1064 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AV19 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Petition Finding 

and Proposed Rule To List the Polar 

Bear (Ursus maritimus) as Threatened 

Throughout Its Range 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of 12- 

month finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) as 

threatened with critical habitat under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). After review of all 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that listing the 

polar bear as a threatened species under 

the Act is warranted. Accordingly, we 

herein propose to list the polar bear as 

threatened throughout its range 

pursuant to the Act. This proposed rule, 

if made final, would extend the Act’s 

protections to this species. Critical 

habitat for the polar bear is not 

determinable at this time. The Service 

seeks data and comments from the 

public on this proposed listing rule. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

on this proposed rule received by the 

close of business (5 p.m.) Alaska Local 

Time on April 9, 2007. Requests for a 

public hearing must be received by the 

Service on or before close of business (5 

p.m.) Alaska Local Time on February 

23, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by any one of several methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

to the Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals 

Management Office, 1011 East Tudor 

Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503. 

2. You may hand deliver written 

comments to the Marine Mammals 

Management Office at the above 

address. 

3. You may send comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail). You may send 

your comments by electronic mail (email) directly to the Service at: 

Polar_Bear_Finding@fws.gov or to the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. See the Public 

Comments Solicited section below for 

file format for electronic filing and other 

information. 

The complete file for this finding and 

proposed rule is available for 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the above 

address. These documents are also 

available on the Service’s Marine 

Mammal Web site located at: http:// 

alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/ 

polarbear/issues.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Schliebe, Marine Mammals 

Management Office (see ADDRESSES

section) (telephone 907/786–3800). 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339, 24 hours a 

day, 7 days a week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

as accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) Information on taxonomy, 

distribution, habitat selection 

(especially denning habitat), food 

habits, population density and trends, 

habitat trends, and effects of 

management on polar bears; 

(2) Information on the effects of sea 

ice change on the distribution and 

abundance of polar bears and their 

principal prey over the short and long 

term; 

(3) Information on the effects of other 

potential listing factors, including oil 

and gas development, contaminants, 

ecotourism, hunting, poaching, on the 

distribution and abundance of polar 

bears and their principal prey over the 

short and long term; 

(4) Information on regulatory 

mechanisms and management programs 

for polar bear conservation, including 

mitigation measures related to oil and 

gas exploration and development, 

hunting conservation programs, antipoaching programs, and any other 

private, tribal, or governmental 

conservation programs which benefit 

polar bears; 

(5) The specific physical and 

biological features to consider, and 

specific areas that may meet the 

definition of critical habitat and that 

should or should not be considered for 

a proposed critical habitat designation 

as provided by section 4 of the Act; 

(6) Information relevant to whether 

any populations of the species may 

qualify as distinct population segments; 

and 

(7) The data and studies refered to 

within this proposal. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this proposed rule by any 

one of several methods, as listed above 

in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit 

comments by e-mail, please submit 

them in ASCII file format and avoid the 

use of special characters and 

encryption. Please include ‘‘Attn: Polar 

Bear Finding’’ and your name and 

return address in your e-mail message. 

Please note that the e-mail address will 

be closed at the termination of the 

public comment period. 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their names and/or home 

addresses, etc., but if you wish us to 

consider withholding this information, 

you must state this prominently at the 

beginning of your comments. In 

addition, you must present rationale for 

withholding this information. This 

rationale must demonstrate that 

disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. 

Unsupported assertions will not meet 

this burden. In the absence of 

exceptional, documentable 

circumstances, this information will be 

released. We will always make 

submissions from organizations or 

businesses, and from individuals 

identifying themselves as 

representatives of or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Office at the address listed in 

ADDRESSES. 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq. requires that, for any 

petition to add a species to, remove a 

species from, or reclassify a species on 

one of the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants, we first 

make a determination whether the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. To the maximum extent 

practicable, this determination is to be 

made within 90 days of receipt of the 

petition, and published promptly in the 

Federal Register. 

If the petition is found to present 

substantial information, section 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1065 

4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires us to 

commence a status review of the 

species, and section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act 

requires us to make a second finding, 

this one within 12 months of the date 

of receipt of the petition, on whether the 

petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted; 

(b) warranted; or (c) warranted but 

precluded (i.e., the immediate proposal 

of a regulation implementing the 

petitioned action is precluded by other 

pending proposals to determine whether 

any species is threatened or endangered, 

and expeditious progress is being made 

to add or remove qualified species from 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants). This determination 

is likewise to be published promptly in 

the Federal Register. 

Species for which listing is warranted 

but precluded are considered to be 

‘‘candidates’’ for listing. Section 

4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that a 

petition for which the requested action 

is found to be warranted but precluded 

be treated as though resubmitted on the 

date of such finding, i.e., requiring a 

subsequent finding to be made within 

12 months. Each subsequent 12-month 

finding is also to be in the Federal 

Register. We typically publish these 

findings in our Candidate Notice of 

Review (CNOR). Our most recent CNOR 

was published on September 12, 2006 

(71 FR 53756). 

Previous Federal Action 

On February 17, 2005, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity, dated February 16, 2005, 

requesting that we list the polar bear as 

threatened throughout its range, and 

that critical habitat be designated 

concurrently with the listing. The 

petition was clearly identified as such, 

and contained the name, authorized 

signature, and address of the requesting 

party. Included in the petition was 

supporting information regarding the 

species’ taxonomy and ecology, 

historical and current distribution, 

present status, and actual and potential 

causes of decline. We acknowledged the 

receipt of the petition in a letter dated 

July 1, 2005. In that letter, we also 

advised the petitioners that, due to 

funding constraints in fiscal year (FY) 

2005, and the need to comply with court 

orders and settlement agreements, we 

would not be able to begin processing 

the petition at that time. 

In a letter dated July 5, 2005, the 

petitioner informed us that two 

additional parties were joining as 

petitioners: the Natural Resources 

Defense Council and Greenpeace, Inc. In 

the same letter, the petitioners informed 

us of two new scientific articles, Hansen 

et al. (2005) and Stroeve et al. (2005), 

that they wanted us to consider when 

conducting our evaluation of the 

petition to list the polar bear. In a letter 

we received on December 27, 2005, the 

petitioners submitted additional new 

information to be considered, along 

with the information in the initial 

petition, in making our 90-day finding. 

On December 15, 2005, the petitioners 

filed a complaint for declaratory and 

injunctive relief in the United States 

District Court for the Northern District 

of California, challenging our failure to 

issue a 90-day finding in response to the 

petition as required by section 4(b)(3) of 

the Act. On February 7, 2006, we made 

our 90-day finding that the petition 

presented substantial scientific 

information indicating that listing the 

polar bear may be warranted; the 

finding and our initiation of a status 

review was published in the Federal 

Register on February 9, 2006 (71 FR 

6745). In a stipulated settlement 

agreement approved by the Court on 

July 5, 2006, we agreed to submit a 12- 

month finding to the Federal Register 

by December 27, 2006. This notice 

constitutes our 12-month finding for the 

petition to list the polar bear as 

threatened, in fulfillment of the 

stipulated settlement agreement. 

Status Assessment 

Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 

Act, we conducted a status review of the 

polar bear. With this notice we 

announce the completion and 

availability of the Polar Bear Status 

Assessment (Status Assessment or 

Schliebe et al. (2006a)). The Status 

Assessment was compiled and edited by 

staff of the Service’s Marine Mammals 

Management Office of Region 7 (Scott 

Schliebe; Thomas Evans; Kurt Johnson, 

Ph.D.; Michael Roy, Ph.D.; Susanne 

Miller; Charles Hamilton; Rosa Meehan, 

Ph.D.; and Sonja Jahrsdoerfer). 

Information contained in the original 

petition, as well as additional 

information provided by the petitioners, 

was considered during the development 

of the Status Assessment. In addition, 

all comments received from the public 

during the open public comment period 

were considered. To ensure that the 

Status Assessment would be complete 

and based on the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we solicited information from the public 

on the status of the polar bear in two 

separate public comment periods 

announced in the Federal Register 

(February 9, 2006; 71 FR 6745) and 

(May 17, 2006; 71 FR 28653). In 

addition, all available scientific and 

commercial information on polar bears 

and threats to polar bears was reviewed 

and considered during development of 

the the Status Assessment and proposed 

rule. 

In accordance with Service policies, 

peer review of the draft Status 

Assessment was sought from 12 

independent experts in the fields of 

polar bear ecology, contaminants and 

physiology, climatic science and 

physics, and traditional ecological 

knowledge. Comments were received 

from 10 peer reviewers, and those 

comments were addressed in revisions 

to the draft Status Assessment. The 

Status Assessment, a list of peer 

reviewers, and comments received from 

peer reviewers are available upon 

request from the Marine Mammals 

Management Office as well as on the 

Service’s Marine Mammal Web site 

located at: http://alaska.fws.gov/ 

fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm. 

Literature cited in the Status 

Assessment serves as the basis for the 

12-month finding and proposed rule. 

Species Biology 

Information presented in this section 

is summarized from the Status 

Assessment (Schliebe et al. 2006a). For 

more detailed information on the 

biology of the polar bear, please consult 

the Status Assessment. 

Taxonomy and Evolution 

Throughout the Arctic, polar bears are 

known by a variety of common names, 

including nanook, nanuq, ice bear, sea 

bear, isbj<rn, white bears, and eisba ̈r. 

Phipps (1774) first proposed and 

described polar bear as a species 

distinct from other bears and provided 

a scientific name Ursus maritimus. A 

number of alternative names followed, 

but Harington (1966), Manning (1971, p. 

9), and Wilson (1976) (all three 

references cited in Amstrup 2003, p. 

587) subsequently promoted the name 

Ursus maritimus that has been used 

since. The polar bear is usually 

considered a marine mammal since its 

primary habitat is the sea ice (Amstrup 

2003, p. 587), and it is evolutionarily 

adapted to life on sea ice (see further 

discussion under General Description 

section). The polar bear was included 

on the list of species covered under the 

U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 

1972 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) (MMPA). 

Genetic research has confirmed that 

polar bears evolved from grizzly (brown) 

bears (Ursus arctos) 250 to 300 thousand 

years ago (Cronin et al. 1991, p. 2990; 

Talbot and Shields 1996a, p. 574). Only 

in portions of northern Canada and 

northern Alaska do the ranges of polar 

bears and grizzly bears overlap. Crossbreeding of grizzly bears and polar bears 

in captivity has produced 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
1066 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

reproductively viable offspring (Gray 

1972; Stirling 1988, p. 23). The first 

documented case of cross-breeding in 

the wild was reported in the spring of 

2006. 

General Description 

Polar bears are the largest of the living 

bear species (DeMaster and Stirling 

1981 p. 1; Stirling and Derocher 1990 p. 

190). They are characterized by large 

body size, a stocky form, and fur color 

that varies from white to yellow. They 

are sexually dimorphic; females weigh 

181 to 317 kilograms (kg) (400 to 700 

pounds (lbs)) and males up to 654 kg 

(1,440 lbs). Polar bears have a longer 

neck and a proportionally smaller head 

than other members of the bear family 

(Ursidae), and are missing the distinct 

shoulder hump common to grizzly 

bears. The nose, lips, and skin of polar 

bears are black (Demaster and Stirling 

1981 p. 1; Amstrup 2003 p. 588). 

Polar bears are evolutionarily adapted 

to life on sea ice. Adaptations to this life 

include: (1) White pelage with waterrepellent guard hairs and dense 

underfur; (2) a short furred snout; (3) 

small ears for reduced surface area; (4) 

teeth specialized for a carnivorous 

rather than an omnivorous diet; and (5) 

feet with tiny papillae and ‘‘suction 

cups’’ on the underside, for increased 

traction on ice (Stirling 1988, p. 24). 

Additional adaptations include large, 

paddle-like feet (Stirling 1988, p. 24), 

and claws that are shorter and more 

strongly curved than those of grizzly 

bears, and larger and heavier than those 

of black bears (Ursus americanus) 

(Amstrup 2003, p. 589). 

Distribution and Movements 

Polar bears evolved to utilize the 

Arctic sea ice niche and are distributed 

throughout most ice-covered seas of the 

Northern Hemisphere. They are 

generally limited to areas where the sea 

is ice-covered for much of the year; 

however, polar bears are not evenly 

distributed throughout their range. They 

are most abundant near the shore in 

shallow-water areas, and in other areas 

where currents and ocean upwelling 

increase marine productivity and serve 

to keep the ice cover from becoming too 

solidified in winter (Stirling and Smith 

1975, p. 132; Stirling et al. 1981, p. 49; 

Amstrup and DeMaster 1988, p. 44; 

Stirling 1990, pp. 226–227; Stirling and 

;ritsland 1995, p. 2607; Amstrup et al. 

2000b, p. 960). Over most of their range, 

polar bears remain on the sea ice yearround or spend only short periods on 

land. They occur throughout the East 

Siberian, Laptev, and Kara Seas of 

Russia; Fram Strait, Greenland Sea, and 

Barents Sea of northern Europe (Norway 

and Greenland (Denmark)); Baffin Bay, 

which separates Canada and Greenland, 

through most of the Canadian Arctic 

archipelago and the Canadian Beaufort 

Sea; and in the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Seas located west and north of Alaska. 

The distribution of polar bears in 

most areas varies seasonally with the 

seasonal extent of sea ice cover and 

availability of prey. In Alaska in the 

winter, sea ice may extend 400 

kilometers (km) (248 miles (mi)) south 

of the Bering Strait, and polar bears will 

extend their range to the southernmost 

proximity of the ice (Ray 1971, cited in 

Amstrup 2003, p. 587). Sea ice 

disappears from the Bering Sea and is 

greatly reduced in the Chukchi Sea in 

the summer, and polar bears occupying 

these areas move as much as 1,000 km 

(621 mi) to stay with the pack ice 

(Garner et al. 1990, p. 222; Garner at al. 

1994b, pp. 407–408). Throughout the 

polar basin during the summer, polar 

bears generally concentrate along the 

edge of or into the adjacent persistent 

pack ice. Significant northerly and 

southerly movements of polar bears 

appear to depend on seasonal melting 

and refreezing of ice (Amstrup et al. 

2000, p. 142). In other areas, for 

example, when the sea ice melts in 

Hudson Bay, James Bay, Davis Strait, 

Baffin Bay, portions of the Canadian 

High Arctic, and some portions of the 

Barents Sea, polar bears remain on land 

for up to several months while they wait 

for winter and new ice to form (Jonkel 

et al. 1976; Schweinsburg 1979; Prevett 

and Kolenosky 1982; Schweinsburg and 

Lee 1982; Ferguson et al. 1997; Lunn et 

al. 1997 all cited in Amstrup 2003, p. 

587; Mauritzen et al. 2001, p. 1710). 

The distribution patterns of some 

polar bear populations during the open 

water and early fall seasons have 

changed in recent years. In the Beaufort 

Sea, for example, greater numbers of 

polar bears are being found on shore 

during this period than recorded at any 

previous time (Schliebe et al. 2006b, p. 

559). In Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, western 

Hudson Bay and other areas of Canada, 

Inuit hunters are reporting an increase 

in the numbers of bears present on land 

during summer and fall (Dowsley and 

Taylor 2005, p. 2; Dowsley 2005, p. 2). 

The exact reasons for changes may 

involve a number of factors, including 

changes in sea ice (Stirling and 

Parkinson 2006, p. 272). 

Data from telemetry studies of adult 

female polar bears show that they do not 

wander aimlessly on the ice, nor are 

they carried passively with the ocean 

currents as previously thought 

(Pedersen 1945 cited in Amstrup 2003, 

p. 587). Results show strong fidelity to 

activity areas that are used over 

multiple years. Some polar bear 

populations are closely associated with 

pack ice. In the Chukchi and Beaufort 

Sea areas of Alaska and northwestern 

Canada, less than 10 percent of the polar 

bear locations obtained were on land 

(Amstrup 2000, p. 137; Amstrup, USGS, 

unpublished data); the majority of the 

land locations were locations with bears 

occupying maternal dens during the 

winter. A similar pattern was found in 

East Greenland (Wiig et al. 2003, p. 

511). In the absence of ice during the 

summer season, some populations of 

polar bears in eastern Canada, Hudson 

Bay, and the Barents Sea are remaining 

on land for protracted periods of time 

until ice again forms and provides a 

platform for them to move to sea ice. 

Food Habits 

Polar bears are carnivorous and an 

upper level predator of the Arctic 

marine ecosystem. Polar bears prey 

heavily throughout their range on ringed 

seals (Phoca hispida) and, to a lesser 

extent, bearded seals (Erignathus 

barbatus) and in some locales, other seal 

species. On average, an adult polar bear 

needs approximately 2 kg (4.4 lbs) of 

seal fat per day to survive (Best 1985, p. 

1035). Sufficient nutrition is critical and 

may be obtained and stored as fat when 

prey is abundant. 

Although seals are their primary prey, 

polar bears also have been known to kill 

much larger animals such as walruses 

(Odobenus rosmarus), narwhal 

(Monodon monoceros), and belugas 

(Delphinapterus leucas) (Kiliaan et al. 

1978; Smith 1980, p. 2206; Smith 1985; 

Lowry et al. 1987, p. 141; Calvert and 

Stirling 1990, p. 352; Smith and Sjare 

1990, p. 99). In some areas and under 

some conditions, prey and carrion other 

than seals may be quite important to 

polar bear sustenance. Stirling and 

;ritsland (1995, p. 2609) suggested that 

in areas where ringed seal populations 

were reduced, other prey species were 

being substituted. Like other ursids, 

polar bears will eat human garbage 

(Lunn and Stirling 1985, p. 2295), and 

when confined to land for long periods 

they will consume coastal marine and 

terrestrial plants and other terrestrial 

foods (Russell 1975, p. 122; Derocher et 

al. 1993, p. 252), but the significance of 

other terrestrial foods to polar bears may 

be limited (Lunn and Stirling 1985, p. 

2296; Ramsay and Hobson 1991, p. 600; 

Derocher et al. 2004, p. 169). 

Reproduction 

Polar bears are characterized by a late 

age at sexual maturity, small litter sizes, 

and extended parental investment in 

raising young, factors that combine to 

contribute to a very low reproductive 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1067 

rate. Reproduction in the female polar 

bear is similar to that in other ursids 

(bears). 

Females generally mature and breed 

for the first time at 4 or 5 years and give 

birth at 5 or 6 years of age. Litters of two 

cubs are most common, but litters of 

three cubs are seen sporadically across 

the Arctic. When foraging conditions are 

difficult, polar bears may ‘‘defer’’

reproduction in favor of survival 

(Derocher et al. 1992, p. 564). 

Polar bears enter a prolonged estrus 

between March and June, when 

breeding occurs. Ovulation is thought to 

be induced by mating (Wimsatt 1963; 

Ramsay and Dunbrack 1986; Derocher 

and Stirling 1992; all cited in Amstrup 

2003, p. 599), and implantation is 

delayed until autumn. The total 

gestation period is 195 to 265 days 

(Uspenski 1977 cited in Amstrup 2003, 

p. 599), although active development of 

the fetus is suspended during most of 

this period. The timing of implantation, 

and therefore the timing of birth, is 

likely dependent on body condition of 

the female, which depends on a variety 

of environmental factors. 

Newborn polar bears are helpless, 

have hair, but are blind and weigh only 

0.6 kg (1.3 lb) (Blix and Lentfer 1979, p. 

68). Cubs grow rapidly, and may weigh 

10 to 12 kg (22 to 26 lbs) by the time 

they emerge from the den in the spring. 

Young bears will stay with their 

mothers until weaning, which occurs 

most commonly in early spring when 

the cubs are 2.3 years of age. Female 

polar bears are available to breed again 

after their cubs are weaned, so the 

reproductive interval for polar bears is 

3 years. 

Polar bears are long-lived mammals 

not generally susceptable to disease, 

parasites, or injury. The oldest known 

female in the wild was 32 years of age 

and the oldest known male was 28, 

though few polar bears in the wild live 

to be older than 20 (Stirling 1988, p. 

139; Stirling 1990, p. 225). Due to 

extremely low reproductive rates, polar 

bears require a high rate of survival to 

maintain population levels. Survival 

rates increase up to a certain age, with 

cubs-of-the-year having the lowest rates 

and prime age adults (between 5 and 20 

years of age) having survival rates that 

can exceed 90 percent. 

Polar Bear—Sea Ice Habitat 

Relationships 

Polar bears are distributed throughout 

the ice-covered waters of the 

circumpolar Arctic (Stirling 1988, p. 

61), and are reliant on the sea ice as 

their primary habitat (Amstrup 2003, p. 

587). Polar bears depend on sea ice for 

a number of purposes, including as a 

platform from which to hunt and feed 

upon seals; as habitat on which to seek 

mates and breed; as a platform to move 

to terrestrial maternity denning areas, 

and sometimes for maternity denning; 

and as a substrate on which to make 

long-distance movements (Stirling and 

Derocher 1993, p. 241). Mauritzen et al. 

(2003, p. 123) indicated that habitat use 

by polar bears during certain seasons 

may involve a trade-off between 

selecting habitats with abundant prey 

availability versus the use of safer 

retreat habitats with less prey. Their 

findings indicate that polar bear 

distribution may not be solely a 

reflection of prey availability, but other 

factors such as energetic costs or risk 

may be involved. 

Stirling et al. (1993, p. 15) defined 

seven types of sea ice habitat and 

classified polar bear use of these ice 

types based on the presence of bears or 

tracks in order to determine habitat 

preferences. The seven types of sea ice 

were: stable fast ice with drifts; stable 

fast ice without drifts; floe edge ice; 

moving ice; continuous stable pressure 

ridges; coastal low level pressure ridges; 

and fiords and bays. Polar bears were 

not evenly distributed over these sea ice 

habitats, but concentrated on the floe ice 

edge, on stable fast ice with drifts, and 

on areas of moving ice (Stirling 1990 p. 

226; Stirling et al. 1993, p. 18). In 

another assessment, categories of ice 

types included: pack ice; shore-fast ice; 

transition zone ice; and polynyas (i.e., 

open water areas within the ice); and 

leads (USFWS 1995, p. 9). Pack ice, 

which consists of annual and multi-year 

ice in constant motion due to winds and 

currents, is the primary summer habitat 

for Alaskan polar bears. Shore-fast ice is 

used for feeding on seal pups, 

movements, and occasionally for 

maternity denning. Open water at leads 

and polynyas attracts seals and other 

marine mammals and provides 

preferred hunting habitats during winter 

and spring. 

Polar bears must move throughout the 

year to adjust to the changing 

distribution of sea ice and seals (Stirling 

1988, p. 63; USFWS 1995, p. 4). In some 

areas, such as Hudson Bay and James 

Bay, polar bears remain on land when 

the sea ice retreats in the spring and 

they fast for several months (up to 8 

months for pregnant females) before fall 

freeze-up (Stirling 1988, p. 63; Derocher 

et al. 2004, p. 163). Some populations 

unconstrained by land masses, such as 

those in the Barents, Chukchi and 

Beaufort Seas, spend each summer on 

the multiyear ice of the polar basin 

(Derocher et al. 2004, p. 163). In 

intermediate areas such as the Canadian 

Arctic, Svalbard, and Franz Josef Land 

archipelagos, bears stay with the ice 

most of the time, but in some years they 

may spend up to a few months on land 

(Mauritizen et al. 2001, p. 1710). Most 

populations use terrestrial habitat 

partially or exclusively for maternity 

denning; therefore, females must adjust 

their movements in order to access land 

at the appropriate time (Stirling 1988, p. 

64; Derocher et al. 2004, p. 166). 

Sea ice changes between years in 

response to environmental factors may 

have consequences to the distribution 

and productivity of polar bears as well 

as their prey. In the southern Beaufort 

Sea, anomalous heavy ice conditions in 

the mid-1970s and mid-1980s (thought 

to be roughly in phase with a similar 

variation in runoff from the MacKenzie 

River) caused significant declines in 

productivity of ringed seals (Stirling 

2002, p. 68). Each event lasted 

approximately three years and caused 

similar declines in the natality of polar 

bears and survival of subadults, after 

which reproductive success and 

survival of both species increased again. 

Maternal Denning Habitat 

Throughout the species’ range, most 

pregnant female polar bears excavate 

dens in snow located on land in the fallearly winter period (Harington 1968, p. 

6; Lentfer and Hensel 1980, p. 102; 

Ramsay and Stirling 1990, p. 233; 

Amstrup and Gardner 1994, p. 5). The 

only known exceptions are in Western 

and Southern Hudson Bay, where polar 

bears first excavate earthen dens and 

later reposition into adjacent snow drifts 

(Jonkel et al 1972, p. 146; Ramsey and 

Stirling 1990, p. 233), and in the 

southern Beaufort Sea, where a portion 

of the population dens in snow caves 

located on pack and shorefast ice. 

Successful denning by polar bears 

requires accumulation of sufficient 

snow for den construction and 

maintenance. Adequate and timely 

snowfall combined with winds that 

cause snow accumulation leeward of 

topographic features create denning 

habitat (Harington 1968, p.12). 

A great amount of polar bear denning 

occurs in core areas (Harington 1968, 

pp. 7–8) which show high use over 

time. In some portions of the species’

range, polar bears den in a more diffuse 

pattern, with dens scattered over larger 

areas at lower density (Lentfer and 

Hensel 1980, p. 102; Stirling and 

Andriashek 1992, p. 363; Amstrup 1993, 

p. 247; Amstrup and Gardner 1994, p. 

5; Messier et al. 1994, p. 425; Born 1995, 

p. 81; Ferguson et al. 2000a, p. 1125; 

Durner et al. 2001, p. 117; Durner et al. 

2003, p. 57). 

