OCS Study 

BOEM 2017-011 

Seasonality of Seabird Distribution in 

Lower Cook Inlet

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Headquarters

OCS Study 

BOEM 2017-011 

Seasonality of Seabird Distribution in 

Lower Cook Inlet

Final Report 

 

 

Authors 

Martin Renner 

Katherine J. Kuletz 

Elizabeth A. Labunski 

Prepared under BOEM Award 

M14PG00031 

by 

Tern Again Consulting 

811 Ocean Drive Loop 

Homer, AK 99603 

and 

Migratory Bird Management 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1011 E. Tudor Rd. 

Anchorage, Alaska 99503 

US Department of the Interior Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management 

Headquarters

January 10, 2017 
ii

DISCLAIMER 

This study was funded, in part, by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Environmental Studies Program, Washington, DC, through Intra- Agency Agreement 

Number M14PG00031with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This report has been technically reviewed 

by BOEM and it has been approved for publication. The views and conclusions contained in this 

document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of 

the US Government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use. 

REPORT AVAILABILITY 

To download a PDF file of this Alaska OCS Region report, go to the US Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program Information System website 

http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Studies-Program-InformationSystem.aspx and search on OCS Study BOEM 2017-011. 

This report can be viewed at select Federal Depository Libraries. It can also be obtained from the National 

Technical Information Service; the contact information is below. 

US Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee Rd. 

Springfield, VA 22312 

Phone: (703) 605-6000, 1(800)553-6847 

Fax: (703) 605-6900 

Website: http://www.ntis.gov/ 

CITATION 

Renner, M, Kuletz, K. J, Labunski, E. 2017. Seasonality of Seabird Distribution in Lower Cook Inlet. US 

Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska OCS Regional Office, 

Anchorage, AK. OCS Study BOEM 2017-011. 46 pp. 

 
iii

Acknowledgements 

We are grateful for the hospitality and professionalism of the crews of the R/V Pandalus and 

Dream Catcher. In addition to the authors, the following observers worked on this project: Luke 

DeCicco, Nick Hajdukovich, and Declan Troy — thank you all! This project would not have 

been possible without the collaboration of Angela Doroff of the Kachemak Bay National 

Estuarine Research Reserve, and Kris Holderied of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 
i

Seasonality of Seabird Distribution in Lower Cook Inlet 

Contents 

List of Figures......................................................................................................................................ii

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................iii

Abbreviations and Acronyms..............................................................................................................iv

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Study Chronology ...................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 History of research and available datasets ................................................................................ 3

2 Project Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 4

3 Methods......................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Study area................................................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Data collection .......................................................................................................................... 9

3.3 Survey effort ............................................................................................................................10

3.4 Data processing........................................................................................................................12

3.5 Data analysis............................................................................................................................12

4 Results ..........................................................................................................................................13

4.1 Spatial and seasonal patterns of marine birds..........................................................................13

4.2 Seasonality of seabird community composition ........................................................................14

4.3 Comparing closely related species............................................................................................18

4.4 Marine Mammals.....................................................................................................................19

4.5 Kachemak Bay survey...............................................................................................................21

5 Discussion .....................................................................................................................................22

5.1 Management Implications and Recommendations...................................................................23

5.2 Recommendations:...................................................................................................................24

6 Literature cited..............................................................................................................................25

7 Appendices....................................................................................................................................29

7.1 Appendix A. Latin names of marine bird species.......................................................................29

7.2 Appendix B. Latin names of marine mammal species................................................................29

7.3 Appendix C Maps marine bird distribution in LCI.......................................................................30

   
ii

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Circulation patterns of surface water modeled after the patterns from satellite drifters (Figure 

supplied by Angela Doroff, KBRR). These patterns largely match those described by Burbank 

(1977). ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2. Interpolation of CTD casts along the Anchor Point line, across Lower Cook Inlet, 2 May 2012, 

going west (left) to east (right). Warm, oceanic water (reds) entering the inlet is visible on the right 

and cold inlet water (blues) flowing south can be seen on the left. No stratification is apparent, 

indicating that the water column is still well mixed. Unpublished figure, provided by Kris Holderied, 

NOAA. .................................................................................................................................................. 6

Figure 3. Interpolation of CTD casts in the middle of Kachemak Bay, 2012-2016. The build-up of 

stratification during summer (warm surface water, cooler bottom water) and the unusually high 

temperatures seen since 2014 are evident. Unpublished figure, provided by Kris Holderied, NOAA. 7

Figure 4. Study area in LCI, showing key geographic locations and location of major seabird colonies 

(triangles; based on Beringian Seabird Colony Catalog, Stephensen and Irons, 2003). Red lines mark 

NOAA and KBRR transects for the Lower Cook Inlet (LCI) monitoring project. Black lines mark 

survey tracks from previous coordinated studies (Piatt, ed., 2002, Speckman et al. 2005). The blue 

line separates the western and eastern portions of LCI, corresponding to inflowing water (east) and 

outflowing water (west). Map based on Speckman et al. (2005). ......................................................... 8

Figure 5. Pre-defined NOAA/KBRR transects for the Lower Cook Inlet monitoring project (left) and 

actual USFWS marine bird and marine mammal transects 2012–2016, conducted in conjunctions 

with NOAA/KBRR surveys (right). ...................................................................................................... 9

Figure 6. Kachemak Bay transects surveyed in July 2016. These survey transects were initially used in 

July 2005-2007 and 2011. ................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 7. Annual distribution of marine bird surveys, 1975-2016 in Lower Cook Inlet. Data archived in the 

NPPSD (gray) and BOEM-funded survey effort, submitted to NPPSD (blue). .................................. 11

Figure 8. Survey effort (length [km] surveyed) by season and west/east portion of LCI, comparing effort 

for the KBRR-FWS with previous surveys archived in the NPPSD. .................................................. 12

Figure 9. Observed apparent densities [birds km-2] of all marine bird species combined from 2012-2016 in 

Lower Cook Inlet. ............................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 10. Spatial distribution of white-winged scoter, the most abundant marine bird recorded during 

KBRR-USFWS surveys, occurring mostly during the winter months, 2012–2016. ........................... 16

Figure 11. Spatial distribution of Sooty Shearwater in LCI, 2012–2016. ................................................... 16

Figure 12 Spatial distribution of red-necked phalarope, occurring mostly during spring migration, 2012–

2016. .................................................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 13. Spatial distribution of black-legged kittiwakes in LCI (see Figure 4 for locations of breeding 

colonies), 2012–2016. ......................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 14. Spatial distribution of common murre in LCI (see Figure 4 for colony locations), 2012–2016. 18
iii

Figure 15. Comparison of the spatial distribution of the two Brachyramphus murrelets breeding within 

LCI, Kittlitz’s murrelet (left) and marbled murrelet (right), 2012–2016. ........................................... 19

Figure 16. Comparison of the spatial distribution of the two Fratercula puffin species breeding within 

LCI, horned puffin (left) and tufted puffin (right), 2012–2016. .......................................................... 19

Figure 17. Spatial distribution of sea otters in LCI, 2012–2016. ................................................................ 20

List of Tables 

Table 1. Survey effort, expressed as total distance [km] of surveyed transect segments per year and season.

