, the analysis shall discuss significant 

alternatives, such as:

1. The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small entities;

2. The clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the 

rule for such small entities;

3. The use of performance rather than design standards; and

4. An exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.

10.1.1 Definition of a Small Entity

The RFA recognizes and defines three kinds of small entities: (1) small businesses, (2) small non-profit 

organizations, and (3) and small government jurisdictions.

Small businesses. Section 601(3) of the RFA defines a ‘small business’ as having the same meaning as 

‘small business concern,’ which is defined under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. ‘Small business’ or 

‘small business concern’ includes any firm that is independently owned and operated and which is not 

dominant in its field of operation. The SBA has further defined a “small business concern” as one 

“organized for profit, with a place of business located in the U.S., and which operates primarily within the 

U.S. or which makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of taxes or use of 

American products, materials or labor.” “A (small) business concern may be in the legal form of an 

individual proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, joint venture, association, trust 

or cooperative, except that where the firm is a joint venture there can be no more than 49 percent 

participation by foreign business entities in the joint venture.”

The SBA has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S., and publishes those on its 

website. For example, SBA defines an oil extraction business as a small business if it is independently 

owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and employs 500 or fewer persons on a fulltime, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide. Other SBA industrial 

sector size criteria pertinent to this analysis are those of support activities for oil and gas operations, and

 280 For a detailed treatment of the analytic methods and procedures to be used in economic analyses in support of RIR and RFAA 

requirements, see: Queirolo, Lewis E. 2014. Conducting Economic Impact Analyses for NOAA Fisheries, August 27, 2014. 

NMFS, Alaska Region. Juneau, Alaska. 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 10-3

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

port and harbor operations. Table 10-1, below, includes the pertinent sectoral categories and thresholds, 

as defined by SBA, for RFA analysis purposes.

Table 10-1 Small Business Size Standards matched to North American Industry Classification 

System

NAICS Code NAICS U.S. Industry Title SBA Small Business

Threshold Criteria

Subsector 211 - Oil and Gas Extraction

211120 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction 1,250 employees (average employment)

Subsector 213 – Support Activities for Mining

213112 Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations $41.5 million (average annual receipts)

Sector 48 -Transportation

Subsector 488 – Support Activities for Transportation

488310 Port and Harbor Operations $41.5 million (average annual receipts)

Source: U.S. Small Business Administration. Effective August 19, 2019. Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to 

North American Industry Classification System Codes. Website: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2019-

08/SBA%20Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_Effective%20Aug%2019%2C%202019.pdf

The SBA has established “principles of affiliation” to determine whether a business concern is 

“independently owned and operated.” In general, business concerns are affiliates of each other when one 

concern controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party controls or has the power to control 

both. The SBA considers factors such as ownership, management, previous relationships with or ties to 

another concern, and contractual relationships, in determining whether affiliation exists. Individuals or 

firms that have identical or substantially identical business or economic interests, such as family 

members, persons with common investments, or firms that are economically dependent through 

contractual or other relationships, are treated as one party with such interests aggregated when 

measuring the size of the concern in question. The SBA counts the receipts or employees of the concern 

whose size is at issue and those of all its domestic and foreign affiliates, regardless of whether the 

affiliates are organized for profit, in determining the concern’s size. However, business concerns owned 

and controlled by Tribes, Alaska Regional or Village Corporations organized pursuant to the ANCSA (43 

U.S.C. 1601), Native Hawaiian Organizations, or Community Development Corporations authorized by 42 

U.S.C. 9805 are not considered affiliates of such entities, or with other concerns owned by these entities 

solely because of their common ownership.

Affiliation may be based on stock ownership when (1) a person is an affiliate of a concern if the person 

owns or controls, or has the power to control 50 percent or more of its voting stock, or a block of stock 

which affords control because it is large compared to other outstanding blocks of stock; or (2) if two or 

more persons each owns, controls or has the power to control less than 50 percent of the voting stock of 

a concern, with minority holdings that are equal or approximately equal in size, but the aggregate of these 

minority holdings is large as compared with any other stock holding, each such person is presumed to be 

an affiliate of the concern.

Affiliation may be based on common management or joint venture arrangements. Affiliation arises where 

one or more officers, directors, or general partners control the board of directors and/or the management 

of another concern. Parties to a joint venture also may be affiliates. A contractor and subcontractor are 

treated as joint ventures if the ostensible subcontractor will perform primary and vital requirements of a 

contract or if the prime contractor is unusually reliant upon the ostensible subcontractor. All requirements 

of the contract are considered in reviewing such relationship, including contract management, technical 

responsibilities, and the percentage of subcontracted work.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 10-4

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Small organizations. The RFA defines “small organizations” as any not-for-profit enterprise that is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

Small governmental jurisdictions. The RFA defines small governmental jurisdictions as governments of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of fewer

than 50,000.

10.1.2 Reason Why the Action is Being Considered

Under provisions of the ESA, at the time a species is listed as threatened or endangered, the listing

agency must designate CH for that species, on the basis of the best scientific data available, to the 

maximum extent prudent and determinable. NMFS concluded that CHD for Beringia DPS bearded seals

was prudent, but not determinable at the time of listing and, therefore, would be designated in separate 

rulemaking. As a result, the statutory deadline for designating CH was extended by one year, prompting 

the present action to designate CH for the Beringia DPS. Moreover, under a court-approved stipulated 

settlement agreement, NMFS agreed to submit a proposed determination concerning the designation of 

CH for the Beringia DPS to the Federal Register by September 15, 2020, and (to the extent a proposed 

rule has been published) a final rule by September 15, 2021.

NMFS has identified a single “specific area” within the geographic area occupied by bearded seals of the 

Beringia DPS at the time of listing that is being considered as CH for this species. This CH includes all 

the contiguous marine waters within one specific area in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas 

extending from the line of mean lower low water to an offshore limit within the U.S. EEZ (Figure 1-1). 

NMFS has determined that the essential features that occur within this area may require special 

management considerations or protection; a prerequisite for designation.

10.1.3 Objectives of, and Legal Basis for the Rule

The objective of this rule is to utilize the best scientific data and commercial information available to 

designate CH for the Beringia DPS, in accordance with ESA Section 4, and to best meet the conservation 

needs of the species. The ESA requires NMFS to designate CH for listed species to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. This is the legal basis for this rule.

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires NMFS to designate CH for threatened and endangered species “on 

the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, 

impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat.” The ESA defines CH under Section 3(5)(A) as:

“(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed..., 

on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the 

species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed... upon 

a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.”

