**OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLAN**

**FOR**

**POLAR BEARS**

**IN ALASKA**

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Marine Mammals Management

1011 East Tudor Road

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

February 1999

![](media/image1.png){width="6.25in" height="4.753472222222222in"}

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

I. [GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS]{.underline} 1

A. [Authorities]{.underline} 1

B. [Current Population, Distribution, and Life History]{.underline} 1

1\. Population 1

2\. General Distribution 2

3\. Denning 3

C. [Susceptibility to Oil Spills]{.underline} 3

D. [Response Plan Training Needs]{.underline} 4

II\. [RESPONSE STRATEGIES]{.underline} 5

A. [Primary Response]{.underline} 6

1\. General Considerations 6

2\. Oiled Carcass Collection 6

3\. Skimming 6

4\. Booms 7

5\. Dikes/Berms 7

6\. In-situ Burning 7

7\. Dispersants 8

B. [Secondary Response]{.underline} 8

1\. General Considerations 9

2\. Detection 9

3\. Deterrents 10

4\. Pre-emptive Capture, Handling, and Transport 11

5\. Other 12

C. [Tertiary Response]{.underline} 12

1\. General Considerations 12

2\. Capture 13

3\. Handling 13

4\. Transport 13

5\. Treatment 13

6\. Holding 14

7\. Release 15

III\. [LIST OF CONTACTS]{.underline} 15

IV\. [REFERENCES]{.underline} 17

**POLAR BEAR RESPONSE PLAN**

I. [GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS]{.underline}

A. [Authorities]{.underline}

The Polar Bear Response Plan is one component of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) *Region 7 Oil Spill Contingency Plan*. The
purpose of the Polar Bear Wildlife Response Plan is to provide guidance
to Service employees during an oil spill in Alaska that could affect
polar bears (*Ursus maritimus*) or their habitat. The Service has
responsibility for managing and protecting polar bears under authority
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) (16 U.S.C.
1361-1407). In Alaska, the Service\'s management goals are to:

> \* maintain polar bear populations within their optimum sustainable
> population level; and
>
> \* assure that polar bears remain a healthy, functioning component of
> the Chukchi/Bering and Beaufort seas ecosystems (U.S. Fish and
> Wildlife Service 1994).

Section 109(h)(1) of the MMPA authorizes the Service to take (harass,
hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt capture, or kill a
marine mammal in the course of official duties, if done in a humane
manner (including euthanasia) and if such taking is for the protection
or welfare of the mammal, protection of the public health and welfare,
or nonlethal removal of nuisance animals. Section 112(c) authorizes the
Service to "enter into such contracts, leases, cooperative agreements,
or other transactions as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of
this title or title IV and on such terms as \[t\]he \[Secretary of the
Interior\] deems appropriate with a Federal or State agency, public or
private institution, or other person."

Title IV of the MMPA calls for establishment of a marine mammal health
and stranding response program in response to unusual mortality events,
including development of a working group, contingency plan, and sample
collection procedures. While Title IV of the MMPA includes oil spill
events as a type of unusual mortality event, it does not supersede,
modify, or limit the duties and responsibilities conveyed by other laws
(Wilkenson 1996). Oil spill response procedures are conducted under
authority and procedures of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Clean Water
Act, and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act. In Alaska, oil spill response procedures and personnel
parallel those set forth in the *National Contingency Plan for Response
to Unusual Marine Mammal Mortality Events* (1996). Therefore, oil spill
events should be coordinated with the Alaska Marine Mammal Stranding
Coordinator.

B. [Current Population, Distribution, and Life History]{.underline}

1\. Population

Polar bears move in association with the arctic ice pack. Satellite
telemetry and other information indicates that two populations of polar
bears occur in Alaska: the southern Beaufort Sea population, and the
Chukchi/Bering seas population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998,
Figure 1). In the Beaufort Sea, polar bears move seasonally east and
west between northern Alaska and northwestern Canada (Amstrup 1995). In
the Chukchi Sea, polar bears move seasonally between northwestern Alaska
and eastern Russia (Garner et. al. 1990). An area of overlap occurs
between Point Barrow and Point Hope (Garner et. al. 1990, Amstrup 1995).

In Alaska, accurate polar bear population estimates have been difficult
to obtain because of low population densities, inaccessibility of
habitat, movement of bears across international boundaries, and budget
limitations. An estimate of 3,000-5,000 animals has been derived for the
total Alaska population (Amstrup and DeMaster 1988). The most recent
estimate for the Beaufort Sea is 1800 animals (Amstrup 1995). A reliable
population estimate for the Chukchi/Bering seas population is currently
unavailable (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). A crude estimate of
1200-3200 animals has been derived by subtracting the Beaufort Sea
estimate from the state-wide estimate. The IUCN Polar Bear Specialists
Group most recently estimated the Chukchi/Bering seas population to be
2,000-5,000 bears (Derocher et. al. 1998). The populations are believed
to be stable and increasing from levels during the 1960-70\'s when
aerial hunting was permissible and probably discouraged bears from
coming into near shore areas. Researchers, managers, village residents,
and industrial operators have reported increased sightings of bears on
land in recent years.

2\. General Distribution

Polar bears are distributed in low densities over large areas and
generally do not concentrate for extended periods of time. They prey
primarily on ringed seals (*Phoca hispida*), whose distribution and
availability may fluctuate with ice conditions or other factors
(Stirling and McEwan 1975; Stirling and Archibald, 1977; Stirling and
Latour 1978). Polar bears may be more abundant in localized areas during
certain periods of the year and may be patchy or clustered in their
distribution at other times of the year. For example, in spring polar
bears may concentrate in areas where ringed seal pups occur, and in
fall, they may aggregate in areas along the coastline where marine
mammal carcasses occur. In Alaska, polar bears aggregate along the
Beaufort Sea coastline during fall months in areas where bowhead whale
(*Balaena mysticetes*) have been harvested by Alaska Native hunters.
Specific harvest sites include Point Barrow, Cross Island, and Kaktovik.

