.

OCS Study

MMS 2005-034

Proceedings:

Beaufort Sea Polar Bear Monitoring Workshop

September 3-5, 2003

Anchorage, Alaska

MMS U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service

Alaska OCS Region
.

OCS Study 

MMS 2005-034

Proceedings:

Beaufort Sea Polar Bear Monitoring Workshop

September 3-5, 2003

Anchorage, Alaska

By

Craig Perham

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Marine Mammals Management

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

Prepared for: 

U. S. Department of the Interior 

Minerals Management Service 

Alaska OCS Region 

3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500 

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

Under Contract No. 2-4043-0053 

Task Order No. AK-02-06
iii

DISCLAIMER

This report has been reviewed by the Alaska OCS Region, Minerals Management

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior and approved for publication. The opinions,

findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in the report are those of the

authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Minerals Management Service.

Mention of trade names for commercial products does not constitute endorsement or

recommendations for use. This report is exempt from review by the Minerals

Management Service Technical Publication Unit and Regional Editor. 

REPORT AVAILABILITY

This document is available to the public through:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Marine Mammals Management

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

1-800-362-5148

CITATION

Suggested citation: 

Perham, C.J. 2005. Proceedings of the Beaufort Sea Polar Bear Monitoring Workshop. OCS Study MMS 

2005-034. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Marine Mammals Management, Anchorage, AK. 

Prepared for the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, 

Anchorage, AK. 26 pp. plus appendices. 
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................. v

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION........................................................................... 2

The Incidental Take Regulation and Monitoring Process.............................................2

III. WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES AND METHODS....................................................... 4

IV. DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................... 5

A. EXISTING POLAR BEAR RESEARCH, MONITORING, MITIGATION 

PROGRAMS..........................................................................................................5

B. HABITAT ALTERATION....................................................................................6

Potential Impacts.....................................................................................................6

Monitoring Habitat Alteration .................................................................................8

Habitat Alteration Recommendations ......................................................................9

C. CONTAMINANTS ............................................................................................. 10

Potential Impacts................................................................................................... 10

Monitoring Contaminants...................................................................................... 10

Contaminants Recommendations........................................................................... 11

D. ATTRACTION/AVOIDANCE ........................................................................... 11

Potential Impacts................................................................................................... 11

Monitoring Attraction/Avoidance .......................................................................... 13

Attraction/Avoidance Recommendations............................................................... 13

E. OIL SPILLS......................................................................................................... 13

Potential Impacts................................................................................................... 13

Monitoring Oil Spills............................................................................................. 14

Oil Spill Recommendations................................................................................... 14

F. INDUSTRIAL NOISE ......................................................................................... 14

Potential Impacts................................................................................................... 14

Monitoring Industrial Noise................................................................................... 14

Industrial Noise Recommendations........................................................................ 15

G. POLAR BEAR/HUMAN INTERACTIONS........................................................ 15

Potential Impacts................................................................................................... 15

Monitoring Polar Bear/Human Interactions ........................................................... 15

Polar Bear/Human Interaction Recommendations.................................................. 18

V. RESEARCH VS. MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS................................... 19

VI. A MONITORING STRATEGY, AN EVOLVING PROCESS............................... 20

VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................. 22
v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On September 3-5, 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) sponsored a 

workshop in Anchorage, Alaska. The goal of this meeting was to identify components 

for the development of a comprehensive, long-term polar bear monitoring program in 

association with the oil and gas industry in Alaska. This workshop was the initial effort 

to design an effective monitoring strategy that will provide information to help reduce 

bear/human interactions and help protect polar bear habitat for the Southern Beaufort Sea 

polar bear population. Potential oil and gas industry impacts on polar bears which were 

discussed during the workshop included: habitat alteration, chemical contamination, 

attraction and preclusion of areas, oil spills, industrial noise, and polar bear interactions 

with humans. Ideally, an improved management plan which identifies information 

necessary to monitor polar bears of the Southern Beaufort Sea stock will result from the 

recommendations of this workshop. 
1

I. INTRODUCTION 

In recent years, onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration and production operations in 

the Alaskan Beaufort Sea area have been increasing. Recent exploration activities, such 

as Northstar, Northwest Milne, McCovey, projects in the National Petroleum Reserve 

(NPR-A), and other prospects, indicate that North Slope oil and gas activities will 

continue into the future. Many of these new developments are occurring in the same 

habitat used by polar bears for denning, feeding, and seasonal movements. 

Polar bears are a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) trust species protected by the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The MMPA created a general moratorium on 

the ‘take’ of marine mammals and prohibitions for taking except when authorized. 

Incidental (unintentional) take of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens 

engaged in lawful activities (such as oil and gas exploration, development and 

production) may be authorized, but only through prescribed regulations and associated 

Letters of Authorization. The FWS is required to assess impacts of oil and gas 

development on polar bears every three to five years in order to issue regulations 

allowing unintentional, incidental take of polar bears, as detailed under Section 101(a)(5) 

of the MMPA of 1972. Take is defined as to “harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to 

harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” The incidental take regulations are 

important to oil and gas operators because they provide a mechanism to minimize the 

likelihood of bear-human interactions which can lead to incidental takes of polar bears

and address liability issues for incidental take. 

In order to issue incidental take regulations, the FWS must: 1) receive a petition

requesting promulgations of regulations; 2) evaluate the scope of activities; and 3) make 

a finding that activities have a negligible impact on polar bears, their habitat, and their 

availability for subsistence uses. The evaluation and findings process is similar to federal 

and state lease sale stipulations in environmental impact assessments for oil and gas 

operations which require an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of 

the planned activity. 

Research on polar bears in Alaska conducted during the past 40 years has yielded 

valuable information regarding population ecology, den ecology, recruitment and 

survival, and habitat use by polar bears. However, quantitative data that specifically 

addresses potential cumulative impacts of development on polar bears and the effects of 

disturbance related to human activities on polar bear habitat use, as well as recruitment 

and survival, is lacking. In the past, potential impacts from specified activities have been 

monitored on a case-by-case basis. Currently, long term monitoring programs do not

exist to monitor cumulative effects on polar bears in the Beaufort Sea. A comprehensive, 

fully integrated monitoring approach to assess the potential effects of oil and gas 

development on polar bears is warranted. The development of a long-term monitoring 

program will help to increase the accuracy and adequately assess these potential impacts

and effects, and to implement measures to minimize impacts. 
2

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

THE INCIDENTAL TAKE REGULATION AND MONITORING PROCESS

The MMPA prohibits “take” of any marine mammal. Exceptions to the prohibition of 

taking marine mammals include: 1) subsistence hunting, 2) scientific research, 3) public 

display, 4) incidental take, 5) intentional take, and 6) defense of life. Oil and gas industry 

activities are authorized to take small numbers of polar bears using incidental and 

intentional take exemptions. The FWS considers an incidental take to be an infrequent, 

unavoidable, or accidental event, which alters the behavior or movement of a bear. The 

FWS has historically defined, “harass,” as any action that results in an observable change 

in the behavior of a marine mammal, such as an abrupt termination of breeding or 

feeding, or avoidance behavior. Currently, the term, “harass” has been re-defined as: 

“any act that either disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal’s natural behavioral 

patterns to a point where the patterns are abandoned or significantly altered or is directed 

towards a specific individual or group and is likely to cause disturbance by disrupting 

natural behavior.” 

Authority for developing regulations is provided through the MMPA. Regulations allow

U.S. citizens to take small numbers of polar bears incidental to specified activities and a 

specified region provided that:

1. Total take will have a negligible impact on the population. A negligible impact is 

defined as an impact resulting from the specified activity (oil and gas) that cannot 

be reasonably (not extreme or excessive) expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. 

2. Take will not affect the availability of the species for subsistence users.

It should be noted that incidental take authorizations do not permit industrial activities, 

rather, they allow for an exemption from the take provisions of the MMPA while 

specified activities are being conducted.

The regulation process begins with a petition from a U.S. citizen to incidentally take 

polar bears during certain activities (in this case, oil and gas activities). Submitted 

petition components include: 1) operations to be conducted; 2) dates and region of 

activities; 3) species of concern, the number and type of anticipated take; 4) anticipated 

impact on species, habitat, and subsistence use; and 5) mitigation measures. 

An environmental assessment is written to evaluate the effect that this Federal Action 

(issuing regulations) may have on the resources. Next, the FWS must determine whether

impacts of incidental takes are significant to the affected polar bear population. Finally, 

if warranted, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is generated if the FWS 

concludes that the current action will have a negligible impact on the recruitment and 

survival of polar bears, as well as no unmitigable impact for subsistence uses. A public 

comment period occurs during the draft regulations. If the FONSI is accepted, then 

incidental take regulations are issued for up to a five year period. 
3

Once regulations are in place, oil and gas operators can apply for an incidental take 

exemption by requesting a Letter of Authorization (LOA) from the FWS for specified 

activities, including exploration, development, and production activities. Exploration 

activities include winter seismic surveys and open-water seismic and shallow hazards 

surveys. Development activities include road construction, pipeline construction, camp 

construction, transportation, demobilization, restoration, and remediation. Production 

activities include the daily operation of production fields, such as the maintenance of 

facilities and operational improvements to the fields. 

