Programmatic 

Biological Opinion 

For 

Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus)

On 

Beaufort Sea Incidental Take Regulations 

Photo by Susanne Miller, USFWS 

June 23, 2008 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office 

110 12th Ave, Room 110 

Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 
Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................4 

1. Introduction ...........................................................................................5 

 MMPA Terms ...........................................................................................6 

 ESA Terms ...........................................................................................7 

2. Description of the Proposed Action .......................................................................7 

 Summary of Proposed Regulations ..................................................................8 

 History of Marine Mammal Incidental Take Regulations in Alaska ............................8 

 Current Industry Incidental Take Regulation Request .............................................9 

 Description of Geographic Region ....................................................................9 

 Description of Industry Activities ........................................................................9 

 Exploration Activities ........................................................................10 

 Development Activities .....................................................................12 

 Production Activities ........................................................................13 

 Information Required to Obtain a Letter of Authorization .......................................13 

Letter of Authorization-Specific Measures ........................................................14 

 Conclusions under MMPA ...........................................................................16 

 

3. Status of Species ............................................................................................17 

 Description and Ecological Adaptations ...........................................................17 

 Distribution .............................................................................................18 

Polar Bear Movements ...............................................................................19 

 Feeding Habits .........................................................................................19 

 Breeding Biology ......................................................................................20 

 Survival .................................................................................................22 

 Population Status .......................................................................................23 

 Southern Beaufort Sea Population .........................................................23 

 Chukchi Sea Population .....................................................................23 

 Northern Beaufort Sea Population .........................................................24 

4. Environmental Baseline ....................................................................................25 

 Loss of Sea Ice and Climate Change ...............................................................25 

 Hunting .................................................................................................29 

 Oil and Gas Development ............................................................................29 

 Bear-Human Interactions .............................................................................30 

 Environmental Contaminants ........................................................................31 

 Disease ..................................................................................................32 

 Predation ................................................................................................33 

2
5. Effects of the Action on the Species .....................................................................33 

 Noise Disturbance .....................................................................................34 

 Stationary Sources ...........................................................................37 

 Mobile Sources ...............................................................................37 

 Physical Obstruction ..................................................................................37 

 Human Encounters ....................................................................................40 

 Effects on Prey .........................................................................................40 

 Oil and Fuel Spills ....................................................................................40 

 Impacts on the Physical Environment ..............................................................43 

 Interdependent and Interrelated Actions ............................................................43 

6. Cumulative Effects .........................................................................................43 

 Subsistence Harvest ...................................................................................43 

 Marine Vessel Traffic .................................................................................44 

 Summary of Cumulative Effects.....................................................................44 

7. Conclusion ...................................................................................................44 

 Service Findings under ESA ........................................................................44 

8. Administration of the Programmatic Biological Opinion .............................................46 

9. Incidental Take Statement .................................................................................47 

10. Reasonable and Prudent Measures .....................................................................48 

 

11. Terms and Conditions ....................................................................................49 

12. Conservation Recommendations ........................................................................49 

13. Re-initiation Notice .......................................................................................50 

14. Literature Cited ...........................................................................................51 

Figure 1. Geographic Area of Beaufort Sea Incidental Take Regulations ..............................63 

Appendix 1. Summary of Consultation Activities .........................................................64 

Appendix 2. LOA/ITS Content ...............................................................................65 

3
List of Abbreviations

AOGA = Alaska Oil & Gas Association 

BLM = Bureau of Land Management 

BO = biological opinion 

BOP = blowout preventer 

BPXA = BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. 

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations 

COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CS = Chukchi Sea polar bear population 

DLP = defense of life & property 

EA = Environmental Assessment 

EIS = Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA = Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

FFWFO = Fairbanks Fish & Wildlife Field Office (of the Service, Fairbanks, AK) 

FLIR = Forward Looking Infrared imagery 

FR = Federal Register 

Industry = oil and gas industry 

ITS = Incidental Take Statement 

IUCN = International Union for the Conservation of Nature 

LOA = Letter of Authorization (under sec. 101(a)(5) of the MMPA) 

MMM = Marine Mammal Management Office (of the Service, Anchorage, AK) 

MMO = marine mammal observer 

MMPA = Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended 

MMS = Minerals Management Service 

NB = Northern Beaufort Sea polar bear population 

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act 

NPR-A = National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska 

NWT = Northwest Territory 

OCs = organochlorine compounds 

OCS = outer continental shelf 

PBSG = Polar Bear Specialist Group 

POC = Plan of Cooperation 

POPs = persistent organic pollutants 

PVA = population viability analysis 

Regulations = incidental take regulations for oil and gas exploration activities in the Beaufort Sea 

and adjacent northern coast of Alaska 

SB = Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population 

SDC = steel drilling caisson 

Secretary = Secretary of the Department of the Interior 

Service = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS = U.S. Geological Survey 

4
1. Introduction 

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) programmatic biological 

opinion (BO) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., ESA), on effects to the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) of existing incidental 

take regulations for year-round oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities in 

the Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast of Alaska (Regulations). No other threatened or 

endangered species will be affected by the action. The Beaufort Sea Regulations were finalized on 

August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43925) and provide authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

of 1972, as amended ((16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., MMPA) for the non-lethal, incidental take of small 

numbers of Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and polar bears (MMPA term 

definitions provided below). The Beaufort Sea Regulations are in effect for five years from date of 

issuance and remain effective through August 2, 2011. 

The Service proposed to list the polar bear range-wide as a threatened species under the ESA on 

January 9, 2007 (72 FR 1064, January 9, 2007) (ESA term definitions provided below). Critical 

habitat was not determinable at that time. When a species is proposed for listing, the Service 

utilizes section 7(a)(4) of the ESA that provides a conference mechanism for identifying and 

resolving potential conflicts between a proposed action and proposed species or proposed critical 

habitat. While consultations are required when the proposed action may affect listed species, a 

conference is required only when the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence

of a proposed species or destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat. However, Federal 

action agencies may request a conference on any proposed action that may affect proposed species 

or proposed critical habitat. Because it was determined by the Service that activities authorized in 

the Regulations may affect polar bears, a conference was initiated in January 2008. While the 

conference opinion was being drafted, the final rule listing the polar bear as a threatened species 

was published on May 15, 2008 (73 FR 28211). The conference opinion, therefore, was finalized 

as a BO. 

The Regulations were promulgated by the Service’s Marine Mammal Management (MMM) office. 

ESA section 7 conferences/consultations on proposed/listed species that primarily inhabit northern 

Alaska are conducted by the Service’s Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office (FFWFO). 

Therefore, this consultation for polar bears on the Beaufort Sea Regulations is an intra-Service 

consultation, which considers effects of Service actions on listed species. 

The Service has responsibility for the polar bear under the MMPA and ESA. Section 101(a)(5) of 

MMPA allows for the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals, in response to requests 

by U.S. citizens engaged in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) in a specified 

geographic region; section 7(o)(2) of ESA allows for exemptions, under certain circumstances, to 

the section 9 take prohibitions for endangered and threatened species incidental to otherwise lawful 

activities that have Federal involvement or control. If a marine mammal species is listed as 

endangered or threatened under the ESA, the requirements of both MMPA and ESA must be met 

before the incidental take can be authorized. 

For the Service to consider allowing incidental take under MMPA, a written request for specific 

regulations must be submitted to the Service containing detailed information on the activity as a 

5
whole and impacts of the total potential take. The Service evaluates the impacts resulting from all 

entities conducting the specified activity, not just the impacts from one entity’s activities. If the 

Service finds total taking expected from the specified activity will have a negligible impact on the 

species or stock and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species 

or stock for subsistence uses, specific regulations will be issued that establish permissible methods 

of taking and other means of affecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species. After 

regulations are issued, individual Letters of Authorization (LOAs) must be obtained from the 

Service by those conducting projects under the activity (50 CFR 18.27(f)). LOAs may contain 

project-specific mitigation measures and “will specify the period of validity” (§18.27(f)(4)). LOAs 

for exploration and development projects are issued under the Beaufort Sea Regulations for up to 

one year. Production fields are issued LOAs for the duration of the Regulations, where annual 

monitoring reports are required annually in order for the LOA to remain valid. 

For the Service to exempt incidental take under ESA, the Service must conclude that the take 

associated with a Federal action (1) is not likely to jeopardize listed species, or destroy or adversely 

modify designated critical habitat, (2) results from an otherwise lawful activity, and (3) is 

incidental to the purpose of the action. Further, the exemption provided as a result of formal 

consultation must include measures to minimize take. Therefore, consistent with ESA and 

regulations at 50 CFR §402.14(i), incidental take statements for marine mammals are not included 

in formal consultations until regulations, authorizations, or permits under section 101(a)(5) of the 

MMPA are in effect. 

Generally, if an action meets the MMPA standard of negligible impact in a specified geographic 

area of consideration, there should be little potential for the action to jeopardize the species. 

Indeed, during early conference discussions, the Service concluded that the Regulations are not 

likely to pose jeopardy to polar bears under ESA, particularly because the species was proposed 

range wide, and the negligible impact determination for the Regulations was made at the affected 

stock level (i.e., Southern Beaufort Sea stock). See Appendix 1 for a summary of consultation 

activities. 

Definitions of key terms used in the Regulations and this BO are listed below. Additional 

definitions for MMPA terms can be found in 50 CFR Part 18; additional definitions for ESA terms 

can be found at 50 CFR §402. An administrative record of this consultation is on file at the 

FFWFO in Fairbanks, AK. 

MMPA Terms: 

Incidental, but not intentional, taking - take events that are infrequent, unavoidable, or accidental. 

This does not mean that the taking must be unexpected. 

Negligible impact - an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Small numbers – refers to a portion of a marine mammal species or stock whose taking would have 

a negligible impact on that species or stock. 

6
Take - to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine 

mammal. For activities other than military readiness activities or scientific research conducted by 

or on behalf of the Federal government, the MMPA defines harassment as any act of pursuit, 

torment, or annoyance which: (1) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (the MMPA calls this Level A harassment); or (2) 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 (the 

MMPA calls this Level B harassment). 

Unmitigable adverse impact - is an impact resulting from the specified activity (1) that is likely to 

reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs 

by (i) causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) directly displacing 

subsistence users, or (iii) placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the 

subsistence hunters; and (2) that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the 

availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met. 

ESA Terms: 

Incidental take – take of listed fish or wildlife species that results from, but is not the purpose of, 

carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by a Federal agency or applicant. 

Jeopardize the continued existence - to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, 

directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a 

listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species. 

Listed species – any species of fish, wildlife or plant which has been determined to be endangered 

or threatened under section 4 of the ESA. 

May affect - the appropriate conclusion when a proposed action may pose any effects on listed 

species or designated critical habitat. 

Take - to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to 

engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service as an act which actually kills 

or injures wildlife, and may include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in 

death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service as actions that create the likelihood of 

injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which 

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. 

Threatened species – any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

2. Description of the Action 

This section provides a description of the Federal action. In this case, the action under 

consideration is the Service’s Beaufort Sea Incidental Take Regulations under section 101(a)(5) of 

7
the MMPA, not the Industry activities themselves (although those activities are described herein). 

Neither the action nor this programmatic BO provides authorization for the actual activities 

associated with oil and gas exploration, development, or production. Industry activities included in 

the Beaufort Sea Regulations will need to acquire all appropriate Federal and/or State permits in 

order to legally proceed. 

The Service will conduct separate consultations as needed on other agency actions and Industry 

activities in the Beaufort Sea, as they are proposed. For example, the Service notified Minerals 

Management Service (MMS) that incremental actions associated with Lease Sale 193 in the 

Chukchi Sea will require a polar bear ESA consultation if the species is listed (USFWS 2007), as 

would oil and gas development within the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska (NPR–A). In the 

Beaufort Sea, although subsequent Federal approvals (such as MMS issuing an exploration permit) 

would require consultation, we would expect such subsequent consultations to be greatly 

streamlined as long as the action is fully consistent with the Beaufort Sea MMPA Regulations. 

This description of the action is based upon the Final Rule Beaufort Sea Incidental Take 

Regulations (71 FR 43925, August 2, 2006), the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Final 

Rule (dated June 2006), and LOAs that have been issued by the Service since the Regulations’ 

effective start date. The action promulgates Regulations for walruses and polar bears, both of 

which are presented here for completeness because they are frequently inter-related. However, this 

BO only considered effects of the Regulations on the polar bear. 

Summary of Proposed Regulations 

The Regulations authorize the non-lethal, incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of Pacific 

walruses and polar bears during year-round oil and gas industry (Industry) exploration, 

development, and production activities in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast of Alaska. 

The rule is in effect for up to five years from the date of issuance. The Regulations include 

permissible methods of non-lethal taking, measures to ensure the least practicable adverse impact 

on the species and the availability of these species for subsistence uses, and requirements for 

monitoring and reporting. The action also includes subsequent issuance by the Service of LOAs to 

conduct specific projects under the provisions of these Regulations when requested by citizens of 

the United States. In the Regulations, the Service finds the total expected takings of walruses and 

polar bears during Industry activities will have a negligible impact on these species and will not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of these species for subsistence use by 

Alaska Natives. 

History of Marine Mammal Incidental Take Regulations in Alaska 

Industry conducts activities, such as oil and gas exploration, development, and production, in 

marine mammal habitat that could result in the taking of marine mammals. Although Industry is 

under no legal requirement to obtain incidental take authorizations, since 1991, Industry has 

requested, and the Service has issued regulations for, incidental take authorization for conducting 

activities in areas of walrus and polar bear habitat. Incidental take regulations for walruses and 

polar bears in the Beaufort Sea were issued previously from 1993 to present: November 16, 1993 

(58 FR 60402); August 17, 1995 (60 FR 42805); January 28, 1999 (64 FR 4328); February 3, 2000 

(65 FR 5275); March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16828); November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66744); and August 2, 

2006 (71 FR 43926). In the adjacent Chukchi Sea, incidental take regulations have been issued 

8
previously for the period of 1991–1996 (56 FR 27443; June 14, 1991) and currently for the period 

of 2008-2013 (73 FR 33211, June 11, 2008). 

Current Industry Incidental Take Regulation Request 

On August 23, 2002, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), on behalf of its members, 

(Alyeska Pipeline Service Company; Marathon Oil Company; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation 

Petro Star, Inc.; BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc.; Phillips Alaska, Inc.; ChevronTexaco Corporation; 

Shell Western E&P, Inc.; Cook Inlet Pipe Line Company; Tesoro Alaska Company; Cook Inlet 

Region, Inc.; Total E&P USA; EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc.; UNOCAL; Evergreen Resources, 

Inc.; Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc.; ExxonMobil Production Company; XTO Energy, Inc.; and 

Forest Oil Corporation) requested that the Service promulgate regulations to allow the non-lethal, 

incidental take of small numbers of walruses and polar bears in the Beaufort Sea for a period of 

five years. AOGA, on behalf of its members, provided an addendum in August 2004. In July 

2004, BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. (BPXA) requested regulations to cover its operations. As, the 

BPXA request was encompassed by the scope of the AOGA request, the petitions were combined. 

The combined requests were for regulations to allow the incidental, non-lethal take of small 

numbers of walruses and polar bears in association with oil and gas activities in the Beaufort Sea 

and adjacent coastline projected out to the year 2011. The information provided by the petitioners 

indicated that projected oil and gas activities over this timeframe will include offshore and onshore 

exploration activities and new and ongoing development and production activities. The petitioners 

specifically requested that these regulations be issued for non-lethal take. Industry has indicated 

that, through implementation of the mitigation measures, it is confident lethal take will not occur. 

Description of Geographic Region 

The Regulations allow Industry to incidentally take small numbers of walruses and polar bears 

within the same area, referred to as the Beaufort Sea Region (Figure 1), as covered by previous 

regulations. This region is defined by a north-south line through Point Barrow, Alaska, and 

includes all Alaska coastal areas, State waters, and all Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) waters east of 

that line to the Canadian border. The onshore region is the same north-south 

line at Point Barrow, 40 kilometers (25 miles) inland, and extending east to the Canning River. 

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not included in the area covered by these regulations. It is 

noteworthy that the north–south line at Point Barrow is the eastern border of the geographic region 

of the current Chukchi Sea incidental take regulations. 

The area described above also constitutes the “action area” for the purposes of this BO. The 

“action area” is the area that encompasses all direct and indirect effects of a proposed action. 

Description of Industry Activities 

This section briefly describes the types and scale of oil and gas activities projected to occur in the 

Beaufort Sea Region over the specified time period (2006–2011). This information is based upon 

information provided by the petitioners and LOAs issued since the effective date of the 

Regulations. The Service has used these descriptions of activity as a basis for its findings. If 

requests for LOAs exceed the projected scope of activity analyzed under the Regulations, the 

Service would reevaluate its findings to determine if they continue to be appropriate before further 

LOAs are issued. 

9
The Service does not know all specific locations where oil and gas activities will occur over the 

regulatory period. The location and scope of the specific activities will be determined based on a 

variety of factors, including the outcome of future Federal and State oil and gas lease sales and 

information gathered through subsequent exploration activities. 

Incidental take regulations do not authorize the placement and location of Industry activities; they 

can only authorize incidental take of walruses and polar bears. Allowing the activity at particular 

locations is part of the permitting process which is authorized by the lead permitting agency, such 

as Minerals Management Service (MMS), Army Corps of Engineers (COE), or Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). However, the Service can influence the placement of infrastructure within 

projects through mitigation measures in order to minimize disturbance and protect polar bears. The 

specific dates and durations of the individual operations and their geographic locations will be 

provided to the Service in detail when requests for LOAs are submitted. 

Oil and gas activities anticipated and considered in the analysis of the Beaufort Sea Regulations 

include exploration, development, and production operations of oil and gas reserves, as well as 

environmental monitoring associated with these activities, on the northern coast of Alaska. 

Alaska’s North Slope encompasses an area of 228,644 square km (88,280 square mi) and currently 

contains 11 oil and gas field units associated with Industry. These include the Greater Prudhoe 

Bay, Duck Island, Badami, Northstar, Kuparuk River, Colville River, Oguruk, Tuvaq, Nikaitchuq, 

Milne Point, and Point Thomson. These units can encompass exploration, development, and 

production activities. In addition, some of these fields include associated satellite oilfields: Sag 

Delta North, Eider, North Prudhoe Bay, Lisburne, Niakuk, Niakuk-Ivashak, Aurora, Midnight Sun, 

Borealis, West Beach, Polaris, Orion, Tarn, Tabasco, Palm, West Sak, Meltwater, Cascade, 

Schrader Bluff, Sag River, and Alpine. Additional proposed satellite prospects identified within or 

near existing oil and gas field units, such as Pioneer Natural Resource’s Gwydyr Bay leases and 

Kerr McGee’s Two Bits Prospect, were also analyzed in the rule. 

Exploration Activities 

Exploration activities may occur onshore or offshore and include: geological surveys; geotechnical 

site investigations; reflective seismic exploration; vibrator seismic data collection; airgun and water 

gun seismic data collection; explosive seismic data collection; vertical seismic profiles; subsea 

sediment sampling; construction and use of drilling structures such as caisson-retained islands, ice 

islands, bottom-founded structures (steel drilling caisson), ice pads and ice roads; oil spill 

prevention, response, and cleanup; and site restoration and remediation. Exploration activities 

could also include the development of staging facilities. The level of exploration activities is 

expected to be similar to the level during the past regulatory periods, although exploration projects 

may shift to different locations, particularly NPR–A. The location of new exploration activities 

within the geographic region of the rule will, in part, be determined by the following State and 

Federal oil and gas lease sales: 

• State of Alaska Lease Sales: The State of Alaska practices area-wide leasing in which the State 

annually offers all available State acreage not currently under lease within areas that are already 

subjected to leasing. North Slope Area-wide Lease Sales are held annually in October. Five 

10
lease sales have been held as of 2006. As of July 2004, there are 777 active leases in this area, 

encompassing 2.4 million acres. Beaufort Sea Area-wide Lease Sales are held annually in 

October. Four lease sales have been held as of 2006. As of July 2004, there are 194 active 

leases in this area, encompassing 440,000 acres. Future State of Alaska lease sales will 

continue. 

