OCS Study 

BOEM 2017-004 

Seabird Distribution and Abundance

In the Offshore Environment

Final Report 

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Headquarters 

OCS Study 

BOEM 2017-004 

Seabird Distribution and Abundance 

In the Offshore Environment

Final Report 

Authors 

Katherine J. Kuletz 

Elizabeth A. Labunski 

Prepared under BOEM Award 

M10PG00050 

by 

Migratory Bird Management 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1011 E. Tudor Rd. 

Anchorage, AK 99507 

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

Headquarters 

February 2017 
i 

DISCLAIMER 

Study collaboration and funding were provided by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Environmental Studies Program, Washington, DC under 

Interagency Agreement Number: M10PG00050 with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

Additional support was provided by the USFWS and associated project leads and agencies. This 

report is made available through the BOEM office in Anchorage, Alaska. Electronic copies of this 

report can be downloaded from the BOEM website at https://www.boem.gov/Alaska-ScientificPublications. 

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 of 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 Seabird Distribution and Abundance in the Offshore Environment 

Final Report, go to the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

website http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Studies-ProgramInformation-System.aspx, and search on OCS Study BOEM 2017-004. 

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 

Kuletz, K.J. and E.A. Labunski. 2017. Seabird Distribution and Abundance in the Offshore 

Environment, Final Report. US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Alaska OCS Region. OCS Study BOEM 2017-004. Provided to BOEM by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 59 pp, plus Appendices. 

 
ii 

Seabird Distribution and Abundance in the Offshore Environment Final 

Report 

Contents 

DISCLAIMER............................................................................................................................................i

REPORT AVAILABILITY.............................................................................................................................i

CITATION................................................................................................................................................i

List of Figures........................................................................................................................................ iv

List of Tables..........................................................................................................................................v

Abbreviations and Acronyms................................................................................................................ vi

List of Presentations and Outreach Efforts.............................................................................................8

List of Publications...............................................................................................................................12

Reports................................................................................................................................................14

Study Objectives..................................................................................................................................14

Study Chronology ................................................................................................................................16

Abstract...............................................................................................................................................17

1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................18

1.1 Need for information on seabirds in lease sale areas ......................................................................... 18

1.2. Study Area .............................................................................................................................................. 18

1.2.1 Physical Properties...........................................................................................................................18

1.2.2 Lower Trophic Levels........................................................................................................................20

1.2.3 Marine Birds.....................................................................................................................................20

2. Data Collection and Processing.........................................................................................................21

2.1 Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 21

2.1.1 Coordination with select research programs and vessels ...............................................................21

2.1.2 At‐Sea survey protocols...................................................................................................................26

2.1.3 Data processing and analysis...........................................................................................................26
iii 

3. Results.............................................................................................................................................27

3.1 Survey effort (temporal and spatial coverage) ..................................................................................... 27

3.2 Spatial distribution, species composition, and species abundance ................................................. 31

3.2.1 Species Richness and Diversity ........................................................................................................31

3.2.2 Distribution and Seasonal Changes..................................................................................................39

3.3 Highlights of collaborative research ..................................................................................................... 43

3.3.1 Synthesis of Arctic Research ............................................................................................................44

3.3.2 Arctic Ecosystem Integrated Survey ................................................................................................47

3.3.3 Arctic Marine Biodiversity Observing Network ...............................................................................48

3.3.4 Distributed Biological Observatory ..................................................................................................49

4. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................50

4.1 Status of Marine Bird Surveys and Data Archiving ............................................................................. 50

4.2 Monitoring changes at sea for marine birds and their habitats ......................................................... 50

5. Conclusion and Management Implications.......................................................................................53

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................53

References...........................................................................................................................................55

Appendix 1. Seabird and Marine Mammal Distribution Maps ..............................................................60

Appendix 2. Chukchi Hotspot Maps from SOAR Analysis......................................................................77
iv 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Study area and BOEM offshore planning areas in Alaska as outlined at the beginning of 

the project (2010). ........................................................................................................................................ 15

Figure 2. Major geographic features and place names for areas covered during BOEM 2017-004 