In order for the FWS to issue a LOA, the operator must provide information on the 

activity to be conducted, the location of the activity, the time frame of the activity, a polar 

bear encounter/human interaction plan, a plan of cooperation with affected subsistence 

villages that considers the impact of the activity on subsistence harvest of polar bears, 

and a polar bear monitoring plan. The FWS and the operator typically meet to discuss 

polar bear monitoring requirements. The LOA requires that monitoring results must be

reported to FWS within three months after the activity has been concluded. 

The purpose of monitoring and reporting requirements is to assess the effects of industrial 

activities on polar bears to ensure that take is minimal to the polar bear population, and to 

detect any unanticipated effects of take. The monitoring focus can be site specific, area 

specific, or population specific. Site-specific monitoring measures bear-human encounter 

rates, outcomes of encounters, and trends of bear activity in the industrial areas, such as 

bear numbers, activity, and seasonal use. Area-specific monitoring includes analyzing 

polar bear spatial and temporal use trends, sex/age composition, and risk assessment to 

unpredictable events, such as oil spills. Population-specific monitoring includes 

investigating polar bear life history parameters, such as recruitment, survival, physical 

condition, status, and mortality. 

Since the inception of the incidental take regulations for the Beaufort Sea in 1993, the 

FWS has required monitoring for industrial activities. To determine whether cumulative 

impacts from activities are adversely affecting polar bears, a long-term monitoring

strategy is necessary to detect and measure changes in the status of the polar bear 

population over time.

The objectives of a long-term monitoring strategy are to:

1) identify information necessary to reliably assess possible direct and indirect 

effects of oil and gas activities on polar bears;

2) develop research studies necessary to obtain this information;

3) identify measures that could be taken to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of 

oil and gas activities;

4) identify the resources (time, money, special equipment) necessary to accomplish

these objectives.
4

III. WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

In September 2003, the FWS hosted a workshop to identify the elements necessary to 

develop a comprehensive monitoring program to better address potential short and longterm impacts of oil and gas development on polar bears in Alaska, particularly the 

Southern Beaufort Sea population. Specifically, the objectives of this workshop were to 

identify elements necessary to: 1) help reduce bear/human interactions, and 2) help 

protect polar bear habitat for the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population.

The workshop was held at the Hilltop Ski Area Lodge, Anchorage, Alaska on September 

3-5, 2003. Participants included government agency representatives from FWS, U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), Canada’s 

Northwest Territories Department of Resources, Wildlife, and Economic Development, 

Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Department of Interior; 

oil and gas industry representatives from EnCana Corporation, BP Exploration (Alaska), 

Inc., ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., and Western GeCo; consultants from Lynx Enterprises, 

OASIS Environmental, and West, Inc.; non-government organizations (NGO)

representatives from the Audubon Society, Arctic Connections, Polar Bears International, 

and Defenders of Wildlife; and the University of Alberta.

The first day of the workshop featured presentations including the natural history of polar 

bears inhabiting the Southern Beaufort Sea, mitigation tools from recent research efforts,

and a history of the incidental take and monitoring process. During the remainder of the 

workshop, participants were involved in working group sessions where a list of possible 

effects of oil and gas activities on polar bears were identified and discussed. These 

included: habitat alteration, chemical contamination, oil spills, industrial noise, attraction 

to human activity, preclusion of habitat use, and human/polar bear interactions. 

Participants then identified potential research and monitoring needs related to the list of 

effects, using the following questions as guidelines: 

1) What do we know about the effects of oil and gas activities on polar bears? 

Summarized in the Proceedings under subsections, Potential Impacts.

2) What is the most current information available regarding this effect?

3) What types of information/data are needed to more accurately monitor and evaluate 

impacts of this effect? 

Questions 2 and 3 are summarized in the Proceedings under subsections,

Monitoring, for individual impacts.

4) How can monitoring for these effects be improved?

Summarized in the Proceedings under subsections, Recommendations, for 

individual impacts.

This report summarizes the topics of the workshop discussions regarding the identified 

impacts. It also presents a draft strategy, in matrix form, listing the tasks of a long-term 

approach to monitoring the effects of industrial activities on polar bears. 
5

IV. DISCUSSION

A. EXISTING POLAR BEAR RESEARCH, MONITORING, MITIGATION 

PROGRAMS

Initially, workshop participants identified recent (within 5 years) and ongoing research 

efforts pertinent to polar bears conducted by the FWS, USGS, and consultants in the 

Beaufort Sea. These include: 

1. Recording the distribution of maternal polar bear dens in the arctic environment;

2. Real-time tissue contaminants analysis of Beaufort Sea polar bears monitoring 

levels of organochlorines, heavy metal, and other compounds;

3. Population estimation studies of Beaufort Sea polar bears (mark/recapture; 

population parameters, such as recruitment and survival);

4. Polar bear habitat resource selection (sea ice vs. terrestrial den habitat);

5. Polar bear whale carcass feeding ecology study;

6. Acoustic monitoring of industrial noise and vibrations at maternal polar bear 

den sites;

7. Use of FLIR imagery to detect polar bear maternal dens;

8. Oil spill modeling;

9. Polar bear population range boundary delineation (i.e., mapping out the area 

used by polar bears);

10. Polar bear den site behavior at emergence;

11. Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in the Developed Area (ANIMIDA);

12. Polar bear movement studies (observing seasonal movement patterns through 

telemetry); and 

13. Verification of maternal polar bear dens using scent-trained dogs.

In addition, workshop participants identified existing monitoring programs that have 

been, or are currently in place, and provide information pertinent to polar bear monitoring 

in relation to oil and gas activities on the North Slope. They include:

1. The FWS polar bear observation form;

2. Fall coastal polar bear aerial surveys;

3. Trained marine mammal observers associated with long-term field operations, 

such as seismic and transport activities;

4. Ice monitoring for offshore oil and gas operations in the oilfield units;

5. Weather monitoring;

6. Polar bear subsistence harvest monitoring;

7. Ringed seal on-ice aerial surveys and monitoring (Northstar Before After 

Control Impact (BACI) study and ADFG aerial surveys);

8. Polar bear tissue archiving: Arctic Marine Monitoring and Trends Assessment 

Program (AMMTAP);

9. Known polar bear den monitoring by agencies and industry;

10. Bowhead whale physiology data based on harvest information from ADFG;

11. Circumpolar contaminant studies, monitoring polar bear contaminant levels;

12. Bowhead carcass monitoring data for polar bears from National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) bowhead whale surveys;

13. ANIMIDA;
6

14. GIS of offshore industry activities from the MMS Human Activities Database;

15. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) oil spill database;

16. National Ice Data Base;

17. North Slope Borough (NSB) community polar bear patrols; 

18. Aerial photographs of the north slope terrestrial habitat (ConocoPhillips, BPXA, 

DOI, DOD, DNR, etc.) and

19. Arctic Borderlands program, monitoring climate change.

Workshop participants also compiled a list of existing mitigation and management 

techniques, which include:

1. Industry Letters of Authorization authorized by the FWS;

2. Industry-generated polar bear interaction plans;

3. The use of FLIR imagery to detect polar bear maternal dens;

4. The 1-mile buffer around known maternal polar bear dens;

5. Timing restrictions for industrial activities near known maternal polar bear 

dens;

6. Trained marine mammal observers;

7. North Slope industry polar bear hazing program within the oil and gas fields;

8. North Slope Information and Education Program (polar bear awareness and 

deterrence training);

9. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a refugium, where the policy mandate 

protects polar bears and their habitat;

10. The FWS Polar Bear Habitat Conservation Strategy;

11. Leasing process (oil lease sale stipulations for minimizing polar bear/human 

interactions);

12. Verification of maternal polar bear dens using scent-trained dogs;

13. NSB community polar bear patrols; and

14. Abandoned industrial facilities as potential denning habitat.

B. HABITAT ALTERATION

Potential Impacts

Habitat alteration describes potential changes in the physical habitat used by polar bears 

in the Beaufort Sea caused by anthropogenic activities, such as increased human 

development and climate change. Three main habitat types which bears use could be 

impacted: 1) sea ice marine environment; 2) terrestrial denning habitat; and 3) coastal

habitat during open-water season. Habitat changes could be manifested in the 

destruction, degradation, modification, or creation of habitat. 

