monitoring : relationships of distribution, aoundance, and ... · ring~d s~al monitoring :...
TRANSCRIPT
RING~D S~AL MONITORING : relationships of distribution, aoundance, and reproductive success to nabitat attributes and industrial activities.
PROGRESS REPORT
Contract No.:· 84-ABC-00210 NOAA Project No.: RU #667 Reporting Period: 1 Jan 1985-15 July 1985 Number of Pages: 15
Ringed Seal Monitoring: Relationships of Distribution, Abundance, and Reproductive Success to
Habitat Attributes and Industrial Activities
Principal Investigators
Kathryn J. Frost, lloyd F. lowry, and John J. Burns Alaska Department of Fish and Game
1300.College Road Fairbanks, AK 99701
Assisted byHoward Golden, James Gilbert, and Susan Hills
31 July 1985
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. II. III.
IV. v.
VI. VII.
Introduction and Objectives ••••.••••• Field and Laboratory Activities. • • • . ••• Methods • •••.•••.•... Re-analysis of Historical Data . . . . . . . . Aerial Surveys • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Entry and Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collected or Analyzed . . . . . Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . Historical Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1985 Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problems/Recommended Changes . . . . . . . . . . . Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
.
. . .
. .
.
.
1 1 3 3 3 7 7
11 11 13 13 14
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Plots of ringed seal sightings in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, 1970-1984. Field operations report for 1985 aerial surveys.
1- "
Introduction and Objectives.... I.
... Most studies of distribution and abundance of ringed seals have been based on extrapolations of counts made from aerial surveys conducted during the spring molt (e.g., Burns and Harbo 1972; Smith et al. 1978, Stirling et al. 1981a, b). Results indicate that densities of hauled out seals varygeographically, annually, and in relation to ice type. In Alaska, higherdensities have been reported in the Chukchi Sea than in the Beaufort Sea, on shorefast ice than on moving pack ice (Burns and Eley 1978), and in0 areas of 401 or less ice deformation (Burns and Kelly 1982).
0 Factors limiting the abundance of ringed seals are poorly known. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus), arctic foxes (A1ogei lagoyus) and humans are their major predators (Johnson et al. 1966, Sm1t 976, 980). Habitat attributes such as food availability and ice conditions undoubtedly affect ringed seal numbers and productivity, but the actual mediating factors are
• ~ far from clear (Stirling et al. 1977, lowry et al. 1980, Smith and Hammill
1981). Human activities such as those associated with exploration and development of offshore oil and gas reserves may also influence ringed seal numbers. Recent studies conducted in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea (Burns et al. 1981, Burns and Kelly 1982) suggest that on-ice seismic exploration results in some localized displacement of seals but that the overall effect I is not significant. The probable effects of other development-related activities are not known.
An understanding of patterns of ringed seal abundance and distribution, and the factors that influence observed patterns, is essential to understanding ecological processes and interactions in waters of northern Alaska. This ' research project was designed to a.ddress those questions. Specificobjectives are to:
1. Develop and implement a monitoring protocol for long-term studies on ' I abundance of ringed seals in Alaskan coastal waters.
I 2. Quantify population parameters of ringed seals in areas subjected to
industrhl activities and in_appropriate "contro1 11 areas.
I 3•. Identify temporal and spatial trends in ringed seal abundance and
relate these to current and historic population status.
I 4. Assess factors influencing ringed seal abundance and productivity and,
where appropriate, make recommendations for mitigating adverse effects of industrial activities.
I II. Field and laboratory Activities
In the period covered by this report, historical data were re-analyzed, an aerial survey protocol was finalized, and the first season of aerial I surveys was successfully completed (Table 1). .
During the first half of 1985, all historical data from ringed seal aerial surveys conducted by ADF&G in 1970-1984 were reviewed, checked, tabulated,I and plotted. These data now provide an organized and accessible data base with which to compare results of 1985 and future surveys.
I t
2
e The principal investigators met with personnel from OCSEAP (Paul Becker and George Lapfene) and Minerals Management Service (Steve Treacy) in JanuaryI 1985 to discuss and finalize the protocol to be used for aerial surveys of ringed seals hauled out on the fast ice of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. The discussions covered logistical needs, basic design of the surveys, i distribution of survey effort in relation to on-ice industrial activities, and the rationale for additional studies that may be needed to assess the impacts of industrial activities on ringed seals. A final protocol for I aerial survey design was submitted to OCSEAP in early February.
I Aerial surveys of ringed seals hauled out on the fast ice from Kotzebue Sound to Barter Island were conducted between 20 May and 14 June 1985. Surveys in the Chukchi Sea were flown from 21-30 May and in the Beaufort Sea from 30 May-13 June.
I Table 1. Field and laboratory activities, December 1984-July 1985.
a Acthity Dates Personnel
I Verification and re-entry of ,, historical aerial survey data
Meeting with OCSEAP/MMSdiscuss protocol
I Preparation of aerial surveyprotocol
I Diapir field update meeting
OCSEAP/MMSI Bering Sea information exchangemeeting - OCSEAP/MMS
I Aerial surveys - Chukchi
I Aerial surveys - Beaufort
I Computerize 1985 aerial survey data - Chukchi
I
Computer4ze 1985 aerial survey data ... Beaufort
Dec-March
24 Jan
27 Jan· 8 Feb
4-15 March
30 May
20-30 May
30 May14 June
24 June15 July
ongoing~
Frost, Venable, Lowry
Lowry, Frost, Burns
Lowry, Frost
Frost
Burns
Frost, Golden, Gilbert
Frost, Golden, Hills
1
Frost
--'=~~-·---··- ···Frost
I I
'
3
4 III. Methods
I Re-analysis of Historical Data
Ringed seal aerial survey data collected by ADF&G prior to 1985 wereI reviewed and checked in order to provide an organized data base for comparison to future aerial surveys. Methodology used in those surveys is summarized in Table 2. The tracklines for surveys were replotted and legschecked for correct beginning and ending points, reasonable air speeds and
i I leg lengths. Legs when survey conditions were questionable (e.g., obscured
visibility, wind greater than 20 knots, or poor ice conditions) were deleted from the data base, as were those when navigational questions could not be resolved. (Many of the early surveys were flown without GNS
I navigation.) Computerized sighting data were verified against the original field data sheets. Ice and environmental records were verified and updated as necessary to reflect the most recent coding requirements.
