Global Review of the Conservation Status of Monodontid Stocks

RODERICK C. HOBBS, RANDALL R. REEVES, JILL S. PREWITT, GENEVIÈVE DESPORTES, KAITLIN BRETON- HONEYMAN, TOM CHRISTENSEN, JOHN J. CITTA, STEVEN H. FERGUSON, KATHRYN J. FROST, EVA GARDE, MARIA GAVRILO, MAHA GHAZAL, DMITRI M. GLAZOV, JEAN-FRANCOIS GOSSELIN, MIKE HAMMILL, RIKKE G. HANSEN, LOIS HARWOOD, MADS PETER HEIDE-JØRGENSEN, GERALD INGLANGASUK, KIT M. KOVACS, VERA V. KRASNOVA, DARIA M. KUZNETSOVA, DAVID S. LEE, VÉRONIQUE LESAGE, DENNIS I. LITOVKA, ELINE D. LORENZEN, LLOYD F. LOWRY, CHRISTIAN LYDERSEN, CORY J. D. MATTHEWS, ILYA G. MESCHERSKY, ARNAUD MOSNIER, GREGORY O’CORRY-CROWE, LIANNE POSTMA, LORI T. QUAKENBUSH, OLGA V. SHPAK, MIKKEL SKOVRIND, ROBERT S. SUYDAM, and CORTNEY A. WATT

Introduction summer and deeper ice-covered areas case of narwhals, the valuable tusk in the winter. Both species are sought (Mitchell and Reeves, 1981; Reeves The family Monodontidae is com- by indigenous subsistence hunters in and Heide-Jørgensen, 1994; Heide- prised of the narwhal, Monodon several Arctic nations in their sum- Jørgensen, 1994). Belugas in some monoceros, and the beluga or white mer habitat as well as along migration areas were culled to reduce perceived whale, Delphinapterus leucas (Rice, routes and, in some cases, in wintering competition with fisheries (Reeves and 1998). These two species are found areas. Mitchell 1984). More recently, some in much of the Arctic and in a num- Some populations of the two species populations have been reduced (or fur- ber of subarctic areas, generally in- were reduced by commercial hunt- ther reduced) by uncontrolled subsis- habiting more coastal areas during the ing for oil, meat, and skins and in the tence hunting (Reeves and Mitchell,

Roderick C. Hobbs is with the North At- Oceans Canada, 501 University Crescent, Win- bec G5H 3Z4, Canada. Lois Harwood is with the lantic Marine Mammal Commission and nipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N6, Canada. Kathryn J. Oceans Program, Department of Fisheries and recently retired from the Marine Mammal Labo- Frost and Lloyd F. Lowry are with the Alaska Oceans Canada, Yellowknife, NT Canada. Ger- ratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Nation- Beluga Whale Committee, University of Alas- ald Inglangasuk is with the Inuvialuit Regional al Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Seattle, WA ka, School of Fisheries and Ocean Science, 73- Corporation, Inuvik, NT Canada. Kit M. Kovacs 98115. His current address is 6130 NE 204th 4388 Paiaha Street, Kailua Kona, HI 96740. Eva and Christian Lydersen are with the Norwegian Street, Kenmore, WA 98028. Randall R. Reeves Garde, Rikke G. Hansen, and Mads Peter Heide- Polar Institute, Fram Centre, 9296 Tromsø, Nor- is with Okapi Wildlife Associates, 27 Chandler Jørgensen are with the Greenland Institute of way. Vera V. Krasnova is with the Shirshov In- Lane, Hudson, Quebec, Canada J0P 1H0. Jill Natural Resources, c/o Greenland Representa- stitute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of S. Prewitt and Geneviève Desportes are with tion, Strandgade 91, 2. sal, 1401 København Sciences, 36 Nakhimovskiy pr., 117997 Mos- the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commis- K, Denmark. Maria Gavrilo is with the Asso- cow, Russia. David S. Lee is with Nunavut sion, P.O.B. 6453, Sykehusveien 21-23, N-9294 ciation Maritime Heritage, Icebreaker Museum Tunngavik Incorporated, Department of Wildlife Tromsø, Norway. Kaitlin Breton-Honeyman is Krassin, 22, Naberezhnaya Leitenanta Shmidta, and Environment, Ottawa ON K1P 5E7, Cana- with the Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board, corner of 23rd Liniya, 199106 Saint-Petersburg, da. Dennis I. Litovka is with the Marine Mam- Nunavik, Canada. Tom Christensen is with the Russia. Maha Ghazal is with the Government of mal Laboratory, ChukotTINRO, Str. Otke 56, Aarhus University and Arctic Council’s Conser- Nunavut, Pangnirtung, NU Canada. Dmitri M. Anadyr, Chukotka 689000, Russia. Eline D. Lo- vation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Circumpolar Glazov, Daria M. Kuznetsova, Ilya G. Mescher- renzen and Mikkel Skovrind are with the Uni- Biodiversity Monitoring Program. John J. Citta sky, and Olga V. Shpak are with the Severtsov versity of Copenhagen, Section for Evolutionary and Lori T. Quakenbush are with the Alaska De- Institute of Ecology and Evolution of Russian Genomics, Natural History Museum of Den- partment of Fish and Game, 1300 College Road, Academy of Sciences, 33, Leninsky pr., 119071 mark, Øster Voldgade 5-7, 1350 Copenhagen, Fairbanks, AK 99701. Steven H. Ferguson, Cory Moscow, Russia. Jean-Francois Gosselin, Mike DK. Gregory O’Corry-Crowe is with the Harbor J. D. Matthews, Lianne Postma, and Cortney A. Hammill, Véronique Lesage, and Arnaud Mos- Branch Oceanographic Institute, Florida Atlan- Watt are with the Department of Fisheries and nier are with the Department of Fisheries and tic University, Fort Pierce, FL 34946. Robert S. Oceans, Maurice Lamontagne Institute, 850, Suydam is with the North Slope Borough, Box doi: https://doi.org/10.7755/MFR.81.3–4.1 route de la Mer, P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli, Que- 69, Barrow, AK 99723.

ABSTRACT—The monodontids—nar- competition with fisheries, and alteration of mine status. Concern was expressed where whals, Monodon monoceros, and belugas, habitat due to climate change. Since com- the lack of information prevented reliable Delphinapterus leucas—are found in much prehensive reviews in the 1990’s, substantial assessment, removals were thought to be un- of the Arctic and in some subarctic areas. new information has become available on sustainable, or the population was deemed They are hunted by indigenous subsistence both species and on changes to their habi- at risk of declining even without direct re- users. In the past, some populations were tat as a result of human activities and cli- movals by hunting. Beluga stocks of greatest substantially reduced by commercial hunt- mate change. Thus NAMMCO and partners concern are the small stocks in Ungava Bay ing and culling; more recently, some popu- undertook an updated review in 2017. The (possibly extirpated), Cook Inlet (ca 300), lations have declined due to uncontrolled review recognized 21 extant beluga stocks, St. Lawrence Estuary (ca 900), and Cum- subsistence hunting and environmental 1 extirpated beluga stock, and 12 stocks berland Sound (ca 1,100), and the stocks degradation. Monodontids are impacted in- of narwhals. The available information on with uncertainty in Eastern Hudson Bay creasingly by human activities in the Arctic each stock regarding population size, deple- and the Barents-Kara-Laptev Seas. Narwhal including ship and boat traffic, industrial tion level, current and past removals, and stocks of greatest concern are those in Mel- development, icebreaking, seismic surveys, trends in abundance was reviewed to deter- ville Bay and East Greenland.

81(3–4) 1 1989; Hammill et al., 2004; Hobbs narwhal stocks. The committee or additions to a stock review were et al., 2015a) or hit hard by the live- identified subject experts for each requested, the consensus was made capture industry (primarily for live stock and requested a written re- contingent on those changes being display in zoos and oceanariums; view for each stock or known ag- made by the author(s). In a few Shpak et al., 2019). Other sources of gregation. These reviews included cases where concerns remained impacts on monodontids include the the following topics: a) stock iden- or objections were made to the in- noise from ship and boat traffic, in- tity—description and distribution formation provided or conclusions dustrial activities of various kinds, with supporting genetic studies, drawn, the majority opinion of icebreaking, seismic surveys, com- telemetry data, catch locations and the workshop was followed and a petition with fisheries, and the rapid times, traditional knowledge, etc.; statement describing the concerns alteration of habitat as a result of cli- b) abundance—sighting surveys, or objections was recorded in the mate change (Finley et al., 1990, Gor- mark-recapture data, etc.; c) an- discussion section of the workshop don et al., 2004; Laidre et al., 2008, thropogenic removals by hunting report. 2015; Reeves et al., 2014; Norman et (catch statistics, including struck- Following the stock by stock as- al., 2015). but-lost and under-reporting), by- sessments, the workshop discussed The stocks of belugas and narwhals catch or entanglement in fisheries, global and regional issues related were reviewed by the Scientific Com- and other causes; d) population to the conservation of belugas and mittee of the International Whaling trend—historical and recent rates narwhals that had been raised ei- Commission (IWC) in 1992 (IWC, of decline or increase, current and ther in the individual stock reviews 1993) and more thoroughly (for belu- maximum net reproduction rates; or during the meeting, identified gas) in 1999 (IWC, 2000). The North e) management measures to limit existing and emerging threats and Atlantic Marine Mammal Commis- removals—e.g., PBR (potential knowledge gaps, and developed sion (NAMMCO) Scientific Commit- biological removal)—and other recommendations for research and tee’s Working Group on the Population methods of determining reference cooperation. Status of Beluga and Narwhal in the levels to ensure recovery and sus- 3) Following the workshop, some North Atlantic carried out an extensive tainability; f) habitat and other of the stock reviews prepared as review of beluga and narwhal stocks concerns; and g) national legal sta- background information were re- in the Atlantic and adjacent waters in tus of the stock. vised in response to advice from 1999 (NAMMCO1). 2) The Global Review of Monodon- the workshop. In some instances, Since 1999, much new information tids (GROM) workshop was held this included information that was has become available on both spe- 13–16 March 2017 in Hillerød, known but did not become avail- cies—regarding stock identity, dis- Denmark, with monodontid ex- able until after the workshop. The tribution, movements, abundance, perts as well as experts on genet- final workshop report, along with anthropogenic removals, and threats ics, environmental issues, stock the revised stock reviews, was to populations. Additionally, new assessment, and traditional knowl- made public on the NAMMCO and newly recognized stressors have edge. The workshop heard presen- website in 2018 (https://nammco. emerged, and significant changes in tations on how stocks were defined no/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ climate and habitat have occurred ei- and designated in previous mon- report-global-review-of-monodon- ther directly or indirectly owing to in- odontid reviews and on genetic tids-nammco-2018_after-erra- creasing human activity in the Arctic methods used for stock delinea- tum-060518_with-appendices_2. as well as global climate change. Thus tion. The workshop devised an pdf). NAMMCO and various partner orga- approach to assessment and de- nizations and individual scientists un- termined a level of concern that In this paper, we summarize the cur- affiliated with NAMMCO undertook accounted for the quality of infor- rent status of all beluga and narwhal an updated review in 2017 with the mation on each stock as well as its stocks and the major findings and rec- following three phases: conservation status. More than 20 ommendations from the GROM. In a stocks of belugas and 12 stocks of few cases, we incorporate new infor- 1) A steering committee was estab- narwhals were identified, reviewed mation that became available after lished with at least one member in detail, and assessed. the workshop. It should be noted that from each nation with beluga or Consensus was sought on stock while a serious effort was made to pro- definitions, key points of assess- vide peer-reviewed citations in support ment, and levels of concern. In of statements made and conclusions 1NAMMCO. 1999. Report of the working group on the population status of beluga and most cases, the consensus became reached, a review such as this one nec- narwhal in the North Atlantic. Oslo, 1-3 Mar. evident during the discussion and essarily includes reference to gray lit- 1999. (avail. at http://nammco.wpengine.com/ wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SC_7_4-WG-Re- exchange of views among work- erature (footnoted) and occasionally port-1999.pdf). shop participants. Where revisions the opinions of subject experts. The

2 Marine Fisheries Review Table 1.—Evidence supporting stock discrimination of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, and narwhals, Mon- 25 major “aggregations” of belugas odon monoceros. Y = available data support stock discrimination; + = available data provide some support for stock discrimination; N = available data do not support stock discrimination or are inconclusive; – = no data are and 17 of narwhals. It was acknowl- available. edged that these aggregations (sum- Movement, mering, wintering, or migrating areas) Summer Winter behavior, or life Genetics Stocks distribution distribution history traits (mtDNA) could be “discrete, or a mixture of stocks.” As a guiding principle, the Beluga 1. Sakhalin-Amur Y + + Y NAMMCO-SC review group conclud- 2. Ulbansky Y – + Y 3. Tugursky Y – + N ed in 1999 that it was “prudent to base 4. Udskaya Y – + Y putative management units on local 5. Shelikhov Y + + Y 6. Anadyr Y Y Y Y aggregations and/or harvesting areas 7. Cook Inlet Y Y Y Y until more information on stock struc- 8. Bristol Bay Y + Y Y 9. Eastern Bering Sea Y + Y Y ture is available.” 10. Eastern Chukchi Sea Y + Y Y Research on beluga mitochondri- 11. Eastern Beaufort Sea Y + Y Y 12. High Arctic – Baffin Bay Y + + + al genetics (mtDNA) since the early 13. Western Hudson Bay Y + Y + 14. James Bay Y Y + + 1990’s has demonstrated matrilineal 15. Eastern Hudson Bay Y + Y + fidelity to summering areas (Table 1; 16. Ungava Bay Y + + + 17. Cumberland Sound Y Y Y + O’Corry-Crowe et al., 1997, 2002, 18. St. Lawrence Estuary Y Y + Y 2010; De March et al., 2002, 2004; De 19. Southwest Greenland – Y Y – 20. Svalbard Y Y Y Y March and Postma, 2003; Meschersky 21. Barents-Kara-Laptev Seas + + – – et al., 2008, 2013). Aerial surveys and 22. White Sea Y Y Y + satellite tracking studies have made it Narwhal 1. Somerset Island Y + Y N possible to map the distribution and 2. Jones Sound Y + + Y estimate the abundance of many of 3. Smith Sound Y + + N 4. Admiralty Inlet Y + + N these summer aggregations (Table 2). 5. Eclipse Sound Y + + N Narwhal summer aggregations have 6. Inglefield Bredning Y + – N 7. Melville Bay Y + Y N not been distinguished using mtDNA, 8. Eastern Baffin Island Y + + N and there has been only limited suc- 9. Northern Hudson Bay Y Y Y Y 10. East Greenland Y Y Y N cess using other methods (Palsbøll 11. Northeast Greenland Y – – – 2 12. Svalbard-NW Russian Arctic – – – – et al., 1997; de March and Stern ; de March et al.3; Petersen et al.4; Watt et

al.5), which may be due to differences in the mating systems of the two spe- quality as well as the content of infor- many cases the migration routes had cies (Kelley et al., 2015). However, mation available to the workshop was not been determined (IWC, 2000). in satellite tracking studies of several considered in seeking to reach a con- In its 1999 review, the IWC Scien- narwhal stocks, the tracks that contin- sensus of the expert opinion represent- tific Committee (IWC-SC) used an es- ued through the fall and spring migra- ed at the GROM workshop. sentially ad hoc approach to determine which aggregations should be consid- 2de March, B. G. E., and G. Stern. 2003. Stock Identification of Stocks separation of narwhal (Monodon monoceros) in ered stocks (IWC, 2000). The IWC- Canada based on organochlorine contaminants. Various criteria were used to define SC used a variety of criteria including CSAS Res. Doc. 2003/79 (avail. at http://waves- stocks generally, with emphasis on genetic relationships, distribution and vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/279332.pdf). how beluga and narwhal stocks have movements, patterns of exploitation, 3de March, B. G. E., D. A. Tenkula, and L. D. Postma. 2003. Molecular genetics of narwhal been defined in previous reviews and contaminant profiles, expert opinion, (Monodon monoceros) from Canada and West by current management. In general, a and traditional knowledge. A total of Greenland (1982–2001). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2003/080, 1–19 (avail. at http:// stock is a population unit suitable for 29 putative beluga stocks were iden- waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/279333. management and stocks should be des- tified in that review. It is unclear how pdf). ignated in such a way that with good the participants balanced or weighted 4Petersen, S. D., D. Tenkula, and S. H. Fergu- management, the species will persist the different types and strengths of ev- son. 2011. Population genetic structure of narwhal (Monodon monoceros). DFO Can. Sci. throughout its historical range (IWC, idence, but in many cases the available Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2011/021. vi + 20 p. 2000). Largely, stocks are breeding data were deemed inadequate to delin- (avail. at http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Li- populations that occupy the same re- eate stocks with high confidence. brary/343698.pdf). gions annually. For monodontids, re- The approach used by the NAMMCO 5Watt, C. A., S. H. Ferguson, A. Fisk, and M. P. Heide-Jørgensen. 2012. Using stable iso- current aggregations were considered Scientific Committee (NAMMCO-SC) tope analysis as a tool for narwhal (Mondon as candidate stocks, with the practical in its review of belugas and narwhals monoceros) stock delineation. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/057. iv + 29 p. consideration that most hunting opera- in the North Atlantic and adjacent wa- (avail. at http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Li- tions target these aggregations, and in ters was similarly ad hoc, identifying brary/279333.pdf).

81(3–4) 3 - Table Continued Table National legal status None None None None U.S. ESA “Endan (2008) gered” None Canada: “Not at Risk” (COSEWIC, 2015) Canada: “Special Concern” (COSEWIC, 2004) None None None None

------

traf

dur for

eco fisher

ship and industrial

climate

leaks with

develop fishery

traffic,

traffic

ge gas traffic,

fisheries, ship fisheries, lar

ice ship

noise

and

ship om om om

fr sea fr fr ice,

competition oil traffic/noise,

tourism, traffic,

sea

ship

Threats and/or concerns Threats River of

traffic,

ship r

Fisheries, mining activities/pollution, of human and livestock discharge Fisheries, mining activities/pollution, of human and livestock discharge waste Climate warming, loss of sea ice, Fisheries (competition, not bycatch), declining populations of salmon Decreasing sea ice, future develop sea ice, future Decreasing ment in the area Pollution/infectious agents from Pollution/infectious agents from mining activities tion risk from Fishery interactions, potential pollu small numbers, decreas Very cumulative impacts (of ing trend, Amur , ies, waste, Competition fic, educed competition development, etc.) change, sewage discharge, competition salmon, development plans (gold, Pebble Mine) Ship Summer system changes (climate change) Loss icebreaking ing diesel fuel transit ment, sea ice changes - . - 215/yr, above 215/yr, , Removals No direct removals No direct PBR of 201 and under- is not estimated reporting Small numbers harvested No direct removals No direct ~ 20-25/yr, stable in recent stable in recent ~ 20-25/yr, years, below PBR 190/yr landed w/ Average struck-but - lost No direct removals No direct Ca. 166/yr, below PBR Ca. 166/yr, rent allowable take set close rent to PBR Recently above PBR, cur Ca. 400/yr (Canada + Green sustainable land), considered No direct removals No direct Reduced to 1-2/yr in 2000, since 2005 prohibited Ca. 50/yr, below PBR Ca. 50/yr, Trend Unknown Unknown but expert opinion that it is stable Unknown Stable Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Likely stable (but old abundance estimate); abundance relative is Greenland in West increasing Unknown Declining Unknown - - - -

(2016); p; Lowry and

a; Lowry et al. (2010); Shpak

Abundance (Year) Abundance (Year) p: perception bias p: perception a: availability bias; 2,464 (from direct count, cor direct 2,464 (from for a) (2010); Shpak rected and Glazov (2013) Unknown but expert opinion indicates ca. 3,000 (Litovka, 2002) 1,506 (from direct count, cor direct 1,506 (from for a) (2010); Shpak rected and Glazov (2013) Aerial survey: 2,040 (CV=0.22, 95% CI: 1,541-2,702) for a; genetic corrected 1,928 (95% mark-recapture: CI: 1,611–2,337); Citta et al. (2019) 9,242 (CV = 0.12) (2017); for corrected (2019) 2,666 (from direct count, cor direct 2,666 (from for a) rected and Glazov (2013) 39,258 (1992); corrected for 39,258 (1992); corrected a; Duval 1993 3,954 (CV = 0.24) (average for 2009, 2010a, 2010b); for a; Shpak and corrected Glazov (2013) 21,213 (95% CI 10,985– for 32,619) (1996); corrected a,p; Innes et al. (2002) 2,334 (from direct count, direct 2,334 (from for a) (2010);Shpak corrected and Glazov (2013) 279 (CV = 0.06) (2018); cor rected for a and p; Shelden rected (text fn 22) and Wade 20,675 (CV = 0.66) (2012); for a corrected et al. (2017a) - - - - - N, o e) (offshor

eenland Sea Gr

migrations, to/from location) migrations, to/from W Movements (e.g. winter, summer Movements (e.g. winter,

Summer in Udskaya Bay and river estuaries, found along south coast at ice formation, winter in areas similar to unknown but presumably Sakhalin-Amur Summer in Beaufort Sea and Arctic Summer in Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean to as far north lat. 81 ary, winter in western Bering Sea ary, Summer and autumn in Anadyr estu Summer in Tugursky Bay, winter Bay, Summer in Tugursky movements unknown but presumably, similar to Sakhalin-Amur Summer in Nushagak and Kvichak bays and tributaries, winter in north ern and eastern Bristol Bay Summer in Norton Sound and or River delta; winter near the Yukon south in eastern Bering Sea to Bristol Bay Summer in Gizhiginskaya and Pen zhinskaya bays of Shelikhov Bay in river estuaries and along west coast of Kamchatka Peninsula, presumably winter along ice edge in Shelikhov Bay and along Kamchatka Summer in Beaufort Sea, winter Bering Sea Summer in Ulbansky Bay and river estuaries, winter movements similar to unknown but presumably Sakhalin-Amur Summer in river mouths upper inlet, in upper inlet year-round likely remain historical) from (range reduction ter between St. Lawrence Island, U.S., ter between St. Lawrence and Chukotka Peninsula, Russia particularly along the shelf break; fall/ particularly along the shelf break; winter move south to Bering Sea; win Summer in Sakhalinsky Bay and Amur winter in northern and central estuary, Okhotsk Summer in estuaries, inlets, and small Somerset bays along and around Archipelago; Island in Canadian Arctic late summer/fall and spring migration Lancaster Sound; some over through off est winter in North Water polynya, some winter in North Water Bay

Aggregation Ar

Stock/Summer Udskaya Eastern Chukchi Sea Anadyr Tugursky Bristol Bay Eastern Bering Sea Shelikhov Eastern Beaufort Sea Ulbansky Cook Inlet Sakhalin-Amur High ctic-Baffin 4 6 3 8 9 5 2 7 1 10 12 11 Belugas Table 2.—Summary of information provided for the status review. for the status review. 2.—Summary of information provided Table

4 Marine Fisheries Review - - Table Continued Table National legal status “Special Concern” (COSEWIC, 2004) but not legally listed “Threatened” “Threatened” (COSEWIC, 2004; SARA, 2017) None “Special Concern” (COSEWIC, 2004) but not legally listed Assessed as “Endan (COSEWIC, gered” 2004) but not legally listed None Protected since Protected 1960s None None “Special Concern” (COSEWIC, 2004) but not legally listed Assessed as “Endan (COSEWIC, gered” 2004) but not legally listed “Endangered” (COSE - “Endangered” WIC, 2014; SARA, 2016) None - (whale- oelec

hydr

activity

eaking, disturbance military

icebr

traffic,

Threats and/or concerns Threats traffic,

ship

Icebreaking, loss of sea ice, potential loss of Icebreaking, development Hunting removals, ecosystem Hunting removals, (possibly changes (diet shift), stress noise, due to anthropogenic cumulative impacts) Uncertainty around stock structure stock structure Uncertainty around (likely several stocks), may have in the overexploited been greatly past, considerable new development Hydroelectric development Hydroelectric Icebreaking, loss of sea ice, potential loss of Icebreaking, development Possibly extirpated Extinct Uncertainties around abundance Uncertainties around (and stock estimates, stock structure habitat issues identity of removals), Changes in sea ice, pollution, development stock structure Uncertainty around (could be several stocks), habitat through issues (major shipping route oil storage White Sea, pollution from from and tankers, river discharge northern Dvina River) Icebreaking in Hudson Strait Icebreaking Loss of sea ice, icebreaking, and Loss of sea ice, icebreaking, development in some areas tric development) (ship Vessel - watching), contaminants, environ mental changes and Removals No direct removals since 1979 removals No direct Few (if any) Removals higher than PBR None since ca. 1990 Limited (ca. 10/yr) Low numbers, considered Low numbers, considered sustainable Previous removals Previous Likely driven to extinction by overharvest Total allowable take 50, Total limited to live- removals (several whales, not captures every year) Ca. 63/yr removals No direct Average 503/yr, below PBR 503/yr, Average Considerable numbers but (Canada and Greenland) sustainable considered Trend Declining (-1%/yr) Unknown Declining Unknown Unknown; possibly uncertainty increasing, abundance regarding estimates Unknown Unknown; possibly extirpated N/A Likely stable Stable Unknown Stable Possibly increasing -

Doniol-Valcroze and Doniol-Valcroze Abundance (Year) Abundance (Year) p: perception bias p: perception a: availability bias; Modeling: 889 (95% CI: 672– 1167) (2012); Mosnier et al. (2015) 16,360 (CV = 0.65) (2013); for a and p; Doniol- corrected et al. (text fn 65) Valcroze 1,151 (CV = 0.214, 95% CI: 761–1744) (2014); corrected et al. (text for a; Marcoux fn 42) Unknown (widespread in low Unknown (widespread depleted density), probably whaling by commercial 10,615 (CV = 0.25) (2015); for a; Gosselin et corrected al. (text fn 34) 12,694 (CV = 0.33) (2013); for a and p; Doniol- corrected et al. (text fn 65) Valcroze Modeling: 32 (95% CI: 0-94) (2008); Hammill (text fn 39) Extinct 5,593 (CV = 0.135) (2011); not for a; (Solovyev et corrected al., 2015) Aerial survey: 3,819 (CV=0.43) for a; Gosse (2015) corrected lin et al. (text fn 34). Modeling: 3,443 (95% CI: 2014-5471) (2016); Hammill et al. (2017) Unknown 54,473 (CV = 0.098; CI: 44,988–65,957) (2015); for a; Matthews et corrected al. (2017) 49,768 (CV = 0.20) (2013); for a and p; Doniol- corrected et al. (text fn 65) Valcroze

Bay

Baffin

winter central

e into

offshor

migrations, to/from location) migrations, to/from migration Movements (e.g. winter, summer Movements (e.g. winter,

Limited to northwestern Gulf of St. from and estuary (reduced Lawrence historical range) Summer around Somerset Island, Summer around widely in late distributed more up), summer (follow ice as it breaks Summer in eastern Hudson Bay, Summer in eastern Hudson Bay, winter in Hudson Strait and Labrador Hudson Sea (overlap with Western Bay stock) Summer in Smith Sound, wintering unknown area Remain within Cumberland Sound, in concentrate in Clearwater Fiord summer Coastal around Svalbard in summer, in summer, Svalbard Coastal around Summer in waters of archipelagos Summer in waters of archipelagos (Franz Josef Land), in estuaries of rivers, along mainland coast; large movements unknown; very few mostly in observations in winter, Kara Sea Remain in James Bay year-round Summer in Jones Sound, wintering unknown area Previous summer aggregation in S. summer aggregation Previous winter unknown Ungava Bay, N/A Summer aggregations mostly in 3 Summer aggregations bays, late summer distribution large in and near White Sea; scattered more winter in White Sea, mostly central part (limited data) Summer concentrations in Seal, and Nelson River estuaries, Churchill, WHB coast; winter found along entire in Hudson Strait (overlap with Eastern Hudson Bay stock) further fall for overwintering Aggregation Stock/Summer St. Lawrence Estuary St. Lawrence Somerset Island Eastern Hudson Bay Smith Sound Cumberland Sound Svalbard Barents-Kara-Laptev Barents-Kara-Laptev Seas James Bay Jones Sound Ungava Bay Southwest Greenland White Sea Western Hudson Bay Western 1 3 2 18 15 17 20 21 14 16 19 22 13 Narwhals Table 2.— Continued. Table

81(3–4) 5 National legal status Protected in Norway Protected and Russia None “Special Concern” (COSEWIC, 2004) but not legally listed None “Special Concern” (COSEWIC, 2004) but not legally listed “Special Concern” (COSEWIC, 2004) but not legally listed “Special Concern” (COSEWIC, 2004) but not legally listed None “Special Concern” (COSEWIC, 2004) but not legally listed

ea ar eased

fishing

traffic, traffic

Baffinland-

incr

ship the ship

halibut

ea, eaking summering eaking,

stock); in

elated (winter), icebr icebr r

Inlet

fishing

Threats and/or concerns Threats traffic, traffic,

Lack of data (abundance, movements, etc.), climate change, development, military activity Loss of sea ice, proposed Loss of sea ice, proposed Loss of sea ice and tidewater glaciers may mean loss of habitat; may mean new species in the area to exposure competition for prey, development novel diseases; future Uncertainty about abundance estimates and stock identify (vs Overharvested, seismic surveys, abundance Uncertainty around (could be estimates, stock structure several stocks), and movements; to climate habitat loss related change, icebreaking Loss of sea ice, seismic surveys (in parts of non-summer range), Recent overharvest; climate change—warmer temperatures, loss of sea ice and tidewater glaciers may mean loss of habitat; mean new species in area—may to exposure competition for prey, novel diseases Ship Admiralty particularly mine; tourism Mary River iron ship halibut (competition for prey) icebreaking development Removals None Ca: 83/yr, likely sustainable Ca: 83/yr, None Considerable numbers but (Canada and Greenland) sustainable considered Considerable numbers in Pond Inlet (Canada) and other along migration route areas Above quota advice Hunted by various since communities, increasing 1970s but still considered sustainable Considerable numbers but considered (Greenland) sustainable Recently overharvested, in quotas advice for reduction Trend Unknown Stable? Unknown Stable Unknown Stable Stable? Stable Declining

Abundance (Year) Abundance (Year) p: perception bias p: perception a: availability bias; Unknown through most of the Unknown through range; 837 (CV=0.50) (2015) (Vacquié- north of Svalbard et al., 2017) Garcia 12,485 (CV = 0.26) (2011); for a and p; Asselin corrected et al. (text fn 74) 1,395 narwhals (CV=0.33) in Dove Bay (2017) and 2,908 (CV=0.30) in the Greenland Sea (2017) (Reeves and Lee, 2020) 35,043 (CV = 0.42) (2013); for a and p; Doniol- corrected et al. (text fn 65) Valcroze 10,489 (CV = 0.24) (2013) for a and p; Doniol- corrected et al. (text fn 65) Valcroze 3,091 (CV = 0.50; 95% CI 1,228 to 7,783) (2014); for a and p; Hansen corrected et al. (text fn 72) 17,555 (CV = 0.35) (2013); for a and p; Doniol- corrected et al. (text fn 65) Valcroze 8,368 (CV = 0.25, CI: 5,209– for 13,422) (2007); corrected et a and p; Heide-Jørgensen al. (2010). 702 (CV = 0.33) (2016); NAMMCO (text fn 78)

Bay

Baffin

n Baffin

Bay easter

edning,

Br that

Baffin along

than in

ds Bay Bay

Inglefield fjor

to range in in

Baffin Baffin

Bay

migrations, to/from location) migrations, to/from Movements (e.g. winter, summer Movements (e.g. winter, Unknown Summer in northwestern Hudson Bay, Summer in northwestern Hudson Bay, winter in eastern Hudson Strait No information Summer in Melville Bay, winter in Summer in Melville Bay, Summer in Scoresby Sound, Tasiilaq Sound, Tasiilaq Summer in Scoresby and Kangerlussuaq Fjord, Fjord, smaller in fall/winter, elsewhere Summer in Eclipse Sound, winter Summer in Admiralty Inlet, winter Baffin central Summer unknown but narwhals wintering area polynya in seen in the North Water this stock winter may be from central Summer unknown but Island, wintering area(s) assumed wintering narwhals Island

edning Br

Baffin

Aggregation Stock/Summer Svalbard-Northwest Svalbard-Northwest Russian Arctic Northern Hudson Bay Northeast Greenland Melville Bay East Greenland Eclipse Sound Admiralty Inlet Inglefield Eastern 9 6 7 5 8 4 12 11 10 Table 2.— Continued . Table

6 Marine Fisheries Review tions showed the animals returning to current aggregations. It was noted, Summaries of Individual Stocks the aggregation of origin in most cases however, that if observations were to (Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2003a; Dietz become regular in one of these areas, The summaries provided by re- et al., 2008; Westdal et al., 2010; Watt this could signify actual shifts or ex- searchers for each stock included a et al.6), and this supports the assump- pansions in the species’ distribution. description of the stock, research used tion that narwhals are similar to belu- Areas rarely visited by humans, where to determine distribution, abundance, gas in exhibiting fidelity to summering observation effort was insufficient to and trend, data on removals and other areas. document recurrent aggregations but sources of mortality, information on For many of the summer aggrega- some sightings have been reported, management, assessment of the “sus- tions of both narwhals and belugas, were sometimes considered as poten- tainability” of any hunting removals, a migration routes have been determined tially part of the seasonal distribution discussion of other threats to the stock, and therefore individuals seen in other of a stock. or an indication that the requested in- locations and seasons can be related formation was not available. During back to one or more of the summer Stocks the workshop, we considered several aggregations. As with belugas, most The GROM identified 21 stocks of questions including: 1) how well was of the known summer aggregations of belugas and 12 stocks of narwhals the stock’s distribution known; 2) was narwhals have been surveyed at least (Table 1). Summer distribution as de- abundance estimated; 3) was the trend once since the last global or large- termined by local knowledge, tagging estimated; 4) were removals docu- scale review. Thus, the GROM chose studies, and aerial surveys was con- mented; 5) was the stock depleted; 6) to consider recurrent summer aggre- sidered sufficient, in most cases, to were the known removals sustainable gations of belugas or narwhals as po- determine geographical separation of and if the stock was depleted, were re- tential stocks and then considered stocks (Fig. 1, 2; Table 1). In some movals low enough to allow recovery; other data and lines of reasoning to areas where potential beluga stocks and 7) what other threats were known determine which aggregations should were in close proximity, the results of for the stock and what was their be considered as separate stocks and mtDNA analyses were used to decide impact? which should be lumped together as whether they should be lumped or Distribution, Abundance, a single stock (Table 1). It may prove split. Potential narwhal stocks could and Trends necessary to change the lists of stocks not be separated using differences in in future reviews as more information mtDNA, making it necessary to rely Distribution and abundance for most becomes available. principally on tracking data when po- stocks were known from aerial surveys tential stocks were in close proximity. of the summer ranges (Table 2). In a Other Aggregations The GROM generally followed what few cases, when no survey data were and Sightings was regarded as a conservative (i.e., available, expert opinion or traditional Reports of regular aggregations in risk-averse) approach (from a conser- knowledge was taken into account. Es- other seasons were generally related vation perspective) and chose to split timates of abundance provided in the to one or more of the known summer such stocks. stock summaries were not reviewed aggregations by reference to move- Previous global reviews that fo- and discussed in detail except where ment or genetics data, and thus they cused on, or included, monodon- unusual methods were used; questions were not considered separate stocks. tids (IWC, 1993, 2000; Laidre et al., were raised concerning complete- Also, small numbers of both species 2015; CAFF, 2017) recognized dif- ness of coverage, precision, or meth- have been observed outside what is ferent numbers of stocks. To clarify ods of correction for missed animals; considered the normal range of any and justify differences between the or a basis was needed for evaluating recognized stock or population. In ar- 21 stocks of belugas and 12 stocks expert opinion or traditional knowl- eas where reliable observers have fre- of narwhals identified in this review, edge. Where two or more abundance quently been present, the occasional an attempt was made to explain the estimates were available for a stock, a sightings of individuals or only a few rationale for lumping or splitting pre- crude assessment of trend was some- monodontids were regarded as extra- viously recognized stocks (Table 3). times possible, while recognizing that limital and not particularly significant Rapid environmental change in the three or more comparable estimates as they were not seen to represent re- Arctic and sub-Arctic may influence are generally needed for confident the distributions and movements of conclusions concerning trends. all monodontid stocks, which means When survey data were used to es- 6Watt, C. A., J. Orr, B. LeBlanc, P. Richard, and S. H. Ferguson. 2012. Satellite tracking of nar- that it will be important to reevaluate timate trend, the workshop considered whals (Monodon monoceros) from Admiralty some of the conclusions and assump- whether the survey methods and cov- Inlet (2009) and Eclipse Sound (2010–2011). tions regarding stock identity made in erage were comparable. It was empha- DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/046. iii + 17 p. (avail. at http://waves-vagues.dfo- this and previous reports during fu- sized that abundance estimates based mpo.gc.ca/Library/347232.pdf). ture reviews. on surveys (rather than solely on ex-

81(3–4) 7 Beluga Stocks Pacific Arctic/sub-Arctic Atlantic Arctic/sub-Arctic 1) Sakhalin-Amur 12) Eastern High Arctic-Baffin Bay 2) Ulbansky 13) Western Hudson Bay 3) Tugursky 14) James Bay 4) Udskaya 15) Eastern Hudson Bay 5) Shelikhov 16) Ungava Bay 6) Anadyr 17) Cumberland Sound 7) Cook Inlet 18) St. Lawrence Estuary 8) Bristol Bay 19) Southwest Greenland 9) Eastern Bering Sea 20) Svalbard 10) Eastern Chukchi Sea 21) Barents-Kara-Laptev Seas 11) Eastern Beaufort Sea 22) White Sea Figure 1.—Beluga stocks recognized by the Global Review of Monodontids. Stocks are identified by their summering grounds. Ranges of stocks that migrate are differentiated into summer areas (mid-blue), migration areas (light blue), and known winter grounds (dark blue) or hypothetical winter grounds (dark blue check); arrows show direction of fall migration. Ranges of stocks residing year-round in the same area are orange. Winter areas are not shown for the belugas in the Kara and Laptev Seas due to lack of information.