Sea Ice

Effects from human-induced habitat alteration on sea ice or the marine environment can 

occur within hours, such as an oil spill, or can be long-term, such as climate change. Sea 

ice will be the most apparent habitat affected by climate change. Although the warming 

of the earth’s atmosphere by climate change is a world-wide phenomenon, it was 

discussed as an anthropogenic effect that could alter polar bear habitat because seasonal 

changes, such as extended duration of open water, may preclude sea ice habitat use by 
7

restricting some bears to coastal areas. The reduction of sea ice extent, caused by climate 

change, may also affect the timing of polar bear seasonal movements between the coastal 

regions and the pack ice. If the sea ice continues to recede as predicted, it is 

hypothesized that polar bears may spend more time on land rather than on sea ice, as seen 

in the Hudson Bay. The challenge in the Beaufort Sea will be predicting changes in ice 

habitat, barrier islands, and coastal habitats in relation to changes in polar bear 

distribution and use of habitat. 

Denning Habitat

Polar bears use both ice and terrestrial habitat for denning in the Southern Beaufort Sea. 

Expansion of the oil and gas fields throughout the North Slope and its ability to alter 

maternal polar bear den locations to due potential disturbance was classified as a 

potential impact. Although terrestrial change to the arctic environment has included the 

reduction in size of industrial footprints, the cumulative impacts associated with more 

facilities spread out over a larger area was a concern discussed by participants.

Coastal Habitat

Beaufort Sea coastal habitat is most important to polar bears during maternal denning 

(October to April). One of the potential effects of industrial activity to coastal 

environments has been habitat alteration through the development of infrastructure. The 

cumulative effect of increased multiple industrial footprints was also discussed in relation 

to coastal habitat as well. 

Another us of coastal habitat for polar bears is as a travel corridor. The majority of polar 

bear movement and use of the coastline, including the developed areas, occurs during the 

fall and spring of the year. Similarly, polar bears often use natural and man-made areas 

to rest along the coast, such as facilities: docks, breakwaters, islands, and other structures. 

These structures usually extend out from the nearshore environment several miles, such 

as the Saltwater Treatment Plant (STP) at the end of the West Dock causeway or the 

Endicott causeway. Bears have been known to spend days on these spots resting. This 

use occurs generally after bears swim in from the pack ice to land during late summer and 

fall months. Bears that become stranded on land, or choose to remain when the ice pulls 

away can also spend more time resting than bears on the pack ice, thereby conserving 

energy. It is uncertain if the bears deliberately go to these areas because of certain

attractions or are randomly heading toward land and make for the closest point. 

In regards to human/bear interactions, these coastal areas are important to industry from a 

safety standpoint and to the bears from an energetic standpoint. Views from workshop 

participants regarding these “rest areas” were varied. Some felt it was necessary to keep 

the bears moving if they make land at an operational facility through deterrent activities 

to minimize human/bear interactions. Other participants felt food-stressed bears need to 

rest after a long swim from open water. 

Coastal habitat can also be altered by placement of facilities. For example, once placed 

on a prospect, exploration drill ships, such as the SDC (recently used for EnCana on the 

McCovey prospect), can create artificial downstream leads in the ice depending on how 
8

the ship is placed. These leads can attract ringed seals (Phoca hispida) and possibly polar 

bears. One concern expressed by participants questioned whether industry could be 

attracting bears artificially due to the placement of facilities, thereby potentially 

increasing the risk of exposure in the event of an oil spill. 

Monitoring Habitat Alteration

The primary focus of current polar bear monitoring is the protection of denning females 

and maternal denning habitat. Current mitigation, management stipulations, and 

regulations regarding polar bear denning habitat were questioned by participants in terms 

of their effectiveness. Most notable was the one-mile buffer FWS places around known 

maternal dens to limit disturbances caused by activity. The distance of one mile was 

originally an arbitrary condition set back in the 1970s. Some participants felt this was a 

conservative distance. The FWS has felt comfortable with this size of buffer and the type 

of mitigation within this buffer was conducted on a case by case basis. Extenuating 

circumstances may warrant modification of the timing of activities with the one-mile 

buffer, reduction of the size of the buffer, or enhanced monitoring requirements. 

Mitigation could also be a restriction of all activities within the buffer, added marine 

mammal observers monitoring activity within the buffer, or a cessation of activities in the 

buffer until after the female bear emerges from the den. 

In an effort to investigate disturbance distances, a recent study of industrial noise and 

vibration measured certain attenuation distances of various industrial sounds from 

artificial polar bear dens. This study found that industrial noises could be received in 

dens from as far as 500 meters in distance. In addition, a polar bear den emergence study 

is currently investigating disturbance effects on recently emerged polar bears. Currently, 

the FWS does not have data on levels of disturbance effects on polar bears at various 

distances or at different times of the denning period. 

In addition to the one-mile buffer around polar bear dens, other mitigation stipulations 

include: 1) limit activities in the den buffer until after the bear emerges, essentially 

avoiding the denning period; and 2) use polar bear denning habitat maps to avoid denning 

areas during the planning stages of a proposed project. These mitigation techniques 

appear to be effective as there have been no known den abandonment due to industrial 

activities since these stipulations were instituted. 

Participants discussed the value of the coastal areas of the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge (Arctic Refuge) as a refugium for polar bears, particularly in the future under a 

reduced sea ice scenario caused by climate change. This is due to its status as a national 

wildlife refuge with its exclusion of oil and gas activities. In the Arctic Refuge, there is a 

perceived lower threshold for habitat alteration as human-caused habitat modification is 

currently deemed incompatible with the purpose for establishing the refuge. On-going 

monitoring activities in the refuge need to be identified. Natural changes of the habitat 

may be documented through aerial photography and ground-truthing. With that in mind, 

participants questioned if there were different monitoring standards between the 

developed areas, such as the oilfields, and undeveloped areas, such as the Arctic Refuge. 
9

Participants further discussed the value of polar bear habitats. A quantitative value could 

be placed on different habitat types to improve monitor changes. For denning habitat a 

distribution of known dens in the denning areas may serve as an example to help pinpoint 

valuable, preferred denning habitat. A comprehensive slope-wide map of potential 

denning habitat, coupled with a probability model of likelihood based on historic denning 

records would help when investigating small scale areas, such as specific oil lease areas. 

Participants also discussed whether coastal denning or resting areas would be positively 

or negatively affected by the expanding industrial landscape. Negative effects could 

include avoidance of potential resting or denning sites near industrial areas, such as 

roads, pipelines, staging areas, pads, and the larger production facilities. Positive effects 

could include use of elevated staging pads as dens sites. For example, polar bear den 

sites have occurred on an abandoned gravel staging pad within the Prudhoe Bay 

operations area and on a gravel runway ramp at the Bullen Point Long Range Radar Site 

near the Badami production site. Questions that arose during this discussion included: 

Could artificial substrate add to natural denning habitat if that habitat is limiting? Will 

limitation of denning habitat near industry be an issue in the future? 

Participants further discussed the value of polar bear habitats. A quantitative value could 

be placed on different habitat types to better monitor changes. For denning habitat a 

distribution of known dens in the denning areas may serve as an example to help pinpoint 

valuable, preferred denning habitat. A comprehensive map of potential denning habitat 

slope-wide, coupled with a probability model of likelihood based on historic denning 

records would help when investigating small scale areas, such as specific oil lease areas. 

Although some records document the cumulative expansion of the oil and gas industry 

over the Arctic Coastal Plain, participants discussed ways to more accurately record 

future physical changes to habitat from industrial expansion. This would entail

monitoring and documenting habitat changes that may affect polar bears. Monitoring

areas in the early stages of development, such as NPR-A, would be important. GIS 

coverages and aerial photographs of the industrial footprints in new areas that are current 

and available to agencies, as well as current coverages of the habitat may be tools to aid

in the monitoring habitat alteration. This habitat monitoring program could be combined

with polar bear telemetry data, and/or denning data to examine alteration affects on bears. 

Habitat Alteration Recommendations

1. Document naturally-occurring changes of the physical habitat over time, such as 

the erosion of barrier islands and loss of sea ice habitat.

2. Document any physical changes to habitat due to the increased development of 

oilfield infrastructure.

3. Identify important polar bear use areas, i.e. “movement corridors, resting areas, 

denning habitat,” across the Arctic coast.

4. Consider the value of abandoned infrastructure for denning or resting habitat.

5. Complete denning habitat maps for NPR-A and Arctic Refuge.
10

6. Consider research to document and possibly develop a predictive model 

measuring the use of one denning substrate over another (Sea ice vs. terrestrial 

maternal denning habitat).

7. Document impacts related to arctic climate change.

C. CONTAMINANTS

Potential Impacts

This section addresses contaminants and sources other than oil and oil derivatives. Oil is 

addressed separately in this report. Polar bears can consume contaminants directly, such 

as consumption of ethylene glycol, or indirectly through consumption of contaminated 

food and water containing organochlorines and trace elements. Workshop participants 

spent minimal time discussing contamination because current studies suggest low levels 

of most contaminants that could affect polar bears occur within the North Slope 

environment. 