 ............................................................................................................................................................. 11

Table 2. Densities of all seabird species combined (means +/- SE) in eastern and western part of Lower 

Cook Inlet and the ratio between those two densities by season (2012–2016). .................................. 14

Table 3. Comparison of Shannon’s diversity index for marine bird communities among seasons and 

regions in Lower Cook Inlet, based on 2007-2016 KBRR-USFWS surveys. ..................................... 14

Table 4. Average densities +/- SE [birds km-2] of marine birds in LCI by seasons. ................................... 15

Table 5. Marine mammal counts on LCI at-sea surveys conducted by KBRR-USFWS, by seasons. On 

transect counts were within the 300 m survey strip, and off transect counts were outside the 300 m 

survey strip. Note that effort was not consistent across seasons, 2012-2016. ..................................... 21

Table 6. Average densities [birds km-2] of marine birds in Kachemak Bay, 27-29 July 2016. Observations 

within 400 m of the large colony at Gull Island were excluded from this summary. No correction was 

applied to flying birds, which were counted continuously. ................................................................. 22
iv

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

CTD Conductivity-Temperature-Depth probe 

COR Contracting Officer’s Representative 

DOI Digital Object Identifier 

ESP Environmental Studies Program 

ESPIS Environmental Studies Program Information System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

GWA Gulf Watch Alaska 

IA Interagency Agreement 

KBRR Kachemak Bay Research Reserve 

LCI Lower Cook Inlet 

MBM Migratory Bird Management 

MMS Minerals Management Service 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPPSD North Pacific Pelagic Seabird Database 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

PI Principal Investigator 

SE Standard Error 

USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS US Geological Survey 
1
2

1 Introduction 

Observer-based at-sea surveys of seabirds and marine mammals remain the universally accepted 

method to estimate densities of all marine bird species utilizing a specific area. As such, a 

detailed knowledge of the year-round densities and species composition is essential to any 

assessment of potential impacts of human activities, such as fisheries, vessel traffic, oil-and-gas, 

or wind power developments (e.g. Bradbury et al. 2014, Renner and Kuletz, 2015). Kachemak 

Bay and Lower Cook Inlet (LCI) are near the main human population centers in Alaska 

(Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula) and therefore critically important to the regional economy, 

much of which is based on commercial fisheries and extraction of oil and gas. 

While important to humans in the region, LCI is also rich in natural resources. The area supports 

several large seabird colonies (Stephensen and Irons, 2003) and migratory seabirds from as far 

away as Australia and New Zealand (West et al., 2011). Among the marine birds is a sea duck 

listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (Steller’s eider, Polysticta stelleri) and 

significant populations of two species of particular conservation concern (marbled and Kittlitz’s 

murrelet, Brachyramphus marmoratus and B. brevirostris; Kuletz et al., 2011). The natural 

resources use, in particular fishing (recreational and commercial) and wildlife viewing are 

important attractions for the tourism industry, a major contributor to the economy in the region 

(Colt et al., 2002). There is a limited amount of native subsistence harvesting of marine mammals 

(sea otters (Enhydra lutris), and in the past beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas);

http://www.kfsk.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Oct-2013-reported-AK-sea-otter-harvest.pdf ). 

In 1989, contamination from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in nearby Prince William Sound reached 

the southern portions of LCI, where seabird and marine mammal carcasses were retrieved (Piatt 

et al. 1990). Assessing the full extent of the impact of the oil spill has been hampered by 

incomplete data. The only available pre-spill data on seabird demography in the area was 

collected prior to a major change in ocean conditions. “Bottom-up” effects of a regime change in 

ocean climate and forage food web community prior to the spill may have had an even greater 

impact on the populations of top predators (Anderson and Piatt, 1999). Increasing ocean 

temperatures, increasing freshwater inflow from melting glaciers, and increasing erosion from 

rising sea levels are all be expected due to global climate change and can be expected to be a 

prominent factor affecting upper trophic levels in the region in the near future (Henson, 2017). 

1.1 Study Chronology 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Kachemak Bay 

Research Reserve (KBRR) have conducted oceanographic sampling in the outer Kachemak Bay 

and LCI since 2010, with repeat sampling of 5 transects (Figure 5) across 3 to 4 seasons. During 

2012 and 2013 the USFWS conducted marine bird and mammal surveys in conjunction with the 

NOAA/KBRR oceanic research. Funding for the KBRR-USFWS marine bird and mammal 

surveys was guaranteed for 2014 and 2015 through the current project. Because logistics and 

conditions limited our ability to conduct all of the 2015 surveys, we conducted additional surveys 

in spring and late summer 2016 and integrated 2016 results into this report. 
3

1.2 History of research and available datasets 

Here, we review published and unpublished information on the status and population trends of 

marine birds and mammals in LCI. Published information on population size and population 

trends is currently sparse for most marine bird and mammal species. West et al. (2011) provide 

qualitative information on abundance and seasonal occurrence of marine bird species within 

Kachemak Bay, which are particularly useful for assessing the status of rare species, that may 

have been missed in systematic surveys. The Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge 

(AMNWR) maintains an annual monitoring camp on East Amatuli Island in the Barren Islands, 

located at the mouth of Cook Inlet for monitoring population trends and demography of most 

accessible marine bird species (Dragoo et al., 2012). Prior work on the Barren Islands focused on 

the fork-tailed storm-petrel (Oceanodroma furcata),chick growth, incubation and breeding 

behavior (Boersma, 1986; Boersma et al., 1995; Boersma and Wheelwright, 1979; Boersma and 

Parrish, 1998). A study of the winter diets of alcids was conducted in Kachemak Bay in 1977-78 

(Sanger 1987). 

At-sea surveys in the LCI were conducted in 1975-76 by Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

(Erickson 1977, archived in the NPPSD, U.S. Geological Survey et al., 2015) and established a 

baseline and start of a time series of marine bird and mammal distribution data in LCI. The first 

comprehensive marine bird surveys in LCI were conducted during summer of 1993 and winter of 

1994 (Agler et al. 1995); these randomly selected transects (n= 411) provided a baseline of 

population estimates for all species of marine birds and sea otters for LCI. Other projects were 

initiated in the 1980s and 1990s following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) and on-going 

development of oil and gas resources, especially in Upper Cook Inlet. Minerals Management 

Service (MMS) funding following the oil spill sparked a series of projects on the linkage of 

seabirds and forage fish (including Piatt, ed. 2002, Abookire and Piatt 2005, Speckman et al. 

2005). To date, studies of seabirds at-sea have resulted in a publication on the status and trend of 

Kittlitz’s murrelet (Kuletz et al., 2011), and an integral study of ecological gradients in LCI 

(Speckman et al., 2005). 

Land-based studies, within the umbrella of a MMS-funded LCI project “Response of Seabirds to 

Fluctuations in Forage Fish Density” (Piatt, ed., 2002) examined the biology of pigeon guillemot 

(Cepphus columba, Litzow, 2002, 2003, Litzow et al., 2004), and stable isotopes and diet (one 

sample from Kachemak Bay, Hobson et al., 1994). Comparisons of demographics and breeding 

parameters between black-legged kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) and common murres, (Uria 

aalge), at seabird colonies on the west and east side of Cook Inlet revealed striking regional 

differences (Zador and Piatt, 1999), that mirrored the findings of Speckman et al. (2005). 

Phenology and time-mismatch of kittiwakes and murres with their prey (Shultz et al., 2009), and 

their flexibility to rely on different prey species (Harding et al., 2007) have also been studied. 

Ongoing research in LCI (2016-2018), funded by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), 

focuses on the status of forage fish and marine birds, monitoring populations, productivity, 

physiology, and diet on Gull and Chisik Islands (Arimitsu and Piatt, 2016; Piatt, pers. com.). 

An isolated population of beluga whales in Cook Inlet were more common and widespread in the 

1970s and 1980s, but currently occurs primarily in upper Cook Inlet (Speckman and Piatt, 2000; 

Rugh et al., 2010). The decline of this population has prompted listing under the Endangered 

Species Act in 2008 and drove a considerable amount of research (incl. O’Corry-Crowe et al., 
4

1997; Lerczak et al., 2000; Hobbs et al., 2000; Becker et al., 2000; Ferrero et al., 2000; Speckman 

and Piatt, 2000; Vos, 2003; Shelden et al., 2003; Rugh et al., 2005; Vos et al., 2005; Goetz et al., 

2007; Hobbs et al., 2010; Rugh et al., 2010; Carter and Nielsen, 2011; Goetz et al., 2012; Norman 

et al., 2015). Organo-chlorine contaminants have been studied in killer whales, (Orcinus orca), in 

addition to beluga whales (Krahn et al., 2004). Little has been published regarding trends and 

status of other marine mammal species in LCI. Harbor porpoise,( Phocoena phocoena), is 

abundant in upper Kachemak Bay (Boveng et al. 2011), but little information exists on 

population trends. Several stranding and die-off events of marine mammals in the Cook Inlet area 

have been attributed to infectious disease (Goldstein et al. 2009, Goldstein et al. 2011), but 

population-level consequences are poorly known. 