8 Marine Fisheries Review Narwhal Stocks 1) Somerset Island 4) Admiralty Inlet 7) Melville Bay 10) East Greenland 2) Jones Sound 5) Eclipse Sound 8) Eastern Baffin Island 11) Northeast Greenland 3) Smith Sound 6) Inglefield Bredning 9) Northern Hudson Bay 12) Svalbard-NW Russian Arctic

Figure 2.—Narwhal stocks recognized by the Global Review of Monodontids. Stocks are identified by their summering grounds. Ranges of stocks are differentiated into summer areas (tan), migration areas (light blue), and known winter grounds (brown) or assumed winter grounds (brown check), arrows show direction of fall migration.

81(3–4) 9 Table 3.—Status of beluga and narwhal stocks. The global review took into account population size and trend, quality of data available, sustainability of removals, and habitat concerns. Trend symbols are n/a = not applicable, ➘ = declining, ↔ = stable, ➚ = increasing, ➚ ↔ = increasing or stable, ? = unknown, and ? along with a trend symbol = uncertainty in the trend. The statuses (i.e., levels of concern) are comparative to other beluga stocks and narwhal stocks, respectively, and are listed as 1 = highest concern, 2 = moderate concern, 3 = lowest concern. More information on abundance, stock identity, etc. can be found in Table 2.

Stock/location Trend Status Comments on status Beluga Southwest Greenland n/a Extinct Likely driven to extinction more than 80 years ago Ungava Bay ? 1 Possibly extirpated Cook Inlet ➘ 1 Very small stock (ca 300), decreasing trend, multiple known or potential threats, cumulative impacts St. Lawrence Estuary ➘ 1 Small stock (ca 900), decreasing trend, multiple known or potential threats, cumulative impacts Cumberland Sound ➘ 1 Small stock (ca 1,100), likely decreasing trend, likely overharvest Eastern Hudson Bay 1/21 Uncertainty concerning abundance, stock structure, and sustainability of removals; habitat concerns (icebreaking, hydroelectric dam) Barents-Kara-Laptev Seas ? 1/21 Data deficient (unknown size, trend, stock structure, likely several stocks), high past removals, rapidly changing habitat Svalbard ? 2 Data deficient (unknown size and trend) but protected Sakhalin-Amur ? 2 Unknown trend in abundance, recent removals (live-capture) exceed PBR, habitat concerns (large and increasing fisheries, pollution) Ulbansky ? 2 Unknown trend, no direct removals, some concerns about fishing and potential pollution from mine development Tugursky ? 2 Unknown trend in abundance, low numbers of removals, habitat concerns (fishing and pollution) Udskaya ? 2 Unknown trend in abundance, low numbers of removals, habitat concerns (fishing, ship traffic, pollution) Anadyr Gulf ↔ 2 Data deficient (uncertain abundance, appears stable based on expert opinion), concerns over ship traffic White Sea ↔ 2 Data deficient (uncertainty around stock structure, could be several stocks), low numbers of removals (live-capture), habitat concerns (ship traffic, pollution) Eastern Bering Sea ? 2 Outdated abundance estimate (from 2000), harvest exceeds PBR and may be underestimated due to limited struck-but- lost reporting and possible non-reporting of takes Shelikhov ? 3 Unknown trend in abundance, zero to low numbers of removals, some concerns about fishing and habitat loss due to climate change Bristol Bay ➚ ↔ 3 Although not a large stock, it is data-rich (reliable abundance estimates, likely stable or increasing, reliable data on sustainability of removals, etc.) James Bay ? 3 Eastern Chukchi Sea ? 3 Large stock with relatively low harvest level Eastern High Arctic-Baffin Bay ↔ 3 Eastern Beaufort Sea ? 3 Western Hudson Bay ↔ 3 May be several stocks but less of a concern because of high abundance

Narwhal Melville Bay ↔ 1 Small stock, overharvest East Greenland ➘ 1 Low abundance, data deficient, possibly several stocks, overharvest, climate change-related habitat concerns Eastern Baffin Island ↔? 2 Data deficient (stock structure, movements), low removals but likely several stocks Eclipse Sound ? 2 May be part of Admiralty Inlet stock, concerns about icebreaking/shipping related to mining projects Svalbard / NW Russian Arctic ? 2 Data deficient (abundance, stock structure), likely several stocks, protected Northeast Greenland ? 2 Data deficient (abundance, stock structure), likely several stocks, climate change related concerns, protected Inglefield Bredning ↔ 3 Small-medium sized stock with low removals, general habitat concerns related to climate change, future development Jones Sound ? 3 Medium sized stock with low removals, general habitat concerns related to climate change, future development Smith Sound ? 3 Medium sized stock with few or no removals, general habitat concerns related to climate change, future development Northern Hudson Bay ↔ 3 Medium sized stock, removals sustainable but concerns regarding climate warming and loss of sea ice and increasing human activity (mining, shipping) Admiralty Inlet ↔ 3 Large stock, stable trend, may be connected to Eclipse Sound stock, sustainable removals, some concerns regarding icebreaking/shipping Somerset Island ➚? 3 Large stock, likely increasing, removals sustainable, general habitat concerns related to climate change, future development 1Participants were unable to reach consensus. See Eastern Hudson Bay and Barents-Kara-Laptev Seas for discussions.

pert opinion or traditional knowledge) or management histories, the record of that sustainable removals would not are required to determine status when- removals extended back for 20 or more cause the stock to decline. For stocks ever the monodontid stock is exploit- years and included estimates of the that were thought to be depleted, the ed directly or there are concerns over number of animals struck-but-lost and workshop also considered whether the other threats (known or plausible) to of unreported takes. In a few stocks, takes were low enough to allow recov- the population. Timeliness of an abun- little or no information on numbers or ery but did not include this in the de- dance estimate was also considered types of removals was available, and it termination of sustainability. when determining status—estimates was necessary to rely on the opinion The GROM acknowledged that a based on survey data within the last 5 of subject experts. number of approaches have been used years were preferred. Older estimates, to assess sustainability and noted that while useful, left greater uncertain- Sustainability of Removals all of the approaches used to date de- ty concerning the current size of the An important consideration to deter- pend on knowing something about an- stock mine the status of a stock and hence nual removals (preferably an estimate to manage its conservation is the like- with associated uncertainty, or at least History of Removals lihood that rates of anthropogenic re- an upper bound), abundance (prefer- Removals by hunting, live-captures movals (e.g., by hunting, live-capture, ably an estimate with associated un- for display or research, and in some or entanglement in fishing gear) are certainty, or at least a lower bound), cases other human causes of mortality/ sustainable. The workshop did not de- and some understanding of how much removal were documented (Table 2). velop a formal definition of sustain- the population would grow if there In a few stocks with long monitoring ability but used a working definition were no removals. Other information

10 Marine Fisheries Review that is available, such as a series of abundance estimates and history of developed specifically to provide guid- abundance estimates or an estimate of removals in a Bayesian framework to ance for managing marine mammal trend, estimates of struck-but-lost and estimate the depletion level and the bycatch in commercial fisheries. The under-reporting of removals, age and probability that the population will PBR level for a given stock is set to sex structure of the removals, and the not decline at various levels of remov- be precautionary (risk-averse) and to history of previous removals can be als over five years. This information allow the stock to return to, or to stay used to improve the assessment. is provided to managers who can then at or above, its optimum sustainable Risk tolerance on the part of man- consider risk tolerance and recovery population size. The emphasis is on re- agement, i.e., the willingness to ac- goals in setting allowable take levels. covery of depleted stocks and preven- cept given levels of probability that PBR was developed in the United tion of significant declines of healthy removals are sustainable, often varies States to provide a risk-averse method stocks. Thus, the PBR value is not an according to the type of removals be- of assessing a stock with limited in- estimate of the maximum number of ing considered, as well as the infor- formation (a recent estimate of abun- individuals that can be taken sustain- mation that is available. For example, dance and an estimate of removals: ably each year, but rather it is seen as management bodies may be willing Wade, 1998). The assessment provides a “safe” limit—i.e., as long as remov- to accept a higher level of risk (to the guidance for managing removals to as- als are below the PBR, they should be animal population) when the removals sure sustainability and, if necessary, sustainable and not deplete the stock. are part of a well-managed and well- recovery of the stock to some desired In a few of the stock summaries, a documented subsistence harvest that or “safe” level (“optimum sustainable PBR calculation was provided using will be evaluated every few years than population” under U.S. law). The PBR, data that were outdated (e.g., an abun- when they are incidental to commer- as defined in the U.S. Marine Mammal dance estimate from data older than 5 cial fishing or industrial development Protection Act, is calculated as, years) and/or the known or estimated where removals (and sub-lethal im- PBR = N * 0.5 * R * F , removals exceeded the PBR level. In pacts) are not well-documented. min max R such cases, when no other analysis Common scientific approaches to where Nmin is a conservative estimate was provided, the workshop relied on assessment of sustainability include of population size, Rmax is the maxi- other types data to make a non-rigor- both a definition of sustainability and a mum potential rate of population in- ous assessment of sustainability, mak- level of risk tolerance. The two meth- crease (unknown for monodontids ing sure to document the deliberations ods used in most of the stock reviews and assumed to be 0.04, the default in the GROM final report. provided to the GROM were risk as- for cetaceans), and FR is a recovery sessment modeling, in which risk lev- factor that varies between 0.1 and 1.0 Scales of “Concern” els are estimated directly for different depending on the stock’s conservation For each of the stocks, the workshop levels of removals, and Potential Bio- status—e.g., from severely depleted assigned a level of “concern” relative logical Removal (PBR) (Wade, 1998), (0.1) to recovered and not at risk (1.0). to other stocks within the species and which sets a threshold number of re- When an abundance estimate (N) with between the two species. The scale movals below which there is little con- a coefficient of variation (CV) is avail- was 1) most concern, 2) moderate concern (details below). The modeling able, Nmin is calculated using the 20th- cern, and 3) least concern; notes are approach requires more biological data percentile (z = -0.842) of the lognormal provided in Table 3 and in the stock whereas the PBR approach is useful distribution as, summaries to explain the basis for for data-poor situations. Both methods these assignments of concern level. N = N*exp(-0.842*[ln(1+CV(N)2)]1/2). use recent abundance estimates and min The higher levels of concern resulted estimated removal levels and can ac- In the formula above, Nmin is cal- from a lack of confidence that removal count for changes in distribution and culated from the abundance estimate. levels are sustainable, the possibility seasonal movements. Local knowledge However, in cases where only direct that environmental or habitat issues has value as both a historical record counts or estimates derived from sur- are affecting the stock, or a general and a source of current observations face density without correcting for lack of reliable information about the of population trends. Local knowledge submerged animals are available, these stock. and feedback from hunters are often may be used directly. Many of the stock the first description of a stock and the summaries provided as background to Belugas first indication that its behavior (in- the GROM included PBR calculations Belugas have a discontinuous cir- cluding trends in abundance) or habi- as guidance to managers and as a pre- cumpolar distribution throughout the tat has changed. cautionary way of assessing the sus- Arctic and sub-Arctic (Fig. 1). They Risk assessment modeling, as ap- tainability of removals by hunting. It usually exhibit some level of site fi- plied to monodontid stocks in Green- is important to bear in mind, however, delity, returning to and inhabiting the land and some stocks in Canada that the PBR formula uses a relatively same summer and winter areas year (Witting et al., 2019), uses a series of simplistic approach and was originally after year (Caron et al., 1990; Bren-

81(3–4) 11 nin et al., 1997; Brown Gladden et al., GROM recognized 21 extant stocks, the eastern Beaufort Sea and eastern 1997; De March et al., 2004). Most plus one stock, Southwest Greenland, Chukchi Sea stocks. belugas are migratory, moving sea- that is known to be extirpated (Table In the Atlantic Arctic, the Frobish- sonally between separate summer and 1). The beluga stocks recognized at er Bay and South Hudson Bay stocks winter areas. However, some smaller the workshop as well as a comparison (IWC, 2000) were subsumed into the populations do not undertake long-dis- with the stocks listed in previous re- western Hudson Bay stock based on tance migrations and reside year-round views are presented in Table 4. the results of movement, distribution, in specific regions using summer and and genetic studies. Tagging studies winter areas that overlap (e.g., Cook Overview of Beluga Stocks (Yurkowski et al., 2019) and the genetic Inlet, Cumberland Sound, St. Law- Many of the beluga stock designa- profiles of hunted animals (De March rence Estuary). tions in the 1999 IWC review (IWC, and Postma, 2003) both showed that The IUCN Red List classifies the 2000) have been supported by re- Frobisher Bay is the extreme eastern beluga at the species level as Least search since 1999 on genetics, move- end of the winter migration of belugas Concern (Lowry et al.7); however, the ments, and summer distribution, and that summer in western Hudson Bay. rationale within the assessment docu- they remain unchanged (Table 4). The The 1999 IWC review recognized mentation notes that some subpopu- designations were changed in a few ar- four stocks of belugas in the western lations (i.e., stocks) warrant separate eas. Belugas in the Okhotsk Sea have Russian Arctic based on very limited assessment. One such subpopulation received considerable attention in the information. These were Franz Jo- in Cook Inlet is already red-listed as last decade, with much of the research sef Land, Ob Gulf, Yenisey Gulf, and Critically Endangered (Lowry et al.8). effort directed toward determining Southwest Laptev Sea (IWC, 2000). As noted above, belugas are occa- sustainable levels of removals from These designations were based on lim- sionally sighted outside of the recog- the Sakhalin-Amur River area for live ited reports of aggregations and the nized stock areas. There are occasional display (Shpak and Glazov, 2013). Re- considerable distances between the reports of sightings and catches of search has included aerial surveys to known aggregation areas. However, the belugas in East Greenland, usually in determine distribution and abundance, GROM found little new information the vicinity of Tasiilaq. The few indi- biopsy sampling for genetic analysis, on the movements and distributions of viduals that occur in East Greenland and capture and temporary restraint these belugas, and the available data are thought to belong to the popula- for health assessment and satellite tag on mtDNA lineages, occurrence, and tion around Svalbard, the nearest stock attachment. distribution did not support separa- geographically, and may represent an The results to date support the con- tion of these stocks (Meschersky et al., extension of the range of that stock. tinued designation of Sakhalin-Amur 2018). The workshop concluded that Similarly, belugas (usually lone in- River and Shelikhov Bay stocks (IWC, the available data were insufficient to dividuals) are known to wander into 2000). However, the former Shantar justify more than one stock, and in- waters of the eastern United States Bay stock (IWC, 2000) was split into stead it designated a single stock in (as far south as New Jersey) (Reeves three stocks based on the observed the Barents-Kara-Laptev Seas. and Katona, 1980; Cervenka9) and geographical separation of belugas Similarly, the three formerly rec- into European waters to as far south during the summer in Ulbansky Bay, ognized stocks in the White Sea— as northeastern England and the Bal- Tugursky Bay, and Udskaya Bay. This Onezhsky Bay, Mezhenskyi Bay, and tic Sea (Sea Watch Foundation10). The separation was partially supported by Dvinsky Bay (IWC, 2000)—were mtDNA analyses (Table 4). combined into a single White Sea 7Lowry, L., R. Reeves, and K. Laidre. 2017. The former Beaufort Sea stock stock. While the summer aggrega- Delphinapterus leucas. The IUCN Red List of (IWC, 2000) was changed to eastern tions (at least five, in addition to those Threatened Species 2017: e.T6335A50352346 Beaufort Sea stock in recognition that mentioned above) in the White Sea (avail. at http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN. UK.2017-3.RLTS.T6335A50352346.en). Down- the belugas in the western Beaufort are well documented, they are not far loaded on 08 June 2018. Sea during the summer belong to the apart and there are few data to suggest 8Lowry, L., R. Hobbs, and G. O’Corry-Crowe. eastern Chukchi Sea stock (Hauser et genetic or behavioral separation. 2019. Delphinapterus leucas Cook Inlet subpop- al., 2014). The 1999 IWC review had ulation. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Spe- designated a West Chukchi Sea-East- Western Okhotsk cies 2019: e.T61442A50384653 (avail. at http:// Sea Belugas dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-1.RLTS. ern East Siberian Sea stock, but the T61442A50384653.en). Downloaded on 10 May 2019. GROM reviewed the supporting data Belugas in the western Okhotsk 9Cervenka, S. 2015. “Update on our be- and concluded that the seasonal pres- Sea were previously thought to con- luga whales”. Asbury Park Press. Asbury, ence of belugas in that region was consist of two stocks (reproductively iso- NJ (avail. at https://www.app.com/story/news/ sistent with the migration patterns of lated units or biological populations): local/land-environment/2015/06/01/beluga- whales-new-jersey/28327751/). Sakhalin-Amur and Shantar (IWC, 10Sea Watch Foundation. 2015. “More rare be- https://www.seawatchfoundation.org.uk/more- 2000). Extensive studies began in this luga whales spotted around the U.K. (avail. at rare-beluga-whales-spotted-around-the-uk/). area in 2007. Based on aerial surveys

12 Marine Fisheries Review Table 4.—Beluga and narwhal stocks recognized by one or more status reviews: IWC (2000), Laidre et al. (2015), CAFF (CBMP-SAMBR), and this meeting – GROM. Stocks are ordered as they were in the IWC review, stocks from the other reviews that are not the same as one of the stocks in the IWC review are inserted below the most similar IWC stock. The CAFF review only considered stocks within the CAFF area thus some stocks are listed as “outside.” The NAMMCO (text footnote 1) review is not included because it considered only the Atlantic Arctic and sub-Arctic and included other seasonal aggregations. Gray shading indicates when the same aggregation of belugas or narwhals was recognized as a stock by all four reviews. Y = recognized as an independent stock, N = not recognized as an independent stock, dd = where review indicated not enough information to delineate a stock. Comments explain differences between the GROM and the other reviews.

IWC, 2000 CAFF GROM (no. in Laidre et al., (CBMP, (no. in Stock/location IWC report) 2015 SAMBR) this report) Comments from GROM Beluga Cook Inlet Y (1) Y outside Y (7) Bristol Bay Y (2) Y Y Y (8) Eastern Bering Sea Y (3) Y Y Y (9) Eastern Chukchi Sea Y (4) Y Y Y (10) Eastern Beaufort Sea Y (5) Y Y Y (11) Called “Beaufort Sea” by IWC, 2000 Eastern High Arctic-Baffin Bay N `Y Y Y (12) Also called “Somerset Island” and “Canadian High Arctic” stock in previous reviews; includes the West Greenland winter and North Water Polynya winter aggregations used by CAFF North Water Y (6) N N N Included in Eastern High Arctic-Baffin Bay West Greenland Y (7) Y Y N Included in Eastern High Arctic-Baffin Bay; called West Greenland winter by Laidre et al., 2015 and CAFF Foxe Basin Y (11) N N N Included in Eastern High Arctic-Baffin Bay Southwest Greenland N N Y Y (19) Extinct; called “South Greenland- Qaqortoq to Maniitsoq” in NAMMCO, 1999 Cumberland Sound Y (8) Y Y Y (17) Frobisher Bay Y (9) N N N Included in Western Hudson Bay Ungava Bay Y (10) Y Y Y (16) Possibly extirpated Western Hudson Bay Y (12) Y Y Y (13) South Hudson Bay Y (13) N N N Included in Western Hudson Bay James Bay Y (14) Y Y Y (14) Eastern Hudson Bay Y (15) Y Y Y (15) St. Lawrence Estuary Y (16) Y outside Y (18) Svalbard Y (17) Y Y Y (20) Barents-Kara-Laptev Seas N N N Y (21) Isolated population with likely several stocks, however GROM decided that there was not enough evidence to separate belugas in this area into any of the putative stocks recognized in past reviews. Franz Josef Land Y (18) N N dd Kara and Laptev Seas N Y Y dd Ob Gulf Y (19) N N dd Yenisey Gulf Y (20) N N dd SW Laptev Sea- Y (24) N N dd White Sea (WS) N Y Y Y (22) Isolated population with likely several stocks, however not enough evidence to separate belugas in this area into any of the 3 putative stocks recognized by IWC (2000) Onezhsky Bay Y (21) N N dd Mezhenskyi Bay Y (22) N N dd Dvinsky Bay Y (23) N N dd Western Chukchi Sea- Y (25) Y Y N Belugas present in fall, winter, and spring, but likely a migration route; Eastern East Siberian Sea belugas are likely from several stocks, mainly Eastern Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering Sea stocks Anadyr Gulf Y (26) Y Y Y (6) Okhotsk Sea N Y outside N Okhotsk Sea separated into 5 stocks (Shelikhov, Sakhalin-Amur, Ulbansky, Tugursky, and Udskaya) Shelikhov Bay Y (27) N outside Y (5) Sakhalin-Amur Y (28) N outside Y (1) Shantar Y (29) N outside N Ulbansky Bay N N outside Y (2) Previous reviews included this stock in a larger stock called “Shantar” Tugursky Bay N N outside Y (3) Previous reviews included this stock in a larger stock called “Shantar” Udskaya Bay N N outside Y (4) Previous reviews included this stock in a larger stock called “Shantar”

Narwhal East Greenland - Barents Sea Y N N N Included GROM stocks EGL, NEG, Svalbard–NW Russian Arctic Svalbard–NW Russian Arctic dd N N Y (12) Likely several stocks but not enough data to separate Svalbard, Franz Josef Land dd N Y dd Included in “Svalbard – NW Russian Arctic” Svalbard dd Y N dd Included in “Svalbard – NW Russian Arctic” North East Greenland (NEG) dd N N Y (11) East Greenland (EGL) dd Y Y Y (10) Baffin Bay Region Y N N N Included GROM stocks SI, JS, SS, AI, ES, IB, EBI Melville Bay (MB) dd Y Y Y (7) Inglefield Bredning (IB) dd Y Y Y (6) Eastern Baffin Island (EBI) dd Y Y Y (8) Jones Sound/Smith Sound dd Y N N Separated into two stocks (Smith and Jones) Jones Sound (JS) dd N Y Y (2) Smith Sound (SS) dd N Y Y (3) Somerset Island (SI) dd Y Y Y (1) West Greenland winter aggregation dd Y Y N A winter aggregation of GROM stocks SI, AI, ES, MB, EBI Admiralty Inlet (AI) dd Y Y Y (4) Eclipse Sound (ES) dd Y Y Y (5) Northern Hudson Bay Y Y Y Y (9)

81(3–4) 13 and observations from boats and shore For Sakhalinsky, Ulbansky, and Ud- submerged whales (availability bias) (Solovyev et al., 2015; Solovyev et skaya Bays, intra- and inter-annual in the murky waters of the southern al.11), the population consists of sev- resightings suggest sedentary behav- part of Sakhalinsky Bay and the Amur eral distinct summer aggregations in ior of at least some of the belugas estuary, so that the abundance esti- 1) Sakhalin Bay–Amur River, 2) Ul- throughout the summer, and fidelity to mate for this stock is 3,954 (CV=0.24) bansky Bay, 3) Tugursky Bay, and 4) summer ranges. belugas. Udskaya Bay. Nikolaya Bay is also There is uncertainty around the dif- Large-scale commercial beluga occupied by belugas, but belugas ferentiation of beluga stocks in the hunting in the Okhotsk Sea during the from Sakhalinsky Bay were resighted western Okhotsk Sea, but the crite- 20th century, primarily before 1960, in Nikolaya Bay in July so they are ria applied for the structure proposed substantially reduced the population. considered part of the Sakhalin Bay– above (mtDNA frequency differences, Starting in the 1980’s, live-capture op- Amur River aggregation. observations of spatio-temporal oc- erations have been conducted in the Genetic studies demonstrated that currence, and behavior) are similar southern part of Sakhalinsky Bay. The belugas summering in the western Ok- to those used for stock delineation in captured belugas are sold to aquaria for hotsk Sea share a single nuclear gene other areas. The GROM therefore con- live displays; they are primarily juve- pool and thus represent a single bio- cluded that, based on information cur- niles 2 or 3 years old, with a sex ratio logical population (Shpak et al., 2019). rently available, belugas in the western skewed toward females. Allowed take Analysis of mtDNA markers subdi- Okhotsk Sea consist of four stocks: 1) levels set by the Russian authorities do vided belugas summering in different Sakhalin Bay–Amur River, 2) Ulban- not consider this narrow age range and areas into three demographic units: 1) sky Bay, 3) Tugursky Bay, and 4) Ud- sex bias and thus may over-estimate the Sakhalin-Amur and Nikolaya Bay, 2) skaya Bay. number of removals that can be sus- Ulbansky Bay, and 3) Tugursky-Uds- tained. Until 2012, annual live-capture kaya Bays. Even though Nikolaya and 1) Sakhalin-Amur removals were reportedly less than 40. Ulbansky Bays are, in geographical The Sakhalin-Amur stock occupies From 2012 to 2015, however, belugas terms, the two arms of Academii Bay, the Amur River estuary and Sakhalin- were taken annually in numbers rang- i.e., they share the same entrance from sky Bay during the summer months ing from 40 to over 100 (exact figures the open sea, a comparison of the hap- and moves offshore into deeper ice- are not available). In 2016 there were lotype frequencies between Nikolaya covered waters of the Okhotsk Sea no live captures, and starting in 2017, and Ulbansky belugas resulted in the during the winter (Shpak et al., 2019). the Federal Fisheries Agency recom- highest difference between any pair of This stock is the most extensively mended that the annual live-capture bays (FST=31.1%, p=0.0006). Belu- studied in the western Okhotsk Sea. take in the Sakhalin-Amur area be lim- gas in Nikolaya Bay also differ from Research has included abundance es- ited to 40 or fewer individuals. Ulbansky whales in their response to timation, genetic analyses, satellite Major concerns for the Sakhalin- boats, and in this respect they resem- tracking, health assessment, and an Amur stock include interactions with ble Sakhalinsky Bay belugas (Shpak et initial study of contaminant levels. coastal fisheries (including distur- al., 2019). Genetics (mtDNA) and movement Pairwise comparisons of haplotype data supported this stock designation aerial surveys of belugas when no availability frequencies indicate that the maternal (Shpak et al., 2019). A small number correction factor has been developed empiri- cally for the stock. This value (2.0) is lower than lineages of Sakhalinsky, Ulbansky, and (30–60) of belugas occupying Niko- correction multipliers developed using dive data Udskaya belugas differ significantly laya Bay during the summer are also and aerial survey observer data in some circum- (F =11.0–16.1%, p=0.0000). The lack included in this stock. No differences stances (e.g., 2.62 belugas in Bristol Bay (Lowry ST et al., 2008); 2.86, 2.33 and 2.27 belugas during of difference in haplotype frequencies in the mtDNA haplotype frequencies winter in Baffin Bay (Heide-Jørgensen and Ac- between Tugursky and Udskaya was have been revealed between Sakhalin- quarone, 2002; Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2010a, outweighed by geographical separa- Amur belugas and belugas biopsied 2017)) and higher than those developed in other circumstances (e.g., 1.82 in offshore water with tion (200 km) and behavioral differ- in Nikolaya Bay (Shpak et al., 2019). visibility to 4 m deep and 1.15 in shallow near- ences to determine that Tugursky Bay An estimate of the average number of shore water with visibility to 2 m deep (Innes and Stewart 2002)). This correction multiplier of belugas and Ulbansky Bay belugas belugas available at the surface based 2.0 is arbitrary and does not have a CV. should be managed as separate stocks. on three aerial line-transect surveys In the Okhotsk Sea, belugas occupy highly (2009 and 2010) is 1,977 (CV=0.24, turbid waters with visibility typically to less 11Solovyev, B., D. Glazov, V. Chernook, E. Naz- than one meter depth, similar to Bristol Bay. arenko, N. Chelintsev, and V. Rozhnov. 2012. 1,574–2,293). The surface estimate Also, during aerial surveys of the Sakhalin- Distribution and abundance of beluga whales was multiplied12 by 2.0 to account for Amur stock, the plane flew over sea pens with (Delphinapterus leucas) in the White Sea and known numbers of belugas, which the observers in the southern part of the Barents Sea based on would count. The counts averaged 44% of the aerial counts in August 2011. Marine Mammals 12The multiplier 2.0, to account for availability belugas in the pens, which adds support to the of Holarctic: Collection of scientific papers of bias (i.e. assuming that half of the belugas re- notion that at least half of the belugas remained the 7th Intl. Conf., Suzdal, Russia, 24-28 Sept. mained submerged and were unavailable to be submerged. Unpubl. data, O. V. Shpak, Sev- 2012, vol. 2:264–269 (avail. at http://marmam. seen and counted by the observer), has been ertsov Inst. Ecol. Evol. Russian Acad. Sci., 33, ru/upload/conf-documents/mmc2012_full.pdf). used as a default correction factor for visual Leninsky pr., 119071 Moscow, Russia.

14 Marine Fisheries Review bance, entanglement, and shooting) no immediate major threats. The pri- correction factor12 of 2.0 (due to the and contamination of Amur Estuary mary concerns are the unknown trend murky estuarine water), resulting in an waters. An additional concern is the in abundance, the likely depletion abundance estimate of 2,334 whales. potential for competitive interactions caused by removals prior to the 1960’s, The stock is not known to have been with the fishery for chum salmon, On- and habitat issues that include the in- commercially exploited nor have live corhynchus keta, and pink salmon, O. dustrial and agricultural pollutants in captures occurred in this area. Al- gorbuscha. The carrying capacity of discharge from the Amur River. Addi- though predation on belugas by killer the region for belugas has likely de- tionally, fisheries are increasing in the whales, Orcinus orca, has not been clined in recent decades due to the area and may be altering the habitat observed directly, on numerous oc- intensive and constantly increasing carrying capacity. casions researchers have witnessed fishing pressure, especially from the a panic escape reaction by the en- salmon fishery. Entanglement does 2) Ulbansky tire aggregation when approached by not appear to be a serious problem de- The Ulbansky stock occupies Ul- killer whales. A fishing plant deploys spite the large fishing effort, including bansky Bay during the summer salmon nets along the coast and in poaching of sturgeon (kaluga, Huso months and moves offshore, presum- the Ulban River mouth, and a gold- dauricus, and Amur sturgeon, Acipens- ably into deeper ice-covered waters of mining company (with a mining claim er schrenckii). This comparatively low the Okhotsk Sea, during the winter as on the Ulban River arm) uses an area susceptibility to entanglement (when does the Sakhalin-Amur stock (Shpak on the coast to load and unload ma- compared to many other cetaceans) et al., 2019). This stock is considered chinery and fuel. The main concerns, apparently applies to belugas in oth- a separate demographic unit based on neither of them major at present, are er areas as well. Salmon fishermen multi-year observations of summer ag- occasional entanglement, shooting by likely shoot belugas at least occasion- gregations in the bay as well as genetic fishermen, and the risk of habitat con- ally. Pollution from the Amur River evidence (Meschersky et al., 2013; Ya- tamination by gold-mine discharge. contains both chemical contaminants zykova et al.14). In autumn, some be- (e.g., heavy metals, PCB’s; Glazov et lugas from Sakhalinsky Bay move into Workshop Discussion al.13) and infectious disease agents, es- Nikolaya Bay, and these belugas may A beluga satellite-tagged in Septem- pecially during flood events (a spike in also visit Ulbansky Bay. However, be- ber 2015 on a shoal in Ulbansky Bay infections of belugas was observed in luga numbers in all bays decrease in later travelled to Nikolaya Bay, and the 2013; Alekseev et al., 2017). autumn. Winter migratory routes and researcher suspected it was from the feeding habitats are unknown. None- Workshop Discussion Sakhalin-Amur stock. This illustrates theless, analyses of biopsy samples the need for further satellite tracking The trend for this stock is unknown. collected during summer indicate that studies to understand the movements However, based on a population model composition and frequency of the of these stocks after the period of sum- using commercial catch data begin- maternal lineages represented in Ul- mer residency. ning in 1915, recent removals for live bansky Bay differ from those in the display, and an estimate of subsistence other bays: pairwise comparison of Status removals, it was estimated that there mtDNA yielded FST values of 16.1% The trend in abundance is unknown, were 13,200 to 20,800 belugas in this (p=0.0000) for Udskaya Bay, 13.8% though Russian scientists think that stock historically (Bettridge et al., (p=0.0000) for Sakhalinsky Bay, and the numbers are stable. The GROM 2016). Current abundance may be at 11.3% (p= 0.0002) for Tugursky Bay. workshop had moderate concern for only 20–40% of historical abundance For Nikolaya Bay, which is geographi- this stock, primarily because of the un- but the model suggests that the current cally the closest to Ulbansky Bay, the known trend in abundance and the po- population is increasing. FST values are highest, reaching 31.1% tential impacts of fishing activities and (p=0.0006, though this is from a small Status resource extraction and development sample, n=9). in the area. The workshop judged this stock to A direct count of 1,167 belugas dur- be of moderate concern because it is ing an aerial survey in August 2010 3) Tugursky still reasonably abundant and there are was corrected for availability using a The Tugursky stock occupies Tugur- sky Bay during the summer months 13Glazov, D. M., O. V. Shpak, D. P. Samsonov, V. 14Yazykova, M. G., I. G. Meschersky, O. V. V. Krasnova , A. D. Chernetskiy, D. I. Litovka, Shpak, D. M. Glazov, D. I. Litovka, E. A. Bor- and moves offshore, presumably into R. A. Belikov, A. I. Kochetkov, E. M. Pasyn- isova, and V. V. Rozhnov. 2012. Molecular ge- deeper ice-covered waters of the Ok- kova, V. M. Belkovich, and V. V. Rozhnov. 2014. netic analysis of Sakhalin-Amur and Shantar Persistent organic pollutants in tissues of marine beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) summer aggre- hotsk Sea, during the winter as does mammals from the Russian Sub-Arctic. Marine gation in the Sea of Okhotsk. Collection of sci- the Sakhalin-Amur stock (Shpak et al., Mammals of Holarctic. Abstract Book of the entific papers of the 7th Conf. Marine Mammals 2019). The identity of this stock as a VIII Int. conf. (St. Petersburg, Russia, 22–27 of Holarctic, Suzdal, Russia, 24-28 Sept. 2012, Sept. 2014), p. 93 (avail. at http://marmam.ru/ 2:400–406. (Avail. at http://marmam.ru/upload/ separate demographic unit within the upload/conf-documents/mmc2014_full.pdf). conf-documents/mmc2012_full.pdf). western Okhotsk population is based

81(3–4) 15 on information provided by local resi- et al., 2019). The stock was exploited the bay, and genetic analysis (Shpak et dents and on multi-year observations both for subsistence and commercial- al., 2019). Belugas are present in the of geographical isolation from all the ly from the late 1800’s and until the estuary of the Uda River from June to other beluga summer aggregations in 1950’s. Belugas are still taken occa- October and often enter the Uda River the Okhotsk Sea. Genetic analysis (see sionally by locals, either as a result of itself. They are also known to concen- below) also supports this separation bycatch in salmon nets followed by a trate in the estuary of the Torom River. from the other stocks, except Udskaya kill or by shooting. No live-captures No genetic samples from the Torom Bay (Shpak et al., 2019). have been made from this stock. There Estuary are available, but belugas are In summer, belugas are regularly is a settlement, a fish plant, and a regularly seen along the coast between seen in the upper part of the bay and coastal gold-mining company based in the two rivers (ca. 45 km distance be- occasionally along the west coast, but the bay. The main concerns for Tugur- tween the mouths), which suggests are not observed between Tugursky sky belugas are 1) fisheries, 2) poten- that all animals in the bay belong to and Udskaya bays. Small groups have tial habitat contamination caused by the same stock. Upon ice formation in been reported near the south coast gold ore mining (heap leaching), and the Uda Estuary, belugas move along of Big Shantar Island and along the 3) discharges of human and livestock the entire south coast of the bay, but northeast coast of Tugursky Bay. Be- waste. keep near the coastline. Winter migra- havioral differences (e.g., response tory routes and feeding habitats are Workshop Discussion to boats) were noted between beluga unknown. groups in Tugursky and Udskaya bays. No genetic evidence of differentia- The composition and frequency Winter migratory routes and feed- tion between Tugursky and Udskaya of the maternal lineages represented ing habitats are unknown. Genetic belugas is currently available, but what in Udskaya Bay strongly differ from analyses of samples collected dur- is known about summer distribution those in Sakhalinsky, Nikolaya, and ing summer indicate that the compo- and differences in behavior supports Ulbansky bays, and pairwise FST val- sition and frequency of the maternal the idea of managing the whales that ues are 11.0–16.7%, p<0.002 for all lineages represented in Tugursky Bay summer in the two bays separately. pairs (Shpak et al., 2019). Howev- differ from those in Sakhalinsky (FST Genetic studies could be continued to er, no difference was found between =8.2%, p=0.0001) and Ulbansky (FST clarify the stock identity of belugas the Udskaya and Tugursky samples = 11.3%, p=0.0002) bays. However, summering in Tugursky Bay, however, (FST=1.4%, p=0.1263). A larger ge- no difference was found between Tu- given the lack of differentiation, satel- netic sample from Tugursky Bay col- gursky and Udskaya in a comparison lite tracking studies showing summer lected before late August and sampling of 32 and 90 specimens, respectively movements of the Tugursky Bay and in the Torom River estuary in Udskaya (FST=1.4%, p=0.1263; Shpak et al., Udskaya Bay stocks may be the only Bay are required to better understand 2019). way to resolve the issue. the summer stock structure of Tugur- Historical data, together with multi- sky and Udskaya belugas. Differences year shore, boat, and aerial observa- Status in behavioral responses to the pres- tions, indicate that in summer belugas Abundance of Tugursky belugas is ence of boats have been noted between occupy estuarine areas in both bays, thought by Russian scientists to be Tugursky and Udskaya beluga groups separated by around 200 km, and few fairly stable, but the actual trend is un- (Shpak15). animals are detected outside the estu- known. The GROM had moderate con- Abundance of the Udskaya stock aries, which suggests that there is little cern for this stock, primarily due to the was estimated to be 2,464 whales; a interchange during summer. Further- uncertainty surrounding stock identity direct count of 1,232 belugas during more, behavioral differences between and trends in abundance as well as the aerial surveys in August 2010 was belugas concentrating in Tugursky issues related to fishing and pollution. multiplied12 by 2.0 to correct for avail- and Udskaya Bays were noticed by ability bias in murky waters (Shpak two independent research teams. Un- 4) Udskaya and Glazov, 2013). The stock was til tracking studies of individuals show The Udskaya stock occupies Udska- hunted by locals and commercially un- movement between the two bays in ya Bay during the summer months and til the 1950’s. At present, belugas are summer, Tugursky Bay belugas should moves offshore, presumably into deep- occasionally taken by local residents, be managed as a separate stock. er ice-covered waters of the Okhotsk either as a result of bycatch in salmon An abundance estimate of 1,506 Sea, during winter as does the Sakha- nets followed by a kill, or by shoot- whales was derived from a direct count lin-Amur stock (Shpak et al., 2019). ing, even though all such takes are during an aerial survey of Tugursky The identity of this stock as a separate illegal. No live captures have been at- Bay in August 2010, multiplied12 by demographic unit within the western tempted from this stock. There are two 2.0 to account for availability bias, Okhotsk population is based on local 15Shpak, Olga V., Severtsov Institute of Ecology i.e., animals missed because they were knowledge, multi-year observations of and Evolution of Russian Academy of Sciences, submerged in murky waters (Shpak summer and autumn aggregations in 33, Leninsky pr., 119071 Moscow, Russia.