Habitat characteristics of denning 

areas vary substantially from the rugged 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
1068 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

mountains and fjordlands of the 

Svalbard archipelago and the large 

islands north of the Russian coast (L<n< 

1970, p. 77; Uspenski and Kistchinski 

1972, p. 182; Larsen 1985, pp. 321–322) 

to the relatively flat topography of areas 

such as the west coast of Hudson Bay 

(Ramsay and Andriashek 1986, p. 9; 

Ramsay and Stirling 1990, p. 233) and 

north slope of Alaska (Amstrup 1993, p. 

247; Amstrup and Gardner 1994, p. 7; 

Durner et al. 2001, p. 119; Durner et al. 

2003, p. 61), to offshore pack icepressure ridge habitat. The key 

characteristic of all denning habitat is 

topographic features that catch snow in 

the autumn and early winter (Durner et 

al. 2003, p. 61). Across the range, most 

polar bear dens occur relatively near the 

coast. The main exception to coastal 

denning occurs in the western Hudson 

Bay area, where bears den further inland 

in traditional denning areas (Kolenosky 

and Prevett 1983, pp. 243–244; Stirling 

and Ramsay 1986, p. 349). 

Polar bears are largely food deprived 

while on land in the ice-free period; 

during this time they survive on stored 

fat reserves. Pregnant females that spend 

the late summer on land prior to 

denning may not feed for 8 months 

(Watts and Stirling 1988, p. 627). This 

may be the longest period of food 

deprivation of any mammal, and it 

occurs at a time when the female gives 

birth to and then nourishes new cubs. 

Current Population Status and Trend 

The total number of polar bears 

worldwide is estimated to be 20,000–

25,000. Polar bears are not evenly 

distributed throughout the Arctic, nor 

do they comprise a single nomadic 

cosmopolitan population, but rather 

occur in 19 relatively discrete 

populations (Figure 1). The boundaries 

of these populations are based on 

behavioral and ecological factors and 

were developed from decades of 

intensive scientific studies as well as 

traditional knowledge (Lunn et al. 2002, 

p. 41). Although there is overlap in 

areas occupied by members of the 

populations, with the exception of the 

Arctic Basin population, these 

boundaries are sufficiently discrete to 

manage the populations independently. 

Correspondence between genetic data 

and movement data reinforces current 

population designations (Paetkau et al. 

1999, p. 1571; Amstrup 2003, p. 590). 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1069 

Population size estimates and 

qualitative categories of the current 

trend and status data for each polar bear 

population are discussed below. This 

discussion was derived from 

information presented at the World 

Conservation Union—International 

Union for Conservation of Nature and 

Natural Resources, Species Survival 

Commission (IUCN/SSC) Polar Bear 

Specialist Group (PBSG) meeting held 

in Seattle, Washington, in June 2005, 

and updated with results that became 

available as of October 2006 (PBSG 

2006). The information on each 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2EP09JA07.000</GPH>
1070 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

population is based on the available 

status reports and revisions given by 

each nation. Categories of status include 

an assessment of whether populations 

are not reduced, reduced, or severely 

reduced from historic levels of 

abundance, or if insufficient data are 

available to estimate status. Categories 

of trend include an assessment of 

whether the population is currently 

increasing, stable, or declining, or if 

insufficient data are available to 

estimate trend. The current status and 

trend assessments do not consider the 

various factors that have been 

determined to threaten the species 

within the foreseeable future, as 

discussed later in this document in the 

five-factor analysis sections. 

The East Greenland population 

number is unknown since no 

population surveys have been 

conducted in the past. The status and 

trend have not been determined due to 

the absence of abundance data. The 

Barents Sea population was estimated to 

comprise 3,000 animals based on the 

only population survey conducted in 

this vast area during 2004. Because only 

one abundance estimate is available, the 

status and trend cannot yet be 

determined. The Kara Sea population 

number is unknown because population 

surveys have not been conducted; thus 

status and trend of this population 

cannot yet be determined. The Laptev 

Sea population is estimated to comprise 

800 to 1,200 animals, based on an 

extrapolation of historical aerial den 

survey data. Status and trend cannot yet 

be determined for this population. The 

Chukchi Sea population is estimated to 

comprise 2,000 animals based on 

extrapolation of aerial den surveys. 

Status and trend cannot yet be 

determined for this population. The 

Southern Beaufort Sea population is 

comprised of 1,500 animals based on 

conclusion of a recent population 

inventory. The predicted trend is 

declining and the status is designated as 

reduced. The Northern Beaufort Sea 

population is comprised of 1,200 

animals. The trend is designated as 

stable and status is determined to be not 

reduced, although a new abundance 

estimate will be developed in the near 

future. The Viscount-Melville 

population is estimated to comprise 215 

animals. The trend is increasing 

although the status is designated as 

severely reduced from prior excessive 

harvest. The Norwegian Bay population 

number is 190 animals and the trend is 

noted as declining while the status is 

listed as not reduced. The Lancaster 

Sound population is estimated to be 

2,541 animals and the trend is stable 

and status is not reduced. The 

M’Clintock Channel population is 

estimated at 284 animals and the trend 

is increasing although the status is 

severely reduced from excessive 

harvest. The Gulf of Boothia population 

abundance estimate is 1,523 animals 

and the trend is stable and status is 

designated as not reduced. The Foxe 

Basin population comprises 2,197 

animals and the population trend is 

stable and the status is not reduced. The 

Western Hudson Bay population 

estimate is 935 animals and the trend is 

declining and the status is reduced. The 

Southern Hudson Bay population 

estimate is 1,000 animals and the trend 

is stable and status is not reduced. The 

Kane Basin population is comprised of 

164 animals and its trend is declining 

and status is reduced. The Baffin Bay 

population is estimated to be 2,074 

animals and the trend is declining and 

status is reduced. The Davis Strait 

population is estimated at 1,650 animals 

based on traditional ecological 

knowledge (TEK) and data are 

unavailable to assess trends or status. 

The Arctic Basin population estimate, 

trend, and status are unknown. 

For populations with long-term data 

we can establish trends, but cannot do 

so for populations with short-term or 

lack of data. Of the populations for 

which data are available to assess status 

and trend, two are noted to be 

increasing (Viscount Melville and 

M’Clintock Channel). Both of these 

populations were severely reduced in 

the past and are recovering under 

conservative harvest limits. The two 

populations with the most extensive 

time series of data, Western Hudson Bay 

and Southern Beaufort Sea, are both 

declining. However, based on 

environmental factors and observed 

patterns of population trends for some 

populations it is likely that most 

populations will exhibit declines in the 

future. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the Polar 

Bear 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

part 424, set forth procedures for adding 

species to the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Species. 

Under section 4(a) of the Act, we may 

list a species on the basis of any of five 

factors, as follows: (A) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. In making this finding, 

information regarding the status and 

trends of the polar bear is considered in 

relation to the five factors provided in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

In the context of the Act, the term 

‘‘threatened species’’ means any species 

or subspecies or, for vertebrates, Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) that is likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. The 

term ‘‘endangered species’’ means any 

species that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The Act does not define the 

term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ The PBSG, 

when they reassessed the status of polar 

bears globally in June 2005, used the 

criteria described in the IUCN/SSC Red 

List process (IUCN 2004) to determine 

which Red List category the polar bear 

should be assigned. The criteria, used 

for all species that IUCN assesses in the 

Red List process, use observed, 

estimated, inferred or suspected 

population size reductions of a certain 

percentage over the last 10 years or 

three generations, whichever is the 

longer to categorize species. A 

generation, as defined by IUCN, is 

calculated as the age of sexual maturity 

(5 years) plus 50 percent of the length 

of the lifetime reproductive period (20 

years). Based on these calculations, the 

projected length of 1 generation for a 

polar bear was calculated at 15 years, 

and the projected period for 3 

generations was calculated as 45 years. 

For another species evaluated for 

listing as threatened, the Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki 

bouvieri), the status assessment report 

(May et al. 2003 p. 10) considered the 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ to be 2–3 decades 

(4 to 10 generations), depending on the 

productivity of the environment. For the 

greater sage grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) the status reviewers 

agreed that given all of the 

uncertainties, a reasonable timeframe 

for ‘‘foreseeable future’’ for the 

threatened definition was 

approximately 30 to 100 years 

[approximately 10 greater sage-grouse 

generations or 2 sagebrush habitat 

regeneration cycles (70 FR 2244)]. 

Given the IUCN criteria, the lifehistory and population dynamics of 

polar bears, documented changes to date 

in both multi-year and annual sea ice, 

and the direction of projected rates of 

change of sea ice in future decades, we 

consider the three generation timespan 

used in the IUCN Red List criteria to be 

a reasonable projection of foreseeable 

future and provides a time frame for 

analysis of whether polar bears are 

likely to become endangered. Therefore, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1071 

45 years is the ‘‘foreseeable future’’ for 

the polar bear. This time frame is long 

enough to take into account multigenerational population dynamics and 

the capacity for ecological adaptation 

(Schliebe et al. 2006a). 

We considered all relevant, available 

information under each of the listing 

factors in the context of present-day 

polar bear distribution. Our evaluation 

of the five factors with respect to polar 

bear populations is presented below. 

While the polar bear can be delineated 

into 19 populations, and populationspecific interaction of various listing 

factors may affect these populations at 

different levels or rates, in this 12- 

month finding and proposed rule we 

evaluated the status of the species 

throughout its entire range because we 

find that the entire species meets the 

definition of a threatened species under 

the Act. Accordingly, we have not 

considered the petitioners’ alternative of 

assessing whether listing of particular 

distinct population segments is 

warranted. 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of the 

Species’ Habitat or Range 

Polar bears are believed to be 

completely dependent upon Arctic sea 

ice for survival (Moore and Huntington, 

in press; Laidre et al. in prep.). They 

need sea ice as a platform for hunting, 

for seasonal movements, for travel to 

terrestrial denning areas, for resting, and 

for mating. Some polar bears use 

terrestrial habitats seasonally, such as 

pregnant females for denning and some 

bears, all sex and age classes, for resting 

during open water periods. While open 

water may not be an essential habitat for 

polar bears because life functions such 

as feeding, reproduction or resting do 

not occur in open water, open water is 

a fundamental part of the marine system 

that supports seal species, the principal 

prey of polar bears, and seasonally 

returns to ice in the form needed by the 

bears. Further, the open water interface 

with sea ice is an important habitat in 

that it is used to a great extent by polar 

bears. The extent of open water is 

important because vast areas of open 

water may limit a bear’s ability to access 

sea ice or land. Snow cover is also an 

important component of polar bear 

habitat in that it provides insulation and 

cover for young polar bears and ringed 

seals in snow dens or lairs. 

Overview of Arctic Sea Ice Change 

Initial syntheses of climate models 

and environmental change data have 

identified potentially significant 

changes to the landscapes and biota in 

Arctic regions as a consequence of 

climate change (ACIA 2005, p. 1017; 

IPCC 2001a, p. 920). Climate trends are 

not occurring evenly or in a linear 

fashion throughout the world; Arctic 

regions are being disproportionately 

affected by higher levels of warming 

(Overpeck 2006, p. 1749). Observations 

of Arctic changes, including 

diminishing sea ice, shrinking glaciers, 

thawing permafrost, and Arctic 

greening, validate earlier findings 

(Morison et al. 2000, p. 360; Sturm et al. 

2003, pp. 63–65; Comiso and Parkinson 

2004, pp. 38–43; Parkinson in press). 

Additional studies indicate that 

previous projections regarding the rate 

and extent of climate change 

underestimated the temperature trend, 

reductions to annual sea ice during the 

summer and winter periods, reductions 

to multi-year pack ice, and reductions in 

thickness (Rothrock et al. 2003, p. 3471; 

Stroeve et al. 2005, p. 2). Overpeck et al. 

(2005, p. 309) indicated that the Arctic 

is moving toward a new ‘‘super 

interglacial’’ state that falls outside of 

natural glacial-interglacial periods that 

have characterized the past 800,000 

years. These changes appear to be 

driven largely by the albedo effect (see 

explanation in following paragraph), 

and there are few, if any, processes that 

are capable of altering this trajectory. 

There is no paleoclimatic evidence for 

a seasonally ice-free Arctic during the 

past 800,000 years (Overpeck et al. 

2005, p. 309). 

The National Snow and Ice Data 

Center (NSIDC is part of the University 

of Colorado Cooperative Institute for 

Research in Environmental Sciences, 

and is affiliated with the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration National Geophysical 

Data Center through a cooperative 

agreement) reported that the amount of 

sea ice in 2006 was the second lowest 

on record (since satellites began 

recording sea ice extent measurements 

via passive microwave imagery in 1978), 

and the pace of melting was 

accelerating. The latest sea ice 

measurements are thought to indicate 

that ice melt is accelerating due to a 

positive feedback loop. The albedo 

effect involves reduction of the extent of 

lighter-colored sea ice or snow, which 

reflects solar energy back into the 

atmosphere, and a corresponding 

increase in the extent of darker-colored 

water or land that absorbs more of the 

sun’s energy. This greater absorption of 

energy causes faster melting, which in 

turn causes more warming, and thus 

creates a self-reinforcing cycle that 

becomes amplified and accelerates with 

time. Lindsay and Zhang (2005, p. 4892) 

suggest that feedback mechanisms 

caused a tipping point in Arctic sea ice 

thinning in the late 1980s, sustaining a 

continual decline in sea ice cover that 

cannot easily be reversed. Results of a 

new study by a team of scientists from 

the National Center for Atmospheric 

Research and two universities, using 

projections from a state-of-the-art 

community climate system model, 

suggest that abrupt reductions in the 

extent of summer ice are likely to occur 

over the next few decades, and that near 

ice-free September conditions may be 

reached as early as 2040 (Holland et al, 

2006). 

Observed and Projected Changes in 

Arctic Sea Ice 

Sea ice is the defining characteristic 

of the marine Arctic and has a strong 

seasonal cycle (ACIA 2005, p. 30). It is 

typically at its maximum extent in 

March and minimum extent in 

September (Parkinson et al. 1999, p. 20, 

840). There is considerable inter-annual 

variability both in the maximum and 

minimum extent of sea ice. In addition, 

there are decadal and inter-decadal 

fluctuations to sea ice extent due to 

changes in atmospheric pressure 

patterns and their associated winds, 

continental discharge, and influx of 

Atlantic and Pacific waters (Gloersen 

1995, p. 505; Mysak and Manak 1989, p. 

402; Kwok 2000, p. 776; Parkinson 

2000b, p. 10; Polyakov et al. 2003, p. 

2080; Rigor et al. 2002, p. 2660; 

Zakharov 1994, p. 42). 

Observations have shown a decline in 

late summer Arctic sea ice extent of 7.7 

percent per decade and in the perennial 

sea ice area of up to 9.8 percent per 

decade since 1978 (Stroeve et al. 2005, 

p.1; Comiso 2006, p. 75). A lesser 

decline of 2.7 percent per decade has 

been observed in yearly averaged sea ice 

extents (Parkinson and Cavalieri 2002, 

p. 441). The rate of decrease appears to 

be accelerating, with record low 

minimum extents in the sea ice cover 

recorded during 2002 through 2005 

(Stroeve et al. in press; Comiso 2006, p. 

75). Average air temperatures across 

most of the Arctic Ocean from January 

to August 2006 were about 2 to 7 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F) warmer than the 

long-term average across the region 

during the preceding 50 years, 

indicating that ice melt is accelerating 

due to a positive feedback loop that 

enhances warming through the albedo 

effect. Observations have likewise 

shown a thinning of the Arctic sea ice 

of 32 percent or more from the 1960s 

and 1970s to the 1990s in some local 

areas (Rothrock et al. 1999, p. 3471; Yu 

et al. 2004, p. 11). The length of the melt 

period affects sea ice cover and ice 

thickness (Hakkinen and Mellor 1990; 

Laxon et al. 2003, cited in Comiso 2005, 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
1072 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

p. 50). Earlier melt onset and 

lengthening of the melt season result in 

decreased total ice cover at summer’s 

end (Stroeve et al. 2005, p. 3). For 2002 

through 2005, the NSIDC reported a 

trend of earlier onset of melt season in 

all four years; in 2005 the melt season 

arrived the earliest, occurring 

approximately 17 days before the mean 

melt onset date (NSIDC 2005, p. 6). The 

result of longer melt season is that the 

ice season is decreasing by as much as 

8 days per year in the eastern Barents 

Sea, and by lesser amounts throughout 

much of the rest of the Arctic (Parkinson 

2000a, p. 351). Comiso (2003, p. 3506) 

calculated an increase in the sea ice 

melt season of 10 to 17 days per decade. 

Subsequently, Comiso (2005, p. 50) 

included additional data from recent 

years and ice-free periods and 

determined that the length of the melt 

season is increasing at a rate of 

approximately 13.1 days per decade. 

Comiso (2005, p. 50) stated that the 

increasing melt periods were likely 

reasons for the current rapid decline of 

the perennial ice cover. Belchansky et 

al. (2004, p. 1) found that changes in 

January multiyear ice volume were 

significantly correlated with duration of 

the intervening melt season. 

Projected Changes in Sea Ice Cover 

A number of climate models have 

been developed that project future 

conditions in the Arctic, as well as 

globally (ACIA 2005, p. 99; IPCC 2001b, 

p. 471). All models predict continued 

Arctic warming and continued 

decreases in the Arctic sea ice cover in 

the 21st century (Johannessen 2004, p. 

328) due to increasing global 

temperatures, although the level of 

increase varies between models. Comiso 

(2005, p. 43) found that for each 

1°Centigrade (C) (1.6 °F) increase in 

surface temperature (global average) 

there is a corresponding decrease in 

perennial sea ice cover of about 1.48 

million km2 (.57 million mi2). Further, 

due to increased warming in the Arctic 

region, accepted models project almost 

no sea ice cover during summer in the 

Arctic Ocean by the end of the 21st 

century (Johannessen et al. 2004, p. 

335). More recently, the NSIDC 

cautioned that the Arctic will be ice-free 

by 2060 if current warming trends 

continue (Serreze 2006, p. 2). 

The winter maximum sea ice extent in 

2005 and 2006 were both about 6 

percent lower than average values, 

indicating significant decline in the 

winter sea ice cover. In both cases, the 

observed surface temperatures were also 

significantly warmer and the onset of 

freeze-up was later than normal. In both 

years, onset of melt also happened early 

(Comiso in press). A continued decline 

would mean an advance to the north of 

the 0 °C (32 °F) isotherm temperature 

gradient, and a warmer ocean in the 

peripheral seas of the Arctic Ocean. 

This in turn may result in a further 

decline in winter ice cover. 

Predicted Arctic atmospheric and 

oceanographic changes for time periods 

through the year 2080 include increased 

air temperatures, increased precipitation 

and run-off, and reduced sea ice extent 

and duration (ACIA 2005, tables on pp. 

470 and 476). 

Effects of Sea Ice Habitat Change on 

Polar Bears 

Observed and predicted changes in 

sea ice cover, characteristics, and timing 

have profound effects on polar bears. 

Sea ice is a highly dynamic habitat with 

different types, forms, stages, and 

distributions of ice that all operate as a 

complex matrix in determining 

biological productivity and use by 

marine organisms, including polar bears 

and their primary prey base—ice seal 

species. Polar bear use of sea ice is not 

uniform. Their preferred habitat is the 

annual ice located over continental shelf 

and inter-island archipelagos that circle 

the Arctic basin. Ice seals demonstrate 

a similar preference to these ice 

habitats. 

Hudson Bay in Canada typifies 

change in the Arctic due to its southern 

location and occurrence on a divide 

between a warming and a cooling region 

(AMAP 2003, p. 22). It is therefore an 

ideal area to study the impacts of 

climate change. In addition, Hudson 

Bay has the most significant long-term 

time series of data on the ecology of 

polar bears and is the site of the first 

documented evidence of major and 

ongoing impacts to polar bears from sea 

ice changes. Many researchers over the 

past 40 years have predicted an array of 

impacts to polar bears from climatic 

change that include adverse effects on 

denning, food chain disruption, and 

prey availability (Budyko 1966; Vibe 

1967, cited in Derocher et al. 2004, p. 

164; Lentfer 1972, p. 169; Tynan and 

DeMaster 1997, p. 315; Stirling and 

Derocher 1993, pp. 241–244). Stirling 

and Derocher (1993, p. 240) first noted 

changes in polar bears in Western 

Hudson Bay such as declining body 

condition, lowered reproductive rates, 

and reduced cub survival; they 

attributed these changes to a changing 

ice environment. Subsequently, Stirling 

et al. (1999, p. 303) established a 

statistically significant link between 

climate warming in Western Hudson 

Bay, reduced ice presence, and observed 

declines in polar bear physical and 

reproductive parameters, including 

body condition (weight) and natality. 

Increased Polar Bear Movements 

Polar bears are inefficient moving on 

land; they expend approximately twice 

the average energy use of other 

mammals when walking (Best 1982, p. 

63; Hurst et al. 1982, p. 273). Sea ice 

circulation in the Arctic is clockwise, 

and polar bears tend to walk against this 

movement to maintain a position near 

preferred habitat within large 

geographical home ranges (Mauritzen et 

al. 2003a, p. 111). Currently, ice 

thickness is diminishing and there is 

increased transport of multi-year ice 

from the polar region. This increased 

rate and extent of ice movements 

requires additional efforts and energy 

expenditure for polar bears to maintain 

their position near preferred habitats 

(Derocher et al. 2004, p.167). Ferguson 

et al. (2001, p. 51) found that polar bears 

inhabiting areas of highly dynamic ice 

had much larger activity areas and 

movement rates compared to those bears 

inhabiting more stable, persistent ice 

habitat. Although polar bears are 

capable of living in areas of highly 

dynamic ice movement, they show 

inter-annual fidelity to the general 

location of preferred habitat (Mauritzen 

et al. 2003b, p. 122). 

As sea ice moves more quickly or 

becomes more fragmented, polar bears 

would likely use more energy to 

maintain contact with consolidated ice, 

because moving through highly 

fragmented sea ice is difficult and likely 

more energy-intensive than walking 

over consolidated sea ice (Derocher et 

al. 2004, p. 167). During summer 

periods the remaining ice in much of 

the central Arctic is now positioned 

away from more productive continental 

shelf waters and over much deeper, less 

productive waters, such as in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas of Alaska. If 

the width of leads or extent of open 

water increases, the transit time for 

bears and the need to swim or to travel 

will increase (Derocher et al. 2004, p. 

167). Derocher et al. (2004, p. 167) 

suggests that as habitat patch sizes 

decrease, available food resources are 

likely to decline, resulting in reduced 

residency time and thus increased 

movement rates. The consequences of 

increased energetic costs to polar bears 

are reduced weight and condition and 

corresponding reduction in survival and 

recruitment rates (Derocher et al. 2004, 

p. 167). 

Additionally, as movement of sea ice 

increases and areas of unconsolidated 

ice increase, some bears will lose 

contact with the main body of ice and 

drift into unsuitable habitat from which 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1073 

it may be difficult to return (Derocher et 

al. 2004, p. 167). This already occurs in 

some areas such as Southwest 

Greenland and offshore from the island 

of Newfoundland (Derocher et al. 2004, 

p. 167). Increased frequency of such 

events could negatively impact survival 

rates and contribute to population 

declines (Derocher et al. 2004, p.167). 

Polar Bear Distribution Changes 

Recent studies indicate that polar bear 

distributions are changing and that 

these changes are strongly correlated to 

similar changes in sea ice and the 

ocean-ice system. Specifically, in 

Western Hudson Bay, breakup of the 

annual sea ice now occurs 

approximately 2.5 weeks earlier than it 

did 30 years ago (Stirling et al. 1999, p. 

299). The earlier spring breakup was 

highly correlated with dates that female 

polar bears came ashore (Stirling et al. 

1999, p. 299). Declining reproductive 

rates, subadult survival, and body mass 

(weights) have resulted from longer 

periods of fasting on land as a result of 

the progressively earlier breakup of the 

sea ice caused by an increase in spring 

temperatures (Stirling et al. 1999, p. 

304; Derocher et al. 2004, p. 165). 

Stirling et al. (1999, p. 304) reported 

a significant decline in the condition 

(weights) of both male and female adult 

polar bears since the 1980s in Western 

Hudson Bay, as well as lower natality 

rates. A positive relationship between 

body mass of females with cubs and 

survival of cubs was also established; 

survival of cubs of mothers in better 

condition (heavier) was greater than 

survival of cubs from lighter mothers 

(Derocher and Stirling 1996, p. 1248). 

Stirling et al. (1999, p. 304) cautioned 

that although downward trends in the 

size of the Western Hudson Bay 

population had not been detected, if 

trends in life history parameters 

continued downward ‘‘they will 

eventually have a detrimental effect on 

the ability of the population to sustain 

itself.’’ Population declines have now 

been determined based on a recent 

analysis of an ongoing mark-recapture 

population study, and the earlier 

predictions of Stirling et al. (1999; p. 

304) have been proven. Between 1987 

and 2004, the number of polar bears in 

the Western Hudson Bay population 

declined from 1,194 to 935, a reduction 

of about 22 percent (Regehr et al. in 

prep.). Progressive declines in the 

condition and survival of cubs, 

subadults, and bears 20 years of age and 

older, likely initiated the decline in the 

size of the Westen Hudson Bay 

population; these declines appear to 

have been initiated by progressively 

earlier sea ice breakup. Once the 

population began to decline, existing 

harvest rates of this population 

contributed to the reduction in the size 

of the population (Regehr et al. in 

prep.). 

Starting in the 1990s, Schliebe 

(unpublished data) has observed a trend 

of increasing use of coastal areas by 

polar bears during the fall open water 

period in the Southern Beaufort Sea. 

