A third opportunity for research that could build on the results reported here would be the in-situ investigation of ‘hot spot’ areas, past and contemporary, to characterize the substrate, water depth, slope, acoustic environment and oceanographic features in such areas, building on preliminary work done in 1977 (Fraker, Selleck Olaparib 1977). Sampling

of the bottom substrate in one of the Kugmallit Bay ‘hot spots’ was initiated in July 2013 and July 2014 (Hansen-Craik et al., 2013; D. Whalen, NRCan, unpubl. data), and results will be forthcoming. One requirement of the TNMPA management framework is to prohibit specific activities, or classes of activities, that could potentially negatively impact beluga or any part of the ecosystem in the areas upon which they depend (Canada, 2013 and Beaufort Sea Partnership, 2014). Given renewed and considerable interest by the petroleum industry in the Mackenzie Estuary (AANDC, 2012), the types of activities that may arise for screening include proposed flight corridors, ship VX-809 in vitro traffic, seismic surveying, exploratory drilling, and various activities associated with the production of hydrocarbons. Other activities which might be proposed for the TNMPA include whale watching, gravel removal or dredging, by government

or local operators. Determining if any such activity would cause impacts on beluga, as required under the TNMPA regulations, would be impossible without detailed knowledge of the ways that belugas use their TNMPA habitats,

both in time and space. The mapped results presented here would be useful to decision makers and to proponents, at three stages: in initial screening of such projects, the detailed assessments which follow, and in the case of projects which are allowed, the setting of terms Fenbendazole and conditions to mitigate potential impacts. This could take the form of ensuring key habitats (e.g., ‘hot spots’) and/or times of year are avoided, and that conservation efforts are targeted towards the most important areas and times (Williams et al., 2014). Hypothetically speaking, dredging of a new harbour or removal of gravel could have direct but localized effects on beluga habitats, compromising habits which concentrate prey or facilitate rubbing to slough skin (Smith et al., 1992), regardless of time of year. However, the spatial extent of disturbed habitat from such activities would be relatively localized, compared with, for example, anthropogenic activities which introduce underwater noise and the potential to disturb marine mammals (Erbe and Farmer, 2000; Lesage et al., 1999; Tyack, 2008 and Gervais et al., 2012. In those cases, there is potential for ensonification of an entire subarea, although only temporarily.