Place-based approaches to marine conservation identify areas that are crucial to the success of populations, species, communities, or ecosystems, and that may be candidates for special management actions. In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration defined Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) for cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) as areas and periods that individual populations or species are known to preferentially use for certain activities or where small resident populations occur. The activities considered to be biologically important are feeding, migrating, and activities associated with reproduction. We present an approach using spatial optimization to refine the BIA delineation process to be more objective and reproducible for conservation planners and decision makers who wish to use various spatial criteria to address conservation or management objectives. We present a case study concerning feeding bowhead whales ( Balaena mysticetus ) and bowhead whale calves in the western Beaufort Sea to illustrate the mechanics and benefits of our optimization model. In the case study, we incorporate spatial information about whales’ relative density and optimally delineate BIAs under different thresholds for minimum patch (cluster) size and total area encompassed within the BIA network. Results from our case study showed three consistent patterns related to minimum cluster size (contiguity) and maximum area threshold for both BIA types and all months: (1) cells with the highest whale density were selected when contiguity or maximum area thresholds were small; (2) for a given area threshold, the number of whales inside BIAs was inversely proportional to cluster size; and (3) the number of whales inside BIAs initially increased rapidly as the area threshold increased, but eventually approached an asymptote. Additionally, information on temporal variability in a BIA may influence the development of conservation, management, monitoring, or mitigation methods. To provide additional insight into the ecological characteristics of the BIAs selected during the optimization step, we quantified inter-annual variability in whale occurrence and density within individual BIAs using statistical techniques. The bowhead whale BIAs and associated information that we present can be incorporated with other relevant information (e.g., objectives, stressors, costs, acceptable risk, legal constraints) into conservation and management decision-making processes.

A shock trial of a US Navy Destroyer, the USS Winston S. Churchill, was conducted offshore of northern Florida in May and June 2001. The shock trial consisted of three underwater detonation tests, spaced approximately one week apart. Environmental mitigation to minimise the impact of the shock trial on marine mammals and sea turtles was based on a Safety Range of 3.7km (2 n.miles) radius around the detonation site, and a Buffer Zone of an additional 1.85km (1 n.mile) radius beyond the Safety Range. Mitigation included site selection surveys, pre-detonation aerial, vessel and bio-acoustic monitoring, and post-detonation aerial and vessel monitoring. Six species of odontocete and two species of sea turtle were identified during mitigation monitoring, as well as several sightings that could not be identified by species. Site selection aerial surveys were implemented to select a test site with the lowest abundance of marine mammals and sea turtles. Nearly 300 animals were seen during site selection surveys. Pre-detonation aerial and vessel monitoring was implemented to sight any marine mammal and sea turtle within the Safety Range on designated test days, and track the animals until they could be verified to be outside the Safety Range. Approximately 1,200 marine mammals and 32 sea turtles were sighted during pre-detonation monitoring. Pre-detonation bio-acoustic monitoring was implemented to detect large cetaceans within the Safety Range and Buffer Zone; the only calls heard were from dolphins that could not be localised. Post-detonation monitoring was implemented to determine the effectiveness of mitigation procedures. No injured or dead marine mammals or turtles were detected during approximately 185 hours of post-detonation aerial and vessel visual monitoring. Post-detonation monitoring resulted in observations of 767 marine mammals and 42 sea turtles. With only two exceptions, the same marine mammal and sea turtle species were observed prior to, during and after the shock trial test time period. Factors leading to the success of this environmental mitigation effort are summarised, and recommendations for improvements to mitigation efforts of this size and scope are suggested. These recommendations include the use of a simultaneous second aircraft for improved coverage during pre-detonation surveys, increased post-detonation aerial monitoring, equitable survey data for all test sites under consideration during planning stages, and reassessment of bio-acoustic monitoring need and purpose.