Monitoring Contaminants

Monitoring for contaminant levels in the environment and in the Southern Beaufort Sea 

polar bear population is ongoing through a variety of Arctic studies. Contaminant levels 

come from both anthropogenic and natural sources. Further clarification of contaminant 

levels in polar bears, prey species and the environment is necessary to fully understand 

the impacts of contaminants on polar bears and the Arctic environment in the Beaufort 

Sea. 

The FWS polar bear bio-monitoring program, which investigates contaminant levels in 

harvested polar bears, and the USGS-managed Arctic Marine Monitoring and Trends 

Assessment Program (AMMTAP) Program, which archives tissue samples from 

harvested or stranded animals for future analysis, are two projects that address 

contaminant monitoring goals. The FWS has recently completed two reports 

summarizing concentrations of organochlorines and metals from adult male polar bears 

harvested from the Southern Beaufort Sea and Chukchi/Bering Sea populations. 

Contaminant samples have also been archived with AMMTAP for future analyses of new 

compounds and for development of spatial and temporal contaminant trends. 

Other projects, such as the Arctic Nearshore Impact Monitoring in Development Areas 

(ANIMIDA), a MMS-funded project, investigating baseline data of anthropogenic 

contamination in the nearshore ocean environment in Stefansson Sound of the Beaufort 

Sea, will indirectly benefit polar bear monitoring programs by assessing contaminant 

levels in the Arctic environment. In addition, current sampling requirements for air 

discharge of oil and gas facilities appears to be adequate. 

Contaminant discussion centered on improving current monitoring efforts through 

increased coordination and long-term funding of existing programs. Program samples 

need to be systematically collected and analysis needs to consider synergistic effects. 

Variation in bear movement or feeding patterns may also reflect differential accumulation 
11

of contaminants. Several approaches to address such issues were discussed. They 

included the possibility of polar bear hair or scat collection in evaluating individual 

contaminant variation over time or developing a regional approach that measures 

“before/after” contamination levels near developed areas, such as Northstar. 

Contaminants Recommendations

1. Continue contaminant monitoring programs, such as AMMTAP and ANIMIDA, 

and conduct rigorous analysis of the data to allow for analysis of compounding 

effects, e.g., variation in bear feeding patterns. Improve sampling protocols and 

study designs to ensure systematic sampling. 

2. Analyze specimens and report results in a timely fashion. 

3. Stabilize funding for the AMMTAP program.

4. Monitor disease and parasites in polar bears. Evaluate the trend in relation to 

climate change.

5. Develop a regional “before/after” contaminant monitoring approach in relation to 

industry development, where possible. 

D. ATTRACTION/AVOIDANCE

Potential Impacts

Polar bears may be attracted to industrial facilities and activities by smells, sounds, or 

sights. They may be precluded from denning and resting areas due to industrial activities

as discussed in the “Habitat Alteration” Section.

Three North Slope attractants were identified and discussed: 1) garbage; 2) whale carcass 

sites; and 3) lights. Improvements to the polar bear observation form in terms of 

attractants information was also discussed. 

Garbage

Even though great strides have been implemented for reducing the attraction of garbage 

and kitchen wastes at facilities and camps slope-wide, participants identified this as a 

persistent attractant problem that can be properly managed through increased vigilance. 

New policies regarding the installation and placement of bear-proof garbage cans and the

establishment of an electric fence around the NSB dump appear to have reduced the 

number of polar bear encounters caused by food wastes. 

Whale Carcass Sites

Cross Island, Barrow, and Kaktovik were identified as areas that have the potential to 

attract polar bears due to the presence of hunter-harvested bowhead whale (Balaena 

mysticetus) remains. Participants had particular concerns regarding Cross Island, due to 

its close location to the oil and gas fields, including whether congregations of bears at 

Cross Island increases the number of polar bears moving through the oilfield. 

Participants also discussed whether whale carcasses were considered a natural or a 

human-induced food source, and recognized that, regardless, more control over the 
12

carcass sites may be necessary to limit polar bear-human interactions within the North 

Slope area. Whale carcasses attract large numbers of bears to these sites during the fall 

open-water season. Because these bear aggregations affect bear distribution, these areas 

could increase the bear’s susceptibility to oil spills, disease transmission, and could 

increase their presence in the oilfield as they transit to and from these areas, especially 

Cross Island. Some participants thought that the presence of carcasses at Cross Island 

might decrease the presence of polar bears in the oilfield because it may deter some bears 

from coming onshore. Participants discussed the removal of the carcasses at these sites. 

One option, pushing carcasses off the island into the sea, may cause the carcasses to float 

to less desirable locations, such as the developed coastline where industrial infrastructure 

is located. The consensus of the group was to develop a solution with the local whalers, 

the NMFS, FWS, MMS, and industry that would limit polar bear-human interactions, 

possibly by seasonally removing or burying the whale remains. This would require 

considerable planning and will have to be a joint effort between these various groups. 

Monitoring of the carcass sites is currently being studied by the FWS with funding from 

the MMS; a final report is due in 2005. 

In addition, there is a small but increasing tourism industry for polar bear viewing that is 

emerging in relation to the bowhead whale carcass sites at Barrow and Kaktovik. A 

major concern among the participants was the sanctioning of such an industry based on a 

human-induced food source. Participants were also concerned that if the tourism industry 

was sanctioned, tourism development would not outpace bear viewing regulations. This 

concern is particularly important for Kaktovik because its carcass site is located near 

town. Participants acknowledged that villages, government officials (borough, city and 

tribal), and the FWS need to understand the changing tourism dynamics in relation to 

bear viewing because once patterns of bear-human interaction are set, they are hard to 

change. Furthermore, if tourism based on polar bear viewing at whale carcass sites 

becomes popular and economically significant, it will be difficult to manage and it may 

conflict with suggested plans to dispose of the carcasses slope-wide if protocols are not in 

place prior to bear viewing opportunities. Consequently, the local governments and the 

FWS need to address the bear viewing issue in terms of the trade-offs between the 

economic return to the community versus safety issues for its inhabitants. Workshop 

participants agreed that the local communities need to take the lead in the development of

bear safety guidelines and bear viewing protocols. The FWS would offer guidance and 

technical support to a management plan initiated by the local communities.

Lights 

Facility lights were identified as a potential attractant for polar bears. Lights are used for 

visibility at facilities and detection of polar bears. Based on a study in Canada, bears 

were not attracted to areas lit with high intensity lights. Consequently, high intensity 

lights were installed in certain areas on the North Slope; however, polar bears did not 

seem to be affected one way or the other by them. 

Levels of lighting and types of light (i.e., flashing) may affect Industry monitoring 

practices for polar bear observations. In some instances, strobe lights used to prevent 

bird strikes, for example, make it difficult to see bears in the distance. In addition, 
13

current facility lighting plans suggest extending illumination further off-pad so the initial 

observation of a bear is further from the pad. 

Monitoring Attraction/Avoidance

Polar bear observation form

Industry uses a polar bear observation form to document all sightings of polar bears. This 

form is used to monitor bear sightings across the North Slope. Two points discussed 

included clearly defining the “attractions” block on the observation form so this 

information could be more useful. Secondly, participants discussed refining the 

observation form to describe the animal’s behavior and movement as it pertains to 

attraction or avoidance (towards/away from site). 

Habitat Restoration 

Participants noted that prior to the restoration or remediation of abandoned facilities or 

the removal of gravel pads, FWS should consider their value as potential den habitat for 

polar bears as some bears appear to be attracted to certain areas. For example, bears have 

been known to den in snowdrifts on human-created substrate. During the winter of 2002-

2003, a polar bear denned in a snowdrift created by the Bullen Point Long Range Radar 

Site runway ramp. Polar bears have also used, or explored an abandoned gravel staging 

pad located on the coast between Milne Point and Beechey Point as a denning area for 

multiple years. Participants suggested that certain man-made sites may be more valuable 

as bear habitat than being restored to natural conditions. 

Attraction/Avoidance Recommendations

1. Examine the known data, such as movement data from collared animals, for 

trends of polar bear movement from the bowhead whale carcass sites to the oil 

fields. 

2. Conduct meetings with FWS, MMS, NOAA, industry representatives, the Eskimo 

Whaling Commission, and local governments to discuss the future of the whale 

carcass sites.

3. Define “attractants” on the polar bear observation form.

4. Change the polar bear observation form to describe bear behavior in terms of 

attraction and avoidance, using a simple map of the area.

5. Obtain industry maps coverages (GIS) and use them to plot current polar bear 

locations and movement in and around facilities. 

6. Compare the use of denning on human-created substrates to the use of the

surrounding, suitable naturally occurring areas. 

