_______________

OCS Study

BOEM 2013-01110

Satellite Tracking of Bowhead Whales 

Movements and Analysis from 2006 to 2012

Final Report

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Alaska Region

www.boem.gov 

OCS Study

BOEM 2013-01110
Prepared under BOEM Contract M10PC00085

_______________

OCS Study

BOEM 2013-01110

ii
Satellite Tracking of Bowhead Whales: 

Movements and Analysis from 2006 to 2012

Authors

Lori T. Quakenbush

Robert J. Small

John J. Citta

Prepared under BOEM Contract

M10PC00085

by

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

P.O. Box 25526

Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526

Published by

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Anchorage, Alaska

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region August 2013

 

iii
DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared under contract between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) 

and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM, and 

it has been approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the 

views and policies of BOEM, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use. It is, however, exempt from review and compliance with 

BOEM editorial standards.

REPORT AVAILABILITY

This report may be downloaded from the boem.gov website through the Environmental Studies 

Program Information System (ESPIS) by referencing OCS Study BOEM 2013-01110. It is also available 

from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game website adfg.alaska.gov. You will be able to obtain this 

report also from the National Technical Information Service in the near future. Here are the addresses. 

You may also inspect copies at selected Federal Depository Libraries.

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Commerce

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management National Technical Information Service

 Alaska Region 5285 Port Royal Road

Environmental Studies Section Springfield, Virginia 22161

3801 Centerpoint Dr. Suite 500 Phone: (703) 605-6040

Anchorage, AK 99503-5823 Fax: (703) 605-6900

Telephone requests may be placed at Email: bookstore@ntis.gov

(907) 334-5200

Fax: (907) 334-5242

CITATION

Quakenbush, L.T., R.J. Small, and J.J. Citta. 2013. Satellite tracking of bowhead whales: movements and 

analysis from 2006 to 2012. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage, AK. OCS Study BOEM 2013-01110. 60 pp + 

appendices.

iv
 

www.boem.gov

The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has 

responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. 

This includes fostering the sound use of our land and water resources, protecting 

our fish, wildlife and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural 

values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment 

of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and 

mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in 

their care. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian 

reservation communities and for people who live in island communities.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) works to manage the 

exploration and development of the nation's offshore resources in a way that 

appropriately balances economic development, energy independence, and 

environmental protection through oil and gas leases, renewable energy 

development and environmental reviews and studies.

v
Project Organization Page

Authors:

Lori T. Quakenbush (B.S., M.S.) is a Fish and Wildlife Biologist IV and Program Leader for 

the Arctic Marine Mammal Program within the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Her role 

in this project was that of Principal Investigator and Project Manager and her activities included 

coordination, communication, contracting, permitting, tagging, presentations, report writing, and 

manuscript preparation.

Robert J. Small, PhD. is a Wildlife Scientist I and the Statewide Marine Mammal Program 

Leader within the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. His role in this project was that of 

Principal Investigator and his activities included coordination, contracting, permits, tagging in 

Canada, report and manuscript preparation.

John J. Citta, PhD. is a Biometrician II with the Arctic Marine Mammal Program within the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. His role in this project was data management, archive, 

and analysis, weekly map production and distribution, and presentation, report, and manuscript 

preparation.

Key Project Personnel:

John “Craig” George, PhD. is a Senior Wildlife Biologist for the North Slope Borough (NSB), 

Department of Wildlife Management. He is a bowhead whale expert and his role in this project 

was to coordinate project and tagging activities in the NSB, communicate with the AEWC and 

Whaling Captain’s Associations, and prepare manuscripts.

Mads Peter Heidi-Jørgensen, PhD. is a Senior Scientist with the Greenland Institute of Natural 

Resources and is an expert in tagging large whales in Greenland, Canada, Russia, and South 

America. His group with includes Mikkel and Anders Villum Jensen have developed and 

provided the tags and some of the tag deployment equipment. Mikkel and Anders Jensen also 

deployed tags and trained others in tag deployment.

Lois Harwood is a Wildlife Biologist with the Arctic Aquatic Research Division, Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. She provided coordination, contracting, permitting, personnel, 

and secured funding for tagging operations in Canada.

Harry Brower, Jr., Lewis Brower, Billy Adams, George Tagarook, Eddie Arey, Tom 

Akeya, and Clarence Irrigoo are Alaskan Subsistence whalers who were key participants as 

taggers and boat drivers.

James Pokiak, Charles Pokiak, Angus Alunik, Dennis Arey, Larry Arey, Pat Kasook, 

Buddy Gruben, Douglas Panaktalok are Canadian hunters and trappers who were key 

participants as taggers and boat drivers.

vi
Table of Contents

List of Figures............................................................................................................................. viii

List of Tables................................................................................................................................ xi

List of Appendices........................................................................................................................ xi

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................1

Introduction....................................................................................................................................1

Goals and Objectives....................................................................................................................2

Overall Objectives........................................................................................................................2

 Objective 1 ...............................................................................................................................2

 Objective 2 ...............................................................................................................................2

 Objective 3 ...............................................................................................................................2

 Objective 4 ...............................................................................................................................2

 Objective 5 ...............................................................................................................................2

 Objective 6 ...............................................................................................................................2

 Objective 7................................................................................................................................3

 Objective 8 ...............................................................................................................................3

Methods...........................................................................................................................................3

Coordination.................................................................................................................................3

Tagging.........................................................................................................................................3

Genetic Analyses..........................................................................................................................5

Bowhead Whales ......................................................................................................................5

Gray Whales.............................................................................................................................5

Photo-identification......................................................................................................................5

Mapping .......................................................................................................................................6

Movement Analyses.....................................................................................................................6

Data Management and Location Processing ...........................................................................6

Analysis of Time Spent Within Petroleum Areas......................................................................7

Safety............................................................................................................................................8

Results.............................................................................................................................................8

Coordination.................................................................................................................................8

Tagged Whales and Tag Performance .......................................................................................10

Bowhead Whales ....................................................................................................................10

Gray Whales...........................................................................................................................10

Sex Ratio of Tagged Whales......................................................................................................12

Behavior of Tagged Bowhead Whales by Sex and Age ............................................................13

Sex and Age Segregation........................................................................................................13

Gray Whales...........................................................................................................................14

 Bowhead Whale Movements and Behavior by Season .............................................................15

Summer/Fall (July–September) High Arctic, Beaufort and Chukchi seas.............................15

 General Use of Beaufort Lease Sale Areas........................................................................20

Fall (August–December) Chukchi Sea ...................................................................................21

 General Use of Chukchi Lease Sale Area including during drilling .................................23

Winter (December–March) Bering Sea..................................................................................23

Spring (Arpil–June) Chukchi and Beaufort seas....................................................................28

 Bowhead Whale Presence and Timing within Petroleum Areas...............................................30

vii
Chukchi Sea Lease Area 193..................................................................................................30

Beaufort Sea, Prudhoe Bay ....................................................................................................31

Beaufort Sea, Camden Bay.....................................................................................................31

Beaufort Sea, Meckenzie-Tuktoyaktuk....................................................................................33

Chukchi Sea, Proposed Rusian Lease Areas..........................................................................34

Potential for Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................34

Seismic Analyses........................................................................................................................38

Dive Behavior ............................................................................................................................38

CTD tag deployment ..................................................................................................................38

Tag development and deployment .............................................................................................41

Accomplishment of Objectives, and Tasks................................................................................42

Overall Objective .......................................................................................................................42

 Objective 1..............................................................................................................................42

 Objective 2..............................................................................................................................42

 Objective 3..............................................................................................................................42

 Objective 4 .............................................................................................................................42

 Objective 5 .............................................................................................................................43

 Objective 6 .............................................................................................................................45

 Objective 7..............................................................................................................................46

 Objective 8 .............................................................................................................................47

 Task 1 – Data Review and Hypothesis Development.............................................................48

 Task 2 – Experimental Design and Field Work .....................................................................48

 Task 3 – Data Analysis and Reporting...................................................................................49

 Task 4 – Integration of Findings with other Tasks.................................................................49

 Task 5 – Data Management and Archival..............................................................................49

 Task 6 – Local Coordination, Outreach and Permitting .......................................................50

 Task 7 – Logistics/Safety Plan ...............................................................................................50

Discussion......................................................................................................................................53

Coordination...............................................................................................................................53

Tagged Whales, Biopsy, and Tag Performance .........................................................................54

Gray Whale Photo-identification................................................................................................54

Conclusions...................................................................................................................................55

Recommendations........................................................................................................................56

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................57

Literature Cited ...........................................................................................................................58

List of Figures

Figure 1. Locations where bowhead whales were tagged (black circles) and petroleum 

exploration/development lease areas (red polygons) within the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.........7

Figure 2. Number of tagged bowhead whales present within 150 km of Point Barrow by sex and 

age class.........................................................................................................................................14

viii
Figure 3. Track of satellite tagged bowhead whale B06-01 from Amundsen Gulf to the north end 

of Banks Island and back in summer.............................................................................................16

Figure 4. Track of satellite tagged bowhead whale B10-01 that left Amundsen Gulf passed 

through Prince of Wales Strait between Banks and Victoria islands into Viscount Melville Sound 

where it overlapped in space with a bowhead whale from the Eastern Arctic stock tagged in West 

Greenland.......................................................................................................................................16

Figure 5. Tracks of two tagged bowhead whales that entered the Northwest Passage in 

September 2010 .............................................................................................................................17

Figure 6. Bowhead whale B09-09; the only tagged whale to migrate north along the Russian 

coast in spring and spend the summer in the Chukchi Sea ............................................................18

Figure 7. Farthest north summer movements of a tagged bowhead whale (B12-02) to greater 

than 78 ̊ N latitude in July 2012.....................................................................................................18

Figure 8. Complete track of B09-09; the only tagged whale that did not pass Barrow in the 

spring for the Canadian Beaufort...................................................................................................19

Figure 9. Tracks of tagged bowhead whales traveling westward across the Beaufort Sea during 

fall migration..................................................................................................................................20

Figure 10. Tracks of tagged bowhead whales in Canada and westward across the Beaufort Sea 

during fall migration relative to the locations of oil and gas lease sale areas................................20 

Figure 11. Tracks of satellite-tagged bowhead whales showing different paths across the 

Chukchi Sea by year ......................................................................................................................21

Figure 12. Tracks of 32 satellite-tagged bowhead whales in the Chukchi Sea from August 

through December, 2006–2010 relative to Chukchi Lease Sale 193.............................................22

Figure 13. Fall tracks of tagged bowhead whales in the Chukchi Sea in 2012. ...........................22

Figure 14. Tracks of tagged bowhead whales within Chukchi Sea Lease Sale Area during 

drilling in 2012...............................................................................................................................23

Figure 15. Tracks of tagged bowhead whales within the Bering Sea during the winters of 

2008/09 (n=11) and 2009/10 (n=10)..............................................................................................24

Figure 16. Track of B12-3 in late December 2012 and early January 2013 showing its farthest 

east location ...................................................................................................................................25

Figure 17. Contours showing probability of use (%) by bowhead whales and average AMSR-E 

ice concentration in January 2009..................................................................................................26

ix
Figure 18. Contours showing probability of use (%) by bowhead whales and average AMSR-E 

ice concentration in January 2010..................................................................................................27

Figure 19. Tracks of tagged bowhead whales on spring migration through the Chukchi Sea in 

late March through early May, 2009 and 2010..............................................................................28

Figure 20. Tracks of tagged bowhead whales on spring migration through the Beaufort Sea in 

May 2006, 2009, and 2010 ............................................................................................................29

Figure 21. Tracks of bowheads whales leaving the Bering Sea on spring migration including the 

only tagged whale (B09-09) to travel northward along the western Chukchi Sea coast. ..............29

Figure 22. Locations for 63 bowhead whales with satellite transmitters (blue circles) between 

July and December, 2006-2012, relative to active and proposed petroleum areas........................30

Figure 23. Count of tagged whales present within petroleum areas in Alaskan waters by day of 

year.................................................................................................................................................32

Figure 24. Locations (colored circles) for four whales that did not pass through the Camden Bay 

petroleum area during the fall migration. ......................................................................................33

Figure 25. Count of tagged whales present within petroleum areas in Canadian and Russian 

waters by day of year.....................................................................................................................35

Figure 26. Example of CTD and dive profiles for an area within Barrow Canyon......................40

Figure 27. Example CTD and dive profiles for an area on the Chukchi Sea shelf.......................41

Figure 28. Timing of bowhead whale presence in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea as determined from 

satellite telemetry 2006–2012........................................................................................................45

Figure 29. Seasonal areas of use by bowhead whales as determined from satellite telemetry 

2006–2012......................................................................................................................................46 

Figure 30. Tagged bowhead locations by density using pooled location data (2006–2012)........47

Figure 31. Tracks of gray whales tagged in 2009, 2011, and 2012 ..............................................48

Figure 32. Timing of use of core areas by tagged bowhead whales. ............................................51

x
List of Tables

Table 1. Project history from 1 June 2010 to 25 August 2013 .......................................................8

Table 2. Bowhead and gray whales tagged with satellite transmitters in Alaska and Canada 

between September 2009 and September 2012 .............................................................................11 

Table 3. Number of tagged bowhead whales by sex and by tagging location..............................12

Table 4. Summary of how many whales entered each petroleum area during the fall 

migration........................................................................................................................................36 

Table 5. Average number of days whales spend within 150 km of Barrow by month.................44 

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Announcement of Proposed Oil and Gas Leases in the Russian Chukchi Sea.

Appendix B. Quakenbush, L. and J. Citta. 2011. Satellite Tracking of Bowhead and Other 

Whales: Further Studies, 2011–2015. Study Plan as approved by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission on 22 July. 

Appendix C. Citta, J. J., L. T. Quakenbush, R. J. Small, and J. C. George. 2007. Movements of 

a tagged bowhead whale in the vicinity of a seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea. 17th Biennial 

Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 29 November – 4 December 2007, Cape Town, 

South Africa. (Abstract and poster)

Appendix D. Gray Whale Photo-Identification Catalog

Appendix E. Chronological List of Project Publications, Reports, and Presentations

Appendix E-1. Project Update to Barrow Whaling Captains’ Association

Appendix E-2. Bowhead Tagging Workshop and Summary 

Appendix E-3. Quakenbush, L.T., J.J. Citta, J.C. George, R. Small, H. Brower, Jr., M.P. HeideJørgensen, and L. Harwood. 2011. Bowhead inter-annual variability and exceptional movements 

of western Arctic bowhead whales from satellite telemetry, 2006–2010. Alaska Marine Science 

Symposium, 17–21 January, Anchorage AK. (Abstract and oral presentation)

Appendix E-4. Quakenbush, L. and J. Citta. 2011. Satellite Tracking of Bowhead and Other 

Whales: Further Studies, 2011–2015. Draft Study Plan for review, revision and approval by the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. 5 pp. 

xi
Appendix E-5. Citta, J.J., L.T. Quakenbush, J.C. George, H. Brower, Jr., R. J. Small, and M.P. 

Heide-Jørgensen. 2011. Does the winter range of bowhead whales overlap commercial fisheries 

in the Bering Sea? 19th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 28 November 

– 2 December, Tampa, FL. (Abstract and oral presentation).

Appendix E-6. Quakenbush, L.T., J.J. Citta, J.C. George, H. Brower, Jr., L. Harwood, R. J. 

Small, and M.P. Heide-Jørgensen. 2011. How many industrial activities do individual bowhead 

whales from the Western Arctic stock encounter annually? 19th Biennial Conference on the 

Biology of Marine Mammals, 28 November – 2 December, Tampa, FL. (Abstract and oral 

presentation).

Appendix E-7. Citta, J. J., L. T. Quakenbush, J. C. George, H. Brower, R. J. Small, and M. P. 

Heide-Jorgensen. 2012. Does the winter range of bowhead whales overlap commercial fisheries 

in the Bering Sea? Alaska Marine Science Symposium, 16–20 January, Anchorage, AK. 

(Abstract and poster).

Appendix E-8. Quakenbush, L., J. Citta, J.C. George, R. Small, M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, L.

Harwood, and H. Brower, B. Adams, L. Brower, G. Tagarook, J. Pokiak, and C. Pokiak. 2012. 

Western Arctic bowhead whale movements and habitat use throughout their range: 2006–2011 

satellite telemetry results. Alaska Marine Science Symposium, 16–20 January, Anchorage, AK. 

(Abstract and oral presentation).

Appendix E-9. Quakenbush, L.T., , L. Harwood, J.J. Citta, J.C. George, R. J. Small, M.P. HeideJørgensen, H. Brower, B. Adams, L. Brower, J. Pokiak, C. Pokiak, and G. Tagarook. 2012. 

Industrial activities and western Arctic bowhead whales: what we have learned from satellite 

telemetry. U.S.-Canada Oil and Gas Forum, 13–15 November, Anchorage, AK. (Abstract and 

Oral presentation).

Appendix E-10. Quakenbush, L.T., , L. Harwood, J.J. Citta, J.C. George, R. J. Small, M.P. 

Heide-Jørgensen, H. Brower, B. Adams, L. Brower, J. Pokiak, C. Pokiak, and G. Tagarook. 

2013. Industrial activities and western Arctic bowhead whales: what we have learned from 

satellite telemetry. Alaska Marine Science Symposium, 21–25 January, Anchorage, AK 

(Abstract and Poster).

xii
Executive Summary

Bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) are the most important species for many subsistence 

communities along the coasts of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and for Bering Sea island 

communities for their nutritional and cultural importance. Bowhead whale summer and fall 

habitats coincide with areas of oil and gas activity and interest, therefore information is needed to 

better understand bowhead feeding areas and migration routes in order to plan lease sales, permit 

development activities, and design effective mitigation measures. Within a five-year (2006-

2010) satellite telemetry study, we have combined satellite tag technology and the tag 

deployment skills of Native subsistence whalers to greatly increase our knowledge of bowhead 

whale movements and behavior in a relatively short period of time. During this study we 

provided information on the movements and timing of spring migration, rate of travel, ice 

conditions and use of leads along the spring migration route and at spring destinations. We also 

documented interactions with seismic operations and summer movements beyond the known 

range of the western Arctic stock of bowhead whales. We documented fall use of the Barrow 

area, fall migration behavior through Chukchi Lease Sale Area 193, and intensive use of the 

northern Chukotka coast as well as the timing and route into the Bering Sea for winter. Most 

tagged bowhead whales spent the winter in the western Bering Sea in heavy ice and did not 

commonly frequent polynyas, the marginal ice zone, or near shore areas. Diving data indicated 

that bowheads dove frequently to the bottom in winter and may be feeding. This final report is 

for the subsequent 3-yr study (2010-2013) in which we have continued the cooperative efforts 

with Native subsistence whalers, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, the North Slope 

Borough, the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada, and the local Canadian Hunters and Trappers Associations to further describe the yearround movements and behavior of the western Arctic stock of bowhead whales. Specifically, we 

have expanded our sample sizes to better address summer movements, fall migration especially 

in the Beaufort Sea, and to further evaluate the inter-annual variability of feeding areas and 

migration routes. We also deployed an oceanographic tag to associate water temperature and 

salinity with bowhead diving behavior and we began tagging from St. Lawrence Island to lessen 

potential biases in our data due to tagging location. In addition to bowhead whales, we also 

tagged, biopsied, and photographed gray whales in the Bering and Chukchi seas to learn more 

about gray whale movements and use of the study area. During the eight years of these studies 

we have developed a solid working relationship with subsistence whalers and our other partners 

and we are prepared to continue this relationship for the next five years to learn more about 

bowhead whales by using oceanographic tags and by developing an acoustic tag that will add to 

our understanding of bowhead behavior relative to noise. We will also focus on the variability of 

movements from year to year and how bowhead whales interact with industrial activities. 

Introduction

During the first five years of this study (2006–2010) we learned about the movements and timing 

of bowhead whales during the fall migration across the Chukchi Sea and the amount of time 

whales spent in the Chukchi Lease Sale Area (Quakenbush et al. 2010a). We also learned about 

their winter range in the Bering Sea, the timing of its use, sea ice conditions in winter, and when 

the spring migration begins (Citta et al. 2012). We found that summer movements were more 

1
complicated than generally believed. We learned that at least one bowhead traveled far to the 

north and east, entered the Northwest Passage, and used an area frequented by the eastern Arctic 

bowhead stock (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2011). Another bowhead, tagged near Barrow during the 

fall migration, did not pass Barrow the following spring but spent the summer in the Russian 

Chukchi Sea (Citta et al. 2012; Quakenbush et al. 2012). We also identified areas we believe to 

be important for bowhead feeding; the suitability of these areas for feeding appears to be 

dependent upon oceanographic conditions, which may be ephemeral. In addition to movements 

of whales tagged in 2010–2012, this report includes new analyses of whales tagged previously.

Objectives for this study include learning more about the inter-annual variability of movements, 

oceanographic conditions conducive for feeding, and behavior relative to industry activities. We 

also explored whether tagging whales at other locations, such as St. Lawrence Island, resulted in 

different movements or behavior.

Goals and Objectives

This study was designed to provide data to address the objectives listed below and for data to be 

integrated with concurrent research on oceanographic conditions relative to variability in 

bowhead whale feeding behavior and habitat utilization. 

Overall Objective: The overall objective of this study is to work with subsistence whalers to 

deploy satellite transmitters on bowhead whales in order to collect data that can be used to 

accomplish the following specific objectives.

Objective 1: Test the general hypothesis that all bowhead whales in the western Arctic stock 

make seasonal migrations between the Bering Sea and feeding grounds in western Canada.

Objective 2: Test the related hypothesis that occasional concentrations of bowhead whales 

feeding in nearshore waters of the Beaufort Sea east of Barrow are a product of delays in 

migration by whales returning from summering in Canada.

Objective 3: Test the alternative hypothesis that the above occasional concentrations of whales 

feeding east of Barrow are composed of whales that generally summer in the eastern Chukchi 

Sea and only enter the southwestern Beaufort Sea periodically, and under certain oceanographic 

conditions. 

Objective 4: To the extent possible, test the hypothesis that the above concentrations of whales 

consist of representative proportions of demographic (sex and age, i.e., size) groups as observed 

in the western Arctic population. 

Objective 5: Test the hypothesis that the above concentrations of bowhead whales consist of 

individuals that are only present in the aggregations for hours to days as opposed to weeks to 

months.

Objective 6: Estimate the rate and timing of travel of whales during migration across the 

Beaufort Sea.

2
Objective 7: To the extent possible, document and describe the general pattern of year-round 

movements by bowhead whales, the degree to which migrating whales make use of specific 

polynyas or channels, and estimate for individual whales time budgets of time spent in specific 

geographic regions and/or functional habitat areas.

Objective 8: Instrument other species of baleen whales when encountered during bowhead 

tagging efforts when practical.

Methods

Coordination

Meetings, workshops, other communication. Meetings with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission (AEWC), local whaling captains, and the North Slope Borough have been

fundamental to this tagging project. We also participated in the Synthesis of Arctic Research 

(SOAR) meeting to develop plans for manuscripts that would incorporate data from tagged 

bowheads with data from other studies such as oceanographic and acoustic projects.

