167 



States has readily available tools that would allow it to take 

 steps to set aside polar bear habitat/ecosystems so that they 

 are fully protected as envisioned by the Agreement. 



Such authority is most directly applicable to habitat 

 impacts that cannot be regulated under the MMPA taking 

 prohibition. These include: permanent damage or destruction 

 to denning areas; long-term occupation of such areas 

 - effectively rendering them unusable by bears; obstructions to 

 bear movement routes that cause them to avoid or abandon 

 preferred habitat locations; contamination of feeding areas; 

 degradation of the ecology of the Arctic causing the 

 contamination of prey species; cumulative impacts from 

 development activities; and releases of contaminants that 

 expose bears to the risk of injury or harm, such as the 

 recently documented exposure to PCBs and other contaminants. 350 



There are several forms of legal authority that could be 

 established to provide the United States with tools to achieve 

 permanent habitat protection for polar bears, should a policy 

 decision be made to pursue such a result. Although this 

 authority could be limited to polar bear habitat/ecosystems, 

 it also could be beneficial for other marine mammals in light 



"See, e.g. . Doug Mellgren, PCBb Suspected in Fewer Polar Bear 

 Birtha, Anchorage Daily NewB . Jan. 24, 1993, at PI; J. Lentfer and 

 W. Galeter, Mercury in Polar Bears from Alaska . Journal of Wildlife 

 Diseases 338 (1987); J. Lentfer, Environmental ContaminantB and '. , -» nites 

 in Polar Bears. Final Report to Alaska Dep't of Fish and Game 7-lj (1976). 



(099O1-970O/DA93032O.0I6I -130- 



