Polar Bear

Recommendations

Info

IV. Conservation Management Strategy growth rate fell below thresholds indicating that one or more conservation criteria were not being met (Fig. 8, yellow zone). In this zone, additional actions are warranted, and the best combination of actions will depend on local considerations and the causes of decline. Potential actions include: greater investment in monitoring of human-caused removals, population size, carrying capacity, or intrinsic growth rate; decreased interval between monitoring efforts; increased efforts to reduce conflicts that require defense-of-life and other removals besides subsistence harvest; and reduction in the rate of total removals, including subsistence harvest. Thus, should a U.S. polar bear subpopulation drop below either of the MMPA demographic criteria (mnpl or minimum carrying capacity), additional restrictions on all human-caused removals, including harvest, may be warranted. It should also be considered that natural feedback mechanisms may decrease removal rates for a subpopulation in this zone, such as decreased interactions between humans and polar bears, decreased access to traditional subsistence hunting areas, and voluntary changes in the behavior of individual hunters or villages. A subpopulation would fall into the third zone (i.e., below the lower threshold) if the carrying capacity, population size, intrinsic growth rate, or other measures indicated that the risk of extirpation was heightened (Fig. 8, red zone). In this zone, emergency measures should be considered to reduce or minimize all human-caused removals, with a goal of affording the subpopulation an increased probability of persistence. Preliminary analyses suggest that a subpopulation size below 350 animals may warrant concern in this regard (Science and TEK Work Group, unpublished data), although multiple interacting factors can affect when a declining subpopulation enters this third zone. Furthermore, historically smaller subpopulations (e.g., those with smaller geographic ranges) may meet the MMPA demographic criteria, and thus remain in the first zone for management purposes, at population sizes below this threshold. Thus, this threshold should only serve as preliminary guidance and should be further evaluated on a subpopulation-specific basis. If a subpopulation is managed according to this framework for human-caused removals, we believe that removals will not be a threat to persistence. Thus, a subpopulation should fall into the third zone if the primary threat has not been adequately addressed; reduction of human-caused removals at this point can only serve to provide a small amount of additional time to address the primary threat. Consistent, thorough, and coordinated monitoring is needed to support this framework for managing human-caused removals. The better the monitoring, the less risk-averse the local authorities need to be in setting annual limits for removals; that is, good monitoring supports all of the Fundamental Goals. Of particular importance is the reporting of polar bear mortality itself, including reporting of subsistence harvest, natural mortality, defenseof-life-and-property removals, and industrial take. Documentation of these mortalities, and where possible, collection of samples for demographic and health assessment, provides valuable information for evaluating achievement of the criteria in this plan, as well as for identifying priority actions. Such monitoring is best undertaken using local personnel, skills, and resources. The development of appropriate protocols for reporting take may need to take into account the local context. Local communities may need resources from external partners to support this reporting effort. The details of the three-level system will, and should be, specific to each subpopulation. The particular criteria and thresholds that indicate transitions between zones, and the actions to be undertaken in each zone, will need to be developed. This Plan offers guidance, in the form of the framework described above, and the Implementation Team can offer technical support. It is the vision of this Plan that the specifics of management of subsistence harvest and other human-caused removals be developed at the subpopulation level by the participating co-management partners. Conservation and recovery actions 1. Collaborate with co-management partners and others on implementation of robust and sustainable subsistence management strategies for the Chukchi Sea and Southern Beaufort Sea subpopulations in the context of existing agreements. 2. Develop detailed guidance, with proposed analytical methods, for designing a take-management framework at the subpopulation level. 3. Maintain, improve, and support reporting protocols for all forms of human-caused mortality and for harvest biomonitoring efforts, both within the United States and with international partners. 4. Improve communications with Alaska Native organizations and communities to ensure that hunters and residents of rural Alaska are more meaningful partners in polar bear co-management activities. Total cost: approximately $1,242,000 per year. 46 Polar Bear Conservation Management Plan
