ALASKA BELUGA WHALE COMMITTEE REPORT 02-3

Summer Movements of Beluga Whales Captured in the Kvichak River, in May 2002

Prepared by Lori Quakenbush Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1300 College Road Fairbanks, AK 99701

A cooperative project among:

Bristol Bay Native Association Ralph Andersen, Director, Natural Resources Helen Chythlook, Coordinator, Special Projects Hans Nicholson, Coordinator, Subsistence

Bristol Bay Marine Mammal Council Myra Olsen, Chair Nick Apokedak, Alternate Member and Beluga hunter

Alaska Beluga Whale Committee/North Slope Borough Robert Suydam, Wildlife Biologist

National Marine Fisheries Service, Western Alaska Field Office Barbara Mahoney, Biologist

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Lori Quakenbush, Wildlife Biologist, Marine Mammals, Project Coordinator Slim Morstad, Fisheries Biologist, Commercial Fisheries Division Molly Chythlook, Subsistence Division

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries Resource Office Jim Larson

November 2002

INTRODUCTION

Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) are harvested for subsistence in Bristol Bay (Seaman and Burns 1981, Chythlook and Coiley 1994, Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, unpublished data) and are known to be substantial predators of salmon (Brooks 1954, 1955; Seaman et al. 1982; Kleinenberg et al. 1964 in Hazard 1988), also important for subsistence and commercial purposes. The Bristol Bay area has supported the largest sockeye salmon (Onchorynchus nerka) fishery in the world. The sockeye salmon returns in the Kvichak River system of Bristol Bay, however, were well below that forecasted for 1997 and 1998 (Crawford 2001) and have remained so low that commercial seasons for this run were closed in 2000, 2001, and 2002.

The reasons for the poor salmon escapement are unknown, however research conducted in the 1950s indicated that beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) could be substantial predators of smolt and adult sockeye salmon, especially when salmon stocks were depleted (Brooks 1954, 1955). Mean estimates of beluga whale abundance from aerial surveys conducted in 1999 and 2000 were 20% higher than mean estimates for 1993 and 1994 indicating that the beluga whale population in Bristol Bay may have increased in the last 10 years (Frost and Lowry 2002). The number of belugas using the Kvichak River, the amount of time they spend there, and the amount of salmon being eaten may have increased as well.

Beluga whales feed on a variety of invertebrates (shrimp, crab, mussels, squid, octopus) and fishes (arctic cod, saffron cod, herring, whitefish, smelt, char, sculpin, suckers, eelpout, salmon; Brooks 1954, 1955; Seaman et al. 1982; Kleinenberg et al. 1964 in Hazard 1988). In the coastal zone, estuaries, and rivers, beluga whales appear to feed on the prey that are most abundant and available (Seaman and Burns 1981). In the Kvichak River and bay area, rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) are the focal prey when they return to the river to spawn just after break-up (Brooks 1954, 1955). After smelt numbers drop in early to mid-May, emigrating sockeye salmon smolt become important. In June and July when smolt are gone, belugas switch to returning adult salmon.

Five stocks of beluga whales have been identified in Alaska based on their summering areas (Frost and Lowry 1990) and genetic structure (O’Corry-Crowe et al. 1997): Beaufort, Eastern Chukchi, Eastern Bering, Bristol Bay, and Cook Inlet. The Cook Inlet stock was determined to be “depleted” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act due to concerns that the numbers were below its Optimum Sustainable Population level. The status of all other stocks is thought to be stable or increasing.

The objectives of this study were to:

(1) Capture and attach satellite transmitters to five beluga whales in the Kvichak River with the assistance of local beluga hunters in early May.

(2) Analyze beluga location data relative to numbers and timing of out-migrating smolt and returning adult salmon.

(3) Determine residence time of tagged beluga whales in the Kvichak River system.

2

(4) Coordinate with beluga hunters to collect stomach contents from beluga whales harvested in the Kvichak River and analyze contents to determine species and amount of prey consumed.

(5) Estimate the number of smolt and adult salmon eaten by individual beluga whales in the Kvichak River drainage.