Tagging

We continued to use a system of tag deployment and attachment developed by the Greenland 

Institute of Natural Resources (i.e., Mads Peter Heide-Jørgensen and his assistants, Mikkel and 

Anders Jensen) that had been used successfully with bowhead whales in Canada and Greenland 

and North Pacific right whales (Eubalaena japonica) in the Bering Sea (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 

2001, Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003) and humpback whales in the South Pacific (see Figure 1 in 

Hauser et al. 2010). We used three types of transmitters; the first recorded only the locations of 

whales (SPOT transmitters), the second recorded location and diving information (SPLASH and 

Splash10 transmitters), and the third recorded dive profiles and oceanographic information (i.e., 

temperature and salinity; CTD transmitters). All transmitters use the ARGOS system of 

satellites. SPOT and SPLASH tags are manufactured by Wildlife Computers, Inc. (Redmond, 

WA, USA) and CTD tags are manufactured by the Sea Mammal Research Unit by the University 

of St. Andrews in Scotland. Between 2006 and 2008, SPOT tags were set to transmit 300 times 

per day, while SPLASH tags were set to transmit 350 times per day. We found 300 

transmissions per day to be sufficient; after 2008, both SPOT and SPLASH tags were set to 

transmit 300 times per day. Tags were set to transmit all hours of the day and all days of the 

week; there was no “duty cycle” or “dead time.” Tags only send data when at the surface and 

more than one transmission is required by Argos satellites to calculate a location. The number of 

transmissions received from tags was variable and likely depends upon the position of the tag on 

the whale in addition to the tag settings. 

The SPOT transmitter was housed inside a stainless steel cylinder (20 mm diameter) that was 

attached to a stainless steel anchor shaft with a cutting head and flexible barbs (5 cm long) along 

the shaft to impede expulsion from the blubber (Hauser et al. 2010). The anchor shaft and 

cylinder was 27.5 cm long and implanted beneath the whale’s skin, ~24.0 cm into the blubber, 

leaving ~3.5 cm of the cylinder outside of the skin and a short (15 cm) antenna extended from 

the top. The transmitter, housing, and anchor shaft weighed 240 g.

 

3
The SPLASH transmitter (8.5 x 5 x 2.5 cm) was deployed external to the whale’s skin by a 

similar stainless steel anchor shaft with a cutting head and flexible barbs (4 cm long) along the 

shaft that implanted beneath the whale’s skin. The transmitter was mounted to a steel plate that 

swiveled on the shaft allowing the transmitter to move to the position of least hydrodynamic 

resistance. This transmitter and anchor weighed 300 g. The total length of the transmitter and 

anchor shaft was 23.5 cm. When attached to a whale, 21 cm of the tag projected into the 

blubber, 2.5 cm remained above the skin, and a short (16 cm) antenna extended from the top. 

The transmitter and anchor weighed 294 g. Splash10 tags (discussed below) are the same size 

and shape as the SPLASH tags. 

The CTD transmitter (also discussed below) was approximately 7 cm wide by 5 cm tall by 10 cm 

long and was deployed on a swivel shaft similar to that used on SPLASH and Splash10 

transmitters. Anchor dimensions were virtually identical to that of SPLASH and Splash10 tags. 

Tag capabilities are ever improving and we are exploring how new tag technology can be applied 

to bowhead studies. During this project, we deployed two new tag platforms: 1) Splash10 tags; 

and 2) a CTD tag. 

The new SPLASH tags are called “Splash10” tags. SPLASH tags transmitted dive data in 

compressed and simplified histogram form, while the new Splash10 tags collect more detailed 

dive information. Specifically, Splash10 tags collect three new forms of data: 

1) Time Series Depth-Temperature Profiles are messages with paired depth and 

temperature readings for the deepest dive in a 6-hr period. This setting collects paired

depth and temperature readings in a time-series with 10 second spacing. These 

messages are sometimes very large if dives are very long.

2) Depth-Temperature Profiles record the minimum and maximum temperatures 

observed at 8 depths. The depths are chosen dynamically to include the minimum and 

maximum depths detected, and 6 other intermediate depths arranged equally between 

the minimum and maximum. Hence, they provide more detail than a dive histogram, 

which covers a 6-hr period, but not as much data as a true time-series. 

3) Dive Behavior records the maximum depth and duration of a dive, along with its 

general shape. Possible shapes include “square,” “V,” or “U” shapes. Additionally, 

“V” and “U” shapes can be skewed right or left. This setting also records how much 

time is spent at the surface.

Each setting requires a differing amount of battery resources and messages are of different 

length. The Time Series Depth-Temperature Profiles are long messages that are difficult to 

transmit to a satellite. The Depth-Temperature Profiles and the Dive Behavior messages are 

compressed data that are easier to transmit. As such, we decided to deploy one tag (B12-4) that 

specified the Time Series Depth-Temperature Profiles and one tag (B12-03) that specified both 

the Depth-Temperature Profiles and Dive Behavior. We are currently reviewing the data from 

these tags to assess how best to parameterize new tags for our purposes. 

4
The other new tag we deployed was a CTD (i.e., Conductivity, Temperature, Depth) tag. The 

CTD tag records linked readings for location, salinity, temperature, and depth. In effect, this tag 

was designed to collect salinity and temperature profiles along the track of a whale. 

We attached the SPOT tags to whales using a 2 or 4-m long fiberglass pole system (HeideJørgensen et al., 2003), an airgun (ARTS, Air Rocket Transmitter System, see Heide-Jørgensen 

et al., 2001), or a crossbow. The pole was used as a jab-stick to tag whales at a distance of 2–4 

m. The pole system included a biopsy tip (manufactured by CETA-DART, Denmark), a 2.5 cmlong stainless steel hollow cylinder 0.6 cm diameter with internal barbs, designed to obtain a skin 

biopsy during tag deployment that could be analyzed to determine gender of tagged whales. 

When using the ARTS, the SPOT tag was placed into a plastic cylindrical projectile that was 

loaded into the aluminum barrel of the airgun and propelled at the whale using compressed air 

from a SCUBA tank (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2001). Penetration depth was controlled by a 

stopper on the plastic projectile when using the airgun and by a plastic device that holds the 

transmitter onto the pole. SPLASH and CTD tags do not fit into the barrel of the ARTS and 

were deployed only by using the fiberglass pole system (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003). All tags 

were deployed from aluminum boats (~5.5–6.1 m long) with outboard motors. In 2012, all tags 

were deployed using the pole system.

Genetic Analyses

Bowhead Whales. A biopsy rod with replaceable tips was mounted on each deployment pole so 

that a skin sample was collected as the tag was deployed (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003). DNA 

was extracted and analyzed to determine sex by genetics experts at the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center for gender analysis and then archived. Genetic 

material from this archive was also used to assess stock structure within the western Arctic 

population of bowhead whales as requested by the International Whaling Commission.

Gray Whales. The same biopsy rod with replaceable tips system mounted on the deployment 

poles used for bowheads was also used for gray whales so that a skin sample was collected as the 

tag was deployed (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003). Additional biopsies were collected from gray 

whales that were not tagged by attaching biopsy tips to arrow shafts fired from crossbows. Both 

methods have been used successfully to attain biopsies in this and other studies (e.g., HeideJørgensen et al. 2003). DNA was extracted and analyzed to determine sex by genetics experts at 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center for gender analysis 

and then archived. Genetic material from this archive was also used to assess stock structure 

within the eastern and western stocks of gray whales as requested by the International Whaling 

Commission.

Photo-identification

In addition to tagging and biopsy of gray whales we also took photographs using the standard 

protocol provided by David Weller of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the 

catalogs used to photographically identify individuals (Weller et al. 1999). We used a Canon 

EOS digital camera, with a 300 mm lens, set to 400 ISO and shutter speed of 1/1200 or faster if 

conditions warranted. Photos were taken of left and right flanks from the dorsal ridge back as 

well as photos of the ventral flukes when possible. Photos were recorded in fine, high quality 

JPEG and RAW formats to maximize image quality. Copies of all gray whale photos were

5
shared with David Weller and Aimee Lang (NMFS) and with John Calamabokitis (Cascadia 

Research), for comparison with individuals in other catalogs.

Mapping

To keep all interested parties informed of tagged whale movements, maps were made on a 

weekly basis and sent to an extensive mailing list (there are ~230 recipients on the list) that 

includes many whalers and other subsistence hunters as well as agency personnel. ArcGIS 

version 9.2 (ESRI 2006) is used for all mapping. These maps and information about the project 

are also posted at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s (ADF&G) 

website: http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=marinemammals.bowhead. Recent 

maps are also archived

at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=marinemammalprogram.bowheadmaps.

Movement Analyses 

Analyses in this report are not confined to data collected between 2010 and 2012. To gain a 

more complete understanding of whale movements and distribution, we included data from all 

whales tagged between 2006 and 2012. 

Data Management and Location Processing. Location data were collected using the ARGOS 

system (Harris et al. 1990) and a copy of the raw data is archived at ADF&G in Fairbanks. 

Transmitter locations were estimated based upon the number of times the transmitter 

communicated with Argos satellites when the whale was at the surface. Location error was 

estimated by the Argos system and characterized by “location classes” (see the Argos User’s 

Manual for a complete description; available online from argos-system.org/manual/). Location 

classes are only an approximate representation of location accuracy (e.g., Vincent et al. 2002). 

Instead of using only the locations representing the highest accuracy (2 or 3), we chose to use all 

available location classes (B, A, 0, 1, 2, 3) and a filter developed by Freitas et al. (2008) in R 

version 2.5.1 (available online from R-project.org) to remove less accurate locations. The filter 

has separate velocity and angular components. 

Bowhead whale locations that resulted in swim velocities of >1.94 m/s were removed unless they 

were within 5 km of the previous location. The threshold velocity of 1.94 m/s was based on 

direct measurements during spring migration and literature review indicating this velocity is the 

maximum observed migration speed of bowheads not fleeing vessels or assisted by currents (Zeh 

et al., 1993). The angular component of the filter is used to remove locations with a high degree 

of location error that fall far from the line of travel, but still within the threshold velocity. These 

locations are essentially outliers and they create “spikes” or acute deviations in the line of travel 

(e.g., Freitas et al. 2008, Keating 1994). For location i, this deviation is measured as the angle 

between locations i-1, i, and i+1. We used the default settings within the Freitas et al. (2008) 

filter; i.e., within 2.5 km of the track line, locations resulting in angles <15°were removed and 

locations between 2.5 and 5 km of the track line were removed if they resulted in angles <25° 

(see the manual for Package ‘argosfilter’ for more detail, available online at cran.R-project.org). 

We then removed locations that fell on land to establish the final set of locations used to 

determine bowhead whale migratory paths and areas of concentrated use. 

6
Analysis of Time Spent Within Petroleum Areas. We used all telemetry data collected between 

2006 and 2013 to quantify when tagged whales were present within petroleum areas. 

Transmitter locations were filtered as described above. When calculating the number of calendar 

days that whales transmitted within various oil and gas exploration/lease areas we pooled all 

study years (i.e., 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2009 are both simply “1 January”). Pooling 

across years yields a more general understanding of when whales might be detected within a 

petroleum area. However, charts should be interpreted cautiously. Annual variation in the 

movements of whales might be confounded with how many whales are tagged each year. Hence, 

documenting the range of days that whales are present within an area is more important than the 

actual number of whales. 

We examined bowhead whale use of the following petroleum areas (Fig. 1):

1. Alaskan Chukchi Sea: We examined use within all of Lease Sale Area 193 and 

specifically within the leased blocks.

2. Central Alaskan Beaufort Sea, Prudhoe Bay

3. Central Alaskan Beaufort Sea, Camden Bay

4. Canadian Beaufort Sea, Mackenzie-Tuktoyaktuk 

5. Russian Chukchi Sea: Russia’s main oil and gas company, Rosneft, recently signed an 

agreement with ExxonMobil to explore three areas for liquefied natural gas (LNG) 

reserves (Appendix A). These areas include Severo-Vrangelevskiy 1, SeveroVrangelevskiy 2, and Yuzhno-Chukotsky (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Locations where bowhead whales were tagged (black circles) and petroleum 

exploration/development lease areas (red polygons) within the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. 

7
Safety

Safety plans and emergency contacts were specific to each tagging effort. We purchased some 

safety equipment, used additional safety equipment purchased during the previous study, and 

trained personnel in its use. Safety equipment included floatation suits, first aid kits, VHF 

radios, satellite phone, personal satellite-linked locator beacons, and GPS units. Tagging near 

Barrow also included a formal float plan filed with the NSB Search and Rescue Team. 

Results

Coordination

We worked closely with the AEWC, the local whaling captain’s associations, the North Slope 

Borough (NSB), the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, the Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans (DFO) Canada and the local Hunters and Trappers Committees, and BOEM. See Table 

1 for project history by month and year. We maintained a webpage on the State of Alaska, 

Division of Wildlife Conservation website that was updated weekly with whale movements and 

explained the project (http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=marinemammals.bowhead). We 

also sent maps to an extensive list of interested entities including individual whalers and whaling 

captains, NOAA Fisheries biologists, NSB, BOEM, and DFO. 

We began this phase of the study by sponsoring a workshop for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

commission (AEWC) and the North Slope Borough to review the accomplishments of the 5-yr 

study that had just ended. Using the information from the workshop and input and 

recommendations from AEWC commissioners we developed a new study plan that was 

approved by the AEWC (Appendix B).

Table 1. Project history from 1 June 2010 to 25 August 2013.

Month Year Event

June 2010 Project awarded the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Partners in Conservation 

Award for 2010. 

Tagged whale goes up Chukotka coast and does not pass Barrow in spring 

or summer.

July Final Report to BOEMRE (2010-033) on first 5 years finalized.

August Tagged 11 bowheads and 1 gray whale near Herschel Island and 

Tuktoyaktak Peninsula, Canada.

September Presented project update to Barrow Whaling Captains in Barrow.

Paper on fall movements in the Chukchi published in Arctic. Fall and 

winter movements of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) in the Chukchi 

Sea and within a potential petroleum development area. Arctic 63(3):289–

307.

October Presented project update to AEWC.

December Workshop with AEWC to evaluate project and develop new study plan.

January 2011 Oral presentation: Bowhead inter-annual variability and exceptional 

movements of western Arctic bowhead whales from satellite telemetry, 

2006–2010 at the Alaska Marine Science Symposium in Anchorage. 

8
Update to BOWFEST at their annual meeting in Anchorage.

February Submitted manuscript to journal Arctic on winter movements. 

Lecture to Univ. of Alaska, School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences. 

Lecture to Univ. of Alaska Marine Mammal Class. 

Update to AEWC at Mini-Convention in Barrow.

July Presented Workshop Summary and Draft Study Plan to AEWC. 

Study plan was modified and approved. 

Paper accepted for publication by Arctic. Winter movements of bowhead 

whales (Balaena mysticetus) in the Bering Sea.

August Tagged 5 gray whales near Barrow.

September Tagged 1 gray whale near Barrow. 

Joint paper on Western Arctic tagged bowhead overlapping with Eastern 

Arctic tagged bowhead in summer 2010. The Northwest Passage opens for 

bowhead whales. Biology Letters doi:10.1098/rsbl.2011.0731

October Update to AEWC in Anchorage.

November Trained one whaling crew in Gambell and one in Savoonga for tagging. 

December Oral presentations at Society for Marine Mammalogy Conference in 

Tampa, Florida. Citta presented Does the winter range of bowhead whales 

overlap commercial fisheries in the Bering Sea? Quakenbush presented 

How many industrial activities do individual bowhead whales from the 

from the Western Arctic stock encounter annually?

January 2012 Oral presentations at the Alaska Marine Science Symposium in Anchorage 

Quakenbush presented Western Arctic bowhead whale movements and 

habitat use throughout their range: 2006–2011 satellite telemetry results

and Citta presented Does the winter range of bowhead whales overlap 

commercial fisheries in the Bering Sea?

March Paper on Winter movements of bowhead whales in the Bering Sea published 

in Arctic 68(1):13-34. 

Attended Synthesis Of Arctic Research (SOAR) meeting and outlined two 

bowhead papers; 1) identify bowhead hotspots and describe associated 

oceanography, 2) use oceanography to explore annual variability in fall

migration behavior in Chukchi Sea.

April Savoonga whaling crew deployed 2 tags on bowheads.

May Gambell whaling crew deployed 2 tags on bowheads.

June Presented bowhead study results (oral and written) to the Science 

Committee of the International Whaling Commission in Panama City, 

Panama (Quakenbush et al. 2012).

July AEWC voted to continue tagging at Barrow in summer/fall due to plans for 

drilling in Chukchi and Beaufort seas this year. This vote allows for tags in 

addition to the purposes approved in the study plan in July 2011.

August Gambell whaling crew tagged 1 gray whale near Gambell and assisted with 

biopsies and photographs of other gray whales. 

September Two bowheads tagged near Barrow (first CTD tag and first advanced

Splash10 tag)

October Update to AEWC in Anchorage.

9
November Oral presentation Industrial activities and western Arctic bowhead whales: 

what we have learned from satellite telemetry at U.S.-Canada Oil and Gas 

Conference in Anchorage.

December Manuscript on crab/pot fisheries and bowhead wintering areas submitted.

Poster: Industrial activities and western Arctic bowhead whales: what we 

have learned from satellite telemetry for the Alaska Marine Science Symp.

Shared data for use in planning shipping through Bering Strait.

Shared data for use in three SOAR projects.

January 2013 Prepared 2012 annual report to BOEM.

February Visited Gambell and Savoonga to plan tagging in spring 2013.

March Prepared Draft Final Report.

May Submitted Draft Final Report. Manuscript titled “Interactions of bowhead 

whales and winter pot fisheries in the Bering Sea.” accepted by Marine 

Mammal Science.

June Paper on Interactions of bowhead whales and winter pot fisheries in the 

Bering Sea published Marine Mammal Science doi 10.1111/mms.12047

July Revised Draft Final Report

August Submitted Final Report

Tagged Whales and Tag Performance 

Bowhead whales. A total of 17 bowheads were tagged during this study between June 2010 and 

December 2012 (Table 2). Eleven whales were tagged near the Tuktoyaktak Peninsula, Canada, 

three were tagged near St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, and three where tagged near Barrow, 

Alaska. The sizes of the bowheads tagged ranged from 8.2–15.2 m; the largest was tagged near 

Barrow, Alaska, in September (Table 2). Of the 17 tagged, biopsies were collected from 10 and 

gender was determined for six; four are pending. 

Of the 17 tags deployed on bowhead whales; 11 were SPLASH tags, two were Splash10 tags, 

three were SPOT tags, and one was a CTD tag. Tags deployed in 2010 lasted an average of 162

days (range = 0 to 380 days). No tags were deployed in 2011, and SPOT and Splash-type tags 

deployed in 2012 averaged 113 days (range = 0 to 232). The CTD tag was expected to last 60–

90 days and it lasted 33 days (Table 2).

Gray Whales. A total of six gray whales were tagged during this study between June 2010 and

December 2012. All were tagged in Alaska; five were tagged near Barrow and one was tagged 

near St. Lawrence Island (Table 2). Also included in Table 2 are details for the only other gray 

whale tagged (in 2009) during the initial study period (2006–2010). Tag durations for gray 

whales were less than for bowhead whales, averaging 36 days (range = 0 to 100 days). We 

expected shorter deployments than what is typical for bowhead whales because gray whales feed 

along the seafloor. Frequent rubbing on the bottom may damage or dislodge tags, resulting in 

shorter deployments.

 

10
Table 2. Bowhead whales tagged with satellite transmitters in Alaska and Canada between 

August 2010 and September2012 and gray whales tagged in Alaska and Canada between 

September 2009 and August 2012. 

Whale Id Date tagged Location Approx. 

length (m) Sex Tag type

Tag 

duration 

(days)

Bowhead

B10-05 23-Aug-10 Tuk. 9.1 Unk SPLASH1 30

B10-06 25-Aug-10 Tuk. 9.1 Unk SPLASH 30

B10-07 25-Aug-10 Tuk. 9.9 Unk SPLASH 4

B10-08 25-Aug-10 Tuk. 10.7 Unk SPLASH 387

B10-09 25-Aug-10 Hershel 9.1 F SPOT2 188

B10-10 27-Aug-10 Tuk. 9.1 Unk SPLASH 0

B10-11 27-Aug-10 Tuk. 12.2+ M SPLASH 281

B10-12 27-Aug-10 Tuk. 11.4 F SPLASH 144

B10-13 27-Aug-10 Tuk. 10.7 F SPLASH 78

B10-14 30-Aug-10 Tuk. 12.2 M SPLASH 257

B10-15 30-Aug-10 Tuk. 12.2 F SPLASH 380

-- 20-Apr-12 Savoonga 8.2 F SPOT 0

B12-01 24-Apr-12 Savoonga 12.2 + Unk SPLASH 232

B12-02 29-Apr-12 Gambell 13.7 Unk SPOT 143

B12-03 10-Sep-12 Barrow 13.7 M Splash104 113

B12-04 10-Sep-12 Barrow 15.2 M Splash10 274

B12-05 21-Sep-12 Barrow 13.7 M CTD5 33

Gray

G09-01 3-Sep-09 Atkinson 9.9 F SPLASH 100

G11-01 15-Aug-11 Barrow 8.4 F SPOT 13

G11-02 17-Aug-11 Barrow 9.1 M SPOT 13

G11-03 17-Aug-11 Barrow 9.9 M SPOT 45

G11-04 17-Aug-11 Barrow 9.9 F SPOT 0

G11-05 18-Aug-11 Barrow 10.7 M SPOT 16

G11-06 29-Sept-11 Barrow 8.4 Tbd SPOT 6

G12-016 12-Aug-12 Gambell 9.1 F SPOT 65

1 SPLASH = Tag that provides locations and dive histograms. 2 SPOT = Tag that provides locations only.

3 Tbd = Gender to be determined when DNA results are available. 4 Splash10 = Tag that provides 

location, dive histograms, and other, more, specific dive records (see Methods). 5

CTD = Conductivity, 

Temperature, and Depth tag that provides location and detailed dive profiles with information on water 

temperature and salinity. 6

This whale was also photographed and included in the photo-identification 

catalog.

11
Sex Ratio of Tagged Whales

Bowhead Whales. The majority of tagged whales of known sex are male (63%; Table 3). More 

males than females were identified within the tagged sample at Atkinson Point (n = 3), Barrow 

(n = 26), and Shingle Point (n = 4). More females than males were identified within the tagged 

sample at Herschel Island (n = 1) and Tuktoyaktuk (n = 5).

It is unclear what finding more males than females in the sample indicates about our sampling

methods. Thirty-seven percent of tagged whales (24 of 65) could not be identified to sex and 

sample size within most tagging sites is very small. Only the sample at Barrow is large (n = 27). 

However, the pattern observed at Barrow (70% males) is similar to that observed across the 

entire sample (63%). While there might be more females than males at Tuktoyaktuk, Shingle 

and Atkinson points are in the same general area. Hence, it is unlikely that sex ratios are really 

different between Tuktoyaktuk, Shingle Point, and Atkinson Point. If we pooled these samples, 

there would be a slight male bias (54% male; 7 of 13). Because the pattern of male bias seems to 

be common to most of our tagging areas, it is unlikely that it reflects population segregation. 

Rather, we suspect that our avoidance of females with calves results in a male biased sample. 

Table 3. Number of tagged bowhead whales with genetic sex determination by tagging location. 

For whales where sex is to be determined (Tbd), samples are pending analysis at the laboratory. 

The percentage of males is calculated only for whales of known sex. 

Location #Female #Male #Unknown #Tbd %Male

Alaska

 Barrow 8 19 15 70%

 Gambell 1 -

 Savoonga 1 1 0%

Canada

 Atkinson Point 1 2 1 67%

 Hershel Island 1 0%

 Shingle Point 1 3 1 75%

 Tuktoyaktuk 3 2 5 40%

Total 15 26 24 0 63%

12
Behavior of Tagged Bowhead Whales by Sex and Age

Sex and Age Segregation. To assess if whales congregating near Barrow show evidence of sex 

or age segregation, we examined all whales of known sex and length with satellite locations 

within 150 km of Barrow. This distance, 150 km, is large enough to include the area whales 

frequent near Barrow, which we have identified as one of several hotspots (See area #3 in Figure 

29). Sex was determined from genetic analysis of skin biopsies and age was based upon whale 

length. Based upon the work of Koski et al. (1993), we define “mature” whales as those at least 

13 m in length and “immature” whales as those less than 13 m in length.