10.1.4 Description of Small Entities Potentially Impacted by the Rule

As discussed above, the SBA, in its guidance on how to comply with the RFA, acknowledges that 

consideration of indirectly affected small entities is not required by the RFA. It nonetheless encourages 

agencies to include these small entities when performing an RFA. In the present IRFA, NMFS has 

adopted this approach. This section summarizes what is known about the potential adverse economic 

impacts of the Beringia DPS CHD on small entities. As discussed in detail in Section 6 of the RIR for this 

CHD, incremental costs of this CHD are expected to be largely limited to administrative costs of ESA 

Section 7 consultations. Small entities may participate in consultations, as a third party (the primary 

parties being the Federal action agency and NMFS). It is, therefore, possible that such small entities may 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 10-5

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

invest time and resources considering CH during ESA Section 7 consultations for Beringia DPS bearded 

seals, although there is no means of empirically confirming this hypothesis, a priori.

Several industry sectors participate in activities that are physically co-extensive with the CHD; and some 

of these may have members that would qualify as “small businesses” within the RFA analysis meaning of 

that term, although data on aggregate annual gross receipts from all affiliated entities worldwide or total 

full-time, part-time, temporary, or any other form of employment for individual businesses, including 

affiliated entities worldwide, are unavailable.

Table 10-2 summarizes businesses and government entities that engage in activities that may require 

consideration of CH in ESA Section 7 consultations as a result of this rulemaking, and that potentially 

meet the standards set forth in the RFA analysis. Two of the oil and gas operations identified in Table 

10-2 do not exceed the size criterion established by the SBA for entities in this particular industry and 

neither have known affiliations with other large entities. Various other businesses engage in support 

activities for oil and gas operations that may also require consideration of CH in ESA Section 7 

consultations, as exemplified by the companies listed in Table 5-13 of the RIR. Given that the identities 

of individual businesses that engage in these support activities vary, Table 10-2 does not identify specific

companies in this industry subsector that may be indirectly affected by the CHD. However, with respect 

to potential effects of the CHD on small businesses that engage in support activities for oil and gas 

operations, it is notable that all but one of the entities identified in Table 5-13 exceed the SBA size 

criterion for this industry. No not-for-profit enterprises were identified that are likely to be affected by the 

CHD. Two of the three government jurisdictions listed in Table 10-2 that own ports qualify as “small 

governmental jurisdictions”, serving populations of fewer than 50,000 persons. All entities potentially 

indirectly affected by the CHD that are classified as ‘large’ have been accounted for and treated in the 

RIR, and are excluded from further analysis within the RFA analysis.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 10-6

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Table 10-2 Entities that May Require Consideration of Beringia DPS Critical Habitat in ESA 

Section 7 Consultations

NAICS Code/Industry Title Entity Title

Average Annual 

Receipts

($ billion)

Size of Entity

(Employees or 

Population)

Small 

Entity

Sector 21 – Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction

Subsector 211 - Oil and Gas Extraction

211120- Crude Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Extraction BP $278 70,100 No

211120- Crude Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Extraction Eni $77 32,053 No

211120- Crude Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Extraction Equinor (formerly Statoil) $61 20,245 No

211120- Crude Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Extraction ConocoPhillips $39 10,800 No

211120- Crude Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Extraction Shell $24 82,000 No

211120- Crude Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Extraction Hilcorp $1 2,000 No

211120- Crude Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Extraction Oil Search Alaska LLC $1 1,600 No

211120- Crude Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Extraction SAExploration $0.3 1,000 Yes

211120- Crude Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Extraction

Alaska LNG Project, Alaska 

Gasline Development Corp. $0.002 8 Yes

Sector 48 –Transportation / Government Jurisdictions

Subsector 488 – Support Activities for Transportation 

488310- Port and Harbor 

Operations Port of Nome (City of Nome) $0.00175

2010 Population of 

3,598 Yes

488310- Port and Harbor 

Operations

Port of Kotzebue (City of 

Kotzebue) N/A

2010 Population of 

3,201 Yes

488310- Port and Harbor 

Operations

DeLong Mountain Terminal 

(State of Alaska) N/A

2010 Population of 

710,231 No

Sources:

Eni Annual Report: https://www.eni.com/assets/documents/eng/reports/2019/Annual-Report-2019.pdf

BP at a glance: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/what-we-do/bp-at-a-glance.html

Equinor investors page: https://www.equinor.com/en/investors.html 

ConocoPhillips Investor page: http://www.conocophillips.com/

Shell investors page: https://www.shell.com/about-us/who-we-are.html

Hilcorp webpage: https://www.hilcorp.com/

OilSearch highlights: https://www.oilsearch.com/how-we-work/performance/2019-reports

SAExploration website: https://investors.saexploration.com/static-files/7cdbc128-b54a-489f-85cf-d68f7da3032a

Alaska Gasline Development Authority: https://agdc.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Alaska-Gasline-DevelopmentCorporation-19-FINAL.pdf

City of Nome. 2020. Annual Budgets for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020. 

https://www.nomealaska.org/egov/documents/1562014759_24211.pdf 

N/A Kotzebue no longer posts annual budget data, the port is assumed to be within a small government jurisdiction.

N/A The State of Alaska, Department of Revenue, Tax Division, Revenue Sources Book no longer identifies this revenue.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of 

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 10-7 

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

10.1.5 Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

As noted above, the CHD does not impose new record-keeping or reporting requirements on small 

entities. During a Section 7 consultation under the ESA, NMFS, the Action agency, and (possibly, if 

applicable) the third party applying for Federal funding or permitting communicate, in an effort to minimize 

potential adverse effects to the species and/or to designated CH. Communication between these parties 

may occur via written letters, phone calls, in-person meetings, or any combination of these. The duration 

and complexity of these interactions depends on a number of variables, including the type of consultation, 

the species, the activity of interest, and the potential effects to the species and designated CH associated 

with the activity that has been proposed. The third party costs associated with these consultations 

include the administrative costs associated with conducting the consultations, such as the costs of time 

spent in meetings, preparing letters, and the development of research, such as biological studies and 

engineering reports. 

Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production

This analysis identified nine separate oil and gas exploration businesses operating offshore within the 

Beringia DPS CH that are potentially indirectly affected by this action. All but two of these companies 

exceed the maximum size criterion for small entity status established by the SBA for entities in this 

industry, and none are directly regulated small entities. Based on past ESA Section 7 consultations, the 

additional third party costs in future consultations involving Beringia DPS CH over the next 10 years are 

expected to be borne principally by large oil and gas operations. The estimated range of annual third 

party costs over this 10-year period is $32,000 to $59,000 (discounted at 7 percent), virtually all of which 

is expected to be associated with oil and gas activities. It is possible that a limited portion of these 

administrative costs may be borne by small entities (based on past consultations, an estimated maximum 

of two entities).

Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations

Various businesses engage in oil and gas support activities that may require consideration of CH in ESA 

Section 7 consultations, as evident by the companies listed in Table 5-13 of the RIR. With respect to 

potential effects of the action on small businesses engaged in support activities for oil and gas operations, 

all but one of the companies identified in Table 5-13 exceed the SBA maximum size criterion for small 

entity status in this industry and none are directly regulated by this action. Therefore, this analysis 

expects that no directly regulated oil and gas small entities will be substantially adversely affected by this 

action.