Knowledge on the seasonal distribution and abundance of marine birds and marine mammals in 

the LCI has numerous applications. Seabirds are vulnerable to accidental oil spills, therefore risk 

assessments of oil and gas exploration, extraction, and transport will rely on accurate and current 

information of the local natural resources. Similarly, permitting processes for potential alternative 

energy developments, like wind and tidal power, might require assessments on the impact of 

developments on local bird and mammal populations. Seabirds are also valuable as bioindicators, 

signaling changes in the ecosystem that may have profound impacts on local fisheries (Anderson 

and Piatt, 1999, Piatt et al. 2007). 

2 Project Objectives 

The overall goal of this study was to support an at-sea survey program for seabird observations in 

LCI. This vessel based study was in collaboration with the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee 

Council- Gulf Watch Alaska Program. These surveys provide seasonal and inter-annual 

information on the distribution, timing, and abundance of marine birds in coordination with 

concurrent oceanographic, plankton, and forage fish surveys, conducted by KBBRR/NOAA. The 

objectives were as follows: 

 Place seabird observers on vessels conducting oceanographic transects in Lower Cook 

Inlet as part of the Gulf Watch Alaska program. Include at minimum one observer across 

4 seasons. 

 Using ships of opportunity, conduct marine bird and mammal surveys 

 Estimate the spatial distribution, species composition and species relative abundance for 

marine birds in designated and potential planning areas from previous years of 

observations in the Gulf Watch Alaska program. 

 Process the data for entry into the North Pacific Pelagic Seabird Database for future 

accessibility and to facilitate management decisions for marine bird use of planning areas. 

 Coordinate with Ecological Processes Work group members and BOEM to discuss 

synthesis of bird observation data coupled with other physical and biological data. 
5

3 Methods 

3.1 Study area 

Cook Inlet is a large subarctic fjord, measuring approximate 350 km from the head of the bay, 

about 90 km across, to the mouth which is about 200 km at its widest extent. The inlet waters are 

affected by numerous land-locked glaciers feeding streams and four major rivers discharging 

from the head of the inlet. Three major bays branch off Cook Inlet: Kachemak Bay in the southeast corner near the entrance, and the two major branches, Turnagain Arm and Knik Arm at the 

head of the inlet (Karlstrom, 1964). 

Lower Cook Inlet borders the Katmai coast in the West, Kalgin Island in the North, the Kenai 

Peninsula in the East and the Barren Islands in the South. The bathymetry is relatively shallow 

with depths ranging from < 50 m to 100 m at the main channel. The oceanographic circulation is 

characterized by strong tidal currents a counter-clockwise flow (Figure 1). Ocean water entering 

Cook Inlet east of the Barren Islands is highly saline. After mixing with glacial melt water, 

waters exit the inlet along two major tidal rips along the center and western part of the inlet 

(Burbank, 1977; Trasky and Burbank, 1977; confirmed by recent satellite drifter studies, A. 

Doroff, pers. com. Figure 1). 

Figure 1. Circulation patterns of surface water modeled 

after the patterns from satellite drifters (Figure supplied 

by Angela Doroff, KBRR). These patterns largely 

match those described by Burbank (1977). 
6

An interpolation of salinity/temperature profiles (from CTD casts) across LCI shows the warm, 

oceanic water on the east, and cold outflowing water on the west (Figure 2). Heating of the upper 

water layers during summer causes stratification, the layering of water bodies of different with 

different densities, which limits the exchange of bottom and surface water. There is a seasonal 

build-up and break-down of stratification (Figure 3), with particularly high temperatures 

observed since 2014 compared to previous years. 

Figure 2. Interpolation of CTD casts along the Anchor Point line, across Lower Cook 

Inlet, 2 May 2012, going west (left) to east (right). Warm, oceanic water (reds) 

entering the inlet is visible on the right and cold inlet water (blues) flowing south can 

be seen on the left. No stratification is apparent, indicating that the water column is 

still well mixed. Unpublished figure, provided by Kris Holderied, NOAA. 
7

Figure 3. Interpolation of CTD casts in the middle of Kachemak Bay, 2012-2016. The build-up of 

stratification during summer (warm surface water, cooler bottom water) and the unusually high 

temperatures seen since 2014 are evident. Unpublished figure, provided by Kris Holderied, 

NOAA. 

Human activities are concentrate along the east side, around the densely populated areas of Kenai 

Peninsula on the eastern shore of LCI and Anchorage, at the junction between Turnagain and 

Knik arms. The western shore of Cook Inlet is less populated. A small refinery and natural gas 

facility exists in Nikiski, which receives some traffic from oil and gas tankers (Robards et al. 

2016). Important commercial and sport fisheries occur in Cook Inlet, primarily for halibut and 

salmon. To investigate this east-west contrast, previously identified based on summer data 

(Speckman et al. 2005), we examined our data with respect to the western and eastern sides of 

LCI (Figure 4). 

Within the LCI, the Homer Spit divides Kachemak Bay into an inner and outer bay (Figure 4). 

The southern coastline of Kachemak Bay is rugged, bordered by steep, rocky boreal rainforest. In 

contrast, the north side beaches are shallow, characterized by large exposed tidally influenced 

mudflats. Several glacier-fed rivers on the south side discharge large amounts of suspended 

sediments into the bay, particularly the inner bay. 
8

Figure 4. Study area in LCI, showing key geographic locations and location of major seabird 

colonies (triangles; based on Beringian Seabird Colony Catalog, Stephensen and Irons, 2003). 

Red lines mark NOAA and KBRR transects for the Lower Cook Inlet (LCI) monitoring project. 

Black lines mark survey tracks from previous coordinated studies (Piatt, ed., 2002, Speckman et 

al. 2005). The blue line separates the western and eastern portions of LCI, corresponding to 

inflowing water (east) and outflowing water (west). Map based on Speckman et al. (2005).
9

3.2 Data collection 

The USFWS coordinated with NOAA and KBRR to place seabird observers on 14 research 

cruises from 2012 to 2016. During 2012 and 2013, the USFWS used funds from the Migratory 

Bird Management (MBM) to conduct seabird surveys. During at-sea surveys, the observer 

collected survey data from the bridge of the vessel. The survey was conducted along a 90° 

quadrants as the vessel traversed along a 300 m wide strip transect. Flying bird observations were 

recorded using the snap-shot method, and standard protocol (Gould and Forsell, 1989, Kuletz et 

al. 2008). The snap-shot method used to avoid a bias introduced by flying birds moving fast 

compared to the survey vessel. Instead of counting birds continuously, flying birds are only 

recorded at predefined intervals, equivalent to the time it takes for the survey vessel to advance 

300 m. The observer collected observation data from the vessel at 4 m above sea level. Marine 

birds and mammals were recorded along pre-defined transects and opportunistically while 

transitioning between transects (Figure 5). However, because this protocol has been designed 

specifically for marine birds, the data for marine mammals should be viewed largely as 

descriptive. Observations were entered directly into a laptop computer using dLOG software 

(Ford, 2004), linked to a hand-held GPS, recording positions every 20 seconds. 

Figure 5. Pre-defined NOAA/KBRR transects for the Lower Cook Inlet monitoring project (left) 

and actual USFWS marine bird and marine mammal transects 2012–2016, conducted in 

conjunctions with NOAA/KBRR surveys (right). 

Kachemak Bay surveys were conducted 27–29 July 2016 from the 7.7 m R/V Sandlance 

(AMNWR), a 25 foot Boston whaler with cabin, using USFWS protocol for small-vessel surveys 

(Agler et al. 1995). This protocol is similar to the protocol described above, used for pelagic 

transects, but is tailored towards smaller vessels. These surveys use two observers, one placed on 

the port and starboard sides, and a driver. The observers were placed about 2 m above sea level. 