• Northeast Planning Area of NPR–AI: Two lease sales have been held in the Northeast Planning 

Area of NPR–A. The 1999 lease sale resulted in the sale of 133 tracts, and the 2002 sale 

resulted in the sale of 60 tracts. Acreage awarded under these two lease sales totals 1.4 million 

acres. Thirteen exploratory wells have been drilled as of 2006. Lands in the Northeast NPR-A 

were originally made available for leasing pursuant to a 1998 Northeast NPR-A Integrated 

Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (IAP/EIS) Record of Decision (ROD). In 2006, 

the Secretary of the Interior amended the 1998 ROD to make additional lands available for 

leasing, pursuant to an Amended IAP/EIS. In September 2006, the 2006 ROD was vacated by 

the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. BLM then prepared a Supplemental IAP/EIS 

in order to make additional lands available for leasing but to defer from leasing lands northeast 

of Teshekpuk Lake for 10 years. As of the date of this BO, the ROD has not been issued. 

• OCS Lease Sales: In February 2003, the MMS issued the Final EIS for three lease sales 

planned for the Beaufort Sea Planning Area in the OCS. Sale 186 was held in September 2003, 

resulting in the leasing of 34 tracts. Sale 195 was held in March 2005. Sale 202 was held in 

April 2007. While the disposition of the leases purchased is highly speculative at this time, it is 

probable that at least some seismic exploration and possibly some exploratory drilling could 

take place during the 5-year period of the regulations. 

Exploratory drilling for oil is an aspect of exploration activities. Exploratory drilling and 

associated support activities and features include: transportation to site; setup of up to 100-person 

camps and support camps (lights, generators, snow removal, water plants, wastewater plants, 

dining halls, sleeping quarters, mechanical shops, fuel storage, camp moves, landing strips, aircraft 

support, health and safety facilities, data recording facility and communication equipment); 

building gravel pads; building gravel islands with sandbag and concrete block protection; ice 

islands; ice roads; gravel hauling; gravel mine sites; road building; pipelines; electrical lines; water 

lines; road maintenance; buildings and facilities; operating heavy equipment; digging trenches; 

burying and covering pipelines; sea lift; water flood; security operations; dredging; moving floating 

drill units; helicopter support; and drill ships such as the SDC, CANMAR Explorer III, and the 

Kulluk. 

During the regulatory period, exploration activities are anticipated to continue in the current oil 

field units, including those projects identified by Industry below. 

• Oguruk Unit: The Oguruk Unit is located adjacent to and immediately northwest of the 

Kuparuk River Unit in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea, near Thetis Island. During the 

initial analysis of the petition, the unit operator, Pioneer Natural Resources, was conducting a 

feasibility study for the potential development of reservoirs encountered in previous exploration 

drilling. As of 2008, Pioneer began oil production. Facilities include an offshore production 

11
island between Thetis Island and the Colville River Delta, a 9.2-km (5.7-mi) underground 

pipeline, where landfall occurs near the mouth of the Kalubik Creek. 

• Nikaitchuq Unit: The Nikaitchuq Unit is located near Spy Island, north of Oliktok Point and 

the Kuparuk River Unit, and northwest of the Milne Point Unit. The original operator, KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Corporation, drilled three exploratory wells on and immediately adjacent to 

Spy Island, 6.4 km (4.0 mi) north of Oliktok Point in the ice-covered season of 2004–2005. 

ENI Petroleum is the current owner, and they are moving to develop this site as a future 

production area. Facilities will include one offshore production islands south of the Jones 

Island group and approximately 21 km (13 mi) of underground pipeline connecting the sites to 

a mainland landfall near Oliktok Point and one mainland production facility at Oliktok Point. 

• Two Bits Prospect and Nearshore Stratigraphic Test Well, Eastern Beaufort Sea: Since 

promulgation of the Regulations, these two projects are no longer proposed. 

Exploration activities that occur beyond the current oil field units were also analyzed, including the 

Industry projects below. 

• Shell Exploration and Production Company’s Beaufort Sea Program: Shell Exploration and 

Production Company has conducted an open water seismic program, which consists of an 

estimated 4,828 km (3,000 mi) of 3D seismic line acquisition and site clearance surveys for the 

past two years in the central Beaufort Sea. The open water program involves geotechnical 

work and will occur between August and October annually, depending on ice and whaling 

activities. 

• Cape Simpson Support Program; Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation (UIC): UIC entered into 

lease agreements with the North Slope Borough to operate North Slope facilities between 

Prudhoe Bay and Barrow in support of oil and gas exploration activities. UIC is developing a 

staging area at Cape Simpson, between Smith Bay and Dease Inlet, on the Beaufort Sea coast. 

The following activities are likely to occur during their operations on the North Slope: marine 

transportation and barging; fixed and temporary camp operations; equipment and materials 

staging and storage; flight operations; ice road construction; and exploration site support. 

Development Activities 

Development activities associated with oil and gas industry operations include: road construction; 

pipeline construction; waterline construction; gravel pad construction; camp construction 

(personnel, dining, lodging, maintenance shops, water plants, wastewater plants); transportation 

(automobile, airplane, and helicopter traffic); runway construction; installation of electronic 

equipment; well drilling; drill rig transport; personnel support; and demobilization, restoration, and 

remediation. 

In the most recent Beaufort Sea Regulations petition, the Alpine West Development was identified 

as an Industry development activity at the time of analysis. The development and construction of 

five Alpine satellite drill sites (identified as CD–3 through CD–7), gravel roads, an airstrip, and 

pipelines was in its second year in 2006. Two of the drill sites, CD–3 (also known as Fiord 

prospect or CD-North), and CD–4, (also known as the Nanuq prospect or CD South), are in the 

12
Colville River Delta. The CD–3 drillsite is located north of CD–1 (Alpine facility) and is proposed 

to be a roadless development. The remaining drill sites are proposed to be connected to CD–1 by 

road. Three of the drill sites, CD–5 (also known as Alpine West prospect), CD–6 (Lookout 

prospect), and CD–7 (Spark prospect), are in the NPR–A. Construction of CD–3 and CD–4 drill 

sites began in winter 2004/2005, with production startup for both drill sites in late summer 2006. 

The three NPR–A drill sites are scheduled for construction from the winter 2007 through winter 

2010. All drill sites are scheduled to be in production by summer 2010. 

BPXA is planning to develop the Liberty oil field in the Beaufort Sea using extended reach drilling 

technology from onshore. The Liberty prospect is located approximately 8.9 km (5.5 mi) offshore 

in 6 meters (20 feet) of water, approximately 13 km (8 mi) east of the Endicott development. The 

development of Liberty was first proposed in 1998 when BPXA submitted a plan to the MMS for a 

production facility on an artificial island in Foggy Island Bay. In 2002, BPXA put the project on 

hold to review project design and economics after the completion of BPXA’s Northstar project. In 

August 2005, BPXA moved the project onshore to take advantage of advances in extended reach 

drilling. Liberty wells will extend as much as 13 km (8 mi) offshore. 

Production Activities 

Production activities encompass activities in support of oil and gas production within the oil and 

gas field units. These include: personnel transportation (automobiles, airplanes, helicopters, boats, 

rolligons, cat trains, and snowmobiles); and unit operations (building operations, oil production, oil 

transport, restoration, remediation, and improvement of oil field operations). Production activities 

are permanent, year-round activities, whereas exploration and development activities are usually 

temporary and seasonal. 

Production units and facilities analyzed for the Regulations included those operated by BPXA 

(Greater Prudhoe Bay, Endicott, Milne Point, Badami, Northstar), ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. 

(Kuparuk River, Alpine), and Pioneer Natural Resources Alaska, Inc. (Oguruk). Two other 

production projects are in development and have the potential to be producing oil within the 

timeframe of the regulations. They are the Nikaitchuq Development, operated by ENI Petroleum 

and the Liberty Development, operated by BPXA. If the activities and potential impacts are within 

the scope of activities and impacts analyzed in this rule, LOAs may be issued for the activity. 

Proposed production activities will increase the total area of the industrial footprint by the addition 

of new facilities, such as drill pads, pipelines, and support facilities, in the geographic region; 

however, oil production volume is expected to decrease during the 5-year regulatory period, despite 

new fields initiating production. This is due to currently producing fields reducing output and new 

fields not replacing that output. Current monitoring and mitigation measures, described later, will 

be kept in place. 

Information Required to Obtain a Letter of Authorization 

Per 50 CFR §18.124(c) of the Regulations, applicants for a LOA must include the following: 

(1) A description of the activity, the dates and duration of the activity, the specific location, and 

the estimated area affected by that activity, i.e., a Plan of Operation. 

13
(2) A site-specific plan to monitor the effects of the activity on the behavior of polar bear and 

Pacific walrus that may be present during the ongoing activities. The monitoring program 

must document the effects to these marine mammals and estimate the actual level and type 

of take. The monitoring requirements will vary depending on the activity, the location, and 

the time of year. 

(3) A site-specific polar bear awareness and interaction plan. 

(4) A Plan of Cooperation to mitigate potential conflicts between the proposed activity and 

subsistence hunting, where relevant. This Plan of Cooperation must identify measures to 

minimize adverse effects on the availability of polar bear and Pacific walrus for subsistence 

uses if the activity takes place in or near a traditional subsistence hunting area. Some of 

these measures may include, but are not limited to, mitigation measures described in 

§18.128. 

Letter of Authorization-Specific Measures 

Mitigation, monitoring and reporting measures are generally required by the Service for each LOA 

issued under incidental take regulations. Accordingly, the following will also be required under the 

Beaufort Sea Regulations (§18.128): 

(a) We require holders of Letters of Authorization to cooperate with us and other designated 

Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor the impacts of oil and gas exploration, 

development, and production activities on polar bear and Pacific walrus. 

(b) Holders of Letters of Authorization must designate a qualified individual or individuals to 

observe, record, and report on the effects of their activities on polar bear and Pacific walrus. 

(c) All holders of Letters of Authorization are required to have an approved polar bear and/or 

walrus interaction plan on file with the Service and on-site, and polar bear awareness 

training will also be required of certain personnel. Interaction plans must include: 

(1) The type of activity and, where and when the activity will occur, i.e., a Plan of 

Operation; 

(2) A food and waste management plan; 

(3) Personnel training materials and procedures; 

(4) Site at-risk locations and situations; 

(5) Walrus/bear observation and reporting procedures; and 

(6) Bear/walrus avoidance and encounter procedures. 

(d) All applicants for a Letter of Authorization must contact affected subsistence communities 

to discuss potential conflicts caused by location, timing, and methods of proposed 

operations and submit to us a record of communication that documents these discussions. If 

appropriate, the applicant for a Letter of Authorization must also submit to us a Plan of 

Cooperation that ensures that activities will not interfere with subsistence hunting and that 

adverse effects on the availability of polar bear or Pacific walrus are minimized. 

(e) Mitigation measures that may be required on a case-by-case basis include: 

14
(1) The use of trained marine mammal monitors associated with marine activities. We 

may require a monitor on the site of the activity or on board drill ships, drill rigs, 

aircraft, icebreakers, or other support vessels or vehicles to monitor the impacts of 

Industry’s activity on polar bear and Pacific walrus. 

(2) The use of den habitat map developed by the USGS. A map of potential coastal 

polar bear denning habitat can be found at: 

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/sis_summaries/polar_bears_sis/mapping_dens.htm. 

This measure ensures that the location of potential polar bear dens is considered 

when conducting activities in the coastal areas of the Beaufort Sea. 

(3) The use of Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) imagery, polar bear scent-trained dogs, 

or both to determine the presence or absence of polar bear dens in area of the 

activity. 

(4) Restricting the timing of the activity to limit disturbance around dens. 

(5) Requiring a 1-mile exclusion buffer surrounding known dens. If known occupied 

dens are located within an operator’s area of activity, we will require a 1-mile 

exclusion buffer around the den to limit disturbance or require that the operator 

conduct activities after the female bears emerge from their dens. We will review 

these requirements for extenuating circumstances on a case-by-case basis. 

(f) For exploratory and development activities, holders of a Letter of Authorization must 

submit a report to our Alaska Regional Director (Attn: Marine Mammals Management 

Office) within 90 days after completion of activities. For production activities, holders of a 

Letter of Authorization must submit a report to our Alaska Regional Director (Attn: Marine 

Mammals Management Office) by January 15 for the preceding year’s activities. Reports 

must include, at a minimum, the following information: 

(1) Dates and times of activity; 

(2) Dates and locations of polar bear or Pacific walrus activity as related to the 

monitoring activity; and 

(3) Results of the monitoring activities required under subsection (g) of this section, 

including an estimated level of take. 

(g) Monitoring requirements include, but are not limited to: 

(1) For all activities, all sightings of polar bears and walrus must be recorded. To the 

extent possible, the monitor will record group size, age, sex, reaction, duration of 

interaction, and closest approach to Industry activity. 

(2) Activities within the coast of the geographic region may incorporate daily polar bear 

watch logs. 

(3) Polar bear monitors will be required under the monitoring plan if polar bears are 

known to frequent the area or known polar bear dens are present in the area. 

Monitors will act as an early detection system in regards to proximate bear activity 

to Industry facilities. 

(4) Offshore sites may require systematic monitoring protocols for polar bears and 

walrus due to their nearshore locations. Systematic monitoring may be implemented 

to statistically monitor observation trends of walrus or polar bears in the nearshore 

areas where they usually occur. 

15
Conclusions under MMPA

The Service’s conclusions regarding the amount of incidental take anticipated for polar bears (and 

walruses) and impacts on the species under the Regulations are as follows (summarized from the 

Beaufort Sea Incidental Take Regulations final rule; 71 FR 43925, August 2, 2006): 

Based on the best scientific information available, the results of monitoring data from previous 

regulations, the results of modeling assessments, and the status of the population, the Service found 

that any incidental take reasonably likely to result from the effects of oil and gas related 

exploration, development, and production activities during the period of the rule, in the Beaufort 

Sea and adjacent northern coast of Alaska will have no more than a negligible impact on polar 

bears and Pacific walrus. In making this finding, the following were considered: (1) the 

distribution of the species; (2) the biological characteristics of the species; (3) the nature of oil and 

gas industry activities; (4) the potential effects of Industry activities and potential oil spills on the 

species; (5) the probability of oil spills occurring; (6) the documented impacts of industry activities 

and oil spills on the species, (7) mitigation measures that will be conditions in the LOAs and 

minimize effects; and (8) other data provided by monitoring programs that have been in place since 

1993. Specific to polar bears, the Service found that: (1) the Beaufort Sea polar bear population is 

widely distributed throughout its range, and (2) polar bears typically occur in low numbers in 

coastal and nearshore areas where most Industry activities occur. Furthermore, the Service does 

not expect disturbances related to activities to affect the rates of recruitment or survival for the 

polar bear. The Regulations do not authorize lethal take and the Service does not anticipate any 

lethal take will occur. 

Generic conditions (described in Letter of Authorization-Specific Measures, above) are attached 

to each LOA. These conditions minimize interference with normal breeding, feeding, and possible 

migration patterns to ensure that the effects to the species remain negligible. MMM may add 

additional measures depending upon site-specific and species-specific concerns. For example, 

restrictions in denning areas will be applied on a case-by-case basis after assessing each LOA 

request, and may include requirements for pre-activity surveys (e.g., aerial surveys, FLIR surveys, 

or polar bear scent-trained dogs) to determine the presence or absence of denning activity, and/or 

enhanced monitoring or flight restrictions, such as minimum flight elevations, in known denning 

areas. MMM analyzes the required plan of operation and interaction plans to ensure that the level 

of activity and possible take are consistent with the finding that total incidental take will have a 

negligible impact on polar bear and Pacific walrus. 

It is important to note that while an initial determination of negligible impact is made at the time 

the Regulations are issued (in this case, 2006) based on the best information at the time, each 

request for a LOA is evaluated to ensure it is consistent with this determination. The evaluation 

consists of the type and scope of the individual project, an analysis of all current species 

information, including the required monitoring reports from previously issued LOAs, and considers 

the effects of the individual project when added to all current LOAs in the geographic area. 

Through these means, the type and level of take to polar bears is continuously evaluated throughout 

the life of the Regulations in order to maintain a level of negligible impact. 

16
3. Status of Species 

This section presents biological and ecological information relevant to formation of the BO. 

Appropriate information on the polar bear’s life history, habitat and distribution, and description of 

other factors necessary for their survival is included for analysis in later sections. The Range-wide 

Status Review of the Polar Bear (Schleibe et al. 2006), final rule listing the polar bear as a 

threatened species (73 FR 28211, May 15, 2008), USGS Administrative Reports, other agency 

reports, published literature, and personal communication with species experts were utilized in 

preparing this section. 

Description and Ecological Adaptations 

Polar bears are the largest of the living bear species (DeMaster and Stirling 1981) and occur 

throughout portions of the Northern Hemisphere where the sea is ice-covered for all or much of the 

year (Amstrup 2003). Polar bears depend upon sea ice for access to their prey and for other aspects 

of their life history (Stirling and Øritsland 1995; Stirling and Lunn 1997; Amstrup 2003). Because 

the principle habitat of polar bears is sea ice, it is considered a marine mammal, and was included 

in those species covered under the MMPA. 

Polar bears are characterized by a large stocky body, with a longer neck and proportionately 

smaller head than other members of the bear family, although without the distinct shoulder hump 

common to brown bears (Ursus arctos). Polar bears exhibit sexual dimorphism, with female body 

length, skull size, and body mass considerably less than males (Derocher et al. 2005). Adult males 

have been recorded weighing 654 kilograms (1,440 pounds) (Kolenosky et al. 1992), with some 

individuals estimated at 800 kg (1,760 pounds), but too large for weighing equipment (DeMaster 

and Stirling 1981). Adult females weigh 181 to 317 kg (400 to 700 pounds). Polar bear fur color 

varies between white, yellow, gray, and brown, and is affected by oxidation or exposure to air, light 

conditions, and staining due to contact with fats from prey items. The nose, lips, and skin of polar 

bears is black (DeMaster and Stirling 1981, Amstrup 2003). 

Polar bear genetics indicate the species branched off from brown bears and occupied an open niche 

on the surface of the sea ice during maximal extent of the continental ice sheets in the late 

Pleistocene; based upon molecular genetic techniques, this could have occurred as long as 250,000 

years ago (Amstrup 2003). Subsequent behavioral and physical adaptations have allowed polar 

bears to increasingly specialize at hunting seals from the surface of the ice (Stirling 1974, Smith 

1980, Stirling and Øritsland 1995). 

Physical adaptations to life on sea ice include the whitish pelage with water repellent guard hairs 

and dense underfur, a short furred snout, and small ears. Polar bear teeth have become very 

specialized for a carnivorous diet, rather than the omnivorous diet of the brown bear (Amstrup 

2003). Their teeth are well suited to grab prey and eat fat from the meat and hide and less well 

suited for grinding grasses or other vegetation (Amstrup 2003). Polar bear feet have hair on the 

bottoms and are large and paddle-like (Stirling 1988). That adaptation probably assists in 

swimming and also helps disperse weight and avoid breaking through when walking on thin ice 

(Stirling 1988). Polar bear claws are shorter and more strongly curved than those of brown bears, 

and larger and heavier than those of black bears (Ursus americanus), and appear to be well adapted 

to traveling over blocks of ice and snow and to securely gripping prey animals (Amstrup 2003). 

17
Polar bears are well adapted for thermoregulation in the extreme cold conditions of the Arctic 

(Schliebe et al 2006). Normal body temperature of a resting polar bear is 37.0o Celsius (98.6o 

Fahrenheit), similar to other mammals (Best 1982, Stirling 1988). A combination of fur and hide 

properties, and up to 11 centimeters (4.5 inches) of blubber serve as excellent insulators and 

maintain body temperatures and metabolic rates at near normal levels at environmental 

temperatures of -37o C (-34.6o F) (Stirling 1988). However, polar bears are susceptible to 

overheating (Best 1982, Stirling 1988). Polar bears radiate heat from their muzzle, nose, ears, 

footpads, insides of the thighs, and blood vessels in the shoulder region near the skin (Stirling 

1988). Polar bears can cool by swimming, because water conducts heat approximately 20 times 

more efficiently than air (Stirling 1988). Young cubs, however, can become chilled by swimming 

if it cools the body too much (Blix and Lentfer 1979, Stirling 1988). Polar bears also conserve 

energy by curling into a ball when exposed to extreme cold, windy weather, or sprawl out to keep 

cool on warm days (Stirling 1988). Bears in warm areas like Hudson Bay also move very little in 

summer in order to stay cool and conserve energy (Knudsen 1978, Derocher and Stirling 1990). 