Transportation / Government Jurisdictions

One of three ports, Delong Mountain Terminal exceeds the size criterion for small entity status. It is 

operated by the State of Alaska, which serves a population greater than 50,000, and, therefore, is a large 

entity for RFA analysis purposes. The other two ports potentially affected indirectly by the CHD, the Port 

of Nome and the Port of Kotzebue, are owned by entities serving a population of fewer than 50,000 

people and, therefore, these port owners are considered small governmental jurisdictions for RFA

analysis purposes. The total third party costs that may be borne by these small government jurisdictions 

over 10 years are less than $1,000 (discounted at 7 percent) for the additional administrative effort to 

consider Beringia DPS CH as part of a future ESA Section 7 consultation involving one port (Port of 

Nome).

10.1.6 Identification of all Relevant Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict 

with the Rule

NMFS has identified no such Federal rules.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of 

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 10-8 

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

10.1.7 Description and Analysis of Significant Alternatives to the Critical Habitat Designation

The “no action” alternative was considered. However, this alternative is not a viable choice for several 

reasons. Retention of the status quo would not be consistent with the objectives identified by the agency 

for this action (see the ‘Purpose and Need’ discussion in the RIR). In addition, Section 4 of the ESA 

requires NMFS to designate, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the specific areas 

containing the physical or biological features essential the conservation of the species and that may 

require special management considerations or protection. Finally, because the CHD does not have the 

potential to have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the 

status quo/no action alternative cannot result in a smaller burden, and could conceivably impose a greater 

burden, if selected (i.e., would not “minimize adverse impacts” as required under the RFA).

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, NMFS must consider the economic impacts, impacts to national 

security, and other relevant impacts of designating any particular area as CH. NMFS has the discretion to 

exclude any area from CH if the benefits of exclusion (i.e., the impacts that would be avoided if an area 

were excluded from the designation) outweigh the benefits of designation (i.e., the conservation benefits 

to the Beringia DPS if an area were designated), as long as exclusion of the area will not result in 

extinction of the species. However, based on the best information currently available, NMFS expects that 

the CHD would result in minimal impacts to small entities and the economic impacts associated with the 

CHD would be modest. Therefore, NMFS selected the alternative of proposing to designate the entire 

specific area meeting the definition of CH because it would result in a CHD that provides for the 

conservation of the species and is consistent with the ESA and joint NMFS and U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service regulations concerning CH at 50 CFR part 424.

10.2 Statement of Energy Effects 

Pursuant to EO 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,” issued May 18, 2001, Federal agencies must prepare and submit a “Statement of 

Energy Effects” for all “significant energy actions.” The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that all 

Federal agencies “appropriately weigh and consider the effects of the Federal Government’s regulations 

on the supply, distribution, and use of energy.”281

The OMB provides guidance for implementing this EO, outlining nine outcomes that may constitute “a 

significant adverse effect,” when compared with the regulatory action under consideration: 

> Reductions in crude oil supply in excess of 10,000 bpd; 

> Reductions in fuel production in excess of 4,000 bpd;

> Reductions in coal production in excess of 5 million tons per year;

> Reductions in natural gas production in excess of 25 million Mcf per year;

> Reductions in electricity production in excess of 1 billion kilowatts-hours per year or in excess of 500 

megawatts of installed capacity;

> Increases in energy use required by the regulatory action that exceed the thresholds above;

> Increases in the cost of energy production in excess of one percent;

> Increases in the cost of energy distribution in excess of one percent; or

 

281 Daniels, M. E. July 13, 2001. “Memorandum for Heads of Executive Department Agencies and Independent Regulatory 

Agencies.” M-01-27 (Guidance for Implementing E.O. 13211). Website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-foragencies/memoranda/. 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 10-9

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

> Other similarly adverse outcomes.282

10.2.1 Oil and Natural Gas Production 

The CHD overlaps with five BOEM planning areas for Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing; 

however, the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea planning areas are the only areas with existing or planned 

leases. Currently, the majority of oil and gas production occurs on land, adjacent to the Beaufort Sea and 

the CH area.

Any proposed offshore oil and gas projects likely would have to undergo ESA Section 7 consultations to 

ensure that the actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated CH. As discussed in 

Section 6 of the RIR for this action, it is unlikely that the CHD will result in additional project modification 

recommendations above and beyond those that may be required because of the Beringia DPS’s ESAlisting status and the requirement that Federal agencies avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the 

species. Incremental impacts to the energy industry directly attributable to CHD would most likely be 

limited to additional administrative costs of addressing CH in ESA Section 7 consultations that would 

otherwise occur regardless to consider effects on Beringia DPS bearded seals. ESA Section 7 

consultations have occurred for numerous oil and gas projects within the area of CH (e.g., relative to 

possible effects on endangered bowhead whales, a species without designated CH), without adversely 

affecting energy supply, distribution, or use. The same outcome is expected relative to CH for Beringia 

DPS bearded seals. Therefore, CHD for the Beringia DPS is not expected to significantly affect oil and 

gas production decisions, subsequent oil and gas supply, or the cost of energy production.

 282 Ibid. 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 List of Preparers 11-1

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

11 List of Preparers

11.1 Agency Personnel

National Marine Fisheries Service, Division of Protected Resources, Alaska Region

709 West 9th Street

Juneau, AK 99802

Project Manager.........................................................................................................Tammy Olson

Project Contributing Member ..................................................................................... Scott A. Miller

11.2 Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA Consultant

This draft report was developed from an internal Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA 

prepared by Cardno ENTRIX (dated January 17, 2014):

Cardno ENTRIX

5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100

Portland, OR 97221

Project Director .............................................................................................................Krieg Brown

Technical Team Leader and Project Manager and Lead Author...............................Barbara Wyse
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for the Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 References 12-1

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

12 References

3 U.S.C. §1223.

5 U.S.C. §§601 et seq.

16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.

16 U.S.C. §1533.

16 U.S.C. §1536.

5 AAC 01.005.

5 AAC 01.180.

20 AAC 25.005.

20 AAC 25.030.

20 AAC 25.535.

75 FR 68568; November 8, 2010.

75 FR 76086; December 7, 2010.

77 FR 76740; December 28, 2012.

77 FR 76745; December 28, 2012.

77 FR 76747; December 28, 2012.

79 FR 71714; December 3, 2014.

79 FR 72157; December 5, 2014.

79 FR 73010; December 9, 2014.

83 FR 65701; December 21, 2018.

84 FR 7186; March 1, 2019. 

122 STAT. 1569.

Abercrombie & Kent. “Meet the Wildlife of the Arctic.” Website: https://www.abercrombiekent.com/traveldestinations/arctic-cruise/meet-the-natives. Accessed April 2020.