Aerial Surveys
I I Surveys were conducted using a NOAA Twin Otter fixed-wing aircraft equipped
with bubble windows, radar altimeter, and GNS-500 navigation system. All surveys were flown at an airspeed of approximately 120 knots. In the Chukchi Sea survey altitude was 500ft; in the Beaufort Sea ice conditions_ and low ceilings necessitated a lower survey altitude of 300 ft. Three scientific personnel participated in each survey: a navigator who sat in the co-pilot's seat and recorded weather, ice conditions, and navigationalinformation, and two observers stationed one on either side of the aircraft just forward of the wings. Surveys were flown from 1000-1600 true local ' time to coincide with the time of ~ay when maximal numbers of seals haul out. .I
I Each observer counted the seals in the strip on his or her side of the aircraft. Strip width varied according to altitude and was detenmined byinclinometer angles which were also indicated by marks on the windows. At 500 ft, the transects began 1/8 nm out from the centerline and extended out to 1/2 nm for an effective width of 3/8 nm (2,250 ft). At 300 ft, the
I I inclinometer angles remained the same and the effective track width was
reduced to 1,350 ft (Figure 1). Each observer recorded the time of sighting (by one-minute intervals), number of individuals, number of pups,and whether the seals were at breathing holes or along cracks. In
I addition, notations were made of any evidence of on-ice human activity(snowmachine tracks, seismic lines, artificial islands, or drill rigs), and of other marine mammals such as whales or polar bears.
I An on-board data recording system supplied by NOAA, which was linked 1to the GNS-500 and radar altimeter, was used to mark beginning and ending time, altitude, latitude, and longitude of each transect, and to mark other positions of interest.
I The Beaufort/Chukchi study area was divided into 11 sectors that corresponded to those used in previous surveys and reports (Figure 2). Within sectors, transects were flown along lines of latitude in the Chukchi Sea and longitude in the Beaufort Sea from just offshore to the edge of shorefast ice. In some instances, it was difficult to determine the edge
I• D
4 1111!
Table 2. Methodology for ringed seal aerial surveys conducted by ADF&G. -• .. 1970-1984 in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas •
) 1970 1975 1976 1977 1978 1981 1982 1984
I Aircraft C180/ C180/ C180/ C180/ C172/ Grumman Bell 204 C185 Otter Otter Otter Cl80 Goose Helicopter C180
I Track width (nm) 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.0 1.0 1.0
I Altitude 500 500 300-500 300 300 300-500 500 500 (ft)
DR or DR or Navigation1 DR On Trak On Trak DR DR GNS GNS DRG left & right separate no no yes yes yes yes yes yes
Inner/outer separate no no no no no yes yes no ' Centerline offset no no no no no yes no no ' Clinometera used no no no no no yes yes yes
I Ice deformation recorded no no yes yes yes yes yes yes
G 1 DR =Dead-reckoning using known landmarks.
' GNS • Global Navigation System Model 500.
e -·---I·~
I I I ,, I.
........... -1
!:!1
---~----~~~~----..
---
_...
.~_
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
_.. _
__
__
__
....J
_ _
__
__
__
__
__
__
__~_-
----~-----------
--
----~--------
' ~
# '-
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
~---
----
----
----
----
----
-~
75
0ft
2
25
0ft
ALT
ITU
DE
50
0ft
SU
RV
EY
S
TR
IP
WID
TH
C
EN
TE
RLI
NE
O
FF
SE
T
U1
Fig
ure
1.
Dia
gram
sho
win
g in
clin
omet
er a
ngle
s, c
ente
rlin
e o
ffse
ts,
and
surv
ey s
trip
wid
ths
for
ring
ed s
eal
surv
eys.
~
••
•• --· ......
-.. ..,.....
-4
!!'1
·...............
" '
I 1 .11
1 I
I t
••
•• I
''
1!111
I
I71
-1-C
-CH
I SE
A
l ...
I B
EA
UF
OR
r SE
A
! 1'. ~ ....
I \
~-I
-1-71
a3
.. ~-·-
· otnt
•
•
ALA
SKA
•• 17
1
Ull
...
0\
Fig
ure
2.
Map
of
nort
hern
Ala
ska
show
ing
sect
ors
used
fo
r th
e de
sign
and
ana
lysi
s of
rin
ged
seal
ae
rial
sur
veys
con
duct
ed b
y AD
F&G.
7
I of the fast ice, in which case lines were flown to an arbitrary end pointoffshore. The edge of the fast fee will be determined based on satelliteI photographs taken during the same time period and the data will be coded accordingly.
I Transect lines were spaced approximately 2 nm between centerlines (2minutes of latitude, 6 minutes of longitude); within each sector, 60S of the possible transects were randomly selected and flown. In two sectors in the Beaufort Sea where on-ice industrial activity is greatest (B2, Lonely
I I to Oliktok and B3, Oliktok to Flaxman Island) coverage was increased to
90S. In addition, a 10-mfle grid of lines spaced one mile apart was flown around the artificial island, Seal Island.
Data Entry and Analysis
Data are currently being entered into an IBM-PC computer using a data entry I program that converts field data to NODC codes. Accuracy of data fs checked both manually and by range checks built into the data entry
I program.
I IV. Data Collected or Analyzed
Historical data from over 11,000 linear miles of trackline (7,800 nm2 of survey area) were verified, reanalyzed, and plotted (Tables 3 and 4, andI Appendix A). Coverage in the Beaufort Sea was almost double that in the Chukchi Sea. The two most heavily industrialized sectors, B2 and B3, have received the most intensive survey effort, with approximately 2,500 nm of usable trackline in each sector •. In the Chukchi Sea over 70S of the usable M data are for the northernmost sectors, C5 and C6. Coverage was most extensive (2,040 nm of trackline) in the Chukchi Sea in 1976, the only yearin which all six .sectors were flown. In the Beaufort Sea, coverage wasI greatest in 1981 when 2,884 linear miles of trackline were surveyed.