7. Monitor the annual numbers of polar bear viewing tourists and guides. 

E. OIL SPILLS

Potential Impacts

The discharge of oil into the environment could directly affect polar bears through 

external contact with oil, or through ingestion. Spills can occur on water, on ice, or on 
14

land. Oil ingestion by polar bears could occur through consumption of contaminated 

prey, grooming, or inhalation of vapors and exposure to certain levels of oil appear to be 

lethal to polar bears.

Oil spills can also have indirect effects on polar bears as well. For example, a decrease in 

ringed seal (the main food source of polar bears ) numbers, could affect the distribution 

of polar bears in local areas. Scavenging dead seals, oiled from a spill, could also 

increase hydrocarbon exposure to polar bears. In addition, an offshore oil spill could

cause a local depletion of seal prey items (i.e., fish and invertebrates) resulting in 

dispersal of seals away from the nearshore area. This, in turn, would affect polar bear 

movements as they would have to move to other areas in search of food. While searching 

for seals polar bears may come in contact with nearshore and coastal oilfield facilities, 

which could potentially increase polar bear/human interactions. 

Monitoring Oil Spills

Oil spill monitoring and research in the Beaufort Sea has concentrated on risk 

assessments analysis, such as oil spill modeling. Oil spill models have been developed in 

the past for various offshore oil and gas projects, but participants felt they need to be 

updated. One way to improve models would be to combine polar bear sightings to a 

population level assessment, where observations could be converted into probabilities. 

MMS has also created a predicative oil spill model, but it is limited to nearshore 

application. In addition, industry can incorporate polar bear scenarios into their spill drill

models to practice deterrence and other procedures that may be necessary if a spill 

occurs. 

Oil Spill Recommendations

1. Improve the precision of oil spill modeling.

2. Update oil spill models, i.e., including new developments into the models, etc.

3. Develop and incorporate polar bear scenarios within the North Slope regional 

spill drills to help in field testing of operational techniques.

4. Update FWS Oil Spill Response Plan. 

F. INDUSTRIAL NOISE 

Potential Impacts

Noise can affect polar bear use of various habitats. Industrial noise disturbance can 

originate from either stationary or moving sources. Examples of stationary sources 

include coastal production facilities, or production facilities located on offshore islands, 

and exploratory drilling. Examples of moving sources include vessel and aircraft traffic, 

open-water seismic and ice-covered (vibroseis) exploration, ice-road construction and 

associated vehicle traffic. 

Monitoring Industrial Noise

Noise transmission is variable; it depends on temperature/weather characteristics, 

substrate, and ambient noise levels. Bear reactions to noise are also variable and may 

depend on whether a bear is denning or moving through an area. For example, bears 
15

react differently to the same sounds depending on the situation (i.e., if a bear has been 

chased by a snow machine then it may react more strongly to snow machine noise). 

Although it is widely held that female polar bears may be more susceptible to noise when 

they emerge from dens, most bears habituate fairly rapidly to noise. In general, bears 

habituate to sounds when they occur without other associated stimuli.

Currently, there is no direct monitoring of industrial noise in relation to the effects on 

polar bears. Sound disturbance is mitigated through the 1-mile buffer placed on known 

bear dens, and the potential “cease work” requirement during the denning period. 

Two studies on the North Slope have contributed to our understanding of noise effects on 

polar bears. Both studies investigated noise levels received in artificial polar bear dens. 

A study conducted in the late 1980s by Blix and Lentfer (published in the journal, Arctic, 

in 1992, volume 45/1) concluded that, in general, vibroseis machines and helicopters 

were inaudible above the background noise if greater than 100m from these noises. At 

Flaxman Island in 2002, a study to determine industrial noise and vibration attenuation 

concluded that; 1) snow is a good insulator for sound; and 2) the maximum distance 

vehicle noise was detected above background noise in dens ranged from 500m to 2000m. 

Although these two studies have contributed to our understanding of noise received in 

dens, there is a lack of scientific knowledge on the hearing range of polar bears and the 

direct effect of noise on polar bears. A dedicated research project investigating the 

hearing range of polar bears coupled with a study to evaluate measured effects on polar 

bears would be the next step in answering questions regarding industrial noise. 

Industrial Noise Recommendations

1. Design a study that can accurately test disturbance effects such as heart rate or 

movement on bears in dens, rather than by indirect means, such as acoustic

measurements.

2. Revisit the one-mile buffer requirement around maternal polar bear dens to 

determine whether the distance is appropriate. 

3. Reassess den mitigation practices – monitor the den, rather than mitigate around 

industrial activities.

G. POLAR BEAR/HUMAN INTERACTIONS

Potential Impacts

Polar bear encounters with humans can result in the harassment or death of the bear and 

injury or death to humans. Polar bears are most likely to encounter humans on the 

Beaufort Sea coastline during the fall (late August to mid October) and spring (March to 

May) periods of the year, when bears are found on the land-fast ice and along the 

coastline. 

Monitoring Polar Bear/Human Interactions

Existing tools for monitoring and minimizing polar bear/human interactions are: 1) LOAs 

for incidental and intentional take; 2) outreach /education programs; 3) Industry-
16

sponsored polar bear/human interaction plans; 4) facility site plans; 5) safety training, 

posters, signs; and 6) deterrent programs (i.e., hazing).

Information Services

Participants discussed various ways the FWS could prevent and limit polar bear/human 

interactions and improve monitoring programs and data gathering. 

FWS North Slope field office

Participants felt that FWS should increase its presence in the oilfield by staffing a yearround or seasonal office in the Prudhoe Bay-Deadhorse area. This would allow for a 

more accessible resource to support FWS incidental and intentional take programs, as 

well as encourage additional participation with other agency cooperators, such as FWSsubsistence, MMS, and ADFG. 

Website

In addition to a North Slope field office, posting information on a polar bear monitoring 

web site was discussed as a mechanism to share and receive various polar bear 

information with interested parties. A website could be an inexpensive method to post 

summary information. This information could include natural history; bear behavior, 

hazing information, bear sightings in the oilfields, regulations, reporting forms, etc. 

Polar Bear Observation Form

Workshop participants discussed the importance of clear objectives for the polar bear 

observation program and form: documenting take, movements of bears, behaviors of 

bears in the oilfield, etc. Some thought that the form does not describe long-term 

observations accurately and that there is a big variance in reporting deterrence. 

Originally, the form was to document take; the information was used to evaluate if a take 

did occur. However, if the FWS objectives have changed, the form needs to modify 

accordingly and operators need to be informed of these changes. 

Participants discussed at length how to improve the polar bear observation form, i.e., to 

make it easier to fill out. There was consensus on improving the observation form 

because it is a useful, low cost method to gather polar bear/oilfield information. 

Participants also agreed that there is a need for consistency in data collection. Information 

collected has to be as consistent and complete as the possible. Historically, some 

observation forms were very detailed, while others were missing data. Various 

suggestions for improvement of the form included:

1. Keep observation form to one page;

2. Include reference pictures of polar bears to accurately classify age classes 

3. Follow the Keep It Simple Rule – have boxes to check or lists to circle, for 

characterizing polar bear movement data and distance components, habitat type, 

and bear behavior;

4. Have observers use maps of areas or facilities, where possible, to map bear 

location and movements;
17

5. Emphasize the importance of bear locations, possibly using a GPS and/or 

provided rangefinder binoculars to provide a basis for spatial analysis;

6. Simplify weather to visibility criteria. Use wind speed: light, moderate, or strong; 

7. Observers could photograph bears to classify physical traits or age class, but may 

not be necessary as a requirement on the form;

8. FWS could eventually create an electronic web based observation form; 

9. Describe repeat polar bear observations on the form so observations are not 

double counted; 

10. Describe deterrence events as easy, moderate, or difficult to deter the bear. 

11. Clarify the type of take on the form, when it occurred, under what conditions it 

occurred, and if human activity had any effect.

12. Finally, a draft of the new polar bear observation form should be reviewed by key 

security staff before it is implemented as oilfield security will be the primary 

observers. 

Reporting and Training 

Participants felt that training videos, slide shows and FWS-sponsored presentations have 

been effective; however, the FWS needs to provide feedback to field people submitting 

observation forms. Reports of bear activity should have a direct follow-up with the 

observers to gather more information. Additionally, feedback could be general or it 

could be site-specific for each oilfield unit, where workers can understand where and how 

bears use the oil and gas fields. Ultimately, the FWS will have to define the information 

important to monitoring polar bears and adjust the observation form so it addresses these 

issues. Bear monitoring programs using observation forms have been implemented by 

the National Park Service and their forms may be models for FWS polar bear observation 

forms. 

Depending on the activity and the company, daily or monthly logs are kept for the annual 

report in order to characterize monitoring effort. Some participants expressed the view 

that they should only report actual sightings of bears, not days when there were no 

sightings occur, or to provide monthly reports rather than daily when many daily reports 

show no polar bear observations. This could be accomplished if sample effort integrity is 

maintained. 