ABS Consulting, Potomac Wave Consulting, and Systems Planning and Analysis. 2010. High Latitude 

Region Mission Analysis Capstone Summary. July 2010. Prepared for U.S. Coast Guard. 

Website: http://assets.fiercemarkets.com/public/sites/govit/hlssummarycapstone.pdf.

Adamowicz, W. L., V. Bhardwaj, and B. MacNab. 1993. Experiments on the Difference Between 

Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept. Land Economics 69:416-427.

Ahmasuk, A., E. W. Trigg, J. S. Magdanz, and B. Robbins. 2007. Bering Strait Region Local and 

Traditional Knowledge Pilot Project: A Comprehensive Subsistence Use Study of the Bering Strait 

Region. North Pacific Research Board Project 643. Website: 

https://www.fwspubs.org/doi/suppl/10.3996/112016-JFWM-086/suppl_file/fwma-08-01-

10_s01.pdf.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 References 12-2

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Alaska Department of Administration, Community, and Economic Development, Alaska Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission. “Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC).” Website: 

https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/aogcc. Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Alaska Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission. “About Us.” Website: 

https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/aogcc/AboutUs.aspx. Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Alaska Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission. “Statutes and Regulations.” Website: 

https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/aogcc/StatutesandRegulations.aspx. Accessed April 

2020.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2006. Nome Roadside Fishing Guide. Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-sf/Region3/PDFs/nome07.pdf.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2007. A Student Guide to Seal Hunting and Safety (grades 4-6): 

Yup’ik Region. Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/educators/curricula/pdfs/ice_seal_student_guide.pdf.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2008. Bearded Seal. Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/wns/bearded_seal.pdf.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2019. Commercial Fisheries, Alaska Commercial Salmon 

Harvests and Ex-vessel Values. Website: 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/pdfs/commercial/2019_preliminary_salmon_summary_t

able.pdf. Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim.” Website: 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishingcommercialbyarea.interior. Accessed April 

2020.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Commercial Fisheries Overview: Norton Sound & Kotzebue 

Management Area.” Website:

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=commercialbyareanortonsound.main. Accessed 

April 2020.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Commercial Fisheries Overview: Arctic Management Area.” 

Website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=commercialbyareanorthern.main. 

Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Fish Habitat Regulations.” Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=habitatregulations.prohibited. Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Ice Seal Research, Movements and Habitat Use Studies.” 

Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=marinemammalprogram.icesealmovements. 

Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Ice Seal Research: Harvest Monitoring.” Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=marinemammalprogram.icesealmonitoring. 

Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Habitat Permits.” Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=uselicense.main. Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Bearded Seal (Erignathus barbatus), Research”. Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=beardedseal.research. Accessed April 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 References 12-3

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Subsistence Fishing, Information by Area, Kotzebue Sound 

Management Area.” Website:

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ByAreaSubsistenceKotzSound.main. Accessed April 

2020.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. 2017. 2017 Arctic-YukonKuskokwim Herring Outlook. News Release. Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/dcfnewsrelease/772983588.pdf. Accessed April 

2020.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. 2019. 2019 Kotzebue Sound

Salmon Season Summary. News Release. Website:

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/dcfnewsrelease/1117378618.pdf. Accessed April 

2020.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. 2019. 2019 Norton Sound 

Salmon Season Summary. News Release. Website: 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/dcfnewsrelease/1120134109.pdf. Accessed April 

2020.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. 2019. 2019 Norton Sound 

Winter and Summer Crab Season Summaries. News Release. Website: 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/dcfnewsrelease/988597530.pdf. Accessed April 

2020.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. 2017. Subsistence in Alaska: A Year 

2017 Update. Website: 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/subsistence/pdfs/subsistence_update_2017.pdf.

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section. 2018. 

Nonresidents Working in Alaska: 2016. Website: 

https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/reshire/historical/NONRES16.pdf.

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section. “Alaska Local 

and Regional Information.” Website: http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/alari/. Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section. 2020. Alaska 

Population Projections: 2019 to 2045, Published April 2020. Website: 

https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/projections/pub/popproj.pdf.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land, and Water. 2014. Fact Sheet, Nome 

Offshore Suction Dredging, April 2014. Website: 

http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/factsht/mine_fs/nomefaq.pdf. Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land, and Water. “Large Mine Permitting.” 

Website: http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mining/largemine/. Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land, and Water. “2020 Nome Offshore 

Lease Sale.” Website: http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mining/nome/. Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. 2011. Chapter 5: Current and 

Projected Uses in the North Slope Foothills Area. In North Slope Foothills Areawide Oil and Gas 

Lease Sales, Final Finding of the Director, May 26, 2011. Website: 

http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Documents/Leasing/BestInterestFindings/FBIF_TOTAL_DOCUMENT_F

INAL_5-26-2011.pdf.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. 2019. Beaufort Sea Areawide Oil and 

Gas Lease Sales: Final Finding of the Director, July 12, 2019. Website: 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 References 12-4

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Documents/Leasing/BIF/Beaufort_Sea/2019-04-

12_Signed_BIF_Document_BS_Preliminary_Web_v1_0.pdf.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. 2019. Letter to Eni, “Nikaitchuq Unit 

Twelfth Plan of Development – Approved,” dated August 26, 2019. Website:

http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Library/. Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. 2019. Letter to Hilcorp, “Duck Island 

Unit 2019 37th Plan of Development – Approved,” dated January 14, 2019. Website:

http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Library/. Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. 2019. Letter to Hilcorp, “Milne Point 

Unit 38th POD – Approved,” dated December 5, 2019. Website: 

http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Library/. Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. 2019. Letter to Hilcorp, “Northstar 

Unit 2019 15th Plan of Development – Approved,” dated January 14, 2019. Website: 

http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Library/. Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas. 2019. “North Slope Unitized Lease 

Working Interest Ownership (PDF November 2019).” Website: 

http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Information/MapsAndGis. Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Department of Revenue, Tax Division. 2013. Alaska Oil Production History FY 1959-2012, 

November 8, 2013.

Alaska Department of Revenue, Tax Division. 2019. Revenue Sources Book: Fall 2019. Website: 

http://tax.alaska.gov/r.

Alaska Department of Revenue, Tax Division, Economic Research Group. 2017. Production History and 

Forecast by Production Area from Fall 2017 RSB, December 19, 2017. Website: 

http://www.tax.alaska.gov/sourcesbook/alaskaproduction.pdf.

Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority. 2017. Delong Mountain Transportation System 

Asset Management Review. Website: http://www.aidea.org/Portals/0/PDF%20Files/2017DecDMTSFinalReport.pdf.

Alaska Gasline Development Corporation. 2019. “Alaska LNG Collaboration Agreement with BP & 

ExxonMobil.” Website: https://agdc.us/alaska-lng-collaboration-agreement-with-bp-exxonmobil/. 

Accessed April 2020.

Alaska Oil and Gas Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 2016 WL 1125744 (D. Alaska 2016).