To date, most tagged whales are immature (26 of 41, 63%). Our entire tagged sample of known 

sex whales consists of 11 immature females, 4 mature females, 15 immature males, and 11

mature males. However, fewer whales are in the sample that transmitted within 150 km of 

Barrow. Whales transmitting within 150 km of Barrow include 9 of 10 immature females, 13 of 

15 immature males, 3 of 4 mature females, and 6 of 8 mature males. Hence, sample sizes are 

small, especially for mature whales. 

The pattern of use near Barrow is generally the same for immature females and males (Fig. 2). 

Immature whales of both sexes pass Barrow from approximately 18 April to 5 May. Traditional 

knowledge from Barrow says that the migration begins in early April with mid-sized whales 

passing by in the nearshore lead (Huntington and Quakenbush 2009). In mid-April lots of small 

whales pass by for several days and then a second wave, consisting of mid-sized whales, 

typically arrives in early May after a gap of two or three days from the first wave. The second 

wave has many whales, and lasts about a week (Huntington and Quakenbush 2009). One 

whaling crew has seen the same recognizable whale on 23 April year after year suggesting that 

individuals may have a personal pattern (Huntington and Quakenbush 2009). In the fall, 

immature whales are generally present between the end of August to approximately the first 

week in November. Traditional knowledge from Barrow says that bowhead whales return to the 

area near Point Barrow in late August, though some large whales were seen 20–30 miles offshore 

in open water in early August one year. Generally, the large whales come first in the fall 

migration, followed by mid-sized whales, with small whales coming last. This pattern is less 

distinct in fall than is the three-wave pattern in spring (Huntington and Quakenbush 2009).

Patterns for mature tagged whales are much less certain, due to small sample size. In the spring, 

mature tagged males passed Barrow between 21 April and 5 May (much like immature whales). 

However, one mature male (B10-01) and one mature female (B10-03) migrated past later in the 

spring (between 24 and 25 May); both were tagged near Barrow. According to traditional 

knowledge, the final wave in spring is of large whales, including cows with calves, which arrive 

in mid-May and continue into June (Huntington and Quakenbush). Currently our sample sizes 

are insufficient to say how the age classes may differ in their migration timing. In general, 

mature whales arrive at Barrow in the fall during the same window of time that immature whales 

are present. Mature females were present between 22 August and 2 September, while mature 

males were present between 9 September and 19 October (Fig. 2). Again, due to small sample 

sizes, we cannot conclude that the pattern of use by mature whales differs from that of immature 

whales. 

13
Figure 2. Number of tagged bowhead whales present within 150 km of Point Barrow by sex and 

age class. Sex was determined genetically from skin biopsies and whales >13 m in length were 

classified as mature. 

One mature female (B10-03) was within 150 km of Barrow between 21 and 23 July 2010, after 

the spring migration but prior to the fall migration (Fig. 2). While there is not enough data to 

suggest that whales found near Barrow prior to the fall migration are only mature whales, there 

might be evidence to suggest that mature whales are more likely to make non-traditional or 

“unexpected” movements. For example, both whales that traveled up into the Canadian Arctic, 

north of Banks Island, were mature males (B06-01 and B10-01) (Figs. 3–5). We have also 

observed two whales migrate across the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, to Russia, well in advance of 

the typical fall migration. In 2010, B10-03 crossed the Chukchi to the Russian coast in late 

August (blue track in Fig. 4). In 2012, B12-02, a whale tagged near Gambell, followed the 

normal spring migration pattern, but left Amundsen Gulf in early June traveling west and then 

northwest to spend July 2012 in the Arctic Ocean as far north as 78 ̊N latitude (Fig. 5). B10-03 

was a mature female and B12-02 was a mature whale of unknown sex. However, the two whales 

(B08-07 and B08-12) we observed making round trips from Amundsen Gulf to an area 

approximately 200 km north of Barrow and back before fall migration (see Fig. 25 in 

Quakenbush et al. 2010b) were both immature males. Hence, while mature whales may be more 

likely to make long distance movements prior to the fall migration, immature whales may also 

14
make similar movements. We need more data to determine whether .movement patterns differ 

by sex and age affect. 

Gray Whales. In addition to the eight gray whales (four females, three males, one to be 

determined) that were tagged during this and our previous study, we also collected biopsies and 

photographs of five other gray whales (three females, one male and one unknown) near Gambell, 

AK, in August 2012. These gray whales will be genetically and photographically identified as 

individuals for matching with genetics and photos collected by other researchers at other 

locations in order to understand more about where they go during other times of year. We have 

determined the sex of 11 of 12 gray whales biopsied (one is still to be determined); seven were 

females and four were males (36% male).

Bowhead Whale Movements and Behavior by Season

Satellite telemetry continues to be a valuable tool for tracking movements over long distances 

and time periods. Additional years have allowed us to identify inter-annual variation in fall 

movements across the Chukchi Sea and unexpected movements by some individuals high into 

the Canadian Arctic (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2011). During the initial study period (2006–2010), 

few whales were tracked westward across the Beaufort Sea during the fall migration. The tags 

deployed in Canada in 2010, during this study period (2010–2012), greatly improved our sample 

size for that region and time period.

Summer/Fall (July–September) High Arctic, Beaufort Sea, and Chukchi Sea. Two bowhead 

whales have made long distance movements outside of the migration period and into Canadian 

High Arctic waters. One whale (B06-01) tagged in spring 2006 made a 1,400 km round trip 

from Amundsen Gulf to the north end of Banks Island and back (Fig. 3) (Quakenbush et al. 

2010b, Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2011) and another, tagged in spring 2010, left Amundsen Gulf 

passed through Prince of Wales Strait between Banks and Victoria islands into Viscount Melville 

Sound (Fig. 4) where it overlapped in space with a bowhead whale from the Eastern Arctic stock 

tagged in West Greenland (Fig. 5) (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2011). 

Other complicated summer/fall movements have been identified. To date, after the spring 

migration to Amundsen Gulf, we have observed two tagged whales (B08-07 and B08-12) make

round trips from Amundsen Gulf to Barrow and back before fall migration (see Fig. 25 in 

Quakenbush et al. 2010b). Kaktovik whalers see the first whales in the fall in late July or early 

August but the main migration begins in late August (Huntington and Quakenbush 2009). 

Because Kaktovik is done whaling and engaged in subsistence activities on land before the fall 

migrations ends, they could not say when that occurs.

We have also observed two whales migrate across the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, to Russia, well 

in advance of the typical fall migration. In 2010, B10-03 crossed the Chukchi to the Russian 

coast in late August (blue track in Fig. 6). In 2012, B12-02, a whale tagged near Gambell, 

followed the normal spring migration pattern, but left Amundsen Gulf in early June traveling 

west and then northwest to spend July 2012 in the Arctic Ocean as far north as 78 ̊N latitude 

(Fig. 7). 

15
Figure 3. Track of satellite tagged bowhead whale B06-01 from Amundsen Gulf to the north end 

of Banks Island and back in summer.

Figure 4. Track of satellite tagged bowhead whale B10-01 that left Amundsen Gulf passed 

through Prince of Wales Strait between Banks and Victoria islands into Viscount Melville Sound 

where it overlapped in space with a bowhead whale from the Eastern Arctic stock tagged in West 

Greenland (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2011). 

Amundsen Gulf

16
Figure 5. Tracks of two tagged bowhead whales that entered the Northwest Passage in 

September 2010. One whale from the Western Arctic stock traveled north and east while a 

second whale from the Eastern Arctic stock traveled north and west to Viscount Melville Sound

(Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2011). 

Amundsen Gulf

17
Figure 6. Bowhead whale B09-09 (yellow track); the only tagged whale to migrate north along 

the Russian coast in spring and spend the summer in the Chukchi Sea. This whale was joined in 

summer (late August) 2010 by B10-03 indicating summer use of the Chukchi Sea.

Figure 7. Farthest north summer movements of a tagged bowhead whale (B12-02) to greater 

than 78 ̊ N latitude in July 2012.

18
One whale (B09-09) tagged near Barrow in August 2009 summered in the Chukchi Sea in 2010 

(Quakenbush et al. 2010b, 2012; Citta et al. 2012). B09-09 migrated later in the spring than the 

other tagged whales, leaving the Bering Sea ~26 May, and traveled up the Chukotka coast (Fig. 

8). Between mid-June and 30 August, when it last transmitted, B09-09 remained in the Chukchi 

Sea (yellow track in Fig. 6; Fig. 8), and is the only tagged whale that has not passed Barrow and 

traveled through the Beaufort Sea to the Amundsen Gulf region during the spring.

Figure 8. Complete track of B09-09; the only tagged whale that did not pass Barrow in the 

spring on the way to the Canadian Beaufort Sea and instead spent spring and summer in the 

Chukchi Sea mostly in Russian waters. Blue track is 29 August 2009–15 May 2010. Red track is 

16 May 2010–29 August 2010.

During the fall migration, all but one tagged bowhead whale traveled within 50 km of shore in 

the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Kaktovik whalers see whales very close to shore that stop to feed, but 

others travel farther offshore, moving steadily westward (Huntington and Quakenbush 2009). 

When the leader of a group of feeding whales shows its flukes when it dives it is telling the 

others it is time to go. Bowheads do not come close to shore every year, but whales have long 

been found nearshore as indicated by Arey Island’s Iñupiaq name, Nalagiagviq, which means 

“place to listen for whales.” (Huntington and Quakenbush 2009). The only whale traveling 

farther offshore was B06-01, tagged in 2006 (see yellow track in Fig. 9); this whale traveled 

within 90 km of shore. 

Kaktovik whalers do not see a strong pattern of whales regarding the timing of passage by size of 

whales (Huntington and Quakenbush). While larger whales may tend to come by first, whales of 

all sizes are seen throughout the migratory period. They do not see the really big whales that are 

seen at Barrow probably because they travel more than 20 mi from shore. Females with calves 

are first seen in mid-September and are not the first to be seen (Huntington and Quakenbush 

2009). Passage time from Demarcation Point to Point Barrow averaged 16 days (range = 5 to 43 

days). 

19
Figure 9. Tracks of tagged bowhead whales traveling westward across the Beaufort Sea during 

fall migration. 

General Use of Beaufort Lease Sale Areas. Many tagged bowheads spent much of the 

summer feeding in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, much of that time within the active MackenzieTuktoyaktak oil and gas exploration area (Figs. 1 and 10). In fall, whales left the Canadian 

Beaufort Sea traveling west, where they passed through the leased blocks in Camden Bay 

followed by the Prudhoe Bay leases on the way to the Chukchi Sea leases (Fig. 10).

Figure 10. Tracks of tagged bowhead whales in Canada and westward across the Beaufort Sea 

during fall migration (all years) relative to the locations of oil and gas lease sale areas (outlined 

in red).

20
Fall (August–December) Chukchi Sea. Movements of tagged whales in the Chukchi Sea during 

fall 2006–2008 were published in Quakenbush et al. (2010a). Additional years of data including 

those from this study period have shown that there is inter-annual variability in how and when 

bowhead whales migrate through the Chukchi Sea (Fig. 11). Prior to this study period, tagged 

whales were consistent in crossing the Chukchi Sea fairly directly and then moving slowly 

southward along the Chukotka coast before moving into the Bering Sea (Figs. 11, 12). In 2012, 

however, most bowheads lingered in the central Chukchi Sea and entered the Bering Sea more 

directly, without spending time along the northwestern Chukotka coast (Fig. 13). Only B12-02 

visited the north-western Chukotka coast (red track in Fig. 12). This whale moved into the 

Chukchi Sea in early July, prior to the typical fall migration and visited the northwestern 

Chukotka coast between 10 and 22 August. This whale then moved to the central Chukchi Sea 

in September and October, when the other whales tagged in 2012 were also present in the central 

Chukchi Sea. 

Figure 11. Tracks of satellite-tagged bowhead whales showing different paths across the 

Chukchi Sea by year but consistent use of the Russian coast in August through December, 2006 

through 2010. The oil and gas lease sale area is outlined in red (or blue) and the leased blocks 

appear inside the outline in gray.

21
Figure 12. Tracks of 32 satellite-tagged bowhead whales in the Chukchi Sea from August 

through December, 2006–2010 relative to Chukchi Lease Sale 193 (shaded in red).

Figure 13. Fall tracks of tagged bowhead whales in the Chukchi Sea in 2012. 

22
General Use of Chukchi Lease Sale Area including during drilling. Prior to 2012, 

virtually all whales (33 of 34) crossed the lease sale area, but no whales spent significant time 

within the sale area (Fig. 12). Whales typically crossed the Chukchi Sea quickly and then 

traveled slowly southward along the Chukotka coast, eventually into the Bering Sea. In contrast 

to this, most whales in 2012 lingered within the Chukchi Sea lease sale area (Fig. 13), cooccurring with drilling operations by Shell at the Burger Prospect (Fig. 14). Whales remained in 

the central Chukchi Sea until sea ice formed along the northwestern coast of Chukotka. Whales 

then traveled to the coast of Chukotka near Bering Strait and entered the Bering Sea in early 

December (Fig. 13).

Figure 14. Tracks of tagged bowhead whales within Chukchi Sea Lease Sale Area during 

drilling in 2012. Drilling occurred at only one of the green stars.

Winter (December-March) Bering Sea. Winter movements of 11 tagged whales in 2008/09 and 

10 in 2009/10 were published in Citta et al. (2012). In the first winter, tagged bowheads 

remained in the Anadyr Strait area in the western Bering Sea (Fig. 15). In the second winter, 

tagged bowheads were found in that same area and farther east to St. Matthew Island (Fig. 15). 

Bowheads remained inside the ice edge during both winters. Additional winter information was 

collected for three tagged whales in 2012/13. In 2012, one tagged whale (B12-3) traveled as far 

east as 164 ̊W longitude and 58 ̊N latitude (near Bristol Bay in the Bering Sea (Fig. 16).

23
In the winter, St. Lawrence Island whalers first see whales along the fast ice north of Savoonga 

in December about two days before they are seen in Gambell. The predominant winter 

movement of bowheads past St. Lawrence Island is west of the island (Noongwook et al. 2007), 

which corresponds to movements of the tagged whales where only one passed west of the island 

(Fig. 15).

Tagged whales used offshore areas of heavier, yet fractured, ice despite the availability of areas 

with open water near shore (Figs. 17 and 18). Within a random sample of bowhead locations, 

only 1 of 102 locations (i.e., ~1%) fell within an open water area (polynya) during the winter of 

2009/08 (Citta et al. 2012). Only 3 of 53 locations (~6%) fell within polynyas during the winter 

of 2009/10.

Figure 15. Tracks of tagged bowhead whales within the Bering Sea during the winters of 

2008/09 (n=11) and 2009/10 (n=10). Figure 3 in Citta et al. 2012.

24
Figure 16. Track of B12-3 in late December 2012 and early January 2013 showing its farthest 

east location.

25
Figure 17. Contours showing probability of use (%) by bowhead whales and average Advanced

microwave Scanning Radiometer-Earth observing system (AMSR-E) ice concentration in 

January 2009. The ice concentration maps include non-shaded contours for probability of use, 

illustrating how probability of use overlaps ice concentration.

26
Figure 18. Contours showing probability of use (%) by bowhead whales and average Advanced 

microwave Scanning Radiometer-Earth observing system (AMSR-E) ice concentration in 

January 2010. The ice concentration maps include non-shaded contours for probability of use, 

illustrating how probability of use overlaps ice concentration.

27
Spring (April-June) Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Tagged bowhead whales left the 

Bering Sea between 31 March and 27 April in 2009 (n = 7). In 2010, 5 of 6 tagged bowhead 

whales left the Bering Sea between 10 and 22 April. One whale (B09-09) migrated much later 

(26 May). Prior to reaching Bering Strait all tagged whales traveled north by passing west of 

Saint Lawrence Island. This pattern is also described by whalers from St. Lawrence Island 

(Noongwook et al. 2007). Some whales passing near shore of Pugughileq (Southwest Cape), the 

spring whaling location of the Village of Savoonga, travel west toward the Russian coast. 

Whales passing to the west more offshore turn northwest and pass Gambell. This is known 

because pulses of whales seen close to shore at Pugughileq are not seen from Gambell, and 

pulses of whales seen at Gambell are not seen first at Pugughileq (Noongwook et al. 2007). 

Although not seen recently, some whales must have traveled by to the east because there are 

bones at archeological sites there (Noongwook et al. 2007). In Bering Strait, whales passed by 

both to the east (n = 8) and to the west (n = 3) of the Diomede Islands and three whales did not 

transmit often enough when passing to determine where they passed the Diomede Islands (Citta 

et al. 2012, Quakenbush et al. 2012). 

Until 2010, tagged whales traveled north along the Alaska coast mostly east of the eastern 

boundary of the Chukchi lease sale area (Fig. 19) towards Point Barrow then on to Amundsen 

Gulf, Canada (Fig. 20). Whale B09-09, however, migrated later in the spring than the other 

tagged whales, leaving the Bering Sea ~26 May and traveled up the west side of the Chukchi Sea 

instead of the east side (Fig. 21). By 14 June 2010 this whale was west of Wrangel Island (Fig. 

8) (Quakenbush et al. 2010b, 2012). Between mid June and 21 August 2010, B09-09 remained 

in the Chukchi Sea (Fig. 8) and this is the only whale tagged during the spring in any year that 

has not passed Barrow and entered the Beaufort Sea.

Traditional knowledge from Barrow includes bowheads seen as early as February but they 

usually arrive in mid-April (Huntington and Quakenbush 2009).

Figure 19. Tracks of tagged bowhead whales on spring migration through the Chukchi Sea in 

late March through early May, 2009 and 2010.

28
Figure 20. Tracks of tagged bowhead whales on spring migration through the Beaufort Sea in 

May 2006, 2009, and 2010.

Figure 21. Tracks of bowheads whales leaving the Bering Sea on spring migration including the 

only tagged whale (B09-09) to travel northward along the western Chukchi Sea coast.

29
Bowhead Whale Presence and Timing within Petroleum Areas

We were able to document the timing of use of proposed and active petroleum areas for 63 

tagged bowhead whales (Fig. 22). We were able to track 57 of these during the fall migration 

period (July–December) and show by histograms the days that tagged whales were present in 

each active petroleum area (Fig. 23) and each potential petroleum area (Fig. 24). Histograms 

should be interpreted cautiously because annual variation in the movements of whales might be 

confounded by how many whales are tagged. Hence, documenting the range of days that whales 

are present within an area is more important than the actual number of whales. 

Figure 22. Locations by season for 63 bowhead whales with satellite transmitters (colored

circles) between July and December, 2006–2012, relative to active and proposed petroleum 

areas. 

Chukchi Sea Lease Area 193. The route of the spring migration follows the Alaska coast to 

Point Barrow and few whales entered Area 193 or the leased blocks (Fig. 19). During the spring 

migration, whales transmitted within Area 193 between 16 April and 5 May (Fig. 23). The main 

period that tagged whales were present within Area 193 was in fall from approximately 28 

August to 26 November, although some whales were sporadically present from 6 July to 25 

December. On average, tagged whales were present within Area 193 for 10 days (range = 1 to 

36 days, n = 45 whales).

30
Residence patterns within the leased blocks were similar to those within the larger area (Fig. 23). 

Because the leased blocks represent a small area, fewer whales were found within the block 

boundaries. During the spring migration, a single whale entered a leased block on 18 April. 

Tagged whales were present within the leased blocks on most days between 3 September and 25 

November. A single whale tagged in 2010 was present within the leased blocks on 23 and 24 

July. Because the leased blocks are relatively small, residence times in the greater lease area are 

probably more representative of when whales might be found within leased blocks than the data 

from leased blocks alone. During the fall migration, 40 of 41 tagged whales (97.6%) entered the 

lease area (Table 4).

Beaufort Sea, Prudhoe Bay. The spring migration is typically offshore of Prudhoe Bay (Fig. 

20); hence, no tagged whales transmitted from the Prudhoe Bay area in spring. Tagged whales 

were located within the Prudhoe Bay area between 19 July and 28 October (Fig. 23). Generally, 

only a single transmitter was located within the Prudhoe Bay area at any given time. The 

average number of days individual whales transmitted from this area was 2.0 (range = 1 to 3 

days; n = 16 whales). The low number of days individual whales were present was likely 

because whales were migrating through this area, rather than lingering or feeding. Two 

transmitters were located within this area on 12 September, 13 September, 26 September, 3 

October, and 4 October. Hence, the main migratory pulse likely occurs in September and early 

October. During the fall migration, 15 of 18 whales (83.3%) entered the Prudhoe Bay petroleum 

area (Table 4). 

Beaufort Sea, Camden Bay. As with the Prudhoe Bay area, the spring migration path is typically 

offshore of Camden Bay (Fig. 20). No tagged whales transmitted within the Camden Bay area 

until 26 July. Sporadic transmissions lasted until 26 October (Fig. 23). The average number of 

days individual whales transmitted from this area was 2.2 (range = 1 to 6 days; n = 13 tagged 

whales). One whale remained within the Camden Bay area for five days and one remained for 

six days (both in 2010). Hence, while most whales simply migrate through the Camden Bay 

area, we observed a few whales (2 of 13) spend five or six days within the area. While some 

whales may stop briefly to feed here, whales generally do not spend a significant amount of time 

here. 

During the fall migration, 13 of 18 whales (72.2%) entered the Camden Bay petroleum area 

(Table 4). Of the whales that migrated through the Beaufort Sea, three of four that did not enter 

the Camden Bay petroleum area passed inshore of the area (Fig. 24). 

31
Figure 23. Count of tagged whales present within petroleum areas in Alaskan waters by day of year. 

32
Figure 24. Locations (colored circles) for four whales that did not pass through the Camden 

Bay petroleum area during the fall migration. Three of four whales passed inshore of the 

petroleum area. Locations for the eleven whales that did pass through the area are not shown 

on this map.

Beaufort Sea, Mackenzie-Tuktoyaktuk. The Mackenzie-Tuktoyaktuk oil and gas area lies on 

the eastern boundary of the western Arctic stock’s summer range in Amundsen Gulf, Canada

(Fig. 22). Bowhead whales occurred within this area in two distinct time periods (Fig. 25). First, 

tagged whales arrived in the Mackenzie-Tuktoyaktuk area on 1 May while en route to Cape 

Bathurst and Amundsen Gulf. Whales generally passed through this area by 19 June. Second, 

whales return to the Mackenzie-Tuktoyaktuk area in summer and remain there until the fall 

migration. Tagged whales returned to this area on 27 June and were present until 25 October.

 

Whales spent an average of 21 days within this area (range = 1 to 68 days; n = 35 whales). This 

number should be considered a minimum estimate, however because tags that were deployed the 

previous fall and survived long enough to enter this area often stopped transmitting within this 

area. Presumably whales were present after the tags stopped transmitting. In addition, a number 

of whales were tagged within this area and were present for some time before they were tagged. 

Ten whales were tagged near Tuktoyaktuk between 23 and 30 August 2010. Hence, the spike in 

the number of whales present in the Mackenzie-Tuktoyaktuk area around 29 August is due to 

this tagging event (Fig. 25). 

During the fall migration, 30 of 31 tagged whales (96.8%) entered the Mackenzie-Tuktoyaktuk 

petroleum area (Table 4).