Participants noted that monitoring effort for projects varies with the type of activity, i.e.,

production activities occur throughout the year, compared to exploration activities, which 

occur in short time periods. FWS needs to standardize this monitoring and reporting

data. Certain areas will have a higher probability of observing polar bears. For example,

if the operation is far inland it is less likely to see a polar bear. On the other hand, a 

dedicated bear monitor on a coastal project may see more bears because 1) they may 

spend more time “actively” monitoring bear activity or 2) because of their location on 

coastal habitat, they simply have a higher probability of encountering a polar bear due to 

a bear’s preferential use of this habitat. 
18

Annual reports are required from companies and FWS should engage observers to 

encourage timely submissions of observations and reports. One idea, which has been 

used by biologists to gather data on polar bears in Norway, is to reward monitors with 

small prizes, such as lapel pins, to encourage participation. 

The FWS needs to provide feedback to participating companies and organizations 

showing how the information they report is incorporated into polar bear management and 

conservation. One idea would be teaming up with industry personnel to increase 

observer training and report feedback. It was noted that there is a need to increase the 

consistency in the data collected. The goal would be to quantify changes in bear use of 

the oilfields, by creating consistency with the polar bear information collected on the 

observation forms. By improving information collection, the FWS should then be able to 

systematically document increased bear use of the oilfields. 

Participants discussed the need to increase training levels of bear monitors in the use of 

the polar bear observation form. The FWS could improve data input by increasing 

training in the type of data entry necessary. For example, oilfield security personnel 

could be given advanced training due to the large amount of data collection they submit 

to FWS as “first-responders” to bears in the oilfield. In addition, other oilfield personnel

could receive polar bear awareness or deterrence training as well in order to receive

pertinent information on polar bear use of the oilfields. 

Hazing Protocols

Currently, there is an active hazing program on the North Slope through the FWS 

intentional take program. This involves immediately hazing bears as they move into 

active developed areas. While hazing is an effective tool to limit polar bear-human 

interactions, some participants were concerned that the protocol is not appropriate for all 

bear scenarios. For example, sometimes bears in the late summer reach the coast 

exhausted from long ocean swims. They show no indication of wanting to move and 

sometimes do not respond to low-level hazing. If no people are working in the area there 

may be a possibility to keep the bear under surveillance, rather than hazing the bear

(current FWS policy), until it recovers and departs on its own. 

Hazing training was traditionally conducted for the oilfield security companies and other 

contractors that have received incidental and intentional take authorizations. Support 

companies and contractors, such as drilling and transportation companies (e.g. Catco, 

Peak, and Crowley Barge), as well as seismic companies that work throughout the 

Coastal Plain may also need additional polar bear awareness/hazing training because of 

their large amount of travel in remote coastal areas. 

Polar Bear/Human Interaction Recommendations

1. Increase slope-wide information and education programs.

2. Revisit the polar bear hazing protocol as it is related to behavior, i.e., pushing 

bears vs. letting them rest. More guidance needs to be expressed during certain 

situations. 
19

3. Staff a FWS position on the North Slope to interface with the oil and gas 

industry during the time of maximum bear activity.

4. Create a website with current information on incidental take and monitoring of 

bears on the North Slope.

5. Have meetings with other North Slope operators, groups, and companies (i.e., 

Catco, Crowley, Peak), rather than just security to promote polar bear awareness 

and information transfer. 

6. Work with other North Slope organizations, such as the NSB, NMFS to 

promote polar bear awareness and conservation.

7. Discuss with oilfield companies the type of polar bear information necessary for 

submitting standardized, high-quality observation reports.

8. Overhaul the polar bear observation form.

9. Standardize the LOA issuance process. 

10. Enforce LOAs and incidental take violations.

11. Monitor the shipping industry. Future shipping traffic is expected to increase 

along the arctic coast through polar bear habitat due to global warming that is 

reducing ice coverage. Managers need to monitor shipping activity and be 

ready to educate this new user group.

V. RESEARCH VS. MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS

Comments from participants addressed both research and monitoring. Indeed, most 

comments during the workshop discussed research needs. Consequently, participants 

discussed the differences between monitoring and research. Monitoring is a collection of 

observations, while research addresses specific questions. Monitoring data sets generally 

become useful as a research tool with multiple years of data. However, managers may 

not be able to answer broader questions regarding potential effects of industry on polar 

bears only through monitoring. Monitoring plans must be supported and linked with 

ongoing research efforts. Well designed and effectively communicated research and 

monitoring programs will complement each other as managers try to understand 

anthropogenic effects on polar bears. Monitoring data sets may spur research, while 

research may lead to better monitoring practices. 

Polar bear research-associated recommendations that were considered high priority issues 

included:

1. Continue research involving population estimation of the Southern Beaufort Sea 

polar bear stock. Currently, USGS is conducting an ongoing population 

estimation study. 

2. Continue industry support (direct funding and/or logistics) of polar bear research 

efforts. 

3. Consider research studies as cooperative efforts with other federal and state 

agencies. Several cooperating agencies may make it easier to secure long term 

outside support and funding.

4. Follow-up the fall coastal polar bear aerial surveys with mark/recapture efforts in

order to check accuracy of the aerial survey.

5. Initiate a capture effort program for polar bears in the Chukchi Sea. 
20

6. Develop new technologies, such as radio frequency identification (RFID) tags to 

use in polar bear research and monitoring.

7. Allow industry to assist in information collection on polar bears in the field 

(monitoring). Some simple techniques which could be incorporated include hair 

trap corrals, hair sampling using neck snares, biopsy darts, and captures in the oil 

fields.

8. Identify the resources necessary to gather the above information (time, money, 

special equipment).

VI. A MONITORING STRATEGY, AN EVOLVING PROCESS

The basic purpose of monitoring polar bears within the oil and gas fields on the North 

Slope of Alaska is to establish baseline information on polar bear use and encounters and 

detect any unforeseen effects of exploration, development, and production activities. 

Long-term monitoring is necessary to determine the potential impacts of oil and gas 

activities on polar bears and their habitat over time, and to detect and measure changes in 

the status of the overall polar bear population in the Beaufort Sea. 

As stated earlier, information from this workshop will be used by the FWS to develop a 

comprehensive, long-term monitoring plan by identifying and prioritizing monitoring 

tasks, implementing those tasks over time, and updating the monitoring plans 

periodically. Within these workshop proceedings, recommendations (tasks) have been 

identified based on potential impacts of the oil and gas industry on polar bears. The

impacts discussed were habitat alteration, contamination, attraction and preclusion of 

areas, oil spills, industrial noise, and polar bear interactions with humans. 

Recommendations were developed to address these potential impacts; they are not allencompassing nor will all of the workshop recommendations be implemented. In 

addition, more recommendations may become apparent as the monitoring plan 

progresses. 

In order to create a workable monitoring plan, the FWS will next evaluate the 

recommendations of the workshop participants and set priorities. A comprehensive plan 

would most likely include aspects of monitoring and research and it would incorporate 

cooperation with various private groups and government agencies. Table 1 is the first 

step in organizing recommendations discussed during the workshop as tasks to form a 

monitoring plan. These tasks are set on a 10-year timeline; after which FWS may reevaluate the impacts affecting polar bears.

Although numerous recommendations were discussed, participants agreed that certain 

recommendations had a higher priority to implement than others. Some of these 

recommendations were necessary to lay the groundwork for other tasks. For example, 

research needs have a high priority where the findings could be used to further advance 

monitoring and mitigation techniques. On the population level, high priority tasks 

include continuing research on population estimation of polar bears in the Southern 

Beaufort Sea stock. Currently, USGS is conducting research in this area. Maintaining 

funds to continue programs, such as the AMMTAP program, was considered a high 
21

priority as well. In addition, solving the bowhead whale carcass pile issues throughout 

the Arctic coast was also deemed a high priority recommendation. 

Additionally, some recommendations will be faster and easier to implement than others, 

such as improving the polar bear observation form. Other tasks that are easy to 

implement, but are just as important include having the FWS become more interactive

with North Slope personnel on all levels. This would be through outreach and 

Information and Education programs, as already discussed. Many of these 

recommendations associated with outreach are easy and relatively fast to implement as 

they can occur internally in FWS. Regardless of the monitoring approach, some of these 

recommendations are universal and make good business sense. For example, working 

closer with North Slope companies and contractors and providing feedback reports to the 

bear observers that provides information could only improve the working environment 

between FWS and the operators throughout the oilfields. 

A long-term polar bear monitoring program is essential for the future conservation and 

management of polar bears in Alaska. As human activities increase in the Arctic it will 

become more important to monitor those activities for possible effects and impacts on 

polar bears and their habitat and to detect changes to polar bears and their habitat earlier. 