(Seabirds Offshore Project). ....................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 3. Major circulation currents in the North Pacific Arctic.. ........................................................... 19

Figure 4. Location of seabird colonies north of 60° N latitude in the US and Russia. ....................... 21

Figure 5. Sampling station grids for (A) BASIS-southern grid, (B) BASIS-northern grid. .................. 22

Figure 6. Location of Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) sites in the Northern Bering, 

Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas. ...................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 7. Transects surveyed in 2010 - 2016 by USFWS surveys funded as part of BOEM 2017-

004 (Seabirds Offshore Project).. .............................................................................................................. 28

Figure 8. At-sea survey effort 2006 – 2015 represented in 60 km hexagons. .................................... 30

Figure 9. Seasonal survey effort 2006 – 2015 represented in 60 km hexagons ................................ 31

Figure 10. Log density bar graph displaying density by region. ............................................................ 32

Figure 11. Species richness relative to sampling effort (number of 3 km transect segments). ........ 39

Figure 12. Species richness (Chao Index) in the northern Bering, eastern Chukchi, and western 

Beaufort Seas. .............................................................................................................................................. 40

Figure 13. Seasonal distribution of shearwaters (sooty and short-tailed combined). ........................ 41

Figure 14. Seasonal distribution of black-legged kittiwakes. ................................................................. 42

Figure 15. Seasonal distribution of murres (common and thick-billed combined). ............................ 43

Figure 16. The distribution and hotspots (red highlighted cells) for all marine birds combined in 

summer (A) and fall (B). .............................................................................................................................. 45

Figure 17. Marine bird and marine mammal hotspots for summer (A) and fall (B). ........................... 45

Figure 18. Survey effort (3 km transect segments; top row) and total marine birds (bottom row) for 

the northern Bering Sea, 2007-2012. ........................................................................................................ 46

Figure 19. Seabird community by degree of longitude from Arctic EIS Surveys. ............................... 47

Figure 20. Plots of first two axes of 3-dimensional Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling Ordination 

of seabird densities with geographic grid cells in the Chukchi Sea. ..................................................... 49

Figure 21. Species richness relative to sampling effort (number of 3 km transect segments) for the 

three DBO sites in the Chukchi Sea (blue dots). ..................................................................................... 50
v 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Summary of survey cruises, associated projects, regions, dates and kilometers (KM) 

surveyed, 2010-2016.................................................................................................24

Table 2. Total seabird survey effort (km) conducted by region 2010-2016.............................28

Table 3. List of marine birds and their species codes used in the NPPSD.............................33

Table 4. List of marine mammal species codes used in the NPPSD.....................................36

Table 5. Mean density of marine birds (see Table 3 for names) recorded during surveys in three 

regions, 2007-2015...................................................................................................37

Table 6. Correlations between Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling Ordination axes and 

environmental and geographic variables.......................................................................48
vi 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

ABR Alaska Biological Research 

ACC Alaska Coastal Current 

ALTIMA Alaska Long-Term Integrated Mooring Array 

AMBON Arctic Marine Biodiversity Observing Network 

AOOS Alaska Ocean Observing System 

Arctic IERP Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Research Program 

Arctic EIS Arctic Ecosystem Integrated Survey 

ARCWEST Arctic Whale Ecology Study 

BASIS Bering-Aleutian Salmon International Survey 

BeauFish Central Beaufort Fisheries Cruise 

BEST Bering Sea Ecosystem Study 

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

CAFF U.N. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna 

Cbird U.N. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna- Seabird Group 

CGC Canadian Coast Guard 

CHAOZ Chukchi Acoustic Oceanographic and Zooplankton Study 

COMIDA Chukchi Sea Offshore Monitoring 

DBO Distributed Biological Observatory 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FOCI Fisheries-Oceanography Coordinated Survey 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GIS Geographic Information Systems 

GOA Gulf of Alaska 

MACE Midwater Assessment and Conservation Engineering Program 

MBM Migratory Bird Management 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MBON Marine Biodiversity Observation Network 

NAB North Aleutian Basin 

NBS North Bering Sea 

NBS Fish North Bering Sea Fishery Study 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPFC North Pacific Fishery Council 