METHODS

Capture and Handling

Five beluga whales were captured using an 800-ft. long seine net, 15-ft deep with 21 in. mesh deployed from an aluminum skiff with a 70 hp outboard. Two aluminum boats and an inflatable boat were also used. Once the target whale was alone and in water 2 m (6.5 ft) deep or less, the net boat moved to within 30 m (98 ft), matched its speed to the beluga and moved parallel with the whale on the port (lead line) side. When the driver was satisfied that the whale was in proper position and moving steadily, he accelerated to full throttle. Throwing a buoy attached to the float line from the stern deployed the net using the drag created by the buoy in the water. As the net deployed, the boat turned counterclockwise to keep the lead line on the inside of the turn. Ideally, the buoy at the other end of the net ends up very near the first one in order to close the net in a full circle. The other boats were responsible for keeping the whale from escaping before the buoys could be pulled together and for closing the net by clipping it together. Beluga whale hunters familiar with beluga whale behavior and local topography were crucial for this phase of the capture process.

Once a whale was entangled in the net, an inflatable boat went to the whale and placed a tail rope around the base of the tail. A tail rope is made of a 2-m length of 12-mm diameter rope threaded through a 1 m length of soft tubing. The rope at both ends is made into a knotless loop 15–20 cm in diameter. The tail rope is placed around the caudal peduncle and the rope end loop is placed through the loop on the end with tubing and drawn to cinch the tube-covered end around the tail. The tubing protects the tail from abrasion.

Once the whale was secured to the inflatable boat by one or two tail ropes, a hoop net was placed around the whale’s head and pectoral flippers. The hoop net is a 1.2-m (4 ft) diameter hoop of ribar wrapped in Styrofoam pipe insulation and duct tape (similar to Orr et al. 2001). Netting with a stretched mesh size of 40 mm (1.5 in) is attached to the hoop, cut to a length of 140 cm (4.5 ft) and sewn closed. With tail rope(s) and a hoop net in place, the capture team can remove the seine net. Each whale was then taken to shallower water by another boat towing the inflatable boat with the whale attached. Members of the capture team wearing dry suits got out of the boats and pulled the whale into shallow water until its dorsal ridge was exposed for tagging.

Satellite Tagging

We used Satellite-linked, UHF transmitters, manufactured by Wildlife Computers. Four tags were configured with spider-type cable attachments and one had a saddle-type attachment. Each tag weighed ~750 g or less and measured 15 x 5 x 4 cm or less. The tags were powered by lithium C-cell batteries and had an output of 0.5 watts. Transmitters collected dive data continuously but were set to transmit at every surface opportunity. The transmitters were attached to belugas with nylon pins, approximately 0.33 m (13 in) long. Holes for the pins are 3

made using a sharp metal coring tool (Trocar). Four pins were inserted through the skin and blubber anterior to the dorsal ridge through pre-cut holes in the fabric of the saddle-type transmitters and three pins were inserted through a loop in the cables attaching the spider-type tag. Nylon washers and nuts were used to hold both attachment types to the back of each whale. This attachment technique appears to have little long-term impact on beluga whales (Orr et al. 1998). Standard body length, fluke width, and axillary girth were measured and recorded. Sex and color of each beluga were also recorded.

Satellite Data

Tagged beluga whale locations were obtained from ARGOS weekly and maps of locations were plotted using ArcView (See ARGOS 1998, Fancy et al. 1988 for a detailed description of the ARGOS data collection and location system). Each location is associated with a quality code that describes the error around the location estimate. For our analysis, only locations with location quality scores of 1, 2, and 3, which have estimated errors of 1 km or less were used.

We defined residence time in the Kvichak River for each tagged beluga whale as beginning when the whale was tagged and ending when it passed west of a north-south line along the 158o 16’W longitude (Fig. 1). Locations west of this line (>158o 16’W) were considered to be in the Nushagak River system. Residence time would begin again when the whale passed east of that line. Locations were analyzed by day. If all of the locations received for an individual whale during a day were in the Kvichak that was considered one Kvichak location/day. If some locations were also in the Nushagak on that day then the location/day was divided in half and the whale was considered to be in both river systems equally on that day. Gaps in the data, due to days with no locations, were assigned according to where the whale was on the days on either side of the gap. If a whale was in the Kvichak on 20 June and the next location on 25 June was also in the Kvichak then all unknown days would be assigned to the Kvichak system. If a whale was in the Kvichak on 20 June, but in the Nushagak on 25 June, the unknown days would be divided equally between the two systems.

Aerial Reconnaissance Surveys

Sightings of belugas were recorded during one aerial survey of the Kvichak River and bay area on 29 May. The survey began at Naknek and continued to Ben Courtney Creek, approximately 27 river miles upriver from Levelock. Across Kvichak Bay, east-west flight lines were 1/2 mi apart until the river narrowed and then one line was flown eastward of the east bank of the river. For each beluga sighting, the time, number of mature and immature whales in each group, observed behavior (traveling, diving, feeding), heading (upriver, down river, neither), boat activity, water conditions (clear, muddy, choppy water), tidal stage (flood, ebb, slack), weather conditions, visibility, wind speed and direction, altitude and air speed were recorded.