IV. Conservation Management Strategy Protect denning habitat The availability of and access to terrestrial denning habitat is an important component of polar bear reproduction. Collaborative processes are currently in place to minimize effects on denning bears (e.g., the Incidental Take Program under the MMPA, for industrial activities). Going forward, we will continue those efforts with industry and others, and will work to improve our ability to detect dens and identify desirable denning habitat. As sea ice declines and the availability of stable sea ice suitable for denning decreases, terrestrial denning habitat will become even more important (Fischbach et al. 2007). We will work with partners to minimize development and disturbance on barrier islands, which provide or could provide crucial habitat for denning, migrating, and resting and we will work collectively to minimize and mitigate impacts when development occurs there. Conservation and recovery actions 1. Continue den detection, mapping, behavioral, and habitat work in polar bear habitat in the United States. 2. Minimize development and disturbance on barrier islands (where denning habitat is most limited). Where development occurs in polar bear habitat within the United States, work collaboratively to mitigate loss of denning habitat. Total cost: approximately $197,000 per year. Minimize risk of contamination from spills Ship traffic and offshore oil and gas activities have increased due to summer sea ice declines (Gautier et al. 2009, Smith and Stephenson 2013), increasing the risk to polar bears and their prey of exposure to oil spills. Spills have the potential to harm polar bears in numerous ways, including through impaired thermoregulation (Hurst and Øritsland 1982, Hurst et al. 1991), ingestion (Derocher and Stirling 1991, Øritsland et al. 1981, St. Aubin 1990), and consumption of contaminated prey (Stirling 1990). Depending on the size, location and timing, a spill could affect a large number of animals (Amstrup et al. 2006). Current regulatory processes (e.g., NEPA analyses, ESA section 7 consultations, MMPA incidental take regulations) and industry-led plans and practices have contributed to the absence of any major mishaps affecting polar bears in 30 years of oil and gas operations on the North Slope. Continued vigilance is imperative, particularly with the opening of new shipping lanes, the prospect of offshore oil exploration and development, and the increased risk of contaminant release from community tank farms and landfills along the coast. We will pursue several avenues to minimize the risk of marine spills and, should a spill occur, to improve the ability of responders to minimize harm to polar bears and their prey. Examples of specific actions include continuing to provide feedback on oil exploration plans and compliance documents; ensuring that responders and companies have current information on seasonal bear movements, aggregations, and important habitat areas; and developing standard operating procedures for deterrence, rescue, and handling of oiled bears. Conservation and recovery actions 1. Update existing oil spill modeling and scenarios; anticipate potential overlap with seasonal polar bear movements, aggregations, and important habitats within the United States. 2. Review and comment on proposed projects and activities in polar bear habitat within the United States (e.g., oil and gas exploration, new shipping routes and regulations, and community tank farms) to mitigate potential adverse outcomes. 3. Develop and distribute standard operating procedures and mitigation plans for deterrence, rescue, and handling of oiled polar bears. Total cost: approximately $501,000 per year. Polar Bear Conservation Management Plan 47
Page 1 and 2: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pola
Page 3 and 4: Polar Bear Conservation Management
Page 5 and 6: Contents Executive Summary.........
Page 7 and 8: Executive Summary Today, polar bear
Page 9 and 10: and connectivity in each recovery u
Page 11 and 12: I. Background I. BACKGROUND Polar b
Page 13 and 14: I. Background the extent and charac
Page 15 and 16: II. Conservation Strategy II. CONSE
Page 17 and 18: III. Management Goals and Criteria
Page 21 and 22: B. Conservation Criteria under the
Page 43 and 44: IV. Conservation Management Strateg
Page 47: IV. Conservation Management Strateg
Page 55 and 56: V. Literature Cited V. LITERATURE C
Page 57 and 58: V. Literature Cited National Marine
Page 59 and 60: V. Literature Cited Wade, P.R. 1998
Page 61 and 62: VI. Glossary Population. A group of
Page 63 and 64: Appendix A—Background APPENDIX A
Page 65 and 66: Appendix A—Background bears are f
Page 67 and 68: Appendix A—Background Sea ice is
Page 69 and 70: Appendix A—Background et al. 2015
Page 71 and 72: Appendix A—Background of the Conv
Page 73 and 74: Appendix A—Background Polar Bears
Page 75 and 76: Appendix A—Background (e.g. giard
Page 77 and 78: Appendix A—Background overall. Th
Page 79 and 80: Appendix A—Background mitigate im
Page 81 and 82: Appendix A—Background of subsiste
Page 83 and 84: Appendix A—Background Blank, J.J.
Page 85 and 86: Appendix A—Background Environment
Page 87 and 88: Appendix A—Background Lunn, N.J.,
Page 89 and 90: Appendix A—Background Rode, K.D.,
Page 91 and 92: Appendix A—Background Voorhees, H
Page 93 and 94: Appendix B—Specific Conservation
Page 99 and 100:
Appendix C—Population Dynamics an
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
show all

Polar Bear

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?