We delineated and scored Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) in the Arctic region. The Arctic region extends from the Bering Strait to the Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, Amundsen Gulf, and Viscount Melville Sound. This NOAA-led effort uses structured elicitation principles to build upon the first version of NOAA BIAs (BIA I) for cetaceans. In addition to narratives, maps, and metadata tables, BIA II products incorporated a scoring and labeling system to improve their utility and interpretability. BIAs are compilations of the best available science and have no inherent regulatory authority. They have been used by NOAA, other federal agencies, and the public to support marine spatial planning and marine mammal impact assessments, and to inform the development of conservation measures for cetaceans. Supporting evidence for Arctic BIA II came from data derived from aerial-, land-, and vessel-based surveys; satellite telemetry; passive acoustic monitoring; Indigenous knowledge; photo-identification; aboriginal subsistence harvests, including catch and sighting locations and stomach contents; and prey studies. BIAs were identified for bowhead ( Balaena mysticetus ), gray ( Eschrichtius robustus ), humpback ( Megaptera novaeangliae ), fin ( Balaenoptera physalus ), and beluga ( Delphinapterus leucas ) whales. In total, 44 BIAs were delineated and scored for the Arctic, including 12 reproduction, 24 feeding, and 8 migration BIAs. BIAs were identified in all months except January-March. Fifteen candidate areas did not have sufficient information to delineate as BIAs and were added to a watch list for future consideration in the BIA process. Some BIAs were transboundary between the Arctic region and the Aleutian Islands-Bering Sea region. Several BIAs were transnational, extending into territorial waters of Russia (in the Chukchi Sea) and Canada (in the Beaufort Sea), and a few BIAs were delineated in international waters.

A total of 176 sightings of 488 gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) were made during 85.6 hours of aerial surveys in the southern Chukchi Sea and northern Bering Sea, east of the International Date Line, from August to early November 1980-1989. Surveys were flown infrequently and effort varied considerably between years and geographic areas. Gray whales were sighted in all areas where surveys were flown, with the exceptions of Kotzebue Sound and Norton Sound. Abundance indices of whales per unit effort (WPUE) in the northern Bering Sea were higher than those in the southern Chukchi Sea during every month except September, when survey coverage was inadequate for abundance calculations, indicating comparatively higher overall use of that area or suggesting the onset of the southbound migration. Most gray whales were feeding (57%, n = 276). Incidental sightings of gray whales observed in and near the study area by other researchers were reviewed to better assess gray whale activity and migration patterns.

We delineated and scored Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) for cetaceans in the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea region. BIAs represent areas and times in which cetaceans are known to concentrate for activities related to reproduction, feeding, and migration, and also the known ranges of small and resident populations. This effort, the second led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), uses structured elicitation principles to build upon the first version of NOAA’s BIAs (BIA I) for cetaceans. Supporting evidence for BIA II came from aerial-, land-, and vessel-based surveys; satellite-tagging data; passive acoustic monitoring; Indigenous knowledge; photo-identification data; whaling data, including stomach and fecal contents; prey studies; and genetics. In addition to narratives, maps, and metadata tables, the BIA II products incorporate a scoring and labeling system, which will improve their utility and interpretability. BIAs are compilations of the best available science and have no inherent regulatory authority. They have been used by NOAA, other federal agencies, and the public to support planning and marine mammal impact assessments, and to inform the development of conservation measures for cetaceans. In the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea region, a total of 19 BIAs were identified, delineated, and scored for seven species, including bowhead, North Pacific right, gray, humpback, fin, and sperm whales, and belugas. These include one hierarchical BIA for belugas that consists of one localized “child” BIA within an overarching “parent” BIA. There were 15 feeding, 3 migratory, and 1 small and resident population BIAs; no reproductive BIAs were identified. In some instances, information existed about a species’ use of a particular area and time, but the information was insufficient to confidently delineate the candidate BIA; in those cases, the candidate BIA was added to a watch list. A total of 22 watch list areas were identified and delineated for 10 species, including all species mentioned above and minke whales, harbor porpoises, and Dall’s porpoises. There were 15 feeding, 4 migratory, 2 reproductive, and 1 small and resident population watch list areas. Some BIAs and watch list areas were transboundary between the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea region and the Arctic region.