16 Marine Fisheries Review settlements, three fishing plants with beluga tagged with a satellite-linked 6) Anadyr multiple fishing camps, three coastal transmitter in Shelikov Bay remained The Anadyr beluga stock consists of gold-mining bases, and one gold ore at the mouth of the bay until at least a single summer aggregation, which loading terminal in the bay. Diesel fuel December. congregates in the shallow waters is unloaded in at least four locations. A direct count by an aerial survey of the Anadyr River Estuary (west- The main concerns for this stock are in August 2010 found 1,333 belugas. ern Bering Sea) during late summer, the potential impacts of fisheries, habi- This was multiplied12 by 2.0 to correct tat contamination by toxic river dis- for whales submerged in the murky moves out into the Gulf of Anadyr charge (discharges from gold mining waters to estimate abundance of the and north to Kresta Bay in autumn, and of human and livestock waste), Shelikhov stock at 2,666 belugas then south to shelf areas in the vicin- and ship traffic (noise, leaks of diesel (Shpak and Glazov, 2013). The total ity of Cape Navarin where it spends fuel). allowable take (TAT) level for the West the winter. The whales return to the Kamchatka fishing subzone (includ- Anadyr Estuary the following summer Status ing both hunting removals and live- after the ice has broken up (Shpak et al., 2019). This stock is separated ge- The Udskaya stock is a medium- captures) varied from 0 to 400 belugas sized stock (i.e., between 2,000 and during 2006–11 and since 2012 has netically and geographically from the 5,000 belugas), with an unknown trend varied from 0 to 50, averaging 25/yr Okhotsk Sea belugas. The composi- in abundance. A moderate concern for during 2012–18. No legal beluga har- tion of mitochondrial lineages shows this stock arises mainly due to ship vest or live-capture effort is reported evident differences (seasonal isola- traffic, fishery interactions, and pollu- to have taken place, other than tempo- tion) between the Anadyr belugas and tion in the area. rary captures for tagging followed by other stocks in the Bering, Chukchi, release. The annual illegal take by lo- and Beaufort Seas (B-C-B stocks) 5) Shelikhov cal residents (for human consumption (Meschersky et al., 2013; Borisova et or dog food) is thought to be fewer al.16). Thus, this aggregation should be The Shelikov stock summers in than 10 whales, if any. The population managed as a separate stock. To some coastal areas of the northeastern Ok- trend is unknown. The only potential extent, Anadyr belugas are also repro- hotsk Sea—specifically in Shelik- threat is competition with fisheries in ductively isolated from other B-C-B hov Bay and along the west coast of a few populated areas. stocks (Shpak et al., 2019), although the Kamchatka Peninsula. Its winter more studies are required to under- range is not known but is thought to Workshop Discussion be in deeper waters offshore from the stand the degree of this isolation. observed summer range (Shpak et al., This stock is isolated geographically In the Anadyr Estuary, some of the 2019). Reproductive isolation of this and reproductively. The aerial survey same individuals (based on unique stock from other belugas in the Ok- covered only a portion of the range, so markings such as scars) have been re- hotsk Sea was confirmed by genetic the abundance estimate (2,666) may sighted within and between years (Pra- studies (Shpak et al., 2019). Strong be negatively biased. The small num- solova et al., 2014; Prasolova et al.17). differences in microsatellite loci al- bers of direct removals are likely sus- Together with the results of genetic tainable. This area is sparsely settled, leles (FST=3.17–4.38%, p=0.0000) analysis, observations suggest that in and mtDNA haplotype frequencies has little fishing activity, and there- summer, belugas form a residential ag- fore bycatch is considered negligible. (FST=34.0–35.3%, p=0.0000) were gregation in the estuary and return to found for Shelikhov belugas when There are no current development the same area summer after summer. compared (pairwise) to the Sakhalin- projects in the region. Climate change will likely result in a reduction of sea 16Borisova, E. A., I. G. Meschersky, O. V. Shpak, Amur stock and the combined Shantar D. M. Glazov, D. I. Litovka and V. V. Rozhnov. region sample. Summer aerial sur- ice, which could open up the area to 2012. Evaluation of effect of geographical iso- veys also showed discontinuity in the development. lation on level of genetic distinctness in beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) populations in coastal distribution of these whales Status Russian Far East. Collection of scientific papers and that of whales in the western Ok- presented at the 7th Int. Conf., Marine Mam- This stock is medium-sized with no mals of the Holarctic, Suzdal, 2012, 1:107–111 hotsk population. In summer, Shelik- (avail. at http://marmam.ru/upload/conf-docu- hov belugas concentrate both in river information on trend. The quota (TAT) ments/mmc2012_full.pdf). estuaries and along the coastline. Very issued has not been used, but there are 17Prasolova, E. A., D. I. Litovka, and R. A. Be- limited information exists on the win- a few illegal removals. At present there likov. 2018. The results of photo identifiation of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in ter distribution of Shelikhov belugas. is little development in the area. There the Anadyr Estuary of the Bering Sea in 2013– In the 1980’s, belugas were found was some concern about the poor 2015. Collection of scientific papers presented along the ice edge in Shelikhov Bay, knowledge of population structure but at the 9th Int. Conf., Marine Mammals of the Holarctic: Astrakhan, 2016, 2:109–115 (avail. at along the Kamchatka Peninsula in Jan- overall, the level of concern for this http://marmam.ru/upload/conf-documents/mmc uary, and in Shelikhov Bay in April. A stock was low. 2016_full.pdf).

81(3–4) 17 Belugas spend the ice-free summer– per year (Litovka19). The population DNA analysis shows it to be distinct autumn feeding period in the Anadyr trend is unknown. Habitat and other from other stocks in Alaska (O’Corry- Estuary (total of 5–6 months, with the concerns include potential competition Crowe et al., 2002). latest sighting in late November). Dur- with fisheries, increasing ship traffic, The origin of the small group in ing this period, they concentrate in the and reduced winter ice cover as a re- Yakutat Bay has been studied using river deltas but visit all reachable parts sult of climate warming. genetic samples collected by remote of the estuary and occasionally go as biopsy and was found to be distinct Workshop Discussion far as 300 km upstream in the Anadyr from but most closely related to the River (Litovka, 2002). According to The number of belugas in this stock larger population residing in Cook satellite tracking data, the whales be- is uncertain; the stock is believed to be Inlet (O’Corry-Crowe et al., 2015). gin to leave the area with the begin- stable based on the observations men- However, a comparison of mtDNA and ning of ice formation in the estuary. tioned above, but this is not confirmed microsatellites indicates that the Yaku- First, they move north along the coast by survey or count data. Although the tat Bay group is not likely to be a re- to Kresta Bay, and later to the middle level of exploitation of the Anadyr cent extension of that population, and and southern parts of Anadyr Gulf stock is low (fewer than 10 animals its origin remains obscure. (Litovka et al., 2013; Shpak et al., removed per year), a more rigorous The Cook Inlet stock was surveyed 2019). Anadyr belugas spend the win- baseline of population data is needed, each year from 1993 to 2012 (Rugh et ter around Cape Navarin, in regions given concerns regarding the poten- al., 2000, 2005; Hobbs et al., 2015a) with ice coverage of up to 80–90% tial for oil spills and the anticipated and in even years thereafter (Hobbs, (Shpak et al., 2019; Litovka18). increase in ship traffic in the Bering 2013; Shelden et al.20,21). Abundance, Results of telemetry and aerial Strait region. estimated to be 328 whales (CV=0.08) surveys suggest that, in the winter– in 2016 (Shelden et al.21), was updat- spring feeding areas off Cape Nava- Status ed to 279 (CV=0.06) from a survey in rin, Anadyr belugas overlap with some The Anadyr stock is of moderate June 2018 (Shelden and Wade22) of the B-C-B stocks, most likely the size and the level of exploitation is Subsistence hunting of these whales eastern Beaufort Sea stock in particu- low. Moderate concern for this stock was unregulated prior to 1999, with lar (Citta et al., 2017). Genetic pair- was based on the lack of more rigor- removals (landed catch plus estimat- wise comparisons between the Anadyr ous abundance data and the potential ed struck-but-lost) averaging over 60 stock and the others in the Bering Sea impacts of increasing ship traffic, ur- belugas/yr during 1994–98. This re- and the stocks in the Sea of Okhotsk ban expansion, and associated noise sulted in a significant decline (47%) show it to be differentiable from the and pollution. between 1994 and 1998 from around other stocks but most similar to the 653 to 347 whales (Hobbs et al., 2000; eastern Beaufort Sea stock (Mescher- 7) Cook Inlet Mahoney and Shelden, 2000). The sky et al., 2013). Cook Inlet belugas aggregate near decline raised concern that the stock No summer aerial counts of belugas river mouths in upper Cook Inlet, was depleted (Hobbs et al., 2000) have been conducted in Anadyr Gulf. Alaska, during ice-free months (Rugh and the Cook Inlet hunters voluntari- Litovka (2002) suggested that this et al., 2000, 2010). In the fall–win- ly refrained from hunting in 1999. In summer stock numbers some 3,000 ter–spring months, the whales in this 1999 and again in 2000 the U.S. Gov- animals based on several years of ob- stock range more widely throughout ernment established a moratorium servations of the numbers of belugas the upper inlet (Hobbs et al., 2005; on Cook Inlet beluga whale harvest- passing the city of Anadyr and enter- Lammers et al., 2013; Shelden et al., ing the Anadyr River during the late 2015; Castellote et al., 2016). Belugas 20Shelden, K. E. W., C. L. Sims, L. Vate Bratt‑ ström, K. T. Goetz, and R. C. Hobbs. 2015. spring. are rarely seen in the Gulf of Alaska Aerial surveys of beluga whales (Delphinapter- The TAT for the Anadyr Estuary outside Cook Inlet with the exception us leucas) in Cook Inlet, Alaska, June 2014. AFSC Processed Rep. 2015-03, 55 p. (avail. at and Anadyr Gulf is 40 belugas. The of a small group that resides year- http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/ProcRpt/ known subsistence harvest is generally round in Yakutat Bay (Laidre et al., PR2015-03.pdf Accessed June 2016). around 2 belugas per year (average of 2000; O’Corry-Crowe et al., 2015). 21Shelden, K. E. W., R. C. Hobbs, C. L. Sims, 1.8 from 1997 to 2016), and no live- The Alaska Peninsula geographical- L. Vate Brattström, J. A. Mocklin, C. Boyd, and B. A. Mahoney. 2017. Aerial surveys of beluga capture operations have been conduct- ly isolates this stock from the nearest whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in Cook Inlet, ed in this region since 2007. Incidental beluga stock in Bristol Bay (Laidre Alaska, June 2016. AFSC Processed Rep. 2017- mortality is typically only 1–3 belugas et al., 2000; Hobbs et al., 2005; Shel- 09, 62 p. (avail. at http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/ Publications/ProcRpt/PR2017-09.pdf ). den et al., 2015) and mitochondrial 22Shelden, K. E. W., and P. R. Wade (Editors). 2019. Aerial surveys, distribution, abundance, 18Litovka, D. I. 2013. Ecology of Anadyr stock 19Dennis Litovka is currently with the Office of and trend of belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) in of the beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas (Pal- Governor and Government of the Chukotka Au- Cook Inlet, Alaska, June 2018. AFSC Processed las, 1778). Ph.D. thesis, Voronezh State Univ., tonomous Region, Str. Bering 20, Anadyr, Rus- Rep. 2019-09, 93 p. (avail. at: https://repository. Russia, 149 p. [in Russian]. sia 689000. library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/22918).

18 Marine Fisheries Review ing except for subsistence hunts con- A substantial decrease in the use of subsequent outfall (Norman et al., ducted under a cooperative agreement summer habitat has occurred in the last 2015). between NOAA’s National Marine 40 years; whales were found through- Smaller offshoots such as Knik Arm Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Alaska out the upper inlet during summer and Turnagain Arm, which are parts of Native organizations. Comanagement surveys in the 1970’s, but by the mid- the designated critical habitat for belu- harvest plans were not agreed for 1999 1990’s they limited themselves to river gas, have lower flushing rates than the and 2000. The plan covering the years mouths at the north end of the inlet, main inlet and may accumulate con- 2001 to 2005 allowed takes of one or Knik and Turnagain arms, and coastal taminants in their sediments (Moore two whales per year, and no hunt has shallows connecting these areas (Rugh et al., 2000; Hobbs et al., 2015b; Nor- been allowed since 2005 (NMFS23). et al., 2010; Shelden et al., 2015). It is man et al., 2015). There have been no Nevertheless, the population has de- unknown whether the open-water ar- studies of sediment composition and clined since 1999, with the most re- eas of the inlet became less suitable or deposition processes in Cook Inlet. cent ten year trend (2008-2018) being a smaller population was concentrat- Tissue studies in the 1990’s showed -2.3%/yr (Shelden and Wade22). After ing in the best habitat. A significant re- that the belugas of Cook Inlet had low the unsustainable subsistence hunt was lationship between salmon escapement levels of contaminants in their tissues controlled, the stock should have be- and annual number of beluga new- compared to belugas in other parts of gun to increase; the continued failure borns observed (Norman et al., 2019), Alaska (with the exception of elevat- to increase suggests that other factors when considered alongside a shift in ed copper levels in the kidneys), but are preventing stock recovery. diet from saltwater to freshwater spe- there have been no more recent studies In May 2000 the Cook Inlet beluga cies as determined by stable isotope (Norman et al., 2015). A gas leak that stock was designated as “depleted” analysis (Nelson et al., 2018), suggests began in December 2016 could not be under the U.S. Marine Mammal Pro- that competition with salmon fisheries repaired until the inlet was ice-free in tection Act (MMPA), i.e., its abun- has limited the quality of prey avail- 2017 (DeMarban25), and this provides dance was below the maximum net able to belugas and this could explain a cautionary example of the risks of productivity level (MNPL) and thus the continued decline. oil and gas development in a season- outside the optimal sustainable popu- This stock is subjected to a great ally ice-covered area. lation (OSP) range. With no evidence deal of disturbance from human ac- Natural hazards include live strand- that recovery was occurring, NMFS tivities (shipping, aircraft noise, oil ings and killer whale predation. There listed the Cook Inlet beluga as an and gas development, commercial and is an unusually high number of live “endangered” distinct population seg- sport fishing, etc.), much of which oc- strandings in Cook Inlet as a result of ment under the U.S. Endangered Spe- curs within the areas designated as the large tidal heights (ca 9.2 m: Vos cies Act (ESA) in October 2008, after “critical habitat” (Goetz et al., 2007, and Shelden, 2005). These hazards which it was listed as “strategic” under 2012; Small et al., 2017; Castellote may interact. For example, a stranding the MMPA. NMFS published a Re- et al.24). Hundreds of flights each day of killer whales occurred at the same covery Plan for Cook Inlet belugas in land and take off over critical habitat, time as a mass stranding of belugas a December 2016 (NMFS23). Cook Inlet and the shipping lane in and out of the few kilometers away, and it was sus- belugas have been listed as “Critically Port of Anchorage passes through the pected that the belugas had stranded Endangered” on the IUCN Red List critical habitat. Waste from the city while avoiding the killer whales. Pre- since 2006 (Lowry et al.8). of Anchorage (ca 300,000 people) dation by killer whales may be a sig- Habitat concerns include ship traf- undergoes only “primary treatment” nificant source of mortality for Cook fic, competition with fisheries, anthro- (removal of solids) before discharge Inlet belugas (Vos and Shelden, 2005; pogenic noise (including ship noise), into Cook Inlet, and runoff, including Burek-Huntington et al., 2015) and urban and industrial development, substantial amounts of de-icing flu- therefore increase the risk of popula- chemical and biological pollution, ids from the Anchorage airport, flows tion decline and extinction (Hobbs et and the cumulative effects of multiple directly into the inlet (Norman et al., al., 2015b). stressors. Effects of climate change 2015). While the large tidal flux may such as the loss of winter ice cover, substantially dilute the sewage and Workshop Discussion changes in the distribution and abun- runoff, these contaminants flow year Harvest regulations published in dance of prey, and exposure to para- round or through entire seasons so October 2008 indicated that a limited sites and diseases new to the region they are replaced each tidal cycle by subsistence hunt by Alaska Natives are also of concern. 24Castellote, M., B. Thayre, M. Mahoney, J. Mondragon, C. Schmale, and R. J. Small. 2016. 25DeMarban, A. 2017. Divers halt leak in Cook Anthropogenic noise in Cook Inlet beluga habi- Inlet gas pipeline. Alaska Dispatch News. Re- 23NMFS. 2016. Recovery plan for the Cook tat: sources, acoustic characteristics, and fre- trieved on 5 Oct. 2017 (avail. at https://www. Inlet beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas). quency of occurrence. Final Wildl. Res. Rep. adn.com/business-economy/energy/2017/04/14/ NMFS, Alaska Reg., Prot. Resour. Div., Juneau, ADF&G/DWC/WRR-2016-4. Alaska Dep. Fish divers-for-hilcorp-stop-months-long-cook-inlet- AK. Game, Juneau, AK. gas-leak/).

81(3–4) 19 could resume only after the popu- Aerial surveys were conducted peri- proposed in the watershed of Bristol lation has recovered to at least 350 odically between 1993 and 2016, and Bay). animals (if other criteria are met, in- the estimate of abundance for Bristol Status cluding a high probability of recover- Bay belugas in 2016 was 2,040 (CV ing to 780 whales by 2099) (NOAA, =0.22, 95% CI=1,541–2,702, Nmin = The Bristol Bay stock is a medium- 2008). Some GROM participants con- 1,809; Lowry et al., 2008; 2019). The sized stock and is one of the most da- sidered 350 too low a threshold. This trend in abundance estimated from the ta-rich, with a time series of credible number (350) was originally set in uncorrected aerial survey counts was abundance and trend estimates and re- 2004 in view of the expressed desire +4.8% per year over the 12-yr period liable data on landed catch. Therefore, on the part of local people to contin- from 1993 to 2005. The 2016 survey concern for this stock is low. ue beluga hunting and product use as produced an estimate similar to that in soon as possible given its cultural sig- 2005, suggesting that the population 9) Eastern Bering Sea nificance, and it was believed at the has been stable in recent years. Eastern Bering Sea belugas ag- time that if the population averaged Abundance in 2011 estimated from gregate near the mouth of the Yukon over 350 for the previous 5 years genetic mark-recapture analysis using River and in Norton Sound in western and had an increasing trend over the skin biopsies collected annually over Alaska throughout the summer (Lowry previous 10 years, it could sustain a the period 2002–11 was 1,928 belu- et al., 2019). As ice forms during the small harvest. As noted above, the gas (95% CI = 1,611–2,337: Citta et autumn they move offshore to winter- population is now designated as “en- al., 2018). This provides support for ing areas south and west of the Kus- dangered” and therefore before any the accuracy of the aerial survey abun- kokwim River Delta and east of Saint harvest is allowed, the management dance estimate but is based on older Matthew Island, and continuing south plan must be revised to meet whatev- data than the most recent aerial survey in the eastern Bering Sea as far south er criteria apply under the ESA. estimate. as Round Island in Bristol Bay (Citta et Data on Alaska Native subsistence al., 2017). Analyses of mtDNA found Status harvests within Bristol Bay since 1987 these belugas to be genetically distinct This very small population con- indicate that over the period 2007–16, from adjacent stocks (O’Corry-Crowe tinues to show no evidence that it is the annual landed harvest averaged 23 et al., 1997, 2002; Brown Gladden et recovering. It is subjected to many belugas (95% CL = 21–25; Frost and al., 1997; Meschersky et al., 2008). anthropogenic stressors, and the cu- Suydam, 2010; Lowry et al., 2019). An aerial survey flown across Nor- mulative impact of these stressors Fishery bycatch is not well docu- ton Sound and adjacent to the Yukon may explain the lack of recovery. The mented. A PBR of 43 belugas (1,809 River Delta in 2000 resulted in a popu- workshop expressed a high level of × 0.024 × 1.0) was calculated for this lation estimate of 6,994 (CI= 3,162– concern for this stock. population, nearly twice the current 15,472) whales (Lowry et al., 2017b). annual reported subsistence harvest, No previous survey results are avail- 8) Bristol Bay which however does not account for able for assessing trend. Belugas of the Bristol Bay stock struck-but-lost whales. Habitat con- The hunting of eastern Bering Sea are typically found in Nushagak and cerns include loss of sea ice due to cli- belugas is comanaged by the Alaska Kvichak bays and major rivers in the mate warming, fishery bycatch, oil and Beluga Whale Committee and NMFS. east end of Bristol Bay during summer gas development, and mining. Belugas from this stock are an impor- (Frost et al., 1985; Lowry et al., 2008; tant subsistence resource for at least Workshop Discussion Citta et al., 2016) and throughout the 21 villages in western Alaska. From northern and eastern parts of Bristol The trend for this stock appears to 2007 to 2016, an average of 190 be- Bay in winter (Citta et al., 2016). Sat- be stable (and it may be increasing). lugas were landed (i.e., not including ellite telemetry studies indicate that Removals by hunting and bycatch ap- struck-but-lost) per year (Frost and they remain in the greater Bristol Bay pear to be sustainable, and there are Suydam, 2010; Lowry et al., 2019). region throughout the year (Citta et al., no major habitat concerns. There is There are several commercial fisheries 2016, 2017). a large salmon fishery in Bristol Bay, in State of Alaska and Federal waters MtDNA analyses show that Bristol and while there is little reported by- that have the potential to catch belugas Bay belugas are distinct from other catch or conflict, competition between incidentally but no such catches have stocks that summer or winter in the the belugas and the fishery may oc- been reported. At least one beluga is Bering Sea. Satellite tagging and a cur since the fishery occurs in areas known to have been taken in a subsis- comparison of mtDNA from whales in where belugas feed on the same spe- tence fishing net, so bycatch occurs at Nushagak and Kvichak bays found no cies. This area has only small human least occasionally. indication of population substructure communities, but there are plans for Based on the population estimate within Bristol Bay (O’Corry-Crowe et more development (e.g., a major min- from 2000, PBR is calculated from: al., 1997, 2002; Citta et al., 2018). ing project, the Pebble Mine, has been NBEST = 6,994; CV = 0.37; NMIN =

20 Marine Fisheries Review 5,173, RMAX = 0.048; FR = 1.0; PBR OSP range, i.e., larger than MNPL, Beaufort region (O’Corry-Crowe et = 103. The PBR for this stock is con- for this population, and therefore al., 1997, 2002; Brown Gladden et al., siderably lower than the cumulative hunting by Alaska Natives for subsis- 1997; Meschersky et al., 2008). reported landings in subsistence hunts tence is unregulated. Previously it was believed that the (Lowry et al., 2019). Despite this, the belugas in Kotzebue Sound in mid- Status harvest has been judged by U.S. au- June migrated north to near Kasega- thorities to be sustainable because the This is a moderate-sized stock of luk Lagoon and that the whales in 2000 survey estimate is thought to be over 5,000 belugas. However, the these two locations belonged to the biased low and because local and tra- abundance estimate is from data that same stock (Lowry et al., 2019). Ge- ditional knowledge indicates that there are 18 years old, and no information is netic data from tissue samples ob- has not been any decrease in abun- available on trend. Given that the re- tained during the late 1970’s and early dance. Nonetheless, an updated popu- ported removal levels are likely biased 1980’s showed that the animals from lation estimate is needed. There are low and the abundance estimate is out- the two areas were actually from dif- concerns about how this stock may dated, but that plans are underway to ferent stocks (O’Corry-Crowe et al., be affected by habitat changes, loss of update the abundance estimate, this 2016). Numbers of belugas in Kotze- winter sea ice, and increases in com- stock is of moderate concern. A new bue Sound declined markedly in the mercial shipping and commercial fish- estimate expected from a 2017 sur- mid-1980’s. The small number of ani- ing as a result of climate change. vey will inform a reassessment of the mals sampled for genetics in Kotzebue stock. Sound since the 1990’s may have come Workshop Discussion Update from the eastern Beaufort Sea stock. The single abundance estimate for Aerial surveys flown between 19 this stock is believed to be negatively In June 2017 NMFS conducted an July and 20 August 2012 estimated biased due to 1) the use of an availabil- aerial survey of this stock. The survey the stock size at 20,675 (CV=0.66) ity bias correction (2.0) that was con- analysis estimated surface numbers animals (Lowry et al., 2017a), includ- of 4,621 belugas (CV=0.12); apply- sidered low (c.f. 2.62 x 1.18 used for 12 ing correction for animals outside the similar high-turbidity water conditions ing the availability bias multiplier survey area and below the surface in Bristol Bay; Lowry et al., 2008, of 2.0 yields an abundance estimate based on satellite tag data. The previ- 2019), 2) the fact that survey coverage of 9,242 belugas (CV=0.12; Lowry ous abundance estimate from 1992 did not include some offshore and in- et al., 2019). As above, this arbitrary was 3,710, but it was negatively biased river areas where belugas are known to correction factor for missed animals as it included only belugas seen near occur, and 3) the fact that some of the of 2.0 has no associated CV. PBR is shore. Therefore, no information is survey effort took place in sea states calculated from: NBEST = 9,242; CV = available on population trend. greater than Beaufort 3, which like- 0.12; NMIN = 8,357, RMAX = 0.048; FR Belugas from this stock are an ly decreased the sighting rate. A new = 1.0; PBR = 201. The 10-year aver- important subsistence resource for abundance survey occurred in 2017, age annual subsistence landed take of several villages in northern Alaska, but the results were not available to the 191 is below this new PBR, but with especially Point Lay and Wainwright. GROM workshop. struck-but-lost added, average annual From 2007 to 2016, an average of The reported landed catch is nearly removals are 215, or 7% above PBR 57 belugas was harvested (i.e., land- twice the PBR value calculated using and under-reporting is not included ed) annually by these two villages the results of the 2000 survey, which (Lowry et al., 2019). (Frost and Suydam, 2010; Lowry et is now 18 years old; struck-but-lost 10) Eastern Chukchi Sea al., 2019). Some animals are caught belugas are not accounted for in the in salmon fishing nets, but they are harvest numbers and while 21 commu- Eastern Chukchi Sea belugas ag- reported as part of the beluga subsis- nities report takes, other communities gregate along Kasegaluk Lagoon in tence take, which is considered sus- that may hunt belugas do not report. northwestern Alaska in late June and tainable. The PBR set using the 2012 Thus total removals are certainly high- early July (Frost et al., 1993). During population estimate suggests that re- er than the reported landings. summer, they occur in the Beaufort moval of 249 belugas per year would Concern was expressed over the Sea and Arctic Ocean and can ven- be sustainable, and this is well above lack of a more recent abundance es- ture north as far as lat. 81o N, but they the current level of removals. timate and the fact that the relative- mostly use the continental slope. They Concerns about beluga habitat in- ly high level of removals, possibly migrate south into the Bering Sea in clude possible impacts of climate twice the PBR, could be causing a autumn and spend the winter between change, commercial shipping, oil and decline. However, since the stock is St. Lawrence Island and the Chukotka gas activities, and tourism. Commer- not designated as “depleted” under Peninsula. MtDNA studies found this cial activities, scientific studies on a the MMPA, its current abundance is stock to be genetically distinct from wide variety of topics, and tourism implicitly assumed to be within the other stocks in the Bering-Chukchi- have increased as sea ice has dimin-

81(3–4) 21 ished due to climate change. Changes DNA microsatellite loci indicated that The subtle changes in growth of be- in migration timing related to recent there is some interbreeding with other lugas over the time-series may reflect delayed sea ice formation and warm- stocks that winter in the Bering Sea ecosystem changes that have reduced ing of the Arctic have been document- (Brown Gladden et al., 1999). the availability or quality and quantity ed in this stock (Hauser et al., 2017). The only large-scale effort to esti- of their prey or that the stock is ap- mate abundance of the EBS stock was proaching carrying capacity (Harwood Workshop Discussion an aerial survey conducted in 1992, re- et al., 2014b, 2015). The question of whether there is one sulting in a near-surface abundance es- segment of the population that comes timate of 19,629 (CV=0.23; Harwood Workshop Discussion close to shore and is therefore more et al., 1996), which was multiplied12 In a previous assessment by the susceptible to harvest was discussed. by 2.0 to account for submerged Department of Fisheries and Oceans While this is possible it is unlikely to whales and whales outside of the sur- Canada (DFO), the estimated total be a small portion of the population as vey area to get an estimate of 39,258 of direct removals by hunting pri- satellite telemetry shows that whales (CV=0.23; Allen and Angliss, 2015). or to 2000 was 186 belugas per year tagged near shore spend most of their The correction factor (2.0) was not (DFO27), which includes a correc- time offshore (Suydam26). A portion based on data and was used without a tion for struck-but-lost; the catch was of the stock aggregates in nearshore CV. It was considered to be a reason- strongly biased toward males (60–80% waters over a 2- to 4-week time period able minimum value, and it is support- of removals). That assessment con- presumably to molt. They do not seem ed by the observation of Richard et al. cluded that the annual harvest was far to come inshore to feed as belugas har- (2001) that 13 of 18 whales satellite- below a level that might negatively af- vested near shore rarely have prey in tracked in 1993 and 1995 remained fect such a large population. their stomachs (Quakenbush et al., outside of the 1992 survey area, sug- Status 2015). gesting that the survey covered only about 38% of the stock. This is a very large stock (although Status There has been a long history of the most recent abundance estimate There are no previous abundance es- beluga hunting by the Inuvialuit and is 25 years old) and the trend is un- timates that would allow assessment their ancestors in the western Canadi- known. The level of removals appears of trend, but this relatively large stock an Arctic, and by the Iñupiat in Alaska low relative to the stock’s size and the is thought to be stable, and the small (Harwood et al., 2002). The EBS stock concern level is low. number of removals is likely sustain- is hunted by the Inuvialuit during sum- able. Therefore, there is a low level of mer in the Mackenzie River estuary 12) Eastern High Arctic–Baffin Bay concern for the stock. and by the Iñupiat in Alaska during Belugas in the Eastern High Arctic– the spring migration. Based on annual Baffin Bay stock consist of aggrega- 11) Eastern Beaufort Sea harvest numbers reported by Canada tions summering in the Canadian High Belugas of the eastern Beaufort and the United States, the mean esti- Arctic archipelago and, to a minor Sea (EBS) stock summer in the east- mated annual subsistence take (landed extent, in Smith Sound. During sum- ern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf plus struck-but-lost) between 1987 and mer, the main aggregations occupy es- (Norton and Harwood, 1985; Harwood 2015 was 164 whales (Harwood et al., tuaries, inlets, and small bays in and et al., 1996; Richard et al., 2001; Har- 2002; Frost and Suydam, 2010; Har- around Somerset Island (Smith and wood and Kingsley, 2013; Harwood wood et al., 2015; Muto et al., 2016), Martin, 1994; Richard et al., 1998a, et al., 2014a; Citta et al., 2017) and which is well below the PBR of 487 2001; Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2003b; over-winter in the Bering Sea (Citta et (using a recovery factor of 0.75 be- Koski and Davis28). Specific locations al., 2017). MtDNA analyses of sam- cause the survey estimate is outdated). include Radstock Bay, Maxwell Bay, ples from hunted animals identified An average of ten belugas per year and Crocker Bay on Devon Island; EBS belugas as distinct from other are taken in fall, winter, and spring in Cunningham Inlet, Creswell Bay, and stocks in Alaska and eastern Russia, Chukotka, and these animals are gen- Elwin Bay on Somerset Island; and and from central and eastern Cana- erally considered to be from this stock Coningham Bay on eastern Prince of dian Arctic stocks, most likely due to based on genetic data and the timing Wales Island. Telemetry information maternally directed annual philopatry and location of the takes (Boltunov has shown that the stock is divided in to the Beaufort Sea region (O’Corry- and Belikov, 2002, updated by D. Crowe et al., 1997, 2002; Brown Glad- Litovka19). These takes are considered 27DFO. 2000. Eastern Beaufort Sea beluga. DFO Science Stock Status Report E5-38. (Avail. den et al., 1997). Analyses of nuclear sustainable when added to the Canada at http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/). and United States takes. 28Koski, W. R., and R. A. Davis. 1980. Studies 26Suydam, R. S. 2009. Age, growth, reproduc- Size-at-age of belugas landed in the of the late summer distribution and fall migration, and movements of beluga whales (Delphi- tion of marine mammals in NW Baffin Bay and napterus leucas) from the eastern Chukchi Sea. Mackenzie Delta has declined from E Lancaster Sound, 1979. LGL Ltd. for Petro- Ph.D. dissert., Univ. Wash., Seattle, 152 p. 1989 to 2008 (Harwood et al., 2014b). Canada Explor. Inc.

