CONSERVATION PLAN 

for the 

COOK INLET BELUGA WHALE 

(Delphinapterus leucas) 

October 2008 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service

Protected Resources Division 

Alaska Region
DISCLAIMER 

Conservation Plans delineate reasonable actions which the best available science indicates are 

required to recover and/or protect marine mammal species designated as depleted. Plans are 

published by NMFS. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject 

to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as any commitments or 

requirements that any federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of the AntiDeficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341, or any other law or regulation. Conservation Plans do not 

necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or 

agencies involved in the Plan formulation, other than NMFS. They represent the official position 

of NMFS only after they have been signed by the Assistant Administrator. Approved 

Conservation Plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species 

status, and the completion of conservation actions. 

THIS PLAN SHOULD BE CITED AS FOLLOWS: 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet beluga 

whale (Delphinapterus leucas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, Alaska. 

ADDITIONAL COPIES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM: 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Protected Resources 

709 W. 9th Street 

P.O. Box 21668 

Juneau, AK. 99802-1668 

This Conservation Plan can also be downloaded from NMFS Alaska Region website: 

http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresouces/whales/beluga/managment.htm 

Cover photo (Cook Inlet beluga whale near Eagle River) by Christopher Garner, U.S. Army, Fort 

Richardson, Alaska, 2007. 

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Project Leaders

Mandy Migura 

Biologist 

Protected Resources Division 

Alaska Field Office, NMFS 

Anchorage, Alaska 

Brad Smith 

Biologist 

Protected Resources Division 

Alaska Field Office, NMFS 

Anchorage, Alaska 

Kaja Brix 

Assistant Regional Administrator 

Protected Resources Division 

Alaska Regional Office, NMFS 

Juneau, Alaska 

Contributors

Barbara Mahoney 

Biologist 

Protected Resources Division 

Alaska Field Office, NMFS 

Anchorage, Alaska 

Thomas Meyer 

Attorney Advisor 

Office of General Counsel 

Protected Resources Division 

Alaska Regional Office, NMFS 

Juneau, Alaska 

Dr. Rod Hobbs 

Fisheries Biologist 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NMFS 

Seattle, Washington 

Dan Vos 

Former Employee

Protected Resources Division 

Alaska Field Office, NMFS 

Anchorage, Alaska 

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DISCLAIMER ..............................................................................................................................ii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................iv 

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES .............................................................................................vi 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................ 1 

I. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 4 

A. Brief Overview............................................................................................................. 5 

B. Description and Taxonomy .......................................................................................... 7 

C. Life History.................................................................................................................. 8 

D. Prey Species............................................................................................................... 10 

E. Distribution and Movements...................................................................................... 13 

 1. General Overview .......................................................................................... 13 

 2. Seasonal Distributions ................................................................................... 16 

 3. Range Constriction......................................................................................... 19 

F. Habitat........................................................................................................................ 21 

 1. Physical Habitat of Cook Inlet....................................................................... 21 

 2. Beluga Feeding Habitat.................................................................................. 22 

 3. Beluga Calving Habitat.................................................................................. 23 

 4. Other Beluga Habitats.................................................................................... 24 

 5. Habitat Modeling ........................................................................................... 24 

 6. Valuable Habitat Descriptions........................................................................ 25 

 a. Type 1................................................................................................... 26 

 b. Type 2................................................................................................... 28 

 c. Type 3................................................................................................... 28 

G. Abundance and Trends............................................................................................... 29 

H. Potential Threats ........................................................................................................ 31 

1. Natural Factors................................................................................................ 32 

a. Stranding.............................................................................................. 32 

b. Predation.............................................................................................. 35 

c. Parasitism and Disease ........................................................................ 35 

d. Environmental Change........................................................................ 39 

2. Human-Induced Factors.................................................................................. 40 

a. Subsistence Harvest............................................................................. 41 

b. Poaching and Illegal Harassment ........................................................ 42 

c. Personal Use, Subsistence, and Recreational Fishing ......................... 43 

d. Commercial Fishing ........................................................................... 43 

 e. Pollution ............................................................................................. 47 

f. Oil and Gas.......................................................................................... 52 

g. Development ....................................................................................... 54 

iv
h. Vessel Traffic....................................................................................... 56 

i. Tourism and Whale Watching ............................................................. 57 

 j. Noise.................................................................................................... 58 

k. Research .............................................................................................. 60 

3. Threat Assessment Matrix............................................................................... 61 

II. CONSERVATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................... 63 

A. Goals and Criteria ...................................................................................................... 63 

B. Conservation Strategy................................................................................................ 63 

C. Management Measures Implemented ........................................................................ 64 

D. Biological Constraints on Management and Research .............................................. 67 

III. CONSERVATION ACTIONS .............................................................................................. 68 

A. Conservation Action Outline...................................................................................... 68 

B. Conservation Action Narrative .................................................................................. 70 

 C. Cost Implementation Schedule................................................................................... 84 

IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 87 

V. LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................................... 88 

APPENDICES 

 A. Federal Regulations Pertaining to Cook Inlet Beluga Whales................................. 101 

 B. 2006 Co-management Agreement............................................................................ 102

 C. Turnagain Arm Marine Mammal Stranding Response Plan .................................... 107

 D. NOAA OLE Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Enforcement Plan...................................... 116

 E. Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................... 122 

v
LIST OF TABLES

1. Review of Female Life History Parameters.............................................................................. 9 

2. Stomach contents of 21 Cook Inlet belugas collected from 1995-2007 ................................. 12 

3. Summary of Strandings........................................................................................................... 33 

4. Threats Assessment Matrix ..................................................................................................... 62 

5. Cost Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................... 85 

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Map of Summer Distributions of Alaskan Beluga Stocks ........................................................ 6 

2. Map of Cook Inlet..................................................................................................................... 6 

3. Movements of Three Satellite Tagged Belugas ...................................................................... 14 

4. Predicted Beluga Whale Distribution by Month..................................................................... 15 

5. Locations of Cook Inlet Belugas in Summer and Fall in Knik Arm and Susitna Delta ......... 17 

6. Opportunistic Summer Beluga Sightings by ADFG in Lower Cook Inlet ............................. 18 

7. Restriction of Cook Inlet beluga range ................................................................................... 20 

8. Habitat Use Model .................................................................................................................. 25 

9. Valuable Habitat Types ........................................................................................................... 27 

10. Annual Abundance Estimates ............................................................................................... 30 

11. Known Subsistence Harvest Summary ................................................................................. 41 

12. Map of Oil and Gas Platforms in Cook Inlet ........................................................................ 53 

vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Current Species Status 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA) requires the Secretary of 

Commerce to prepare a Conservation Plan to promote the conservation and restoration of any 

species or stock designated as “depleted” under the MMPA. Management responsibility for 

beluga whales in Alaska has been delegated by the Secretary of Commerce to the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Alaska Region. 

The Cook Inlet beluga whale stock was estimated at 1,300 animals in 1979 (Calkins 1989). 

Abundance surveys conducted from 1994 to 2008 have resulted in population estimates ranging 

from a low of 278 animals to a high of 653 animals, with a current abundance estimate of 375 

animals (see Figure 10). Aerial survey results indicated a 47 percent decline between 1994 and 

1998. In response to this significant decline, NMFS designated the Cook Inlet beluga whale 

stock as depleted under the MMPA on May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34590). Subsequent surveys 

between 1999 and 2008 have demonstrated a further decline of 1.5 percent per year. Although 

harvests from this stock have been severely restricted (0-2 whales annually; 5 total) since 1999, 

considerable concern still remains regarding the conservation of Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

Concerned that the stock may not be recovering as expected, in March 24, 2006 NMFS 

announced its intention to reevaluate the status of the Cook Inlet belugas (71 FR 14836). That 

status review, completed and published in November 2006, drew several significant conclusions 

about the stock’s tenuous predicament. First, the review concluded that the contraction of the 

range of this population northward into the upper Inlet makes the population far more vulnerable 

to any catastrophic events that affect that area. Second, the population was not growing at two to 

six percent per year as had been anticipated with the cessation of unregulated hunting. Third, 

should this discrete and unique population not survive, it would be “highly unlikely” that other 

belugas would repopulate Cook Inlet. Based on models that incorporated the latest information 

available on Cook Inlet belugas, the 2006 status review predicted a 68 percent probability the 

Cook Inlet belugas will continue to decline and become extinct during the next 300 years (26 

percent probability of extinction in 100 years) unless factors that determine their growth and 

survival were improved to allow for recovery (Hobbs et al. 2006). 

On April 20, 2007, NMFS published a proposed rule to list the Cook Inlet beluga whale as an 

endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 72 FR 19854). NMFS released 

another status review in April 2008, which upheld the conclusions drawn in the 2006 review. 

However, the most realistic model in the 2008 review predicted a 79 percent extinction 

probability in 300 years (39 percent probability of extinction in 100 years). On April 22, 2008, 

NMFS decided to postpone the ESA listing decision until October 2008 (73 FR 21578). Should 

the Cook Inlet belugas be listed as endangered, a separate process to develop a recovery plan, as 

required for an endangered species, would be initiated. 

Distribution 

Belugas generally occur in shallow, coastal waters, and while some populations make long 

seasonal migrations, Cook Inlet belugas reside in Cook Inlet year round. Data from satellite 

tagged whales documented that belugas concentrated in the upper Inlet at rivers and bays in the 

summer and fall, and then tended to disperse offshore and move to mid Inlet waters in the winter. 

The Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) of Alaska Natives and systematic aerial survey 

data document a contraction of the summer range of Cook Inlet belugas. While belugas were 

1 
once abundant and frequently sighted in the lower Inlet during summer, they are now primarily 

concentrated in the upper Inlet. This constriction is likely a function of a reduced population 

seeking the highest quality habitat that offers the most abundant prey, most favorable feeding 

topography, the best calving areas, and the best protection from predation. An expanding 

population would likely expand its range back into the lower Inlet. Thus, maintaining quality 

habitat in these areas is essential to the conservation of this population. 

 

Valuable Habitat 

NMFS has stratified Cook Inlet into three regions based upon patterns of beluga habitat use, and 

has labeled them as valuable habitat types 1, 2, and 3 (Figure 9). Type 1 habitat encompasses 

habitats with intensive beluga use from spring through fall, and which are important foraging and 

nursery habitats. Type 1 habitat includes all of Cook Inlet northeast of a line drawn from three 

miles southwest of the Beluga River across to Point Possession. Type 2 habitat is based on less 

concentrated spring and summer beluga use, and known fall and winter use areas. Type 2 habitat 

is located south of Type 1 habitat and north of a line at 60.2500 north latitude. It also extends 

south along the west side of the Inlet following the tidal flats into Kamishak Bay around to 

Douglas Reef, and includes an isolated section within Kachemak Bay. Type 3 habitat 

encompasses the remaining portions of Cook Inlet not designated as Type 1 or 2; the southern 

boundary is an opening into the Gulf of Alaska approximately 85 km across from Cape Douglas 

to Elizabeth Island. While Type 1 habitat is clearly the most valuable of the three habitat types 

based on the frequency of use and as feeding and calving habitats, the relative values of Types 2 

and 3 habitats are difficult to distinguish because we have limited information about Cook Inlet 

belugas’ wintering habitats and which features in these two habitat types are the most important 

to belugas. We have, however, classified these two habitat types separately based on 

observations of frequency of use and for management purposes. 

Potential Threats 

This Conservation Plan reviews and assesses the known and possible factors influencing the 

Cook Inlet beluga whales. Natural factors may include stranding events, predation, parasitism 

and disease, and environmental change. Human-induced factors may include subsistence 

harvest, poaching, fishing, pollution, vessel traffic, tourism and whale watching, coastal 

development, noise, oil and gas activities, and scientific research. 

The documented decline of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population during the mid-1990s could 

be explained by subsistence harvest removals at a level that this small population could not 

sustain. Since that time, cooperative efforts between NMFS and subsistence users have 

dramatically reduced subsistence harvests. These harvest reductions should have allowed the 

Cook Inlet beluga population to recover had subsistence harvests been the only factor limiting 

the population at that time. Abundance data collected during the past several years, however, 

indicate that the population is not increasing as expected. It is not known what specific factor or 

combination of factors continue to limit this population’s growth. 

Conservation Program and Actions 

NMFS has already implemented several management measures in an effort to curb the decline of 

the Cook Inlet beluga stock. Such measures include regulating subsistence harvests; developing 

a stranding response plan and a law enforcement plan; cooperating with other agencies to 

develop oil spill contingency plans; and regularly reviewing proposed state and federal permits 

and actions that may affect Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

2 
While much has been done to improve our knowledge of Cook Inlet beluga whales, there are still 

gaps in our knowledge and understanding which preclude a definitive analysis of factors limiting 

their recovery and which hinder effective management actions. 

The goal of this Conservation Plan is to restore the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock to a healthy, 

viable population that no longer is designated as depleted under the MMPA. This goal will be 

met when there is an increasing or sustained population of at least 780 whales (i.e., the stock 

maintains its minimum optimal sustainable population, OSP, level), and appropriate habitat is 

available that will support a restored population. It is imperative that beluga habitat is protected 

as well, otherwise the restored population may experience another decline and require 

redesignation as depleted. 

The conservation strategy NMFS will employ to reach this goal is to (1) improve our 

understanding of the biology of Cook Inlet beluga whales and the factors limiting the 

population’s growth; (2) stop direct losses to the population; (3) protect valuable habitat, and (4) 

evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies and the success of the conservation actions in 

restoring the Cook Inlet beluga whale population. 

 

Recommendations of actions for filling in the knowledge and management gaps were developed 

under six objectives. Specific actions under these objectives are covered in section III - 

Conservation Actions. The six over-arching objectives are: 

Objective 1: Monitor the Cook Inlet beluga whale population 

 Objective 2: Improve knowledge of Cook Inlet belugas to determine which factors are 

limiting recovery 

 Objective 3: Refine knowledge of Cook Inlet beluga whale habitat requirements and 

describe their range, distribution, and migration 

 Objective 4: Reduce direct injuries and mortalities 

 Objective 5: Protect valuable habitat 

Objective 6: Implement and evaluate the effectiveness of the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale 

Conservation Plan 

While the goal of this plan is to restore this stock to a healthy population of no fewer than 780 

whales, the time frames associated with this goal will depend on the growth rate within this 

population. Because the population has continued to decline 1.5 percent per year since the 

subsistence harvest was regulated in 1999, the date of recovery cannot be estimated. Costs for a 

fully funded conservation program for the first five years are estimated at $8,421-$8,821K. After 

this time, gaps in our current knowledge, population trends, and adaptive management actions 

need to be reassessed. 

3 
I. BACKGROUND 

Management responsibility for beluga whales in Alaska lies with the Secretary of Commerce and 

has been delegated to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (see Appendix A for federal 

regulations relevant to Cook Inlet belugas). In response to the dramatic decline in the Cook Inlet 

beluga stock between 1994 and 1998 (Figure 10), NMFS initiated a status review of the Cook 

Inlet beluga whale pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) on November 19, 1998. In early 1999, NMFS received three petitions to 

designate Cook Inlet belugas as depleted under the MMPA and/or as endangered under the ESA 

from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) and other tribal and non-governmental 

organizations. In May of 2000, NMFS designated the Cook Inlet beluga whale population as 

below its optimal sustainable population (OSP)1 and, hence, depleted2 within the meaning of the 

MMPA. Based on the best scientific data available at the time, NMFS determined that listing 

Cook Inlet beluga whales as endangered or threatened under the ESA was not warranted, but did 

determine them to be a distinct population segment. 

Concerned that the stock had not recovered as expected, NMFS announced its intention to 

reevaluate the status of the Cook Inlet belugas in March 2006. The 2006 status review (Hobbs et 

al. 2006) drew several significant conclusions about the stock’s abundance and trends. First, the 

review concluded that the reduced range into the upper Inlet makes Cook Inlet belugas far more 

vulnerable to catastrophic events that have the potential to kill or injure a significant portion of 

the population. Second, the population did not grow as anticipated after imposition of harvest 

regulations and reductions in 1999, but had declined 4.1 percent per year from 1999 through 

2006. Third, should this discrete and unique population not survive, it was deemed highly 

unlikely that other belugas would repopulate Cook Inlet. Based on models that incorporated the 

latest data available at the time, the 2006 status review predicted a 68 percent probability that the 

Cook Inlet beluga would continue to decline and become extinct within the next 300 years (with 

a 26 percent probability of extinction within the next 100 years), unless factors that determine 

beluga whale growth and survival were altered to improve the stock’s chances to recover (Hobbs 

et al. 2006). 

Based on the findings of the 2006 status review, and consideration of unknown factors that may 

affect this species, NMFS published a proposed rule to list the Cook Inlet beluga whale as an 

endangered species under the ESA on April 20, 2007 (72 FR 19854). NMFS completed another 

status review in April 2008 (Hobbs et al. 2008), which supported the conclusions set forth in the 

2006 status review. The most realistic prediction model presented in the 2008 status review, 

however, documented higher probabilities of extinction than those presented in the 2006 status 

review; the 2008 models showed a 79 percent probability of extinction within 300 years and a 39 

percent probability of extinction within 100 years. 

On April 22, 2008, NMFS elected to postpone the ESA listing decision until October 2008 (73 

FR 21578) to allow for consideration of the 2008 abundance estimate. Should the Cook Inlet 

belugas be listed as endangered, a Recovery Plan would be prepared under the ESA and critical 

 

1

 OSP is “a population size which falls within a range from the population level of a given species or stock which is 

the largest supportable within the ecosystem to the population level that results in maximum net productivity” 

(50 CFR 216.3). 2

 A species or population is said to be depleted under the MMPA when the Secretary of Commerce “determines that 

a species or population stock is below its optimum sustainable population”. 

4 
habitat will be designated, unless such designation would not be prudent (e.g., when 

identification of critical habitat could place the species at higher risk). 

The MMPA requires the Secretary of Commerce to prepare a Conservation Plan for any species 

or stock designated as depleted under the MMPA and for which NMFS has management 

responsibility. The purpose of this Conservation Plan is to conserve and restore the Cook Inlet 

beluga whale population to its minimum OSP of 780 whales. The goals and objectives of the 

Conservation Plan can be achieved if a long-term commitment is made to support the respective 

actions recommended herein. The shared resources and cooperative involvement of federal, 

state, and local governments, industry, academia, non-governmental organizations, Alaska 

Natives, and other individuals will be required throughout the recovery period. This 

Conservation Plan is an important step in the overall conservation of Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

This Conservation Plan reviews and assesses the known and possible threats influencing Cook 

Inlet beluga whales. Natural threats include stranding events, predation, parasitism and disease, 

and environmental change. Potential human impacts include subsistence harvest, poaching, 

fishing, pollution, vessel traffic, tourism and whale watching, coastal development, noise, oil and 

gas activities, and scientific research. In addition to identifying and assessing threats, this Plan 

also defines our strategies for restoring the Cook Inlet beluga whales to OSP and identifies 

specific conservation actions to aid in that effort. 

A. Brief Overview 

The beluga whale is a northern hemisphere species, ranging primarily over the Arctic 

Ocean and some adjoining seas, where they inhabit fjords, estuaries, and shallow water in 

Arctic and subarctic oceans. Some belugas seek out shallow coastal waters in summer, 

and in winter remain near the ice edge. Except for a small population in the Gulf of Saint 

Lawrence, Canada, this species is exclusively a subarctic and Arctic inhabitant. Belugas 

are found seasonally throughout Alaskan waters, except the Aleutian Islands and the 

Southeast panhandle region. Seasonal distribution is affected by ice cover, tidal 

conditions, access to prey, temperature, and human interaction (Lowry 1985). Alaskan 

waters are home to five beluga stocks distinguished by their respective summer range 

(Figure 1): the Beaufort Sea, the eastern Chukchi Sea, the eastern Bering Sea, Bristol 

Bay, and Cook Inlet (Angliss and Outlaw 2007). Of the five stocks in Alaska, the Cook 

Inlet stock is the most isolated. 

The most recent abundance estimates of the five distinct beluga whale stocks in Alaska 

are: Beaufort Sea, 32,453 belugas; eastern Chukchi Sea, 3,710 belugas; eastern Bering 

Sea, 14,898 belugas; Bristol Bay, 1,619 belugas; and Cook Inlet, 375 belugas (Angliss 

and Outlaw 2005; NMFS unpubl. data). The degree of genetic differentiation between 

the Cook Inlet stock and the other four Alaska beluga stocks indicates the Cook Inlet 

stock is the most isolated (O’Corry-Crowe et al. 1997, 2002). This suggests that the 

Alaska Peninsula has long been an effective physical barrier to genetic exchange. The 

lack of Cook Inlet beluga whale observations along the southern side of the Alaska 

Peninsula (Laidre et al. 2000) also supports this conclusion. Murray and Fay (1979) 

suggested this stock has been isolated for several thousand years, which has since been 

corroborated by genetic data (O’Corry-Crowe et al. 1997, 2002). During spring and 

summer months, beluga whales in Cook Inlet (Figure 2) are typically concentrated near 

5 
Figure 1. Map of summer distributions of the five distinct beluga stocks in Alaska. 

Figure 2. Map of Cook Inlet 

6 
river mouths in upper Cook Inlet (Rugh et al. 2000, 2005c). Although the exact winter 

distribution of this stock is unknown, there is evidence that some, if not all, of this 

population inhabits Cook Inlet year round (Hansen and Hubbard 1999; Rugh et al. 2000; 

Hobbs et al. 2005). 

A review of cetacean surveys conducted in the Gulf of Alaska from 1936 to 2000 

revealed only 31 sightings of belugas among 23,000 cetacean sightings, indicating that 

very few belugas occur in the Gulf of Alaska outside of Cook Inlet (Laidre et al. 2000). 

Beluga whales occur in Yakutat Bay and it appears that the group remains in the area 

throughout the year (Fiscus et al. 1976; Consiglieri and Braham 1982; Hansen and 

Hubbard 1999; O’Corry-Crowe et al. 2006). Genetic samples from Yakutat belugas 

suggest that the Yakutat whales may be more closely related to each other than whales 

sampled in other areas (O’Corry-Crowe et al. 2006), and are not likely to be random 

whales traveling from the Cook Inlet population. This genetic information, taken with the 

sighting data and behavioral observations, suggests that a small beluga group may be 

resident in the Yakutat Bay region year round, and that these whales have a unique 

ecology and a restricted seasonal home range. As such, it is unlikely that management 

decisions for the Yakutat group can be made using information from Cook Inlet belugas 

(O’Corry-Crowe et al. 2006). Therefore, this Conservation Plan will focus only on the 

belugas inhabiting Cook Inlet and does not further address the belugas of Yakutat Bay. 

B. Description and Taxonomy 

The beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) is a small, toothed whale in the family 

Monodontidae, a family it shares with only the narwhal. Belugas are also known as 

“white whales” because of the white coloration of the adults (the word “beluga” is 

derived from the Russian word for white, just as the word leucas in the species’ scientific 

name is the Latin word for white). Calves are born in the summer and remain with their 

mothers for about 24 months. Calves are born dark gray to brownish gray and become 

lighter with age. Adults become white to yellow-white at sexual maturity, although Burns 

and Seaman (1986) report females may retain some gray coloration for as long as 21 

years. McGuire et al. (2008) reported seeing ten photo-identified mothers that were still 

gray, thus suggesting that coloration is not a definitive indicator of maturity. Native 

hunters have reported that some Cook Inlet beluga whales may reach 20 feet in length 

(Huntington 2000), although the average adult size is more often 12-14 feet. Belugas are 

sexually dimorphic with males being larger than females of the same age (Burns and 

Seaman 1986). Males weigh up to 1,500 kg (3,307 pounds) and females 1,360 kg (2,998 

pounds) (Nowak 1991). 

Beluga whales have a well-developed sense of hearing and echolocation. These whales 

hear over a large range of frequencies, from about 40-75 Hertz (Hz) to 30-100 kiloHertz 

(kHz) (Richardson 1995), although their hearing is most acute at middle frequencies 

between about 10 kHz and 75 kHz (Fay 1988). Most sound reception takes place through 

the lower jaw which is hollow at its base and filled with fatty oil. Sounds are received 

and conducted through the lower jaw to the middle and inner ears, then to the brain. 

Complementing their excellent hearing, beluga whales have one of the most diverse vocal 

repertoires of all marine mammals. They are capable of making a variety of vocalizations 

(e.g., whistles, buzzes, groans, roars, trills, peeps, etc.) which leads to their nickname as 

7 
sea canaries. Their vision is also reported to be well developed; they appear to have acute 

vision both in and out of water and, as their retinas contain both rod and cone cells, are 

believed to see in color (Herman 1980). 

Belugas exhibit a number of traits that appear to be adaptations to the cold environment. 

Unlike most whales, the cervical vertebrae in belugas are not fused, which allows them to 

turn their necks and nod their heads, and may help increase maneuverability in icy waters. 

Belugas also lack dorsal fins (thus the word “apterus” in their scientific name meaning 

without a fin) which allows them to swim freely under ice and reduces heat loss to the 

cold waters. Instead, belugas have a tough dorsal ridge with little or no nerve endings – 

an advantage when breaking through sea ice. Another adaptation to the cold environment 

is the beluga’s thick insulating blubber layer, which accounts for as much as 40 percent of 

its body mass (Sergeant and Brodie 1969). In October 2007, while examining a deadstranded Cook Inlet beluga, NMFS recorded blubber thickness up to 18 cm. This fat 

provides thermal protection and stores energy. Other cold-water adaptations designed to 

reduce heat loss are a relatively small head, fluke, and flippers. 

Beluga whales are extremely social animals that typically migrate, hunt, and interact 

together. Nowak (1991) reported an average group size of 10 animals, although beluga 

whales may occasionally form larger groups, often during migrations. Groups of 10 to 

more than 100 beluga whales have been observed during summers in Cook Inlet. It is not 

known whether these represent distinct social divisions, however, Native hunters have 

stated that beluga whales form family groups (Huntington 2000). 

C. Life History 

Given that beluga whales have low reproductive potential, devote considerable time to 

care for their young, and are relatively long-lived, they are considered a K-selected 

species. Although some life history data are available for Cook Inlet belugas, there are 

considerably more data from several other beluga populations available in the literature 

(summarized in Table 1). 

Beluga age is assessed by counting the number of growth layer groups (GLGs) in their 

teeth, much like counting rings in a tree trunk. There has been recent discussion as to 

whether belugas produce one GLG per year or two. The initial hypothesis that two GLGs 

per year were deposited by belugas was made by Sergeant (1959), and has been supported 

by many successive studies (Brodie 1969, 1982; Sergeant 1973; Goren et al. 1987; Brodie 

et al. 1990; Heide-Jørgensen et al. 1994). The deposition of two layers per year would 

make belugas unique among toothed whales. Based upon re-evaluation of previous 

studies, analyses of two captive belugas, and new teeth-aging techniques, several studies 

hypothesize that belugas only deposit one GLG per year (Hohn and Lockyer 1999; 

Stewart et al. 2006; Lockyer et al. 2007; Luque et al. 2007). Adopting a single GLG per 

year would result in doubling previous estimates, with associated changes to vital rate 

factors such as longevity, age at reproduction/adulthood, calving intervals, age at first 

birth, etc. NMFS has adopted a single GLG per year as representing one year of age. 

Historically, it was believed that beluga whales might live more than 30 years (Burns and 

Seaman 1986), however, given the shift in thinking regarding GLGs, it is now believed

8 
Table 1. Review of female beluga life history parameters found in the published literature. 

Parameters Data Source(s) 

Age at sexual maturity 8-15 growth layer groups (GLGs) 

0% at 8-9 GLGs 

33% at 10-11 GLGs 

94% at 12-13 GLGs 

9.1 ± 2.8 GLGs 

1,2,3,4,5,6, 

6a 

7 

Age at color change 

(gray to white) 

12 GLGs 

22 GLGs 

1 

2 

Age at 1st conception 54% at 8-9 GLGs 

41% at 10-11 GLGs 

94% at 12-13 GLGs 

6b

Age at senescence 42-43 GLGs 1 

Pregnancy and birth rates with small fetuses: 

0.055 at 0-11 GLGs 

0.414 at 12-21 GLGs 

0.363 at 22-45 GLGs 

0.267 at 46-57 GLGs 

0.190 at 58-77 GLGs 

with full-term fetuses or 

neonates: 

0.000 at 0-11 GLGs 

0.326 at 12-21 GLGs 

0.333 at 22-45 GLGs 

0.278 at 46-51 GLGs 

0.182 at 52-57 GLGs 

0.125 at 58-77 GLGs 

6 

Lifespan >60 GLGs (oldest female estimated at 70+ GLGs) 

64-65 GLGs 

60-61 GLGs 

50-51 GLGs 

6 

8 

1 

2 

Adult annual survival 0.96-0.97 

0.955 (based on pilot whale data) 

0.935 

0.91-0.92 

0.906 (includes both natural and human-caused mortality) 

0.84-0.905 (based on body length and lifespan) 

9 

10 

11 

12 

6 

13 

Immature annual survival 0.0905 (for neonates in the first half year of life) 2 

Reproductive rate 0.010-012 

0.11 (based on annual calf production rates) 

0.13 (based on annual calf production rates) 

0.09 (based on annual calf production rates) 

0.09-0.12 (based on annual calf production rates) 

0.09-0.14 (based on calf counts) 

0.12 (based on calf counts) 

0.08-0.14 (based on calf counts) 

0.06-0.10 (based on calf counts) 

0.08-0.10 (based on calf counts) 

0.08 (unknown) 

14c

6 

2 

1 

5 

5 

15, 2 

16 

17 

10 

18 

Calving interval < 3 years 

2 years and 3 years 

6d

2e

1. Brodie 1971; 2. Sergeant 1973; 3. Ognetov 1981; 4. Seaman and Burns 1981; 5. Braham 1984; 6. Burns and Seaman 1986; 

7. Khuzin 1961 (cited in Ohsumi 1979); 8. Béland et al. 1992; 9. Brodie et al. 1981; 10. Lesage and Kingsley 1998; 11. Allen and 

Smith 1978; 12. Ohsumi 1979; 13. Perrin 1982; 14. Ray et al. 1984; 15. Davis and Evans 1982; 16. Davis and Finley 1979; 

17. Breton-Provencher 1981. 

a. Alaskan sample (n=52). Sampling occurred in June, a time when most Alaskan belugas are born, it is possible that nonpregnant four year olds would have conceived prior to their 5th birth date. b. Alaskan sample (n=22). c. Based on a review of the 

literature. Adopted by the International Whaling Commission. d. For some females this was a tentative conclusion based on high

conception rates noted in some females between the ages of 6 and 22 years. e. The age of two years was for 25 percent of mature 

females in eastern Canada (7 of 29 sampled); presumed after noting pregnancies occurring during lactation and three years for 75 

percent of mature females in eastern Canada. Sergeant (1973) concludes that “overlap of pregnancy and previous lactation is 

infrequent so that calving occurs about once in three years.” 

9 
that beluga whales may live more than 60 years. Reports on the age of sexual maturity 

vary from 4 to 10 years for females and 8 to 15 years for males (Nowak 1991; Suydam et 

al. 1999), although these estimates may have been based on two GLGs per year. 

Gestation is 14-14.5 months with a single calf born in late spring or early summer. The 

lactation period is known to last longer than one year, with some estimates of weaning 

not occurring for about two years; thus the entire reproductive process on average takes 

three years (Sergeant 1973). Depending on the age of the mother, however, the calving 

interval may be as short as two years or as long as fours years (Table 1). 

While mating is assumed to occur sometime between late winter and early spring, there is 

little information available on the mating behavior of belugas. Most calving in Cook 

Inlet is assumed to occur from mid-May to mid-July (Calkins 1983), although Native 

hunters have observed calving from April through August (Huntington 2000). Alaska 

Natives described calving areas as the northern side of Kachemak Bay in April and May, 

off the mouths of the Beluga and Susitna rivers in May, and in Chickaloon Bay and 

Turnagain Arm during the summer (Huntington 2000). The warmer waters from these 

freshwater sources may be important to newborn calves during their first few days of life 

(Katona et al. 1983; Calkins 1989). Surveys conducted during 2005 to 2007 in the upper 

Inlet by LGL, Inc. documented neither localized calving areas nor a definitive calving 

season since calves were encountered in all surveyed locations and months (AprilOctober) (McGuire et al. 2008). The warmer, fresher coastal waters may also be 

important areas for belugas’ seasonal summer molt. 

D. Prey Species 

Beluga whales are adept predators and are extremely mobile. They capture and swallow 

their prey whole, using their blunt teeth only to grab. In addition to feeding 

independently, belugas are also known to feed cooperatively. In one instance, beluga 

whales at the Port of Anchorage were observed positioning one whale along a rip rap 

dock, while a second whale herded salmon along the structure toward the stationary 

beluga whale (NMFS unpubl. data). NMFS has also received opportunistic reports of 

belugas feeding cooperatively at Port MacKenzie. 

Belugas are opportunistic feeders and prey on a wide variety of animals. Stomach 

content analyses have shown that Cook Inlet belugas eat octopus, squid, crabs, shrimp, 

clams, mussels, snails, sandworms, polychaetes, and various fish such as cod, herring, 

smelt (such as capelin and eulachon), flounder, sole, sculpin, pollock, lamprey, lingcod 

and salmon (Klinkhart 1966; Haley 1986; Perez 1990; NMFS unpubl. data). Alaska 

Natives also report that Cook Inlet beluga whales feed on freshwater fish: trout, 

whitefish, northern pike, and grayling (Huntington 2000), and on tomcod during the 

spring (Fay et al. 1984). Cod are opportunistic epibenthic feeders and consume a variety 

of prey species including polychaetes, shrimp, amphipods, and other fish including 

walleye pollock and flatfish (see Clausen 1981; Seaman et al. 1982; Cohen et al. 1990). 

Thus many of the invertebrates and possibly some of the fish species found in the 

stomachs of belugas may be the result of secondary ingestion. 

Cook Inlet belugas feed on a wide variety of prey species, focusing on specific species 

when they are seasonally abundant (Table 2). Eulachon (locally referred to as hooligan or 

10 
candlefish) is an important early spring food resource for beluga whales in Cook Inlet, as 

evidenced by the stomach of a beluga hunted near the Susitna River in April 1998 that 

was filled exclusively with eulachon (NMFS unpubl. data). These fish first enter the 

upper Inlet in April, with two major spawning migrations occurring in the Susitna River 

in May and July. The early run is estimated at several hundred thousand fish and the later 

run at several million (Calkins 1989). 

In the summer, as eulachon runs begin to diminish, belugas rely heavily on several 

species of salmon as a primary prey resource. Beluga whale hunters in Cook Inlet 

reported one whale having 19 adult king salmon in its stomach (Huntington 2000). 

NMFS (unpubl. data) reported a 14 foot 3 inch male with 12 coho salmon, totaling 61.5 

pounds, in its stomach. 

The seasonal availability of energy-rich prey such as eulachon, which may contain as 

much as 21 percent oil (Payne et al. 1999), and salmon is very important to the energetics 

of belugas (Abookire and Piatt 2005; Litzow et al. 2006). Native hunters in Cook Inlet 

have stated that beluga whale blubber is thicker after the whales have fed on eulachon 

than in the early spring prior to eulachon runs. In spring, the whales were described as 

thin with blubber only 2-3 inches (5-8 cm) thick compared to the fall when the blubber 

may be up to 1 ft (30 cm) thick (Huntington 2000). Eating such fatty prey and building 

up fat reserves throughout spring and summer may allow beluga whales to sustain 

themselves during periods of reduced prey availability (e.g., winter) or other adverse 

impacts by utilizing the energy stored in their blubber to meet metabolic needs. Mature 

females have additional energy requirements. The known presence of pregnant females 

in late March, April, and June (Mahoney and Shelden 2000; Vos and Shelden 2005) 

suggests breeding may be occurring in late spring into early summer. Calves depend on 

their mother’s milk as their sole source of nutrition and lactation lasts up to 23 months 

(Braham 1984), though young whales begin to consume prey as early as 12 months of age 

(Burns and Seaman 1986). Therefore, the summer feeding period is critical to pregnant 

and lactating belugas. Summertime prey availability is difficult to quantify. Known 

salmon escapement numbers and commercial harvests have fluctuated widely throughout 

the last forty years, however, samples of harvested and stranded beluga whales have 

shown consistent summer blubber thicknesses. 

In the fall, as anadromous fish runs begin to decline, belugas again return to consume the 

fish species found in nearshore bays and estuaries. This includes cod species observed in 

the spring diet as well as other bottom-dwellers such as Pacific staghorn sculpin, and 

flatfishes such as starry flounder and yellowfin sole (Table 2). This change in diet in the 

fall is consistent with other beluga populations that are known to feed on a wide variety 

of food. Pacific staghorn sculpin are commonly found near shore in bays and estuaries on 

sandy substrate (Eschmeyer et al. 1983). Flatfish are typically found in very shallow 

water and estuaries during the warm summer months and move into deeper water in the 

winter as coastal water temperatures cool (though some may occur in deep water yearround) (Morrow 1980). 

Stomach samples from Cook Inlet belugas are not available for winter months, December 

through March. Dive data from belugas tagged with satellite transmitters suggest that 

during the winter whales are feeding in deeper waters (Hobbs et al. 2005), possibly on 

such prey species as flatfish, cod, sculpin, and pollock. Data on the late winter/early 

11 
Table 2. Prey species identified by month from 21 Cook Inlet beluga stomachs collected 

between 1995-2007. 3 = number of whale(s) found with that prey item in their stomach; n = 

number of stomachs sampled each month. 

Prey found in stomachs 

April 

(n=2) 

May 

(n=2) 

June 

(n=1) 

July 

(n=2) 

August 

(n=3) 

September 

(n=5) 

October 

(n=5) 

November 

(n=1) 

Invertebrates 3 3

 Polychaete (jaws and eggs) 3

 Shrimp 3

 Crab 3

Fishes 

 Long nose sucker 3

 Pacific staghorn sculpin 3

 Cod species 3 3

 Saffron cod 3 3 3

 Pacific cod 3 3

 Walleye pollock 3 3

 Eulachon 33

 Yellowfin sole flounder 3 3

 Starry flounder 3

 Chum salmon 33 3

 Coho salmon 3 3 3

 Salmon species. 3 3 33 33 333

 Unidentified fish 3 33

Other 

 Gravel 3 3 3 3

 Wood, vegetation 3

 Sea lice Caligus sp. 3 3 3

 Parasitic worms 

 (e.g. nematodes) 

3 3 3 3 3 33 3

spring diet are limited to a necropsy of one whale found April 1, 2003, which had thinner 

blubber than beach cast beluga whales found in the summer. This beluga stomach 

contained saffron cod, walleye pollock, Pacific cod, eulachon, tanner crab, bay shrimp, 

and polychaetes (NMFS unpubl. data). The thin blubber of this whale may suggest that 

winter prey resources are not as rich, nor as abundant, as in the summer. If this is the 

case, successful acquisition of at least some prey in winter may be particularly important 

for whales to survive through this period of relatively harsher conditions, and perhaps, 

critically so, in years when summer resources may be more closely tied to fluctuating 

localized habitat conditions. Hence, there is a need to understand fine-scale ecological 

relationships for these prey species. However, more samples are required to confirm this 

hypothesis. 