Unlike other species of bears where both sexes may hibernate, only pregnant female polar bears 

hibernate through the winter (Stirling 1988, Amstrup 2000). This is specialized winter dormancy, 

and not true hibernation. It is typified by a slightly depressed heart rate and temperature, during 

which time the bear does not feed and lives off accumulated fat stores (Stirling 1988, Amstrup 

2003). Polar bears can also enter a hibernation-like state facultatively, as needed (Derocher et al. 

2004). This allows polar bears to feed hyperphagically (dramatically increase food intake to be 

stored as fat), both seasonally and when an unpredictable opportunity presents itself, and then slow 

down their metabolism to make stored fat reserves last longer during periods of food shortage 

(Derocher et al 1990, Ramsay et al 1991, Stirling and Øritsland 1995). Their metabolic flexibility 

and ability to digest fat with 98 percent efficiency are important adaptations to the arctic 

environment, and probably what allows polar bears to fast the summer months on shore in Hudson 

Bay (Schliebe et al. 2006). 

Distribution 

Polar bears are distributed throughout regions of the arctic and subarctic waters where the sea is 

ice-covered for large portions of the year. Patterns in spatial segregation suggested by telemetry 

data, along with information from surveys, marking studies, and traditional knowledge, resulted in 

recognition of 19 partially discrete polar bear groups by the International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) for the purposes of 

management [the distribution of the subgroups is illustrated in the final rule listing the polar bear 

(73 FR 28212, May 15, 2008; page 28216)]. There is considerable overlap in areas occupied by 

members of these groups (Amstrup et al. 2005) and the boundaries have been adjusted as new data 

are collected. 

Two of these populations (Southern Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea) occur in Alaska, with an area 

of seasonal intermingling of both populations that roughly overlaps with the geographic boundaries 

of the Beaufort Sea Regulations. 

18
Polar Bear Movements

Information from telemetry studies indicate polar bear movements are not random, nor do they 

passively follow ocean currents on the ice as previously thought (Pedersen 1945, Mauritzen et al. 

2003). Movement data come almost exclusively from adult female polar bears because male 

anatomy (their neck is larger than their skull) will not accommodate radio collars. Movements of 

seven male polar bears surgically implanted with transmitters in 1996 and 1997 were compared to 

movements of 104 females between 1985 and 1995 (Amstrup et al. 2001), which indicated males 

and females had similar activity areas on a monthly basis, but males traveled farther each month 

(Amstrup et al. 2000b). Activity areas have not been determined for many of the populations, and 

what information is available reflects movement data collected prior to the recent changes of 

retreating ice conditions. In the Beaufort Sea, annual activity areas for individually monitored 

female bears averaged 149,000 km2 (57,529 mi2), ranging from 13,000 km2 to 597,000 km2 (5,019 

mi2 to 230,503 mi2) (Amstrup et al. 2000b.). Total annual movements by female bears in the 

Beaufort Sea averaged 3,415 km (2,122 mi) and ranged up to 6,200 km (3,853 mi), with 

movements rate of >4.0 km/hr (2.5 mi/hr) sometimes sustained for long periods, and movements of 

>50 km/day (31 mi/day) observed (Amstrup et al. 2000b). The mean activity area in the Chukchi 

Sea, characterized by highly dynamic ice conditions, was 244,463 km2

 (94,388 mi2) (Garner et al. 

1990). The average annual distance moved by Chukchi Sea female bears was 5,542 km (3,444 mi). 

Telemetry data from radio-collared females indicates some individuals occupy home ranges (or 

“multi-annual activity areas”) which they seldom leave (Amstrup 2003). The size of a polar bear’s 

home range is determined, in part, by the annual pattern of freeze-up and break-up of sea ice, and 

therefore by the distance a bear must travel to obtain access to prey (Stirling 1988, Durner et al. 

2004). A bear that has consistent access to ice, leads (channels of open water though areas of ice), 

and seals may have a relatively small home range, while bears in areas such as the Barents, 

Greenland, Chukchi, Bering or Baffin seas may have to move many hundreds of kilometers each 

year to remain in contact with sea ice from which they can hunt (Born et al. 1997, Mauritzen et al. 

2001, Ferguson et al. 2001, Amstrup 2003, Wiig et al. 2003). 

Feeding Habits 

Polar bears derive essentially all their sustenance from marine mammal prey and have evolved a 

strategy that utilizes the high fat content of marine mammals (Best 1985, Amstrup et al. 2007). 

Over half the caloric content of a seal carcass is located in the layer of fat between the skin and 

under laying muscle (Stirling and McEwan 1975). Polar bears show their preference for fat by 

quickly removing the fat layer from beneath the skin after they catch a seal. High fat intake that 

can be achieved by specializing on marine mammal prey allows polar bears to thrive in the harsh 

Arctic environment (Stirling and Derocher 1990, Amstrup 2003). 

Over much of their range, polar bears are dependent on one species of seal, the ringed seal (Phoca 

hispida). Polar bears occasionally catch belugas (Delphinapterus leucas), narwhals (Monodon 

monocerus), walrus, and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) (Smith 1985, Calvert and Stirling 1990, 

Smith and Sjare 1990, Stirling and Øritsland 1995, Derocher et al. 2002). Where common, bearded 

seals (Erignathus barbatus) can be a large part of polar bear diets, and are probably the second 

most common prey item (Derocher et al. 2002). Walruses can be seasonally important in some 

parts of the polar bear range (Parovshchikov 1965, Ovsyanikov 1996). However, throughout most 

of their range, polar bears are most dependent upon ringed seals (Smith and Stirling 1975, Smith 

19
1980), and the relationship between ringed seals and polar bears is so close that the abundance of 

ringed seals in some areas appears to regulate the density of polar bears, while polar bear predation 

in turn, regulates density and reproductive success of ringed seals (Hammill and Smith 1991, 

Stirling and Øritsland 1995). 

Polar bears can rarely catch seals on land or in open water (Furnell and Oolooyuk 1980); rather 

they consistently catch seals and other marine mammals at the air-ice-water interface, where 

aquatic mammals come to breathe (Amstrup et al. 2007). Although there are local exceptions, it 

appears that polar bears gain little overall benefit from alternate foods (Amstrup et al. 2007). Even 

in Hudson Bay where polar bears are forced onto land for extended periods with access to a variety 

of foods including human refuse, little terrestrial food is incorporated into polar bear tissues 

(Ramsay and Hobson 1991). Therefore, maintenance of polar bear populations is dependent upon 

marine prey, largely ringed seals, and polar bears are tied to the surface of the ice for effective 

access to that prey (Amstrup et al. 2007). 

Breeding Biology 

Polar bears have an intrinsically low reproductive rate characterized by late age of sexual maturity, 

small litter sizes, and extended parental investment in raising young. Female 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). 

Implantation is delayed until autumn, and gestation is 195 to 265 days (Uspenski 1977), with active 

development of the fetus suspended for most of that time. The timing of implantation, and 

therefore the timing of birth, is likely dependent upon body condition of the female, which in turn 

is dependent upon a variety of environmental factors (Schliebe et al. 2006). Derocher et al. (1992) 

documented Hudson Bay polar bear births occurred from mid-November through mid- December. 

In the Beaufort Sea many pregnant females did not enter dens until late November or early 

December (Amstrup and Gardner 1994), and a later date of birth is assumed. 

Throughout their range, most pregnant female polar bears excavate dens in snow located on land 

during September through November after drifts large enough to excavate a snow cave have 

formed (Ramsay and Stirling 1990, Amstrup and Gardner 1994). The only known exceptions are 

in Western and southern Hudson Bay where polar bears excavate earthen dens and later reposition 

into adjacent snow drifts (Jonkel et al. 1972, Richardson et al. 2005), 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 an accumulation of sufficient snow combined with 

winds to cause snow accumulation leeward of topographic features that create denning habitat 

(Harington 1968). The common characteristic of all denning habitat is topographic features that 

catch snow in the autumn and early winter (Durner et al. 2003). 

Polar bear denning habitat in Alaska includes areas of low relief topography characterized by 

tundra with riverine banks within approximately 50 km (31 mi) of the coast (Amstrup 1993, 

Amstrup and Gardner 1994, Durner et al. 2001, 2003), and offshore pack ice pressure ridge habitat. 

The northern Alaskan coast receives minimal snow fall, but because the landscape is flat, snow is 

blown throughout winter creating drifts in areas of relief. 

20
Fidelity to denning locales was investigated by Amstrup and Gardner (1994), in which 27 females 

were located at up to four successive maternity dens. Bears that denned once on pack ice were 

more likely to den on pack ice than on land in subsequent years. Similarly, bears were faithful to 

general geographic areas – those that denned once in the eastern half of the Alaska coast were more 

likely to den there than to the west in subsequent years. Annual variations in weather, ice 

conditions, prey availability, and the long-distance movements of polar bears (Amstrup et al. 1986, 

Amstrup et al. 2000b, Garner et al. 1990) make recurrence of exact denning locations unlikely. 

Chronology of denning varies between polar bear populations. Satellite telemetry studies 

determined mean dates of den entry in the Beaufort Sea were 11 and 22 November for land (n = 

20) and pack ice (n = 16), respectively (Amstrup and Gardner 1994). Female bears were foraging 

right up to the time of den entry, and then denned nearby. The mean date of emergence was 26 

March for pack ice dens (n = 10) and 5 April for land dens (n = 18). Messier et al. (1994) reported 

mean date of den entry and exit varied among years depending upon sea ice, snow, and weather 

conditions; mean entry into maternal dens in the Canadian Arctic was 17 September and mean 

emergence was 21 March, with females and cubs remaining near dens for a mean 13 (SE = 13) 

days post emergence. Ferguson et al. (2000) observed that bears denning at higher latitudes 

entered dens a bit later than those to the south, but that exit times did not differ by latitude; they 

reported a mean den entry of 15 September (1 September to 7 October), a mean exit of 20 March 

(15 to 28 March), with a mean 180 days in dens (163 to 200 days). For bears denning on sea ice or 

moving from sea ice to land denning habitat, time of sea ice consolidation can alter the onset of 

denning. Sea ice dens must be in ice stable enough to stay intact for up to 164 days while possibly 

moving hundreds of kilometers by currents (Amstrup 2003, Wiig 1998). 

Polar bears are largely food deprived while on land in the ice-free period and survive by mobilizing 

fat during that time. Pregnant females that spend the late summer on land then go into dens and 

may not feed for eight months (Watts and Hansen 1987, Ramsay and Stirling 1988). This may be 

the longest period of food deprivation of any mammal, and it occurs when the female could be 

gestating and lactating. 

Polar bears give birth in the dens during mid-winter (Kostyan 1954, Harington 1968, Ramsay and 

Dunbrack 1986). Survival and growth of the cubs depends on the warmth and stable environment 

within the maternal den (Blix and Lentfer 1979). Family groups emerge from dens in March and 

April when cubs are about three months old and able to survive in the outside weather conditions 

(Blix and Lentfer 1979, Amstrup 1995). 

Newborn polar bears are very small, weighing only approximately 0.6 kg (1.3 pounds) (Blix and 

Lentfer 1979), and nurse from their hibernating mothers. Cubs grow very quickly and may weigh 

10 to 12 kg (22 to 26.4 pounds) by the time they emerge from the den about three months later. 

Young bears stay with their mothers until weaned, 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 the cubs 

are weaned. Therefore, in most areas, the minimum successful reproductive interval for polar bears 

is 3 years (Schliebe et al. 2006). 

Age of maturation of mammals is often associated with a threshold body mass (Sadleir 1969), and 

in polar bear populations it appears to be largely dependent on numbers and productivity of ringed 

21
seals. In the Beaufort Sea, ringed seal densities are lower in some areas of the Canadian High 

Arctic and Hudson Bay. As a possible consequence, female polar bears in the Beaufort Sea usually 

do not breed for the first time until they are 5 years of age (Stirling et al. 1976, Lentfer and Hensel 

1980). This means they give birth for the first time at 6 years of age. In contrast, many of the 

Canada females reach maturity at age 4 and produce their first young at age 5 (Stirling et al. 1977, 

1980, 1984; Ramsay and Stirling 1982, 1988; Furnell and Schweinsburg 1984). Derocher et al. 

(1992) calculated average age of first breeding in the Hudson Bay area of 4.1 years, and cub 

production (assessed by estimated pregnancy rates) remained high between 5 and 20 years of age 

and declined thereafter. 

Litter size and production rates vary by geographic area and may change in response to hunting 

pressure, environmental factors, and other population perturbations. Litters of two cubs are 

common (Schliebe et al. 2006), with litters of three cubs occurring sporadically across the Arctic 

and most commonly reported in the Hudson Bay region (Stirling et al. 1977, Ramsay and Stirling 

1988, Derocher and Stirling 1992). Average litter size across the species range varied from 1.4 to 

1.8 cubs (Schliebe et al. 2006), and several studies have linked reproduction to availability of seal 

prey, especially in the northern portion of their range. Body weights of mother polar bears and 

their cubs decreased markedly in the mid-1970s in the Beaufort Sea following a decline in ringed 

and bearded seal pup production (Stirling et al. 1976, 1977, Kingsley 1979, DeMaster et al. 1980, 

Stirling et al. 1982, Amstrup et al. 1986). Declines in reproductive parameters varied by region and 

year with the severity of ice conditions and corresponding reduction in numbers and productivity of 

seals (Amstrup et al. 1986). In the Beaufort Sea, females produce a litter of cubs at an annual rate 

of 0.25 litters per adult female (Amstrup 1995). Annual litter production rate in Hudson Bay 

region declined from 0.45 litters/female in the period 1965-1979 to 0.35 litters/female during 1985-

1990 (Derocher and Stirling 1992). 

Polar bear reproduction lends itself to early termination without extensive energetic investment on 

the female (Ramsay and Dunbrack 1986, Derocher and Stirling 1992). Female polar bears may 

defer reproduction in favor of survival when foraging conditions are difficult (Derocher et al. 

1992). Persistent deferral of reproduction could cause a declining population trend in populations 

with an intrinsically low rate of growth (Schliebe et al. 2006). 

Survival 

Polar bears are long-lived animals; the oldest known female polar bear in the wild was 32 years of 

age and the oldest known male was 28, although few bears in the wild live beyond 20 years 

(Stirling 1990). 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 (Schliebe et al. 2006; Taylor et al. unpublished data). Amstrup and Durner 

(1995) report that high survival rates (exceeding 90% for adult females) are essential to sustain 

populations. 

Survival of cubs is dependent upon their weight when they exit maternity dens (Derocher and 

Stirling 1992), and most cub mortality occurred early in the period after emergence from the den 

(Amstrup and Durner 1995, Derocher and Stirling 1996), with early age mortality generally 

associated with starvation (Derocher and Stirling 1996). Survival of cubs to weaning stage 

(generally 27-28 months) is generally estimated to range from 15 to 56 percent of births (Schliebe 

22
et al. 2006). Subadult survival rates are poorly understood because collars cannot be used on these 

rapidly growing individuals. 

Population age structure data indicate subadults 2 to 5 years survive at lower rates than adults 

(Amstrup 1995), probably because their hunting and survival skills are not fully developed (Stirling 

and Latour 1978). Eberhardt (1985) hypothesized adult survival rates must be in the upper 90 

percent range to sustain polar bear populations. Studies using telemetry monitoring of individual 

animals (Amstrup and Durner 1995) estimated adult female survival in prime age groups may 

exceed 96 percent, and survival estimates are a reflection of the characteristics and qualities of an 

ecosystem to maintain the health of individual bears (Schliebe et al. 2006). Polar bears that avoid 

serious injury may become too old and feeble to hunt efficiently and most are generally believed to 

die of old age. Local and widespread climatic phenomena that have the potential to make seals less 

abundant or less available can significantly affect polar bear populations through survival or 

production (Kingsley 1979, DeMaster et al 1980, Amstrup et al. 1986, Stirling 2002). 

Population Status 

The total number of polar bears worldwide is estimated to be 20,000 to 25,000 bears (Aars et al. 

2006). Worldwide population summaries were derived from information presented at the 

IUCN/PBSG meeting held in Seattle, Washington in June 2005, and updated with results available 

in October 2006 (Aars et al. 2006). Information presented for each population is based upon status 

reports and revisions given by each nation. Population sizes and associated uncertainty in 

estimates, historical and predicted human-caused mortality, population trends, and rationale for 

determination of status are presented (Aars et al. 2006). 

Southern Beaufort Sea Population 

The Southern Beaufort Sea (SB) population occurs between Icy Cape, Alaska on the western 

boundary and Pearce Point, Northwest Territory (NWT), Canada (Amstrup et al. 1986, Amstrup 

and DeMaster 1988, Stirling et al. 1988). The size of the SB population was estimated to be 

approximately 1,800 animals in 1986 (Amstrup et al. 1986). A new population assessment derived 

from capture-recapture data collected during 2001 to 2006 estimated 1,526 (95 percent CI = 1,211 - 

1,841) polar bears in the region in 2006 (Regehr et al. 2006). Because the precision of the earlier 

estimate was low, the two estimates cannot be statistically differentiated. The harvest of polar 

bears in the SB region is shared between Canada and the United States and since 1988 has been 

managed under the “Polar Bear Management Agreement for the Southern Beaufort Sea” by the 

Inuvialuit Game Council of Canada, and the North Slope Borough of Alaska. The harvest quota 

for the SB is 80 animals (40 for Alaska and 40 for NWT). In 2004/2005 the joint harvest was 46 

bears (Schliebe et al. 2006, Branigan et al. 2006). The status of the SB population is designated as 

reduced (73 FR 28212, May 15, 2008; page 28217) and the predicted trend is declining (Aars et al. 

2006). 

Chukchi Sea Population 

The Chukchi Sea (CS) population is widely distributed on the pack ice of the northern Bering, 

Chukchi, and eastern portions of the Eastern Siberian seas (Garner et al. 1990, Garner et al. 1994, 

Garner et al. 1995). Polar bears are seasonably abundant in the Chukchi Sea and their distribution 

is influenced by the movement of the seasonal pack ice. Polar bears in the Chukchi and Bering 

Seas move south with the advancing ice during fall and winter and move north in advance of the 

23
receding ice in late spring and early summer (Garner et al. 1990). Polar bears are dependent upon 

the sea ice for foraging and the most productive areas seem to be near the ice edge, leads, or 

polynyas (irregularly shaped areas of persistent open water that are sustained by winds or ocean 

heat) where the ocean depth is minimal (Durner et al. 2004). In addition polar bears could be 

present along the shoreline as they opportunistically scavenge on marine mammal carcasses 

(Kalxdorff and Fischbach 1998). 

The current CS population size is not precisely known, but an estimate of approximately 2,000 was 

made in 1993 (Aars et al. 2006, Schliebe et al. 2006). The size of the population was derived from 

observations of dens and aerial surveys (Chelintsev 1977, Stishov 1991, Stishov et al. 1991); but 

the estimates have wide ranges (about 200 to 500 animals), so are considered of little use for 

management. Reliable estimates of population size based upon mark and recapture studies are not 

available for this region, and measuring the population size is a research challenge. It is believed 

the status of the CS population increased after the harvest was reduced in 1972, but the status and 

trend cannot yet be determined for this population (73 FR 28212, May 15, 2008; page 28217). The 

CS population is subject to subsistence hunting in Alaska where average annual harvest levels 

declined about 50 percent between the 1980s and 1990s (Schliebe et al. 1998) and have remained at 

low levels in recent years. No hunting quota is set for Alaska; in 2004/2005, 32 bears were 

harvested in Alaska. There is believed to be a substantial illegal harvest in Russia where a 

minimum of 100 bears are thought to be harvested annually, and in some years the estimates have 

exceeded 200 animals killed in Russia (Schliebe et al. 2006). Currently the combined AlaskaChukotka polar bear harvest is believed to exceed sustainable levels, and the CS polar bear 

population is considered uncertain or declining (Aars et al. 2006). 

