NMFS
received five letters submitted in response to the invitation,
containing eight unique comments on the proposed data collection. The
comments are summarized and responded to below.
1. NMFS has not
adequately consulted with responsible entities in development of
the proposed data collection, including State of Alaska, NMFS
Recovery Team Stakeholder Committee, and Alaska Native entities.
|
ID
|
Comment
|
NMFS Response
|
B
|
…never
during the [Cook Inlet Beluga Recovery Team]’s planning
process has the need for such an economic survey been discussed or
recommended by NMFS or any recovery team member.
|
Initial development of the
proposed research as a scientific research project began prior to
the listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whale under the ESA (initial
funding for developing the survey was obtained in 2007). While
initiated in response to questions raised by NMFS Alaska Region
staff responsible for preparing federal regulatory review
documents required under the ESA, NEPA, and Executive Order 12866,
this study was not designed for, directed by, or coordinated with
any specific NMFS management action. In fact, it followed a
similar research effort by AFSC economists to estimate public
values for protection of Steller Sea Lions. The Regional staff had
indicated that there was insufficient information about the
economic effects of species protection actions in general, and
with respect to Cook Inlet, specifically. This information was
desirable to include in economic analyses of the benefits and
costs of a range of federal actions being contemplated at that
time. Subsequently, a decision was made to list the Cook Inlet
beluga whale as endangered, under ESA, consistent with NMFS’
management responsibility. NMFS then recommended the study be
made a priority for AFSC economic research. The bulk of the
survey was developed and qualitatively tested during 2009-2010,
prior to formation of the Recovery Team.
Regrettably,
coordination between NMFS economic research staff and Regional
management staff has been insufficient, resulting in failure to
adequately communicate ongoing research to the CIBW Recovery Team.
In addition, the Federal Register notice published on February 7,
2012 (77FR6065), did not accurately describe the purpose and
intent of the research or the current status of the ESA process
with regard to CIBW. We recognize these failures of communication
and will endeavor to better inform the Recovery Team and
stakeholders as this, and any other relevant economic research,
proceeds.
However,
the comments reflect a number of apparent misunderstandings
regarding the role of formal consultation with the Recovery Team
or other entities in development of this survey. As noted above,
the research was initiated prior to formation of the Recovery
Team. As an economic research initiative, the survey project is
intended to provide information for use, as appropriate, in
decision analyses for future management actions not yet specified.
In particular, the information is sought to support comprehensive
evaluation of all costs and all benefits attributable to Federal
actions which may be proposed to be taken pursuant to the Recovery
Plan, as must be prepared under provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and
Executive Order 12866 prior to adopting such action (see response
to Comment Item 6 below).
The
research itself does not represent a conservation action or
Federal program warranting formal consultation under the terms of
the Cooperative Conservation Partnership between NMFS and the
State of Alaska or Alaska Native entiries. The research seeks to
gather unbiased information that describes the opinions and
preferences of the general U.S. public regarding CIBW recovery for
potential use in decision analyses that may arise over the
foreseeable future. The study will, in no way, alter the role,
authority, or responsibilities of the Recovery Team Stakeholder
Panel or its members, or the protected rights and interests of
Alaska Native entities.
The
survey questionnaire will be distributed to a representative
sample of U.S. households solely for the purpose of soliciting
information from members of the public with which to assess their
familiarity, opinions, and preferences regarding potential
outcomes for CIBW recovery. The information content of the survey
has been reviewed by NMFS scientific and management staff in an
effort to ensure its accuracy for the purpose of the survey, but
the survey questionnaire is not designed or intended as an
instrument for use in educational outreach or as a statement of
federal policy or management intent to the general public.
Moving
forward, we will take necessary action to better inform the
Recovery Team about the survey and its findings. In fact, we have
begun the process of providing information about the purpose and
scope of the project (see Jon Kurland’s e-mail); and,
regular updates on progress with the survey will be provided as it
moves to implementation and from implementation to analysis. The
results of the analysis will be presented to the Recovery Team as
they become available.
|
C
|
…If NMFS does decide
to move forward with the survey, CIRI asks that the Stakeholders
Panel be provided a scope of work and information on the process
and analysis to be used for review and comment prior conducting
the survey, and the results of the survey prior to their general
release.