An observer was positioned on the port and one on the starboard sides of the vessel. A dedicated 
10

recorder entered observations into a laptop computer. All birds and mammals within 100 m to 

either side of the vessel were counted. Species, number of individuals, and their behavior at the 

time of observation (on water, flying, on land, foraging) were recorded, with flying birds counted 

continuously, rather than using the snap-shot method. We surveyed the entire Kachemak Bay, 

following the transect lines established in previous studies (Kuletz et al. 2011, Figure 6). Because 

it was impractical to complete census of the more than ten-thousand colonially nesting birds, we 

used GIS to create a 400 m radius buffer around the colonies on Gull Island and Sixty-foot Rock 

and excluded those sections from density calculations. Because Kachemak Bay surveys used 

different methods from LCI surveys, we report results from Kachemak Bay separately. 

Figure 6. Kachemak Bay transects surveyed in July 2016. These survey transects 

were initially used in July 2005-2007 and 2011. 

3.3 Survey effort 

Seabird surveys were conducted from 2012-2016 in LCI (Table 1), totaling 1434 km of transects. 

Seasonal survey coverage was most complete in 2015 with most of the effort occurring in 2015 

and 2016. Constraints due to availability of vessels, observers, or weather meant that not all 

seasons could be covered in every year. Neither could all transects be covered during every 

cruise. 
11

Table 1. Survey effort, expressed as total 

distance [km] of surveyed transect segments 

per year and season. 

Year Winter Spring Summer fall

2012 23 47

2013 77 87

2014 79 10

2015 427 154 80

2016 230 

Survey data collected from 2012 to 2014 was edited, processed, and submitted to the North 

Pacific Pelagic Seabird Database (NPPSD) and is on the Gulf Watch Alaska AOOS workspace. 

The new surveys updated existing knowledge and extended the available time series considerably 

(Figure 7), which is now extending from the mid-1970s to the mid-2010s (forty years). 

Figure 7. Annual distribution of marine bird surveys, 1975-

2016 in Lower Cook Inlet. Data archived in the NPPSD 

(gray) and BOEM-funded survey effort, submitted to 

NPPSD (blue). 

Geographic and seasonal survey coverage for LCI was also expanded by this study. Previous 

survey work in LCI was focused on summer months, especially for eastern LCI (Figure 8). 

Surveys from this project added substantially to the spatial and seasonal coverage, close to 
12

doubling the total survey effort in many season/region. Most significantly, winter in the western 

portion of LCI was not represented in previous studies at all. Previous work also did not cover the 

southwestern or northeastern part of the study area, which were covered multiple times during 

this study. 

Figure 8. Survey effort (length [km] surveyed) by season and west/east portion 

of LCI, comparing effort for the KBRR-FWS with previous surveys archived in 

the NPPSD. 

3.4 Data processing 

Raw data files underwent quality control to account for data entry and GPS-errors. To calculate 

densities, we divided transects into segments up to 3-km long, approximately equivalent to the 10 

minute in standardized at-sea surveys of marine birds (Tasker et al. 1984, Gould and Forsell, 

1989). For comparative LCI historic data extracted from the NPPSD, only ship-based surveys 

were used, excluding aerial surveys. We calculated apparent densities using transect-width and 

length. Birds observed outside the 0–300 m survey strip, or the snapshot window, were excluded 

from density analysis. 

3.5 Data analysis 

Marine bird densities were summarized using means and standard errors (SE) in tables organized by 

west/east distribution (Table 2, Table 3) and season (Table 4). We also mapped the distribution of species 

of particular interest (most abundant species per season and species of conservation concern). Seasons 

were defined by month: winter (December to February), spring (March to May), summer (June to 
13

August), and fall (September to November). 

Appendix C provides maps for all species using the KBRR-USFWS survey data. In addition we 

calculated Shannon’s diversity index, a combined measure of the species richness (number of 

species) and evenness (similar densities across species). This index is less susceptible than simple 

species richness to differences in sampling effort. All processing and analysis was completed 

using R v. 3.3.2 (R Development Core Team, 2016). 

4 Results 

4.1 Spatial and seasonal patterns of marine birds 

Overall, total marine bird densities were similarly high in winter, spring, and summer (18-20.2 

birds km-2), but only about half as dense in fall (Table 2). Densities were higher on the east side 

of LCI, especially in the shallow waters close to shore, whereas there are less marked differences 

between northern and southern parts of LCI (Figure 9). Bird densities on the east side of LCI 

were higher in all seasons except in spring, when the east and west sides were nearly equal in 

seabird density. Differences between east and west sides were most pronounced in winter and 

summer (Table 2). Densities in western LCI were highest during the breeding season, in spring 

and summer (Table 2). The eastern part of LCI had highest seabird densities in winter and 

summer, with approximately three times the densities found in fall (Table 2). Species diversity, 

as estimated with Shannon’s diversity index, was similar on both sides of the inlet, but low in 

winter and spring compared to summer and fall (Table 3). 

Figure 9. Observed apparent densities [birds km-2] of all marine 

bird species combined from 2012-2016 in Lower Cook Inlet. 
14

Table 2. Densities of all seabird species combined (means +/- SE) 

in eastern and western part of Lower Cook Inlet and the ratio 

between those two densities by season (2012–2016). 

Season mean west east ratio 

Winter 19.4+/-6.5 7.9+/-5 31+/-8.1 3.9 

Spring 18+/-6.2 18.1+/-9.1 17.8+/-3.4 1 

Summer 20.6+/-5.6 11.8+/-2.4 29.3+/-8.8 2.5 

Fall 9.9+/-2.1 9.1+/-1.7 10.7+/-2.5 1.2 

Table 3. Comparison of Shannon’s diversity 

index for marine bird communities among 

seasons and regions in Lower Cook Inlet, 

based on 2007-2016 KBRR-USFWS surveys. 

Season west east mean

Winter 1.25 1.2 1.23

Spring 1.32 2.08 1.7

Summer 1.98 1.84 1.91

Fall 1.93 2.3 2.12

Mean 1.62 1.86 1.74

4.2 Seasonality of seabird community composition 

Seabird species composition changed considerably, nevertheless average densities of all marine 

bird species combined remained fairly high throughout the year (Table 2, Table 4). The most 

common species were white-winged scoter (Melanitta fusca), common murre (year round), 

black-legged kittiwake, (summer), red-necked phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus; spring), and sooty 

shearwater (Ardenna grisea; summer and fall) (Table 4). White-winged scoters were particularly 

common along the shores of outer Kachemak Bay. High concentrations were also found in 

Kamishak Bay, north of Augustine Island (Figure 10). Sooty shearwaters were the most abundant 

seabird during summer that does not breed within Alaska. The similar short-tailed shearwater (A. 

tenuirostris) was also observed, but in smaller numbers (Table 4). Highest densities of sooty 

shearwaters were found on the east side of LCI (Figure 11). Red-necked phalaropes were found 

to have an even more restrictive distribution, being concentrated on the south side of Kachemak 

Bay, off Seldovia (Figure 12). Black-legged kittiwakes (Figure 13) and common murres (Figure 

14), the two most abundant cliff nesting seabird species in the area, were both widely distributed, 

but more common on the eastern side of LCI. There appears to be a north-south difference 

between these two primarily fish-eating species (Figure 13, Figure 14), which should be further 

investigated for oceanographic or prey relationships driving their respective distributions. 
15

Table 4. Average densities +/- SE [birds km-2] of marine birds in LCI by seasons. 