High numbers of bears were found to be 

using coastal areas during some years, 

where previously observations of polar 

bears on the coast were rare. The study 

period included record minimal ice 

conditions for the month of September 

in four of the six survey years. There 

was a significant relationship between 

the mean distance from the coast to the 

edge of pack ice and the numbers of 

bears observed on the coast. As the 

distance to the edge of the ice increased, 

the number of bears near shore 

increased. Conversely, as ice advanced 

toward shore, the number of bears near 

shore decreased. These results suggest 

that environmental factors, possibly 

similar to those observed in Western 

Hudson Bay, are influencing the 

distribution of polar bears in the 

southern Beaufort Sea. They also 

suggest that increased polar bear use of 

coastal areas may continue if the 

summer retreat of the sea ice continues 

to receed in the future as predicted 

(Serreze et al. 2000, p. 159; Serreze and 

Barry 2005). 

Gleason et al. (2006, p. 1) also found 

a shift in polar bear distributions in the 

southern Beaufort Sea. Their study 

evaluated polar bear distribution during 

three periods (1979 to 1986, 1987 to 

1996, and 1997 to 2005), and found that 

the September distribution of polar 

bears was primarily associated with 

offshore sea ice during the earlier two 

periods, but land and open water during 

the later period. These findings coincide 

with the lack of pack ice (concentrations 

of greater than 50 percent) caused by a 

retraction of ice in the study area during 

the latter period (Stroeve et al. 2005, p. 

2; Comiso 2002 in Comiso 2005, p. 46; 

Comiso 2003, p. 3509; Comiso 2005, p. 

52). 

The findings of Gleason et al. (2006 p. 

1) are consistent with those reported by 

Schliebe et al. (2006b, p. 559), and 

confirm an increasing trend in use of 

coastal areas by polar bears in the 

southern Beaufort Sea in recent years 

and a decline in ice habitat near shore. 

The proximate causes for changes in 

polar bear distribution are thought to be 

(1) retraction of pack ice far to the north 

for greater periods of time in the fall and 

(2) later freeze-up of coastal waters. 

Other polar bear populations 

exhibiting distribution changes with 

larger numbers of bears onshore include 

the Chukchi Sea (Kochnev 2006, p. 162), 

Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, Foxe Basin, and 

Hudson Bay populations (Stirling and 

Parkinson 2006). Stirling and Parkinson 

(2006, p. 261–275) provide an analysis 

of pack ice and distribution changes for 

the Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, Foxe Basin, 

and Hudson Bay populations. They 

indicate that earlier sea ice breakup will 

likely result in longer periods of fasting 

for polar bears during the extended 

open-water season and this is why more 

polar bears have been observed near 

communities and hunting camps in 

recent years. Distribution changes of 

polar bears have been noted during a 

similar period of time for the northern 

coast of Chukotka (Kochnev 2006, p. 

162) and on Wrangel Island, Russia 

(Kochnev 2006, p. 162; N. Ovsyanikov, 

pers. comm.). The relationship between 

the maximum number of polar bears, 

the number of dead walruses, quantity 

of accessible food, and the distance of 

the ice-edge from Wrangel Island was 

evaluated. The regression analysis 

revealed that the strongest correlation 

was between bear numbers and distance 

to the ice-edge (Kochnev 2006, p. 162). 

In Baffin Bay, traditional Inuit 

knowledge studies and anecdotal 

reports indicate in many areas that 

greater numbers of bears are being 

encountered on land during the summer 

and fall open-water seasons. Interviews 

with elders and senior hunters in three 

communities in Nunavut, Canada, 

revealed that most respondents (83 

percent) believed that the population of 

polar bears had increased. The increase 

was attributed to more bears seen near 

communities, cabins, and camps, and 

hunters encountering bear sign in areas 

not previously used by bears. Some 

people interviewed noted that these 

observations could reflect a change in 

bear behavior rather than an increase in 

population. 

Stirling and Parkinson (2006, p. 263) 

evaluated sea ice conditions and 

distribution of polar bears in five 

populations in eastern Canada: Western 

Hudson Bay, Eastern Hudson Bay, 

Baffin Bay, Foxe Basin, and Davis Strait. 

Their analysis of satellite imagery 

beginning in the 1970s indicates that the 

sea ice is breaking up at progressively 

earlier dates, so that bears must fast for 

longer periods of time during the open 

water season. Stirling and Parkinson 

(2006, pp. 271–272) point out that longterm data on population size and body 

condition of bears from the Western 

Hudson Bay, and population and 

harvest data from the Baffin Bay 

population indicate that these 

populations are declining or likely to be 

declining. The authors indicate that as 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
1074 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

bears in these populations become more 

nutritionally stressed, the numbers of 

animals will decline and the declines 

will probably be significant. Based on 

the recent findings of Holland et al. 

(2006) these events are predicted to 

occur within the foreseeable future as 

defined in this rule (Stirling, pers. 

comm. 2006). 

Seasonal polar bear distribution 

changes noted above and the negative 

effect of prolonged use of terrestrial 

habitat are a concern for populations. 

Although polar bears have been 

observed using terrestrial food items 

such as blueberries, snow geese (Anser 

caerulescens), and reindeer (Rangifer 

tarandus), these alternate foods are not 

believed to represent significant sources 

of energy (Derocher et al. 2004, p. 169). 

Also, the inefficiency of polar bear 

locomotion noted above likely explains 

why polar bears are not known to hunt 

musk oxen (Ovibos moschatus) or snow 

geese, potential prey species that cooccur with the polar bear in many areas 

(Lunn and Stirling 1985, p. 2295). The 

energy needed to catch such species 

would almost certainly exceed the 

amount of energy a kill would provide 

(Lunn and Stirling 1985, p. 2295). 

Consequently, adaptive behaviors of 

using terrestrial habitat instead of sea 

ice will not offset energy losses from 

decreased seal consumption, and 

nutritional stress will result. 

Effects of Sea Ice Habitat Changes on 

Polar Bear Prey 

Reduced Seal Productivity 

Ringed seals in many areas prefer 

stable, shore-fast ice for construction of 

birth lairs. Pups are born between midMarch and mid-April, nursed for about 

6 weeks, and weaned prior to spring 

breakup in June (Smith 1980, p. 2201; 

Stirling 2002, p. 67). During this time 

period, both ringed seal pups and adults 

are hunted by polar bears (Smith 1980, 

p. 2201). Ferguson et al. (2005, pp. 130–

131) demonstrated that decreased snow 

depth in April and May, possibly 

influenced by the timing of spring 

breakup, may have a detrimental effect 

on ringed seal recruitment in Western 

Hudson Bay. Reduced snowfall results 

in less snow drift accumulation to the 

leeward side of pressure ridges; pups in 

lairs with thin snow roofs are more 

vulnerable to predation than pups in 

lairs with thick roofs (Ferguson et al 

2005, p. 131). Access to birth lairs for 

thermoregulation is considered crucial 

to the survival of nursing pups when air 

temperatures fall below 0 °C (32 °F) 

(Stirling and Smith 2004, p. 65). 

Warming temperatures that melt snowcovered birth lairs contributed to pups 

being exposed to ambient conditions 

and suffering from hypothermia 

(Stirling and Smith 2004, p. 63). 

Ferguson et al. (2005, p. 121) concluded 

that ‘‘earlier spring breakup of sea ice 

together with snow trends suggest 

continued low pup survival in western 

Hudson Bay.’’

Harwood et al. (2000, pp. 11–12) 

reported that an early spring breakup 

negatively impacted the growth, 

condition, and probably the survival of 

unweaned ringed seal pups. Early 

breakup was believed to have 

interrupted lactation in adult females, 

which in turn, negatively affected the 

condition and growth of pups. Earlier 

ice breakups similar to those 

documented by Harwood et al. (2000, p. 

11) and Ferguson et al. (2005, p. 131) are 

predicted to occur more frequently, and 

as a result a decrease in productivity 

and abundance of ringed seals is 

predicted (Ferguson et al. 2005, p. 131). 

Similar to earlier spring breakup or 

reduced snow cover, increased rain on 

snow events during the late winter also 

negatively impact ringed seal 

recruitment by damaging or eliminating 

snow-covered pupping lairs, increasing 

exposure and the risk of hypothermia, 

and facilitating predation by polar bears 

and Arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus) 

(Stirling and Smith 2004, p. 65). Stirling 

and Smith (2004, p. 64) document the 

collapse of the snow roofs of ringed seal 

birth lairs near southeastern Baffin 

Island and the resultant exposure of 

adult seals and pups to hypothermia. 

Predation of pups by polar bears was 

observed and the researchers suspect 

that most of the pups in these areas 

were eventually killed by polar bears 

(Stirling and Archibald 1977, p. 1127), 

Arctic foxes (Smith 1976 cited in 

Stirling and Smith 2004, p. 65) or 

possibly gulls (Lydersen and Smith 

1989 cited in Stirling and Smith 2004, 

p. 66). Stirling and Smith (2004, p. 66) 

postulated that should early season rain 

become regular and widespread in the 

future, mortality of ringed seal pups will 

increase, especially in more southerly 

parts of their range, and local 

populations may be significantly 

reduced. Any significant decline in 

ringed seal numbers, especially in the 

production of young, could affect 

reproduction and survival of polar bears 

(Stirling and Smith 2004, p. 66). 

Reduced Prey and Availability 

Ringed seals are the primary prey of 

the polar bear in most areas, though 

bearded seals, walrus, harbor seals 

(Phoca vitulina), harp seals (Phoca 

greenlandica), hooded seals 

(Crystophora cristata), and beluga 

whales are sometimes taken and may be 

locally important to some populations 

(Stirling and Archibald 1977, p. 1129; 

Smith 1980, p. 2206; Smith and Sjare 

1990, p. 100; Iverson et al. 2006, p. 114). 

Ice-associated seals, including the 

ringed seal, are vulnerable to habitat 

loss from changes in the extent or 

concentration of Arctic ice because they 

depend on pack-ice habitat for pupping, 

foraging, molting, and resting (Tynan 

and DeMaster 1997, p. 312; Derocher et 

al. 2004, p. 168). 

Polar bear populations are known to 

fluctuate based on prey availability 

(Stirling and Lunn 1997, p. 177). For 

example, declines in ringed and bearded 

seal numbers and productivity have 

resulted in marked declines in polar 

bear populations (Stirling 1980, p. 309; 

Stirling and ;slashritsland 1995, p. 

2609; Stirling 2002, p. 68). Ringed seal 

young-of-the-year represented the 

majority of the polar bear diet, and 

fluctuations in the productivity of 

ringed seal pups will likely be reflected 

immediately in polar bear reproduction 

and cub survival (Stirling and Lunn 

1997, p. 177). For polar bears, the most 

critical factor which affects reproductive 

success, subsequent condition, and 

survival is the availability of ringed seal 

pups from about mid-April to ice break 

up sometime in July (Stirling and Lunn 

1997, p. 176). 

Thus, major declines in sea ice habitat 

as projected will likely result in a 

decline in polar bear abundance over 

time due to reduced prey availability 

(Derocher et al. 2004, p. 167). The 

effects of declining ice habitat on seals 

will vary depending on the location, 

timing and extent of reductions, based 

on the information presented by 

Derocher et al. (2004). While it is 

possible that reduced ice cover along 

with increased open and warmer water 

will enhance primary productivity of 

seal prey items, and thus seal 

productivity, ultimately such a regime 

will negatively impact polar bears. An 

increased area and duration of open 

water will result in polar bears having 

reduced access to prey during critical 

periods of the year and physical 

condition of bears will decline. Further, 

reductions in sea ice cover will result in 

diminished productivity and 

distribution changes of ringed seals over 

time because seals depend on sea ice for 

pupping and resting. Thus a reduction 

in sea ice is likely to result in a net 

reduction in abundance of ringed seals 

(ACIA 2005, p. 520). 

Grebmeier et al. (2006, p. 1461) found 

that a major ecosystem shift is occurring 

in the Northern Bering Sea indicated by 

a decrease in benthic (bottom-dwelling) 

prey populations, which could affect 

Pacific walrus and bearded seal 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1075 

populations and result in an increase in 

pelagic fish. Arctic cod (Boreogadus 

saida), one of the primary prey species 

of ringed seals, is strongly associated 

with sea ice throughout its range and 

uses the underside of the ice to escape 

from predators (Craig et al. 1982 and 

Sekerak 1982 cited in Gaston et al. 2003, 

p. 230). It is therefore likely that a 

decrease in seasonal ice cover could 

have adverse effects on Arctic cod 

(Tynan and DeMaster 1997, p. 314; 

Gaston et al. 2003, p. 231). Sea ice 

regime changes in the Arctic have been 

implicated in distribution changes of 

other species as well. Cooper et al. 

(2006, p. 98) observed orphaned Pacific 

walrus in waters as deep as 3,000 m 

(9,843 ft) in the Canada Basin of the 

Arctic Ocean. These observations 

indicate that the Pacific walrus 

population may be ill-adapted to rapid 

seasonal sea ice retreat off Arctic 

continental shelves. 

Several species of seals that currently 

occur at the southern edge of the range 

of polar bears could also expand their 

range northward. In the north Pacific, 

this could include harbor seals (Phoca 

vitulina), spotted seals (Phoca largha), 

and ribbon seals (Phoca fasciata). In the 

north Atlantic, harp and hooded seals 

could expand northward and become 

available as prey, particularly if their 

pupping (natal) grounds located on 

heavy, thicker ice are only available in 

more northern latitudes (Derocher et al. 

2004, p. 168). A study of seals preyed 

upon by polar bears in three major 

regions of the Canadian Arctic, Davis 

Strait, western Hudson Bay, and the 

Beaufort Sea, revealed that diets differed 

among the regions, and within the 

region for Davis Strait. These differences 

were thought to be based on different 

rates of availability of the different seal 

species, as determined by their 

abundance. 

The absence of ice in southerly 

pupping areas or the relocation of 

pupping areas to more northerly areas 

could affect seal production. Repeated 

years of little or no ice in the Gulf of St. 

Lawrence resulted in almost zero 

production of harp seal pups, compared 

to hundreds of thousands in good ice 

years (ACIA 2005, p. 510). Marginal ice 

conditions and early ice breakup during 

harp seal whelping are believed to have 

resulted in increased juvenile mortality 

from starvation and cold stress and an 

overall reduction in this age class 

(Johnston et al. 2005, pp. 215–216). 

Northerly shifts of whelping areas for 

hooded seals were reported to occur 

during periods of warmer climate and 

diminished ice (Burns 2002 p. 42). In 

recent years, the position of the hooded 

seal whelping patch near Jan Mayen has 

changed position, likely in response to 

decreased sea ice in East Greenland; the 

number of seal also decreased (T. Haug, 

pers. comm. 2005). Marginal sea ice 

cover may have significant effects on 

harp and hooded seals since the amount 

and quality of ice suitable for whelping 

may be greatly reduced, resulting in 

higher density whelping areas (Johnston 

et al. 2005, p. 218). Crowding in 

whelping areas may increase the risks of 

disease transmissions and epizootics 

(Fay 1974, p. 394), but the effects of 

crowding at the harp and hooded seal 

whelping patches are largely unknown 

(Johnston et al. 2005, p. 218). Born 

(2005a) indicated that early ice breakup 

in years with ‘‘light’’ ice conditions may 

influence seals other than ringed seals. 

Other ice breeding seals, ribbon and 

spotted seals, may also be similarly 

affected by marginal ice conditions and 

early breakup (Born 2005a). It is 

unlikely that increased take of other 

species such as bearded seals, walrus, or 

harbor seals, even where they are 

available, could compensate for reduced 

availability of ringed seals (Derocher et 

al. 2004, pp. 168–169). 

Changes in prey availability may have 

especially large impacts on immature 

bears. Polar bears feed preferentially on 

blubber, and adult bears often leave 

much of a kill behind. Younger bears, 

which are not as efficient at taking seals, 

are known to utilize these kills to 

supplement their diet (Derocher et al. 

2004, p. 168). Younger bears may be 

disproportionately impacted if there are 

fewer kills or greater consumption of 

kills by adults, resulting in less prey to 

scavenge (Derocher et al. 2004, pp. 167–

168). Altered prey distribution would 

also likely lead to increased competition 

for prey between dominant and 

subordinate bears, resulting in 

subordinate or sub-adult bears having 

reduced access to prey (Derocher et al. 

2004, p. 167). Thus, a decrease in ringed 

seal abundance and availability would 

result in a concomitant decline in polar 

bear populations. 

Demographic Effects on Polar Bears 

The potential effects of sea ice 

changes on population size are difficult 

to quantify, especially for a long-lived 

and widely dispersed species like the 

polar bear. The key demographic factors 

for polar bears are physical condition, 

reproduction, and survival. Alteration of 

these characteristics has been associated 

with elevated risks of extinction for 

other species (McKinney 1997; 

Beissinger 2000; Owens and Bennett 

2000 all cited in Derocher et al. 2004, p. 

170). 

Physical condition of polar bears has 

been shown to determine the welfare of 

individuals, and ultimately, through 

their reproduction and survival, the 

welfare of populations (Stirling et al. 

1999, p. 304; Regehr et al. in prep). 

Declines in fat reserves during critical 

times in the polar bear life cycle are 

likely to lead to an array of impacts 

including a delay in the age of first 

reproduction, decrease in the proportion 

of females with adequate fat stores to 

complete successful denning, decline in 

litter sizes with more single cub litters 

and fewer cubs overall, as well as lower 

cub body weights and lower survival 

rates (Derocher et al. 2004, p. 170). 

Derocher and Stirling (1998, pp. 255–

256) demonstrated that body mass of 

adult females is correlated with cub 

mass at den emergence, with heavier 

females producing heavier cubs and 

lighter females producing lighter cubs. 

Heavier cubs have a higher rate of 

survival (Derocher and Stirling 1996, p. 

1249). Females in poor condition will 

result in a higher proportion that do not 

initiate denning or are likely to abandon 

their den and cub(s) mid-winter 

(Derocher et al. 2004, p. 170). Females 

with insufficient fat stores or in poor 

hunting condition in the early spring 

after den emergence could lead to 

increased cub mortality (Derocher et al. 

2004, p. 170). In the southern Beaufort 

Sea, Regehr et al. (2006, p. 20) recently 

found that survival rates for cubs were 

significantly lower than estimates from 

earlier studies. The lower survival rate 

of cubs coincided with warming 

temperatures and altered atmospheric 

circulation starting in the winter of 

1989–1990 that caused an abrupt change 

in sea ice conditions in the Arctic basin. 

In addition, sea ice conditions that 

include broken or more fragmented ice 

may require young cubs to enter water 

more frequently and for more prolonged 

periods of time, thus increasing 

mortality from hypothermia. Blix and 

Lenter (1979, p. 72) and Larsen (1985, 

p. 325) indicate that cubs are unable to 

survive immersion in icy water for more 

than approximately 10 minutes. This is 

due to cubs having little insulating fat, 

their fur losing its insulating ability 

when wet (though the fur of adults 

sheds water and recovers its insulating 

properties quickly), and the core body 

temperature dropping rapidly when 

they are immersed in icy water (Blix 

and Lenter 1979, p. 72). 

Reductions in sea ice, as discussed 

above, will alter ringed seal distribution, 

abundance, and availability for polar 

bears. Such reductions will, in turn, 

decrease polar bear body condition 

(Derocher et al. 2004, p. 165). Derocher 

et al. (2004, p. 165) projected that most 

females in the Western Hudson Bay 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
1076 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

population may be unable to reach the 

minimum 189 kg (417 lbs) body mass 

required to successfully reproduce by 

the year 2012. 

Furthermore, with the extent of 

winter sea ice projected to be reduced 

in the future, opportunities for 

increased feeding to recover fat stores 

during this season may be limited. 

Mortality of polar bears is thought to be 

the highest in winter when fat stores are 

low and energetic demands are greatest. 

Pregnant females are in dens during this 

period using fat reserves and not 

feeding. Polar bears hunt seals at their 

breathing holes, however, increased 

open water or fragmented ice will 

provide seals alternatives to establishing 

breathing holes, likely reducing their 

availability to polar bears and 

decreasing bear hunting success 

(Derocher et al. 2004, p. 167). 

In general, Derocher et al. (2004, p. 

170) predict demographic impacts will 

adversely affect female reproductive 

rates and juvenile survival first while 

adult female survival rates would be 

affected under severe conditions. Regehr 

et al. (2005, p. 233) showed that while 

the Western Hudson Bay population has 

declined 22 percent since 1987, this 

decline was not uniform across all age 

classes of bears. Survival of prime-adult 

polar bears (age 5 to 19 years) was stable 

over the course of the study; however, 

survival of juvenile, subadult, and past 

prime age polar bears declined as a 

function of earlier spring sea ice 

breakup date. 

The Southern Beaufort Sea population 

has also been subject to dramatic 

changes in the sea ice environment 

beginning in the winter of 1989 to 1990 

(Regehr et al. 2006, p. 2). These changes 

were linked initially through direct 

observation of distribution changes 

during the fall open water period. With 

the exception of the Western Hudson 

Bay population, the Southern Beaufort 

Sea population has the most complete 

and extensive time series of life history 

data, dating back to the late 1960s. A 5- 

year coordinated capture-recapture 

study of this population to evaluate 

changes in the health and status of polar 

bears and life history parameters such as 

reproduction, survival, and abundance 

was completed in 2006. Results of this 

study indicate that the estimated 

population size has gone from 1,800 

bears (Amstrup et al. 1986, p. 244; 

Amstup 2000, p. 146) to 1,526 polar 

bears in 2006 (Regehr et al. 2006, p. 16). 

The precision of the earlier estimate of 

1,800 polars was low, and consequently 

the 2006 estimate of 1,526 is not 

statistically significantly different. 

Amstrup et al. (2001, p. 230) provides 

an additional population estimate of as 

many as 2,500 bears for this population 

in the late 1980s, although the statistical 

variance could not be calculated and 

thus precludes comparative value of the 

estimate. Survival rates, weights, and 

skull sizes were compared for 2 periods 

of time, 1967 to 1989 and 1990 to 2006. 

In the later period, estimates of total 

survival for cubs declined significantly 

from .65 (Amstrup and Durner 1995, p. 

1316) to .43. Cub weights also decreased 

slightly. The authors believed that poor 

survival of new cubs may have been 

related to declining physical condition 

of females entering dens and 

consequently of the cubs born during 

recent years as reflected by smaller skull 

measurements. Also, between years 

during the 5-year study, a general 

decline in survival rates for cubs, 

females older than cubs, and males 

older than cubs was noted. In addition, 

body weights for adult males decreased 

significantly and skull measurements 

were reduced since 1990. Since male 

polar bears continue to grow into their 

teen years (Derocher et al. 2005, p. 898), 

if nutritional intake was similar since 

1990, the size of males should have 

increased (Regehr et al. 2006, p. 18). The 

observed changes reflect a trend toward 

smaller size adult male bears. Although 

a number of the indices of population 

status were not independently 

significant, nearly all of the indices 

illustrated a declining trend. In the case 

of Western Hudson Bay, declines in cub 

survival and physical stature were 

recorded for a number of years (Stirling 

et al. 1999, p. 300; Derocher et al. 2004, 

p. 165) before a statistically significant 

decline in the population size was 

confirmed (Regehr et al. in prep.). 

Amstrup (pers. comm. 2006) indicates 

that if the trends in loss of sea ice 

continue as predicted, then, similar to 

the conditions for the Western Hudson 

Bay population, the ultimate effect will 

be a significant decline in the 

population trend for the Southern 

Beaufort Sea population. This declining 

trend will occur within the 45-year 

period determined to be the foreseeable 

future. 

In further support of the interaction of 

environmental factors, nutritional stress 

and their effect on polar bears, several 

unusual mortality events have been 

documented in the southern Beaufort 

Sea. During the winter and early spring 

of 2004, three observations of polar bear 

cannibalism were recorded (Amstrup et 

al. 2006, p. 1). Similar observations had 

not been recorded in that region despite 

studies extending back for decades. In 

the fall of 2004, four polar bears were 

observed to have drowned while 

attempting to swim between shore and 

distant pack ice in the Beaufort Sea. 

Despite offshore surveys extending back 

to 1987, similar observations had not 

previously been recorded (Monnett and 

Gleason 2006, p. 3). In spring of 2006, 

three adult female polar bears and one 

yearling were found dead. Two of these 

females and the yearling had no fat 

stores and apparently starved to death, 

while the third adult female was too 

heavily scavenged to determine a cause 

of death. This mortality is suspicious 

because prime age females have had 

very high survival rates in the past 

(Amstrup and Durner 1995, p. 1315). 

Similarly, the yearling that was found 

starved was the offspring of another 

radio-collared prime age female whose 

collar had failed prior to her yearling 

being found dead. Annual survival of 

yearlings, given survival of their mother, 

was previously estimated to be 0.86 

(Amstrup and Durner 1995, p. 1316). 

The probability, therefore, that this 

yearling died while its mother was still 

alive was only approximately 14 

percent. Regehr et al. (2006, p. 27) 

indicate that these anecdotal 

observations, in combination with 

changes in survival of young and 

declines in size and weights reported 

above suggest mechanisms by which a 

changing sea ice environment can affect 

polar bear demographics and population 

status. 

Open Water Habitat 

As indicated earlier, open water is not 

considered essential habitat to polar 

bear life functions because activities 

such as feeding, reproduction, or resting 

do not occur on the open water and are 

limited when only open water is 

available. However, the extent of open 

water is important in that vast areas of 

open water present a barrier or hazard 

under certain circumstances for polar 

bears to access sea ice or land. 