Examining Eastern North Pacific gray whale ( Eschrichtius robustus ) carcasses and tracking mortality and morbidity are essential for assessing the health of this stock. In the eastern Chukchi Sea, the expansive coastline relative to few coastal communities makes monitoring for and physical examination of gray whale carcasses difficult. The Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM) project offers an unparalleled dataset of gray whale carcasses, documented and photographed from July to October 2009–2019, providing a unique opportunity to investigate imaged gray whale carcasses for possible cause of death. Surveys covered expanses of gray whale and killer whale ( Orcinus orca ) summer and autumn habitat. ASAMM documented a total of 59 gray whale carcasses, distributed across the eastern Chukchi Sea (67.5° N–72.0° N, 155.5° W–169.0° W). Carcass sighting rates ([CPUE] carcasses per 1000-km of effort) varied by month and year. The highest numbers of carcasses were observed in 2012 (13) and 2019 (8). August had the highest number of gray whale carcass sightings (22) and the highest carcass sighting rate (0.231 CPUE). Images were obtained for 56 gray whale carcasses. The majority (41) of imaged gray whale carcasses had injuries consistent with probable killer whale predation, and were photo-documented every year except 2010 (when no carcasses were seen) and 2011. Eight carcasses were suspect killer whale predation, and cause of death could not be determined for seven carcasses. These results will be valuable for evaluating mortality, concurrent with rapid oceanographic changes, and increases in anthropogenic activities.

Changes in gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) phenology and distribution are related to observed and hypothesized prey availability, bottom water temperature, salinity, sea ice persistence, integrated water column and sediment chlorophyll a, and patterns of wind-driven biophysical forcing in the northern Bering and eastern Chukchi seas. This portion of the Pacific Arctic includes four Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) sampling regions. In the Bering Strait area, passive acoustic data showed marked declines in gray whale calling activity coincident with unprecedented wintertime sea ice loss there in 2017-2019, although some whales were seen there during DBO cruises in those years. In the northern Bering Sea, sightings during DBO cruises show changes in gray whale distribution coincident with a shrinking field of infaunal amphipods, with a significant decrease in prey abundance (r = -0.314, p<0.05) observed in the DBO 2 region over the 2010-2019 period. In the eastern Chukchi Sea, sightings during broad scale aerial surveys show that gray whale distribution is associated with localized areas of high infaunal crustacean abundance. Although infaunal crustacean prey abundance was unchanged in DBO regions 3, 4 and 5, a mid-decade shift in gray whale distribution corresponded to both: (i) a localized increase in infaunal prey abundance in DBO regions 4 and 5, and (ii) a correlation of whale relative abundance with wind patterns that can influence epi-benthic and pelagic prey availability. Specifically, in the northeastern Chukchi Sea, increased sighting rates (whales/km) associated with an ~110 km (60 nm) offshore shift in distribution was positively correlated with large scale and local wind patterns conducive to increased availability of krill. In the southern Chukchi Sea, gray whale distribution clustered in all years near an amphipod-krill 'hotspot' associated with a 50-60m deep trough. We discuss potential impacts of observed and inferred prey shifts on gray whale nutrition in the context of an ongoing unusual gray whale mortality event. To conclude, we use the conceptual Arctic Marine Pulses (AMP) model to frame hypotheses that may guide future research on whales in the Pacific Arctic marine ecosystem.