Northern Beaufort Sea Population 

The Northern Beaufort (NB) population of polar bears generally inhabits the eastern and northern 

Beaufort Sea in the Canadian region where sea ice converges on shorelines throughout most of the 

year. Population estimates based upon open population capture-recapture models indicate the 

current NB population is 980 (±155, 95 percent CI) and is not significantly different than earlier 

estimates for the periods of 745 (± 246, 95 percent CI) for 1972 to 1975, and 867 (±141, 95 percent 

CI) for 1985 to 1987 (Stirling et al 2007). This population of polar bears currently is considered 

stable, and the status is believed to not be reduced (73 FR 28212, May 15, 2008; page 28217). 

Boundaries and population estimates of these three populations are of particular interest for U.S.–

based activities and management considerations because there is potential overlap of bears in some 

areas. Stirling (2002) reviewed the ecology of polar bears and seals in the Canadian sector of the 

Beaufort Sea from 1970 to 2000, and recent analyses of the radio-telemetry data in the SB suggest 

some boundary realignments (Amstrup et al. 2004, Amstrup et al 2005). It is thought that nearly all 

bears in the central coastal region of the Beaufort Sea are from the SB population, and that 

proportional representation of SB bears decreases to both the west and east. For example, only 50 

percent of polar bears occurring in Barrow, Alaska and Tuktoyaktuk, NWT are SB bears, with the 

remainder being from the CS and NB populations. Assignment of new boundaries may be 

suggested in the future that reflect improved understanding of the spatial and temporal use patterns 

of bears in the SB region (Amstrup et al. 2005). Presumably new population estimates would be 

derived for any new defined boundary areas, but the population estimates presented above (Aars et 

24
al. 2006, Schliebe et al. 2006, Regehr et al. 2006) reflect the use of the previously-published 

boundaries for the SB stock of polar bears. 

4. Environmental Baseline

The environmental baseline is the current status of listed species and their habitats, and the current 

status of critical habitat (if applicable), as a result of past and ongoing human and natural factors in 

the area of the proposed action. Also included in the environmental baseline are the anticipated 

impacts of other proposed Federal projects in the action area. 

The polar bear is listed as a threatened species throughout its range. The total number of polar 

bears worldwide is estimated to be 20,000 to 25,000 bears (Schliebe et al. 2006). Abundance 

estimates for the Alaska subpopulations under consideration in this BO are approximately 1,500 

bears in the SB population, approximately 2,000 bears in the CS population, with unknown, but 

presumably limited, amount of co-mingling from the NB population of about 980 animals. 

The primary habitat of polar bears is sea ice, from which they hunt, feed, seek mates and breed, 

den, and rest when traveling long distances. Most polar bears remain on the sea ice year-round or 

spend only limited time on land. No polar bear critical habitat has been proposed for designation at 

this time. 

Current threats to polar bears range-wide were described in the Status Review (Schliebe et al. 

2006) and the final listing rule (73 FR 28212, May 15, 2008). Loss of sea ice habitat due to climate 

change was identified as the primary threat to polar bears range-wide. Other threats evaluated 

included hunting, oil and gas development, human-bear interactions, environmental contaminants, 

disease, and predation. Whereas loss of sea ice habitat is considered the principle threat to polar 

bears, each of the other threats could become more significant in the future in combination with 

effects of climate change (Schliebe et al. 2006). The documented or anticipated effect of each 

threat is described below. 

Loss of Sea Ice and Climate Change 

The final listing rule summarizes many of the observed changes in Arctic sea ice that are of 

particular importance to the status of polar bears including reductions in the extent of both summer 

and winter ice, length of the melt period, and reduction in sea ice thickness (73 FR 28212, May 15, 

2008 pages 28219-28224). Recent years have seen record low September Arctic sea ice extent, and 

the shallow continental shelf waters of the Chukchi Sea experienced a rapid and complete retreat of 

sea ice during the summer of 2007 (National Snow and Ice Data Center 2007). The 4th Assessment 

Report of the IPCC (IPCC 2007; http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm) observed that 

decreases in snow and ice extent are consistent with climate warming, and that satellite data since 

1978 show that annual average Arctic ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 percent (90 percent CI = 2.1 to 

3.3 percent) per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 percent (90 percent CI = 5.0 to 9.8 

percent) per decade. 

Polar bear studies in the SB region began in 1967 and constitute the longest and most consistent 

dataset on polar bears. Regehr et al. (2007) reviewed recent survival and breeding of polar bears in 

25
the SB relative to sea ice conditions observed in 2001 though 2006. The SB population of polar 

bears occurs in the divergent ice ecoregions of the polar basin, where polar bears have historically 

remained on multiyear sea ice as it retreats toward the center of the polar basin during the summer 

(Amstrup 2003, Amstrup et al. 2007). Rates of decline in sea ice extent in this ecoregion have been 

among the highest in the Arctic (Meier et al. 2007). Declining sea ice extent and degrading ice in 

the SB have been associated with a shift toward more land-based denning and less denning in 

regions with higher rates of ice degradation (Fischbach et al. 2007), declines in cub survival 

(Regehr et al. 2006), and observations of drowned, emaciated, and cannibalized polar bears 

(Amstrup et al. 2006, Monnett and Gleason 2006, Stirling et al. 2008). Regehr et al. (2007) 

concluded that in 2002, the ice-free period over the continental shelf in the SB region was 

relatively short (mean 92 days) and survival of adults female polar bears was high (approximately 

0.99, 90 percent CI = 0.10 to 1.0). In 2004 and 2005, the ice-free period was longer (mean 135 

days) and survival of adult female polar bears was lower (approximately 0.77, 90 percent CI = 0.53 

to 0.94). Breeding and cub-of-the-year litter survival also declined from high rates to lower rates in 

latter years of the study. Regehr et al. (2007) further concluded that although the precision of 

estimated vital rates was low, subsequent analysis (Hunter et al. 2007) indicated the declines in 

vital rates associated with longer ice-free periods have ramification for the probability of 

persistence of the SB population of polar bears. Further, the results by Regher et al. (2007) are 

relevant to over one-third of the world’s polar bears that inhabit regions of the polar basin with sea 

ice dynamics similar to the SB and have already experienced more severe ice changes than the SB. 

Because Regehr et al.’s analysis of the SB population dynamics was short in duration relative to the 

life history of polar bears, continued monitoring is recommended to further elucidate the 

relationship between declining sea ice and polar bear population metrics. 

Effects of sea ice loss on polar bear populations range wide have been considered by the Service 

based upon recent information. In 2007, a USGS science team released 9 reports (highlighted 

below) to the Service that included (1) new observational data on polar bears, including updated 

information on the current status of 3 of the world’s 19 subpopulations of polar bears, and (2) 

projections of the future distribution and abundance of polar bears in the rest of the 21st century, 

given changes expected in future sea ice conditions. The reports are available at: 

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/. 

The overall conclusion of the USGS research effort was that if projected changes in future sea ice 

conditions are realized, approximately two-thirds of the world’s current polar bear population will 

be lost by the mid-21st century. Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to 

be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be 

conservative (Amstrup et al. 2007). 

Below are key USGS findings: 

1. The range of the polar bear was divided into 4 ecoregions based on major differences in 

current and projected sea ice conditions (Amstrup et al. 2007). These ecoregions were 

the: 

 Seasonal Ice Ecoregion which includes Hudson Bay, and occurs mainly at the 

southern extreme of the polar bear range, 

 Archipelagic Ecoregion of the Canadian Arctic, 

26
 Polar Basin Divergent Ecoregion where ice is formed and then drawn away from 

near-shore areas, especially during the summer minimum ice season (it includes 

the southern Beaufort, Chukchi, East Siberian-Laptev, Kara, and Barents seas), 

and 

 Polar Basin Convergent Ecoregion where sea ice formed elsewhere tends to 

collect against the shore. 

Dividing the range of the polar bear into these 4 ecoregions allowed inferences from 

available knowledge about subpopulations in each ecoregion to the entire ecoregion. 

2. Projections were made of future sea ice in each ecoregion, based on 10 general 

circulation models, chosen from among 20 available (DeWeaver 2007). These 10 models 

did the best job of simulating current ice conditions and thus could be expected to do the 

best job of simulating future ice conditions. Outputs for “business as usual” greenhouse 

gas forcing (known as the SRES-A1B scenario) were used for most analyses. 

3. An important conclusion from a review of current knowledge about sea ice and sea ice 

modeling is that Arctic sea ice decline is likely underestimated by the available models 

(DeWeaver 2007). 

4. Based on new findings from the Northern Beaufort subpopulation, polar bear 

subpopulations in the convergent ice ecoregion of the polar basin are likely currently 

stable; most available information about the status of populations living in the 

archipelagic ecoregion, suggests relative stability (Stirling et al. 2007). 

5. For two subpopulations of polar bears, Western Hudson Bay in the seasonal sea ice 

ecoregion, and Southern Beaufort Sea in the divergent ecoregion, it is now possible to 

relate declines in the availability of sea ice to declines in metrics of population status 

(Rode et al. 2007, Regehr et al. 2006, Regehr et al. 2007, Obbard et al. 2007). 

6. Knowledge of how polar bear population growth rates relate to specific changes in sea 

ice (e.g., length of the ice-free season) provides a mechanism for developing projections 

of future populations under different sea ice scenarios (Regehr et al. 2007). 

7. Under a range of future sea ice scenarios for the 21st century and modeling approaches, 

the Southern Beaufort Sea subpopulation of polar bears is projected to decline severely 

by the end of the century, and in many scenarios, by mid-century (Amstrup et al. 2007). 

8. Polar bears primarily use sea ice over the continental shelf. They also prefer ice that is 

greater than 50 percent in concentration. Taking these habitat features into account, 

USGS projected future polar bear habitat within the polar basin for the divergent and 

convergent ice ecoregions using the available sea ice models. USGS evaluated how 

availability of polar bear habitat in the polar basin has changed in recent years. 

9. Optimal habitat in the polar basin (including both the divergent and convergent ice 

ecoregions) declined between the early (1985-1995) and latter decades (1996-2006) of 

27
the observational record of sea ice (based on passive microwave data). Most pronounced 

polar bear habitat loss in the past decade has occurred in peripheral seas of the Arctic 

Ocean - the Chukchi Sea and Barents/Greenland Seas (Amstrup et al. 2007). 

10. Similarly, losses of polar bear habitat within the polar basin are projected to be greatest 

for the peripheral seas of the polar basin (e.g., the Chukchi Sea and Barents Sea) 

(Amstrup et al. 2007). 

11. The largest reductions in habitat in the polar basin are predicted for spring and summer. 

Sea ice will reform each winter, but the large retreats of sea ice in summer may 

ultimately preclude bears from returning to onshore denning habitat. Low productivity 

of the polar basin appears to preclude bears from adapting a seasonal ice lifestyle here 

(Amstrup et al. 2007). 

12. A 42 percent loss of optimal polar bear habitat during summer in the polar basin is 

predicted by mid century (Amstrup et al. 2007). 

13. Due to unavailability of telemetry data showing habitats chosen by polar bears in the 

archipelagic and seasonal sea ice ecoregions, it is not possible to project habitat changes 

in these ecoregions for this analysis. Using a simple deterministic model of future 

carrying capacity for polar bears, it is forecast that polar bears could be extirpated in the 

divergent ice ecoregion within 75 years, assuming that sea ice decline follows the mean 

trajectory predicted by the 10 models used. If sea ice decline follows the minimum 

trajectory predicted, extirpation in this ecoregion could occur by year 45 (Amstrup et al. 

2007). 

15. Using the carrying capacity model, population declines of polar bears are projected in 

all other ecoregions at all time steps, with severity of decline dependent upon whether 

minimum, maximum, or mean ice projections were used. The only exception was a 

slight, temporary, increase in the polar basin convergent ice ecoregion for the 45 year 

timestep and the maximum ice scenario (Amstrup et al. 2007). 

16. Based on a first-generation Bayesian Network model1 incorporating a range of factors 

affecting polar bears, USGS forecasted extirpation of polar bear populations in the 

seasonal sea ice and the polar basin divergent ecoregions by 45 years from present 

(Amstrup et al. 2007). 

17. Extirpation of polar bear populations in the polar basin convergent ecoregion is 

predicted by 75 years from present. In the archipelagic ecoregion, polar bears could 

occur through the end of the century, but in smaller numbers than now (Amstrup et al. 

2007). 

 

1

 Bayesian Network models represent a set of interacting variables that are linked by probabilities. They provide an 

efficient way to represent and summarize understanding of a system, and can combine empirical data and expert 

knowledge into the same modeling structure. They are also particularly useful in synthesizing large amounts of 

quantitative and qualitative information to answer “what if” kinds of questions. 

28
18. Sea ice conditions would have to be substantially better than even the most conservative 

general circulation model projections to result in qualitatively different outcomes for 

polar bears in any of the ecoregions (Amstrup et al. 2007). 

The populations of polar bears under consideration in this BO, primarily the SB and CS stocks, 

inhabit the Polar Basin Divergent Ecoregion, an area documented to be undergoing the most 

dramatic and rapid reduction in seasonal sea ice, and accordingly are predicted to undergo the most 

rapid population declines. 

Hunting 

Prior to the 1950s, most polar bear hunting was conducted by indigenous people for subsistence 

purposes. Population declines due to sport hunting became an increasing international concern 

during the 1950s and 1960s. In 1968, the IUCN/PBSG was formed and developed the 1973 

International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, which called for international 

management of polar bear populations based on sound conservation practices. It prohibits polar 

bear hunting except by local people using traditional methods, calls for protection of females and 

denning bears, and bans use of aircraft and large motorized vessels to hunt polar bears. The PBSG

meets every 3 to 5 years to review all aspects of polar bears science and management, including

harvest management. At present, concern exists for potential over-harvest of several populations of 

polar bears, including the CS populations (Schliebe et al. 2006). 

Oil and Gas Development 

Each of the Parties to the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears has developed detailed 

regulations pertaining to the extraction of oil and gas within their countries. Most oil and gas 

activity within polar bear habitat is currently occurring in the U.S. (Alaska). Documented impacts 

on polar bears by the oil and gas industry in the U.S. 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 causeways that link these facilities to the mainland. 

During those periods, the likelihood of interactions between polar bears and industry activities 

increases. The Service’s MMM has found that the polar bear interaction planning and training 

requirements set forth in the Beaufort Sea Regulations and required through the LOA process have 

increased polar bear awareness and minimized these encounters. LOA requirements have also 

increased the Service’s knowledge of polar bear activity in the developed areas. 

No lethal take associated with the oil and gas industry has occurred during the period covered by 

incidental take regulations in either the Beaufort or Chukchi seas. 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 NWT 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 are known to have been killed due to 

encounters associated with the current Industry activities on the North Slope of Alaska. 

29
Bear-Human Interactions 

Polar bears come into conflict with humans partly because they will scavenge for food at sites of 

human habitation and also because they may occasionally prey or attempt to prey upon humans 

(Stirling 1988). “Problem bears” are most often sub-adults, because they are inexperienced hunters 

and have the most difficulty hunting, and because their feeding habits include more scavenging 

than adult bears (Stirling 1988). In the NWT, a preliminary study found that 36 of 44 “problem 

bears” killed between 1972 and 1999 were less than five years of age (Lunn et al. 2002). In the 

Canadian Beaufort Sea, 12 of the 16 “problem bears” killed from 1973 to 1983 whose ages were 

determined were 5 years of age or less, with an average age of 2.25 years (Stirling 1988). After 

sub-adults, females with cubs are the most likely type of bear to interact with humans, because 

females with cubs are likely to be thinner and hungrier than single adult bears and starving bears 

will risk death in an attempt to obtain food (Stirling 1988). 

Adult male polar bears, unlike adult black or grizzly bears, are less likely to frequent areas of 

human habitation, presumably because adult male polar bears are usually in better physical 

condition than other sex or age classes (Stirling 1988). In the Beaufort Sea, adult males were 

present for protracted periods of time near settlements feeding on bowhead whale remains during 

the fall period of 2002 to 2005 (Miller et al. 2006). The reason for the unusual presence of adult 

males near a North Slope village is unknown but suggests that these animals were attracted by the 

presence of the carcasses and may have been nutritionally stressed. 

In Nunavut, Canada, details from 618 polar bear defense of life and property (DLP) kills that 

occurred from 1970 to 2000 were analyzed (Dyck 2006). The study found that most bears killed 

were less than 6 years of age (73 percent), the majority of bears were males (71 percent), and most 

interactions occurred at Native hunting camps (74 percent). Sources of food were believed to be a 

contributing factor in many instances but other possible reasons were an increase in land use 

activities, or the number of camps, increased human populations in areas of high polar bear 

activity, increased polar bear population size, and climatic warming related to earlier departure 

from ice habitat to terrestrial habitats. The implementation of a DLP monitoring program in 1980 

resulted in a decrease in the number of kills, although recently increased levels of DLP have been 

reported (Dowsley 2005, Dyck 2006). 

Some experts predict that the number of interactions and DLP kills will increase as climate change 

continues (Derocher et al. 2004). Amstrup (2000) observed that direct interactions between people 

and bears in Alaska have increased markedly in recent years, and that this trend is expected to 

continue. Schliebe et al. (2006) confirmed this observation with data from hunter-harvested polar 

bears in Alaska. The number of bears taken for safety reasons, based on three-year running 

averages, increased steadily from about 3 per year in 1993, to about 12 in 1998, and has averaged 

about 10 per year recently. There are several plausible explanations for this increase. First it could 

be an artifact of increased reporting by the hunters, or of an increased polar bear population and 

corresponding increased probability of interactions with humans. Alternatively or in combination, 

polar bears from the SB and CS populations typically move from the pack ice to the near shore 

environment in the fall to take advantage of the higher productivity of ice seals over the continental 

shelf. In the 1980s and early 1990s, the near shore environment would have been frozen by early 

or mid October, allowing polar bears to effectively access seals in the area. Since the late 1990s, 

the timing of ice formation in the fall has occurred later in November or early December, resulting 

30
in an increased amount of time that the area was not accessible to polar bears. Consequently, bears 

spent a greater amount of time on land and not feeding. The later formation of near-shore ice 

increases the probability of bear-human interactions occurring in coastal villages (Schliebe et al. 

2006). 

The increased use of coastal habitats by polar bears during the fall in recent years is further 

supported by data from aerial surveys along the coast and barrier islands from Barrow to the 

Canadian border and from information from local residents in coastal villages in northern and 

western Alaska. The number of bears using coastal habitats has been relatively stable in the most 

recent years, possibly explaining why DLP kills have stabilized. 

Environmental Contaminants 

Three main types of contaminants in the Arctic are thought to present the greatest potential threat to 

polar bears and other marine mammals: petroleum hydrocarbons, persistent organic pollutants 

(POPs), and heavy metals. 

Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

Potential exposure of polar bears to petroleum hydrocarbons comes from direct contact and 

ingestion of crude oil and refined products from acute and chronic oil spills. Polar bear range 

overlaps with many active and planned oil and gas operations within 40 km (25 mi) of the coast or 

offshore (Schliebe et al. 2006). To date, no major oil spills have occurred in the Alaska marine 

environment within the range of polar bears. 

Polar bears could come in contact with oil spilled in the marine or land environment, or by 

ingesting contaminated prey (Neff 1990). Polar bears groom themselves regularly as a means to 

maintain the insulating properties of their fur, so oil ingestion would also be likely during grooming 

behavior by a fouled bear (Neff 1990). Some direct information on oiled polar bears comes from 

an experimental study (St. Aubin 1990) in which two polar bears were involuntarily forced into a 

pool of oil for 15 minutes and then observed. The animals immediately attempted to clean the oil 

from their paws and forelegs by licking, and continued grooming trying to clean their fur for five 

days. After 26 days one bear died of liver and kidney failure and the other bear was euthanized at 

day 29. Gastrointestinal fungus-containing ulcers, degenerated kidney tubules, low-grade liver 

lesions, and depressed lymphoid activity were found during necropsy (St. Aubin 1990). Other 

effects included loss of hair (Derocher and Stirling 1991), anemia, anorexia, and stress (St. Aubin 

1990). 

Additionally, 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, Derocher and 

Stirling 1991). 