Stirling et. al (1993) studied polar bear use of sea ice habitats during
winter and spring in the Western Canadian Arctic. They determined that
all sex and age class polar bears, except females with cubs-of-the-year,
were most often distributed in the transition zone and moving ice
habitats. Females with first year cubs were more frequently located in
stable fast ice areas with pressure ridges and seal lairs.

In summer, Alaska polar bears tend to stay with the ice pack (Lentfer
1972) and are less frequently seen near shore, especially if the pack
ice is well off shore.

3\. Denning

Polar bears are long-lived, late maturing carnivores with relatively low
reproductive rates (Amstrup and DeMaster 1988). They breed in the spring
and females enter maternity dens excavated in deep snow drifts by late
November. Young are born in late December or early January (Harington
1968). Females remain in their dens without feeding for at least three
months after giving birth and rely on fat deposits for energy. Family
groups emerge during late March and April.

Only pregnant polar bears construct dens. Terrestrial denning habitat
includes coastal and river bluffs, barrier islands, and other areas of
topographical relief (Amstrup and DeMaster 1988). Polar bears also den
on shorefast ice and pack ice. During a study conducted in the Beaufort
Sea between 1981 and 1991, 48 of 90 dens (or 53%) were located on
drifting pack ice. The remaining dens were found on shorefast ice or
terrestrial habitat. Researchers noted an increase in dens located on
land during the latter half (1986-90) of the study (Amstrup and Gardner
1994).

In the Beaufort Sea, polar bears den more frequently in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge than in other coastal areas (Amstrup 1993).
Other important terrestrial denning areas in the Beaufort Sea include
barrier islands such as Pingok, Cross, Cottle, Thetis, and Flaxman, as
well as the Colville, Sadlerochit, and Niguanak River drainages, Point
Barrow, Point Lonely, Oliktok Point, Atigaru Point and Smith Bay.

Terrestrial denning areas in Alaska for bears from the Chukchi/Bering
seas stock are less defined. Radio-telemetry studies conducted in Alaska
indicate that all observed denning occurs north of Point Hope (G.
Garner, pers. comm. 1995). However, traditional ecological knowledge
provided by Alaska Native hunters indicates that some denning has
occurred on St. Lawrence and Little Diomede Islands, as well as along
the Alaskan coast between Wales and Barrow (Kalxdorff 1997). The highest
density of denning known to occur in the Chukchi/Bering seas is on
Wrangel Island, Russia, and the northern coast of Chukotka (Uspenski and
Kistchinski 1972, Stishov 1991).

Additional information regarding polar bear habitat use is summarized in
the 1995 *Habitat Conservation Strategy for Polar Bears in Alaska
(Strategy).* The primary objective of the *Strategy* is to identify and
conserve important polar bear habitat, thereby advancing the
conservation of the species and ensuring the availability of polar bears
for subsistence and other appropriate uses. The *Strategy* can be
referenced for more specific information and maps regarding polar bear
habitat use in Alaska.

C. [Susceptibility to Oil Spills]{.underline}

Polar bears may be directly affected by an oil spill through oiling of
fur, ingestion of oil from grooming, or by feeding on oiled prey or
carcasses. Scientists have reported that polar bears will not avoid
petroleum products encountered in the wild and may actively investigate
oil spills (Amstrup 1989, Derocher and Stirling 1991). Since oil
production activities occur within the path of spring and fall migration
routes, polar bears may pass through contaminated areas. Large oil
spills from platforms, tankers, or pipelines could have a significant
impact on polar bear habitat, particularly with a predominant
east-to-west marine current that could move oil large distances along
the floe edge and in moving ice habitats (Stirling *in* Geraci and St.
Aubin 1990). Oil spills could also result in food chain effects, as well
as disturbance, injury, or death from interactions with humans during a
spill event.

The effects of oil on polar bears present serious health concerns. A
study was conducted to assess the affects of oil on live captive polar
bears (Oritsland et. al. 1981). Results indicate that oiling of fur may
lead to ingestion of oil through grooming and licking behavior, and
cause thermoregulatory and metabolic stresses to occur as well. Residual
oil may persist if the animal is not cleaned completely. In this study
ingestion of oil also led to behavioral abnormalities such as anorexia,
tissue damage from uremia and dehydration, anemia, and renal failure,
eventually leading to death in two of three animals. In addition, skin
damage and hair loss has resulted after contact with oil in both
experimental and natural conditions (Oritsland et al 1981, Derocher and
Stirling 1991). Animals such as polar bears that rely on fur to maintain
heat reserves are likely to be more susceptible to oil spills than those
that rely primarily on blubber (Geraci and St. Aubin 1990).

Polar bears are most sensitive to disturbance from: 1) oil spill clean
up activities; and 2) oiling of female bears prior to denning
(October-April). In addition, weather conditions and care of young
during winter months create great energy demands on polar bears which
could lead to a highly stressed physiological state if they coincide
with an oil spill. Cleanup operations that disturb a den could result in
death of cubs through abandonment, and perhaps death of the sow as well.
In spring, females with cubs of the year that denned near or on land and
migrate to offshore areas may encounter oil (Stirling *in* Geraci and
St. Aubin 1990). Other family groups with yearlings or two year old cubs
as well as other sex/age classes may also be exposed if feeding or
traveling near shore. Oil spills occurring in areas where polar bears
are concentrated, such as feeding areas, may correspondingly affect a
greater proportion of the population. Areas of open water, such as leads
or polynyas, and areas where beachcast marine mammal carcasses occur may
concentrate polar bears. An oil spill in an area where polar bears are
concentrated could have negative population effects.