… CIRI
considers the [draft survey] form to be … disrespectful of
the legally protected rights and interests of Alaska Native
entities. To our knowledge, no effort has been made to develop the
survey in consultation with affected Alaska Native entities, as
required by federal law and policy.
|
D
|
…it is my
understanding through the state’s ESA coordinator’s
email to the recovery team that the state was not consulted on
this effort. This is unacceptable. This survey, if ever conducted,
must include the state of Alaska’s ESA coordinator in its
development.
|
|
|
|
2. The research will not
provide sufficient benefit to CIBW recovery, and funding for the
survey should be redirected
towards research and management activities more directly related
to CIBW recovery
|
ID
|
Comment
|
NMFS Response
|
A
|
…money
that the Service would use to conduct and analyze the results of
the survey would be better directed at more concrete conservation
activities.
|
Funding for the research
was provided by NMFS Office of Science and Technology from a pool
of funds earmarked exclusively for use in economic research and
data collection. It is not part of the Agency’s budget for
recovery efforts. These research funds were allocated for this
survey, specifically to collect the data necessary to fill gaps in
economic information regarding the non-consumptive benefits of
protecting the Cook Inlet beluga whale. Generally, funds
allocated for economic research cannot be diverted for
non-research activities (including to the Alaska Region’s
operating funds for Cook Inlet beluga whale management
activities). Moreover, since a contract has been signed with a
survey firm to conduct the survey, and funds obligated
accordingly, cancellation of the survey will result in the funds
being returned the U.S. Treasury, and NMFS will not have
discretion over reallocating the funds to CIBW management or any
other alternative purposes.
The
research is intended to provide unbiased information about the
value accruing to the U.S. public (including Alaska residents),
associated with reducing the risk of extinction of CIBW and
up-listing or recovering the species. The research, in itself,
will not directly benefit CIBW recovery. However, by improving
understanding of public preferences regarding resource management,
this information will support improved decision making regarding
allocation of federal funding and other scarce resources to
management of protected species and other agency mandates, which
may benefit CIBW and other species indirectly. Congress and
Executive branch agencies face difficult decisions about how to
allocate scarce funding. An understanding of the relative economic
value of protecting different ESA-listed species may help
determine where comparatively more effort should be placed to
maximize the net benefits to the Nation, while simultaneously
meeting the statutory requirements of the ESA, MMPA, and other
relevant statutes and policies.
Under
the ESA, neither decisions regarding species’ listing
status, critical habitat designation, or the mandate to recover
species that are determined to be threatened or endangered, are
subject to a strict benefit- cost test (also see the response to
Comment Items 4 and 6 below). As such, the estimated benefit
values provided by this study will not provide the sole basis on
which any decision regarding CIBW recovery is determined. In
designation of critical habitat and recovery plan development,
consideration of costs is permitted and is essential to ensure
cost effective actions are undertaken. However, application of the
cost effectiveness framework to species recovery, as in all
long-term planning activities involving uncertain outcomes, does
not provide a single “cost-effective” solution for
achieving a specific outcome. Rather, numerous cost effective
solutions are identified, which are expected to achieve recovery,
but with different degrees of uncertainty and with different
outcomes in regard to the distribution of economic costs, as well
as the timing, distribution, and nature of the benefit stream. In
this context, more economic information regarding the value of
reducing uncertainty in recovery planning, through improved
biological research and/or more extensive or restrictive recovery
actions, may help to inform decision making in the allocation of
budget and other resources to CIBW recovery efforts.
|
B
|
…we
do not believe that scarce federal resources should be expended on
actions that will not benefit a species.
|
C
|
…the proposed
economic survey is not a good use of recovery resources, and will
not result in any benefit to the recovery process;
…The
limited resources of the [Recovery Team] would best be focused on
… determining what set of critical habitat areas is
required to conserve the species and what special management
considerations must be implemented to mitigate certain activities
within that critical habitat.
|
E
|
… the
monies would be better used… on additional biological or
management research for belugas.
|
|
|
|
3. NMFS funding for the
survey should be directed
towards improved quantification of costs and benefits of CIBW
conservation and recovery measures, exclusive of non-consumptive
(or passive use) benefits associated with CIBW preservation
|
ID
|
Comment
|
NMFS Response
|
C
|
…asks that NMFS
focus its attention and resources on designing effective,
comprehensive, and creative measures by which to achieve species
recovery while simultaneously minimizing the economic costs and
impacts on natural resource development in the region.