While prey abundance has yet to be quantified, several studies have addressed prey 

availability: Morsell et al. (1983) identified 18 species of fish in upper Knik Arm; 

Moulton (1997) identified 18 species of fish in upper Cook Inlet; Pentec Environmental 

(2005) identified 19 species in Knik Arm, and Robards et al. (1999) identified 50 species 

in Kachemak Bay and 24 species near Chisik Island in the lower Inlet. Herring may be 

12 
another important forage fish for beluga whales, as identified by a 1993 smolt survey of 

the upper Inlet which found juvenile herring to be the second-most abundant fish species 

collected. These herring were primarily caught along the northwest shore, including the 

Susitna delta (Moulton 1994). 

The northern pike was not found in any of Cook Inlet’s tributaries until the 1960s, when it 

was illegally introduced. It has since expanded its range tremendously and is now 

widespread throughout the southcentral area and the Kenai Peninsula. The invasive 

northern pike has impacted many salmonid populations in these areas and has even been 

caught by commercial salmon fishermen in upper Cook Inlet waters. We do not know to 

what extent the northern pike may have impacted eulachon and salmon populations in 

Cook Inlet. 

E. Distribution and Movements 

 1. General Overview 

Beluga whales generally occur in shallow, coastal waters, often in water barely deep 

enough to cover their bodies (Ridgway and Harrison 1981). Some beluga whale 

populations make long range seasonal migrations (Richard et al. 2001; Suydam et al. 

2001), while others remain in relatively small areas year round. In Cook Inlet, 

belugas remain year-round, as evidenced by satellite tagging studies (Hobbs et al. 

2005), monthly aerial surveys conducted between June 2001 and June 2002 (Rugh et 

al. 2004), systematic aerial surveys (Rugh et al. 1999, 2000, 2004, 2005a,b,c, 2007), 

boat and land based observations (Speckman and Piatt 2000; Funk et al. 2005; 

Cornick and Kendall 2008; McGuire et al. 2008), traditional ecological knowledge of 

Alaskan Natives (TEK) (Huntington 2000), opportunistic reports (Rugh et al. 2000; 

Pers. Comm. T. Otis, ADFG 2008 via J. Wilder, NMFS; Pers. Comm. S. Baird, KBRR 

2008 via M. Migura, NMFS; NMFS unpubl. data), and stranding records (Vos and 

Shelden 2005; NMFS unpubl. data). 

Both scientific research and Native hunter TEK say beluga whale movements exploit 

changes in prey distribution (i.e., belugas follow their prey). For instance, the 

movements of belugas within upper Cook Inlet coincide with anadromous fish 

migrations; they often aggregate near the mouths of rivers and streams where salmon 

runs occur. Calkins (1989) recovered 13 salmon tags from the stomach of an adult 

beluga whale found dead in Turnagain Arm. These salmon had been tagged in upper 

Susitna River. 

There is obvious and repeated use of certain habitats by Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

Intensive aerial abundance surveys conducted in June and July since 1993 have 

consistently documented high use of Knik Arm, Turnagain Arm, Chickaloon Bay and 

the Susitna River delta areas of the upper Inlet. The high use of these areas by 

belugas is further supported by data from satellite tagging studies. 

Satellite transmitters attached to 14 beluga whales in upper Cook Inlet in the summers 

of 2000-2002 provided location and movement data from August into March (Hobbs 

et al. 2005; Figures 3-4). Belugas concentrated in upper Cook Inlet at rivers and bays 

13 
in summer and fall, but tended to disperse offshore and move to mid Inlet in winter. 

All tagged whales remained in Cook Inlet during the tracking period. In the upper 

Inlet, whales often made rapid movements between distinct bays or river mouths 

(Figure 3). Monthly predicted distribution areas are summarized in Figure 4 (Hobbs 

et al. 2005). The data show that in summer and early fall, whales traveled back and 

forth between Knik Arm (Eagle River), Chickaloon Bay (Chickaloon River), and 

upper Turnagain Arm, although some whales also spent time offshore in the mid Inlet 

(Hobbs et al. 2005). In the fall, belugas began dispersing into the coastal areas of the 

mid Inlet as far as Trading, Tuxedni, and Chinitna Bays. In winter, belugas moved 

offshore with locations distributed throughout the upper and mid Inlet, including Knik 

and Turnagain Arms despite greater than 90 percent ice coverage (Hobbs et al. 2005). 

Cook Inlet’s semi-diurnal tides facilitate belugas’ movements into feeding and 

nursery areas on a daily or twice daily basis (Hobbs et al. 2005). Access to these 

areas and to corridors between these areas is important. TEK (Huntington 2000) and 

Knik Arm land-based sightings (Funk et al. 2005) from Cairn Point, Eklutna, and 

Birchwood also indicate whale movements are strongly related to tide stage with 

whales moving north into the Arm at high tides and moving south out of the Arm as 

the tide ebbs. Cornick and Kendall (2008) found that whales moving adjacent to the 

Port of Anchorage were evenly distributed across the ebb and slack tidal stages during 

October and November of 2007. Interestingly, Cornick and Kendall (2008) never 

observed beluga whales in either high flood or low flood stages. 

Figure 3. Movements of three individual beluga whales (a, b, c) tracked via satellite tags (Hobbs 

et al. 2005). 

a) Sept 2000 - Jan 2001 b) Aug 2001 –Mar 2002 c) Aug 2002 – Mar 2003 

14 
Figure 4. Predicted beluga distribution by month based upon known locations of 14 satellite 

tagged belugas (predictions derived via kernel probability estimates; Hobbs et al. 2005). Note 

the large increase in total area use and offshore locations beginning in December and continuing 

through March. The red area (95 percent probability) encompasses the green (75 percent) and 

yellow (50 percent) regions. 

15 
2. Seasonal Distributions 

. Spring/Summer: The timing and location of eulachon and salmon runs have a 

g 

n 

s 

 addition to frequenting the Susitna and Little Susitna rivers and corresponding flats 

ummer opportunistic sightings of belugas as recently as 1996 in Kamishak Bay in 

 2008 

. Fall/Winter: Intensive use of Knik Arm by belugas in the fall (Figure 5) 

st 

 to 

m. 

rior to satellite tagging data, the winter distribution of this stock was poorly 

uga 

rs. 

7 

ms for 

a

strong influence on belugas’ spring and summer movements. Beluga whales are 

regularly sighted in the upper Inlet beginning in late April or early May, coincidin

with eulachon runs in the Susitna River and Twenty Mile River in Turnagain Arm. I

Knik Arm, beluga whales are generally observed arriving in May, but tend to 

concentrate near the Susitna Delta in summer (Figure 5), feeding on the variou

salmon runs. 

In

throughout the summer, belugas also use the smaller streams along the west side of 

the Inlet, following first the eulachon and king salmon runs and later in the summer 

the coho salmon runs. Data from 14 satellite tagged beluga whales, in conjunction 

with TEK, indicate that during late summer and fall belugas use the streams on the 

west side of Cook Inlet from the Susitna River delta south to Chinitna Bay. Native 

hunters report that beluga whales once reached Beluga Lake, 56 km (35 miles) from

the Beluga River, and that beluga whales are often seen well upstream in the Kenai 

and Little Susitna rivers, presumably following the fish migrations (Huntington 

2000). 

S

the lower Inlet (Figure 6) were made during intermittent herring surveys flown 

between late April and early June from 1979-2002 (Pers. Comm. T. Otis, ADFG

via J. Wilder, NMFS). These observations provide evidence that belugas (lone 

animals up to 60 whales) formerly frequented Iniskin Bay, Iliamna Bay, and 

Kamishak Bay in the lower Inlet in spring and summer.

b

coincides with the coho run. Beluga whales regularly gather in Eagle Bay and

elsewhere on the east side of Knik Arm, and sometimes in Goose Bay on the we

side of Knik Arm. In October and November of 2007, Cornick and Kendall (2008)

observed beluga movements and behaviors adjacent to the Port of Anchorage, 

confirming the presence of belugas in Knik Arm in late fall. Belugas also begin

disperse to the mid Inlet in the fall. As recently as September 2007, 25-30 belugas 

were sighted in Chinitna Bay by Kachemak Bay Research Reserve staff (Pers. Com

S. Baird, KBRR, 2008 via M. Migura, NMFS) suggesting that some belugas still visit 

the lower inlet in the fall. 

P

understood, in part because winter aerial surveys were limited in detecting bel

whales in the ice flows of upper Cook Inlet (Rugh et al. 2004). In 1983 Calkins 

postulated that the whales left the Inlet entirely, particularly during heavy ice yea

Eight dedicated aerial surveys in Cook Inlet between February 12 and March 14, 199

(Hansen and Hubbard 1999) resulted in only a few beluga whale sightings. 

Conversely, satellite data showed tagged whales used Knik and Turnagain Ar

much of the tracked time, venturing as far south as Redoubt Bay (October), Kalgin 

Island (January), and East Foreland (December-January) (Figure 4; Hobbs et al. 

2005). 

16 
Figure 5. The location and number of beluga whales encountered during fall (August-October 

2004) and summer (May-July 2005) surveys conducted in the Knik Arm and Susitna Delta areas 

(Funk et al. 2005). 

17 
Figure 6: The location and numbers of beluga whales sighted opportunistically by ADFG in 

wer Cook Inlet during their annual herring surveys (flown at 1500 ft) conducted between late 

Therefore, the available information indicates that Cook Inlet belugas move 

throughout much of the Inlet in the winter months. They concentrate in deeper waters 

cluding 

et. 

3. 

 summer distribution of Cook Inlet beluga whales included the 

upper, mid, and parts of lower Cook Inlet, in both coastal and offshore waters (Figure 

al 

lo

April and early June from 1978-2002. Note: no confirmed beluga sightings were made during 

ADFG’s surveys after 1996. 

in mid Inlet past Kalgin Island, with occasional forays into the upper Inlet, in

the upper ends of Knik and Turnagain Arms. Although the beluga whales move into 

the mid to lower Inlet during the winter, ice cover does not appear to limit their 

movements. Their winter distribution does not appear to be associated with river 

mouths, as it is during the warmer months. The spatial dispersal and diversity of

winter prey likely influences the wider beluga winter range throughout the mid Inl

Range Constriction 

During the 1970s, the

7; Harrison and Hall 1978; Murray and Fay 1979). An August 1979 survey observed 

beluga whales throughout Cook Inlet (Calkins 1989). Calkins (1983) indicated that 

belugas were “seen throughout the year in the central and lower Inlet, with heaviest 

use occurring in the central area”. Others reported seeing hundreds of belugas 

continuously throughout Cook Inlet in the 1970s and 1980s, including areas where 

few are now found (Pers. Comm. S. Foster 1995, via B. Mahoney, NMFS). Loc

18 
19 

nlet (Huntington 2000) and 

systematic aerial survey data (Rugh et al. 2000, 2005c, 2007) indicate the summer 

90s. 

. 

k Inlet in 

mmer as recent as 2007 (two belugas sighted near Homer, NMFS unpubl. data), 

f Cook Inlet, near Anchorage), and have disappeared from peripheral habitats (in the 

 it far 

knowledge and other historical evidence show that prior to the 1990s belugas were 

regularly seen in lower Cook Inlet waters, both nearshore and offshore (Huntington 

2000; Rugh et al. 2000). This information indicates that these areas were important 

habitats when the beluga population was larger. 

The TEK of Alaska Natives familiar with Cook I

range of Cook Inlet beluga whales has contracted, especially since the mid 19

When the Cook Inlet beluga whale population was larger, more of the Inlet was used 

during the spring, summer, and fall. TEK reported groups of up to 50 beluga whales 

using the Kenai River; “great numbers” in Trading Bay in June and July; so many in 

the MacArthur River that boaters had to be careful not to hit them; many whales far 

up the Beluga River; and frequent sightings of beluga whales in Kachemak Bay with 

some whales staying all summer. While the survey conducted in August 1979 (see G

Abundance and Trends for details; Calkins 1989; N. Murray unpubl. field notes) did 

not include Knik or Turnagain Arm, most of the belugas counted were in the mid Inlet 

near the forelands and on the west side. Rugh et al. (2000) reported several sightings 

of beluga whales in the lower Inlet during surveys from 1993-1995. 

Although NMFS has received reports of beluga sightings in lower Coo

su

annual aerial abundance surveys by NMFS have shown that beluga whales are no

longer regularly observed in the lower Inlet in summer (last NMFS observation was 

in 2001; Rugh et al. 2005c), and are now concentrated mainly in the upper Inlet 

(Figure 7). Dedicated marine mammal surveys of the lower Inlet by Speckman and 

Piatt (2000) in late July through August 1995-1999, documented no beluga sightings 

south of Kalgin Island in any of the five years. This shrinking summer distribution is 

likely a function of a reduced population with the remaining whales using the habitat 

that offers the most abundant prey, the most favorable feeding topography, the best 

calving areas, and the best protection from predation. While telemetry data do not 

document areas and habitat that were used by the pre-exploited population or areas 

that would be used by a larger beluga population in the future (Hobbs et al. 2005), an 

expanding population may reoccupy the previously used areas in the lower Inlet. 

Belugas have remained in the area of highest impact from hunting (on the north end

o

southern end of the inlet) (Figure 7). It is unknown if the current contracted 

distribution is a result of changing habitat (Moore et al. 2000), predator avoidance 

(Shelden et al. 2003), or a shift of a reduced population into preferred habitat areas 

(Rugh et al. 2001; Goetz et al. 2007); regardless, the result is a greater proximity to

Anchorage and a smaller range. While the overall range of the population has 

contracted within Cook Inlet as the population has declined, whales continue to 

inhabit predictable locations and in patterns clearly related to time of year, the 

influence of tides, and the appearance of seasonally important prey resources. The 

contraction of the range of this population northward into the upper Inlet makes

more vulnerable to catastrophic events with the potential to kill a significant fraction 

of the population. 
20 

Figure 7. Areas occupied by belugas in Cook Inlet in June and July in 1978-1979 (a), 1993-1997 (b), and 1998-20 a. b. 
F. Habitat 

 1. Physical Habitat of Cook Inlet 

approximately 370 km

Knik and Turnagain Arms in the no

in the south (Figure 2). 

(Rugh et al. 2000) and is generally divided into upper and lower regions by the East 

and West Forelands. 

The bathymetry of Cook Inlet is varied and consists of shoals, canyons and mudflats. 

Cook Inlet is generally shallow, with most waters less than 73 m (240 ft) deep, 

however deeper water exists along the channels and at the entrance to the Inlet near 

the Barren Islands, where depths range from 183-366 m (600-1200 ft; Mulherin et al. 

2001). During low tides, mudflats constitute large areas of shoreline in Knik and 

Turnagain Arms, Chickaloon Bay, Redoubt Bay, Trading Bay, and the Susitna River 

Delta. 

Cook Inlet experiences some of the greatest tidal fluctuations in the world (Mulherin 

et al. 2001), with differentials between high and low tides reaching as much as 12 m

(39 ft) in extreme cases. These large tidal ranges combined with broad tidal flats can 

result in currents reaching 6.2 m/s, with significant changes to shorelines (Moore et 

al. 2000). In the summer, a large volume of freshwater enters Cook Inlet from 

numerous major river drainages and glacial outflows, including the Knik, Matanuska, 

and Susitna rivers, as well as from smaller coastal streams. These sources all deposit 

considerable sediment into Cook Inlet. The strong tidal currents suspend these 

sediments in the water and carry them throughout the Inlet. Coupled with the tidal 

effects and shoreline erosion, Cook Inlet waters are a highly turbid, low visibility 

environment. 

In winter months ice fills much of upper Cook Inlet. Rivers begin to freeze in 

October and November and the waters of upper Cook Inlet generally freeze early in 

December. The large amounts of freshwater entering the Knik and Turnagain Arms 

contribute to the relatively higher concentrations of ice in the upper Inlet. Ice breakup 

in the Inlet typically begins between March and May. 

. Beluga Feeding Habitat 

There is repeated use of several areas of the upper Inlet for summer and fall feeding 

by beluga whales. The primary “hotspots” for beluga feeding areas include the Big 

and Little Susitna Rivers, Eagle Bay to Eklutna River, Ivan Slough, Theodore River, 

Lewis River, and Chickaloon River and Bay. Many of these areas are also popular 

fishing locations for humans. Beluga whales exhibit high site fidelity and may persist 

in an area with fluctuating fish runs or may tolerate certain levels of disturbance from 

boats or other anthropogenic activities in order to feed. 

Spring prey of Cook Inlet beluga whales includes eulachon and gadids (saffron cod, 

Pacific cod, and walleye pollock) (Table 2). Eulachon first enter the upper Inlet in 

Cook Inlet is a semi-enclosed tidal estuary located in southcentral Alaska. The Inlet is 

 in length and extends in a northeast/southwest orientation from 

rth to the southernmost reaches of Kamishak Bay 

Cook Inlet is roughly 20,000 km2, has 1350 km of coastline 

2

21 
April, with two major spawning migrations occurring in the Susitna River in May and 

July. Gadids prefer shallow coastal waters and are found near and in rivers within the 

980; Cohen et al. 1990). Adult cod exhibit seasonal 

movements; saffron cod move offshore during the summer for feeding while Pacific 

 River system. 

 

out the summer indicates these are likely feeding areas. 

 area. 

l to 

. 

nt that 

etry and fish density may be 

more important than sheer numbers of fish in their feeding success. If true, this 

luga whales do not simply go where the fish are, but are 

partially dependent on particular feeding habitats with appropriate topography. Fried 

rs such as Pacific staghorn 

ulpin, starry flounder, and yellowfin sole (Table 2). Pacific staghorn sculpin are 

zone of tidal influence (Morrow 1

cod migrate to shallower water in the spring to feed (Cohen et al. 1990). Although 

not evident in the stomach contents reported in Table 2, Alaskan Natives also describe 

Cook Inlet belugas as feeding on anadromous steelhead trout, freshwater fish such as 

whitefish, northern pike, and grayling (Huntington 2000), and other marine fish such

as tomcod during the spring (Fay et al. 1984). Many of these species are also 

abundant in the Susitna

Five Pacific salmon species (Chinook, pink, coho, sockeye, and chum) spawn in 

rivers throughout Cook Inlet in the summer (Moulton 1997; Moore et al. 2000).

During this time, anadromous smolt and adult fish concentrate at river mouths and 

adjacent intertidal mudflats to osmoregulate (i.e., to regulate the levels of water and 

salts in the body) (ADFG 2004). The coincident occurrence and concentration of 

beluga whales and adult salmon returns to waters of the upper Inlet from late spring 

through

Dense concentrations of prey may be essential to beluga whale foraging. Hazard 

(1988) hypothesized that beluga whales were more successful feeding in rivers where

prey were concentrated than in bays where prey were dispersed. In upper Cook Inlet, 

beluga whales concentrate offshore from several important salmon streams and 

appear to use a feeding strategy which takes advantage of the bathymetry in the

Research by Frost et al. (1983) on beluga whales in Bristol Bay suggested those 

whales preferred certain streams for feeding based on the configuration of the stream 

channel. Their study theorized beluga whales’ feeding efficiencies improved in 

relatively shallow channels where fish were confined or concentrated, likely as a 

result of the channels formed by river mouths and shallow waters acting as a funne

concentrate fish

Based on the movements and feeding distribution of beluga whales, it is appare

beluga movements are not simply explained by when and where the most fish are. 

For example, beluga whales today are seen less frequently at the mouth of the Kenai 

River, despite large salmon returns to the river. Because beluga whales do not always 

feed at the streams with the largest runs of fish, bathym

would imply Cook Inlet be

et al. (1979) noted that beluga whales in Bristol Bay fed at the mouth of the Snake 

River, where salmon runs are smaller than in other rivers in Bristol Bay; however, the

mouth of the Snake River is shallower, and hence may concentrate prey. 

In the fall, as anadromous fish runs begin to decline, belugas again return to consume 

the fish species found in nearshore bays and estuaries. This includes cod species 

observed in the spring diet as well as other bottom-dwelle

sc

commonly found near shore in bays and estuaries on sandy substrate (Eschmeyer et 

al. 1983). Flatfish (e.g., starry flounder and yellowfin sole) are typically found in 

22 
very shallow water and estuaries during the warm summer months and move into 

deeper water in the winter as coastal water temperatures cool (though some may 

occur in deep water year-round) (Morrow 1980). 

In the winter, Cook Inlet beluga whales concentrate in deeper waters in mid Inlet pa

Kalgin Island and make deep feeding dives, likely feeding on such prey species as 

flatfish, cod, sculpin, and pollock. Saffron cod migrate inshore during winter for 

spawning (Cohen et al. 1990), whereas Pacific cod move to progressively deeper 

water as they age, spawning in deeper, offshore waters in winter (Cohen et al. 

In addition to various fishes, Calkins (19

st 

1990). 

83) reported the presence of crustaceans off 

e south side of Kalgin Island. The presence of Kalgin Island south of the forelands 

a 

89). 

ea 

Inlet in winter, 

cluding the upper ends of Knik and Turnagain Arms.

3. 

nlet 

ery 

hickaloon Bay and Turnagain Arm (Huntington 2000). 

ng 

4. 

 

ely 

w 

l 

nd 

th

may result in upwelling and eddies which concentrate nutrients and may provide 

still-water refuge area for several migrating anadromous fishes (Calkins 1983, 19

For instance, this area may be a late-winter staging area for eulachon before they 

return to streams in the upper Inlet. Given the unique oceanographic conditions and 

the diversity of fish and crustaceans found near Kalgin Island, the Kalgin Island ar

may be rich in biological productivity, and thus an important winter feeding habitat 

for belugas. Belugas will also occasionally travel into the upper 

in

Beluga Calving Habitat 

In addition to being important feeding habitats, the shallow waters of the upper I

may also play important roles in reproduction. Since newborn beluga whales do not 

have the thick blubber layer of adults, they benefit from the warmer water 

temperatures in the shallow tidal flats areas where fresh water empties into the Inlet, 

and hence it is likely these regions are used as nursery areas (Katona et al. 1983; 

Calkins 1989). TEK of Alaska Natives has described past beluga calving and nurs

habitats as the northern side of Kachemak Bay, the mouths of the Beluga and Susitna 

Rivers, as well as C

Knik Arm is also used extensively in the summer and fall by cow/calf pairs. Surveys 

by LGL (Funk et al. 2005) noted a relatively high representation of calves in the 

uppermost part of Knik Arm. The mouth of Knik Arm has been reported to be 

transited in the summer and fall by cow/calf pairs (Cornick and Kendall 2008), 

presumably moving into the upper reaches of the Arm. McGuire et al. (2008) 

photographically identified 37 distinct belugas with calves in the upper Inlet duri

2005-2007. However, because calves were seen in all areas of their study (Susitna 

River Delta, Knik Arm, Chickaloon Bay/Southeast Fire Island, and Turnagain Arm), 

they were unable to determine distinct calving areas (McGuire et al. 2008). 

Other Beluga Habitats 

While it is difficult to quantify the importance of various habitats in terms of the 

health, survival, and recovery of the Cook Inlet beluga whale, certain areas are lik

to be particularly well suited to specific activities or to a suite of life sustaining 

functions. It is likely that the areas where beluga whales concentrate, such as shallo

tidal flats, higher flow river mouths, estuarine areas, and certain areas where the leve

of human related disturbance is low, provide a necessary combination of physical a

23 
biological features that facilitate feeding, breeding, and nursing. Additionally, 

because of the topography and presence of ice in these regions in the fall and win

they may provide important barriers to beluga preda

ter, 

tors. 

l 

5. H

ga whale habitat use, Goetz et al. (2007) used predictive 

models to examine the relationship between three environmental variables and beluga 

ow 

ce 

ses by 

ight percent for every 100 m away from mudflats; by six percent for every additional 

lets. 

nt 

a 

s 

 is not known what is driving belugas’ preferences for coastal areas; it may be a 

cations and higher flow accumulation inlets. Alternatively, 

ga preference for nearshore waters may be due to the availability and distribution 

aters 

The warmer, fresher coastal waters may also be important areas for belugas’ seasonal 

summer molt (Finley 1982) due to the fact that belugas have been observed rubbing

their bodies on nearshore surfaces. These shallow waters may provide conditions 

necessary to help facilitate the shedding of dead skin and regeneration of epiderma

layers. While the predominantly muddy bottom of Cook Inlet is likely not abrasive 

enough to remove dead skin on its own, the combination of rubbing with the warm, 

fresh water could promote sloughing. 

Unfortunately, current scientific knowledge of Cook Inlet beluga behavior and life 

history events is largely limited to anecdotal reports or opportunistic observations 

made in the course of other studies. Thus, additional studies are needed to test 

relationships between the physical, acoustic, and biological features of Cook Inlet and

specific beluga life history events and activities. 

abitat Modeling 

In an effort to predict belu

whale distribution in Cook Inlet, based upon data collected from aerial surveys 

conducted from 1993-2004 (Figure 8). Bathymetry (depth from water surface to Inlet

floor), proximity to mudflats, and distance from rivers (as determined by fl

accumulation values) were evaluated with respect to the presence or absence of 

belugas as documented during aerial surveys. Modeling results suggest the distan

from mudflats and distance from medium flow accumulation inlets (assumed to be 

rivers or streams) may be important environmental features for predicting the 

distribution of this population (e.g., the likelihood of finding a beluga decrea

e

500 m from medium flow inlets; and by four percent every 1000 m from high flow 

inlets; Goetz et al. 2007). Hence, the odds are significantly greater of spotting 

belugas closer to mudflats and closer to medium and high flow accumulation in

These results suggest that both mudflats and flow accumulation may be importa

environmental factors in beluga distribution in the summer. The preference for

medium and high flow accumulation inlets suggests that belugas in Cook Inlet have 

preference for larger river basins. In neither model did low flow accumulation inlet

nor bathymetry seem to correlate with beluga distribution in the summer. 

It

direct factor of mudflat lo

belu

of prey species in the summer (Moore et al. 2000; Pentec 2005); or for shallow w

for breeding and calving (Calkins 1989), for molting (Finley 1982), or for shelter 

from predators (Shelden et al. 2003). NMFS is in the process of expanding and 

updating these habitat modeling studies to encompass recently acquired year round 

beluga whale satellite telemetry data, fisheries statistics, and improved tidal, substrate, 

and bathymetric data.

24 
Figure 8. d 

Regression

dots (Goetz

6. V

e 

at 

atures in 

Cook Inlet beluga whale habitat use (black) as predicted by the Classification an

 Tree model with beluga sightings from summer aerial surveys (1993-2004) shown as

 et al. 2007). 

aluable Habitat Descriptions 

NMFS has characterized beluga whale habitats as part of the conservation strategy 

presented in this Conservation Plan. As a result, Cook Inlet has been stratified into 

three habitat regions based on differences in beluga use (Figure 9), with Type 1 

habitat being the most valuable due to its intensive use by belugas from spring 

through fall for foraging and nursery habitat, and because it is in the upper Inlet wher

the greatest potential from anthropogenic impacts exists. Type 2 habitat includes areas

with high fall and winter use, and a few isolated spring feeding areas. Type 3 habit

encompasses the remaining portions of the range of belugas within Cook Inlet. While 

Type 1 habitat is clearly the most valuable of the three types based on the frequency 

of use, the relative values of Types 2 and 3 habitats are difficult to distinguish because

we have limited information about belugas’ wintering habitats and which fe

these two habitat types are the most important to belugas. We have, however, 

classified these two additional types separately based on observations of frequency of

beluga use and for management purposes.

Management actions will be tailored to these habitat types, and NMFS’s evaluation of 

proposed habitat alterations will vary according to the value of the habitat. These 

habitat classifications may change as the population recovers and expands into other

areas, as the habitat itself changes over time, or as our knowledge about beluga 

habitat requirements improves. 

25 
a. Type 1 Habitat: Type 1 habitat encompasses all of Cook Inlet northeast of a li

three miles southwest of the Beluga River across to Point Possession (Figure 9). 

These area

ne 

s are full of shallow tidal flats, river mouths or estuarine areas, and are 

important as foraging and calving habitats. These shallow areas may also provide 

the Susitna delta area (from the Little Susitna River to Beluga River) and 

Chickaloon Bay (Turnagain Arm) with frequent large scale movements between 

the delta area, Knik Arm and Turnagain Arm. During annual aerial surveys 

July, up to 61 percent of the whales sighted in Cook 

h et al. 2000, 2005c). The Chickaloon Bay area also 

eir 

2500 north latitude. It extends south along 

e areas of the mid and upper Inlet, and nearshore 

for other biological needs, such as molting or escape from predators. Type 1 

habitat also has the highest concentrations of belugas from spring through fall as 

well as greatest potential for impact from anthropogenic threats. For these 

reasons, Type 1 habitat is considered the most valuable habitat type. 

Many rivers in Type 1 habitat have large eulachon and salmon runs. Belugas visit 

Turnagain Arm in early spring traveling up to 20-Mile River and Placer Creeks, 

indicating the importance of eulachon runs for beluga feeding. Beluga use of 

upper Turnagain Arm decreases in the summer and then increases again in August 

through the fall, coinciding with the coho salmon run. Early spring (March to 

May) and fall (August to October) use of Knik Arm is confirmed by studies by 

Funk et al. (2005). Intensive summer feeding by belugas occurs in the Susitna 

delta area, Knik Arm and Turnagain Arm. 

Whales regularly move into and out of Knik Arm and the Susitna delta (Hobbs et 

al. 2000; Rugh et al. 2004, 2005c). The combination of satellite telemetry data 

and long-term aerial survey data demonstrate beluga whales use Knik Arm 12 

months of the year, often entering and leaving the Arm on a daily basis (Hobbs et 

al. 2005; Rugh et al. 2004, 2005a,b). These surveys demonstrated intensive use of 

conducted by NMFS in JuneInlet were in Knik Arm (Rug

appears to be used by belugas throughout the year. 

Belugas are particularly vulnerable to impacts in Type 1 habitat due to their 

concentrated use and the biological importance of these areas. Because of th

intensive use of this area (e.g., foraging, nursery, predator avoidance), activities 

that restrict or deter access to Type 1 habitat could reduce beluga calving success, 

impair their ability to secure prey, and increase their susceptibility to predation by 

killer whales. Projects that reduce anadromous fish runs could also negatively 

impact beluga foraging success during this time. Furthermore, the tendency for 

belugas to occur in high concentrations in Type 1 habitat predisposes them to 

harm from such events as oil spills. 

b. Type 2 Habitat: Type 2 habitat includes areas of less concentrated spring and 

summer beluga use, but known fall and winter use areas. It is located south of 

Type 1 habitat and north of a line at 60.

the west side of the Inlet following the tidal flats into Kamishak Bay to Douglas 

Reef, and includes an isolated section of Kachemak Bay (Figure 9). 

Type 2 habitat is based on dispersed fall and winter feeding and transit areas in 

waters where whales typically occur in smaller densities or deeper waters. It

includes both near and offshor

26 
Figure 9. Valuable habitat areas (Types 1, 2, 3) identified for Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

27 
areas of the lower Inlet. Due to the roles of these area as probable fall feeding 

areas, Type 2 habitat includes Tuxedni, Chinitna, and Kamishak Bays on the west 

coast and a portion of Kachemak Bay on the east coast. Winter aerial surveys 

(Hansen and Hubbard 1999) sighted belugas from the forelands south, with many 

observations around Kalgin Island. Based on tracking data, Hobbs et al. (2005) 

document important winter habitat concentration areas reaching south of Kalgin 

Island (Figures 3 and 4). Kachemak Bay has been included in Type 2 habitat 

because belugas have been regularly sighted at the Homer Spit and the head of 

Kachemak Bay, appearing during spring and fall of some years in groups of 10-20 

individuals (Speckman and Piatt 2000). Historically, belugas were common at 

Fox River flats, Muddy Bay, and the northwest shore of Kachemak Bay (Rugh et 

al. 2000, NMFS unpubl. data), sometimes remaining in Kachemak Bay all 

summer (Huntington 2000). 

Dive behavior indicates beluga whales make relatively deeper dives (e.g., to the 

bottom) and are at the surface less frequently in Type 2 habitat, and hence are less 

frequently observed (Hobbs et al. 2005). It is believed these deep dives are 

associated with feeding during the fall and winter months (NMFS unpubl. data). 

The combination of deeper dives, consistent use of certain areas, and stomach 

content analyses indicate that belugas whales are actively feeding in these areas. 

Hence, deeper mid Inlet winter habitats may be important to the winter survival 

and recovery of Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

c. Type 3 Habitat: Type 3 habitat encompasses the remaining portions of Cook Inlet 

where belugas are infrequently observed, and areas which are not identified as 

Type 1 or 2 (e.g., not including the areas along the nearshore western portion of 

the Inlet). Type 3 habitat is south of 60.2500 north latitude and extends to a 

southern boundary line, approximately 85 km across, from Cape Douglas to 

Elizabeth Island (Figure 9). 

In the past, with a larger Cook Inlet beluga population, early surveys and reports 

identified that belugas used these areas (refer to E.3. Range Constriction for more 

information). Local knowledge and other historical evidence show that prior to 

the 1990s belugas were regularly seen in lower Cook Inlet waters, both nearshore 

and offshore (Rugh et al. 2000). This information indicates that these areas were 

at one time important habitat and suggests that a recovered Cook Inlet beluga 

whale population may use these areas again. 

G. Abundance and Trends 

The Cook Inlet beluga stock has probably always numbered fewer than several thousand 

animals, but has declined significantly from its historical abundance. It is difficult to 

accurately determine the magnitude of decline, because there is no available information 

on the abundance of beluga whales that existed in Cook Inlet prior to development of the 

southcentral Alaska sub-Region, nor prior to modern subsistence whaling by Alaska 

Natives. Unfortunately, Huntington’s (2000) TEK survey did not contain any historic 

population estimates. Because no reliable abundance surveys were conducted prior to the 

1990s, scientists must estimate the historical abundance. 

28 
Cook I y 

variabl

mouths t 

(1966) 

not des k 

as 150-

150 bel

estimat or 

visibili

479 bel t 

betwee

300 bel e 

mouth 988) stated that an estimate of 450 whales may be 

conservative because much of Cook Inlet was not surveyed in these efforts. 

In an at

scientis erial 

survey,

Bay (ar

availab

the surv

lower I e from north of Chinitna Bay to 

Beluga River; Kalgin Island; and most of the east shore, including the Kenai area, and 

yiel

1979, a ay 

due to l

Murray ating 

submer s 

(1989) provided an overall abundance estimate of 1,293 whales (479 * 2.7 ≈ 1293). 

Calkins’ estimate, which utilized the most complete survey of the Inlet prior to 1994 and 

incorpo

availab

Inlet. F

reasona

Inlet be

NMFS s of beluga whales in Cook Inlet in 

1993. Unlike previous efforts, these surveys included the upper, middle, and lower Inlet. 

These surveys documented a decline in abundance of nearly 50 percent between 1994 

(347 whales) (Figure 10; Hobbs et al. 2000). Figure 10 

ocuments the corrected abundance estimates from annual abundance surveys conducted 

y. 

ale abundance within Knik 

nlet beluga whale abundance surveys prior to 1993 were often incomplete, highl

e, and generally involved observations or counts only of concentrations in river 

 and along the upper Inlet. Based on aerial surveys in 1963 and 1964, Klinkhar

estimated the stock at 300-400 animals, but the methodology for the survey was 

cribed. Sergeant and Brodie (1975) presented an estimate for the Cook Inlet stoc

300 animals, but offer no source for this figure. Murray and Fay (1979) counted 

uga whales in the central Inlet on three consecutive days in August 1978 and 

ed the total abundance would be at least three times that figure to account for po

ty. A two day aerial survey of Cook Inlet in August 1979 resulted in a count of 

uga whales (N. Murray, unpubl. field notes). Based on surveys of the upper Inle

n May and August of 1982, Calkins (1984) estimated that a concentration of 200-

uga whales used the area between the mouth of the Little Susitna River to th

of the Beluga River. Hazard (1

tempt to find a documented estimate of the Cook Inlet beluga historic population, 

ts looked to the survey with the greatest coverage of Cook Inlet. The 1979 a

 while considered incomplete since Knik Arm, Turnagain Arm, and Chickaloon 

eas of highest beluga concentration today) were not surveyed, provides the best

le scientific data with which to estimate historic abundance. On August 21, 1979, 

ey included transects from Anchorage to Homer, covering the upper, middle, and

nlet, including Kachemak Bay; the west shor

ded a count of 376 beluga whales (N. Murray, unpubl. field notes). On August 22, 

 sighting of 97 beluga whales in Bruin Bay (an area not surveyed the previous d

ow clouds) was added to the previous count for a total of 479 beluga whales (N. 

, unpubl. field notes). By using a correction factor of 2.7 developed for estim

ged whales under similar conditions in Bristol Bay (Frost et al. 1985), Calkin

rated a correction factor for animals missed during the survey, provides the best 

le scientific method for estimating historical abundance of beluga whales in the 

or management purposes, NMFS currently considers 1,300 beluga whales as a 

ble estimate of historical abundance, thus the carrying capacity (K) of the Cook 

luga whales. 

began comprehensive, systematic aerial survey

(653 whales) and 1998 

d

each June since 1994 (Hobbs et al. 2000; Rugh et al. 2005c, 2007; NMFS unpubl. data). 

Monthly surveys (July-April) conducted by NMFS in upper Cook Inlet during 2001-2002

(Rugh et al. 2004), observed as few as 10 whales in January, and up to 204 whales in 

August with sightings in Knik and Turnagain Arms during all months except Februar

However, low counts generally correlated with periods of high ice density, and may be 

more a function of the low visibility of the white whales amidst sea ice than a matter of 

the whales leaving the Inlet (Rugh et al. 2004). Beluga wh

29 
Figure

surveys

percent

data). 

n 

 10. Annual abundance estimates of Cook Inlet beluga whales as determined by aerial 

 in June and July, 1994-2008. The vertical bar with each estimate represents the 95 

 confidence interval (CI) (Hobbs et al. 2000; Rugh et al. 2005c, 2007; NMFS unpubl. 

Abundance of Cook Inlet Beluga

200

400

600

Arm, as assessed by fourteen years of aerial/video surveys conducted by NMML in the 

first weeks in June, is highly variable, ranging from 224 belugas in 1997, to 0 belugas i

1994 and 2004. In 2004, boat based surveys in Knik Arm reported an August abundance 

of about 5-130 whales, a September abundance of about 0-70 whales, and an October 

abundance of about 0-105 whales (Funk et al. 2005). 

NMFS estimates that the Cook Inlet beluga population’s maximum theoretical net 

productivity rate is between two and six percent (i.e., the population has the potential to 

increase between two and six percent per year). However, even though subsistence

harvests from this stock have been restricted from zero to two whales a year since 1999,

annual abundance surveys of Cook Inlet belugas document a decline in the population of

1.5 percent (1999 to 2008; NMFS unpubl. data). Differences in survey design and 

653

491

594

440

347 367

435

386

313

357 366

278 302

375

0

200

400

600

800

000

199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008

Year

375

1

1

1

1

Number of Whales

upper CI

lower CI

Abundance

30 
analytical techniques prior to 1994 rule out a precise statistical assessment of trends usi

the first available population estimate, however, simply comparing the estimate of 1,

belugas in 1979 to 375 belugas in 2008 indicates a 71 percent decline in 30 years, but 

ng 

293 

with unspecified confidence. NMFS has committed to conducting systematic annual 

veral years, however, indicate that the population is not increasing as expected with the 

gulation of subsistence harvests. At this time, it is unknown what specific factor, or 

ombination of factors, continue to limit this population’s growth. 

hile a number of known and potential threats are discussed below, the actual levels of 

e, 

 polluted, high-noise waters and 

d by 

abundance surveys which should reduce uncertainties in population status and growth 

over time. 