NPPSD North Pacific Pelagic Seabird Database 

NPRB North Pacific Research Board 

NSF National Science Foundation 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

PacMARS Pacific Marine Arctic Regional Synthesis 

PAG Pacific Arctic Group 

PARR U.S. Public Access to Research Results 

PICES North Pacific Marine Science Organization 

PMEL Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 

RUSALCA Russian-American Long-term Census of the Arctic 

SAFE NOAA Stock Assessment Evaluation 

SAMBR State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity Report 

SOAR Synthesis of Arctic Research 

UAF University of Alaska Fairbanks 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

WHOI Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 
7 
8 

List of Presentations and Outreach Efforts 

Presentations at professional meetings 

2016 

Bool N. 2016. Tracking the foraging movements of short-tailed shearwaters during the non-breeding 

period, using geo-location sensors. Alaska Marine Science Symposium, January 2016, Anchorage AK. 

Oral presentation. 

Gall A, Morgan T, Day R, Blanchard A. 2016. Seabird signal sort-termp and long-term trends in 

oceanographic variability of the eastern Chukchi Sea. Alaska Marine Science Symposium, January 2016, 

Anchorage AK. Oral presentation. 

Hunt GL, Renner M, Santora J, Kuletz K, Piatt J. 2016. Prey consumption by marine birds in the eastern 

Bering Sea: Variability over time. PICES prey consumption workshop, November 2016, San Diego, CA. 

Oral presentation. 

Kuletz K, Gall A, Osnas E, Morgan T, Labunski E,Renner M. 2016. Late summer and fall migration of 

seabirds from the Bering Sea to the Chukchi Sea. Pacific Seabird Group meeting, February 2016, Turtle 

Bay, HI. Oral presentation. 

Kuletz K, Labunski E, Renner M. 2016. Non-breeding distribution and habitat use of Brachyramphus

murrelets in Alaska’s oceans. Pacific Seabird Group meeting, February 2016, Turtle Bay, HI. Oral 

presentation. 

Pham C, Hyrenbach KD, Kuletz, K, Farley E, Eisner L, Pinchuk A. 2016. Interannual variability in 

seabird communities with respect to prey and environmental properties in the northern Bering and 

Chukchi seas. Alaska Marine Science Symposium, January 2016, Anchorage, AK. Oral presentation. 

Also presented at the Pacific Seabird Group meeting, February 2016, Turtle Bay, HI. Oral presentation. 

Santora JA, Eisner L, Kuletz K, Ladd C, Renner M, Hunt GL. 2016. Biogeography of seabird 

assemblages in the Bering Sea: spatial assessment of oceanographic drivers and functional overlap with 

fish and zooplankton. Alaska Marine Science Symposium, January 2016, Anchorage, AK. Poster. 

Smith M, Koeppenn W, Poe A, Kuletz K, Renner H, Sullender B, Sullender T, Van Pelt T, Littell J, Tyler 

E, Reynolds J. 2016.Applications of a scalable change detection tool to assess climate change 

vulnerability for important bird areas in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. Alaska Marine Science 

Symposium, January 2016, Anchorage, AK. Oral presentation. 

2015 

Bodenstein B, Beckmen K, Sheffield G, Kuletz K, Van Hemert C, Shearn-Bochsler V, Blehert D. 2015. 

Avian cholera causes marine bird mortality in the Bering Strait region of Alaska. Pacific Seabird Group, 

February 2015, San Jose, CA, Poster. 

Drew GS, and Piatt JF. 2015. Long term trends of seabird density and biomass in the North Pacific 

(1975-2012). Presentation at the Alaska Marine Science Symposium, Anchorage, AK, January 2015. Oral 

presentation. 

Iken K, Bluhm BA, Kuletz K, Collins E, Cooper LW, Danielson S, Grebmeier JM, Hopcroft R, Mueter F, 

Moore SE, Stafford K, Bochenek R. 2015. Arctic Marine Biodiversity Monitoring Network: towards 
9 

integrating seabird monitoring with a multi-disciplinary program for the Arctic. Alaska Marine Science 

Symposium, January 2015, Anchorage AK. Poster. Also presented at the Pacific Seabird Group, February 

2015, San Jose, CA. Poster, and presented at the World Seabird Conference, October 2015, Cape Town, 

South Africa. Poster. 