In the Chukchi/Bering seas, no oil and gas exploration, development or
production is currently occurring in areas on or adjacent to the Alaska
coastline. In the Beaufort Sea, however, between Barrow and Demarcation
Point, important polar bear habitat exists within or near areas subject
to oil and gas activities. Existing oil and gas activities are centered
around Prudhoe Bay but interest has expanded west into the National
Petroleum Reserve - Alaska as well as into offshore areas.

D. [Response Plan Training Needs]{.underline}

Response personnel should have or be provided with the following
training:

> \* contents and use of Wildlife Response Plans, Contingency Plans, and
> the Incident Command System
>
> \* guidance on laws and regulations that apply to handling or
> \"taking\" of marine mammals
>
> \* guidance on the roles and responsibilities of federal and state
> agencies as well as the responsible parties, coordinators, and their
> contractors
>
> \* HAZWOPER (Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response)
> training
>
> \* standard first aid
>
> \* Arctic survival
>
> \* Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) training, including
> chain-of-custody protocol for collecting carcasses or samples
>
> \* bear deterrence training
>
> \* bear capture, immobilization, handling, and transport training
> (tertiary response only, see Section II.C below).

II\. [RESPONSE STRATEGIES]{.underline}

In event of an oil spill, the Incident Command System is the on-scene
management structure that will guide response efforts. A Federal
On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC), designated by the U.S. Coast Guard (for
spills occurring in marine waters) or the Environmental Protection
Agency (for inland navigable waters or wetlands) will be appointed to
lead response actions. The FOSC, through the Department of the
Interior's Regional Environmental Officer (REO), will work with a
Regional Response Coordinator (RRC) representing Service trust
resources, including polar bears. The RRC will contact the Service's
Marine Mammals Management Office (MMM) for technical and planning
response activities relating to polar bears. The RRC may designate a
Wildlife Response Coordinator (WRC) to help manage spill response
efforts. All MMM response activities must be conducted in coordination
with the Service's RRC, as identified in Section III of this document.

Several factors must be considered when developing a response strategy
for polar bears, including:

> \* location of spill
>
> \* magnitude of spill
>
> \* oil viscosity and thickness
>
> \* accessability to spill site
>
> \* spill trajectory
>
> \* time of year
>
> \* weather conditions (wind, temperature, precipitation)
>
> \* environmental conditions (presence and thickness of ice)
>
> \* number of polar bears that are (or likely to be) affected
>
> \* degree of contact
>
> \* importance of affected habitat
>
> \* cleanup proposal
>
> \* likelihood of bear-human interactions.

Depending on these factors, the RRC and MMM representative(s) shall
determine the potential risk to polar bear populations and recommend
appropriate response action to the FOSC. Response efforts will be
conducted under a three-tier approach characterized as: a) **primary
response** - involving containment, dispersion, burning, or clean up of
oil; 2) **secondary response** - involving hazing, herding, or
additional methods to deter wildlife from affected or
potentially-affected areas; and 3) **tertiary response** - involving
capture, cleaning, treatment, and release of wildlife. If the decision
is made to conduct response activities, primary and secondary response
options should be vigorously applied since little evidence exists that
tertiary methods will be effective for cleaning oiled polar bears.

A. [Primary Response]{.underline}

1\. General Considerations

Primary response strategies should be emphasized for this species.
Primary response for protecting polar bears from an oil spill is to
prevent the oil from reaching sensitive areas such as denning sites,
feeding sites, or areas where animals are concentrated. Known den sites
should be avoided by all personnel at all times to minimize disturbance.

2\. Oiled Carcass Collection

Oiled carcasses and other debris from open water or the shoreline should
be collected regularly. Debris removal will minimize the potential for
oiling of polar bears through scavenging or contact with contaminated
flotsam. Polar bear carcasses should be retrieved and delivered to
collection or morgue sites as directed by the Service\'s RRC to prevent
oil from remaining in the food chain. Carcasses should be kept cool, but
not frozen during transport to the nearest collection or morgue site.
Each carcass should be accompanied by a form containing the date and
location where the carcass was found and the name of the person who
found it. If the carcass is [not]{.underline} retrieved a form should
still be completed and submitted to the Service resource trustee at the
collection or morgue site. Resource trustees designated as NRDA
specialists will be responsible for maintaining a chain of custody
record for collected specimens.

3\. Skimming

The initial response for recovering spilled oil is generally to
mechanically collect it with **skimmers**. Skimming vessels may be
capable of recovering oil in open water over large geographic areas in
the spill zone. These vessels should be positioned to recover oil before
it reaches sensitive areas. Skimmers must be careful to maintain an
appropriate distance from polar bears to avoid unnecessary disturbance.

Heavy pack ice conditions limits effective mechanical cleanup. In
addition, oil spilled in waters with ice concentrations greater than 50
percent ("broken ice") could not be effectively collected (U.S. Army
Engineer District 1998). If spilled under winter ice, oil tends to
accumulate at the ice edge, in leads, polynyas, and seal breathing
holes. In addition, some oil may freeze to and move with the underside
of the ice (Neff *in* Geraci and St. Aubin 1990). Therefore, oil should
be prevented from moving under the pack ice. To recover oil that has
been spilled under ice, **trenches** may be cut in the ice to
concentrate oil, which, in turn, can be recovered by skimming or suction
techniques. A series of **holes** can be drilled with ice augers into
subsurface pockets with trapped oil and then pumped into storage
containers (Alaska Clean Seas 1998). Ice thickness must be adequate to
support the weight of vehicles and equipment.