Alaska Oil and Gas Ass’n v. Ross, 722 Fed. Appx. 666 (9th Cir. 2018).

Alaska Regional Response Team. 2018. Alaska Regional Contingency Plan. Website: 

https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/ppr/contingency-plans/response-plans/regional-contingency-plan/.

Alaska State Legislature, Northern Waters Task Force. 2012. Findings and Recommendations of the 

Northern Alaska Waters Task Force. Website: 

http://dot.alaska.gov/stwdmno/ports/assets/pdf/northern_waters_final.pdf.

Alaska.Org. “Nome Fairs and Festivals.” Website: https://www.alaska.org/destination/nome/festivals. 

Accessed April 2020.

Low Flow Study Project Team. 2011. Low Flow Impact Study. June 15, 2011, Final Report prepared at 

the request of Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. 

http://www.finebergresearch.com/pdf/LoFIS_Summary.pdf. 
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 References 12-5

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Anchorage Economic Development Corporation. 2012. AEDC 2012 Resource Extraction 10-Year 

Project Projection. Website: http://aedcweb.com/project/resource-extraction-report-2012/.

Anchorage Economic Development Corporation. 2014. Resource Extraction 10-Year Project Projection. 

Website: http://aedcweb.com/project/resource-extraction-report-2014/.

Anderson, B. 2013. “Swift reaction as Shell suspends 2013 Arctic Alaska offshore drilling.” Anchorage 

Daily News. Website: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/swift-reaction-shell-suspends-2013-

arctic-alaska-offshore-drilling. Accessed April 2020.

Arctic Council. 2009. Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment.

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. About – Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. Website: 

https://www.asrc.com/about/. Accessed April 2020.

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. “Coal.” Website: https://www.asrc.com/about/our-lands/coal/. 

Accessed April 2020.

Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. E. Leamer, R. Radner and H. Schuman. 1993. Report of the 

NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register 58:4601-4614.

Bering Straits Native Corporation. “Our Region.” Website: http://www.beringstraits.com/. Accessed April 

2020.

Bockstael, N. E., and K. E. McConnell. 1983. Welfare Measurement in the Household Production 

Function Framework. American Economic Review 73:806-814.

Bosetti, V., and D. Pearce. 2003. A Study of Environmental Conflict: The Economic Value of Grey Seals 

in Southwest England. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:2361-2392.

Boyle, K. J. 2003. Introduction to Revealed Preference Methods. In P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle, and T. C. 

Brown, editors. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

BP. 2006. Fact Sheet: Prudhoe Bay. Website: 

https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/ppr/response/sum_fy06/060302301/factsheets/060302301_factsheet_

PB.pdf.

Braem, N. M., E. H. Mikow, and M. L. Kostick, editors. 2017. Chukchi Sea and Norton Sound 

Observation Network: Harvest and Use of Wild Resources in 9 Communities in Arctic Alaska, 

2012-2014. Technical Paper No. 403. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Subsistence.

Brown, C. L., N. M. Braem, M. L. Kostick, A. Trainor, L. J. Slayton, D. M. Runfola, E. H. Mikow, H. Ikuta, 

C. R. McDevitt, J. Park, and J. J. Simon. 2016. Harvests and Uses of Wild Resources in 4 

Interior Alaska Communities and 3 Arctic Alaska Communities, 2014. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, Division of Subsistence. Technical Report No. 426.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Consumer Price Index (CPI) Inflation Calculator.” Website: 

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.

Bureau of Land Management. 2015. Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Alpine 

Satellite Development Plan for the Proposed Greater Mooses Tooth One Development Project,

Record of Decision, February 2015. Website: 

http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/energy/oil_gas/npra/GMTU_proposed_dev_proj.html.

Bureau of Land Management. 2019. Final Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Environmental 

Impact Statement, September 2019. Website: https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-andnepa/plans-in-development/alaska/coastal-plain-eis.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 References 12-6

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Bureau of Land Management. 2019. Draft National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement, November 2019. Website: https://www.blm.gov/planningand-nepa/plans-in-development/alaska/npr-a-iap-eis.

Bureau of Land Management. “Alaska Oil and Gas Lease Sales.” Website: 

https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/leasing/regional-leasesales/alaska. Accessed April 2020.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012. Factsheet: Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas 

Leasing Program for 2012-2017. Website: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oil-and-gasenergy-program/Leasing/Five-Year-Program/2012-2017/Factsheet.pdf.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2012. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing 

Program: 2012-2017 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, July 2012. Website:

https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/leasing/2012-2017-ocs-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2016. 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing 

Proposed Final Program, November 2016. Website: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oiland-gas-energy-program/Leasing/Five-Year-Program/2017-2022/2017-2022-OCS-Oil-and-GasLeasing-PFP.pdf.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2018. Beaufort Sea Outer Continental Shelf Liberty 

Development and Production Plan Record of Decision. Website: https://www.boem.gov/aboutboem/hilcorp-alaska-llc.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2018. 2019-2024 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas 

Leasing Draft Proposed Program, January 2018. Website: 

https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oil-and-gas-energy-program/Leasing/Five-YearProgram/2019-2024/DPP/NP-Draft-Proposed-Program-2019-2024.pdf.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. “Alaska G&G Permits.” Website: http://www.boem.gov/AboutBOEM/BOEM-Regions/Alaska-Region/Resource-Evaluation/Permits/Index.aspx. Accessed April 

2020.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. “Eni US Operating Co., Inc. – 2017 Beaufort Sea EP.” Website: 

https://www.boem.gov/about-boem/eni-us-operating-co-inc-2017-beaufort-sea-ep. Accessed 

April 2020.

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. 2018. “BSEE Approves Arctic Offshore Suspension 

Requests for Alaska Native Corporation.” Website: https://www.bsee.gov/newsroom/latestnews/statements-and-releases/press-releases/bsee-approves-arctic-offshore-suspension. 

Accessed April 2020.

Calista Corporation. Website: https://www.calistacorp.com/. Accessed April 2020.

Cameron, M. F., J. L. Bengtson, P. L. Boveng, J. K. Jansen, B. P. Kelly, S. P. Dahle, , L. A. Logerwell, J. 

E. Overland, C. L. Sabine, G. T. Waring, and J. M. Wilder. Status Review of the Bearded Seal 

(Erignathus barbatus). U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo NMFS-AFSC211.

Carafano, J. J., A. Cohen, S. McNamara, and R. Weitz. 2011. EUCOM Should Lead U.S. Combatant 

Commands in Defense of National Interests in the Arctic. Backgrounder No. 2536, March 28, 

2011. The Heritage Foundation. Website: 

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2011/pdf/bg2536.pdf.

Carson, R. T., N. E. Flores, and N. F. Meade. 2001. Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence. 