winter spring summer fall year 

White-winged Scoter 

12.08+/-

0.02 3.06+/-0.24 0+/-1.24 0.16+/-0.92 3.83+/-0.6 

Common Murre 1.5+/-0.02 3.4+/-0.08 1.58+/-0 1.74+/-0 2.05+/-0.03 

Black-legged Kittiwake 0.03+/-0.02 1.29+/-0 4.25+/-0.01 2.11+/-0 1.92+/-0.01 

Red-necked Phalarope 0+/-0.07 5.24+/-0 0+/-0 0.28+/-0 1.38+/-0.02 

Sooty Shearwater 0+/-0.03 0.01+/-0.06 3.72+/-0.04 1.23+/-0 1.24+/-0.03 

Unidentified Shearwater 0+/-0.29 0.73+/-1.73 2.63+/-0.39 1.58+/-0.38 1.24+/-0.7 

Northern Fulmar 0.38+/-0 0.07+/-0.01 2.08+/-0 1.31+/-0 0.96+/-0 

Glaucous-winged Gull 1.43+/-0 1.32+/-0.1 0.29+/-0.25 0.19+/-0.12 0.81+/-0.12 

Horned Puffin 0.01+/-0 0.02+/-0 1.83+/-0.01 0.17+/-0 0.51+/-0 

Pigeon Guillemot 1+/-0.29 0.48+/-0.28 0.39+/-0.1 0+/-0.1 0.47+/-0.19 

Tufted Puffin 0+/-0.1 0.19+/-0.03 0.31+/-0 0.78+/-0 0.32+/-0.03 

Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel 0+/-0.03 0.18+/-0.01 0.63+/-0.01 0.22+/-0.03 0.26+/-0.02 

Pelagic Cormorant 0.19+/-0.01 0.36+/-0.02 0+/-0.66 0.02+/-0.07 0.14+/-0.19 

Marbled Murrelet 0.05+/-0 0.28+/-0.01 0.11+/-0.02 0.04+/-0 0.12+/-0.01 

Northern Pintail 0+/-0.05 0.33+/-0 0+/-0 0+/-0 0.08+/-0.01 

Short-tailed Shearwater 0+/-0.04 0.01+/-0.14 0.1+/-0.06 0.22+/-0.04 0.08+/-0.07 

Mew Gull 0.16+/-0.11 0.04+/-0.05 0.03+/-0.62 0+/-0.38 0.06+/-0.29 

Brachyramphus murrelet 0.04+/-0 0.16+/-0.28 0+/-0 0+/-0 0.05+/-0.07 

Pacific Loon 0+/-0 0.13+/-0 0+/-0 0.07+/-0.09 0.05+/-0.02 

Parakeet Auklet 0+/-0 0+/-0.06 0+/-0 0.16+/-0.05 0.04+/-0.03 

Common Loon 0.03+/-0.06 0.09+/-0.29 0.04+/-0 0+/-0.02 0.04+/-0.09 

Harlequin Duck 0.11+/-0.36 0.03+/-0.13 0+/-0.15 0+/-0 0.03+/-0.16 

Herring Gull 0.04+/-0 0.01+/-0 0.01+/-0.02 0.06+/-0.03 0.03+/-0.01 

Common Eider 0.09+/-0 0+/-0.03 0+/-0 0+/-0 0.02+/-0.01 

Long-tailed Duck 0.09+/-0 0+/-0 0+/-0 0+/-0.02 0.02+/-0.01 

Pomarine Jaeger 0+/-0 0+/-0.01 0.02+/-1.48 0.04+/-0.66 0.02+/-0.54 

Parasitic Jaeger 0+/-0 0.01+/-0.01 0.04+/-0.05 0.01+/-0.15 0.01+/-0.05 

Ancient Murrelet 0+/-0.01 0+/-0.04 0.06+/-0 0+/-0 0.01+/-0.01 

Surf Scoter 0.01+/-0 0.04+/-0.07 0+/-0.08 0+/-0.2 0.01+/-0.09 

Red-breasted Merganser 0+/-0 0.05+/-0.01 0+/-0 0+/-0 0.01+/-0 

Kittlitz's Murrelet 0+/-0.02 0.01+/-0.02 0.02+/-0.01 0+/-0.03 0.01+/-0.02 

Cassin's Auklet 0.02+/-0 0+/-0 0.01+/-0 0+/-0.01 0.01+/-0 

Rhinoceros Auklet 0+/-0.02 0+/-0 0+/-0 0.02+/-0.03 0.01+/-0.01 

Red-faced Cormorant 0.01+/-0.06 0.01+/-0 0+/-0 0+/-0.02 0+/-0.02 

Double-crested Cormorant 0+/-0 0.01+/-0 0+/-0.04 0+/-0 0+/-0.01 

Hybrid Gull 0+/-0 0+/-0.01 0.01+/-0 0+/-0.02 0+/-0.01 

Thick-billed Murre 0.01+/-4.39 0+/-1.68 0+/-0 0+/-0.16 0+/-1.56 
16

Figure 10. Spatial distribution of white-winged 

scoter, the most abundant marine bird recorded 

during KBRR-USFWS surveys, occurring mostly 

during the winter months, 2012–2016. 

Figure 11. Spatial distribution of Sooty Shearwater 

in LCI, 2012–2016.
17

Figure 12 Spatial distribution of red-necked phalarope, 

occurring mostly during spring migration, 2012–2016. 

Figure 13. Spatial distribution of black-legged 

kittiwakes in LCI (see Figure 4 for locations of 

breeding colonies), 2012–2016. 
18

Figure 14. Spatial distribution of common murre in 

LCI (see Figure 4 for colony locations), 2012–2016. 

4.3 Comparing closely related species 

Within LCI, two species of Brachyramphus murrelets and two Fratercula puffin species are 

common. The marbled murrelet was over ten times more abundant than Kittlitz’s murrelet (Table 

2). Both species were more abundant on the eastern than the western part of LCI. During the LCI 

surveys (which did not include inner Kachemak Bay), Kittlitz’s murrelet were concentrated in the 

central and northern parts of outer Kachemak Bay, whereas marbled murrelets were more 

widespread, including the Anchor Point area, and abundant along the south-coast of Kachemak 

Bay (Figure 15). 

Comparing the distributions of the two Fratercula, horned and tufted puffin, the former had a 

more limited distribution, being primarily encountered along transect 3 in the northwestern most 

part of the study area (Figure 16). The tufted puffin in contrast was more widely distributed and 

were found in higher densities in the southeastern sector of the study area, north of the Barren 

Islands and west of Port Graham, despite being less abundant overall (Table 4). 
19

Figure 15. Comparison of the spatial distribution of the two Brachyramphus murrelets 

breeding within LCI, Kittlitz’s murrelet (left) and marbled murrelet (right), 2012–2016. 

Figure 16. Comparison of the spatial distribution of the two Fratercula puffin species breeding 

within LCI, horned puffin (left) and tufted puffin (right), 2012–2016. 

4.4 Marine Mammals 

Sea otters were the most abundant and widespread marine mammal recorded during the 2007-

2016 USFWS surveys. By far the highest densities occurred in the northern part of outer 

Kachemak Bay, but were also widespread off Anchor Point and Kamishak Bay (Figure 17). 
20

Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), and harbor porpoise, and Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), 

were also recorded in most years (Table 5). A total of six cetacean species were recorded during 

this study. The Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), and minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata) were only encountered opportunistically, beyond the 300 m transect window. 

Figure 17. Spatial distribution of sea otters in LCI, 

2012–2016. 

 
21

Table 5. Marine mammal counts on LCI at-sea surveys conducted by KBRRUSFWS, by seasons. On transect counts were within the 300 m survey strip, 

and off transect counts were outside the 300 m survey strip. Note that effort 

was not consistent across seasons, 2012-2016. 