In spring 1985 aerial surveys were flown over the fast ice from Kotzebue Sound to Barter Island. The NOAA Twin Otter picked up scientific personnelI in Fairbanks on 20 May and flew to Kotzebue, which served as an operationsbase until 24 May. Sectors C1 and C2 were completed during that time. Because the fast ice was very narrow in sector C2, transects were extendedI over pack ice to approximately 10 nm offshore. Operations were moved to Cape Lisburne on 24 May. Sector C4 was completed, but due to extremelylimited fast ice and high winds, sector C3 was not flown. From 26 May
I 1 until 2 June surveys were staged out of Barrow and sectors C5, C6, and
parts of Bl and B2 were completed. On 2 June, operations were moved to Deadhorse and we operated from there until the end of the project on)14June. All Beaufort Sea sectors were completed except B5, where only a few transects were flown.
Approximately 86 hours of flight time were expended in the successfully
I I completed sectors. The aircraft flew an estimated 10,320 nm during survey
flights, of which approximately 5,400 nm were on survey trackline (Table 5). Coverage was greatest in sectors B2 and B3 in the Beaufort Sea.
t I
8
.C Table 3. Ringed seal survey effort in the Chukchi Sea, 1970-1984.
I I C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
1970I Track mnes (nm) 127 163 Area surveyed (nm2) 91 124 Number of 1egs 9 10I
1975
I Track mfles (nm) 264 257 Area surveyed (nm2) 230 222 Number of legs 17 18
1976I Track miles (nm) 606 215 39 79 298 803 Area surveyed~(nm2) 526 187 34 69 260 342 Number of legs 27 11 3 4 19 42I 1977 Track miles ( nm) 171 179 Area surveyed (nm2) 149 156I Number of legs 13 14
1 1978
I Track miles (nm) 169 182 Area surveyed (nm2) 147 157 Number of legs -13 13
1984 Track miles (nm) 121 158 Area surveyed {nm2) 121 122
.I Number legs 8 7
I I I I I I I
! Il
t
9
I I
Table 4. Ringed seal survey effort in the Beaufort Sea, 1970-1982.
I 81 82 83 84
I 1970 Track miles (nm) 379 365 315 101 Area surveyed (nm2) 325 317 274 88 Number of legs 17 16 13 6I
1975
!I Track miles (nm) 490 385 254 90 Area surveyed (nm2) 412 344 202 78 Number of legs 35 22 17 5
1976I Track miles (nm) 342 232 145 102
I Area surveyed (nm2) 167 151 126 89 Number of legs 14 11 5 4
,f 1977 Track miles (nm) 155 87 82 95 Area surveyed (nm2) 131 76 72 83 Number of legs 6 7 3 5
1981I Track miles (nm) 221 1,257 1,143 263 Area surveyed (nm2) 110 628 554 130 Number of legs 18 104 98 21
I I 1982
Track miles (nm') 218 188 515 96 Area surveyed (nm2) 106. 94 243 47 Number of legs 23 14 48 9
I I 1
. J
a I
' l
10
·.u Table 5. Dates, estimated flight hours, percent coverage, and preliminary
estimate of track miles flown for each sector during the 1985I ringed seal surveys conducted by ADF&G from 20 May-14 June. All or parts of sectors B1-B4 were flown more than once.
I 1
%of transects Track
Sector Dates flown Area Hours miles(nm)
I C1 21, 23 May 60 Kotzebue Sound 10.9 767
I C2 22 May 60 Cape Krusenstern-Pt. Hope 5.5 220
C3 0 Pt. Hope-Cape Lisburne 0 0
I C4 24, 25 May 60 Cape lisburne-Pt. Lay 5.5 202
cs 27 May 60 Pt. Lay-Wainwright 4.5 183
I C6 27, 30 May 60 Wainwright-Barrow 4.0 157
I B1 30 May, 13 June 60 Barrow-Lonely 9.0 573
B2 28 May, 1, 2, 11, I 13 June 90 Lonely-Oliktok 16.5 1,241
B3 7, 9, 11, 12 June 901 Oliktok-Flaxman 20.0 1,482I
• 84 3, 12 June
I 60 Flaxman-Barter 8.0 492
85 12 June 22 Barter-Demarcation 2.2 121
Additional transects were flown in the vicinity of Seal Island.I 1
I
' I l I I
11
I Ice and weather conditions were excellent in the Chukchi Sea, with only one in ten days lost due to weather. In the Beaufort Sea, we were able toI survey on only 8 of 13 days due to fog, wind, or both.
I V. Results and Discussion
Historical Data
1 Results of aerial surveys conducted from 1970-1984 are summarized in Table 6. Some of the densities presented differ from previously reported values for several reasons. During the re-analysis of data we resolvedI navigational problems, and used more strict requirements regarding suitable survey conditions in order to ensure that the historical data are comparable to that being collected in the present monitoring pro9ram.I Most earlier surveys were conducted using dead-reckoning navigation. Determination of the exact location of survey tracklines was difficult, particularly when flying more than a few miles from shore or when shorewardI visibility was restricted. If fog or snow terminated a transect part waybetween identifiable geographic points, it was necessary to extrapolate transect end points based on course heading, elapsed time, and estimatedI ground speed, a process further complicated by variable wind conditions that affected both course heading and speed.
Earlier density calculations sometimes used point-to-point, straight-line I distances for coastal transects rather than taking into account curvature of the shoreline. Recalculation of those densities necessitated replotting tracklines with additional way points in order to reconcile track length I and ground speed. ·
Between 1978 and 1981, primary means of navigation changed from dead
• I reckoning to the GNS-500. Under the dead-reckoning system, strip widths,
and sometimes track lengths, were measured in statute miles. With the advent of the GNS, measurements were made in nautical miles. Duringpreliminary analysis of data for some years, confusion arose in conversion from one unit to the other, particularly in surveys when track width was measured in statute miles (which could be calibrated on an airstrip) and track length in nautical miles (which were stepped off a chart or I calculated from beginning and ending latitudes and longitudes).