Environmental and Resource Economics 19:173-210.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 References 12-7

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Carson, R. T., N. E. Flores, and R. C. Mitchell. 1999. The Theory and Measurement of Passive Use 

Value. In I. J. Bateman and K. G. Willis (Eds.). Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and 

Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. Oxford 

University Press.

Cashman, K. 2019. “Producers magazine preview Glacier looking for Killian sands investor after 

successful well.” Petroleum News. Website: 

https://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/583403511.shtml. Accessed April 2020.

City of Nome. 2020. Annual Budgets for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2020. Website: 

https://www.nomealaska.org/egov/documents/1562014759_24211.pdf.

Colt, S. 2001. The Economic Importance of Healthy Alaska Ecosystems. Institute of Social and 

Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage. Alaska Conservation Foundation.

Committee on the Assessment of U.S. Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Roles and Future Needs. 2013. 

Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of U.S. Needs. National Academies 

Press. Website: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11753.

ConocoPhillips Alaska. “Projects.” Website: http://alaska.conocophillips.com/who-we-are/projects/. 

Accessed April 2020.

ConocoPhillips Alaska. 2013. “Regulatory Uncertainty Leads ConocoPhillips to Put 2014 Chukchi Sea 

Exploration Drilling Plans on Hold.” News release. Website: 

http://static.conocophillips.com/files/resources/nr-ak-chukchi-sea-final-4-9-2013.pdf. Accessed 

April 2020.

Cummings, R. G., D. S. Brookshire, and W. D. Schultz. 1986. Valuing Environmental Goods: An 

Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Rowman & Allanheld Publishers.

Dalrymple, D. 2003. Scientific Knowledge as a Global Public Good: Contributions to Innovation and the 

Economy. In J. M. Esanu and P. F. Uhlir (Eds.). The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and 

Information in the Public Domain: Proceedings of a Symposium. The National Academies Press.

Daniels, M. E.. July 13, 2001. “Memorandum for Heads of Executive Department Agencies and 

Independent Regulatory Agencies.” M-01-27 (Guidance for Implementing E.O. 13211). Website: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/memoranda/.

Duffield, J. 1997. Nonmarket Valuation and the Courts: The Case of the Exxon Valdez. Contemporary 

Economic Policy 15:98-110.

Elliott D. Pollack and Company. 1999. The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Designation of 60.060 Acres 

of Privately Owned Land in Pima County, Arizona as Critical Habitat for the Cactus Ferruginous 

Pygmy-Owl. Prepared for Southern Arizona Homebuilders Association. As reported in: 

McKenney, B., R. Unsworth, and R. West. July 1999. Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat 

Designation for the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl. Prepared by Industrial Economics, Inc., for 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, (as amended by P.L. 94–325, June 30, 1976; P.L. 94–359, July 12, 

1976; P.L. 95–212, December 19, 1977; P.L. 95–632, November 10, 1978; P.L. 96–159, 

December 28, 1979; 97–304, October 13, 1982; P.L. 98–327, June 25, 1984; and P.L. 100–478, 

October 7, 1988; P.L. 100–653, November 14, 1988; and P.L. 100–707, November 23, 1988).

Eni. 2018. Eleventh Plan of Development, Nikaitchuq Unit, October 1, 2018 – September 20, 2019. 

Website: http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Documents/Units/2018/20180710_NQ_POD_2018.pdf. 

Accessed April 2020.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 References 12-8

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Eni. 2019. ”Eni Acquires 70% and Operatorship of the Oooguruk Oil Field in Alaska.” Website:

https://www.eni.com/en-IT/media/press-release/2019/01/eni-acquires-70-and-operatorship-of-theoooguruk-oil-field-in-alaska.html. Accessed April 2020.

Entrix, Inc. 2010. Final RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/FRFA for the Critical Habitat Designation of 

Cook Inlet Beluga Whale. August 11, 2010. Prepared for NMFS, Alaska Region.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, December 2010 

(updated May, 2014). Website: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/guidelinespreparing-economic-analyses.

Equinor. 2015. “Statoil Exits Alaska.” News release. Website: 

https://www.equinor.com/en/news/archive/2015/11/17/17NovAlaska.html. Accessed April 2020.

Estensen, J. L., S. J. Hayes, B. M. Borba, S. N. Schmidt, D. L. Green, D. M. Jallen, E. J. Newland, and A. 

C. Wiese. 2013. Annual Management Report Yukon and Northern Areas 2011. Fishery 

Management Report No. 13-52. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisions of Sport Fish 

and Commercial Fisheries. Website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMR13-52.pdf.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, September 30, 1993; 5.U.S.C. §601 et seq; 

and P. L. 104-121.

Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use, May 18, 2001.

ExxonMobil. 2019. Point Thomson Unit Progress Report and Plan of Development (POD), January 1, 

2020 to December 31, 2021. Website: http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Library/. Accessed April 2020.

Fall, J. A. 2011. Continuity and Change in Subsistence Harvests in Three Bering Sea Communities: 

Akutan, Emmonak, and Togiak. Presented at the Fishing People of the North Symposium, 

Anchorage Alaska, September 16. Website: http://seagrant.uaf.edu/conferences/2011/wakefieldpeople/presentations/fall-akutan-emmonak-togiak.pdf. Accessed April 2020.

Fall, J. A., D. Caylor, M. Turek, C. Brown, T. Krauthoefer, B. Davis, and D. Koster. 2007. Alaska 

Subsistence Salmon Fisheries 2004 Annual Report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Subsistence. Technical Paper No. 317.

Fall, J. A., A. Godduhn, L. Hutchinson-Scarbrough, B. Jones, M. Kukkonen, D. Runfola, L. A. Sill, A. 

Trainor, and T. Lemons. 2017. Alaska Subsistence and Personal Use Salmon Fisheries 2014 

Annual Report. Technical Paper No. 427. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Subsistence.

Fall, J. A., A. Godduhn, G. Halas, L. Hutchinson-Scarbrough, B. Jones, B. McDavid, E. Mikow, L. A. Sill, 

and T. Lemons. 2020. Alaska Subsistence and Personal Use Salmon Fisheries 2017 Annual 

Report. Technical Paper No. 451. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Subsistence.

Fissel, B., M. Dalton, R. Felthoven, B. Garber-Yonts, A. Haynie, S. Kasperski, J. Lee, D. Lew, C. Seung, 

K. Sparks, M. Szymkowiak, and S. Wise. 2019. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 

Report for the Groundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Area: 

Economic Status of the Groundfish Fisheries off Alaska, 2018. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Web site: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/ecosystems/economic-status-reports-gulf-alaska-andbering-sea-aleutian-islands.

Flores, N. E. 1996. Reconsidering the Use of Hicks Neutrality to Recover Total Values. Journal of 

Environmental Economics and Management 31:49-64.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 References 12-9

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Ground Truth Trekking. 2015. “Chukchi Sea Oil and Gas Development.” Website: 

http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/Issues/AlaskaOilandGas/ChukchiSeaOilandGasDevelopment.

html. Accessed April 2020.