22 Marine Fisheries Review winter into a portion that resides in trialization and shipping. Continued ice the imposition of catch limits (Heide- the North Water polynya and a larger loss may affect the availability of prey Jørgensen et al., 2017). This is a large portion that resides in coastal ice-free species and reduce the carrying capac- stock (possibly 20,000 animals) and areas along the Baffin Bay sea-ice ity. Impacts will depend on the adapt- removals are considered sustainable, edge off West Greenland (Doidge and ability of belugas—e.g., their ability to so the level of concern for this stock Finley, 1994; Richard et al., 1998a, change their summer and winter ag- is low. 1998b; Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2003b; gregation sites and migration timing Heide-Jørgensen and Laidre, 2004). and adjust to alternative prey. There 13) Western Hudson Bay Abundance on the summer range are also habitat concerns related to the Western Hudson Bay (WHB) be- was estimated from an aerial survey Baffinland Mary River Mine project lugas are centered around the Seal, in 1996 to be 21,213 belugas (95% (NAMMCO29), which has proposed to Churchill, and Nelson River estuar- CI 10,985–32,619; Innes and Stewart, use ice breaking in winter and spring ies during summer, although belugas 2002). This is the only total abundance to resupply the mine and transport iron occur along the entire west coast of estimate for this stock. Winter surveys ore. The implications of this activity Hudson Bay (Sergeant, 1973; Ser- of belugas off West Greenland cover for belugas migrating and wintering in geant and Brodie, 1975; Richard et only a portion of the stock but indi- Baffin Bay are unclear at present. al., 1990; Richard, 1994). The distri- cate an increase in abundance in this bution of WHB belugas overlaps that Workshop Discussion wintering area since the imposition of the Eastern Hudson Bay (EHB) of catch limits in Greenland (Heide- More information is needed about stock during the spring and fall mi- Jørgensen et al., 2017). A fairly recent areas that are important for foraging, grations and in overwintering areas in (2012) abundance estimate from these especially in Baffin Bay, as prey pop- Hudson Strait (Turgeon et al., 2012). surveys was 9,072 whales (95% CI ulations may have changed. For ex- WHB belugas are more diverse ge- 4,895–16,815; Heide-Jørgensen et al., ample, Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, netically than other Canadian beluga 2016). were important prey of belugas during stocks, but they are genetically dis- During summer, approximately 100 the “cod invasions” in West Greenland tinct from the neighboring EHB stock belugas per year are removed from this in the 1920’s but their importance as (De March and Postma, 2003). The stock by communities in Nunavut, and prey declined with the disappearance previously recognized (but with res- about 300 belugas are taken per year of cod in this region (Degerbøl and ervations) Frobisher Bay and South by communities in Greenland in win- Nielsen, 1930). It is unknown if the Hudson Bay stocks (IWC, 2000) are ter when they are close to shore. Total recent increase in cod abundance in included here in the western Hud- removals in both areas have declined West Greenland has benefited the be- son Bay stock based on the results of in recent years (non-quota in Cana- lugas. Additionally, capelin, Mallotus studies of movements and distribution da and quota harvest in Greenland) villosus, are increasing in Cumberland (Yurkowski et al., 2019) and genetics (NAMMCO29). The decline in catches Sound and off Labrador (Rose and (De March and Postma, 2003). in winter off Greenland is related to Rowe, 2015), and this may represent WHB beluga abundance was es- the recent decline of winter sea ice in a new food resource for Baffin Bay timated using data from visual and eastern Baffin Bay which has reduced belugas. photographic aerial surveys in 1987 access to belugas by Greenlandic hunt- Uncertainty remains regarding the (Richard et al., 1990), 2004 (Rich- ers (Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2010a). In stock affinity of belugas in Foxe Ba- ard30), and 2015 (Matthews et al.31). total, the harvest is considered sustain- sin; their range may overlap that of The most recent estimate (adjust- able, and recent declines in remov- Somerset Island belugas at least dur- ed for availability bias) is 54,473 als should allow the stock to increase. ing summer. While genetic results sug- (CV=0.098; CI = 44,988–65,957). However, the stock is still depleted due gest that these belugas are related to Notably, this estimate excludes the to past commercial hunting. Numbers the western Hudson Bay stock (Brown coast of Ontario, where ~14,800 be- prior to the commercial hunting were Gladden et al., 1997; De March and estimated by a population model to be Postma, 2003), their distribution is not 30Richard, P. R. 2005. An estimate of the west- at least twice the current abundance well known and the southern extent ern Hudson Bay beluga population size in 2004. (Innes and Stewart, 2002). of the Somerset aggregation is poorly DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2005/017. ii + 29 p. (avail. at http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo. Habitat concerns include the effects defined. gc.ca/). of climate change and increasing indus- 31 Status Matthews, C. J. D., C. A. Watt, N. C. Asselin, J. B. Dunn, B. G. Young, L. M. Montsion, K. H. It is not clear whether abundance of Westdal, P. A. Hall, J. R. Orr, S. H. Ferguson, 29NAMMCO. 2017. NAMMCO-JCNB Joint and M. Marcoux. 2017. Estimated abundance Scientific Working Group on Narwhal and Be- the Eastern High Arctic–Baffin Bay of the western Hudson Bay beluga stock from luga, 8–11 Mar. 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark stock is stable or increasing—winter the 2015 visual and photographic aerial survey. (avail. at http://nammco.wpengine.com/wp-con- DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2017/061. tent/uploads/2017/06/nammco-jcnb-jwg-report- surveys off West Greenland indicate iv + 18 p. (avail. at http://waves-vagues.dfo- march-2017-final-with-ex-summ.pdf). an increase in one wintering area since mpo.gc.ca/).

81(3–4) 23 lugas were estimated during the 2004 ever, the differentiation is weak, sug- to little hunting pressure, knowledge survey (Richard30). gesting recent divergence. about the stock is limited. Hunters The average of estimated annual re- Aerial surveys of James Bay and have observed belugas in winter along movals by communities around Hud- southern Hudson Bay conducted be- the southern Belcher Islands, indicat- son Bay and Hudson Strait from 1977 tween 1985 and 2015 found large ing potential northward movement of to 2015 was 503 (range 252–784, in- groups of belugas in northwestern JB animals during this season. The im- cluding struck-but-lost; Hammill et James Bay and along the adjacent On- pacts of changes in the hydrological al., 2017). This removal level is well tario coast of Hudson Bay (Gosselin cycle in the JB habitat caused by hy- below the PBR of 1,004 as calculated et al.33, 34). The belugas in northwest- droelectric development are uncertain. using the most recent abundance esti- ern James Bay have been included in mate and a recovery factor of 1. The the James Bay stock, but the stock Workshop Discussion WHB beluga stock is large and the affinities of these whales and of the JB belugas should be considered similar near-surface counts during whales along the adjacent coast of as a separate stock, although there is aerial surveys conducted in 2004 and Hudson Bay have not been confirmed some uncertainty regarding the stock’s 2015 suggest that the size of this stock by genetic or movement data. Abun- size and seasonal movements. All be- is stable. dance estimates from aerial surveys lugas tagged to date in James Bay have of James Bay show large variability Workshop Discussion been on the east side and there is no between surveys suggesting that there information on the movement patterns Ship traffic is a concern. About is an influx of animals from western of whales on the west side. The habitat 2,000–3,000 belugas congregate in Hudson Bay in some years. The aerial in James Bay is changing with a de- the Churchill River estuary where the survey in 2015 resulted in an estimate crease in sea ice, resulting in increased port of Churchill is located, and ship- of 10,615 (CV=0.25) which is used primary productivity. This may be im- ping that connects communities along as the current estimate for the James proving habitat quality for belugas. 34 the west coast of Hudson Bay occurs Bay stock (Gosselin et al. ). No as- throughout the main summer aggre- sessment of trends in abundance was Status gation areas. Icebreaking in Hudson attempted. There was a limited commercial There is low concern for this stock Strait, where the WHB and EHB be- because it appears to be fairly large lugas overwinter, is also a concern hunt for JB belugas in the 19th century, but this seems to have lasted only despite the uncertainty about which for these stocks. Hydroelectric devel- animals are being surveyed in James opment affecting seasonal river dis- a few years, and there was also a limited hunt by some Cree communities Bay at times. Additionally, the harvest charge rates into estuaries frequented numbers are low. by belugas in summer is an additional (Reeves and Mitchell, 1987b). Since concern. the early 2000’s, management plans 15) Eastern Hudson Bay have encouraged Inuit from Nunavik Status (eastern Hudson Bay) to harvest belu- In summer, the EHB beluga stock gas in James Bay to reduce the pres- occupies an area bounded by the Hud- There is low concern for this stock. sure on the endangered EHB stock. son Bay arc in the east and extend- This is because it is large and stable, However, the hunting by Inuit from ing westward to approximately 60 km and removals appear sustainable. Nunavik in James Bay has removed west of the Belcher Islands. Histori- 14) James Bay only ~10 whales per year due to the cally, core summering areas included large distance from the nearest com- the Little Whale River and Nastapoka The James Bay (JB) stock apparent- munity to the whales. River estuaries, although fewer whales ly occurs in and near James Bay year- The PBR is set at 173 individuals use these areas now likely due to past round (Bailleul et al., 2012). Twelve using a recovery factor of 1. While commercial hunting and overhar- animals tagged in the southeastern there is no major concern about this vesting. Satellite telemetry tracking part of the bay showed no evidence of relatively large stock that is exposed showed that this stock does not mix directional long-distance migration. with other stocks in Hudson Bay dur- Genetic analysis confirmed that JB be- 33Gosselin, J.-F., V. Lesage, and M. O. Ham- ing summer (Lewis et al., 2009), but it mill. 2009. Abundance indices of beluga in lugas are distinct from the other stocks James Bay, eastern Hudson Bay and Ungava moves into Hudson Strait and the Lab- in Hudson Bay (Postma et al.32). How- Bay in 2008. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. rador Sea during fall and winter where Doc. 2009/006. iv + 25 p. (avail. at http://waves- the animals mix with belugas from the 32Postma, L. D., S. D. Petersen, J. Turgeon, M. vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/). O. Hammill, V. Lesage, and T. Doniol-Valcroze. 34Gosselin, J.-F., M. O. Hammill, and A. Mos- WHB stock (Lewis et al., 2009; Ham- 2012. Beluga whales in James Bay: a separate nier. 2017. Indices of abundance for beluga mill, 2013). Genetic analysis showed entity from eastern Hudson Bay belugas? DFO (Delphinapterus leucas) in James and eastern that EHB and WHB belugas are from Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/074. iii Hudson Bay in summer 2015. DFO Can. Sci. + 23 p. (avail. at http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2017/067. iv + 25 p. the same breeding population, how- gc.ca/). (avail. at http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/). ever, maternally taught migration

24 Marine Fisheries Review patterns limit mixing of summering als, proportions of each stock in the to air, thus increasing the risk of mor- aggregations (Turgeon et al., 2012; catch, and aerial survey estimates of tality from ice entrapment. The fresh- Colbeck et al., 2013). abundance suggests that the EHB water plume from the Great Whale The most recent abundance esti- stock declined between 1974 and River may also affect those belugas (if mate, from a 2015 survey, is 3,819 2001 and then increased slightly any) from James Bay that overwinter animals (CV=0.43) (Gosselin et al.34). (3,078 to 3,408) until 2016 (Ham- near the Belcher Islands. Abundance estimates obtained from mill et al., 2017). The recent appar- seven surveys conducted between ent increase (or stabilization) of the Workshop Discussion 1985 and 2015 suggest that the EHB population may have been due to The winter harvest of belugas at stock’s size has remained stable over the efforts to focus the harvesting in Sanikiluaq, where recent catch levels that period (Gosselin et al.34). Com- Hudson Strait where EHB animals appear to be higher than in the past, mercial hunting in the 19th century constitute a lower proportion of the may include ice-entrapped whales. substantially reduced the abundance animals hunted. Harvest limits were It is not clear from genetic analyses of this stock (Reeves and Mitchell, set by the Nunavik Marine Region whether the winter-harvested animals 1987b). Even though the intensity of Wildlife Board using an objective of are only from the EHB stock, from commercial hunting lessened in the a maximum 50% probability of popu- another stock, or from a mixture of 1870’s, subsistence hunting continued lation decline over a 10-year period, stocks. and probably limited the stock’s re- corresponding to a total allowable Although the current management covery potential. Harvest limits and harvest (landed catch) of 62 animals/ regime appears to be maintaining a seasonal closures were not imple- yr. These harvest levels accounted for stable population, there is concern that mented until the 1980’s. The EHB an average 41% struck-but-lost rate flexibility for quick response in the area was closed to hunting from 2001 (Doniol-Valcroze et al.35). The ob- event of a population decline is lack- to 2006. Harvesting resumed in 2007, jective for the new management plan ing. There is no allowance for errors although the Nastapoka and Little has yet to be defined. in allocation of harvested animals to Whale estuaries remained closed. Genetic analysis has revealed the the appropriate stock, and the current The beluga sampling program in summer presence of belugas around management plan fails to incorporate northern Quebec, which has been op- the Belcher Islands that may come a margin of precaution to ensure popu- erating since 1995, allows samples from one or more stocks other than the lation recovery (a central feature of the to be collected from approximately EHB stock (Mosnier et al.36). Howev- PBR approach). 30% of the belugas landed. Genetic- er, waters around the Belcher Islands mixture analysis uses those samples are included in the summering area Status to define the proportions of EHB and overflown during the aerial surveys There is concern regarding removal WHB belugas taken in the various conducted to estimate abundance, and levels for the EHB stock; therefore, hunts, both spatially and temporally EHB belugas cannot be distinguished it is considered to be of high/moder- (Doniol-Valcroze et al.35; Mosnier et from others; thus, there is potential ate (1/2) concern (Table 3). While this al.36). These proportions are used to for the size of the EHB stock to be stock is medium-sized and appears determine catch limits for each com- overestimated. to be stable or increasing slowly, the munity and each hunting period. An Habitat concerns include icebreak- abundance estimates from surveys may average of 63 EHB belugas per year ing and shipping and changes in sea- include animals from multiple stocks. were taken (landed catch) during the sonal salinity in estuaries. Icebreaking If this is true, it would confound con- last 3-year (2014–16) management activities in Hudson Strait during win- clusions regarding abundance, harvest plan. ter and spring to meet the transporta- levels (and division among communi- A population dynamics model in- tion needs of remote mines are a cause ties), and the overall sustainability of corporating information on remov- for concern. Additionally, hydroelec- the harvest. Additional information is tric dams in the Great Whale and La needed on the stock identity of belugas 35Doniol-Valcroze, T., J.-F. Gosselin, and M. O. Hammill. 2012. Population modeling and har- Grande river drainages may have im- and the proportion of each stock (per- vest advice under the precautionary approach pacts on belugas as large volumes of haps via a biopsy survey) observed for eastern Hudson Bay beluga (Delphinapterus fresh water are released into Hudson during aerial surveys used for abun- leucas). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/168. iii + 31 p. (avail. at http://waves- Bay and James Bay during winter due dance estimation. Besides the harvest, vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/). to the high demand for electricity in the possible impacts of icebreaking 36Mosnier, A., M. O. Hammill, S. Turgeon, and that season. The freshwater plumes activities in Hudson Strait and of the L. Postma. 2017. Updated analysis of genetic from these discharges change the na- fluctuations in freshwater flow into the mixing among beluga stocks in the Nunavik marine region and Belcher Islands area: infor- ture of the sea-ice in the estuaries and belugas’ nearshore habitat in eastern mation for population models and harvest al- coastal areas, making it much less pli- Hudson Bay caused by the hydroelec- location. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2017/016. v + 15 p. (avail. at http://waves- able or friable and more difficult for tric project in the Great Whale River vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/). the whales to gain or maintain access drainage are regional concerns.

81(3–4) 25 16) Ungava Bay abundance or genetic information is Genetic and contaminant analyses Sizeable annual estuarine aggrega- available. show CS belugas to be distinct from other Canadian stocks, including ani- tions of belugas occurred in south- Workshop Discussion ern and western Ungava Bay until mals harvested by other south-eastern the end of the 19th century, by which This stock may be extirpated. Oc- Baffin Island communities (Brown time commercial hunting had caused casional sightings of belugas during Gladden et al., 1997; De March et al., a severe decline in numbers (Boulva, the summer in Ungava Bay and nearby 2002; De March et al., 2004; Turgeon 1981; Finley et al., 1982; Reeves and parts of Hudson Strait raise questions et al., 2012). However, local tradition- Mitchell, 1987a). Subsistence hunting about whether they are sightings of anal knowledge identifies more than one continued until the late 20th century imals from the Ungava Bay stock. No type of beluga in Cumberland Sound when regional hunting closures came genetic material from the whales that with differences noted in body size historically congregated in the Ungava and shape, coloration, and the taste of into effect. Based on commercial catch 43 data, this stock numbered ~1,900 in- Bay estuaries is available for compari- the skin (mattaq) (Kilabuk ). dividuals in the 1800’s (DFO37), and sons with neighboring stocks or recent Nine aerial surveys of the CS beluga catches and direct observations in the samples from belugas in Ungava Bay. stock’s range were conducted between 1960’s and 1970’s suggested that only Consequently, it is not possible to de- 1980 and 2014 (Richard and Orr, 1986; termine if the few whales occasionally Richard, 1991b; Richard and Stewart40; a few hundred belugas remained in the 41 42 region (Reeves and Mitchell, 1989). seen in Ungava Bay are from the origi- Richard ; Marcoux et al. ), and the A quota system was implemented in nal Ungava Bay stock or how much most recent abundance estimate was 1986, and the Mucalic River estuary the stock differed from surrounding 1,151 (CV=0.21). Direct comparisons was closed to hunting (Lesage et al.38). stocks. DNA might be extracted from among all of the surveys to assess Five aerial surveys were conducted old tissue or bone samples; it is not trends are not possible because the ear- between 1982 and 2008, and no belu- clear how thoroughly this possibility lier surveys covered only Clearwater gas were seen on-transect in the sur- has been explored. Fiord and would have missed belugas in other parts of the Sound; the most veys after 1985 (Smith and Hammill, Status 1986; Hammill et al., 2004; Gosse- recent four surveys (1990, 1999, 2009, lin et al.34). Off-transect observations There is high concern about this 2014) covered the entire summer range in 1993 suggested that there were stock because it is either extremely and are comparable. fewer than 200 individuals in the re- small or extirpated. Hunters from Pangnirtung landed 41 belugas per year, on average, during gion (Kingsley, 2000). In 2012, a 17) Cumberland Sound mean estimate of abundance based on 2006–15. Struck-but-lost is estimated the last four surveys was 32 belugas Cumberland Sound (CS) belugas as 18% of landings, so removals av- (95% CI 0-94) (Doniol-Valcroze and are thought to remain in Cumberland eraged 47 belugas per year. The stock Hammill39). Sound throughout the year with a sub- was depleted by commercial hunting No trend can be estimated from cur- stantial aggregation occupying Clear- in the 1800’s and early 1900’s (Mitch- water Fiord during summer months ell and Reeves, 1981). rently available data. There are still 40 occasional sightings in the area of the (Richard and Stewart ). Aerial sur- A population model fit to the sur- Mucalic Estuary and the Whale Riv- veys of the stock’s summer range have vey data (1990–2014) and the report- er; however, there is no information found 50–60% of the total abundance ed harvest data (1960–2015, landings on the frequency of use of these areas to be in the northern portion of the only) indicated a declining population by belugas, and no recent estimate of sound outside of Clearwater Fiord with a current abundance of ~1,000 (Richard41; Marcoux et al.42). animals (Marcoux and Hammill44) Using the modeled CS beluga abun- 37DFO. 2005. Proceedings of the meeting on 40Richard, P. R., and D. B. Stewart. 2008. Infor- dance and a recovery factor of 0.5, recovery potential assessment of Cumberland mation relevant to the identification of critical Sound, Ungava Bay, Eastern Hudson Bay and habitat for Cumberland Sound belugas (Delphi- which DFO has used as a standard in St. Lawrence beluga populations (Delphinapter- napterus leucas). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Secr. the past to calculate PBR levels for us leucas); April 5-7, 2005. DFO Can. Sci. Ad- Res. Doc. 2008/085. iv + 24 p. (avail. at http:// vis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2005/011.224 (avail. at waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/). http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/). 41Richard, P. R. 2013. Size and trend of the 19 p. (Erratum: October 2016) (avail. at http:// 38Lesage, V., D. W. Doidge, and R. Fibich. 2001. Cumberland Sound beluga whale population, waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/). Harvest statistics for beluga whales in Nunavik, 1990 to 2009. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Secr. Res. 43Kilabuk, P. 1998. A study of Inuit knowledge 1974-2000. Fish. Oceans, Sci. Can. Sci. Advis. Doc. 2012/159. iii + 28 p. (avail. at http://waves- of the southeast Baffin beluga. Nunavut Wildl. Sec., Res. Doc. 2001/022. 35 p. (avail. at http:// vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/). Manage. Board, 74 p. waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/). 42Marcoux, M., B. G. Young, N. C. Asselin, C. 44Marcoux, M., and M. O. Hammill. 2016. Mod- 39Doniol-Valcroze, T., and M. O. Hammill. A. Watt, J. B. Dunn, and S. H. Ferguson. 2016. el estimate of Cumberland Sound beluga (Del- 2012. Information on abundance and harvest of Estimate of Cumberland Sound beluga (Delphi- phinapterus leucas) population size and total Ungava Bay beluga. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. napterus leucas) population size from the 2014 allowable removals. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2011/126. iv + 12 p. (avail. at http:// visual and photographic aerial survey. DFO Res. Doc. 2016 (avail. at http://waves-vagues. waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/). Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2016/037. iv + dfo-mpo.gc.ca/).

26 Marine Fisheries Review populations assessed by COSEWIC An age-structured population model ulation model suggested a period of as “threatened,” the PBR for this stock was used to estimate the 2012 popula- relative stability until 1999, followed was set at seven whales (Marcoux and tion size at 889 (Mosnier et al., 2015). by a period of demographic instabil- Hammill44). The model incorporates abundance ity (2000–12), including peaks of high Workshop Discussion estimates and the proportion of un- neonatal mortality interspersed with der-2 year olds from eight aerial pho- peaks of high pregnancy rates (Mos- Previously this stock was considered tographic surveys between 1988 and nier et al., 2015). The current view is migratory, but belugas seem to remain 2009 and data on numbers of known that the population was stable or in- in Cumberland Sound throughout the deaths by age class as documented creasing very slowly (0.13%/yr) until year and therefore it is now considered through carcass monitoring. 2000, then declined (at ~1%/yr) until to be resident (and non-migratory). A The SLE beluga population was se- 2012, reaching a population of 889 in- population model using aerial survey verely depleted by a sustained hunt dividuals in 2012. Using this estimate results and available information on 44 from the late 1800’s to the mid-1900’s, and a recovery factor of 0.1 (for an en- removals (Marcoux and Hammill ) in- and hunting was finally prohibited in dangered species or population) result- dicates a 30% chance of future decline 1979 (Reeves and Mitchell, 1984). ed in a PBR of one. in abundance even with no harvest. It From 1983, a carcass monitoring pro- SLE belugas live in one of North is uncertain how well this model and gram (reviewed in Lesage et al., 2014) America’s major commercial water- data represent the state of the popula- documented 472 deaths, 222 of which ways, which means they are exposed tion, so the model results were not con- were investigated through necropsies. to elevated sound levels from pass- sidered reliable to inform management. Of the 222 carcasses that were exam- ing ships and boats (McQuinn et al., Local people acknowledge that there ined, human activities were directly re- 2011; Gervaise et al., 2012), and the has been a decline in beluga numbers; sponsible for about 5%; other causes risk of being struck by ships (or more they believe that this was mostly due included entanglement in fishing gear likely small boats) in some parts of to historical commercial hunting. Inter- (1%; n = 2) and vessel strikes (4%; their range is high (Lair et al., 2016). estingly, blubber cortisol levels, an in- n = 8). Cause of death was undeter- Whale-watching tourism sometimes is dicator of chronic stress, are higher for mined for 55 individuals (25%). Ma- centered on belugas (Ménard et al.49), CS belugas than for other stocks, but it 45 lignant neoplasms were responsible and this is regarded as an additional is not clear why (Trana ). for the deaths of 31 of the 222 belugas potential source of disturbance, par- Status (14%), whereas parturition-associat- ticularly in calving and nursing areas. The CS stock is small in both num- ed complications caused the death of The stock is also exposed to numerous ber and range. It is believed to be de- 22 adult females (10%). Chronic expo- contaminants due to the highly indus- clining, and recent harvest levels are sure to environmental contaminants is trialized nature of the St. Lawrence 50 considered unsustainable. For these one of the hypotheses put forward to watershed (DFO ). reasons, the concern level is high for explain the unusually high occurrence While the prevalence of some con- this stock. of some of the pathological conditions taminants such as PCB’s seems to have observed in this population (Lair et al., declined since the 1980’s, that of oth- 18) St. Lawrence Estuary 2016). ers such as PBDE’s has increased or The current distribution of the St. A model using the catch history remained high. Although the effects of Lawrence Estuary (SLE) beluga stock suggested that the SLE beluga popu- contaminants on belugas are difficult represents a fraction of its historical lation numbered between 5,000 and to demonstrate conclusively, impacts range (Mosnier et al.46). This popula- 10,000 in the 1800’s but only 1,000 on reproduction, offspring develop- tion can be differentiated using both in the late 1970’s. As recently as 2007 ment, and immune system function nuclear and mtDNA markers (Brown the population was considered stable have been shown in other mammals Gladden et al., 1997, 1999; De March (Hammill et al.47), but subsequent car- and Postma, 2003). Significant ongo- cass monitoring showed an increase in Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci., Advis. Rep. 2013/076 ing immigration is considered unlikely. mortality of young-of-the-year and in (avail. at http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/). perinatal mortality of adult females. 49Ménard, N., R. Michaud, C. Chion, and S. Tur- 45Trana, M. R. 2014. Variation in blubber cor- This triggered a detailed review of the geon 2014. Documentation of maritime traffic tisol as a measure of stress in beluga whales of 48 and navigational interactions with St. Lawrence the Canadian Arctic. MS Thesis, Dep. Biol. Sci., stock’s status in 2013 (DFO ). A pop- Estuary beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) in calv- Univ. Manitoba. ing areas between 2003 and 2012. DFO Sci. Ad- 46 vis. Sec., Res. Doc. 2013/003. v + 24 p. (avail. Mosnier, A., V. Lesage, J.-F. Gosselin, S. 47 Lemieux Lefebvre, M. O. Hammill, T. Doniol- Hammill, M. O., L. N. Measures, J.-F. Gos- at http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/). Valcroze. 2010. Information relevant to the selin, and V. Lesage. 2007. Lack of recovery in 50DFO. 2012. Recovery strategy for the beluga documentation of habitat use by St. Lawrence St. Lawrence estuary beluga. DFO Sci. Advis. whale (Delphinapterus leucas), St. Lawrence beluga (Delphinapterus leucas), and quantifi- Sec., Res. Doc. 2007/026. 19 p. (avail. at http:// Estuary population in Canada. Species at Risk cation of habitat quality. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/) Act Recovery Strategy Ser. Fish. Oceans Can., Sec., Res. Doc. 2009/098. iv + 35 p. (avail. at 48DFO. 2014. Status of beluga (Delphinapterus Ottawa. x + 87 p. (avail. at http://waves-vagues. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas). leucas) in the St. Lawrence River estuary. DFO dfo-mpo.gc.ca/).

81(3–4) 27 (Martineau, 2010; Lair et al., 2016). ity and other commercial activities in lowing this decline, local people in Cancer rates in these belugas are ex- much of its range. Greenland referred to a change in the tremely high (20% in individuals more timing of migration of belugas from than 19 years old; Lair et al., 2016). 19) Southwest Greenland Uummannaq and Upernavik. Some Environmental perturbations such as (Extirpated) local people claimed that the disap- recurrent harmful algal blooms are The Southwest Greenland beluga pearance of belugas from Nuuk and suspected to be affecting SLE belugas stock, which is effectively extirpat- Maniitsoq was due to changes in sea as well. For example, a bloom in 2008 ed, migrated south in autumn, arrived temperatures after 1926. was implicated in the deaths of seven in Nuuk between October–Decem- animals (both adults and calves) in ber, and went at least as far south as Workshop Discussion one week (Scarratt et al.51). Moreover, Qeqertarsuatsiaat (Fiskenæsset). These The hypothesis that there was a con- a study combining several physical belugas were also frequent visitors to nection between the extinct stock of and biological indices indicated that South Greenland in the 19th century, belugas in Southwest Greenland and the quality of beluga habitat has been which is confirmed by reports and the Cumberland Sound stock in Can- relatively poor since the late 1990’s catch statistics. Large numbers were ada might be investigated further with and may have worsened since 2009 also seen in winter in fjords between DNA from museum specimens. Belu- (Plourde et al.52). lat. 61° N and lat. 63° N, although the gas are occasionally reported, on av- Workshop Discussion main distribution was farther north in erage one per year, in the historical Nuuk and Maniitsoq. The northward migration and hunting areas of this There appears to be consider- migration started in February and the stock, but systematic surveys for large able inter-annual variation in repro- last individuals left the southern dis- whales, while regularly sighting har- ductive output in SLE belugas. The tricts by June or July (Winge, 1902; bor porpoises, Phocoena phocoena, do variable rates of pregnancy and calf Møller, 1928; Møller, 1964). Degerbøl not find belugas in these areas (Han- mortality may be related to the cumu- and Nielsen (1930) mentioned another sen et al., 2019). lative effects of several environmental pulse of migrating whales arriving in stressors. For example, harmful al- South Greenland in December. These Status gal blooms in combination with con- were apparently fatter and in better This stock was likely extirpated taminants may affect belugas in some condition and sometimes had fresh more than 80 years ago. years, whereas in other, less stressful bullet wounds. It is possible that these years, reproduction may improve. animals were of Canadian origin. 20) Svalbard Concerns were expressed regarding There were large catches of belugas The Svalbard stock of belugas in- the potential impacts of whale-watch- in Greenland from the middle and late habits coastal waters of the Svalbard ing, an activity that is not permitted 1800’s until the late 1920’s (Heide- Archipelago during ice-free months, within designated beluga critical hab- Jørgensen, 1994). The largest catches and the whales are thought to occupy itat but is unrestricted in other areas (up to 1,500 individuals in a single nearby offshore areas adjacent to Sval- where belugas are often found. As- year) were in Maniitsoq, but Nuuk bard in winter. Telemetry data show pects of unregulated whale-watching also had large catches. The hunting that Svalbard belugas are extremely may contribute to cumulative impacts. season in Nuuk was mainly in spring coastal in their distribution during the Status and early summer. In the 20th cen- ice-free season. They spend most of tury, the whales were caught by net- their time close to glacier fronts, and There is a high level of concern for ting and driving. In Maniitsoq, driving when they move from one front to an- this stock owing to its small size, de- started in 1917. The cumulative catch other, they do so in an apparently di- clining trend, and chronic exposure in Maniitsoq between 1917 and 1930 rected and rapid manner very close to to relatively intense industrial activ- was 8,000–10,000 belugas. During shore (Lydersen et al., 2001). this time, most of the catches were of When sea ice forms in winter, the 51Scarratt, M., S. Michaud, L. Measures, and M. whales on their southward migration, whales move offshore somewhat but Starr. 2014. Phytotoxin analyses in St. Lawrence whereas previous catches had been still stay in the Svalbard area (mostly Estuary beluga. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec., Res. mainly of animals on their northward to the southeast of the archipelago), Doc. 2013/124 v + 16 p. (avail. at http://waves- vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/). migration. often occupying areas with more than 52Plourde, S., P. Galbraith, V. Lesage, F. Gré- Møller (1928) stated that the oc- 90% ice cover (Lydersen et al., 2002). goire, H. Bourdage, J.-F. Gosselin, I. McQuinn, currence of belugas in Godthåb Fjord A multi-species cetacean survey in the and M. Scarratt. 2014. Ecosystem perspective crashed, and after 1920 they left the marginal ice zone north of Svalbard on changes and anomalies in the Gulf of St. Lawrence: a context in support to the manage- fjord earlier in the spring and were during August 2015 detected no be- ment of the St. Lawrence beluga whale popu- caught only occasionally. A decline lugas, only bowhead whales, Balaena lation. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec., Res. Doc. 2013/129. vi + 27 p. (avail. at http://www.dfo- in catches was evident during the late mysticetus, and narwhals (Vacquié- mpo.gc.ca/csas). 1920’s (Heide-Jørgensen, 1994). Fol- Garcia et al., 2017). However, during

28 Marine Fisheries Review the same time period belugas were ob- formation (specifically on abundance, determine structure within this stock. served (as is normal) along the coast though this was expected to change There are likely several different ag- of Svalbard, further documenting the following the planned 2018 survey), gregations in the major bays, estuaries, lack of affiliation with drifting sea ice the high tissue levels of pollutants, and archipelagos that could be consid- for this whale species in Svalbard dur- and the possible impacts of climate ered stocks if more information was ing summer. change. available. A study of genetic differences be- Habitat concerns include rapidly tween the belugas around Svalbard 21) Barents-Kara-Laptev Seas increasing development and shipping and those in West Greenland revealed The information on belugas in the activity in the region; there is also limited gene flow over ecological time Barents, Kara, and Laptev seas (Franz increased military activity in Franz (O’Corry-Crowe et al., 2010). The Josef Land, Ob Gulf, Yenisey Gulf, Josef Land and possibly other parts same study suggested that Svalbard and southwest Laptev Sea) presented of the region. Major anthropogenic and Beaufort Sea belugas diverged in previous assessments (IWC, 2000; threats include oil/gas (Barents and 7,600–35,000 years ago, but experi- Belikov and Boltunov, 2002; Boltunov Kara seas) and military (Wezeman53) enced recurrent periods with gene flow and Belikov, 2002) was based on the (all seas) activities, increasing vessel since then, most likely via the Eur- expert opinion of the two scientists traffic (oil/gas fleet, tourism, military, asian Arctic during warm periods. with access to limited opportunistic shipping on the Northern Sea Route), There is no abundance estimate data, which are now outdated. Sight- and chemical and radioactive contami- or trend information, and the status ings data from 2001 to 2016 also came nation from river discharges. of this stock is unknown. It is classi- mostly from opportunistic observa- Workshop Discussion fied as Data Deficient on the Norwe- tions during oil/gas exploration, tour- gian Red List. A first-ever dedicated ist cruises, and scientific expeditions. There is not enough information to survey was planned for July–August Based on this information, belugas delineate stocks in the western and 2018. Belugas in Svalbard have been are thought to concentrate in summer central Russian Arctic except within totally protected since the 1960’s, with mostly in the estuaries of large rivers the White Sea (see item 22 below). Be- no removals allowed. Prior to being (Ob, Yenisey) and in the waters of the lugas appear to have a broad distribu- given protected status, they were hunt- archipelagos (Franz Josef Land, south tion across the entire region, likely at ed heavily in commercial operations of Novaya Zemlya, Severnaya Zem- low densities in many areas, with con- and were certainly depleted at the lya). Satellite tracking of a single in- centrations around Franz Josef Land time when protection came into place dividual tagged in north-eastern Ob and in some river mouths. There is no (Gjertz and Wiig, 1994). Gulf (Kara Sea) was consistent with information on current abundance or The impacts of climate change on the hypothesis that during summer trends, genetic differences, or move- sea-ice conditions, prey base composi- and autumn these belugas stay mostly ments, and only limited information tion, competition from more boreal main shallow coastal waters. No data are on distribution. Many of the aggre- rine mammal species, and exposure to available on migratory routes. Most of gations in this region may have been parasites and diseases are general con- the recent observations of belugas in depleted by historical commercial ex- cerns. Levels of some pollutants in be- winter were in the Kara Sea. The win- ploitation. Although genetic structure lugas from Svalbard are also very high, ter distribution likely depends at least within the region is likely to exist, it with the levels of many compounds partly on ice conditions (polynyas and will be difficult to delineate without being higher than those found in polar ice cracks) which in turn could be in- additional information and samples. bears, Ursus maritimus, in the region fluenced by icebreaker traffic, and There is no information to suggest (Andersen et al., 2001, 2006; Wolk- consequently increased observation ef- a link between belugas in this area to ers et al., 2004, 2006; Villanger et al., fort, in certain areas. Svalbard belugas other than that they 2011). These levels are in many cases Analysis of mtDNA was carried out share some haplotypes (Glazov et al.54). also higher than what has been shown on samples from 21 belugas either Satellite-tracked belugas remained near to affect the physiology and especially found dead or harvested between 1940 Svalbard through the summer, indicat- the immune systems of laboratory ani- and 1960 or 2012 and 2015. Most of ing geographical separation between mals. A diet study based on analyses the samples were from the Kara Sea 53Wezeman, S. T. 2016. Military capabilities in of fatty acids in the blubber of Sval- and one was from the Laptev Sea. the Arctic: A new cold war in the high north? bard belugas found the composition to The analysis revealed mitochondrial SIPRI (avail. at https://www.sipri.org/sites/de- be most similar to that of Arctic cod, haplotypes in common with or simi- fault/files/Military-capabilities-in-the-Arctic. pdf). Boreogadus saida (Dahl et al., 2000). lar to those of belugas in Svalbard, 54Glazov, D. M., O. V. Shpak, I. G. Mescher- the Chukchi Sea, and the Bering Sea Status sky, D. M. Kuznetsova, V. V. Krasnova, and M. (Meschersky et al., 2018). However, V. Gavrilo. Revision of information on the white whale (Delphinapterus leucas) population in the There was moderate concern about the number of genetic samples from White, Barents, Kara and Laptev seas. Unpubl. this stock because of the lack of in- the Russian Arctic is too limited to ms.