H. Potential Threats 

The Cook Inlet beluga population may be affected by various natural and anthropogenic 

factors, including subsistence harvest removals, pollution, predation, disease, 

contamination, fisheries interactions, vessel traffic, small stock size, restricted summer 

range, and habitat alteration (Norris 1994). Frequent use of shallow nearshore and 

estuarine habitats makes beluga whales particularly prone to regular interaction with 

human activities (Perrin 1999), and thus likely to be affected by them. 

The viability of small populations, such as Cook Inlet belugas, is further compromised by 

the increased risk of inbreeding and the loss of genetic variability, which reduces their 

ability to cope with disease and environmental change (Lacy 1997; O’Corry-Crowe and 

Lowry 1997; Guimaraes et al. 2007). Estimates of genetic variation do not, at present, 

suggest that Cook Inlet belugas are highly inbred nor that a critical amount of genetic 

variation has been lost through genetic drift (O’Corry-Crowe et al. 1997; G. O’CorryCrowe, unpubl. data in Lowry et al. 2006), but this population is already in a size range 

where eventual loss of genetic variability may be expected (Lowry et al. 2006). 

The documented decline of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population during the mid-1990s 

has been explained by subsistence harvest removals at a level that this small population 

could not sustain. Since that time, cooperative efforts between NMFS and subsistence 

users have dramatically reduced subsistence harvests. These harvest reductions should 

have allowed the Cook Inlet beluga population to recover if subsistence harvests been the 

only factor limiting the population at that time. Abundance data collected during the past 

se

re

c

W

impact of these threats has not been determined. NMFS recognizes that not enough is 

known about the effects of each specific threat, and as such we do not definitively know 

the level of impact each threat has on Cook Inlet beluga whales. Even though threats are 

discussed individually in the following section, Cook Inlet belugas may be affected by 

multiple threats at any given time, compounding the impacts of the threats. For instanc

a beluga fleeing from a killer whale may swim through

across a ship channel in an effort to get to shallower, coastal areas that are frequente

recreational boaters. Unfortunately, without an understanding of how individual threats 

impact belugas, we cannot know the cumulative effects of all the threats on Cook Inlet 

belugas. Given our limited knowledge of the impacts of known and potential threats, the

following section broadly addresses factors with the potential to impact Cook Inlet beluga

whales. 

31 
r 

to 

low water to avoid killer whale predation or while chasing prey and strand as 

the tide recedes), or as a result of disease, illness, or injury. For the purposes of 

this discussion, “strandings” will refer to animals that are found alive, and “dead 

s” will refer to whales that are found dead. 

 Belugas 

g 

trand 

g 

gs, and NMFS 

has observed stranded Cook Inlet beluga whales that had evidence of killer whale 

f blood 

vessels within the flukes and flippers allows beluga whales to lose excess body 

les 

andings (involving 

two or more whales) primarily occurred in Turnagain Arm and often coincided 

s 

ely to become so in the foreseeable future given the expectation that the 

1. Natural Factors 

a. Stranding: The term stranding refers to belugas that are found in waters too 

shallow to permit them to swim, as well as to belugas that are found out of thei

natural habitats. Belugas generally strand either accidentally (e.g., they come in

shal

stranding

The extreme tidal fluctuations of upper Cook Inlet and the belugas’ preferences 

for shallow coastal waters both predispose these animals to strandings.

whales in Canada are known to intentionally strand themselves during the moltin

process, while rubbing their skin against rocky bottoms. Belugas may also s

purposely or accidentally to avoid predation by killer whales. Several strandin

events in the upper Inlet have coincided with killer whale sightin

predation (see I.H.1.b. Predation). 

 Once a whale strands, death may result from stress and/or hyperthermia from 

prolonged exposure out of water. Whales stranded as a result of receding tides 

may be exposed for ten hours or more. Without the buoyancy provided by the 

water, the whale’s weight places additional stress on internal organs which can

make breathing difficult. Unless caught in an overflow channel or tidal pond, the

whales may have difficulty regulating body heat. An extensive network o

heat to the environment. If the flukes and flippers are out of the water, this 

network cannot function properly and internal body heat rises resulting in 

hyperthermia. 

Beluga whale strandings in upper Cook Inlet are not uncommon, with a majority 

occurring in Turnagain Arm (Table 3). Sightings of stranded whales are often 

opportunistically spotted from the Seward Highway off of Turnagain Arm, or 

from small aircraft traveling over the Inlet. NMFS has reports of over 700 wha

stranding in upper Cook Inlet since 1988 (Table 3). Mass str

with extreme tidal fluctuations (“spring tides”) or killer whale sighting reports 

(Shelden et al. 2003). In 2003, an unusually high number of beluga live 

strandings (five separate events involving between 2 and 46+ whales) and 

mortalities (n=20) occurred in Cook Inlet (Vos and Shelden 2005). Other mass 

strandings have been reported in the Susitna Delta (Vos and Shelden 2005) and 

most recently on August 7, 2008 in Knik Arm (NMFS unpubl. data). These mass 

strandings involved both adult and juvenile beluga whales which appeared to be 

healthy, robust animals. 

NMFS considered the significance of stranding events in our status review of thi

species in 2000. That assessment found stranding related mortalities had not 

caused the Cook Inlet beluga whale to be in danger of extinction, and was not 

lik

32 
T . able 3 Cook Inlet beluga whale stranding records from 1988 through September 19, 2008 (Vos 

and Shelden 2005, NMFS unpubl. data). * known subsistence harvested belugas are not included 

in these numbers 

Date & Location 

of Live Strandings 

Number of 

Whales 

Involved 

Number of 

Known 

Associated 

Deaths 

Total 

Mortalities* 

(live + dead 

Year stranded)

1988 Oct 23 - Turnagain Arm 27 0 0 

1989 - - - 4 

1990 - - - 2 

1991 Aug 31 - Turnagain Arm 70-80 0 2 

1992 Oct 6 - Kenai River 2 2 5 

1993 Jul 6 - Turnagain Arm 10+ 0 3 

1994 Jun 14 - Susitna River 186 0 7 

1995 - - - 2 

Jun 12 - Susitna River 

Aug 28 - Turnagain Arm

Sep 2 - Turnagain Arm 

Sep 8 - Knik Arm 

Oct 2 - Turnagain Arm 

63 

60 

20-30 

1 

10-20 

0 

4 

1 

0 

0 

1996 12 

1997 - - - 3 

May 14 - Turnagain Arm

Sep 7 - Turnagain Arm 

30 

5 

0 

0 

1998 10 

1999 Aug 29 - Turnagain Arm 58 5 12 

Sep 9 - Turnagain Arm 12-13 0 

Aug 27 - Turnagain Arm

Sep 24 - Turnagain Arm

Oct 24 - Turnagain Arm

8 

15-20 

1-2 

0 

0 

0 

2000 13 

2001 - - - 10 

2002 - - - 13 

Apr 18 - Turnagain Arm

Aug 28 - Turnagain Arm

Sep 6 - Turnagain Arm 

Sep 14 - Turnagain Arm

Oct 6 - Turnagain Arm 

2 

46+ 

26 

32 

9 

0 

5 

0 

0 

0 

2003 20 

2004 - - - 13 

2005 Aug 24 - Knik Arm 6 1 6 

2006 Sep 12 - Knik Arm 12 0 8 

2007 - - - 15 

2008 Aug 7 - Knik Arm 28-30 2 11 

33 
population would increase two to six percent per year with the restrictions placed

on subsistence hunting. However, in the 2006 status review (Hobbs et al. 2006) 

NMFS recognized that stranding was a constant threat to the recovery of Cook 

Inlet belugas; this decision was upheld in the 200 (Hobb . 

2008). The change in opinion a result of two factors. First, in 2000 

the p s was hales) d to 

rate per ye regulat tenc

Give d that tion coul nd limited strandingre recover.

However, in 2006 NMFS officially r ognized that the pulation was n

growing as expected, but rather was declining at a rate of 4.1 percent per year 

si istence g in 1999 (the 08 status revie

docu .7 percent r year from 1999-2007). Therefore, NMFS 

reali populatio ould not easily over from multiple 

mortalities resulting from a mass stranding event. For instance, in 2003 there 

we g events lving potential 15 individual belugas 

(i.e tranded than once); if all had died as a result of 

these strandings, one third of the population would have been lost in a single year. 

Second, in 2003 over 45 beluga whales were stranded at the far end of T gain 

A ter for r hly 10 hours waiting for the tide to return. 

Fro elugas ought to have ed as a direct 

consequence based upon beach cast carcasses found in the following days. In 

20 ociated e mass strand was attributed to 

cardiovascular collapse resulting fro extended time out of the water (NMFS 

unpubl. data). hese mortalities changed NMFS’ thinking on the risk involved in 

strandings and indicated 10 hours may be approaching out of water l for 

the ged stran g events lasting ore than a few hours, 

although not common, may under unusual circumstances (such as unusual tidal 

cy g, tsun earthquake uplift) result in significant 

mo ndanc ates do not indicate a high probability 

that this population is recovering, an MFS now beli s strandings m

re t to th rvation and re ery of these whales. 

b. Predation: The Cook Inlet beluga whale stock is preyed upon by killer whales, 

their only known natural predator. NMFS has received reports of killer whales 

throughout Cook Inlet. In upper Cook Inlet, killer whales have been reported in 

Tu between e Island and Ty k, and near th

th et al. 20 MFS unpubl. a). Native hunters 

rep usually nd along the tid ip that extends from Fire 

Is on 2000 iller whales are more commonly found in 

lower Cook Inlet and the Gulf of Alaska (Shelden et al 03) where they may 

feed on a variety of prey. 

The les reported in the upper Inlet appears to be sm This 

may five or six ividuals that ha xtended its feed g 

terri Killer whales are described by three categories 

groupings: resident, transient, and of hore. Only the t sient killer wh are 

know mammals. Photographs of killer whales which have 

8 status review

 and expecte

ion of subsis

d withsta

s et al

increase at a 

e harvests. 

was primarily

larger (435 w

ar with the 

 the popula

opulation of beluga

of two to six percent 

n this, NMFS believe

lated mortalities and still 

ec po ot 

nce the regulation of subs huntin 20 w 

mented a decline of 2

zed that this declining

 pe

n c rec

re five separate strandin

., assuming no beluga s

 invo

more

ly 1

urna

rm and were out of the wa oug

m this one event, five b were th di

05, the one mortality ass with th ing

m

 T

 the imit

se whales. Thus, prolon din m

cles, storm surge, floodin

rtalities. The annual abu

ami, or

e estim

d N eve ay 

present a significant threa e conse cov

rnagain and Knik Arms, Fir one e mouth of 

e Susitna River (Shelden 03; N dat

ort that killer whales are fou e r

land to Tyonek (Huntingt ). K

. 20

number of killer wha all. 

 be a single pod with

tory into Cook Inlet. 

 ind s e in

 or

fs ran ales

n to feed on marine

34 
stranded in Turnagain Arm indicate those whales were unidentified transients 

(Shelden et al. 2003). However, resident types also occur in Cook Inlet. 

Therefore, killer whale sightings in proximity to beluga whales in the upper Inle

do not necessarily mean they are feeding on beluga whales. 

Killer whales have stranded along Turnagain Arm on at least two occasions; six 

killer whales were found stranded alive in May 1991 and five were stranded ali

in August 1993 (Shelden et al. 2003). During the 1993 stranding event, a large 

male killer whale regurgitated pieces of

t 

ve 

 beluga whale and harbor seal (Shelden et 

l. 2003). On September 23, 2000, a NOAA Enforcement agent observed 

NMFS 

iller 

nlet 

ber 

on 

ich 

d 

hale 

f 

these whales. 

 

c. d 

t 

 it 

ch more likely when combined with other contributing 

risk factors such as pollution, habitat loss, and human disturbance (Smith et al. 

r 

a

approximately four killer whales chasing beluga whales in Turnagain Arm (

unpubl. data). Within the next two days, two lactating female belugas stranded

with teeth marks, internal hemorrhaging, and other injuries consistent with k

whale attacks (Shelden et al. 2003). On June 14, 2007, an adult beluga was 

chased and killed by a pod of killer whales near Anchor Point in lower Cook I

(NMFS unpubl. data). Killer whales were sighted in Turnagain Arm in Septem

2007, although no beluga predation was reported (Pers. comm. B. Smith, NMFS 

2007). Most recently, NMFS received reports of a killer whale mom/calf pair 

sighted near Tyonek heading towards the Anchorage area on September 8, 2008. 

Two days later, NMFS received a report of a killer whale mom/calf pair killing a 

beluga whale in Turnagain Arm (NMFS unpubl. data). 

Given the small population size of the Cook Inlet beluga whales, predation may 

have a significant effect on beluga abundance. Only opportunistic data exist 

the level of removals of belugas in Cook Inlet due to killer whale predation, wh

appears to be at least one beluga per year (Shelden et al. 2003). The effects of 

killer whale predation were addressed in the 2006 status review (Hobbs et al. 

2006); the models used in that status review demonstrated killer whale predation

on an annual basis could significantly impact recovery, especially when combine

with other sources of mortality. In addition to directly reducing the beluga 

population, the presence of killer whales in Cook Inlet may also increase 

stranding events (see I.H.1.a. Strandings). As such, NMFS considers killer w

predation to be a potentially significant threat to the conservation and recovery o

Parasitism and Disease: Infectious diseases and pathogens have been identifie

as among the top risks endangering species, possibly resulting in extinction (Scot

1988; Anderson and May 1992; Daszak et al. 2000; Deem et al. 2001; Harvell et 

al. 2002). While disease may not cause the complete extinction of the species,

can produce enough mortality to threaten the species or trigger the disappearance 

of local stocks or populations, increasing the risk posed by other mechanisms (de 

Castro and Bolker 2005). Disease alone may be unlikely to drive a species to 

extinction, but may be mu

2006). 

In a paper evaluating the threats of infectious disease on a population of kille

whales in the Pacific Northwest, Gaydos et al. (2003) identified several high 

priority pathogens that warrant further study. The pathogens identified were 

35 
marine Brucella species, cetacean poxvirus, morbillivirus, and herpes virus. 

These agents were identified through analysis of infectious disease reporte

other killer whales, both free-ranging and captive, as well as sympatric toothed 

whales. Gaydos et al. (2003) advocated the development of 

d for 

standardized 

necropsy protocols. Their study also noted that in long-lived species, infectious 

s 

n 

s, 

s in regards to effects of 

diseases and the potential for outbreaks to affect the entire population. 

the 

ted 

3 

vanced 

les killed during subsistence harvests, an examination was done by 

a biologist and tissues were sampled. The following section represents what is 

tory tract, is one of the most common diseases encountered in marine 

mammals. Bacterial pneumonia, either alone or in conjunction with parasitic 

diseases that affect reproductive success could significantly impact a population’

size and viability. They found that, due to the small size of this killer whale group 

(the southern resident population) and their gregarious social nature, introductio

of a highly virulent and transmissible pathogen had the potential to 

catastrophically affect the group’s long term viability. 

Recently, Guimaraes et al. (2007) modeled the dynamics of an infectious disease

spreading through a reproductively isolated group of mammal-eating killer whales

in the Pacific Northwest. Their study examined scenarios in which a disease

affected only a small portion of the population up through scenarios in which the 

entire population was vulnerable, based on only minimal contact between animals. 

The work of Guimaraes et al. (2007) demonstrated that small populations, even in

those in which there is seemingly little interaction amongst small isolated group

are susceptible to population-wide disease outbreaks. The small Cook Inlet 

beluga whale population is also characterized by its longevity and gregarious 

social structure, and therefore, may face similar concern

Information on parasites, disease agents, and pathology in belugas is available in

the literature, but little has been published regarding the Cook Inlet stock, 

therefore, little information is available about the role these agents may play in 

decline and long-term viability of Cook Inlet belugas. This has been exacerba

by small sample sizes and the poor quality of most of the Cook Inlet beluga 

carcasses examined up to this point (Burek et al. in prep). Between 1998 and 

2007, varying degrees of necropsies and sampling have been completed on 1

Cook Inlet beluga carcasses. In many instances, carcasses were in such ad

decomposition that only minimal diagnostics could be performed; however, some 

data on parasites and possible diseases were collected. In the few instances of 

Cook Inlet wha

known about disease agents and parasites in Cook Inlet beluga whales (see Hobbs 

et al. 2008 for an expanded discussion). 

i) Disease Agents: 

Bacteria 

Bacterial agents are a part of normal flora in many species of marine mammals,

and presence of these organisms should be interpreted with caution to 

determine whether they are commensal organisms, pathogens or secondary 

invaders. According to some reports bacterial infection, particularly of the 

respira

infection, is a common cause of beach stranding and death (Howard et al. 

1983). Due to the quality of carcasses of Cook Inlet belugas, very little 

bacterial culture work has been done. 

36 
At least one Cook Inlet beluga whale death was attributed to infectious diseas

A female beluga stranded in September 2000 with severe parasitic pneumonia

and secondary bacterial infection; liver flukes, skin infections, tongue w

and probable sepsis (blood poisoning) were also documented (NMFS unpubl. 

data). 

Viruses 

Viruses are widespread in marine mammals and have become rec

important causes of individual and mass mortalities, a

e. 

orms, 

ognized as 

nd include the 

morbilliviruses, influenza and possible herpes viruses (Munn 2006). Viruses 

s 

shedding. In Cook Inlet, there have been a few necropsy cases, and a few live 

able 

and has been isolated in a captive 

beluga, harbor seal and killer whale (Reidarson et al. 2001). Infection with 

al organisms have been reported in a captive killer whale and 

ite-sided dolphin (Robeck and Dalton 2002), and while virulent, 

ared to 

al 

can also compromise an animal’s immune system and render it susceptible to 

secondary invaders such as bacterial agents and parasitic protozoa. While other 

viruses with varying effects on health have been identified in other marine 

mammal species, viral infections have not been well-studied in belugas. 

Herpes viruses have been linked to skin lesions, esophageal lesions, 

encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), and neoplasia (abnormal cell growth). 

Herpes viruses have also been reported to cause encephalitis in harbor 

porpoises (Kennedy et al. 1992) and may cause large-scale mortality in 

belugas. These viruses have been detected in belugas and several sympatric 

species, and may persist in an infected host with periodic or continuou

animal reports, in which belugas had skin lesions suggestive of a herpes virus. 

In one necropsy case of a juvenile female, herpes virus was detected, 

suggesting this animal died of a systemic herpes viral infection. 

Unfortunately, most Cook Inlet beluga whale carcasses have not been suit

for extensive bacterial or viral cultures, therefore little can be said about the

presence or absence of these types of infectious diseases. 

Fungi 

Mycotic (fungal) infections in marine mammals represent a relatively small, 

but significant fraction of infectious diseases in marine mammals, and have 

been isolated from at least 27 species, including the beluga and sympatric 

species (Reidarson et al. 1999). Pulmonary aspergillosis is the most common 

mycotic infection in marine mammals

zygomycotic fung

Pacific wh

pose a low epizootic potential and threat to Cook Inlet belugas. The probability 

of free-ranging belugas being exposed to fungal organisms is low comp

captive animals, given the former are less frequently in contact with terrestri

fungal sources and antibiotic usage, two well-known risk factors in captive 

belugas (Reidarson et al. 2001). Given this information, however, mycotic 

pathogens should still be considered a mild to moderate health threat to Cook 

Inlet belugas, especially in animals that may already have compromised 

immune systems from contaminants, other disease, and stressors. 

37 
Protozoa

s or death in other species (Burek 1999b), but the effects on belugas is 

nknown. 

ii)

 in 

Lung worms” often not only parasitize the lungs, but also the sinuses, ears, 

al vault. 

hen 

gs due 

icated 

rassicauda giliakiana has been seen in the kidneys. Although extensive 

(Burek 1999a), or 

hether it is affecting the status of the population. Severe secondary effects of 

arasites to other organs have not been observed to date in Cook Inlet 

erved 

as 

ulid type 

ematode. 

Encysted protozoal organisms within muscle tissues of Cook Inlet belugas are 

commonly found. The parasite is consistent with Sarcocystis spp., which when

found within muscle tissues of other marine mammals, is thought to be benign. 

Acute infections, however, can result in tissue degeneration leading to 

lamenes

u

 Parasites 

Nearly every wild animal has some parasites, and the role of parasites

causing disease and mortality is often difficult to interpret. Some parasites 

have been implicated as causes of strandings. For example, aberrant 

migrations of the trematode Nasitrema through the brain have been linked to 

strandings (O’Shea et al. 1991; Degollada et al. 2002). 

“

auditory tubes, cardiovascular system, liver, and potentially the crani

Since some lung worms can be associated with secondary bacterial infections 

and severe pneumonia it is unclear whether lung worms alone, or only w

combined with secondary bacterial infections, were involved in strandin

to pneumonia, as pneumonia is a relatively common finding in stranded 

cetaceans. Lung worms appear to be common in Cook Inlet belugas (ind

in 67 percent of the whales in which the lung was examined), although this is 

primarily based upon histologic findings at this point 

In approximately 80% of Cook Inlet belugas examined, the nematode 

C

damage and replacement to tissues have been associated with the parasite 

Crassicauda in some of the Cook Inlet belugas, it is unclear at this time 

whether this can result in functional damage to the kidney 

w

these p

whales, so it is most likely that under usual circumstances and levels of 

infestation these animals live with this parasite with no clinical effect. It is 

possible though that with heavy infestation, there could be replacement of 

enough of the kidney (2/3 to 3/4 of the kidney tissue) to affect function or 

obstruction of urine outflow. This severity of infestation has not been obs

in the small of number of Cook Inlet beluga carcasses examined to date. 

Necropsies conducted on adult Cook Inlet beluga whales have found heavy 

infestations of a very common nematode (anisakids), commonly referred to 

whaleworm, in the stomach. This parasite occurs in at least 35 other cetaceans, 

tends to favor the stomach, and may cause gastritis or ulcerations. These 

infestations have not been considered to be extensive enough to have caused 

clinical signs. 

One Cook Inlet beluga demonstrated a grossly evident lesion in the liver 

(NMFS unpubl. data) which histologically was due to a liver trematode. This 

trematode was not identified to species, but was most likely a Camp

tr

38 
s necessary in this field. 

d. tal Change: Cook Inlet is a very dynamic environment which 

idal 

ch cial 

sc e beluga 

hu

du -50 years (Pers. 

omm. P. Blatchford 1999 via B. Smith, NMFS). He told of one persistent 

ch

se

to 

 

 Th

sal g the 

co

Os

ye of the PDO have been 

correlated with changes in marine ecosystems of the northeast Pacific; warm 

ph astal 

wa the 

US

Pr id 

20

oc ed 

an 6-

20 ly 

19 en 

co t 

the

be

Th

co

ma es 

(B

de mesozooplankton (planktonic animals in the size range 0.2-20 

mm) biomass was greater in warm conditions, and that zooplankton community 

 

While parasites and the potential for infectious disease occur in Cook Inlet 

beluga whales, no indication exists that their occurrence has had any 

measurable impact on the survival and health of the Cook Inlet beluga whale 

stock. However, many of the carcasses were not suitable for extensive 

infectious diseases work-up due to the breakdown of tissues and cells, and 

more work i

Environmen

experiences continual change in its physical composition; there are extreme t

anges, strong currents, and tremendous amounts of silt being added from gla

ouring. For example, an experienced and knowledgeable Alaska Nativ

nter observed that the Susitna River (an area frequented by belugas, especially

ring fish runs) has filled in considerably over the past 40

C

annel in the river that was more than 40 feet deep but that is now filled in with

diment. Since belugas are still seen in the area today, they may be able to adapt

physical changes in their habitats. 

e climate in Cook Inlet is driven by the Alaska Coastal Current (ACC; a low 

inity river-like body of water flowing through the Pacific Ocean and alon

ast of Alaska with a branch flowing into Cook Inlet) and the Pacific Decadal 

cillation (PDO). PDO is similar to El Niño except it lasts much longer (20-30 

ars in the 20th century). Warm and cool phase changes 

ases have been accompanied by increased biological productivity in co

ters of Alaska and decreased productivity off the west coast of Canada and 

, whereas cold phases have been associated with the opposite pattern. 

ior to 2004, temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska were relatively stable, but in m

04 temperatures warmed and stayed warm until late 2006. Sampling of 

eanographic conditions (via GAK1) 3 just south of Seward, Alaska has reveal

omalously cold conditions in the Gulf of Alaska beginning winter of 200

07; “deep (>150m depth) temperatures are the coldest observed since the ear

70s” (Weingartner 2007). Deep water temperatures are anticipated to be ev

lder in winter 2007-2008 due to deep shelf waters remaining cold throughou

 2007 summer, and Gulf of Alaska temperatures in spring 2008 are predicted to 

 even colder than in spring 2007 (Weingartner 2007). 

e change in water temperature may in turn affect zooplankton biomass and 

mposition. Plankton are mostly influenced by changes in temperature, which 

y affect their metabolic and developmental rates, and possibly survival rat

atten and Mackas 2007). Data collected by Batten and Mackas (2007) 

monstrated that

 

ted here also ba

gak1/ (maintained by 

3

 Information presen sed on information obtain from the GAK1 oceanographic station website: 

www.ims.uaf.edu/ Dr. Weingartner; accessed December 2007). 

39 
composition varied between warm and cool conditions, thus potentially altering 

the

me owever 

sa

ch re, 

tem ce 

ch lter the quality and types of fish available 

r belugas. 

, 

s.

s. Belugas are more susceptible to 

pment during sudden freeze-ups, fast ice formation (Heide-Jorgensen et al. 

at 

nt 

k Inlet 

eluga whale distribution, abundance, or recovery. 

 2. Hum

Lar

natu

maj

Bor

the 

a. Subsistence Harvest: Alaska Natives have harvested Cook Inlet beluga whales 

ally in 

decline during that period and the reported and estimated harvest rates (including 

estimates of whales which were struck and lost, and assumed to have perished) 

indicate these harvest levels were unsustainable. However, the lawful Native 

ir quality as a prey resource (Batten and Mackas 2007). In Cook Inlet, 

sozooplankton biomass has increased each year from 2004 to 2006, h

mpling from late 2006 to early 2007 suggests biomass values are decreasing; a

ange most certainly driven by changes in climate (Batten 2007). Therefo

perature changes effect changes in zooplankton, which in turn may influen

anges in fish composition, and hence a

fo

El Niño events also have the potential to affect sea surface temperatures, however

the effects of a 1998 El Niño warming event on lower Cook Inlet were lessened 

by upwelling and tidal mixing at the entrance to Cook Inlet (Piatt et al. 1999). It 

is likely that the physical structure of the Inlet and its dominance by freshwater 

input acts to buffer these waters from periodic and short-term El Niño event

The changing temperatures also affect the amount of ice that develops in Cook 

Inlet during the winter. The environment in which belugas reside makes them 

vulnerable to entrapment in ice at time

entra

2002), and when wind conditions change, driving ice into once open areas 

(Armstrong 1985). A wind-driven ice entrapment of over 1,000 belugas occurred 

in Seniavin Strait, Chukotka, Russia in 1984 (Armstrong 1985). Entrapments th

result in mass mortalities appear to be rare, though under-reporting is possible 

given these incidents occur during the dark, winter months. Cook Inlet belugas, 

however, are well-adapted to this icy environment and have been observed 

entering Knik and Turnagain Arms despite the presence of greater than 90 perce

cover of sea-ice (Hobbs et al. 2005). At this time however, the data are 

insufficient to assess effects (if any exist) of environmental change on Coo

b

an Induced Factors 

ge numbers of people in a relatively small area present added concerns to the 

ral environment and to Cook Inlet belugas. The upper Cook Inlet region is the 

or population center of Alaska, with the 2006 population of the Anchorage 

ough at 278,700, the 2006 Matanuska-Susitna Borough population at 80,480, and

2000 Kenai Peninsula Borough population at 49,691 (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). 

prior to and after passage of the MMPA in 1972 for cultural, subsistence, and 

handicraft purposes. The effect of past harvest practices on the Cook Inlet beluga

whale population is significant. While a harvest occurred at unknown levels for

decades, NMFS believes the subsistence harvest levels increased substanti

the 1980s and 1990s. Reported subsistence harvests between 1994 and 1998 can 

account for the estimated decline of the stock during that interval. The observed 

harvest of beluga was limited to zero to 2 whales per year since 1999. 

40 
Figure 11 summarizes subsistence harvest data from 1987 to 2008 (Angliss et al.

2001, NMFS unpubl. data). A study conducted by ADFG, in cooperation w

Alaska Beluga Whale Committee (ABWC) and the Indigenous People’s Council 

for Marine Mammals, estimated the subsistence take of belugas in Cook Inlet in 

1993 at 17 whales. However, in consultation with Native elders from the Cook

Inlet region, the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council (CIMMC) estimated the 

annual number of belugas taken by subsistence hunters during this time to be 

greater (DeM

ith the 

aster 1995). There was no systematic Cook Inlet beluga harvest 

rvey in 1994. Instead, harvest data were compiled at the November 1994 

6 

ke estimates are considered reliable (CIMMC 1996, 1997; Angliss and Lodge

Figure 11: Su

(NOAA 2007; 

su

ABWC meeting, including two belugas taken by hunters from Kotzebue Sound. 

The most thorough Cook Inlet beluga subsistence harvest surveys were completed

by CIMMC during 1995 and 1996. While some local hunters believed that the 

1996 estimate of struck and lost is positively biased, the CIMMC’s 1995 to 199

ta

mmary of known Cook Inlet beluga whale subsistence harvest from 1987-2008 

NMFS unpubl. data). 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

1987

Number of Belugas

Struck & Lost

Unknown Gender 

Male

Female

198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008

Year

41 
2002). Given that there was no survey during 1997 or 1998, NMFS estimated the 

subsistence harvest from hunter reports. The known annual subsistence harvest 

by Alaska Natives during 1995-1998 averaged 77 beluga whales.

The harvest, which was as high as 20 percent of the population in 1996, was 

sufficiently high to account for the 14 percent annual rate of decline in the 

population during the period from 1994 through 1998 (Hobbs et al. 2000). In 

1999 there was no harvest as a result of a voluntary moratorium by the hunte

that spring, and the moratorium became permanent in 2000. During 2000-2003 

rs 

nd 2005-2006 NMFS entered into co-management agreements for the Cook Inlet 

b. 

potential for poaching belugas in Cook Inlet exists. Although NOAA 

Enforcement is present in upper Cook Inlet, the area they have to cover is 

extensive. While poaching is a possible threat, no poaching incidents have been 

a

beluga subsistence harvest. Between 2000 and 2008, subsistence harvests have 

been 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, and 0 whales, respectively. 

Poaching and Illegal Harassment: Due to their approachable nature, the 

confirmed to date. 

Cook Inlet is bordered by the densest human population in Alaska. This 

juxtaposition of people and belugas in and near coastal waters heightens the 

potential for harassment of belugas. NOAA Enforcement investigated several 

incidences of reported harassment of Cook Inlet belugas, but to date there have 

been no convictions. The potential, however, for both poaching and illegal 

harassment exists. 

c. Personal Use, Subsistence and Recreational Fishing: Personal use and 

subsistence fishing are only allowed for Alaskan residents. Fish and fish parts 

may not be sold or bartered and are only for direct personal or family 

consumption, or subsistence cultural uses. Personal use gill net fisheries occur in 

Cook Inlet and have been subjected to many changes since 1978 (Ruesch and Fox 

1999), which are summarized in Brannian and Fox (1996). Fishing for eulachon 

is popular in Turnagain Arm, with no bag or possession limits. The two most 

significant areas where eulachon are harvested in personal use fisheries are the 

Twentymile River (and shore areas of Turnagain Arm near Twentymile River) and 

Kenai River. Other areas where eulachon are harvested include the Big and Little 

Susitna River and their tributaries, the Placer River, and shoreline areas of 

Turnagain Arm and Cook Inlet north of the Ninilchik River. Annual harvests have 

ranged from 2.2 to 5 tons over the past decade. The personal use harvest of 

eulachon is possibly under-reported as some participants may confuse their 

harvests as being subsistence and not personal use. Currently, no subsistence 

records are kept for eulachon or herring harvests (ADFG 2004). 

 Recreational fishing is a very popular sport in Alaska, as evidenced by the 

intensive fishing during salmon runs and the high number of charter fishing 

operations. In upper Cook Inlet there are numerous recreational fishing areas 

targeting primarily salmon, including the hundreds of drainages of the Susitna 

River; the Little Susitna River; the west Cook Inlet streams; and areas around 

42 
Anchorage such as Ship Creek. Recreational fishing for salmon in Ship Creek is 

ch as halibut, 

ckfish and lingcod are also popular. There are even recreational fishers digging 

tence, 

d. occur in Cook Inlet waters 

nd have varying likelihoods of interacting with beluga whales (either directly or 

ies, or 

hales 

eries occurring in the upper Inlet could have a higher 

likelihood of interacting with beluga whales. 

 in 

et 

 (a.k.a. hooligan or smelt), and a razor clam fishery. The 

rgest fisheries in Cook Inlet, in terms of participant numbers and landed 

ntrated 

all 

on is the 

ar 

 3.5 

tna 

st productive 

one. In 2007, the herring catch was 26,000 pounds. The commercial razor clam 

 

the most popular stream fishery in the Anchorage area. In 2005, anglers fishing in 

the Anchorage area represented four percent of the total statewide sport fishing 

effort4. In lower Cook Inlet, recreational fishing for groundfish su

ro

for littleneck clams, butter clams, and razor clams. NMFS is unaware of any 

beluga whales injured or killed in the Cook Inlet due to personal use, subsis

or recreational fisheries. However, the most likely impacts from these fisheries

include the operation of small watercraft in stream mouths and shallow waters, 

ship strikes, displacement from important feeding areas, harassment, and prey 

competition. 

Commercial Fishing: Several commercial fisheries 

a

via competition for fish) due to differences in gear type, species fished, timing, 

and location of the fisheries. Interactions refer to entanglements, injur

mortalities occurring incidental to fishing operations. Given that beluga w

concentrate in upper Cook Inlet during summer (Type 1 and 2 habitats) (Rugh et 

al. 2000, 2005c), fish

ADFG has management responsibility for most of the commercial fisheries in

Cook Inlet, with the exception of halibut and a few federally managed fisheries

the lower Inlet. The state-managed fisheries in the upper and mid Inlet include 

salmon (both set and drift gillnet), herring (gillnet), a recently reopened dip n

fishery for eulachon

la

biomass, are the State-managed salmon drift and set gillnet fisheries conce

in the Central and Northern Districts5 in the upper and mid Inlet. Even though 

five types of Pacific salmon are caught in the upper Inlet, sockeye salm

primary target of the salmon commercial fisheries. Times of operation change 

depending upon management requirements, but in general the drift fishery 

operates from late June through August, and the set gillnet fishery during June 

through September. Salmon fishery effort varies between years, and within-ye

effort can be temporally and spatially directed through salmon management 

regulations. While the number of permits fished in Cook Inlet salmon gillnet 

fisheries has been relatively constant, the actual number of fish caught has 

fluctuated greatly during the past 20 years (ranging from a high of 10.6 million in 

1992 to a low of 1.8 million in 2000). The 2007 commercial harvest of salmon in 

upper Cook Inlet was 3.6 million, slightly higher than the 10 year average of

million harvested salmon. The sac roe herring fisheries are located in four 

subdistricts of the upper and mid Inlet (Upper, West, Kalgin Island, and Chini

Bay subdistricts), however, the Upper subdistrict fishery is the mo

 

’s Sport Fish website: www.sf.adfg.state.ak.gov 

clarification, the term “districts” is not synonymous with our definitions of Valuable Habitat Ty

ferenced solely in regards to management of fisheries; see the State of Alaska, Department of 

eries website (http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us) for more information on districts. 

4

 Data from ADFG

5

 For the reader’s pes. 

Districts are re Fish 

and Game, Commercial Fish

43 
fishery off the west side of the Inlet is the only remaining commercial fishery for 

razor clams in Alaska and takes about 400,000 pounds per year (Pers. Comm. J. 

Fox, ADFG 2008 via M. Migura, NMFS). 

There has been a sporadic fishery for eulachon since 1978 (taking between 300-

100,000 pounds in 1978, 1980, 1998 and 1999). NMFS made recommendatio

to the Board of Fisheries (BOF) to discontinue this fishery effective in 2000, in 

part due to the lack of data on the eulachon runs into the Susitna River, and due t

the absence of any evaluation of the effect of this fishery on beluga whales in 

terms of disturbance/harassment or competition for these fish. Additionally, it 

was noted belu

ns 

o 

ga whales may be heavily dependent on the oil-rich eulachon early 

in the spring (preceding salmon migrations) and that large eulachon runs may 

s 

n 

d herring fisheries, ADFG also 

ma ages commercial fisheries for groundfish (lingcod and rockfish; Pacific cod; 

 or near 

, 

ly to 

, 

a total of approximately seven million pounds of halibut were landed in Kenai, 

Ninilchik and Homer. 

occur in only a few upper Inlet streams. The commercial fishery for eulachon wa

reopened in 2005, but is restricted to hand-operated dip nets in saltwaters between

the Chuit River and the Little Susitna River, with a total harvest of 100 tons or 

less. There was no fishing effort in 2005; 45.4 tons of eulachon were caught i

2006 and 62.5 tons of eulachon were caught in 2007 (Pers. Comm. P. Shields, 

ADFG 2007 via B. Smith, NMFS). 

In the lower Inlet, in addition to the salmon an

n

and sablefish), and shellfish (weathervane scallops; hardshell clams; and tanner

crabs). Salmon purse seine fisheries in lower Cook Inlet operate south of a line 

drawn west from Anchor Point within two districts, Kamishak Bay and southern

Cook Inlet (divided at 152°20' W longitude), with most of the catch coming from

the Southern District. The lower Cook Inlet herring sac roe fishery is of 

extremely short duration (often minutes to hours) taking place sometime in

April within Kamishak Bay. Landed herring biomass has fluctuated greatly since 

1977 until 1999, when this fishery was closed. The lower Inlet herring fishery 

will remain closed in 2008 in an attempt to allow herring biomass to rebuild. Also

a mechanical/hand jig fishery for lingcod and rockfish occurs in the lower Inlet.

The only Federally-managed fisheries active in the Inlet during the summer 

season are in the lower Inlet/Northern Gulf waters for groundfish and crab, and as

such have limited potential for impacting belugas. No non-pelagic trawls are

permitted north of a line between Cape Douglas and Point Adam, and should a

federal fishery take place in lower Cook Inlet, the waters would be open on

longline or pelagic trawl gear. 