Fish Estimates

Hydroacoustic (sonar) equipment has been used on the Kvichak River to estimate sockeye salmon smolt numbers since 1971. The number of emigrating salmon smolt have been estimated by upward-looking sonar located 6 km below the outlet of Lake Iliamna (59o 18.049’ N, 155o 57.859’W) where the river is 137 m wide (Crawford 2001). Smolt numbers are

4

calculated by estimating total fish biomass emigrating past the sonar site per day, sampling the population passing to estimate species, age, weight, and length composition and converting fish biomass to numbers of smolt by age and species (Crawford 2001). In 2002, a side-looking sonar was also used for comparison with the upward-looking sonar. Smolts to be sampled were captured in a fyke net, measured (fork length, mm), weighed (g), and aged (scale annuli).

Beluga Stomach Contents

One stomach from a beluga whale harvested within the Kvichak River was placed in plastic bags, frozen, and shipped to ADF&G in Fairbanks for analysis. Whole and mostly whole fish were removed from the stomach without rinsing and placed on a tray for weighing. The remaining contents were gently rinsed in freshwater over 1.0-mm mesh screen stacked on a 0.42- mm mesh screen. Prey items were sorted macroscopically into major taxonomic groups and identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible. Volumes of sorted prey items were measured to the nearest 1-ml by water displacement.

RESULTS

Capture

Five beluga whales were captured near the village of Levelock on the Kvichak River (Table 1). One whale was captured on 18 May, two on 19 May and two on 20 May 2002.

Table 1. Characteristics of beluga whales captured in the Kvichak River, Alaska in May 2002.

Axillary Fluke Attach Length girth cm width Freq. type Sex cm (ft) (ft) cm (ft) Color/Age

14180 Spider F 289 (9’6”) 175 (5’9”) 66 (2’2”) White-gray/Juv

30721 Spider M 293 (9’7”) 156 (5’2”) 63 (2”1”) Gray-white/Juv

11043 Spider M 298 (9’9”) 175 (5’9”) 75 (2’6”) White-gray/Juv

02283 Saddle F 293 (9’7”) 173 (5’8”) 69 (2’3”) Gray-white/Juv

11040 Spider M 345 (11’4”) 200 (6’7”) 81 (2’8”) White/Adult

Beluga Location Data

Acceptable quality locations were received from each whale from deployment through August although some individuals went a week or more without good locations. Other data about the status of the transmitter and dive data were received indicating the transmitters continued to function and were still attached to the animal.

5

The five whales spent a total of 304 beluga/days in the Kvichak system and 177 beluga/days in the Nushagak between May and August (Table 2). Locations were received from all five whales from May through August, two continued to transmit into October. In general, all five whales remained within Kvichak Bay until late June (Figs. 2 and 3) when two moved west approximately 130 km to remain in upper Nushagak Bay (14180 and 11040). In mid-July another whale (02283) moved out of Kvichak Bay into lower Nushagak Bay (Fig. 4) and in August was found farther up in the bay (Fig. 5). The other two whales mostly remained in Kvichak Bay through August, however they spent some time near the boundary between the two bays (Fig. 5).

Table 2. Summary data for Bristol Bay beluga whale satellite locations from 19 May to 31 August 2002.

Whale Id. 2283 11040 11043 14180 30721 Totals

Days tracked1 85 91 98 105 102 481

No. days without a location 53 60 88 32 25 258

No. loc/days in Kvichak 22.5 6.5 9 30.5 72.5 141

Estimated no. days in Kvichak 56 25.5 87 34 101.5 304

No. loc/days in Nushagak 8.5 25 1 42.5 4 81

Estimated no. days in Nushagak 31.5 64.5 8 69 4.5 177.5

No. loc days in both 5 1 0 1 3 10

1 Total number of days from first location received in May through the last location received in August 2002.

Aerial Reconnaissance Surveys

One aerial survey was flown over the Kvichak Bay and Kvichak River on 29 May from 7:56–9:13 am (Fig. 6). Nine counted seen (Table 3). Whales were seen in three locations (A, B, and C; Fig. 6). The corrected estimate for this survey using a correction factor of 2.75 (if flying at 165 km/hr viewing time 10 s, altitude 300 m; Frost et al.1985) was 388. We attempted to time additional aerial surveys with salmon smolt outmigration, however, no in-season smolt counts were available this year due to ice in the outlet of Lake Iliamna (See Fish Estimates below).