4\. Booms

**Protective booms** and **sorbent materials** may be used as
containment measures to minimize contamination in confined areas
(polynyas and ice leads) or to protect shorelines and ice edges where
polar bears and their prey may be found.

Polar bear sensitive areas may be boomed using **shoreline exclusion
techniques** which involves anchoring one or more lengths of boom
between two or more stationary points to prevent oil from entering an
area occupied by polar bears. **Shoreline diversion booming** is used to
divert a spill headed toward an area occupied by polar bears to a less
sensitive area, such as toward a skimmer or open water. However, polar
bears, if disturbed, may move out of an un-oiled area into an oiled
area. If possible, booms should be placed in a manner that minimizes
disturbance to polar bears.

5\. Dikes/Berms

For on-land or on-ice spills, snow or earthen **berms** may be
constructed to contain oil around the leak, if terrain permits.
**Dikes** filled with excelsior or sorbent materials may be used on
spills in smaller streams.

6\. In-situ Burning

**In-situ burning** is the combustion of spilled oil into the
atmosphere. It is a technique that can potentially remove large
quantities of oil from the water's surface in a short period of time. To
be effective, burning must be initiated soon after the spill before
highly volatile (flammable) hydrocarbons vaporize. Burning causes
by-products such as carbon particles and gases to be released into the
environment. The main disadvantage of burning is that the pollution
generated my have human health impacts from breathing air in the
vicinity of the spill.

In situ burning can assist in the removal of oil from the water, thus
reducing the time that polar bears would likely come into contact with
the spilled oil. The Service concurs with in-situ burning as a response
strategy if impacts from burning are less harmful to humans and wildlife
than impacts of the non-burned oil. If oil is released in the Arctic
environment it will persist due to slow weathering processes. In most
instances, in-situ burning of spilled oil is preferable to potential
oiling of fish and wildlife. Short-term effects associated with burning
are preferable to long-term effects associated with oiled polar bears
and additional wildlife, as well as the potentially damaging effects of
shoreline cleanup in biologically sensitive areas.

The Service's RRC and MMM representative shall determine the potential
risk to polar bear population(s) specific to the spill zone. All
wildlife in the proposed burn area must be identified as quickly as
possible prior to Service concurrence of the in-situ burn permit. The
request for a burn permit is approved by the FOSC.

7\. Dispersants

**Dispersants** are water surface-active chemicals that enhance the
movement of oil from the surface into the water column. To be effective
on an open water oil spill, the dispersant must be able to reach the oil
slick, mix with the oil, be at the proper concentration, and cause the
oil to disperse into droplets. Dispersants work best within the first 24
hours of a spill, on lighter oils, and when a moderate amount of wind
exists. Dispersants are toxic to varying degrees to marine biota but
toxicity may be of short duration if the dispersant is diluted quickly
in an open water environment. Low water temperatures may also affect the
effectiveness of the dispersant.

In general, the Service supports dispersant use as a response strategy
if associated impacts are less harmful to humans and wildlife than
impacts of the non-dispersed oil. The *Dispersant Use Guidelines* have
been developed by the Alaska Regional Response Team in an effort to
apply dispersants with the least amount of deleterious environmental
effects. Dispersants may be used in marine waters where water depth and
currents are sufficient to disperse and dilute oil rapidly to low
concentrations, i.e. deep, off shore waters. Dispersant use is not
recommended immediately in or around sensitive areas where trust species
or their critical habitat occur, i.e. lagoons, wetlands, or other
nesting spawning, breeding , and nursery areas (Regional Response Team
Oil Dispersant Guidelines for Alaska 1989). The dispersants themselves
must be approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The request for
a dispersant use permit is approved by the FOSC pending completion of
the *Dispersant Use Checklist*. All wildlife in the proposed use area
must be identified prior to Service concurrence of the permit.

Dispersants are not effective in a broken ice environment because ice
may prevent dispersants from mixing into the water column. The use of
dispersants in broken ice is of concern because wildlife may be exposed
to residual toxins that adhere to ice rather than disperse in open
water. The decision of whether or not to use dispersants will be made on
a case-by-case basis by the FOSC. MMM staff should ensure that concerns
for polar bears or their habitat are passed on to the FOSC through the
RRC.

B. [Secondary Response]{.underline}

1\. General Considerations

Secondary response is to deter or haze polar bears from the area of the
oil slick or contaminated habitat. This response is appropriate under
all circumstances and may be incorporated with primary response
activities. The degree of risk associated with the animal actually
contacting oil before secondary response strategies are initiated should
be considered. If the spill occurs when polar bears are believed to be
present, an aerial survey should be conducted to locate potentially
affected animals.

2\. Detection

A deterrent is any method or device used to keep bears away from a
particular location. The best deterrent requires **early detection** to
be effective. Bear **monitors** are people whose specific responsibility
is to watch for bears and bear sign and warn others of approaching
bears. Bears may be difficult to see in Arctic Alaska, due to fog,
darkness, or blowing snow. **Dogs** may also be trained to signal
approaching bears. **Trip wires** have been used successfully on
Alaska's North Slope to detect approaching polar bears in small,
temporary, or portable camps. Electrical wire fence is placed at
sufficient distance (30-100 feet) from the camp's perimeter to allow
personnel time to retreat to a safe location once the bear is detected.
One to three strands of 30-gauge wire are strung on posts securely
anchored in ice and snow. The lowest strand should be strung at
approximately 20 inches from the ground's surface to prevent Arctic
foxes from tripping the system (Hechtel *in* Truett 1993). The wire
fence is attached to an alarm that is set off when a bear walks through
the fence. A gate may be necessary to allow humans and/or vehicles to
access the camp. This detection system provides a 24 hour alarm system
but can be set off inadvertently by non-target species, people, strong
winds or snow.