33
Chukchi Sea, Proposed Russian Lease Areas. To date, tagged bowhead whales have only 

entered the proposed Severo-Vrangelevskiy 1 (SV-1) and Severo-Vrangelevskiy 2 (SV-2) lease 

areas during the fall migration. Tagged whales were present within the more northern SV-1 area 

between 5 September and 17 November, and were present for an average of 4 days (range = 1 to 

14; n = 25 whales). Tagged whales were present within SV-2 between 15 August and 31 

October (Fig. 24), and were present for an average of 17 days (range = 2 to 55; n = 8 whales).

The Yuzhno-Chukotsky (Y-C) lease area is located farther south and prior to the typical fall 

migration, three different whales spent time there between 26 July and 15 October; B09-09, B10-

03, and B12-02. Two of these, B10-03 and B12-02, migrated across the Beaufort and Chukchi 

seas, to Russia, well in advance of the typical fall migration. In 2010, B10-03 crossed the 

Chukchi Sea to the Russian coast in late August (blue track in Fig. 6). In 2012, B12-02, a whale 

tagged near Gambell, Alaska followed the normal spring migration pattern, but left Amundsen 

Gulf, Canada in early June traveling west and then northwest to spend July 2012 in the Arctic 

Ocean as far north as 78 ̊N latitude (Fig. 7). B09-09 tagged near Barrow in August 2009 

summered in the Chukchi Sea in 2010 (Fig. 8). 

Whales following the typical fall migration pattern began to arrive in the Y-C area around 16 

October and were present until 19 December (Fig. 25). Tagged whales were present within the 

Y-C area for an average of 6 days (range = 1 to 17 days; n = 33 whales). During the fall 

migration, 25 of 33 tagged whales (75.8%) entered SV-1, while 8 of 34 (23.5%) entered SV-2, 

and 33 of 35 (94.3%) entered Y-C (Table 4). 

Potential for Cumulative Effects. We were able to assess how many active petroleum areas 

were encountered during the entire fall migration for 15 whales. The average number of active 

petroleum areas individual whales passed through was 3.3 (range = 0 to 4) active petroleum 

areas. The average number of active and proposed petroleum areas individual whales passed 

through was 5.0 (range = 1 to 6). 

34
Figure 25. Count of tagged whales present within petroleum areas in Canadian and Russian waters by day of year. 

35
Table 4. Summary of how many whales entered each petroleum area during the fall migration. 

For each whale and area, “Yes” indicates that satellite locations were collected within the 

petroleum area, “No” indicates that the whale passed the petroleum area and did not transmit 

from within the area boundary, and “-“ indicates that entry into the area is unknown. Only 

locations between July and December are considered. 

Whale 

ID Year Active petroleum areas Proposed petroleum areas

Area 193 Prudhoe Camden Tuk SV-2 SV-1 Y-C

B06-01 2006 Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes

B07-02 2007 - - - Yes - - -

B07-06 2007 - - - Yes - - -

B07-10 2007 Yes - - - Yes - -

B08-01 2008 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

B08-01 2009 - - - Yes - - -

B08-02 2008 Yes - - - Yes Yes -

B08-03 2008 Yes - - - No Yes Yes

B08-05 2008 Yes - - - - - -

B08-06 2008 Yes - - - No Yes Yes

B08-07 2008 Yes - - - No Yes Yes

B08-07 2009 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes -

B08-08 2008 Yes - - - Yes Yes Yes

B08-09 2008 Yes - - - No Yes No

B08-10 2008 Yes - - - No No No

B08-11 2008 Yes - - - Yes Yes Yes

B08-12 2008 Yes - - - - - Yes

B08-12 2009 - - Yes Yes - - -

B08-13 2008 Yes - - - - - Yes

B08-14 2008 - - - - - - Yes

B08-14 2009 - - - Yes - - -

B09-01 2009 Yes - - - Yes Yes Yes

B09-02 2009 Yes - - - - Yes Yes

B09-03 2009 Yes - - - Yes Yes Yes

B09-04 2009 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes

B09-04 2010 - - - Yes - - -

B09-05 2009 Yes Yes - Yes No Yes Yes

B09-05 2010 - - - Yes - - -

B09-06 2009 Yes - - - - Yes -

B09-09 2009 Yes - - - No Yes Yes

B09-09 2010 No No No No No No Yes

B09-12 2009 Yes Yes No Yes - Yes -

B09-13 2009 Yes - - - No No Yes

36
Table 4. Continued

Whale 

ID Year Active petroleum areas Proposed petroleum areas

Area 193 Prudhoe Camden Tuk SV-2 SV-1 Y-C

B09-13 2010 Yes Yes Yes Yes No - Yes

B09-15 2009 Yes - - - No - Yes

B09-15 2010 - - - Yes - - -

B09-16 2009 Yes - - - No - Yes

B10-01 2010 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

B10-03 2010 Yes Yes - Yes No No Yes

B10-04 2010 - - - Yes - - -

B10-05 2010 - Yes Yes Yes - - -

B10-06 2010 - - Yes Yes - - -

B10-07 2010 - - - Yes - - -

B10-08 2010 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

B10-08 2011 - - - Yes - - -

B10-09 2010 Yes - - - No No Yes

B10-11 2010 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

B10-12 2010 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

B10-13 2010 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

B10-14 2010 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes

B10-15 2010 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

B10-15 2011 - - - Yes - - -

B12-01 2012 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

B12-02 2012 - - - - - - Yes

B12-03 2012 Yes - - - No Yes Yes

B12-04 2012 Yes - - - - - -

B12-05 2012 Yes - - - Yes Yes -

Whales that enter 40 15 13 30 8 25 33

Tracked whales 41 18 18 31 34 33 35

Percent entering 97.6% 83.3% 72.2% 96.8% 23.5% 75.8% 94.3%

37
Seismic Analyses

The activity associated with oil and gas exploration that has the greatest potential for harm is 

seismic testing due to the high noise levels associated with it. Many seismic arrays tow 36 

airguns and noise levels can be as high as 190 dB. There is little information about how noise 

affects bowhead whale communication, navigation, and movements. Whalers know that whales 

are sensitive to noise. In Kaktovik, a thermos falling over in the boat was enough to make them 

dive and swim away (Huntington and Quakenbush 2009). Wainwright whalers have been told 

since they were young boys at whaling camp to keep quiet so that the whales would not be 

disturbed while setting the migratory path for the other whales to follow (Quakenbush and 

Huntington 2010). In 1968, there was seismic testing offshore of Wainwright during the spring 

migration. The whalers saw no whales, not even a blow, that spring. Barrow provided whale 

meat and maktak to Wainwright for Thanksgiving and Christmas (Quakenbush and Huntington 

2010). When a test well was drilled offshore near Point Barrow, whales diverted their migration 

around the area, even though no drilling occurred during the migration. The noise from the idle 

drill ship was still sufficient to affect the whales. After the drilling ceased and the rig was 

removed, the whales reverted to normal behavior in the area within a couple of years. Whalers 

of St. Lawrence Island use sails to power their boats when whaling because whales alone or in 

small groups are sensitive to noise. When large numbers of whales are present their less 

sensitive to noise (Noongwook 2007).

Although we now know that tagged bowheads encounter multiple active petroleum areas during 

summer and fall we have found few incidences where tagged bowhead whales overlap in space 

and time with seismic operations. We provided a preliminary analysis of a tagged whale in 2006 

that was within a seismic operation near Tuktoyaktak (Quakenbush et al. 2010, Citta et al. 

abstract/poster Appendix C). We recently acquired more detailed data on this seismic operation 

and will be able to conduct a more detailed analysis in the future.

We also worked with Shell to compare location and timing of seismic operations in the Chukchi 

Sea with tagged bowhead whales to look at overlap in Lease Area193 and did not find any

overlap. We also looked at overlap in the Prudhoe Bay petroleum area and did not find any. The 

most likely area of overlap may be in the Tuktoyaktuk area in 2010 when 11 tagged whales were 

present.

Dive Behavior

We have not conducted detailed analyses of the dive data from the SPLASH or Splash10 tags,

yet. Preliminary examinations, however, show that except for Barrow Canyon, bowheads often 

dive to the bottom when they are over the Continental Shelf. Whalers near Kaktovik see 

bowheads pause to feed at the passes between barrier islands and where the water flowing out of 

the lagoon mixes with the ocean water. There are depressions in the sea floor at these places and 

bowheads are seen there with mud on their stomachs (Huntington and Quakenbush 2009).

CTD tag deployment. One Conductivity (i.e., salinity), Temperature, and Depth (CTD) tag was 

deployed at Barrow on 21 September 2012. The tag was designed to last 90 days to minimize

weight and size. The tag transmitted 33 days and yielded 17 CTD profiles, 171 dive profiles, and 

187 locations along Barrow Canyon and over the shelf (Fig. 25, lower right). Although the tag 

38
did not transmit as long as we expected, the quality and quantity of the data collected by this tag 

is promising.

For examples of data produced by this tag, we present two bowhead whale dive profiles paired 

with CTD profiles of those dives. The first set of dive and CTD profiles were collected northeast 

of Point Barrow in Barrow Canyon. In summer and fall, the Alaska Coastal Current carries 

Alaska Coastal Water (ACW) through Barrow Canyon. Colder, saltier Winter Water (WW) 

occurs both below and offshore of the Alaska Coastal Current, forming distinct vertical and 

horizontal hydrographic fronts. There is another front located where WW grades into warmer 

Atlantic Water (AW), usually around 200–250 m depth (e.g., Pickart 2004, Pickart et al., 2005; 

Nikolopoulous et al., 2009; von Appen and Pickart, 2012). Plotting the temperature, salinity and 

depth data collected by the tag in Barrow Canyon show the three distinct water masses (Fig. 26). 

The upper left panel in Figure 26 shows that water temperature (red line) is fairly warm near the 

surface, but then drops to approximately -1 ̊C. Below 100 m the temperature gradually warms. 

Plotting this information in a Temperature-Salinity plot (lower left chart in Fig. 26) helps 

identify individual water masses. ACW is generally warm (1–3 °C) and fresh with a salinity 

range of ~30–31 practical salinity units (PSU). WW is generally cold (< 0 °C) with a higher 

salinity range of 32–33.5 PSU. AW is warmer (>0 °C) but saltier than WW (>33.5 PSU) (Steve 

Okkonen, pers comm). Hence, it appears that the boundary between WW and AW occurred at 

~150 m when the whale was present. Interestingly, many of the dive profiles collected in this 

area show that the whale frequented this depth that defined the interface between WW and AW 

(see upper right chart in Fig. 26). Perhaps zooplankton were being concentrating at this 

hydrographic front providing a layer of prey for bowheads.

39
Figure 26. Example of CTD and dive profiles for an area within Barrow Canyon. The 

temperature and salinity plots show that the area within ~50 m (dbar = m) of the surface is 

dominated by Alaska Coastal Water (ACW). Between 50 and 150 m, Winter Water (WW) from 

the Chukchi shelf dominates. Around 150 m, warmer, saltier Atlantic Water (AW) dominates. A 

dive profile (upper right chart) shows that during a 16 min dive, the whale spent 6 min near the 

lower boundary of WW and AW. Perhaps zooplankton were concentrated at the hydrographic 

front between WW and AW. 

The second example is for a location northwest of Barrow Canyon over the continental shelf of 

the Chukchi Sea (Fig. 27). The temperature and salinity plots show that ACW dominates the 

water column. The dive profile shows a dive lasting 15 min; ~11 min of this dive are spent at or 

near the seafloor, located at 45 m depth. Diving to the bottom was commonly observed in dive

profiles over the Chukchi Shelf. 

We have three CTD tags that we hope to deploy this spring and fall. We hope to collect 

oceanographic data within the Cape Bathurst polynya (Canada) in the spring and along the 

Chukotka coast (Russia) in fall, both areas are likely important to bowhead whales for feeding. 

40
Figure 27. Example CTD and dive profiles for an area on the Chukchi Sea shelf. Temperature 

and salinity plots show that the water column was dominated by Alaska Coastal Water (ACW). 

The dive profile (upper right chart) shows that the whale dove for 15 min and spent ~11 min at 

or near the seafloor. Most of the dive profiles collected over the Chukchi Shelf indicated that the 

whale spent significant time at or near the seafloor. 

Tag development and deployment

During this study period, tag development included use of Splash10 and CTD tags, both which 

collect better dive information. We expanded our deployment locations to include Canada and 

St. Lawrence Island; this helped ensure that our data were not biased by tagging location. We 

purchased four CTD tags and deployed one. CTD tags provided detailed data on individual 

dives and link ocean temperature and salinity to dive depth. This information will be valuable in 

identifying the physical properties of water where bowheads spend time and will help to identify 

feeding conditions and areas. 

To date, we have tracked nine whales for >365 days. The number of tags with this longevity has 

clarified that our limiting factor is not tag retention but battery power. During the next phase of 

this study (2012–2017) we will be programming SPOT tags to last up to two years of tracking.

41
Accomplishment of Objectives and Tasks

Overall Objective: The overall objective of this study is to work with subsistence whalers to 

deploy satellite transmitters on bowhead whales in order to collect data that can be used to 

accomplish the following specific objectives.

Between 2010 and 2012 we worked with subsistence whalers from Tuktoyaktuk, and Aklavik in 

Canada and from Barrow, Kaktovik, Pt. Hope, Gambell, and Savoonga. 

Objective 1: Test the general hypothesis that all bowhead whales in the western Arctic stock 

make seasonal migrations between the Bering Sea and feeding grounds in western Canada.

To date, all tagged whales have wintered in the Bering Sea. Except for one, all whales migrated 

from the Bering Sea, directly to the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Whale B09-09 (Fig. 8) migrated

into the Chukchi Sea on 25 March 2010 and remained there until it stopped transmitting in 

August. This whale did not go to western Canada to feed in 2010. Conclusion – most, but not 

all, bowhead whales in the western Arctic stock make seasonal migrations between the Bering 

Sea and feeding grounds in western Canada.

Objective 2: Test the related hypothesis that occasional concentrations of bowhead whales 

feeding in nearshore waters of the Beaufort Sea east of Barrow are a product of delays in 

migration by whales returning from summering in Canada.

If food is present near Point Barrow due to the “krill trap” conditions described by the 

BOWFEST project (Ashjian et al. 2010, Okkonen et al. 2011) bowhead whales could come from 

several directions to take advantage of it. Whales that passed west of Barrow could come back 

(see Fig. 3 in Quakenbush et al. 2010a) and whales on migration from Canada could stop. 

Additional possibilities include whales summering in the Chukchi Sea could go to Barrow (see 

Objective 3 below) and whales traversing the Beaufort Sea during summer could move in from 

the north (see Fig. 25 in Quakenbush et al. 2010b). To date, however, all satellite tagged 

bowhead whales observed at Barrow in the summer and fall, first migrated to the Canadian 

Beaufort (Amundsen Gulf) in spring. 

Objective 3: Test the alternative hypothesis that the above occasional concentrations of whales 

feeding east of Barrow are composed of whales that generally summer in the eastern Chukchi 

Sea and only enter the southwestern Beaufort Sea periodically, and under certain oceanographic 

conditions. 

Although we cannot say for sure, our data so far does not support the hypothesis that the 

concentration of whales feeding near Barrow in summer comes from whales summering in the 

Chukchi Sea. We have tagged only one whale that summered in the Chukchi and it did not 

spend time near Barrow, although it was tagged there the preceding August.

Objective 4: To the extent possible, test the hypothesis that the above concentrations of whales 

consist of representative proportions of demographic (sex and age, i.e., size) groups as observed 

in the western Arctic population. 

42
In general, the whales tagged near Barrow have tended to be males. We have tagged a total of 42 

bowhead whales near Barrow, 24 are of known sex and 16 of the 24 (67%) were males (Table 2). 

We have tagged more immature whales (n = 25) than mature whales (n = 12) overall. Immature 

whales tend to spend time near Barrow in the summer and fall from the end of August to early 

November, which is similar to when mature whales are there; end of August to mid October. 

Sample sizes are too small for mature whales to determine if use of the Barrow area differs by 

sex. Although our sample sizes are small for some sex/age groups, males, females, immature 

and adults all spend time near Barrow in summer and fall. 

Objective 5: Test the hypothesis that the above concentrations of bowhead whales consist of 

individuals that are only present in the aggregations for hours to days as opposed to weeks to 

months.

In order to address this objective, we analyzed residence time, defined as the sum of days 

individual tagged whales were within 150 km of Barrow within each month. We separated the

whales tagged near Barrow in the month they were tagged from whales tagged near Barrow 

during a different month or tagged elsewhere. This is important because whales tagged near 

Barrow likely have residence times that are biased low for the month of tagging because they 

were present for an unknown length of time before being tagged (Table 5). 

In the spring (April and May), tagged bowheads spent less time near Barrow than in the fall 

(September–October). The average residence time in the spring is 3–4 days but ranged from 1–

11 days. We have very little data for the summer months of June and July; the data available for 

August are for whales tagged within that month, likely biasing August residence times low

(upper Table 5). The August data suggest that tagged whales spent at least 5 days near Barrow 

with a minimum range of 2–10 days. In September and October the average was more than a 

week (7.4 and 11.9 days, respectively) and the range extended to 31 days (Table 5). 

43
Table 5. Average number of days whales spend within 150 km of Barrow by month. Whales tagged at Barrow may have residence 

times that are biased low for the month of tagging because they may have been present before being tagged. Hence, we present 

whales tagged at Barrow within the month of tagging separately from those present in subsequent months or initially tagged 

elsewhere. For example, if a whale was tagged at Barrow in May, the data are likely biased low and are in the upper part of the table 

(“Month tagged at Barrow”). If the whale was within 150 km of Barrow in later months, the data are unbiased and are presented in 

the lower part of the table (“Unbiased data”). 

Month

Month tagged at 

Barrow Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

n 1 2 - - 10 16 4 -

Mean (d) 1 3 - - 5.1 5.3 6.5 -

Range (d) - 3 - - 2-10 1-10 2-14 -

Unbiased data Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

n 10 6 1 1 - 15 16 4

Mean (d) 4.4 3.3 1 4 - 7.4 11.9 3.3

Range (d) 2-11 1-4 - - - 1-17 3-31 1-7

44
Objective 6: Estimate the rate and timing of travel of whales during migration across the 

Beaufort Sea.

Across all years, tagged whales took an average of 8 days (range = 6 to 18 days) to cross the 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea in spring. The earliest date tagged whales passed Point Barrow was 16 

April and the latest date tagged whales past Demarcation Point was 30 May (a span of 44 days). 

The fall migration occurs over a longer period of time and is more variable. Passage time from 

Demarcation Point to Point Barrow averaged 16 days (range = 5 to 43 days). The earliest date 

tagged whales passed Demarcation Point was 18 August and the latest date tagged whales passed

Point Barrow was 4 November (a span of 78 days). 

While there are two migratory periods (spring and fall) in which the majority of tagged whales 

crossed the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, a small number of tagged whales were present in the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea between the migrations. Hence, it is likely that there is a low density of bowhead 

whales within the Alaskan Beaufort Sea between April and November (Fig. 28).

Figure 28. Timing of bowhead whale presence in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea as determined from 

satellite telemetry 2006–2012. Note that there are two migratory periods (spring and fall) 

during which the number of tagged whales is increased; however, there are some tagged whales 

in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea all summer. 

45
Objective 7: To the extent possible, document and describe the general pattern of year-round 

movements by bowhead whales, the degree to which migrating whales make use of specific 

polynyas or channels, and estimate for individual whales time budgets of time spent in specific 

geographic regions and/or functional habitat areas.

We have documented the general pattern of year-round movements by bowhead whales and 

identified some unexpected movements that broaden the range in which bowheads could be 

found in any given year (Fig. 29). Other than the spring lead system in the Chukchi Sea, 

bowheads do not appear to use leads, polynyas or channels regularly for migration. We have 

pooled all of our data to identify areas throughout their range where bowheads spend time (Fig. 

30).

Figure 29. Seasonal areas of use by bowhead whales as determined from satellite telemetry 

2006–2012.

46
Figure 30. Tagged bowhead locations by density using pooled location data (2006–2012). The 

highest density areas are in red.

Objective 8: Instrument other species of baleen whales when encountered during bowhead 

tagging efforts when practical.

Gray whales. Eight gray whales were tagged during this study: one in 2009, six in 2011, and one 

in 2012 (see Table 2). Tagged gray whales ranged in size from 8.4–10.7 m; three were males,

four were females, and the sex of one has yet to be determined. Movements of seven tagged 

gray whales are shown in Figure 31; one tagged gray whale did not transmit any locations 

(G2011-04). Although most tags on gray whales have not lasted as long as those for bowhead 

whales (average = 33 days; range = 0 to 100 days) we have collected useful information on 

summer behavior and some documented some long distance movements. In addition to trying to 

extend the longevity of tag deployments, we collected biopsies and photographs of five gray 

whales to genetically and photographically identify them for matching at other locations in order 

to better understand where gray whales go during other times of year (Appendix D).

47
Figure 31. Tracks of gray whales tagged in 2009, 2011, and 2012.

Task 1 – Data Review and Hypothesis Development. We continue to review available data on 

bowhead whales. In addition to examining our own data, we peer review manuscripts and read 

published literature on bowhead whale movements and behavior from all stocks in order to refine 

and develop working hypotheses. 

Task 2 – Experimental Design and Field Work. We continued to develop our collaborations

originally established during “The Planning Phase” of this study in 2005 and during Phase I of 

this study (2006–2010). We worked with the AEWC to develop a new study plan, which they 

approved in 2011. We worked with taggers in Canada to tag 12 bowheads near Tuktoyaktuk to 

increase our understanding of fall migration patterns and movements east of Barrow. We trained 

whalers from Gambell and Savoonga to tag whales near St. Lawrence Island. Alaska Native 

whalers participated in many aspects of this study. Although we took a very conservative 

approach to avoiding conflicts with subsistence whaling by trying to separate tagging periods 

from the whaling season, in several instances the whaling communities decided to designate a 

tagging crew that was allowed to work during the whaling season. The tagging crew coordinated 

with the whaling crews and usually looked for whales farther offshore than whaling crews. 

To date we have been able to track nine whales for >365 days. The number of tags with this 

longevity has clarified that our limiting factor was not retention but battery power. During the 

next phase of this study (2012–2017) we will be expanding our tracking longevity to beyond one 

year, deploying CTD tags for more specific dive and oceanographic data, developing an acoustic 

tag for studying bowhead vocalization rates relative to ambient noise, including industrial noise.

48
Task 3 – Data Analysis and Reporting. We have used findings from this study to test and refine 

hypotheses. We provided weekly maps of tagged whales and in 2012 we changed our map 

schedule to accommodate a weekly meeting that BOEM and NMFS held with industry in order 

to provide the most recent locations of tagged bowhead whales for near real time evaluations of 

bowhead whales and industry. We have published two manuscripts on this project to date. A 

third manuscript is in press and two more are currently being drafted (see below). We also 

regularly report findings at meetings and conferences (see Table 1). During the next phase of 

this study (2012–2017) we will continue to analyze data and address objectives. 

Task 4 – Integration of Findings with other Tasks. During 2012, we participated in a Synthesis 

of Arctic Research (SOAR) workshop and developed two outlines for manuscripts that 

incorporate oceanography and ice data with bowhead movements to better understand causes of 

variability in bowhead whale feeding areas along their migratory route. 

The first manuscript titled “Oceanographic and Other Factors Associated with Western Arctic 

Bowhead Whale “Hotspots’” will combine areas where tagged bowheads spend time with the 

corresponding oceanographic, weather (e.g., winds), and sea ice conditions in order to determine 

what conditions concentrate prey and provide feeding habitat for bowhead whales. We 

developed a “hotspot” map pooling data for all years (Fig. 30), which identifies six core areas. 