Diminished sea ice cover will also 

increase the energetic cost to polar bears 

for travel, pose potential for drowning 

that may occur during long distance 

swimming or swimming under 

unfavorable sea wave conditions, and 

may result in hypothermia for young 

cubs as previously discussed. Under 

diminishing sea ice scenarios (IPCC 

2001, p. 489; ACIA 2005, p. 192; Serreze 

2006), ice-dependent seals, the principal 

prey of polar bears will also be affected 

through distribution changes and 

reductions in productivity, ultimately 

translating into reductions in 

population size. 

Reduced Feeding Opportunities 

Polar bears are capable of swimming 

great distances, but exhibit a strong 

preference for sea ice (Mauritzen et al. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1077 

2003b, pp. 119–120). However, polar 

bears will also quickly abandon sea ice 

for land once the sea ice concentration 

drops below 50 percent. This is likely 

due to reduced hunting success in 

broken ice with significant open water 

(Derocher et al. 2004, p. 167; Stirling et 

al. 1999, pp. 302–303). Bears have only 

rarely been reported to capture ringed 

seals in open water (Furnell and 

Oolooyuk 1980 cited in Derocher et al. 

2004, p. 167), therefore it is unlikely 

that hunting in ice-free water would be 

able to compensate for the 

corresponding loss of sea ice and the 

access sea ice affords polar bears to hunt 

ringed seals (Stirling and Derocher 

1993, p. 241; Derocher et al. 2004, p. 

167). 

Overall, a reduction in sea ice and 

corresponding increase in open water is 

likely to result in a net reduction in 

ringed and bearded seals, and Pacific 

walrus abundance (ACIA 2005, p. 510) 

as well as a reduction in ribbon and 

spotted seals (Born 2005a). While harp 

and hooded seals may change their 

distribution and potentially serve as a 

prey for polar bears, it appears unlikely 

that these species can successfully 

redistribute in a rapidly changing 

environment and reproduce and survive 

at former levels. Loss of southern 

pupping areas due to inadequate or 

highly variable ice conditions may also 

serve to reduce these species as a 

potential polar bear prey (Derocher et al. 

2004, p. 168). It is also unlikely that 

increased take of other species such as 

bearded seals, walrus, harbor seals, or 

harp and hooded seals regionally if they 

are available, could compensate for 

reduced availability of ringed seals 

(Derocher et al. 2004, p. 168). 

Open Water Swimming 

Open water is considered to present a 

potential hazard to polar bears required 

to make long distance transits of that 

open water seeking sea ice or land 

habitat. As indicated previously, four 

polar bears drowned in open water 

while attempting to swim between shore 

and distant ice in 2004 (Monnett and 

Gleason 2006, p. 5). Because the survey 

area covered 11 percent of the study 

area, an extrapolation of the survey data 

to the entire study area indicates that up 

to 36 bears may have been swimming 

and 27 of these may have drowned 

during this event. Seas during this 

period were rough and extensive areas 

of open water persisted between pack 

ice and land. Mortalities due to offshore 

swimming during late-ice (or mild ice) 

years may also be an important and 

unaccounted source of natural mortality 

given energetic demands placed on 

individual bears engaged in longdistance swimming (Monnett and 

Gleason 2006, p. 6). This evidence 

suggests that drowning-related deaths of 

polar bears may increase in the future if 

the observed trend of regression of pack 

ice and/or longer open water periods 

continues. 

Wave height (sea state) increases as a 

function of the amount of open water 

surface area. Thus ice reduction not 

only increases areas of open water 

across which polar bears must swim, 

but may have an influence on the size 

of wave action. Considered together 

these may result in over-all increases in 

bear mortality associated with 

swimming when there is little sea ice to 

buffer wave action (Monnett and 

Gleason 2006, p. 5). Evidence of such 

mortality has also been reported by 

Julian Dowdeswell, Head of the Scott 

Polar Research Institute of England, who 

observed one exhausted and one 

apparently dead polar bear apparently 

stranded at sea east of Svalbard in 2006. 

Terrestrial Habitat 

Although sea ice is the polar bear’s 

principal habitat, terrestrial habitat 

serves a vital function seasonally for 

denning. In addition, use of terrestrial 

habitat is seasonally important for 

resting and feeding in the absence of 

suitable sea ice. This habitat may take 

on a more prominent role in 

maintaining the health and condition of 

polar bears in future years. The 

following section describes the effects or 

potential effects of climate change and 

other factors on polar bear use of 

terrestrial habitat. It focuses on access to 

or changes in the quality of denning 

habitat, and on distribution changes and 

corresponding increases in polar bearhuman interactions in coastal areas. 

Also discussed are the potential 

consequences of and potential concerns 

for development, primarily oil and gas 

exploration and production that occurs 

in polar bear habitat (marine and 

terrestrial). 

Access to and Alteration of Denning 

Areas 

Many female polar bears repeatedly 

return to specific denning areas on land 

(Harrington 1968, p. 11; Schweinsburg 

et al. 1984, p. 169; Garner et al. 1994b, 

p. 401; Ramsay and Stirling 1990, p. 

233). To access preferred denning areas, 

pack ice must drift close enough or must 

freeze sufficiently early in the fall to 

allow pregnant females to walk or swim 

to the area by late October or early 

November (Derocher et al. 2004, p. 166). 

Under likely climate change scenarios, 

the distance between the edge of the 

pack ice and land will increase (ACIA 

2005, pp. 456–459). As distance 

increases between the southern edge of 

the pack ice and coastal denning areas, 

it will become increasingly difficult for 

females to access preferred denning 

locations. Most high-density denning 

areas are located at more southerly 

latitudes (Figure 2). For populations that 

den at high latitudes in the Canadian 

archipelago islands, the effects may be 

less or may become evident later in time 

than for more southerly populations. 

The most recent study based on 

updated modeling suggests that near 

ice-free September conditions may be 

reached as early as 2040 (Holland et al., 

2006). Derocher et al. (2004, p. 166) 

predicted that under these climate 

change scenarios, pregnant female polar 

bears will likely be unable to reach 

many of the most important denning 

areas in the Svalbard Archipelago, Franz 

Josef Land, Novaya Zemlya, Wrangel 

Island, Hudson Bay, and the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge and north 

coast of the Beaufort Sea (Figure 2). 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
1078 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C Increased drift rates of ice floes that 

may serve as a platform for denning are 

of concern (Derocher et al. 2004, p. 166). 

In northern Alaska, polar bear maternity 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2EP09JA07.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1079 

dens were found on drifting multiyear 

ice several hundred km north of the 

coast (Amstrup and Gardner 1994, p. 5). 

Although use of pelagic denning habitat 

is not widespread, in the past it has 

provided important habitat for some 

populations. Though the stability of 

pack ice and corresponding use for 

denning in the future under projected 

diminishing sea ice scenarios are 

uncertain, recent findings by Fishbach 

et al. (2005, p. 1) indicate an increasing 

trend for a greater proportion of polar 

bears dens in northern Alaska to be 

located on land and fewer to be located 

on pack ice. The findings indicate that 

changes in the character and suitability 

of sea ice have resulted in the detected 

shift of denning on land. 

In some locations, bears may adopt 

the denning strategy used by the 

Western Hudson Bay population, where 

pregnant females leave the ice in the 

spring at breakup and summer in 

locations near where they ultimately 

den (Derocher et al. 2004, p. 166). Under 

such a scenario females must 

accumulate sufficient fat stores to fast 

for 8, or more, months before they can 

return to sea ice to resume feeding on 

seals (Derocher et al. 2004, p. 166). 

While this strategy may be used more 

frequently in the future, its usefulness 

in maintaining populations is 

questionable. The results of Regehr et al. 

(in press) indicate that the Western 

Hudson Bay population has been in 

decline over the past 19 years, with the 

physical condition of bears declining 

due to greater periods of fasting on land 

caused by earlier spring breakup 

(Stirling et al. 1999, p. 300). 

Climate change also impacts the 

quality of snow for denning (Derocher et 

al. 2004, p. 166). Insufficient snow 

limits den construction (Derocher et al. 

2004, p. 166). Changes in the amount 

and timing of snowfall also impact the 

thermal properties of the dens (Derocher 

et al. 2004, p. 166). Because polar bear 

cubs are born helpless and nurse up to 

3 months before emerging from the den; 

major changes in the thermal properties 

of dens could negatively impact cub 

survival (Derocher et al. 2004, p. 167). 

For example two cubs born to a captive 

held female without a den and exposed 

to temperatures of approximately ¥43 

°C (¥45 °F), both died within 2 days 

(Blix and Lentfer 1979, p. 67). 

Finally, the occurrences of rain events 

are projected to increase throughout the 

Arctic in winter (ACIA 2005, p. 993). 

Increased rain in late winter and early 

spring can result in both polar bear natal 

den collapses as well as ringed seal den 

collapses (Stirling and Smith 2004, p. 

64). Polar bear den collapse following a 

warming period in the Beaufort Sea 

resulted in the death of a mother and 

her two young cubs (Clarkson and Irish 

1991, p. 83). In another instance, 

unseasonable rain south of Churchill, 

Manitoba, caused large snow banks 

along creeks and rivers used for denning 

to collapse from the weight of the wet 

snow (Stirling and Derocher 1993, p. 

244). 

Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, 

and Production 

Each of the Parties to the 1973 Polar 

Bear Agreement (see International 

Agreements and Oversight section 

below), have developed detailed 

regulations pertaining to the extraction 

of oil and gas within their countries. 

The greatest level of oil and gas activity 

within polar bear habitat is currently 

occurring in the United States (Alaska). 

Exploration and production activities 

are also actively underway in Russia, 

Canada, Norway, and Denmark 

(Greenland). In the United States, all 

such leasing and production activities 

are required to comply with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (NEPA), and 

numerous other statutes, which guide 

exploration, development and 

production so as to minimize possible 

environmental impacts. In Alaska, the 

majority of oil and gas development is 

on land, however, some offshore 

production sites have been developed, 

and others are planned. 

Historically, oil and gas activities 

have resulted in little direct mortality to 

polar bears, and that mortality which 

has occurred, has been associated with 

human bear interactions as opposed to 

a spill event. However, oil and gas 

activities are increasing as development 

continues to expand throughout the 

United States Arctic and internationally, 

including in polar bear terrestrial and 

marine habitats. The greatest concern 

for future oil and gas development is the 

effect of an oil spill or discharges in the 

marine environment impacting polar 

bears or their habitat. Much of the north 

slope of Alaska contains habitat suitable 

for polar bear denning (Durner et al. 

2001, p. 119). Further, in northern 

Alaska and elsewhere, distribution of 

polar bears appears to be changing to 

use of land areas during the open water 

season. Some of these areas coincide 

with areas that have been developed for 

oil and gas production. This increases 

the potential for interactions with 

humans (Durner et al. 2001, p. 115; 

National Research Council (NRC) 2003, 

p. 168). 

The National Research Council (2003, 

p. 169) evaluated the cumulative effects 

of oil and gas development in Alaska 

and concluded the following relates to 

polar bears and ringed seals: 

• ‘‘Industrial activity in the marine 

waters of the Beaufort Sea has been 

limited and sporadic and likely has not 

caused serious cumulative effects to 

ringed seals or polar bears. 

• Careful mitigation can help to 

reduce the effects of oil and gas 

development and their accumulation, 

especially if there is no major oil spill. 

However, the effects of full-scale 

industrial development of waters off the 

North Slope would accumulate through 

the displacement of polar bears and 

ringed seals from their habitats, 

increased mortality, and decreased 

reproductive success. 

• A major Beaufort Sea oil spill 

would have major effects on polar bears 

and ringed seals. 

• Climatic warming at predicted rates 

in the Beaufort Sea region is likely to 

have serious consequences for ringed 

seals and polar bears, and those effects 

will accumulate with the effects of oil 

and gas activities in the region. 

• Unless studies to address the 

potential accumulation of effects on 

North Slope polar bears or ringed seals 

are designed, funded, and conducted 

over long periods of time, it will be 

impossible to verify whether such 

effects occur, to measure them, or to 

explain their causes.’’

There is the potential for alteration of 

polar bear habitat from oil and gas 

development, exploration (seismic) or 

other activities in denning areas, and 

potential oil spills in the marine 

environment. Any such impacts would 

be additive to other factors already or 

potentially affecting polar bears and 

their habitat. 

Documented impacts on polar bears 

by the oil and gas industry during the 

past 30 years are minimal. Polar bears 

spend a limited amount of time on land, 

coming ashore to feed, den, or move to 

other areas. At times, fall storms deposit 

bears along the coastline where bears 

remain until the ice returns. For this 

reason, polar bears have mainly been 

encountered at or near most coastal and 

offshore production facilities, or along 

the roads and causways that link these 

facilities to the mainland. During those 

periods, the likelihood of interactions 

between polar bears and industry 

activities increases. We have found that 

the polar bears interaction planning and 

training requirements set forth in these 

regulations and required through the 

letters of authorization (LOA) process 

have increased polar bear awareness 

and minimized these encounters. LOA 

requirements have also increased our 

knowledge of polar bear activity in the 

developed areas. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
1080 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

No lethal take associated with 

industry has occurred during the period 

covered by incidental take regulations. 

Prior to issuance of regulations, lethal 

takes by industry were rare. Since 1968, 

there have been two documented cases 

of lethal take of polar bears associated 

with oil and gas activities. In both 

instances, the lethal take was reported 

to be in defense of human life. In the 

winter of 1968–1969, an industry 

employee shot and killed a polar bear. 

In 1990, a female polar bear was killed 

at a drill site on the west side of 

Camden Bay. In contrast, 33 polar bears 

were killed in the Canadian Northwest 

Territories from 1976 to 1986 due to 

encounters with industry. Since the 

beginning of the incidental take 

program, which includes measures that 

minimize impacts to the species, no 

polar bears have been killed due to 

encounters associated with the current 

industry activities on the North Slope of 

Alaska. 

However, based on mitigation 

measures in place now and likely to be 

used in the future, historical 

information on the level of oil and gas 

development activities occurring within 

polar bear habitat within the Arctic, the 

lack of direct quantifiable impacts to 

polar bear habitat from these activities 

noted to date, and because of the 

localized nature of the development 

activities, or possible events such as oil 

spills, they do not threaten the species 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

Conclusion for Factor A 

Polar bears have evolved in a sea ice 

environment and sea ice serves as an 

essential platform from which they meet 

life functions. Polar bear populations 

throughout the Arctic are being affected 

by changes in their sea ice habitat. 

Increased temperatures, earlier onset of 

and longer melting periods, increased 

rain-on-snow events, and positive 

feedback systems which amplify these 

phenomena will all operate to decrease 

the extent of sea ice during all seasons. 

This will result in fragmentation of 

habitat, increase the extent of open 

water areas in all seasons, reduce the 

amount of heavier and more stable 

multi-year ice, and affect the quality of 

shore fast ice. In turn, these factors will 

negatively impact polar bears by 

increasing the energetic demands of 

movement in seeking prey, 

redistributing substantial portions of 

populations seasonally into terrestrial 

habitats with marginal values for 

feeding, and increasing levels of 

negative bear-human interactions. As 

the sea ice edge retracts to deeper, less 

productive polar basin waters, polar 

bears will face increased intraspecific 

competition for limited food resources 

and increased open water swimming. 

We expect similar reductions in 

productivity for most ice seal species 

(decreasing availability or timing of 

availability for polar bears as food), 

composition changes of seal species in 

some areas, and eventually decreased 

levels of seal abundance. Prey species, 

such as ringed seals, will likely remain 

distributed in shallower, more 

productive southerly areas characterized 

by vast expanses of open water. These 

factors will, in turn, result in the 

reduced physical condition of polar 

bears, which leads to population-level 

demographic declines through 

reduction of survival and recruitment 

rates. The ultimate effect of these interrelated events, factors, and effects (Table 

1) will be that polar bear populations 

will decline or continue to decline. Not 

all populations will be affected evenly 

in the level, rate, and timing of impact, 

but within the foreseeable future, it is 

predicted that all populations will be 

either directly or indirectly impacted. 

TABLE 1.—LIKELY IMPACTS TO THE POLAR BEAR FROM RECESSION OF THE SEA ICE—ADAPTED AND MODIFIED FROM

DEROCHER ET AL. (2004, P. 171) 

Characteristic Time frame 1 Projected change 

Body weight/condition .............................................................................. Short ........................... Decline, increased variation. 

Movement patterns .................................................................................. Short ........................... Increased, alteration of existing patterns. 

Cub survival ............................................................................................. Short ........................... Decline, increased variation. 

Reproductive rates ................................................................................... Short ........................... Variable, increased variation. 

Bear-human interactions .......................................................................... Variable ....................... Increase. 

Den areas ................................................................................................ Medium ....................... Reduced access, modification of areas used. 

Growth rates ............................................................................................ Medium ....................... Variable, downward trend. 

Prey composition ..................................................................................... Medium ....................... Change in species, utilization, age of prey. 

Population boundaries ............................................................................. Medium ....................... Mixing of adjacent populations. 

Population size ........................................................................................ Medium ....................... Variable downward trend. 

Intraspecific aggression ........................................................................... Variable ....................... Increased. 

Cannibalism ............................................................................................. Variable ....................... Possible increase. 

Adult survival ........................................................................................... Medium-Long .............. Decline, Increased variation. 

1Short = <10 years, Medium = 10–20 years, Long = >20 years. Time frame of impact will vary between populations and is dependent upon 

rate of change in a given population. 

The southerly populations of Western 

Hudson Bay, Southern Hudson Bay, 

Foxe Basin, Davis Strait, and Baffin Bay, 

where bears already experience stress 

from seasonal ice retreat fasting, will be 

affected earliest (Stirling and Parkinson 

2006). Earlier melt periods and 

increased open water periods will result 

in lengthened seasonal use of land and 

increased period of fasting, resulting in 

decreased physical condition for bears 

in these populations. Other populations 

including the Chukchi Sea, Barents Sea, 

Southern Beaufort Sea and possibly the 

Kara Sea and Laptev Sea (these are 

characterized as open Arctic Basin 

populations) will, or are currently, 

experiencing initial effects of changes in 

sea ice. These populations are 

vulnerable to large-scale dramatic 

seasonal fluctuations in ice movements, 

decreased abundance and access to 

prey, and increased energetic costs of 

hunting. We expect that the polar bear 

populations inhabiting the central 

island archipelago of Canada will be 

affected later. These more northerly 

populations are expected to be affected 

last due to the buffering effects of the 

island archipelago complex, which 

lessens effects of oceanic currents and 

seasonal retractions of ice and retains a 

higher proportion of heavy, more stable 

multi-year sea ice. These populations 

include Norwegian Bay, Lancaster 

Sound, M’Clintock Channel, ViscountMelville, Kane Basin, and the Gulf of 

Boothia. 

For polar bears, current and 

anticipated changes to the sea ice 

habitat are expected to threaten the 

species (Aars et al. 2006). This 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1081 

conclusion is consistent with the 2006 

finding by the World Conservation 

Union (IUCN). The IUCN, based on the 

PBSG assessment, reclassified polar 

bears as ‘‘vulnerable.’’ The basis for the 

classification was the projected change 

in sea ice, effect of climatic warming on 

polar bear distribution and condition, 

and corresponding effect on 

reproduction and survival. 

Some scientists conclude that the 

‘‘future persistence of polar bears is 

tenuous’’ (Derocher et al. 2004, p. 172), 

reinforcing their earlier warnings that 

‘‘[u]ltimately, if sea ice disappeared 

altogether, polar bears would become 

extinct’’ (Stirling and Derocher 1993, p. 

243). Changes in the timing of sea ice 

formation and break-up and the loss of 

the polar bear’s sea ice habitat will pose 

increasing risk to polar bears as the 

climate continues to warm (Derocher et 

al. 2004, p. 164), and ultimately all 

polar bear populations will suffer. 

Rosentrater (2005, p. 3) notes ‘‘if current 

trends continue, polar bears and other 

species that require a stable ice platform 

for survival could become extinct by the 

end of the century.’’

This opinion is not universally 

shared. Other polar bear biologists have 

indicated that it is possible, even with 

the total loss of summer sea ice, that a 

small number of polar bears would 

survive semi-indefinitely and not go 

extinct provided there is still some ice 

cover during the winter and marine 

mammals continued to be available for 

capture or scavenging. As a species, 

polar bears have survived at least two 

warming periods, the Eem Interglacial 

period (140,000–115,000 years Before 

Present (BP)), and the Holocene 

‘‘climate optimum’’ (ca 8000–4000 BP) 

(Dansgaard et al. 1993, p. 218; DahlJensen et al. 1998, p. 268). Greenland ice 

cores revealed that the climate was 

much more variable in the past and 

some of the historical shifts between the 

warm and cold periods were rapid, 

suggesting that the recent relative 

climate stability seen during the 

Holocene may be an exception 

(Dansgaard et al. 1993, p. 218). The 

precise impacts of these warming 

periods on polar bears and the Arctic 

sea ice habitat are unknown. 

A recent study of the Bering Sea, one 

of the most productive marine 

ecosystems on the planet, concluded 

‘‘[a] change from arctic to subarctic 

conditions is underway in the northern 

Bering Sea’’ (Grebmeier et al. 2006, p. 

1461). This is being caused by warmer 

air and water temperatures, and less sea 

ice. ‘‘These observations support a 

continued trend toward more subarctic 

ecosystem conditions in the northern 

Bering Sea, which may have profound 

impacts on Arctic marine mammal and 

diving seabird populations as well as 

commercial and subsistence fisheries’’

(Grebmeier et al. 2006, p. 1463). 

As the changes in marine ecosystems 

continue, polar bear populations are 

expected to experience impacts 

comparable to those already observed in 

the Western Hudson Bay (Stirling et al. 

1999, p. 304) as well as in the Southern 

Beaufort Sea (Regehr et al. 2006, p.14). 

Changes in the timing of sea ice 

formation and break up will pose 

increasing risk to polar bears as the 

climate continues to warm (Derocher et 

al. 2004, p. 173), and ultimately affect 

all polar bear populations and threaten 

the species throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range in the 

foreseeable future. 

We find that polar bear populations 

throughout their distribution in the 

circumpolar Arctic are threatened by 

ongoing and projected changes in their 

sea ice habitat. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Use of polar bears for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, and education 

purposes is generally low, with the 

exception of harvest. Use for non-lethal 

scientific purposes is highly regulated 

and does not pose a threat to 

populations. Similarly, the regulated, 

low-level of use for educational purpose 

through placement of cubs or orphaned 

animals into zoos or public display 

facilities or through public viewing is 

not a threat to populations. Sport 

harvest of polar bears in Canada is 

discussed in the harvest section below. 

For purposes of population assessment, 

no distinction is made between harvest 

uses for sport or subsistence purposes. 

Take associated with defense of life, 

scientific research, illegal take, and 

other forms of take are generally 

included in harvest management 

statistics so this section also addresses 

all forms of take including bear-human 

interactions. 

Overview of Harvest 

Polar bears historically have been and 

continue to be an important renewable 

resource for coastal communities 

throughout the Arctic (Lentfer 1976, p. 

209: Amstrup and DeMaster 1988, p. 41; 

and IUCN 1999, p. 257 Table 14.1). 

Polar bears and polar bear hunting 

remain an important part of indigenous 

peoples’ myths and legends and polar 

bear hunting is a source of pride, 

prestige, and accomplishment. Polar 

bears provide a source of meat and raw 

materials for handicrafts, including 

functional clothing such as mittens, 

boots (mukluks), parka ruffs, and pants 

(Nageak et al. 1988, p.6; Marine 

Mammal Commission 1995, p. 18). 

Prior to the 1950s, most hunting was 

by indigenous people for subsistence 

purposes. Increased sport hunting in the 

1950s and 1960s, however, resulted in 

population declines (Prestrud and 

Stirling 1994). International concern 

about the overall status of polar bears 

resulted in biologists from the five polar 

bear range nations forming the Polar 

Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) within the 

IUCN Species Survival Commission 

(SSC) structure (IUCN 1999, p. 262). The 

PBSG was largely responsible for the 

development and ratification of the 

1973 International Agreement on the 

Conservation of Polar Bears (1973 

Agreement) (Prestrud and Stirling 1994, 

p. 114) (see Section D—Adequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms below 

for details). 

Harvest Management by Nation 

Canada 

Canada manages or shares 

management responsibility for 13 of the 

world’s 19 polar bear populations (Kane 

Basin, Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, Foxe 

Basin, Western Hudson Bay, Southern 

Hudson Bay, Gulf of Boothia, Lancaster 

Sound, Norwegian Bay, M’Clintock 

Channel, Viscount Melville Sound, 

Northern Beaufort Sea, and Southern 

Beaufort Sea) Wildlife management is a 

shared responsibility of the Provincial 

and Territorial governments. The 

Federal government (Canadian Wildlife 

Service) has an ongoing research 

program and is involved in management 

of wildlife populations shared with 

other jurisdictions, especially ones with 

other nations (e.g., where a polar bear 

stock ranges across an international 

boundary). To facilitate and coordinate 

management of polar bears, Canada has 

formed the Federal Provincial Technical 

Committee for Polar Bear Research and 

Management (PBTC) and the Federal 

Provincial Administrative Committee 

for Polar Bear Research and 

Management (PBAC). These committees 

include Provincial, Territorial, and 

Federal representatives who meet 

annually to review research and 

management activities. 

Polar bears are harvested in Canada. 

All human-caused mortality (i.e., 

hunting, defense of life, and incidental 

kills) are included in a total allowable 

harvest. Inuit people from communities 

in Nunavut, Northwest Territories 

(NWT), Manitoba, Labrador, 

Newfoundland, and Quebec conduct 

hunting. In Ontario, the Cree as well as 

the Inuit can harvest polar bears. In 

Nunavut and NWT, each community 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
1082 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

obtains an annual harvest quota that is 

based on the best available scientific 

information and monitored through 

distribution of harvest tags to local 

hunter groups, who work with scientists 

to help set quotas. Native hunters may 

use their harvest tags to guide sport 

hunts. The majority of sport hunters in 

Canada are U.S. citizens, and in 1994 an 

amendment to the MMPA was made to 

allow these hunters to import their 

trophies into the United States if the 

bears had been taken in a legal manner 

from approved populations. 