81(3–4) 29 the Svalbard and Russian stocks at tocheva59). Field observations indicate of belugas ended in the White Sea in least during the summer (Lydersen et that White Sea belugas occur in dis- the 1980’s (Matishov and Ognetov, al., 2001). Quotas set by Russian au- crete summer aggregations associated 2006). In recent years, small numbers thorities for allowable removals of be- with major bays: Onezhsky, Dvinskoy, have been live-captured in the Varzu- lugas in the Arctic are reportedly based and Mezen’sky. However, more data ga River mouth for scientific research on information prior to 1995, and no are necessary to understand population and “cultural display” purposes (exact more recent information on abundance structure in detail. numbers are unavailable, but usually (or catch levels) is available. Data on abundance in different sea- not more than five or six were taken sons were obtained from aerial surveys during a given capture operation). No Status in 2005–11. The lowest (minimum) information is available on illegal kill- The concern level is high for belu- summer abundance estimate from ing of belugas by local people. If this gas in the western and central Russian these surveys was more than 5,000 occurs at all, it probably does not ex- Arctic, in part because little is known animals (Glazov et al.58,60,61). The ceed several whales in a year (Glazov about stock structure, movements and winter (March) estimates were 3.5–4 et al.54). The total allowed take of be- distribution, current abundance (num- times lower than the July estimates in lugas in the White Sea, issued annual- bers may be depleted), and removals, the corresponding years. Reports on ly by the Ministry of Agriculture, has and in part because of the rapid increase earlier surveys do not contain enough been 50 for at least the last five years. in development and other human activ- information on survey design, analysis No information is available on inci- ity as the Northern Sea Route becomes methods, and area coverage to assess dental mortality. more accessible for navigation. population trends. The estimates from Concerns include direct disturbance the six surveys conducted from 2005 of nursery aggregations by tour boats 22) White Sea to 2011 show a slight decline within and other boat traffic, conflict with Data on distribution and movements this period, but the general pattern is salmon fishermen, coastal oil stor- (from stationary coastal observation variable from year to year (Glazov et age bases and oil transport, and pol- sites, ship-based and aerial surveys, al.54). lution, mostly from discharges from satellite tracking) suggest that be- Records of hunting from this pop- the Severnaya Dvina River. No official lugas in the White Sea form a resi- ulation go back to the 15th century status is assigned to this stock, but the dent population which consists of (Alekseeva62). Commercial hunting general opinion of Russian scientists several aggregations (Andrianov et is that the White Sea stock should be the beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) move- al., 2009; Kuznetsova et al., 2016; ments in the White Sea in 2010–2011. Marine closely monitored due to the increas- Glazov et al.54; Chernetsky et al.55; Mammals of Holarctic: Collection of scientific ing human activity and high pollution Alekseeva et al.56; Glazov et al.57; papers of the 7th Intl. Conf., Suzdal, Russia, 24– levels in the region. Certain resident 58 28 Sept. 2012:172–177 (avail. at http://marmam. Glazov et al. ; Svetochev and Sve- ru/upload/conf-documents/mmc2012_full.pdf). nursery groups of belugas, especially 59Svetochev V. N., and O. N. Svetocheva. 2012. the one near Bolshoy Solovetsky Is- 55Chernetsky, A. D., V. M. Belkovich, and V. V. Study of marine mammals in the White and Bar- land (Solovetskoe local aggregation), Krasnova. 2002. New data on population struc- ents seas using satellite telemetry: results and ture of white whales in the White Sea. Marine prospects Marine Mammals of Holarctic: Col- require special protection. Mammals of Holarctic: Materials of The 2nd In- lection of scientific papers of the 7th Intl. Conf., Genetic information regarding ternational Conference, Lake of Baikal, Russia, Suzdal, Russia, 24–28 September, 2012, Vol. White Sea belugas is limited. Howev- Sept. 10–15, 2002: 279-282 (avail. at http://mar- 2:209–213 (avail. at http://marmam.ru/upload/ mam.ru/upload/conf-documents/mmc2002_full. conf-documents/mmc2012_full.pdf). er, a study comparing Svalbard, West pdf). 60Glazov, D. M., V. I. Chernook, K. A. Zharikov, Greenland, and a few samples from 56Alekseeva, Ya. I., V. V. Krasnova , R. A. Be- E. A. Nazarenko, L. M. Mukhametov, and A. N. the White Sea suggested some level likov, and V. M. Bel‘kovich. 2012. The com- Boltunov. 2008. Aerial surveys of white whales of divergence between the White Sea parative characteristic of three regular summer (Delphinapterus leucas) in July in the White gathering of belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) in Sea (2005–2007), distribution and abundance. and the other Atlantic strata (O’Corry- the White Sea. Marine Mammals of Holarctic: Marine Mammals of the Holarctic. Collection Crowe et al., 2010). Many of the mtD- Collection of scientific papers of the 7th Intl. of Scientific Papers. Odessa, p. 194–198 (avail. Conf., Suzdal, Russia, 24–28 Sept. 2012, Vol. 1: at http://marmam.ru/upload/conf-documents/ NA haplotypes previously documented 33-37 (avail. at http://marmam.ru/upload/conf- mmc2008_full.pdf). in the Beaufort Sea and the Canadian documents/mmc2012_full.pdf). 61Glazov, D. M., E. A. Nazarenko, V. I. Chernook, High Arctic were also found in Sval- 57Glazov, D. M., V. I. Chernook, E. A. Naza- D. I. Ivanov, O. V. Shpak, and B. A. Solovyev. bard and the White Sea, although one renko, K. A. Zharikov, O. V. Shpak, and L. M. 2010. Assessment of abundance and distribution Mukhametov. 2010. Summer distribution and peculiarities of beluga whales (Delphinapterus unique haplotype was found in the abundance of belugas in the White Sea based on leucas) in the White Sea in March 2010. Marine White Sea. aerial survey data (2005–2008). Marine Mam- Mammals of Holarctic: Collection of scientific mals of Holarctic: Collection of scientific papers papers of the 6th Intl. Conf., Kaliningrad, Rus- of the 6th Intl. Conf., Kaliningrad, Russia, 11– sia, 11–15 Oct. 2010:140–145 (avail. at http:// 15 Oct. 2010:134–140 (avail. at http://marmam. marmam.ru/upload/conf-documents/mmc Mammals of Holarctic: Collection of scientific ru/upload/conf-documents/mmc2010_full.pdf). 2010_full.pdf). papers of the 5th Intl. Conf., Odessa, Ukraine, 58Glazov, D. M., O. V. Shpak, D. M. Kuznetso- 62Alekseeva, Ya. I. 2008. The history of harvest 14–18 October, 2008:35–38 (avail. at http://mar- va, D. I. Ivanov , L. M. Mukhametov, and V. V. of marine mammals of the White Sea–Barents mam.ru/upload/conf-documents/mmc2008_full. Rozhnov. 2012. Preliminary results of tracking Sea region (15th century through 1915). Marine pdf).

30 Marine Fisheries Review Workshop Discussion (Garde63). The low levels of genetic ter areas are from the East Greenland variability in populations in Green- population to the west or instead the Although the IWC review listed land and Canada suggest a bottleneck Baffin Bay population to the east. three stocks of belugas in the White in “recent” history (Palsbøll et al., Baffin Bay Introduction Sea (IWC, 2000), and subsequent 1997). Studies using ancient DNA to notes and publications have recog- determine when this bottleneck oc- Baffin Bay narwhals are divided into nized up to eight different aggrega- eight stocks, or summer aggregations, 55 curred and to infer the reasons be- tions (Chernetsky et al. ), more data hind it continue. While it is possible that migrate between, and are sus- are needed to determine whether, and to distinguish different populations of ceptible to hunting in, Greenland and how, stocks in this region should be narwhals on a broad scale (e.g., Baf- Canada. These stocks are: Somerset separated. Genetic studies have de- fin Bay vs. East Greenland), it is cur- Island, Eclipse Sound, Admiralty Inlet, tected differences between belugas in rently not possible, due to the lack of Eastern Baffin Island, Jones Sound, the Varzuga River estuary and One- genetic diversity, to tease apart stocks Smith Sound, Inglefield Bredning, and zhysky Bay (Meschersky et al., 2018), on smaller scales (e.g., to differenti- Melville Bay. All of these whales were but these differences are not signifi- ate separate stocks within Baffin Bay). treated as a single regional stock in the cant due to the small sample sizes. Ad- New genomic sequencing techniques 1999 IWC review (IWC, 2000; Table ditionally, researchers in the area note may be used for this purpose in the 4); however, since that time tagging that there is movement between the future. studies have demonstrated fidelity to bays, and that these belugas all appear Stable isotope analyses of carbon summering areas, and management to remain in the White Sea throughout (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) found has treated the summer aggregations the winter. that the tissues of narwhals from as stocks. A bilateral management body, the Canada/Greenland Joint Status three narwhal populations—Baffin Bay, Northern Hudson Bay, and East Commission on the Conservation and The White Sea stock appears to be Greenland—have distinct stable iso- Management of Narwhal and Beluga stable, but it is of moderate concern. tope values, suggesting that these pop- (JCNB), is responsible for managing The main reasons are the insufficien- ulations feed on different prey (Watt et the exploitation and ensuring conser- cy of data (specifically the uncertain- al., 2013). vation of these narwhals. To this end, ty around stock structure) and habitat Narwhals are migratory, and the the JCNB provides advice on research, concerns related to pollution (especial- concept of “summer aggregations” conservation, and management of ly discharge from the Severnaya Dvi- has been used as the primary basis for narwhals and belugas to the manage- na River), ship traffic (Arkhangelsk is identifying separate stocks, particular- ment bodies of the two countries. The one of the major ports for Northern ly in Baffin Bay (Heide-Jørgensen et JCNB Scientific Working Group meets Sea Route traffic), and tourism. al., 2013b). The workshop recognized jointly with the NAMMCO Scientif- 12 stocks of narwhals (Fig. 2, Tables ic Committee Working Group on the Narwhals 1–3), and this list is compared with Population Status of Narwhal and Be- those produced by previous assess- luga in the North Atlantic. Overall Introduction ments in Table 4. The NAMMCO-JCNB Joint Sci- Extralimital sightings (or what may entific Working Group has developed Narwhal distribution is centered be changes in narwhal distribution a “catch-allocation model” to assign in the Atlantic Arctic. Narwhals are and movements in response to chang- the catches of narwhals, by season most numerous in the eastern Cana- ing environmental conditions) have and for different hunting communities dian Arctic and along the west coast become more frequent in recent years in Canada and Greenland, to stocks of Greenland, but they are also found in the Inuvialuit Settlement Area of (NAMMCO64). The model is based in low densities in East Greenland and the eastern Beaufort Sea, which is on information concerning narwhal the northern parts of the Svalbard and further west than the normal distribu- seasonal movements (e.g., from satel- Franz Josef Land archipelagos. There tion of the closest stock, the Somerset lite tracking, local and expert knowl- are rare sightings outside this range, Island stock. In addition, there have edge of hunters and scientists from particularly in both High Arctic Rus- been a few scattered sightings in east- Greenland and Canada) and hunting sian and Alaska waters (Fig. 2: dis- ern Siberia, and along the north coasts locations, so that takes by communi- tribution map). Narwhals are mostly of Chukotka (including a few tusks ties that hunt both on a summer ag- migratory and closely associated with found) and Alaska. It is unknown gregation and on migrating narwhals the seasonal distribution of sea ice. whether narwhals sighted in these lat- 64NAMMCO. 2015. NAMMCO-JCNB Joint Narwhals have remarkably low lev- Scientific Working Group on Narwhal and Be- els of genetic diversity based on mtD- 63Garde, E. 2011. Past and present population luga, 11–13 March 2015, Ottawa, Canada (avail. dynamics of narwhals Monodon monoceros. at http://nammco.wpengine.com/wp-content/up- NA (Palsbøll et al., 1997), a condition PhD Dissert., Faculty Sci., Univ. Copenhagen, loads/2016/09/JCNB-NAMMCO-JWG-March- which may date back 50,000 years 2011, 252 p. 2015-Main-Report-FINAL.pdf).

81(3–4) 31 during fall, winter, or spring are as- telemetry tracking, aerial surveys, ge- the wintering areas off Greenland signed appropriately. Where more than netics, and stable isotopes. The SI stock (NAMMCO64) (see below). one stock is thought to be migrating is the largest narwhal stock in terms of The current Canadian quota known past a community in the same season, both area of distribution and number as Total Allowable Landed Catch the takes are allocated on the basis of of whales. The summering area in- (TALC) is set at 532 for this stock, the relative sizes of the two (or more) cludes Prince Regent Inlet and the based on the abundance estimate from stocks (Watt et al., 2019). Gulf of Boothia, Peel Sound, Barrow the 2002 survey, whereas a new rec- The NAMMCO catch-allocation Strait, and northern Foxe Basin, and in ommendation (which has not yet been model is used with a multi-stock risk recent years the summer distribution implemented) based on the 2013 aeri- assessment model which uses popula- has occasionally extended west to the al survey results is for a TAT of 658. tion dynamics models for each of the Cambridge Bay area. Satellite-tagged The reported annual take (includ- eight summer aggregations simultane- narwhals remained in the Somerset re- ing estimated struck-but-lost using a ously (Witting et al., 2019). In an iter- gion during summer and returned there multiplier based on observations of ative process, the eight populations are after spending the winter in an area of open-water hunting) in the summer projected forward one year (i.e., one Baffin Bay slightly north of where other during 1970–2015 ranged from 0 to year of growth), then the allocation summer aggregations spend the winter 220 whales. model is updated and the removals (Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2003a; Dietz et The SI stock is hunted in its winter (landings + struck-but-lost) from that al., 2008). There is some genetic sup- habitat off Greenland. Ninety-seven year are allocated and removed from port for delineation of this stock (Pe- percent of the Greenland harvest of the stocks to get the population sizes tersen4) and stable isotope values from this stock is by Uummannaq hunters after accounting for hunting. The pro- skin samples differ from some of the (yearly quota=61). Narwhal catches in cess is then repeated for the next year. other Baffin Bay whales hunted in other some years prior to the introduction of Management advice is derived from regions, suggesting a degree of separa- the quota at Uummannaq in 2004 were this risk assessment process which tion based on foraging (Watt et al. 5). close to 1,000 animals (e.g., 1990). uses a Bayesian framework and esti- The most recent (2013) abundance Removals from this and other stocks mates the population parameters and estimate for the SI stock is 49,768 in the Baffin Bay population are now the probability of decline under vari- (CV=0.20), including a correction for managed according to the NAMMCO- ous removal levels. A few of the Baf- perception bias using mark-recapture JCNB catch-allocation model and are fin Bay summer aggregations have just line transect data collected during the considered sustainable64. Despite the one abundance estimate and no infor- survey and an availability bias correc- quota for Uummannaq, attention is mation on trends to inform the mod- tion factor of 2.94 (CV =1%) for wa- still needed to document and/or reduce els. For these data-poor stocks, a PBR ter with visibility to 2 m depth based struck-but-lost rates in this area. An- is calculated post hoc using the abun- on dive data from 27 tagged narwhals other aspect needing attention is that dance estimated by the model to pro- (Doniol-Valcroze et al.65). This stock, substantial numbers of animals from vide an alternative to the management or portions of it, were surveyed in this stock are taken in the floe-edge advice based on the model. 1981, 1984, 1996, 2002–2004, and and ice-crack hunts at Pond Inlet and The multi-stock risk assessment 2013, and results of the five surveys Arctic Bay, which can have relatively model, i.e., the combined population conducted over the past 30 years sug- high associated loss rates. dynamics and catch-allocation mod- gest an increasing stock (Witting et al., Habitat concerns include increased el, can be used to determine where 2019; NAMMCO64). shipping and icebreaking in the North- more research, such as satellite track- In Canada, the SI stock is hunted west Passage, much of it to service ing or updated abundance estimation, primarily during summer in the cen- development activities in the region. is needed and to assess the benefits of tral Canadian Arctic by hunters from Reduction of sea ice and other chang- such research in the form of improved Gjoa Haven, Hall Beach, Igloolik, es resulting from climate warming in management advice. The ability to as- Kugaaruk, Resolute/Creswell Bay, the Arctic are other concerns. sign individuals to their appropriate and Taloyoak (Heide-Jørgensen et al., Workshop Discussion summer aggregation via genetic or 2013b); however, hunters from other other data would greatly improve the communities can hunt these whales This is the largest narwhal stock, input data for the allocation model. on their migration to and from the numbering around 50,000 animals. summering areas in Nunavut and in The summer distribution is extremely 1) Somerset Island variable, depending on pack-ice move- The Somerset Island (SI) narwhal 65Doniol-Valcroze, T., J. F. Gosselin, D. Pike, ments as narwhals with young calves J. Lawson, N. Asselin, K. Hedges, and S. Fer- stock is defined on the basis of a con- guson. 2015. Abundance estimates of narwhal show a strong preference for staying sistently observed summer aggrega- stocks in the Canadian High Arctic in 2013. near the ice. It is likely that this stock DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2015/060. tion in Peel Sound in late July–early v + 36 p. (avail. at http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo. will be subdivided as more becomes August according to local knowledge, gc.ca/Library/362110.pdf). known about it, given the vast summer

32 Marine Fisheries Review range in the Canadian Arctic that is occupied by the Jones Sound stock, Little is known about the movements currently attributed to this stock. and no trend information is available. or total range of narwhals that oc- In recent years, because of reduced In the Jones Sound region, the stock cupy Smith Sound seasonally. A male sea ice (possibly exacerbated by ice- is hunted primarily by Inuit of Grise tagged along the ice edge at Rense- breaking) narwhals presumed to be Fiord in summer (Heide-Jørgensen et laer Bay on the Greenland side of the from this most western Canadian stock al., 2013b). A recommended TALC of sound was tracked for only three days, have been appearing more regularly 40 has been in place since 2013, but during which time it moved across and in larger numbers in settlements to fewer than 20 narwhals/yr have been Smith Sound to Cape D’Urville on the the west of Somerset Island. This has landed by Jones Sound hunters since Canadian side (Heide-Joergensen66). required reallocation of the quota tags then. Hunters from other communi- No communities in Canada are used to control and monitor remov- ties (including those in Greenland) known to hunt narwhals from the als by Canadian hunters. According may hunt these whales along their mi- Smith Sound stock, although the stock to residents of the Gulf of Boothia re- gration route to and from the summer is hunted by Greenlandic hunters from gion (Kugaruuk—formerly Pelly Bay), range, and on the winter range. How- Qaanaaq. A TALC of 77/yr was rec- whose communities were formerly ever, there are no satellite-tagging data ommended in Canada based on the supplied by aircraft, in recent years from Jones Sound, and the migration abundance estimate from the 2013 icebreaking ships have been used in- corridors and winter range of these survey. The current quota for narwhals stead and this has resulted in narwhals whales are not known. taken from the Smith Sound stock in appearing there more regularly than Greenland (Etah hunting region) is in the past, presumably because they Workshop Discussion 5/yr. took advantage of leads and cracks The only current habitat concern for There is a small amount of develop- created by the icebreakers. the Jones Sound stock is the loss of ment in the area, and future development possibilities exist. Status sea ice, although the possible development of a coal mine on northern Elles- Workshop Discussion Although removals are significant, mere Island was discussed in Canada they appear to be sustainable given the several years ago. It is likely that ad- In the complete absence of sampling large size of the stock. There is no evi- ditional development projects will oc- and analysis, there is no basis, other dence that the stock is depleted. There cur in the area in the future as sea ice than geographical, to differentiate the are environmental concerns related to continues to decline. Smith Sound stock from other narwhal the loss of sea ice, icebreaking, and stocks such as the Inglefield Bredning industrial development in some areas. Status or Jones Sound stock. Overall, there is a low level of concern Status for this stock. The level of concern for this fairly large stock of around 12,000 animals, As with the Jones Sound stock, there 2) Jones Sound which is not heavily hunted, is low. is low concern for this fairly large Narwhals in Jones Sound are ge- There is little development in the re- stock (around 16,000 animals) that is netically distinguishable from other gion thus far, although this is likely to apparently subjected to little hunting. Canadian stocks, and from those sam- change as sea-ice conditions change. 4) Admiralty Inlet pled in Inglefield Bredning, Green- 3) Smith Sound land (Petersen et al.4). Thus, they are The Admiralty Inlet (AI) stock is considered a distinct stock. Addition- Stock identity of Smith Sound nar- defined on the basis of a consistent ally, organochlorine contaminant pro- whals is based on observations and summer aggregation reported via lo- files in whales sampled in Grise Fiord, catches of narwhals there during sum- cal knowledge, telemetry tracking, and which are believed to be part of the mer. Tissue samples have not been aerial surveys. Satellite-tagged nar- Jones Sound stock, were notably dif- collected and very limited telemetry whals have remained in Admiralty In- ferent from whales sampled in Pond studies have been carried out on nar- let during summer and returned there Inlet from the Eclipse Sound stock whals in Smith Sound; thus their re- after spending winter in the Baffin Bay (de March and Stern2). Little is known lationship to narwhals in Inglefield region (Dietz et al., 2008; Watt et al.6). about movements or dive behavior of Bredning is uncertain. There is no strong genetic support for narwhals in Jones Sound since there An aerial survey in 2013 resulted delineation of this stock; however, sta- have been no telemetry studies there. in an abundance estimate of 16,360 ble isotope values from skin samples An aerial survey conducted in 2013 (CV=0.65) for the Smith Sound stock differed significantly from those of resulted in an abundance estimate of (Doniol-Valcroze et al.65). As this is 12,694 (CV = 0.33) narwhals (Doniol- the only survey that has been conduct- 66Mads Peter Heide-Jørgensen, Greenland In- 65 stitute of Natural Resources c/o Greenland Valcroze et al. ). This is the only sur- ed in Smith Sound, there is no infor- Representation, Strandgade 91, 2. sal, 1401 vey that has been conducted in the area mation on trend. København K, Denmark.

81(3–4) 33 whales in other regions, indicating a Eclipse Sound (ES) stock in summer. vessels. Closure of the Nanisivik lead- degree of separation based on foraging The AI and ES stocks were both sur- zinc mine in 2002 may have resulted tendencies (Watt et al.5). veyed in 2010 and 2013. The sums of in reduced icebreaking activity in and The most recent (2013) abundance the abundance estimates for the two immediately outside Admiralty Inlet. estimate for the AI stock was 35,043 stocks were similar in 2010 and 2013. (CV=0.42), including a correction for However, the AI estimate increased Status perception bias using mark-recapture between 2010 and 2013 by approxi- In spite of the habitat concerns re- line transect data collected during the mately the same amount as the ES lated to shipping and icebreaking, the survey and an availability bias correc- estimate decreased, suggesting that concern level for this stock is low be- tion factor of 2.94 (CV =1%) for water narwhals counted in the ES stock in cause of its relatively large size and with visibility to 2 m depth based on dive 2010 moved to AI prior to the survey the assumption that removal levels are data from 27 tagged narwhals (Doniol- in 2013. Also, 4 of 12 narwhals tagged sustainable. Valcroze et al.65). Five surveys of the during summer in Eclipse Sound in AI stock have been conducted over the 2010 and 2011 traveled into Admiral- 5) Eclipse Sound past 30 years, with no indication of a ty Inlet in September/October of the Designation of Eclipse Sound nar- significant change in abundance over same year (n = 3), or during the fol- whals (ES) as a separate stock is sup- time (Richard et al., 2010; Witting et lowing summer (n = 1) (Watt et al.6). ported by telemetry studies which al., 2019; Asselin and Richard67). Nevertheless, a precautionary ap- showed that most individuals tagged The AI stock is hunted primar- proach has been applied by continu- in the sound stayed there through the ily by the community of Arctic Bay ing to manage the narwhals in AI and summer and returned the following (Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2013b). How- ES as separate stocks pending stronger summer (Dietz et al., 2001; Heide- ever, hunters from other communities evidence to support combining them. Jørgensen et al., 2002; Watt et al.6). hunt these whales on their migra- This is seen as a means of minimizing However, one whale tagged in Eclipse tion to and from the summer range the risk of stock depletion. Sound returned the following year to and on the winter range (Watt et al., Ship traffic in Baffin Bay may affect Admiralty Inlet after overwintering 2019). While the current TALC for this stock in its winter range. Although in Baffin Bay, and a telemetry study this stock is 233, based on the abun- abundance estimates vary across sur- in 2010–11 showed that 3 of 12 nar- dance estimate from the 2010 survey veys, the AI stock is considered sta- whals tagged in Eclipse Sound during (DFO68), the recommended TALC ble, and current removals are thought summer moved into Admiralty Inlet in based on the 2013 aerial survey is 389 to be sustainable (Witting et al., 2019; September/October (Watt et al.6), in- whales (Doniol-Valcroze et al.65). The NAMMCO64). dicating that there is some movement reported annual removals (including between the two stock areas. Workshop Discussion struck-but-lost estimates applied for The most recent (2013) abundance open-water hunting) from the summer This stock is hunted in summer by estimate for the ES stock was 10,489 hunt during 1970–2015 ranged from Inuit from Arctic Bay, at the floe edge (CV = 0.24) (Doniol-Valcroze et al.65). 32 (in 1987) to 276 (in 2015) whales, in spring by hunters from Pond Inlet, Given that only two surveys of the ES with an average of 181 per year for the and in at least the Disko Bay area of stock have been undertaken, a trend 10-yr period between 2006 and 2015. Greenland in winter. Hunters from in abundance cannot be determined. The stock is also hunted on the winter Arctic Bay previously took many nar- In Canada, the stock is hunted pri- range in Greenland, where 2% of the whals at the Admiralty Inlet floe edge, marily by the community of Pond landed catch in Uummannaq (yearly which included whales from both the Inlet in summer (Heide-Jørgensen quota=61) is from the AI stock and Somerset Island and Admiralty Inlet et al., 2013b), but hunters from oth- 32% of the landed catch in Disko Bay stocks. Now much more of the Arctic er communities in both Canada and (yearly quota=108) consists of AI ani- Bay hunting occurs in summer, which Greenland hunt ES narwhals on their mals (NAMMCO64). means there is greater pressure on the migration to and from the summer The distribution of the AI nar- Admiralty Inlet stock to supply the rel- range and in the wintering areas (Wit- whal stock likely overlaps that of the atively large Arctic Bay quota. ting et al., 2019; NAMMCO64). The The time series of abundance esti- current Canadian TALC is set at 236 67Asselin, N. C., and P. R. Richard. 2011. Re- mates suggests that this stock is fairly for this stock, although a new TALC sults of narwhal (Monodon monoceros) aerial stable, although the estimates are quite of 134 was recommended (but has surveys in Admiralty Inlet, August 2010. DFO variable across years (differing by over not yet been implemented) based on Can Sci Advis Sec Res Doc 2011/065: iv + 26 p. (avail. at http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/). 10,000 animals) and have large confi- the 2013 aerial survey results (Doni- 65 68DFO. 2012. Abundance and total allowable dence intervals. ol-Valcroze et al. ). The reported an- landed catch for the Admiralty Inlet narwhal There are concerns over increased nual removals (landed catch multiplied stock in 2010. DFO Can Sci Advis Sec Sci Ad- vis Rep 2012/048 (avail. at http://waves-vagues. disturbance in the summer habitat by by a 1.28 struck-but-lost factor) by dfo-mpo.gc.ca/). freighters, cruise ships, and supply Pond Inlet hunters from 1970 to 2015

34 Marine Fisheries Review ranged from 41 (in 1972) to 256 (in Two large ice-entrapment events, re- tached during August in Eclipse Sound 1973) narwhals, and the average for sulting in the deaths of over 900 nar- moved to Admiralty Inlet that same the 10-yr period from 2006 to 2015 whals, have been documented in the month and did not return to Eclipse was 130. last 10 years for this stock. In 2008, Sound that summer (Marcoux71). This Like the SI and AI stocks, animals over 650 narwhals were trapped and shows that some narwhals use both ar- from this stock are subject to hunt- in 2015 at least 250 narwhals were eas during summer. ing at the Lancaster Sound floe edge trapped. Although the cause of these in spring (by hunters from Pond Inlet), entrapments cannot be confirmed, it 6) Inglefield Bredning off eastern Baffin Island in the fall, has been suggested that seismic sur- The Inglefield Bredning narwhal and in West Greenland in winter. veys (Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2013a) stock (IB) is defined on the basis of a In the wintering areas in Greenland, and ship traffic delayed the narwhals’ consistent summer aggregation, aerial 1% of the landed catch in Uumman- movements out of their summering ar- survey results, local knowledge, and naq (yearly quota=61) and 52% of eas, making them more susceptible to hunting patterns. Migration timing and the landed catch in Disko Bay (yearly entrapment by fast-forming sea ice. routes for this stock are unknown but quota=108) are believed to be from the a portion of the whales that winter in ES stock (NAMMCO64). Workshop Discussion the North Water polynya (NOW) could As noted earlier, the summer and Telemetry results and the sum- be the same narwhals that summer in autumn ranges of ES and AI narwhals mer residency of narwhals in Eclipse Inglefield Bredning. An aerial survey may overlap. Eclipse Sound has been Sound constitute the basis for distin- of the eastern part of the NOW con- identified as an important area for nar- guishing between the Eclipse Sound ducted in April 2014 resulted in an whal calving (Mathewson69), and in- and Admiralty Inlet stocks. There is estimate of 3,059 narwhals (95 % CI creased shipping and icebreaker traffic some movement of animals between 1,760–5,316; Heide-Jørgensen et al., associated with mineral resource de- these two summering areas, including 2016), however the western portion velopment are potential threats to this the “switching” from Eclipse Sound was not surveyed so the total number stock on both its summer and winter the first year to Admiralty Inlet the wintering in the NOW could not be range. next year by the one whale whose tag estimated. Habitat concerns include boat dis- continued transmitting long enough to Genetic differences have been docu- turbance from hunting, shipping, and monitor its return northward migration mented between Melville Bay narwhals tourism, and icebreaking. Narwhals after being tagged in Eclipse Sound and narwhals from the Avernersuaq are hunted intensively in summer in in the previous summer. Inuit in the district, which includes Inglefield Eclipse Sound, and, in addition, they area believe strongly that two differ- Bredning (Palsbøll et al., 1997). Hence, are exposed to heavy and increas- ent kinds of narwhals, which differ in little gene flow is thought to occur being large-vessel traffic, including appearance, visit Eclipse Sound. Addi- tween these areas. cruise ships and the freighters travel- tional telemetry work is therefore im- The most recent abundance estimate ing to and from the Milne Inlet port portant to clarify movement patterns for the Inglefield Bredning stock was for the Baffinland-Mary River iron and stock delineation. 8,368 (cv=0.25; 95% CI 5,209–13,442) mine. Pond Inlet experienced a three- from a visual aerial line transect sur- fold increase in vessel traffic between Status vey conducted in the summer of 2007 the 1990’s and 2015, primarily cruise Although a trend in abundance can- (Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2010b). The ships and transport vessels related to not be determined, this stock appears estimate was corrected for whales the iron mine (Dawson et al., 2018), to be stable at around 10,000 narwhals missed by observers using data from which is likely to have significant im- and removals are thought to be sus- paired observers in a sight-resight line pacts on the behavior and distribution tainable. However, there is consider- transect analysis and multiplied by 4.76 of the whales in this important sum- able uncertainty about the abundance (CV=0.04) to account for submerged mer habitat (DFO70). estimates and some uncertainty about whales based on the portion of time stock differentiation (from the Admi- spent above 2 m depth for two whales 69Mathewson, S. 2016. Narwhal nursery lo- ralty Inlet stock). A major and grow- tagged with satellite-linked time-depth cated in busy Canadian waters; are the elu- ing concern is ship traffic related to recorders. The distribution of narwhals sive sea animals at risk? Nature World News (avail. at https://www.natureworldnews.com/ar- the Baffinland-Mary River iron mine in Inglefield Bredning was in good ticles/19238/20160108/narwhal-nursery-found- and tourism. Overall, the Eclipse agreement with what was documented busy-waters-canada-elusive-sea-animals-risk. Sound stock of narwhals is of moder- during aerial surveys in 1985–86 and htm). ate concern. 2001–02 (Born et al., 1994; Heide-Jør- 70DFO. 2014. Science review of the final environmental impact statement addendum for the gensen, 2004). early revenue phase of Baffinland’s Mary River Update Project. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 71Marcoux, Marianne. Dep. Fish. Oceans Can- 2013/024 (avail. at http://waves-vagues.dfo- In 2017 three of nine narwhals ada, 501 Univ. Crescent, Winnipeg, Manitoba mpo.gc.ca/). tracked with satellite transmitters at- R3T 2N6, Canada.

81(3–4) 35 Abundance estimates have been al consideration, however, is that some struck-but-lost) averaged 305/yr. Dur- stable for this population over time. narwhals from other stocks may still be ing the same period 219 narwhals The estimated trajectory for the stock present in the NOW when hunting be- were taken from three ice entrapments. comes from a population dynamics gins in April, therefore it is possible that For Greenland overall, it is assumed model, based on a Bayesian frame- not all of those taken in the NOW are that a struck-but-lost correction fac- work, that is age- and sex-structured from the IB stock (Watt et al., 2019). tor of 1.30 covers both the open-water (Witting et al., 2019). According to the hunt and the hunt from ice cracks and model, the Inglefield Bredning stock is Status the ice edge (for the Melville Bay-Up- depleted to below its Maximum Sus- This is a moderate-sized, apparently ernavik area a factor of 1.15 is used). tainable Yield Level (MSYL). stable stock. While the recent average Catches of whales from the MB stock The IB stock is hunted in the Qaa- number of removals has been around are however made in both the munici- naaq region during April–September 5% above the TAT for the next man- pality of Uummannaq and in Uper- (by hunters from the communities of agement period, the current remov- navik. Roughly half of the narwhals Qaanaaq, Qeqertat, and possibly Si- al levels are considered sustainable. taken in Upernavik and Melville Bay orapaluk). Quotas are set on the basis Overall, the concern level for this are taken under the harpoon-first re- of the NAMMCO-JCNB catch alloca- stock is low, assuming that no major quirement (5% loss rate) and the other tion model (Watt et al., 2019). In the change occurs in human activities in half are taken in ice-edge and open- municipality of Qaanaaq, local hunt- the region. water situations where the loss rate is ing rules require that hand-harpoons higher (Garde et al., 2019). are used to strike the whales (and 7) Melville Bay The MB stock is considered de- thereby tether them to a drag or float) Stock identity of narwhals in Melville pleted to below MSYL, indicating that before they can be shot (harpoon-first Bay (MB) is based on consistent sum- future removal levels should be set to requirement). This reduces the loss mer aggregation, telemetry tracking, ensure the population will increase. rate considerably. A loss rate of 5% is genetics, aerial surveys, local knowl- The total allowable take recommended arbitrarily applied to the catches to ac- edge, and hunting patterns. The most by the NAMMCO-JCNB Joint Sci- count for both whales that are killed- recent (2014) abundance estimate for entific Working Group (JWG) for the but-lost and calves that lose their the MB stock is 3,091 (CV=0.50; 95% MB stock is 84 individuals per year mothers. Annual removals averaged CI 1,228–7,783) (Hansen et al.72). The (in the period 2015–20), allowing for 112 narwhals for the 10-year period estimate was corrected for both percep- a 70% probability that abundance will from 2005 to 2014; these include 94 tion and availability bias. The correc- be increasing by 2020 (NAMMCO64). animals taken from two ice entrap- tion factor for at-surface availability However, quotas set by Greenland ments so that removals by hunting av- was based on monitoring of five tagged do not follow the advice of the JWG. eraged around 103/yr. whales from August to September in The greatest concern for the MB The total allowable take for the In- Melville Bay (a=0.22; CV=0.09); note stock is that removals in the Upernavik glefield Bredning stock is 98 individu- that the at-surface abundance is divided hunting region greatly exceed the rec- als per year (2015–20), which allows by the correction in this case (equiva- ommended limit. Habitat concerns infor a 70% probability that the stock’s lent to multiplying by 4.55). clude changes in the sea-ice regime, abundance will be increasing by 2020. Animals in this stock are hunted disturbance by commercial fishing, Concerns for the IB stock include primarily by communities in the Up- shipping, icebreaking associated with changes in the sea-ice regime, ship ernavik region during July–October, shipping, and seismic surveys, and re- traffic, seismic surveys, and competi- but they are also hunted in Uumman- source competition with commercial tion with fisheries for Greenland hal- naq during November–May and Disko fisheries for halibut in central Baffin ibut, Reinhardtius hippoglossoides Bay during December–April. Quo- Bay (Laidre et al., 2008, 2015). (Laidre et al., 2008, 2015). tas were first implemented in 2004 Workshop Discussion and are now set on the basis of the Workshop Discussion NAMMCO-JCNB catch allocation An important concern for this stock The stock appears to be stable, but model (Watt et al., 2019). During the is quota levels that may cause the there are several environmental con- period 2004 through 2014 total remov- stock to decline. As this stock is concerns and the depletion level estimated als by hunting (including estimated sidered depleted to below MSYL, fu- by the model is also a concern. The ture removal levels should be set to depletion below MSYL indicates that 72Hansen, R. G., S. Fossette, N. H. Nielsen, M. ensure recovery to at least MSYL. future harvest levels should be set to H. S. Sinding, D. Borchers, and M. P. Heide- Habitat concerns include increased Jørgensen. 2015. Abundance of narwhals in ensure recovery to at least MSYL. In- Melville Bay in 2012 and 2014. NAMMCO/ commercial halibut fishing, and the formation is lacking on the distribution SC/22-JCNB/SWG/2015-JWG/14. Request from likely eventual resumption of seismic R. Hansen, Greenland Inst. Nat. Resour. c/o of this stock in winter when it may be Greenland Representation, Strandgade 91, 2. survey activity in Baffin Bay. During hunted in other locations. An addition- sal, 1401 København K, Denmark. 2012–14, there was extensive seis-

36 Marine Fisheries Review mic survey activity in the summering tion route is unknown but thought to change may render the fjord areas used area of this stock. Observational stud- be similar to those of the ES and AI by the whales in summer less suitable ies during those years suggested that stocks that migrate past eastern Baf- as habitat. habitat use by narwhals was affected, fin Island in fall, which would make Status though estimated numbers of narwhals them available to hunters in Greenland in the summering area pre- and post- in winter (Watt et al., 2019). However, Although the EBI stock is fairly seismic survey activity did not differ a tagging study is needed to confirm large and reported removals are rela- significantly (Hansen et al.72) this. The EBI stock is quite large with tively low, there is moderate concern no major conservation concerns at this for the stock. Concerns relate mainly Status time. However, relatively little infor- to the lack of data on movements and There is a high level of concern for mation is available to inform stock stock structure, the possibility that this stock. The stock is small and like- assessment. several stocks (rather than only one) ly overexploited (i.e., catches above inhabit the EBI region in summer, and recommended quotas), and it is subject Workshop Discussion the uncertainty about whether, and if to multiple potential threats besides This moderate-sized stock’s status so where, narwhals from this stock are hunting (e.g., disturbance from seis- is uncertain in a number of ways. In hunted in Greenland. mic surveys, icebreaking in winter). the absence of satellite-tracking studies, it is not known how much move- 9) Northern Hudson Bay 8) Eastern Baffin Island ment there is among the various fjords The Northern Hudson Bay (NHB) The recognition of Eastern Baffin along the Baffin Island coast, and the stock is considered distinct based on Island (EBI) narwhals as a separate animals’ wintering range is unknown. genetic differences (de March and stock is based mainly on the consistent Different groups of narwhals may af- Stern2; Petersen et al.4), telemetry re- summer aggregation reported by local filiate with different fjords, and there- sults (Westdal et al., 2010), and con- people. No tagging studies have been fore as more becomes known, this taminant and biomarker profiles carried out on narwhals in the region. stock may require subdivision. (de March and Stern2; Watt et al.5). Although this stock cannot be distin- Although recent catch levels on This stock was surveyed in the early guished using genetics, organochlorine eastern Baffin Island appear to have 1980’s (Richard, 1991a), 2000 (As- contaminant (de March and Stern2) been sustainable and fairly constant selin and Ferguson74), and 2011 (As- and stable isotope profiles (Watt et (97 to 183 reported as landed per year, selin et al.75) but at different spatial al.5) of the whales in eastern Baffin Is- 2000–15), there is considerable un- scales, with different data collection land differ significantly from those of certainty about stock structure. The methods (visual or photographic) and other narwhal stocks. TALC is currently set at 122, but an- estimation procedures (e.g., whether The EBI stock has been surveyed nual removals in Canada have been perception and availability biases were twice, resulting in a 2003 abundance about 160 (using a 1.23 struck-but-lost accounted for or not). The 2011 visual estimate of 10,073 (CV = 0.34) and a correction factor). The new TALC rec- survey data were reanalyzed using the 2013 estimate of 17,555 (CV = 0.35) ommendation based on the 2013 aeri- methods of the visual surveys in 1982 (both adjusted for availability and al survey results is 206 for the stock. and 2000 to improve comparability of perception biases) (Doniol-Valcroze The stock is thought to be available to the survey results. This yielded surface et al.65). It is not possible to make a Greenland hunters for part of the year (i.e., uncorrected) estimates of 1,737 robust assessment of the trend from even though there is no direct evidence (95% CI: 1002–3011) in 1982, 1,945 these data. The stock is hunted primar- of movement between eastern Baffin (95% CI: 1089–3471) in 2000, and ily by the Canadian communities of Island and Greenland. 4,452 (95% CI: 2707–7322) in 2011 Clyde River and Qikitarjuak in sum- If the whales follow a migration (Asselin and Ferguson74). The 2011 mer and fall (Heide-Jørgensen et al., route similar to those of the AI and ES surface number, corrected for per- 2013b). Removal levels in these two stocks and overwinter in central Baf- communities are low, with about 130 fin Bay, they may be affected by ice- cbc.ca/news/canada/north/supreme-court-indig- narwhals reported as being landed per breaker activity taking place in this enous-duty-to-consult-clyde-river-seismic-test- year since 2000. However, the two region. Concerns have been expressed ing-1.3873059). 74Asselin, N. C., and S.H. Ferguson. 2013. A re- communities hunt narwhals primarily by communities in Nunavut about the analysis of northern Hudson Bay narwhal sur- in autumn when animals from other effects on narwhals of seismic survey veys conducted in 1982, 2000, and 2011. DFO stocks are migrating along the Baf- activities off the east coast of Baf- Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2013/019. v + 9 p. (avail at: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ fin Island coastline, making it difficult fin Island73. Also, impacts of climate 75Asselin, N. C., S. H. Ferguson, P. R. Rich- to know which stock is being hunted ard, and D. G. Barber. 2012. Results of narwhal (Watt et al., 2019). Other communi- 73‘We thought no one would care’: Clyde River (Monodon monoceros) aerial surveys in north- Inuit flooded with support. Elyse Skura, CBC ern Hudson Bay, Aug. 2011. DFO Can. Sci. Ad- ties may hunt EBI narwhals during News, posted 29 Nov. 2016 5:38 PM CT. Last vis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/037. iii + 23 p. (avail. fall, winter, and spring. Their migra- updated 30 Nov. 30, 2016 (avail. at https://www. at http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/).