Other changes made during re-analysis of historical data included recoding
I I of ice type, primarily reclassification of some ice as pack ice rather than
fast ice. Parts of some transects were deleted because of marginal weather conditions. In the Beaufort Sea, slight alterations were made in the boundary between sector B3 and B4 which influenced densities in those sectors.
Despite the changes resulting from recalculation of densities, the overall
l I pattern in ringed seal abundance remained the same: densities of ringed
seals were usually highest in the northeastern Chukchi Sea, from Point lay to Barrow, and lowest in the Beaufort Sea. Within the Beaufort Sea, there was considerable annual variability in which region had the highest observed density of seals. For example, sector B4 from Flaxman to Barter
'
----- --
12
-I I
Table 6. Summary data on the observed density of ringed seals in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, 1970-84, from aerial surveys flown bythe Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
I Sectors 1970 1975 1976 1977 1978 1981 1982 1984
' CHUKCHI SEA
I I I
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5 6.95 3.50
0.93
2.89
1.21
6.64
2.78 4.47 5.27
1.80
2.87
I C6
BEAUFORT SEA
5.54 7.08 4.96 3.42 2.32
- B1 2.16 3.73 1.53 1.29 1.42 1.31
I B2
B3
1.52
1.99
1. 72
0.96
1.13
2.03
0.61
0.75
1.44
1.51
1.68
1.79
I B4 4.15 3.03 0.53 1.66 1.68 1.11
I I I I
.i
- .::::::::,.-...::...__~=~--
_- __,,,
-- ""~ -- -
e' I
13
I Island had the highest density of seals in three years and the lowest in two years. Each sector had the lowest density in at least one year, andI three of four sectors had the highest density in at least one year.
I Statistical re-analysis of these data will be ongoing through the remainder of 1985 to determine whether useful comparisons can be made between 1970-1984 data and results of the ·1985 surveys.
I 1985 Surveys
Entry of 1985 aerial survey data into an IBM-PC computer is ongoing. All Chukchi Sea sectors have been entered, checked, and edited and are readyI for analysis. Beaufort Sea data are currently being coded for ice characteristics. In the Chukchi Sea, the boundary between fast and packice was easily recognizable; the two areas were usually separated by an open water lead. In the Beaufort Sea, distinguishing between fast and pack
I I ice was considerably more difficult. Field data are presently being
compared to satellite photos of the ice in order to provide the most accurate location of the fast ice/pack ice boundary.
Upon completion of 1985 field work, a debriefing session was held with field personnel to discuss survey methodology. The Twin Otter fitted withI bubble windows was considered by all to be an extremely satisfactory survey aircraft. A survey altitude of 500 ft was considered workable in the Chukchi Sea due to relatively flat ice and excellent weather. In the Beaufort Sea, survey altitude was reduced to 300 ft in order to avoid
I I persistently low cloud ceilings and fog, and to compensate for difficult
sighting conditions caused by extensive meltwater and dirty ice. All observers considered 500ft to be_unsatisfactory for detecting seals under the ice conditions that prevailed in the Beaufort Sea in June 1985.
Survey tracks were offset 34° from the center line in 1985 (1/8 nm at 500ft altitude) to compensate for obscured downward visibility, the more rapid
I I passage of seals and therefore greater likelihood not counting them close
to the centerline, and the increased chance that seals directly under the plane might dive and not be counted. All observers were satisfied with the
I offset inner track boundary and believed their counts to be more accurate by not having to guard the center line. Diving seals were not considered to be a significant problem with the centerline offset.
I VI. Problems/Recommended Changes
A copy of the field operations report submitted to George lapiene, Alaska Office, NOAA Ocean Assessments Division on 1 July 1985 is attached i
(Appendix B). That report discusses suggestions for minor modifications to I the aircraft and for changes in the on-board data recording system to make it more useful for seal surveys.
I No major problems were encountered during the 1985 field season. Analysis
I of survey data and preparation of the annual report are expected to proceed on schedule and be complete by December 1985.
I l
14
-G VII. Literature Cited
I I Burns, J. J. and T. J. Eley. 1978. The natural history and ecology of the
bearded seal (Eri§nathus barbatus) and the ringed seal (Phocahispida). Pages9-162 in Env;ronmental Assessment of t~askan Continental Shelf, Annuar-Reports, Vol. 1. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, Boulder, CO.
I Burns, J. J. and S. J. Harbo, Jr. 1972. An aerial census of ringed seals, northern coast of Alaska. Arctic 25:279-290.
Burns, J. J. and B. P. Kelly. 1982. Studies of ringed seals in theI Alaskan Beaufort Sea during winter: impacts of seismic exploration. OCSEAP Annu. Rep. RU# 232. 57 p.
I Burns, J. J., L. F. Lowry, and K. J. Frost. 1981. Trophic relationships,
I habitat use, and winter ecology of ice-inhabiting phocid seals and functionally related marine mammals in the arctic. Annu. Rep. RU# 232 to Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, Juneau, AK. 81 p.
Johnson, M. L., C. H. Fiscus, B. T. Ostenson, and M. L. Barbour. 1966.I Marine mammals. Pages 897-924 in N. J. Wilimovsky and J. N. Wolfe, eds. · Environment of the Cape Thompson region, Alaska. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge, TN.
Lowry, L. F., K. J. Frost, and J. J. Burns. 1980. Variability in the diet of ringed seals, Phoca hispida, in Alaska. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. ' 37:2254-2261.I
I Smith, T. G. 1976. Predation of ringed seal pups (Phoca hispida) by the
arctic fox (Alopex lagopus). Can. J. Zool. 54:1610-1616.
Smith, T. G. 1980. Polar bear predation of ringed and bearded seals in the land-fast sea ice habitat. Can. J. Zool. 58:2201-2209.