|
This research is intended
to address the principal limitation identified in the RIR analysis
related to the lack of primary data that precludes a full
quantitative accounting of the benefits and costs associated with
designation of critical habitat for Cook Inlet beluga whales. To
the extent that improvements in the calculation of opportunity
costs associated with resource development are warranted, such
improvements are not limited by lack of primary data requiring
research. As the funding for this research has already been
allocated, additional efforts to further analyze costs of CIBW
recovery actions are not limited by completion of this study, and
would not be enhanced by cancellation of the research.
|
E
|
Alaska
believes strongly that the 2010 RIR economic analysis produced for
the critical habitat designation is deeply flawed, but the
proposed study will add to, rather than resolve, the flaws in the
RIR.
… the
monies would be better used for more accurate research on the cost
and benefits of designating critical habitat for belugas…
|
|
|
|
4. Survey should not be
conducted prior to completion of Recovery Plan development
|
ID
|
Comment
|
NMFS Response
|
B
|
…NMFS
should wait on any decision regarding the proposed survey until
the recovery plan is complete, to determine whether such a survey
would aid in obtaining the recovery goals outlined in the plan...;
NMFS provided a statement to the stakeholder panel of the Cook
Inlet Beluga Recovery Team to clarify the intent behind the
survey… this statement does not address… the need
for such a survey before the recovery plan is complete.
|
Rigorous stated preference
economic surveys take time to develop, test, and implement,
particularly ones conducted by federal government agencies, often
requiring several years to complete. Time is also required to
ensure the quality of the data and to conduct the data analysis.
Moreover,
the survey has been designed to provide estimates of
non-consumptive benefits of CIBW recovery, in terms of the
tradeoff between risk of extinction and cost of recovery efforts
to reduce this risk. Thus, it does not rely on the description of
any specific recovery actions in the estimation of the economic
benefit function. Because of the time required to fully develop
and test surveys of this type, as well as the time required to
navigate the administrative approval process under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, the survey has been designed this way to ensure
that the results are generally applicable in future stages of Cook
Inlet beluga whale recovery plan development and implementation,
rather than being limited in application to a specific recovery
plan specification.
For
these reasons, we disagree that it is necessary or appropriate to
delay the research pending completion of Recovery Plan
development.
|
D
|
… I assume this
survey therefore will make reference to potential recommendations
from a recovery team that would go “beyond the current
levels” of protection, otherwise who would they be coming
from? As our team’s recommendations are not finalized, I
think it is inappropriate for NMFS to be conducting this survey. I
believe the recovery team’s efforts will be impacted by
whatever data comes from this survey, as nebulous as these results
will be, and subsequently will prejudice our process.
|
|
|
|
5. The Federal Register
notice and survey questionnaire indicate that NMFS is considering
additional conservation measures for CIBW, outside of the Recovery
Plan process and consultation with the State of Alaska/ADF&G
|
ID
|
Comment
|
NMFS Response
|
B
|
…given
the statutory and regulatory protections already in place for the
Cook Inlet beluga whale, it is hard to understand what “additional
protection, beyond current levels” NMFS is contemplating,
and why this would be occurring outside of the recovery planning
process, another ESA mandate;
… Recovery
Team is …finishing the recovery plan for the beluga…
to provide recommendations on recovery measures and goals and
these will be included in the recovery plan as required by the ESA
and associated regulations. Is NMFS already in the process of
evaluating “alternative measures” even though no
recovery measures have been identified yet? … the language
in the notice seems to suggest that NMFS is considering additional
critical habitat.
|
We have acknowledged our
failure to accurately and appropriately characterize the research
study in the Federal Register Notice and regret the concerns that
it raised. The text of the survey and the conduct of this research
are separate from, and do not indicate any management initiative
regarding CIBW outside of the recovery plan development process.
Although the survey discusses a range of potential conservation
measures in general terms, as noted above, the survey does not
rely on the description of any specific recovery actions in the
estimation of economic benefits, or whether such actions are taken
by NMFS, the State of Alaska, or other entities. Any perception
that the survey is evidence that NMFS is pursuing conservation
measures for CIBW independent of the ongoing consultative process
with the State of Alaska and the Recovery Team is incorrect.