Commercial fishing for halibut in Cook Inlet is managed by the International 

Pacific Halibut Commission6

 (IPHC). The IPHC manages stocks of Pacific

halibut within agreement waters of the United States and Canada. Cook Inlet falls

in regulatory area 3A, which also includes a portion of the Gulf of Alaska. In 

Cook Inlet, this fishery primarily operates in mid and lower Inlet waters. In 2007

 

or more information on IPHC, visit their website at www.iphc.washington.edu/halcom/default.htm. 6 F

44 
Due to the location of many of the fisheries in lower Cook Inlet (typically south of

Anchor Point), their proximity to the Gulf of Alaska, and the propensity for 

beluga whales to concentrate in the upper Inlet in the summer, the lower Inlet 

sheries are anticipated to have little direct impact on Cook Inlet beluga whales at 

ht 

et 

an 1986). Neither report, however, 

differentiated between the set gillnet and drift gillnet fisheries. There have 

s 

ere 

d 

Furthermore, during the period between 1990 and 2000, fishermen’s voluntary 

th 

l 

 Inlet set gillnet fisheries in 1999 and 2000 

(Angliss and Lodge 2002). During the two years of observations, an estimated 

e 

s; therefore no beluga whale injuries or mortalities 

resulted from drift gillnets or set nets in either year. In consideration of the 

above, the current rate of direct mortality from commercial fisheries in Cook 

fi

this time.

i) Incidental Take 

 The term incidental take in regards to commercial fishing refers to the catch or 

entanglement of animals that were not the intended target of the fishing 

activity. Reports of marine mammal injuries or mortalities incidental to 

commercial fishing operations have been obtained from fisheries reporting 

programs (self-reporting or logbooks), observer programs, and reports in the

literature. The only reports of fatal takes of beluga whales incidental to 

commercial salmon gillnet fishing in Cook Inlet are from the literature. 

Murray and Fay (1979) stated that salmon gillnet fisheries in Cook Inlet caug

five beluga whales in 1979. Incidental take rates by commercial salmon gilln

fisheries in the Inlet were estimated at three to six beluga whales per year 

during 1981-1983 (Burns and Seam

been sporadic reports over the years of single beluga whales becoming 

entangled in fishing nets, however, mortalities could not be confirmed. 

Another source of information on the number of beluga whales killed or 

injured incidental to commercial fishery operations is the self-reported fisherie

information required of vessel operators by the MMPA. Logbook data are 

available for part of 1989-1994. During 1990-1993, certain fisheries w

required to participate in a logbook reporting program, which provided 

information regarding fishing effort, interactions with marine mammals, and 

the outcome (deterred, entangled, injured, killed). Based on a lack of reporte

mortalities from the logbook program, the estimated minimum mortality rate of 

Cook Inlet belugas incidental to commercial fisheries is zero whales per year. 

self-reports indicated no mortalities of beluga whales from interactions wi

commercial fishing operations. 

Due to a heightened concern in Cook Inlet that fisheries may cause incidenta

mortalities of beluga whales, NMFS placed observers in the Cook Inlet salmon

drift net and upper and lower

total of 384 net-days were observed for the drift gillnet fishery, and an 

estimated 614 net days were observed for the set net fishery. Only three 

sightings of beluga whales were made at set gillnet locations in the upper Cook 

Inlet (Moore et al. 2000; NMFS unpubl. data). Although a few other marine

mammals were entangled and released, beluga whales were never observed 

within 10 m of a net (i.e., within a distance categorized as an interaction) in th

drift or set net fisherie

Inlet appears to be insignificant and should not delay recovery of these whales. 

45 
ii) Reduction of Prey 

 Aside from direct mortality and injury from fishing activities, commercial

fisheries may compete with beluga whales in Cook Inlet for salmon and oth

prey species. There is strong indication these whales are dependent on access 

to relati

er 

vely dense concentrations of high value prey throughout the summer 

months (see I.F.2. Beluga Feeding Habitat). Native hunters have often stated 

s appear thin in early spring (due to utilizing the fat in their 

mmer 

pact 

ective 

effect 

he 

F 

he current salmon management plan for the State of Alaska oversees Inlet 

these 

sed 

ook 

ed to 

s 

f 

te of Alaska carefully manages the salmon 

sheries to meet escapement goals for various waters, and fisheries open and 

ing and 

n 

e. Po ) 

dis s; 

2)

that beluga whale

blubber layer over winter), and tend to sink rather than float when struck. Any 

diminishment in the ability of beluga whales to reach or utilize spring/su

feeding habitat, or any reductions in the amount of prey available, may im

the energetics of these animals and delay recovery. 

NMFS recommended the closing of the commercial eulachon fishery eff

the 2000 season to the BOF, due to the lack of information regarding the 

of this fishery on belugas. Given that belugas are heavily dependent upon the 

energy-rich eulachon in early spring, and that the runs are very short in 

duration and only occur in a few streams in the upper Inlet, a reduction in t

availability of eulachon could be detrimental to belugas. In 2005, the BO

reopened this fishery, but stipulated that the harvest not exceed 100 tons of 

eulachon. 

T

fisheries in the lower, middle, and northern districts of the Inlet. Most of 

fisheries occur “upstream” of the river mouths and estuaries where beluga 

whales typically feed. Whether the escapement into these rivers, having pas

the gauntlet of the commercial fisheries, is sufficient for the well being of C

Inlet beluga whales is unknown. Furthermore, the amount of fish requir

sustain this population is unknown. However, data from captive beluga whale

show daily consumption rates of 4-7 percent of body weight per day (Sergeant 

and Brodie 1969). Any escapement necessary to meet the needs of wild 

belugas would have to consider the feeding efficiency of these whales (which is

unknown). However, even if large salmon runs must be present for a beluga 

whale to efficiently capture a single fish, this would still be a small fraction o

the total salmon return. The Sta

fi

close throughout the season, presenting many opportunities for adequate 

numbers of salmon to reach their spawning streams. There also are salmon 

hatcheries operating in Cook Inlet, which have measurably added to the 

numbers of adult fish returning to the upper Inlet. Additional research, such as 

continued stomach and fatty acid analyses, may shed more light on feed

prey requirements for beluga whales. 

At this time, it is unknown whether competition with commercial fishing 

operations for prey resources is having any significant or measurable effect o

Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

llution: The principal sources of pollution in the marine environment are: 1

charges from industrial activities that do not enter municipal treatment system

 discharges from municipal wastewater treatment systems; 3) runoff from urban, 

46 
i um 

an

the

I.H

co

i. 

ded belugas and analyzed 

r contaminants as part of the Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archival 

ls 

nd 

nt Lawrence animals. When compared to the arctic Alaska 

amples, Cook Inlet beluga whales had about one-half the concentrations of 

d 

et 

ne 

ook Inlet belugas sampled were 

younger than the whales sampled from Point Lay and Point Hope (Pers. 

 for 

ing different, but which has higher copper, than the 

diet of other beluga stocks sampled (Pers. Comm. S. Norman 2008, via M. 

m ning, and agricultural areas; and 4) accidental spills or discharges of petrole

d other products (Moore et al. 2000). Below is a brief discussion on a few of 

 more prominent sources for Cook Inlet, excluding the oil and gas industry (see

.2.f. Oil and Gas below for a detailed discussion), that have the potential to 

ntribute pollutants to Cook Inlet. 

Contaminants found in Belugas 

Contaminants are a concern for beluga whale health and subsistence use 

(Becker et al. 2000). Since 1992, tissues from Cook Inlet beluga whales have 

been collected from subsistence harvested and stran

fo

Program (AMMTAP). These samples were compared to samples taken from 

beluga whales in two arctic Alaska locations (Point Hope and Point Lay), 

Greenland, arctic Canada, and the Saint Lawrence estuary in eastern Canada 

(Becker et al. 2000). Tissues were analyzed for polychlorinated bipheny

(PCBs), chlorinated pesticides (such as DDT), and heavy metals. PCB’s and 

DDT may impair marine mammal health and reproductive abilities. Arctic a

Cook Inlet beluga whales had much lower concentrations of PCBs and DDT

than the Sai

s

total PCBs and total DDT. 

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) are structurally similar to PCBs an

have been identified in other toothed whales in the Pacific Northwest. These 

compounds are used as flame retardants and unlike PCBs (and DDT), are still 

being manufactured. They may have the potential for various impacts to 

beluga whales similar to PCBs. No measurements exist of tissue 

concentrations of PBDE for the Cook Inlet beluga whale at this time. 

Also examined were concentrations of various substances stored in the liver. 

Cadmium and mercury were lower in the Cook Inlet population than in the 

arctic Alaska populations, while levels of methylmercury were similar to other 

arctic Alaska populations. However, copper levels were two to three times 

higher in the Cook Inlet animals than in the arctic Alaska animals and similar 

to the Hudson Bay animals. The toxicological implication of high copper

levels is unknown; however the copper levels found in the livers of Cook Inl

belugas were not high enough to be a health issue. (Becker et al. 2000). O

explanation for the elevated levels in Cook Inlet belugas may be that copper 

apparently does not accumulate with age. The highest copper concentrations 

were seen in the youngest animals; the C

Comm. P. Becker 2008, via M. Migura, NMFS). An alternate explanation

the elevation of copper in Cook Inlet belugas is that the diet of Cook Inlet 

belugas may contain someth

Migura, NMFS). Regardless of the reason for the elevated copper in Cook 

Inlet beluga whales compared to other stocks, to date, copper has not been 

implicated as a potential toxin, except in manatees (in areas of intensive 

47 
application of copper-based herbicides in Florida) (Pers. Comm. S. Norman 

omium, and lead were well below 

management levels (USCOE 2003). Cadmium, mercury, selenium, and silver 

ppears Cook Inlet beluga whales have lower 

e 

ii. 

ek receive primary treatment, wastewaters from 

omer, Kenai, and Palmer receive secondary treatment, while Eagle River and 

d 

ical 

ted to 

man 

nd food wastes). Tertiary treatment plants utilize primariy and secondary 

ty, 

s, 

06). 

 

2008, via M. Migura, NMFS). 

Furthermore, chemical analysis of dredging sediments in 2003 found that 

pesticides, PCB’s, and petroleum hydrocarbons were below detection limits, 

while levels of arsenic, barium, chr

were not detected. In general, it a

levels of contaminants stored in their bodies than do other populations of 

belugas, however, the impacts of contaminants on belugas in Cook Inlet is 

unknown. Becker et al. (2000) concluded that little is known about the role of 

multiple stressors in animal health and that future research should examin

their interaction and effects on population recruitment for a declining 

population, such as the beluga whale in Cook Inlet. 

Wastewater Treatment 

Currently, the treated municipal wastes of ten communities are being 

discharged into Cook Inlet waters. Wastewaters entering these plants may 

contain a variety of organic and inorganic pollutants, metals, nutrients, 

sediments, bacteria, viruses, and other emerging pollutants of concern 

(EPOCs). Wastewater from the Municipality of Anchorage, Nanwalek, Port 

Graham, Seldovia, and Tyon

H

Girdwood wastewaters undergo tertiary (three stage) treatment (Moore et al. 

2000). Primary treatment means that only materials that can easily be collecte

from the raw wastewater (such as fats, oils, greases, sand, gravel, rocks, 

floating objects, and human wastes) are removed, usually through mechan

means. Wastewater undergoing secondary treatment is further trea

substantially degrade the biological content of the sewage (such as in hu

a

treatment methods, but use additional technologies to increase the quality of 

the effluent discharge. According to Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utili

the discharges from the Eagle River and Girdwood facilities are “near drinking 

water quality”.7

The Municipality of Anchorage John M. Asplund Wastewater Treatment 

Facility (AWTF) was built in 1972 and serves the entire Anchorage area. This 

facility discharges primary-treated wastewater from the Anchorage 

municipality directly into Cook Inlet at Point Woronzof. AWTF can treat 58 

million gallons per day and processes influent primarily from domestic source

but does accept a limited amount from industrial sources (CH2M HILL 20

The current treatment design of AWTF provides screening, grit removal, 

sedimentation, skimming, and chlorination of incoming wastewater. The 

sludge is thickened and dewatered and, along with anything skimmed off the 

 

chorage Water and Wastewater Treatment Facility website - accessed January 2008 - 

site/about_us/about_us_frame.htm 

7

 As stated on the An

www.awwu.biz/web

48 
surface, is incinerated. The resulting ash is then disposed of in a sanitary 

landfill. Chlorinated primary effluent is discharged into Knik Arm of Cook 

let through an outfall extending 804 feet from shore. The discharge from 

ical 

t. 

interfere with the 

nctions of hormones), pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and prions 

 an infection), amongst other agents that are found in 

m 

iii

rshed 

ed: 

 quality, ecology and bioassessment, and watershed 

haracterization. There has been no comprehensive study or analysis to 

. 

iv.

eicing and anti-icing of aircraft and airfield surfaces are required by the 

. 

. For 

 

In

AWTF is authorized by a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit, and by a Clean Water Act 301(h) Waiver issued by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exempting this facility from 

requirements of the Clean Water Act (i.e., AWTF operates as a primary 

treatment facility, and is not required to perform secondary treatment of wastes)

(CH2M HILL 2006). Monitoring programs required by the NPDES permit 

include assessment of the receiving waters in terms of water quality, biolog

and physical health, and toxins control. 

Little is known about EPOCs and their effects on belugas in Cook Inle

EPOCs include endocrine disruptors (substances that 

fu

(proteins that may cause

wastewater and biosolids. The potential impacts on beluga whales fro

pollutants and EPOCs in wastewater entering Cook Inlet have not been 

analyzed and cannot be defined at this time.

. Stormwater Runoff 

The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) operates under a NPDES stormwater 

permit to discharge storm water into Cook Inlet. The MOA’s NPDES storm 

water permit is a five-year term permit to discharge stormwater to Cook Inlet,

and is issued jointly to the MOA and the Alaska Department of Transportation 

and Public Facilities (DOT) by the U.S. Region 10 EPA. The MOA Wate

Management Program (2006) report addresses coordination and education, land

use policy, new development management, construction site runoff 

management, flood plain management, street maintenance, and best 

management practices. Some of the management practices addressed includ

pollutant sources and controls (includes street deicer and snow disposal 

guidance), illicit discharge management, industrial discharge management, 

pesticides management, pathogens management, watershed mapping, 

hydrology, water

c

determine if stormwater discharge has had a detrimental effect on belugas

 Airport Deicing8 

Deicing and anti-icing operations occur from October through May at many 

airports in and around Cook Inlet, especially Stevens International Airport, 

Merril Field, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Lake Hood and Lake Spenard. 

D

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure the safety of passengers

Depending on the application, deicing activities utilize different chemicals

instance, ethylene glycol and propylene glycol are used on aircraft for antiytle, 8 The information in the airport deicing section is taken from a March 14, 2006 Memorandum from Scott L

DOT, Environmental Manager to Daniel Vos at NMFS. 

49 
icing and deicing purposes, whereas potassium acetate and urea are used to

deice tarmacs and runways. All the deicing materials or their break down 

products eventually make it to the Inlet. The amount the deicing materials 

break down prior to discharging into Cook Inlet is not clearly known at this 

time. 

The Anchorage International Airport reported usage of approximately 57

gallons of aircraft deicing fluids during the 2003-2004 winter season. In 

addition, 73,526 gallons of potassium acetate and 659 tons of urea were used

for pavement deicing operations. Deicer usage varies from year to year, due to 

the variation in precipitation each year. T

5,608 

he potential impacts on beluga 

hales from deicing agents entering Cook Inlet have not been analyzed and 

v. 

a 

 ballast 

ed into non-native habitats, are 

sponsible for significant ecological and economic perturbations costing 

 to 

last water 

rly 

leases 

nian 

f 

ballast water. The effect of invasive species from such discharges on the Cook 

nknown.

vi.

en 

of 

her 

upstream of Eagle Bay (CH2MHill 1997). The ERF is a 2,140 acre estuarine 

salt marsh located at the mouth of Eagle River on Fort Richardson Army Post. 

Glacially-fed Eagle River flows through the flats before discharging into Eagle 

w

cannot be determined at this time. 

Ballast Water Discharges 

Ballast water releases in Cook Inlet are a concern because they can potentially

release pollutants and nonindigenous organisms into the ecosystem. It is 

recognized worldwide problem that aquatic organisms picked up in ship

water, transported to foreign lands, and dump

re

billions of dollars. 

The National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) required the Coast Guard

establish national voluntary ballast water management guidelines. To comply 

with NISA, the Coast Guard has established both regulations and guidelines to 

prevent the introduction of aquatic nonindigenous species. On July 28, 2004, 

the U.S. Coast Guard published regulations establishing a national mandatory 

ballast water management program for all vessels equipped with bal

tanks that enter or operate within U.S. waters. 

The actual amount of ship ballast water dumped into Cook Inlet was poo

documented prior to 2004. Very limited records from the National Ballast 

Information Clearinghouse for the period from 1999-2003 document re

of more than five million metric tons from Homer to Anchorage. Smithso

Environmental Center staff conducting a limited survey just off the Port o

Anchorage in 2004 found invasive species that were likely introduced by 

Inlet ecosystem is u

 Military Training at Eagle River Flats 

Most of the military weapons testing areas around Cook Inlet have not be

cleared of hazardous or toxic ordinances (see Moore et al. 2000). An area 

particular concern is the Eagle River Flats (ERF), as beluga whales often gat

in Eagle Bay between the months of May and November and have been 

observed in Eagle River from June to October as far inland as 1.25 miles 

Bay of Knik Arm in upper Cook Inlet. Anthropogenic influences on the flats

50 
include military training, both historic (Army artillery impact area since 194

and current (winter firing of artillery into flats) as well as activities associa

with the remediation of white phosphorus left from artillery shell residues. 

In 1980

9) 

ted 

 the presence of an unusually large number of waterfowl carcasses was 

bserved on the flats. Growing concern over these mysterious deaths led to the 

7). 

f 

se of 

ining in wetlands nationwide as a result of 

these findings. 

d 

e 

f water in hot ponds to allow sediment drying and 

onsequent WP sublimation and oxidation. Remedial action began in the 

diment like that found in 

RF (Racine et al. 1992) and may be resuspended and potentially transported 

and 

s of military munitions. Three years of data 

indicated no difference in the concentrations of munitions constituents between 

 the background system site. In fact, 

 

o

1987 formation of an interagency task force9 charged with finding the cause of 

the mortality and recommending options for remediation (CH2M Hill 199

Investigations conducted in subsequent years culminated in the identification o

exposure to white phosphorous (WP) particles, deposited in ERF sediments 

following detonation of smoke-producing artillery ammunition, as the cau

the annual waterfowl mortality (Racine et al. 1992). In 1990, the Army 

stopped use of WP rounds during tra

In 1994, Fort Richardson was placed on EPA’s National Priorities List under 

the CERCLA10 program. A comprehensive remedial investigation complete

in 1996 concluded that the primary chemical of concern was WP and 

recommended that remedial action concentrate on WP-contaminated ponds 

(i.e., hot ponds) (CH2M Hill 1997). The chosen remedial treatment was th

temporary draining o

c

spring of 1999 and has resulted in the successful remediation of all previously 

identified hot ponds (totaling more than 56 acres). Estimated bird mortality on

ERF has decreased significantly during this time period. 

In addition to monitoring waterfowl mortality on ERF, much work has been 

done to identify possible movement of WP into Eagle River and Knik Arm. WP

particles are persistent in saturated, low oxygen se

E

by tidal activity. Although trace amounts of WP have been detected in tidal 

gully sediments (but not water) all sediment and water samples from Eagle 

River and Knik Arm have been WP-free (CH2M Hill 1997; Collins et al. 

2002). 

The Army also collects and analyzes water samples taken from Eagle Bay 

a “background site”, Goose Bay, in an effort to monitor the discharge of ERF 

for other chemical constituent

the water released from ERF and that of

more than 95 percent of all analytical results have been less than the method 

detection limit (USAG-AK 2006). 

 

ats task force included representatives from the U.S. Army, U.S. Environmental Protection 

sh and Wildlife Service, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Alaska Department of 

onservation. 

ve Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by 

endments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 

9

 Eagle River Fl

Agency, U.S. Fi

Environmental C

10 Comprehensi

the Superfund Am

51 
Furthermore, a series of three studies conducted on the flats found no 

significant evidence of bioaccumulation in either fish (sticklebacks) or 

macroinvertebrates collected in areas with known WP contamination 

(USAEHA 1994, 1995; Sparling 1994), and concluded that WP was not 

’t 

g 

f. Oil and Gas: Much of the Cook Inlet region overlies reserves of oil and natural 

ga

pe

pla ny of the 

pip

co

pr

ap gas 

pip

ye

de k Inlet currently 

support over 200 wells. There are 16 platforms in upper Cook Inlet, 12 of which 

are , 

an

an

M

Al et 

Ar

annual sales offer tracts throughout the State waters of the Inlet, including areas 

above the Forelands in the Susitna River delta. Oil and gas leasing within Federal 

wa

U.

Co

lea

ac

W

be ill in per Cook Inlet could severely 

impact belugas and put the population at risk. Between 1984-1994 oil spills from 

offshore platforms in Cook Inlet totaled roughly 10,500 gallons, with four natural 

gas blowouts occurring since 1962 (ADNR as discussed in Moore et al. 2000). 

 

affecting ERF macroinvertebrate diversity, species richness, or numbers per 

unit area (USAEHA 1995). Given these results, in conjunction with the 

success of the remediation effort, the nondetection of WP (or other munitions 

constituents) in the water of Eagle River and Eagle Bay and the current winteronly firing restrictions on ERF, it seems unlikely that military activity on ERF 

is having an adverse affect on the Cook Inlet beluga stock, although this hasn

specifically been studied. However, the Army is preparing an Environmental 

Impact Statement to assess the potential impacts associated with resumin

year-round live-fire weapons training at ERF.11

s. Upper Cook Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula have an association with the 

troleum industry that dates back to the 1950s. Most of the platforms were in 

ce by 1967, hence the infrastructure is over 40 years old. As such, ma

es are aging and corroded and will need repair if their use is going to be 

ntinued. At the peak of its infrastructure development, there were 16 offshore

oduction and three onshore treatment facilities in upper Cook Inlet and 

proximately 230 mi of undersea pipelines (80 mi of oil pipeline, 150 mi of 

eline). Some of these facilities were “shut in” (not actively producing, but not 

t plugged or abandoned) in 1992 as Cook Inlet production continuously 

clined. The offshore production facilities operating in Coo

 active today (Figure 12). Currently there are no platforms in the lower Inlet

d no permits have been issued for the construction of new permanent platforms 

ywhere within the Inlet (Pers. Comm. B. Havelock, ADNR 2008, via M. 

igura, NMFS). 

aska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) has held an annual Cook Inl

eawide Oil and Gas Lease Sale since 1999, and will do so through 2009. These 

ters of Cook Inlet also presents concern for the Cook Inlet beluga whales. The 

S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) has held oil and gas lease sales in 

ok Inlet in the past. However, there are currently no plans to hold a federal

se sale in Cook Inlet in the foreseeable future. At present, there is only one 

tive federal lease in Cook Inlet, located offshore of Anchor Point. 

hile construction of an oil/gas facility may temporarily result in habitat loss to

lugas, a natural gas blowout or oil sp up

 

11 Se

essed September 2008) 

e the US Army Garrison, Alaska’s Conservation WebPage for more information about the ERF EIS: 

http://www.usarak.army.mil/conservation/NEPA_FRA.htm (acc

52 
Figure 12. Oil an . 

Reproduced with ite 

(www.circac.org/

l 

 extent and 

ent 

rates are greatest during the first few days after an oil spill (Meilke 1990), and 

rates and exposure to oil may be an important factor to the impacts beluga whales 

may experience from oil exposure. It is unclear if vapor concentrations would 

ough 

d gas platforms and related facilities in Cook Inlet. Map is not to scale

 permission from Cook Inlet Regional Citizens Advisory Council’s webs

CI_interactivemap.html). 

The effects of oil spills on beluga whales are generally unknown, however, some

generalizations can be made regarding impacts of oil on individual whales based 

on present knowledge. Although cetaceans are capable of detecting oil they do 

not seem to avoid the oil (Geraci 1990). Belugas swimming through an oil spil

could be affected in several ways: skin contact with the oil; ingestion of oil; 

respiratory distress from hydrocarbon vapors; contaminated food sources; and 

displacement from feeding areas. Actual impacts would depend on the

duration of contact, and the characteristics (type and age) of the oil. Beluga 

whales could be affected by residual oil from a spill even if they were not pres

during the oil spill, however, the greatest potential threat to belugas from an oil 

spill is the inhalation of toxic vapors that concentrate above oil slicks, and in 

extreme cases could result in sudden death (Geraci 1990). Crude oil evaporation

reach levels where serious effects, such as pneumonia, would occur. Alth

53 
Lipscomb et al. (1994) did not report finding pneumonia in sea otters that die

after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, inhalation of vapors was suspected to have cau

d 

sed 

alation of vapors may also have played a role in the 

loss of killer whales after the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Harvey and Dahlheim 1994). 

l 

y 

ircraft operations; well drilling and logging; and the marine discharge of drilling 

uids (muds and cuttings), produced waters (the water phase of liquids pumped 

e 

g. 

e 

ect 

emphysema in the otters. Inh

Whales may also contact oil as they surface to breathe, but the effects of oil 

contacting skin are largely speculative. Experiments in which bottlenose dolphins 

were exposed to petroleum products showed that cetacean skin presents a 

formidable barrier to the toxic effects of petroleum and that damage to epiderma

cells was only fleeting (Bratton et al. 1993). Geraci (1990) reviewed a number of 

studies pertaining to the physiologic and toxic impacts of oil on whales and 

concluded there was no definitive evidence that oil contamination had been 

responsible for the death of a cetacean. Cetaceans observed during the Exxon

Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound made no effort to alter their behavior in 

the presence of oil (Harvey and Dahlheim 1994; Loughlin 1994). Dalheim and 

Matkin (1994) concluded that because the highest recorded mortality rate of North 

Pacific killer whales occurred in 1989 and 1990, which coincided with the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill, there was a correlation between the loss of killer whales and the

spill, but they could not identify a clear cause and effect relationship. 

Contaminated food sources and displacement from feeding areas also may occur 

as a result of an oil spill or during response operations. Any diminishment of 

feeding habitat during the summer months could adversely affect the energy 

balance of beluga whales. The impacts of oil exposure to Cook Inlet beluga 

whales would also depend upon how many animals contacted oil. If oil found its 

way into the upper Inlet during summer months, a significant proportion of the 

beluga population could be exposed. 

Offshore oil production in Cook Inlet currently supports over 200 wells. In 

addition to oil spills (which are low-probability events), oil and gas activities ma

include marine geophysical (seismic) surveys; vessel operations; low-altitude 

a

fl

from oil wells), gray waters, and sanitary wastes. Drilling fluids discharged into 

Cook Inlet average 89,000 barrels annually and contain several pollutants. The 

EPA regulates the discharges from these offshore platforms. NMFS will continu

to review and comment on all oil and gas lease sales, and seismic exploration 

activities for Cook Inlet. 

Development: Southcentral Alaska is the State’s most populated and 

industrialized area. Many cities, villages, ports, airports, treatment plants, 

refineries, highways, and railroads are situated on or very near to Cook Inlet. 

Beluga whales are not uniformly distributed throughout the Inlet, but are 

predominantly found in nearshore waters. Where beluga whales must compet

with people for use of nearshore habitats, coastline development (both 

construction and operation of a project) leads to the direct loss of habitat. Indir

alteration of habitat may occur due to bridges, boat traffic, in-water noise, and 

discharges that affect water quality. Most beluga habitat in Cook Inlet remains 

essentially intact, however, extensive sections of Turnagain Arm shoreline have

54 
been developed (e.g., rip rap and railroad construction), as have the shorelines o

the Anchorage area. 

Port facilities in Cook Inlet are found at Anchorage, Point Mackenzie, Tyonek, 

f 

rift River, Nikiski, Kenai, Anchor Point, and Homer. The Port of Anchorage is a 

L for 

 the 

ever, 

natural 

as, petroleum products, sulfuric acid, caustic soda, and crude oil. 

t to 

,000 

nd 

iques. While the volume of dredging in 

Cook Inlet is comparable to St. Lawrence (more than 844,000 cubic yards in 2003 

r 

concern for belugas is that development may restrict 

assage along Knik Arm. 

ects of 

f 

n of 

 

D

deep draft facility, the State’s largest seaport, and the main port of entry for 

southcentral and interior regions of the State. It exists along lower Knik Arm in 

an area that is heavily used by beluga whales. Contractor reports from LG

the Port of Anchorage (Markowitz, memos to W.E. Humphries, August, 

September, October and November 2005) indicated that 79 percent of the whales 

sighted in the lower Knik Arm area entered the area immediately adjacent to

Port. The Point MacKenzie Port is presently configured as a barge port; how

plans call for a bulk loading facility with deep-draft capability. The Drift River

facility is used primarily as a loading platform for shipments of crude oil. The 

docking facility there is connected to a shoreside tank farm and designed to 

accommodate tankers in the 150,000 deadweight-ton class. Nikiski is home to 

several privately owned docks (including those belonging to oil and gas 

companies such as Tesoro and Conoco Philips). Activity here includes the 

shipping and receiving of anhydrous ammonia, dry bulk urea, liquified 

g

Dredging along coastal waterways has been identified as a concern with respec

the Saint Lawrence beluga whales (DFO 1995). There, dredging of up to 600

cubic meters of sediments resuspended contaminants into the water column a

seriously impacted the belugas. The Saint Lawrence beluga whale recovery plan 

contains recommendations to reduce the amount of dredging and to develop more 

environmentally sound dredging techn

at the Port of Anchorage), the material does not contain harmful levels of 

contaminants. 

Even though over 90 percent of Knik Arm remains undeveloped, several planned 

or proposed projects have been identified in a relatively confined portion of lowe

Knik Arm (see partial list below). Knik Arm is an important feeding area for 

beluga whales during much of the summer and fall, especially upper Knik Arm. 

Whales ascend to upper Knik Arm on the flooding tide, feed on salmon, then fall 

back with the outgoing tide to hold in waters off and north of the Port of 

Anchorage. The primary 

p

The potential for impact on these whales is heightened by the following asp

actual or potential Knik Arm development projects: 

 • Encroachment into lower Knik Arm from the east due to expansion o

 the Port of Anchorage. 

 • Encroachment into lower Knik Arm from the west due to expansio

 Port MacKenzie. 

 • Increased dredging requirements with port expansions. 

 • Increased ship traffic due to expansion of both ports in lower Knik Arm; 

 new boat launches; and possible operation of a commercial ferry. 

55 
• Increased in-water noise levels due to port construction, port operations and 

the associated increased vessel traffic. 

• Increased need for vessel anchorage off both ports. 

ith a 

mna 

CS 

or potential 

evelopment projects in the Inlet. 

h. 

Cook Inlet are found at Anchorage, Point MacKenzie, Tyonek, 

Drift River, Nikiski, Kenai, Anchor Point, and Homer. Commercial shipping 

t, 

 and 

 unimproved small boat launches exist along the 

ores of upper Cook Inlet. The MOA maintains a ramp and float system for 

 Fire Island Shoals and the 

r in 

s. 

u ed and straight line movement, ship strikes from large 

let beluga whales. 

ar river 

 • Possible causeway construction to Fire Island. 

 • Possible construction of Knik Arm bridge. 

• High in-water noise due to construction of causeway/bridge (e.g., pile 

driving, dredging). 

• Increased water velocities in Knik Arm due to construction of 

causeway/bridge. 

• Physical loss of habitat due to landfill. 

• In-water noise, physical loss of habitat, and possible changes in water 

velocities associated with installing and operating 70-100 tidal energy 

generators in and around the entrance to Knik Arm. 

Other potential development projects in Cook Inlet include Seward Highway

improvements along Turnagain Arm; the south coastal trail extension in 

Anchorage; Chuitna Coal project with a marine terminal; Pebble Mine w

marine terminal in Iniskin Bay; Diamond Point granite rock quarry near Ilia

and Cottonwood Bays; and the placement of a submarine fiber optic cable by A

from Nikiski to Anchorage. This list may not include all proposed 

d

Vessel Traffic: Most of Cook Inlet is navigable and used by various classes of 

water craft which pose the threat of ship strikes to beluga whales. While ship 

strikes have not been definitively confirmed in a Cook Inlet beluga whale death, 

in October 2007 a beluga washed ashore dead with “wide, blunt trauma along the 

right side of the thorax” (NMFS unpubl. data), suggesting a ship strike was the 

cause of the injury. 

Port facilities in 

occurs year round, with containerships transiting between the Seattle/Puget Sound

areas and Anchorage. Other commercial shipping includes bulk cargo freighters 

and tankers. Various commercial fishing vessels operate throughout Cook Inle

with some very intensive use areas associated with salmon and herring fisheries. 

Sport fishing and recreational vessels are also common, especially within 

Kachemak Bay, along the eastern shoreline of the lower Kenai Peninsula,

between Anchorage and several popular fishing streams which enter the upper 

Inlet. Several improved and

sh

small watercraft near Ship Creek. Other launches are near the Knik River bridge 

and at old Knik. Currently, with the exception of the

Port of Anchorage, no large-vessel routes or port facilities in Cook Inlet occu

high value beluga whale habitat

D e to their slower spe

vessels are not expected to pose a significant threat to Cook In

However, smaller boats that travel at high speed and change direction often 

present a greater threat. In Cook Inlet, the presence of beluga whales ne

56 
mo t 

and c n. The mouths of the Susitna and 

essel traffic and whales 

ales have an increased 

bservations of Cook Inlet beluga 

wh

In nlet 

1994 nt agents investigated a report of a jet skier approaching 

an skies have also been seen along 

Tu ft. 

Smal y 

whale are also capable of 

operating in waters not normally available to mariners. This has added to the 

ga 

reased 

n 

y alter beluga behavior (Litzky et al. 2001). 

abitat displacement, such as beluga whales avoiding an area with high boat 

is 

i. 

ng is an important part of this use. 

Visitors highly value the opportunity to view the region’s fish and wildlife, and 

y 

y there 

t. 

hale watching is not, in itself, harmful to whales. It presents concerns due to 

ence 

uths predisposes them to strikes by high speed water craft associated with spor

ommercial fishing and general recreatio

Little Susitna Rivers in particular are areas where small v

commonly occur. Vessels that operate near these wh

probability of striking a whale, as evidenced by o

ales with propeller scars (Burek 1999c). 

 addition to small boats, jet skis are becoming more abundant in the I . In

 NOAA Enforceme

d striking beluga whales in Knik Arm. Jet

rnagain Arm, an area of Cook Inlet rarely used by conventional water cra

l vessels are more likely to alter their course to approach or intercept an

s they observe. Small vessels, and especially jet skis,

competition for the few sites in upper Cook Inlet that are heavily used by belu

whales during the summer months. It is probable this traffic has also inc

the level of harassment of this population. Presently there are no restrictions o

speed limits, areas in which vessels may operate, or on the type or horsepower of

vessels allowed in the upper Inlet. Although high speed approaches to belugas 

generally initiate an escape response (belugas move away from the approaching

boat), slower boats, even idling, ma

H

traffic, may seem unimportant, but displacement from transit areas and from 

sensitive feeding or calving habitats could be very harmful to the recovery of th

stock. 

Tourism and Whale Watching: Tourism is a growing component of the State 

and regional economies, and wildlife viewi

opportunities to view the beluga whale are especially valuable due to their 

uniqueness. Beluga whales are very common to upper Cook Inlet and typicall

occur in fairly large groups. Because these waters are easily accessible from 

Anchorage, this presents an excellent opportunity for whale watching. Many tour

buses routinely stop at several wayside sites along Turnagain Arm in the summer, 

where beluga whales are seasonally observed. Although several commercial 

whale watching ventures have been started during the last decade, presentl

are no vessel-based commercial whale watching operations in upper Cook Inle

The popularity of whale watching and the close proximity of beluga whales to 

Anchorage make it probable that such operations may exist in the near future.

However, it is unlikely this industry would reach the levels of intensity seen 

elsewhere (e.g., Hawaii, Puget Sound, Australia) because of upper Cook Inlet’s 

climate, restricted navigability (shallow waters, extreme tides, extreme currents),

limited port facilities, and seasonal darkness. 

W

vessel noise, proximity to the whales (approach distance and harassment), and

intrusion into important whale habitats. People pay to see whales, and vessel 

operators will go where the whales are. No strong conclusive scientific evid

has been presented to demonstrate that whale watching presents a significant 

57 
threat to beluga whales (DFO 1995). Yet, NMFS has often witnessed avoidance 

and overt behavioral reactions by Cook Inlet beluga whales when approached by

vessels. Larger vessels which do not alter course or motor speed around these 

whales seem to cause little if any reaction. Concern is warranted for whale 

watching operations that approach beluga whales close enough to harass or that 

enter into confined or important habitat areas (i.e. Type 1 habitat; Figure 9). 

MFS believes it is possible to accommodate commercial whale watching 

j. 

s 

ga 

 on 

 and behavior of the whale, and the acoustic nature of the environment. 

igh frequency noise diminishes more rapidly than lower frequency noises. 

d 

t. 

igh 

 low 

t in 

r hearing capabilities, much less 

information is available on how noise might impact beluga whales behaviorally in 

ed 

N

charters without significant effect to the Cook Inlet beluga whale, but some 

restrictions may be necessary. 

Noise: Beluga whales use sound rather than sight for many important functions

and are often found in turbid waters in northern latitudes where darkness extend

over many months. Beluga whales use sound to communicate, locate prey, and 

navigate, and may make different sounds in response to different stimuli. Belu

whales produce high frequency sounds which they use as a type of sonar for 

finding and pursuing prey, and likely for navigating through ice-laden waters. 

In Cook Inlet, beluga whales must compete acoustically with natural and 

anthropogenic sounds. Man-made sources of noise in Cook Inlet include large 

and small vessels, aircraft, oil and gas drilling, marine seismic surveys, pile 

driving, and dredging. The effects of man-made noise on beluga whales and 

associated increased “background” noises may be similar to our reduced 

visibilities when confronted with heavy fog or darkness. These effects depend

several factors including the intensity, frequency and duration of the noise, the 

location

H

Sound also dissipates more rapidly in shallow waters and over soft bottoms (san

and mud). Much of upper Cook Inlet is characterized by its shallow depth, 

sand/mud bottoms, and high background noise from currents and glacial silt 

(Blackwell and Greene 2002) thereby making it a poor acoustic environmen

Research on captive animals has found beluga whales hear best at relatively h

frequencies, between 10 and 100 kHz (Blackwell and Greene 2002), which is 

generally above the level of much industrial noise. The beluga whales’ hearing 

falls off rapidly above 100 kHz. However, beluga whales may hear sounds as

as 40-75 Hz, although this noise would have to be very loud. Anthropogenic 

noise above ambient levels and within the same frequencies used by belugas may 

mask communication between these animals. At louder levels, noise may resul

disturbance and harassment, or cause temporary or permanent damage to the 

whales’ hearing. 