Successful reproduction is essential to a species existence. Here we summarize Bering–Chukchi–Beaufort (BCB) bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus Linnaeus, 1758) calf distribution, ratio of calf to adult sightings, and encounter rate from data collected during line–transect aerial surveys conducted from July to October 2012–2019 in the western Beaufort Sea (140°W–157°W). During 223,000 on effort km, a total of 274 calves were seen: 100 in summer (July–August) and 174 in fall (September–October), compared with nearly 3,200 non-calves. Calves were widely distributed in the study area in August and September, with distribution in July largely east of 150°W and distribution in October west of 143°W. Calf ratios and encounter rates appear to follow a 3–4 year cycle. Most calves (240/274; 88%) were seen near an adult assumed to be the maternal female, but 9% (26/274) of all calves were observed unaccompanied at the surface and 3% (8/274) were observed with large whales at the surface but not close by. Of the total calves detected, 60% (165/274) were observed after circling was initiated, highlighting the importance of closely investigating all bowhead whale sightings if identification of calves is critical to project goals. Bowhead whale calf data from the eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf in August 2019 are also summarized.

Bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) in the western Beaufort Sea (west of 140°W, south of 72°N) exhibit considerable spatiotemporal variability in distribution, density, and behavior that can be largely explained by variability in feeding opportunities, both local and remote. Bowhead whale feeding opportunities are dynamic and ephemeral, dependent on interannual variability driven by biological and physical forces. These insights were made possible by multidisciplinary investigations centered around the Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-mammal-protection/aerial-surveys-arctic-marine-mammals) time series, a long-term (1979–2019) dataset of line-transect surveys in the western Beaufort and eastern Chukchi Seas conducted during summer (July–August) and autumn (September–October). Seasonal patterns of bowhead whale distribution and density in the western Beaufort Sea during two time periods, prior to 2000 and since 2000, are evident in spatially explicit models of relative density that were created using ASAMM data. These models illustrate a general transition in bowhead distribution toward shallower waters as the open-water season (July–October) progresses. Notably, however, the location and number of high-density areas and the timing of the spatial transition have shifted between the two periods. The association between bowhead whales and sea ice in the western Beaufort Sea is rather enigmatic, as exemplified by the similarities in bowhead whale distribution in autumn 2019 (when sea ice retreat was extensive) with the distribution observed when sea ice extent was heavy in the 1980s and 1990s. Anthropogenic factors also affect bowhead whale distribution and density. The effects of anthropogenic and environmental factors on bowheads may be confounded, especially lacking sufficient understanding of the underlying environmental variability inherent in the ecosystem. Variability is a defining characteristic of the Arctic, but the parameters appear to be changing, sometimes in unexpected ways. Improving our understanding and capacity to predict arctic variability is fundamentally important to sound natural resource management. It follows that sound natural resource management is founded on continued monitoring of the ecosystem so that our understanding of the ecological linkages that shape animal distributions and densities tracks the changes occurring, and expected to continue to occur, in the Arctic.

Aerial line transect surveys were conducted during 19 July – 20 August in each of the years 2012 – 17, with onshore – offshore transects covering a study area of approximately 110 000 km2, from 140˚ W to 157˚ W longitude and from shore to 72˚ N latitude. These data were used to estimate abundance of the eastern Chukchi Sea (ECS) stock of beluga whales. The data were stratified based on bathymetry to reflect strong large-scale gradients in beluga density. A half-normal key function was used to model detection from a dataset of 999 sightings of 2465 belugas. The detection function was found to depend significantly on sky condition and ice coverage. For the years 2012 through 2017, respectively, the estimated numbers of ECS belugas in the study area during the study period were 7355 (CV = 0.17), 6813 (CV = 0.18), 16 598 (CV = 0.21), 6456 (CV = 0.21), 6965 (CV = 0.23) and 13 305 (CV = 0.27). There is no statistically significant trend. These estimates do not correct for belugas outside the study region. Indeed, diverse data indicate that belugas venture far outside the study region and their distribution varies interannually due to prey availability and other factors. Recently reviewed tagging data suggest that correcting for whales outside the study area would approximately double our abundance estimates. These results provide no indication that the stock has substantially declined during these six years due to the impact of subsistence hunting, industrial activity or climate change, although interannual variation and estimated CVs are both large, thereby potentially masking small-scale impacts.