As
stated in the March 5, 2012 letter to the CIBW Recovery Team from
Jon Kurland, NMFS Alaska Assistant Regional Administrator for
Protected Resources, “Even
though Critical Habitat has already been designated, the results
from this survey should be useful to NMFS and the public in the
future as we consider various recovery actions under the CIB
recovery plan that you are helping to develop. We hope to
have the results from this survey by spring of 2013, and will keep
you posted. NMFS is not contemplating any CIB protection measures
outside the context of the recovery planning process. The
information from this survey will inform future decisions
regarding the need for any actions identified via the recovery
plan. Any regulatory actions would include analyses of costs
and benefits, as well as opportunities for public input. NMFS is
committed to working with you all to consider appropriate actions
to include in a CIB recovery plan. Unfortunately, this
Federal Register notice did not provide much context, and we did
not do a good enough job of explaining to you all what we were
doing or why. We will strive to do better in the future.”
|
E
|
…Notice
indicates that these preferences are “needed to assist in
the evaluation of alternative measures to further protect and
recover the species’ population, such as in the evaluation
of critical habitat designations.”
…appears
that the proposed survey may create “preferences” to
support a predetermined outcome that will result in additional
protections for belugas.
|
|
|
|
6. Quantification of
passive use/non-consumptive benefits is not relevant to CIBW
recovery planning under ESA, MMPA, or other relevant legal
mandates
|
ID
|
Comment
|
NMFS Response
|
C
|
…First, the value of
the Cook Inlet beluga whales is not being contested…
unclear how NMFS and the Recovery Team may alter their decisions
and behavior depending on how the whales are valued. In fact, it
would be an improper metric for NMFS to set the species’
population recovery goal at the point where the marginal cost of
preserving a single whale equals the marginal benefit. Under the
ESA, NMFS must provide critical habitat and protection that will
conserve the species… to achieve the mandate of species
recovery by balancing the benefits of various recovery measures
with the economic costs imposed by their implementation.
…In
order to …recover the [CIBW] while minimizing the
associated costs to society, NMFS and the Recovery Team must make
judgments about which habitat segments contain particular
biological contributions, and the extent to which human activities
may affect those contributions… ultimately an exercise in
cost effectiveness, with the numerator of the balancing equation
fixed at species conservation.
|
NMFS agrees that it would
be improper to set the species’ population recovery goal
where marginal cost equals marginal benefit. The Agency has not
indicated any intention to do so. NMFS also agrees with the
comment that, “NMFS must…achieve the mandate of
species recovery by balancing the benefits
of various recovery measures with the economic costs…”
(emphasis
added). This clearly requires
the Agency to acquire necessary information with which to evaluate
benefits and costs.
NMFS
disagrees, however, with the premise that “NMFS and the
Recovery Team may alter their decisions and behavior, depending on
how the (research survey suggests) whales are valued.” As
previously explained, the subject survey is part of an economic
research
project, not directly associated with the ESA listing, CHD, or
CIBW recovery planning process. The ESA listing and CHD have been
completed, and cannot benefit from the results of this research
study, expected in 2013. Had the research results been available
prior to the CIBW CHD, they may have contributed to additional
monetized or quantitative measurement of the attributable impacts
of that action. This would have been completely consistent with
prevailing policy and applicable law. Under provisions of the
ESA, as well as Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, a comprehensive evaluation of all costs and all
benefits attributable to a proposed Federal action must, to the
extent practicable, be prepared prior to adopting such action.
These estimates are to be based upon the best available scientific
data and commercial information.
E.O.
12866, states (in relevant part), an analysis of all benefits and
all costs (including, potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety, and other advantages; distributional impacts;
and equity) shall be prepared in conjunction with a Federal
Regulatory action.
OMB
Circular A-4 (September 17, 2003) states that for all major
rulemaking, a ‘Benefit/Cost’ framework is required.
All costs and all benefits should be monetized to the extent that
useful estimates can be made. OMB further directs that, even when
a benefit or cost cannot be expressed in monetary units, one
should still try to measure it in terms of its physical units. If
it is not possible to measure the physical units, one should still
describe the benefit or cost qualitatively. In unusual cases,
where no quantified information on benefits, costs, and
effectiveness can be produced, the regulatory analysis should
present a qualitative discussion of the issues and evidence.