Hageman, R. 1985. Valuing Marine Mammal Populations: Benefit Valuations in a Multi-Species 

Ecosystem. Administrative report LJ-85-22. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center.

Hanlon, T. 2020. “BP says sale to Hilcorp is still on, but under revised terms.” Alaska Public Media. 

Website: https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/04/27/bp-says-sale-to-hilcorp-is-still-on-but-underrevised-terms/. Accessed April 2020.

Hapag Lloyd Cruises. “Expedition Northwest Passage – Re-Discovered: A Legendary Sea Route.” 

Website: https://www.hlcruises.com/destinations/thearctic#currency=EUR&template=teaser&sorting=departureDate&filter

:regions=7;destinations=632. Accessed April 2020.

Hausman, J. A. 1993. Report of Professor J. A. Hausman. Presented at the Exxon Valdez consolidated 

court case. As reported in: Duffield, John. 1997. Nonmarket Valuation and the Courts: The 

Case of the Exxon Valdez. Contemporary Economic Policy 15:98-110.

Hilcorp Alaska, LLC. 2017. Liberty Development Project Development and Production Plan Amendment

3. Submitted to BOEM by Hilcorp Alaska LLC. Website: https://www.boem.gov/aboutboem/hilcorp-alaska-llc. Accessed April 2020.

H.R. Rep. No. 95-1625, at 16-17 (1978), 1978 U.S.C.A.N. 9453, 9466-67.

IMV Projects Atlantic (IMVPA). 2008. Arctic Offshore Technology Assessment of Exploration and 

Production Options for Cold Regions of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Project No. C-0506-15, 

Report TR-001. Prepared for U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service.

Industrial Economics, Inc. 2003. Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Gulf Sturgeon. 

Final Report. January 2003. Prepared for the Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

Industrial Economics, Inc., and Northern Economics. 2010. Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat 

Designation for the Polar Bear in the United States. Final Report. October 2010. Prepared for 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014. Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation of Marine Habitat for 

the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Distinct Population Segment of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle. Final 

Report. April 2014. Prepared for NMFS.

Larson, D. M. 1992. Further Results on Willingness to Pay for Nonmarket Goods. Journal of 

Environmental Economics and Management 23:101-122.

League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, 363 F. Supp. 3d 10113 (D. Alaska 2019).

Lew, D. K., D. F. Layton, and R. D. Rowe. 2010. Valuing Enhancements to Endangered Species 

Protection under Alternative Baseline Futures: The Case of the Steller Sea Lion. Marine 

Resource Economics 25:133-154.

Lewis, Steve. National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region. Catch in Areas Database query results. 

March 19, 2020.

Linxwiler, J. D. 2007. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act at 35: Delivering on the Promise. Paper 

12, 53rd Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 References 12-10

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

Loomis, J. B., and D. M. Larson. 1994. Total Economic Values of Increasing Gray Whale Populations: 

Results from a Contingent Valuation Survey of Visitors and Households. Marine Resource 

Economics 9:275-286.

Loomis, J. 2005. Updated Outdoor Recreation Use Values on National Forests and Other Public Lands. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-658.

Mansfield, C. 1999. Despairing Over Disparities: Explaining the Difference between Willingness to Pay 

and Willingness to Accept. Environmental and Resource Economics 13:219-234.

Medred, C. 2012. “Coast Guard boosts Arctic presence with summer base in Barrow.” Anchorage Daily 

News. Website: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/coast-guard-boosts-arctic-presencesummer-base-barrow. Accessed April 2020.

Menard, J., J. Soong, S. Kent, L. Harlan, and J. M. Leon. 2015. 2014 Annual Management Report 

Norton Sound-Port Clarence Area and Arctic-Kotzebue. Fishery Management Report No. 15-39. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisions of Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries. 

Website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/FMR15-39.pdf. 

Menard, J., J. Soong, J. Bell, L. Neff, and J. Leon. 2020. 2018 Annual Management Report Norton 

Sound, Port Clarence. and Arctic, Kotzebue Areas. Fishery Management Report No. 20-05. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisions of Sport and Commercial Fisheries.

Minerals Management Service. 2006. Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources, Alaska Federal Offshore, 

as of 2006. Website: https://www.boem.gov/about-boem/2006-assessment-alaska-region.

Mitchell, R. C., and R. T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent 

Valuation Method. Resources for the Future.

NANA Regional Corporation. Website: https://nana.com/shareholders/. Accessed April 2020.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Final Endangered Species Act Section 4(b)(2) Report, Impacts 

Analysis for Critical Habitat Designation for the Endangered U.S. Distinct Population Segment of 

Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinate). Prepared by NMFS and URS Corporation.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. Effects of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic Ocean Final

Environmental Impact Statement. Website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marinemammal-protection/environmental-impact-statement-eis-effects-oil-and-gas-activities.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Final Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for 12 

West Coast Salmon and Steelhead ESUs. Northwest Fisheries Science Center Processed 

Report.

National Park Service. “Noatak National Preserve Alaska Wilderness Adventure.” Website: 

http://www.nps.gov/noat/index.htm. Accessed April 2020.

Nelson, Mark. A., Lori T. Quakenbush, Brian D. Taras, and Ice Seal Committee. 2019. Subsistence 

Harvest of Ringed, Bearded, Spotted, and Ribbon Seals in Alaska is Sustainable. Endangered 

Species Research-40:1.

Norris, F. 2002. Alaska Subsistence: A National Park Service Management History. Alaska Support 

Office, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Anchorage, Alaska.

North Pacific Fishery Management Council. “Arctic Fishery Management Plan.” Website: 

https://www.npfmc.org/arctic-fishery-management/. Accessed April 2020.

North Slope Borough. 2010. North Slope Borough 2010 Economic Profile and Census Report, Volume 

X. Website: http://www.north-
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 References 12-11

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

slope.org/assets/images/uploads/North_Slope_Borough_Census_and_Economic_Profile_2010.p

df.

North Slope Borough. “Studies and Research Projects.” Website: http://www.northslope.org/departments/wildlife-management/studies-and-research-projects. Accessed April 2020.

Northern Alaska Tour Company. “Utqiagvik (Barrow) Adventures and Expeditions.” Website: 

http://www.northernalaska.com/utqiagvik-barrow/. Accessed April 2020.

Northern Economics. 2009. Economic Analysis of Future Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Beaufort 

Sea, Chukchi Sea, and North Aleutian Basin. Prepared for Shell Exploration and Production.

Northwest Arctic Borough. Website: https://www.nwabor.org/about/. Accessed April 2020.

Northwest Arctic Borough. “Kotzebue Qikiqtagruk.” Website: https://www.nwabor.org/village/kotzebue/. 

Accessed April 2020.

Office of Management and Budget. 2003. Circular A-4, September 17, 2003. Website: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars/.