For this reason, it is necessary for the FWS to work cooperatively with industry regarding 

polar bear issues. Efforts to minimize industrial effects on polar bears are in everyone’s 

interest. By working together with industry, the FWS will be able to maximize the datagathering ability of future monitoring programs. Consequently, by preventing potential 

future problems with the implementation of a sound monitoring program, the FWS will 

be able to better manage and maintain a healthy polar bear population throughout the 

Alaskan arctic. 
22

VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The FWS would like to thank MMS for funding the workshop (Intra-agency agreement 

0102RU85166 NSL # AK 02-06). I would also like to thank all the workshop 

participants for their time and expertise. Special thanks to Mary Lynn Nation (FWS) and 

Larry Bright (FWS) for facilitating the workshop. In addition, Scott Schliebe (FWS), the 

FWS-Marine Mammals Management office, Geoff York (USGS), Steve Amstrup 

(USGS) and the Alaska Science Center (Polar Bear Group) provided major assistance 

with the preparation and planning of the workshop and review of the proceedings. I also 

want to thank Tom Evans and Kelly Proffitt for their logistical support. I shared the draft 

proceedings with workshop participants and I want to thank Danielle Jerry (FWS), Don 

Hansen (MMS), Susi Miller (FWS), Chuck Monnett (MMS), Lori Quakenbush (ADFG), 

Dick Shideler (ADFG), and Geoff York (USGS) for their constructive comments. 
23

Monitoring Program Duration Frequency Area

Type of 

Information Prioritya

Habitat Alteration Tasks

Track changes of the physical habitat ongoing ongoing range-wide Baseline 2

Track habitat changes due to the increased development ongoing ongoing oilfields Rate 2

Identify polar bear refugia 3-5 years range-wide Baseline and distribution 1

Consider the value of restored, abandoned facilities as polar 

bear habitat, i.e., denning or resting

ongoing ongoing oilfields Baseline and distribution 2

Classify denning habitat in NPR-A and ANWR 3-5 years NPR-A Baseline and distribution 1

Monitor arctic climate change data sources ongoing ongoing slope-wide Baseline 1

Contamination Tasks

Continue contaminant monitoring archiving program ongoing annual range-wide Baseline 1

 Conduct rigorous analysis of the contaminant data - - - - 2

 Improve sampling protocols and study designs - - - - 2

 Analyze specimens and report results in a timely fashion - - - - 1

Stabilize funding for the AAMTAP program. ongoing annual range-wide Supporting 1

Monitor disease and parasites in polar bears ongoing annual range-wide Baseline 2

Develop a “before/after” monitoring approach ongoing 5-10 years site-specific Rates 3

Attraction/Avoidance Tasks

Monitor movement of bears from bowhead whale carcass sites 

to oilfields

3-5 years carcass-dependent site-specific Distribution and Rates 4, 1

Meet with agency, industry, and local governments to discuss 

the future of whale carcass sites.

- as needed regional Supporting 

1

Use industry maps to plot seasonal polar bear locations around 

oilfield infrastructure

ongoing with IT Regs oilfields Distribution 2

Table 1. Polar bear monitoring task schedule. Monitoring components are based on a 10 year projection. 
24

Monitoring Program Duration Frequency Area

Type of 

Information Prioritya

Oil Spill Tasks

Update and improve precision of oil spill models 1-2 years with IT regs regional Supporting 1

Incorporate polar bear scenarios into North Slope spill drills - annual oilfields Supporting 1

Update FWS Oil Spill Response Plan 1-2 years 5-10 years oilfields Supporting 2

Industrial Noise Tasks

Revisit the buffer size around maternal polar bear dens: reduce, 

enlarge, or status quo? 

- with IT regs oilfields Behavioral 3

Reassess den mitigation – monitor the den, rather than mitigate 

around industrial activities

- with IT regs oilfields Behavioral 2

Human Interaction Tasks

Increase information and education programs (Outreach) ongoing annual slope-wide Supporting 1

Overhaul the polar bear observation form - 5 years oilfields Baseline, Distribution, Rates 1

Revisit polar bear hazing protocol: pushing bears vs. letting 

them rest

- site-specific - LOA 

dependent

Behavioral 2

Increase FWS presence on the North Slope ongoing seasonal slope-wide Supporting 1

Create a website for current polar bear information ongoing seasonal range-wide Supporting 3

Increase polar bear awareness training to North Slope operators, 

groups, and companies

ongoing annual oilfields Supporting 

4

Work with other North Slope organizations (NSB, NMFS) for 

polar bear conservation

ongoing as needed slope-wide Supporting 

4

Meet with oilfield security about the type of information 

necessary to be collected.

- 1-3 years oilfields Supporting 

2

Standardize the LOA issuance process - with IT regs oilfields Supporting 4

Enforce LOAs and incidental take violations - with IT regs oilfields Supporting 1

Monitor the annual numbers of polar bear-viewing tourists seasonal annual regional Baseline 2

Monitor the arctic shipping industry seasonal annual range-wide Baseline 3

Table 1. Polar bear monitoring task schedule. Monitoring components are based on a 10 year projection, continued. 
25

Monitoring Program Duration Frequency Area

Type of 

Information Prioritya

Research Tasks 

Continue research involving population estimation of the 

Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear stock 3-5 years 5-10 years range-wide Population estimate 1

Continue industry support of polar bear population estimation 

efforts 

ongoing annual range-wide Population estimate 1

Consider research studies as cooperative efforts with other 

federal and state agencies ongoing ongoing range-wide Supporting 2

Follow-up the fall coastal polar bear aerial surveys with 

mark/recapture efforts 

surveydependent once range-wide Baseline, Distribution, Rate 2

Initiate a capture effort program for polar bears in the Chukchi 

Sea 

3-5 years 5-10 years range-wide Baseline, Distribution, Rates, 

Population estimation

3

Compare denning on human-created substrates to surrounding 

natural areas 3-5 years once range-wide Behavioral 3

Design a study to test disturbance to female bears in dens 3-5 years once range-wide Behavioral 2

Develop new technologies to use in polar bear research and 

monitoring. ongoing ongoing range-wide Comprehensive 1

Predict the use of sea ice vs. terrestrial maternal denning habitat 3-5 years once range-wide Behavioral 3

Allow industry to assist in field information collection on polar 

bears (monitoring) 

ongoing ongoing oilfields Supporting 2

Identify the resources necessary to accomplish the research 

projects

ongoing ongoing oilfields Supporting 1

Table 1. Polar bear monitoring task schedule. Monitoring components are based on a 10 year projection, continued. 

Priority Rating

a 1 = High: Implement as soon as possible 3 = Low: Implement in future >5 years

 2 = Moderate: Implement in near future 3-5 years 4 = Currently implemented, needs improvements
APPENDIX 1. 

Attendees of the Beaufort Sea Polar Bear Monitoring 

Workshop
1

Attendees of the Beaufort Sea Polar Bear Monitoring Workshop

3-5 September 2003

Steve Amstrup

USGS

Alaska Science Center

1011 E. Tudor Rd.

Anchorage, AK 99503

907/786-3424

steven_amstrup@usgs.gov

Gene Augustine

611 CES/CEVP

10471 20th St., Rm 336

Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-2200

gene.augustine@elmendorf.af.mil

Larry Bright

USFWS

101 12th Ave., Box 19

Fairbanks, AK 99701

907/456-0324

larry_bright@fws.gov

Robert Buchanan

Polar Bears International

35555 Spur Hwy, #320

Soldotna, AK 99669

907/252-8525

Robearbuck@aol.com

Deena Clayton

EnCana Corp.

150 9th Ave. SW

Calgary, Alberta

403/645-5736

deena.clayton@encana.com

Karen Deatherage

Defenders of Wildlife

308 G St. # 310

Anchorage, AK 99501

907/276-9453

defenders@alaska.net

Andrew Derocher

University of Alberta

Biological Sciences

CW405, Edmonton, Alberta

T6G2E9

780/492-5570

derocher@ualberta.ca

George Durner

USGS

Alaska Science Center

1011 E. Tudor Rd.

Anchorage, AK 99503

907/786-3366

george_durner@usgs.gov

Allison J. Erickson

OASIS Environmental

BP Environmental Studies

807 G St., Suite 250

Anchorage, AK 99501

907/258-4880

Allison@oasisenviro.com

Tom Evans

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Marine Mammals Management

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

907/786-3814

tom_evans@fws.gov

Don Hansen

Minerals Management Service

3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 271-6656

Don.Hansen@mms.gov

John Hechtel

Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game

1800 Glenn Hwy, Suite 4

Palmer, AK 99645

907/746-6331

john_hechtel@fishgame.state.ak.us
2

Danielle Jerry 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

907/786-3335

danielle_jerry@fws.gov

Susi (Kalxdorff) Miller

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Marine Mammals Management

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

907/786-3828

susanne_miller@fws.gov

Todd Logan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

907/786-3667

todd_logan@fws.gov

Trent McDonald

West, Inc

2003 Central Ave.

Cheyenne, WY 82001

307/634-1756

tmcdonald@west-inc.com

Rosa Meehan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Marine Mammals Management

