Thomas J. Evans | Geology Reports

USGS2019

Current state of knowledge on biological effects from contaminants on arctic wildlife and fish

Since the last Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) effort to review biological effects of the exposure to organohalogen compounds (OHCs) in Arctic biota, there has been a considerable number of new Arctic effect studies. Here, we provide an update on the state of the knowledge of OHC, and also include mercury, exposure and/or associated effects in key Arctic marine and terrestrial mammal and bird species as well as in fish by reviewing the literature published since the last AMAP assessment in 2010. We aimed at updating the knowledge of how single but also combined health effects are or can be associated to the exposure to single compounds or mixtures of OHCs. We also focussed on assessing both potential individual as well as population health impacts using population-specific exposure data post 2000. We have identified quantifiable effects on vitamin metabolism, immune functioning, thyroid and steroid hormone balances, oxidative stress, tissue pathology, and reproduction. As with the previous assessment, a wealth of documentation is available for biological effects in marine mammals and seabirds, and sentinel species such as the sledge dog and Arctic fox, but information for terrestrial vertebrates and fish remain scarce. While hormones and vitamins are thoroughly studied, oxidative stress, immunotoxic and reproductive effects need further investigation. Depending on the species and population, some OHCs and mercury tissue contaminant burdens post 2000 were observed to be high enough to exceed putative risk threshold levels that have been previously estimated for non-target species or populations outside the Arctic. In this assessment, we made use of risk quotient calculations to summarize the cumulative effects of different OHC classes and mercury for which critical body burdens can be estimated for wildlife across the Arctic. As our ultimate goal is to better predict or estimate the effects of OHCs and mercury in Arctic wildlife at the individual, population and ecosystem level, there remain numerous knowledge gaps on the biological effects of exposure in Arctic biota. These knowledge gaps include the establishment of concentration thresholds for individual compounds as well as for realistic cocktail mixtures that in fact indicate biologically relevant, and not statistically determined, health effects for specific species and subpopulations. Finally, we provide future perspectives on understanding Arctic wildlife health using new in vivo, in vitro, and in silico techniques, and provide case studies on multiple stressors to show that future assessments would benefit from significant efforts to integrate human health, wildlife ecology and retrospective and forecasting aspects into assessing the biological effects of OHC and mercury exposure in Arctic wildlife and fish.

Science of the Total Environment↗

USGS2002

Polar bear management in Alaska 1997-2000

Since the Twelfth Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group in 1997, a number of changes in the management of polar bears have occurred in Alaska. On October 16, 2000, the governments of the United States and the Russian Federation signed the “Agreement on the Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population.” This agreement provides substantial benefits for the effective conservation of polar bears shared between the U.S. and Russia. It will require enactment of enabling legislation by the U.S. Congress and other steps by Russia before the agreement has the force of law. A copy of the agreement is included as Appendix 1 to this report. Also, during this period, regulations were developed to implement 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which allow polar bear trophies taken in approved Canadian populations by U.S. citizens to be imported into the U.S. A summary of the regulatory actions and a table listing populations approved for importation and the number of polar bears imported into the U.S. since 1997 is included in this report. Regarding oil and gas activities in polar bear habitat, three sets of regulations were published authorizing the incidental, non-intentional, taking of small numbers of polar bears concurrent to oil and gas activities. Cooperation continued with the Alaska Nanuuq Commission, representing the polar bear hunting communities in Alaska, as well as with the North Slope Borough and the Inuvialuit Game Council in their agreement for the management of the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population. Harvest summaries and technical assistance in designing and assistance in conducting a National Park Service/Alaska Nanuuq Commission study to collect traditional ecological knowledge of polar bear habitat use in Chukotka were provided. In addition, a long-range plan was developed to address and minimize polar bear-human conflicts in North Slope communities. We continued to monitor the harvest of polar bears in Alaska and collect and analyze specimens for presence and level of organochlorine compounds and trace elements. A paper on genetic assessment of hunter reported sex of harvested bears was recently published (Schliebe et al. 1999). Population status and trend assessment efforts continued. An aerial survey of polar bears in the Eastern Chukchi Sea and western portions of the Southern Beaufort Sea was conducted from the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker “Polar Star” in August 2000. The first year of a multi-year survey of barrier islands and coastlines during the open water and freeze-up phase was conducted in the central Southern Beaufort Sea during fall 2000.

Alaska↗