Due to the seasonal distribution of polar bears, the times of greatest impact from an oil spill are 

summer and autumn (Amstrup et al. 2000a). This is important because distributions of polar bears 

are not uniform through time. In fact, near-shore densities of polar bears are two to five times 

greater in autumn than in summer (Durner et al. 2000), and polar bear use of coastal areas during 

31
the fall open water period has increased in recent years in the Beaufort Sea. Though there is a low 

probability that a large number of bears (i.e., 25 to 60) might be affected by a large oil spill, the 

impact of a large spill, particularly during the broken ice period, could be significant to the polar 

bear population (71 FR 43926, USFWS 2006). 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 SB polar bear 

population. 

Industrial development of any kind in polar bear habitat may also expose individuals to other 

hazardous substances through improper storage or spills. For example, one polar bear died in 

Alaska from consuming ethylene glycol in 1988 (Amstrup et al. 1989). 

Contamination of the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions through long-range transport of pollutants has 

been recognized for over 30 years (Bowes and Jonkel 1975, deMarch et al. 1998, Proshutinsky and 

Johnson 2001, MacDonald et al. 2003, Lie et al. 2003). The Arctic ecosystem is particularly 

sensitive to environmental contamination due to the slower rate of breakdown of POPs, including 

organochlorine compounds (OCs), 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). The highest concentrations of OCs have been found in species at 

the top of the marine food chains, such as glaucous gulls which scavenge on marine mammals and 

polar bears which feed primarily on seals (Braune et al. 2005). Consistent patterns between OC 

and mercury contamination and trophic status have been documented in Arctic marine food webs 

(Braune et al. 2005). The southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population may have concentrations of 

mercury close to the biological threshold levels of 60 micrograms wet weight reported for marine 

mammals (AMAP 2005). 

Contaminant concentrations in most polar bear populations are presently not thought to have 

population level effects. However, contaminant exposure in combination with other factors, such 

as loss of sea ice habitat and decreased prey availability, which have the potential to influence the 

recruitment or survival rates, could ultimately have population-level effects. 

Increases in Arctic oil and gas development and trans-Arctic shipping will increase the probability 

of an oil spill and release of contaminants. The Service believes a marine oil spill would cause 

polar bear mortality if bears are exposed to the spill, and may result in population-level effects if 

multiple bear are exposed. 

Disease 

Except for the presence of Trichinella larvae, the occurrence of diseases and parasites in polar 

bears is relatively rare compared to other bears. Polar bears feed primarily on fat which is 

relatively free of parasites, except for Trichinella (Rogers and Rogers 1976, Forbes 2000). It is 

unknown whether polar bears are more susceptible to new pathogens due to their lack of previous 

exposure to diseases and parasites. Many different pathogens and viruses have been found in seal 

species that are polar bear prey (Duignan et al. 1997, Measures and Olson 1999, Dubey et al. 2003, 

Hughes-Hanks et al. 2005), so the potential exists for transmission of these diseases to polar bears. 

As polar bears become more stressed they may eat more of the intestines and internal organs than 

32
they do presently, thus increasing their potential exposure to parasites and viruses (Derocher et al. 

2004, Amstrup et al. 2006). 

Predation

Polar bears have no predators but man and other polar bears (see Hunting, above). Intraspecific 

killing has been reported among all North American bear species. Reasons for intraspecific 

predation in bears 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 (Hannsson and Thomassen 1983, Larsen 

1985, Taylor et al. 1985, Derocher and Wiig 1999), it is thought that this activity does not account 

for large percentage of the cub mortality. A potential reason for infanticide relates to density 

dependent mechanisms of population control as this behavior seems to occur more frequently with 

increasing population size (Derocher and Wiig 1999). 

Cannibalism has been recently documented in polar bears (Derocher and Wiig 1999, Amstrup et al. 

2006). Amstrup et al. (2006) observed three non-related instances of intraspecific predation and 

cannibalism in the southern Beaufort Sea during the spring of 2004. One instance was the first 

documented predation of an adult female in a den, the second instance was of a female and newly 

emerged cub from a den, and the third instance involved a yearling male. In a combined 58 years 

of research by the senior investigators, similar observations had not taken place. Active stalking or 

hunting preceded the attacks and the killed bears were partially consumed. Adult males were 

believed to be the predator in all of the attacks. Amstrup et al. (2006) 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 adult males may be the first to 

show the effects of nutritional stress caused by significant ice retreat in this area (Skinner et al. 

1998, Comiso and Parkinson 2004, Stroeve et al. 2005) because they feed less during the spring 

mating season and enter the summer in poorer condition than other sex/age classes. Derocher and 

Wiig (1999) documented a similar intraspecific 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) documented that a malnourished female killed and consumed her own cubs, 

and Lunn and Stenhouse (1985) found an emaciated male consuming an adult female polar bear. 

The potential importance of cannibalism and infanticide for population regulation is unknown. 

Given our current knowledge of disease and predation, we do not believe that these factors 

currently are having population level effects. However, increased cannibalism in polar bears was 

postulated and thought to be a result of nutritional stress brought on by climate change (Derocher et 

al. 2004).

5. Effects of the Action on the Species 

This analysis focuses on the direct and indirect effects resulting from the promulgated Regulations 

and whether such effects, when considered with the species status, environmental baseline, and 

cumulative effects within the action area, are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of polar 

bears. Because the Regulations are addressing take of polar bears incidental to Industry activities 

associated with oil and gas exploration, development, and production in the Beaufort Sea, the 

effects analysis is organized around the potential effects of those activities. Whereas the 

33
Regulations would permit some non-lethal incidental take of polar bears, the Regulations would 

require mitigation measures designed to avoid or minimize foreseeable adverse effects of Industry 

activities on polar bears, and require monitoring to document the effectiveness of these measures as 

well as document incidental take of polar bears. Therefore, the Regulations would also have direct 

benefits to polar bears, as well as provide a means for obtaining information useful for future 

management of polar bears in the Beaufort Sea. 

Polar bears are present in the region of activity and, therefore, oil and gas activities could impact 

polar bears in various ways during both open-water and ice-covered seasons. Potential direct and 

indirect effects of the Industry activities from noise disturbance; physical obstructions; human 

encounters; effects on prey species, and oil and fuel spills are described below. In some cases, the 

Service has information about the response of polar bears to similar activities. This polar bear 

response information is relevant because it was largely obtained from the monitoring programs in 

place under previous or existing Regulations in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. No lethal take is 

anticipated; only non-lethal incidental take is under consideration. 

Noise Disturbance 

Noise produced by Industry activities during the open-water and ice-covered seasons could 

potentially result in take of polar bears. During the ice-covered season, denning female bears, as 

well as mobile, non-denning bears, could be exposed to oil and gas activities and potentially 

affected in different ways. The best available scientific information indicates that female polar 

bears entering dens, or females in dens with cubs, are more sensitive than other age and sex groups 

to noises. 

Noise disturbance can originate from either stationary or mobile sources. Stationary sources 

include: construction, maintenance, repair, and remediation activities; operations at production 

facilities; flaring excess gas; and drilling operations from either onshore or offshore facilities. 

Mobile sources include: vessel and aircraft traffic; open-water seismic exploration; winter vibroseis 

programs; geotechnical surveys; ice road construction and associated vehicle traffic, including 

tracked vehicles and snowmobiles; drilling; dredging; and ice-breaking vessels. 

Stationary Sources 

Typically, most polar bears occur in the active ice zone, far offshore, hunting throughout the year. 

However, some bears also spend a limited amount of time on land, coming ashore to feed, den, or 

move to other areas. If fall storms and ocean currents deposit ice-bound bears on land, they may 

remain along the coast or on barrier islands for several weeks until the ice returns. 

Noise produced by stationary Industry activities could elicit several different responses in polar 

bears. The noise may act as a deterrent to bears entering the area or potentially attract bears. 

Attracting bears to these facilities, especially exploration facilities in the coastal or nearshore 

environment, could result in human–bear encounters, which could result in unintentional 

harassment, lethal take, or intentional hazing (under separate authorization) of the bear (see 

Human Encounters, below). 

During the ice-covered season, noise from stationary Industry activities may deter females from 

denning in the surrounding area, even though polar bears have been known to den near industrial 

34
activities without any observed impact to the polar bears. For example, in 1991 two maternity dens 

were located on the south shore of a barrier island within 2.8 km (1.7 mi) of a production facility. 

During the ice-covered seasons of 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, active dens were located within 

approximately 0.4 km and 0.8 km (0.25 mi and 0.5 mi) of remediation activities on Flaxman Island 

in the Beaufort Sea with no observed impact to the polar bears. 

In other cases, polar bears may have abandoned dens as a result of human disturbance. For 

example, in January 1985, a female polar bear may have abandoned her den due to rolligon traffic, 

which occurred between 250 m and 500 m (820 ft and 1,640 ft) from the den site. Researcher 

disturbance created by nearby camp and associated noise, which occurred during a den emergence 

study in 2002 on the North Slope, may have caused a female bear and her cub(s) to abandon their 

den and move to the ice sooner than necessary. The female was observed later without the cub(s). 

Available information indicates such events have been infrequent and isolated. 

Polar bears exposed to routine industrial noises may acclimate to those noises and show less 

vigilance than bears not exposed to such stimuli. This implication came from a study that occurred 

in conjunction with industrial activities performed on Flaxman Island in 2002 and a study of 

undisturbed dens in 2002 and 2003 (n = 8). Researchers assessed vigilant behavior with two 

potential measures of disturbance: (1) proportion of time scanning their surroundings and (2) the 

frequency of observable vigilant behaviors. Bears exposed to industrial activity spent less time 

scanning their surroundings than bears in undisturbed areas and engaged in vigilant behavior 

significantly less often. 

In 2007, at the Intrepid exploration site located on the Chukchi Sea coast south of Barrow, a female 

bear and her cub were observed approximately 100 meters from a pad. The bear did not appear 

concerned about the activity and, after being observed by a bear monitor, the female changed her 

direction of movement and left the area. This is another example of a polar bear showing minimal 

behavior change due to an interaction with Industry and it is similar to encounters between polar 

bears and Industry that have been documented in the Beaufort Sea. 

Mobile Sources 

In the southern Beaufort Sea, during the open-water season, polar bears spend the majority of their 

lives on the pack ice, which limits the chances of impacts on polar bears from Industry activities. 

Although polar bears have been documented in open-water, miles from the ice edge or ice floes, 

this has been a relatively rare occurrence. However, with the amount of ice cover changing rapidly 

due to climate change, more bears may encounter Industry activities being conducted in open 

water. Researchers have observed that in some cases bears swim long distances during the open 

water period seeking either ice or land and may become vulnerable to exhaustion and storms with 

large waves because ice floes are dissipating and unavailable or unsuitable for use as haul outs or 

resting platforms. During a MMS coastal aerial survey program in the fall of 2004, four drowned 

polar bears were observed in the Beaufort Sea; presumably, the drownings were the result of a 

storm event (Monnett and Gleason 2006). 

In the open-water season, Industry activities are generally limited to vessel-based exploration 

activities, such as ocean-bottom cable seismic and shallow hazards surveys. These activities avoid 

35
ice floes and the multi-year ice edge; however, they may contact bears in open water and the effects 

of such encounters are likely to be short-term behavior disturbance. 

Vessel and Aircraft Traffic: Polar bears are known to run from sources of noise and the sight of 

vessels or icebreakers and aircraft, especially helicopters. The effects of fleeing from aircraft may 

be minimal if the event is short and the animal is otherwise unstressed. Likewise, fleeing from a 

working icebreaker may have minimal effects for a healthy animal on a cool day. However, on a 

warm spring or summer day, a short run may be enough to overheat a well insulated polar bear. 

During the open-water season, most polar bears remain offshore in the pack ice and are not 

typically present in the area of vessel traffic. Barges and vessels associated with Industry activities 

travel in open-water and avoid large ice floes. If there is any encounter between a vessel and a 

bear, it would most likely result in short-term behavioral disturbance only. 

Routine aircraft traffic should have little to no effect on polar bears; however, extensive or repeated 

overflights of fixed-wing aircraft for monitoring purposes or helicopters used for re-supply of 

Industry operations could disturb polar bears. Behavioral reactions of non-denning polar bears 

should be limited to short-term changes in behavior and would have no long-term impact on 

individuals and no impacts on the polar bear population. In contrast, denning bears may abandon 

or depart their dens early in response to repeated noise such as that produced by extensive aircraft 

overflights. Mitigation measures, such as minimum flight elevations over polar bears or areas of 

concern and flight restrictions around known polar bear dens, will be required, as appropriate, to 

reduce the likelihood that bears are disturbed by aircraft. 

Noise from Seismic Activity: Little information is available about the effects of noise on polar 

bears, nor the potential for seismic survey sounds to cause auditory impairment or other physical 

effects in polar bears. In the Chukchi Sea, four polar bears were sighted during three oil and gas 

seismic surveys (but no bears were observed from active seismic vessels) between September 2 and 

October 3 2006. Three of the four bears were observed walking on ice, and one animal was 

observed swimming; two of the four reacted to the vessel by distancing itself from the vessel. 

Polar bears are curious and tend to investigate novel sights, smells, and possibly noises. Noise 

produced by seismic activities could elicit several different responses in polar bears. Noise may act 

as a deterrent to bears entering the area of operation, or the noise could potentially attract curious 

bears. Available data suggest that such effects, if they occur at all, would be limited to short 

distances and probably to projects involving large airgun arrays. There is no evidence that airgun 

pulses cause serious injury or death, even in the case of large airgun arrays. Marine mammals that 

show behavioral avoidance of seismic vessels are especially unlikely to incur auditory impairment 

or other physical effects. 

Although polar bears are typically associated with the pack ice during summer and fall, open-water 

seismic exploration activities can encounter polar bears in the central Beaufort Sea in late summer 

or fall. It is unlikely that seismic exploration activities or other geophysical surveys during the 

openwater season would result in more than temporary behavioral disturbance to polar bears. Polar 

bears normally swim with their heads above the surface, where underwater noises are weak or 

undetectable. Furthermore, inclusion of standard Service mitigation measures for seismic 

36
activities, such as power-down or shut-down of airguns if bears enter the 190 db ensonification 

zone, reduces the likelihood that adverse effects might occur. Therefore, the Service concludes that 

it is unlikely that any single bear would be exposed to strong underwater seismic sounds long 

enough for significant disturbance to develop. 

Noise and vibrations produced by oil and gas activities during the ice-covered season could 

potentially result in impacts on polar bears. During this time of year, denning female bears as well 

as mobile, non-denning bears could be exposed to and affected differently by potential impacts 

from seismic activities. As stated earlier, disturbances to denning females, either on land or on ice 

are of particular concern. As part of the LOA application for seismic surveys during denning 

season, Industry provides the Service with the proposed seismic survey routes. To minimize the 

likelihood of disturbance to denning females, these routes are evaluated along with information 

about known polar bear dens, historic denning sites, and delineated denning habitat. 

Physical Obstructions 

There is little chance that Industry facilities would act as physical barriers to movements of polar 

bears. Most facilities are located onshore where polar bears are only occasionally found. The 

offshore and coastal facilities are most likely to be approached by polar bears. The Endicott and 

West Dock causeways and facilities have the greatest potential to act as barriers to movements of 

polar bears because they extend continuously from the coastline to the offshore facility. Yet 

because polar bears appear to have little or no fear of man-made structures and can easily climb and 

cross gravel roads and causeways, bears have frequently been observed crossing existing roads and 

causeways in the Prudhoe Bay oilfields. Offshore production facilities, such as Northstar, may be 

approached by polar bears, but due to their layout (i.e., continuous sheet pile walls around the 

perimeter) and monitoring plan, the bears may not gain access to the facility itself. This situation 

may present a small-scale, local obstruction to the bears’ movement, but also minimizes the 

likelihood of human-bear encounters. 

Human Encounters 

Human encounters can be dangerous for both the polar bear and the human. Whenever humans 

work in the habitat of the animal, there is a chance of an encounter, even though, historically, such 

encounters have been uncommon in association with Industry. 

Although bears may be found along the coast during open-water periods, most of the polar bears in 

the action area inhabit the multi-year pack ice during this time of year. Encounters are more likely 

to occur during fall and winter periods when greater numbers of the bears are found in the coastal 

environment searching for food and possibly den sites later in the season. Industry takes steps to 

actively prevent bears from accessing facilities, such as using safety gates and fences. 

Documented impacts on polar bears by the oil and gas industry in the Beaufort Sea during the past 

30 years are minimal. Polar bears spend time on land, coming ashore to feed, den, or move to other 

areas. Recent observations suggest that bears are increasing time on land, perhaps in response to 

changing ice conditions. Annual monitoring reports from Industry activities and community 

observations indicate that fall storms force bears to concentrate along the coastline where bears 

remain until the ice returns. For this reason, polar bears have been encountered at or near most 

coastal and offshore production facilities, or along roads and causeways that link these facilities to 

37
the mainland. During those periods, the likelihood of interactions between polar bears and Industry 

activities increases. Most bears are observed within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the coastline. Similarly, we 

expect intermittent periods with high concentrations of bears in the coastal habitat to occur along 

the Beaufort Sea coastline where Industry activity is operating. 

The majority of actual impacts on polar bears in the Beaufort Sea have resulted from direct human–

bear encounters. Monitoring efforts by Industry required under Beaufort Sea Regulations resulted 

in the documentation of various types of interactions between polar bears and Industry. A total of 

269 LOAs have been issued for incidental (unintentional) take of polar bears in regard to oil and 

gas activities from 1993 to 2005; approximately 76 percent were for exploration activities. In 

2004, the most recent year in which records are complete, the oil and gas industry reported 89 polar 

bear sightings involving 113 individual bears. Polar bears were more frequently sighted from 

August to January. Seventy-four sightings were of single bears and 15 sightings consisted of 

family groups. Offshore oil facilities, Northstar and Endicott, accounted for 63 percent of all polar 

bear sightings, 42 percent and 21 percent, respectively. This shows that Industry activities that 

occur on or near the Beaufort Sea coast have a greater possibility for encountering polar bears than 

Industry activities occurring inland. Fifty-nine percent (n = 53) of polar bear sightings consisted of 

observations of polar bears traveling through or resting near the monitored areas without a 

perceived reaction to human presence. Forty-one percent (n = 36) of polar bear sightings involved 

Level B harassment, where bears were deterred from industrial areas with no injury. 

Offshore production islands, such as the Northstar production facility, could potentially attract 

polar bears. In 2004, Northstar accounted for 41 percent of all polar bear observations Industrywide. They reported 37 sightings in which 54 polar bears were observed. Most bears were 

observed as passing through the area. Such offshore facilities could potentially increase the rate of 

human-bear encounters, which could result in increased incident of harassment of bears. Employee 

training and company policies reduce and mitigate such encounters. 

In the past, such interactions have been mitigated through conditions in the LOA, which require the 

applicant to develop a polar bear interaction plan for each operation. These plans outline the steps 

the applicant will take, such as garbage disposal procedures, to minimize impacts to polar bears by 

reducing the attraction of Industry activities to polar bears. Interaction plans also outline the chain 

of command for responding to a polar bear sighting. In addition to interaction plans, Industry 

personnel participate in polar bear interaction training while on site. 

Employee training programs are designed to educate field personnel about the dangers of bear 

encounters and to implement safety procedures in the event of a bear sighting. The result of these 

polar bear interaction plans and training allows personnel on site to detect bears and respond safely 

and appropriately. Often, personnel are instructed to leave an area when bears are seen. Many 

times polar bears are monitored until they move out of the area. Sometimes, this response involves 

deterring the bear from the site. If it is not possible to leave, in most cases bears can be displaced 

by using pyrotechnics (e.g., cracker shells) or other forms of deterrents (e.g., the vehicle itself, 

vehicle horn, vehicle siren, vehicle lights, spot lights, etc.). The purpose of these plans and training 

is to eliminate the potential for injury to personnel or lethal take of bears in defense of human life. 

Since the Regulations went into effect in 1993, there has been no known instance of a bear being 

killed or Industry personnel being injured by a bear as a result of Industry activities. The 

38
mitigation measures associated with these regulations have been proven to minimize human-bear 

interactions and will continue to be requirements of future LOAs, as appropriate. 

There is the potential for human activity to contact polar bear dens as well. Known polar bear 

dens, found as a result of radio-collared, pregnant females or verification by scent-trained dogs, 

around the oilfield are monitored by the Service. These are only a small percentage of the total 

active polar bear den locations in the action area in any given year. Industry routinely coordinates 

with the Service to determine the location of Industry’s activities relative to known dens and 

denning habitat. General LOA provisions require Industry operations to avoid known polar bear 

dens by 1.6 km (1 mi). 