Although captive beluga whales have provided some insight into beluga hearing 

and the levels of noise that might damage thei

the wild. Alaska Native beluga whale hunters with CIMMC have said that the 

Cook Inlet beluga whales are very sensitive to boat noise, and will leave areas 

subjected to high use. Native hunters near Kotzebue Sound report that beluga 

whales in that region abandoned areas in which fishing vessels were common 

(NMFS unpubl. data). In the Canadian high arctic, beluga whales were observ

58 
to react to ice-breaking ships at distances of more than 80 km, showing strong 

avoidance, apparent alarm calls, and displacement (LGL and Greeneridge 1986; 

Finley et al. 1990). The whales’ activity patterns were apparently affected for u

to two days following the event (Whitehead et al. 2000). However, in less 

pristine, more heavily trafficked areas belugas may habituate to vessel noise. For

instance, beluga whales appear to be relatively tolerant of intensive fishing ve

traffic in Bristol Bay and are commonly seen during summer at the Port of 

Anchorage, Alaska’s busiest port. Like bottlenose dolphins, beluga whales m

shift the frequency of their echo

p 

ssel 

ay 

location clicks to avoid masking by anthropogenic 

oise (Au 1993; Tyack 1999, 2000). 

ould 

ll 

take authorizations under the MMPA as the threshold for harassment of beluga 

 that 

t 

hat 

of 

es, 

some noises between two and 10 kHz were measured as high as 85 dB re: 1 μPa 

. 

d 

e of 

ade underwater noise sources, with the potential to harass or 

harm marine mammals, including beluga whales. 

 

n

A 2001 acoustic research program within upper Cook Inlet identified underwater 

noise levels (broadband) as high as 149 decibels referenced to one microPascal 

(149 dB re: 1 μPa)12 (Blackwell and Greene 2002). That noise was associated 

with a tug boat which was docking a barge. This level of continuous noise w

be below the threshold of 160 dB re: 1 μPa that NMFS has used in issuing sma

whales. Observations of beluga whales off the Port of Anchorage suggest

these whales are not normally harassed by such noise, although the whales may 

tolerate noise that would otherwise disturb them in order to feed or to conduc

other biologically significant behaviors. The 2001 acoustic study also found t

the mouth of the Susitna River and upper Knik Arm near Birchwood, two

locations which are highly used by beluga whales, had some of the lowest 

recorded ambient underwater sound levels, suggesting a relationship between 

reduced sound levels and beluga use. 

Furthermore, the 2001 acoustics study investigated noise associated with 

operating (not drilling) offshore oil platforms. The Phillips “A” oil platform

produced underwater noise which was generally below 10 kHz. While much 

the sound energy in this noise fell below the hearing thresholds of beluga whal

as far out as 19 kilometers from the source. This noise is audible to beluga whales

The acoustics study did not address marine geophysical seismic activity in Cook

Inlet, although it does occur. Geophysical seismic operations were conducted in 

2007 in Cook Inlet near Tyonek, the Forelands area, areas off Anchor Point, an

areas west of Clam Gulch. A previous seismic program occurred near Anchor 

Point in the fall of 2005. Seismic exploration is associated with both State and 

Federal offshore tracts. Geophysical seismic activity has been described as on

the loudest man-m

 

measurement of the intensity of sound) in water have a different relative value than decibels in air. 

cal (μPa; measurement of sound pressure) is the standard reference pressure for underwater sou

valent is referenced to 20 μPa. Thus, the intensity of sound in water is not equal to the intensity

.e., 149 dB in water is not the same as 149 dB in air, but rather is equivalent to 87 dB in air). Th

ease Control states that prolonged (more than 8 hours) “exposure to noise above 85 dB [in air] can

nt hearing loss” in humans. However, we cannot assume that beluga hearing and response is 

humans. 

12 Decibels (dB; 

One microPas nd; 

the in air equi of 

sound in air (i e 

Center for Dis

cause permane

comparable to 

59 
Cook Inlet also experiences significant levels of aircraft traffic. The Anchorage 

International Airport is directly adjacent to lower Knik Arm and has high volumes

of commercial and cargo air traffic. Elmendorf Air Force Base also has a ru

near and airspace directly over Knik Arm. Lake Hood and Spenard Lake in 

Anchorage are heavily used by recreational seaplanes. Other small public 

runways are found at Birchwood and Goose Bay in Knik Arm; Merril Field;

Girdwood; the Kenai Municipal Airport; Ninilchik; Homer; and Seldovia. Even 

though sound is attenuated by water surface, Blackwell and Green (2002) found 

that aircraft noise can be quite loud un

nway 

derwater when jet aircraft are directly 

overhead. Richardson (1995) discovered that belugas in the Beaufort Sea would 

k. 

f 

d, 

e 

te 

nts or dive and migration patterns; 

onducting biopsies of individual whales to obtain tissue samples for genetics or 

growth 

ga 

Between 1999 and 2002, NMFS researchers captured and affixed satellite tags to a 

dive or swim away when low-flying (<500 m) aircraft passed directly over them. 

However, beluga survey aircraft flying at approximately 244 m in Cook Inlet 

observed little or no change in beluga swim directions (Rugh et al. 2000). 

Research: NMFS research on Cook Inlet beluga whales has resulted in an 

extensive body of publications and research papers, which has greatly improved

understanding of their ecology and biology. Because many important aspects o

the biology of Cook Inlet beluga whales remain unknown or incompletely studie

NMFS anticipates continuing and expanding its research program throughout th

range of this stock. 

Research activities may include continuing the annual abundance surveys 

conducted by NMFS’s National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML); satelli

tagging to investigate seasonal moveme

c

contaminants research; collecting data necessary for a population age and 

model; conducting forage fish analyses; assessing fatty acids; monitoring belu

behavior with associated anthropogenic activities; and behavioral-telemetry 

studies associated with disturbance and avoidance of human activities. Other 

studies and monitoring of Cook Inlet belugas are being done in association with 

development of the Inlet. 

Some research has the potential to kill, injure, harass, or change the behavior of 

belugas. This includes active activities such as capturing whales, applying 

satellite tags, applying suction cup dive tags, taking blood and biopsies from live

animals, and any boat or in water work that changes whale behavior or 

movements. Other research is passive and has less potential to impact whales, 

including aerial surveys, shore based observations, acoustic studies (non-tagging), 

prey studies, habitat studies, pathology and disease studies conducted on dead 

animals, and contaminant studies. 

total of 18 Cook Inlet belugas. A few days after tagging activities in 2002, NMFS 

began receiving reports of a dead beluga floating upside down in the Inlet 

(preventing the positive identification of a satellite tag). Eight days after tagging, 

the flipper band identifying the whale as one of the tagged animals was recovered

from the carcass by a local oil worker. However, the band was not provided to 

NMFS until a month after the tagging event, precluding a search for the carcass

60 
and visual verification of a satellite tag. The satellite tag from this whale only 

bl. 

m 

e of 

s a 

potential risks to the whales in the future. Photo-identification studies by 

hat 

 

 3. Thr

A th and 

pre

reco

fact

of m

The

yea ccur as they are ongoing events (e.g., pollution), while 

others have a low chance of occurrence (e.g., subsistence harvests). They also vary in 

thei

spo re 

chr

noi t on the 

dur a 

pul

con nt 

inv l have a greater impact to recovery than a 

stranding event involving a single whale. Also, if management cannot realistically 

mit

mit

take threat 

on 

transmitted position data for 32 hours. After reviewing the dive data received for

this whale, it was concluded that the whale was swimming weakly after the 

tagging until it died 32 to 38 hours later. The most apparent explanation for this 

animal’s death was that the whale died as a result of the tagging (NMFS unpu

data). Given the link of this whale’s death to the tagging activities, data fro

other whales tagged during the same field season were analyzed. Two other 

animals were found to have satellite transmissions lasting less than 48 hours and 

with similar dive patterns as those of the known dead whale. These two whales 

were assumed to have died between 24 and 54 hours after tagging. While non

this data conclusively points to the death of these two whales, the most apparent 

explanation for the dive patterns and lack of subsequent satellite data is that these 

whales died as a result of the tagging. Given that there was one known death a

result of tagging activities, NMFS modified the tagging protocol to reduce 

McGuire et al. (2008) reported identification of nine distinct beluga whales t

had been previously fixed with satellite tags, providing data that nine of the 

tagged whales had survived between three and eight years after being tagged. 

McGuire et al. (2008) also identified three of the nine previously tagged whales as 

mothers with calves. 

eat Assessment Matrix 

reats assessment matrix (Table 4) is a useful way to evaluate various threats

sents a structured approach to assessing the relative impact of each threat on the 

very of Cook Inlet beluga whales. This matrix approach provides weighting 

ors to rank threats in consideration of their likelihood of occurrence, the feasibility

itigation, and the relative impact to recovery should the threat occur. 

 threats discussed all have varying probabilities of occurrence within the next five

rs; some are guaranteed to o

r duration of occurrence. Some threats are pulse events that occur only 

radically (e.g., strandings, disease outbreaks, oil spills), while other threats a

onic events and have long-term impacts (e.g., parasites, environmental change, 

se). Although the impact to recovery from each threat depends somewha

ation of the event (i.e., a chronic event is expected to have a greater impact than

se event of the same magnitude), the magnitude of the event is also an important 

sideration when assessing the impact to recovery. For instance, a stranding eve

olving a large number of whales wil

igate the effects of a threat, then the relative impact to recovery is higher than if 

igation efforts could control or reverse the effects of a threat. These factors were 

n into consideration when assessing the relative impact to recovery of each

Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

61 
Table 4. Cook

FY09-FY13. 

 Inlet Beluga Whale Threats Assessment Matrix for known and potential threats

Threat 

(see text for specific sources of each threat) 

Probability of 

Event Occurring 

in Next Five 

Years 

Feasibility 

of Mitigation 

Relative Impact 

to Recovery 

(assuming event 

occurs) 

Strandings high low high 

Predation high low moderate 

Parasitism and Disease - - - 

• parasites high low low 

• disease unknown/low low high 

Natural 

Threats 

Environmental Change moderate low unknown 

Subsistence Harvest (legal) low high low

Poaching & Illegal Harassment unknown moderate high 

Personal Use, Subsistence, and 

Recreational Fishing high moderate low 

Commercial Fishing - - - 

• lethal incidental take low moderate moderate 

• prey reduction high moderate high 

Pollution high moderate unknown 

Oil and Gas high moderate unknown 

Coastal Development (habitat loss) high moderate moderate 

Vessel Traffic - - - 

• ship strikes - large vessels low moderate low 

• ship strikes - small vessels moderate moderate moderate 

Tourism and Whale Watching high high low 

Noise high moderate high 

HumanCaused 

Threats 

Research high high moderate 

62 
II. CONSERVATION PROGRAM 

In this section of the Conservation Plan, NMFS identifies conservation goals and criteria for 

restoring the Cook Inlet beluga population to OSP; the strategy NMFS will implement to achieve 

such goals; recent management measures impl p reach the goals; and

constraints on research and management. 

A. Conservation Goals and Criteria 

Section 2 of the MMPA (13 U.S.C. 1361) stat arine ma

n be permitted to fall below their OSP level, the lower range of 

K for Cook Inlet belugas. In the final rule that 

establ e ok Inlet beluga stock der the M

the historic abundance for this stock wa atic survey of 

ab 1994, surveys b n 1979 prov the initial f 

1,300 Cook Inlet beluga whales. Additional ence, includin K, supports a

hi ,000 ani

Al ber of whales C Inlet could .e., carrying

ca n, NMFS is using the ximum historical abundance estima 

(1,300 s basis for estim g the lower SP. The

population level at which NMFS would rec r the deple ication is s he 

als (60 percent of K). The 1 dance es

s rulemaking was 347 s, well bel In 2005,

ate of 278 whales (the low orded abun as only 2

of 

The goal of this Conservation Plan is to restore the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock to a 

health v nger i ed as dep er the M s 

go creasi ained pop f at least 

wh s its minimu P level), an iate habitat

available that will support a restored population. It is imper heir habita

protected as well, otherwise the restored population may experience another decline and 

require redesignation as depleted. 

B. Conservation Strategy 

NMFS provided the history of Cook Inlet beluga whale life history, ecology, and an 

assessment of the known and likely natural and anthropogenic threats to this stock in the 

first section of the Conservation Plan. Here, NMFS describes the conservation strategy 

as the framework for future Cook Inlet beluga whale recovery and conservation. NMFS’s 

conservation strategy is to (1) improve our understanding of the biology of Cook Inlet 

beluga whales and the factors limiting the population’s growth; (2) stop direct losses to 

the population; (3) protect valuable habitat, and (4) evaluate the effectiveness of these 

strategies and the success of the conservation actions in restoring the Cook Inlet beluga 

whale population. 

emented to hel biological 

es that m mmal species, populations 

a

which is presently designated at 60% of 

d/or stocks should not 

ish d the Co as depleted un

s unknown. Since no system

MPA, NMFS stated that 

undance exists prior to y ADFG i ided estimate o

 evid g TE

storical abundance exceeding 1 mals. 

though the maximum num ook support (i

pacity, K) is unknow ma te

) a K and as an interim atin limit of O

onside ted classif et at t

lower bound of OSP

considered in NMFS’

abundance estim

 at 780 anim 998 abun

ow OSP. 

timate 

 whale the 

est rec dance) w 1 percent 

K. 

y, iable population that no lo

an in

s designat

ng st

leted und

u o

MPA. Thi

al will be met when there is 78

ales (i.e., the stock maintain

 or su

m OS

lation

appro

0 

d pr is 

ative that t t is 

63 
C. Management Measures Implemented

ts, 

eluga whales. See Appendix A for a summary of 

Federal Regulations specifically related to Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

ment 

l 

t 

een 

 2000 and interim harvest regulations for 

2001-2004 were developed and published in the Federal Register in 2004. These 

. 

, a 

LJ), 

pendix B) that allowed for two belugas to be successfully harvested. NMFS 

published the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Subsistence Harvest Final Supplemental 

es 

NMFS has responded to stranding events many times, particularly during the last 

decade, and has developed an active Alaska Marine Mammal Stranding Response 

NMFS prepared the Turnagain Arm Stranding Response Plan 

(Appendix C), which guides decision makers during a marine mammal stranding in 

g to 

d 

 to all live stranded marine mammals; and to improve survival chances 

of any stranded marine mammal. 

NMFS has managed numerous projects and worked with a diverse group of constituen

partners, and agencies in an attempt to conserve and restore the Cook Inlet beluga whale 

population. The following discussion describes many of the management measures 

implemented regarding Cook Inlet b

1. Subsistence Harvest Manage

The MMPA authorizes NMFS, acting on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, to 

implement subsistence harvest limits through regulation of depleted marine mamma

stocks, following an administrative hearing on the record. In accordance with Public

Laws 106-31 (1999) and 106-553 (2000), the annual subsistence harvest of Cook Inle

beluga whales are allowed only under cooperative management agreements betw

NMFS and affected Alaska Native organizations (ANO). On October 4, 2000 NMFS 

proposed regulations to limit the beluga harvest in Cook Inlet, Alaska. An 

administrative hearing was held in December

interim harvest regulations allowed for a limited harvest (1-2 belugas annually),

regulated the use of beluga products, and established requirements for the harvests

With the collection of more information pertaining to the Cook Inlet belugas

second administrative hearing was held in August 2004 to determine the long term 

harvest regime (2005 and subsequent years, until the population recovered). 

Following the harvest plan as recommended by the administrative law judge (A

NFMS signed a co-management agreement with CIMMC in 2005 and 2006 

(Ap

Environmental Impact Statement in June 2008, where four harvest alternatives were

considered. A Record of Decision and harvest regulations will be published in 

October 2008, which will provide for a subsistence harvest plan for Alaska Nativ

until the Cook Inlet beluga stock recovers. 

2. Turnagain Arm Marine Mammal Stranding Response Plan

Network. In 1993 

Turnagain Arm by describing protocols to be followed by NMFS when respondin

stranded marine mammals. The plan was written to ensure that only authorized 

Stranding Response Network members, under direction from the Response 

Coordinator (Coordinator), respond to stranded marine mammals. NMFS must be 

notified of all stranding events, and will be on site to direct response actions. In the

event NMFS is unable to respond, the Coordinator will determine the proper actions

and initiate a response when necessary. At all times, NMFS response will be guide

by three objectives: to ensure all actions do not endanger any response personnel; to

minimize stress

64 
Despite these actions, there is often little that can be done to respond meaningfully to 

re 

are 

 areas cannot be 

hed even by small boats due to low tides, shoals, or tidal currents. Furthermore, 

usand pounds and cannot be easily moved. 

These animals may, in fact, stand a better chance for survival/recovery if not handled 

s, 

3. 

 

nity 

k 

as 

 

4. P

ity, by itself or in combination with other 

ctivities, would not cause a significant adverse impact on the stock. NMFS works 

 could harm belugas or 

damage habitats essential to their survival, and to identify measures to avoid or 

, 

al 

, 

s to advocate the inclusion of Cook Inlet beluga 

these strandings. There are many reasons for this. Human safety must be assured in 

any stranding response. Many areas within the upper Inlet, and Turnagain Arm in 

particular, present very dangerous conditions (extreme tidal ranges, quicksand, bo

tides, frigid waters) which require specialized training and equipment. These sites 

often remote and all but inaccessible except by helicopters. Many

reac

beluga whales may weigh several tho

or disturbed in ways that would increase their stress. Regardless of these limitation

a stranding response may sometimes benefit these whales, and NMFS intends to 

continue and improve the response to live stranded beluga whales by expanding the 

Stranding Response Network, and by updating and revising the stranding response 

plan with up-to-date response techniques and to include all of Cook Inlet. 

Law Enforcement Plan 

The NOAA, Office for Law Enforcement (OLE) has committed to a long-term 

enforcement plan that encompasses traditional enforcement methods and Commu

Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS) to assist in the recovery of the Coo

Inlet beluga whale. OLE conservation and protection efforts of Cook Inlet belug

began in 2000 and will continue throughout their recovery. The mission of OLE’s 

plan is to stop illegal “takes” of Cook Inlet beluga whales from any source. A copy of 

the 2008 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Enforcement Plan is presented in Appendix D. 

roject Review, Environmental Analyses, and Mitigation Identification

Any action that may “take” a Cook Inlet beluga whale, including a take by 

harassment or disturbance, requires authorization under the MMPA (e.g., via an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization or Small Take Authorization). Such 

authorization can only be granted if an activ

a

with agencies and applicants to determine whether such actions

minimize possible adverse effects. Activities are analyzed under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

NMFS actively participates in development planning and consultation meetings with

federal, state, and private entities, and regularly reviews proposed permit applications 

for development projects that may affect Cook Inlet beluga whales. For example

NMFS reviews and comments on development permit applications for coast

dredging and filling through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and for discharges 

through EPA. Because the upper Inlet contains high concentrations of beluga whales

provides important foraging habitat, and is where calves are born and reared, NMFS 

has also developed specific recommendations for the State of Alaska relative to the 

State lease sales for oil and gas. Adoption of these recommendations by the State of 

Alaska may help conserve and restore the Cook Inlet beluga whale. In regards to 

federal lease sales, NMFS continue

65 
whales in MMS’s research programs investigating the effects of leasing and 

, 

5. O

il 

. In 

itted updates to Annex G (Wildlife 

 the Unified Plan. The Alaska Regional Response Team’s 

6. 

ize the possibility of injury or possible abandonment of important 

ga 

whales to understand what, if any, impacts they cause and to improve our 

ends 

r 

edetermined ranges of the source (seismic) boat, 

nd acoustic monitoring of the source and the attenuation of noise from the array. 

 the 

o 

development within Cook Inlet. 

In addition to development projects, research projects may be conducted at Federal

State, and/or private levels. Any research that may take a beluga also requires 

authorization under the MMPA. NMFS will continue to provide specific 

recommendations to mitigate detrimental effects of development and research in an

effort to conserve Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

il Spill Contingency Plans 

NMFS, in cooperation with numerous agencies, has developed an area oil spill 

contingency plan (a.k.a. Unified Plan) which has been extant for over ten years. This

plan is reviewed and updated as needed to ensure its applicability to ever-changing o

spill risks and to integrate experience gained from response in other regions

January 2008, NMFS reviewed and subm

Protection Guidelines) of

Unified Plan can be found at: http://www.akrrt.org/plans.shtml. 

Noise Guidelines 

From what is known about the hearing sensitivity of beluga whales and the 

movements, distribution, and habitat use of the Cook Inlet beluga whales, NMFS 

advocates steps to minimize the likelihood for noise to adversely impact these whales 

and to minim

habitats. It is important to monitor lesser noise sources that may impact belu

understanding of these whales. 

NMFS regularly reviews and comments on applicable permits and recomm

specific conditions to reduce or avoid potential impacts from noise. Mitigation 

measures may be incorporated into project permits to avoid incidental taking of 

beluga whales. For example, mitigating measures for marine seismic surveys may 

include maximum array size restrictions (source noise levels), ramp-up procedures to 

avoid exposing marine mammals to very high noise levels, shut down wheneve

beluga whales are observed within pr

a

The effects of noise in other beluga habitat areas may be reduced to acceptable levels 

through time restrictions or other mitigation measures. NMFS will continue to 

request that the State of Alaska’s Lessee Advisory and MMS’s Notice to Lessees 

regarding offshore seismic operations identify that these activities may result in

taking of marine mammals, including beluga whales, and require monitoring plans. 

Such taking is prohibited by the MMPA unless authorized by incidental take 

authorizations. 

NMFS is considering acoustic guidelines to determine noise levels that result in injury

or harassment. For impulse sound, NMFS currently considers beluga harassment t

begin at noise levels at or above 160 dB re: 1μPa, and injury to occur at or above 180

66 
dB re: 1μPa; for continuous noise NMFS has designated 120 dB re: 1μPa as 

at which injury occurs. Recently

the level 

, Southall et al. (2007) drafted acoustic guidelines for 

26 species of marine mammals, divided into five functional hearing groups, for four 

e 

y 

tically not 

l. 

s are approved, NMFS will continue to 

apply the current threshold levels (e.g. injury occurs starting at 180 dB re: 1μPa) 

truction and other actions with the potential to 

D. Biologi

Mo c life 

hist en 

a nu

-reviewed 

r ay be published on the NOAA Fisheries website. 

NMFS has studied the Cook Inlet belugas since 1993: conducted annual surveys every 

yea elugas 

(sat

surv

belu as 

hav 000; 

sev network for 

the state was developed. Necropsies and samples from subsistence harvested and 

stranded belugas provide data useful in life history assessments, contaminants, genetics, 

par 

Alt ogy 

and

con

imp ints 

for 

the 

ind

man man 

acti let 

belu

man

1

categories of human noise: single pulse, single non-pulse, multiple pulse, and multipl

non-pulse. According to this study, beluga whales (considered a “mid-frequenc

cetacean”) subjected to single pulse or multiple pulse events, would theore

be injured until sound pressure levels reach 230 dB re: 1μPa or greater (Southall et a

2007). However, until such acoustic guideline

when evaluating in-water cons

introduce noise into Cook Inlet. 

cal Constraints on Management and Research 

nitoring and research have provided us with information to understand some basi

ory, habitat associations, and threats to the population. Starting in 1988 there has be

mber of papers published on Cook Inlet belugas and their habitat. Comprehensive 

findings, as well as individual studies, are published by NMML staff in peer

lite ature. Interim results m

r since 1993; analyzed contaminants; regulated subsistence harvest; tagged b

ellite and radio tags); and gathered life history data through strandings. Abundance 

eys are used to assess the population’s size, distribution, and trends. Satellite tags on 

gas have provided data on whale movements and habitat use. To date, 18 belug

e been tagged in Cook Inlet (one whale in June 1999; two whales in September 2

en whales in August 2001; and eight whales in August 2002). A stranding 

asites, and disease. TEK surveys have also been useful in understanding belugas.

hough much has been done, scientific knowledge of Cook Inlet beluga whale biol

 ecology is incomplete. Research and management on Cook Inlet beluga whales is 

strained by certain biological aspects of the whales that make studying them and 

lementing effective management efforts difficult. Examples of biological constra

beluga whales include the fact that belugas are marine mammals that live entirely in 

water, have long life spans with delayed reproductive maturity, and have very few 

ividual markings making identification of specific individuals difficult. Effective 

agement depends on a reasonable understanding of belugas’ interaction with hu

vities within the belugas’ environment. Our incomplete understanding of Cook In

ga whales increases our uncertainty and confounds efforts to implement appropriate

agement measures to positively affect beluga recovery. 

67 
III. CONS

In the midreported su

minimal le ta, 

better unde

and unders

In section I nd 

protecting meet the 

overall man are aimed at understanding and restoring the Cook 

Inlet beluga whale to its OSP level as mandated by the 1988 amendments to the MMPA, and the 

xth objective is directed towards implementation of this Conservation Plan. 

TRATEGY 1: Improve understanding of the biology of the Cook Inlet beluga whale and the 

factors 

e 

 bjective 3: Refine knowledge of Cook Inlet beluga whale habitat requirements and 

STRAT

STRAT

STRATEGY 4: Evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies and the success of the conservation 

actions

le 

A. Con

ned in a broad manner in an 

effort to fill in the “big picture” gaps. Once more specific information is available and 

our understanding of Cook Inlet belugas increases, the conservation actions can be 

revised to more specifically address individual threats. 

While conservation actions were placed under the objective that was deemed most 

appropriate or pertinent, specific actions within each objective may also fit under other 

ERVATION ACTIONS 

1990s the rapid, well-documented decrease in the population correlated with the 

bsistence harvest. Action has already been taken to reduce subsistence harvests to 

vels. Subsequent actions identified here are aimed at gathering good abundance da

rstanding of basic beluga life history and biology, identifying and protecting habitat, 

tanding, avoiding, and mitigating potential impacts to the whales. 

I.B. “Conservation Strategy”, NMFS identified four strategies aimed at restoring a

Cook Inlet beluga whales. NMFS has developed six objectives in an effort to 

agement strategy. Five objectives

si

S

limiting the population’s growth. 

Objective 1: Assess changes in the Cook Inlet beluga whale population size. 

Objective 2: Improve knowledge of Cook Inlet belugas to determine which factors ar

limiting recovery. 

O

describe their range, distribution, and migration. 

EGY 2: Stop direct losses to the population. 

Objective 4: Reduce direct injuries and mortalities. 

EGY 3: Protect valuable Cook Inlet beluga habitat. 

Objective 5: Protect valuable habitat. 

 in restoring the Cook Inlet beluga whale population. 

Objective 6: Implement and evaluate the effectiveness of the Cook Inlet beluga wha

Conservation Plan. 

servation Action Outline 

Given the limited information we have on the impacts of many of the threats to Cook 

Inlet beluga whales, as well as our incomplete knowledge of Cook Inlet belugas 

themselves, the conservation actions outlined below are desig

68 
objectives. For instance, ‘conduct annual abundance surveys’ is placed under Objective 1 

because we need to monitor the population’s abundance to determine if the population is 

Objective 2. Improve knowledge of Cook Inlet belugas to determine which factors are 

Beluga Life History 

 a. Assess impacts of predation by killer whales 

 d. Stu

• Asse

f. Compile disease, pathology and health index 

m and disease 

Assess contaminant loads in Cook Inlet belugas 

ontaminant levels 

• Characterize Diet 

k. Analyze fatty acids and stable isotopes in belugas 

e isotope signatures of prey species 

igration 

• Characterize Habitat 

b. Doc ution and movement 

c. Study dive behavior 

d. Determine baseline environmental conditions 

 and Prey Availability 

randings, and analyze stranding 

increasing, decreasing, or stable, but it could also have been placed under Objective 3

because these annual surveys will also contribute information to document beluga 

distribution and movements. ‘Study mating systems’ is logically placed under life history

(Objective 2), but it also is important in determining population trends (Objective 1), and

for characterizing beluga habitat (Objective 3). 

 Objective 1. Assess changes in the Cook Inlet beluga whale population size 

a. Continue annual abundance surveys 

b. Conduct population trends analyses 

 limiting recovery 

• Characterize Cook Inlet

 b. Estimate age, age of maturation, and indices of growth from teeth 

 c. Study female reproductive biology 

dy mating systems 

 e. Study genetics for stock identification, subdivision, and forensics 

ss Health of Cook Inlet Belugas 

g. Improve understanding of parasitis

h. 

i. Analyze polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon c

j. Analyze stomach contents 

 l. Determine fatty acid and stabl

 Objective 3. Refine knowledge of Cook Inlet beluga whale habitat requirements and 

 describe their range, distribution and m

a. Identify essential biological and physical features of important beluga habitats

ument beluga distrib

• Assess Prey Base

e. Determine temporal and spatial shifts of prey species 

 f. Compare historical vs. current distribution and abundance of prey species 

Objective 4. Reduce direct injuries and mortalities 

 a. Implement and enforce regulations for subsistence harvests 

 b. Enforce laws against poaching and illegal harassment 

 c. Update stranding response plan, respond to st

data 

 d. Improve research activities and develop less invasive technology 

 e. Reduce injuries from vessel traffic 

69 
 prey reduction 

e. Assess effects of commercial fishing: incidental take 

f. Assess effects of personal use, subsistence, and recreational fishing 

 t 

 astal development 

 i. Mitigate effects of noise 

 Objecti of the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale 

 and education program 

ve Sentinel Program 

B. Conservation 

The ob conservation strategy. They 

were w e s well as ways 

to ident reats belugas face. The individual research and 

manage a way as to provide guidance for research, but not 

to dicta d should be altered to fit 

ling, a new 

method for testing may evolve and have specific ramifications for Cook Inlet belugas. 

luga whale 

ecology the population, and resolve existing threats. While 

NMFS 

partiall ons listed in this Plan may be 

addressed not only by NMFS, but also by other entities. 

For eac ext five years (FY 2009-FY 2013) and 

assigne definitions: 

. 

2: Actions that must be taken to improve our knowledge of Cook Inlet beluga 

 conserve habitat quality. 

n of the species. 

stima

prioritizing conservation measures, although financial concerns will necessarily 

eterm nted now, 

y depend on future research or agreements. 

Objective 5. Protect valuable habitat 

• Assess Impacts of Potential Threats to Habitat 

a. Conduct baseline studies assessing coastal development 

b. Conduct acoustic studies 

c. Assess effects of the oil and gas industry 

d. Assess effects of commercial fishing: 

• Mitigate Effects of Anthropogenic Activities on Habitat 

g. Mitigate pollution entering Cook Inle

h. Mitigate habitat degradation from co

 j. Mitigate effects of oil and gas activities 

 

ve 6. Implement and evaluate the effectiveness

Conservation Plan 

 a. Establish a conservation coordinator position 

b. Develop and implement an outreach

c. Develop an Alaska Nati

Action Narrative 

jectives have been developed to support the described

ritt n to address gaps in our understanding of Cook Inlet belugas a

ify and mitigate the th

ment actions are written in such

te how the goals are accomplished. Each action can an

the best situation at the time. For instance, as we learn more about tissue samp

This Conservation Plan is intended to be adaptive, and study and management 

recommendations should change as we learn more about Cook Inlet be

, identify new threats to 

is actively implementing some of the recommended actions, some are only 

y funded whereas others are not funded at all. Acti

h action we included specific tasks for the n

d a priority level. Priorities were based upon the following

Priority 1: Actions that must be taken to prevent further declines of the population

Priority 

whales, to restore the population, and to

Priority 3: All other actions necessary to provide for full conservatio

E ted costs (see Table 5) and availability of funds were not considered when 

d ine which actions may be implemented. Some actions can be impleme

while others are long-term measures which ma

70 
1. Objective 1 – Assess changes in the Cook Inlet beluga whale population size. The 

is for designing appropriate management and 

rese elated to understanding or 

add s ecovery, but are 

nec n and ascertain the effectiveness of the 

con v e of monitoring the population size 

via s

a. 

ommission, and the 

ual abundance estimates to be the 

otal abundance of 

 estimated annually. This estimate should comprise 

 actual numbers of belugas counted 

l surveys (treated as the index count), counts adjusted for covariates, and 

unavailable to be counted during the surveys. In addition to aerial surveys, 

o-identify individual Cook Inlet 

stimates. 

 Inlet. 

Priority: 1 

ends analyses 

Trend analysis of abundance time series is necessary to determine whether the 

rovide 

ck and 

lugas to determine which 

factors are limiting recovery. Understanding basic Cook Inlet beluga life history 

tural 

y, h

subsistence nlet 

iol

their recovery. 

population abundance forms the bas

arch objectives. These activities are not directly r

res ing possible causes of the population’s decline or rate of r

essary to monitor the populatio

ser ation strategy and actions. The importanc

the e actions is realized by their priority one designation. 

 Continue annual abundance surveys 

The Alaska Scientific Review Group, the Marine Mammal C

Alaskan Native community all consider ann

highest research priority to monitor population status. The t

Cook Inlet belugas should be

minimum population sizes in the form of the

on aeria

abundance estimates obtained by correcting for the proportion of the population 

promising techniques are being developed to phot

beluga whales which may in the future contribute to population e

Actions: Estimate abundance of belugas in Cook

b. Conduct population tr

beluga population is increasing, stable, or decreasing. This trend information is 

fundamental to an understanding of population status, for management under the 

MMPA, and for management of the subsistence harvest. Results will p

estimates of beluga population growth rate, recovery time, impacts of various 

harvest policies, and other human activities. Population trends may indicate 

adjustments to research objectives are needed, and monitor the effectiveness of 

management measures to recover the Cook Inlet beluga stock to OSP. 

Actions: Estimate population trends for the Cook Inlet beluga whale sto

recovery time to OSP. 

 Priority: 1 

2. Objective 2 – Improve knowledge of Cook Inlet be

and biology are essential to assessing population health and growth. Population 

growth may be affected by abnormal age structure, abnormal gender ratio, na

mortalit igh stranding mortality, low fecundity, low calf survival, predation, 

disease, etc. Much of this data is gathered through necropsies of dead stranded or 

 harvested animals. By improving our basic knowledge of Cook I

beluga b ogy and ecology, we will be able to better define which factors are limiting

 

• Characterize Cook Inlet Beluga Life History

a. Assess impacts of predation by killer whales 

71 
Killer whale sightings in upper Cook Inlet have increased. If killer whale 

predation occurs at a rate equivalent or greater than beluga reproduction, it cou

prevent recovery or reduce the beluga population. Scientists suspect that belu

avoid killer whale attacks by retreating to shallow water. If shallow water hab

is an important refuge for beluga from predation then any development

disturbs shallow areas or channelizes flow, may increase the vulnerability of 

beluga to predation. The more time belugas remain in shall

ld 

gas 

itat 

 that 

ow waters the greater 

risk for strandings with the outgoing tide. Study of beluga and killer whale 

ok Inlet is necessary to quantify this 

b. 

rowth patterns and age of 

mbined with female reproductive analyses, the age at sexual maturity 

or first reproduction may be derived. Age and growth are important parameters 

 

c. 

 for 

re 

e 

ility. Ageion dynamics. Therefore, it is important to monitor these 

ct samples available from the subsistence harvested and 

stranded belugas. 

Actions: Estimate age-specific reproductive rates of female belugas in Cook Inlet 

ty in 

ess 

 success is impossible to determine from observation, particularly as 

mating frequency may not be a good index of the number of offspring an 

 modern molecular genetic tools, 

such as DNA fingerprinting, it is now possible to accurately measure male 

ng system of a population by 

behavior and their interactions in upper Co

impact. 

Actions: 1) Identify killer whales in upper Cook Inlet through photoidentification or genetic samples to determine if they are “transients” or 

“residents”. 2) Monitor killer whale use of Cook Inlet. 3) Identify the level of 

killer whale predation on Cook Inlet belugas. 4) Determine if belugas have 

options to escape killer whale predation. 5) Determine if predation avoidance 

habitat has changed. 

Priority: 1 

Estimate age, age of maturation, and indices of growth from teeth. 

Growth layer groups in teeth can be used to determine g

belugas. Co

for population dynamics modeling. 

Actions: Assess the growth patterns and age of belugas. 

Priority: 1 

Study female reproductive biology 

The age of maturation of mammals has been shown to depend upon conditions

growth; good conditions produce relatively larger and fatter animals that matu

earlier than those faced with poor conditions early in life. Trends in the mean ag

of maturation for a population may signify changes in resource availab

specific pregnancy rates are closely related to fecundity, a vital rate that is 

fundamental to populat

parameters and colle

including age of sexual maturation and pregnancy rates. 

Priority: 2 

d. Study mating systems

Little is known about the beluga mating system, primarily due to the difficul

observing mating in the wild and the limitations of using individual mating 

success in estimating reproductive success. Although female reproductive succ

can be measured directly in terms of calf production and survival, male 

reproductive

individual male has fathered. With the advent of

reproductive success and thus determine the mati

72 
estimating the variance in male reproductive success. Resolving the relatio

between reproductive success and mating frequency can also aid in the estimation 

of effective population size, an index of relevance to investigations of stock 

identity, and dispersal in this species. Furthermore, abundance of calves, the 

timing of the calving season, and neonate mortality can be critical to 

understanding reproductive success. 

Actions: 1) Determine the mating system of Cook Inlet belugas and relate 

findings to the analysis of stock structure of the species in Alaska. 2) Record

beluga calf occurrence to determine calving rate and the timing of calving in Co

Inlet. 3)

nship 

ok 

 Estimate neonate mortality. 

e. 

ees and the rapid analysis of variation in multiple markers is 

ollecting much needed information on beluga whale population 

dynamics, life history, ecology, and behavior. Through mark-recapture, DNA 

ct this 

t personnel by being able to determine if a 

 forensics). 

olve the evolutionary, demographic, and reproductive 

relationships between the Cook Inlet population and other beluga populations. 2) 

s of subdivisions within the Cook Inlet 

 size, 

•

Priority: 3 

Study genetics for stock identification, subdivision, and forensics 

Molecular genetic investigation will provide much needed understanding on 

population viability and individual fitness in these whales. The sampling and r

sampling of live whal

essential to c

fingerprinting efforts and associated genetic screening, we can reconstru

population’s history, resolve it’s relationships with other populations, and 

determine pedigrees and reproductive success through which we can determine 

the genetic basis to population trend and future viability. This information may 

also prove useful to law enforcemen

beluga was taken from Cook Inlet vs. another region (i.e.,

Actions: 1) Res

Investigate spatial and temporal pattern

beluga population. 3) Estimate historical population size from patterns of genetic 

diversity. 4) Collect and analyze tissue samples from a substantial portion of the 

population to: reconstruct pedigrees; screen for genetic components of 

quantitative and qualitative traits (e.g., disease resistance); and determine mating 

systems. 5) Conduct genetic mark-recapture studies to estimate population

population trend, and life history parameters. 

Priority: 3 

Assess Health of Cook Inlet Belugas

f. ase, pathology and health index 

The presence of disease (including parasites) in the Cook Inlet beluga whales 

impact on their survival and reproduction, and thus 

revalence 

esting 

Compile dise

could have a significant 

population status and recovery. Few published data are available on disease 

exposure and occurrence in belugas in general, with even less known about 

disease in Cook Inlet beluga whales. Although stranded animals are tested for 

some disease agents, a comprehensive study designed to determine the p

of disease in Cook Inlet beluga whales has not been completed. Techniques 

developed for other marine mammals to detect possible health trends in 

populations based on blood chemistry perturbations or changes in other 

observable parameters may be applicable to belugas but will require some t

and development before they would be useful. This information would also 

73 
provide baseline health parameters for comparison as the population reaches 

carrying capacity and for comparison to other beluga populations. 