In order to understand when each core area is important we also developed graphs showing when 

each area was used (Fig. 32).

We have accommodated many requests for our tagging data to augment other projects and 

efforts. For example, we have contributed to the U.S. Coast Guard efforts for planning shipping 

lanes in Bering Strait and we have provided reports to the International Whaling Commission for 

discussions on general movements and stock structure. We are also contributing to a manuscript 

combining telemetry data from multiple marine mammal species and current shipping traffic to 

illustrate the overlap between shipping and marine mammals in Bering Strait. We make our 

maps and other products available through our website and many consulting companies and 

other entities use them for their reports.

The second manuscript titled “Oceanographic and Other Factors Associated with Bowhead 

Whale Movements in the Chukchi Sea” will combine bowhead tracks with oceanography, winds, 

and sea ice conditions by year to try to determine the cause of observed inter-annual variability 

in the fall migration across the Chukchi Sea.

In addition to the above manuscripts that we are directly responsible for we have also contributed 

data for a SOAR manuscript titled “What sound environments do bowhead whales annually 

encounter in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas?” We provided the average number of days 

a tagged bowhead whale spent in specific areas by month. The areas were defined by 

acousticians using data from passive acoustic buoys.

Task 5 – Data Management and Archival. We continue to maintain an archive of all data 

collected during all phases of this study. Our data archive and access policy is consistent with 

49
standards adopted by BOEM, the National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, and other 

federal agencies.

Task 6 – Local Coordination, Outreach and Permitting. We hold a Federal Marine Mammal 

Research Permit from NMFS and an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) 

approved protocol for our cetacean research in the U.S. For research conducted in Canadian 

waters we also obtain research and IACUC permits required in Canada. We coordinate with the 

North Slope Borough when tagging near Barrow and with the local Whaling Captain’s 

Associations for each community where tagging occurs. In Canada, we coordinate with the 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans and with the local Hunter’s and Trapper’s Associations. 

Our primary method of outreach consisted of sending weekly project updates and maps to a list 

of interested persons, including whalers, scientists, and managers. Updates included a map with 

the most recent tagged whale locations, a description of sea ice conditions, and a description of 

any additional pertinent information. We often get responses and discussion among recipients in 

real time when maps are sent. The e-mail list includes many subsistence hunters and whalers as 

well as agency personnel. Maps are then posted on the ADF&G website, where they are 

available along with other information about the bowhead tagging project. We also prepared 

posters and gave presentations in interested coastal communities.

Task 7 – Logistics/Safety Plan. Safety plans are developed specific for each tagging effort 

based on the local logistics, infrastructure, and measures already in place. Safety equipment is 

present and inspected to ensure it is in working order. A safety boat accompanies each tagging 

boat. Radio communication is established between boats and with a contact on shore. In 

addition to marine VHF radios, radio beacons, satellite telephones are on board tagging boats. In 

the Barrow area, a “float plan” is filed with the North Slope Borough Search and Rescue office 

prior to departure. 

50
51
Figure 32. Timing of use of core areas by tagged bowhead whales. Data pooled from all years 

(2006–2012).

52
Discussion

Coordination

Collaboration between the AEWC, NSB, Captain’s associations, individual whalers, Canadian 

hunters, DFO, and BOEM personnel was highly conducive for tagging and exchanging 

information during the first five years of this study and we continued this collaboration during 

2010–2012. A new Study Plan was designed, modified, approved, and executed by the partners. 

Decisions about where and when to tag were made with AEWC and the local whaling captains 

associations prior to tagging operations. How tagging occurred relative to subsistence whaling 

was also left to the captains. One of our objectives was that tagging would not interfere with 

subsistence whaling and in order to achieve that we proposed to avoid the whaling season and 

deploy tags at other times or places. The AEWC, the Barrow whaling captains, and the Gambell 

and Savoonga whaling captains, however, felt that there were ways that tagging could occur 

during whaling that would not interfere. For example, in spring near Barrow when the lead is 

narrow and the whalers are waiting for the lead to open wide enough so that a struck whale will 

not be lost under the ice, the whalers felt that whales that came up in the narrow leads could be 

tagged from the ice edge. In Gambell and Savoonga, crews dedicated to tagging where chosen 

and the tagging activities were coordinated by the captains and tags were deployed during 

whaling without complaint.

In order to keep the AEWC informed of the study progress and for them to relay questions and 

concerns we made regular oral presentations at AEWC meetings and provided handouts for 

AEWC commissioners. In order to keep as many people informed as possible we sent weekly 

maps of the locations and movements of tagged bowheads to partners and anyone that expressed 

an interest in receiving them. The e-mail list contains >250 addresses; many people also forward 

our maps to their own list of addresses. 

Upon receiving maps, recipients often replied to the list with their thoughts, questions, or other 

information about current whale observations. This often stimulated a mini-discussion that 

provided valuable real time information with perspective on the movements of the tagged whales 

relative to the rest of the population. For example, when we sent out a map showing when the

first tagged whales were entering the Bering Sea, hunters on St. Lawrence Island informed us 

that they were already observing whales and were whaling. Hence, when whales were first 

spotted from St. Lawrence Island, the closest tagged whales were still 250 km to the north. This 

type of information is extremely valuable in helping us determine how well tagged whales 

represent the population and serves as an important reminder that the tagged whales do not 

represent all whales. This is also why we added the traditional knowledge component to the 

study.

After the maps are distributed to the e-mail list they are placed on the ADF&G website for 

people without e-mail addresses. We know that the website is checked regularly because we 

receive inquiries if we are slow to post a map. We also post publications, analyses, posters, and 

other products on our webpage. These products are used by many entities for environmental 

assessments, biological opinions, incidental harassment applications and authorizations, in oil 

company reports, and in species and habitat maps.

53
We coordinated with the research conducted by another BOEM project, BOWFEST, and 

provided updates regarding the tagging project at their annual meetings. We also provide data on 

tagged whale locations and movements that were relevant to their research near Barrow.

Tagged Whales, Biopsy and Tag Performance 

The amount of data collected from each tag varies greatly and is dependent on many factors, 

some of which are impossible to identify with certainty. During this study period (2010–2012) 

we have had good success with tag longevity and performance for our standard tags. We also 

tried a new tag (CTD) that was larger, heavier, and used more battery power; it lasted 33 days

and provided excellent oceanographic and dive data with much more detail than previous tags. 

We check all tags thoroughly before deployment by dunking them in salt water and testing 

battery strength.

In spring 2012, we had one bowhead tag that was deployed near St. Lawrence Island that never 

transmitted. During deployment the plastic piece that connects the tag to the pole came off the 

pole and remained on the tag possibly blocking transmissions from the antenna. We believed 

that it would come off eventually and the tag would begin to transmit, but it never did. Another 

tag deployed near St. Lawrence Island (B12-2) transmitted only sporadically and, although it 

lasted 143 days (Table 2), there were several gaps in the track that we cannot explain. 

During this study (2010–2012), we deployed 17 transmitters on bowhead whales and six on gray 

whales. The success of this program continues to be largely due to cooperation with native 

whalers. Whalers are familiar with how best to approach and harpoon bowhead whales and are 

able to place tags at the highest point on the whale’s back and seat the anchors completely and 

perpendicular to the surface of the whale. We think that high, perpendicular tag placement leads 

to better rates of transmission and full seating of the anchors leads to longer tag attachment. 

DNA from skin biopsies collected during tagging has allowed us to determine gender for 6 of 11 

bowhead whales in 2010 (two males and four females) and, 4 of 6 in 2012 (pending analysis). 

Gender was determined for all seven gray whales tagged (3 males and 4 females) and for all five 

of the gray whales that were biopsied without being tagged (one male and four females). 

Gray Whale Photo-identification. Movements of a gray whale tagged near Sakhalin Island, 

Russia, on 4 October 2010 raised questions regarding the discreteness of gray whale stocks. This 

whale, identified by photographs to be a 13 yr-old male, was thought to be part of the small 

(~130) endangered Western Pacific population. On 11 December, however, it left the Sakhalin 

area and migrated across the Okhotsk Sea, the Bering Sea, and the Gulf of Alaska and was 

headed toward the breeding grounds of the Eastern Pacific population. The transmissions ended 

within 20 km of the central Oregon coast. Photo-id catalogs of the two stocks were compared 

and matches were found indicating that this individual had been photographed within the ranges 

of both stocks. Until this event, gray whales summering in the Bering and Chukchi seas were 

thought to belong to the Eastern Pacific population but it is possible there is more movement 

between the Eastern and Western Pacific groups than scientists realized. In order to determine 

the wintering grounds of gray whales that summer in the Bering and Chukchi seas we are taking 

photographs to compare with existing catalogs. Photo-catalogs exist for both the eastern and 

54
western Pacific groups; matching photos from the Bering and Chukchi seas will contribute 

greatly to understanding the movements of gray whales across the Pacific. 

Conclusions

This project continues to collect important information about bowhead whales throughout their 

range. We have continued to work with Native subsistence whalers to develop new study 

objectives and to deploy tags. We continue to work with tag manufacturers to improve tag data 

and longevity. We shared our results with subsistence whalers and their communities, scientists, 

oil company personnel, agency personnel, and other interested parties by sending out weekly 

maps and information updates. We maintained an active website that allowed public access of

our data products. This website was used by many entities for diverse purposes, including 

species and habitat maps, environmental assessments, biological opinions, incidental harassment 

applications and authorizations. We published three papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals 

and made numerous oral and poster presentations and conferences, symposia, and meetings 

(Appendix E).

This project has contributed a greater understanding of the distribution, movements, and biology 

of bowhead whales. These include, but are not limited to:

1. Further documentation of the year-round distribution of western Arctic bowhead whales, 

including extensive summer movements, variations in wintering areas, and the migratory 

routes that connect these areas.

2. Documentation of areas where whales spend time, and are likely feeding. These areas 

include Cape Bathurst and Tuktoyaktuk in Canada; Point Barrow in Alaska; and Northern 

Chukotka and the Gulf of Anadyr in Russia; and Bering Strait and Anadyr Strait in 

Russia and Alaska. We have documented the timing of movements and calculated kernel 

densities for these areas (see Results and Discussion). 

3. The western Beaufort Sea from Barrow to Cape Simpson was the only area within the 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea where tagged bowhead whales spent much time indicating an

important feeding location within the Alaska Beaufort Sea. Although oceanographic 

factors that concentrate krill may not be favorable every year our combined data do not 

indicate any other feeding areas in the Alaska Beaufort Sea.

4. We have identified migratory corridors that bowheads use to travel between feeding 

areas. Both the spring migratory corridor between the Bering Strait and Cape Bathurst in 

Amundsen Gulf and the fall migratory corridor between Hershel Island and Barrow have 

been relatively distinct and consistent among years. The fall migratory corridor between 

Barrow and the Bering Strait, however, is more variable. We think this is related to prey 

availability, which is also related to the timing of whale movements. Krill is 

concentrated by oceanographic factors, which vary in space and time. This results in 

complex movement patterns as individual whales travel to different feeding areas at 

different times. 

55
5. We have documented bowhead movements within all oil and gas lease sale areas in the 

Chukchi and Beaufort seas including their presence in the vicinity of active seismic and 

drilling operations. Based on movements and behavior of tagged bowhead whales from 

all years, the greatest potential for anthropogenic disturbances from industrial activities 

including shipping occur near Cape Bathurst in May and June, Tuktoyaktuk in late 

August to early September, Point Barrow in late August to late October, northern 

Chukotka/Bering Strait in October to early January and the outer Gulf of Anadyr in 

December through March. Ships traveling through the narrow area west of Little 

Diomede Island from mid November to the end of December would have high potential 

for encountering many bowhead whales. 

6. We deployed tags near St. Lawrence Island and found movements similar to whales 

tagged near Barrow and Tuktoyaktuk, although the sample size was small (n = 2).

Recommendations

1. In order to increase the likelihood that tagged whales represent the population as a whole, 

and in order to gain a year-round understanding of bowhead whale movements and 

distribution, tagging should continue from as many locations and during as many 

different times of year as possible. Specifically:

a. Increasing the sample size of tagged whales at all tagging locations will make 

identifying separate concentrations of whales more likely. For example, whale 

B09-09 was tagged in Barrow in late August of 2009, but migrated to Chukotka in 

the spring of 2010. More summering areas may be identified as more tags are 

deployed. 

b. Although we have increased our sample size to observe fall movements of 15

bowhead whales across the Beaufort Sea, we have found no additional areas of 

importance where bowheads are spending significant time between Tuktoyaktuk 

and Barrow. There is great interest in oil and gas exploration in this region and 

we expect an increase in industrial activity, therefore more information may still 

be needed regarding bowhead whale movements and feeding behavior for the 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Tagging more whales near St. Lawrence Island and 

Barrow in the spring and tagging more whales in Canada in the fall will address 

this need. 

c. Deploy tags near St. Lawrence Island to determine if whales tagged there are 

similar in their movements and behavior to those tagged near Barrow and in 

Canada. To target whales summering in Chukotka, we suspect it is more efficient 

to tag whales migrating past St. Lawrence Island in the spring than from Barrow 

in the fall. 

2. Conduct a comprehensive analysis of bowhead whale interactions with seismic activities. 

56
Bowhead whale tracks that spatially and temporally overlap with seismic operations need 

to be analyzed to learn about bowhead whale behavior near seismic activities. Oil and 

seismic companies need to be forthcoming with their seismic information in order for this 

analysis to occur. 

3. Investigate the combination of satellite telemetry and acoustic technology to directly 

monitor noise levels that bowhead whales are exposed to and how their vocalization rate 

changes with those levels. This knowledge could then be used to interpret passively 

monitored acoustic information.

4. Continue to deploy tags that are capable of measuring temperature and salinity, important 

factors that relate to how krill concentrate. 

5. Conduct a comprehensive analysis of how whale movements and feeding areas shift by 

year. Understanding annual variability is important for understanding the full range of 

bowhead movements, behavior, and habitat use. Furthermore, we cannot predict how 

whales will respond to climate change and changing ice conditions until we know what 

influences their current distribution.

Acknowledgments

This cooperative project involved contributions and hard work from many organizations, 

agencies, and individuals. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (the late Arnold Brower, 

Sr., Harry Brower, Jr., and Ray Koonook), North Slope Borough (John “Craig” George, Billy 

Adams, Robert Suydam, and Ambrose Leavitt), Barrow and Kaktovik Whaling Captain’s 

Associations (Eugene Brower, Fenton Rexford, Joe Kaleak, George Tagarook, and Eddie Arey), 

Barrow Arctic Science Consortium (Lewis Brower), Aklavik and Tuktoyaktuk Hunters and 

Trappers Committees ( Dennis Arey, Larry Arey, Pat Kasook, Buddy Gruben, Douglas 

Panaktalok, Mikkel Panaktalok, Max Kotokak, Sr., Charles Pokiak, and James Pokiak), and 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) (Lois Harwood, Kevin Bill, Tim Leblanc, 

Patrick Ryan, Terry Stein, Angus Alunik), and Dr. Stephen Raverty of the BC Animal Health 

Center all assisted with field operations. The Greenland Institute of Natural Resources (Mads 

Peter Heide-Jørgensen, Mikkel and Anders Villum Jensen) contributed to tag development and 

deployment. Funding for this research was provided by the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management with support and assistance from Charles Monnett and Jeffery Denton. Much of 

the operations in Canada were funded by the Fisheries Joint Management Committee, Ecosystem 

Research Initiative (DFO), and Panel for Energy Research and Development with extensive 

support and coordination from Lois Harwood. Bowhead whale research has been conducted in 

the U.S. under a Marine Mammal Protection Act permit issued to National Marine Fisheries 

Service (No. 782-1719) and under the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s Animal Care and 

Use permit Nos. 06-16 and 09-21. In Canada, research was conducted under Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans Scientific License No. S-07/08-4007-IN, S-08/09-4000-IN, S-09/10-4005-

IN-A1 and Animal Care Protocols FWI-ACC-2007-2008-013 and FWI-ACC-2008-031, and 

FWI-ACC-2009-019.

57
Literature Cited

Ashjian, C.J., S.R. Braund, R.G. Campbell, J.C. George, J. Kruse, W. Maslowski, S.E. Moore, 

C.R. Nicolson, S.R. Okkonen, B.F. Sherr, and Y. Spitz. 2010. Climate variability, 

oceanography, bowhead whale distribution, and Iñupiat subsistence whaling near Barrow, 

AK. Arctic 63(2):179–194.

Citta, J.J., L.T. Quakenbush, J.C. George, R.J. Small, M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, H. Brower, B. 

Adams, and L. Brower. 2012. Winter movements of bowhead whales (Balaena 

mysticetus) in the Bering Sea. Arctic 65(1):13–34.

 

Citta, J.J., J.J. Burns, L.T. Quakenbush, V. Vanek, J.C. George, R.J. Small, M.P. HeideJorgensøn, and H. Brower. 2013. Interactions of bowhead whales and winter pot 

fisheries in the Bering Sea. Marine Mammal Science 10.1111/mms.12047.

Freitas, C., C. Lydersen, M. A. Fedak, and K. M. Kovacs. 2008. A simple new algorithm to 

filter marine mammal Argos locations. Marine Mammal Science 24:315–325.

Harris, R. B., S. G. Fancy, D. C. Douglas, G. W. Garner, S. C. Amstrup, T. R. McCabe, and L. F. 

Pank. 1990. Tracking wildlife by satellite: Current systems and performance. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 

No. 30. 52 pp.

Hauser, N., A.N. Zerbini, Y. Geyer, M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, and P. Clapham. 2010. Movements 

of satellite-monitored humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, from the Cook 

Islands. Marine Mammal Science 26(3):679–685.

Heide-Jørgensen, M. P., L. Kleivane, N. Øien, K. L. Laidre, and M. V. Jensen. 2001. A new 

technique for deploying satellite transmitters on baleen whales: Tracking a blue whale 

(Balaenoptera musculus) in the North Atlantic. Marine Mammal Science 17:949–954.

Heide-Jørgensen, M. P., K. L. Laidre, Ø. Wiig, M. V. Jensen, L. Dueck, L. D. Maiers, H. C. 

Schmidt, and R. C. Hobbs. 2003. From Greenland to Canada in ten days: tracks of 

bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, across Baffin Bay. Arctic 56(1):21–31.

Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., K.L. Laidre, L.T. Quakenbush, and J.J. Citta. 2011. The northwest 

passage opens for bowhead whales. Biology Letters, doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0731

Huntington, H.P., and L.T. Quakenbush. 2009. Traditional knowledge of bowhead whale 

migratory patterns near Kaktovik and Barrow, Alaska. Report to Barrow and Kaktovik 

Whaling Captains Associations and to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. 13 pp.

Keating, K.A. 1994. An alternative index of satellite telemetry location error. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 58:414–421.

Koski, W. R., R. A. Davis, G. W. Miller, and D. E. Withrow. 1993. Reproduction. Pages 239–

274 in J. J. Burns, J. H. Montague, and C. J. Cowles, eds. The bowhead whale, Special 

58
Publication Number 2. The Society for Marine Mammalogy. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, 

Kansas.

Nikolopoulos, A., Pickart, R.A., Frantantoni, P.S., Shimada, K., Torres, J.J., and Jones, P.E. 

2009. The western Arctic boundary current at 152° W: structure, variability, and 

transport. Deep-Sea Research II 56:1164–1181. 

Noongwook, G., Native Village of Savoonga, Native Village of Gambell, Huntington, H.P., and 

J.C. George. 2007. Traditional knowledge of the bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus)

around St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Arctic 80 (1):47–54.

Okkonen, S.R., C.J. Ashjian, R.G. Campbell, J.T. Clarke, S.E. Moore, and K.D. Taylor. 2011. 

Satellite observations of circulation features associated with a bowhead whale feeding 

‘hotspot’ near Barrow, Alaska. Remote Sensing of Environment 115:2168–2174.

Pickart, R.S. 2004. Shelfbreak circulation in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea: mean structure and 

variability. Journal of Geophysical Research 109. doi:10.1029/2003JC001912

Pickart, R.S., Weingartner, T.J., Pratt, L.J., Zimmermann, S., and Torres, D.J. 2005. Flow of 

winter-transformed Pacific water in the Western Arctic. Deep-Sea Research II 52:3175–

3198. 

Quakenbush, L.T., and H.P. Huntington. 2010. Traditional knowledge regarding bowhead 

whales in the Chukchi Sea near Wainwright, Alaska. Final report OCS Study MMS 2009-

063. 19 pp.

Quakenbush, L. T., J. J. Citta, J. C. George, R. J. Small, and M. P. Heide-Jørgensen. 2010a. Fall 

and winter movements of bowhead whales in the Chukchi Sea and within a potential 

petroleum development area. Arctic 63(3):289–307.

Quakenbush, L.T., R.J. Small, and J.J. Citta. 2010b. Satellite tracking of western arctic 

bowhead whales. Final report OCS Study BOEM 2010-033. 65 pp + appendices. 

Quakenbush, L., J. Citta, J.C. George, M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, R. Small, H. Brower, L. Harwood, 

B. Adams, L. Brower, G. Tagarook, C. Pokiak, and J. Pokiak. 2012. Seasonal 

movements of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock of bowhead whales: 2005–2011 

satellite telemetry results. Report to the International Whaling Commission Scientific 

Committee SC/64/BRG1. 22 pp.

R Development Core Team. 2007. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R 

Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org.

Vincent, C., B. J. McConnell, V. Ridoux, and M. A. Fedak, M.A. 2002. Assessment of Argos 

location accuracy from satellite tags deployed on captive gray seals. Marine Mammal 

Science 18:156–166.

59
von Appen, W.-J., and Pickart, R.S. 2012. Two configurations of the western arctic shelfbreak

current in summer. Journal of Physical Oceanography 42:329–351.

Weller, D.W., A.M. Burdin, S.A. Blokhin, H. Minakuchi, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1999. Gray 

whales (Eschrichtius robustus) off Sakhalin Island, Russia: seasonal and annual patterns 

of occurrence. Marine Mammal Science 15 (4):1208–1227.

Zeh, J.E., C. W. Clark, J. C. George, D. Withrow, G. M. Carroll, and W. R. Koski. 1993. 

Current population size and dynamics. Pages 409–489 in: The bowhead whale. J.J. 

Burns, J.J. Montague, and C.J. Cowles, eds. Special Publication. No. 2. Society for 

Marine Mammalogy, Lawrence Kansas. 

60
Appendix A. Announcement of Proposed Oil and Gas Leases in the Russian Chukchi Sea.

Found at: http://www.rosneft.com/news/pressrelease/130220133.html

Name of the license block Sea Acreage, sq.km* Acreage, acres* Water depth, m*

1. East Prinovozemelskiy-1

2. East Prinovozemelskiy-2

3. East Prinovozemelskiy-3

Kara 125,904 31.1 M 10-440

4. Severo-Karsky Kara 196,000 48.4 M 20-480

5. Ust’ Olenekskiy Laptev 64,103 15.8 М 19-90

6. Ust’ Lensky Laptev 46,851 11.6 М 15-90

7. Anisinsko Novosibirsky Laptev 140,981 34.8 М 20-2000

8. Severo-Vrangelevskiy-1

9. Severo-Vrangelevskiy-2

Chukchi 115,176 28.4 М 40-370

10. Yuzhno Chukotsky Chukchi 73,197 18.0 М 40-70

*estimated
February 13, 2013

Rosneft and ExxonMobil Expand Strategic Cooperation

• Companies to add seven Arctic license areas covering approximately 600,000 

square kilometers (150 million acres) in the Chukchi, Laptev and Kara seas

• Rosneft is provided with an option to acquire a 25 percent interest in Point 

Thomson natural gas and condensate project in Alaska operated by 

ExxonMobil

• Companies to jointly study potential for LNG project in Russian Far East.