**Motion sensors** are a microwave motion detection system that create
an "invisible fence" around a camp. An alarm is sounded when an object
passes through the microwave beam between the transmitter and the
receiver (BP Exploration 1993). The number of transmitters and receivers
necessary to protect a camp is dependent on the size of the camp. Motion
sensors are also tripped by people, vehicles, or non-target species but
are automatically reset and may be more suited to larger, semi-permanent
facilities (Hechtel *in* Truett 1993).

If polar bears are detected near a spill area or response operation, all
personnel in the area should move to a **designated safe location.**
Procedures for retreating and designated safe places should be
established as soon as the response operation is initiated.

While detection methods are useful to signal the approach of polar bears
that are still some distance away, they should not be considered
deterrent methods. If use of deterrents is warranted, responders should
identify an appropriate **escape route** should the deterrent fail.
Bears should also be given access to an escape route, preferably one
that is in the direction from which they came, or towards the sea ice.

3\. Deterrents

There are no data indicating that **visual or olfactory deterrent
methods** are effective in keeping polar bears away from specific sites.
**Artificial light**, such as the electric lighting system at industry
sites, may deter some bears at night but may not be effective in fog or
white out conditions and should not be relied on solely as a deterrent.

The following section on deterrents, unless otherwise cited, is based on
information presented by Dick Shideler, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, in *Guidelines for Oil and Gas Operations in Polar Bear Habitats*
(1993). The reader is referred to this document for a more extensive
review of deterrents and deterrent methods.

Use of **auditory deterrents** such as the firing of propane cannons or
warning shots is effective for short-term deterrence, but the animals
may habituate to this method. Starting and revving a vehicle engine may
be sufficient noise to deter bears from entering or moving toward a
spill site. Vehicles should not be used to chase a bear unless people or
the bear(s) are in immediate danger. If a bear is pursued, attempts
should be made to minimize stress to the animal and avoid the
possibility of injury or overheating. In Canada, test results indicated
that polar bears may be deterred by electronically synthesized polar
bear aggressive "roars" broadcast at over 120 decibels from
loudspeakers. These sounds may be incorporated into an alarm broadcast
system at the spill site or on mobile (security patrol) vehicles. The
noises must be broadcast with adequate volume (otherwise it may attract
curious bears) and in a direction that allows the bear a safe escape
route.

Additional **noisemakers**, such as cracker shells, screamers,
firecrackers, sirens, and air horns are designed to produce a loud noise
that will scare a bear. **Cracker shells** are deterrents used in a
12-gauge shotgun that explode at approximately 82-110 yards (75-100
meters) **Screamers** are deterrents used with a special .22 caliber
blank pistol that make a screaming noise and emit a bright light from
the muzzle at approximately 110 yards (100 meters). **Firecrackers** are
loud explosives that must be thrown or propelled from a slingshot.

These noisemakers, as well as sirens and air horns, can be effective on
some bears but not others. In addition, some bears may habituate to
noise, especially if used repeatedly without an accompanying physical
deterrent. Adverse weather such as high winds or cold temperatures may
minimize the effectiveness of noisemakers. Response personnel should not
rely on noisemakers for personal protection.

Firing **warning shots** with lethal rounds such as rifle and shotgun
slugs is discouraged because of the potential to harm the bear or humans
in the area. This deterrent technique should be used only if people are
in danger. Response personnel should never fire lethal rounds at a bear
unless they intend to kill the bear in defense of life.

If auditory deterrents are deemed ineffective, **physical stimuli,**
such as projectiles, may be necessary. Auditory deterrents used in
combination with physical stimuli enhance the effectiveness of deterrent
action. **Projectiles,** such as plastic bullets (usually fired from a
12-gauge pump shotgun) and rubber batons have been successfully used to
deter polar bears. Plastic bullets are accurate up to 44 yards but
affected by wind. No bears have been known to respond aggressively to
being hit by plastic bullets; however, at close range they may be lethal
to both bears and humans. Improper use of the weapon could potentially
kill a bear and training is necessary to use the gun correctly. Weapons
must be cleaned and maintained regularly. Plastic bullets and cracker
shells should not be used with autoloaders because they may jam. Rubber
batons require the use of a specialized, single-shot gun, project a
heavier load, and are effective at a range of 32-55 yards. They are less
accurate than rubber bullets, require considerable training, and may
only be used by enforcement or security personnel. More accurate models
are being developed.

**Herding or hazing** (dispersal of) polar bears with vehicles, boats,
and aircraft has been successfully demonstrated. These methods may be
effective when oil is confined to a small area and can be regularly
patrolled. Individuals conducting the techniques must be trained and
advised to avoid putting wildlife into additional jeopardy when using a
deterrent designed to move an animal away from or toward a specific
site. All bears may be marked with dye so returning bears can be
identified (Schweinsburg et al. 1985). However, this action warrants
consideration since it may place bears and humans in close proximity,
increasing risk and stress to both bears and humans.

Because of the insular value of snow, ice, and thick fur of the bear, no
**electric fence** design has been effectively employed to deter polar
bears on snow or ice. Electric fences may be used in a snow-free
environment but must be grounded in order to operate properly. Wires
should be situated so that a bear is unable to crawl under, through, or
over the fence. The shock should be strong enough to cause an
involuntary muscle contraction without burning the skin or affecting
heart function.