Actions: 1) Determine baseline disease exposure for Cook Inlet beluga. 2) 

Develop protocols to collect a standardized health assessment using gross 

inspection, histology, urine, tissue, blood, blowhole swab, anal swab, 

or other appropriate methods. 3) Com

skin sample 

pare Cook Inlet belugas to other beluga 

g. m and disease 

n about disease in belugas of Cook Inlet. Due to the small 

population size and their close associations with other individuals, a disease 

n. The 

a 

h. 

n 

roduce 

t is 

 health. 

i. cyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contaminant levels 

Levels of PAH contamination in Cook Inlet beluga whales and their environment 

tion. PAH levels have not been measured 

in Cook Inlet, yet oil and gas exploration, development, and production has been 

luga tissue assessment is 

f 

 repopulations. 

Priority: 1 

 Improve understanding of parasitis

Little is know

outbreak has the potential to impact a large proportion of the populatio

presence of disease and parasites in the Cook Inlet beluga whales could have 

significant impact on their survival and reproduction, thus impacting population 

status and recovery. 

Actions: Understand the impacts of parasitism and disease on Cook Inlet 

belugas. 

Priority: 2 

Assess contaminant loads in Cook Inlet belugas 

The contamination of Cook Inlet belugas by persistent pesticides and heavy 

metals is of concern to the health of the population. Because belugas are high o

the food chain, the bioaccumulation of lipid soluble pesticides could p

adverse effects, as observed in other marine and terrestrial mammals. I

important to periodically monitor these levels, and continue to obtain tissue 

samples for archival and/or analysis. Contaminant analysis will be expanded as

new concerns arise and new protocols are developed. The continuation of a 

contaminant study for Cook Inlet belugas will provide the basis for further 

scientific exploration into the effects of various chemical compounds on

Actions: Determine current contaminant loads carried by Cook Inlet belugas. 

Priority: 2 

Analyze poly

are a concern to the health of the popula

operating in Cook Inlet since the 1950s. While be

important, understanding the sediment levels of PAH contamination is equally

critical. The approach of looking at body burdens in addition to looking at 

environmental levels in sediments gives a better picture of the potential risk o

exposure to belugas. PAH contaminants become available through sediment

suspension and also through tropic level accumulation in prey. 

Actions: Determine current PAH contaminant loads in Cook Inlet belugas and in 

nearby sediments. 

• PAH studies are being conducted in FY 2008.

Priority: 2 

74 
• Characterize Diet

j. 

spatial dietary prey composition. 

ine temporal and spatial dietary prey composition for belugas 

through analysis of stomach contents. 

k. 

in 

d 

mporal or spatial variation of foraging efforts and prey 

in the lipid profile of higher trophic level predators. An understanding of 

composition over time and space and in specific cohorts may 

contribute to an understanding of area-specific population declines. Stable isotope 

el of detail as the fatty acids, 

h 

is. 

l. 

 In 

e 

nt upon this information. 

Actions: Identify the unique signatures of each beluga prey species. 

3. Obj

des ludes 

whe

pro tion. 

Imp nd 

con

qua utes need to be 

mo

stock of beluga whales. Prey base cannot easily be measured or monitored. 

Ultima sical needs of Cook Inlet 

belugas and identify key areas for population recovery.

Analyze stomach contents 

Current and comprehensive diet data are lacking, and diet may be, or may 

become, a limiting factor if prey species are impacted. Examination of stomach 

contents yields information on recent dietary intake and will help to determine 

temporal and 

Actions: Determ

Priority: 2 

Analyze fatty acids and stable isotopes in belugas

Prey is digested differentially, and some diagnostic hard parts may be retained 

the stomach and thus over-represented in stomach contents. Also, stomach 

contents likely reflect only the contents of a recent meal from a particular area an

may not represent the te

consumption. Fatty acid signatures in prey species have been shown to be 

reflected 

shifts in diet 

analysis will not give prey preference at the same lev

but it is inexpensive and acts as a check that the total diet composition is 

reasonable. 

Actions: Determine prey composition in Cook Inlet beluga whale diets throug

analysis of blubber and blood fatty acid signatures and stable isotope analys

Priority: 3 

Determine fatty acid and stable isotope signatures of prey species 

Each prey species has a unique signature for fatty acids and stable isotopes.

order to successfully track which species belugas eat based on these signatures, 

we must first determine the signature produced by each. The validity of Objectiv

2k is depende

 Priority: 3 

ective 3 – Refine knowledge of Cook Inlet beluga habitat requirements and 

cribe their range, distribution and migration. Beluga habitat not only inc

re the animals go but also the resources they need to thrive. Identification and 

tection of important beluga habitat is a cornerstone to recovering this popula

ortant components of habitat include seasonal foraging areas, prey abundance a

centrations, calving and nursery areas, escape cover from killer whales, water 

lity, suitable acoustic environment, and transit areas. Many attrib

nitored to understand habitat changes and associated changes within the Cook Inlet

tely we need to identify key biological and phy

75 
• Characterize Habitat

nd physical features of important beluga 

o 

le. 

tat features to Cook Inlet belugas 

on 

abitat features are the most important to 

 in beluga recovery. 

ctions: 1) Describe and quantify habitat factors associated with beluga 

ions. 3) Collaborate with cob. 

f 

her than 

s already well documented through the annual abundance surveys. 

s 

ing data. 

Actions: 1) Document the distribution and movement patterns of Cook Inlet 

veys. 3) 

havior is variable as a function of age, gender, location, tidal height 

and direction, season, and individual. Quantified dive intervals, times at depth, 

frequency of dives, correlation of behavior among individuals, and variation over 

n 

e 

prey 

 natural causes. The effects 

of habitat change on Cook Inlet beluga whales are unknown, but it is possible that 

it has had significant effect on this stock, and may be an impediment to recovery 

a. Identify essential biological a

habitats 

Data on beluga habitat are collected in association with other studies, however, n

comprehensive set of habitat characteristics for the Cook Inlet beluga is availab

Information assessing the value of specific habi

will aid researchers and managers in evaluating the effects of particular actions 

belugas as well as determining which h

protect to aid

A

distribution and abundance. 2) Predict habitat limitat

management partners, ADFG, and other interested parties to develop a 

comprehensive Cook Inlet environmental database. 

Priority: 2 

Document beluga distribution and movement 

Knowledge of the spatial and temporal patterns of the Cook Inlet belugas will 

provide a better understanding of their ecology. Data on the winter habits o

belugas in Cook Inlet is especially limited. This knowledge is required to assess 

the extent of habitat utilized by and critical to these whales. Records of seasonal 

beluga distribution are needed to assess habitat requirements in months ot

June, which i

Results should describe the year-round general movement and habitat use pattern

of Cook Inlet belugas and may include a combination of aerial survey data with

satellite tagg

belugas throughout the year. 2) Conduct monthly habitat use aerial sur

Analyze and compile data from various sources to better define seasonal habitat

use. 

Priority: 2 

c. Study dive behavior 

Beluga dive be

temporal scales all have implications for habitat use studies and corrections of 

aerial counts of group size. 

Actions: 1) Quantify dive intervals and time spent at surface as a function of a

animal’s age, sex, location, season, and behavior. 2) Develop corrections for the 

beluga counts made during aerial surveys to estimate group sizes. 

Priority: 2 

d. Define baseline environmental conditions 

Cook Inlet is a very dynamic environment that continually changes. Thes

changes may impact belugas by changing their habitat, carrying capacity, or 

assemblages due to climate change, regime shifts, or

76 
(e.g., results in a change in available prey). 

Actions: 1) Analyze changes in habitat and fish assemblages in Cook Inlet. 2) 

ik 

again Arm, and the Susitna delta areas, and assess changes over time. 

• bility

Determine baseline values of bathymetry, especially in tidal flat areas in Kn

Arm, Turn

3) Document the changes in climate and oceanographic conditions over time. 4) 

Compare changes in beluga distribution and habitat use over time with changes in 

environmental conditions.

Priority: 3 

Assess Prey Base and Prey Availa

e. 

ractions 

orly understood. Much of 

se is available only seasonally and provides a critical component of 

the annual energy cycle, not only for belugas, but for the entire Cook Inlet region 

uman use and interactions with 

d in 

f. current distribution and abundance of prey species 

t 

l, 

ment; biological and ecological sampling projects; and other miscellaneous 

mparison of historic vs. current prey availability and distribution is 

necessary since a reduced prey base may be a factor limiting beluga recovery, 

y abundance was significantly greater than current levels. 

4. Obj

resp as a result of 

anthropogenic activities. The actions listed below seek to protect belugas from direct 

takes, lethal and non-lethal, as defined under the MMPA. 

a. 

Determine temporal and spatial shifts of prey species 

Cook Inlet beluga whales occur throughout the year in Cook Inlet. Inte

among the whales and the available forage base are po

the forage ba

ecosystem. To provide appropriate approaches to h

both game and nongame resources in Alaska, it is important to understand these

relationships. Prey samples collected during the project could also be include

a Cook Inlet beluga fatty acid analysis project (see Objectives 2k and 2l). 

Actions: Identify food availability for Cook Inlet belugas: 1) salmon run 

strengths and populations; 2) eulachon run strengths and populations; and 3) 

availability of other prey species. 

Priority: 2 

Compare historical vs. 

A comprehensive compilation of diet data for Cook Inlet belugas is lacking, bu

data is available in a variety of forms including fishery statistics from commercia

sport and subsistence harvests; surveys; weir counts; carcass surveys of salmon 

escape

studies. A co

especially if historic pre

Actions: Collaborate with ADFG to compile a comprehensive comparison of 

temporal and spatial distributions of current prey resources with historic 

distributions. 

Priority: 2 

ective 4 – Reduce direct injuries and mortalities. NMFS has management 

onsibility to ensure as few belugas as possible are injured or killed

Implement and enforce regulations for subsistence harvests 

The Cook Inlet beluga whale is hunted by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes

and for traditional handicrafts. In addition to being a food source, belugas 

represent a significant part of the cultural and spiritual basis of Native 

communities. The effect of past harvest practices on the Cook Inlet beluga whale

77 
population is significant. NMFS partnered with affected Native communities to 

ce 

d opportunity for traditional subsistence harvest while 

population to recover. 2) Work with Alaskan Natives to collect 

ientific data from the subsistence harvests. 

 

c. 

y to respond to stranding events to reduce stress and deaths of live 

stranded whales, to record numbers of stranded animals and associated 

and 

ead stranded whale necropsies; and to include strandings 

ok Inlet. 2) Respond to strandings of live and dead whales and 

collect appropriate data. 3) Document historic and current beluga strandings to 

determine possible patterns and improve understanding of beluga strandings 

. 

d. Improve research activities and develop less invasive technology 

uga whales 

S 

he range of 

develop a plan for a long term harvest regime, under the process administered by

the ALJ. In June 2008, NMFS released the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Subsisten

Harvest Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement presenting a set 

harvest plan.

Actions: 1) Implement harvest regulations of Cook Inlet beluga whales in a 

manner to provide continue

allowing the 

sc

Priority: 1 

b. Enforce laws against poaching and illegal harassment 

Given the potential for poaching or harassment of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, 

enforcement of State and Federal law is essential to the conservation and recovery

of Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

Actions: 1) Improve State and Federal collaborative enforcement efforts for 

upper Cook Inlet. 2) Educate public on legal prohibitions on take; provide 

signage at major access points to report illegal activity. 3) Work with ANO’s on 

tribal enforcement. 

Priority: 1 

Update the stranding response plan, respond to strandings, and analyze 

stranding data 

It is necessar

mortalities, and to acquire scientific data. Stranded animals present an 

opportunity to gather important life history, disease, parasite, and contaminant 

information. NMFS will continue to respond to beluga stranding events and 

expand upon present protocols as appropriate, including collecting samples for 

analysis of histology, contaminants, biotoxins, virology, immunology, 

bacteriology, age, life history, and genetics. Development of new techniques and 

improved protocols will enhance the success of the stranding response for live 

animals, as well as allow for the collection of more useful data from dead animals. 

Actions: 1) Revise and expand the Turnagain Arm Marine Mammal Stranding

Response Plan to identify new protocols for live beluga strandings; to exp

protocols for d

throughout Co

(causation; consequences; mitigation). 4) Develop a notification/distribution 

network with Alaska Natives to harvest edible portions from stranding mortalities

Priority: 2 

Because many important aspects of the biology of Cook Inlet bel

remain unknown or incompletely studied, and because management of this stock 

through recovery will require knowledge of annual abundance levels, NMF

anticipates continuing and expanding its research program throughout t

this stock. While some research has little to no impact on the whales, some 

78 
research activities may harass or harm beluga whales. NMFS supports the design

and use of less invasive technology that still provides valuable research data but 

with reduced impact to belugas. The handling of whales also raises concerns for 

the possibility of physical injury or transfer of disease from humans to beluga o

between belug

r 

as. 

ok 

k of 

velop sampling methods necessary 

ples from free swimming belugas. 

Priority: 2 

e. 

 that commercial shipping vessels, commercial 

r, due 

ote or coastal areas often used by belugas. 

Reduce disturbance or injury to Cook Inlet beluga whales due to 

vessel operations in Cook Inlet. 2) Monitor vessel traffic activity in important 

arding ways to navigate with less potential to harm whales. 4) 

eveloping 

5. Obj hale to its 

OS

Thu

belu

•

Actions: 1) Continue and expand the comprehensive research program for Co

Inlet beluga whales. 2) Identify and minimize harassment of beluga whales due to

research efforts. 3) Improve research techniques and equipment to reduce ris

injury or death to belugas and humans. 4) De

to collect sam

Reduce injuries from vessel traffic 

Most of Cook Inlet is navigable and used by various classes of water craft. At this 

time, NMFS has no indications

fishing vessels, or other large vessels are presenting significant concerns in 

regards to ship strikes. Small watercraft may be of greater concern, howeve

to their increased maneuverability, high speeds, and small size providing them the

ability to access rem

Actions: 1) 

beluga habitats, especially by small watercraft. 3) Educate local recreational 

boating groups reg

Minimize harassment, disturbance, and displacement of beluga whales from 

important habitat areas due to tourism or whale watching activities by d

whale watching guidelines specifically for belugas in upper Cook Inlet. 

Priority: 3 

ective 5 – Protect valuable habitat. Restoring the Cook Inlet beluga w

P also involves protection of habitat needed to support a population of 780 whales.

s, this section attempts to understand the impacts of anthropogenic activities on

ga habitat, and addresses mitigation efforts to protect valuable habitat. 

Assess Impacts of Potential Threats to Habitat

 Conduct baseline studies assessing coastal development 

Development of the coastline leads to direct loss of habitat due to landfills, dock

wharves, and the like. Indirect alteration of habitat may occur due to bridges,

traffic, in-water noise, and discharges that affect water quality. Baseline data a

required to determine the impacts of numerous planned and proposed 

a. 

s, 

 boat 

re 

 projects. Follow up studies are required to identify mitigation 

measures where development has impacted the beluga population. This action 

nsideration 

early 

development

proposes a proactive approach to collect the necessary data so that co

for impact on the beluga population can enter into the planning process at an 

stage. 

Actions: 1) Document and map the areal extent of development in the upper 

Inlet. 2) Identify harbor use in Knik Arm and collect baseline data on ship and 

boat activity. 3) Map and categorize where all point source discharges are 

79 
entering the upper Inlet. 4) Conduct a comprehensive study to analyze EPOC’s 

and cumulative effects of pollutants. 

• Studies associated with Port McKenzie, the Port of Anchorage, and KABATA 

have been initiated. 

Priority: 2 

b. 

e 

ic surveys, pile 

edging. Ensonification by vessel traffic or drilling, pile driving, or 

other activities may alter beluga movements or avoidance of areas important to 

c. 

rms 

s in 

ook 

This 

ction is primarily focused on oil spills as the other potential impacts 

listed here are covered under other action items. 

Actions: 1) Assess the risk of oil spills as related to chronic leaks, age of 

ction 

Commercial fisheries in Cook Inlet may adversely affect beluga whales through 

almon). These 

Cook 

e. effects of commercial fishing: incidental take 

f 

om 

Conduct acoustic studies 

In Cook Inlet, beluga whales must compete acoustically with natural and 

anthropogenic sounds. Sources of anthropogenic noise in Cook Inlet include larg

and small vessels, aircraft, oil and gas drilling, marine seism

driving, and dr

the life history of these whales. 

Actions: Assess the effects of vessel presence, oil development, coastal 

development, and other human activities on the acoustic environment of Cook 

Inlet beluga whales. 

Priority: 2 

Assess impacts of the oil and gas industry 

In Cook Inlet, oil was discovered in 1957. By 1967 most of the existing platfo

were in place and operational. Much of the infrastructure is over 40 years old, 

and many of the pipes are aging and corroded. There are currently 16 platform

upper Cook Inlet, 12 of which are still active. The other four are “shut in”, and 

while not active, have not been plugged or abandoned. Potential impacts to C

Inlet beluga whales associated with oil and gas include oil spills, pollution, ship 

traffic, seismic research, in-water noise, and physical habitat alteration. 

conservation a

pipelines and equipment in Cook Inlet. 2) Evaluate oil and gas lease sales in 

upper (State) and lower (Federal) Cook Inlet for their impact to Cook Inlet beluga 

whales and their habitat. 

 Priority: 2 

d. Assess effects of commercial fishing: prey redu

competition of preferred fish species (notably eulachon and s

highly fatty fish are an essential component of beluga diets, and studies have 

shown that belugas are more successful at capturing prey when prey are in dense 

concentrations. Therefore, any reductions in the amount of prey available may 

impact the energetics of these whales and delay recovery. 

Actions: Determine and minimize adverse effects of commercial fishing on 

Inlet beluga whales due to reduction of beluga prey. 

Priority: 2 

Assess 

State and Federally-permitted commercial fisheries have varying likelihoods o

interacting with beluga whales due to differences in gear type, species fished, 

timing, and location of the fisheries. Interactions with belugas can occur fr

80 
entanglements, injuries, or mortalities occurring incidental to fishing operations. 

Since Cook Inlet belugas are considered a strategic stock by the MMPA, the 

mortality and serious injury to a level below the potential biological removal 

Actions: 1) Determine the level of incidental take of belugas in commercial 

tal take of belugas to an insignificant level if 

f. 

hallow waters, ship strikes, displacement from 

 beluga 

ctivities, further research needs to be conducted to determine 

ishing is impacting beluga recovery by precluding access to and 

use of important habitats and prey resources. 

ce, or recreational fishing is 

•

commercial fisheries that interact with them are required to reduce the incidental 

level. 

fisheries. 2) Mitigate inciden

necessary. 

Priority: 3 

Assess effects of personal use, subsistence, and recreational fishing 

The most likely impacts from these fisheries include the operation of small 

watercraft in stream mouths and s

important feeding areas, and harassment. While NMFS is unaware of any

whales injured or killed in Cook Inlet from personal use, subsistence, or 

recreational fishing a

if this type of f

Actions: Determine if personal use, subsisten

detrimentally impacting the Cook Inlet beluga population. 

Priority: 3 

Mitigate Effects of Anthropogenic Activities on Habitat

 Mitigate pollution entering Cook Inlet 

Discharge of pollutants into Cook Inlet may impair water quality and adversel

affect beluga whales, which are often associated with nearshore waters adjacent to 

metropolitan areas. Evaluating pollutants and the

g. 

y 

ir sources is the focus of this 

gas is 

y of the Cook Inlet beluga whale. 2) Recommend 

charge in Cook Inlet beluga habitat that would be harmful to the 

whales or impair their recovery. 3) Encourage action to reduce non-point (runoff 

 the development of new 

 best 

h. 

compete with people for use 

abitats. Presently, there is insufficient data about the Cook Inlet 

belugas’ habitat requirements to fully assess the effects of coastal development, 

ve 

analysis, whereas monitoring and evaluating contaminant loads within belu

included under health assessment in Objective 2. 

Actions: 1) Work with EPA to ensure marine point-source discharges are 

consistent with the recover

against any dis

and storm drain) pollution into Cook Inlet. 4) Encourage

technologies for airport deicing agents that are chemical-free. 5) Encourage the 

Port of Anchorage to comply with ballast water requirements and to meet the

technologically feasible standards. 

Priority: 2 

Mitigate habitat degradation from coastal development

Belugas are not uniformly distributed throughout the Inlet, but are found 

predominantly in coastal waters. Here, belugas must 

of nearshore h

but development of Cook Inlet’s coastal regions may reduce the quality and 

quantity of habitat for Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

Actions: 1) Provide federal agencies with specific recommendations to conser

Cook Inlet belugas in regards to construction and operation of development 

81 
projects. 2) Work with developers to mitigate activities that reduce the quality of, 

or restrict belugas’ access to valuable habitat. 3) Protect Type 1 and 2 beluga

whale habitat from loss of habitat function. 4) Work towards conservation of 

beluga whale habitats throughout Cook Inlet. 5) Minimize disturbance to wh

from co

ales 

astal construction. 

i. ects of noise 

 are known to be among the most adept users of sound of all marine 

mammals. Man-made sounds may increase ambient noise levels in the water, 

unicate, 

r kill 

ctions to 

j. 

, explored, and/or 

ree decades. Potential impacts to Cook 

Inlet beluga whales associated with oil and gas include ship traffic, oil spills, 

itat alteration. In 

Type 1 habitat, beluga whales are concentrated in a relatively small area and are 

ncentrated in Type 2 and 3 habitats in 

. 

ales. 3) Work with industry to 

ent the 

6. Objective 6 - Implement and evaluate the effectiveness of the Cook Inlet Beluga 

tion Plan. These activities are not directly related to understanding 

or addressing possible causes of the population’s decline or rate of recovery, but are 

entation of the Plan 

and

a. 

tions interested in and affected 

Priority: 2 

Mitigate eff

Beluga whales

which could reduce the ability of Cook Inlet beluga whales to feed, comm

and navigate. Furthermore, high levels of noise have the potential to harm o

belugas. 

Actions: 1) Evaluate the impacts of activities that create noises with the potential 

to cause significant injury to or mortality of beluga whales. 2) Mitigate a

minimize or reduce disturbance and harassment to whales due to noise. 

Priority: 2 

Mitigate effects of oil and gas activities 

Both State and Federal lands of Cook Inlet have been leased

developed for oil and gas over the last th

pollution, seismic research, in-water noise, and physical hab

vulnerable to impacts. Belugas are less co

the summer, but are still susceptible to harassment and disturbance from oil and 

gas activities. 

Actions: 1) Minimize oil and gas activities within Type 1 beluga whale habitat

2) Work with industry to minimize oil and gas activities within Type 2 and 3 

habitats that harass or injure Cook Inlet beluga wh

minimize oil spills within all beluga whale habitats. 4) Update and implem

Cook Inlet Oil Spill Response Plan and the Wildlife Protections Guidelines to

reduce potential injuries and mortalities of belugas resulting from oil spills and 

spill response actions. 

Priority: 2 

Whale Conserva

necessary for addressing administrative matters related to implem

 for informing the public. 

Establish a conservation coordinator position 

Opportunities exist to cooperatively work with other agencies, the State, Native 

organizations, local agencies, industry, and universities to implement the 

Conservation Plan. Working jointly with organiza

by beluga research promotes the highest quality results. Collaboration among 

Tribes, academic institutions, Federal agencies, international research 

82 
organizations, and environmental groups promotes efficient use of resources and 

expertise as well as utilizing cutting-edge research techniques and information

exchange. Collaboration also promotes local capacity-building based on a clea

understanding of real needs for supporting effective research aimed at answering 

critical management issues Conservation Plan Coordinator could actively 

r 

. A

 Conservation Plan and update it as needed, and could coordinate 

Federal, State, university, industry and other studies and disseminate information. 

plementing and evaluating the effectiveness 

anagement agreements for subsistence harvest have been implemented. 

b. 

o successfully implementing management actions based on solid 

scientific evidence is to coordinate the education and outreach of public and 

 by management actions. 

e 

 

 the public on Cook Inlet beluga whale issues. 

c. 

bservations of the ecosystem dealing with many different 

d environmental issues and would be a central system that is locally 

implemented. The value of this program is its integration of observations and 

insights based on practices of indigenous cultures, with science based recording of 

he islands, while identifying environmental anomalies. 

Actions: Utilize local Native observations of biological events as a tool for 

implement the

Actions: 1) Provide oversight in im

of the conservation strategy and actions. 2) Update the Conservation Plan based 

on the effectiveness of the conservation strategy and actions. 3) Develop 

mechanisms for cooperative research and conservation efforts. 4) Promote joint 

research and collaborative programs with tribes, other agencies, and countries. 

• Co-m

Priority: 3 

Develop and implement an outreach and education program 

A key aspect t

various groups that are going to be affected

Effective education programs foster public support regarding the integrated 

science-based program being implemented as a result of this Plan and the 

management actions that are implemented to promote Cook Inlet beluga whal

recovery. Communicating the results of research is important, but conveying 

them in a manner appropriate to the particular audience is the key aspect of 

educational programs for various groups. Such programs can be implemented 

through the co-management process with the Tribal governments when feasible. 

Actions: Educate

 Priority: 3 

Develop an Alaska Native Sentinel Program 

The program would engage the local residents as sentinels promoting the 

importance of stewardship and responsibility for understanding of Cook Inlet 

ecology in a holistic fashion. The Program would act as a repository for a 

significant number of o

but interrelate

those observations. Standardization of data collection to support comparisons 

among areas and different times of years is a key element of the program. The 

Island Sentinel Program of the Pribilof Islands could be used as a model for Cook

Inlet. It provides year-round observations of marine mammal abundance and 

distribution on and around t

ecological monitoring. 

Priority: 3 

83 
84 

C. Cost Imple

The cost im

conservation program

FY 2013), as set forth in this Conservati

conserva

descrip

schedu

whale population will be restored to OSP

conserva

likely be continued beyond the five

only oc

long-te a

inform er, if we obtain significant new data that alters our understanding of 

Coo Inlet belugas or the threats impacting them before the five year mark, we may 

adju tion. 

mentation Schedule 

plementation schedule (Table 5) outlines actions and estimated costs for the 

 for Cook Inlet beluga whales over the next five years (FY 2009 – 

on Plan. It is a guide for meeting the 

tion goals and criteria outlined in this Plan. This schedule includes action 

tions, action priorities, duration of actions, and estimated costs. The fact that this 

le only covers the next five years in no way implies that the Cook Inlet beluga 

 within five years, but rather that the plan and 

tion activities should be reassessed at that time. Many of the listed activities will 

 year scope of this schedule, even if they are listed as 

curring once in five years (e.g., studying environmental changes obviously is a 

rm ctivity, but only needs to be completed once every five years to provide useful 

ation). Howev

k

st these actions and timeline to make use of the best available informa
Table 5: Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Cost Implementation Schedule for FY 2009 – FY 2013. Costs are estimated in th

increased 5% each year. Duration refers to how many times the action should occur in five years (2/5 means twice in 

ESTIMA

CONSERVATION ACTION PRIORITY DURATION FY09 FY10 

1. Assess changes in the Cook Inlet beluga whale population size 

a. Continue annual abundance surveys 1 5/5 140 147 b. Conduct population trends analyses 1 5/5 12 13 

2. Improve knowledge of Cook Inlet belugas to determine which factors are limiting recove

• Characterize Cook Inlet beluga life historya. Assess impacts of predation by killer whales 1 2/5 100 b. Estimate age, age of maturation, and indices of growth from teeth 2 1/5 c. Study female reproductive biology 2 2/5 10 d. Study mating systems 3 1/5 e. Study genetics for stock identification, subdivision, and forensics 3 2/5 50 • Assess health of Cook Inlet belugasf. Compile disease, pathology, and health index 2 5/5 45 47 g. Improve understanding of parasitism and disease 2 1/5 h. Assess contaminant loads in Cook Inlet belugas 2 5/5 10 11 

 35◊ i. Analyze polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon contaminant levels 2 2/5 

• Characterize diet j. Analyze stomach contents 2 5/5 13 14 k. Analyze fatty acids and stable isotopes in belugas 2 2/5 l. Determine fatty acid and stable isotope signatures of prey species 3 2/5 

3. Refine knowledge of Cook Inlet beluga whale habitat requirements and describe their range, distributio

• Characterize habitata. Identify essential biological and physical features of important beluga  habitats 2 3/5 83 86 b. Document beluga distribution and movements 2 5/5 70 74 c. Study dive behavior 2 2/5 40 d. Determine baseline environmental conditions 3 1/5 • Assess prey base and prey availabilitye. Determine temporal and spatial shifts of prey species 2 3/5 90 f. Compare historical vs. current distribution and abundance of prey  species 2 1/5 

85 
86 

Table 5 continued. 

ESTIMA

CONSERVATION ACTION PRIORITY DURATION FY09 FY10 

4. Reduce direct injuries and mortalities

a. Implement and enforce regulations for subsistence harvest 1 5/5 5 5 b. Enforce laws against poaching and illegal harassment 1 5/5 200 210 c. Update stranding response plan, respond to strandings, analyze data 2 As n ed* eed 123◘ 66 d. Improve research activities and develop less invasive technology 3 2/5 e. Reduce injuries from vessel traffic 3 3/5 32 

5. Protect valuable habitat 

• Assess impacts of potential threat on habitat

a. Conduct baseline studies assessing coastal development 2 1/5 b. Conduct acoustic studies 2 2/5 200 c. Assess effects of the oil and gas industry 2 As n ed* eed 200 d. Assess effects of commercial fishing: prey reduction 2 5/5 5 5 e. Assess effects of commercial fishing: incidental take 3 5/5 1 1 f. Assess effects of personal use, subsistence, and recreational fishing 3 5/5 5 5 • Mitigate effects of anthropogenic activities on habitat g. Mitigate pollution entering Cook Inlet 2 As n ed* eed h. Mitigate habitat degradation from coastal development 2 5/5 100 105 i. Mitigate effects of noise 2 As needed* 9 9 j. Mitigate effects of oil and gas activities 2 As n ed* eed 9 9 

6. Implement and evaluate the effectiveness of the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Conservation Pl

a. Establish a conservation coordinator 3 5/5 100 105 b. Develop and implement an outreach and education program 3 5/5 10 11 c. Develop an Alaska Native Sentinel Program 3 5/5 50 53 

TOTAL (K) 1417 1306 

* actual costs and actions necessary cannot be estimated at this time and will be determi n an as ne case by ned o eded, case basis 

P FY09 represents the remaining estimated co y P ponse plan will be finalized in F ◊ a 2-year PAH study was commenced in FY08; $35 K in ◘ cause the updated stranding res sts to complete that stud FY09 funds are higher be Y09
IV. C CLUS

At minimum, it will require decades to restore the Cook Inlet beluga whale population to OSP. 

During the early phases of this pl s exis ar undance from 

which we may not be able to prevent further declines. We will be challenged by our imperfect 

un ding of the reasons for stock’s decline and, consequently, by our uncertainty about 

which measures are most necessary for it’s rebuilding. Recovery may be delayed or prevented 

by actions whic whales dire (such as ship strikes, predation by killer whales, or 

strandings) or indirectly by affecting their habitat (reductions in prey species, oil spills, coastal 

development). Some of these concerns likely have a more pronounced effect on the Cook Inlet 

beluga whales than others, and som v “f do to prevent 

killer whales from ple, or preven gas f anding. 

NMF s ta educe th a seen as the 

larges gle im ent to recovery. e impact of o r issue ront ook Inlet 

beluga whale - and the efficacy of this Plan - may not become known until we have conducted 

more arch and nitoring over the coming years. Until then, this Plan to identify 

and prioritize actions necessary to beg e recover o ecogniz e list of 

action ete, a o e ecology 

and biology of these whales. However is Plan is b v propri r current state 

of knowledge and the abundance level of this stock, s bining 

mana e nd applied re ch for many different issues, and ptive through subsequent 

revisions and updates. ctiv nt.

ON ION 

an,

this 

 the tock will t at a prec ious level of ab

derstan

h affect the ctly

e ha e no easy ix.” 

to 

There is l

t be

ga

s c

e r

 un

e ap

ive in nature by com

ada

ittl

lu

e we can 

 preying on belugas, for exam rom str

 b

th

m

at

 of

to

 

S ha

t sin

ken a

pe

cti

dim

on to r e subs

 Th

istence h rvest 

the

of belu s, w

onf

hich had

ing 

een

e C

pts

 th

 th

 ou

 rese

s is

 mo

 in

atte

e th

ing

ate

in th

r p

, th

y pr

wl

elie

compr

cess

e a

ed 

eh

. W

nd

to b

en

pro

nt a

bably compl s is ou resent kn edg derstand

gem sear

The effe eness of this Plan awaits future assessme

87 
V. LITERATURE CITED 

. 

, 

, 2007. U.S. 

Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-180. 252 p. 

Angliss, R. P., and R. B. Outlaw. 2005. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2005. U.S. 

Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSAFSC-161, 250 p. 

Armstrong, T. 1985. White whales trapped in sea ice. Polar Rec. 22: 552. 

Au, W. 1993. The Sonar of Dolphins. Springer Verlag, New York, NY. 

Batten, S.D. 2007. Acquisition and application of continuous plankton recorder data. Exxon 

Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Annual Project Report, Project 070624. 4pp. 

Batten, S.D. and D.L. Mackas. 2007. A continuous plankton recorder survey of the North 

Pacific and southern Bering Sea. North Pacific Research Board Final Report 601. 21 pp. 

Becker, P.R., M.M. Krahn, E.A. Mackey, R. Demiralp, M.M. Schantz, M.S. Epstein, M.K. 

Donais, B.J. Porter, D.C.G. Muir, and S.A. Wise. 2000. Concentrations of 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB’s), chlorinated pesticides, and heavy metals and other 

elements in tissues of beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas, from Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

Marine Fisheries Review, Vol. 62, No. 3. 

Béland, P., S. De Guise, and R. Plante. 1992. Toxicologie et pathologie des mammiferes marins 

du Saint-Laurent. INELS, Montreal, Qc for the Fond Mondial pour la Nature (Canada), 

Toronto. NTIS (cited in Lesage and Kingsley 1998). 

Blackwell, S.B. and C.R. Greene, Jr. 2002. Acoustic measurements in Cook Inlet, Alaska, 

Abookire, A. A., and J. F. Piatt. 2005. Oceanographic conditions structure forage fishes into 

lipid-rich and lipid-poor communities in lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog

Ser. 287:229-240. 

ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2004. Fish Distribution Database – Interactive 

Mapping. <www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/sarr/FishDistrib/FDD_ims.cfm>. Accessed October

2006. 

Allen, K., and T. Smith. 1978. A note on the relation between pregnancy rate, age at maturity

and adult and juvenile mortality rates. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 28: 477-478. 

Anderson, R. M., and R. M. May. 1992. Infectious diseases of humans. Dynamics and control. 

Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY. 

Angliss, R.P., D.P. DeMaster, and A.L. Lopez. 2001. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments

2001. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-124, 203 p. 

Angliss, R.P., and K.L. Lodge. 2002. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2002. U.S. 

Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-133. 224p. 

Angliss, R. P., and K. L. Lodge. 2007. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments

88 
during 2001. Report from Greeneridge Sciences, Inc., Aptos, CA, for NMFS, Anchorage, 

AK. 

Braham

s, and irrawaddy dolphin, Orcaella brevirostris, with comments on 

stockassessment. Rep. Int. Whal. Spec. Issue 6:81-89. 

Brannia

ska Board of Fisheries, 1996. ADFG, Div. Commercial Fish. Manag. Develop., 

Regional Information Rep. 2S96-03, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Bratton d potential 

effects of contaminants, in The Bowhead Whale. J.J. Burns, and C.J. Montague, Eds. 

Breton- luga whale population in the Poste-de-la-Baleine 

region. Unpubl. Doc. SC/32/SM16, Int. Whal. Comm. Sci. Comm. 

Brodie on. Nature 

221:956-8. 

Brodie and behavior of the 

white whale (Delphinapterus leucas), with reference to the Cumberland Sound, Baffin 

rodie PF. 1982. The beluga (Delphinapterus leucas): Growth at age based on a captive 

uga whales, 

Delphinapterus leucas, and effectiveness of tetracycline as a marker for age 

the beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas. Can Bull Fish Aquat Sci 224:141-8. 

Brodie,

(Delphinapterus leucas) in Cumberland Sound, Baffin Island. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm 31: 

urek, Kathy, D.V.M. 1999a. Biopsy report of beluga whale: Case No. 98V0581. NMFS, 

Burek, 

urek, Kathy, D.V.M. 1999c. Biopsy report of beluga whale: Case No. 99V0269. NMFS, 

Burns, a whales in coastal waters of 

western and northern Alaska. II. Biology and ecology. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA, 

, H.W. 1984. Review of reproduction in the white whale, delphinapterus leucas, narwhal, 

Monodon monocero

n, L. and J. Fox. 1996. Upper Cook Inlet subsistence and personal use fisheries report to

the Ala

, G.R., C.B. Spainhour, W. Flory, M. Reed, and K. Jayko. 1993. Presence an

Provencher, M. 1981. Survey of the be

PF. 1969. Mandibular layering in Delphinapterus leucas and age determinati

PF. 1971. A reconsideration of aspects of growth, reproduction, 

Island, population. J Fish Res Bd Can 28:1309-18. 

B

specimen and a discussion of factors affecting natural mortality estimates. Rep Int Whal 

Commn 32:445-7. 

Brodie PJ, Geraci JR, St. Aubin DJ. 1990. Dynamics of tooth growth in bel

determination. In: Smith TG. St. Aubin DJ, Geraci JR, editors. Advances in research on 

 P. F., J. L. Parsons, and D. E. Sergeant. 1981. Present status of the white whale

579-582. 

B

Anchorage, Alaska. 3p. 

Kathy, D.V.M. 1999b. Biopsy report of beluga whale: Case No. 98V0579. NMFS, 

Anchorage, Alaska. 2p. 

B

Anchorage, Alaska. 2p. 

J.J., and G.A. Seaman. 1986. Investigations of belukh

OCSEAP Final Rep. 56(1988): 221-357. 

89 
Calkins ect phase II annual report: big game studies. Vol. 

IX, belukha whale. ADFG, Anchorage, Alaska. 15p. 

Calkins G 

SDOC, NOAA, OCSEAP, p. 

109-112. 

CH2M

Facility and Cook Inlet water quality. Prepared for NMFS, Alaska Region, Protected 

H2M HILL. 1997. Operable Unit C: Final Remedial Investigation Report, Fort Richardson 

lausen, D.M 1981. Summer food of Pacific cod, Gadus macrocephalus, in coastal waters of 

Cohen, . FAO species catalogue. Vol. 10. 

Gadiform fishes of the world (Order Gadiformes). An annotated and illustrated catalogue 

ollins, C.M., M.R.Walsh and C.H., Racine .2002. Operable Unit C (Eagle River Flats) 

ardson, 

e of 

hale 

om July 1 through November 15, 1995. NMFS, Anchorage, 

Alaska. 3p. 

[CIMMC] Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council. 1997. Native harvest and use of beluga whale 

in Cook Inlet from April throughout November 1996. NMFS, Anchorage, Alaska. 5p. 

Cornick, L., and L. Kendall. 2008. Distribution, habitat use, and behavior of Cook Inlet beluga 

whales in Knik Arm, fall 2007. Final Annual Report for 2007 prepared for Integrated 

Dahlhe ment of injuries to Prince William Sound killer 

, D.G. 1983. Susitna hydroelectric proj

, D.G. 1984. Susitna hydroelectric project final report: volume IX, beluga whale. ADF

Document No. 2328. 17p. 

