MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION — Annual Report for 1991 



the Service to expedite completion and adoption of 

 conservation plans for each of the three species. The 

 Service accepted and the Commission subsequently 

 initiated efforts to develop draft conservation plans. 

 The draft polar bear plan is expected to be completed 

 and forwarded to the Service early in 1992. 



Proposed Oil and Gas Development in 

 the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 



By letter of 3 September 1991, the American 

 Institute of Biological Sciences and the Defenders of 

 Wildlife requested that the Commission undertake a 

 review to determine whether proposed oil and gas 

 development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 

 in conflict with (1) protection of the Beaufort Sea 

 polar bear population, and (2) U.S. obligations to 

 protect polar bear denning habitat under the Interna- 

 tional Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. 

 The letter cited recent studies indicating that the 

 coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

 constitutes important polar bear denning habitat and 

 pointed out that the United States is obligated, under 

 the 1973 polar bear agreement, to protect such areas. 



On 17 September 1991, the Commission advised 

 the Fish and Wildlife Service of the request. In its 

 letter, the Commission noted that the Arctic National 

 Wildlife Refuge is the only remaining relatively 

 undisturbed on-land polar bear denning area in Alas- 

 ka. It also noted that reproductive success appears to 

 be greater in on-land dens than in pack ice dens, and 

 that it is not clear how oil and gas development and 

 other activities in the Reftige, and other areas along 

 the coast and offshore Alaska and Canada, would 

 affect the Beaufort Sea polar bear population. In this 

 regard, the Commission noted that, while activities in 

 any one area might not have significant adverse 

 impacts, it is reasonable to presume that activities in 

 certain areas, such as the Arctic National Wildlife 

 Refuge, might have effects greater than activities in 

 other areas, and that the cumulative effects of activi- 

 ties in many areas could disadvantage polar bear 

 populations throughout the Arctic. 



The Commission noted that it previously had 

 advised the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Min- 

 erals Management Service of actions necessary to 



assess and avoid or minimize the possible adverse 

 impacts of Alaska oil and gas development on polar 

 bears and other marine mammals. To allow it to 

 respond fiilly to the request from the American 

 Institute of Biological Sciences and the Defenders of 

 Wildlife, the Commission requested that the Service 

 advise it as to: (1) what the Service had done, in 

 addition to the actions described in its 11 June 1991 

 letter mentioned previously, to respond to the rec- 

 ommendations in the Commission's letter of 28 

 December 1990; (2) what the Service was doing, or 

 had advised the Minerals Management Service that it 

 should be doing, to identify important polar bear 

 denning areas and how oil and gas development in the 

 Arctic might affect those areas and the bears that use 

 them; and (3) what the Service has done or is consid- 

 ering doing to ensure that oil and gas development 

 and other activities in Alaska are not inconsistent with 

 the International Agreement on the Conservation of 

 Polar Bears. 



The Service responded to the Commission's letter 

 on 16 October 1991. In its response, the Service 

 noted that it had placed highest priority on developing 

 and implementing regulations allowing the take of 

 polar bears and other marine mammals incidental to 

 oil and gas operations as directed by section 101(a)(5) 

 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (see Chapter 

 VIII for additional discussion of this issue). As 

 regards the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the 

 Service noted that it has conducted research since 

 1981 to identify and evaluate the importance of the 

 Refuge and adjacent areas in the Beaufort Sea for 

 polar bear denning, and has sought and received 

 support from the Minerals Management Service to 

 expand those studies. The Service described efforts 

 that it and the Minerals Management Service have 

 undertaken to assess and ensure that oil and gas 

 activities do not adversely affect polar bears or their 

 habitat. 



With regard to the Commission's question as to 

 what was being done to ensure that oil and gas 

 activities and other activities in Alaska are not incon- 

 sistent with the International Agreement on the Con- 

 servation of Polar Bears, the Service indicated that 

 letters of authorization issued pursuant to the previ- 

 ously mentioned regulations would require monitoring 

 programs to further evaluate the predicted effects of 



50 