I Smith T. G. and M. 0. Hammill. 1981. Ecology of the ringed seal, Phoca hispida, in its fast ice breeding habitat. Can. J. Zool. 59:966-981
I Smith, T. G., K. Hay, D. Taylor, and R. Greendale. 1978. Ringed seal breeding habitat in Viscount Melville Sound, Barrow Strait, and Peel Sound. Report to Arctic Islands Pipeline Program by Arctic Biological t Station, Fisheries and Marine Service, Fisheries and Environment Canada. INA Publ. No. QS-8160-022-EE-AI. ESCOM Report No. AI-22.
I ·'
Stirling, I., W. R. Archibald, and D. DeMaster. 1977. Distribution and abundance- ef seals in -th~!!astern Beaufort Sea •.J~J!~~-~-~s._~()~r'~-~-Can. 34-:976-988. ~c---=~-
I Stirling, I., M. C. s. Kingsley, and W. Calvert. 1981a. Seals in the Beaufort Sea 1974-1979. Report prepared for Dome Petroleum Limited, Esso Resources Canada Limited, and the Department of Indian and -- ·----I Northern Affairs. Can. Wildl. Serv., Edmonton, Alberta. 70 p.
I I
15
I Stirling, I., M. c. S. Kingsley, and W. Calvert. 198lb. The distribution
and abundance of seals in the High Arctic, 1980. Report prepared forI Dome Petroleum Limited, the Arctic Islands Offshore Production Committee and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Can.
I Wildl. Serv., Edmonton, Alberta. 51 p.
I I I I I I I I I I I I
.J
' I I '
.5 I
Appendix A. Plots of ringed seal sightings in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, 1970-1984.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-~~~-~~~-~--~~~-~~~
11 ''}
l 'ilj
1~)4
.)
... l~
fl
'!.~
[31
BEAU
FORT
SEA
n?
' I
.•.
I I I I I I I I .•
I I I
....
aiJ
' RJt
iD S
EALS
SE
EN P
£R M
JtiiT
E
• J
• l-
5
72
71'/1
e •5
l')t
) 1')
-1
1s;;
lS~
Figu
re A
-1.
Plo
t of
rin
ged
seal
si
ghti
ngs
from
aer
ial
surv
eys
flow
n by
AOF
&G i
n se
ctor
s Bl
and
82,
Bea
ufor
t Se
a, 8
-13
June
197
0.
-.. -
.. --
......
.. --
.. --
---·
-. 1'
-i~
l~U
1~b
1~~
1~2
I BE
AUFO
RT S
EA'
I 1i
II' ' I
I'
83' '
84' '
I 71
·I
' I
·•·
71'
I 85
I '
I
7~
+ 7
0
U S
-CA
NADA
I BO
RDER
l .
11!3
1~6
l~!f
l!f2
1~)tt
l
·--
'
• J
JtaD
SEA
LS
MIII
ITE
• i!l-
5 0
>5
I I I I I I I I I
' I I
I I I
I I I
I I
BART
ER
I SLA
t«!
I I I I I ' I I I I 'I I I I I
Figu
rej
A-2
. P
lot
of r
inge
d se
al
sigh
ting
s fro
m a
eria
l su
rvey
s flo
wn
by A
DF&G
in
sect
ors
83 a
nd 8
4,
Bea
ufor
t Se
a,
9-13
Jun
e 19
70.
.-~~~~-~~~-----~~---
liJti
llH
11
)2
lti~
1~8
1~)o
72
·-·
I I ' I ' I ' I 'I ' I I I I I I
'11
7~
.
C6
CHUK
CHI
SEA
cs
~---
----
--------
.....
IIB
R I
f' R
UlED
SEA
lS
SEEN
P£R
IIJI
IJTE
• I
• 2
-5
e ,.
5
-
72
71
7~
ltib
1t.
it1
162
1'
18
l Ljt)
lf~.~
Figu
re A
-3.
Plo
t of
rin
ged
seal
sig
ht1n
gs f
rom
aer
ial
surv
eys
flow
n by
ADF
&G i
n se
ctor
s C5
and
C6,
Chuk
chi
Sea,
8 J
une
1970
.
-..1
-.. -
.. --
---
.... -
........
. l l
-....
,l'ilj
1~4
h
.. ~~~
I I I [3
1 BE
AUFO
RT S
EA
I1'
, I
I I I7
, ... ·I·
·f-
72I I I I I
.I ' []
2 I I I I
. I I I I I I I I I
'/1 +
/
~
'\.
" ~·=··--..._
......_
_-_,~
I +
71
...0
rF R
JJaD
SEA
LS
SEEN
PER
IUI
IJTE
• 1
• ~-
5 0
>S
I t~H
li4
li
2
tin
Fig
ure
IA-4.
P
lot
of r
inge
d se
al
sigh
ting
s fro
m a
eria
l su
rvey
s flo
wn
by A
DF&G
in
sect
ors
81 a
nd 8
2,
Bea
ufor
t Se
a,
10-1
7 Ju
ne 1
975.
-~----------~~-~--
l'i~
14U
146
144
142
I BE
AUFO
RT S
EA' I ' I I
83
I I
84'
I ··~
717lt~
I I 85
I I
. I
._
II
I I I I I I ' 1 1 I I I 1 I I7~
·•·
70I
BART
ER
ISLA
ttJ
liaR
IF
RJtl
lED
SEA
LS
' ISE
EN I
I£R
IIJfiJ
TE
' I I•
I •
2-
5 '
G
>5
U
S -
CANA
DA i
BCRl
ER
l . l'i~
148
146
144
142
Figu
re A
-5.
Plot
of
ring
ed s
eal
sigh
ting
s fro
m a
eria
l su
rvey
s flo
wn
by A
DF&G
in
sect
ors
83 a
nd 8
4,
Bea
ufor
t Se
a,
10-1
3 Ju
ne 1
975.
--..
---
.... -
----
-.. -
.... , .
.. lt
ill
lt..i-1
16
2 llW
J 1~8
1~6
7..... .