• Moscow, Russia – February 13, 2013. Rosneft and ExxonMobil have agreed to 

expand their cooperation under their 2011 Strategic Cooperation Agreement to 

include approximately additional 600,000 square kilometers (150 million acres) 

of exploration acreage in the Russian Arctic, and potential participation by 

Rosneft (or its affiliate) in the Point Thomson project in Alaska. They have also 

agreed to conduct a joint study on a potential LNG project in the Russian Far 

East.

• The agreements, which include plans to explore seven new blocks in the 

Chukchi Sea, Laptev Sea and Kara Sea, were signed by Igor Sechin, president 

of Rosneft and Stephen Greenlee, president of ExxonMobil Exploration 

Company, in the presence of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

• The license blocks include Severo-Vrangelevsky-1, Severo-Vrangelevsky-2 

and Yuzhno-Chukotsky blocks in Chukchi Sea, Ust’ Oleneksky, Ust’ Lensky 

and Anisinsko-Novosibirsky blocks in Laptev Sea and Severo-Karsky block in 

Kara Sea, which are among the most promising and least explored offshore 

areas globally.

• A separate Heads of Agreement was signed providing Rosneft (or its affiliate) 

with an opportunity to acquire a 25 percent interest in the Point Thomson Unit 

which covers the project of developing a remote natural gas and condensate 

field on Alaska’s North Slope. It is estimated that Point Thomson contains 

approximately 25 percent of the known gas resource base in Alaska’s North 

Slope.

• Rosneft and ExxonMobil also executed a Memorandum of Understanding to 

jointly study the economic viability of an LNG development in the Russian Far 

East, including the possible construction of an LNG facility. The companies 

will form a joint working group which is expected to commence work in the 

coming weeks to study the viability of an LNG project using available natural 

gas resources.
Commenting on the agreements signed, Igor Sechin said, “The agreements 

signed today bring the already unprecedented scale of Rosneft and ExxonMobil 

partnership to a completely new level. The acreage in the Russian Arctic 

subject to geological exploration and subsequent development increased nearly 

six-fold. That means the enormous resource potential of Russian Arctic 

offshore fields will be explored and developed in the most efficient manner 

with the application of cutting-edge technologies and expertise of our strategic 

partner, ExxonMobil, using state-of-the-art environmental protection systems. 

Participation in the Point Thomson project will increase Rosneft’s access to the 

latest gas and condensate field development technologies used in harsh climatic 

conditions”.

• Greenlee said the agreement builds on the ongoing successful cooperation 

between the companies.

“This expansion is an illustration of the strength of the partnership that exists 

between ExxonMobil and Rosneft,” said Greenlee. “We look forward to 

working together on these new projects.”

• The companies are committed to using global best practices and state-of-the-art 

safety and environmental protection systems for the Arctic operations. The 

work will be supported by the recently signed Declaration on the Russian 

Arctic Shelf Environmental protection. Also, ExxonMobil and Rosneft will 

work together through an Arctic Research Center to provide a full range of 

research and design services to support their cooperation on Arctic projects.

• Rosneft and ExxonMobil continue to implement a program of staff exchanges 

of technical and management employees to help strengthen relationships 

between the companies.

• License areas factsheet

• Rosneft Information Division

Tel.: +7 (499) 517 88 97

Fax: +7 (495) 411 54 21

www.rosneft.com

February 13, 2013

• These materials contain statements about future events and expectations that 

are forward-looking in nature. Any statement in these materials that is not a 

statement of historical fact is a forward-looking statement that involves known 

and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause actual 

results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forwardlooking statements to differ. We assume no obligations to update the forwardlooking statements contained herein to reflect actual results, changes in 

assumptions or changes in factors affecting these statements.
Appendix B. Quakenbush, L. and J. Citta. 2011. Satellite Tracking of Bowhead and Other 

Whales: Further Studies, 2011–2015. Study Plan as approved by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission on 22 July. 5 pp. 

Study Plan 

Satellite Tracking of Bowhead and Other Whales: Further Studies, 2011–2015

As approved by:

The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

22 July 2011

Submitted by:

Lori Quakenbush and John Citta

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Fairbanks, Alaska

July 2011
Introduction

Bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) were designated as an endangered species in 1973

due to depletion by commercial whaling during the late 1800s. The population has recovered 

considerably since then and the current estimate is ~10,000 (Zeh and Punt 2005). Bowheads are 

an important subsistence and cultural resource for coastal people of northern Alaska and Russia 

and their harvest is managed by a quota system approved by the International Whaling 

Commission and implemented, in Alaska, by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC). 

Oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, and production are ongoing in the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea, and leasing and exploration are ongoing in the Canadian Beaufort Sea and in the 

Chukchi Sea. International shipping is expected to increase and some fisheries may be expanded 

as the open water season lengthens. These activities will occur within the range of the BeringChukchi-Beaufort stock of bowhead whales. In order to minimize the impacts of industrial 

activities on bowhead whales we need to better understand bowhead migration routes and timing, 

and identify important habitats (e.g., feeding and summering areas) so that lease sale areas and 

industrial activities can be designed to minimize effects on bowhead whales. Between 2006 and 

2010 we deployed 57 satellite transmitters on bowhead whales in Alaska and Canada and 

collected information on migration routes, migration timing, swim speed, diving behavior, 

residence times in portions of the range, as well as some responses to industrial activity

(Quakenbush et al. 2010a, b). The study was designed cooperatively with the AEWC, the North 

Slope Borough, the Minerals Management Service (MMS, now Bureau of Energy Management,

Regulation and Enforcement), and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game; it was funded by 

MMS. We have evaluated our accomplishments relative to our original study objectives and we 

have developed a study plan for the next 5 years to focus on objectives that have not been fully 

met.

Methods

In December 2010, we held a workshop with the AEWC and North Slope Borough 

personnel in Anchorage to evaluate our accomplishments relative to our study objectives in order 

to identify objectives that have not been met and to determine whether additional study is 

recommended (Appendix A). We used the summary from the workshop to develop this draft 

study plan for review, modification, and approval by the AEWC.

Study Plan, 2011–2015

Do satellite transmitters (tags) harm bowhead whales? An important topic of discussion at the 

workshop was whether the tags harm the whales. Although we have tagged 57 bowhead whales 

we have not been able to examine the tag site after deployment. No tagged whales have been 

harvested. Billy Adams reported seeing a tag ~20 days after deployment and it looked the same 

as when it was deployed (i.e., flush with the skin). The tracks from the tagged whales tell us that 

their movements are what are expected from healthy whales. Individual whales tagged in fall 

near Barrow have been tracked for more than 365 days. The long retention time of many of the 

tags suggest that the tag site is not becoming infected. An infection would affect the skin and 

surrounding tissue and cause the tag to fall off. If the tags were irritating to the whales they 

would likely be rubbed off on the bottom or on the ice. A study of penetrating tags used on 
humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) compiled the sightings of seven tagged whales and 

found that all seven were observed at least 20 years after tagging and five of the seven have been 

observed for more than 30 years (Mizroch et al. 2011). This study was published recently and 

was not available to discuss at the workshop. 

Overall Study Objectives:

Work with subsistence whalers during all aspects of this study and make sure research activities 

do not interfere with subsistence whaling activity.

Use satellite telemetry and the methods developed during the previous study to further 

investigate movements, timing, important habitats, and interactions with industry. Specifically:

Bowhead whales

Objective 1: Tag at St. Lawrence Island beginning in 2011 until 10 or more tags are deployed. 

Movements of whales tagged near Barrow and in Canada have not been representative of when 

and where bowheads are seen near St. Lawrence Island. In addition, by tagging whales near St. 

Lawrence Island we may document more whales going west in spring and not passing Barrow. 

Tagging whales in the Bering Sea may also help answer the question about where the whales that 

show up at Barrow in July come from. Movements of tagged whales near St. will be combined 

with traditional knowledge.

Objective 2: Tag small (~30 ft long) and large (>40 ft long) whales at Barrow.

More males have been tagged then females. Few small (only 4) and few large females (only 4) 

have been tagged. Although we cannot determine the sex of a whale before it is tagged (unless it 

has a calf), we can determine size. Thus, we could focus on small and large whales in order to 

get more tags on these age classes and some of them should be females, which would increase 

our female sample too. Tagging small whales near Barrow would also help answer the question 

of whether the sizes are mixed near Barrow in summer (boat or aerial surveys could answer this 

question, too). Tagging any bowheads near Barrow in July may tell us whether these whales go 

east into the Beaufort Sea where they may encounter oil and gas activities before migrating west 

in the fall.

Objective 3: Document the affects of tags on whales. 

We will document affects of tags on whales by trying to re-sight and photograph tagged whales. 

Objective 4: Analyze existing data on interactions with seismic and other industrial activities.

We will analyze and report on interactions with industry collected from previously tagged 

whales. 

Objective 5: Develop a tag that records sounds that bowheads hear and sounds they make.

Hydrophones placed near seismic operations have shown that when airguns turn on, bowhead 

call numbers go down. This could mean that bowheads leave the area or that they stop calling. 

A tag that records sound (acoustic tag) could tell us which happens. If bowheads stay in the area 

they could be physically injured by the high noise levels and methods other than increasing the 

noise level slowly so bowheads can move away before seismic operations start would need to be 

developed to protect bowheads.
Objective 6: Add a temperature probe to the tag anchors to record internal temperature.

The tags we use record water temperature and we could add a sensor in the anchor that would 

record the temperature deeper in the blubber under the skin at the site of the probe. This 

information would help with studies of energetics, which is how much food (energy) a bowhead 

needs to eat to live and reproduce.

Objective 7: Deploy tags that measure changes in ocean temperature and salinity.

This information would help us understand why bowhead whales stop in some places to feed but 

not others. It is believed that krill (bowhead food) collects in places where water with different 

temperature or salinity meet (fronts). These fronts are similar to eddies on a river and krill 

collects in these eddies, much like debris collects in eddies on rivers. 

Objective 8: Develop a tag with both satellite and VHF capability.

The VHF part of the tag would allow us to find the tagged whale from an airplane so we could 

document the number of other bowheads with it. We could use the satellite tag to track the 

whale and when it travelled to an area we could reach with an airplane we could fly out and find 

it. This would help us determine how well the tagged whales represent whales that are not 

tagged. VHF capability may also help accomplish Objective 3 by allowing us to identify and 

photograph the tag to determine its affect on the whale. 

Gray whales

Gray whales are more common in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas now than in the past and their 

movements, important habitats, and how they interact with industrial activities is unknown and 

important. Our research permit and our funding allows for this project to include tagging and 

biopsies of gray whales. 

Objective 1: Tag gray whales near Barrow and St. Lawrence Island.

We can use similar tags with shorter anchors for gray whales and begin to collect similar 

information about their movements. We can use the same biopsy methods to determine the sex 

of the gray whales tagged.

Humpback whales

A few humpback whales have been seen each year in the Chukchi Sea and their movements, 

important habitats, and how they interact with industrial activities is also unknown and 

important. Our research permit and our funding allows for this project to include tagging and 

biopsies of humpback whales. 

Objective 1: Biopsy humpback whales near Barrow and St. Lawrence Island.

We can begin to study humpback whales by collecting biopsies for sex and genetics. We can use 

biopsy tips on crossbows to determine the sex of the whale biopsied. 
Discussion

We have completed 5 years of research on bowhead whales using satellite telemetry and 

working with subsistence whalers. We have learned a tremendous amount about bowhead 

whales that is already being used to plan shipping lanes and develop mitigation to protect 

bowhead whales. Our tagging project received the Secretary of the Interior Partners in 

Conservation Award for its outstanding contributions and unprecedented collaborations among 

government and Native organizations. The award acknowledged that the success of the project 

was largely due to the efforts of Native subsistence whalers.

Due to the past success of the project, the funding agency, the Bureau of Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement (formerly MMS) will continue the funding to pursue 

unanswered questions regarding bowhead whales and to pursue similar studies of gray and 

humpback whales. In order to continue the studies we submit this study plan for the review, 

modification, and approval of the AEWC.

References

Mizroch, S.A., M.F. Tillman, S. Juraz, J.M. Straley et al. 2011. Long-term survival of humpback 

whales radio-tagged in Alaska from 1976 through 1978. Marine Mammal Science 

27(1):217–229.

Quakenbush, L.T., R.J. Small, and J.C. Citta. 2010a. Satellite tracking of Western Arctic 

bowhead whales. Final Report OCS Study BOEMRE 2010-033. 65 pp.

Quakenbush, L.T., J.J. Citta., J.C. George, R.J. Small, and M.P. Heide-Jørgensen. 2010b. Fall 

and winter movements of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) in the Chukchi Sea and 

within a potential petroleum development area. Arctic 63(3):289–307.

Zeh, J.E., and A.E. Punt. 2005. Updated 1978–2001 abundance estimates and their correlations 

for the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort seas stock of bowhead whales. Journal of Cetacean 

Research Management 7(2):169–175.
Appendix C. Citta, J. J., L. T. Quakenbush, R. J. Small, and J. C. George. 2007. Movements of 

a tagged bowhead whale in the vicinity of a seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea. 17th Biennial 

Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 29 November – 4 December 2007, Cape Town, 

South Africa. (Abstract and poster)

ABSTRACT: The western Arctic stock of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) is critical for 

the nutritional and cultural health of Alaska Natives and it is important in the marine ecosystem 

as a consumer of zooplankton. Most bowheads winter in the Bering Sea and summer in the 

eastern Beaufort Sea where they are vulnerable to possible effects from oil and gas exploration, 

development, and production. Marine seismic surveys are commonly used during oil and gas 

exploration and have the potential to disrupt bowhead communication, feeding, and migration. 

Such surveys often include mitigation measures intended to minimize potential effects of seismic 

activity on marine mammals; however, the efficacy of such measures is unknown. In 2006, we 

documented movements of a satellite-tagged bowhead whale in the vicinity of an active seismic 

survey, north of the Mackenzie River Delta, Canada. We examined how the whale’s velocity, 

turn angle relative to the seismic ship, and the dispersion in turn angles were related to distance 

from the seismic ship. We found no statistical relationship between whale behavior and distance 

from the seismic ship and suspect this is largely due to the ship shutting down seismic operations 

when the whale came closest. On 19 September, when the whale was closest (9.2 km) to the 

ship, the whale deviated course. Marine observers aboard the ship then halted the survey and 

shutdown the airguns in response to sighting other closer bowhead whales, during which time the 

satellite-tagged whale crossed the projected path of the seismic ship.

2012 Photos of Gray Whales in 

Western Alaskan Waters 

Gambell August 2012 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

Arctic Marine Mammal Program 

Lori Quakenbush 

Lori.Quakenbush@alaska.gov 

(907) 459-7214 

Appendix D. Gray whale photo-identification catalog.
ID 

ER12GAM-93080 

First/Last year seen 

2012 

First photographed 

Gambell 

Genetic Sample? 

Yes 

Sex 

Female

Right 

Left 

Fluke 
ID 

ER12GAM-001 

First/Last year seen 

2012 

First photographed 

Gambell 

Genetic Sample? 

Yes 

Sex 

Female

Right 

Left 

Fluke 
ID 

ER12GAM-002 

First/Last year seen 

2012 

First photographed 

Gambell 

Genetic Sample? 

Yes 

Sex 

Female

Right 

Left 

Fluke 
ID 

ER12GAM-003 

First/Last year seen 

2012 

First photographed 

Gambell 

Genetic Sample? 

Yes 

Sex 

Male

Right 

Left 

Fluke 
ID 

ER12GAM-004 

First/Last year seen 

2012 

First photographed 

Gambell 

Genetic Sample? 

Yes 

Sex 

Female

Right 

Left 

Fluke 
ID 

ER12GAM-P005 

First/Last year seen 

2012 

First photographed 

Gambell 

Genetic Sample? 

No 

Sex 

?

Right 

Left 

Fluke 
ID 

First/Last year seen 

First photographed 

Genetic Sample? 

Sex 

Right 

Left 

Fluke 
Appendix E-1. Project Update to Barrow Whaling Captains’ Association

Satellite Tracking of Bowhead Whales

Project Update to BWCA – 27 September 2010

Recent Accomplishments: In May 2010, four large whales were tagged near Barrow (size 

ranged from 45–60 ft.). These whales were tagged by a crew that included Billy Adams, 

Anthony Kippi, Carl Kippi, Joe Sage, and Max Adams, Jr., Eleven tags deployed in Canada in 

August 2010. One near Hershel Island with assistance of George Tagarook and Sam Gordon and 

10 near Tuktoyaktuk deployed by James and Charles Pokiak. Two whales tagged in October 

2009 tagged by Harry Brower, Jr (#93079 and #93081) and two whales tagged in May 2010 by 

Anthony Kippi (#93080 and #93084) and are still on the air (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Area along Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula where 10 bowhead whales were tagged in August 

2010. The northernmost whale (#93079, red arrow), a 56 ft female, was tagged near Barrow in 

October 2009 by Harry Brower, Jr. The whales tagged in August 2010 ranged from 30-40 ft in 

length. One additional whale was tagged near Hershel Island to the west of the map in this 

figure.
Figure 2. Map of all tracks by year of tagged bowhead whales that traveled through the Chukchi 

Sea in late summer and fall. All tagged whales except one in 2009 is believed to have traveled 

through Lease Sale Area 193.

Figure 3. Map of all tracks by year of tagged bowhead whales in the Bering Sea in winter. There 

was greater use of the area between St. Lawrence and St. Matthew islands in the winter of 

2009/2010. 
Figure 4. Tracks of eight tagged bowhead whales in spring 2009 relative to Lease Sale Area 

193.

Figure 5. Tracks of 13 tagged bowhead whales in spring 2009 and 2010. The whale (# 93089) 

that traveled northwest along the Chukotka coast stayed in the Chukchi all summer. This whale 

was ~40 ft of unknown sex and was tagged by Lewis Brower near Barrow 29 August 2009.
Figure 6. Path of whale #93080 through Prince of Wales Strait into Parry Channel. This is a 50 

ft whale tagged near Barrow in May 2010.

Figure 7. Map of location of 11 bowhead whales in September 2010. Two of these (#93079 and 

#93081) were tagged near Barrow in October 2009 and two (#93080 and #93084) were tagged 

near Barrow in May 2010. The others were tagged near Tuktoyaktuk in August 2010.

Prepared by Lori Quakenbush (907) 459-7214 or toll free 1-800-478-7346. E-mail: 

lori.quakenbush@alaska.gov. Visit the website for the latest bowhead maps: 

http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=marinemammals.bowheadmovements
Appendix E-2. Bowhead Tagging Workshop and Summary Results.

Bowhead Tagging Workshop Agenda and Summary

Westmark Hotel, 720 West 5th Ave

7 December 2010, 9am-4:30 pm

AGENDA

8:30 am Coffee

9:00 am Welcome, Introductions, Invocation

9:15 am History of Tagging Project and the Purpose of this Workshop

Process

Concerns (injury from tags, sample size, TEK)

Purpose – to evaluate tagging project and develop new objectives

9:30 am Review of Original Objectives

1) Work with subsistence whalers to deploy satellite transmitters on male 

and female bowheads of all sizes to document the general pattern of 

year-round movements.

a. Determine whether ALL bowhead whales make seasonal 

migrations between the Bering Sea and the eastern Beaufort 

Sea.

b. Determine if concentrations of bowheads feeding near Barrow 

in summer are whales returning from the eastern Beaufort Sea.

c. Determine if bowhead whales feeding near Barrow in summer 

are of mixed sizes and sexes.

d. Determine if wintering concentrations of whales are of mixed 

sizes and sexes.

2) Use satellite tagging to document migration relative to how behavior 

and timing are related to ice conditions, water depth, and industrial 

disturbance.

a. Determine if bowheads only migrate in leads or when ice 

conditions are light to medium.

b. Determine if industrial disturbances change migration routes or 

timing.

c. Determine if bowheads stop to feed during migration.

d. Determine if bowheads follow a particular water depth contour 

when migrating.

3) Document the timing of migration and rate of travel.
4) Estimate residence time for individual whales at specific locations 

(e.g. feeding areas).

a. Estimate residence time for individual whales feeding near 

Barrow.

b. Estimate residence time for individual whales feeding in the 

eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea.

Bowhead Tagging Workshop Agenda – Page 2

9:45 am What did we do?

Number of tags by location, by year, by season

Number of whales tagged by sex, size, location

10:00 am Overview - What have we learned?

Longevity of tags

Effects of tags

Spring movements

Summer movements

10:30 am Break

10:45 am Continue Overview - What have we learned?

Fall movements

Winter movements

Important areas

Interactions with seismic operations

Differences in movements and important areas between years

Potential interactions with shipping lanes

Potential interactions with crab fishing

12:00 Lunch

1:30 Evaluation – Did we accomplish our original objectives?

See objectives above.

2:30 What do we still need to know?
3:00 Break

3:15 What are our new priorities/objectives?

4:30 Adjourn

Materials available:

Final Report

TEK Reports

Arctic paper

Bowhead Tagging Workshop Summary

Participants:

Harry Brower, Jr. Barrow

Rossman Peetook Wainwright

Joseph Kaleak Kaktovik

Oran Knox Kivalina

Ronald Ozeena, Diomede

Luther Komonasek Wales

Isaac Kiligvak Pt. Hope

Julius Rexford, Pt. Lay

Merlin Koonooka, Gambell

Billy Adams, Barrow, NSB-DWM

Grace Leavitt, AEWC, Staff.

Johnny Aiken, AEWC Executive Director

Nolie Alcantara AEWC Staff

Jessica Lafevre, AEWC Council

Craig George, NSB-DWM

John Citta, ADF&G

Lori Quakenbush, ADF&G

Welcome, Introductions, Invocation by Rossman Peetook

History of Tagging Project and the Purpose of this Workshop

Process- Received AEWC approval to conduct tagging if we included Traditional 

Knowledge (TEK) regarding bowhead movements and if any harm was seen from the 

tags the project would be re-evaluated.

Concerns (injury from tags, sample size, TEK) – Injury from the tags is still not known 

because bowheads are not often seen after tagging and no tagged bowheads have been 

harvested. Early in the project when tags were not staying on very long, we thought that 

they were falling out, possibly due to tissue damage surrounding the tag, but now that we 

have had 4 tags stay on for more than a year it is not likely they are causing tissue 
because that would cause them to be rejected. Billy Adams mentioned that he saw the 

tag on a whale that had been tagged 3 weeks prior and the tag was flush with the body 

and looked like it did when it was first tagged. A study on penetrating tags used on 

humpback whales compiled the sightings of seven tagged whales and found that all seven 

were observed at least 20 years after tagging and five of the seven have been observed for 

more than 30 years (Mizroch et al. 2011). This study was published recently and was not 

available to discuss at the workshop. 

The number of tagged whales is small relative to the whole population but we have 

learned a lot from each tag. TEK has added greatly to the information on bowhead 

whales we have collected from the tags. TEK was collected at Kaktovik, Barrow, and 

Wainwright (Huntington and Quakenbush 2009a, Huntington and Quakenbush 2009b).

Purpose of the workshop – to evaluate tagging project and develop objectives for future

Review of Original Objectives

1) Work with subsistence whalers to deploy satellite transmitters on male 

and female bowheads of all sizes to document the general pattern of 

year-round movements.

We have worked with whalers to deploy tags on male and 

female bowhead whales of most sizes. We have not tagged 

many small (4) or large females (4) and do not currently have a 

permit to tag cows with calves.

a. Determine whether ALL bowhead whales make seasonal 

migrations between the Bering Sea and the eastern Beaufort 

Sea.