6

Table 3. Beluga whales observed during an aerial survey of Kvichak Bay and River on 29 May 2002.

Group No. Group Size Location Behavior

1 24 A Feeding

2 50 A Feeding

3 30 A Feeding

4 10 A Feeding

5 3 A Traveling

6 12 B Milling

7 4 B Feeding

8 4 B Traveling

9 4 C Traveling

Fish Estimates

No in-season estimate was made in 2002 of smolt numbers leaving Lake Iliamna because ice at the outlet of the lake did not allow the placement of the sonar counting equipment. An estimate from side-looking sonar equipment will be available this winter and may provide information on the timing of the migration. Timing and numbers of adult salmon by river were better documented (Table 4).

Beluga Stomach Contents

One beluga whale was harvested for subsistence on 19 May 2002. It was a gray/white male, standard length 287 cm (9’5”), axillary girth 173 cm (5’8”), and fluke width 73 cm (2’5”). Samples were collected for contaminants, genetics, and stomach content analyses. Contaminant and genetic samples were sent to other researchers and those results are not yet available.

The single beluga stomach contained 317 rainbow smelt in various stages of digestion. Ninety-six fish were mostly whole, another 142 fish were more digested, and 79 were fully digested with only spines and skulls remaining. Tail segments from three individual shrimp and one small whole crab were also found; these items have not yet been identified to species. The weight of the stomach contents prior to rinsing was 6.3 kg (13.9 lbs). No other stomachs were available from Bristol Bay in 2002.

7

Table 4. Chronological summary of adult sockeye salmon returns for some Bristol Bay rivers, 2002.

Run Mid-point Run Escapement Total River Start Date Date End Date by 30 June Escapement

Kvichak 21 June 3 July 18 July 55,380 703,884

Alagnak <28 June 7 July >22 July 51,288 766,962

Naknek 19 June 30 June 15 July 595,236 1,263,918

Nushagak 13 June 29 June 27 July 158,241 313,111

Wood 21 June 29 June 21 July 685,000 1,283,682

Snake1 - - - - -

Igushik 30 June 9 July 25 July 204 123,156

1 This river has a late salmon run. There are no counts in June and July.

Dive and Surface Times

The National Marine Fisheries Service, National Marine Mammal Lab, is currently conducting a preliminary analysis of the dive data collected by the satellite transmitters. These data could be used to calculate correction factors for aerial surveys and describe dive behavior.

DISCUSSION

It is thought that beluga whales enter the Kvichak and Nushagak rivers in late April or early May to eat rainbow smelt moving upriver to spawn. Belugas switch to salmon smolt as rainbow smelt decrease in number and salmon smolt, particularly sockeye smolt, leave lakes for saltwater. Belugas then feed on adult salmon as the spawners return. Although sockeye smolt numbers were not available this year to correlate with beluga movements, a 10-year average chronology from Lake Iliamna shows smolt beginning to leave the lake around 18 May with 50– 60% out by the end of May. The outmigration is complete by mid-June (Crawford 2001). All five tagged belugas remained within the Kvichak area during this time period and may have been feeding on sockeye smolt.

Beluga whales are commonly seen in Kvichak and Nushagak bays throughout the summer, and Brooks (1955) reported some movement of belugas from the Kvichak to the Nushagak, possibly in response to differential salmon abundance. Our data showed that two (40%) of the tagged whales remained within Kvichak Bay throughout the May–August time period. It is unknown whether beluga whales that were in the Nushagak area in the early spring moved into the Kvichak area. The sockeye salmon return in the Kvichak River was low again in 8

2002. Only 704,000 adult sockeye salmon entered Lake Iliamna, well below the 2 million fish escapement goal. More fish were available in the river, however, as an additional 767,000 sockeye salmon went up the Alagnak (Branch) River, a tributary of the Kvichak River (Table 4). There was no commercial fishing on these salmon again this year, although subsistence fishing occurred in some areas. The salmon returns in the tributaries of the Nushagak River were strong, and a commercial fishery occurred there at the mouth of the Wood River in July (S. Morstad, pers. comm.).