There is the possibility that an unknown den may be encountered during Industry activities as well. 

Once a previously unknown den is identified by Industry, the Service requires the den be reported. 

Communication between Industry and the Service and the implementation of mitigation measures, 

such as the 1.6-km (1-mi) exclusion area around the now known den, will ensure that disturbance is 

minimized. 

Vessel traffic could result in short-term behavioral reactions by polar bears. If a ship is surrounded 

by ice it is more likely that curious bears will approach. Any on-ice activities required by 

exploration activities create the opportunity for bear-human interactions. In relatively ice-free 

waters, polar bears are less likely to approach ships, although they may be encountered on ice floes. 

For example, during the late 1980s, at the Belcher exploration drilling site in the Beaufort Sea, in a 

period of little ice, a large floe threatened the drill rig at the site. After the floe was moved by an 

icebreaker, workers noticed a female bear with a cub-of-the-year and a lone adult swimming 

nearby. It was assumed these bears had been disturbed from the ice floe. 

The Service expects the trends in the Beaufort Sea to continue, including: a higher frequency of 

polar bears observed on land during fall and early winter months; single bears seen more frequently 

than family groups; and a higher percentage of bears observed passing through Industry areas than 

the percentage of bears involved in interactions. 

Adoption of the following measures that are required by the Regulations will reduce potential 

impacts from drilling and human-induced disturbance: (1) development of a polar bear interaction 

plan; (2) maintenance of a 1.6-km (1.0-mi) buffer between industry activities and known denning 

sites to limit disturbance to the bear; and (3) den detection surveys through the use of FLIR 

technology, coupled with trained dogs, to locate or verify occupied polar bear dens. Furthermore, 

as part of the LOA application for seismic surveys during denning season, Industry provides the 

proposed seismic survey routes. To minimize the likelihood of disturbance to denning females, the 

Service will evaluate these routes along with information about known polar bear dens, historic 

denning sites, and delineated denning habitat. 

Adoption of mitigation measures to reduce human-bear encounters include: (1) use of detection 

systems, such as bear monitors, motion and infrared detection systems; (2) use of safety gates and 

fences; (3) development of a polar bear interaction plan for each operation that outlines steps the 

applicant will take, such as garbage disposal and snow management procedures; (4) outline the 

39
chain of command for responding to a polar bear sighting; and (5) requirement that personnel 

participate in polar bear interaction training. 

Prior to issuance of regulations, lethal takes by Industry were rare. Since 1968, there have been 

only 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 winter 1968–1969, 

an Industry employee shot and killed a polar bear. In 1990, a female polar bear was killed at an 

exploratory drill site on the west side of Camden Bay. In contrast, 33 polar bears were killed in the 

Canadian NWT from 1976 to 1986 due to encounters with Industry. Since the beginning of the 

U.S. incidental take program, which includes measures that minimize impacts to the species, no 

polar bears have been killed due to encounters associated with Industry activities on the North 

Slope. For this reason, Industry has requested that these regulations cover only non-lethal, 

incidental take. Based upon the demonstrated effectiveness of the mitigation measures put in place 

by these Regulations, the Service anticipates that Industry exploration activities will result in nonlethal disturbance of polar bears

In summary, inclusion of the above mitigation requirements, as well as other measures described 

that may be required in individual LOAs, the Service concludes in the Regulations that only small 

numbers of polar bears would be potentially taken by harassment (as defined by the MMPA) from 

drilling and human-induced disturbance. 

Effect on Prey Species 

Ringed seals are the primary prey of polar bears and inhabit the nearshore waters where offshore 

Industry activities occur. Industry will mainly have an effect on seals through the potential for 

contamination (oil spills) or industrial noise disturbance. Some effects of contamination from oil 

discharges for seals are described in the following section, Oil and Fuel Spills. 

Studies have shown that seals can be displaced from certain areas, such as pupping lairs or 

haulouts, and abandon breathing holes near Industry activity. However, these disturbances appear 

to have minor effects and are short term. In one study, no slope-wide effects of Industry activity on 

ringed seals could be measured. 

Oil and Fuel Spills 

The possibility of oil and waste product spills from Industry activities and the subsequent impacts 

on polar bears are a major concern to the Service. Polar bears could encounter oil spills during the 

open-water and ice-covered seasons in offshore or onshore habitat. Although the majority of the 

polar bears in the action area spend a large amount of their time offshore on the pack ice, some 

bears are likely to encounter oil from a spill regardless of the season and location. 

Spills are unintentional releases of oil or petroleum products and it is not legal to discharge oil into 

the environment. However, accidental spills of oil and refined products may occur in association 

with Industry exploration activities, so their potential occurrence and impacts to polar bears are 

described. MMS describes the history of oil spills associated with the oil and gas industry in 

Northern Alaska (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-026, 

http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ref/EIS%20EA/Chukchi_FEIS_193/feis_193.htm). 

40
A reporting system requires operators to report spills in accordance with the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System Permit Program, and all North Slope oil companies must prepare 

and submit an oil spill contingency plan. According to MMS, 35 exploratory wells have been 

drilled on the Beaufort and Chukchi OCS, during which 35 small spills occurred totaling 26.7 

barrels (1,120 gallons), of which approximately 24 barrels were recovered or cleaned up. By 

Industry standards, small spills are <50 barrels while large spills are >500 barrels. There is 

potential for refined product spills from marine vessels during exploration activities and the 

Industry history indicates the likelihood is that most will be localized and relatively small. Spills in 

the offshore or onshore environments classified as minor could occur during normal operations 

(e.g., transfer of fuel, handling of lubricants and liquid products, and general maintenance of 

equipment). To date, no major exploratory offshore oil spills have occurred on the North Slope in 

either the Beaufort or Chukchi seas. 

Larger spills associated with Alaskan oil and gas activities on the North Slope have been 

production–related, and have occurred at production facility or pipeline connecting wells to the 

Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. In addition to onshore sites, this could include offshore facilities, 

such as causeway-linked Endicott or the sub-sea pipeline-linked Northstar Island. The trajectories 

of large offshore spills from Northstar and the proposed Liberty facilities were modeled to examine 

potential impacts to polar bears and were discussed in the final Regulations (71 FR 43938-43941). 

Oil spills in the marine environment that can accumulate at the ice edge, in ice leads, and similar 

areas of importance to polar bears are of particular concern to the Service. Likewise, oil spills from 

offshore production activities, such as Northstar, are of concern because as additional offshore oil 

exploration and production (e.g., the Oguruk and Nikaitchuq projects) occurs, the potential for 

large spills in the marine environment increases. The Northstar Project transports crude oil from a 

gravel island in the Beaufort Sea to shore via a 9.5-km (5.9-mi) buried sub-sea pipeline. The 

pipeline is buried in a trench in the sea floor deep enough to reduce the risk of damage from ice 

gouging and strudel scour. Production of Northstar began in 2001, and currently an estimated 

70,000 barrels of oil pass through the pipeline daily. However, spill response and clean-up of an 

oil spill, especially in broken-ice conditions is still problematic where it is unknown if oil could be 

effectively cleaned up. During the history of Industry operation activities on the North Slope 

(1985-2006), six large terrestrial spills occurred that posed minimal risk to polar bears (USFWS 

2008). 

During the ice-covered season, mobile, non-denning bears would have a higher probability of 

encountering oil or other production wastes than non-mobile, denning females. Current 

management practices by Industry, such as requiring the proper use, storage, and disposal of 

hazardous materials, minimize the potential occurrence of such incidents. In the event of an oil 

spill, it is also likely that polar bears would be intentionally hazed to keep them away from the area, 

further reducing the likelihood of impacting the population. 

Oil may also affect food sources of polar bears. A local reduction in ringed seal numbers as a 

result of direct or indirect effects of oil could, therefore, temporarily affect the local distribution of 

polar bears. A reduction in density of seals as a direct result of mortality from contact with spilled 

oil could result in polar bears not using a particular area for hunting. Possible impacts from the 

loss of a food source could reduce recruitment or survival. Also, seals that die as a result of an oil 

41
spill could be scavenged by polar bears. This would increase exposure of the bears to 

hydrocarbons and could result in lethal impact or reduced survival to individual bears. 

Based upon the reported effects of crude oil exposure on polar bears (see 4. Environmental 

Baseline - Environmental Contaminants), the Service believes an oil spill or refined product 

discharge contacting a polar bear likely would result in its death. To date, large oil spills from 

Industry activities in the Beaufort Sea and coastal regions that would impact polar bears have not 

occurred, although the development of offshore production facilities and pipelines has increased 

the potential for large offshore oil spills. With limited background information available regarding 

oil spills in the Arctic environment, it is not certain what the outcome of such a spill would be if 

one were to occur. In a large spill (e.g., 5,900 barrels: the size of a rupture in the Northstar pipeline 

and a complete drain of the subsea portion of the pipeline), oil would be influenced by seasonal 

weather and sea conditions. These would include temperature, winds, and, for offshore events, 

wave action and currents. Weather and sea conditions would also affect the type of equipment 

needed for spill response and how effective spill cleanup would be. Indeed, spill response drills 

have been unsuccessful in the cleanup of oil in broken-ice conditions. In addition, based on cleanup activities with the Exxon Valdez oil spill, spill response may be largely unsuccessful in open 

water conditions. These factors, in turn, would dictate how large spills impact polar bear and 

walrus habitat and numbers. 

The major concern regarding large oil spills is the impact a spill would have on the survival and 

recruitment of the SB stock. Currently, this bear population is approximately 1,500 bears. 

Recently, harvest levels generally do not exceed 50 bears in the Beaufort See (divided between 

Canada and Alaska). The population may be able to sustain the additional mortality caused by a 

large oil spill of a small number of bears, such as 1 to 5 individuals; however, the additive effect of 

a worst-case scenario, such as numerous bear deaths (i.e., in the range of 20 to 30) due to direct or 

indirect effects from a large oil spill, may reduce population rates of recruitment or survival. 

Indirect effects may occur through a local reduction in seal productivity or scavenging of oiled seal 

carcasses coupled with the subsistence harvest and other potential impacts, both natural and 

human-induced. The removal of a large number of bears from the population would exceed 

sustainable levels, potentially causing a decline in the bear population and affecting bear 

productivity and subsistence use. 

Potential impacts of Industry waste products and oil spills suggest that individual bears could be 

impacted by the disturbances. Depending on the amount of oil or wastes involved, the timing and 

location of a spill, impacts could be short-term, chronic, or lethal. In order for bear population 

reproduction or survival to be impacted, a large-volume oil spill would have to take place. In 

assessing the effects of the activities to be covered by the Regulations, the Service conducted an oil 

spill risk assessment analysis that considered the oil spill probability for two sites (Northstar and 

Liberty), oil spill trajectory models, and a polar bear distribution model based on location of 

satellite-collared females during September and October. A detailed description of the assessment, 

including methodology, can be found in the final rule promulgating these Regulations (71 FR 

43938-43941). Using two different techniques, the analysis calculated the probabilities of an oil 

spill occurring during various ice conditions. For the fall broken ice period (the timeframe 

hypothesized effects of an oil-spill would be greatest), the probability of an oil spill from the 

Northstar and Liberty facilities were calculated to range from 0.4-1.4 percent and 0.2-0.4 percent, 

42
respectively, for the 5-year Regulations. Additionally, the analysis found that the probability that 

an oil spill during the fall would be more likely to affect small numbers of bears (5 bears). For 

Northstar, the probability of a spill causing the mortality of 5 or more bears ranged from 1.0-3.4 

percent; 10 or more bears was 0.7-2.3 percent; and 20 or more bears was 0.2-0.8 percent. For 

Liberty, the probability of a spill causing the mortality of 5 or more bears ranged from 0.3-7.4 

percent; 10 or more bears was 0.1-0.4 percent; and 20 or more bears was 0.1-0.2 percent. This 

analysis, as well as the history of oil spills in the Beaufort Sea, suggested that it is not reasonably 

certain that an oil spill would occur as a result of the activities covered in the Beaufort Regulations 

during the time period for which the Regulations are in effect, and that even if such a spill were to 

occur, there is a low probability that 5 or more polar bears would be exposed to the spill. 

Impacts on the Physical Environment 

The action area is limited to the Beaufort Sea west of the Canadian border. The activities covered 

by the Regulations include exploration, development, and production operations of oil and gas 

reserves, as well as environmental monitoring associated with these activities. 

Once an Industry project has been proposed, the Service will evaluate the project in regards to polar 

bears through a requested LOA per the process provided by the Regulations. With inclusion of all 

appropriate mitigation measures, plus any other measures incorporated into an LOA, the Service 

has determined that the proposed action would result in no measurable impacts to the physical 

environment. 

Interdependent and Interrelated Actions 

Interdependent actions are defined as actions having no independent utility apart for the proposed 

action, while interrelated actions are defined as actions that are part of a larger action and depend 

upon the larger action for their justification (50 CFR §402.02). The Service has not identified any 

activities that are interdependent or interrelated with the proposed Regulations. 

6. Cumulative Effects 

Under the ESA, cumulative effects are the effects of future State, Tribal, local or private actions 

that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this BO. Future Federal actions 

that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require 

separate consultation under the ESA. Analysis of the following threats was provided in Schliebe et 

al. (2006), and the Final EA Beaufort Sea Incidental Take Regulations (June 2006). 

Subsistence Harvest 

The most significant source of polar bear mortality is man. Before MMPA was enacted in 1972, 

polar bears were taken by sport hunters and residents. Between 1925 and 1972, the mean reported 

harvest in Alaska was 186 bears per year. Seventy-five percent of these were males, as cubs and 

females with cubs were protected. Since 1972, only Alaska Natives from coastal Alaskan villages 

have been allowed to hunt polar bears for their subsistence uses or for handicraft and clothing items 

for sale. The Native hunt occurs without restrictions on sex, age, or number provided that the 

population is not determined to be depleted. From 1980 to 2005, the total annual harvest for 

Alaska averaged 101 bears: 64 percent from the Chukchi Sea and 36 percent from the Beaufort Sea. 

43
Other sources of mortality related to human activities include bears killed during research 

activities, euthanasia of sick and/or injured bears, and defense of life kills by non-Natives (Brower 

et al. 2002). A management concern is the possible inadvertent over-harvest of the SB stock, 

particularly if they become increasingly nutritionally-stressed or populations decline due to the 

combination of the threats due to loss of sea ice, increased atmospheric and oceanic transport of 

contaminants into the region, increases in both expanse and duration of open water in summer and 

fall; human activities, including hydrocarbon exploration and development within the near-shore 

environment. 

Marine Vessel Traffic 

Polar bears spend the majority of their time on pack ice during the open-water season, which limits 

their interaction with fishing vessels and barge traffic. However, polar bears are known to run from 

sources of noise and the sight of vessels. The effects of fleeing may be minimal if the event is 

short and the animal is otherwise unstressed, but a short run on a warm spring or summer day could 

overheat a polar bear. If predictions for the decrease in the temporal and seasonal extent of the sea 

ice are realized, more vessels may transit the area encountering polar bears more frequently. 

Researchers have observed bears may swim long distances during the open water period seeking 

either ice or land. With diminished ice, swimming bears may become vulnerable to exhaustion and 

storms because ice floes are dissipating and unavailable or unsuitable for use as haul outs or resting 

platforms. 

As discussed throughout 5. Effects of the Action, observation of polar bear reactions to industry 

or military vessels indicates polar bear reactions tend to be short-term and limited to minor changes 

in behavior. 

Summary of Cumulative Effects 

Hunting pressure, loss of sea ice and climate change (see 4. Environmental Baseline), and the 

expansion of commercial activities into polar bear habitat have potential to impact polar bears. 

Combined, these factors could present significant challenges to future conservation and 

management efforts. The success of future management efforts will rely in part on continued 

investments in research investigating population status and trends and habitat use patterns. The 

effectiveness of various mitigation measures and management actions will need to be continually 

evaluated through monitoring programs. 

7. Conclusion 

Service Findings under ESA 

After reviewing the current status of the polar bear; the environmental baseline for the Beaufort Sea 

Regulations action area; the effects of the Regulations; documented impacts of Industry activities 

on the species; data provided by monitoring programs in the Beaufort Sea (1993–2006) and the 

Chukchi Sea (1991–1996); and the cumulative effects; it is the Service’s biological opinion that the 

Regulations, as promulgated, are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the polar bear. 

Critical habitat has not been designated or proposed for the polar bear; therefore none will be 

destroyed or adversely modified. 

44
Regulations (50 CFR 402) that implement section 7(a)(2) of the ESA define “jeopardize the 

continued existence of” as to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or 

indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species 

in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species. For the issuance 

of incidental take regulations under the MMPA, the Service must (1) find, based on the best 

scientific evidence available, that the total take for the specified time period will have a negligible 

impact (i.e., an impact that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, 

adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) on 

the species or stock and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stock for subsistence uses; (2) prescribe regulations setting forth permissible methods of 

taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species and its 

habitat and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses, and (3) prescribe regulations 

pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking (50 CFR 18.27(b)). In making such 

determinations, the Service must consider information regarding the effects of the activity on the 

species as described in implementing regulations for section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA (50 CFR 

18.27(d)) as well as conduct a NEPA analysis that results in a similar evaluation to that required for 

making the “jeopardy/no jeopardy” call under section 7 of the ESA. 

While there is significant overlap in the information and evaluation required to make the jeopardy 

and negligible impact determinations, there may be significant differences in (1) the portion of the 

species’ population evaluated (i.e., the listed entity versus the effected stock(s), respectively) and 

(2) the threshold of the effects that trigger a negative determination (i.e., the action will jeopardize 

the species, or the action has more than a negligible effect). With regard to the polar bear, the 

portion of the population evaluated for a jeopardy determination is the range-wide population as the 

species is listed in its entirety. For the negligible impact determination, however, only those stocks 

which are potentially affected by the Regulations are evaluated (i.e., Southern Beaufort Sea stock). 

Further, the thresholds of the effects of impacts being evaluated are significantly different, 

essentially the difference between not adversely affecting a species or stock versus jeopardizing the 

continued existence of the species. It is reasonable to expect that an action being independently 

evaluated under the MMPA and the ESA would be determined to have more than a negligible 

impact before, and in some cases well before, a jeopardy determination would be made. 

Although Industry activities may adversely affect a small number of polar bears within the action 

area, mitigating measures, as identified in §18.124 of the Regulations, included in project-specific 

LOA request will reduce the potential for exposure to adverse effects through temporal and spatial 

separation between polar bears and Industry activities, and reduce potential adverse effects in cases 

of unavoidable interactions (e.g., curious bears drawn to the activity) and unintentional, 

unauthorized consequences of the activities (e.g., oil spills). In addition to these mitigating 

measures, other project specific mitigating measures may be required through the issuance of an 

LOA per §18.128 of the Regulations. The Regulations, while allowing a “small number” of 

animals to be incidentally taken by harassment, provide a mechanism requiring that mitigating 

measures are implemented, monitored, and reported on annually. Thus, the Regulations contribute 

to the collection of additional information that will aid in developing and/or further refining 

mitigating measures for future Industry activities. 

45
Based on the above evaluation and the fact that (1) the Regulations do not authorize lethal take, (2) 

the Beaufort Sea Regulations have been in place almost continuously since 1993, and (3) a small 

number bears are likely to interact with Industry, and those that interact are likely to alter their 

behavior only temporarily if at all, the Service believes that the existing Beaufort Sea Incidental 

Take Regulations under the MMPA will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and 

recovery of the polar bear, and therefore are not likely to jeopardize their continued existence. 

8. Administration of the Programmatic Biological Opinion 

This BO is structured in a “programmatic,” tiered approach, with this document serving as Tier 1. 

The Tier 1 BO does the following: 

• Evaluates the issuance of the Beaufort Sea Incidental Take Regulations per requirements 

under section 7 of the ESA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402); 

• Clarifies the regulatory dependence upon the take analysis required under the MMPA for 

ESA incidental take evaluation; 

• Concludes that the proposed action will not jeopardize the continued existence of the 

species; and 

• Provides the process for conducting Tier 2 consultation (below and Appendix 3). 