L,
C6
CHUK
CHI
SEA
I I
I I
71
: I
I 1,! I
, I
cs
70
i I'
I I I I I
72I ' I I I I I I I '~
71
lia
R I
F R
lti:E
D S
EALS
SE
EN P
ER M
lfiiT
E 70
•
I •
2-
5 0
> 5
--~~----~-----
ltih
lU
!J 1G
2 16
0 1~8
1L)t1
Figu
re A
-6.
Plo
t of
rin
ged
seal
si
ghti
ngs
from
aer
ial
surv
eys
flow
n by
ADF
&G
in s
ecto
rs
1 C5
and
C6,
C
hukc
hi
Sea,
10
-18
June
197
5.
'i , I I
'I
' :
l
-~---~~-----~~-~~-
1')t
j 1~
)4
1~2
~~~
I I I 01
BE
AUFO
RT
SEA
I I I
72 +
I I
I I
+ 72
I I I
B2I I I
l 11
' I I
~J!
I
. i
L___
----.-
-----
:;:::.
.....
I I I '11
.r
/ ~
.. "\
. I
71~----
·I
·
tii&
R I
f' R
IIID
SEA
LS
SEEN
PER
Mlti
iTE
• I
8 2
-5
(:)
>5
l~G
1~4
1~2
li~
Figu
re A
-7.
Plo
t of
rin
ged
seal
si
ghti
ngs
from
aer
ial
surv
eys
flow
n by
AOF
&G i
n se
ctor
s Bl
and
82,
Bea
ufor
t Se
a,
12-1
5 Ju
ne 1
976.
--1'
·i"'
11U
11b
111
112
.. ---
.... -
----
......
--
-·
71
70
71
7~
I I ' I ' [3
3I ' I '
118
1~i~
·•· ·-·
' I ' I I I tla
R C
F R
ltaD
SEA
LS
SEEN
PE1
MJIIIT
E •
I •
z 1 s
e ,..
BEAU
FORT
SE
A
B4
}.16
135
BART
ER .
I SLA
tll
111
I ' I ' ' ' I ' I I ' I ' ' I I 'I I I I I
U 5
-CA
NADA
i BO
RDER
l .
1-12
Figu
re 1
-8~
Plo
t of
rin
ged
seal
sig
ht1n
gs f
rom
aer
ial
surv
eys
flow
n by
ADF
&G i
n se
ctor
s 83
and
84,
•
Bea
ufor
t Se
a,
15 J
une
1976
. : I 'I
--~---~~------~----
17~
li.iB
ll
i6
lti~
16
2 Hm
_
._ __
___ ..
....__
_..._. __
,
tlM
D fF
RIIU
D S
EALS
SE
£N P
ER l
ltiJT
E
• J
• 2
-5
a ~s
.A'
----
~-~---.....'-'-.I
liB68
C2
CHUK
CHI
·-·
ti7fi7
SE
A
Cl
Ul)
!.
f"'
6()
Oo
:..
1G8
16ti
164
1U2
Figu
re A
-9.
Plo
t of
rin
ged
seal
si
ghti
ngs
from
aer
ial
surv
eys
flow
n by
ADF
&G i
n se
ctor
s C1
and
C2,
C
hukc
hi
Sea,
10
-12
June
197
6.
I
____
_.. _
___
.. __
___
.... _
_ ...
..
4
17~
1li8
16
li 16
-1
162
_;----------------
..--
--.1
--ll
PT
LAY
CI-IU
KCHI
SE
A
C4
__
• I
• (l)
. 69
li9
r-~------------------~
C3
...0
IF R
UllO
SEA
LS
_..
-----.~-------------
SEEN
PER
IU
tiJTE
2-
5 >
5
6868
11n
am
16b
164
162
I
Figu
re A
-10.
P
lot
of r
inge
d se
al s
1ght
ings
fro
m a
eria
l su
rvey
s flo
wn
by A
DF&G
in
sect
ors
C3 a
nd C
4,1
Chuk
chi
Sea,
10
-12
June
197
6.
-------------------
}ljlj
li.H
lu
2 ttm
1~8
1~-jt
)
72
71
7A
·
C6
CHUK
CHI
SEA
cs
._..,_~--------
I I 'I I
72I I I I I I I I I '
71
...U
IF
RUI:E
D S
EALS
SE
£N P
ER I
UIIJT
E 7~
• 1
Iii
z-5
e
•5
}()f
) lti
t1
162
16~
1')8
1L
j~
Fig
ure
A-1
1.
Plo
t of
rin
ged
seal
si
ghti
ngs
from
aer
ial
surv
eys
flow
n by
ADF
&G
in s
ecto
rs
C5 a
nd C
6,
Chu
kchi
Se
a,
10-1
6 Ju
ne 1
976.
---
-:--
-....
---
----
---.
' i
l ~)t
j
1~tt
1~2
1~~
, ;I
,I jli' 1.
72 I
.
[31
BEAU
FORT
SEA
n2
I I I I I I I I I I .·-
I I I I I
tlaR
(J'
RJi
aD S
EALS
SE
EN P
ER M
ltiiT
E
• 1
II
2-
5
72
il
!i i
71'/
1 ,.
0 >
5
1~6
1~-1
1~2
1L)~
Figu
re :A
-12.
P
lot
of r
inge
d se
al
sigh
ting
s fro
m a
eria
l su
rvey
s flo
wn
by A
DF&G
in
sect
ors
B1 a
nd B
2,
Bea
ufor
t Se
a,
14-1
6 Ju
ne 1
977.
--------~----------
1'i~
1.t
U
1.tb
1.
t.t
1.t2
71
.
70
··
I••• I [3
3I I ' I I I I I I I I ..-R
(F
Rlt
aO S
EALS
SE
EN P
ER I
UIIJT
E
• J
• 2
-5
0 ,.
5
BEAU
FORT
SE
A
84
I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
BART
ER
85
' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IS
LA.-:
1 I I I I I I
U S
-CA
NADA
I
-·-71
70
BORD
ER
i
1~)V
'
1-18
l-1
6 1-1
-1 1-
12
Fig
ure
A-1
3.