4\. Pre-emptive Capture, Handling, and Transport

**Pre-emptive capture** should only be initiated if all other methods
under the secondary response strategy are ineffective in deterring bears
from a spill site. The main problems affecting the feasibility of polar
bear capture operations are logistical constraints. Pre-emptive capture
and relocation of polar bears is only feasible if small numbers of
animals are in danger of being oiled and suitable relocation sites are
nearby. The potential for polar bears to be oiled should be high before
this technique is initiated.

Use of **baited culvert traps** is the least invasive method for
capturing polar bears. However, this technique has greater application
limitations than does the use of **immobilizing drugs**. The Service
will determine whether pre-emptive capture of polar bears is necessary
on a case-by-case basis. Capture operations should only be conducted by
or with oversight from a MMM representative. Personnel safety is a
priority during polar bear capture, holding and release operations.
Capture and release operations will not be conducted when weather,
ocean, or other conditions jeopardize human safety.

**Transport** can be accomplished using aircraft or vehicles. If polar
bears are drugged and transported by aircraft swingload, they should be
insulated from the cold. A forklift may be necessary to move caged bears
to transport vehicles/aircraft. Cage enclosures used to transport polar
bears should be large enough to provide sufficient space for the bear to
turn about freely and lie in a natural position. Polar bears should not
be transported in the same enclosure with another bear except cubs with
mothers or siblings. Transport of each bear should be accompanied by a
form containing (at minimum) the following information (see Attachment
1):

> \* capture aircraft and personnel
>
> \* date, time and location of capture
>
> \* amount of oil in area and whether the bear was observed or captured
> in the oil
>
> \* behavior at capture, i.e. aggressive, lethargic, comatose
>
> \* technique used to capture the animal
>
> \* drug(s) used to immobilize animal and dosage
>
> \* description of bear, i.e. sex, age, distinguishing marks
>
> \* body measurements (total body length, straight-line body length,
> axillary girth, neck girth at shoulders and at axis, skull length and
> width, weight)
>
> \* presence of ear tag, tattoo, or collar
>
> \* recovery time from drug and reaction of animal during recovery.

Upon capture the bear should immediately be examined by an attending
veterinarian or other qualified personnel. A tooth and blood samples
should be taken, and the bear should be affixed with a plastic ear tag
and a tattoo to monitor movements after release. Polar bears must be
regarded as dangerous in a captive situation and should be handled as
little as possible during response operations. A veterinarian should be
on site.

5\. Other

No other secondary response strategies that have been demonstrated
effective are currently available.

C. [Tertiary Response]{.underline}

1\. General Considerations

Tertiary response is the treatment of polar bears contaminated with oil.
The components of tertiary response are the **capture, handling,
transport, treatment, holding**, and **release** of polar bears. While
this response may be feasible on a small scale, little is known about
the potential effects of capturing oiled polar bears. Standard
techniques used during helicopter capture operations may cause already
stressed polar bears to overheat (Hurst et al. 1982). Handling or
drugging weakened or stressed polar bears could be detrimental to the
animal. Repeatedly immobilizing an animal (for treatment, cleaning,
drying, etc.) may have serious health effects which should be weighed
against the animal's chances of survival PRIOR to the animal's capture.
Logistical and monetary constraints may further limit the feasibility of
this response.

Decisions regarding the health of each polar bear will be made by the
attending veterinarian in consultation with the MMM representative.
There are presently no veterinary standards identified to counteract oil
toxicity in polar bears. In some cases it may be necessary to euthanize
bears. Polar bears should be euthanized by injection when the attending
veterinarian decides that the damage to the bear is irreversible and the
animal is suffering.

2\. Capture

Oiled polar bears should not be captured unless a rehabilitation
facility is available for their care and treatment (see section 5
below). **Capture** of bears should be conducted by qualified personnel
as described in section II.C. Use of traps may not be effective if the
animal is sick or occupied with grooming.

3\. Handling

Handling should be conducted by qualified personnel as described in
section II.C.

4\. Transport

Transport should be conducted by qualified personnel as described in
section II.C.

5\. Treatment

**Treatment facilities** for rehabilitating oiled polar bears should
include: 1) portable bear cages (and the mechanics to move them); 2) an
accommodation and treatment center, including separate areas for triage
and sedation, cleaning, rinsing, drying, recovery, and holding; 3) a
veterinary laboratory and equipment storage area; and 4) staffing
accommodations, including restrooms, sleeping and dining areas. The
treatment facility should be located near a lake or where large
quantities of snow can be melted, and also in proximity of an airstrip.
Consideration must be given to disposal of cleanup waste. If necessary,
wastewater permits must be obtained from federal and state authorities.

In Alaska, the closest facility that may be able to handle the treatment
of oiled polar bears is maintained by Alaska Clean Seas, a private oil
spill response organization. Alaska Clean Seas maintains a warehouse
(two conex trailers) and equipment in Prudhoe Bay that is deployable in
an emergency situation. On-site equipment includes a *Polar/Brown Bear
Cleaning, Treatment and Necropsy Kit,* three temporary holding cages,
and a 2400 gallon tank (Mike Collins, pers. comm. 1998). The Alaska Zoo
in Anchorage has temporary holding facilities capable of supporting
emergency treatment for a small number of polar bears (John Seawell,
pers. com. 1998). The Alaska Sea Life Center has pool space, dry areas,
rehabilitation and veterinary facilities available for the treatment of
cubs, but no closures available for holding adult bears (Susan Engels,
pers. comm. 1998). MMM staff would be responsible for coordinating with
and providing personnel support to rehabilitation facilities.

Only qualified personnel shall be admitted into treatment facilities.
Public media relations should minimize disturbance to polar bears; no
cameras with flashes will be permitted in the facility, and press
conferences should be held outside and away from captured bears.