It seems reasonable that belugas would maximize their feeding opportunities by moving to where fish abundance was greatest. The beluga location data and the fish escapement data, however, do not support this hypothesis. By the end of June, the Kvichak system had received only 107,000 adult sockeye salmon compared to 840,000 in the Nushagak system and 600,000 in the Naknek River (Table 4). All tagged whales, however, stayed in the Kvichak area until the end of June, when two whales moved into Nushagak Bay.

Although the amount of salmon returning to the Kvichak system was lower than other areas in Bristol Bay, it may have been sufficient for belugas to feed. Other factors that may influence beluga whale distribution may include competition with other beluga whales, avoidance of fishing boats, fidelity to previously used areas, ideal feeding conditions (e.g., depth, currents, water clarity, tide cycles), and avoidance of killer whales (Orcinus orca). The current estimate for the Bristol Bay population is 1,300–2,000 belugas (Frost and Lowry 2002) and they are distributed in or near all of the large salmon-bearing rivers of Bristol Bay throughout the summer.

The five tagged whales occurred in the upper portions of Kvichak and Nushagak bays. Between bays they occurred only along the northern nearshore areas. This distribution was similar to that found from aerial surveys and past studies (Brooks 1955, Frost et al. 1985; Frost and Lowry 1990). Belugas have also been observed in the Alagnak River (D. Crawford, in lit.) and we did receive signals from one beluga located there in May.

The satellite transmitters were designed to go into standby (no transmit) mode if out of saltwater for prolonged periods (a battery-saving strategy when placed on seals and sea lions that remain on haulouts for days). Unfortunately, freshwater can trigger the standby mode as well. No locations were received, however, that indicated any tagged beluga whales approached the Naknek River. In October, locations were received from inside Egegik Bay and Egegik River, indicating that transmitters worked in that salinity regime.

Brooks (1954) estimated that one beluga whale feeding in the river during the smolt migration would consume 390 smolt two times a day as dictated by the tide cycle. He estimated that 150 beluga whales eating smolt during an 18-day period, would consume 2,106,000 smolt per year. Our data indicate that beluga whales were remarkably consistent in their distribution within the upper portion of Kvichak Bay and the lower portion of the Kvichak River from 22 May through mid-June, the time period when historically the entire sockeye salmon smolt migration occurs. Data from the one aerial survey conducted on 29 May 2002 suggests that the number of whales feeding in the Kvichak area may be greater (possibly two times greater) than that Brooks (1954) used in his calculations.

9

RECOMMENDATIONS

In order to estimate the number of smolt and adult salmon eaten by beluga whales in the Kvichak River drainage, we need to tag additional whales during the next few years to determine the consistency of their movements. Multiple aerial surveys should be conducted throughout the salmon season to estimate the number of beluga whales within the Kvichak drainage during that time.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Bristol Bay Native Association initiated the project, provided funding and allowed Helen Chythlook to assist with tagging. The Alaska Beluga Whale Committee (ABWC) provided three transmitters through a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grant received by the North Slope Borough for the ABWC and supported Charles Saccheus to assist in tagging. The National Marine Fisheries Service, National Marine Mammal Lab provided two transmitters, data acquisition for those transmitters, and the technical assistance of Rod Hobbs. In addition, they provided equipment for the tagging operation and allowed Dan Vos to assist with tagging. Drew Crawford of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Division provided salmon count data and Slim Morstad provided information and assisted with logistics for personnel and gear moving through King Salmon. Pilot Tom O’Hara and the U.S. Park Service provided aerial support for the survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries Resource Office provided an inflatable boat and motor for tagging. Nick Apokedak of Levelock provided expertise and equipment for a very successful tagging operation. Brian Apokedak and Gusty Tallekpalek of Levelock were important members of the tagging team.

LITERATURE CITED

ARGOS. 1998. ARGOS user manual. Landover, Maryland: Service ARGOS, Inc.

Brooks, J. W. 1954. Beluga. Pages 51–57 in Annual Report, 1954. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Report. Juneau, Alaska.

Brooks, J. W. 1955. Beluga. Pages 98–106 in Annual Report, 1955. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Report. Juneau, Alaska.

Chythlook, M., and P. Coiley. 1994. The subsistence use of beluga whale in Bristol Bay by Alaska Natives, 1993. Technical Paper No. 231, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, AK. 29 pp.

Crawford, D. L. 2001. Bristol Bay sockeye salmon smolt studies for 2001. Regional Information Report No. 2A01-27. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Anchorage, AK. 164 pp.