Plo
t of
rin
ged
seal
si
ghti
ngs
from
aer
ial
surv
eys
flow
n by
ADF
&G
in s
ecto
rs 8
3 an
d 84
, B
eauf
ort
Sea,
14
Jun
e 19
77.
------------------
----
----
----
----
1utl
ll
H
1b2
ttm
1~8
1~io
.lli
l.
7')
·-·
L.
'11
...
7~
0
CHUK
CHI
SEA
I I
I
[5
C6
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
tiM
O I
F R
lti:E
D S
EALS
SE
EN P
ER I
IIIIJT
E
• J
• 2
-5
0 >
5
-72
-71
. 7~
166
1Gt1
162
160
1'18
1~6
Figu
re A
-14.
P
lot
of r
inge
d se
al
sigh
ting
s fro
m a
er1a
l su
rvey
s flo
wn
by A
DF&G
in
sect
ors
CS a
nd C
6,
Chu
kchi
Se
a,
13 J
une
1977
.
I,
-------------------
----
----
----
---
lGll
llltf
1t
i2
um
1~8
1~)6
I I I I I 72
·-
· I
72I I ' I I 'I
C6
' CH
UKCH
I SE
A I I I
71
71
cs
7~
7~
··
----
----
----
-.,.._
--_....
..'\.
tU&
R I
F R
IIID
SEA
LS
SEEN
PER
MltiJ
TE
• J
• 2
-5
e >
s
·-·
·-· .
l~b
1G1
102
160
1~8
li
ti
Figu
re A
-15.
P
lot
of r
inge
d se
al
sigh
ting
s fro
m a
eria
l su
rvey
s flo
wn
by A
DF&G
in
sect
ors
CS a
nd C
6,
Chu
kchi
Se
a, 6
Jun
e 19
78.
--
-- -
----
- --
---
-
II.IIJ
ER l
F R
JIIB
SEA
LS
SEEN
PEl
MJti
JTE
• I
• z
~ 5
-.... •
1l)l
i 1'
'")
1~)4
,)..
_
1~0
! I I
I I I [3
1 BE
AUFO
RT
SEA
I I I
72
I.
) r "'~-~
+
I I ' I
I I I I I
[32
I I
j II
I ' I I
I '
I .
I I I I I I I I
I I
., 1i
. ;....
1
+'M
A-llt
c•uee
u(!)
eO•
•• ..~••
+ 72
\l 7
1
0 :~>5
11 '•
")1~6
1~4
).
_
1~£11
Figu
reiA
-16.
P
lot
of r
inge
d se
al
sigh
ting
s fro
m a
eria
l su
rvey
s flo
wn
by A
DF&G
in
sect
ors
81 a
nd 8
2,
Bea
ufor
t Se
a,
2-9
June
198
1.
•
1~0
1-iU
lt1
6 ltt
tt lt1
2
BEAU
FORT
SE
A' I ' I
B3' I ' '
71
. ··-
71
-------------------
.
'
tUID
rF
RJtl
iED
SEA
LS
SEEN
PER
IUI
IITE
• J
fil
2-
s 0
,.5
B4
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J
BART
ER
ISLA
tll
B5
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7{
1 I I
+ 70
I I
II
! I I I
U S
-CA
NADA
BO
RDER
l':i~
1-18
lt1
6 1-1
-1 1-
12
Figu
re A
-17.
P
lot
of r
inge
d se
al
sigh
ting
s fro
m a
eria
l su
rvey
s flo
wn
by A
DF&G
in
sect
ors
83 a
nd 8
4,
Bea
ufor
t Se
a,
2-9
June
198
1.
---------------
---------
• c
---··
.. • 1~6
154
152
150
I I I 81
BE
AUFO
RT
SEA
I• I
72 +
I
+ 72
I I I
I I
I I .
82
I I I I I I
I I
I I I I I I I I
7 I
I ~
tl
_./~
\',)
'*,
I
I I +
71
I
liaR
lF R
UG
D S
EALS
SE
EN P
ER M
ltiiT
E
• J
• 2
-5
G
~~>5
I I I I
"' -
• I
I a
__.
156
154
152
150
Figu
re A
-18.
P
lot
of r
inge
d se
al
sigh
ting
s fro
m a
eria
l su
rvey
s flo
wn
by A
DF&G
in
sect
ors
81 a
nd 8
2,
Bea
ufor
t Se
a.
25 M
ay-3
Jun
e 19
82.
1'1
.I
, I
------------------
150
148
146
144
142
I I BE
AUFO
RT S
EA
I I I I 83
I I
84I I
I
..._
. rF
RII&
D S
EALS
SE
EN P
ER M
IIIJT
E
• l
• 2
-5
e •5
I I I I I I I I I
' ' I
I I I I
BART
ER I
SLA
tiJ
I ' I ' ' I I I I I I I ' I I I I
7171
I
I 85
I I
I I I
I ' I
I I
7070
u s-
CANA
DAI
IIRJE
R
•
148
146
144
142
Figu
re A
-19.
P
lot
of r
inge
d se
al
sigh
ting
s fro
m a
eria
l su
rvey
s flo
wn
by A
DF&G
in
sect
ors
83 a
nd 8
4,
Bea
ufor
t Se
a,
25 M
ay-4
Jun
e 19
82.
150
•
-----------------
--.i
llllli
" 17~
lt.iU
lt
)ti
lt.H
lt.
l2
lt)~
68
-
67
6ll
0
------
------
----
j
II,
I :I :I
CI-I
UKC
HI
SEA
Oo
' t2
Cl
tOllE
R r
F R
ltiD
SEA
LS
SEEM
PER
IU
IIITE
• J
• z-
5 Q
•5
-liB
67
66
, wo
H
iD
164
1o2
Figu
re A
~~o.
' P
lot
of r
inge
d se
al
sigh
ting
s fro
m a
eria
l su
rvey
s flo
wn
by A
DF&G
in
sect
ors
C1 a
nd C
2,
1
1 C
hukc
hi
Sea.