Species Spring Summer Fall Winter Total 

On Transect 

Sea Otter 225 53 56 163 497 

Harbor Seal 0 10 0 4 14 

Dall’s Porpoise 0 3 7 0 10 

Harbor Porpoise 0 1 0 4 5 

Humpback 

Whale 

0 2 0 0 2 

Killer Whale 0 1 6 0 7 

Unid. Whale 2 0 0 0 2 

Off Transect 

Sea Otter 64 16 34 180 294 

Dall’s Porpoise 0 2 9 0 11 

Unid. Whale 1 8 0 0 9 

Humpback 

Whale 

1 1 0 0 2 

Minke Whale 0 2 0 0 2 

Harbor Seal 0 0 0 1 1 

Harbor Porpoise 0 0 0 1 1 

Fin Whale 0 1 0 0 1 

Unid. Seal 0 0 1 0 1 

4.5 Kachemak Bay survey 

During the three days of surveys of Kachemak Bay, 3446 marine birds of 19 species were 

recorded, plus bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and 521 marine mammals from 6 species 

on transect. In July 2016, common murres were the most abundant marine bird species. The next 

most common species was black-legged kittiwake, which were observed in both the in inner and 

outer Kachemak Bay (Table 6). For the entire bay (excluding 400 m around the two seabird 

colonies, Gull Islands and 60 Foot Rock), we estimated an uncorrected density for total marine 

birds of 18.6 birds km-2. Sea otters were the most abundant marine mammal recorded during this 

survey, followed by harbor seal, Dall’s porpoise, and harbor porpoise. 

 
22

Table 6. Average densities [birds km-2] of marine 

birds in Kachemak Bay, 27-29 July 2016. 

Observations within 400 m of the large colony at 

Gull Island were excluded from this summary. No 

correction was applied to flying birds, which were 

counted continuously. 

Species N density 

Common Murre 1899 10.265 

Black-legged Kittiwake 442 2.389 

Marbled Murrelet 322 1.741

Kittlitz's Murrelet 194 1.049

Glaucous-winged Gull 170 0.919

Pelagic Cormorant 115 0.622

Red-necked Phalarope 76 0.411

Surf Scoter 62 0.335

Harlequin Duck 47 0.254

Pigeon Guillemot 32 0.173

Brachyramphus murrelet 28 0.151

Sooty Shearwater 24 0.130

Herring Gull 10 0.054

White-winged Scoter 5 0.027

Bald Eagle 4 0.022

Common Loon 3 0.016

Unidentified loon 3 0.016

Mew Gull 2 0.011

Parasitic Jaeger 2 0.011

Unidentified cormorant 2 0.011

Pacific Loon 1 0.005

Red-throated Loon 1 0.005

Tufted Puffin 1 0.005

Unidentified shearwater 1 0.005

Sum of all species 3446 18.627

5 Discussion 

High densities of marine birds were found throughout the year, despite considerable turnover in 

community composition. Of the five most common species (red-necked phalarope, sooty 

shearwater, common murre, black-legged kittiwake, white-winged scoter), only murres and 

kittiwakes commonly breed within the study area. White-winged scoters breed on inland lakes in 

Alaska and Canada and are winter visitors to Cook Inlet (Brown and Fredrickson, 1997). Rednecked phalaropes breed in small numbers on freshwater marshes around Cook Inlet, but are 

seasonally abundant migrants, most likely from the North Slope of Alaska (pers. obs., Rubega et 

al., 2000). Sooty shearwaters breed in New Zealand and spend their southern-hemisphere winter 

in the North Pacific. 
23

Within Kachemak Bay a few Kittliz’s murrelets were observed in the north outer bay (Figure 

Figure 15) during the KBRR-USFWS surveys, but the intensive Kachemak Bay surveys showed 

that most of the Kittlitz’s murrelets were in the south inner bay, primarily near Grewingk Glacier 

runoff, as was found in previous Kachemak Bay surveys (Kuletz et al., 2011). 

High densities of seabirds on the east side of LCI (Figure 1) coincide with inflowing oceanic 

water from the northern GOA (Figure 9). This pattern has been observed previously, in seabirds 

as well as in forage fish and oceanographic parameters (Speckman et al. 2005), but seasonal 

aspects have not yet been published. The study design in Speckman et al. (2005), which surveyed 

primarily in the northwest and southeast (Figure 4) resulted in limited ability to distinguish northsouth from east-west gradients. The addition of surveys in the southwest quadrant of the study 

area enabled us to address this weakness in Speckman et al. 2005 and confirm that the 

predominant gradient in LCI is east-west rather than north-south. 

It was unfortunate that the summer and fall surveys of 2015 were missed, because it was an 

unusual year oceanographically. Ocean conditions were unusually warm that year and a large die 

off of marine birds (primarily common murres) occurred in northern GOA. The warm water 

anomaly continued throughout 2016 with the highest mortality for common murres apparently 

occurring in January 2016. Several GOA murre colonies monitored by the AMNWR exhibited 

breeding failure (including no nesting attempts at all) in 2016, as did black-legged kittiwake 

colonies in Prince William Sound; the latter had not failed in over 30 years of monitoring (D. 

Irons, pers. comm). The high densities of murres throughout Kachemak Bay during the July 2016 

intensive survey of the bay may have been influenced by lack of breeding attempts at colonies. 

Our study emphasizes the importance of Kachemak Bay for marine birds and marine mammals 

during all seasons. This area has previously been identified as a nursery for juvenile marbled 

murrelets (Kuletz and Piatt, 1999), a stop-over site for satellite tagged murrelets from southeast 

Alaska (Madison and Piatt, pers. com), and as an important wintering area for seaducks (Sanger, 

1987). Analyses exploring the fine-scale correlations between physical and biological variables 

would help identify mechanisms driving the high productivity, and thus marine bird abundance in 

and around Kachemak Bay. The data collected during this study expands our knowledge of 

seasonal aspects of marine bird distribution, which can inform managers of the potential effects 

of human activities (e.g., shipping, fishing, oil and gas exploration, extraction, and transport). 

5.1 Management Implications and Recommendations 

The collaboration with the KBRR provided a rare opportunity for a cost-effective monitoring 

program for seabirds at-sea, across seasons, and integrated within a larger program investigating 

oceanography and zooplankton. Surveys during winter months are still scarce and therefore 

particularly important. At the same time, continuing the strong time series of summer data should 

produce insights into long-term trends and sensitivities of various species to changes in climate or 

human activity. 

Because of its location, seabird populations, and accessibility, LCI holds potential for integrating 

a long-term monitoring program of at-sea surveys with colony-based investigations into 

demographic parameters as well as diet and telemetry-based foraging studies. The area is of 

human and commercial interest, biologically rich throughout the year, and supports several 
24

species of conservation concern (e.g. Aleutian terns, Kittlitz’s murrelet, Steller’s Eider). The 

collaboration between KBRR and USFWS was cost effective by the sharing of ship time. 

Additionally, it can ultimately facilitate an interdisciplinary approach, integrating data on 

physical oceanography and lower trophic levels with data on upper trophic level species. 

5.2 Recommendations: 

 A comprehensive long-term monitoring scheme that is sustainable will be required to 

examine changes in populations. 

 Future studies will require use of consistent protocols, ideally linked to prey and/or 

oceanographic data collection, but should also incorporate the ability to compare with 

historic data (i.e., seabird abundance and distribution data in the NPPSD). 

 The eastern side of LCI requires more survey effort given its importance to avifauna of 

LCI as well as to humans. 

 Winter and summer surveys might be emphasized, given higher overall densities of birds 

during those seasons. 

 There is a lack of current data on seabird colonies. Major colonies should be recensused 

and a dedicated search effort should be undertaken to look for small colonies of priority 

species like Aleutian and Arctic Terns. 

 At-sea surveys for juveniles of some species (i.e., Kittlitz’s murrelet, marbled murrelet, 

pigeon guillemot) would be useful and informative in late summer in Kachemak Bay.

 Continuation of the Gulf Watch Alaska shared work space (via Alaska Ocean Observing 

System) and accessible data (including mapping, spatial modeling, and outreach products) 

would leverage historic and on-going data integration. 

 
25

6 Literature cited 

Abookire, A. A., & Piatt, J. F. (2005). Oceanographic conditions structure forage fish into lipid-rich and 

lipid-poor communities in lower Cook Inlet, Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 287, 229–

240. 