The Tier 1 BO relies on the negligible impacts and small numbers analysis (see explanation below) 

in the Incidental Take Regulations to evaluate the projected level of take. Because project-specific 

information is not known until a request for an LOA is made under the Regulations, the Service 

defers authorizing incidental take until such requests are made (i.e., Tier 2). 

Tier 2 of this programmatic consultation is triggered when Industry requests an LOA from MMM. 

The request for the LOA will also serve as a request for Tier 2 consultation. A separate Tier 2 

consultation will be required for each LOA requested under the Regulations. To track the take 

projections in the Regulations and in order for the Tier 2 BO to be consistent with the “no 

jeopardy” conclusion of the Tier 1 BO and an incidental take statement (ITS) to be issued: (1) the 

proposed activity must provide the required information, as described in §18.124 of the 

Regulations, (2) the LOA includes any mitigation measures that the MMM believes appropriate for 

the specific activity and location, as described in §18.128 of the Regulations, and (3) the MMM 

must determine that the incidental take for the specific activity will be consistent with the 

negligible impact finding for the total take allowed under the Regulations. 

Upon receipt of the request MMM will: 

• Determine whether the request falls within the parameters established in the Beaufort Sea 

Regulations and the Tier 1 BO 

 If yes, the Tier 2 process will continue. 

 If no, additional evaluation is necessary to determine if LOA/ITS mitigation measures 

will be sufficient to bring the request within the parameters of the Regulations and Tier 

1 BO. 

46
o If additional measures are sufficient and can be implemented by the applicant, the 

Tier 2 consultation will continue. 

o If additional measures are not sufficient and/or cannot be implemented by the 

applicant, a separate consultation may be required. It is important to note, however, 

that an ITS under the ESA cannot be given for a marine mammal if the take is not 

covered under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA (i.e., through Regulations/LOA or an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization). 

• For requests that fall within the parameters of the Regulations and Tier 1 BO, issue a 

combined LOA/ITS that will provide incidental take coverage under both Acts (see 

Appendix 3). Issuance of the LOA/ITS concludes ESA consultation for that action. 

• Each LOA will require a comprehensive final report of all take, which will be provided to 

the MMM. The report will cover required compliance with both the MMPA’s the ESA’s 

requirement to monitor take. 

The above programmatic approach integrates the ESA with the existing incidental take 

regulation/LOA process that MMM has been conducting since 1991 on oil and gas activities in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The combined LOA/ITS language provided in Appendix 3 is intended 

to meet the legal requirements of both Acts and provide for the greatest conservation benefits 

allowable under both Acts. This reduces duplication of effort by taking advantage of overlapping 

areas of the Acts, adding only what is uniquely required through section 7 of the ESA. 

While the ITS is technically provided to the Service’s MMM and the LOA applicant, we anticipate 

that other Federal agencies involved in permitting the exploration actions covered by the Beaufort 

Sea Regulations will also seek to fulfill their section 7 responsibilities by seeking consultation with 

the Service. So long as the activities covered by such consultations comply with the MMPA 

incidental take regulations, we would expect these consultations to be completed by linking to this 

intra-Service biological opinion. 

9. Incidental Take Statement 

By virtue of establishing the special rule for polar bears (73 FR 28306-28318; May 15, 2008) and 

by virtue of the Service making the appropriate determinations under the MMPA, the activities 

covered by this consultation are exempt from any take prohibitions that might otherwise apply 

under the ESA. Section 7(b)(4)(C)(iii) of the ESA, however, requires the issuance of an ITS, 

which “specifies those measures that are necessary to comply with” the MMPA. This ITS 

replicates, rather than being additive to, any requirements and obligations necessary to comply with 

the MMPA. 

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as 

to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in 

any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat 

modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly 

impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is 

defined by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to 

47
listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, 

but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is 

incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the 

terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of 

the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA provided that such taking 

is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this ITS. 

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and will be binding conditions of any permit 

issued to an LOA applicant for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) of the ESA to apply. MMM will 

regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement to ensure the LOA holder adhere to 

the terms and conditions of the ITS through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant 

document, so that the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) does not lapse. In order to monitor the 

impact of incidental take, the MMM will provide annual monitoring reports to the FFWFO as 

specified in the ITS. [50 CFR 402.14(i)(3)] 

In the accompanying BO, the Service determined that total take anticipated as a result of the 

issuance of the Regulations under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA is not likely to result in 

jeopardy to the polar bear. No lethal take is anticipated. While the Service cannot anticipate the 

specific amount or extent of other types of take that may result from activities that may be 

authorized under the Regulations until they are proposed and the specific activities and location is 

known, the negligible effects finding and the small numbers determination articulates the 

anticipated amount of take with respect to effect on the population. 

The Service believes that mitigating measures required by the Regulations and to be included in 

site-specific LOAs will provide a thorough and effective mechanism for minimizing potential 

adverse impacts of oil and gas activities on polar bears. The Service does not identify additional 

necessary measures to reduce impacts under the ESA because the Service believes all identified 

measures to mitigate impacts are included in the Regulations or will be required in LOAs. 

Therefore, the following Reasonable and Prudent Measure and its implementing terms and 

conditions require compliance with mitigating measures provided through the MMPA Regulations 

and LOA processes. The measure and its implementing terms and conditions are provided in the 

Tier 1 BO so that MMM may incorporate them into the LOA (Tier 2) process. 

10. Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measure is necessary and appropriate to 

minimize the impacts of incidental take of polar bears: 

1. Reduce adverse impacts to polar bears from oil and gas exploration, development, and 

production activities by incorporating all standard mitigation measures identified in the 

Incidental Take Regulations and all site specific mitigation measures included in 

individual LOAs. 

48
11. Terms and Conditions 

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the MMM must comply with 

the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measure 

described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and 

conditions are non-discretionary. 

1. MMM will require the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures of Industry 

applicants to minimize impacts to polar bears through the Incidental Take Regulations 

and project specific Letter of Authorization. 

2. LOA monitoring reports will be provided to the MMM upon project conclusion by the 

Industry operator. Reports shall include, but not be limited to, (1) the amount of take 

anticipated and type of take authorized in each LOA/ITS, (2) the amount and type of 

take that actually occurs, and (3) other polar bear observations that did not result in take. 

As lethal take is not anticipated, specific procedures for handling or disposing of carcasses (50 CFR 

402.14(i)(1)(v)), are not necessary. 

12. Conservation Recommendations 

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the 

purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize 

or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement 

recovery plans, or to develop information. The Service has the following conservation 

recommendation for this action. 

• The status of polar bears in the SB and CS stocks needs to be monitored throughout the 

duration of these Regulations. The Service has particular concern about the response of 

polar bears, at the individual and population levels, to the quickly changing environmental 

conditions in the action area of the Beaufort Sea and coastal northern Alaska. It 

recommends the Service and its agents in this action (permitting agencies and Industry) 

promote collection of baseline data to help increase understanding of how the effects of 

climate change will affect polar bears inhabiting Alaska, 

(http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm). For example, ongoing studies 

include those led by the USGS Alaska Science Center, in cooperation with the Service, to 

examine polar bear habitat use, reproduction, and survival relative to a changing sea-ice 

environment. Specific objectives are to evaluate polar bear habitat availability and quality 

as influenced by ongoing climate changes and response by polar bears; effects of changes in 

sea-ice environment on condition of adults, numbers and sizes of offspring, and survival of 

offspring to weaning (recruitment); and population structure. 

49
13. Re-initiation Notice 

This concludes formal consultation on effects to polar bears on the existing Beaufort Sea Incidental 

Take Regulations. As provided in 50 C.F.R. 402.16, re-initiation of formal consultation is required 

where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is 

authorized by law) and if: 

(1) The amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; 

(2) New information reveals effects of the action agency that may affect listed species or critical 

habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; 

(3) The agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed or critical 

habitat not considered in this opinion; and/or 

(4) A new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. 

Thank you for your cooperation in the development of this conference opinion. If you have any 

comments or require additional information, please contact Ted Swem, Endangered Species Branch 

Chief, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, 101 12th Ave., Fairbanks, AK, 99701, Telephone: 

907/456-0441. 

50
14. Literature Cited 

Aars, J., N.J. Lunn, and A.E. Derocher. eds. 2006. Polar bears: Proceedings of the 14th working 

meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 20-24 June, Seattle, Washington, 

USA. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 32. IUCN, Gland, 

Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 189 pp. 

Amstrup, S.C. 2003. Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus). Pages 587-610 in Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, 

and J.A. Chapman, eds. Wild Mammals of North America- Biology, Management, and 

Conservation. John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland. 

Amstrup, S.C. 2000. Polar bear. Pp. 133-157 in J.J. Truett and S.R. Johnson, eds. The natural 

history of an Arctic oilfield: development and the biota. Academic Press, Inc. New York. 

Amstrup, S.C. 1995. Movements, distribution, and population dynamics of polar bears in the 

Beaufort Sea. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. 299 pp. 

Amstrup, S.C. 1993. Human disturbances of denning polar bears in Alaska. Arctic 46:246–50. 

Amstrup, S.C. and D.P. DeMaster. 1988. Polar bear—Ursus maritimus. Pages 39–56 in Lentfer, 

J.W., ed. Selected marine mammals of Alaska: species accounts with research and 

management recommendations. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, DC. 

Amstrup, S.C., and G.M. Durner. 1995. Survival rates of radio-collared female polar bears and 

their dependent young. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:1312–22. 

Amstrup, S.C., and C. Gardner. 1994. Polar bear maternity denning in the Beaufort Sea. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58:1–10. 

Amstrup, S.C., B.G. Marcot, and D.C. Douglas. 2007. Forecasting the range-wide status of polar 

bears at selected times in the 21st century. U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Report, 

Reston, Virginia. 126pp. 

Amstrup, S.C., I. Stirling, T.S. Smith, C. Perham, and G.W. Thieman. 2006. Recent observations of 

intraspecific predation and cannibalism among polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea. 

Polar Biology doi 10.1007/S00300-006-0142-5. 

Amstrup. S.C., G.M. Durner, I. Stirling, I. and T.L. McDonald. 2005. Allocating harvests among 

polar bear stocks in the Beaufort Sea. Arctic 58:247-259. 

Amstrup, S.C., T.L. McDonald, and G.M. Durner. 2004. Using satellite radio-telemetry data to 

delineate and manage wildlife populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:661-679. 

51
Amstrup, S.C. T.L. McDonald, and I. Stirling. 2001. Polar bears in the Beaufort Sea: a 30-year 

mark-recapture case history. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental 

Statistics 6(2):221-234. 

Amstrup, S.C., G.M. Durner, and T.L. McDonald. 2000a. Estimating potential effects of 

hypothetical oil spills from the Liberty oil production island on polar bears. Liberty 

Development and Production Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement. DOI, Minerals 

Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, OCS EIS/EA, MMS 2001-001. Volume III (J1):1-42. 

Amstrup, S.C., G.M. Durner, I. Stirling, N.J. Lunn, and F. Messier. 2000b. Movements and 

distribution of polar bears in the Beaufort Sea. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:948–66. 

Amstrup, S.C., C. Gardner, K.C. Meyers, and F.W. Oehme. 1989. Ethylene glycol (antifreeze) 

poisoning in a free-ranging polar bear. Veterinary and Human Toxicology, Vol. 31, No. 4, 

pp. 317-319. 

Amstrup, S. C., I. Stirling, and J.W. Lentfer. 1986. Past and present status of polar bears in Alaska. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 14: 241-254. 

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP). 2005. AMAP Assessment 2002: Persistent 

Organic Pollutants in the Arctic. Oslo, Norway. xvi + 310 pp. 

Best, R.C. 1985. Digestibility of ringed seals by the polar bear. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63: 

1033-1036. 

Best, R.C. 1982. Thermoregulation in resting and active polar bears. Journal of Comparative 

Physiology B 146:63–73. 

Blix, A.S. and J.W. Lentfer. 1979. Modes of thermal protection in polar bear cubs: at birth and on 

emergence from the den. American Journal of Physiology 236:R67–74. 

Born, E.W., Ø. Wiig, and J. Thomassen. 1997. Seasonal and annual movements of radio collared 

polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in NE Greenland. Journal of Marine Systems 10:67-77. 

Bowes, G.W. and C.J. Jonkel. 1975. Presence and distribution of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) 

in arctic and subarctic marine food chains. Journal Fisheries research Board Canada. 

32(11):2111-2123. 

Branigan, M., T. Devine, T. Davison, L. Gordon and W. Wright. 2006. Summary of harvest data 

for species under quota in the Inuvialuit Settlement region, July 200-June 2005. GNWTENR Unpublished report, Northwest Territories, Canada. 36 pp. 

52
Braune, B.M., P.M. Outridge, A.T. Fisk, D.C.G. Muir, P.A. Helm, K. Hobbs, P.F. Hoekstra, Z.A. 

Kuzyk, M. Kwan, R.J.Letcher, W.L. Lockhart, R.J. Norstrom, G.A. Stern, and I. Stirling. 

2005. Persistent organic pollutants and mercury in marine biota of the Canadian Arctic: an 

overview of spatial and temporal trends. The Science of the Total Environment 351-352:4-

56. 

Brower, C.D., A. Carpenter, M.L. Branigan, W. Calvert, T. Evans, A.S. Fischbach, J.A. Nagy, J.A. 

S. Schliebe, and I. Stirling. 2002. The polar bear management agreement for the Southern 

Beaufort Sea: an evaluation of the first ten years of a unique conservation agreement. Arctic 

55:362-372. 

Calvert, W. and I. Stirling. 1990. Interactions between polar bears and over-wintering walruses in 

the central Canadian High Arctic. International Conference on Bear Research and 

Management 8:351–56. 

Chelintsev, N.G. 1977. Determination of the absolute number of dens based on the selective 

counts. Pages 66-85 in Uspenski, S.M., ed. The polar bear and its conservation in the Soviet 

Arctic. Central Laboratory on Nature Conservation, Moscow, Russia (in Russian with 

English summary). 

Comiso, J.C. and C.L. Parkinson. 2004. Satellite observed changes in the Arctic, Physics Today 

57(8):38-44. 

de March, B.G.E., C.A. De Wit, and D.C.G. Muir. 1998. Persistent organic pollutants. Pages 183-

335 in Wilson, S.J., J.L. Murrray, and H.P. Huntington, eds. AMAP 1998. Assessment 

report: arctic pollution issues. Oslo, Norway. 

DeMaster, D.P. and I. Stirling. 1981. Ursus maritimus. Polar bear. Mammalian Species 145:1–7. 

DeMaster, D.P., M.C.S. Kingsley, and I. Stirling. 1980. A multiple mark and recapture estimate 

applied to polar bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 58:633-638. 

Derocher, A. E., and I. Stirling. 1996. Aspects of survival in juvenile polar bears. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology 74:1246-1252. 

Derocher, A.E. and I. Stirling. 1992. The population dynamics of polar bears in Western Hudson 

Bay. Pages 1150–59 in McCullough, D.R. and R.H. Barrett, eds. Wildlife 2001: 

populations. Elsevier Applied Science, London. 

Derocher, A.E. and I. Stirling. 1991. Oil contamination of two polar bears. Polar Record 

27(160):56-57. 

Derocher, A.E. and I. Stirling. 1990. Distribution of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during the icefree period in Western Hudson Bay. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:1395-1403. 

53
Derocher, A.E. and Ø. Wiig. 1999. Infanticide and cannibalism of juvenile polar bears (Ursus 

maritimus) in Svalbard. Arctic 52:307–10. 

Derocher, A.E., M. Andersen, and O. Wiig. 2005. Sexual dimorphism of polar bears. Journal of 

Mammalogy 86(5):895-901. 

Derocher, A.E., N.J. Lunn, and I. Stirling. 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate. Integrative and 

Comparative Biology 44:163-176. 

Derocher, A. E., O. Wiig, and M. Andersen. 2002. Diet composition of polar bears in Svalbard 

and the western Barents Sea. Polar Biology 25:448-452. 

Derocher, A.E., I. Stirling, and D. Andriashek. 1992. Pregnancy rates and serum progesterone 

levels of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:561–66. 

Derocher, A. E., R. A. Nelson, I. Stirling, and M. A. Ramsay. 1990. Effects of fasting and feeding 

on serum urea and serum creatinine levels in polar bears. Marine Mammal Science 6:196-

203. 

DeWeaver, E. 2007. Uncertainty in climate model projections of Arctic sea ice decline: an 

evaluation relevant to polar bears. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey 

Administrative Report. 41 pp. 

Dowsley, M. 2005. Inuit knowledge regarding climate change and the Baffin Bay polar bear 

population. Unpublished report. McGill University, Montreal, Quebec. 43 pp. 

Dubey, J.P., R. Zarnke, N.J. Thomas, S.K. Wong, W. Van Bonn, M. Briggs, J.W. Davis, R. Ewing, 

M. Mense, O.C.H. Kwok, S. Romand, and P. Thulliez. 2003. Toxopolama gondii, Neospora 

canium, Sarcocystis neurona, and Sarcocystis canis-like infections in marine mammals. 

Veterinary Paristology 116:275-296. 

Duignan, P.J., O. Nielson, C. House, K.M. Kovacs, N. Duffy, G. Early, D.J. St. Aubin, B.K. Rima, 

and J.R. Geraci. 1997. Epizootiology of morbillivirus in harp, hooded, and ringed seals 

from the Canadian Arctic and western Atlantic. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 33(1):7-19. 

Durner, G.M., S.C. Amstrup, R. Nielson, T. McDonald. 2004. Using discrete choice modeling to 

generate resource selection functions for female polar bears in the Beaufort Sea. Pages 107–

120 in S. Huzurbazar (Editor). Resource Selection Methods and Applications: Proceedings 

of the 1st International Conference on Resource Selection, 13–15 January 2003, Laramie, 

Wyoming. 

Durner, G.M., S.C. Amstrup, and A.S. Fischbach. 2003. Habitat characteristics of polar bear 

terrestrial maternal den sites in northern Alaska. Arctic 56(1):55–62. 

Durner, G.M., S.C. Amstrup, and K.J. Ambrosius. 2001. Remote identification of polar bear 

maternal den habitat in northern Alaska. Arctic 54:115–21. 

54
Durner, G.M., S.C. Amstrup, and T.L. McDonald. 2000. Estimating the impacts of oil spills on 

polar bears. Arcrtic Research US 14:33-37. 

Dyck, M. 2006. Characteristics of polar bears killed in defense of life and property in Nunavut, 

Canada, 1970-2000. Ursus 17(1): 52-62. 

Eberhardt, L.L. 1985. Assessing the dynamics of wild populations. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 49:997–1012. 

Ferguson, S.H., M.K. Taylor, E.W. Born, A. Rosing-Asvid, and F. Messier. 2001. Activity and 

movement patterns of polar bears inhabiting consolidated versus active pack ice. Arctic 

54:49-54. 

Ferguson, S.H., M.K. Taylor, A. Rosing-Asvid, E.W. Born, and F. Messier. 2000. Relationships 

between denning of polar bears and conditions of sea ice. Journal of Mammalogy 81:1118–

27. 

Fischbach, A.S., S.C. Amstrup and D.C. Douglas. 2007. Landward and eastward shift of Alaskan 

polar bear denning associated with recent ice changes. Polar Biology doi 10.1007/s00300-

007-0300-4. 

Fisk, A.T., K.A. Hobson, and R.J. Norstrom. 2001. Influence of chemical and biological factors on 

trophic transfer of persistent pollutants in the Northwater Polynya marine food web. 

Environmental Science and Technology 35:732-738. 

Forbes, L.B. 2000. The occurrence and ecology of Trichinella in marine mammals. Veterinarian 

Parasitology 93:321-334. 

Furnell, D. J. and D. Oolooyuk. 1980. Polar bear predation on ringed seals in ice-free water. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 94: 88-89. 

Furnell, D.J. and R.E. Schweinsburg. 1984. Population dynamics of central Canadian Arctic island 

polar bears. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:722–28. 

Garner, G.W., S.E. Belikov, M.S. Stishov, and S.M. Arthur. 1995. Research on polar bears in 

western Alaska and eastern Russia 1988-92. Pages 155-164 in Wiig, O., E.W. Born, and 

G.W. Garner, eds. Polar bears: proceedings of the eleventh working meeting of the 

IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

Garner, G.W., S.C. Amstrup, I. Stirling, and S.E. Belikov. 1994. Habitat considerations for polar 

bears in the North Pacific Rim. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference 59:111–20. 