16
May
198
4.
I I
,, 1
'I I 1
'II
1 ,I I
I " IDEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME I
I I I
I July 1, 1985
I George Lapiene
I I NOAA/Ocean Assessments Division
Alaska Office 701 C Street P.O. Box 56 Anchorage, AK 99513
I Dear George:
BIU SHEFFIEW, OOVfiNOe
1300 COLLEGE ROAD FAIRBANKS, ALASKA lti1Dt
According to our contract for the ringed seal project, RU #667, z•m supposed to submit a field operations report to you upon completion ofI OCSEAP-provided logistics support. I have forwarded to you under separate cover a copy of the letter written to Moran concerning the flight crew. As stated in that letter, we were able to complete virtually all aspects of
I I the survey, which included over 5,400 miles of actual on-track survey
lines, largely because of the cooperation and competence of the chief pilot, Dan Eilers. Mr. Eilers did not simply fly the aircraft, but also paid attention to the scientific design and objectives of the project and made constructive comments about how best to use the aircraft'to achieve the desired end.
I The NOAA Twin Otter was highly satisfactory as a survey aircraft. The GNS functioned well .throughout the trip and the ICS was adequate. For future surveys I would suggest that the plane be equipped with several spare I microphones for the David Clark headsets. and at least one additional headset. It would also probably be a good idea to modify the ICS so that the pilot and co-pilot have the option to talk privately between themselves without being overheard by the rest of the aircraft. The current setup I allows for isolation of the rear observers from the cockpit, but not for the reverse. The bubble windows worked well, but for colder weather surveys bleed air to prevent fogging would be necessary. While in BarrowI Eilers, Crona, and ~self inspected the bleed-air, anti-fogging system on the Otter under charter to the NMFS whale crew. Crona indicated that it should be a straightforward modification for the NOAA Otter. ··
I Ground accommodations arrangements were entirely satisfactory. As youknow, ADF&G was able to arrange for housing in Kotzebue and we should be able to do so again in future years. The flight crew would also be welcomeI to stay there if they so desired. The Cape Lisburne facility, as in previous years, was extremely cooperative. Fueling was a minor inconvenience as the pumping system to transfer fuel to and from theI 200-gallon tank was not adequately vented. NARL is an excellent base of
I 11·1C10LH
George lapiene -2- July 1, 19B5
operations parttcularly if arrangements can be made with the DEW site for use of haallr space to do maintenance.
The on-board computer system has great promise but this year was of limited use for ringed seal surveys. Because we didn't know about the system more than a week or two in advance, there was inadequate time to developappropriate software. Hardware capabilities are excellent, and the existing software written by Bennet is well-designed for whale surveys.Pinniped surveys, however, entail numerous sightings within one~inute intervals as well as a variety of environmental information, also recorded every few minutes; the software requirements for entry of such data are considerably different than for whale data. We did find the system ve~ useful this year for marking begin and end points of legs and for markingpositions of things such as polar bears, belukhas, seismic lines, artificial islands, shear zones, and the edge of the shore lead.
Prior to next year's survey it will be necessary to write software specific to seal surveys (it should also be useful for walrus surveys). I anticipate using the on-board system for real-time recording of environmental data, beginning and ending coordinates of legs, and for marking other positions of interest. Ideally, additional software will also be written for later (nights or weather days) entry of seal sightings. which can then be merged with the real-time data set. Since our office does not own or use an HP it will be necessary to borrow an HPBS from OCSEAP in order to write the software, or to contract someone else to do it. Additionally, it will be necessary to transfer data from the HP system to an IBM PC for analysis. If the·NOAA/OCSEAP office in Anchorage had the appropriate hardware link between the two systems it should be very easy to copy data from an HP to an IBM PC in your office.
I have enclosed a table with the dates, sectors, and approximate number of hours and miles on transect flown during the May-June ringed seal surveys. We were able to complete all sectors except C3 (Point Hope to Capelisburne), where ice conditions were inappropriate for survey, and 85 (Barter to Demarcation) where we ran out of flight hours.
Thank you for the many logistical arrangements you made that contributed to the success of the project. As always, it has been a pleasure to work with you. I look forward to using the NOAA Twin Otter again in the future.
Sincerely,
Kathy Frost Marine Mammals BiologistDivision of Game (907)456-5156
Enclosure
cc: Paul Becker Dan Eilers
I 4t..... , ... . w I
Table 1. Miles on track and hours flown during ringed seal aerial surveys, .B 20 May-14 June 1985 •
I # Miles Date Sector Area I Hours on Track
I 21 May C1 Kotzebue Sound 5.5 498
I 22 May C2 Cape Krusenstern - Pt. Hope 5.5 220
I
23 May C1 Kotzebue Sound 5.4 269
I 24 May Comute Kotzebue - Cape Lisburne 1.0
24 May C4 Cape Lisburne - Pt. Lay 3.7 154
I 25 May C4 Cape Lisburne - Pt. Lay 1.8 48
26 May Comute Cape Lisburne- Barrow 1.8
27 May C5, C6 Pt. Lay - Wainwright - Barrow 6.3 317
I 28 May B2 Lonely - Oliktok 6.0 341
30 May C6, B1 Wainwright ~ Barrow - Lonely 6.5 387I I
1 June B2 Lonely - Oliktok 3.5 176
2 June B2 Lonely- Oliktok 5.1 374
3 June B4 Flaxman - Barter 4.6 231
I 5 June B3 Abort due to weather 1.0
7 June 83 Oliktok - Flaxman 6.2 451I I
8 June 83 Abort due to weather 1.3
9 June 83 Oliktok - Flaxman 5.8 493
I
10 June 84 Abort due to weather 1.2 - ;
I 11 June B2, B3 Oliktok - Flaxman 7.1 628
12 June B3, B4 Oliktok- Flaxman-
I B5 Barter - Demarcation 6.7 461
13 June B1, B2 Barrow- Lonely- Oliktok 6.8 390 •
Totals 92.8 5,438
I I