Agler, Beverly A., Steven J. Kendall, Pamela E. Seiser, and David B. Irons. (1995). Estimates of Marine 

Bird and Sea Otter Abundance in Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska during Summer 1993 and Winter 

1994. Final Report to Minerals Management Service, prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Migratory Bird Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503. 

Anderson, P. J. and Piatt, J. F. (1999). Community reorganization in the Gulf of Alaska following ocean 

climate regime shift. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 189:117–123. 

Arimitsu, M. and Piatt, J.F. (2016). Study plan: Status of forage fish and seabirds in Lower Cook Inlet. 

Unpublished report, USGS, Juneau, AK. 

Becker, P. R., Krahn, M. M., Mackey, E. A., Demiralp, R., Schantz, M. M., Epstein, M. S., Donais, M. K., 

Porter, B. J., Muir, D. C., and Wise, S. A. (2000). Concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs), chlorinated pesticides, and heavy metals and other elements in tissues of belugas, 

Delphinapterus leucas, from Cook Inlet. Marine Fisheries Review, 62(3):81–98. 

Brown, P. W. and Fredrickson, L. H.. (1997). White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca), The Birds of North 

America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of 

North America: https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/whwsco DOI: 10.2173/bna.274 

Boersma, P. D. (1986). Body temperature, torpor, and growth in chicks of fork-tailed storm-petrels 

(Oceanodroma furcata). Physiological Zoology, pages 10–19. 

Boersma, P. D. and Parrish, J. K. (1998). Flexible growth rates in fork-tailed storm-petrels: a response to 

environmental variability. The Auk, pages 67–75. 

Boersma, P. D., Parrish, J. K., and Kettle, A. B. (1995). Common murre abundance, phenology, and 

productivity on the Barren Islands, Alaska: The Exxon Valdez oil spill and long-term 

environmental change. In Exxon Valdez oil spill: Fate and effects in Alaskan waters. ASTM 

International. 

Boersma, P. D. and Wheelwright, N. T. (1979). Egg neglect in the procellariiformes: reproductive 

adaptations in the fork-tailed storm-petrel. The Condor, 81(2):157–165. 

Boveng, P. L., London, J. M., Montgomery, R. A., and Ver Hoef, J. M. (2011). Distribution and 

abundance of harbor seals in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Task I: Aerial surveys of seals ashore, 20032007. 

Final Report BOEM Report 2011-063, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska Outer 

Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage, AK, USA. 

Bradbury, G., Trinder, M., Furness, B., Banks, A. N., Caldow, R. W., and Hume, D. (2014). Mapping 

seabird sensitivity to offshore wind farms. PloS ONE, 9(9):e106366. 

Burbank, D. C. (1977). Circulation studies in Kachemak Bay and lower Cook Inlet, volume 3. Alaska 

Dept. of Fish and Game, Marine/Coastal Habitat Management. 

Carter, B. T. and Nielsen, E. A. (2011). Exploring ecological changes in Cook Inlet beluga whale habitat 

though traditional and local ecological knowledge of contributing factors for population decline. 

Marine Policy. 35(3): 299-308. 

Colt, S., Martin, S., Mieren, J., Tomeo, M. (2002). Recreation and tourism in south-central Alaska: 

patterns and prospects. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-551. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 78 p. 
26

Dragoo, D. E., Renner, H. M., and Irons, D. B. (2012). Breeding status, population trends and diets of 

seabirds in Alaska, 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report Report AMNWR 2012/01, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Maritime NWR, 95 Sterling Hwy, Suite 1, Homer, AK 99603 

USA. 

Erickson, D. (1977). Distribution, abundance and migration and breeding locations of marine birds-lower 

Cook Inlet, Alaska, 1976. Vol. 8. Environmental studies of Kachemak Bay and lower Cook Inlet 

(L.L. Trasky, L. B. Flagg, and D.C. Burbank, Eds). Unpublished Report, Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Ferrero, R. C., Moore, S. E., and Hobbs, R. C. (2000). Development of beluga, Delphinapterus leucas, 

capture and satellite tagging protocol in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Marine Fisheries Review, 62(3):112–

123. 

Ford, R. G. (2004). dLOG2: Software for Biological Surveys. Data Entry and Real-time Mapping Program 

for Windows. R.G. Ford Consulting Co., 2735 NE Weidler Street, Portland, OR 97232 USA. 

Goetz, K. T., Montgomery, R. A., Ver Hoef, J. M., Hobbs, R. C., and Johnson, D. S. (2012). Identifying 

essential summer habitat of the endangered beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas in Cook Inlet, 

Alaska. Endangered Species Research, 16(2):135–147. 

Goetz, K. T., Rugh, D. J., Read, A. J., and Hobbs, R. C. (2007). Habitat use in a marine ecosystem: beluga 

whales Delphinapterus leucas in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 330:247–

256. 

Goldstein, T., Gill, V. A., Tuomi, P., Monson, D., Burdin, A., Conrad, P. A., Dunn, J. L., Field, C., 

Johnson, C., Jessup, D. A., et al. (2011). Assessment of clinical pathology and pathogen exposure 

in sea otters (Enhydra lutris) bordering the threatened population in Alaska. Journal of Wildlife 

Diseases, 47(3):579–592. 

Goldstein, T., Mazet, J. A., Gill, V. A., Doroff, A. M., Burek, K. A., Hammond, J. A., et al. (2009). 

Phocine distemper virus in northern sea otters in the Pacific Ocean, Alaska, USA. Emerging 

infectious diseases, 15(6):925–927. 

Harding, A., Piatt, J. F., Schmutz, J. A., Shultz, M. T., Pelt, T. I. V., Kettle, A. B., and Speckman, S. G. 

(2007). Prey density and the behavioral flexibility of a marine predator: the common murre (Uria 

aalge). Ecology, 88(8):2024–2033. 

Henson, S. A., Beaulieu, C., Ilyina, T., John, J. G., Long, M., Séférian, R., Tjiputra, J., and Sarmiento, J. 

L. (2017). Rapid emergence of climate change in environmental drivers of marine ecosystems. 

Nature Communications, 8:14682 EP. 

Hobbs, R. C. and Waite, J. M. (2010). Abundance of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in three 

Alaskan regions, corrected for observer errors due to perception bias and species misidentification, and corrected for animals submerged from view. Fishery Bulletin, 108(3):251–267. 

Hobbs, R. C., Waite, J. M., and Rugh, D. J. (2000). Beluga, Delphinapterus leucas, group sizes in Cook 

Inlet, Alaska, based on observer counts and aerial video. Marine Fisheries Review, 62(3):46–59. 

Hobson, K. A., Piatt, J. F., and Pitocchelli, J. (1994). Using stable isotopes to determine seabird trophic 

relationships. Journal of animal ecology, pages 786–798. 

Karlstrom, T. N. (1964). Quaternary geology of the Kenai lowland and glacial history of the Cook Inlet 

region, Alaska. Technical report, US Govt. Print. Off. 
27

Krahn, M. M., Herman, D. P., Ylitalo, G. M., Sloan, C. A., Burrows, D. G., Hobbs, R. C., Mahoney, B. 

A., Yanagida, G. K., Calambokidis, J., and Moore, S. E. (2004). Stratification of lipids, fatty acids 

and organochlorine contaminants in blubber of white whales and killer whales. Journal of 

Cetacean Research and Management, 6(2):175–189. 

Kuletz, K. J. and Piatt, J. F. (1999). Juvenile marbled murrelet nurseries and the productivity index. 

Wilson Bulletin, 111(2):257–261. 

Kuletz, K. J., Labunski, E. A., Renner, M., and Irons, D. (2008). The North Pacific pelagic seabird 

observer program. NPRB Project 637 Final Report, North Pacific Research Board (NPRB), 

Anchorage, AK. 