Kuletz K, Gall A, Renner M, Labunski E, Morgan T. 2015. North to the Arctic: the late summer and fall 

migration of seabirds from the Bering Sea into the Chukchi Sea. World Seabird Conference, October 

2015, Cape Town, South Africa. Oral presentation. 

Labunski E, Kuletz K, Farley E, Andrews A, Eisner L. 2015. Seabird die-off detected during a major 

coccolithophore bloom in the Bering Sea in 2014. Alaska Marine Science Symposium, January 2015. 

Anchorage, AK. Oral presentation. Also presented at the Pacific Seabird Group Annual Meeting, 

February 2015, San Jose CA. Oral presentation. 

Poe A, Smith M, Koeppen W, Kuletz K, Renner H, Van Pelt T. 2015 Exploring climate projections for 

globally recognized important bird areas in the Bering Sea and Aleutians. Pacific Seabird Group, 

February 2015, San Jose, CA. Oral presentation. 

Sigler M, Mueter F, Bluhm B, Busby M, Cokelet N, Danielson S, De Robertis A, Eisner L, Farley E, Iken 

K, Kuletz K, Lauth B, Logerwell L, Pinchuk A, Wilson C. 2015. Summer zoogeography of the northern 

Bering and eastern Chukchi Seas. Alaska Marine Science Symposium, January 2015, Anchorage, AK. 

Poster. 

2014 

Drew G, and Piatt J. 2014. Biodiversity, biomass, and energy transfer in the North Pacific: Insights from 

40 years of at-sea seabird survey data. Pacific Seabird Group Annual Meeting February 2014, Juneau, 

AK. Oral presentation. 

Kuletz K, Ferguson M, Gall A, Hurley B, Labunski E, Morgan T, Day R. 2014. Seasonal and spatial 

patterns of marine-bird and -mammal distributions in the Pacific Arctic: a delineation of biologically 

important marine areas. Arctic Ecosystems Panel, Alaska Marine Science Symposium, January 2014, 

Anchorage, AK. Oral presentation. 

Kuletz K, Ferguson M, Hurley B, Gall A, Labunski E. 2014. Seasonal and spatial patterns of marine bird 

and mammal distributions in the Pacific Arctic: A delineation of biologically important marine areas. 

Ocean Sciences Meeting, February 2014, Honolulu, HI. Poster. 

Renner M, and Kuletz K. 2014. Shipping and seabirds in the Aleutian Archipelago: a seasonal risk 

analysis. Pacific Seabird Group Annual Meeting, February 2014, Juneau, AK. Oral presentation. 

2013 

Kuletz K, Hurley B, Ferguson M, Labunski E. 2013. Identifying important pelagic areas in the Pacific 

Arctic: Seasonal and spatial patterns in marine bird and mammal distribution. Pacific Seabird Group 

Annual Meeting, February 2013, Portland OR. Oral presentation. 

Kuletz K, Labunski E, Renner M, Bishop M. 2013. The murrelet in winter –a review of marbled murrelet 

post-breeding distribution with a focus on Alaska. Pacific Seabird Group Annual Meeting, February 

2013, Portland OR. Oral presentation. 

Pham C, Kuletz K, Labunski E, Renner M. 2013. Post-breeding distribution of ancient murrelets in the 

Bering and Chukchi seas. Pacific Seabird Group Annual Meeting, February 2013, Portland OR. Poster. 
10 

2012

Cooper L, Fishbach A, Gradinger R, Grebmeier J, Jay C, Kuletz K, Lovvorn J, Sexson M. 2012. New 

insights on the northern Bering Sea ecosystem from early season sampling in March 2008, 2009, and 

2010. Alaska Marine Science Symposium, January 2012, Anchorage AK. Oral presentation. 

Hunt GL Jr., Renner M, Kuletz K. 2012. Seasonal variation in the cross-shelf distribution of seabirds in 

the southeastern Bering Sea. Pacific Seabird Group 39th Annual Meeting, Turtle Bay, HI, February 2012. 