Once a polar bear is brought into a treatment facility, a qualified
veterinarian will perform **assessment and triage** and oversee the
animal's care and recovery. Treatment will require immobilizing the
animal. Dosages will vary according the animal's weight, body condition,
and purpose for immobilization.

Warm water, liquid detergent and sawdust are the only known non-toxic
agents proven effective in **cleaning** oiled polar bears but may not
remove deeper oil next to the skin. Some oil may be ingested during
grooming and may require stomach pumping (Schweinsburg et al. 1985). A
cleaning room equipped with abundant sawdust and a 200 gallon rinse tank
filled with 30 degree Celsius water may be used to clean polar bears.
Bears should be immobilized and eyes covered for protection.

Cleaning involves working sawdust into the fur and brushing out the
oiled material. This procedure may be followed by application of a 15%
"Sunlight" soap solution lathered over the entire body, which, in turn,
is followed by application of a warm water rinse to remove as much of
the soap as possible. The bear can then be lowered into the rinse tank
to remove remaining soap. Application of more sawdust and brushing will
remove excess water and help dry the fur. The animal's vital signs
should be closely monitored throughout the process and when drying is
completed, the animal should be moved to a holding cage containing a
sawdust bed.

Polar bears should be fed seal meat or blubber obtained from nearby
village communities. If such meat is not available, commercial dog food
or other substitutes may be used.

In extreme cases it may be necessary to euthanize severely oiled bears.
This decision should be made by a qualified veterinarian in consultation
with the Service. An autopsy should be performed to increase knowledge
on the effects of oil on polar bears.

6\. Holding

Polar bears should be held for as little time as is possible. Clinical
parameters should be monitored and risks of disease transmission and
stress minimized. **Holding cages** made from steel tubing may be used
while animals are in captivity. Holding cages should be elevated from
the floor to prevent accumulation of feces. Each polar bear will be
examined by a qualified veterinarian to determine health status of the
animal prior to release into the wild or transfer to a zoo.

7\. Release

The purpose of release is to return treated polar bears to the wild as
soon as possible in areas where they have the best chance of survival,
as determined by the Service. The Service will work closely with
rehabilitation personnel to develop an appropriate release plan. Every
attempt will be made to release polar bears where they were originally
captured or in the near vicinity. This will depend on the degree of
contamination risk present at the release site. The Service retains
responsibility for determining the location of potential **release
sites.** Decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis by the MMM
representative. Any indication of infectious disease or the animal's
inability to sustain itself precludes release into the wild. If unable
to be released into the wild, every attempt will be made to place these
animals in zoos, aquaria, or research facilities. Monitoring should
occur after release to determine survivorship and bear movements.

III\. [LIST OF CONTACTS]{.underline}

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Catherine Berg, Regional Response Coordinator

Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office

605 West 4^th^ Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99501

\(907\) 271-1630

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Phil Johnson, Supervisory Fish and Wildlife Biologist

Fisheries and Habitat Conservation

1011 E. Tudor Rd.

Anchorage, AK 99503

\(907\) 786-3483

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Scott Schliebe

Polar Bear Project Leader

Marine Mammals Management

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

\(907\) 786-3812

U.S. Geological Survey

Dr. Steven Amstrup, Research Biologist

Biological Resources Division

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

\(907\) 786‑3512

National Marine Fisheries Service

Kaja Brix, Alaska Stranding Coordinator

P.O. Box 21668

Juneau, AK 99802

\(907\) 586-7510

Alaska Clean Seas

Mr Mike Collins/Ms. Diane Gagnon

Materials Coordinators

1 Spine Road, Pouch 340022

Prudhoe Bay, AK 99734

\(907\) 659-3224

Alaska Sea Life Center

Susan Engels, Research Administrator

P.O. Box 1329

Seward, AK 99664

\(907\) 224-6300

Alaska Zoo

Sammye Seawell, Director

4731 O'Malley Road

Anchorage AK 99515

\(907\) 346-2133

North Slope Borough

Dr. Todd O'Hara, Veterinary Toxicologist

Department of Wildlife Management

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

\(907\) 852-0350

North Slope Borough

Charles Brower, Director

Department of Wildlife Management

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

\(907\) 852‑2611

Canadian Wildlife Service

Dr. Ian Stirling, Research Scientist

5320 122 Street

Edmonton, Alberta

Canada T6H-3S5

\(403\) 435-7349

Government of Northwest Territories

Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist

Department of Renewable Resources

Bag 100

Iqaluit, NWT

Canada X0A-0H0

\(867\) 979-5412

International Wildlife Research

Dr. Randall Davis, Veterinarian

2661 Concorde Circle

League City, TX 77573

\(409\) 740-4528

University of Guelph

Dr. David St. Aubin, Veterinarian

Department of Pathology

Ontario Veterinary College

Guelph, Ontario

Canada

IV\. [REFERENCES]{.underline}

Alaska Clean Seas. 1998. Draft technical manual, volumes 1-2. Prudhoe
Bay, AK.

Alaska Regional Response Team. 1989. Oil dispersant guidelines for
Alaska. Appendix 1 *in* the Alaska federal/state preparedness plan for
response to oil and hazardous substance discharges/releases. Anchorage,
AK. 96pp.

Amstrup, S.C. 1989. Ethylene glycol (anti-freeze) poisoning in a
free-ranging polar bear. Veterinary and Human Toxicology 31:317-319.

Amstrup, S.C. 1993. Human disturbances of denning polar bears in Alaska.
Arctic 46(3):246-250.

Amstrup, S.C. 1995. Movements, distribution, and population dynamics of
polar bears in the Beaufort Sea. PhD Dissertation. University of Alaska,
Fairbanks. 296pp.