The Canadian system has resulted in 

tight controls on the size of harvest and 

high quality harvest reporting. It allows 

reduction of quotas in response to 

population declines resulting from overhunting (PBSG 1995, p. 11). In 2004, 

existing polar bear harvest practices 

became questionable when Nunavut 

identified quota increases for 8 

populations, 5 of which are shared with 

other jurisdictions (Lunn et al. 2005, p. 

3). Quota increases were largely based 

on indigenous knowledge (the Nunavut 

equivalent of traditional ecological 

knowledge) and the perception that 

some populations are increasing from 

historic levels. Nunavut did not 

coordinate these changes with adjacent 

jurisdictions that share management 

responsibility for populations that range 

between the two jurisdictions. This 

action resulted in an overall increase in 

the quota from 398 bears in 2003–2004 

to 507 bears in 2004–2005 (Lunn et al. 

2005, p. 14, Table 6). 

Greenland 

The management of polar bear harvest 

in Greenland is through a system 

introduced in 1993 that allows only fulltime hunters living a subsistence 

lifestyle to hunt polar bears. Licenses 

are issued annually for a small fee 

contingent upon reporting harvest 

during the prior 12 months. Until 2006, 

no quotas were in place but harvest 

statistics were collected through 

Piniarneq, a local reporting program 

(Born and Sonne 2005 in PBSG 2006, p. 

137). In January 2006, a new harvest 

monitoring and quota system was 

implemented (L<nstrup 2005 in PBSG 

2006, p. 133). Annual quotas are 

determined in consideration of 

international agreements, biological 

advice, user knowledge, and 

consultation with the Hunting Council. 

Part of the quota may be used for sport 

hunting (L<nstrup 2005 in PBSG 2006, 

p. 133). 

Norway 

Norway and Russia share jurisdiction 

over the Barents Sea population of polar 

bears. Management in Norway is the 

responsibility of the Ministry of the 

Environment (Wiig 1995, p.110). The 

commercial, subsistence or sport 

hunting of polar bears in Norway is 

prohibited (Wiig 1995, p.110). Bears 

may only be killed in self-defense, 

protection of property, and ‘‘mercy’’

kills and kills must be reported and 

recorded (Gjertz and Scheie 1998, p. 

337). 

Russia 

The commercial, subsistence or sport 

hunting of polar bears in Russia is 

prohibited. Some bears are killed in 

defense of life, and a small number of 

cubs are taken annually for zoos. 

Despite the 1956 ban on hunting polar 

bears in Russia, illegal harvest is 

occurring in the Chukchi Sea region and 

elsewhere where there is limited 

monitoring or enforcement of this 

prohibition (PBSG 1995, p. 9; Belikov et 

al. 2005 in PBSG 2006, p. 153). There 

is also a significant interest in reopening a subsistence hunt by 

indigenous people in Russia. The 

combined ongoing illegal hunting in 

Russia and legal subsistence harvest in 

Alaska is a concern for the Chukchi Sea 

polar bear population, which may be in 

decline (USFWS 2003, p.1). Full 

implementation of the Agreement 

between the United States of America 

and the Russian Federation on the 

Conservation and Management of the 

Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population 

(Bilateral Agreement) is attended to 

rectify this situation, but such 

implementation has not yet occurred 

(Schliebe et al. 2005 in PBSG 2006, p. 

75). Accordingly, we have not relied on 

implementation of the Bilateral 

Agreement in our assessment of the 

threat of overutilization to polar bears. 

(see International Agreements and 

Oversight section below). 

United States 

Polar bear subsistence hunting has 

been done by Alaska Natives for 

centuries (Lentfer 1976, p. 209). Polar 

bear hunting and the commercial sale of 

skins took on increasing economic 

importance to Alaskan Natives when 

whaling began in the 1850s (Lentfer 

1976, p. 209) Trophy hunting using 

aircraft began in the late 1940s. In the 

1960s, State of Alaska hunting 

regulations became more restrictive, and 

in 1972 aircraft-assisted hunting was 

stopped altogether (Lentfer 1976, p. 

209). Between 1954 and 1972, an 

average of 222 polar bears was harvested 

per year, resulting in a decline in polar 

bear populations in Alaska (Amstrup et 

al.1986, p. 246). 

Passage of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972 

established a prohibition on the sport or 

commercial hunting of polar bears in 

Alaska. However, within the MMPA a 

provision allows for continued harvest 

of polar bears by coastal dwelling 

Alaska Natives for subsistence and 

handicraft purposes. The MMPA also 

prohibits the commercial sale of any 

marine mammal parts or products 

except those that have been significantly 

altered into handicrafts or clothing by 

Alaska Natives. Currently, the 

subsistence harvest of polar bears by 

Alaska Natives, provided it is conducted 

in a non-wasteful manner, cannot be 

restricted unless a population is 

designated as depleted (i.e., below the 

optimum sustainable population level). 

The ability to avoid depletion through 

cooperative management agreements 

between Alaska Native Organizations 

and the Service to regulate subsistence 

take is an amendment to the MMPA that 

has been proposed, yet remains to be 

adopted. The Service cooperates with 

the Alaska Nanuuq Commission, a nonprofit organization that represents 

interests of Alaska Native polar bear 

users, to address polar bear subsistence 

harvest issues. In addition, for the 

Southern Beaufort Sea population, 

hunting is regulated voluntarily and 

effectively through an agreement 

between the Inuvialuit of Canada and 

the Inupiat of Alaska (Brower et al 2002) 

(see International Agreements and 

Oversight section below). The harvest is 

monitored by the Service’s marking and 

tagging program. Illegal take or trade is 

monitored by the Service’s law 

enforcement program. 

The MMPA was amended in 1994 to 

provide for the import into the United 

States of sport-hunted polar bear 

trophies legally taken by the importer in 

Canada. Prior to approving a polar bear 

population for import of such trophies, 

the Service must find that Canada has 

a monitored and enforced sport-hunting 

program consistent with the 1973 

Agreement on the Conservation of Polar 

Bears (1973 Polar Bear Agreement) and 

that the program is based on 

scientifically sound quotas ensuring the 

maintenance of the population at a 

sustainable level. Currently, six 

populations are approved for import of 

polar bears trophies (62 FR 7302, 

February 18, 1997; 64 FR 1529, January 

11, 1999; 66 FR 50843, October 5, 2001). 

Harvest Summary 

A thorough review and evaluation of 

past and current harvest, including 

other forms of removal, for all 

populations has been described in the 

Polar Bear Status Assessment (Schliebe 

et al. 2006a). The Status Assessment is 

available on the Service’s Marine 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1083 

Mammal Web site located at: http:// 

alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/ 

polarbear/issues.htm. Table 2 provides a 

summary of harvest statistics from the 

populations and is included herein as a 

reference. The total harvest and other 

forms of removal were considered in the 

summary analysis. 

Five populations (including four that 

are hunted) have no estimate of 

potential risk from overharvest, since 

adequate demographic information 

necessary to conduct a population 

viability analysis and risk assessment 

are not available (Table 1). For one of 

the populations, Chukchi Sea, severe 

overharvest was suspected to have 

occurred during the past 10–15 years, 

and anecdotal information was that the 

trend of population size was believed to 

be in decline (Aars et al. 2006, pp. 34–

35). The Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay, Kane 

Basin and Western Hudson Bay 

populations may be being overharvested 

(Aars et al. 2006, pp. 40, 44–46). In 

other populations, including East 

Greenland and Davis Strait, substantial 

harvest occurs annually in the absence 

of scientifically-derived population 

estimates (Aars et al. 2006, pp. 39, 46). 

Considerable debate has occurred 

regarding the recent changes in 

population estimates based on 

indigenous or local knowledge (Aars et 

al. 2006, p. 57) and subsequent quota 

increases for some populations in 

Nunavut (Lunn et al. 2005, p. 20). 

Increased polar bear observations along 

the coast may be attributed to changes 

in bear distribution due to lack of 

suitable ice habitat rather than to 

increased population size (Stirling and 

Parkinson 2006). Additional inventories 

are needed to reconcile these differing 

interpretations. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
1084 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2.

—

POLAR

BEAR

HARVEST

STATISTICS, ADAPTED

FROM THE PBTC STATUS

TABLE

Population 

Aerial survey/M–R 5 yr mean kill 3 yr mean kill 1 yr mean kill 

Identified 

permitted 

harvest b

Estimated 

maximum 

sustainable 

yield c

Observed or 

predicted trend d Status e Number (year of 

estimate) ±2 SE Actual removals 

Likelihood of 

decline 

(next 10 

years) a

Actual 

removals 

Likelihood of 

decline 

(next 10 

years) a

Actual 

removals 

Likelihood of 

decline 

(next 10 

years) a

Southern Beaufort Sea .. 1500 (2006) 1000–2000 57.8 ............ No Estimate 59.3 ............ No Estimate 44 ............... No Estimate 81 ............... 84 ............... Decline .............. Reduced. Northern Beaufort Sea ... 1200 (1986) 133–2097 ... 36.2 ............ No Estimate 38 ............... No Estimate 36 ............... No Estimate 65 ............... 56 ............... Stable ................ Not reduced. Viscount Melville ............ 161 (1992) .. 121–201 ..... 4.4 .............. 5.6% ........... 4.7 .............. 6.5% ........... 5 ................. 6.8% ........... 7 ................. 10 ............... Increase ............. Severely reduced. Norwegian Bay .............. 190 (1998) .. 102–278 ..... 2.6 .............. 70.5% ......... 2.7 .............. 73.1% ......... 4 ................. 84.4% ......... 4 ................. 9 ................. Decline .............. Not reduced. Lancaster Sound ............ 2541 (1998) 1759–3323 74 ............... 67.0% ......... 79 ............... 74.0% ......... 87 ............... 80.6% ......... 85 ............... 119 ............. Stable ................ Not reduced. M’Clintock Channel ........ 284 (2000) .. 166–402 ..... 3 ................. 2.5% ........... 1 ................. 1.0% ........... 2 ................. 1.8% ........... 3 ................. 13 ............... Increase ............ Severely reduced. Gulf of Boothia ............... 1528 (2000) 953–2093 ... 45.8 ............ 3.3% ........... 48.3 ............ 4.3% ........... 66 ............... 12.9% ......... 74 ............... 72 ............... Increase ............. Not reduced. Foxe Basin ..................... 2197 (1994) 1677–2717 97.2 ............ 14.0% ......... 96 ............... 12.1% ......... 97 ............... 13.1% ......... 106 + Quebec. 108 ............. Stable ................ Not reduced. Western Hudson Bay ..... 935 (2004) .. 791–1079 ... 44.8 ............ 99.9% ......... 46.3 ............ 99.9% ......... 43 ............... 99.9% ......... 62 ............... 44 ............... Decline .............. Reduced. Southern Hudson Bay ... 1000 (1988) 784–1216 ... 36.6 ............ 0.1% ........... 36.7 ............ 0.1% ........... 27 ............... 0.1% ........... 25 + Ontario, Quebec. 47 ............... Increase? ........... Not reduced. Kane Basin .................... 164 (1998) .. 94–234 ....... 10.8 ............ 99.9% ......... 10.3 ............ 99.9% ......... 11 ............... 99.9% ......... 5 + Greenland. 8 ................. Decline .............. Reduced. Baffin Bay ...................... 2074 (1988) 1544–2604 216.8 .......... 99.9% ......... 251.7 .......... 99.9% ......... 252 ............. 99.9% ......... 105 + 

Greenland.

72 ............... Decline .............. Reduced. 

Davis Strait .................... .................... .................... 64.8 ............ 12.9% ......... 67.3 ............ 17.1% ......... 70 ............... 18.9% ......... 46 + Greenland, Quebec, Labrador. 77 ............... Stable ................ Not reduced. East Greenland .............. Unknown .... .................... 70 ............... No Estimate .................... .................... .................... .................... 50 ............... No Estimate Data Deficient .... Data Deficient. Barents Sea ................... 3000 (2004) .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... Data Deficient .... Data Deficient. Kara Sea ........................ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... Data Deficient .... Data Deficient. Laptev Sea ..................... 800–1200 

(1993).

.................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... Data Deficient .... Data Deficient. 

Chukchi Sea .................. 2000 (1993) .................... 43–AK. Unk 

# in Chukotka.

No Estimate Unknown .... No Estimate 43++ ........... No Estimate Unknown .... Unknown. ... Data Deficient .... Data Deficient. 

aPresented is the proportion of simulation runs using the RISKMAN model and vital rates presented in natural survival and recruitment tables resulting in any decline after 10 years of simulation, assuming minimum 

2M:1F in the harvest. One-minus this value represents the proportion of simulations resulting in population increase. bThe identified permitted harvest includes the maximum harvest that is presently allowed by jurisdictions with an identified quota. cThe estimated maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is based on a meta-analysis of the 1990s that assumed mean reproduction and survival for polar bears across their range in Canada (given information available at 

the time). MSY = N * 0.0156/Pr[F], where N = total population number, 0.0156 is a constant derived from a meta-analysis to estimate survival and recruitment rates for Canadian polar bears, and Pr[F] = proportion of the harvest that is female (assumed to be 0.333, i.e., 2M:1F sex-selective harvest). dObserved or predicted status as suggested by PVA results and, where vital rates are not sufficient for analysis, anectodatal information. e Current status relative to probable historic numbers. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1085 

Bear-Human Interactions 

Polar bears come into conflict with 

humans when they scavenge for food at 

sites of human habitation, and also 

because they occasionally prey or 

attempt to prey upon humans (Stirling 

1988, p.182). ‘‘Problem bears’’ are most 

often sub-adults, because they are 

inexperienced hunters and because their 

feeding habits include more scavenging 

than adult bears (Stirling 1988, p. 182). 

Following sub-adults, females with cubs 

are most likely to interact with humans, 

because females with cubs are likely to 

be thinner and hungrier than single 

adult bears, and starving bears are more 

likely to interact with humans in their 

pursuit of food (Stirling 1988, p. 182). 

For example, in Churchill, Manitoba, 

Canada, an area of high polar bear use 

generally, the occurrence of females 

with cubs feeding at the town’s garbage 

dump in the fall increased during years 

when bears came ashore in poorer 

condition (Stirling 1988, p. 182). Other 

factors that may influence bear-human 

encounters include increased land use 

activities, increased human populations 

in areas of high polar bear activity, 

increased polar bear population size, 

and earlier polar bear departure from ice 

habitat to terrestrial habitats. 

Increased interactions and defense 

kills may occur under predicted climate 

change scenarios (Derocher et al. 2004, 

p.169). Direct interactions between 

people and bears in Alaska have 

increased markedly in recent years and 

this trend is expected to continue 

(Amstrup 2000, p. 153). Since the late 

1990s, the timing of complete ice 

formation in the fall has occurred later 

in November or early December than it 

formerly did (which was in September 

and October), resulting in an increased 

amount of time polar bears spend on 

land, which consequently increases the 

probability of bear-human interactions 

occurring in coastal villages. Adaptive 

management programs focusing on the 

development of community or 

ecotourism based polar bear-human 

interaction plans that include polar bear 

patrols, deterrent and hazing programs, 

efforts to manage and minimize sources 

of attraction, and programs to educate 

residents of polar bear behavior and 

ecology are needed and should be 

developed in the future. 

Conclusion for Factor B 

Polar bears are harvested in Canada, 

Alaska, Greenland, and Russia. Active 

harvest management programs are in 

place for populations in Canada, 

Greenland, and Alaska. Principles of 

sustainable yield are instituted through 

harvest quotas or guidelines; other 

forms of removal, such as for defense of 

life, are considered through 

management actions by the responsible 

jurisdictions. Hunting or killing polar 

bears is illegal in Russia although an 

unknown level of harvest occurs. While 

overharvest occurs for some 

populations, laws and regulations for 

most management programs have been 

instituted to ensure harvests result in 

healthy and sustainable populations. 

These actions are largely viewed as 

having been successful in reversing 

wide spread overharvests by many 

jurisdictions that resulted in population 

depletion during the period prior to 

signing of the multi-lateral 1973 

Agreement on the Conservation of Polar 

Bears (Prestrud and Stirling 1994) 

(Discussed further in Factor D). For the 

internationally-shared populations in 

the Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay, Kane 

Basin, and Davis Strait, conservation 

agreements have been developed 

(United States-Russia) or are in 

development (Canada-Greenland). 

These agreements have not yet been 

implemented and therefore are not 

being relied upon in our evaluation of 

Factor B. 

We conclude that harvest, increased 

bear-human interaction levels, defense 

of life take, illegal take, and take 

associated with scientific research 

programs are occurring regionally for 

some populations. However, we find 

that overutilization as a singular factor 

does not threaten the species throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

Continued harvest and increased 

mortality from bear-human encounters 

or other forms of mortality, however, 

may become a more significant threat 

factor in the future for polar bear 

populations experiencing nutritional 

stress or declining population numbers 

as a consequence of habitat change. The 

PBSG 2006 (Aars et al. 2006) through 

resolution urged that a precautionary 

approach be instituted when setting 

harvest limits in a warming Arctic. 

Continued efforts are necessary to 

ensure that harvest or other forms of 

removal do not exceed sustainable 

levels and thus do not threaten the 

species in the foreseeable future. 

C. Disease and Predation 

Disease 

Except for the presence of trichinella 

larvae, the occurrence of diseases and 

parasites in polar bears is rare compared 

to other bears. Trichinella has been 

documented in polar bears throughout 

their range and although infestations 

can be quite high they are normally not 

fatal (Rausch 1970, p. 360; Dick and 

Belosevic 1978, p. 1143; Larsen and 

Kjos-Hanssen 1983, p. 95; Taylor et al. 

1985, p. 303; Forbes 2000, p. 321). 

Although rabies is commonly found in 

Arctic foxes, there has been only one 

confirmed instance of rabies in polar 

bears (Taylor et al. 1991, p. 337). 

Morbillivirus has been documented in 

polar bears from Alaska and Russia 

(Garner et al. 2000, p. 477; C. Kirk, 

University of Alaska, Fairbanks, pers. 

comm. 2006). Antibodies to the 

protozoan parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, 

were found in Alaskan polar bears; 

however, it is not known if this is a 

health concern for polar bears (C. Kirk, 

University of Alaska, Fairbanks, pers. 

comm. 2006). 

It is unknown whether polar bears are 

more susceptible to new pathogens due 

to their lack of previous exposure to 

disease and parasites. Many different 

pathogens and viruses have been found 

in seal species that are polar bear prey 

(Duignan et al. 1997, p. 7; Measures and 

Olson 1999, p. 779; Dubey et al. 2003, 

p. 278; Hughes-Hanks et al. 2005, p. 

1226), so the potential exists for 

transmission of these diseases to bears. 

As polar bears become more stressed, 

they may eat more of the intestines and 

internal organs than they do presently, 

thus increasing their potential exposure 

to parasites and viruses (Derocher et al. 

2004, p. 170; Amstrup et al. 2006b, p. 

3). In addition, pathogens may expand 

their range northward from more 

southerly areas under projected climate 

change scenarios (Harvell et al. 2002, p. 

60). 

Intraspecific Predation 

Intraspecific killing has been reported 

among all North American bear species 

(Derocher and Wiig 1999, p. 307; 

Amstrup et al. 2006, p. 1). Reasons for 

intraspecific predation in bear species is 

poorly understood but thought to 

include population regulation, 

nutrition, and enhanced breeding 

opportunities in the case of predation of 

cubs. Although infanticide by male 

polar bears has been well documented 

(Hansson and Thomassen 1983, p. 248; 

Larsen 1985, p. 325; Taylor et al. 1985, 

p. 304; Derocher and Wiig 1999, p. 307), 

it is thought that this activity accounts 

for a small percentage of the cub 

mortality. 

Cannibalism has also been 

documented in polar bears (Derocher 

and Wiig 1999, p. 307; Amstrup et al. 

2006b, p. 1). Amstrup et al. (2006b, p. 

1) observed three instances of 

cannibalism in the southern Beaufort 

Sea during the spring of 2004 involving 

two adult females—one an unusual 

mortality of a female in a den and 

another a yearling. This is notable 

because, throughout a combined 58 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
1086 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

years of research, there are no similar 

observations. Active stalking or hunting 

preceded the attacks, and both of the 

killed bears were eaten. Adult males 

were believed to be the predator in both 

attacks. Amstrup et al. (2006b, p. 3) 

indicated that in general a greater 

portion of polar bears in the area where 

the predation occurred were in poor 

physical condition compared to other 

years. The authors hypothesized that 

changes would be expected to occur 

first in more southerly areas, due to 

significant ice retreat (Skinner et 

al.1988, p. 3; Comiso and Parkinson 

2004, p. 43; Stroeve et al. 2005, p. 1). 

Adult males may be the first to show the 

effects of nutritional stress since they 

feed little during the spring mating 

season and enter the summer in poorer 

condition than other sex/age classes. 

Derocher and Wiig (1999 p. 308) 

documented a similar intra-specific 

killing and consumption of another 

polar bear in Svalbard, Norway, which 

was attributed to relatively high 

population densities and food shortages. 

Taylor et al. (1985, p. 304) documented 

that a malnourished female killed and 

consumed her own cubs, and Lunn and 

Stenhouse (1985, p. 1516) found an 

emaciated male consuming an adult 

female polar bear. 

The potential importance of 

cannibalism and infanticide for polar 

bear population regulation is unknown. 

However, given our current knowledge 

of disease and predation, we do not 

believe that these factors are currently 

having population level effects. 

Conclusion for Factor C 

Although disease pathogen titers are 

present in polar bears, no epizootic 

outbreaks have been detected. Although 

there are limited indications that 

intraspecific stress through cannibalism 

may be increasing, population level 

effects are not believed to have resulted. 

We find that disease and predation 

(including intraspecific predation) do 

not threaten the species throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. 

Potential for disease outbreaks or 

increased mortality from cannibalism 

warrants continued monitoring and may 

become a more significant threat factor 

in the future for polar bear populations 

experiencing nutritional stress or 

declining population numbers. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Regulatory mechanisms directed 

specifically at managing threats to polar 

bears exist in all of the range states 

where the species occurs, as well as 

between (bilateral and multilateral) 

range states. There are no known 

regulatory mechanisms effectively 

addressing reductions in sea ice habitat 

at this time. 

International Agreements 

International Agreement on the 

Conservation of Polar Bears 

Canada, Denmark (on behalf of 

Greenland), Norway, the Russian 

Federation, and the United States are 

parties to the Agreement on the 

Conservation of Polar Bears (1973 Polar 

Bear Agreement) singed in 1973; by 

1978 the Agreement was ratified by all 

parties. The 1973 Polar Bear Agreement 

requires the parties to take appropriate 

action to protect the ecosystem of which 

polar bears are a part, with special 

attention to habitat components such as 

denning and feeding sites and migration 

patterns, and to manage polar bear 

populations in accordance with sound 

conservation practices based on the best 

available scientific data. The 1973 Polar 

Bear Agreement relies on the efforts of 

each party to implement conservation 

programs and does not preclude a party 

from establishing additional controls 

(Lentfer 1974, p.1). 

The 1973 Polar Bear Agreement is 

viewed as a success in that polar bear 

populations recovered from excessive 

harvests and severe population 

reductions in many areas (Prestrud and 

Stirling 1994). At the same time, 

implementation of the terms of the 1973 

Polar Bear Agreement vary across the 

member parties. Efforts are needed to 

improve current harvest management 

practices, such as restricting harvest of 

females and cubs, establishing 

sustainable harvest limits, and 

controlling illegal harvests (PBSG 1998, 

pp. 47–48). In addition, a lack of 

protection of key habitats by member 

parties, with few notable exceptions for 

some denning areas, is a weakness 

(Prestrud and Stirling 1994, p. 118). 

IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group 

As previously mentioned, the Polar 

Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) operates 

under the IUCN Species Survival 

Commission (SSC). The PBSG was 

formed in 1968 and contributed to the 

negotiation and development of the 

1973 Polar Bear Agreement. The PBSG 

meets periodically at 3-to 5-year 

intervals in compliance with Article VII 

of the 1973 Polar Bear Agreement; said 

article instructs member parties to 

conduct national research programs on 

polar bears, particularly research 

relating to the conservation and 

management of the species and, as 

appropriate, coordinate such research 

with the research carried out by other 

parties, consult with other parties on 

management of migrating polar bear 

populations, and exchange information 

on research and management programs, 

research results, and data on bears 

taken. The PBSG first evaluated the 

status of all polar bear populations in 

1980. In 1993, 1997, and 2001 the PBSG 

conducted circumpolar status 

assessments of polar bear populations, 

and the results of those assesments were 

published as part of the proceedings of 

the relevant PBSG meeting. The PBSG 

conducted its fifth polar bear status 

assessment in June 2005. 

The PBSG also evaluates the status of 

polar bears under the IUCN Red List 

criteria. Previously, polar bears were 

classified under the IUCN Red List 

program as: ‘‘Less rare but believed to be 

threatened-requires watching’’ (1965); 

‘‘Vulnerable’’ (1982, 1986, 1988, 1990, 

1994); and ‘‘Lower Risk/Conservation 

Dependent’’ (1996). During the 2005 

PBSG working group meeting the PBSG 

re-evaluated the status of polar bears 

and unanimously agreed that a status 

designation of ‘‘Vulnerable’’ was 

warranted. The PBSG based this 

reevaluation on projected changes in sea 

ice on polar bear distribution and 

condition including effects on 

reproduction and survival. 