We analyzed data from line-transect aerial surveys for marine mammals conducted in the western Beaufort Sea (shore to 72˚ N, 140˚–157˚ W) from July to October of 2009–16 to investigate the distribution, behaviors, sighting rates, and habitat use preferences of bowhead and beluga whales. The habitat use data allowed for direct comparison with data collected in the same area from 1982 to 1991. Both species are ice-adapted, migrating through leads in sea ice in spring, and are seasonal inhabitants of the western Beaufort Sea during summer and fall. From 2009 to 2016, bowheads were seen in all survey months, with the highest overall sighting rate (whales per km) in August. Bowhead sighting rates were highest in the whales’ preferred habitats: outer shelf habitat (51–200 m depth) in July and inner shelf-shallow habitat (≤ 20 m depth) in August, September, and October. Beluga whales were also seen in all survey months, with highest overall sighting rate in July. Beluga whales were overwhelmingly associated with continental slope habitat (201–2000 m depth) in all months. Bowhead distribution and depth preferences in summer months of 2009–16 differed from those observed in 1982–91, when bowheads were not seen during limited survey effort in July and preferred outer continental shelf habitat in August. These differences indicate that bowhead whale preference for shallow shelf habitat now occurs earlier in summer than it used to. Beluga distribution and depth preference remained similar between 1982–91 and 2009–16, with strong preference for continental slope during both periods. Differences in sea ice cover habitat association for both species are likely due more to the relative lack of sea ice in recent years compared to the earlier period than to shifts in habitat preference. Habitat partitioning between bowhead and beluga whales in the western Beaufort Sea remained evident except in July, when both species used continental slope habitat. In July – October 2009–16, the distribution, sighting rates, and behavior of both bowheads and belugas in the western Beaufort showed considerable interannual variation, which underscores the importance of annual sampling to accurate records of the complex western Beaufort Sea ecosystem.

Cetacean occurrence in the Chukchi Sea is seasonal and primarily driven by annual sea ice retreat and prey occurrence in spring through fall. Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus), and minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), although often found in polar waters elsewhere, are not common in the eastern Chukchi Sea, and here are referred to as “subArctic” species. Increasing numbers of these subArctic cetacean species were documented during aerial surveys in the eastern Chukchi Sea (67°–72°N, 157°–169°W) in July–October 2008–2016. The majority (78%) of these sightings occurred on the continental shelf in the south-central Chukchi Sea (67°–69°N, 166°–169°W) in August and September. During similar aerial surveys in 1982–1991, there was a complete lack of sightings of subArctic species. The disparity in sightings between the two time periods could be due to increased marine mammal survey effort in recent years during the months when subArctic cetacean species would be expected to occur, population recoveries from commercial whaling, climate change, or, most likely, a combination of all three.