Fancy, S. G., L. F. Pank, D. C. Douglas, C. H. Curby, G. W. Garner, S. C. Amstrup, and W. L. Regelin. 1988. Satellite telemetry: a new tool for wildlife research and management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication No. 172. 54 pp.

10

Frost, K. J., and L. F. Lowry. 1990. Distribution, abundance, and movements of beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas, in coastal waters of western Alaska. Pages 39–57 in: T. G. Smith, D. J. St. Aubin, and J. R. Geraci, eds. Advances in research on the beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Vol. 224.

Frost, K. J., and L. F. Lowry. 2002. Alaska Beluga Whale Committee surveys of beluga whales in Bristol Bay, Alaska, 1999-2000. Alaska Beluga Whale Committee Draft report 02-1.

Frost, K. J., L. F. Lowry, and R. R. Nelson. 1984. Belukha whale studies in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Pages 187–200 in Proceedings of the workshop on biological interactions among marine mammals and commercial fisheries in southeastern Bering Sea, 18–21 October 1983, Anchorage, AK. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Sea Grant Report 84–1.

Frost, K. J., L. F. Lowry, and R. R. Nelson. 1985. Radiotagging studies of belukha whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Marine Mammal Science 1(3):191–202.

Hazard, K. 1988. Beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas. Pages 195–235 in J.W. Lentfer, ed. Selected Marine Mammals of Alaska: Species Accounts with Research and Management Recommendations. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C.

O’Corry-Crowe, G. M., R. S. Suydam, A. Rosenberg, K. J. Frost, and A. E. Dizon. 1997. Phylogeography, population structure and dispersal patterns of the beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas in the western Nearctic revealed by mitochondrial DNA. Molecular Ecology 6:955–970.

Orr, J., St. D. J. Aubin, P. R. Richard, and M. P. Heide-Jorgensen. 1998. Recapture of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, tagged in the Canadian Arctic. Marine Mammal Science 14:829– 834.

Orr, J. R., R. Joe, and D. Evic. 2001. Capturing and handling of white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in the Canadian Arctic for instrumentation and release. Arctic 54(3):299–304.

Seaman, G. A., and J. J. Burns. 1981. Preliminary results of recent studies of belukhas in Alaskan waters. Report of the International Whaling Commission 31: 567–574

Seaman, G.A., L.F. Lowry, and K.J. Frost. 1982. Foods of belukha whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in western Alaska. Cetology 44:1-19.

11 ~ " , .'

..~

,,- ~ ~ ;=;-.;"~:~.....~ .;' . I

N W+E s

30 o 30 60 Miles i ! KvichaklNushagak Boundary 40 o 40 80 Kilometers Brist.ol Bay

Figure 1. Beluga whale study area, Bristol Bay, Alaska. May·. Kvichak River Wood River

Alagnak (Branch) River

Nushagak Bay

Beluga Whales Bristol Bay • JLN Female (02283) N o Ad Male (11 040) W~E • JLN male {11043 ) o JLN Female (14180)

£. JLN Male (30721) S 50 a 50 Miles .------I 50 o 50 100 150 Ki10meters

Figure 2. Daily locations in May for five beluga whales tagged in the Kvichak River, Alaska. June Kvichak River Snake River Wood River

Beluga Whales Bristol Bay N • JLN F~male(02283) o Ad Male (11040) W~~E • JLNmale(11043) o JLN Female (14180)

A JLN Male (30721) s 50 o 50 Miles

50 o 50 100 Kilometers

Figure 3. Daily locations in June for five beluga whales tagged in the Kvichak River, Alaska July Kvichak River

Beluga Whales Bristol Bay N • Juv Female (02283) o Ad Male (11040)

• Juv male (11043) w - E o Juv Female (14180)

A Juv Male (30721) s 50 o 50 Miles I ,

50 o 50 100 Kilometers i !

Figure 4. Daily locations in July for five beluga whales tagged in the Kvichak River, Alaska. August Kvichak River Snake River

Bristol Bay Beluga Whales

N • Juv Female (02283)

o Ad Male (11040) W~·E • Juvmale(11043) o Juv Female (14180)

~ Juv Male (30721) S 50 o 50 Miles

50 a 50 100 Kilorneters

Figure 5. Daily locations in August for five beluga whales tagged in the Kvichak River, Alaska. Kvichak River

N W~E

s

Kvichak Bay

Naknek River

20

30 0 30 60 Kllom elers

Figure 6. Three locations of beluga whales during 29 May 2002 aerial survey of Kvichak River, Alaska.

'j \ ,;. ~ '(~1<~~::~<~~:~;