Not all bowhead whales make seasonal migrations

between the Bering Sea and the eastern Beaufort Sea; 

one tagged whale went up the Russian coast into the 

Chukchi Sea for the summer and did not pass Barrow 

in the spring. This means that the population estimate 

is low because the count is at Barrow in the spring and 

some whales do not pass by but stay in the Chukchi 

during the count.

b. Determine if concentrations of bowheads feeding near Barrow 

in summer are whales returning from the eastern Beaufort Sea.
We do not know if bowheads near Barrow in summer 

have returned from eastern Beaufort, some could be 

whales that went to the Russian coast in spring and 

summered in the Chukchi. A few of the tagged whales 

returned from the eastern Beaufort in midsummer to 

area offshore of Barrow. We need to tag more whales 

to answer this question.

c. Determine if bowhead whales feeding near Barrow in summer 

are of mixed sizes and sexes.

Both males and females were tagged near Barrow in 

August. No tags have been deployed in July. Of 12 tags 

deployed near Barrow in August; 3 were female, 4 were 

male, and 5 were of unknown sex. All 12 were 36 – 50 ft 

long. So, we can say the sexes are mixed but we have 

not tagged small whales near Barrow in summer. We 

need to try to tag small whales near Barrow to answer 

this question.

d. Determine if wintering concentrations of whales are of mixed 

sizes and sexes.

Of the mix of sizes and sexes tagged so far, it appears 

that they winter together in the Bering Sea. We may see 

finer scale segregation if more females and females with 

calves are tagged. 

2) Use satellite tagging to document migration relative to how behavior 

and timing are related to ice conditions, water depth, and industrial 

disturbance.

a. Determine if bowheads only migrate in leads or when ice 

conditions are light to medium.

Bowheads do not only migrate in leads, they also migrate 

east across the Beaufort Sea in heavy ice in spring when 

leads are north-south.

b. Determine if industrial disturbances change migration routes or 

timing.

We may have overlap with tagged whales and industrial 

disturbances (i.e., seismic) during migration in Camden 

Bay and possibly elsewhere in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea 

that needs to be analyzed.
We have analyzed the interaction of a tagged whale and a 

seismic operation that occurred in a feeding area prior to 

migration in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in 2006. We are 

looking for more of these interactions to analyze.

c. Determine if bowheads stop to feed during migration.

Spring. We have not seen tagged whales stop during spring 

migration, although they may feed some while they are 

migrating. Tagged whales move quickly through the 

Chukchi and Beaufort seas in spring. The one whale (B09-

09) that went to Russia in later spring may have been 

feeding as it moved much more slowly along the Chukotka 

coast in late May-early June than the tagged whales that 

migrated past Barrow.

Fall. We have seen evidence of slow movements (stopping) 

with changes in direction that indicate possible feeding 

near Barrow, near Wrangell Island, and especially along 

the northern coast of Chukotka in the fall time. The tracks 

across the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during the fall migration 

have not been fully analyzed; however, we have not seen 

tracks that show bowheads spending much time in one 

place (stopping) between the Mackenzie Delta and Barrow, 

except that one or two whales paused briefly at Herschel 

Island.

d. Determine if bowheads follow a particular water depth contour 

when migrating.

We have not done a complete analysis; however, it does not 

look like tagged whales follow a depth contour when 

migrating in spring or fall.

3) Document the timing of migration and rate of travel.

Information regarding the timing of migration, rate of travel, and 

dive duration has been collected and it is currently being analyzed. 

During the spring whale census, bowhead whales travel at 2.49 

miles per hour. Average dive duration is only 8.4 minutes, but all 

whales make some long dives between 36 and 72 minutes in 

duration. Our analyses show that assumptions of whale behavior 

used during the Barrow whale census are correct. In 2009 and 

2010, tagged whales passed Barrow when there were no watches 

because of weather or lead conditions. But in 2011, all tagged 
whales passed Barrow while the survey was active. This indicates 

that the survey for 2011 was well-timed. 

4) Estimate residence time for individual whales at specific locations 

(e.g. feeding areas).

a. Estimate residence time for individual whales feeding near 

Barrow.

Residence time for individual tagged whales in fall near 

Barrow is about 8 days.

b. Estimate residence time for individual whales feeding in the 

eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea.

We have not seen tagged bowheads moving slowly and 

changing directions frequently (movements that are 

evidence of feeding) in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. So, we 

cannot answer the question of how long bowheads spend 

feeding in the eastern Beaufort Sea with the information we 

have so far. Using the data we have the residence time is 

the time it takes for whales to pass through the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea.

What did we do? 

Number of tags by location, by year, by season

57 total tags deployed, 37 near Barrow, 20 in Canada

3 in 2006; 10 in 2007; 15 in 2008; 15 in 2009; and 14 in 2010 

7 in spring, 50 in fall (however some of the 50 lasted through the following 

spring)

Number of whales tagged by sex, size, location

Sex - 22 males, 14 females, 20 unknown (no biopsy)

Size, Sex, Location – (one female at Barrow was <30 ft)

17 males, 7 females at Barrow

6 males, 6 females in Canada

30-35 ft (total = 25)

10 were males (7 Barrow, 3 Canada)

4 were females (all Canada)

11 were unknown (5 Barrow, 6 Canada)

36-40 ft (total = 13)

3 were males (2 Barrow, 1 Canada) 

5 were females (3 Barrow, 2 Canada)

5 were unknown (4 Barrow, 1 Canada)

41-45 ft (total = 9)

6 were male (5 Barrow, 1 Canada)

2 were female (all Barrow)
1 was unknown (all Barrow)

46-50 ft (total = 6)

3 were males (2 Barrow, 1 Canada)

1 was female (all Barrow)

2 were unknown (1 Barrow, 1 Canada)

>50 ft (total = 2)

None were males

1 was female (Barrow)

1 was unknown (Barrow)

Overview - What have we learned?

Longevity of tags 

29 tags lasted 3 months

15 lasted 6 months

4 lasted 12 months 

Effects of tags

The effect of tagging is unknown; however, tag longevity suggests they are 

not causing infection. If tags caused infection, they would not stay attached to the 

whale.

Spring movements

We have a good idea of when bowheads leave the Bering Sea and most pass 

between the Chukchi Lease Area and shore on the way to Barrow. One of 13

tagged whales tracked during the spring stayed in the Chukchi Sea and did 

not pass Barrow. 

We do NOT think we have a good idea of movements near St. Lawrence 

Island and believe we need to tag there to get better representation of 

movements in that area.

Summer movements

We have observed some unexpected summer movements including:

1) Two whales moved north from Amundsen Gulf into the High 

Canadian Arctic, north of Banks Island.

2) After the spring migration to Canada, 2 whales travelled to an area 

north of Barrow in summer and returned to Canada. This is the first 

data showing bowheads move back and forth across the Beaufort Sea 

in summer in addition to the spring and fall migration.

3) Movements across the Chukchi Sea earlier than fall migration. One 

whale crossed the Chukchi Sea in July and one in mid-August. A few 

whales passed Barrow going west in the fall but then returned to 

Barrow.

4) One whale stayed in the Chukchi Sea for the summer.

5) We have not seen tagged whales spend much time near shore in the 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea in summer.
Fall movements

We have good data on fall movements across the Chukchi Sea and have 

analyzed much of it including the use of the Lease Sale Area 193. We also 

have good data on fall movements across the Beaufort Sea, however we have 

not analyzed it in detail yet.

Winter movements

We have good data for winter movements relative to ice coverage. We have 3 

years of movements in and out and have analyzed two of them. We saw some 

differences in between winters in where bowheads were in winter, but they 

did not use open water areas or areas south of the ice edge in either winter.

Important areas

We have identified some important areas probably for feeding including 

Amundsen Gulf (Canada) in spring and summer, Barrow (Alaska) in fall, the 

northern coast of Chukotka (Russia) in fall, and the Bering Sea in winter 

(Russian and U.S. waters).

Other areas that may also be important in some years include areas north of 

Banks Island and east of Wrangel Island.

Interactions with seismic operations

We have analyzed movements of one tagged whale in the vicinity of a marine 

seismic operation in the oil and gas exploration area near Tuktoyaktuk 

Canada in 2006. The seismic program occurred in September 2006 and was 

conducted in a known bowhead feeding area. The tagged whale changed 

directions during an approach of the ship, however the tagged whale 

remained in the area during the seismic operation until the seismic program 

was completed and the ship left. The tagged whale migrated at a similar time 

and along a similar route as other tagged whales across the Beaufort Sea. 

This same tagged whale passed by the same ship engaged in another seismic 

operation in the Chukchi Sea in October 2006. We have looked for other 

interactions between tagged whales and seismic operations in the Chukchi in 

2007–2009 but did not find any.

We have not looked at 2010 data yet.

Differences in movements and important areas between years

We have seen differences in where bowheads cross the Chukchi Sea in fall. 

For example, in 2008 and 2009 most whales went west to Wrangel Island 

then south to the Chukotka coast. In 2010, most whales went southwest to 

the Chukotka coast before reaching Wrangel Island. The two whales that 

travelled north of Banks Island could be an indication that there is an 

important area there in some years. Where whales go in Amundsen Gulf in 

spring varies due to the position of the ice edge when they arrive.
Possibly more important than the differences in areas is the similarities of 

areas used. It appears that Amundsen Gulf in spring and summer, Barrow 

in early fall, and the northern Chukotka coast in late fall and early winter 

are very consistently important.

Potential interactions with shipping lanes

Shipping lanes are being planned in anticipation of an increase in large ships 

passing through the Bering Strait for the Arctic Circle Route to Russia and 

Europe (west) and the Northwest Passage to Canada and the Atlantic (east). 

Tracks of the tagged whales have shown that it is likely that much of the 

Western Arctic population is moving south along the Chukotka coast 

through the western portion of the Bering Strait (between Big Diomede and 

Russia) in November and December. In spring, it is likely that the bowheads 

will have migrated prior to the shipping season, although local ships 

supporting oil and gas exploration may arrive before whales migrate if 

icebreakers are used.

Potential interactions with crab fishing

Many whalers have asked us whether crab fishing in the Bering Sea happens 

near wintering bowheads. There are 3 different crab fisheries (Tanner, 

snow, and king). There is no direct overlap between the two because 

bowheads stay inside the ice and the crabbers try to stay away from the ice. 

But, the ice can move over the crab gear and move it and lost pot gear can 

entangle whales. 

Evaluation – Did we accomplish our original objectives? See annotated objectives above.

We fully accomplished many of our objectives, partially accomplished some, and 

have yet to accomplish others.

What do we still need to know?

1) Are the tags causing any harm to the whales?

2) We have tagged fewer females and no females with calves. What if females with 

calves go to different places and we have not identified those places as important?

3) The bowheads tagged so far have not travelled around St. Lawrence Island in the 

way that the whalers see them. 

4) How often do whales come in contact with seismic operations and other industrial 

activities not just in Alaska, but also Canada and Russia?

5) Where do bowheads that feed near Barrow in summer come from?

6) How well do tagged whales represent all whales in the population? 

What are our new priorities/objectives?

1) Encourage whalers to collect any tags found in harvested whales by removing a 

block of tissue around the tag (without taking the tag out of the maktak). We can 

learn how the tag affects the tissue by examining it in place.
2) Work on modifying our research permit to allow tagging of females with calves. 

Continue to tag in order to track more females.

3) Work with Gambell and Savoonga Whaling Captains to tag whales near St. 

Lawrence Island to track whale movements there and to see if whales tagged there 

have different movement patterns.

4) Analyze existing data to see how many different industrial activities a tagged whale 

encounters in one year. Develop an acoustic tag that will record the sound that 

bowheads hear and the sounds they make.

5) Whales tagged near St. Lawrence Island in spring could provide data to determine 

where bowheads feeding near summer come from.

6) Put VHF/Satellite tags on and fly out to tagged whales and see how many other 

whales are with each tagged whale.

7) Put oceanographic satellite tags on that measure salinity and temperature. We 

could learn what the ocean conditions are where bowheads spend time (likely 

feeding).

8) Tag and biopsy gray whales to learn about their movements, feeding areas, and 

stock structure in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas.

General concerns, issues, comments:

MMS did not use our information from the tagged whales in the Chukchi 193 Environmental 

Impact Statement. Why are we doing this study and why is MMS funding it if they don’t use the 

information to evaluate the effects of activities? Maybe we should put a hold on the tagging 

until MMS starts to use the information. It is very frustrating that they don’t recognize the 

information. It is discouraging how we have to start over every year when we deal with the 

federal government.

It is important to continue tagging for a few more years because of shipping, climate change, 

ESA listings; there are lots of changes happening.

The research permit did not allow females with calves to be tagged. If tags are safe we may want 

to know more about movements of females with calves.

Shipping is a concern.

We still don’t know how tags affect whales. 

Oil and gas activities in Canada affect our bowheads.

We need tags that record sound to study noise.

Does seismic, or submarines, or other activities make whales go more offshore than normal.

There was site clearance seismic work near Cape Halkett this year that could have affected whale 

movements.
There were about 100 bowheads in early September near Cooper Island. It got windy and water 

got murky. Bowheads were north of where the water was clear.

In 2010, the first whales near Barrow were seen 30 August.

There were lots of gray whales near Barrow. Bowheads stay farther offshore and away from 

gray whales. Maybe bowheads don’t like gray whales.

We don’t see gray whales near Wales.

How are bowheads using currents?

Fall migration is on Russian side in Bering Strait.

Wainwright harvested a whale on 7 October 2010, 15 mi. from Wainwright. Saw lots of small 

whales. This is the first fall harvest in many years.

Statoil conducted 2 and 3-D seismic in Chukchi between 20 August and 1 October 2010.

Why aren’t there any bowheads on the west side of St. Lawrence Island? Could be that the 

currents are different and the food is less available.

Seismic operators are looking to use icebreakers after the whales leave.

What are the cumulative effects of multiple seismic and other operations in the Chukchi, Alaskan 

Beaufort, and Canadian Beaufort seas.

Can you identify resting areas where whales are floating with the current or at the surface next to 

the ice?

In 1987, the ice was heavy and whales tried to migrate north but came back south.

Analyze more ice detail.

Time-area closures could be designed to protect important habitats only when they are in use. 

The closures could be designed as limited use areas, such as special management areas or as 

marine protected areas. Maybe ocean zoning like coastal management zoning could be designed 

to protect important bowhead habitats.

The North Slope Borough has joined a research agreement with Shell and that may help to get 

the locations of ships doing seismic programs. 

Blackwell et al. 2010 had DASARS out during seismic that showed it was quiet (no whale calls) 

during operation of the airguns. Acoustic tags that record the bowhead calls could tell us if the 

whales go quiet when the guns are loud.
Some elders say to quit playing with the animals, they are our food, never harm the animal, never 

play with the animals.

TEK is powerful.

Some people don’t understand the process, we need more outreach.

References

Huntington, H.P., and L.T. Quakenbush. 2009a. Traditional knowledge of bowhead whale 

migratory patterns near Kaktovik and Barrow, Alaska. Report to the Eskimo Whaling 

Commission and the Barrow and Kaktovik Whaling Captains. 14 pp.

Huntington, H.P., and L.T. Quakenbush. 2009b. Traditional knowledge of bowhead whale 

migratory patterns near Wainwright, Alaska. Report to the Eskimo Whaling Commission 

and the Wainwright Whaling Captains. 9 pp.

Mizroch, S.A., M.F. Tillman, S. Juraz, J.M. Straley et al. 2011. Long-term survival of humpback 

whales radio-tagged in Alaska from 1976 through 1978. Marine Mammal Science 

27(1):217–229.
Appendix E-3. Quakenbush, L.T., J.J. Citta, J.C. George, R. Small, H. Brower, Jr., M.P. HeideJørgensen, and L. Harwood. 2011. Bowhead inter-annual variability and exceptional movements 

of western Arctic bowhead whales from satellite telemetry, 2006–2010. Alaska Marine Science 

Symposium, 17–21 January, Anchorage AK. (Abstract and oral presentation). 

Inter-annual Variability and Exceptional Movements of Western Arctic Bowhead Whales 

from Satellite Telemetry, 2006–2010

Lori Quakenbush1, John Citta1, John C. George2, Robert Small3, Harry Brower, Jr.2, 4, Mads Peter 

Heide-Jørgensen5, and Lois Harwood6

1

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks AK, USA, Lori.Quakenbush@alaska.gov

2

North Slope Borough, Barrow AK, USA; 3Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau AK, 

USA, 4Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 5Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, 

Copenhagen Denmark, 6Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Yellowknife, NT, Canada; 

A cooperative research project began in 2005 to study the movements and habitat use of the 

western Arctic stock of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus). Satellite-linked transmitters were 

deployed on 58 bowhead whales (2006–2010) by Alaskan and Canadian subsistence whalers. 

Tagging in consecutive years allowed us to examine variability among years, illuminating 

important aspects of bowhead ecology. For example, whales entered the Bering Sea over a 

longer time period in 2008/09 (65 d) than in 2009/10 (20 d), and whales in 2008/09 spent more 

time in the western, versus central, Bering Sea and were farther from the marginal ice edge. As 

more tags were deployed, we observed movements that were not expected, including: 1) in 

spring 2010 one whale migrated west to the Chukchi Peninsula, not east to the Canadian 

Beaufort; 2) two whales (one in 2006 and one in 2010) travelled north of Banks Island before 

returning to the Beaufort Sea prior to fall migration; and 3) after migrating to the Canadian 

Beaufort, four whales returned to Barrow (offshore) during summer instead of during fall; one 

of these whales travelled to the Chukchi Peninsula prior to the fall migration. These movements, 

whereas exceptional within our tracking data, are unlikely to be rare for the population as a 

whole and in some cases are corroborated by local observations. Satellite tracking over multiple 

years will allow us to assess variability in movements and habitat use to assess how bowhead 

movements may be influenced by currents, ice, underwater noise, and other factors. 

Alaska Marine Science Symposium, 18–22 January 2011, Anchorage AK
Appendix E-4. Quakenbush, L. and J. Citta. 2011. Satellite Tracking of Bowhead and Other 

Whales: Further Studies, 2011–2015. Draft Study Plan for review, revision and approval by the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. 5 pp. 

Draft Study Plan 

Satellite Tracking of Bowhead and Other Whales: Further Studies, 2011–2015

For Review, Revision, and Approval by:

The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

Submitted by:

Lori Quakenbush and John Citta

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Fairbanks, Alaska
June 2011

Introduction

Bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) were designated as an endangered species in 1973

due to depletion by commercial whaling during the late 1800s. The population has recovered 

considerably since then and the current estimate is ~10,000 (Zeh and Punt 2005). Bowheads are 

an important subsistence and cultural resource for coastal people of northern Alaska and Russia 

and their harvest is managed by a quota system approved by the International Whaling 

Commission and implemented, in Alaska, by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC). 

Oil and gas leasing, exploration, development, and production are ongoing in the Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea, and leasing and exploration are ongoing in the Canadian Beaufort Sea and in the 

Chukchi Sea. International shipping is expected to increase and some fisheries may be expanded 

as the open water season lengthens. These activities will occur within the range of the BeringChukchi-Beaufort stock of bowhead whales. In order to minimize the impacts of industrial 

activities on bowhead whales we need to better understand bowhead migration routes and timing, 

and identify important habitats (e.g., feeding and summering areas) so that lease sale areas and 

industrial activities can be designed to minimize effects on bowhead whales. Between 2006 and 

2010 we deployed 57 satellite transmitters on bowhead whales in Alaska and Canada and 

collected information on migration routes, migration timing, swim speed, diving behavior, 

residence times in portions of the range, as well as some responses to industrial activity

(Quakenbush et al. 2010a, b). The study was designed cooperatively with the AEWC, the North 

Slope Borough, the Minerals Management Service (MMS, now Bureau of Energy Management,

Regulation and Enforcement), and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game; it was funded by 

MMS. We have evaluated our accomplishments relative to our original study objectives and we 

have developed a study plan for the next 5 years to focus on objectives that have not been fully 

met.

Methods

In December 2010, we held a workshop with the AEWC and North Slope Borough 

personnel in Anchorage to evaluate our accomplishments relative to our study objectives in order 

to identify objectives that have not been met and to determine whether additional study is 

recommended (Appendix A). We used the summary from the workshop to develop this draft 

study plan for review, modification, and approval by the AEWC.

Study Plan, 2011–2015

Do satellite transmitters (tags) harm bowhead whales? An important topic of discussion at the 

workshop was whether the tags harm the whales. Although we have tagged 57 bowhead whales 

we have not been able to examine the tag site after deployment. No tagged whales have been 

harvested. Billy Adams reported seeing a tag ~20 days after deployment and it looked the same 

as when it was deployed (i.e., flush with the skin). The tracks from the tagged whales tell us that 

their movements are what are expected from healthy whales. Individual whales tagged in fall 

near Barrow have been tracked for more than 365 days. The long retention time of many of the 

tags suggest that the tag site is not becoming infected. An infection would affect the skin and 

surrounding tissue and cause the tag to fall off. If the tags were irritating to the whales they 
would likely be rubbed off on the bottom or on the ice. A study of penetrating tags used on 

humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) compiled the sightings of seven tagged whales and 

found that all seven were observed at least 20 years after tagging and five of the seven have been 

observed for more than 30 years (Mizroch et al. 2011). This study was published recently and 

was not available to discuss at the workshop. 

Overall Study Objectives:

Work with subsistence whalers during all aspects of this study and make sure research activities 

do not interfere with subsistence whaling activity.

Use satellite telemetry and the methods developed during the previous study to further 

investigate movements, timing, important habitats, and interactions with industry. Specifically:

Bowhead whales

Objective 1: Tag at St. Lawrence Island beginning in 2011 until 10 or more tags are deployed. 

Movements of whales tagged near Barrow and in Canada have not been representative of when 

and where bowheads are seen near St. Lawrence Island. In addition, by tagging whales near St. 

Lawrence Island we may document more whales going west in spring and not passing Barrow. 

Tagging whales in the Bering Sea may also help answer the question about where the whales that 

show up at Barrow in July come from.

Objective 2: Tag small (~30 ft long) and large (>40 ft long) whales at Barrow.

More males have been tagged then females. Few small (only 4) and few large females (only 4) 

have been tagged. Although we cannot determine the sex of a whale before it is tagged (unless it 

has a calf), we can determine size. Thus, we could focus on small and large whales in order to 

get more tags on these age classes and some of them should be females, which would increase 

our female sample too. Tagging small whales near Barrow would also help answer the question 

of whether the sizes are mixed near Barrow in summer (boat or aerial surveys could answer this 

question, too). Tagging any bowheads near Barrow in July may tell us whether these whales go 

east into the Beaufort Sea where they may encounter oil and gas activities before migrating west 

in the fall.

Objective 3: Request to change our research permit to allow tagging females with calves. 

Our current research permit does not allow for tagging of females with calves. Although we 

know from the whalers, from the count at Barrow, and from the aerial surveys that the females 

with calves migrate later in spring, we do not know whether females with calves go to different 

places in summer and winter. In addition we do not know much about their fall migration route 

and timing.

Objective 4: Analyze existing data on interactions with seismic and other industrial activities.

We will analyze and report on interactions with industry collected from previously tagged 

whales. 

Objective 5: Develop a tag that records sounds that bowheads hear and sounds they make.

Hydrophones placed near seismic operations have shown that when airguns turn on, bowhead 

call numbers go down. This could mean that bowheads leave the area or that they stop calling. 
A tag that records sound (acoustic tag) could tell us which happens. If bowheads stay in the area 

they could be physically injured by the high noise levels and methods other than increasing the 

noise level slowly so bowheads can move away before seismic operations start would need to be 

developed to protect bowheads.