Inupiat-Inuvialuit Agreement for the 

Management of Polar Bears of the 

Southern Beaufort Sea 

In January 1988, the Inuvialuit of 

Canada and the Inupiat of Alaska, 

groups that both harvest polar bears for 

cultural and subsistence purposes, 

signed a management agreement for 

polar bears of the southern Beaufort Sea. 

This agreement, based on the 

understanding that the two groups 

harvested animals from a single 

population shared across the 

international boundary, provides a joint 

responsibility for conservation and 

harvest practices (Treseder and 

Carpenter 1989, p. 4; Nageak et al. 1991, 

p. 341). Provisions of the agreement 

include: annual quotas (which may 

include problem kills); hunting seasons; 

protection of bears in dens or while 

constructing dens, and protection of 

females accompanied by cubs and 

yearlings; collection of specimens from 

killed bears to facilitate monitoring of 

the sex and age composition of the 

harvest; agreement to meet annually to 

exchange information on research and 

management and to set priorities; to 

agree on quotas for the coming year; and 

prohibition of hunting with aircraft or 

large motorized vessels and of trade in 

products taken in violation of the 

agreement. In Canada, recommendations 

and decisions from the Commissioners 

are then implemented through 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1087 

Community Polar Bear Management 

Agreements, Inuvialuit Settlement 

Region Community Bylaws, and NWT 

Big Game Regulations; in the United 

States this agreement is implemented at 

the local level. There are no Federal, 

state, or local regulations that limit the 

number or type (male, female, cub) of 

polar bear that may be taken. Adherence 

to the agreement’s terms in Alaska is 

voluntary, and levels of compliance may 

vary. However, Brower et al. (2002) 

analyzed the overall effectiveness of this 

agreement and found that it had been 

successful in maintaining the total 

harvest and the proportion of females in 

the harvest within sustainable levels. 

The authors noted the need to improve 

harvest monitoring in Alaska and 

increase awareness of the need to 

prevent overharvest of females for both 

countries. 

Agreement Between the United States of 

America and the Russian Federation on 

the Conservation and Management of 

the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear 

Population 

On October 16, 2000, the United 

States and the Russian Federation 

signed a bilateral agreement for the 

conservation and management of polar 

bear populations shared between the 

two countries. The Agreement between 

the United States of America and the 

Russian Federation on the Conservation 

and Management of the AlaskaChukotka Polar Bear Population 

(Bilateral Agreement) expands upon the 

progress made through the multilateral 

1973 Polar Bear Agreement by 

implementing a unified conservation 

program for this shared population. The 

Bilateral Agreement reiterates 

requirements of the 1973 Polar Bear 

Agreement and includes restrictions on 

harvesting denning bears, females with 

cubs or cubs less than one year old, and 

prohibitions on the use of aircraft, large 

motorized vessels, and snares or poison 

for hunting polar bears. The Bilateral 

Agreement does not allow hunting for 

commercial purposes or commercial 

uses of polar bears or their parts. It also 

commits the parties to the conservation 

of ecosystems and important habitats, 

with a focus on conserving polar bear 

habitats such as feeding, congregating, 

and denning areas. The Russian 

government has indicated that it is 

prepared to implement the Bilateral 

Agreement. On December 9, 2006, the 

Congress of the United States passed the 

‘‘United States—Russia Polar Bear 

Conservation and management Act of 

2006.’’ This Act provides the necessary 

authority to regulate and manage the 

harvest of polar bears from the Chukchi 

Sea population, an essential 

conservation measure. However, the Act 

does not provide authority or 

mechanisms to address ongoing loss of 

sea ice. 

The Convention on International Trade 

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora 

The Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES) is a treaty 

aimed at protecting species at risk from 

international trade. CITES regulates 

international trade in animals and 

plants by listing species in one of its 

three appendices. The level of 

monitoring and control to which an 

animal or plant species is subject 

depends on which appendix the species 

is listed in. Appendix I includes species 

threatened with extinction which are or 

may be affected by trade; trade of 

Appendix I species is only allowed in 

exceptional circumstances. Appendix II 

includes species not necessarily now 

threatened with extinction, but for 

which trade must be regulated in order 

to avoid utilization incompatible with 

their survival. Appendix III includes 

species that are subject to regulation in 

at least one country, and for which that 

country has asked other CITES Party 

countries for assistance in controlling 

and monitoring international trade in 

that species. 

Polar bears were listed in Appendix II 

of CITES on July 7, 1975. As such, 

CITES parties must determine, among 

other things, that any polar bear, polar 

bear part, or product made from polar 

bear was legally obtained and that the 

export will not be detrimental to the 

survival of the species, prior to issuing 

a permit authorizing the export of the 

animal, part or product. The CITES does 

not itself regulate take or domestic trade 

of polar bears, however, through its 

process of monitoring trade in wildlife 

species and requisite findings prior to 

allowing international movement of 

listed species and monitoring programs, 

the CITES is effective in ensuring the 

international movement of listed species 

does not contribute to the detriment of 

wildlife populations. All polar bear 

range states are members to the CITES 

and have in place the Convention 

required Scientific Management 

Authorities. The Service therefore has 

determined that the CITES is effective in 

regulating the trade in polar bear, or 

polar bear parts or products, and 

provides conservation measures to 

minimize the threats to the species. 

Mechanisms To Regulate Sea Ice 

Recession 

Regulatory mechanisms directed 

specifically at managing threats to polar 

bears exist in all of the range states 

where the species occurs, as well as 

between (bilateral and multilateral) 

range states. There are no known 

regulatory mechanisms effectively 

addressing reductions in sea ice habitat 

at this time. 

Domestic Regulatory Mechanisms 

United States 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 

as Amended 

The MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 

was enacted in response to growing 

concerns among scientists and the 

general public that certain species and 

populations of marine mammals were in 

danger of extinction or depletion as a 

result of human activities. The goal of 

the MMPA is to protect and conserve 

marine mammals so that they continue 

to be significant functioning elements of 

the ecosystem of which they are a part. 

The MMPA set forth a national policy 

to prevent marine mammal species or 

population stocks from diminishing to 

the point where they are no longer a 

significant functioning element of the 

ecosystems. 

The MMPA places an emphasis on 

habitat and ecosystem protection. The 

habitat and ecosystem goals set forth in 

the MMPA include: (1) Management of 

marine mammals (inclusion of polar 

bears) to ensure they do not cease to be 

a significant element of the ecosystem to 

which they are a part; (2) protection of 

essential habitats, including rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance ‘‘from the adverse effects of 

man’s action;’’ (3) recognition that 

marine mammals ‘‘affect the balance of 

marine ecosystems in a manner that is 

important to other animals and animal 

products’’ and that marine mammals 

and their habitats should therefore be 

protected and conserved; and (4) 

directing that the primary objective of 

marine mammal management is to 

maintain ‘‘the health and stability of the 

marine ecosystem.’’ Congressional 

intent to protect marine mammal habitat 

is also reflected in the definitions 

section of the MMPA. The terms 

‘‘conservation’’ and ‘‘management’’ of 

marine mammals are specifically 

defined to include habitat acquisition 

and improvement. 

The MMPA includes a general 

moratorium on the taking and importing 

of marine mammals, which is subject to 

a number of exceptions. Some of these 

exceptions include take for scientific 

purposes, for purpose of public display, 

subsistence use by Alaska Natives, and 

unintentional incidental take coincident 

with conducting lawful activities. The 

Service, prior to issuing a permit 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
1088 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

authorizing the taking or importing of a 

polar bear, or a polar bear part or 

product, for scientific or public display 

purposes submits each request to a 

rigorous review, including an 

opportunity for public comment and 

consultation with the U.S. Marine 

Mammal Commision, as described at 50 

CFR 18.31. In addition, in 1994, 

Congress amended the MMPA to allow 

for the import of polar bear trophies 

taken in Canada for personal use 

providing certain requirements are met. 

Import permits may only be issued to 

U.S. hunters for trophies they have 

legally taken from those Canadian polar 

bear populations the Service has 

approved as meeting the MMPA 

requirements, as described at 50 CFR 

18.30. The Service has determined that 

there is sufficient rigor under the 

regulations at 50 CFR 18.30 and 18.31 

to ensure that any activities so 

authorized are consistent with the 

conservation of this species and are not 

a threat to the species. 

Take is defined in the MMPA to 

include the ‘‘harassment’’ of marine 

mammals. ‘‘Harassment’’ includes any 

act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which ‘‘has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild’’ (Level A harassment), 

or ‘‘has the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering’’ (Level B 

harassment). 

The Secretaries of Commerce and of 

the Interior have primary responsibility 

for implementing the MMPA. The 

Department of Commerce, through the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), has authority 

with respect to whales, porpoises, seals, 

and sea lions. The remaining marine 

mammals, including polar bears, 

walruses, and sea otters, are managed by 

the Department of the Interior through 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Both 

agencies are ‘‘* * * responsible for the 

promulgation of regulations, the 

issuance of permits, the conduct of 

scientific research, and enforcement as 

necessary to carry out the purposes of 

[the MMPA]’’. 

U.S. citizens who engage in a 

specified activity other than commercial 

fishing (which is specifically and 

separately addressed under the MMPA) 

within a specified geographical region 

may petition the Secretary of the 

Interior to authorize the incidental, but 

not intentional, taking of small numbers 

of marine mammals within that region 

for a period of not more than five 

consecutive years (16 U.S.C. 

1371(a)(5)(A)). The Secretary ‘‘shall 

allow’’ the incidental taking if the 

Secretary finds that ‘‘the total of such 

taking during each five-year (or less) 

period concerned will have a negligible 

impact on such species or stock and will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of such species or 

stock for taking for subsistence uses 

***’’. If the Secretary makes the 

required findings, the Secretary also 

prescribes regulations that specify (1) 

Permissible methods of taking, (2) 

means of affecting the least practicable 

adverse impact on the species, their 

habitat, and their availability for 

subsistence uses, and (3) requirements 

for monitoring and reporting. The 

regulatory process does not authorize 

the activities themselves, but authorizes 

the incidental take of the marine 

mammals in conjunction with otherwise 

legal activities described within the 

regulations. 

Similar to promulgation of incidental 

take regulations, the MMPA also 

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals where the take will be 

limited to harassment (16 U.S.C. 

1371(a)(5)(D)). These authorizations are 

limited to one-year and as with 

incidental take regulations the Secretary 

must find that the total of such taking 

during the period will have a negligible 

impact on such species or stock and will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of such species or 

stock for taking for subsistence uses. 

The Service refers to these 

authorizations as Incidental Harassment 

Authorizations. 

Examples and descriptions of how the 

Service has analyzed the effects of oil 

and gas activities and applied the 

general provisions of the MMPA 

described above to polar bear 

conservation programs in the Beaufort 

and Chukchi seas follows. These 

regulations include an evaluation of the 

cumulative effects of oil and gas 

industry activities on polar bears from 

noise, physical obstructions, human 

encounters, and oil spills. The 

likelihood of an oil spill occurring and 

the risk to polar bears is modeled 

quantitatively and factored into the 

evaluation. The results of previous 

industry monitoring programs, and the 

effectiveness of past detection and 

deterrent programs that have a 

beneficial record of protecting polar 

bears as well as providing for the safety 

of oil field workers are also considered. 

Based on the low likelihood of an oil 

spill occurring and the effectiveness of 

industry mitigation measures within the 

Beaufort Sea region, the Service has 

found that oil and gas industry activities 

have not affected the rates of 

recruitment or survival for the polar 

bear populations. 

General operating conditions in 

specific authorizations include the 

following: (1) Protection of pregnant 

polar bears during denning activities 

(den selection, birthing, and maturation 

of cubs) in known and confirmed 

denning areas; (2) restrictions on 

industrial activities, areas, time of year; 

and (3) development of a site-specific 

plan of operation and a site-specific 

polar bear interaction plan. Additional 

requirements may included: pre-activity 

surveys (e.g., aerial surveys, infra-red 

thermal aerial surveys, or polar bear 

scent-trained dogs) to determine the 

presence or absence of dens or denning 

activity and, in known denning areas 

enhanced monitoring or flight 

restrictions, such as minimum flight 

elevations. These and other safeguards 

and coordination with industry have 

served to minimize industry effects on 

polar bears. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to 

consider the environmental impacts of 

their proposed actions and reasonable 

alternatives to those actions. To meet 

this requirement, Federal agencies 

conduct environmental reviews, 

including Environmental Impact 

Statement and Environmental 

Assessments. NEPA does not itself 

regulate polar bears, but it does require 

full evaluation and disclosure of 

information regarding the effects of 

contemplated Federal actions on polar 

bears and their habitat. 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

Act (43 U.S.C. 331 et seq.) (OCSLA) 

established Federal jurisdiction over 

submerged lands on the Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) seaward of the 

State boundaries (3-mile limit) in order 

to expedite exploration and 

development of oil/gas resources on the 

OCS. Implementation of OCSLA is 

delegated to the Minerals Management 

Service (MMS) of the Department of the 

Interior. OCS projects that could 

adversely impact the Coastal Zone are 

subject to Federal consistency 

requirements under terms of the Coastal 

Zone Management Act, as noted below. 

OCSLA also mandates that orderly 

development of OCS energy resources 

be balanced with protection of human, 

marine and coastal environments. The 

OCSLA does not itself regulate the take 

of polar bears, although through 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1089 

consistency determinations it helps to 

ensure that OCS projects do not 

adversely impact polar bears or their 

habitats. 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

The Coastal Zone Management Act 

[16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) (CZMA) was 

enacted to ‘‘preserve, protect, develop, 

and where possible, to restore or 

enhance the resources of the Nation’s 

coastal zone.’’ The CZMA is a State 

program subject to Federal approval. 

The CZMA requires that Federal actions 

be conducted in a manner consistent 

with the State’s CZM plan to the 

maximum extent practicable. Federal 

agencies planning or authorizing an 

activity that affects any land or water 

use or natural resource of the coastal 

zone must provide a consistency 

determination to the appropriate State 

agency. The CZMA applies to polar bear 

habitats of northern and western Alaska. 

The North Slope Borough and Alaska 

Coastal Management Programs assist in 

protection of polar bear habitat through 

the project review process. The CZMA 

does not itself regulate the take of polar 

bears. 

Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act 

The Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et 

seq.) (ANILCA) created or expanded 

National Parks and Refuges in Alaska, 

including the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR). One of the establishing 

purposes of the Arctic NWR is to 

conserve polar bears. Most of the Arctic 

NWR is Federally designated 

Wilderness, and is therefore off limits to 

oil and gas development. The coastal 

plain of Arctic NWR (Section 1002 of 

ANILCA designated lands), which 

provides important polar bear denning 

habitat, does not have Wilderness 

status; oil and gas development could be 

authorized by an Act of Congress. The 

ANILCA does not itself regulate the take 

of polar bears, although through its 

designations has provided recognition 

and various levels of protection for 

polar bear habitat. ANILCA also 

designated other lands for management 

by other Federal agencies. In the case of 

polar bear habitat, the Bureau of Land 

Management is responsible for vast land 

areas on the north slope including the 

National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska 

(NPRA). Habitat suitable for polar bear 

denning and den sites have been 

identified within NPRA. The Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) considers fish 

and wildlife values under its multiple 

use mission in evaluating land use 

authorizations and prospective oil and 

gas leasing actions. Provisions of the 

MMPA regarding the incidental take of 

polar bears on land areas within U.S. 

jurisdiction continue to apply to 

activities conducted by the oil and gas 

industry on BLM lands. 

Marine Protection, Research and 

Sanctuaries Act 

The Marine Protection, Research and 

Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) 

(MPRSA) was enacted in part to 

‘‘prevent or strictly limit the dumping 

into ocean waters of any material that 

would adversely affect human health, 

welfare, or amenities, or the marine 

environment, ecological systems, or 

economic potentialities.’’ The MPRSA 

does not itself regulate the take of polar 

bears, although it operates to protect the 

quality of marine habitats that polar 

bears rely upon. 

Canada 

Canada’s constitutional arrangement 

specifies that the Provinces and 

Territories have the authority to manage 

terrestrial wildlife, including the polar 

bear, which is not defined as a marine 

mammal in Canada. The Canadian 

Federal Government is responsible for 

CITES-related programs and provides 

both technical (long-term demographic, 

ecosystem, and inventory research) and 

administrative (Federal/Provincial Polar 

Bear Technical Committee, Federal/ 

Provincial Polar Bear Administrative 

Committee, and the National Database) 

support to the Provinces and Territories. 

The Provinces and Territories have the 

ultimate authority for management, 

although in several areas, the decisionmaking process is shared with 

aboriginal groups as part of the 

settlement of land claims. Regulated 

hunting by aboriginal people is 

permissible under Provincial and 

Territorial statutes (Derocher et al. 1998, 

p. 32) as described in Factor B. 

In Manitoba most denning areas have 

been protected by inclusion within the 

boundaries of Wapusk National Park. In 

Ontario, some denning habitat and 

coastal summer sanctuary habitat are 

included in Polar Bear Provincial Park. 

Some polar bear habitat is included in 

the National Parks and National Park 

Reserves and territorial parks in the 

Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and 

Yukon Territory (e.g., Herschel Island). 

Additional habitat protection measures 

in Manitoba include restrictions on 

harassment and approaching dens and 

denning bears, and a land use permit 

review that considers potential impacts 

of land use activities on wildlife 

(Derocher et al. 1998, p. 35). 

Canada’s Species at Risk Act 

Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA) 

became law on December 12, 2002, and 

went into effect on June 1, 2004 (Walton 

2004, p. M1–17). Prior to SARA, 

Canada’s oversight of species at risk was 

conducted through the Committee on 

the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 

Canada (COSEWIC) which continued to 

function under SARA and through the 

Ministry of Environment. The 

Committee evaluates species status and 

provides recommendations to the 

Minister of the Environment, who 

makes final listing decisions and 

identifies species-specific management 

actions. SARA provides a number of 

protections for wildlife species placed 

on the List of Wildlife Species at Risk, 

or ‘‘Schedule 1’’ (SARA Registry 2005). 

The listing criteria used by COSEWIC 

are based on the 2001 IUCN Red List 

assessment criteria (Appendix 3). 

Currently, the polar bear is designated 

as a Schedule 3 species, ‘‘Species of 

Special Concern,’’ awaiting reassessment and public consultation for 

possible up-listing to Schedule 1 

(Environment Canada 2005). A schedule 

3 listing under SARA does not include 

protection measures. A schedule 1 

listing under SARA may include 

protection measures. 

Intra-Jurisdiction Polar Bear Agreements 

Within Canada 

Polar bears occur in the Northwest 

Territories (NWT), Nunavut, Yukon 

Territory, and in the Provinces of 

Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, 

Newfoundland, and Labrador (see 

Figure 1). All 12 Canadian polar bear 

populations lie within or are shared 

with the NWT or Nunavut. The NWT 

and Nunavut geographical boundaries 

include all Canadian lands and marine 

environment north of the 60th parallel 

(except the Yukon Territory), and all 

islands and waters in Hudson Bay and 

Hudson Strait up to the low water mark 

of Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. The 

offshore marine areas along the coast of 

Newfoundland and Labrador are under 

Federal jurisdiction (Government of 

NWT). Although Canada manages each 

of the 12 populations of polar bear as 

separate units, there is a complex 

sharing of responsibilities. While 

wildlife management has been delegated 

to the Provincial and Territorial 

Governments, the Federal Government 

(Environment Canada’s Canadian 

Wildlife Service) has an active research 

program and is involved in management 

of wildlife populations shared with 

other jurisdictions, especially ones with 

other nations. In the NWT, Native Land 

Claims resulted in Co-management 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
1090 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Boards for most of Canada’s polar bear 

populations. Canada formed the 

Federal-Provincial Technical and 

Administrative Committees for Polar 

Bear Research and Management (PBTC 

and PBAC, respectively) to ensure a 

coordinated management process 

consistent with internal and 

international management structures 

and the International Agreement. The 

committees meet annually to review 

research and management of polar bears 

in Canada and have representation from 

all Provincial and Territorial 

jurisdictions with polar bear 

populations and the Federal 

Government. Beginning in 1984, the 

Service as well as biologists from 

Norway and Denmark, have participated 

in annual PBTC meetings. The annual 

meetings of the PBTC provide for 

continuing cooperation between 

jurisdictions and for recommending 

management actions to the PBAC 

(Calvert et al. 1995, p. 61). 

The NWT Polar Bear Management 

Program (GNWT) manages polar bears 

in the Northwest Territories. A 1960 

‘‘Order-in-Council’’ granted authority to 

the Commissioner in Council (NWT) to 

pass ordinances to protect polar bear, 

including the establishment of a quota 

system. The Wildlife Act, 1988, and Big 

Game Hunting Regulations provide 

supporting legislation which addresses 

each polar bear population. The 

Inuvialuit and Nunavut Land Claim 

Agreements supersede the Northwest 

Territories Act (Canada) and the 

Wildlife Act. The Government of 

Nunavut passed a new Wildlife Act in 

2004 and has management and 

enforcement authority for polar bears in 

their jurisdiction. Under the umbrella of 

this authority, polar bears are now comanaged through wildlife management 

boards made up of Land Claim 

Beneficiaries and Territorial and Federal 

representatives. The Boards may 

develop Local Management Agreements 

(LMAs) between the communities that 

share a population of polar bears. 

Management agreements are in place for 

all Nunavut populations. The LMAs are 

signed between the communities, 

regional wildlife organizations, and the 

Government of Nunavut (Department of 

Environment) but can be over-ruled by 

the Nunavut Wildlife Management 

Board (NWMB). In the case of 

populations that Nunavut shares with 

Quebec and Ontario the management 

agreement is not binding upon residents 

of communities outside of Nunavut 

jurisdiction. Regulations implementing 

the LMAs specify who can hunt, season 

timing and length, age and sex classes 

that can be hunted, and the total 

allowable harvest for a given 

population. The Department of 

Environment in Nunavut and the 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources in the NWT has officers to 

enforce the regulations in most 

communities of the NWT. The officers 

investigate and prosecute incidents of 

violation of regulations, kills in defense 

of life, or exceeding a quota (USFWS 

1997). Canada’s inter-jurisdictional 

requirements for consultation and 

development of LMA’s and oversight 

through the PBTC and PBAC have 

resulted in conservation benefits for 

polar bear populations. Although there 

are some localized instances where 

changes in management agreements may 

be necessary, these arrangements and 

provisions have operated to minimize 

the threats to the species throughout a 

significant portion of its range. The 

Service analyzed the efficacy of 

Canada’s management of polar bears in 

1997 (62 FR 7302) and 1999 (64 FR 

1529) and determined, at the time, that 

the species was managed by Canada 

using sound scientific principles and in 

such a manner that existing populations 

would be sustained. Generally we find 

that Canada continues to manage polar 

bears in an effective and sustainable 

manner. However, as discussed above 

(see Harvest Management by Nation) the 

Territory of Nunavut has recently 

adopted changes to polar bear 

management that may place a greater 

significance on indigenous knowledge 

than on scientific data and analysis. In 

instances where improvements are 

necessary, because of the regional or 

localized nature of the activities, we 

find the actions also do not threaten the 

species throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. The Service will 

continue to monitor polar bear 

management in Canada and actions 

taken by the Nunavut Government. 

Russian Federation 

Polar bears are listed in the second 

issue of the Red Data Book of the 

Russian Federation (2001). The Red 

Data Book establishes official policy for 

protection and restoration of rare and 

endangered species in Russia. Polar bear 

populations inhabiting the Barents Sea 

and part of the Kara Sea (Barents-Kara 

population) are designated as Category 

IV (uncertain status); polar bears in the 

eastern Kara Sea, Laptev Sea and the 

western East-Siberian Sea (Laptev 

population) are listed as Category III 

(rare); and polar bears inhabiting the 

eastern part of the East-Siberian Sea, 

Chukchi Sea, and the northern portion 

of the Bering Sea (Chukchi population) 

are listed as Category V (restoring). The 

main government body responsible for 

management of species listed in the Red 

Data Book is the Department of 

Environment Protection and Ecological 

Safety in the Ministry of Natural 

Resources of the Russian Federation. 

Russia Regional Committees of Natural 

Resources are responsible for managing 

polar bear populations consistent with 

Federal legislation (Belikov et al. 2002, 

p. 86). 

Polar bear hunting has been totally 

prohibited in the Russian Arctic since 

1956 (Belikov et al. 2002, p. 86). The 

only permitted take of polar bears is 

catching cubs for public zoos and 

circuses. There are no data on illegal 

trade of polar bears, and parts and 

products derived from them, although 

considerable concern persists for 

unquantified levels of illegal harvest 

that is occurring (Belikov 2002, p. 87). 

In the Russian Arctic, Natural Protected 

Areas (NPAs) have been established that 

protect marine and associated terrestrial 

ecosystems, including polar bear 

habitats. Wrangel and Herald Islands 

have high concentrations of maternity 

dens and/or polar bears, and were 

included in the Wrangel Island State 

Nature Reserve (zapovednik) in 1976. A 

1997 decree by the Russian Federation 

Government established a 12-nautical 

mile (nm) marine zone to the Wrangel 

Island State Nature Reserve; the marine 

zone was extended to 24-nm by a decree 

from the Governor of Chukotsk 

Autonomous Okruga (Belikov et al. 

2002, p. 87). The Franz Josef Land State 

Nature Refuge was established in 1994. 