81(3–4) 37 ception and availability biases, esti- ice as well as increases in human ac- NAMMCO29). Hunting takes place mated abundance at 12,485 narwhals tivity (mining, shipping), which may regularly only in Tasiilaq and Scores- (CV = 0.26) (Asselin et al.75) negatively affect the stock. by Sound; hunters travel to Kanger- NHB narwhals are hunted in Cape Workshop Discussion lussuaq occasionally. Reported annual Dorset, Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Har- landed catches have varied widely in bour, Kimmirut, Rankin Inlet, Repulse Harvest monitoring in Canada is East Greenland (Ittoqqortoormiit and Bay, and Whale Cove (DFO unpubl. the responsibility of local hunters and Tasiilaq) with lows of 0 in 1965 and data; Watt76). Reported landings from trappers organizations and the Repulse 2 in 1978 and a high of 158 in 1990; this stock increased from an aver- Bay hunt is generally regarded as one the average during 2005–17 was 77 age of 21 (SD=8.6) whales/yr during of the better-managed narwhal hunts. narwhals/yr. Applying a LRC of 1.30 1979–98 to an average of 102 (SD=55) Hunters from Arviat often travel to the to the landed catch results in an es- whales/yr in 1999–2001, and then de- Repulse Bay area to hunt narwhals. timated average of 100 removals/yr clined to 83 (SD=30) during 2002–15. Repulse Bay has relatively strict by- (2005–17). Aerial surveys covering A Loss Rate Correction (LRC) of 1.28 laws concerning hunting practices areas where hunting occurs (Scoresby has been used to account for struck- (e.g., a harpoon-first requirement) thus Sound in 1983–84, Tasiilaq to Scores- but-lost narwhals during the hunt of using the LRC of 1.28 may overesti- by Sound in 2008 and 2016) indicate this stock (Asselin et al.75). Using the mate the struck-but-lost removals. a widely scattered population (Heide- LRC gives an average of total remov- The loss of multi-year ice in this Jørgensen et al., 2010b; NAMMCO29). als of 106/yr during 2002–15. Results population’s summer range means that The survey in 2016 found no nar- of the earlier surveys raised concerns these narwhals are increasingly vul- whals south of the Kangerlussuaq area about the sustainability of harvest lev- nerable to predation by killer whales. and abundance was estimated at 702 els; however, the abundance estimate Another concern is that shipping, of- whales (CV = 0.33) down from 2759 of 12,485 narwhals in 2011 has al- ten including icebreaking, is increas- (CV = 0.43) in 2008 (NAMMCO78). layed these concerns. ing rapidly in Hudson Strait. Existing A decline has been observed over Modeling of the aerial survey data or planned mines in Baker Lake and the past decade and reductions in from the early 1980’s, 2000, 2008, Rankin Inlet require freight shipments the quotas (first established in 2010) and 2011 using a population dynam- and visitation by resupply vessels. As have been recommended by the JWG ics model with Bayesian methods and the most southerly stock of narwhals (NAMMCO29). Subsequent to the using adjustments for different survey in the world, the Northern Hudson GROM a workshop convened by methods suggested a rate of increase Bay stock should be monitored closely NAMMCO in 2019 reviewed the new of 1.2% per year for this stock and a for impacts of climate change and in- estimate of abundance and other obser- population size that could support a creased human activities. vations including the apparently low landed catch of no more than 75 nar- Status reproductive rates and recommended 77 whals per year (Kingsley et al. ). An- The NHB stock is fairly large, num- that the quotas in the three manage- other survey was planned for summer bering some 12,500 animals, with no ment areas of East Greenland be set to 78 2018. clear evidence of a trend. The current zero (NAMMCO ). The catch quotas The PBR for the NHB stock is 201 level of hunting removals is consid- set by the Greenland government have animals. With the PBR value and a ered sustainable. Although the loss of been reduced but are higher than the LRC of 1.28, a TALC for the North- sea ice and concomitant increases in recommended takes. Hunting does not ern Hudson Bay stock is 157 narwhals shipping and other industrial activi- fully explain the observed decline in 75 (Asselin et al. ). With the average ties are of concern, the overall level of abundance. East Greenland has expe- landed catch of 83 narwhals for the concern for this stock is low. rienced significant habitat changes, in- period 2002–15, the current level of cluding a dramatic decline in sea ice removal is considered sustainable. 10) East Greenland and an increase in sea temperatures, However, this region is undergoing The East Greenland stock of nar- with the movement of several boreal considerable environmental change whals occurs along the east coast cetacean and fish species into the nar- due to climate warming and loss of sea of Greenland from about lat. 64° N whals’ habitat (Jansen et al., 2016; to lat. 72° N. In summer, the animals Hansen et al., 2019). 76 are found mainly in a small number Watt, Cortney A., Dep. Fish. Oceans Can., 501 Workshop Discussion University Crescent, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T of fjords and bays, the most important 2N6, Canada. being the Tasiilaq Fjord (north of lat. Multiple environmental changes 77Kingsley, M. C. S., N. C. Asselin, and S. H. 65° N), Kangerlussuaq Fjord (lat. 68° are occurring in the region, including Ferguson. 2013. Updated stock-dynamic model for the Northern Hudson Bay narwhal popula- N), and Scoresby Sound (north of lat. tion based on 1982–2011 aerial surveys. DFO 70° N), although many smaller fjords 78NAMMCO. 2019. Report of the ad hoc work- Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2013/011. v + ing group on narwhal in East Greenland. Sept. 19 p. (avail. at: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo. are also visited by narwhals in sum- 2019, Copenhagen, Denmark (avail. at https:// gc.ca/). mer (Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2010b; nammco.no/topics/sc-wg-reports/).

38 Marine Fisheries Review increased sea surface temperatures, to delineate them at this time. More pacts on sea-ice conditions and prey- rapidly retreating ice cover, and dis- information is also needed on abun- base composition, competition from appearance of tidewater glaciers. This dance, distribution, and movements of boreal marine mammal species, and may be degrading and reducing the narwhals in this region. (Update: Sur- new parasites and diseases are general habitat for narwhals. The arrival of veys conducted after the workshop in concerns. Also, tissue levels of some temperate-zone species is likely affect- 2017 resulted in estimates of 1,395 pollutants in narwhals at Svalbard are ing narwhals, whether through com- narwhals (CV=0.33) in Dove Bay and even higher than the high levels re- petition for prey, exposure to novel 2,908 (CV=0.30) in the Greenland Sea corded in belugas or polar bears from diseases, or some combination of these (Reeves and Lee, 2020). this region (Wolkers et al., 2006). and/or other processes (Hansen et al., Status 2019). Humpback whales, Megaptera Northwest Russian Arctic novaeangliae, are now regularly ob- There is a moderate level of con- Narwhals are seen infrequently in served in areas where narwhals were cern for narwhals in Northeast Green- the Russian Arctic (Barents and Kara previously present (Hansen et al., land. Similar to the situation for East Seas) with the majority occurring in 2019). Given such changes, the indirect Greenland, there is a shortage of data the vicinity of Franz Josef Land (Be- negative effects of climate change may on abundance and stock structure, and likov and Boltunov, 2002). Recent in- overwhelm any positive effect resulting there are climate change-related habi- formation on narwhal sightings comes from the elimination of hunting. tat concerns. Narwhals in Northeast mostly from the annual National Park Greenland are currently protected at “Russian Arctic” monitoring program, Status least partly by the National Park. In as well as opportunistic observations There is a high level of concern for addition to being legally protected, during oil/gas geological explorations, narwhals in East Greenland due to the the narwhals have generally not been a few scientific expeditions, and tour- shortage of data (particularly on stock accessible to hunters due to the re- ist cruises. Most narwhal sightings structure), low abundance, the declin- moteness of their habitat and the ice in northwestern Russia have been re- ing trend, the likelihood of overhar- coverage in this region. corded in the waters of western Franz vest, and the numerous climate-related 12) Svalbard-Northwest Russian Josef Land from May to September changes in habitat. Arctic with a peak in August (1990–2013) (Gavrilo and Ershov79; Gavrilo80). 11) Northeast Greenland Svalbard One sighting southeast of Franz Josef North of Scoresby Sound, narwhals Narwhals are only rarely observed Land was made in April 2013 (Gavri- are frequently observed in Young along the coasts of Svalbard (Stor- lo80), while several sightings were Sound (lat. 74° N) and Dove Bay (lat. rie et al., 2018). However, groups of recorded in the Kara Sea in autumn 76° N) and along the coast as far north several hundred are seen on occasion, (September and October, 2012–13) as Nordost Rundingen (lat. 82° N) and three juvenile narwhals from such (Rosneft81,82). Most sightings were of (Boertmann et al., 2009; Boertmann a group were satellite-tagged in 1998 small groups with a maximum group and Nielsen, 2010). Given the long in the Wahlenberg fjord, west of Nor- size of around 50 whales. Presumably, coastline, it is possible that there are daustlandet. These tags operated only narwhal movements to the waters of several stocks in Northeast Greenland; for short periods (4–46 days) and the however, there are currently no data to whales remained relatively close to 79Gavrilo M. V., and R. V. Ershov. 2010. Notes determine stock structure. Svalbard. The two animals that moved on cetaceans of the Franz-Josef Land – Victo- The narwhals north of Scoresby the longest distances went to the north ria region // Marine Mammals of the Holarctic. 2010. Coll. Sci. Pap., Kaliningrad, p. 120–125 Sound are protected by the Northeast and east of Nordaustlandet (Lydersen (doi: https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3008.2248). Greenland National Park. No hunting et al., 2007). 80Gavrilo, Maria. Unpubl. data: observations takes place in marine waters along the There has not been a whale survey and data collected via pers. commun. from visitors in Franz-Josef Land. Assoc. Maritime Park’s boundary and no attempt has around Svalbard specifically designed Heritage, Icebreaker Mus., Krassin, 22, Naber- been made to assess narwhal abun- to assess narwhals, but a multi-species ezhnaya Leitenanta Shmidta, corner of 23rd dance there. Northeast Greenland is survey in the marginal ice zone north Liniya, 199106 Saint-Petersburg, Russia. subject to exploration for oil and gas of Svalbard in August 2015 resulted 81Rosneft. 2012. Unpubl. data on marine mammal monitoring in Rosneft license areas, provid- resources and small-scale seismic sur- in an abundance estimate of 837 nar- ed by Rosneft to Olga Shpak and Dmitri Glazov, veys have been conducted there over whals (CV= 0.50) within the 52,919 A. N. Severtsov Inst. Ecol. Evol. Russian Acad. the past decade (Ahonen et al., 2017). km2 study area, with many observa- Sci., 33, Leninsky Pr., 119071 Moscow, Russia. tions close to the distal ends of the 82Rosneft. 2013. Unpubl. data on biological Workshop Discussion monitoring during seismic surveys in the Ros- transects in very dense ice, indicating neft “Medynsko-Varandeysky” license area, This coastline is long, and it is like- that narwhals may occur even further provided by Rosneft to Olga Shpak and Dmitri Glazov. A. N. Severtsov Inst. Ecol. Evol. Rus- ly that there are multiple stocks; how- north (Vacquié-Garcia et al., 2017). sian Acad. Sci., 33, Leninsky Pr., 119071 Mos- ever, there is little to no information Effects of climate change with im- cow, Russia.

81(3–4) 39 Franz Josef Land, as with belugas in observations of individual narwhals All beluga and narwhal stocks are that area, are related to their feed- have also occurred in recent years on likely to be affected to some extent, ing on Arctic cod, Boreogadus saida the west coast of Spitsbergen (e.g., in- both directly and indirectly, by the (Dahl et al., 2000). There is no infor- nermost Kongsfjorden and deep within rapid warming taking place in the Arc- mation on abundance of narwhals in Adventfjorden). Narwhals are detected tic and sub-Arctic. As the water has this region. No studies have been con- regularly on passive acoustic monitor- warmed, sea-ice cover has decreased, ducted on migratory routes or stock ing devices to the west of Svalbard in enabling access by humans to formerly structure. Fram Strait (Moore et al., 2012; Staf- remote areas. The resultant increase There have been several sightings ford et al., 2012; Ahonen et al., 2017). in ship traffic and other kinds of hu- of narwhals and discoveries of nar- There also seems to be a concentration man activity is of general concern whal tusks in the Chukotka region in of sightings around Franz Josef Land, for monodontid populations (Reeves the last 20 years, and this led to listing and there are recent sightings in the et al., 2014), as it invariably will lead the narwhal in the Red Book of Chu- Kara Sea. There are no sightings in the to increased disturbance, habitat deg- kotka (Andreev et al.83). There is no Laptev Sea although there has been no radation and disruption, noise, and evidence for a separate stock; rather, dedicated search effort there for nar- chemical pollution (e.g., Kovacs et al., it is supposed that individual whales whals and there is little traffic in the 2011). (vagrants) occasionally enter Chu- area and hence few opportunities for The changing environment also cre- kotka waters. There is no traditional sightings. Most ships pass through the ates other challenges for belugas and harvest or live-capture of narwhals in Laptev Sea where it is shallow and narwhals, such as differences in prey Chukotka. productivity is low. It is possible that availability, exposure to novel diseases Major anthropogenic threats in the narwhals are present far offshore, but and parasites, and competition from Barents and Kara Seas are thought at this point the gap in narwhal distri- other species. The level of concern for to be similar to those for belugas and bution between the Laptev Sea and the each type of threat varies from area to area, and there are specific concerns include various oil/gas activities, in- Beaufort Sea far to the east appears to regionally that are currently having creasing tourist and military vessel be real. 53 impacts on, or likely will have impacts traffic (Wezeman ) in Franz Josef The stock(s) in this area is (are) on, individual monodontid stocks. Land waters, oil/gas fleet, and oth- likely small but may be distributed pri- In general, the northernmost stocks er vessel and cargo traffic along the marily in areas that are not well sur- Northern Sea Route (Glazov et al.57). of belugas are of less concern than veyed. Therefore, there is considerable the more southern stocks. This north- Workshop Discussion uncertainty regarding abundance and south gradient may be explained distribution as well as stock identity. Narwhals are present recurrently if largely by the greater intensity and not regularly in this region, but there Status broader range of human activities is no detailed information on their dis- in lower latitudes, and the effects of There is moderate concern for nar- climate change. However, the larg- tribution, movements, stock identity, whals in this region, mainly due to the or abundance. It is not possible with est beluga stock, centered in western lack of detailed information and the Hudson Bay, is “southern” and ap- the available information to determine apparently low abundance. Narwhals whether there are multiple stocks and parently robust. The diet of belugas are protected in Svalbard and through- is quite diverse and they use various whether any of the narwhals in the re- out Russia. gion are affiliated with stocks in East types of habitat. Their apparent flex- or Northeast Greenland. Belugas and Narwhals: ibility could make belugas more re- Most of the recent sightings of nar- Global and Regional silient to Arctic warming than some other Arctic species, including narwhals in Svalbard have been in fjords Environmental Issues whals (Laidre et al., 2008). in Nordaustlandet or in Hinlopenstretet A number of threats and other is- Narwhals have a more northern dis- in the northeastern part of the archipel- sues with known or suspected impacts tribution but are almost as numerous ago (see Storrie et al., 2018). However, on monodontid stocks were identi- as belugas, many of their aggrega- 83Andreev, A. V., D. I. Berman, P. Yu Gorbunov, N. fied within the background documen- tions are quite large, and their summer E. Dokuchaev, V. S. Kononenko, B. A. Korotyaev, tation and during the discussions of ranges tend to be more remote than A. A. Kochnev, A. V. Krechmar, D. I. Litovka, Yu M. Marusik, L. A. Prozorova, I. A. Chereshnev, each stock. Here, as with the stock those of belugas, which limits their ex- F. B. Chernyavsky, O. A. Khruleva. 2008. The by stock reviews above, we include posure to disturbance to some extent. red book (endangered species list) of the Chu- citations where reference material is kotka autonomous okrug // Chukotka Dep. Ind. The main habitat concern for narwhals Agricult.;RAS Far Eastern Branch, Northeastern available but note that in many in- as the Arctic warms is the loss of sea Sci. Center, Inst. Biol. Prob. North. Magadan. stances it was necessary to rely on ice, as narwhals are more directly ice- - Vol. 1 Animals, p. 235 (avail. at https://www. ipae.uran.ru/sites/default/files/publications/ expert judgment to help characterize associated than belugas (see Laidre et ipae/0876_2008_RedBook_ChukotAO_T1.pdf). a given issue. al., 2008).

40 Marine Fisheries Review Environmental Changes traction is due to a smaller popu- become virulent under a warmer tem- Ongoing warming of Arctic wa- lation or represents a response to perature regime or if lowered immune ters has already led to major declines changes in the environment (Shel- response is induced by environmental in sea ice and changes in the timing den et al., 2015). stressors such as increased pollution or and spatial sequence of freeze-up and • Okhotsk, Bering, Chukchi, and toxic algal blooms, causing individuals break-up, which has led to physical Beaufort Seas where climate to become more susceptible to both lo- changes (distribution, characteristics, change has brought considerable cal and newly arrived pathogens (Bu- and movement of ice—not only as a changes in sea ice. Changes in be- rek et al., 2008). havior, e.g., in the timing of mi- barrier but also in terms of the pro- General Industrial Activities tective cover it affords) as well as bi- grations, have been observed that otic changes (species presence and are likely related to changes in sea Most industrial activities in the Arc- abundance) in the habitat (Laidre et ice (Hauser et al., 2017). tic result in disturbance of some kind to monodontids, e.g., ocean noise, al., 2015; CAFF, 2017). Warmer wa- Narwhals—Areas Impacted: ter and reduced sea ice enable boreal chemical pollution, displacement, hab- species to move into higher latitudes, • All stocks will be affected by itat modification. changes in the seasonal distribu- which means that the species endemic Both Species—Areas Impacted: to the Arctic are experiencing changes tion of ice and the warming of in prey composition and availability, water as narwhals exhibit a sea- • Mainly the southernmost areas; increased competition for food, greater sonal movement pattern that fol- however, as sea ice declines and pressure from predators, and exposure lows the distribution of the sea ice opens up more areas to develop- to novel pathogens. through much of the year (Laidre ment, this will affect northern ar- Both monodontid species, but es- and Heide-Jørgensen, 2005). eas as well. • Narwhals in Baffin Bay feed heav- pecially narwhals, are closely associ- Shipping/Vessel Traffic ated with sea ice, and the movement ily in winter on Greenland halibut (Laidre et al., 2008, 2015). Re- Shipping is increasing in the Arc- and migratory patterns of some stocks 84 have already been altered (e.g., Hauser duction in and earlier break-up of tic (Arctic Council ). The Russian et al., 2017; Stafford et al., 2018). The sea ice, resulting in a habitat shift Northern Sea Route (NSR) and the seasonal changes in ice conditions are away from benthic species such as Canadian–United States Northwest Pas- less predictable than in the past, put- halibut to pelagic species (Greb- sage (NWP) in many cases offer fast- ting monodontids at greater risk of meier et al., 2006), will represent er travel between North Pacific and ice entrapment in some areas (Laidre a loss of winter feeding habitat. North Atlantic ports than is possible and Heide-Jørgensen, 2005). Reduc- • Southern stocks will likely be following the traditional, more south- tions in sea ice can lead to increased affected sooner than northern ern routes. Transpolar routes are also productivity and greater abundance stocks. This may already be evi- under discussion. Major shipping of prey but also to shifts in dominant dent in the southern parts of East routes are developing from Asia and Greenland where narwhals have the U.S. west coast in the south, head- prey species from benthic to pelagic 78 (Grebmeier et al., 2006). Increased disappeared (NAAMCO ). ing north toward the Bering Strait, and then west through the Russian Arctic productivity or changes in prey may Pathogens have a positive effect on monodontids and east through the Canadian Arc- in some regions, at least temporarily. Pathogens typically found in warm- tic—and vice versa. Development of However, they may not be particular- er regions are beginning to be detect- these routes requires construction of ly well adapted to make use of newly ed in Arctic and sub-Arctic cetaceans. support harbors—with associated dis- available prey and they may lose out to For example, Bristol Bay belugas have turbance caused by construction and competitors that are better adapted to recently (2008 sample, marine mam- icebreaking activities, shipping, and the new habitat structure. mal sampling began in 1999) tested resupply of port communities by ships positive for the presence of Vibrio rather than aircraft. Belugas—Areas Impacted: parahaemolyticus (a pathogen com- Shipping has several potential im- • Global concern monly associated with gastroenteritis, pacts on belugas and narwhals, such that proliferates at temperatures above as noise disturbance (Finley et al., • Cook Inlet where there has been o a contraction of the range. The 15 C; Goertz et al., 2013). In Cook In- 1990; Cosens and Dueck, 1993; Les- range occupied in the last five let and the Okhotsk Sea, belugas are age et al., 1999; Reeves et al., 2014), years is smaller than that occupied exposed to pet and livestock patho- in the previous ten years, and the gens, which is a concern (Norman et 84Arctic Council. 2015. Status on implementation of the AMSA 2009 report recommendations range continues to contract. It is al., 2013; Alekseev et al., 2017). Even pathogens that have been present in (avail. at https://pame.is/images/03_Projects/ unknown whether this range con- AMSA/AMSA_Documents/Progress_Reports/ the Arctic for a considerable time may AMSArecommendations2015_Web.pdf).

81(3–4) 41 displacement, and exposure to spills concern in other areas, such as Pond • Chukchi Sea: The northern ap- of fuel and toxic cargo. Also, ballast Inlet (Canada), West Greenland, and proach to the Bering Strait passes water discharged from ships can intro- the White Sea (Russia). Additionally, through or is adjacent to spring, duce invasive species or novel patho- there is increased military activity in summer, and fall habitat of gens that are capable of surviving in all northern waters, for example a new belugas. the warmer ocean temperatures in an military base has been established in- • Beaufort Sea and western chan- altered Arctic (Miller and Ruiz, 2014; side the Franz Josef Land National nels of the Canadian Archipela- Ware et al., 2016). Park (Wezeman53). go: The NWP passes through or The severity of the impacts of ship Spills of fuel and other toxic sub- adjoins spring, summer, and fall traffic and noise on whales will dif- stances can occur wherever there is habitat of belugas. fer according to the type and quality ship traffic; however, spills are far more • Western Hudson Bay: All stocks of habitat, on whether the animals are common in harbor and port areas than that use this region are affected. resident or migratory, and on whether in open water. Shipping in or near ice- • Baffin Bay: Industrial develop- the animals are in key habitat areas or covered waters or during winter weath- ment and associated shipping are in transit between areas. For instance, er increases both the risk of spills and increasing. in open water, the whales can avoid the likelihood that the spilled materi- • St. Lawrence Estuary and Gulf: ships, but at the same time ships travel al cannot be contained or cleaned up The situation is similar to Cook faster than in restricted areas (making readily. Cetaceans have little ability to Inlet (see above). more noise) and sound travels farther detect and avoid spills or the conse- • Northeast Atlantic Arctic: Ship- so the area ensonified will be greater. quences of a spill. Spilled substances ping and marine tour-vessel traffic This could mean that displacement can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed are increasing in East Greenland distance is greater than in coastal areas through the skin, or can enter the food and around Svalbard. and fjords but that displacement is to a web; the route of exposure depends, in • White Sea: Shipping from similar habitat of comparable value. In large part, on the chemical nature of the Arkhangelsk (Severnaya Dvina) restricted areas where habitat patches substance (Norman et al., 2015). through the White Sea to the NSR are more varied and limited (e.g., in- is increasing with reduced sea ice. Belugas—Areas Impacted: lets, small bays, fjords) there is less • Russian western and central Arc- room for avoidance without abandon- Belugas are rarely reported as be- tic (Barents, Kara, and Laptev ing the preferred habitat and moving ing struck by ships, even in areas with Seas): Shipping is heavy and in- to a different habitat. If this results in high levels of traffic, likely because creasing. The likely impact is dif- displacement of the animals, they are they are noise-sensitive and avoid ficult to assess, as very little is moving from preferred habitat, such ships. However, such avoidance can known concerning how belugas as foraging, nursing, resting, or social- itself present a risk because it implies use these waters, but petroleum izing areas, to lower-value habitat or that they are easily displaced from development in the Pechora and habitat that was of similar value but habitat that is critical to them in one Kara seas has expanded rapidly now is supporting more animals. As way or another. with minimal environmental as- sea-ice seasons shorten, and remaining • Cook Inlet: All shipping into and sessment in advance. sea-ice areas become more restricted, out of Anchorage, the biggest • Okhotsk Sea: Shipping of ore and these conflicts will increase. If a ship- port in Alaska, goes through be- other cargo is increasing and of ping lane passes through preferred luga habitat. Military vessel traf- concern. habitat, the whales are faced with fic is also increasing in the area. • Russian waters generally: Hov- choosing between moving to poor- The Port of Anchorage is in the ercraft shipping, which is very er habitat or remaining in degraded passage between the two prima- noisy, is developing. habitat. ry habitat areas for these whales Narwhals—Areas Impacted: Some degree of habituation to noise (Shelden et al., 2015). has apparently occurred in some areas, • Eastern Bering Sea: The south- Narwhals are very sensitive to ship especially where vessel traffic is regu- ern approach to the Bering Strait noise, more so than belugas, and they lar and somewhat predictable. Com- passes through or is adjacent to will be affected in all parts of their mercial ship traffic generally adheres beluga habitat. range by increases in shipping. to standard routes, but tour-vessel and • Bering Strait: Both the NSR and • Baffin Bay, especially and most recreational boat traffic is less predict- NWP pass through the strait. immediately in Eclipse Sound and able and is expanding both spatially Shipping can therefore affect Pond Inlet, but also throughout and temporally. This trend is already a stocks that use the strait as a mi- Lancaster Sound. major concern in areas such as Cook gration corridor, particularly in • Northern Hudson Bay especially Inlet and the St. Lawrence Estuary fall when the migration occurs be- in Hudson Strait, Repulse Bay, and Gulf and is becoming a major fore freeze-up. and Frozen Strait.

42 Marine Fisheries Review Icebreaking routes for entrapped animals. Howev- fore are not necessarily amenable to er, belugas have been observed to avoid habituation by wildlife. Icebreaking and the associated areas with icebreaking for up to 2 days Sound can travel long distances in ship traffic are increasing through- after the activity has ceased (Cosens Arctic waters, and both belugas and out the circumpolar Arctic. The loud- and Dueck, 1993), so it may take sev- narwhals can react to noise from ice- est sounds are created by cavitation eral days for belugas to make use of an breaking activity and ship noise tens from propellers when ships back up opened channel. of kilometers away, resulting in dis- (often to ram ice), but they can also Belugas—Areas Impacted: placement or disruption of behav- be produced from normal operation ior (Finley et al., 1990; Cosens and of the engines and physically break- Shifts in distribution associated with Dueck, 1993; Erbe and Farmer, 1998, ing ice. When icebreaking occurs in icebreaking have been observed in 2000; Miller et al., 2005). If belugas areas where ice is now thin enough Lancaster Sound (Finley et al., 1990; and narwhals abandon areas as a re- to traverse (e.g., at the beginning Cosens and Dueck, 1993), although sponse to disturbance by seismic sur- of break-up and when leads have belugas have also shown an ability to veys, this would be equivalent to a loss formed or refrozen areas are still thin habituate under some circumstances of habitat. Seismic surveys in fall or enough for animals to break through), (Erbe and Farmer, 1998). winter are problematic because they it may lead belugas and narwhals to • Hudson Strait: Impacts have been can delay migration or force the ani- 70 abandon important habitat (Finley et modeled (DFO ), but no empiri- mals into sub-optimal areas, and may al., 1990). The impact will depend cal data have been collected. also increase the risk of ice entrap- on the nature and scale of the opera- • Baffin Bay–Davis Strait: Ice- ment (Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2013a). tion, with large-scale continuous or breaking has been proposed to The long distances at which mon- repeated icebreaking in heavy pack service the Mary River iron mine odontids respond to noise creates ice being of greatest concern, both as project in northern Baffin Island cross-border problems, as sound gen- 70 a source of noise disturbance and as (DFO ). erated on one side of a border may the cause of increased risk of ice en- • White Sea: Icebreakers pass impact animals on the other side. Ide- trapment. Smaller-scale icebreaking, through the wintering area. ally, seismic survey planning should e.g., for port or harbor maintenance Narwhals—Areas Impacted: be carried out on a regional, coordinat- or when the ice is already breaking ed basis and include consideration of Given their sensitivity to noise, nar- up but needs to be cleared, is of less the potential impacts on belugas and whals are likely to be affected by ice- concern. narwhals. The noise from icebreaking activity breaking, particularly when it occurs may affect belugas’ and narwhals’ sen- in their winter habitat. Construction and Production • All winter habitat. sory capabilities and make it more dif- Besides shipping (for supply and • Baffin Bay (including Eclipse ficult for them to find breathing holes, export) and seismic surveys, offshore Sound and Lancaster Sound; communicate, and use echolocation oil and gas development normally re- Finley et al., 1990; Cosens and to find prey. This effect can occur at quires construction or upgrading of Dueck, 1993). distances of up to 70 km (Erbe and infrastructure (e.g., platforms, drill- • Hudson Strait. Farmer, 1998, 2000). Displacement ing rigs, pipelines, sometimes artifi- • Northeast Greenland: possible distances could be large and if mon- cial islands). This becomes a constant icebreaking associated with the odontids are unwilling to pass through or nearly constant local source of un- Citronen ore project. an area that is significantly ensonified derwater noise over large areas for (Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2013a), ice- Oil and Gas and years (or even decades) (Lammers et breaking could effectively block chan- Other Mining Activities al., 2013). Port development involves nels even as wide as Lancaster Sound dredging and pile-driving as well as (81 km wide just west of the entrance Seismic Surveys support shipping, all of which can dis- to Eclipse Sound), a major corridor turb monodontids. for several stocks that winter in Baffin Oil and gas development generally Bay, and increase the likelihood of ice depends on seismic surveys to explore Oil Spills entrapment in some areas. for deposits and monitor depletion Oil spills in the Arctic are of great Besides increasing underwater noise, of the deposits over time. Such sur- concern, especially in ice-covered icebreaking changes ice characteristics veys generate a large amount of high- waters. Arctic conditions make spills and movement patterns, which makes energy underwater noise, sometimes difficult or impossible to control and the ice less predictable to narwhals and for months and often in areas that are clean up, and the cold temperatures belugas, thereby increasing the risk largely pristine. Seismic operations are slow the breakdown of spilled oil. to them. In some circumstances, ice- planned in advance but take place spo- Any spill carries the potential for ma- breaker channels may provide escape radically in any given area and there- jor impacts, especially as the capac-

81(3–4) 43 ity for emergency response remains Narwhals—Areas Impacted: distribution of shallow areas that belu- limited. Oil spills can harm whales as gas occupy. Freshwater releases in late a result of both direct exposure and Seismic survey activity is now tak- fall or winter can affect the timing of the contamination of their prey if the ing place in narwhal habitat. In areas freeze-up, making the sea ice less la- prey organisms ingest the oil or are such as Fram Strait, the activity con- bile and thereby possibly increasing smothered by it. Additionally, efforts tinues 24 h/day during the open-water the risk of ice entrapment. to clean up after a spill can them- season, which can mean that narwhals selves cause noise and other forms of are delayed or prevented from moving Belugas—Areas Impacted: disturbance. away from their coastal summering areas during late summer or early fall, • St. Lawrence Estuary. Belugas—Areas Impacted: and they may be forced to remain in • Eastern Hudson Bay and James Bay. • All areas where exploration or de- areas with fast ice, increasing the risk velopment occurs. of ice entrapment and delaying their Interactions with Fisheries • Cook Inlet has extensive oil and chance to feed in their winter habi- Fisheries impact marine mammals gas development in a confined tat. Seismic surveys should be avoided at the start of or during migration through competition for resources, area. Besides it being the passage- injury and entanglement in gear, and way into and out of Anchorage, periods. loss or degradation of habitat. Injury there are rigs in the middle of the • All areas with seismic surveys and entanglement is reported on occa- inlet and pipelines that transport will be affected. • Eclipse Sound: Port development sion but does not appear to be a ma- oil and gas to onshore storage fa- jor problem for belugas or narwhals. cilities where tankers are loaded in Milne Inlet for the Mary River iron mine is ongoing. However, in many areas there is little for shipment. Cook Inlet is an or no monitoring which means that in- area with significant seismic and • Melville Bay: Seismic surveys displaced narwhals into coastal cidents are unlikely to be reported and volcanic activity and oil and gas animals entangled in lost gear are un- infrastructure is always at risk. areas and fjords during the survey period (Hansen et al.72). likely to be found (Treble and Stew- Earthquakes and active volcanoes art85). Also, in some areas subsistence create the potential to compound • East Baffin Island: Seismic surveys. hunters use large-mesh nets to harvest the impacts of infrastructure on whales (e.g., western Hudson Bay and belugas. Response plans exist and • East Greenland/Fram Strait: More exploration and eventual develop- eastern Bering Sea) and incidentally are being refined and updated, but caught whales are often reported as such plans can, at best, only mod- ment is planned. • Russian Arctic: Seismic sur- catch rather than as bycatch (e.g., in erate, not eliminate, the harm that Greenland and Alaska). would come from a major spill in veys and planned oil and gas development. Competition for resources, includ- Cook Inlet. ing preferred prey items, is the main • Ungava Bay: Construction of a issue with regard to fishery interac- port is under way near Aupaluk on Hydroelectric Development tions. Narwhals have a narrow dietary Hopes Advance Bay at the north- Hydroelectric development is of niche and increased commercial fish- western corner of Ungava Bay to particular concern in Canada, espe- ing for their dominant prey, Greenland support shipping in conjunction cially with dam construction in rivers halibut, is of concern, particularly in with an iron ore mine (Oceanic flowing into Hudson Bay and James Baffin Bay. Halibut have traditionally Iron Ore Corp.). However, it is not Bay (damming of rivers along the been harvested in the fjords of West known if or how this will affect north shore of the Estuary and Gulf Greenland using long-lines and gill- the few remaining Ungava belu- of St. Lawrence was essentially com- nets. An additional offshore commer- gas (assuming they have not been pleted by around 1970). These dams cial fishery developed in the 1960’s in extirpated). change the hydrological characteristics Davis Strait. This fishery continues to • St. Lawrence Estuary: Port devel- of estuaries and coastal waters, poten- expand to the deep waters of central opment is likely to continue. tially affecting belugas because they Baffin Bay where narwhals feed dur- • Russian western and central Arc- associate with estuaries. The altered ing winter. tic: The Pechora Sea is of special flow regime downstream of dams can A number of stocks of belugas de- concern because of major coastal influence seasonal temperature and sa- oil and gas development projects linity in estuaries and make them less in areas of beluga concentrations. 85Treble, M. A., and R. E. A. Stewart. 2009. suitable for belugas, and change dis- Impacts and risks associated with a Greenland • Western Okhotsk Sea: There is tribution and abundance of prey spe- halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) gillnet increasing ore development ac- cies. Dams interrupt the flow of sand fishery in inshore areas of NAFO Subarea 0. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2010/032. companied by construction of ter- and silt in rivers, which over time can vi + 18 p. (avail. at https://waves-vagues.dfo- minals and shipping. result in changes to the substrate and mpo.gc.ca/Library/340821.pdf).