Calkins, D.G. 1989. Status of belukha whales in Cook Inlet. In: Gulf of Alaska, Cook Inlet, and 

North Aleutian Basin information update meeting. L.E. Jarvela and L.K. Thorsteinson 

(Eds). Anchorage, Ak., Feb. 7-8, 1989. Anchorage, Ak.: U

 HILL. 2006. Performance summary of Anchorage’s Asplund Water Pollution Control

Resources Division. 

C

Alaska. Prepared for U.S. Army Alaska by CH2M HILL Anchorage, Alaska. 

C

Southeastern Alaska. Fish. Bull., U.S. 78:968-973. 

 D. M., T. Inada, T. Iwamoto, and N. Scialabba. 1990

of cods, hakes, grenadiers and other gadiform fishes known to date. FAO Fisheries

Synopsis 10 (125):1-442. 

C

Remediation Progress Report Through 2001. In Remediating and Monitoring White 

Phosphorus Contamination at Eagle River Flats (Operable Unit C), Fort Rich

Alaska. CRREL contract report to U.S. Army, Alaska, Directorate of Public Works. FY 01

Report, p. 9-24. 

Consiglieri, L.D., and H.W. Braham. 1982. Seasonal distribution and relative abundanc

marine mammals in the Gulf of Alaska. Research Unit 68. NOAA, OCSEAP, Juneau. 

212p. 

[CIMMC] Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council. 1996. Native harvest and use of beluga w

in the upper Cook Inlet fr

 Concepts and Research Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska. 29p. 

im, M.E., and C.O. Matkin. 1994. Assess

90 
whales. In: Marine mammals and the Exxon Valdez. T.R. Loughlin (Ed). Academic 

aszak, P., A. A. Cunningham, and A. D. Hyatt. 2000. Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife – 

avis, R. A., and C. R. Evans. 1982. Offshore distribution and numbers of white whales in the 

avis, R. A., and K. J. Finley. 1979. Distribution, migrations, abundance and stock identity of 

 

de Cast 2005. Mechanisms of disease-induced extinction. Ecol. Lett. 8:117-

126.

Degolla nd 

involvement of Nasitrema species in odontocete strandings in the Canary Islands. Vet. 

eMaster, D. P. 1995. Minutes from the third meeting of the Alaska Scientific Review Group, 

FO] Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada and World Wildlife Fund, Canada. 1995. 

ry 

Eschme

oughton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.

ay 

ay, J.A., D.J. Foster, and R.T. Stanek. 1984. The use of fish and wildlife resources in Tyonek, 

Finley, itat of the beluga or white whale, Delphinapterus leucas. 

Cetus 4: 4-5. 

Finley, 

Delphinapterus leucas, and narwhals, Monodon monoceros, to ice-breaking ships in the 

tion and relative 

abundance of marine mammals in the Gulf of Alaska. Process report, marine mammal 

Press. 395p. 

D

 threats to biodiversity and human health. Science 287:443-449.

D

eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf, summer 1981. Report for SOHIO Alaska 

Petroleum Co., Anchorage, and Dome Petroleum Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, by LGL Ltd. 

76p. 

D

eastern Arctic white whales. Unpubl.Doc. SC/31/SM10, Int. Whal. Comm. Sci. Comm.

ro, F., and B. Bolker. 

da, E., M. André, M. Arbelo, and A. Fernández. 2002. Incidence, pathology a

 Rec. 150:81-82.

D

16-17 February 1995, Anchorage, Alaska. 21 pp. + appendices. (available upon request -

D. P. DeMaster, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, Seattle, 

WA 98115). 

[D

Saint Lawrence beluga whale recovery plan. Saint Lawrence beluga whale recove

team. 73p. 

yer, W. N., E. S. Herald, and H. Hammann. 1983. A field guide to Pacific coast fishes of 

North America. H

Fay, R.R. 1988. Hearing in vertebrates: a psychophysics databook. Winnetka, Illinois: Hill-F

Associates. 

F

Alaska. ADFG, Div. Subsistence, Anchorage, Tech. Rep. Ser. 105. 219p. 

K.J. 1982. The estuarine hab

K.J., G.W. Miller, R.A. Davis, and C.R. Greene. 1990. Reactions of belugas, 

Canadian high Arctic. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 224: 97-117. 

Fiscus, C.H., H.W. Brahan, and R.W. Mercer. 1976. Seasonal distribu

division, NMFS, Seattle. 238p. 

91 
Fried, S s 

tion upon sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) smolts in Nushagak Bay 

and associated rivers: 1979 aerial reconnaissance surveys. Project 11-41-6-340. Alaska 

rost, K.J., L.F. Lowry, and R.R. Nelson. 1983. Investigations of belukha whales in coastal 

Frost, K.J., Lowry, L.F., and Nelson, R.R. 1985. Radiotagging studies of belukha whales 

(Delphinapterus leucas) in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Marine Mammal Science 1:191-202. 

Funk, D

habitat use in Knik Arm, Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska. Rep. from LGL Alaska Research 

e and Toll Authority, Anchorage, AK. 65 p. + appendices. 

ntial 

es. Biol. Cons. 117, 253-262. 

oetz, K. T., D. J. Rugh, A. J. Read, and R. C. Hobbs. In press. Habitat use in a marine 

Goren AD, Brodie PF, Spotte S, Ray GC, Kaufman WH, Gwinnett AJ, Sciubba JJ, Buck JD. 

1987. Growth layer groups (GLGs) in the teeth of an adult belukha whale 

ability of a killer whale social network to disease outbreaks. Physical 

Review E 76: 042901. 

Haley, . 

us leucas) in winter. Final Report. OCS Study. MMS 99-0024. U.S. Dep. 

Int., Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, AK. 30p. 

Harriso

. D. 

ce 

. M., J. J. Laner, and S. C. Weston. 1979. Investigation of white whale (Delphinapteru

leucas) preda

Department of Fish and Game, Dillingham, Alaska. 15p. 

F

waters of western and northern Alaska, 1982-1983: marking and tracking of whales in 

Bristol Bay. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA, OCSEAP Final Rep. 43(1986):461-585. 

.W., R.J. Rodrigues, and M.T. Williams (eds.) 2005. Baseline studies of beluga whale 

Associates, Inc., Anchorage, AK, for HDR Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK, and Knik Arm 

Bridg

Gaydos, J. K., K.C. Balcomb, III, R.W. Osborne, and L. Dierauf. 2003. Evaluating pote

infectious disease threats for southern resident killer whales, Orcinus orca: a model for 

endangered speci

Geraci, J.R. 1990. Physiologic and toxic effects on cetaceans. p. 167-192. In: Sea mammals 

and oil: confronting the risks J.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin, Editors. First ed., Academic 

Press, Inc. San Diego, California: 239 p. 

G

ecosystem: beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 

(Delphinapterus leucas) of known age: evidence for two annual layers. Marine Mammal 

Science 3:14-21. 

Guimaraes, P.R., Jr., M.A. de Menezes, R.W. Baird, D. Lusseau, P. Guimaraes, S.F. dos Reis. 

2007. Vulner

D. 1986. Marine Mammals. Second edition. Seattle: Pacific Search Press

Hansen, D.J. and J.D. Hubbard. 1999. Distribution of Cook Inlet beluga whales 

(Delphinapter

n, C.S. and Hall, J.D. 1978. Alaskan distribution of the beluga whale, Delphinapterus 

leucas. Canadian Field-Naturalist 92:235-241. 

Harvell, C. D., C. E. Mitchell, J. R. Ward, S. Altizer, A. P. Dobson, R. S. Ostfield, and M

Samuel. 2002. Climate warming and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota. Scien

296:2158–2162. 

92 
Harvey, J.T. and M.E. Dahlheim. 1994. Cetaceans in oil. Marine mammals and the Exxon 

Valdez. 1st ed. Ed. Thomas R. Loughlin. San Diego: API, 257-264. 

Hazard, K. 1988. Beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas. In: Selected marine mammals of 

Alaska: species accounts with research and management recommendations. J.W. Lentfer, 

Heide-J f 

white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) from Greenland. Meddr Gronland, Biosci 39:187-

eide-Jørgensen MP, P. Richard, M. Ramsay, S. ‘Akeeagok. 2002. Three recent ice entrapments 

O 

Herman

obbs, R. C., K. E. W. Shelden, D. J. Rugh, and S. A. Norman. 2008. 2008 status review and 

15. 

 and 

sed 

Rep. 2006-16, 74 p. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Hobbs,

gas, Delphinapterus leucas, in a Sub-Arctic Alaskan Estuary. Arctic, 

Vol 58, No. 4, 331-340. 

Hohn A

 of deposition rates. Int Whal Commn, Scientific Committee. 

Document SC/51/SM4. 12 p + figures. 

oward, E.B., J.O. Britt, G.K. Marsumoto, R. Itahara, and C.N. Nagano. 1983. Bacterial 

seases, Vol. 1. 

untington, H.P. 2000. Traditional knowledge of the ecology of beluga whale, Delphinapterus 

atona, S.K., V. Rough, and D.T. Richardson. 1983. A field guide to the whales, porpoises and 

Kenned dt, M. M. McAliskey, S. A. McConnell, and S. J. McCullough. 1992. 

ed. Mar. Mammal Comm., Washington, D.C. 

ørgensen MP, Jensen J, Larsen AH, Teilmann J, Neurohr B. 1994. Age estimation o

193. Copenhagen 1994-04-02. 

H

of Arctic cetaceans in West Greenland and the eastern Canadian High Arctic. NAMMC

Sci. Publ. 4: 143-148. 

, L. 1980. Cetacean behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Hobbs, R.C., D. J. Rugh, and D. P. DeMaster. 2000. Abundance of belugas, Delphinapterus 

leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, 1994-2000. Mar. Fish. Rev. 62(3):37-45. 

H

 extinction risk assessment of Cook Inlet belugas (Delphinapterus leucas). AFSC 

Processed Rep. 2008-02, 116 p. Alaska Fish. Sci. Cent., NOAA, Natl. Mar, Fish. Serv., 

7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle WA 981

Hobbs, R.C., K.E.W. Shelden, D.J. Vos, K.T. Goetz, and D.J. Rugh. 2006. Status review

extinction assessment of Cook Inlet belugas (Delphinapterus leucas). AFSC Proces

NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle WA 98115. 

 R.C., K.L. Laidre, D.J. Vos, B.A. Mahoney, and M. Eagleton. 2005. Movements and 

Area Use by Belu

A, Lockyer C. 1999. Growth layer patterns in teeth from two known-history beluga

whales: reconsideration

H

Diseases. p. 70-118 in: E.B. Howard (ed.) Pathology of marine mammal di

CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 238p. 

H

leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Marine Fisheries Review, Vol. 62, No. 3. 

K

seals of the Gulf of Maine and eastern Canada. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 

y, S., I. J. Lindste

93 
 Herpesviral encephalitis in a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). J. Zoo Wildl. Me

23:374-379.

d. 

linkhart, E.G. 1966. The beluga whale in Alaska. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game. Fed. Aid in 

Lacy, R variation to the viability of mammalian populations. 

Journal of Mammalogy 78:320-335. 

Laidre,

fort in the Gulf of Alaska. Marine 

Fisheries Review, Vol. 62, No. 3. 

esage, V., and M. C. S. Kingsley. 1998. Updated status of the St Lawrence River population of 

GL and Greeneridge, 1986. Reactions of beluga whales and narwhals to ship traffic and ice37. 

ey, and R.J. Haebler. 1994. Pathology of 

sea otters. Marine Mammals and the Exxon Valdez. 1st ed. Ed. Thomas R. Loughlin San 

Litzky,

er 2000, pp. 13-19 In: Anita L. 

Lopez and Robyn P. Angliss, editors, Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered 

. 

Litzow, M. A., K. M. Bailey, F. G. Prahl, and R. Heintz. 2006. Climate regime shifts and 

reorganization of fish communities: the essential fatty acid limitation hypothesis. Mar. 

Lockye -Jørgensen, R. Suydam. 2007. Age 

determination in belugas (Delphinapterus leucas): a quest for validation of dentinal 

Loughl vels and the number of cetaceans found dead after 

the spill." Marine mammals and the Exxon Valdez. 1st ed. Ed. Thomas R. Loughlin San 

owry, L.F. 1985. The belukha whale (Delphinapterus leucas) Pp. 3-13 in J.J. Burns, K.J. Frost, 

owry, L., O’Corry-Crowe, G., and Goodman, D. In press (2006). Delphinapterus leucas (Cook 

Khuzin, R. S. 1961. The procedure used in age determination and materials relating to 

reproduction of the beluga. Nauchno-Tekh. Byull. TINRO 1(15): 58-60. 

K

Wildlife Restoration Proj. Rep. Vol. VII. 11p. 

.C. 1997. Importance of genetic

 K.L., K.E.W. Shelden, B.A. Mahoney, and D.J. Rugh. 2000. Beluga whale, 

Delphinapterus leucas, distribution and survey ef

L

the beluga, Delphinapterus leucas. Can. Field-Nat. 112(1): 98-114. 

L

breaking along ice edge in the eastern Canadian high arctic: 982-1984. Environ. Stud. 

Indian and northern Affairs Canada, Ottawa, Ont. 301p. 

Lipscomb, T.P., R.K. Harris, A.H. Rebar, B.E. Ballach

Diego: API, 265-280. 

 Laura K., Roderick C. Hobbs and Barbara A. Mahoney. 2001. Field report for tagging 

study of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, Septemb

Species Act implementation program 2000. U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle, WA

Ecol. Prog. Ser. 315: 1-11. 

r, C., A. Hohn, D.W. Doidge, M.P. Heide

layering. Aquatic Mammals. 33(3): 293-304. 

in, T.R. 1994. Tissue hydrocarbon le

Diego: API, 1994. 359-70. 

L

and L.F. Lowry (eds.), marine mammals species accounts. ADFG, Game Tech. Bull. 7. 

L

Inlet population). In: IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 

94 
Luque, S.P., Higdon, J.W., and Ferguson, S.H.. 2007. Dentine deposition rates in beluga 

(Delphinapterus leucas): an analysis of the evidence. Aquatic Mammals. 33(2): 241-

245. 

Mahon phinapterus 

leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Marine Fisheries Review, Vol. 62, No. 3. 

McGui k. 2008. Photo-identification of beluga 

whales in Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska. 2007 Annual Report. Report prepared by LGL 

lips Alaska, Inc. 52 p. + Appendices. 

ressional 

05001. Anchorage, 

Alaska : The Municipality. 

Moore,

, Alaska. Marine Fisheries 

Review, Vol. 62, No. 3. 

Morrow

, 

oulton, L.L. 1994. 1993 northern Cook Inlet smolt studies. Draft report for ARCO Sunfish 

Moulto esidence, growth, and feeding by juvenile salmon in northern 

Cook Inlet, Alaska. Alaska Fish Res Bull. 4(2):154-77. 

Mulher t, 

s Research and Engineering Laboratory, 

Hanover, NH, for NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration, Seattle, WA. 

Murray k 

M12 presented to the Sub-committee on Small Cetaceans of 

the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission. Unpublished. 7 pp. 

OAA. 2007. Subsistence harvest management of Cook Inlet beluga whales: draft 

ey, B.A. and K.E.W. Shelden. 2000. Harvest history of beluga whale, Del

re, T.L., C.C. Kaplan, M.K. Blees, and M.R. Lin

Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Anchorage, AK, for Chevron, National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation, and ConocoPhil

Meilke, J.E. 1990. Oil in the ocean: the short- and long-term impacts of a spill. Cong

research service report for Congress, July 24, 1990. Washington, D.C.: Library of 

Congress. 

[MOA] Municipality of Anchorage Watershed Management Program. 2006. 2005 Annual 

report, NPDES Permit No. AKS05255-8. Document No. WMP PMr

 S.E., K.E.W. Shelden, L.K. Litzky, B.A. Mahoney, and D.J. Rugh. 2000. Beluga whale, 

Delohinapterus leucas, habitat associations in Cook Inlet

, J. E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Univ. B.C. Animal Resources Ecology 

Library. 248 p. 

Morsell, JW, J Houghton, and K Turco. 1983. Marine Biological Studies. Knik Arm Crossing

Technical Memorandum 15:57 [Also sometimes cited as Dames and Moore (1983) 

contract report to ADOT & USDOT, FHA]. 

M

project. MJM Research. 100p. 

n, LL. 1997. Early marine r

in, N.D, W.B. Tucker III, O.P. Smith, W.J. Lee. 2001. Marine ice atlas for Cook Inle

Alaska. ERDC/CRREL TR-01-10, Cold Region

, N.K. and Fay, F.H. 1979. The white whales or belukhas, Delphinapterus leucas, of Coo

Inlet, Alaska. Paper SC/31/S

Available from AFSC, NMML Library, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle, WA 98115. 

N

supplemental environmental impact statement. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

95 
Norris, K.S. 1994. Beluga: White whales of the north. National Geographic. 185(6): 2-31. 

Nowak, R.M. 1991. Walker’s marine mammals of the world. Volume 2. Fifth Ed. Baltimore: 

The Johns Hopkins University Press. 

O’Corr ular genetic 

studies of population structure and movement patterns in a migratory species: the beluga 

ar, 

’Corry-Crowe, G.M. and Lowry, L.F. 1997. Genetic ecology and management concerns for the 

y, Special Publication No. 3. 

tatus 

ammal Commission, February 2006. 22p. 

the western Nearctic revealed by mitochondrial DNA. In: 

Molecular Ecology, Vol. 6: 955-970. 

Ogneto udies on the ecology and the taxonomy of the white whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas Pall., 1776) inhabiting the Soviet Arctic. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 

Ohsum ome biological parameters in cetaceans and 

estimation of the natural mortality coefficient of the southern hemisphere minke whale. 

’Shea, T. J., B. L. Homer, E. C. Greiner, and W. A. Layton. 1991. Nasitrema sp. associated 

entec. 2005. Marine Fish and Benthos Studies in Knik Arm, Anchorage, Alaska. Prepared for 

Perez, M

mammal population and prey information for Bering Sea ecosystem studies. 

Perrin, . 

13-125. 

y-Crowe, G.M., A.E. Dizon, R.S. Suydam, and L.F. Lowry. 2002. Molec

whales (Delphinapterus leucas), in the western Nearctic, p. 53-64. In C.J. Pfeiffer (ed), 

Molecular and cell biology of marine mammals. Krieger Publishing Company, Malab

FL. 

O

beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas). pp. 249-274 In: Molecular Genetics of Marine 

Mammals (Dizon, A.E., Chivers S.J., and Perrin W.F., eds.), Society for Marine 

Mammalog

O’Corry-Crowe, G., Lucey, W., Bonin, C., Henniger, E., and Hobbs, R. 2006. The ecology, s

and stock identity of beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas, in Yakutat Bay, Alaska. 

Report to the U.S. Marine M

O’Corry-Crowe, G.M., R.S. Suydam, A. Rosenberg, K.J. Frost, and A.E. Dizon. 1997. 

Phylogeography, population structure and dispersal patterns of the beluga whale

Delphinapterus leucas in 

v, G. N. 1981. St

31: 515-520. 

i, S. 1979. Interspecies relationships among s

Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 29: 397-406. 

O

 encephalitis in a striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) stranded in the Gulf of Mexico. 

J. Wildl. Dis. 27:706-709.

Payne, S.A., B.A. Johnson, and R.S. Otto. 1999. Proximate composition of some north-eastern

Pacific forage fish species. Fish Oceanogr. 8:3, 159-177. 

P

Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority and HDR Alaska, Inc. Report 12214-10/12214-12. 

Prepared by Pentec Environmental, Edmonds, Washington. 

.A. 1990. NOAA technical memorandum NMFS F/NWC-186. Review of marine 

W.F. (ed.). 1982. Annex H: report of the sub-committee on small cetaceans. Rep. Int

Whal. Comm. 32: 1

96 
Perrin, W.F. 1999. Selected examples of small cetaceans at risk. In Conservation and 

Management of Marine Mammals. J.R. Twiss and R.R. Reeves eds. Smithsonian, 

iatt, J.F., G.Drew, T.VanPelt, A. Abookire, A.Nielsen, M. Shultz, and A. Kitaysky. 1999. 

Racine

y Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, CRREL 

Report 92-5 

Ray, G.

 sensing. 

199-209. 

r 

PA. 

, p. 337-

al 

ichard, PR, MP Heide-Jorgensen, JR Orr Jr, R Diets, and TG Smith. 2001. Summer and 

c and 

ichardson, W.J. 1995. Marine mammal hearing. In: Marine mammals and noise. W.J. 

idgway, S. and Sir R. Harrison. 1981. Eds., Handbook of marine mammals. Volume 4. 

002. Saksenaea vasiformis and Apophysomyces elegans 

zygomycotic infections in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), a killer whale 

ugh, D.J., B.A. Mahoney, and B. K. Smith. 2004. Aerial surveys of beluga whale in Cook Inlet, 

. 

a, 

Washington. Pp. 297-310. 

P

Biological Effects of the 1997/98 ENSO in Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

, C.H., M.E. Walsh, C.M. Collins, D.J. Calkins, B.D. Roebuck and L. Reitsma . 1992 

Waterfowl Mortality in Eagle River Flats, Alaska :The Role of Munitions Residues. US 

Arm

 C., D. Wartzok, and G. Taylor. 1984. Productivity and behavior of bowheads, Balaena

mysticetus, and white whale, Delphinapterus leucas, as determined from remote

Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. (Special Issue 6):

Reidarson, T. H., J. F. McBain, L. M. Dalton, and M. G. Rinaldi. 1999. Diagnosis and treatment 

of fungal infections in marine mammals, p. 478-485. In M. E. Fowler and R. E. Mille

(editors), Zoo and wild animal medicine. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 

Reidarson, T. H., J. F. McBain, L. M. Dalton, and M. G. Rinaldi. 2001. Mycotic disease

355. In L.A. Dierauf and F.M.D. Gulland (eds.), CRC handbook of marine mamm

medicine, 2nd Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 

R

Autumn Movements and Habitat Use by Belugas in the Canadian High Arcti

Adjacent Areas. 54(3): 207-222. 

R

Richardson, C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson, eds. Academic Press. 

576p. 

R

London: Academic Press. 

Robeck, T. R., and L. M. Dalton. 2

 (Orcinus orca), and Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens). J. Zoo 

Wildl. Med. 33(4):356-366.

Ruesch, P.H. and J. Fox. 1999. Upper Cook Inlet commercial fisheries annual management 

report, 1998. Alas. Dep. Fish Game, Div. Commercial Fish. Manag. Develop., Regional 

Information Rep. 2A99-21, Anchorage. 55 p. 

R

Alaska between June 2001 and June 2002. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo

NMFS-AFSC-145, 26p. 

Rugh, D.J., K.T. Goetz, B.A. Mahoney. 2005a. Aerial survey of belugas in Cook Inlet, Alask

August 2005. 

97 
Rugh, D.J., K.T. Goetz, B.A. Mahoney, B. K. Smith, T.A. Ruszkowski. 2005b. Aeria

of belugas in Cook Inlet, Alaska, June 2005. 

l Surveys 

ugh DJ, KT Goetz, JA Mocklin, BA Mahoney, and BK Smith. 2007. Aerial surveys of belugas 

ugh, D.J., K.E.W. Shelden, and B.A. Mahoney. 2000. Distribution of beluga whale, 

. 

Rugh, D lden, B.A. Mahoney, L.K. Litzky, R.C. Hobbs, and K.L. Laidre. 1999. 

Aerial surveys of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, June 1999. 

Rugh, D

 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. U.S. 

Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-149, 71p. 

Scott, M

eaman, G.A., L.F. Lowry, and K.J. Frost. 1982. Foods of Belukha whales (Delphinapterus 

Sergean odontocete whales from dentinal growth layers. 

Norsk Hvalfangsttid 48(6):273-88. 

Sergean y. J 

s Bd Can 30:1065-90. 

Board of Canada 26(10), p. 2561-2580. 

s, 

ada 

helden, K.E.W., D.J. Rugh, B.A. Mahoney, and M.E. Dahlheim. 2003. Killer whale predation 

outhall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene Jr., D. Kastak, 

ammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. 

R

in Cook Inlet, Alaska, June 2007. Unpubl. NMFS report. 16 pp. 

R

Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, during June/July 1993-2000. Mar. Fish

Rev. 63(3):6-21. 

.J., K.W. She

J, KEW Shelden, CL Sims, BA Mahoney, BK Smith, LK Litzky, and RC Hobbs. 2005c. 

Aerial surveys of Cook Inlet belugas in Alaska, June

. E. 1988. The impact of infection and disease on animal populations: implications for 

conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 2(1):40-56. 

Seaman, G. A., and J. J. Burns. 1981. Preliminary results of recent studies of belukhas in 

Alaskan waters. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 31: 567-574. 

S

leucas) in western Alaska. Cetology 44:1-19. 

t DE. 1959. Age determination in

t DE. 1973. Biology of white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in western Hudson Ba

Fish Re

Sergeant, D.E. and P.F. Brodie. 1969. Body size in white whales, Delphinapterus leucas. 

Journal Fisheries Research 

Sergeant, D.E. and P.F. Brodie. 1975 Identity, abundance, and present status of white whale

Delphinapterus leucas, in north America. Journal Fisheries Research Board of Can

32(7), 1975, p. 1047-1054. 

S

on beluga whale in Cook Inlet, Alaska: Implications for a depleted population. Marine

Mammal Science: 19(3):529–544. 

Smith, K. F., D. F. Sax, and K. D. Lafferty. 2006. Evidence for the role of infectious diseases in 

species extinction and endangerment. Conserv. Biol. 20(5):1349-1357. 

S

D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P.L. Tyack. 

2007. Marine m

98 
Aquatic Mammals 33(4): 411-521. 

parling, D. 1994. Invertebrates and Fish. In Interagency Expanded Site Investigation: 

ison Alaska. U.S. Army 

Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL). May 1994. pages 259-

Speckm iatt. 2000. Historic and Current Use of Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, by 

Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas. Mar. Fish. Rev. 63(3):22-26. 

Stewar diocarbon dating 

calibrates beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) age estimates. Can. J. Zool. 84:1840-1852. 

Suydam

laska Beluga Whale 

Committee workshop, March 30-April 1, 1999. 5 p. 

Suydam nd D Pikok Jr. 2001. Satellite tracking 

of eastern Chukchi Sea beluga whales into the Artic Ocean. 54(3): 237-243. 

Tyack, Marine Mammals. J.E. Reynolds 

III and S.A. Rommel eds. Smithsonian, Washington. Pp. 287-323. 

Tyack, unication. In Cetacean Societies: Field 

Studies of Dolphins and Whales. J. Mann, R.C. Connor, P.L. Tack, and H. Whitehead eds. 

SAEHA] U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency. 1994. Final Report Receiving Water 

rt Richardson, Alaska, July 12-23, 1993. 

agle River Flats, 

Fort Richardson, Alaska, 8-17 May, 22 August – 9 September 1994. 

[USAG

pplication – 2005 Monitoring Report. February 15, 2006. 

SCOE] United States Corps of Engineers. 2003. Anchorage harbor, Alaska. 2003 project 

os, D.J. and K.E.W. Shelden. 2005. Unusual mortality in the depleted Cook Inlet beluga 

Weinga m. 

S

Evaluation of White Phosphorus Contamination at Eagle River Flats, Alaska. Fiscal Year 

1993 Final Report. Racine C.H , ed. Prepared for U.S. Army Garr

262. 

an, S.G. and J.F. P

t, R.E.A., S.E. Campana, C.M. Jones, B.E. Stewart. 2006. Bomb ra

, R., J.J. Burns, and G. Carroll. 1999. Age, growth, and reproduction of beluga whales 

from the eastern Chukchi Sea, Alaska. Paper presented to the A

, RS, LF Lowry, KJ Frost, GM O’Corry-Crow, a

P. L. 1999. Communication and cognition. In Biology of

P. L. 2000. Functional aspects of cetacean comm

University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

[U

Biological Study No.32-24-H1ZV-93: Water, sediment, macroinvertebrate, and fish 

sampling, Eagle River Flats, Fo

USAEHA. 1995. Final Report Receiving Water Biological Study No. 32-24-H37Y-94: 

Evaluation of White Phosphorus Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem E

-AK] U.S. Army Garrison Alaska. 2006. Eagle River Flats National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System Permit A

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. Census 2000/2006. Available: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_land=en. (February 2008) 

[U

maps and index sheets. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. 

V

population. Northwest. Nat. 86(2):59-65. 

rtner, T. 2007. Long-term oceanographic monitoring of the Gulf of Alaska ecosyste

99 
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Annual Project Report, Project 070340. 2pp. 

Whitehead, H., R.R. Reeves, and P.L. Tyack. 2000. Science and the conservation, protection, and 

management of wild cetaceans. In Cetacean Societies: Field Studies of Dolphins and 

Whales. J. Mann, R.C. Connor, P.L. Tack, and H. Whitehead eds. University of Chicago 

Press, Chicago. 

100 
APPENDIX A: Federal Regulations Concerning Cook Inlet Beluga Whales

D

August

ate Action Regulation 

 31, 1988 Cook Inlet (CI) belugas included in the List of 

Candidate Vertebrate and Invertebrate Marine Species 

53 FR 33516

November 19, 1998 NMFS initiated a status review of CI belugas 63 FR 64228 

March 1999 NMFS received petitions to list CI belugas as 

endangered under ESA 

April 9, 1999 NMFS agreed petitions are warranted 64 FR 17347 

May 21, 1999 MMPA amended to require cooperative agreements to 

harvest CI belugas between NMFS and affected Alaska 

Native organizations 

Pub. L. No. 106-

31, section 3022, 

113 Stat. 57, 100 

October 19, 1999 NMFS proposed designating the CI belugas as depleted 

under MMPA 

64 FR 56298 

May 31, 2000 CI belugas listed as depleted under the MMPA 65 FR 34590 

June 22, 2000 NMFS determined ESA listing not warranted; 

established CI belugas as a distinct population segment 

and thus as a “species” as defined under the ESA 

65 FR 38778 

October 4, 2000 NMFS proposed regulations to regulate subsistence 

harvests 

65 FR 59164 

December 21, 2000 MMPA amendment (May 21, 1999) on harvest of CI 

belugas made permanent 

Pub. L. No. 106-

553, 114 Stat. 

2762, 2762A-108 

September 26, 2003 NMFS released a Notice of Availability of Subsistence 

Harvest Management of CI Beluga Whales Final 

Environmental Impact 

68 FR 55604 

April 6, 2004 NMFS released final interim regulations to govern the 

subsistence harvest of CI belugas for Alaska Natives

69 FR 17973 

April 15, 2004 CI belugas transferred from the Candidate Species List 

to the newly created Species of Concern List 

69 FR 19975 

March 16, 2005 NMFS completed a draft Conservation Plan for CI 

belugas 

70 FR 12853 

March 24, 2006

 

NMFS initiated a status review to determine if CIB 

should be listed under the ESA 

71 FR 14836 

March 29, 2006 NMFS published a Notice of Intent to prepare a 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) 

for the CI Beluga Whale Subsistence Harvest 

71 FR 15697 

April 2006 NMFS received a petition to list CIB as endangered 

under ESA 

August 7, 2006 NMFS agreed petitions are warranted 71 FR 44641 

April 20, 2007 NMFS published a proposed rule to list CI belugas as 

endangered under ESA 

72 FR 19854 

December 28, 2007 NMFS released a Notice of Availability of the CI 

Beluga Whale Subsistence Harvest Draft SEIS 

72 FR 73798 

April 22, 2008 NMFS postponed the ESA listing decision six months 73 FR 21578 

June 20, 2008 NMFS published the CI Beluga Whale Subsistence 

Harvest Final SEIS 

73 FR 35113 

101 
APPENDIX B: 2006 Co-management Agreement

CIL 

NAGE CK OF BELUGA

I. PARTIES 

This document agreement between the National Marine Fisheries Service 

) and th ), otherw s 

CIMMC is an hich represents 

es an within the Cook Inlet 

are re

e ring

Gulf of Alaska north of titude including but not limite

y u

 K

ORITI

MFS s e 

amm Guid ed 

siden o-Gov

 with er 13

su ents

a erce, March 30, 1995; 

emo a t 

Section 119 Ag

CIMM its ch rter and 

ng res , CIMMC is recognized 

ska N , as such, may ent

nt to c las

III. PURPOSES 

poses o prom ry 

ook In vidin y 

AGREEMENT 

between the 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

and the 

COOK INLET MARINE MAMMAL COUN

for the 

CO-MA MENT OF THE COOK INLET STO

for the YEAR 2006 

 WHALE 

 constitutes an 

(NMFS e Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council (CIMMC ise referred to a

the Parties. 

association, chartered by the Cook Inlet Treaty Tribes, w

these Trib

area who 

d Alaska Native marine mammal subsistence hunters

gistered with CIMMC. 

The Cook Inl t beluga whale stock applies to all beluga whales occur

 58 degrees North la

 in waters of the 

d to, Cook Inlet, 

Kamishak Ba f 

Strait, and off

, Chinitna Bay, Tuxedni Bay, Prince William Sound, Yak

odiak Island and freshwater tributaries to those waters.

tat Bay, Sheliko

II. AUTH ES 

A. N has the authority to enter into this agreement pursuant to ection 119 of th

Marine M

by the Pre

al Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1388.

tial Memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-t

ance is provid

ernment 

Relations

6, 2000 (Con

Indian and Al

 Native American Tribal Government); Executive Ord

ltation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governm

ska Native Policy of the U.S. Dep

175, November 

); the American

artment of Comm

randum of Agreement for Negotiations of Marine Mamm

reements, August, 1997. 

and the M l Protection Ac

B. C has the authority to enter into this agreement under 

olutions from

a

authorizi

as an Ala

 Alaska tribal governments. Further

ative organization under the MMPA and er into this 

agreeme o-manage the subsistence use of marine mammals by A ka Natives. 

The pur

of the C

f this agreement between NMFS and CIMMC are to

let stock of beluga whales while at the same time pro

ote the recove

g an opportunit

102 
for a limited harvest of the Cook Inlet beluga whale by the Native Village of Tyonek 

(NVT) during 2006, and to promote scientific research on the Cook Inlet beluga whale 

stock and its habitat. 

IV. BACKGROUND 

In 1972, the MMPA was passed by Congress and provided an exemption which allows 

nce 

purposes or done for purposes authentic Native articles of 

handicraft and clothing. Such taking may not be accomplished in a wasteful manner. 

 was established to facilitate cooperation and communication among 

beluga whale subsistence hunters, scientists, and the government regarding the 

In April 1994, the MMPA was amended to include section 119 “Marine Mammal 

o authorized the appropriation of funds to be 

transferred by NMFS to Alaska Native organizations to accomplish these activities. 

affected Alaska 

Native organizations. 

. MANAGEMENT OF COOK INLET BELUGA WHALES 

ting a 

1. Only whaling boats and captains authorized under a permit issued by CIMMC 

 pa ced 

g a 

2. Each whaling vessel must have aboard the following equipment: harpoon and 

t and at least 30 feet of nylon rope or equivalent, to help ensure against 

the loss of the whale. 

the taking of marine mammals by Alaska Natives provided such taking is for subsiste

of creating and selling

In 1994, CIMMC

conservation and management of Cook Inlet beluga whales. CIMMC is composed of 

Cook Inlet village representatives and hunters who hunt Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

Cooperative Agreements in Alaska.” Section 119 formalizes the rights of Alaska Native

organizations to participate in conservation-related co-management of subsistence 

resources and their use. Section 119 als

Section 3022 of Pub. L. 106-31, 113 Stat. 100 (May 21, 1999), as extended by section 

627 of Pub. L. 106-553 (December 21, 2000), prohibits the taking of Cook Inlet beluga 

whales except pursuant to a cooperative agreement between NMFS and 

V

The Parties agree that the Cook Inlet beluga whale harvest, during the calendar year 2006, 

shall consist of one (1) strike, which is allocated to NVT. A strike is defined as hit

whale with a harpoon, lance, bullet or other object. Upon striking a whale, subsequent 

strikes on that same whale are not counted against the strike limit. 

Harvest Practices 

may rticipate in the harvest allocated under this agreement. An Elder or experien

hunter shall be present and shall direct the harvest for each beluga whaling boat. This 

will reduce the chance of striking a calf, a female accompanied by a calf, or of strikin

whale in an area or in a manner that may result in the loss of the whale. 

attached rope/floa

3. All Cook Inlet beluga whale hunting shall occur on or after July 1, 2006 to 

103 
minimize the possibility of harvesting a pregnant female. 

4. CIMMC, NVT, or the person or persons holding a permit for the strike shall notify 

NMFS Enforcement, Anchorage office, 24 hours prior to the initiation of that day’s hunt. 

or negligent taking of a maternally dependent calf, or a female 

beluga whale accompanied by a maternally dependent calf, is prohibited. 

7. Consistent with the desire of CIMMC in regards to this agreement, the current 

r 

at 

handicrafts or clothing. 

ical 

10. Any unauthorized striking of a Cook Inlet beluga whale by a member of CIMMC 

shall be counted against the strikes allocated to CIMMC. If such a strike occurs prior to 

t Harvest Permit will be 

voided and no further hunting shall occur under this agreement. 

tion shall be made 

based upon the best available information and consistent with the primary goals of the 

 Section III of this agreement. Consistent with the above 

consultation, NMFS may suspend further hunting at any time if it finds unanticipated 

VI. 

MMC may provide for monitors to be aboard the whaling vessel to 

verify and report on the strike. 

5. The intentional 

6. The beluga whale shall be struck with a harpoon and float prior to shooting. This 

is intended to reduce struck and loss. 

practice of NVT, and the Cook Inlet hunting community, the sale of the beluga whale, o

parts thereof, harvested under this agreement, shall not be permitted; provided th

nothing herein is intended to prohibit the use or sale of non-edible by-products of a 

beluga whale taken under a permit authorized herein for the creation of traditional 

8. Upon harvesting a Cook Inlet beluga whale, the whaling captain shall contact 

NMFS. This will allow NMFS to attend the whale and collect the necessary biolog

information (teeth, stomach, tissue samples, skin, etc.) for analysis. The whaling captain 

shall also provide the time and location of harvest. 

9. All hunters shall comply with the provisions of this agreement and any permit 

issued by CIMMC. Non-compliance with any provisions by a hunter may result in the 

loss of his/her hunting privileges for Cook Inlet beluga whales and prosecution. 

the hunt conducted legally under a CIMMC Harvest Permit tha

11. In the event of any unusual loss of beluga whales through strandings or other 

causes, NMFS, CIMMC and NVT shall enter into consultation to determine whether to 

proceed with the hunt permitted by this agreement. Such determina

parties as set forth in

deaths within this stock are too high to permit additional removals consistent with 

recovery of the Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

RESPONSIBILITIES OF CIMMC 

A. CIMMC, in cooperation with NMFS, will manage the Cook Inlet beluga whale

subsistence harvest consistent with the authority and responsibilities of CIMMC specified

by this agreement. CI

104 
B. CIMMC and NMFS shall communicate on an as-needed basis concerning matters 

related to the enforcement of this agreement or the Harvest Permit. Any party to this 

eem

party to this agreement of the enforcement action. 

atural history, 

and traditional knowledge of the Cook Inlet population of beluga whales. NMFS 

C and NMFS. 

is 

VII. 

A. NMFS has primary responsibility within the United States Government for the 

nage

h 

B. NMFS and CIMMC shall communicate on an as-needed basis concerning matters 

ted 

g 

ther 

party to this agreement of the enforcement action. 