Special protected areas are proposed for 

the Russian High Arctic including the 

Novosibirsk Islands, Severnaya Zemlya, 

and Novaya Zemlya, however, because 

they have not yet been designated, these 

areas are not considered in our 

evaluation of the adequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms. Within these 

protected areas, conservation and 

restoration of terrestrial and marine 

ecosystems, and plant and animal 

species (including the polar bear), are 

the main goals. In 2001, the Nenetskiy 

State Reserve, which covers 313,400 

hectares (774,428 acres), and includes 

the mouth of the Pechora River and 

adjacent waters of the Barents Sea, was 

established. In May 2001, the Federal 

law ‘‘Concerning territories of 

traditional use of nature by small 

indigenous peoples of North, Siberia, 

and Far East of the Russian Federation’’

was passed. This law established areas 

for traditional use of nature (TTUN) 

within NPAs of Federal, regional, and 

local levels to support traditional life 

styles and traditional subsistence use of 

nature resources for indigenous peoples. 

This law and the Law ‘‘Concerning 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1091 

natural protected territories’’ (1995) 

regulate protection of plants and 

animals on the TTUNs. The latter also 

regulates organization, protection and 

use of other types of NPAs: State Nature 

Reserves (including Biosphere 

Reserves), National Parks, Natural Parks, 

and State Nature Refuges. Special 

measures on protection of polar bears or 

other resources may be governed by 

specific regulations of certain NPAs. 

Outside NPAs, protection and use of 

marine renewable natural resources are 

regulated by Federal legislation, Acts of 

the President of the Russian Federation, 

regulations of State Duma, Government, 

and Federal Senate of the Russian 

Federation, and through regulations 

issued by appropriate governmental 

departments. The most important 

Federal laws for nature protection are: 

‘‘About environment protection’’ (1991), 

‘‘About animal world’’ (1995), ‘‘About 

continental shelf of the Russian 

Federation’’ (1995), ‘‘About exclusive 

economical zone of the Russian 

Federation’’ (1998), and ‘‘About internal 

sea waters, territorial sea, and adjacent 

zone of the Russian Federation’’ (1998) 

(Belikov 2002, p. 87). 

Norway 

According to the Svalbard Treaty of 

February 9, 1920, Norway exercises full 

and unlimited sovereignty over the 

Svalbard Archipelago. The Svalbard 

Treaty applies to all the islands situated 

between 10° and 35° East longitude and 

between 74° and 81° North latitude, and 

includes the waters up to four nautical 

miles offshore. Beyond this zone, 

Norway claims an economic zone to the 

continental shelf areas to which 

Norwegian Law applies. Under 

Norwegian Game Law, all game, 

including polar bears, are protected 

unless otherwise stated (Derocher et al. 

2002b, p. 75). The main responsibility 

for the administration of Svalbard lies 

with the Norwegian Ministry of Justice. 

Norwegian civil and penal laws and 

various other regulations are applicable 

to Svalbard. The Ministry of 

Environment deals with matters 

concerning the environment and nature 

conservation. The Governor of Svalbard 

(Sysselmannen), who has management 

responsibilities for freshwater-fish and 

wildlife, pollution and oil spill 

protection and environmental 

monitoring, is the cultural and 

environmental protection authority in 

Svalbard (Derocher et al. 2002b, p. 75). 

Polar bears have complete protection 

from harvest under the Svalbard Treaty 

(Derocher et al. 2002b, p. 75). 

Approximately 65 percent of the land 

area of Svalbard is totally protected, 

including all major regions of denning 

by female bears; however, protection of 

habitat is only on land and to 4 nautical 

miles offshore. Marine protection was 

increased in 2004 when the territorial 

border of the existing protected areas 

was increased to 12 nautical miles (Aars 

et al. 2006, p. 145). Norway claims 

control of waters out to 200 nautical 

miles and regards polar bears as 

protected within this area. 

In 2001, the Norwegian Parliament 

passed a new Environmental Act for 

Svalbard which went into effect in July 

2002. This Act was designed to ensure 

that wildlife is protected, with 

exceptions made for hunting. The 

regulations included specific provisions 

on harvesting, motorized traffic, remote 

camps and camping, mandatory 

leashing of dogs, environmental 

pollutants and on environmental impact 

assessments in connection with 

planning development or activities in or 

near settlements. Some of these 

regulations were specific to the 

protection of polar bears, e.g., through 

enforcement of temporal and spatial 

restrictions on motorized traffic and 

giving provisions on how and where to 

camp to ensure adequate bear security 

(Aars et al. 2006, p. 145). 

In 2003, Svalbard designated six new 

protected areas, two nature reserves, 

three national parks and one ‘‘biotope 

protection area’’. The new protected 

areas are mostly located around Isfjord, 

the most populated fjord on the west 

side of the archipelago. Another 

protected area, Hopen, has special 

importance for denning bears and is an 

important denning area (Aars et al. 

2006, p. 145). Kong Karls Land is the 

main denning area and has the highest 

level of protection under the Norwegian 

land management system. These new 

protected areas cover 4,449 km2 (1,719 

mi2) which is 8 percent of the 

Archipelago’s total area, and increase 

the total area under protection to 65 

percent of the total land area 

(http://www.norway.org/News/archive/ 

2003/200304svalbard.htm). 

Denmark/Greenland 

Under terms of the Greenland Home 

Rule (1979) the government of 

Greenland is responsible for 

management of all renewable resources 

including polar bears. Greenland is also 

responsible for providing scientific data 

for sound management of polar bear 

populations and for compliance with 

terms of the 1973 Agreement on the 

Conservation of Polar Bears. Regulations 

for the management and protection of 

polar bears in Greenland that were 

introduced in 1994 have been amended 

several times (Jensen 2002, p. 65). 

Hunting and reporting regulations 

include who can hunt polar bears, 

protection of family groups with cubs of 

the year, prohibition of trophy hunting, 

mandatory reporting requirements, and 

regulations on permissible firearms and 

means of transportation (Jensen 2002, p. 

65). In addition, there are specific 

regulations which apply to traditional 

take within the National Park of North 

and East Greenland and the Melville 

Bay Nature Reserve. A large amount of 

polar bear habitat occurs within the 

National Park of North and East 

Greenland. During the fall of 2000, the 

Greenland Home Rule Government 

signed an agreement with the 

Government of Nunavut concerning 

shared populations. Greenland 

introduced a quota system which took 

effect on January 1, 2006 (L<nstrup 

2005, p. 133) 

Conclusion for Factor D 

Our review of the regulatory 

mechanisms in place at the national and 

international level demonstrates that the 

short-term, site-specific threats to polar 

bears from direct take, disturbance by 

humans, and incidental or harassment 

take are, for the most part, adequately 

addressed through range state laws, 

statutes, and other regulatory 

mechanisms. As decribed under Factor 

A, the primary threat with the greatest 

severity and magnitude of impact to the 

species is loss of habitat due to sea ice 

retreat, however there are no known 

regulatory mechanisms currently in 

place at the national or international 

level effectively adressing threats to 

polar bear habitat. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Polar Bear’s Continued 

Existence 

Contaminants 

Understanding the potential effects of 

contaminants on polar bears in the 

Arctic is confounded by the wide range 

of contaminants present, each with 

different chemical properties and 

biological effects, and the differing 

geographic, temporal, and ecological 

exposure regimes impacting each of the 

19 polar bear populations. Further, 

contaminant concentrations differ with 

age, sex, reproductive status, and other 

factors. Contaminant sources and 

transport, geographical, temporal 

patterns and trends, and biological 

effects are detailed in several recent 

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment 

Program (AMAP) publications (AMAP 

1998; AMAP 2004a; AMAP 2004b; 

AMAP 2005). Three main groups of 

contaminants in the Arctic are thought 

to present the greatest potential threat to 

polar bears and other marine mammals: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
1092 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Petroleum hydrocarbons, persistent 

organic pollutants (POPS), and heavy 

metals. 

Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

The principal petroleum 

hydrocarbons include crude oil, refined 

oil products, polynuclear aromatic 

hydrocarbons, and natural gas and 

condensates (AMAP 1998, p.661). 

Petroleum hydrocarbons come from 

both natural and anthropogenic sources. 

The primary natural source is oil seeps. 

Anthropogenic sources include 

activities associated with exploration, 

development, and production of oil 

(well blowouts, operational discharges), 

ship and land based transportation of oil 

(oil spills from pipelines, accidents, 

leaks, and ballast washings), discharges 

from refineries and municipal waste 

water, and combustion of wood and 

fossil fuels. In addition to direct 

contamination, petroleum hydrocarbons 

are transported from more southerly 

areas to the Arctic via long range 

atmospheric and oceanic transport, as 

well as by north-flowing rivers (AMAP 

1998 p. 671). 

Polar bears are particularly vulnerable 

to oil spills due to their inability to 

thermoregulate and to poisoning due to 

ingestion of oil from grooming and/or 

eating contaminated prey (St. Aubin 

1990, p. 237). In addition, polar bears 

are curious and are likely to investigate 

oil spills and oil contaminated wildlife. 

Although it is not known whether 

healthy polar bears in their natural 

environment would avoid oil spills and 

contaminated seals, bears that are 

hungry are likely to scavenge 

contaminated seals, as they have shown 

no aversion to eating and ingesting oil 

(St. Aubin 1990, p. 237; Derocher and 

Stirling 1991, p. 56). 

The most direct exposure of polar 

bears to petroleum hydrocarbons comes 

from direct contact with and ingestion 

of oil from acute and chronic oil spills. 

Polar bear range overlaps with many 

active and planned oil and gas 

operations within 40 km (25 miles) of 

the coast or offshore. To date, no major 

oil spills have occurred in the marine 

environment within the range of polar 

bears; however spills associated with 

terrestrial pipelines have occurred in 

the vicinity of polar bear habitat and 

denning areas (e.g., Russia, Komi 

Republic, 1994 oil spill, http:// 

www.american.edu/ted/KOMI.HTM). 

Despite numerous safeguards to prevent 

spills, smaller spills do occur. The MMS 

(2004, pp. 10, 127) estimated an 11 

percent chance of a marine spill greater 

than 1,000 barrels in the Beaufort Sea 

from the Beaufort Sea Multiple Lease 

Sale in Alaska. An average of 70 oil and 

234 waste product spills per year 

occurred between 1977 and 1999 in the 

North Slope oil fields (71 FR14456). The 

largest oil spill (estimated volume of 

approximately 201,000 gallons) from the 

North Slope Oil fields in Alaska to date 

occurred on land in March 2006, 

resulting from an undetected leak in a 

corroded pipeline. 

Spills during the fall or spring during 

the formation or breakup of ice present 

a greater risk because of difficulties 

associated with clean up during these 

periods and the presence of bears in the 

prime feeding areas over the continental 

shelf. Amstrup et al. (2000a, p. 5) 

concluded that the release of oil trapped 

under the ice from an underwater spill 

during the winter could be catastrophic 

during spring break-up. During the 

autumn freeze-up and spring break-up 

periods it is expected that any spilled 

oil in the marine environment would 

concentrate and accumulate in open 

leads and polynyas, areas of high 

activity for both polar bears and seals 

(Neff 1990, p. 23), resulting in oiling of 

both polar bears and seals (Neff 1990, 

pp. 23–24; Amstrup et al. 2000a, p. 3; 

Amstrup et al. 2006a, p. 9). Increases in 

Arctic oil and gas development coupled 

with increases in shipping and/or 

development of offshore and land-based 

pipelines increase the potential for an 

oil spill to negatively affect polar bears 

and/or their habitat. Any future declines 

in the Arctic sea ice may result in 

increased tanker traffic in high bear use 

areas (Frantzen and Bambulyak 2003, p. 

4) which would increase the chances of 

an oil spill from a tanker accidents, 

ballast discharge, or discharges during 

the loading and unloading the oil at the 

ports. 

Although there is a low probability 

that a large number of bears (e.g., 25–60) 

might be affected by a large oil spill, the 

impact of such a spill, particularly 

during the broken ice period, could be 

significant to the polar bear population 

(Amstrup et al. 2006a, pp. 7, 22; 65 FR 

16833). The number of polar bears 

affected by an oil spill could be 

substantially higher if the spill spread to 

areas of seasonal polar bear 

concentrations, such as the area near 

Kaktovik, in the fall, and could have a 

significant impact to the Southern 

Beaufort Sea polar bear population. It 

seems likely that an oil spill would 

affect ringed seals the same way the 

Exxon Valdez oil spill affected harbor 

seals (Frost et al. 1994a, pp. 108–110; 

Frost et al. 1994b, pp. 333–334, 343–

344, 346–347; Lowry et al. 1994, pp. 

221–222; Spraker et al. 1994, pp. 300–

305). As with polar bears, the number of 

animals killed would vary depending 

upon the season and spill size (NRC 

2003, pp. 168–169). 

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS) 

Contamination of the Arctic and subArctic regions through long-range 

transport of pollutants has been 

recognized for over 30 years (Bowes and 

Jonkel 1975, p. 2111; de March et al. 

1998, p. 184; Proshutinsky and Johnson 

2001, p. 68; MacDonald et al. 2003, p. 

38). These compounds are transported 

via large rivers, air, and ocean currents 

from the major industrial and 

agricultural centers located at more 

southerly latitudes (Barrie et al. 1992; Li 

et al. 1998, pp. 39–40; Proshutinsky and 

Johnson 2001, p. 68; Lie et al. 2003, p. 

160). The presence and persistence of 

these contaminants within the Arctic is 

dependent on many factors, including 

transport routes, distance from source 

and the quantity and chemical 

composition of the contaminants 

released to the environment. The Arctic 

ecosystem is particularly sensitive to 

environmental contamination due to the 

slower rate of breakdown of persistent 

organic pollutants, including 

organochlorine (OC) compounds, 

relatively simple food chains, and the 

presence of long-lived organisms with 

low rates of reproduction and high lipid 

levels. The persistence and lipophilic 

nature of organochlorines increase the 

potential for bioaccumulation and 

biomagnification at higher trophic levels 

(Fisk et al. 2001, pp. 225–226). Polar 

bears, because of their position at the 

top of the Arctic marine food chain, 

have some of the highest concentrations 

of OCs of any Arctic mammals (Braune 

et al. 2005, p. 23). 

The most studied POPS in polar bears 

include polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs), chlordanes (CHL), DDT and its 

metabolites, toxaphene, dieldrin, 

hexachloroabenzene (HCB), 

hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCHs), and 

chlorobenzenes (ClBz). Overall, the 

relative proportion of the more 

recalcitrant compounds, such as PCB 

153 and b-HCH, appears to be increasing 

in polar bears (Braune et al. 2005, p. 50). 

Although temporal trend information is 

lacking, newer compounds, such as 

polybrominated diphenyl ethers 

(PBDEs), polychlorinated naphthalenes 

(PCNs), perflouro-octane sulfonate 

(PFOS), perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAs), 

and perflourocarboxylic acids (PFCAs) 

have been recently found in polar bears 

(Braune et al. 2005, p. 5). Of this 

relatively new suite of compounds, 

there is concern that both PFOS, which 

are increasing rapidly, and PBDEs are a 

potential risk to polar bears (Ikonomou 

et al. 2002, p. 1886; deWit 2002, p. 583; 

Martin et al. 2004, p. 373; Braune et al. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1093 

2005, p. 25; Smithwick et al. 2006, p. 

1139). Currently the polychlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), 

dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and dioxin-like 

PCBs are at relatively low 

concentrations in polar bears (Norstrom 

et al. 1990, p. 14). 

The highest PCB concentrations have 

been found in polar bears from the 

Russian Arctic (Franz Joseph Land and 

the Kara Sea), with decreasing 

concentrations to the east and west 

(Anderson et al. 2001, p. 231). Overall 

there is evidence for recent declines in 

PCBs for most populations. The pattern 

of distribution of most other chlorinated 

hydrocarbons and metabolites generally 

follows that of PCBs, with the highest 

concentrations of DDT-related 

compounds and CHL in Franz Joseph 

Land and the Kara Sea, followed by East 

Greenland, Svalbard, the eastern 

Canadian Arctic populations, the 

western Canadian populations, the 

Siberian Sea, and finally the lowest 

concentrations in Alaska populations 

(Bernhoft et al. 1997; Norstrom et al. 

1998, p. 361; Andersen et al. 2001, p. 

231; Kucklick et al. 2002, p. 9; Lie et al. 

2003, p. 159; Verreault et al. 2005, pp. 

369–370; Braune et al. 2005, p. 23). 

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers 

(PBDEs) share similar physical-chemical 

properties with PCBs (Wania and 

Dugani 2003, p. 1252; Muir et al. 2006, 

p. 449), and are thought to be 

transported to the Arctic by similar 

pathways. Muir et al. (2006, p. 450) 

analyzed archived samples from Dietz et 

al. (2004) and Verreault et al. (2005) for 

PBDE concentrations, finding the 

highest mean PBDE concentrations in 

female polar bear adipose tissue from 

East Greenland and Svalbard. Lower 

concentrations of PBDE were found in 

adipose tissue from the Canadian and 

Alaskan populations (Muir et al. 2006, 

p. 449). Differences between the PBDE 

concentrations and composition in liver 

tissue between the Southen Beaufort Sea 

and the Chukchi/Bering seas 

populations in Alaska suggest 

differences in the sources of PBDE 

exposure (Kannan et al. 2005, p. 9057). 

Overall, SPBDEs concentrations are 

much lower and less of a concern 

compared to PCBs, oxychlordane, and 

some of the more recently discovered 

perfluorinated compounds. PBDEs are 

metabolized to a high degree in polar 

bears and thus do not bioaccumulate as 

much as PCBs (Wolkers et al. 2004, p. 

1674). 

Although baseline information on 

contaminant concentrations is available, 

determining the biological effects of 

these contaminants in polar bears is 

difficult. Field observations of 

reproductive impairment in females and 

males, lower survival of cubs, and 

increased mortality of females in 

Svalbard, Norway, however, suggest that 

high concentrations of PCBs may have 

contributed to population level effects 

in the past (Wiig 1998, p. 28; Wiig et al. 

1998, p. 795; Skaare et al. 2000, p.107; 

Haave et al. 2003, pp. 431, 435; Oskam 

et al. 2003, p. 2134; Derocher et al. 2003, 

p. 163). Currently it is not thought that 

present PCB concentrations are having 

population level effects. 

Organochlorines may adversely affect 

the endocrine system as metabolites of 

these compounds are toxic and some 

have demonstrated endocrine disrupting 

activity (Letcher et al. 2000; Braune et 

al. 2005, p. 23). High concentrations of 

organochlorines may also affect the 

immune system, resulting in a 

decreased ability to produce antibodies 

(Lie et al. 2004, pp. 555–556). 

Metals 

Numerous essential and non-essential 

elements have been reported on for 

polar bears and the most toxic and/or 

abundant elements in marine mammals 

are mercury, cadmium, selenium, and 

lead. Of these, mercury is of greatest 

concern because of its potential toxicity 

at relatively low concentrations, ability 

to biomagnify and bioaccumulate in the 

food web. Polar bears from the western 

Canadian Arctic and southwest Melville 

Island, Canada (Braune et al. 1991, p. 

263; Norstrom et al. 1986, p. 195; AMAP 

2005, pp. 42, 62, 134), and ringed seals 

from the western Canadian Arctic 

(Wagemann et al. 1996, p. 41; Deitz et 

al. 1998, p. 433; Dehn et al. 2005, p. 731; 

Riget et al. 2005, p. 312), have some of 

the highest known mercury 

concentrations. Wagemann et al. (1996, 

pp. 51, 60) observed an increase in 

mercury from eastern to western 

Canadian ringed seal populations and 

attributed this pattern to a geologic 

gradient in natural mercury deposits. 

Although the contaminant 

concentrations of mercury found in 

marine mammals often exceed those 

found to cause effects in terrestrial 

mammals (Fisk et al. 2003, p. 107), most 

marine mammals appear to have 

evolved effective biochemical 

mechanisms to tolerate high 

concentrations of mercury. Polar bears 

are able to demethylate mercury and 

accumulate higher levels than their 

terrestrial counterparts without 

detrimental effects (AMAP 2005, p. 

123). Evidence of mercury poisoning is 

rare in marine mammals, but Dietz et al. 

(1990, p. 49) noted that sick marine 

mammals often have higher 

concentrations of methylmercury, 

suggesting that these animals may no 

longer be able to detoxify 

methylmercury. Hepatic mercury 

concentrations are well below those 

expected to cause biological effects in 

most polar bear populations (AMAP 

2005, p. 118). Only two polar bear 

populations have concentrations of 

mercury close to the biological 

threshold levels of 60 μg wet weight 

reported for marine mammals (AMAP 

2005, p. 121), the Viscount Melville 

(southwest Melville Sound), Canada and 

the Southern Beaufort Sea (eastern 

Beaufort Sea) (Dietz et al. 1998, p. 435, 

Figure 7–52). 

Shipping and Transportation 

Observations over the past 50 years 

show a decline in arctic sea ice extent 

in all seasons, with the most prominent 

retreat in the summer. Climate models 

project an acceleration of this trend with 

periods of extensive melting in spring 

and autumn, thus opening new shipping 

routes and extending the period that 

shipping is practical (ACIA 2005, p. 

1002). Notably, the navigation season 

for the Northern Sea Route (across 

northern Eurasia) is projected to 

increase from 20–30 days per year to 

90–100 days per year. Russian scientists 

cite increasing use of a Northern Sea 

Route for transit and regional 

development as a major source of 

disturbance to polar bears in the 

Russian Arctic (Wiig et al. 1996, p. 23–

24; Belikov and Boltunov 1998, p. 113; 

Ovsyanikov 2005, p. 171). Commercial 

navigation on the Northern Sea Route 

could disturb polar bear feeding and 

other behaviors and would increase the 

risk of oil spills (Belikov et al. 2002, p. 

87). 

Increased shipping activity may 

disturb polar bears in the marine 

environment, adding additional 

energetic stresses. If ice breaking 

activities occur they may alter habitats 

used by polar bears, possibly creating 

ephemeral lead systems and 

concentrating ringed seals within the 

refreezing leads. This in turn may allow 

for easier access to ringed seals and may 

have some beneficial values. 

Conversely, this may cause polar bears 

to use areas that may have a higher 

incidence of human encounters as well 

as increased likelihood of exposure to 

oil, waste products or food wastes that 

are intentionally or accidentally placed 

into the marine environment. If 

shipping involved the tanker transport 

of crude oil or oil products there would 

be some increased likelihood of small to 

large volume spills and corresponding 

oiling of polar bears as well as potential 

effects on seal prey species (AMAP 

2005, pp. 91, 127). 

The PBSG (Aars et al. 2006, pp. 22, 

58, 171) recognized the potential for 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
1094 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

increased shipping and marine 

transportation in the Arctic with 

declining summer/fall ice conditions. 

The PBSG recommended that the parties 

to the International Agreement on the 

Conservation of Polar Bears take 

appropriate measures to monitor, 

regulate and mitigate ship traffic 

impacts on polar bear subpopulations 

and habitats (Aars et al. 2006, p. 58). 

Ecotourism 

Increasing levels of ecotourism and 

photography in polar bear viewing areas 

and natural habitats may lead to 

increased polar bear-human conflicts. 

Ecotourists and photographers may 

inadvertently displace bears from 

preferred habitats or alter natural 

behaviors (Lentfer 1990 p.19; Dyck and 

Baydack 2004 p. 344). Polar bears are 

inquisitive animals and often investigate 

novel odors or sights. This trait can lead 

to polar bears being killed at cabins and 

remote stations where they investigate 

food smells (Herrero and Herrero 1997 

p. 11). 

Conclusion for Factor E 

Contaminant concentrations in most 

populations are presently not thought to 

have population level effects on polar 

bears. However, one or several factors 

acting independently or together, such 

as loss or degradation of the sea ice 

habitat, decreased prey availability and 

accessibility, and increased exposure to 

contaminants have the potential to 

lower recruitment and survival rates, 

which ultimately would have negative 

population level effects. Svalbard, East 

Greenland, and the Kara Sea 

populations, which currently have some 

of the highest contaminant 

concentrations and thus have the 

potential for population level effects, 

should be monitored closely. 

Despite the regulatory steps taken to 

decrease the production or emissions of 

toxic chemicals, increases in 

hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and relatively 

new compounds such as PBDEs and 

PFOSs, are cause for concern. PBDEs, 

which may have impacts similar to 

already regulated chemicals such as 

PCBs, have increased in the last decade 

(Ikonomou et al. 2002, p. 1886; Muir et 

al. 2006, p. 453). PFCs remain the class 

of chemicals of most concern as we do 

not know how long it will take for 

voluntary phase-outs or bans to result in 

declines because of the widespread use 

of these compounds in consumer 

products (Braune et al. 2005, p. 5). More 

information is needed on the specific 

biological effects of many of these 

contaminants on Arctic marine 

mammals in order to assess the 

potential impact on polar bears, and 

their primary prey, ringed and bearded 

seals. 

Increasing levels of ecotourism and 

shipping may lead to greater impacts on 

polar bears. The potential extent of 

impact is related to changing ice 

conditions and resulting changes to 

polar bear distribution. Such effects are 

difficult to quantify and need to be 

monitored. 

We conclude that contaminants, 

ecotourism, and shipping as singular 

factors do not threaten the existence of 

the polar bear throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Potential 

for future impacts from these sources is 

a concern and warrants continued 

monitoring or additional studies. These 

factors may become a more significant 

in the future for polar bear populations 

experiencing nutritional stress or 

declining population levels. 

Finding 

We have carefully considered all 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats faced by the polar 

bear. We reviewed the petition, 

information available in our files, other 

published and unpublished information 

submitted to us during the public 

comment period following our 

February 9, 2006 (71 FR 6745) 90-day 

petition finding. In accordance with 

Service policies, peer review of the draft 

Status Assessment was sought from 12 

independent experts in the fields of 

polar bear ecology, contaminants and 

physiology, climatic science and 

physics, and traditional ecological 

knowledge. Comments were received 

from 10 peer reviewers, and those 

comments were addressed in revisions 

to the draft Status Assessment. We also 

consulted with recognized polar bear 

experts and other Federal, State, and 

range state resource agencies. On the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that the listing of the polar bear as 

threatened under the Act throughout its 

range is warranted. 