Office of Management and Budget. 2011. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Frequently Asked Questions 

(FAQs), February 7, 2011. Website: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/assets/OMB/circulars/a004/a4_FAQ.pdf. 

Office of Subsistence Management. 2016. The Federal Subsistence Management Program: An 

Overview. Website: 

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/subsistence_management_program_brochure_20

16_weblayout_508_reduced.pdf.

O’Rourke, R. 2020. Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program: Background and 

Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service, Report RL34391, Version 193. Updated 

March 22, 2020. Website: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=RL34391.

Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978, P.L. 95-474, October 17, 1978.

Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Interior. 2015. Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United 

States Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Alaska from Leasing Disposition. 2015 Weekly 

Compilation of Presidential Documents 00059 (January 27, 2015). Website: 

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/DCPD-201500059/.

Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Interior. 2016. Withdrawal of Certain Portions of the 

United States Arctic Outer Continental Shelf from Mineral Leasing. 2016 Weekly Compilation of 

Presidential Documents 00860 (December 20, 2016). Website: 

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/DCPD-201600860/.

Puder, M. G., B. Bryson, and J. A. Veil. 2003. Compendium of Regulatory Requirements Governing 

Underground Injection of Drilling Wastes. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

Fossil Energy, National Petroleum Technology Office.

Queirolo, L. E. 2014. Conducting Economic Impact Analyses for NOAA Fisheries Service, August 27, 

2014. National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, AK. 

Richardson, L. and J. Loomis. 2009. The Total Economic Value of Threatened, Endangered, and Rare 

Species: An Updated Meta-Analysis. Ecological Economics 68:1535-1548.

Rosen, Y. 2018. “With marine traffic growing, international shipping agency approves US-Russia plan for 

Bering Strait shipping lanes.” Arctic Today. Website: https://www.arctictoday.com/marine-traffic-
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 References 12-12

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

growing-international-shipping-agency-approves-us-russia-plan-bering-strait-shipping-lanes/. 

Accessed April 2020.

Rosen, Y. 2019. “U.S. Coast Guard’s Arctic season underway with station opened at Kotzebue.” Arctic 

Today. Arctic Today. Website: https://www.arctictoday.com/u-s-coast-guards-arctic-seasonunderway-with-station-opened-at-kotzebue/. Accessed April 2020.

Samples, K. C., and J. R. Hollyer. 1990. Contingent Valuation of Wildlife Resources in the Presence of 

Substitutes and Complements. In Johnson, R. L., Johnson, G. V. (Eds.). Economic Valuation of 

Natural Resources: Issues, Theory, and Applications. Westview Press.

Schreiber, M. 2019. “U.S. Coast Guard awards contract for first new heavy icebreaker in four decades.” 

Arctic Today. Website: https://www.arctictoday.com/u-s-coast-guard-awards-contract-for-firstnew-heavy-icebreaker-in-four-decades/. Accessed April 2020.

Shell. 2015. “Shell Updates on Alaska Exploration.” Website: 

http://www.shell.com/global/aboutshell/investor/news-and-library/2015/shell-updates-on-alaskaexploration.html. Accessed April 2020.

Sutherlin, S. 2019. “Producers 2019: Hilcorp boosts North Slope output.” Petroleum News. Website: 

https://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/206176133.shtml. Accessed April 2020.

Thomas, C. P., W. B. North, T. C. Doughty, and D. M. Hite. 2009. Alaska North Slope Oil and Gas, a 

Promising Future or an Area in Decline. Addendum Report DOE/NETL-2009/1385 (April 8, 

2009). Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact, Maintenance Dredging of Nome Harbor Entrance Channel. Website: 

http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Portals/34/docs/civilworks/publicreview/NomeHarborOMDredging

EAOct2012.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. 2015. Draft Integrated Feasibility Report, Draft 

Environmental Assessment (EA), and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), Alaska 

Deep-Draft Arctic Port System Study, Alaska District, Pacific Ocean Division. Website: 

https://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Library/Reports-and-Studies/Alaska-Regional-Ports-Study/.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. 2020. Integrated Feasibility Report and Final 

Environmental Assessment, Port of Nome Modification Feasibility Study, Nome, Alaska. 

Website: https://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Library/Reports-and-Studies/Alaska-Regional-PortsStudy/.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Land Management. 2019. ASAP Project Joint Record of 

Decision. Website: http://www.asapeis.com/index.html.

U.S. Coast Guard. “Port Access Route Studies (PARS).” Website: https://www.dco.uscg.mil/PARS/. 

Accessed April 2020.

U.S. Coast Guard. “Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).” Website: https://www.uscg.mil/Mariners/NationalPollution-Funds-Center/About_NPFC/OPA/. Accessed April 2020.

U.S. Coast Guard. “USCGC Polar Star (WAGB 10).” Website: https://www.pacificarea.uscg.mil/OurOrganization/Cutters/cgcPolarStar/. Accessed April 2020.

U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System. 2019. A Ten-Year Projection of Maritime Activity 

in the U.S. Arctic Region, 2020-2030. Website: 

https://www.cmts.gov/downloads/CMTS_2019_Arctic_Vessel_Projection_Report.pdf.
Draft RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/IRFA of

Critical Habitat Designation for Beringia DPS of the Bearded Seal

December 2020 References 12-13

This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable Information Quality Guidelines. It 

has not been formally disseminated by NOAA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency 

determination or policy.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2015. “Interior Department Cancels Arctic Offshore Lease Sales.” Press 

Release. Website: https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-cancels-arcticoffshore-lease-sales. Accessed April 2020.

U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2015. Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Planned Alaska LNG Project and Request for Comments on 

Environmental Issues. (FERC Docket PF14-21).

U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2020. Alaska LNG Project Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. (FERC Docket CP17-178-000). Website: 

https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis/2020/03-06-20-FEIS.asp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Selawik National Wildlife Refuge. Plan Your Visit.” 

https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Selawik/visit/plan_your_visit.html. Accessed April 2020. 

Navy Task Force Climate Change. 2014. U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap 2014-2030. 

https://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf. Accessed April 2020.

Wallmo, K. Undated. Threatened and Endangered Species Valuation: Literature Review and 

Assessment. National Marine Fisheries Service. Website: 

https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/economics/documents/Protected_Resources_Valuation%20

.pdf.

Wallmo, K., and D. K. Lew. 2011. Valuing Improvements to Threatened and Endangered Marine 

Species: An Application of Stated Preference Choice Experiments. Journal of Environmental 

Management 92:1793-1801.

Wolfe, R. J. and R. J. Walker. 1987. Subsistence Economies in Alaska: Productivity, Geography, and 

Development Impacts. Arctic Anthropology 24:56-81. As reported in: Duffield, John. 1997. 

Nonmarket Valuation and the Courts: The Case of the Exxon Valdez. Contemporary Economic 

Policy 15:98-110.