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

907/786-3349

rosa_meehan@fws.gov

Pamela A. Miller

Arctic Connections

P.O. Box 101811

Anchorage, AK 99510

907/272-1909

pammiller@alaska.com

Chuck Monnett

Mineral Management Service

3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500

Anchorage, AK 99503

(907) 271-6677

charles.monnett@mms.gov

John Nagy

Department of Resources, Wildlife, and 

Economic Development

Bag Service #1

Inuvik, NT

X0E 0T0

867/777-7236

john_nagy@gov.nt.ca

Mary Lynn Nation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

907/786-3519

marylynn_nation@fws.gov

David Nyland

Western GeCo

351 E. International Airport Rd.

Anchorage, AK 99518

907/550-3542

physics@mtaonline.net

Lori Quakenbush

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

1300 College Rd.

Fairbanks, Alaska 99701

907/459-7214

lori_quakenbush@fishgame.state.ak.us

Craig Perham

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Marine Mammals Management

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

907/786-3810

craig_perham@fws.gov

Caryn Rea

ConocoPhillips 

700 G St.

P.O. Box 100360

Anchorage, AK 99510

907/265-6515

caryn.rea@conocophillips.com
3

Lisa Rotterman

Minerals Management Service

3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500

Anchorage, AK 99503 

(907) 271-6604

Lisa.rotterman@mms.gov

Glenn Ruckhaus

Lynx Enterprises, Inc.

1029 W. 3rd Ave. #400

Anchorage, AK 99507

907/277-4611

gruckhaus@lynxalaska.com

Scott Schliebe

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Marine Mammals Management

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

907/786-3812

scott_schliebe@fws.gov

John Schoen

The Audubon Society

308 G St.

Anchorage, AK

907/276-7034

jschoen@audubon.org

Dick Shideler

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

1300 College Rd.

Fairbanks, Alaska 99701

907/459-7283

dick_shideler@fishgame.state.ak.us

Kristen Simac

USGS

Alaska Science Center

1011 E. Tudor Rd.

Anchorage, AK 99503

907/786-3928

kristen_simac@usgs.gov

Tom Smith

USGS

Alaska Biological Center

1011 E. Tudor Rd.

Anchorage, AK 99503

907/786-3456

tom_smith@usgs.gov

Bill Streever

BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.

P.O. Box 196612

Anchorage, AK 99519

907/564-4383

streevbj@bp.com

Dave Trudgen

OASIS Environmental

807 G St., Suite 250

Anchorage, AK 99501

907/258-4880

Dave@oasisenviro.com

Holly Wheeler

Department of Interior

Solicitor’s Office

Washington D.C.

202/208-5233

Geoff York

USGS

Alaska Science Center

1011 E. Tudor Rd.

Anchorage, AK 99503

907/786-3928

geoff_york@usgs.gov
APPENDIX 2. 

Agenda of Polar Bear Monitoring Workshop
1

Beaufort Sea Polar Bear Monitoring Workshop

AGENDA

3-5 September 2003

Location: Hilltop Ski Area Lodge

Anchorage, Alaska 

Purpose of the Workshop: Facilitate the evaluation and discussion necessary to identify 

components to develop a comprehensive monitoring program for polar bears in relation to the oil 

and gas industry in Alaska. 

Goal: This workshop will be the initial effort to design an effective monitoring strategy that will 

provide information to help reduce bear/human interactions and help protect polar bear habitat 

for the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population.

Product: An improved management plan identifying types of information necessary to monitor 

polar bears thereby helping USFWS better manage the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear 

population.

Schedule:

DAY 1 (WEDNESDAY, 3 SEPTEMBER 2003) 8:30 AM TO 4:45 PM

8:00 am Registration

8:30 am Introduction

Objectives/Expected product

9:00 am - 9:30 am Recent Population Estimate

Steve Amstrup, ASC, USGS

9:30 am - 10:00 am Distribution of polar bear denning in Alaska determined by 

satellite radio telemetry

Steve Amstrup, ASC, USGS

10:00 am - 10:15 am Break

10:15 am - 10:45 am The use of sea ice habitat by polar bears in the Beaufort Sea

George Durner, ASC, USGS
2

10:45 am - 11:15 am Aerial Surveys of polar bears along the coast and 

barrier islands of the Beaufort Sea

Scott Schliebe, Marine Mammals Management, USFWS

11:15 am - 11:45 am Polar Bear Use of Marine Mammal Carcasses in the Central 

Beaufort Sea

Susi Kalxdorf, Marine Mammals Management, USFWS

11:45 am - 1:00 pm Lunch

1:00 pm - 1:30 pm Assessment of industrial sounds and vibrations received in 

artificial dens

Mike Williams, LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.

1:30 pm - 2:00 pm Post-emergence observations of polar bears at den sites in 

Northern Alaska

Tom Smith, ASC, USGS

MITIGATION TOOLS FROM RECENT RESEARCH EFFORTS:

2:00 pm - 2:30 pm Terrestrial maternal den site characteristics

George Durner, ASC, USGS 

2:30 pm - 3:00 pm Detecting denning polar bears with forward looking infrared 

imagery (FLIR)

Geoff York, ASC, USGS

3:00 pm - 3:30 pm The use of trained dogs to verify polar bear den occupancy

Mike Williams, LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc.

3:30 pm - 3:45 pm Break

3:45 pm - 4:15 pm Marine Mammal Monitoring program, McCovey exploration 

prospect, Winter 2002-03

Glen Ruckhaus, Lynx Enterprises, Inc.

4:15 pm - 4:45 pm Summary of Incidental and Intentional Take of polar bears 

during oil and gas industry operations in the Beaufort Sea 

region of Alaska

Craig Perham, Marine Mammals Management, USFWS

4:45 pm Comments and Adjournment
3

DAY 2 (THURSDAY 4 SEPTEMBER 2003) 8:30 AM TO 4:30 PM

WORKING GROUP SESSION

8:00 am Registration and refreshments 

8:30 am Introduction to working group structure; goals and objectives 

for working group; expected product

9:00 am – 10:30 am Habitat alteration Discussion Leader: George Durner

10:30 am - 10:45 am Break

10:45 am - 11:45 am Contaminants Discussion Leader: Andy Derocher

11:45 am - 1:00 pm Lunch

1:00 pm - 2:00 pm Attraction/preclusion Discussion Leader: Dick Shideler

2:00 pm - 2:15 pm Break

2:15 pm - 4:00 pm Oil Spill Discussion Leader: Steve Amstrup

4:00 pm - 4:30 pm Comments and Daily Wrap-up

DAY 3 (FRIDAY 5 SEPTEMBER 2003) 8:15 AM TO 12:00 PM

Continue with Working Group Meeting (if necessary)

8:15 am - 9:30 am Noise Discussion Leader: Mike Williams

9:30 am - 9:45 am Break

9:45 am - 11:00 am Human interaction (lethal/nonlethal) Discussion Leader: Scott 

 Schliebe

11:00 am - 12:00 pm Workshop Wrap-up

End product: Information to compile into a draft report 
APPENDIX 3. 

Current Polar Bear Observation Form
1

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

1011 E. Tudor Road

Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6199

POLAR BEAR SIGHTING REPORT

Date:__________

Time:__________

Location: (include GPS coordinates if possible)_______________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________

Observer name:________________________________________________________________

Weather conditions: Fog_____ Snow_____ Rain_____ Clear_____ Approx. temperature______

Wind speed__________ Wind direction__________

Total number of bears: Sow/cubs_____ Adult_____ Sub-adult_____ Unknown_____

Estimated distance of bear(s) from personnel/facility:___________________________________

Possible attractants present:_______________________________________________________

Bear behavior: Curious_____ Aggressive_____ Predatory_____ Other_____________________

Description of encounter:_________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Duration of encounter:___________________________________________________________

Deterrents used/distance: Vehicle_____ Noise-maker_____ Firearms_____ Other____________

Injuries sustained: Personnel:____________________

Polar bear:____________________

Agency/Contacts:

USFWS_____________________________________________ Time_______Date__________

ADF&G_____________________________________________ Time_______Date__________

CLIENT_____________________________________________ Time_______Date__________
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most 

of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our 

land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the 

environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places;

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our 

energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all 

our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has 

a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island 

territories under U.S. administration.

The Minerals Management Service Mission

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) primary 

responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and Indian lands, and distribute 

those revenues.

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management Program

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally sound 

exploration and production of our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral resources. The 

MMS Royalty Management Program meets its responsibilities by ensuring the efficient, timely and 

accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and production due to Indian 

tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury.

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being 

responsive to the public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially affected 

parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the quality of life for 

all Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic development and environmental 

protection.