Objective 6: Add a temperature probe to the tag anchors to record internal temperature.

The tags we use record water temperature and we could add a sensor in the anchor that would 

record the temperature deeper in the blubber under the skin at the site of the probe. This 

information would help with studies of energetics, which is how much food (energy) a bowhead 

needs to eat to live and reproduce.

Objective 7: Deploy tags that measure changes in ocean temperature and salinity.

This information would help us understand why bowhead whales stop in some places to feed but 

not others. It is believed that krill (bowhead food) collects in places where water with different 

temperature or salinity meet (fronts). These fronts are similar to eddies on a river and krill 

collects in these eddies, much like debris collects in eddies on rivers. 

Objective 8: Develop a tag with both satellite and VHF capability.

The VHF part of the tag would allow us to find the tagged whale from an airplane so we could 

document the number of other bowheads with it. We could use the satellite tag to track the 

whale and when it travelled to an area we could reach with an airplane we could fly out and find 

it. This would help us determine how well the tagged whales represent whales that are not 

tagged.

Gray whales

Gray whales are more common in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas now than in the past and their 

movements, important habitats, and how they interact with industrial activities is unknown and 

important. Our research permit and our funding allows for this project to include tagging and 

biopsies of gray whales. 

Objective 1: Tag gray whales near Barrow and St. Lawrence Island.

We can use similar tags with shorter anchors for gray whales and begin to collect similar 

information about their movements. We can use the same biopsy methods to determine the sex 

of the gray whales tagged.

Humpback whales

A few humpback whales have been seen each year in the Chukchi Sea and their movements, 

important habitats, and how they interact with industrial activities is also unknown and 

important. Our research permit and our funding allows for this project to include tagging and 

biopsies of humpback whales. 

Objective 1: Biopsy humpback whales near Barrow and St. Lawrence Island.

We can begin to study humpback whales by collecting biopsies for sex and genetics. We can use 

biopsy tips on crossbows to determine the sex of the whale biopsied. 
Discussion

We have completed 5 years of research on bowhead whales using satellite telemetry and 

working with subsistence whalers. We have learned a tremendous amount about bowhead 

whales that is already being used to plan shipping lanes and develop mitigation to protect 

bowhead whales. Our tagging project received the Secretary of the Interior Partners in 

Conservation Award for its outstanding contributions and unprecedented collaborations among 

government and Native organizations. The award acknowledged that the success of the project 

was largely due to the efforts of Native subsistence whalers.

Due to the past success of the project, the funding agency, the Bureau of Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement (formerly MMS) will continue the funding to pursue 

unanswered questions regarding bowhead whales and to pursue similar studies of gray and 

humpback whales. In order to continue the studies we submit this study plan for the review, 

modification, and approval of the AEWC.

References

Mizroch, S.A., M.F. Tillman, S. Juraz, J.M. Straley et al. 2011. Long-term survival of humpback 

whales radio-tagged in Alaska from 1976 through 1978. Marine Mammal Science 

27(1):217–229.

Quakenbush, L.T., R.J. Small, and J.C. Citta. 2010a. Satellite tracking of Western Arctic 

bowhead whales. Final Report OCS Study BOEMRE 2010-033. 65 pp.

Quakenbush, L.T., J.J. Citta., J.C. George, R.J. Small, and M.P. Heide-Jørgensen. 2010b. Fall 

and winter movements of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) in the Chukchi Sea and 

within a potential petroleum development area. Arctic 63(3):289–307.

Zeh, J.E., and A.E. Punt. 2005. Updated 1978–2001 abundance estimates and their correlations 

for the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort seas stock of bowhead whales. Journal of Cetacean 

Research Management 7(2):169–175.
Appendix E-5. Citta, J.J., L.T. Quakenbush, J.C. George, H. Brower, Jr., R. J. Small, and M.P. 

Heide-Jørgensen. 2011. Does the winter range of bowhead whales overlap commercial fisheries 

in the Bering Sea? 19th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 28 November 

– 2 December, Tampa, FL. (Abstract and oral presentation).

Does the winter range of bowhead whales overlap commercial fisheries in the Bering Sea?

Citta, John J.1; Quakenbush, Lori T.1; George, John C.

2

; Brower, Harry2; Small, Robert J.3; 

Heidi-Jorgensen, Mads Peter4

(1) Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99701, USA

(2) North Slope Borough, P.O. Box 69, Barrow, Alaska, 99723, USA

(3) Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1255 West 8th Street, Juneau, Alaska, 99811, USA

(4) Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Strandgade 91, 3 Postboks 2151, Copenhagen, DK1016, Denmark

Corresponding author: john.citta@alaska.gov

How often bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) become entangled in commercial fishing gear 

is unknown, although rope scars are identified on approximately 10% of harvested whales and a 

dead whale wrapped in ‘pot’ gear, apparently causing its death, was found in July 2010. Rope 

scars are believed to result from entanglement in pot gear set in the Bering Sea; however, the 

relative positions of bowhead whales and the pot fishery was unknown until recent satellite 

tagging studies. In the winters of 2008–09 and 2009–10, the distribution of 20 tagged bowhead 

whales overlapped the locations of pot gear set for Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) and blue 

king crab (Paralithodes platypus), yet the fisheries concluded before whales migrated into the 

overlap area. The snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) fishery extends from January to April and 

provides the greatest potential for bowhead whales to encounter active pot gear. However, 

whales generally remained in areas with > 90% sea ice concentration, which is too concentrated 

for crab boats. Although the distribution of pot gear in Russian waters is unknown, Russian 

fisheries are equally limited by sea ice. Hence, bowhead whales generally frequent waters too 

ice-choked for commercial fishing boats in winter and “ghost” gear (i.e., lost fishing gear) may 

be the main source of entanglement. Because this stock of whales is increasing, it is unlikely 

that fishery induced mortality limits the population. However, entanglement rates should be 

monitored as they may increase if the location of the pot fishery shifts as ice conditions change.
Appendix E-6. Quakenbush, L.T., J.J. Citta, J.C. George, H. Brower, Jr., L. Harwood, R. J. 

Small, and M.P. Heide-Jørgensen. 2011. How many industrial activities do individual bowhead 

whales from the Western Arctic stock encounter annually? 19th Biennial Conference on the 

Biology of Marine Mammals, 28 November – 2 December, Tampa, FL. (Abstract and oral 

presentation).

How many industrial activities do individual bowhead whales from the Western Arctic 

stock encounter annually?

L.T. Quakenbush, J.J. Citta, J.C. George, H. Brower, Jr., L. Harwood, R. J. Small, and M.P. 

Heide-Jørgensen

The Western Arctic stock of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) are exposed to increasing 

numbers and sources of industrial activities during their migrations, yet the cumulative effects of 

these exposures have not been evaluated. A recent satellite tagging study tracked bowhead 

whales (2006–2010) to determine their minimum annual encounter rate with these activities. 

Most tagged whales made a >6,000 km annual circuit, from the Bering Sea (winter grounds) 

through the Chukchi and Beaufort seas to the Canadian Beaufort Sea (summer grounds) and 

back. Their path takes them through industrial activities conducted by Russia, the U.S., and 

Canada. Bowhead whales winter near fisheries that may be a source of line entanglements and 

they pass twice through the narrow Bering Strait where international shipping is concentrated 

and increasing. Whales pass through oil and gas activities underway in U.S. waters of the 

Chukchi Sea, and some spend up to 3 months feeding within active oil and gas exploration areas 

in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. On their return, they pass near or through active oil and gas 

exploration and development areas in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. All whales passed through at 

least two active industrial areas (one in the U.S. and one in Canada) and one whale encountered 

three seismic surveys. Whale movements relative to fisheries and shipping show that as these 

activities increase the potential effects to whales could increase as well. This population has 

been growing, therefore the current level of activities and their cumulative effects has not 

prevented population growth; however, all industrial activities are expected to increase, which 

will increase the frequency of encounters by bowheads and the probability of potential 

consequences. In addition, other effects such as altered movement patterns are of concern to 

subsistence hunters. These data demonstrate that individual bowhead whales encounter multiple 

industrial activities annually.

Oral presentation at the 19th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 28 

November – 2 December, Tampa, FL.
Appendix E-7. Citta, J. J., L. T. Quakenbush, J. C. George, H. Brower, R. J. Small, and M. P. 

Heide-Jorgensen. 2012. Does the winter range of bowhead whales overlap commercial fisheries 

in the Bering Sea? Alaska Marine Science Symposium, 16–20 January, Anchorage, AK.

(Abstract and poster).

Does the winter range of bowhead whales overlap commercial fisheries in the Bering Sea?

Citta, John J.1; Quakenbush, Lori T.1; George, John C.

2

; Brower, Harry2; Small, Robert J.3; 

Heidi-Jorgensen, Mads Peter4

(1) Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99701, USA

(2) North Slope Borough, P.O. Box 69, Barrow, Alaska, 99723, USA

(3) Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1255 West 8th Street, Juneau, Alaska, 99811, USA

(4) Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Strandgade 91, 3 Postboks 2151, Copenhagen, DK1016, Denmark

Corresponding author: john.citta@alaska.gov

How often bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) become entangled in commercial fishing gear 

is unknown, although rope scars are identified on approximately 10% of harvested whales and a 

dead whale wrapped in ‘pot’ gear, apparently causing its death, was found in July 2010. Rope 

scars are believed to result from entanglement in pot gear set in the Bering Sea; however, the 

relative positions of bowhead whales and the pot fishery was unknown until recent satellite 

tagging studies. In the winters of 2008–09 and 2009–10, the distribution of 20 tagged bowhead 

whales overlapped the locations of pot gear set for Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) and blue 

king crab (Paralithodes platypus), yet the fisheries concluded before whales migrated into the 

overlap area. The snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) fishery extends from January to April and 

provides the greatest potential for bowhead whales to encounter active pot gear. However, 

whales generally remained in areas with > 90% sea ice concentration, which is too concentrated 

for crab boats. Although the distribution of pot gear in Russian waters is unknown, Russian 

fisheries are equally limited by sea ice. Hence, bowhead whales generally frequent waters too 

ice-choked for commercial fishing boats in winter and “ghost” gear (i.e., lost fishing gear) may 

be the main source of entanglement. Because this stock of whales is increasing, it is unlikely 

that fishery induced mortality limits the population. However, entanglement rates should be 

monitored as they may increase if the location of the pot fishery shifts as ice conditions change.
Appendix E-8. Quakenbush, L., J. Citta, J.C. George, R. Small, M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, L. 

Harwood, and H. Brower, B. Adams, L. Brower, G. Tagarook, J. Pokiak, and C. Pokiak. 2012. 

Western Arctic bowhead whale movements and habitat use throughout their range: 2006–2011 

satellite telemetry results. Alaska Marine Science Symposium, 16–20 January, Anchorage, AK.

(Abstract and oral presentation).

Western Arctic Bowhead Whale Movements and Habitat Use throughout their Range: 

2006–2011 Satellite Telemetry Results

Lori Quakenbush1

, John Citta1, John C. George2, Robert Small3, Mads Peter Heide-Jørgensen4, 

Lois Harwood5, and Harry Brower2, Billy Adams2, Lewis Brower6, George Tagarook7, James 

Pokiak8, and Charles Pokiak8.

1

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks AK, USA, Lori.Quakenbush@alaska.gov

2

North Slope Borough, Barrow AK, USA; 3Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau AK, 

USA, 4Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Copenhagen Denmark, 5Department of Fisheries 

and Oceans, Yellowknife, NT, Canada, 6

Barrow Arctic Science Consortium, Barrow AK, USA, 

7

Kaktovik Whaling Captain’s Association, Kaktovik, AK, USA, 8Tuktoyaktuk Hunters and 

Trappers Committee, Tuktoyaktuk, NT, Canada.

In 2005, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game began a cooperative research project to study 

movements and habitat use of the western Arctic stock of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus). 

In collaboration with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, the North Slope Borough, the 

Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 

with core funding from the Minerals Management Service, 59 satellite transmitters were 

deployed on bowhead whales in Alaska and Canada between 2006 and 2010. The majority of 

the whales were instrumented in waters near Point Barrow, Alaska, and near the Tuktoyaktuk 

Peninsula in Canada by Native subsistence whalers. Six tags have transmitted for more than a 

year, allowing a complete description of annual movements in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort 

seas. Thirty tags have transmitted for more than three months covering significant portions of

the annual migratory cycle. Tagging in consecutive years has allowed us to examine variability 

in movements, wintering areas, and the timing of migration among years. We have identified 

several areas of concentrated use throughout the range of bowhead whales, and have documented 

interactions with industrial activities and potential conflicts with shipping. We plan to begin 

tagging near St. Lawrence Island, Alaska to investigate whether the location of tagging is a 

factor in bowhead movements. Future analyses include bowhead movements relative to 

industrial activities and oceanographic factors that influence movements and foraging behavior 

of this stock of bowhead whales.

Oral presentation at the Alaska Marine Science Symposium, 16–20 January 2012, Anchorage 

AK
Appendix E-9. Quakenbush, L.T., , L. Harwood, J.J. Citta, J.C. George, R. J. Small, M.P. HeideJørgensen, H. Brower, B. Adams, L. Brower, J. Pokiak, C. Pokiak, and G. Tagarook. 2012. 

Industrial activities and western Arctic bowhead whales: what we have learned from satellite 

telemetry. U.S.-Canada Oil and Gas Forum, 13–15 November, Anchorage, AK. (Abstract and 

Oral presentation).

Industrial activities and western Arctic bowhead whales: what we have learned from 

satellite telemetry

L.T. Quakenbush1, L. Harwood2, J.J. Citta1, J.C. George3, R. J. Small4, M.P. Heide-Jørgensen5, 

H. Brower3, B. Adams3, L. Brower6, J. Pokiak7, C. Pokiak7, and G. Tagarook8

1 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, USA; 2 Department of Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada, Yellowknife, Canada; 3 North Slope Borough, Barrow, USA; 4 Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Juneau, USA; 5 Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk, Greenland; 6

Barrow Arctic Science Consortium, Barrow, USA

7 Tuktoyaktuk Hunters and Trappers’ Committee; 8 Kaktovik Whaling Captains’ Association

E-mail: lori.quakenbush@alaska.gov

Offshore industrial activity is increasing within the range of the western Arctic stock of bowhead 

whales (Balaena mysticetus); however, how often individual whales encounter activities, and 

whether multiple encounters occur, has not been known. A satellite tagging study, funded by 

MMS/BOEM, tracked bowhead whales (2006–2010) to determine movements and habitat use, 

and minimum annual encounter rates of individuals with industrial activities. Most tagged 

whales made a >6,000 km annual migration, from the Bering Sea (winter range) through the 

Chukchi and Beaufort seas to the Canadian Beaufort Sea (summer range), and back. Their 

migration takes them through active oil and gas lease areas in U.S., Canadian, and (possibly) 

Russian waters. In summer, most whales (36 of 37) spend up to 3 months feeding in the 

Canadian Beaufort Sea, where 2D and 3 D seismic surveys have been conducted since 2006. In 

fall, whales pass near or through active oil and gas exploration and development areas in the 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Each year, all tagged whales passed through at least one active industrial 

area and most (36 of 37) passed through two (one in the U.S. and one in Canada). One whale 

was documented within three seismic survey areas. The current level of activity has not 

prevented this population from growing; however, industrial activity is expected to increase, 

which will increase the frequency bowhead whales encounter industrial disturbances, which may 

have negative population-level consequences. Other potential effects are of concern to 

subsistence hunters, such as altered movement patterns. This study has demonstrated that 

individual bowhead whales currently encounter multiple industrial activities annually. Future 

studies will include the use of acoustic tags to determine individual bowhead call rates relative to 

ambient noise levels. Understanding bowhead call behavior will aid the interpretation of passive 

acoustic data currently collected near seismic and drilling sites.
Appendix E-10. Quakenbush, L.T., , L. Harwood, J.J. Citta, J.C. George, R. J. Small, M.P.

Heide-Jørgensen, H. Brower, B. Adams, L. Brower, J. Pokiak, C. Pokiak, and G. Tagarook. 

2013. Industrial activities and western Arctic bowhead whales: what we have learned from 

satellite telemetry. Alaska Marine Science Symposium, 21–25 January, Anchorage, AK 

(Abstract and Poster).

Industrial activities and western Arctic bowhead whales: what we have learned from 

satellite telemetry

L.T. Quakenbush1, L. Harwood2, J.J. Citta1, J.C. George3, R. J. Small4, M.P. Heide-Jørgensen5, 

H. Brower3, B. Adams3, L. Brower6, J. Pokiak7, C. Pokiak7, and G. Tagarook8

1 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, USA

2 Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Yellowknife, Canada

3 North Slope Borough, Barrow, USA

4 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, USA

5 Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk, Greenland

6 Barrow Arctic Science Consortium, Barrow, USA

7 Tuktoyaktuk Hunters and Trappers’ Committee

8 Kaktovik Whaling Captains’ Association

E-mail: lori.quakenbush@alaska.gov

Offshore industrial activity is increasing within the range of the western Arctic stock of bowhead 

whales (Balaena mysticetus); however, how often individual whales encounter activities, and 

whether multiple encounters occur, has not been known. A satellite tagging study, funded by 

MMS/BOEM, tracked bowhead whales (2006–2010) to determine movements and habitat use, 

and minimum annual encounter rates of individuals with industrial activities. Most tagged 

whales made a >6,000 km annual migration, from the Bering Sea (winter range) through the 

Chukchi and Beaufort seas to the Canadian Beaufort Sea (summer range), and back. Their 

migration takes them through active oil and gas lease areas in U.S., Canadian, and (possibly) 

Russian waters. In summer, most whales (36 of 37) spend up to 3 months feeding in the 

Canadian Beaufort Sea, where 2D and 3D seismic surveys have been conducted since 2006. In 

fall, whales pass near or through active oil and gas exploration and development areas in the 

Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Each year, all tagged whales passed through at least one active industrial 

area and most (36 of 37) passed through two (one in the U.S. and one in Canada). One whale 

was documented within three seismic survey areas. The current level of activity has not 

prevented this population from growing; however, industrial activity is expected to increase, 

which will increase the frequency bowhead whales encounter industrial disturbances, which may 

have negative population-level consequences. Other potential effects are of concern to 

subsistence hunters, such as altered movement patterns. This study has demonstrated that 

individual bowhead whales currently encounter multiple industrial activities annually. Future 

studies will include the use of acoustic tags to determine individual bowhead call rates relative to 

ambient noise levels. Understanding bowhead call behavior will aid the interpretation of passive 

acoustic data currently collected near seismic and drilling sites.
Technical Summary: BOEM Publication 2013-01110

Study Title: Satellite Tracking of Western Arctic Bowhead Whales

Report Title: Satellite Tracking of Bowhead Whales – Movements 

and Analysis from 2006–2012

Contract Number: M10PC00085, BOEM Study Number: 2013-01110

Sponsoring OCS Region: Alaska

Applicable Planning Areas: Beaufort and Chukchi

Fiscal Years of Project Funding: 2010–2013

Completion Date of Report: August 2013

Cost by fiscal year; FY 2010: $100,000; FY 2011: $350,000; FY 

2012: $250,000

Cumulative Project Cost: $700,000

Project Manager: Lori Quakenbush

Affiliation: Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Address: 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK 99701

Principal Investigators: Lori Quakenbush and Robert J. Small

Key Words: Bowhead whale, Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Bering Sea, 

feeding, satellite telemetry, movements, migration, petroleum 

exploration areas

Background: The western Arctic (or Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort) 

stock of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) is of high 

importance due to the nutritional and cultural role of bowhead 

whales to coastal Alaska Natives of the Bering, Chukchi, and 

Beaufort seas, their role in the marine ecosystem, and because 

their range overlaps with areas identified for potential oil and 

gas development and shipping. Movement patterns and feeding 

areas of this stock of bowhead whales, however, are not well 

understood. Increasing our understanding of bowhead whale 

movements, habitat use, and behavior will aid in resource 

planning and bowhead conservation. 

Objectives: The overall objective of this study was to work with 

subsistence whalers to deploy satellite transmitters on bowhead 

whales of different sex and age in order to document and 

describe the general pattern of year-round movements. Specific 

objectives included using satellite telemetry to document 1) the 

pattern of year-round movements, 2) behavior during migration 

relative to migration routes and the environmental 

characteristics along those routes (e.g., polynyas, leads, 

bathymetry, ice conditions, industrial disturbances), 3)

document the timing of migration and the rate of travel, 4) 

determine whether bowhead whales found near Point Barrow in 

summer came from summering in the Chukchi Sea or were returning 
early from Canada, and 5)instrument other species to address 

movements and behavior.

Description: We worked with Native whalers from Alaska and 

marine mammal hunters from Canada to attach satellite 

transmitters to bowhead and gray whales during a three year 

period, 2010–2013 to document movements and identify important 

habitats during all seasons. This work is a continuation of a 

five year study from 2005 to 2010.

Significant Conclusions: We have documented bowhead movements 

within all oil and gas lease sale areas in the Chukchi and 

Beaufort seas including their presence in the vicinity of active 

seismic and drilling operations. Based on movements and behavior 

of tagged bowhead whales from all years, the greatest potential 

for anthropogenic disturbances from industrial activities 

including shipping occur near Cape Bathurst in May and June, 

Tuktoyaktuk in late August to early September, Point Barrow in 

late August to late October, northern Chukotka/Bering Strait in 

October to early January and the outer Gulf of Anadyr in 

December through March. Ships traveling through the narrow area 

west of Little Diomede Island from mid-November to the end of 

December would have high potential for encountering many bowhead 

whales. We have identified migratory corridors that bowheads use 

to travel between feeding areas. Both the spring migratory 

corridor between the Bering Strait and Cape Bathurst in Amundsen 

Gulf and the fall migratory corridor between Hershel Island and 

Barrow have been relatively distinct and consistent among years. 

The fall migratory corridor between Barrow and the Bering 

Strait, however, is more variable. We think this is related to 

whales responding to prey availability. Krill is concentrated 

by oceanographic factors, which vary in space and time. This 

results in complex movement patterns as individual whales travel 

to different feeding areas at different times. 

We have documented areas where whales spend time, and are likely 

feeding. These areas include Cape Bathurst and Tuktoyaktuk in 

Canada; Point Barrow in Alaska; and Northern Chukotka and the 

Gulf of Anadyr in Russia; and Bering Strait and Anadyr Strait in 

Russia and Alaska

Study Results: From 2010 to 2012 we worked with Native whalers 

from Alaska and marine mammal hunters from Canada to attach 17

satellite transmitters to bowhead whales (11 near Tuktoyaktak, 3 

near Barrow and 3 near St. Lawrence Island) for a total of 63

bowhead whales tagged since the project began in 2006. We 

combined information from all whales tagged to document

movements and behavior. We documented the annual distribution of 
western Arctic bowhead whales, including summering and wintering 

areas, and the migratory routes that connect these areas. We 

have incorporated traditional knowledge information collected by 

us and others into our final report. We described how tagged 

bowhead whales move through Oil and Gas Lease Sale Areas in 

Canada and Alaska and in proposed areas of Russian waters in the 

spring and fall. Eight gray whales were tagged and five were 

photographed and added to photo-identification catalogs for the 

eastern Pacific stock.

Study Products: We provided weekly e-mails of maps and updates 

on the State of Alaska website. We made presentations to the

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, the International Whaling 

Commission, and at scientific meetings including the Society for 

Marine Mammal Conference, Alaska Marine Science Symposium, and 

the U.S.-Canada Oil and Gas Conference. We produced annual 

reports, a publically available report to the International 

Whaling Commission, and four peer-reviewed publications.