Kuletz, K. J., Speckman, S. G., Piatt, J. F., and Labunski, E. A. (2011). Distribution, population status and 

trends of Kittlitz’s murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris in lower Cook Inlet and Kachemak Bay, 

Alaska. Marine Ornithology, 39:85–95. 

Lerczak, J. A., Shelden, K. E., and Hobbs, R. C. (2000). Application of suction-cup-attached vhf 

transmitters to the study of beluga, Delphinapterus leucas, surfacing behavior in Cook Inlet, 

Alaska. Marine Fisheries Review, 62(3):99–111. 

Litzow, M. (2002). Pigeon guillemot biology in Kachemak Bay. Technical report, USGS-Alaska Science 

Center, Anchorage, AK. 

Litzow, M. A. and Piatt, J. F. (2003). Variance in prey abundance influences time budgets of breeding 

seabirds: evidence from pigeon guillemots Cepphus columba. Journal of Avian Biology, 34(1):54–

64. 

Litzow, M. A., Piatt, J. F., Abookire, A. A., Speckman, S. G., Arimitsu, M. L., and Figurski, J. D. (2004). 

Spatiotemporal predictability of schooling and nonschooling prey of pigeon guillemots. Condor, 

106(2):410–415. 

Norman, S. A., Hobbs, R. C., Goertz, C. E., Burek-Huntington, K. A., Shelden, K., Smith, W. A., and 

Beckett, L. A. (2015). Potential natural and anthropogenic impediments to the conservation and 

recovery of cook inlet beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas. Marine Fisheries Review, 77(2):89–

105. 

O’Corry-Crowe, G., Suydam, R., Rosenberg, A., Frost, K., and Dizon, A. (1997). Phylogeography, 

population structure and dispersal patterns of the beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas in the 

western Nearctic revealed by mitochondrial DNA. Molecular Ecology, 6(10):955–970. 

Piatt, J.F., editor. (2002). Response of seabirds to fluctuations in forage fish density, Exxon Valdez Oil 

Spill Restoration Project Final Report (Restoration Project 01163M), and Minerals Management 

Service (Alaska OCS Study MMS 2002-068), Alaska Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Anchorage, Alaska. 

Piatt JF, Sydeman WJ, and Wiese F. (2007). Introduction: a modern role for seabirds as indicators. Marine 

Ecololoy Progress Series 352:199-204. 

R Development Core Team (2016). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R 

Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 

Renner, M. and Kuletz, K. J. (2015). A spatial-seasonal analysis of the oiling risk from shipping traffic to 

seabirds in the Aleutian Archipelago. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 101:127–136. 

Robards, M. D., Silber, G., Adams, J., Arroyo, J., Lorenzini, D., Schwehr, K., and Amos, J. (2016). 

Conservation science and policy applications of the marine vessel Automatic Identification 

System (AIS)—a review. Bulletin of Marine Science, 92(1):75–103. 
28

Rubega, M.A., Schamel, D. and Tracy, D. M.. (2000). Red-necked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus), The 

Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved 

from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/renpha DOI: 

10.2173/bna.538 

Rugh, D., Shelden, K., Sims, C., Mahoney, B., Smith, B., Litzky, L., and Hobbs, R. (2005). Aerial surveys 

of belugas in Cook Inlet, Alaska, June 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-149, U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Rugh, D. J., Shelden, K. E., and Hobbs, R. C. (2010). Range contraction in a beluga whale population. 

Endangered Species Research, 12(1):69–75. 

Sanger, G. A. (1987). Winter diets of common murres and marbled murrelets in Kachemak Bay, Alaska. 

Condor, 89(2):426–430. 

Shelden, K. E., Agler, B. A., Brueggeman, J. J., Cornick, L. A., Speckman, S. G., and Prevel-Ramos, A. 

(2014). Harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena vomerina, in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Mar. Fish. Rev, 

76:22–50. 

Shelden, K. E., Rugh, D. J., Mahoney, B., and Dahlheim, M. E. (2003). Killer whale predation on belugas 

in Cook Inlet, Alaska: implications for a depleted population. Marine Mammal Science, 

19(3):529–544. 

Shultz, M. T., Piatt, J. F., Harding, A. M., Kettle, A. B., and Van Pelt, T. I. (2009). Timing of breeding 

and reproductive performance in murres and kittiwakes reflect mismatched seasonal prey 

dynamics. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 393:247–258. 

Speckman, S. G. and Piatt, J. F. (2000). Historic and current use of lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, by belugas, 

Delphinapterus leucas. Marine Fisheries Review, 62(3):22–26. 

Speckman, S. G., Piatt, J. F., Minte-Vera, C. V., and Parrish, J. K. (2005). Parallel structure among 

environmental gradients and three trophic levels in a subarctic estuary. Progress in 

Oceanography, 66:25–65. 

Stephensen, S. W. and Irons, D. B. (2003). Comparison of colonial breeding seabirds in the eastern Bering 

Sea and Gulf of Alaska. Marine Ornithology, 31:167–173. 

Tasker, M. L., Jones, P. H., Dixon, T., and Blake, B. F. (1984). Counting seabirds at sea from ships: a 

review of methods employed and a suggestion for a standardized approach. Auk, 101:567–577. 

Trasky, L. L. and Burbank, D. C. (1977). Environmental studies of Kachemak Bay and Lower Cook Inlet. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Marine/Coastal Habitat Management. 

U.S. Geological Survey, Drew, G. S., Piatt, J. F., and Renner, M. (2015). User’s guide to the North Pacific 

Pelagic Seabird Database 2.0. Open-file report, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston VA. 

Vos, D. J. (2003). Cook Inlet beluga age and growth. PhD thesis, Alaska Pacific University, Anchorage, 

AK. 

West, G., Chorman, D., Erikson, D., Field, C., Field, C., Kilcher, M., Kleinleder, R., Lang, A., Matz, G., 

Raymond, L., Renner, M., Stoltzfus, K., and Trowbridge, B. (2011). Checklist of birds of 

Kachemak Bay, Alaska. , Center for Alaskan Coastal Studies, Homer, Alaska. 

Zador, S. G. and Piatt, J. F. (1999). Time-budgets of common murres at a declining and increasing colony 

in Alaska. Condor, 101(1):149–152. 

 
29

7 Appendices 

7.1 Appendix A. Latin names of marine bird species 

Common Latin

Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla 

Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala 

Common Eider Somateria mollissima 

Common Loon Gavia immer 

Common Murre Uria aalge 

Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma furcata 

Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens 

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus 

Herring Gull Larus argentatus 

Horned Puffin Fratercula corniculata 

Kittlitz's Murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris 

Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis 

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus 

Mew Gull Larus canus 

Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis 

Northern Pintail Anas acuta 

Parakeet Auklet Aethia psittacula 

Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus 

Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica 

Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 

Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 

Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus 

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator 

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 

Sooty Shearwater Ardenna grisea 

Short-tailed Shearwater Ardenna tenuirostris 

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata 

Tufted Puffin Fratercula cirrhata 

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca 

7.2 Appendix B. Latin names of marine mammal species 

Common Latin 

Dall’s porpoise Phocoenoides dalli 

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus 

Harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena 

Harbor seal Phoca vitulina 

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae 

Killer whale Orcinus orca 

Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata

Sea otter Enhydra lutris 
30

7.3 Appendix C Maps marine bird distribution in LCI 

Spatial distribution maps of all seabird species in systematic order based on KBRR-USFWS 

surveys, 2012–2016. 
31
32
33
34
35
36

 
37

The Department of the Interior Mission

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

responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural 

resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; 

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

and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for 

the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our 

energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in 

the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen 

participation in their care. The Department also has a major responsibility for 

American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island 

territories under US administration. 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

(BOEM) primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on 

the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in an environmentally sound and 

safe manner. 

The BOEM Environmental Studies Program

The mission of the Environmental Studies Program (ESP) is to provide the 

information needed to predict, assess, and manage impacts from offshore 

energy and marine mineral exploration, development, and production activities 

on human, marine, and coastal environments.