The range of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort (BCB) population of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) extends across the seasonally ice-covered waters of the Pacific Arctic region. The majority of whales summer in the eastern Beaufort Sea and winter in the Bering Sea, migrating across the Chukchi Sea in fall and spring. As arctic sea-ice extent rapidly diminishes, the increasing length and variability of the open water season is changing bowhead habitat substantially, with many areas now regularly ice-free when whales are present. This study examines changes in the number of open water days (OWD) between 1979 and 2014 within annual bowhead whale core-use areas as defined by satellite tagging data, and within the western Beaufort Sea (140–157°W; to 72°N) sampled by fall aerial surveys. Ice cover has decreased more in the core-use areas in the northern extent of the range than in core-use areas in the southern extent. The numbers of OWD within the core-use areas near Point Barrow and along the northern Chukotka Coast during peak use have increased by 13 and 10 days/decade, respectively. The most dramatic reductions in sea-ice cover have taken place in the western Beaufort Sea where the number of OWD on the shelf and slope have increased by 20 and 25 days/decade, respectively. In contrast, sea-ice cover has not significantly changed within the winter core-use area near the Gulf of Anadyr. Using aerial survey data, we found that bowheads in the Beaufort Sea during the fall migration have a preference for being closer to shore than to the ice edge, and that their distance to shore decreases as the fraction of open water increases. This distribution may be due to increased feeding opportunities closer to shore as a result of greater upwelling along the shelf break when the ice cover is farther from shore. Furthermore, the aerial survey data also revealed a substantial shift westward toward Point Barrow in the whales’ use of the western Beaufort Sea during fall in the period 1997–2014 compared to 1982–1996. The extent and timing of sea-ice coverage has changed relatively little over time in the Bering Sea. Bowheads typically migrate north prior to spring ice melt and retreat; therefore, large changes in the timing of the spring migration are not expected. We anticipate that bowheads will spend increasingly more time within summer and fall feeding areas, delaying their arrival to wintering areas in the Bering Sea. Reduced ice coverage and thickness in the southern Chukchi Sea may make wintering there more common in the future. Summer and fall movements may be more variable as productivity and zooplankton aggregations in existing feeding areas are altered in response to sea ice thinning and retreat, and as new areas become available.

Aerial surveys for bowhead whales have been conducted with a relatively consistent methodology over the Alaskan Beaufort Sea since 1989. Sightings of bowhead whales in the central Alaskan Beaufort Sea in September 1997 and September 2014 were unusual in that hundreds of whales were observed within a few kilometers of local barrier islands. We compare bowhead whale sightings, river discharge data, wind records, and satellite imagery to argue that the large numbers of bowhead whales observed nearshore in September 1997 and 2014 resulted from favorable feeding conditions established by high river discharges and prior upwelling events. These results are then generalized in a simple binary-based mechanistic framework that links the relevant physics to occurrences of observed and potential feeding opportunities for bowhead whales in the central Alaskan Beaufort Sea and in other locales along the Beaufort coast.

The northeastern Chukchi Sea is a shallow subarctic shelf ecosystem that supports a substantial benthic infaunal community of which bivalves are a major component. We assessed the patterns in population abundance, biomass, and caloric content of ten dominant bivalve taxa in relation to the distribution of the upper trophic level consumer Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens). Bivalves were collected over four cruises in the northeastern Chukchi Sea (2009, 2010, 2012, 2013). Our samples were largely dominated by calorie-dense, deposit-feeding species, including Macoma spp., Ennucula tenuis, Nuculana spp. and Yoldia spp. Weight-frequency distributions were strongly right-skewed for most taxa, though some showed evidence of a bimodal distribution. Caloric densities as measured through bomb calorimetry significantly differed among taxa (ANOVA F = 32.57, df = 9, p-value<0.001), and whole animal wet weight was found to be a reliable predictor of whole animal caloric content. Bivalve populations and peak caloric densities were centered on and to the southeast of Hanna Shoal, which coincided with peak Pacific walrus relative density (walruses per km surveyed) from July through October. Significant differences in mean caloric values were found between areas with and without walruses present (student's t-test, t=−2.9088, df = 252.24, p-value = 0.003952), as well as between areas with low and high walrus relative densities in the pooled annual dataset and in each individual month except October (ANOVA, p-value<0.05). The high-calorie deposit feeders that dominate these bivalve communities preferentially consume food sources, such as sea ice algae, that are likely to be affected by shifting sea ice dynamics. As such, continued warming has the potential to alter bivalve communities in the northeastern Chukchi Sea, which may have profound implications for upper trophic levels.