. 

formation collected 

under this section shall be shared between CIMMC and NMFS. 

VIII. 

ity to regulate tribal members during the 

conduct of the subsistence harvest of beluga whales. CIMMC recognizes the Secretary of 

Commerce’s authority to enforce the provisions of the MMPA and other Federal laws 

let beluga whales. 

IX. 

ed to conflict with current NOAA or NMFS directives or 

the directives of CIMMC. If the terms of this agreement are inconsistent with existing 

agr ent which initiates an enforcement action for a violation of a prohibition involving 

Native take of the Cook Inlet beluga whale shall notify, as soon as practical, the other 

C. CIMMC may obtain a permit to conduct research on the biology, n

personnel may participate in such data collection. All information collected under this 

section shall be shared between CIMM

D. No financial commitment on the part of CIMMC is authorized or required by th

agreement. 

RESPONSIBILITIES OF NMFS 

ma ment of beluga whales. NMFS may assert its Federal authority to enforce any

provisions of the MMPA that are applicable to the Native harvest of beluga whales. Suc

assertion of Federal authority will be preceded by consultation with CIMMC. 

rela to the enforcement of this agreement or the Harvest Permit. Any party to this 

agreement which initiates an enforcement action for a violation of a prohibition involvin

Native take of the Cook Inlet beluga whale shall notify, as soon as practical, the o

C. NMFS, in consultation with CIMMC, may conduct research on the biology, 

natural history, and traditional knowledge of the Cook Inlet population of beluga whales

CIMMC personnel may participate in such data collection. All in

D. No financial commitment on the part of NMFS is authorized or required by this 

agreement. 

REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT 

NMFS recognizes the existing tribal author

applicable to the Native harvest of Cook In

OTHER PROVISIONS 

A. Nothing herein is intend

105 
laws, regulations, or directives of either of the Parties, then those portions which are 

determined to be inconsistent shall be invalid, but the remaining terms and conditions 

affected by the inconsistency shall remain in full force and effect. At the first opportunity 

for review of the agreement, all necessary changes will be accomplished by either an 

amendment to this agreement or by a new agreeme

not 

nt, whichever is deemed expedient to 

the interest of both Parties. 

ments 

nd presented to the other Party for 

consideration. If agreement on interpretation cannot be reached within a reasonable time, 

tives of NMFS and CIMMC. 

DIFICATION 

XI. 

______

Peter M ate 

Chairm inistrator, Alaska Region 

ook Inlet Marine Mammal Council National Marine Fisheries Service 

P.O. Bo

Tyonek Juneau, AK 99802-1668 

B. Should disagreements arise over the provisions of this agreement, or amend

or revisions thereto, that cannot be resolved at the operating level, the area(s) of 

disagreement shall be stated in writing by each Party a

a special meeting or teleconference shall be held to resolve the issues. This meeting shall 

include representa

X. ADOPTION, DURATION, AND MO

This agreement will become effective when signed by both Parties, may be amended at

any time by written agreement of both Parties, and shall expire on December 31, 2006. 

Either Party may terminate this agreement by giving 45 days prior written Notice of 

Termination to the other Party. 

SIGNATORIES 

The parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the last written date below: 

_____________________ ______________________________ 

erryman Date Robert D. Mecum D

an, Acting Adm

C

x 82009 P.O. Box 21688 

, AK 99682 

106 
APPENDIX C. Turnagain Arm Marine Mammal Stranding Response Plan

TURNAGAIN ARM MARINE MAMMAL 

STRANDING RESPONSE PLAN 

NA

This bo

(NMFS

is impo ng Response Network members, under 

irection from the Response Coordinator (Coordinator) respond to stranded marine mammals. 

MFS must be notified of all stranding events, and will be on the site to direct response actions. 

ine the proper actions and 

itiate a response when necessary. At all times, NMFS response will be guided by three 

objectiv ll 

live str

mamm

I. TRODUCTION 

mmals are found in upper Cook Inlet, including the waters of Knik 

nd Turnagain Arms. The most common of these are beluga whales. Other marine mammals 

observe d sea 

ons. Except for beluga whales, these animals are thought to be seasonal residents, journeying 

to the upper Inlet to feed or to have their young. Live strandings occur during the open water 

onths (May through October), particularly August and September, with extreme tidal ranges, 

d iberat purpo in co

stran accidentally n low 

se of is, ou

aters with the 

habilitation and released at a later date. 

he following paragraphs describe the species of marine mammals known to strand in the upper 

let. 

Beluga whale

TIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

oklet describes protocols to be followed by the National Marine Fisheries Service 

) in responding to stranded marine mammals in Turnagain Arm and upper Cook Inlet. It 

rtant that only authorized Turnagain Arm Strandi

d

N

In the event NMFS is unable to respond, the Coordinator will determ

in

es; to ensure all actions do not endanger any response personnel; to minimize stress to a

anded marine mammals, and to improve survival chances of any stranded marine 

al. 

IN

Several species of marine ma

a

d less frequently are minke whales, killer whales, harbor porpoise, harbor seals, an

li

in

m

extensive tidal flats, and treacherous currents. Unlike stranding events in other parts of the 

country, where whales may show a el e se ming ashore, the marine mammals of 

upper Cook Inlet are believed to d o tides. Because of this, their chances 

for survival are often very good. Becau th r primary emphasis in these marine mammal 

strandings is to minimize stress or injury to the animals until they can re-enter the w

incoming tide. Under extreme circumstances, smaller animals could be transported for 

re

T

In

The beluga whale is a small toothed whale which feeds on a wide variety of organisms. Adult 

males may reach 14 feet and weigh 2,000 pounds. Females may reach 13 feet and weigh about 

1,000 pounds. Adults are a uniform white, while calves are brown to slate-gray. Whitening of the 

skin begins by age six and is usually complete by age 13. Approximately 400-600 beluga whales 

live in Cook Inlet. Beluga whales are often found in large aggregations. Its spring presence in 

the upper Inlet is thought to be for calving, molting, and feeding on salmon and eulachon 

(hooligan) near the mouths of several rivers. From satellite tagging data, we now know that 

beluga whale remain in the upper Inlet, including Knik and Turnagain Arms throughout the year. 

107 
Killer whale

Killer whales rns of black 

and white. Th s and three 

feet in females. Adult 3 feet long. 

Efficient predators, killer whales usually travel in pods or family groups of a few to as many as 

30 animals

responders mbers 

ay be reluctant to leave an area if the pod leader remains stranded. 

t 

are medium-sized toothed whales with very distinctive coloration patte

ey have a prominent dorsal (back) fin which may stand six feet in male

 males may reach 30 feet in length, and females about 2

. Pods are structured around a dominant female rather than large males, and 

should consider this in assessing possible action. For example, other pod me

m

The presence of killer whales in Knik and Turnagain Arms has been recorded during recen

years. Transient killer whales feed on marine mammals and resident killer whales feed on fish. 

There has been proof, through beluga whale strandings and eye witness reports that transient 

killer whales visit upper Cook Inlet to prey on beluga whale, and possibly on the other marine 

mammals. It may be that one or more pods have now learned of the availability of prey in the 

upper Inlet, and returns seasonally. 

Minke whale

The minke whale is the smallest of the baleen whales. These whales have no teeth but sie

through ro

ve food 

ws of baleen suspended from the roof of their mouths. The minke averages 25-30 feet 

 length and is black to dark gray in color with a lighter belly and a whitish band around the 

per. es of throat grooves under the lower jaw which allow the mouth to 

xpand while feeding. Minke feed on invertebrates and small fish. They are usually found alone 

in

flip They also have a seri

e

or in groups of two to four animals. Minke whales are thought to enter the upper Inlet to feed on 

fish during the spring and summer months. 

Harbor porpoise

The harbor porpoise is the smallest cetacean (whales, porpoises, and dolphins) in the North 

Pacific. Commonly 3 to 4 feet long, these toothed animals may weight about 100 pounds. They

are dark grey or brown with a lighter underside and have a small triangular dorsal fin. Harbo

porpoises often are found in groups up to 10 animals, and may concentrate near river mouths to 

feed. They are reported in Turnagain Arm, sometimes at the mouth of the Twenty Mile River. 

r 

Harbor seal

The harbor seal is the most abundant seal in southcentral Alaska and recognizable by th

size (4 to 6 feet) and round, earless head. T

eir small 

heir color is variable but often mottled brown or gray. 

he harbor seal is seasonally found in the upper Inlet, particularly the Susitna delta (Beluga 

. 

T

River to Little Susitna River) and Chickaloon River, most likely follows migrating eulachon and 

salmon

Steller sea lion

The sea lion has been listed as an endangered species, protected under the Endangered Species

Act. The sea lion is a large animal, 8 to10 feet in length, with a yellowish-brown color and 

heavy muzzle. The head is large, with visible external ears. They feed on a variety of prey, most 

often small fish (including eulachon) and salmon. They are also uncommon to the upper Inlet, 

although single individuals have been reported in Susitna River and Turnagain Arm. 

108 
II. PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF STRANDING

used by 

n 

animals can survive several 

ays. However, there are times when stranded animals may not survive without assistance. 

d by 

re determined to come ashore. Often these animals may be 

ck or injured, or following the lead of a sick animal. Tidal ranges are often slight, and highly 

ures are necessary to rescue these marine mammals. Also, stranded animals are 

r predator avoidance, and then stranded when the 

de goes out. Animals not otherwise injured by the stranding are likely to be freed by the 

e local climatic conditions may lessen the effects of strandings, as cooler air, 

lly, 

yperthermia is a major concern with stranded marine mammals, as their insulative layers of fat 

 to sweat causes internal body temperature to rise. Larger whales have 

on a warm or sunny day, it may be necessary to cool the animal by digging holes, for the 

ukes and flippers, and allowing them to fill with cold water. 

tranded whales are able to recover sooner if they have been in an upright position rather than 

ing on their sides. Such whales become disoriented when returned to water and may have 

ifficulty swimming. If necessary, the Coordinator will attempt to return whales to an upright 

Stranded marine mammals present a challenge to biologists in evaluating whether they require 

assistance and if so, what manner of response is appropriate. In upper Cook Inlet, stranded

animals are usually not in a life-threatening situation. In such instances these animals should be 

monitored from a distance, but otherwise not disturbed further. The additional stress ca

humans approaching marine mammals or attempting to rescue them may cause more injury tha

the stranding itself. Under moist and cool conditions, most stranded 

d

NMFS will respond to such situations, provided that human life and safety are not endangere

the response effort. 

Strandings of marine mammals in upper Cook Inlet differ from those often experienced and 

reported from the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, which may involve mass strandings for various or

unknown reasons in which animals a

si

intrusive meas

subject to sun and high air temperatures which place great stress on their ability to regulate 

internal body temperatures. In these cases, animals are often lost due to heat strokes. Large 

whales, such as sperm or humpbacks, are so large that they require the buoyancy of water to 

support their mass. Out of water, breathing itself may be difficult. 

By contrast, strandings in upper Cook Inlet appear to be accidental, often the result of venturing 

into shallow waters during feeding activity o

ti

incoming tide. Th

water temperatures, wind, and cloud cover may reduce the likelihood of hyperthermia. Fina

the whales and porpoise found in this area are small animals that can sustain temporarily being 

out of water. None the less, there is a need to respond to strandings in upper Cook Inlet to 

evaluate the animals’ condition and the feasibility of human intervention. 

H

and inability

proportionately less surface area than small whales, and have the greatest problems in losing 

excess heat when stranded. Whales have a network of vessels in the tail flukes and flippers that 

allow for the blood to cool. The Coordinator will consider the species involved, the weather 

conditions, access, and the position of the whale, in assessing response actions. If the whale is 

exposed 

fl

Breathing rates are not a good indication of stress, and stranded whales will often slow their 

breathing to a point where observers may become concerned or assume the animal has died. 

Marine mammals have considerable ability to control their breathing, and stranded whales may 

only breath every 15 minutes or longer. 

S

ly

d

109 
position by firmly pressing against them, making sure the flippers are tucked against the body to 

void injury. 

sure 

a

Marine mammals are very susceptible to stress during stranding, and the Coordinator will en

they are kept as calm as possible. By law (Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as 

amended), no one is allowed to harass marine mammals, including stranded animals, without 

proper authority. NOAA Enforcement will keep onlookers from approaching the animals and to 

keep any undesired disturbance away, especially dogs, motorcycles or ATV's, and aircraft. 

Whales should never be towed outside of water. Small whales like porpoise, and possibly beluga 

whale, can be placed onto a canvas sling which can then be carried or dragged to the water. They 

ay also be rolled for short distances when this would return them to water. To do this, the 

ld 

n 

y or more. The presence of 

ese animals on shore should not in itself, mean anything is wrong. Adult seals and sea lions can 

nimals 

m

whale should be oriented parallel with the shore and a hole dug to accept the dorsal fin, if 

necessary. Make sure the flippers are against the body and pause for several minutes after each 

roll for the animal to reorient. This method itself may damage the whale and should be used only

when water is very near and the animal is in danger of hyperthermia. Also, larger whales are 

capable of movement and thrashing which could seriously injure humans: the Coordinator shou

be alert to this when approaching or handling animals. 

Seals and sea lions often come ashore to breed, give birth, molt, and rest. Pups are often left o

shore during feeding excursions by the mother which may last a da

th

be very dangerous, and should be approached only for the most extreme circumstances. 

The following species narratives describe the physiological effects of strandings on these a

and specific indications of stress. 

Beluga whale

The Cook Inlet population of beluga whales is unique in that it is geographically and geneti

isolated from other beluga whale in Bristol Bay and along the arctic coast 

cally 

for several thousand 

ears. These animals may be genetically adapted to the environment of the Inlet, able to 

are 

ol 

t. The outer layer of skin is shed 

nnually during spring and summer months. During this time, beluga whale have been known to 

rsuing feed in shallow mudflat areas. A beluga whale 

randed near Kenai in October 1992 survived for 72 hours before dying. 

y

withstand occasional stranding. However, existing data is not sufficient to support this theory. 

Beluga whale have adapted to life in an extremely stressful and changing environment. They 

found in water temperatures from 30 to 64o

F, and have a remarkable ability to regulate blood 

flow through their arteries. They use this ability, and their insulative layer of blubber, to contr

internal body temperature. Because of this, heat stroke is rarely a life-threatening issue to 

stranded beluga whales. Seagulls and possibly eagles may prey on stranded whales, breaking 

through the skin, particularly near the eyes, blowhole, and ven

a

rub on gravel to facilitate molting, and the skin becomes pock marked and rough. 

Beluga whale strandings in upper Cook Inlet are recorded as going back to the 1940s. It is likely

these animals commonly strand while pu

st

Killer whale

Killer whales have stranded infrequently in Alaska, although documented accounts at the mouth 

110 
of the Yukon River near Kotlik in 1982 and on Nunivak Island in 1984 involved the death of one 

again in August 1993. These were the first such events recorded in Turnagain Arm, 

nd all survived but one large male, accessible to the public, dogs, and people who wanted to 

or more killer whales. Six killer whales stranded on tidal flats in Turnagain Arm in May 1991 and

five stranded 

a

help. 

Minke whale

Stranded minke whales have been reported along Turnagain Arm for several years. Dead minke 

have been found in both Turnagain and Knik Arms, although the cause of death has not been 

determined. 

Harbor porpoise

No live strandings of harbor porpoises are recorded from upper Cook Inlet, although dead 

individuals have been collected in Turnagain Arm. At least one stranded harbor porpoise sh

signs of predation. 

owed 

Harbor Seal

Seals can survive out of water for extended periods. Therefore, most seals are not endangered by 

stranding. Harbor seal pups are left on the beach for long periods of times while their mother 

forages for food. Healthy pups need to be observed for 24 hours to determine if their mom has 

abandoned them, or just went to feed. Adult seals should be observed for signs of stress, injury, 

illness, gunshots, and especially entanglement with commercial fishing gear. Adult animals that

appear lethargic or display unusual actions may be ill and should be treated cautiously. No 

stranded harbor seals have been reported in the upper Inlet. 

Steller sea lion

Steller sea lions can survive out of water for extended periods. Therefore, most sea lions are not 

ndangered by stranding. They should be observed for signs of stress, injury, illness, gunshots, 

entanglement with commercial fishing gear. Adult animals that appear lethargic or 

e

and especially 

display unusual actions may be ill and should be treated cautiously. Few sea lions have been 

observed along the shore in upper Cook Inlet. 

III. STRANDING RESPONSE GUIDELINES

The following guidelines should be used by the Coordinator to determine the need for, and type 

of action to be taken during a stranding event. Each stranding event is unique, and these 

guidelines will not address all situations that may arise. The Coordinator and Turnagain Arm 

Stranding Response Network should not panic or take impulsive actions during stranding e

Strandings are often drawn out events, and decisions and actions made in haste will usually m

matters worse. 

Turnagain Arm and upper Cook Inlet are very dangerous environments of swift cur

vents. 

ake 

rents, bore 

des, cold temperatures, and quicksand-like tide flats which have trapped and killed. ONLY 

icult to tell whether a stranded whale is alive, as the animal may show no 

ti

TRAINED AND PROPERLY EQUIPPED PEOPLE AUTHORIZED BY NMFS SHOULD 

ATTEMPT TO RESPOND TO STRANDED MARINE MAMMALS. Individuals can best aid 

these animals by contacting NMFS and NOAA Enforcement 

It is often diff

movement or obvious breathing. Often the only sure way to tell is by observing for a period of 

111 
time to detect movement. 

STRANDING GUIDELINES 

1. On notification of stranded marine mammals, the Coordinator will travel to the stranding sit

and as

e 

sess the situation, using the parameters in the Response Decision Flow Chart. 

FS of all marine mammal strandings at these numbers: (907) 271-5006 and 

. If the stranding is near the Seward Highway contact Alaska State Troopers: (907) 783-0972. 

RESPONSE DECISION FLOW CHART

2. Notify NM

(907) 360-3481. Identify your self, describe the event, the specific location, and include all 

pertinent factors (which may affect the animal’s welfare or response actions). 

3

4. The Coordinator will develop response decisions using the chart below and the informed

advice of veterinarians and other trained experts. 

0.A Stranded animals are cetaceans (e.g., beluga, killer, or minke whale or harbor 

porpoise) Go to 1 

0.B Stranded animals are pinnipeds (e.g., harbor seals or sea lions) Go to 6 

1.A Cetaceans are in water, sufficient to cover flukes or flippers Go to 5 

1.B Cetaceans are exposed or will become so with outgoing tide Go to 2 

2.A Temperature greater than 50oF and/or bright sunshine Go to 3 

2.B Temperatures less than or at 50oF and/or cloud cover Go to 5 

3.A Time to next high tide, greater than six (6) hours Go to 4 

3.B Time to next high tide, less than six (6) hours Go to 5 

4.A Cetaceans approachable with no human safety concerns. 

Approach whales cautiously from midpoint of body, avoid tail flukes and head. If 

feasible, photograph animals for identification purposes (photograph prominent scars, 

dorsal fins, saddle patches on left side of killer whales, or other markings). If on their 

side, attempt to move whales to an upright position. When conditions and resources 

allow, attempt to return animals to water. Otherwise, apply wet coverings to dorsal 

surfaces, leaving the blowhole clear. When available, apply Vitamin E ointment or 

zinc oxide on exposed surfaces in danger of drying. DO NOT apply sun protection 

creams or oils. Minimize harassment of animals and avoid unnecessary touching. 

NOAA Enforcement will take active measure to prevent non-authorized persons from 

approaching the marine mammals. Marine Mammal Stranding Report shall be 

completed. 

4.B Cetaceans not approachable or unsafe conditions Go to 5 

5 NO direct action is taken to respond to stranded cetaceans. Observe animals from a 

distance until they have re-floated with the tide or until conditions change. Minimize 

harassment or disturbance to whales. If feasible, photograph animals for 

identification purposes (photograph prominent scars, dorsal fins, saddle patches on 

left side of killer whales, or other markings). NOAA Enforcement will take active 

measure to prevent non-authorized persons from approaching the marine mammals. 

Marine Mammal Stranding Report shall be completed. 

112 
6.A Pinniped is an adult Go to 7 

6.B Pinniped is a juvenile or pup Go to 9 

7.A Pinniped is entangled in fishing gear or otherwise signs of gross injury are observed 

Go to 8

7.B Pinniped is not entangled and/or no gross injuries are observed Go to 5 

8.A Pinniped is approachable on foot, and incapable of large movements. The 

Coordinator will work with Veterinarians to disentangle gear. Extreme caution is 

necessary due to the size and power of these animals. Seals and sea lions can inflict 

bites and may injure an inattentive person. Pinnipeds may also carry viral and 

bacterial infections which could be transmitted to humans. Marine Mammal 

Stranding Report shall be completed. 

8.B Pinniped is in water and not approachable on foot. The animals may be snared and 

towed to land only if it is not capable of strong swimming movements. Otherwise, 

NO ACTION should be taken. NOAA Enforcement will take active measure to 

prevent non-authorized persons from approaching the marine mammals. Marine 

Mammal Stranding Report shall be completed. 

9.A Pinniped entangled in gear or otherwise signs or gross injuries are observed 

Go to 8

9.B Pinniped not entangled in gear or no gross injury observed. D T attemp O NO t to 

capture or approach pinniped. Pinniped pups are regularly abandoned by their 

mothers. This might be a temporary situation, its moth ay return er m to attend to her 

pup. The pup should be monitored for about 24 hours e action befor is taken. Even if 

the animal is observed to be alone for long periods exceeding ( 24 hours) no action is 

needed. NOAA Enforcement will take active meas e to prev ur ent non-authorized 

persons from approaching the marine mammals arine Mam . M mal Stranding Report 

shall be completed. 

 MA

NMFS com

America. 

population ld 

attempt to

FAX the in

271-5006,

V. SA BLE PORTIONS 

en ll attempt to make such 

als av

NMFS wil

informatio ll-out 

informatio 

RINE MAMMAL STRANDING REPORT 

piles data from marine mammal strandings throughout the United States and North 

This information allows NMFS to assess the effect of strandings on marine mammal 

s and may help NMFS to better respond to strandings in the future. Responders shou

 complete as much of the Marine Mammal Stranding Report as possible, and mail or 

formation to NMFS at the following locations: Anchorage Field Office, Tel. (907) 

 FAX 271-3030 or the Juneau Regional Office, Tel. (907) 586-7235, FAX 586-7012. 

LVAGE EDI

In the ev t of the death of a beluga whale during a stranding, NMFS wi

anim ailable to Alaska Natives for harvesting of foodstuffs and/or handicraft purposes. 

l contact the appropriate Alaska Native Organization(s) (ANO) and provide 

n on the stranding as soon as is practical. The ANO will then distribute ca

n as they see fit and retrieve any usable portions or parts from the stranded animals. 

113 
C MMAN

(Coordinator) is the designated 

O D AND PROCEDURES 

The National Oceanic Atmospheric 

nistr marine mammal stranding in Turnagain Arm. 

oord

Enforcement Agent. The Coordinator will participate on-site during most responses. Ho

ded ( pe ough 

and 

The Coord

1. Obtain 

Th the 

inf

2. nalyz

NM

log

3. Determ

Pe

Th event, 

on

inf

veh

5. Notify 

Wo , the Turnagain Arm Stranding Response Network will organize 

qualified volunteers. The Turnagain Arm Stranding Response Network shall be informed 

ator on the course of action decided 

rm Stranding Response Network members. 

Response Coordinator

Admi ator (NOAA) official in charge during a

The C inator will be a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) employee or NOAA 

wever, 

if nee

comm

ex., large response situations), the Coordinator will manage the o ration thr

staff. 

inator is responsible for the following actions: 

accurate information of the stranding event. 

e Coordinator will collect the stranding information as reported and then verify

ormation with an onsite visit. 

A e information and develop response objectives and strategies. 

FS and NOAA Enforcement will analyze the stranding event to determine a safe and 

ical course of action. 

ine personnel and equipment needs. 

rsonnel and equipment needs shall be assembled as needed. 

4. Notify Alaska State Troopers 

e Coordinator will contact Alaska State Troopers to inform them of the stranding

 the chance they have not been told. The Coordinator will keep the State Troopers 

ormed of activities that may affect the Seward Highway along Turnagain Arm (ex., 

icles, people). 

the Turnagain Arm Stranding Response Network 

rking through NMFS

of stranding events and will work with the Coordin

for the stranding (ex., monitoring, safety, rescue). 

6. Obtain needed logistical support, including aircraft 

The Coordinator shall arrange logistical support as necessary, including aircraft (ex., 

airplanes, helicopter). 

The Coordinator is responsible for coordination within NMFS and NOAA Enforcement. The 

Coordinator will also have the list of NMFS and NOAA Enforcement personnel for on-site 

response, as well as a list of the Turnagain A

On site, the Coordinator may direct specific response actions of agency personnel, Turnagain 

Arm Stranding Response Network members, and support functions. Necessary equipment shall 

be delivered and available as requested. 

A Veterinarian will be consulted by the Coordinator for each response. The Coordinator will 

consider recommendations by the Veterinarian in determining course of actions. 

114 
PERSONNEL 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

Anchorage Field Office 271-5006 

Stranding cell phone 360-3481 

Juneau Regional Office 586-7235 

OFFICE

Barbara Mahoney 271-3448 

Brad S

OAA ENFORCEMENT

Mandy Migura 271-1332 

mith 271-3023 

N

Matt C

Les Co 1-1823 

evin Heck 271-1823 

Mike Adams 271-1823 

lark 271-1823 

ckreham 27

K

Mark Kirkland 271-1823 

115 
APPENDIX D. NOAA OLE Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Enforcement Plan 

isheries Service 

Alaska Enforcement Division 

GA WHALE ENFORCEMENT PLAN

October 01, 2007 – September 31, 2008

Primary and Emergency Contact List 

National Marine F

2008 COOK INLET BELU

Contact Responsibilities Office Cell 

ASAC Kevin Heck Primary emergency contact 907-271-5745 - 

EO Les Cockreham Operational Planning 907-271-3021 - 

SA Jason Couse Investigations 907-271-5765 - 

Lt Tory Oleck Alaska State Troopers 907-761-7139 - 

SA Rory Stark USFWS 907-271-2825 - 

SA Vince Pallozzi AFT 907-271-5742 - 

US Marshal Service Arrests 907-271-5154 - 

Authority

Act

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

Enforcement authority for National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) actions 

related to an illegal harvest or attempted illegal harvest during this operation falls under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as delineated at 16 U.S.C. 1377. Other potential 

criminal statutes to be investigated are the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371- underlying MMPA 

violation) and Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 371). 

Regulations

50 CFR 216 Regulations Governing the Taking and Importation of Marine Mammals 

Under the MMPA, “take” is defined at 50 CFR 216.3 as “harass, hunt, capture, collect, or kill, or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, collect or kill, any marine mammal . . . ” Native hunters are not 

allowed to subsistence hunt for Cook Inlet beluga whales, unless it is permitted by the CoManagement Agreement between the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Cook 

Inlet Marine Mammal Council (CIMMC). 

50 CFR 229 Authorization for Commercial Fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972 

There are over 1,300 Cook Inlet salmon set or drift gillnet permits issued by the Alaska State 

Department of Fish and Game. All Cook Inlet salmon set or drift gillnet permits are listed by the 

NMFS as Category II fisheries. The owner of a Cook Inlet salmon set or drift gillnet permit is 

required to obtain an Authorization Certificate and report marine mammal interactions to the 

NMFS. 

116 
Mission

Stop all illegal takes of 

he threat level for 2008 is 

Cook Inlet beluga whales from any source. 

2008 Threat Level: HIGH

T defined as HIGH since strikes will not be permitted and any hunting 

r attempting to hunt a Cook Inlet b A. A comanagement agreement w

t level reflects the gal take during year. It is b on an 

mber o erm -management 

MFS. e upgrade

change du ons, violations, a There are three 

levels for a 

l HIGH

o eluga whale will be in violation of the MMP

ill not exist between the NMFS and the CIMMC in 2008. 

 

The threa possibility of ille a given ased 

assessment of the nu f strikes1 Native groups are p itted by the co

agreement with the N The threat level can b d or downgraded during a given year 

as circumstances e to investigati nd intelligence. 

possible threat given year: 

Threat Leve : No strikes are allowed for the N f Tyonek (NVT) or 

tive M ammal Hunter’s Comm C). 

Threat Level MODERATE

ative Village o

the Alaska Na arine M ittee (ANMMH

: The NVT is allocated one strike and the ANMMHC is not 

allocated a strike. 

Threat Level LOW: Both the NVT MHC are given one strike each. 

 outreach will be conducted throughout 2008. 

 and the ANM

Patrols, surveillance, liaison, and community

 

AED Performance Goals for 2006

Activity Patrol high threat areas 200 hours 

Activity Conduct surveillance 100 hours 

Activity Respond to complaints with in 24 hours 

Activity COPPS outreach and education 125 hours 

Milestone Prepare end of year summary 1st Quarter 

Milestone Prepare operations plan for coming year 1st Quarter 

 

1

The 

rike, a seco

NVT and ANMMHC are permitted to strike, or shoot at one beluga whale. If a beluga is lost after a 

st nd strike is not permitted on a different beluga. 

117 
Geographic Analysis of Threat Areas

High Threat Areas

he major threat areas are listed in priority. Also listed are areas of interest where beluga 

activity may occur. 

The 

ng, which is 

approximately 30 miles up-river from the mouth. The area of concern is the mouth of the 

lance 

es. 

riority 2. Little Susitna River is the second most remote area that meets all the threat 

 ramp, about 13 

-river. The mouth is less than a mile wide and offers no concealment for the first 

l 

ugas near or in river mouth have a high potential for harassment from 

sportsmen boat traffic to and from the area. After about 5 miles up-river, natural camping 

patrolled by state park rangers. The best method of patrolling the river is by jet boat, and 

 

Priority 3. Ship Creek Boat Ramp is the main launch and recovery area for any boats 

using upper Cook Inlet

A ntere

T

Priority 1. Susitna River is the most remote area that meets all the factors as a major 

threat area. The river mouth is 20 miles from Anchorage by crossing Cook Inlet. 

area is not accessible by road, and the nearest road system is at Deshka Landi

Susitna and is approximately 5 miles wide and 12 miles long. Public use and surveil

of the area is extremely limited due to the hazardous nature of the river and the tid

Belugas can be found throughout the spring and summer, in and around the mouth of the 

river. The best method of patrolling is by vessel, and then by aircraft. 

P

area factors. The river mouth is about 12 miles away from Anchorage by crossing Cook

Inlet. The Little Susitna is accessible by road only at the state park boat

miles up

three miles. The banks of the river are ten to twenty feet high mud walls with no natura

camping areas. Bel

areas can be found in abundance and are heavily used by the public. The river is 

then by aircraft. 

 

. 

reas of I st 

The areas require patrolling due eluga activity, strandings, and level 

h t. Le expected to increase in future years due ase in 

d nt an pper Cook Inlet. 

y Co te has the potential for a take by fishing gear, or 

l d firearm). Vehicle patrol and vessel patrol are the 

 eff ividual sites. 

Knik Arm, Turnagain Arm, and Kachemak Bay are under heavy surveillance by the 

public in vehicles, boats, and aircraft. Aircraft and vessel patrols are an effective method 

to cover large areas. 

The Beluga River and the Lewis River do not offer well concealed areas and are under 

moderate surveillance by aircraft and sportsmen. Aircraft patrols are the most effective 

method for patrolling these rivers.

 to possible b

vel A&B harassment is

A&B 

arassmen to an incre

evelopme d research activities in U

An ok Inlet salmon set or drift net si

illega

most

eterrence (such as shooting by 

ective methods of covering ind

118 
Components of the Action Plan 

Our law enforcement effort will consist of three components: Patrol, Investigation, and COPPS. 

Patrol

Air patrols 

Report all air patrol activity in a LEADS ACI Report. Non-District 3 personnel will forward a 

copy of

Boat P

Report 

copy of

Vehicle

Report nnel will forward 

 copy of the ACI Report to the District 3 ASAC. 

Intellig

 the ACI Report to the District 3 ASAC. 

atrols 

all boat patrol activity in a LEADS ACI Report. Non-District 3 personnel will forward a 

 the ACI Report to the District 3 ASAC. 

 Patrols 

all vehicle patrol activity in a LEADS ACI Report. Non-District 3 perso

a

ence Gathering/Investigation

One SA

in an ef

conduc

CI belu

seeking

harassm

A mini rcement Officer (EO) will also be assigned for the same period with 

nsibility for initiating and continuing our COPPS efforts, conducting patrol from various 

availab

organiz port the COPPS efforts and patrolling through TDY 

ssignments as needed. 

t 3 

Comm

 will be assigned to beluga operations from October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007 

fort to improve our ability to collect and disseminate intelligence, develop informants, 

t covert surveillance, and aggressively investigate all reports of alleged illegal “takes” of 

gas. The assigned SA will be critical in maintaining continuity in the beluga operations, 

 out informants, and developing intelligence necessary to prevent illegal hunting or 

ent in Cook Inlet. 

mum of one Enfo

respo

le platforms, and coordinating daily operations with local, state, and other federal 

ations. Other EOs will sup

a

All intelligence findings will be reported in LEADS in an Incident Report. Non-Distric

personnel will forward a copy of the Incident Report to the District 3 ASAC. 

unity Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS)

outreach and education conducted through meetings with Native hunters, and liaison with

nforcement agencies in the CI area will continue to be

Public 

other e crucial to the success of 

nforcement efforts. We intend to build on public awareness which was raised by efforts in 

previou t 

suspect

limited s by incorporating the “eyes and ears” of the public to assist in 

deterring and detecting illegal activity. Recommended public outreach and education projects 

are: 

nd distribution of beluga reward posters in the CI area; 

2. Contact with local charter services, “f ht seeing” charters, tour groups with 

educational information, and enforcement contact information; 

e

s years. By raising the awareness of the public to beluga issues, and the need to repor

ed harassment and takes of these animals, we hope to enhance the effectiveness of our 

 enforcement resource

1. Media service announcements a

lig

119 
3. Conducting outreach and education in beluga crime prevention at shows and events. 

artnership meetings with appropriate local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in the 

will be conducted to provide updated information on the CI beluga situation, OLE’s 

relates to belugas, and appropriate points of contact for questions and enforcementIn addition, the Anchorage field office will 

ontinue to develop relationships with enforcement agencies in an effort to increase assistance in 

eluga whales. The initial round of beluga-related liaison meetings with local 

utreach to Native hunters in the CI area will continue in an effort to ensure they are aware of 

orcement emphasis and to develop a mutual understanding of the beluga 

 in a LEADS ACI Report. Non-District 3 personnel will 

ne of recommended actions to be implemented during FY 2008. From 

ctober to November hunter and research vessel activity may still occur. January to March, 

 ice 

k 

ay be 

rations in 

 difficult during April and May due to melting ice flows and flooding 

at could occur from heavy snow falls and cold weather. 

anuary 2008

P

CI area 

mission as it 

related information. These meetings will also be used to solicit assistance in effectively 

conducting our enforcement mission during 2008. 

c

protecting CI b

enforcement agencies will begin in March 2008. 

O

the increased enf

conservation in Cook Inlet. Meetings are also coordinated with PRD staff and CIMMC during 

the spring of 2008. 

Report all COPPS and liaison activities

forward a copy of the ACI Report to the District 3 ASAC. 

2008 Action Plan 

The Action Plan is an outli

O

Cook Inlet is normally impassable by small boats due to ice flows. April may still experience

in Cook Inlet, but April and May are traditional spring months for hunting activities. Ship Cree

Boat Launch will not be in operation until mid-May. Vessel operations before mid May m

limited to the Deshka Boat Launch, 30 miles away from the Susitna River mouth. Ope

the Susitna River may be

th

J

• Submit 2007 Operation Beluga Watch Annual Report

• Submit 2008 Cook Inlet Beluga Enforcement Plan

February 2008

• Attend the Anchors Aweigh Boat Show in Anchorage, February 1-10, 2008, and cond

crime prevention outreach and education. 

March 2008

uct 

• CIMMC Meeting (Date not announced) 

April 2008

•

•

Begin air patrol operations. 

Coordinate operational information and intelligence with other agencies. If possible, 

form a joint task force to respond to any threat. 

120 
• egin COPPS outreach and education with media, travel services, air tour services, and 

• Respond to all beluga strandings. 

B

state and federal park rangers. 

• Attended the 2008 Great Alaska Sportsmen Show in Anchorage, April 3-6, 2008 and 

conduct beluga crime prevention outreach and education 

May 2008

• Meet with other LE agencies. 

• Training of oil platform employees south of the Cook Inlet Forelands 

• Provide replacement Beluga Reward signs to Alaska State Park Ranger 

June 2008

• Patrolling and other activities 

• Begin monitoring set and drift net sites. 

July 2008 

• Meet with the NVT and ANMMHC if necessary. 

• Provide liaison between NVT, ANMMHC and PRD to confirm that no hunting will occu

in 2008. 

r 

• Operation Beluga Watch presentation for LE agencies. 

August 2008

• Conduct patrols and LE activities. 

• Increase patrol of Knik Arm for level A & B harassment 

September 2008

• Continue patrols. Reduce vehicle patrols cease vessel patrols if weather continues to 

deteriorate. 

• Meet with the NVT and the ANMMHC if necessary. 

• Continue patrols of Knik Arm for level A & B harassment. 

Attend the Alaska State Fair in Palmer, August 21 – September 1, 2008. 

Prepare for the Alaska Federation of Native Convention that will be held in Anchorage, 

 2008. 

•

•

October

121 
APPENDIX E: Acronyms and Abbreviations

AB ittee 

AC

ADFG 

DNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources 

Administrative Law Judge 

AMMT l Tissue Archival Project 

N

W

OF

Cook Inlet 

mal Council 

O S d Problem Solving 

B 

Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane 

DO

EPA

EPOC 

ER

Endangered Species Act, as amended 

Federal Aviation Administration 

GL

Hz 

HC International Pacific Halibut Commission 

rying Capacity 

KABAT

KBRR emak Bay Research Reserve 

kHz

MM

MMS 

MNPL 

OA ality of Anchorage 

EPA National Environmental Policy Act 

ISA National Invasive Species Act 

MFS National Marine Fisheries Service (also NOAA Fisheries) 

MML National Marine Mammal Laboratory 

PDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

OLE NOAA Office of Law Enforcement 

OSP Optimum Sustainable Population 

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

PBR Potential Biological Removal 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation 

TEK Traditional Ecological Knowledge 

USCOE United States Corps of Engineers. 

WP White Phosphorous 

WC Alaska Beluga Whale Comm

C Alaska Coastal Current 

 Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

A

ALJ 

AP Alaska Marine Mamma

A

A

O Alaska Native organization 

TF John M. Asplund Wastewater Treatment Facility 

B Board of Fisheries 

C

C

I 

IMMC Cook Inlet Marine Mam

C PP Community Oriented Policing an

d Decibel 

DDT 

DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada 

T Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 

 Environmental Protection Agency 

 Emerging Pollutant of Concern 

F Eagle River Flats 

ESA 

FAA 

G Growth Layer Group 

 Hertz 

IP

K Car

A Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority 

 Kach

 KiloHertz 

PA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

 Minerals Management Service 

 Maximum Net Productivity Level 

M Municip

N

N

N

N

N

122