Garner, G.W., S.T. Knick, and D.C. Douglas. 1990. Seasonal movements of adult female polar 

bears in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. International Conference on Bear Research and 

Management 8:219–26. 

55
Hammill, M.O. and T.G. Smith. 1991. The role of predation in the ecology of the ringed seal in the 

Barrow Strait, Northwest Territories, Canada. Marine Mammal Science 7(2):123-135. 

Hansson, R. and J. Thomassen. 1983. Behaviour of polar bears with cubs of the year in the denning 

area. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 5:246-254. 

Harington, C.R. 1968. Denning habits of the polar bear (Ursus maritimus Phipps). Report Series 5, 

Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Canada. 

Hughes-Hanks, J.M., L.G. Richard, C. Panuska, J.R. Saucier, T.M. O’Hara, R.M. Rolland, and L. 

Dehn. 2005. Prevalence of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. in five marine mammal 

species. Journal of Parasitology 95:1225-1228. 

Hunter, C.M., H. Caswell, M.C. Runge, E.V. Regehr, S.C. Amstrup, and I. Stirling. 2007. Polar 

bears in the southern Beaufort Sea II: demographic and population growth in relation to sea 

ice conditions. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Report. 

46 pp. 

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm. 

Jonkel, C.J., G.B. Kolenosky, R.Robertson, and R.H. Russell. 1972. Further notes on polar bear 

denning habits. International Conference on Bear Biology and Management 2: 142-158. 

Kalxdorff, S.B. and A. Fischbach. 1998. Distribution and abundance of marine mammal carcasses 

on beaches in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, Alaska 1995-1997. Unpublished 

Report MMM 98-1, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 

Anchorage, Alaska. 27 pp. 

Kingsley, M.C.S. 1979. Fitting the von Bertalanffy growth equation to polar bear age–weight data. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 57:1020–25. 

Knudsen, B. 1978. Time budgets of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) on North Twin Island, James 

Bay, during summer. Canadian Journal of Zoology 56:1627-1628. 

Kolenosky, G.B., K.F. Abraham, and C.J. Greenwood. 1992. Polar bears of southern Hudson Bay. 

Polar Bear Project, 1984–88, final report. Unpublished report. Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources, Maple, Ontario, Canada. 

Kostyan, E.Y. 1954. New data on the reproduction of the polar bear. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 

33:207–15. 

Larsen, T. 1985. Polar bear denning and cub production in Svalbard, Norway. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 49:320–26. 

56
Lentfer, J.W. and R.J. Hensel. 1980. Alaskan polar bear denning. International Conference on Bear 

Research and Management 4:101–8. 

Lie, E., A. Bernhoft, F. Riget, S.E. Belikov, A.N. Boltunov, G.W. Garner, Ø Wiig, , and J.U. 

Skaare. 2003. Geographical distribution of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) in polar bears 

(Ursus maritimus) in the Norwegian and Russian Arctic. The Science of the Total 

Environment 306:159-170. 

Lunn, N.J. and G.B. Stenhouse. 1985. An observation of possible cannibalism by polar beas (ursus 

maritimus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 63:1516-1517. 

Lunn, N.J., S. Atkinson, M. Branigan, W. Calvert, D. Clark, B. Doidge, C. Elliott, J. Nagy, M. 

Obbard, R.Otto, I. Stirling, M.Taylor, D.Vandal, and M.Wheatley. 2002. Polar bear 

management in Canada 1997-2000. Pages 41-52 in Polar bears: proceedings of the 13th

working meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, Nuuk, Greenland. IUCN, 

Gland, Switzerland ad Cambridge, UK. vii + 153pp. 

Macdonald, R.W., T. Harner, J. Fyfe, H. Loeng, and T. Weingartner. 2003. AMAP assessment 

2002: the influence of global change on contaminant pathways to, within, and from the 

Arctic. Oslo Norway: Arctic Monitoring and Asessment Programme. xii + 65pp. 

Mauritzen, M., A.E. Derocher, O. Pavlova., and Ø. Wiig. 2003. Female polar bears, Ursus 

maritimus, on the Barents Sea drift ice: walking the treadmill. Animal Behaviour 66: 107-

113. 

Mauritzen, M., A.E. Derocher, and Ø Wiig. 2001. Space-use strategies of female polar bears in a 

dynamic sea ice habitat. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1704-1713. 

Measures, L.N. and M.E. Olson. 1999. Giardiasis in pinnipeds from eastern Canada. Journal of 

Wildlife Diseases 35(4):779-782. 

Meier, W.N., J. Stroeve, and F. Fetterer. 2007. Whither Arctic sea ice? A clear signal of decline 

regionally, seasonally, and extending beyond the satellite record. Annals of Glaciology 

46:428-434. 

Messier, F., M.K. Taylor, and M.A. Ramsay. 1994. Denning ecology of polar bears in the Canadian 

Arctic Archipelago. Journal of Mammalogy 75:420–30. 

Miller, S., S. Schliebe and K. Proffitt. 2006. Demographics and behavior of polar bears feeding on 

bowhead whale carcasses at Barter and Cross Islands, Alaska, 2002-2004. OCS Study 

MMS 2006-14, Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 29 pp. 

Monnett, C. and J.S. Gleason. 2006. Observations of mortality associated with extended open water 

swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology DOI 10.1007/s00300-

005-0105-2. 

57
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). 2007. Available at http://wwwl.nsidc.org. 

Neff, J.M. 1990. Composition and fate of petroleum and spill-treating agents in the marine 

environment in Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. Sea mammals and oil: confronting the 

risks. Academic Press. San Diego California. 33pp. 

Obbard, M.E., T.L. McDonald, E.J. Howe, E.V. Regehr, and E.S. Richardson. 2007. Polar bear 

population status in southern Hudson Bay, Canada. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey Administrative Report, Reston, Virginia. 32 pp. 

Ovsyanikov, N. 1996. Polar Bears. Living with the White Bear. Voyager Press, Stilwater, 

Minnesota. 144 pp. 

Parovshikov, V.Ya. 1965. Present status of polar bear population of Franz Josef Land. Pages 237-

242 in Marine mammals. Moscow, Nauka. (In Russian) 

Pedersen, A. 1945. The polar bear: its distribution and way of life. Aktieselskabet E. Bruun, 

Copenhagen, Denmark. 

Proshutinsky, A.Y. and M. Johnson. 2001. Two regimes of Arctic’s circulation from ocean models 

with ice and contaminants. Marine Pollution Bulletin 43(1-6):61-70. 

Ramsay, M.A. and R.L. Dunbrack. 1986. Physiological constraints on life history phenomena: the 

example of small bear cubs at birth. American Naturalist 127:735–43. 

Ramsay, M.A. and K.A. Hobson. 1991. Polar bears make little use of terrestrial food webs: 

evidence from stable-carbon isotope analysis. Oecologia 86: 598-600. 

Ramsay, M.A. and I. Stirling. 1990. Fidelity of female polar bears to winter-den sites. Journal of 

Mammalogy 71:233–36. 

Ramsay, M.A. and I. Stirling. 1988. Reproductive biology and ecology of female polar bears 

(Ursus maritimus). Journal of Zoology (London) 214:601–34. 

Ramsay, M.A. and I. Stirling. 1982. Reproductive biology and ecology of female polar bears in 

Western Hudson Bay. Naturaliste Canadien 109:941–46. 

Ramsay, M.A., R.A. Nelson, and I. Stirling. 1991. Seasonal changes in the ratio of serum urea to 

serum creatinine in feeding and fasting polar bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69: 298-

302. 

Regehr, E.V., C.M. Hunter, H. Caswell, S.C. Amstrup, and I. Stirling. 2007. Polar bears in the 

southern Beaufort Sea I: survival and breeding in relation to sea ice conditions, 2001-2006. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Report, Reston, Virginia. 

45 pp. 

58
Regehr, E.V., S.C. Amstrup and I. Stirling. 2006. Polar bear population status in the Southern 

Beaufort Sea. Report Series 2006-1337, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Anchorage, Alaska. 20pp. 

Richardson, E., I. Stirling, and D.S. Hilk. 2005. Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) maternity denning 

habitat in Western Hudson Bay: a bottom –up approach to resource selection functions. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:860-870. 

Rode, K.D., S.C. Amstrup, and E.V. Regehr. 2007. Polar Bears in the southern Beaufort Sea III: 

stature, mass, and cub recruitment in relationship to time and sea ice extent between 1982 

and 2006. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Report, 

Reston, Virginia. 28pp. 

Rogers, L.L. and S.M. Rogers. 1976. Parasites of bears: a review. International Conference on Bear 

Research and Management 3:411–30. 

Sadleir, R.M.F.S. 1969. The ecology of reproduction in wild and domestic mammals. Methuen, 

London. 

Schliebe, S., T.J. Evans, K. Johnson, M. Roy, S. Miller, C. Hamilton, R. Meehan, and S. 

Jahrsdoerfer. 2006. Status assessment in response to a petition to list polar bears as a 

threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Marine Mammals Management, Anchorage, Alaska. 262pp. 

Schliebe, S.L., T.J. Evans, A.S. Fischbach, and S.B. Kalxdorff. 1998. Summary of polar bear 

management in Alaska. Pages 115-123 in Derocher, A.E., G.W. Garner, N.J. Lunn, and Ø 

Wiig, eds. Polar bears: Proceedings of the twelfth working meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar 

Bear Specialist Group. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

Skinner, W.R., R.L. Jeffries, T.J. Carleton, R.F. Rockwell, and K.F. Abraham. 1998. Prediction of 

reproductive success and failure in lesser snow geese based on early season climatic 

variables. Global Change Biology 4:3-16. 

Smith, T.G. 1985. Polar bears, Ursus maritimus, as predators of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 99:71–75. 

Smith, T.G. 1980. Polar bear predation of ringed and bearded seals in the landfast sea ice habitat. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 58:2201–9. 

Smith, T.G. and B. Sjare. 1990. Predation of belugas and narwhals by polar bears in nearshore 

areas of the Canadian High Arctic. Arctic 43: 99-102. 

Smith, T.G. and I. Stirling. 1975. The breeding habitat of the ringed seal (Phoca hispida): the birth 

lair and associated structures. Canadian Journal of Zoology 53:1297-1305. 

59
St. Aubin, D.J. 1990. Physiologic and toxic effects on polar bears. Pages 235-239 in Geraci, J.R. 

and D.J. St. Aubin, eds. Sea Mammals and Oil: Confronting the Risks. Academic Press, Inc. 

New York, New York. 

Stirling, I. 2002. Polar bears and seals in the eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf: a synthesis 

of population trends and ecological relationships over three decades. Arctic 55:59-76. 

Stirling, I. 1990. Polar bears and oil: ecological perspectives. Pages 223–34 in Geraci, J.R. and D.J. 

St. Aubin, eds. Sea mammals and oil: confronting the risks. Academic Press, San Diego, 

California. 

Stirling, I. 1988. Polar bears. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 220 pp. 

Stirling, I. 1974. Midsummer observations on the behavior of wild polar bears (Ursus maritimus). 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 52:1191–98. 

Stirling, I., and A. E. Derocher. 1990. Factors affecting the evolution and behavioral ecology of 

the modern bears. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:189-204. 

Stirling, I. and P.B. LaTour. 1978. Comparative hunting abilities of polar bear cubs of different 

ages. Canadian Journal of Zoology 56:1768–72. 

Stirling, I. and N.J. Lunn. 1997. Environmental fluctuations in arctic marine ecosystems as 

reflected by variability in reproduction of polar bears and ringed seals. Pages 167-181 in 

Woodin, S.J. and M. Marquiss, eds. Ecology of arctic environments. Special Publication 

No. 13 of the British Ecological Society, Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, England. 

Stirling, I. and M. McEwan. 1975. The caloric value of whole ringed seals (Phoca hispida) in 

relation to polar bear (Ursus maritimus) ecology and hunting behavior. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 53:1021-1027. 

Stirling, I. and N.A.Øritsland. 1995. Relationships between estimates of ringed seal (Phoca 

hispida) and polar bear (Ursus maritimus) populations in the Canadian Arctic. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52:2594–2612. 

Stirling, I., E. Richardson, G. W. Thiemann, and A. E. Derocher. 2008. In press. Unusual predation 

attempts of polar bears on ringed seals in the Southern Beaufort Sea: Possible significance 

of changing spring ice conditions. Arctic. 00:000-000. 

Stirling, I., T.L. McDonald, E.S. Richardson, and E.V. Regehr. 2007. Polar bear population status 

in the northern Beaufort Sea. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey 

Administrative Report. 32 pp. 

Stirling, I., D. Andriashek, C. Spencer, C. and A.E. Derocher. 1988. Assessment of the polar bear 

population in the eastern Beaufort Sea. Final report to the Northern Oil and Gas Assessment 

Program. Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 81 pp. 

60
Stirling, I., W. Calvert, and D. Andriashek. 1984. Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) ecology and 

environmental considerations in the Canadian High Arctic. Pages 201–22 in Olsen, R., F. 

Geddes, and R. Hastings, eds. Northern ecology and resource management. University of 

Alberta Press, Edmonton, Canada. 

Stirling, I., M. Kingsley, and W. Calvert. 1982. The distribution and abundance of seals in the 

eastern Beaufort Sea, 1974–79. Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper No. 47, 

Ottawa, Canada. 

Stirling, I., W. Calvert, and D. Andriashek. 1980. Population ecology studies of the polar bear in 

the area of southeastern Baffin Island. Occasional Paper No. 44. Canadian Wildlife Service, 

Ottawa, Canada. 30 pp. 

Stirling, I., C. Jonkel, P. Smith, R. Robertson, and D. Cross. 1977. The ecology of the polar bear 

(Ursus maritimus) along the western coast of Hudson Bay. Occasional Paper No. 33. 

Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Canada. 64 pp. 

Stirling, I., A.M. Pearson, and F.L. Bunnell. 1976. Population ecology studies of polar and grizzly 

bears in northern Canada. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference 41:421–30. 

Stishov, M.S. 1991. Results of aerial counts of the polar bear dens on the Arctic coast of the 

extreme Northeast Asia. Pages 90-92 in Amstrup, S.C. and Ø Wiig, eds. Polar bears: 

proceedings of the tenth working meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group. 

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

Stishov, M.S., G.W. Garner, S.M. Arthur, and V.G. Barnes, Jr. 1991. Distribution and relative 

abundance of maternal polar bears dens in the Chukotka Peninsula region, U.S.S.R. P. 67 in 

Abstracts, 9th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 5-9 December 

1991, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 

Stroeve, J.C., M.C. Serreze, F. Fetterer, T. Arbetter, W. Meier, J. Maslanik, and K. Knowles. 2005. 

Tracking the Arctic’s shrinking sea ice cover: Another extreme September minimum in 

2004, Geophysical Research Letters 32 L0451 doi: 10.1029/2004GL021810. 

Taylor, M.K. et al. Unpublished data. Goverment of Nunavut, Iqaluit, Nunavut Territory, Canada. 

Taylor, M. K., T. Larsen, and R.E. Schweinsburg. 1985. Observations of intraspecific aggression 

and cannibalism in polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Arctic 38:303–9. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Final rule to authorize the incidental take of small 

numbers of pacific walruses and polar bears during oil and gas industry exploration 

activities in the Chukchi Sea. Final Environmental Assessment, DOI, USFWS, 19 March 

2008. 

61
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Biological Opinion for Chukchi Sea Planning 

Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 and Associated Seismic Surveys and Exploratory Drilling. 

Cover letter and Final Biological Opinion, DOI, USFWS, March 2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 

petition to list the polar bear as threatened; status review; re-opening of public comment 

period. 71 FR 28653. 2pp. 

Uspenski, S M., ed. 1977. The polar bear and its conservation in the Soviet Arctic. A collection of 

scientific papers. Central Laboratory of Nature Conservation, Moscow, Russia. 

Watts, P.D. and S.E. Hansen. 1987. Cyclic starvation as a reproductive strategy in the polar bear. 

Symposium of the Zoological Society of London 57:306–18. 

Wiig, Ø. 1998. Survival and reproductive rates for polar bears at Svalbard. Ursus 10:25-32. 

Wiig, Ø., E.W. Born, and L.T. Pedersen. 2003. Movements of female polar bears (Ursus 

maritimus) in the east Greenland pack ice. Polar Biology 26:509-516. 

Wimsatt, W.A. 1963. Delayed implantation in the Ursidae, with particular reference to the black 

bear (Ursus americanus Pallas). Pages 49–76 in A.C. Enders, ed. Delayed implantation. 

University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

62
From: Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities (Final Rule); 71 FR 43951 

63
Appendix 1.

Summary of Conference/Consultation Activities 

1/7/08 – FFWFO conference call with RO ES and MMM staff to discuss polar bear conferences. 

RO identified need for intra-service Sec 7 conference/consultation on Chukchi Sea and Beaufort 

Sea ITRs. Overall new polar bear workload was discussed. 

1/8/08 – Conference call with RO and WO ES staff regarding polar bear conferences/consultations. 

Proposed Chukchi Sea ITRs are scheduled to come out about March 1. 

2/11/08 – Polar bear coordination meeting between FFWFO and MMM at Anchorage Regional 

office; intra-Service conferences on Chukchi and Beaufort ITRs discussed. 

2/26/08 – Conference call between FFWFO, MMM, and RO and WO ES, and AK and WO 

Solicitors to discuss MMPA/ESA coordination issues identified in the Draft Chukchi ITR 

Conference Opinion (relevant, also, to Beaufort Sea ITRs conference). 

3/31/08 – A 90-day detailee arrives in FFWFO to work solely on polar bear 

conference/consultations; Chukchi ITRs are highest priority in detailee’s workload. 

5/15/08 – Final rule to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the ESA and interim final 

4(d) rule are published in the Federal Register; both are effective immediately. Conferences 

become consultations. 

5/29/08 – FFWFO finalizes BO. Beaufort Sea ITRs consultation becomes detailee’s priority 

workload. 

6/10-12/08 – FFWFO worked with MMM to update project description, effects of the action, etc., 

based on new information and any LOAs issued since the Beaufort ITRs were issued. 

6/16/08 – Draft BO sent to RO, MMM, WO, and Solicitors for review. 

6/23/08 – FFWFO finalizes BO. 

64
65

Appendix 2. 

LOA/ITS Content 

The Letter of Authorization Cover Letter will include these statements: 

Per the Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Beaufort Sea Incidental Take Regulations 

for Polar Bear (June 2008), your request also triggers the second of the two-tiered 

programmatic process. 

The LOA also serves as an “Incidental Take Statement” (ITS), required under section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), in order for incidental take of the polar bear to 

be exempted from the prohibitions of the ESA. Issuance of the LOA/ITS fulfills the 

requirements for Tier 2 Consultation of the Programmatic Biological Opinion for the 

activities described in this letter. 

The following statement should be included in the body of the LOA: 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 

Polar Bear 

In the Programmatic Biological Opinion for Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) on Beaufort Sea 

Incidental Take Regulations” (June 2008; Tier 1 BO), the Service determined that the total take 

anticipated as a result of the issuance of the Regulations is not likely to result in jeopardy to the 

polar bear, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

(ESA). In order for the Tier 2 BO to be consistent with the “no jeopardy” conclusion of the Tier 1 

BO and an incidental take statement (ITS) to be provided: (1) the proposed activity must provide 

the required information, as described in the §18.124 of the Regulations, (2) the LOA includes any 

mitigation measures that the MMM believes appropriate for the specific activity and location, as 

described in §18.128 of the Regulations, and (3) the MMM must determine that the incidental take 

for the specific activity will be consistent with the negligible impact finding for the total take 

allowed under the Regulations. 

A reasonable and prudent measure and implementing terms and conditions were included for 

MMM in the Tier 1 BO and have been incorporated into the LOA process. Issuance of this ITS 

with the LOA completes ESA requirements for authorization of incidental take of the polar bear. 

Compliance with the terms and conditions of the above LOA insures that the LOA holder is also in 

compliance with the ESA. 

Documentation of Take

A requirement of each LOA is to provide observational data of polar bears throughout the project 

and a complete report of all observations at the conclusion of the project. This final report will be 

provided to the MMM. This report meets the tracking and reporting requirements relative to the 

documentation of take as required by the MMPA and the ESA.