44 Marine Fisheries Review pend on anadromous fish runs, par- Okhotsk Sea, but reports are infre- Organic Contaminants ticularly salmonid species, smelt, and quent. and Heavy Metals whitefish which support commercial, In areas where belugas forage in es- sport, or subsistence fisheries. These tuaries, they tend to feed in the shal- In some areas pollution, especially fisheries often intercept returning adult low upper parts of estuaries, whereas by heavy metals, polychlorinated bi- fish offshore from the shallow estuarine fishing tends to be concentrated in the phenyls (PCB’s), plastics, and micro- areas where belugas feed. Also, in some mouths of the estuaries, limiting di- plastics, is a concern for belugas and areas fishing is carried out with shal- rect interactions, but still creating a narwhals. Some contaminants (par- low set nets in areas where belugas also situation that could limit the amount ticularly organic contaminants) are feed, and these nets remove prey and of prey available to the whales. This transported from lower latitudes (via disrupt both the behavior of prey and is of particular concern for belugas in the atmosphere or ocean currents) and the pursuit of prey by belugas. Finally, the Pacific Arctic and for populations some also originate in certain areas where fisheries have been scaled back that have a fairly narrow summer di- from local run-off, sewage, and mine due to overfishing, the spawning stock etary niche focused on anadromous outfalls. Studies have shown pollution is reduced and outrunning juvenile fish fish species. to be an acute problem for belugas in that belugas also feed on are reduced. Better information is needed on the some areas; however, studies on nar- Destruction or degradation of habi- diet of many stocks of belugas to as- whals are limited. Extensive studies of tat may be caused by trawl fisheries. sess the possibility of competition the belugas in the St. Lawrence Estu- An example is trawling through the with fisheries more rigorously. ary (Béland et al., 1993; Martineau et corals inhabited by the halibut in Baf- • Sakhalin-Amur: The salmon fish- al., 1994; Martineau, 2010) have in- fin Bay (Yesson et al., 2016). As the ery may be reducing the carrying dicated that elevated rates of cancers, fisheries expand northward, more and capacity for belugas (Shpak et al., and of bacterial, viral, and parasitic more habitat is likely to be degraded 2019). infections, are correlated with high or destroyed. • Anadyr: Competition from salm- levels of pollutants (Martineau et al., on fishery (Shpak et al., 2019). 1988, 1999, 2002; De Guise et al., Belugas—Areas Impacted • Cook Inlet: Competition from 1994, 1995; Lair et al., 2016). Con- Belugas can swim backward, and salmon (species) and eulachon, taminant studies have been conducted fishing nets are probably detectable Thaleichthys pacificus, fisheries on belugas in Alaska (Becker et al., by their echolocation although as not- (Norman et al., 2015, 2019). 2000; Norman et al., 2015), the Cana- dian Arctic (Loseto et al., 2015), Sval- ed above, some hunting communities Narwhals—Areas Impacted use entanglement to catch belugas so bard (Wolkers et al., 2006), and the 13 they are not always able to avoid or es- Competition occurs with several western Okhotsk Sea (Glazov et al. ). cape from nets. Entanglement in fish- fisheries but notably the Greenland Svalbard belugas have relatively high ing gear does not occur as frequently halibut fisheries, which are expanding levels of several contaminants (Wolk- as might be expected given the inten- northward because of ice recession. ers et al., 2006). A pilot study in the sity of fishing, particularly for salm- • Baffin Bay, Davis Strait: Compe- western Okhotsk Sea showed that be- on, in beluga feeding areas. In the St. tition with Greenland halibut and lugas summering in the estuaries of Lawrence Estuary, for example, there shrimp fisheries probably affects large rivers are relatively heavily con- is significant fishing activity in -be all stocks wintering in these areas taminated with pesticides (Glazov et 13 luga habitat, yet very little beluga by- (Laidre et al., 2008, 2015). al. ). More information is needed on catch is reported (Bailey and Zinger86; • Hudson Strait: There is likely the impacts of plastics and microplas- Lair87), suggesting that the whales competition with Greenland hali- tics on the health of both monodontids. but and shrimp fisheries. usually avoid entanglement. Entan- Belugas—Areas Impacted glements are reported annually in the • East Greenland: There is likely competition with Greenland hali- • Cook Inlet: There is runoff from 86Bailey, R., and N. Zinger. 1995. St. Lawrence but fisheries. beluga recovery plan. World Wildlife Fund, To- roadways, airports, agriculture, ronto, and Fish. Oceans Can., Mont-Joli (Qué- • Svalbard: There is likely compe- and military facilities as well as bec), 73 p. tition with fisheries for polar and sewage outfalls from Anchorage 87Lair S. 2007. Necropsy program: health Arctic cod, Arctogadus glacialis and other municipalities and pri- monitoring of the St. Lawrence Estuary be- and Boreogadus saida, respective- luga population using post-mortem examina- vate septic systems (Norman et tion of stranded carcasses. In Proceedings of ly), Greenland halibut, and possi- al., 2015). the workshop on the St. Lawrence Estuary be- bly shrimp. • Canadian Arctic waters: This was luga—review of carcass program, November 14-17, 2005, Mont Joli. L. Measures (Ed.). Dep. a particular problem in the eastern Fish. Oceans, Can. Sci. Advis. Secretariat, Proc. Beaufort Sea, where mercury con- Ser. 2007/005. p. 11–14 (avail. at http://www. dfompo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/Proceedings/2007/ centrations in beluga tissues were PRO2007_005_E.pdf). increasing through the 1990’s but

81(3–4) 45 levels now seem to be declining immune function, and thus must be • Hudson Strait: Likely competi- slightly (Loseto et al., 2015). considered together to understand the tion with Greenland halibut and • St. Lawrence Estuary: Currently, net impact on the population. shrimp fisheries, effects of ice- runoff from roadways, airports, Cumulative impacts are a global breaking and shipping. agriculture, and industrial and concern for both species, but most of Impact Assessment of port facilities drains into the St. the focus on assessing and attempting Different Threats Lawrence watershed, and histori- to mitigate such impacts has been on cally considerable industrial pol- stocks that are already believed to be Ideally, meaningful quantitative anal- lution entered the tributaries of at greatest risk because of low abun- yses of the cumulative impacts of mul- the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence dance, declines in abundance, and tiple threats should be part of impact River. As a result, St. Lawrence known exposure to acute stressors. It assessment, but this is usually not even belugas have very high loads of is not clear how belugas and narwhals attempted. Authorization requests from organochlorine compounds and will respond to the cumulative, rapid mining interests and oil and gas opera- heavy metals in their tissues (Bé- changes now occurring, but there is tors, for example, almost invariably fo- land et al., 1993; Martineau et al., some evidence that they have some cus on the impacts of their individual 1994; Martineau, 2010). flexibility (belugas perhaps more than projects or activities in isolation, and • Svalbard: Levels of various pollut- narwhals). Therefore, some stocks do not give serious consideration to the ants in Svalbard belugas are very might manage to deal with changes cumulative impacts of environmental high and for many compounds while others do not (Kovacs and Ly- changes by other projects. higher than what is found in polar dersen, 2008; Laidre et al., 2008; The methodology for quantitative bears in the area (Andersen et al., Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2010a; Kovacs assessment of cumulative impacts is 2001, 2006; Wolkers et al., 2004, et al., 2011). not well developed for any Arctic ceta- 2006; Villanger et al., 2011). cean species. Therefore, additional sci- • White Sea: Industrial pollu- Belugas—Areas Impacted entific effort is needed to develop and tion, organochlorine compounds, • Cook Inlet: Pollution, competi- make available assessment methods and heavy metal contaminants tion from fisheries, anthropogenic that are understandable, quantitative, (Glazov et al.54) noise, shipping, and construction meaningful, and repeatable. • Sakhalin Bay–Amur River: The (Norman et al., 2015). In all areas, the impact assessment Amur River carries industrial pol- • St. Lawrence Estuary: St. Law- and approval processes and the re- lution, mine waste, agricultural rence belugas have very high sponse plans for development activities runoff, and sewage (Shpak et al., tissue loads of organochlorine are of concern. The precautionary ap- 2019) compounds and heavy metals (Bé- proach is often used in harvest manage- • Udskaya Bay: Agricultural runoff. land et al., 1993; Martineau et al., ment (as it should be), but companies 1994; Martineau, 2010) which are planning development activities are Narwhals—Area Impacted likely to interact with competi- generally not held to the same standard • Studies on contaminants in nar- tion from fisheries, anthropogenic of precaution. For example, the beluga whals are needed in all areas but noise, shipping, construction, and and narwhal harvests in Canada and particularly in areas such as Sval- whale-centered tourism. Greenland are closely monitored and bard where belugas are known to • White Sea: Industrial pollution, managed, yet development projects are have high levels of contaminants. organochlorine compounds and rarely halted or even significantly mod- heavy metal contaminants, com- ified when they are known to have, or Cumulative Impacts petition with fisheries, anthropo- are likely to have, significant impacts Individual stressors might not have genic noise, shipping (Glazov et on monodontid stocks. significant impacts on individual ani- al.54). Recommendations for Monodontid mals or populations, but stressors rare- • Sakhalin Bay–Amur River: Research and Cooperation ly occur in isolation. The repetitive and Competition with fisheries, an- Abundance Estimates combined pressure of multiple stress- thropogenic noise, shipping, con- ors is not always simply additive—the struction (Shpak et al., 2019) There are several areas where no effects can also be synergistic (see ex- dedicated surveys of monodontid Narwhals—Areas Impacted amples in Norman et al., 2015). Cu- stocks have been conducted, the avail- mulative effects can lead to mortality • Baffin Bay, Davis Strait: Com- able data are outdated, or there is a and morbidity of individuals, whereas petition with Greenland halibut single estimate and therefore it is not the stressors when considered sepa- and shrimp fisheries (Laidre et possible to assess trend. Reliable in- rately may not. Many stressors have al., 2008, 2015); icebreaking and formation on abundance is critical to similar effects such as reduced forag- shipping interfere with migration assessment of status. New or improved ing success, reproductive capacity, and and access to winter habitat. technology (satellite imagery, drones,

46 Marine Fisheries Review genetic mark-recapture, etc.) is avail- important to obtain samples (e.g., via Narwhals able that could be used as an alterna- remote biopsy, opportunistic access to tive to aerial surveys for collecting stranded or bycaught individuals) from • East Baffin Island, data less expensively and with greater across the range of both species. • Jones Sound and Smith Sound, safety to humans. However, it is im- and portant that new methods be compa- Movements and Distribution: • East Greenland, Svalbard, Franz rable to previous methods so that trend Satellite Tracking Josef Land, northern Russia. assessment is feasible. Stocks with no Shifts in the movements and dis- Responses to Disturbance abundance estimate or with abundance tribution of belugas and narwhals estimates that were older than 5 years have been observed over the last 20 Considering the increase in human at the time of the GROM workshop years, and there is a need for addi- activities in the Arctic, there is a need are listed below, and these should be tional satellite-linked tagging and for controlled studies on the behavior- assigned a high priority. tracking. This should be done in areas al and physiological responses of mon- Beluga stocks with no survey data: where no data are available on move- odontids to disturbance, particularly • Svalbard (planned 2018), ments and also in areas like James in relation to ship traffic, icebreaking, • Barents-Kara-Laptev Seas, and Bay where previous tagging was lim- oil and gas activities, and human-gen- • Anadyr ited. Information obtained from sat- erated noise generally. Studies should Beluga stocks with most recent sur- ellite tracking can be used in many include, for example, investigating the vey older than 5 years: ways, such as investigating the effects movements, heart rate, stress hormone • Eastern Beaufort Sea (1992), of industrial activities or shipping on levels, and sleep/rest rhythm of tagged • High Arctic-Baffin Bay (1996), whale movements and providing a animals in the presence and in the ab- • Eastern Bering Sea (2000; sur- basis for designing aerial surveys for sence of potentially disturbing stimuli. veyed June 2017, see Update un- abundance estimation. Baffin Bay was identified as a partic- der stock review), Telemetry data can also be used to ularly important area for such studies • Sakhalin Bay–Amur (2010), identify important areas and times to although it was recognized that find- • Ulbansky (2010), conduct surveys, determine where and ings from robust studies of monodon- • Tugursky (2010), when different stocks overlap spatial- tids regardless of the study site could • Udskaya (2010), and ly, and help prevent overestimation of have considerable value. • Shelikov (2010). abundance due to “double counting.” Although controlled experiments Narwhal stocks with no survey data: Importantly, dive data from satellite with wild monodontids concerning • Northeast Greenland (partial sur- tags are used in developing correc- their responses to various types of ves- vey after the workshop in 2017 tion factors to account for availabil- sel traffic, seismic surveys, and ice- and in 2018; results in stock re- ity bias in data from aerial surveys; breaking activities are lacking, the view above), and these factors have a large influence on observational evidence that is avail- • Svalbard-Russian Arctic (par- abundance estimates and are best de- able suggests that both species are tial survey in Norwegian waters veloped from tags deployed during the very sensitive to anthropogenic sounds 2015). survey period and in the surveyed area. and that those sounds can disrupt nor- Narwhal stocks with most recent Movement data from satellite tracking mal behavior, cause the animals to survey older than 5 years: also provide a valuable supplement to move away from preferred habitat, and • Inglefield Bredning (2007), and genetic analyses for defining stocks. increase the risk of ice entrapment in • Northern Hudson Bay (2011; sur- This is particularly important for nar- some areas (NAMMCO29). There- veyed 2018, results unavailable). whals as movement data are used to fore, it is recommended that seismic assign takes during fall, winter, and surveys and icebreaking activities be Stock Identity spring hunts to the appropriate sum- avoided, at least in areas and during The ability to assign individual mer aggregations. times when the whales are likely to whales to the correct stock is a high Satellite tagging is particularly be most vulnerable (e.g., when they priority. It is especially important for needed in the following areas: are migrating toward wintering areas narwhals in areas where they are hunt- and while they are in wintering areas ed, but it is important for numerous Belugas where there is limited access to open beluga stocks whether they are hunted • James Bay (especially the west water; breeding or calving areas and or not, including Svalbard, Barents- coast), seasons; etc). Kara-Laptev Seas, eastern Hudson Bay, • Eastern Hudson Bay, Health Assessment White Sea, and western Hudson Bay. • Belcher Islands, Collection of tissue samples from areas • Cumberland Sound, Health assessment studies can pro- where narwhals and belugas are har- • Okhotsk Sea, and vide useful information to managers vested is important, but it will also be • Russian Arctic. on the status of beluga and narwhal

81(3–4) 47 populations and basic biological data must be considered and addressed. Levels of toxaphene congeners in white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) from Sval- for researchers studying the impacts of Restrictions on hunting are often bard, Norway. Sci. Total Environ. 357(1– threats. Such studies can also provide necessary to enable populations to 3):128–137 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. valuable information on the benefits recover and to prevent them from de- scitotenv.2005.05.014). Andrianov, V., V. Bel’kovich, and L. Lukin. and risks of consuming the whales’ creasing, but other human activities 2009. White whale (Delphinapterus leucas) skin, meat, and organs to the human that are known or suspected to have distribution in Onega Bay of the White Sea in communities that rely on these ani- serious impacts on monodontid popu- the summer. Oceanology 49(1):73–82. Bailleul, F., V. Lesage, M. Power, D. W. Doidge, mals for food. Although no health as- lations are rarely subject to meaning- and M. O. Hammill. 2012. Differences in div- sessment projects are currently under ful restrictions. This situation needs ing and movement patterns of two groups of way on narwhals, several such proj- beluga whales in a changing Arctic environ- to change. A precautionary approach ment reveal discrete populations. Endang. ects on belugas are ongoing in Alaska, should be applied equally to the man- Species Res. 17(1):27–41 (doi: https://doi. notably in Bristol Bay (Norman et al., agement of harvesting, industrial and org/10.3354/esr00420). Becker, P. R., M. M. Krahn, E. A. Mackey, R. 2012; Castellote et al., 2014), Point commercial activities, tourism, and Demiralp, M. M. Schantz, M. S. Epstein, M. Lay (eastern Chukchi), and Cook In- scientific exploration. K. Donais, B. J. Porter, D. C. Muir, and S. A. let, in the Inuvialuit region of Can- Wise. 2000. Concentrations of polychlorinat- Acknowledgments ed biphenyls (PCB’s), chlorinated pesticides, ada (Loseto et al., 2015), and in the and heavy metals and other elements in tis- Russian Far East, specifically on the The authors thank NAMMCO for sues of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, from Sakhalin-Amur stock. providing organization and funding Cook Inlet. Mar. Fish. Rev. 62(3):81–98. Béland, P., S. DeGuise, C. Girard, A. Lagacé, to convene the GROM workshop and Local Knowledge D. Martineau, R. Michaud, D. C. Muir, R. J. complete this publication. We thank Norstrom, E. Pelletier, and S. Ray. 1993. Tox- Knowledge held by local people, ic compounds and health and reproductive ef- the governments of Canada, Green- fects in St. Lawrence beluga whales. J. Great subsistence hunters in particular, is land, Norway, Russia, Nunavik, Nun- Lakes Res. 19(4):766–775 (doi: https:// doi. an important source of information on avut, and the United States, the State org/10.1016/SO380-1330(93)71264-2). Belikov, S. E., and A. N. Boltunov. 2002. Dis- monodontids, especially in locations of Alaska, North Slope Borough, the tribution and migrations of cetaceans in the where little scientific field research Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, the Russian Arctic according to observations on belugas and narwhals has been or Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the from aerial ice reconnaissance. NAMMCO Sci. Publ. 4:69–86 (doi: https://doi. is being carried out. Such knowledge Natural History Museum of Denmark, org/10.7557/3.2838). has been used to inform stock delinea- and the U.S. Marine Mammal Com- Bettridge S., R. L. Brownell, Jr., M. A. Garcia, tion and will continue to do so, and it mission for funding and in-kind sup- R. C. Hobbs, C. L. McCarty, R. D. Methot, Jr., D. L. Palka, P. E. Rosel, K. S. Swails, can also provide valuable information port for participation in the review and B. L. Taylor. 2016. Status review of the on population trends, impacts of dis- meeting and preparation of reports and Sakhalin Bay–Amur River beluga whale turbance, and environmental changes, (Delphinapterus leucas) under the Marine assessments. Mammal Protection Act. U.S. Dep. Commer., both short-term and long-term and NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-51, 34 both natural and human-caused. In Literature Cited p. (avail. at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ Canada, the Species at Risk Act rec- Ahonen, H., K. M. Stafford, L. de Steur, C. Ly- resource/document/status-review-sakhalin- dersen, Ø. Wiig, and K. M. Kovacs. 2017. bay-amur-river-beluga-whale-delphinapterus- ognizes Aboriginal Traditional Knowl- The underwater soundscape in western leucas). edge (ATK) as central to the process Fram Strait: Breeding ground of Spitsber- Boertmann, D., and R. D. Nielsen. 2010. Geese, of assessing risks and assigning spe- gen’s endangered bowhead whales. Mar. seabirds and mammals in North and North- Pol. Bull. 123(1–2):97–112 (doi: https://doi. east Greenland. Aerial surveys in summer cies and populations to different levels org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.09.019). 2009. NERI Tech. Rep. 773, 66 p. (avail. at of concern. ATK and Indigenous Peo- Alekseev, A. Y., O. V. Shpak, L. S. Adamenko, http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/FR773.pdf). D. M. Glazov, I. V. Galkina, M. Y. Schelkanov, ______, K. Olsen, and R. D. Nielsen. 2009. ples also play an important role in the and A. M. Shestopalov. 2017. Serological de- Seabirds and marine mammals in northeast development and implementation of tection of causative agents of infectious and Greenland. Aerial surveys in spring and sum- protection and recovery measures. invasive diseases in the beluga whale Del- mer 2008. NERI Tech. Rep. 721, 50 p. (avail. phinapterus leucas (Pallas, 1776)(Cetacea: at http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/FR721.pdf). Cumulative Impacts and Monodontidae) from Sakhalinsky Bay. Russ. Boltunov, A. N., and S. E. Belikov. 2002. Be- J. Mar. Biol. 43(6):485–490 (doi: https://doi. lugas (Delphinapterus leucas) of the Bar- Management Advice org/10.1134/S1063074017060037). ents, Kara and Laptev seas. NAMMCO Sci. Allen, A., and R. P. Angliss. 2015. Alaska ma- Publ. 4:149–168 (doi: https://doi.org/10. The importance of integrating con- rine mammal stock assessments, 2014. 7557/3.2842). sideration of cumulative impacts into U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. Born, E. W., M. P. Heide-Jørgensen, F. Larsen, management advice is widely recog- NMFS-AFSC-301, 304 p. (doi: https://doi. and A. R. Martin. 1994. Abundance and stock org/10.7289/V5NS0RTS). composition of narwhals (Monodon monoc- nized, but such integration is rarely Andersen, G., K. M. Kovacs, C. Lydersen, J. eros) in Inglefield Bredning (NW Green- achieved. In the case of monodontids, Skaare, I. Gjertz, and B. Jenssen. 2001. Con- land). Meddelelser om Grønland. Bioscience centrations and patterns of organochlorine 39:51–68. management advice has historical- contaminants in white whales (Delphinapter- Boulva, J. 1981. Catch statistics of beluga (Del- ly focused on hunting, although it is us leucas) from Svalbard, Norway. Sci. Total phinapterus leucas) in northern Quebec: increasingly recognized that these Environ. 264(3):267–281 (doi: https://doi. 1974 to 1976, final; 1977 to 1978, prelimi- org/10.1016/S0048-9697(00)00765-8Get). nary. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 31:531–538. whales face multiple threats and that ______, S. Føreid, J. U. Skåre, B. M. Jen- Brennin, R., B. W. Murray, B. N. White, J. W. various threats in addition to hunting ssen, C. Lydersen, and K. M. Kovacs. 2006. Clayton, M. K. Friesen, and L. D. Maiers.

48 Marine Fisheries Review 1997. Population genetic structure of be- Colbeck, G. J., P. Duchesne, L. D. Postma, V. eros) from northeastern Baffin Island towards luga whales (Delphinapterus leucas): mito- Lesage, M. O. Hammill, and J. Turgeon. northern Davis Strait. Arctic 54(3):244–261 chondrial DNA sequence variation within 2013. Groups of related belugas (Delphin- (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40512344). and among North American populations. apterus leucas) travel together during their ______, ______, P. Richard, J. Orr, K. Can. J. Zool. 75(5):795–802 (doi: https://doi. seasonal migrations in and around Hud- Laidre, and H. C. Schmidt. 2008. Movements org/10.1139/z97-101). son Bay. Proc. Royal Soc. B: Biol. Sci. of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) from Ad- Brown Gladden, J. G., M. M. Ferguson, and 280(1752):20122552 (doi: http://dx.doi. miralty Inlet monitored by satellite telemetry. J. W. Clayton. 1997. Matriarchal genetic org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2552). Polar Biol. 31(11):1,295–1,306 (doi: http:// population structure of North American Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF). dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00300-008-0466-4). beluga whales Delphinapterus leucas (Ce- 2017. State of the Arctic marine biodiveris- Doidge, D., and K. Finley. 1994. Status of the tacea: Monodontidae). Mol. Ecol. 6(11): ity: Key findings and advice for monitoring. Baffin Bay population of beluga, Delphi- 1,033–1,046 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j. Conserv. Arctic Flora Fauna Int. Secretariat, napterus leucas. Can. Field Nat. 107(4): 1365-294X.1997.00275.x). Akureyi, Iceland. 533–546. ______, ______, M. K. Friesen, Cosens, S. E., and L. P. Dueck. 1993. Icebreak- Erbe, C., and D. M. Farmer. 1998. Masked and J. W. Clayton. 1999. Population struc- er noise in Lancaster Sound, NWT, Canada: hearing thresholds of a beluga whale (Del- ture of North American beluga whales Implications for marine mammal behaviour. phinapterus leucas) in icebreaker noise. (Delphinapterus leucas) based on nu- Mar. Mammal Sci. 9(3):285–300 (doi: https:// Deep Sea Res. Part II: Topical Stud. Ocean- clear DNA microsatellite variation and http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1993. ogr. 45(7):1,373–1,388 (doi: https://doi. contrasted with the population structure re- tb00456.x). org/10.1016/S0967-0645(98)00027-7). vealed by mitochondrial DNA variation. Dahl, T. M., C. Lydersen, K. M. Kovacs, S. Falk- ______and ______. 2000. Zones of Mol. Ecol. 8(3):347–363 (doi: https://doi. Petersen, J. Sargent, I. Gjertz, and B. Gul- impact around icebreakers affecting beluga org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.1998.00559.x). liksen. 2000. Fatty acid composition of the whales in the Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Burek, K. A., F. Gulland, and T. M. O’Hara. blubber in white whales (Delphinapterus leu- Am. 108(3):1,332–1,340 (doi: https://doi. 2008. Effects of climate change on Arctic cas). Polar Biol. 23(6):401–409 (doi: http:// org/10.1121/1.1288938). marine mammal health. Ecol. Appl. 18(sp2): dx.doi.org/10.1007/s003000050461). Finley, K., G. W. Miller, M. Allard, R. Davis, S126–S134 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1890/06- Dawson, J., L. Pizzolato, S. E. L. Howell, L. and C. R. Evans. 1982. The belugas (Delphi- 0553.1). Copland, and M. E. Johnston. 2018. Tempo- napterus leucas) of northern Quebec: Dis- Burek-Huntington, K. A., J. L. Dushane, C. E. ral and spatial patterns of ship traffic in the tribution, abundance, stock identity, catch C. Goertz, L. N. Measures, C. H. Romero, Canadian Arctic from 1990 to 2015. Arctic history and management. Can. Tech. Rep. and S. A. Raverty. 2015. Morbidity and mor- 71(1):15–26 (doi: https://doi.org/10.14430/ Fish. Aquatic Sci. 1123:1–57. tality in stranded Cook Inlet beluga whales arctic4698). Finley, K. J., G. W. Miller, R. A. Davis, and C. Delphinapterus leucas. Dis. Aquat. Organ. De Guise, S., A. Lagacé, and P. Béland. 1994. R. Greene. 1990. Reactions of belugas, Del- 114(1):45–60 (doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/ Tumors in St. Lawrence beluga whales (Del- phinapterus leucas, and narwhals, Monodon dao02839). phinapterus leucas). Vet. Pathol. 31(4):444– monoceros, to ice-breaking ships in the Ca- Caron, L., T. Smith, and J. R. Geraci. 1990. 449 (doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0300985 nadian High Arctic. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquatic Philopatry and site tenacity of belugas, Del- 89403100406). Sci. 224:97–117. phinapterus leucas, hunted by the Inuit at the ______, ______, ______, C. Frost, K. J., and R. S. Suydam. 2010. Subsis- Nastapoka estuary, eastern Hudson Bay. In Girard, and R. Higgins. 1995. Non-neoplas- tence harvest of beluga or white whales (Del- T. G. Smith, D. J. St. Aubin, and J. R. Geraci tic lesions in beluga whales (Delphinapter- phinapterus leucas) in northern and western (Editors), Advances in research on the beluga us leucas) and other marine mammals from Alaska, 1987–2006. J. Cetacean Res. Man- whale, Delphinapterus leucas, p. 69–79. Can. the St. Lawrence estuary. J. Comp. Pathol. age. 11(3):293–299. Bull. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 112(3):257–271 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ ______, L. F. Lowry, and R. R. Nelson. Castellote, M., T. A. Mooney, L. Quakenbush, S0021-9975(05)80079-9). 1985. Radiotagging studies of belukha whales R. Hobbs, C. Goertz, and E. Gaglione. 2014. De March, B., L. D. Maiers, and M. K. Friesen. (Delphinapterus leucas) in Bristol Bay, Alas- Baseline hearing abilities and variability in 2002. An overview of genetic relationships of ka. Mar. Mammal Sci. 1(3):191–202 (doi: wild beluga whales (Delphinapterus leu- Canadian and adjacent populations of belugas https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1985. cas). J. Exp. Biol. 217(10):1,682–1,691 (doi: (Delphinapterus leucas) with emphasis on tb00008.x). https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.093252). Baffin Bay and Canadian eastern Arctic pop- ______, ______, and G. Carroll. 1993. ______, R. J. Small, M. O. Lammers, J. ulations. NAAMCO Sci. Publ. 4:17–38. (doi: Beluga whale and spotted seal use of a coast- J. Jenniges, J. Mondragon, and S. Atkinson. https://doi.org/10.7557/3.2835). al lagoon system in the northeastern Chukchi 2016. Dual instrument passive acoustic moni- ______, G. Stern, and S. Innes. 2004. The Sea. Arctic 46(1):8–16 (https://www.jstor.org/ toring of belugas in Cook Inlet, Alaska. J. combined use of organochlorine contami- stable/40511357). Acoust. Soc. Am. 139(5):2,697–2,707 (doi: nant profiles and molecular genetics for stock Garde, E., R. G. Hansen, and M. P. Heide-Jør- https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4947427). discrimination of white whales (Delphin- gensen. 2019. Reconstructing catch statistics Citta, J. J., L. T. Quakenbush, K. J. Frost, L. apterus leucas) hunted in three communities for narwhals in Greenland 1862 to 2017. Mar. Lowry, R. C. Hobbs, and H. Aderman. 2016. on southeast Baffin Island. J. Cetacean Res. Fish. Rev. 81(3–4):105–115 (doi: https://doi. Movements of beluga whales (Delphinapter- Manage. 6(3):241–250. org/10.7755/MFR.81.3-4.6). us leucas) in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Mar. Mam- De March, B. G. E., and L. D. Postma. 2003. Gervaise, C., Y. Simard, N. Roy, B. Kinda, mal Sci. 32(4):1,272–1,298 (doi: https://doi. Molecular genetic stock discrimination of and N. Ménard. 2012. Shipping noise in org/10.1111/mms.12337). belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) hunted in whale habitat: characteristics, sources, bud- ______, P. Richard, L. F. Lowry, G. eastern Hudson Bay, Northern Quebec, Hud- get, and impact on belugas in Saguenay– O’Corry-Crowe, M. Marcoux, R. Suydam, son Strait, and Sanikiluaq (Belcher Islands), St. Lawrence Marine Park hub. J. Acoust. L. T. Quakenbush, R. C. Hobbs, D. I. Litov- Canada, and comparisons to adjacent popula- Soc. Am. 132(1):76–89 (doi: https://doi. ka, K. J. Frost, T. Gray, J. Orr, B. Tinker, H. tions. Arctic 56(2):111–124 (https://www.js- org/10.1121/1.4728190). Aderman, and M. L. Druckenmiller. 2017. tor.org/stable/40513046). Gjertz, I., and Ø. Wiig. 1994. Distribution and Satellite telemetry reveals population specific Degerbøl, M., and N. Nielsen. 1930. Biologiske catch of white whales (Delphinapterus leu- winter ranges of beluga whales in the Bering Iagttagelser over og Maalinger af Hvidhva- cas) at Svalbard. Meddelelser om Grønland. Sea. Mar. Mammal Sci. 33(1):236–250 (doi: len (Delphinapterus leucas (Pall.)) og dens Bioscience 39:93–97 https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12357). Fostre (Biological observations on and il- Goertz, C. E. C., R. Walton, N. Rouse, J. Bel- ______, G. O’Corry-Crowe, L. T. Quaken- lustrations of the white whale (Delphin- ovarac, K. Burek Huntington, V. Gill, R. C. bush, A. L. Bryan, T. Ferrer, M. J. Olson, R. apterus leucas (Pall.)) and its foetuses) [In Hobbs, C. Xavier, N. Garrett, and P. Tuomi. C. Hobbs, and B. Potgieter. 2018. Assessing Danish]. Meddelelser om Grønland. Biosci- 2013. Vibrio parahaemolyticus, a climate the abundance of Bristol Bay belugas with ence 77(3):119–144. change indicator in Alaska marine mammals. genetic mark-recapture methods. Mar. Mam- Dietz, R., M. P. Heide-Jørgensen, P. R. Richard, In F. J. Mueter, D. M. S. Dickson, H. P. Hun- mal Sci. 34(3):666–686 (doi: https://doi. and M. Acquarone. 2001. Summer and fall tington, J. R. Irvine, E. A. Logerwell, S. A. org/10.1111/mms.12472). movements of narwhals (Monodon monoc- MacLean, L. T. Quakenbush, and C. Rosa