Oral Presentation. 

Hunt GL Jr., Renner M, Kuletz K, Drew G, Piatt J. 2012. Seabird numbers, days of occupancy, and prey 

habits in the Gulf of Alaska and the eastern Bering Sea, PICES Meeting, Hiroshima, Japan, October 

2012. Oral Presentation. 

Kuletz K, Suryan R, Parker-Setter S, Renner M, Horne J, Farley E, Labunski E. 2012. Alaska Marine 

Science Symposium, January 2012, Anchorage AK. Oral presentation. 

Rivera K. 2012. U.S - Russia Cooperation in the Study of Living Marine Resources: Seabirds. Twentythird Session of U.S.-Russia Intergovernmental Consultative Committee (ICC) On Fisheries. Presented a 

summary of at-sea seabird surveys in the northern Bering and Chukchi seas, highlighting the RUSALCA 

seabird surveys. St. Petersburg, Russia, September 2012. 

2011 

Kuletz K, Renner M, Labunski E, Parker-Setter S, Ressler P, Farley E. 2011. Seabird distribution, habitat, 

and prey associations during non-breeding seasons in Alaska’s Bering and Chukchi Seas. Alaska Marine 

Science Symposium, January 2011, Anchorage AK. Poster. 

Renner M, Piatt J. Kuletz K, Hunt GL. 2011. Changes in the distribution of hotspots of pelagic seabird 

species diversity and abundance in the Bering Sea and North Pacific over four decades. Alaska Marine 

Science Symposium, January 2011, Anchorage AK. Poster. 

Suryan RM, Kuletz K, Renner M, Ressler P, Fitzgerald S, Ozaki K, Sato F, Deguchi T, Labunski E. 

2011. Mechanisms affecting seabird-prey associations over submarine canyons in the northwestern 

Bering Sea. North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) annual meeting, October 2011, 

Khabarovsk, Russia. Oral Presentation. 

Community Meetings  St. Lawrence Island community meetings – 2010-2013. The main focus of these meetings was to 

discuss issues related to loon conservation but other seabird species were also discussed. These 

meetings included presentations that utilized the at-sea distribution data and the maps and 

photographs were strong visual tools that helped facilitate conversations and discussions. 

Tamara Zeller was the primary organizer and presenter (a seabird observer and 

USFWS/Migratory Bird Management Outreach person). 

 Bering Sea Days – St. Paul Island. 2011 and 2016. This week-long education event in the school 

included presentations on seabird distribution and abundance using the data sets from cruises in 

the Bering Sea. Classroom presentations, hands-on activities, and field trips celebrated the 

importance of seabirds to the local community and Aleut culture. T. Zeller was the primary 

organizer and presenter for the seabird component. In 2016, graduate student C. Pham 

participated, and gave presentations about the Arctic EIS project and findings. Ms Pham also 
11 

helped develop a ‘seabird survival game’, which was used as an educational tool with local 

students. 

 Northern Bering Sea Research Plan – Community and Subsistence Workshop – 2010. T. Zeller 

presented information on seabird distribution and abundance in the Bering Sea using the at-sea 

data collected from previous years. The methods and survey efforts were also presented to over 

40 village representatives in attendance. 

Public Events 

 Migratory Bird Day at the Alaska Zoo – 2008 to 2015. Information about various seabirds 

including at-sea distribution is often used during this event, particularly for hands-on activities 

and informative displays. T. Zeller (USFWS), a frequent seabird observer, is also the 

USFWS/Migratory Bird Management Outreach person, and she directs operations for this 

popular educational event. K. Kuletz gave a presentation at the Islands and Oceans Visitor Center 

in Homer, sponsored by the K-bay Birders, in October 2011. Although the focus was on seabirds 

of Kachemak Bay, the presentation included aspects of the broad-scale seabird surveys in the 

Bering and Chukchi Sea. 