From
the foregoing, it is evident that the Agency is required, by law
and regulation, to acquire data, conduct research, and prepare
comprehensive benefit/cost analyses in support of all major
regulatory actions, such as ESA designation of critical habitat
for the listed Cook Inlet beluga whale. As such, “…
collection
of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
agency…”, despite the assertion to the contrary by
the commentor.
|
E
|
… State
of Alaska does not believe that the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, nor will the information have any
practical utility for resolving issues regarding the Cook Inlet
beluga DPS.
|
7. Quantification of
passive use/non-consumptive benefits in general employs
scientifically unsound methods and the results are not reliable
for use in comparison to costs of CIBW recovery measures
|
ID
|
Comment
|
NMFS Response
|
C
|
These non-market valuation
techniques are relatively recent developments in economic
literature and still in need of testing and refinement. For
example, there is often a considerable difference between what a
person says they might be willing to pay in a survey, and what
they are actually willing to contribute from their household
budget. The numbers resulting from this theoretical tool are not a
reliable or consistent indicator that should be used to set
national policy and balance large costs to be incurred by society.
…Real
and measurable numbers, such as the costs to natural resource
development associated with various recovery measures, are
necessary to include in the Recovery Plan process; theoretical
assessments of the social worth of a species are not. When these
two sets of numbers are combined in a single analysis, the result
is the appearance of benefit estimates that are equally reliable
and comparable to costs. The result is the inappropriate
minimization of the very real, and often avoidable, costs
associated with species recovery.
|
Empirical applications of
non-market valuation techniques, particularly stated preference
methods like those employed in this survey, have been used
extensively for over 40 years to value recreation sites,
environmental quality, non-use benefits of resource conservation,
and other non-market goods. A recent estimate indicates that over
7,500 studies have been conducted using the most common stated
preference method, contingent valuation, in over 130 countries
(Carson 2011). Over the past 40 years, methods have been
substantially refined to address potential biases associated with
the method (some of which are referenced in the comments), among
other advances. Use of stated preference methods in damage
assessment related to non-market goods was considered and upheld
by U.S. courts in 1989 (Ohio
vs. Department of Interior),
and was the subject of a Blue Ribbon review commissioned by NOAA
in 1993 following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The review concluded
that stated preference methods can provide reliable estimates when
employing methodological best practices, which were identified in
the review.
Over
nearly twenty years since the NOAA panel issued its findings,
considerable research has been done to further improve stated
preference methods, including the manner in which the questions
themselves are asked, how the data are analyzed, and methods for
minimizing potential biases (e.g., see Carson, Flores, and Meade
2001). The specific stated preference method used in this survey,
stated preference choice experiments (SPCE), has been used
extensively in economic applications in transportation and
marketing (Louviere 1993, Polak and Jones 1997, Louviere, Hensher,
and Swait 2000). Because the method has several advantages over
the contingent valuation approaches frequently used at the time of
the NOAA panel’s review (see Alpizar et al. 2001), SPCE has
been increasingly used in environmental economics applications.
While
there are controversies related to stated preference methods, the
considerable literature suggests that, when developed properly and
rigorously, these methods can provide useful information. One
survey technique that has been consistently shown to be effective
in the literature in minimizing “hypothetical bias”
(respondents’ tendency to overstate how much they would be
willing to pay) is to include reminders of substitute goods and
the household’s own scarce budget. The survey design
incorporates several mentions of other public goods that the
respondents may care about and want to spend money on (e.g., other
social issues, other species), and reminders that the money they
say they would be willing to pay comes from their pocketbooks and
would not be available to spend on other things. In focus group
review and interviews, subjects indicated that their responses in
the survey valuation questions were constrained by recognition
their budget constraint and spending priorities.
|
E
|
…the
proposed economic survey adds nothing of value to the discussion
of economic costs and benefits. It is based on a flawed,
controversial economic survey theory that may be of theoretical
interest to economists but does not inform the cost/benefit
analysis required for the beluga critical habitat designation….
Studies such as this are controversial for several reasons: First,
they ask respondents to state a preference based on a hypothetical
situation that may not accurately represent reality. Second, when
respondents are unfamiliar with the goods they are asked to value,
preference surveys tend to create,
rather
than accurately measure, preference values for active and passive
uses. And third, preference surveys used to value goods that are
not traded in markets lack any “external validity”
check.
|