Amstrup, S.C. and C. Gardner. 1994. Polar bear maternity denning in the
Beaufort Sea. J. Wildl. Manage. 58(1):1-10

Amstrup, S.C. and D.P. DeMaster. 1988. Selected marine mammals of
Alaska: species accounts with research and management recommendations.
J.W. Lentfer, ed. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 39-56pp.

BP Exploration. 1993. Looks can kill! Safety and polar bears on the
North Slope. Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, Anchorage, AK. 57pp.

Derocher, A.E. and I. Stirling. 1991. Oil contamination of two polar
bears. Polar Record 27:56-57.

Derocher, A.E., G.W. Garner, N.J. Lunn, and O. Wiig. 1998. Draft
proceedings of the twelfth working meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear
Specialist Group, 3-7 February 1997, Oslo, Norway. 188pp.

Garner, G.W., S.T. Knick, and D.C. Douglas. 1990. Seasonal movements of
adult female polar bears in the Bering and Chukchi seas. International
Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:219-226.

Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin. 1990. Sea mammals and oil: confronting
the risks. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 282pp.

Harington, C.P. 1968. Denning habits of the polar bear. Can. Wildl.
Serv. Rep. 5:1-30.

Hechtel, J. 1993. Pages 25-34 *in* Guidelines for oil and gas operations
in polar bear habitats. Joe C. Truett, ed. Minerals Management Service,
OCS Study MMS 93-0008.

Hurst, R.J., N.A. Oritsland, and P.D. Watts. 1982. Metabolic and
temperature responses of polar bears to crude oil. Pages 263-280 *in*
Land and water issues related to energy development. P.J. Rand, ed. Ann
Arbor Science, MI.

Kalxdorff, S. 1997. Collection of local knowledge regarding polar bear
habitat use in Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals
Management Office, Anchorage, Alaska. 71pp.

Lentfer, J.W. 1972. Polar bear - sea ice relationships. Pages 165-171
*in* S. Herrero, ed. Bears - their biology and management. IUCN Publ.
New Ser. 23.

Neff, 1990. Composition and fate of petroleum and spill-treating agents
in the marine environment. Pages 1-33 *in* Sea mammals and oil:
confronting the risks. J.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. Academic
Press, San Diego, CA.

Oritsland, N.A., F.R. Engelhardt, F.A. Juck, R.J. Hurst, and P.D. Watts.
1981. Effect of crude oil on polar bears. Environmental Studies No. 24.
Northern Affairs Program, Northern Environmental Protection Branch,
Indian and Northern Affairs, Canada. 268pp.

Schweinsburg, R.E., I. Stirling, M. Shoesmith, F. Juck, and R.
Engelhardt. 1985. Action plan for protection of polar bears in the event
of a major oil spill. Draft report to federal/provincial polar bear
administrative committee. 99pp.

Shideler, D. 1993. Deterrent methods. Pages 35-50 *in* Guidelines for
oil and gas operations in polar bear habitats. J. Truett, ed. OCS Study,
MMS 93-0008.

Stirling, I. 1990. Pages 223-234 *in* Sea mammals and oil: confronting
the risks. J.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. Academic Press. San
Diego, CA.

Stirling, I., D. Andriashek, and W. Calvert. 1993. Habitat preferences
of polar bears in the western Canadian Arctic in late winter and spring.
Polar Record 29 (168): 13-24.

Stirling, I., and W.R. Archibald. 1977. Aspects of predation of seals by
polar bears. J. Fish.Res. Board Can. 34:1126-1129.

Stirling, I., and P.B. Latour. 1978. Comparative hunting abilities of
polar bear cubs of different ages. Can. J. Zool. 56:1768-1772.

Stirling, I., and E.H. McEwan. 1975. The caloric value of whole ringed
seals ([Phoca]{.underline} [hispida]{.underline}) in relation to polar
bear ([Ursus]{.underline} [maritimus]{.underline}) ecology and hunting
behavior. Can. J. Zool. 53:1021-1027.

Stishov, M.S. 1991. Results of aerial counts of the polar bear dens on
the Arctic coasts of the extreme northeast Asia. Pages 90-92 *in* Polar
bears, IUCN Species Survival Commission,Occasional Paper 7. S.C. Amstrup
and O. Wiig eds. 107pp.

U.S. Army Engineer District. 1998. Beaufort Sea oil and gas
development/Northstar project, draft environmental impact statement.
Volume IV, chapter 8.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Conservation plan for the polar
bear in Alaska. Marine Mammals Management Office, Anchorage, AK. 79pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Habitat conservation strategy for
polar bears in Alaska. Marine Mammals Management Office, Anchorage, AK.
232pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Polar bear stock assessments:
Alaska Chukchi/Bering seas stock and southern Beaufort Sea stock. Marine
Mammals Management Office, Anchorage, AK. 11pp.

Uspenski, S.M. and A.A. Kistchinski. 1972. New data on the winter
ecology of the polar bear (*Ursus maritimus*) on Wrangel Island. Pages
181-197 *in* S. Herrero, ed. Bears - their biology and management. IUCN
Publ. New Ser. 23.

Wilkenson, D.M. 1996. National contingency plan for response to unusual
marine mammal mortality events. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-9.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD. 118pp.

*Personal Communications*

Gerald Garner, Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey.
Noted in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Habitat conservation
strategy for polar bears in Alaska. Marine Mammals Management Office,
Anchorage, AK. 232pp.

Mike Collins, Materials Coordinator, Alaska Clean Seas, August 1998.

Susan Engels, Research Administrator, Alaska Sea Life Center, September
1998.

John Seawell, Curator, Alaska Zoo, September 1998.