The eastern Chukchi Sea (ECS) stock of beluga whales is one of three stocks in western Alaska that are co-managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee. Abundance of this stock was estimated as 3710 in 1991 from incomplete data. Analysis of data from satellite-linked time-depth recorders (SDRs) attached to belugas in summer concentration areas of the ECS and Beaufort Sea (BS) stocks provided an overview of beluga distribution and movements and allowed the identification of an area (140˚ W to 157˚ W in the BS) and a time period (19 July – 20 August) in which the distributions of the two stocks do not overlap. Aerial survey data were collected by the Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM) project in that region and time period in 2012. We used those data in a line transect analysis that estimated there were 5547 (CV = 0.22) surface-visible belugas in the study area. Data from SDRs were used to develop correction factors to account for animals that were missed because they were either outside of the study area or diving too deep to be seen, resulting in a total abundance estimate of 20 752 (CV = 0.70). The average annual Alaska Native subsistence harvest from the ECS stock (57) is about 0.3% of the population estimate. Without data collected by the ASAMM project and from satellite-linked tags, this analysis would not have been possible. Additional surveys and tagging of ECS belugas are warranted.

The shallow continental shelf waters of the Bering and Chukchi seas are the northernmost foraging grounds of North Pacific gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus). Benthic amphipods are considered the primary prey of gray whales in these waters, although no comprehensive quantitative analysis has been performed to support this assumption. Gray whale relative abundance, distribution, and behavior in the northeastern Chukchi Sea (69°–72°N, 155–169°W) were documented during aerial surveys in June-October 2009–2012. Concurrently, vessel-based benthic infaunal sampling was conducted in the area in July-August 2009–10, September 2011, and August 2012. Gray whales were seen in the study area each month that surveys were conducted, with the majority of whales feeding. Statistical analyses confirm that the highest densities of feeding gray whales were associated with high benthic amphipod abundance, primarily within 70km of shore from Point Barrow to Icy Cape, in water <50m deep. Conversely, gray whales were not seen in 40-km×40-km cells containing benthic sampling stations with 85m−2 or fewer amphipods. Continuing broad-scale aerial surveys in the Chukchi Sea and prey sampling near feeding gray whales will be an important means to monitor and document ongoing and predicted ecosystem changes.

We analyzed data from line-transect aerial surveys for marine mammals conducted in the eastern Chukchi Sea (67˚–72˚ N, 157˚–169˚ W) in July to October of 2009–15 to investigate bowhead and gray whale distributions, behaviors, sighting rates, and habitat selection preferences, the last of which allowed direct comparison with results from data collected in this area in 1982–91. Bowhead whales use the eastern Chukchi Sea primarily for migrating between the Beaufort Sea and the Bering Sea, while gray whales use the area to feed on locally abundant benthic amphipods and other prey. Bowhead whales were observed during all survey months and were distributed up to 300 km offshore west and southwest of Point Barrow, Alaska, but without a defined migratory corridor in either summer (July-August) or fall (September-October). Bowhead whale sighting rates (whales per km on effort) were highest in the shelf/trough (51–200 m North) depth zone in the northeastern Chukchi Sea in both summer and fall. This pattern was reflected in habitat selection ratios, which found bowhead whales in summer and fall selecting primarily shelf/trough habitat in the northeastern Chukchi Sea, with shelf habitat (36 – 50 m) being preferred secondarily. Gray whales were observed in all survey months and were distributed primarily within ~95 km of shore between Point Barrow and Icy Cape in the northeastern Chukchi Sea, and about 60–115 km southwest of Point Hope in the southern Chukchi Sea. In both summer and fall, gray whale sighting rates and habitat selection ratios were highest in the shelf/trough (51–200 m South) depth zone in the southern Chukchi Sea. In the northeastern part of the study area, gray whale sighting rates and habitat selection ratios both identified coastal habitat (≤ 35 m) as preferred habitat in summer and shelf/trough (51–200 m North) as preferred habitat in fall. Distribution and habitat associations of bowhead and gray whales remained similar over the 34-year time span with one exception: gray whale preference for shelf/trough habitat in the southern Chukchi Sea is now evident throughout summer and fall, whereas three decades ago gray whale preference for that area was limited to fall only.