81(3–4) 49 (Editors), Responses of Arctic marine ecosys- ______, M. C. S. Kingsley, and T. G. Biol. Conserv. 158:50–54 (doi: https://doi. tems to climate change, p. 41–52. Alaska Sea Smith. 2014b. An emerging pattern of de- org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.005). Grant, Univ. Alaska Fairbanks. (doi: https:// clining growth rates in belugas of the Beau- ______, P. R. Richard, R. Dietz, and K. doi.org/10.4027/ramecc.2013.03). fort Sea: 1989–2008. Arctic 67(4):483–492 L. Laidre. 2013b. A metapopulation model Goetz, K. T., D. J. Rugh, A. J. Read, and R. C. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/24363811). for Canadian and West Greenland narwhals. Hobbs. 2007. Habitat use in a marine ecosys- ______, M. C. S. Kingsley, and F. Poki- Anim. Conserv. 16(3):331–343 (doi: https:// tem: beluga whales Delphinapterus leucas ak. 2015. Monitoring beluga harvests in the doi.org/10.1111/acv.12000). in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. Mackenzie Delta and near Paulatuk, NT, ______, M. H. S. Sinding, N. H. Nielsen, 330:247–256 (doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/ Canada: harvest efficiency and trend, size A. Rosing-Asvid, and R. G. Hansen. 2016. meps330247). and sex of landed whales, and reproduction, Large numbers of marine mammals win- ______, R. A. Montgomery, J. M. Ver Hoef, 1970–2009. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. ter in the North Water polynya. Polar R. C. Hobbs, and D. S. Johnson. 2012. Iden- Sci. 3059:vi + 32. Biol. 39(9):1,605–1,614 (doi: https://doi. tifying essential summer habitat of the endan- Hauser, D. D. W., K. L. Laidre, R. S. Suydam, org/10.1007/s00300-015-1885-7). gered beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas and P. R. Richard. 2014. Population-specific Hobbs, R. C. 2013. Detecting changes in popu- in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Endang. Species Res. home ranges and migration timing of Pa- lation trends for Cook Inlet beluga whales 16(2):135–147 (doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/ cific Arctic beluga whales (Delphinapterus (Delphinapterus leucas) using alternative esr00394). leucas). Polar Biol. 37(8):1,171–1,183 (doi: schedules for aerial surveys. U.S. Dep. Com- Grebmeier, J. M., J. E. Overland, S. E. Moore, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1510-1). mer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC- E. V. Farley, E. C. Carmack, L. W. Cooper, ______, ______, K. M. Stafford, H. L. 252, 25 p. (avail. at http://www.afsc.noaa. K. E. Frey, J. H. Helle, F. A. McLaughlin, Stern, R. S. Suydam, and P. R. Richard. 2017. gov/Publications/) and S. L. McNutt. 2006. A major ecosys- Decadal shifts in autumn migration timing ______, J. M. Waite, and D. J. Rugh. 2000. tem shift in the northern Bering Sea. Science by Pacific Arctic beluga whales are related Beluga, Delphinapterus leucas, group sizes in 311(5766):1461 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/ to delayed annual sea ice formation. Global Cook Inlet, Alaska, based on observer counts science.1121365). Change Biol. 23(6):2,206–2,217 (doi: http:// and aerial video. Mar. Fish. Rev. 62(3):46–59 Hammill, M. O. 2013. Effects of climate warm- dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172755). (http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/mfr623/mfr6236. ing on Arctic marine mammals in Hudson Heide-Jørgensen, M. P. 1994. Distribution, ex- pdf). Bay: Living on the edge? In F. Mueter, D. M. ploitation and population status of white ______, K. L. Laidre, D. J. Vos, B. A. Ma- S. Dickson, H. Huntington, J. R. Irvine, E. A. whales (Delphinapterus leucas) and nar- honey, and M. Eagleton. 2005. Movements Logerwell, S. A. MacLean, L. Quakenbush, whals (Monodon monoceros) in West Green- and area use of belugas, Delphinapterus and C. Rosa (Editors), Responses of Arctic land. Meddelelser om Grønland. Bioscience leucas, in a subArctic Alaskan estuary. Arc- marine ecosystems to climate change, p. 21– 39:135–149. tic 58(4):331–340 (https://www.jstor.org/ 38. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska ______. 2004. Aerial digital photo- stable/40513100). Fairbanks. graphic surveys of narhwals, Mondon ______, K. E. W. Shelden, D. J. Rugh, C. ______, V. Lesage, J. F. Gosselin, H. monoceros, in Northwest Greenland. Mar. L. Sims, and J. M. Waite. 2015a. Estimated Bourdages, B. G. E. de March, and M. Mammal Sci. 20(2):246–261 (doi: https://doi. abundance and trend in aerial counts of be- C. S. Kingsley. 2004. Evidence for a de- org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01154.x). luga whales, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook cline in northern Quebec (Nunavik) Belu- ______and K. L. Laidre. 2004. Declining Inlet, Alaska, 1994–2012. Mar. Fish. Rev. gas. Arctic 57(2):183–195 (www.jstor.org/ extent of open-water refugia for top predators stable/40512618). in Baffin Bay and adjacent waters. AMBIO: J. 77(1):11–32 (doi: https://doi.org/10.7755/ ______, A. Mosnier, J. F. Gosselin, C. J. D. Human Environ. 33(8):487–494 (https://doi. MFR.77.1.2). Matthews, M. Marcoux, and S. H. Ferguson. org/10.1579/0044-7447-33.8.487). ______, P. R. Wade, and K. E. W. Shel- 2017. Management approaches, abundance ______R. Dietz, K. L. Laidre, and P. Rich- den. 2015b. Viability of a small, geographi- indices and total allowable harvest levels of ard. 2002. Autumn movements, home ranges, cally-isolated population of beluga whales, belugas in Hudson Bay. Canadian Science and winter density of narwhals (Monodon Delphinapterus leucas: Effects of hunting, Advisory Secretariat. monoceros) tagged in Tremblay Sound, Baf- predation, and mortality events in Cook In- Hansen, R. G., T. K. Boye, R. S. Larsen, N. H. fin Island. Polar Biol. 25(5):331–341 (doi: let, Alaska. Mar. Fish. Rev. 77(2):59–88 (doi: Nielsen, O. Tervo, R. D. Nielsen, M. H. Ras- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-001-0347-6). https://doi.org/10.7755/MFR.77.2.4). mussen, M. H. S. Sinding, and M. P. Heide- ______, R. Dietz, K. L. Laidre, P. Rich- Innes, S., and R. E. A. Stewart. 2002. Popula- Jørgensen. 2019. Abundance of whales in ard, J. Orr, and H. C. Schmidt. 2003a. The tion size and yield of Baffin Bay beluga west and east Greenland in summer 2015. migratory behaviour of narwhals (Monodon (Delphinapterus leucas) stocks. NAMMCO NAMMCO Sci. Publ. 11:1–17. (doi: https:// monoceros). Can. J. Zool. 81(8):1,298–1,305 Scientific Publications 4: Belugas in the doi.org/10.7557/3.4689). (doi: https://doi.org/10.1139/z03-117). North Atlantic and Russian Arctic (doi: Harwood, L. A., and M. C. S. Kingsley. 2013. ______, P. Richard, R. Dietz, K. L. Laid- https://doi.org/10.7557/3.2846). Trends in the offshore distribution and rela- re, J. Orr, and H. C. Schmidt. 2003b. An IWC. 1993. Report of the Scientific Committee. tive abundance of Beaufort Sea belugas, estimate of the fraction of belugas (Delphi- Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 1982–85 vs 2007–09. Arctic:247–256. napterus leucas) in the Canadian High Arc- ______. 2000. Report of the Scientific ______, S. Innes, P. Norton, and M. C. S. tic that winter in West Greenland. Polar Biol. Committee. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Sup- Kingsley. 1996. Distribution and abundance 26(5):318–326 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ pl.) 2:243–251. of beluga whales in the Mackenzie estuary, s00300-003-0488-x). Jansen, T., S. Post, T. Kristiansen, G. J. Óskars- southeast Beaufort Sea, and west Amund- ______, K. L. Laidre, D. Borchers, T. A. son, J. Boje, B. R. MacKenzie, M. Brob- sen Gulf during late July 1992. Can. J. Fish. Marques, H. Stern, and M. Simon. 2010a. erg, and H. Siegstad. 2016. Ocean warming Aquat. Sci. 53(10):2,262–2,273 (doi: https:// The effect of sea-ice loss on beluga whales expands habitat of a rich natural resource doi.org/10.1139/f96-180). (Delphinapterus leucas) in West Greenland. and benefits a national economy. Ecol. ______, P. Norton, B. Day, and P. A. Hall. Polar Res. 29(2):198–208 (doi: https://doi. Appl. 26(7):2,021–2,032 (doi: https://doi. 2002. The harvest of beluga whales in Can- org/10.1111/j.1751-8369.2009.00142.x). org/10.1002/eap.1384). ada’s western Arctic: Hunter-based monitor- ______, ______, D. L. Borchers, Kelley, T. C., R. E. A. Stewart, D. J. Yurkowski, ing of the size and composition of the catch. M. L. Burt, T. A. Marques, R. G. Hansen, M. A. Ryan, and S. H. Ferguson. 2015. Mating Arctic 55(1):10–20 (https://www.jstor.org/ Rasmussen, and S. Fossette. 2010b. Abun- ecology of beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) stable/40512915). dance of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) on and narwhal (Monodon monoceros) as es- ______, J. Iacozza, J. C. Auld, P. Norton, the hunting grounds in Greenland. J. Mam- timated by reproductive tract metrics. Mar. and L. Loseto. 2014a. Belugas in the Mack- malogy 91(5):1,135–1,151 (doi: https://doi. Mammal Sci. 31(2):479–500 (doi: https:// enzie River estuary, NT, Canada: Habitat use org/10.1644/09-MAMM-A-198.1). http://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12165). and hot spots in the Tarium Niryutait Ma- ______, R. G. Hansen, K. Westdal, R. Kingsley, M. C. S. 2000. Numbers and distribu- rine Protected Area. Ocean Coastal Manage. R. Reeves, and A. Mosbech. 2013a. Nar- tion of beluga whales, Delphinapterus leu- 100:128–138 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. whals and seismic exploration: Is seismic cas, in James Bay, eastern Hudson Bay, and ocecoaman.2014.08.004). noise increasing the risk of ice entrapments? Ungava Bay in Canada during the summer of

50 Marine Fisheries Review 1993. Fish. Bull. 98(4):736–736 (doi: https:// son of patterns found through satellite te- The Baltic University Programme, Uppsala doi.org/10.3184/003685008X324010). lemetry and Nunavik traditional ecological University. Kovacs, K. M., and C. Lydersen. 2008. Climate knowledge. Arctic 62(1):13–24 (https://www. ______, A. Lagacé, P. Béland, R. Hig- change impacts on seals and whales in the jstor.org/stable/40513261). gins, D. Armstrong, and L. R. Shugart. North Atlantic Arctic and adjacent shelf seas. Litovka, D., P. Y. Andronov, and R. L. Batanov. 1988. Pathology of stranded beluga whales Sci. Prog. 91(2):117–150 (doi: https://doi. 2013. Seasonal distribution of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) from the St. Law- org/10.3184/003685008X324010). Delphinapterus leucas depending on prey rence Estuary, Quebec, Canada. J. Comp. ______, C. Lydersen, J. E. Overland, and concentrations in coastal waters of the Pathol. 98(3):287–310 (doi: https://doi. S. E. Moore. 2011. Impacts of changing sea- north-western Bering Sea. Research of wa- org/10.1016/0021-9975(88)90038-2). ice conditions on Arctic marine mammals. ter biological resources of Kamchatka and ______, S. De Guise, M. Fournier, L. Mar. Biodiv. 41(1):181–194 (doi: https://doi. North-West Pacific. KamchatNIRO 27:50–71. Shugart, C. Girard, A. Lagacé, and P. Béland. org/10.1007/s12526-010-0061-0). Litovka, D. I. 2002. Distribution of the be- 1994. Pathology and toxicology of beluga Kuznetsova, D. M., D. M. Glazov, O. V. Shpak, luga Delphinapterus leucas in the whales from the St. Lawrence Estuary, Que- and V. V. Rozhnov. 2016. Winter distri- Anadyr Estuary in 2000. Russ. J. Mar. bec, Canada. Past, present and future. Sci. To- bution and migrations of beluga whales Biol. 28(4):263–266 (doi: https://doi. tal Environ. 154(2):201–215 (doi: https://doi. (Delphinapterus leucas) in the White Sea org/10.1023/A:1020277211821). org/10.1016/0048-9697(94)90088-4). based on satellite tracking data. Biol. Bull. Loseto, L. L., G. A. Stern, and R. W. Macdon- ______, S. Lair, S. De Guise, T. P. Lip- 43(8):914–917 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1134/ ald. 2015. Distant drivers or local signals: scomb, and P. Béland. 1999. Cancer in beluga S1062359016080124). Where do mercury trends in western Arctic whales from the St Lawrence Estuary, Que- Laidre, K. L., and M. P. Heide-Jørgensen. belugas originate? Sci. Total Environ. 509– bec, Canada: a potential biomarker of envi- 2005. Arctic sea ice trends and narwhal 510:226–236 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ronmental contamination. J. Cetacean Res. vulnerability. Biol. Conserv. 121(4):509– scitotenv.2014.10.110). Manage. 1:249–265. 517 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon. Lowry, L. F., K. J. Frost, A. Zerbini, D. De- ______, K. Lemberger, A. Dallaire, P. La- 2004.06.003). master, and R. R. Reeves. 2008. Trend in belle, P. Lipscomb Thomas, P. Michel, and I. ______, K. E. W. Shelden, D. J. Rugh, and aerial counts of beluga or white whales (Del- Mikaelian. 2002. Cancer in wildlife, a case B. A. Mahoney. 2000. Beluga, Delphinapter- phinapterus leucas) in Bristol Bay, Alas- study: beluga from the St. Lawrence estuary, us leucas, distribution and survey effort in ka, 1993–2005. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. Québec, Canada. Environ. Health Perspec. the Gulf of Alaska. Mar. Fish. Rev. 62(3):27– 10(3):201–207. 110(3):285–292 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1289/ 36 (https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/ ______, M. C. S. Kingsley, D. D. W. Haus- ehp.02110285). files/pdf-content/MFR/mfr623/mfr6234.pdf). er, J. Clarke, and R. Suydam. 2017a. Aerial Matishov, G. G., and G. N. Ognetov. 2006. The ______, I. Stirling, L. F. Lowry, Ø. Wiig, survey estimates of abundance of the east- white whale Delphinapterus leucas of the M. P. Heide-Jørgensen, and S. H. Ferguson. ern Chukchi Sea stock of beluga whales Russia Arctic seas: biology, ecology, protec- 2008. Quantifying the sensitivity of Arctic (Delphinapterus leucas) in 2012. Arctic tion and exploitation of resources. Apatity: marine mammals to climate-induced habitat 70(3):273–286 (doi: https://doi.org/10.14430/ Kola Sci. Center of RAS:295 change. Ecol. Appl. 18(sp2):S97–S125. arctic4667). McQuinn, I. H., V. Lesage, D. Carrier, G. Lar- ______, H. Stern, K. M. Kovacs, L. Low- ______, A. Zerbini, K. J. Frost, D. P. De- rivée, Y. Samson, S. Chartrand, R. Michaud, ry, S. E. Moore, E. V. Regehr, S. H. Fergu- Master, and R. C. Hobbs. 2017b. Develop- and J. Theriault. 2011. A threatened be- son, Ø. Wiig, P. Boveng, R. P. Angliss, E. W. ment of an abundance estimate for the eastern luga (Delphinapterus leucas) population Born, D. Litovka, L. Quakenbush, C. Lyder- Bering Sea stock of beluga whales (Delphin- in the traffic lane: Vessel-generated noise sen, D. Vongraven, and F. Ugarte. 2015. Arc- apterus leucas). J. Cetacean Res. Manage. characteristics of the Saguenay-St. Law- tic marine mammal population status, sea ice 16:39–47. rence Marine Park, Canada. J. Acoust. Soc. habitat loss, and conservation recommen- ______, J. J. Citta, G. M. O’Corry-Crowe, Am. 130(6):3,661–3,673 (doi: https://doi. dations for the 21st century. Conserv. Biol. L. Quakenbush, K. J. Frost, R. Suydam, and org/10.1121/1.3658449). 29(3):724–737 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ R. C. Hobbs. 2019. Distribution, abundance, Meschersky, I. G., M. V. Kholodova, and E. cobi.12474). harvest, and status of western Alaska beluga Y. Zvychaynaya. 2008. Molecular genetic Lair, S., L. N. Measures, and D. Martineau. whale stocks. Mar. Fish. Rev. 81(3–4):54–71 study of the beluga (Delphinapterus leu- 2016. Pathologic findings and trends in (doi: https://doi.org/10.7755/MFR.81.3-4.2). cas: Cetacea, Monodontidae) summering in mortality in the beluga (Delphinapterus Lydersen, C., A. R. Martin, K. M. Kovacs, and the southern Sea of Okhotsk as compared leucas) population of the St Lawrence Estu- I. Gjertz. 2001. Summer and autumn move- to North American populations. Russ. J. Ge- ary, Quebec, Canada, from 1983 to 2012. ments of white whales Delphinapterus leucas netics 44(9):1,105–1,110 (doi: https://doi. Vet. Pathol. 53(1):22–36 (doi: https://doi. in Svalbard, Norway. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. org/10.1134/S1022795408090147). org/10.1177/0300985815604726). 219:265–274 (doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/ ______, O. V. Shpak, D. I. Litovka, D. Lammers, M. O., M. Castellote, R. J. Small, S. meps219265). M. Glazov, E. A. Borisova, and V. V. Ro- Atkinson, J. Jenniges, A. Rosinski, J. N. Os- ______, O. A. Nøst, P. Lovell, B. J. Mc- zhnov. 2013. A genetic analysis of the be- wald, and C. Garner. 2013. Passive acous- Connell, T. Gammelsrød, C. Hunter, M. luga whale Delphinapterus leucas (Cetacea: tic monitoring of Cook Inlet beluga whales A. Fedak, and K. M. Kovacs. 2002. Salin- Monodontidae) from summer aggregations (Delphinapterus leucas). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. ity and temperature structure of a freezing in the Russian Far East. Russ. J. Mar. Biol. 134(3):2,497–2,504 (doi: https://http://doi. Arctic fjord—monitored by white whales 39(2):125–135 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1134/ org/10.1121/1.4816575). (Delphinapterus leucas). Geophysical Res. S1063074013020065). Lesage, V., C. Barrette, M. C. S. Kingsley, and Letters 29(23):34-31–34-34 (doi: https://doi. ______, A. D. Chernetsky, V. V. Krasnova, B. Sjare. 1999. The effect of vessel noise on org/10.1029/2002GL015462). B. A. Solovyev, D. A. Udovik, O. V. Shpak, the vocal behavior of belugas in the St. Law- ______, A. R. Martin, I. Gjertz, and K. D. M. Glazov, and V. V. Rozhnov. 2018. Mi- rence River Estuary, Canada. Mar. Mam- M. Kovacs. 2007. Satellite tracking and div- tochondrial lineages of the beluga whale mal Sci. 15(1):65–84 (doi: https://http://doi. ing behaviour of sub-adult narwhals (Mon- Delphinapterus leucas in the Russian Arctic. org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1999.tb00782.x). odon monoceros) in Svalbard, Norway. Polar Biol. Bull. 45(2):147–154 (doi: https://doi. ______, L. N. Measures, A. Mosnier, S. Biol. 30(4):437–442 (doi: https://http://doi. org/10.1134/S1062359018020073). Lair, R. Michaud, and P. Béland. 2014. Mor- org/10.1007/s00300-006-0200-z). Miller, A. W., and G. M. Ruiz. 2014. Arctic tality patterns in St. Lawrence Estuary beluga Mahoney, B. A., and K. E. W. Shelden. 2000. shipping and marine invaders. Nature Cli- (Delphinapterus leucas), inferred from the Harvest history of belugas, Delphinapter- mate Change 4(6):413 (doi: https://doi. carcass recovery data, 1983–2012. DFO Can. us leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Mar. Fish. org/10.1038/nclimate2244). Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2013/118, iv + 23 Rev. 62(3):124–133 (http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/ Miller, G., V. Moulton, R. Davis, M. Holst, P. p. mfr623/mfr62311.pdf). Millman, A. MacGillivray, and D. Hannay. Lewis, A. E., M. O. Hammill, M. Power, D. W. Martineau, D. 2010. Contaminants and health 2005. Monitoring seismic effects on marine Doidge, and V. Lesage. 2009. Movement and of beluga whales of the St. Lawrence Estu- mammals—southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001– aggregation of eastern Hudson Bay beluga ary. Ecology and Animal, Ecosystem Health 2002. In S. L. Armsworthy, P. J. Cranford, and whales (Delphinapterus leucas): A compari- and Sustainable Agriculture, p. 138–148. K. Lee (Editors), Offshore oil and gas envi-

81(3–4) 51 ronmental effects monitoring/approaches and pacts 15(5):1,041–1,051 (doi: https://doi. apterus leucas) in eastern North American technologies p. 511–542. Battelle Press, Co- org/10.1039/C3EM30930D). waters. Can. Field-Nat. 94(3):239–247. lumbus, OH. ______, ______, C. E. Goertz, K. ______and E. Mitchell. 1984. Catch his- Mitchell, E. D., and R. R. Reeves. 1981. Catch A. Burek-Huntington, K. E. W. Shelden, W. tory and initial population of white whales history and cumulative catch estimates of ini- A. Smith, and L. A. Beckett. 2015. Potential (Delphinapterus leucas) in the river and Gulf tial population size of cetaceans in the east- natural and anthropogenic impediments to of St. Lawrence, eastern Canada. Naturaliste ern Canadian Arctic. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. the conservation and recovery of Cook Inlet Canadien 111(1):63–121. 31:645–682. beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas. Mar. ______and ______. 1987a. Catch his- Møller, J. 1928. Grønlandske Erhverv I Godt- Fish. Rev. 77(2):89–105 (doi: https://doi. tory, former abundance, and distribution of haab. Træk af Kolonien Godthaabs Historie: org/10.7755/MFR.77.2.5). white whales in Hudson Strait and Ungava 1728–1928. ______, ______, L. A. Beckett, S. Bay. Naturaliste Canadien 114(1):1–65. ______. 1964. Hvidfiskefangst ved Kakuk. J. Trumble, and W. A. Smith. 2019. Rela- ______and ______. 1987b. History of Lærebog I fangst for Syd- og Nordgrønland. tionship between per capita births of Cook white whale (Delphinapterus leucas) exploi- Den kongelige grønlandske Handel, p. 23–26. Inlet belugas and summer salmon runs: age- tation in eastern Hudson Bay and James Bay. Moore, S. E., K. E. Shelden, L. K. Litzky, B. structured population modeling. Ecosphere Can. Spec. Pub.. Fish. Aquat Sci. 95:1–45. A. Mahoney, and D. J. Rugh. 2000. Beluga, 11(1):e02955. 10.1002/ecs2.2955. ______and ______. 1989. Status Delphinapterus leucas, habitat associations in Norton, P., and L. A. Harwood. 1985. White of white whales, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Mar. Fish. Rev. 62(3):60– whale use of the southeastern Beaufort Sea, Ungava Bay and eastern Hudson Bay. Can. 80 (http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/mfr623/mfr6237. July–September 1984. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Field-Nat. Ottawa Ont. 103(2):220–239. pdf). Aquat. Sci. 1401, 46 p. ______and M. P. Heide-Jørgensen. ______, K. M. Stafford, H. Melling, C. Ber- O’Corry-Crowe, G., W. Lucey, F. I. Archer, 1994. Commercial aspects of the exploi- chok, O. Wiig, K. M. Kovacs, C. Lydersen, and B. Mahoney. 2015. The genetic ecology tation of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) and J. Richter-Menge. 2012. Comparing ma- and population origins of the beluga whales, in Greenland, with emphasis on tusk ex- rine mammal acoustic habitats in Atlantic and Delphinapterus leucas, of Yakutat Bay. Mar. ports. Meddelelser om Gronland. Bioscience Pacific sectors of the High Arctic: year-long Fish. Rev. 77(1):47–59 (doi: https://doi. 39:119–134 records from Fram Strait and the Chukchi Pla- org/10.7755/MFR.77.1.5). ______and D. S. Lee. 2020. Shifting priori- teau. Polar Biol. 35(3):475–480 (doi: http:// ______, R. Mahoney Andrew, R. Suydam, ties for narwhal conservation: from trade to dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00300-011-1086-y). L. Quakenbush, A. Whiting, L. Lowry, and rapid environmental change. TRAFFIC Bul- Mosnier, A., T. Doniol-Valcroze, J. F. Gosse- L. Harwood. 2016. Genetic profiling links letin 32(1):20–31. lin, V. Lesage, L. N. Measures, and M. O. changing sea-ice to shifting beluga whale mi- ______, P. J. Ewins, S. Agbayani, M. P. Hammill. 2015. Insights into processes of gration patterns. Biol. Lett. 12(11):20160404 Heide-Jørgensen, K. M. Kovacs, C. Lyder- population decline using an integrated popu- (doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0404). sen, R. Suydam, W. Elliott, G. Polet, Y. van lation model: The case of the St. Lawrence ______, C. Lydersen, M. P. Heide-Jør- Dijk, and R. Blijleven. 2014. Distribution of estuary beluga (Delphinapterus leucas). gensen, L. Hansen, L. M. Mukhametov, O. endemic cetaceans in relation to hydrocar- Ecol. Modelling 314:15–31 (doi: https://doi. Dove, and K. M. Kovacs. 2010. Population bon development and commercial shipping org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.07.006). genetic structure and evolutionary history of in a warming Arctic. Mar. Policy 44:375– Muto, M. M., V. T. Helker, R. P. Angliss, B. A. North Atlantic beluga whales (Delphinapter- 389 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013. Allen, P. L. Boveng, J. M. Breiwick, M. F. us leucas) from West Greenland, Svalbard 10.005). Rice, D. W. 1998. Marine mammals of the Cameron, P. J. Clapham, S. P. Dahle, M. E. and the White Sea. Polar Biol. 33(9):1,179– world: systematics and distribution. Society Dahlheim, B. S. Fadely, M. C. Ferguson, L. 1,194 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ for Marine Mammology, Lawrence, Kansas. W. Fritz, R. C. Hobbs, Y. V. Ivashchenko, A. s00300-010-0807-y). Richard, P. R. 1991a. Abundance and dis- S. Kennedy, J. M. London, S. A. Mizorch, R. ______., R. S. Suydam, A. Rosenberg, tribution of narwhals (Monodon monoc- R. Ream, E. L. Richmond, K. E. W. Shelden, K. J. Frost, and A. E. Dizon. 1997. Phy- eros) in northern Hudson Bay. Can. J. Fish. R. G. Towell, P. R. Wade, J. M. Waite, and logeography, population structure and Aquatic Sci. 48(2):276–283 (doi: https://doi. A. N. Zerbini. 2016. Alaska Marine Mam- dispersal patterns of the beluga whale Del- org/10.1139/f91-038). mal Stock Assessments, 2015. U.S. Dep. phinapterus leucas in the western Nearc- ______. 1991b. Status of the belugas, Del- Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AF- tic revealed by mitochondrial DNA. Mol. phinapterus leucas, of southeast Baffin Is- SC-323, 300 p. (doi: https://doi.org/10.7289/ Ecol. 6(10):955–970 (doi: https://http://doi. land, Northwest Territories. Can. Field-Natur. V5/TM-AFSC-323). org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.1997.00267.x). 105(2):206–214. Nelson, M. A., L. T. Quakenbush, B. A. Ma- ______, A. E. Dizon, R. S. Suydam, and L. ______. 1994. Status of the beluga, honey, B. D. Taras, and M. J. Wooller. 2018. F. Lowry. 2002. Molecular genetic studies of Delphinapterus leucas, in western and Fifty years of Cook Inlet beluga whale feed- population structure and movement patterns southern Hudson Bay. Can. Field-Natur. ing ecology from isotopes in bone and teeth. in a migratory species: The beluga whale, 107(4):524–532. Endang. Species Res. 36:77–87 (doi: https:// Delphinapterus leucas, in the western Arc- ______and J. R. Orr. 1986. A review of the doi.org/10.3354/esr00890). tic. In C. J. Pfeiffer (Editor), Molecular and status and harvest of white whales (Delphi- NOAA. 2008. Taking of the Cook Inlet, Alas- cell biology of marine mammals, p. 53–64. napterus leucas) in the Cumberland Sound ka beluga whale stock by Alaska Natives. Krieger Publ. Co., Malabar, Fla. area, Baffin Island. Fish. Oceans, Can., 25 p. 73 Fed. Regist. 60976 (22 Oct. 2008), p. Palsbøll, P., M. P. Heide-Jørgensen, and R. ______, ______, and D. G. Barber. 60,976–90,986 (avail. online at https://www. Dietz. 1997. Genetic studies of narwhals, 1990. The distribution and abundance of be- govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2008-10-15/pdf/ Monodon monoceros, from West and East lugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in eastern Ca- E8-24511.pdf). Greenland. Heredity 78:284–292 (doi: https:// nadian subarctic waters: a review and update. Norman, S. A., C. E. C. Goertz, K. A. Burek, doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1997.43). Can. Bull. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 224:23–38. L. T. Quakenbush, L. A. Cornick, T. A. Ro- Prasolova, E. A., R. A. Belikov, A. A. Ryabov, ______, M. P. Heide-Jørgensen, and D. mano, T. Spoon, W. Miller, L. A. Beckett, and and D. I. Litovka. 2014. Results on photo St. Aubin. 1998a. Fall movements of belu- R. C. Hobbs. 2012. Seasonal hematology and identification for beluga whale Delphinapter- gas (Delphinapterus leucas) with satellite- serum chemistry of wild beluga whales (Del- us leucas in the Anadyr estuary of the Bering linked transmitters in Lancaster Sound, Jones phinapterus leucas) in Bristol Bay, Alaska, Sea. Izv. TINRO 179:120–128 [In Russ.]. Sound, and Northern Baffin Bay. Arctic:5–16 USA. J. Wildl. Diseases 48(1):21–32 (doi: Quakenbush, L., R. S. Suydam, A. L. Bryan, (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40511798). https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-48.1.21). L. F. Lowry, K. J. Frost, and B. A. Mahoney. ______, J. R. Orr, R. Dietz, and L. Dueck. ______, R. C. Hobbs, S. Wuertz, A. Melli, 2015. Diet of beluga whales (Delphinapter- 1998b. Sightings of belugas and other ma- L. A. Beckett, N. Chouicha, A. Kundu, and us leucas) in Alaska from stomach contents, rine mammals in the North Water, late March W. A. Miller. 2013. Fecal pathogen pollution: March–November. Mar. Fish. Rev. 77(1):70– 1993. Arctic:1–4 (https://www.jstor.org/ sources and patterns in water and sediment 84 (doi: https://doi.org/10.7755/MFR.77.1.7). stable/40511797). samples from the upper Cook Inlet, Alaska Reeves, R. R., and S. K. Katona. 1980. Extra- ______, A. R. Martin, and J. R. Orr. 2001. ecosystem. Environ. Sci.: Processes & Im- limital records of white whales (Delphin- Summer and autumn movements of belu-

52 Marine Fisheries Review gas of the eastern Beaufort Sea Stock. Arc- Bay, and Ungava Bay. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic L. Pellissier, M. Wisz, D. Kriticos, G. Se- tic 54(3):207–222 (https://www.jstor.org/ Sci. 43(10):1,982–1,987 (doi: https://doi. menov, S. Kwas;niewski, and I. G. Alsos. stable/40512342). org/10.1139/f86-243). 2016. Biological introduction risks from ______, J. L. Laake, R. C. Hobbs, M. P. ______and A. R. Martin. 1994. Distribu- shipping in a warming Arctic. J. Appl. Heide-Jørgensen, N. C. Asselin, and H. Cle- tion and movements of belugas, Delphin- Ecol. 53(2):340–349 (doi: https://doi. ator. 2010. Baffin Bay narwhal population apterus leucas, in the Canadian High Arctic. org/10.1111/1365-2664.12566). distribution and numbers: aerial surveys in Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 51(7):1,653–1,663 Watt, C. A., M. P. Heide-Jørgensen, and S. H. the Canadian High Arctic, 2002–04. Arc- (doi: https://doi.org/10.1139/f94-166). Ferguson. 2013. How adaptable are narwhal? tic 65:85–99 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/ Solovyev, B. A., O. V. Shpak, D. M. Glazov, V. V. A comparison of foraging patterns among 40513372). Rozhnov, and D. M. Kuznetsova. 2015. Sum- the world’s three narwhal populations. Eco- Rose, G. A., and S. Rowe. 2015. North- mer distribution of beluga whales (Delphin- sphere 4(6):art71 (doi:https://doi.org/10.1890/ ern cod comeback. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic apterus leucas) in the Sea of Okhotsk. Russ. ES13-00137.1). Sci. 72(12):1,789–1,798 (doi: https://doi. J. Theriol 14(2):201–215. ______, T. Doniol-Valcroze, L. Witting, org/10.1139/cjfas-2015-0346). Stafford, K. M., S. E. Moore, C. L. Berchok, R. C. Hobbs, R. G. Hansen, D. S. Lee, M. Rugh, D. J., K. E. Shelden, and B. A. Mahoney. Ø. Wiig, C. Lydersen, E. Hansen, D. Kalm- Marcoux, V. Lesage, E. Garde, S. H. Fergu- 2000. Distribution of belugas, Delphinapter- bach, and K. M. Kovacs. 2012. Spitsbergen’s son, and M. P. Heide-Jørgensen. 2019. Hunt us leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, during June/ endangered bowhead whales sing through the allocation modeling for migrating animals: July 1993–2000. Mar. Fish. Rev. 62(3):6–21 polar night. Endang. Species Res. 18(2):95– the case of Baffin Bay narwhal,Monodon (http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/mfr623/mfr6232. 103 (doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00444). monoceros. Mar. Fish. Rev. 81(3–4):125–136 pdf). ______, M. C. Ferguson, D. D. W. Hauser, (doi: https://doi.org/10.7755/MFR.81.3-4.8). ______, ______, C. L. Sims, B. A. S. R. Okkonen, C. L. Berchok, J. J. Citta, J. Westdal, K. H., P. R. Richard, and J. R. Orr. Mahoney, B. K. Smith, L. K. Litzky, and R. T. Clarke, E. C. Garland, J. Jones, and R. S. 2010. Migration route and seasonal home C. Hobbs. 2005. Aerial surveys of beluga in Suydam. 2018. Beluga whales in the western range of the northern Hudson Bay nar- Cook Inlet, Alaska, June 2001, 2002, 2003, Beaufort Sea: current state of knowledge on whal (Monodon monoceros). In S. H. and 2004. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. timing, distribution, habitat use and environ- Ferguson, L. L. Loseto, and M. L. Mal- Memo. NMFS-AFSC-149, 71 p. mental drivers. Deep Sea Res. Part II: Topical lory (Editors), A little less Arctic: top ______, ______, and R. C. Hobbs. Stud. Oceanogr. 152:182–194 (doi: https:// predators in the world’s largest northern in- 2010. Range contraction in a beluga doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2016.11.017). land sea, Hudson Bay, p. 71–92. Spring- whale population. Endang. Species Res. Storrie, L., C. Lydersen, M. Andersen, R. B. er Netherlands, Dordrecht. (doi: https://doi. 12(1):69–75. Wynn, and K. M. Kovacs. 2018. Determin- org/10.1007/978-90-481-9121-5_4). Sergeant, D. E. 1973. Biology of white ing the species assemblage and habitat use of Winge, H. 1902. Grønlands pattedyr. Meddele- whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in west- cetaceans in the Svalbard Archipelago, based lser om Grønland 21(2):319–521. ern Hudson Bay. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. on observations from 2002 to 2014. Polar Witting, L., T. Doniol-Valcroze, R. C. Hobbs, 30(8):1,065–1,090. Res. 37(1):1463065 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1 S. Ditlevsen, and M. Heide-Jørgensen. 2019. ______and P. F. Brodie. 1975. Identity, 080/17518369.2018.1463065). Meta-population modelling of narwhals abundance, and present status of popula- Turgeon, J., P. Duchesne, G. J. Colbeck, L. D. in East Canada and West Greenland. Mar. tions of white whales, Delphinapterus leucas, Postma, and M. O. Hammill. 2012. Spatio- Fish. Rev. 81(3–4):116–124 (doi: https://doi. in North America. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. temporal segregation among summer stocks org/10.7755/MFR.81.3-4.7). 32(7):1,047–1,054. of beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) despite Wolkers, H., B. Van Bavel, A. E. Derocher, Ø. Shelden, K. E. W., K. T. Goetz, D. J. Rugh, D. nuclear gene flow: implication for the endan- Wiig, K. M. Kovacs, C. Lydersen, and G. G. Calkins, B. A. Mahoney, and R. C. Hobbs. gered belugas in eastern Hudson Bay (Can- Lindström. 2004. Congener-specific accu- 2015. Spatio-temporal changes in beluga ada). Conserv. Genetics 13(2):419–433 (doi: mulation and food chain transfer of polybro- whale, Delphinapterus leucas, distribution: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-011-0294-x). minated diphenyl ethers in two Arctic food results from aerial surveys (1977–2014), op- Vacquié-Garcia, J., C. Lydersen, T. A. Marques, chains. Environ. Sci. Tech 38(6):1,667–1,674 portunistic sightings (1975–2014), and sat- J. Aars, H. Ahonen, M. Skern-Mauritzen, N. (doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/es030448a). ellite tagging (1999–2003) in Cook Inlet, Øien, and K. M. Kovacs. 2017. Late summer ______, C. Lydersen, K. M. Kovacs, I. Alaska. Mar. Fish. Rev. 77(2):1–32 (doi: distribution and abundance of ice-associated Burkow, and B. van Bavel. 2006. Accumula- https://doi.org/10.7755/MFR.77.2.1). whales in the Norwegian High Arctic. En- tion, metabolism, and food-chain transfer of Shpak, O. V., and D. M. Glazov. 2013. Review of dang. Species Res. 32:59–70 (doi: https://doi. chlorinated and brominated contaminants in the recent scientific data on the Okhotsk Sea org/10.3354/esr00791). subadult white whales (Delphinapterus leu- white whale (Delphinapterus leucas) popu- Villanger, G. D., C. Lydersen, K. M. Ko- cas) and narwhals (Monodon monoceros) lation structure and its application to man- vacs, E. Lie, J. U. Skaare, and B. M. Jens- from Svalbard, Norway. Arch. Environ. Con- agement. J Cetacean Res. Manage. SC/65a/ sen. 2011. Disruptive effects of persistent tam. Toxicol. 50(1):69 (doi: http://dx.doi. SM23, 19 p. organohalogen contaminants on thyroid org/10.1007/s00244-004-0257-z). ______, I. G. Mershersky, D. M. Glazov, D. function in white whales (Delphinapterus Yesson, C., J. Fisher, T. Gorham, C. J. Turner, Litovka, and D. M. Kuvnetsova. 2019. Struc- leucas) from Svalbard. Sci. Total Environ. N. Hammeken Arboe, M. E. Blicher, K. M. ture and assessment of beluga whale, Delphi- 409(13):2,511–2,524 (https://doi.org/10. Kemp, and K. Handling (Editor: Michel). napterus leucas, populations in the Russian 1016/j.scitotenv.2011.03.014). 2016. The impact of trawling on the epiben- Far East. Mar. Fish. Rev. 81(3–4):72–86 Vos, D. J., and K. E. W. Shelden. 2005. Unusual thic megafauna of the west Greenland shelf. (https://doi.org/10.7755/MFR.81.3-4.3). mortality in the depleted Cook Inlet beluga ICES J. Mar. Sci. 74(3):866–876 (doi: https:// Small, R. J., B. Brost, M. Hooten, M. Castellote, (Delphinapterus leucas) population. North- doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw206). and J. Mondragon. 2017. Potential for spatial western Naturalist 86(2):59–65 (https://www. Yurkowski, D. J., M. Auger-Méthé, M. L. Mal- displacement of Cook Inlet beluga whales by jstor.org/stable/4095766). lory, S. N. P. Wong, G. Gilchrist, A. E. Dero- anthropogenic noise in critical habitat. En- Wade, P. R. 1998. Calculating limits to the cher, E. Richardson, N. J. Lunn, N. E. Hussey, dang. Species Res. 32:43–57 (doi: https://doi. allowable human-caused mortality of ceta- and M. Marcoux. 2019. Abundance and spe- org/10.3354/esr00786). ceans and pinnipeds. Mar. Mammal Sci. cies diversity hotspots of tracked marine Smith, T. G., and M. O. Hammill. 1986. Popu- 14(1):1–37 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ predators across the North American Arctic. lation estimates of white whale, Delphin- j.1748-7692. 1998.tb00688.x). Divers. Distrib. 25(3):328–345 (doi: https:// apterus leucas, in James Bay, eastern Hudson Ware, C., J. Berge, A. Jelmert, S. M. Olsen, doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12860).

81(3–4) 53