In making this finding, we recognize 

that polar bears have evolved to occur 

throughout the ice-covered waters of the 

circumpolar Arctic, and are reliant on 

sea ice as a platform to hunt and feed 

on ice-seals, to seek mates and breed, to 

move to feeding sites and terrestrial 

maternity denning area, and for longdistance movements. Under Factor A 

(‘‘Present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range’’), we find that the diminishing 

extent of sea ice in the Arctic is 

extensively documented. Further 

recession of sea ice in the future is 

predicted and would exacerbate the 

effects observed to date on polar bears. 

It is predicted that sea ice habitat will 

be subjected to increased temperatures, 

earlier melt periods, increased rain on 

snow events, and positive feed back 

systems. Productivity, abundance and 

availability of ice seals, a primary prey 

base, would then be diminished by 

changes in sea ice. Energetic 

requirements of polar bears would 

increase for movement and obtaining 

food. Access to traditional denning 

areas would be affected. In turn, these 

factors will cause declines in the 

condition of polar bears from nutritional 

stress and productivity. As already 

evidenced in the Western Hudson Bay 

and Southern Beaufort Sea populations, 

polar bears would experience 

reductions in survival and recruitment 

rates. The eventual effect would be that 

polar bear populations will continue to 

decline. Populations would be affected 

differently in the rate, timing, and 

magnitude of impact, but within the 

foreseeable future, the species is likely 

to become endangered throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range due to 

changes in habitat. This determination 

satisfies the definition of a threatened 

species under the Act. 

Under Factor B (‘‘Overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes’’) we note that 

polar bears are harvested in Canada, 

Alaska, Greenland, and Russia, and we 

acknowledge that harvest is the 

consumptive use of greatest importance 

and potential effect to polar bear. 

Further we acknowledge that forms of 

removal other than harvest have been 

considered in this analysis. While 

overharvest occurs for some 

populations, laws and regulations for 

most management programs have been 

instituted to ensure harvests result in 

healthy and sustainable populations. If 

overharvest were to occur in the future 

and theaten populations the ability to 

recover populations through harvest 

reductions and the likely efforts of 

management entities to do so and to 

prevent the species from becoming 

endangered or threatened is highly 

probable. This ability differs markedly 

from the ability of management entities 

to recover habitat that has been lost as 

addressed in Factor A. Further, bilateral 

agreements or conservation agreements 

have been developed or are in 

development to address issues of over 

harvest. Conservation benefits from 

agreements that are in development or 

have not yet been implemented are not 

considered in our evaluation. We also 

acknowledge that increased levels of 

bear-human encounters are expected in 

the future and that encounters may 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1095 

result in increased mortality to bears at 

some unknown level. Adaptive 

management programs, such as 

implementing polar bear patrols, hazing 

programs, and efforts to minimize 

attraction of bears to communities, to 

address future bear-human interaction 

issues, including on-the-land 

ecotourism activities are anticipated. 

However, potential conservation 

benefits from management programs 

that may be needed and have not yet 

been developed or implemented are not 

being considered in our evaluation. We 

find that overharvest and increased 

bear-human interaction levels as a 

singular factor do not threaten polar 

bears throughout all or a significant 

portion of their range. Continued 

overharvest or increased mortality from 

bear-human encounters, however, may 

become more significant factors in the 

future for polar bear populations 

experiencing nutritional stress or 

declining population levels. 

Under Factor C (‘‘Disease and 

predation’’) we acknowledge that 

disease pathogen titers are present in 

polar bears; no epizootic outbreaks have 

been detected; and intra-specific stress 

through cannibalism may be increasing, 

however population level effects are not 

believed to have resulted. We find that 

disease and predation as singular factors 

do not threaten polar bears throughout 

all or a significant portion of their range. 

Potential for disease outbreaks or 

increased mortality from cannibalism 

may become more significant factors in 

the future for polar bear populations 

experiencing nutritional stress or 

declining population levels. Both 

stressors warrant continued monitoring. 

Under Factor D (‘‘Inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms’’) we 

find that the regulatory mechanisms in 

place at the national and international 

level are effective in addressing the 

short-term, site-specific threats to polar 

bears from direct take, disturbance by 

humans, and incidental or harassment 

take. These factors are, for the most part, 

adequately addressed through range 

state laws, statutes, and other regulatory 

mechanisms for polar bears. The 

ultimate threat to the species is loss of 

habitat; however, this is not currently 

addressed at the national or 

international level. We conclude that 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms to 

address sea ice recession are a factor 

that threatens the species throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. 

Under Factor E (‘‘Other natural or 

manmade factors affecting the polar 

bear’s continued existence’’) we 

reviewed contaminant concentrations 

and find that in most populations 

contaminants are not determined to 

have population level effects. Also, 

despite regulatory steps to decrease the 

production or emissions of toxic 

chemicals, increases in some 

contaminants, including relatively new 

flame retardant by-product compounds, 

are of concern. We further evaluated 

increasing levels of ecotourism and 

shipping that may lead to greater 

impacts on polar bears. The extent of 

the potential impact is related to 

changing ice conditions, polar bear 

distribution changes, and relative risk 

for a higher interaction between polar 

bears and ecotourism or shipping. We 

find that contaminants, ecotourism, and 

shipping, while affecting or potentially 

affecting polar bears, as singular factors 

do not threaten the existence of the 

species throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. However, the 

potential for future impacts from these 

sources may become more significant in 

the future for polar bear populations 

experiencing nutritional stress or 

declining population levels and warrant 

continued monitoring or additional 

studies. 

Based on our evaluation of all 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats faced by the polar 

bear, we have determined that the polar 

bear is threatened by habitat loss and 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms to 

address sea ice recession. Other factors, 

particularly overutilization, disease, and 

contaminants, may become more 

significant threats to polar bear 

populations, especially those 

experiencing nutritional stress or 

declining population levels, within the 

foreseeable future. 

Status Evaluation 

The Act defines an endangered 

species as one that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. A threatened 

species is one that is likely to become 

an endangered species in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

Polar bear populations throughout the 

Arctic are being affected by changes in 

climate and sea ice habitat. The effects 

include earlier melting periods, 

increased rain on snow events, and 

positive feed back systems which 

amplify the decrease in the extent, 

timing and quality of sea ice. These 

changes will negatively impact polar 

bears by increasing the energetic 

demands of movement in seeking prey, 

redistributing substantial portions of 

populations seasonally into terrestrial 

habitats with marginal values for 

feeding, and increasing levels of 

negative bear-human interactions. 

Similarly we expect reductions in 

productivity for most ice seal species 

(decreasing availability or timing of 

availability for polar bears as food), 

composition changes of seal species in 

some areas, and eventually decreased 

levels of abundance. Reduced feeding 

opportunities will result in the reduced 

physical condition of polar bears and 

corresponding population-level 

demographic declines through 

reduction of survival and recruitment 

rates as have been manifested in 

Western Hudson Bay and the Southern 

Beaufort Sea populations, the 2 

populations with extensive time series 

of data, and forecasted for other 

populations. Ultimately these interrelated events, factors, and effects will 

result in declines or continued declines 

for all populations. Not all populations 

will be affected evenly in the level, rate, 

and timing of impact, but within the 

foreseeable future time frame of this 

action, all populations will be either 

directly or indirectly impacted. 

Given current population sizes 

(20,000–25,000), distribution and 

occurrence throughout its historical 

range, and the finding that not all 

populations would be affected evenly in 

the timing, rate and level of impact, we 

do not believe the species is presently 

in danger of extinction throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. Nor do 

we believe, based on our review of all 

available scientific and commercial 

information, that threats facing polar 

bear present an emergency posing a 

significant risk to the well-being of the 

species. However, if at any time we 

determine that emergency listing of 

polar bear is warranted, we will initiate 

the emergency listing process. Based on 

our evaluation of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

however, we find that the polar bear is 

likely within the foreseeable future (as 

defined to be 45 years) to become an 

endangered species throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range based on 

threats to the species, including loss of 

habitat caused by sea ice recession and 

lack of effective regulatory mechanisms 

to address the recession of sea ice. 

Therefore, we propose to list the polar 

bear as threatened. 

On the basis of our careful evaluation 

of the best available scientific and 

commercial information regarding the 

past, present, and future threats to the 

species as discussed above relative to 

the listing factors, we have determined 

that listing is warranted. This 

determination is supported by the 

significant current and projected rates of 

decline in the sea ice habitat essential 

to polar bear life history requisites and 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
1096 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

mechanisms to address these threats. 

We have funded this proposed rule to 

list the polar bear, as it is the highest 

priority listing action for the Alaska 

Region. The Alaska Region generally has 

not faced the relatively heavy Listing 

Program workload experienced by 

several other Regions, and consequently 

was able to use the money allocated to 

this region for FY2006 to prepare this 

proposed rule. 

Further, the analysis conducted for 

the polar bear status assessment and 

proposed rule has been a significant and 

jointly-coordinated effort of fiscal, 

intellectual, and other resources among 

the Service and the USGS, NASA, 

species experts, and experts in other 

fields such as contaminants. In addition, 

the scientific data used in this analysis 

and projections based on these data are 

subject to constant change. A delay in 

proceeding would result in significant 

expenditure of fiscal and other 

resources to collect additional data and 

conduct analyses. As such, we have 

determined that proceeding with the 

listing of the polar bear at this time is 

a responsible use of our fiscal and other 

resources and is justified given the 

nature of the scientific data involved 

and the significant declines in polar 

bear habitat. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: (i) the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by a species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by a species at the time it is listed, upon 

a determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ is defined in 

section 3 of the Act as meaning the use 

of all methods and procedures needed 

to bring the species to the point at 

which listing under the Act is no longer 

necessary. 

The primary regulatory effect of 

critical habitat is the section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act requirement that Federal 

agencies shall insure that any action 

they authorize, fund, or carry out is not 

likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat. 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 

424.12) require that, to the maximum 

extent prudent and determinable, we 

designate critical habitat at the time a 

species is determined to be endangered 

or threatened. Critical habitat may only 

be designated within the jurisdiction of 

the United States and may not be 

designated for jurisdictions outside of 

the United States. Our regulations (50 

CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation 

of critical habitat is not prudent when 

one or both of the following situations 

exist—(1) The species is threatened by 

taking or other activity and the 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of threat 

to the species, or (2) such designation of 

critical habitat would not be beneficial 

to the species. Our regulations (50 CFR 

424.12(a)(2)) further state that critical 

habitat is not determinable when one or 

both of the following situations exist: (1) 

Information sufficient to perform 

required analysis of the impacts of the 

designation is lacking, or (2) the 

biological needs of the species are not 

sufficiently well known to permit 

identification of an area as critical 

habitat. 

Delineation of critical habitat requires 

identification of the physical and 

biological habitat features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. In general terms, essential 

habitat features for the polar bear 

include annual and perennial marine 

sea ice habitats that serve as a platform 

for hunting, feeding, traveling, resting, 

and to a limited extent, for denning, and 

terrestrial habitats used by polar bears 

for denning and reproduction for the 

recruitment of new animals into the 

population, as well as for seasonal use 

in traveling or resting. The most 

important polar bear life functions that 

occur in these habitats are feeding 

(adequate nutrition) and reproduction. 

These habitats may be influenced by 

several factors and the interaction 

among these factors, including: (1) 

Water depth; (2) atmospheric and 

oceanic currents or events; (3) other 

climatologic phenomena such as 

temperature, winds, precipitation and 

snowfall; (4) proximity to the 

continental shelf; (5) topographic relief 

(accumulation of snow for denning); (6) 

presence of undisturbed habitats; and 

(7) secure resting areas that provide 

refuge from extreme weather and/or 

other bears or humans. Unlike some 

other marine mammal species, polar 

bears generally do not occur at highdensity focal areas such as rookeries and 

haulout sites. However, certain 

terrestrial areas have a history of higher 

use, such as core denning areas, or are 

experiencing an increasing trend of use 

for resting, such as coastal areas during 

the fall open water phase for which 

polar bear use has been increasing in 

duration for additional and expanded 

areas. During the winter period, when 

energetic demands are the greatest, 

nearshore lead systems and emphemeral 

or recurrent polynyas are areas of 

importance for seals and 

correspondingly for polar bears that 

hunt seals for nutrition. During the 

spring period, nearshore lead systems 

continue to be important habitat for 

bears for hunting seals and feeding. Also 

the shorefast ice zone where ringed 

seals construct subnivean birth lairs for 

pupping is an important feeding habitat 

during this season. In Alaska, while 

denning habitat is more diffuse than in 

other areas where core high density 

denning has been identified, certain 

areas in northern Alaska such as barrier 

island, river bank drainages, much of 

the North Slope coastal plain, including 

the Arctic NWR, and coastal bluffs that 

occur at the interface of mainland and 

marine habitat receive proportionally 

greater use for denning than other areas 

in the past. Habitat suitable for the 

accumulation of snow and use for 

denning has been delineated on the 

north slope. 

While information regarding 

important polar bear life functions and 

habitats associated with these functions 

has expanded greatly in Alaska during 

the past 20 years, in general the 

identification of specific physical and 

biological features and specific 

geographic areas for consideration as 

critical habitat is complicated and the 

future values of these habitats may 

change in a rapidly changing 

environment. The polar sea ice provides 

an essential conservation function for 

the key life history functions for 

hunting, feeding, travel, and nuturing 

cubs. That essential habitat is projected 

to be significantly reduced within the 

next 45 years, and some projections 

forecast complete absence of sea ice 

during summer months in shorter time 

frames. A careful assessment of the 

designation of critical marine areas will 

require additional time and evaluation. 

In addition, near-shore and terrestrial 

habitats may qualify as critical habitat; 

however a careful assessment will 

require additional time and evaluation. 

Therefore, there is a degree of 

uncertainty at this time as to which 

specific areas in Alaska might be 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and thus meet a key aspect of 

the definition of critical habitat. 

Consequently, the designation of critical 

habitat for the polar bear is not 

determinable at this time. In the Public 

Comments Solicited section of this 

proposed rule we specifically request 

information regarding critical habitat. If 

the listing of the polar bear becomes 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1097 

final, we will then consider whether to 

propose the designation of critical 

habitat. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain activities. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness and conservation 

actions by Federal, State, and local 

agencies, private organizations, and 

individuals. The Act provides for 

possible land acquisition and 

cooperation with the States and requires 

that recovery actions be carried out for 

listed species. The protection required 

of Federal agencies and the prohibitions 

against taking and harm are discussed 

below. 

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate 

their actions with respect to any species 

that is listed as endangered or 

threatened and with respect to its 

critical habitat, if any is designated. 

Regulations implementing this 

interagency cooperation provision of the 

Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies 

to confer informally with us on any 

action that is likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a species 

proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

subsequently listed, section 7(a)(2) 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species or 

destroy or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 

listed species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into formal consultation with us under 

the provisions of section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act. 

Several Federal agencies are expected 

to have involvement under section 7 of 

the Act regarding the polar bear. The 

National Marine Fisheries Service may 

become involved, such as in instances if 

joint rule making for the incidental take 

of marine mammals is undertaken. The 

Environmental Protection Agency may 

become involved through its permitting 

authority for the Clean Water Act. The 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may 

become involved through its 

responsibilities and permitting authority 

under section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act and through future development of 

harbor projects. The MMS may become 

involved through administering their 

programs directed toward offshore oil 

and gas development. The Denali 

Commission may be involved through 

its potential funding of fuel and power 

generation projects. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may become involved through 

their deployment of icebreakers in the 

Arctic Ocean. 

The listing of the polar bear would 

subsequently lead to the development of 

a recovery plan for this species. Such a 

plan will bring together Federal, State, 

local agency, and private efforts for the 

conservation of this species. A recovery 

plan establishes a framework for 

interested parties to coordinate 

activities and to cooperate with each 

other in conservation efforts. The plan 

will set recovery priorities, identify 

responsibilities, and estimate the costs 

of the tasks necessary to accomplish the 

priorities. It will also describe sitespecific management actions necessary 

to achieve the conservation of the polar 

bear. Additionally, pursuant to section 6 

of the Act, we would be able to grant 

funds to the State of Alaska for 

management actions promoting the 

conservation of the polar bear. 

Section 9 of the Act, except as 

provided in sections 6(g)(2) and 10 of 

the Act prohibits take and import into 

or export out of the United States of 

listed species. The Act defines take to 

mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or 

to attempt to engage in any such 

conduct. However, the Act also provides 

for the authorization of take and 

exceptions to the take prohibitions. 

Take of listed species by non-Federal 

property owners can be permitted 

through the process set forth in section 

10 of the Act. For Federally funded or 

permitted activities, take of listed 

species may be allowed through the 

consultation process of section 7 of the 

Act. The Service has issued regulations 

(50 CFR 17.31) that generally afford to 

species listed as threatened the 

prohibitions that section 9 of the Act 

establishes with respect to species listed 

as endangered. Furthermore, Section 

4(d) of the Act provides that a special 

rule can be tailored to provide for the 

conservation of a particular threatened 

species. In that case, the general 

regulations for some of the section 17.31 

prohibitions may not apply to that 

species. A special rule may be 

developed that contains specific 

prohibitions or exemptions, as 

necessary and appropriate to conserve 

that species. 

The Act provides for an exemption for 

Alaska Natives in section 10(e) that 

allows any Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo 

who is an Alaskan Native who resides 

in Alaska to take a threatened or 

endangered species if such taking is 

primarily for subsistence purposes and 

the taking is not accomplished in a 

wasteful manner. Further, if it is 

determined that such taking materially 

and negatively affects the threatened or 

endangered species, regulations 

regarding taking may be prescribed. 

Non-edible by-products of species taken 

pursuant to section 10(e) may be sold in 

interstate commerce when made into 

authentic native articles of handicrafts 

and clothing. It is illegal to possess, sell, 

deliver, carry, transport, or ship any 

such wildlife that has been taken 

illegally. Further, it is illegal for any 

person to commit, to solicit another 

person to commit, or cause to be 

committed, any of these acts. Certain 

exceptions to the prohibitions apply to 

our agents and State conservation 

agencies. 

The Act provides for the issuance of 

permits to carry out otherwise 

prohibited activities involving 

threatened or endangered wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.22, 17.23, and 17.32. Such 

permits are available for scientific 

purposes, to enhance the propagation or 

survival of the species, and for 

incidental take in the course of 

otherwise lawful activities provided that 

certain criteria are met. For threatened 

species, permits are also available for 

zoological exhibitions, educational 

purposes, or special purposes consistent 

with the purposes of the Act. Requests 

for copies of the regulations on listed 

species and inquiries about prohibitions 

and permits may be addressed to the 

Endangered Species Coordinator, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East 

Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503. 

It is our policy, published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify, to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not likely constitute a violation 

of section 9 of the Act and associated 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.31. The intent 

of this policy is to increase public 

awareness of the effects of the listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

a species’ range. 

For the polar bear we have not yet 

determined which, if any, provisions 

under section 9, provided these 

activities are carried out in accordance 

with existing regulations and permit 

requirements, would apply. Some 

permissible uses or actions have been 

identified below: 

(1) Possession, delivery, or movement, 

including interstate transport of 

authentic native articles of handicrafts 

and clothing made from polar bears that 

were collected prior to the date of 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
1098 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

publication in the Federal Register of a 

final regulation adding the polar bear to 

the list of threatened species; 

(2) Sale, possession, delivery, or 

movement, including interstate 

transport of authentic native articles of 

handicrafts and clothing made from 

polar bears that were taken and 

produced in accordance with section 

10(e) of the Act; 

(3) Any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by a Federal agency that may 

affect the polar bear, when the action is 

conducted in accordance with an 

incidental take statement issued by us 

under section 7 of the Act; 

(4) Any action carried out for 

scientific research or to enhance the 

propagation or survival of polar bears 

that is conducted in accordance with 

the conditions of a 50 CFR 17.32 permit; 

and 

(5) Any incidental take of polar bears 

resulting from an otherwise lawful 

activity conducted in accordance with 

the conditions of an incidental take 

permit issued under 50 CFR 17.32. NonFederal applicants may design a habitat 

conservation plan (HCP) for the species 

and apply for an incidental take permit. 

HCPs may be developed for listed 

species and are designed to minimize 

and mitigate impacts to the species to 

the greatest extent practicable. 

We believe the following activities 

could potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 and associated regulations at 

50 CFR 17.31 with regard to polar bears, 

however, possible violations are not 

limited to these actions alone: 

(1) Unauthorized killing, collecting, 

handling, or harassing of individual 

polar bears; 

(2) Possessing, selling, transporting, or 

shipping illegally taken polar bears or 

their parts; 

(3) Unauthorized destruction or 

alteration of the denning, feeding, 

resting, or habitats used for travel that 

actually kills or injures individual polar 

bears by significantly impairing their 

essential behavioral patterns, including 

breeding, feeding or sheltering; and, 

(4) Discharge or dumping of toxic 

chemicals, silt, or other pollutants (i.e., 

sewage, oil, pesticides, and gasoline) 

into the marine environment that 

actually kills or injures individual polar 

bears by significantly impairing their 

essential behavioral patterns, including 

breeding, feeding or sheltering. 

We will review other activities not 

identified above on a case-by-case basis 

to determine whether they may be likely 

to result in a violation of 50 CFR 17.31. 

We do not consider these lists to be 

exhaustive and provide them as 

information to the public. You may 

direct questions regarding whether 

specific activities may constitute a 

violation of the Act to the Field 

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife 

Field Office, 101 12th Avenue, Box 110, 

Fairbanks, Alaska 99701. 

Furthermore, the Act, similar to the 

MMPA, provides an exception to the 

prohibitions of take and import for 

Alaska Natives. These exceptions are 

based on the social, cultural and 

economic role marine mammals have 

played, and continue to play, in the 

lives of Alaska Natives. However, under 

both the Act and the MMPA, the 

Service, if warranted, may prescribe 

limitations on the taking or import of 

marine mammals by Alaska Natives. 

Should this proposed rule become final 

the Service will take such action, if 

appropriate, to ensure that any harvest 

of polar bears by Alaska Natives does 

not materially and negatively affect the 

species. 

Regarding ongoing importation of 

polar bear trophies taken from approved 

populations in Canada into the United 

States, we anticipate conducting an 

evaluation of the merits of continuing 

the presently authorized imports. Under 

the MMPA Section 102—Prohibitions 

[Importation of pregnant or nursing 

animals; depleted species which 

includes those listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA] it is 

unlawful to import into the United 

States any marine mammal if the 

mammal was taken from a species or 

population stock that the Secretary has, 

by regulation published in the Federal 

Register, designated as a depleted 

species or stock. The exception to the 

general prohibition is under a permit for 

scientific research, or under a permit for 

enhancing the survival or recovery of a 

species or stock, issued under section 

104(c) of the MMPA. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and based 

on our implementation of the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review, dated December 16, 2004, we 

will seek the expert opinions of at least 

five appropriate and independent 

specialists regarding the science in this 

proposed rule. The purpose of such 

review is to ensure that our warranted 

finding and proposed rule are based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We will send copies of 

this proposed rule to these peer 

reviewers immediately following 

publication in the Federal Register. We 

will invite these peer reviewers to 

comment, during the public comment 

period, on the specific assumptions and 

conclusions regarding the proposed 

listing. We will consider all comments 

and information received during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during preparation of a final 

rulemaking. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 requires 

agencies to write regulations that are 

easy to understand. We invite your 

comments on how to make this proposal 

easier to understand including answers 

to questions such as the following: (1) 

Is the discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble 

helpful in understanding the proposal? 

(2) Does the proposal contain technical 

language or jargon that interferes with 

its clarity? (3) Does the format of the 

proposal (groupings and order of 

sections, use of headings, paragraphing, 

etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? What else 

could we do to make the proposal easier 

to understand? Send a copy of any 

comments that concern how we could 

make this rule easier to understand to: 

Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department 

of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. 

You may also e-mail the comments to 

this address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. The Service 

believes that the past record of 

cooperation demonstrated by oil and gas 

industry in complying with terms of 

Letters of Authorization through the 

Incidental Take program, Section 

101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, as well as active 

participation in monitoring the effects of 

exploration, production, and 

development activities on polar bears 

serves as a sound conservation practice. 

While the Service believes that the 

incidental take program will continue to 

operate effectively to result in a 

negligible affect to polar bears from 

industrial activities in the future, 

continued vigilance and compliance 

will be necessary for protection of the 

species. In addition, added protections 

afforded through Section 7 consultation 

required under the Act provide 

additional assurances to the protection 

of the species. This rule is not expected 

to significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. Therefore, this 

action is not a significant energy action 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1099 

and no Statement of Energy Effects is 

required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that we do not 

need to prepare an Environmental 

Assessment and/or an Environmental 

Impact Statement as defined under the 

authority of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, in connection with 

regulations adopted pursuant to section 

4(a) of the Act. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this proposal is available upon 

request. You may request a list of all 

references cited in this document from 

the Supervisor, Marine Mammals 

Management Office (see ADDRESSES

section). 

Author 

The primary author of this proposed 

rule is Scott Schliebe, Marine Mammals 

Management Office (see ADDRESSES

section). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Bear, polar’’ in alphabetical 

order under MAMMALS, to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate 

population 

where endangered 

or threatened 

Status When 

listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Bear, polar .......................... Ursus maritimus ................. U.S.A. (AK), Canada, Russia, Denmark (Greenland), Norway.Entire ....... T .......... ............. NA ....... NA. 

* * * * * * * 

Dated: December 27, 2006. 

H. Dale Hall, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–9962 Filed 1–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2