 K. Kuletz was one of six scientist/Principal Investigators asked by Public Broadcasting station 

KTUU and the North Pacific Research Board to give a presentation and provide a public forum 

regarding our work on the Arctic Ecosystem Integrated Survey (a 3-year project), including 

changes we’ve observed in the Arctic. This was filmed before a live audience by KTUU in 

Juneau, AK, for the program 360North. The taped program was subsequently used across the 

state for education and outreach. 

 Public presentation at the Alaska Public Lands Information Center Summer Lecture Series for the 

MBTA Centennial, titled: North to the Arctic: Late Summer Migration of Seabirds from the 

Bering Sea to the Chukchi Sea. Anchorage AK, June 29, 2016. 

 Graduate student Athina Catherine Pham worked as the seabird observer during the Arctic EIS 

project, and used that data for her Master’s project at Hawaii Pacific University, HI. Ms. Pham 

successfully completed her thesis defense in September and her degree in November 2016. The 

thesis tile was: Seabird response to interannual variability in oceanographic properties and prey 

abundance in the northern Bering and Chukchi seas; a draft publication derived from the thesis 

will be submitted in spring 2017. 

 While at Hawaii Pacific University for Ms. Pham’s graduate student thesis defense, K. Kuletz 

gave a graduate seminar on seabird migration in the northern Bering and Chukchi seas, based on 

at-sea survey data collected during this project. 

 Kathy Kuletz participated in panel discussion at the annual North Pacific Research Board 

Symposium. Title: Arctic Ecosystem Perspectives: A Panel Discussion at the 2014 Alaska 

Marine Science Symposium. January 2014. 

Websites  Data from this project was included in Audubon Alaska analysis for “Identifying marine 

Important Bird Areas using at-sea survey data”, with results published (Smith et al. 2014) and 

available online at: http://ak.audubon.org/important-bird-areas-4 

 The seabird surveys were featured during several cruises by the “Teachers At Sea’ program 

during field seasons from 2010 to 2015. http://arcticocean.globaloceanexploration.com/ 
12 

 Photographs taken by seabird observers during cruises were provided to project chief scientists 

and lead Investigators for use online, in calendars, and as covers for reports. Sample Photo Links: 

http://ak.audubon.org/ , https://pacificseabirdgroup.org/about-us/psg-photo-gallery/ 

https://www.newsdeeply.com/arctic/community/2016/08/30/hanna-shoal-an-icy-haven-for-arcticsea-animals-that-staves-off-summer 

 Kuletz KJ, and Karnovsky N. 2012 Arctic Report Card – Seabirds. Marine Ecosystems Section 

(http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/). On NOAA web site December 2012, and presented at 

American Geophysical Union in 2013. 

 The U.S. Geological Survey announced the public release of the North Pacific Pelagic Seabird 

Database, which includes seabird data from this project through 2012. The user’s guide, seabird 

distribution maps, and access to data can be found at: 

http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/nppsd/index.php. 

 The seabird survey data (2006-2012) was included in the PacMARS (Pacific Marine Arctic 

Regional Synthesis) and uploaded to the Arctic EIS AOOS Workspace. 

 Kuletz KJ. 2016. Interpretive article on Arctic Seabirds. Featured on the NOAA Ocean Explorer 

website:http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/16arctic/background/seabird/seabird.html 

 Labunski EL. 2016. Interpretive article on marine bird surveys during the Hidden Oceans 2016 

Chukchi Borderlands Expedition aboard the US Coast Guard Ice Breaker Healy. Article featured 

on the NOAA Ocean Explorer website: 

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/16arctic/logs/july18/july18.html 

Press Articles  Scott Weidensaul published an article in Audubon Magazine (January 2016) “Sitting Ducks: 

Why Millions of Arctic Seabirds Are in Danger”. The article is an overview of seabirds in Alaska 

including colony and at-sea information. Copy of the article available at: 

http://www.audubon.org/magazine/january-february-2016/sitting-ducks-why-millions-arctic 

 Melanie Smith of Audubon Alaska joined one of our Bering Sea/Arctic cruises as a second 

(guest) seabird observer and wrote an article about seabirds in the Beringia area for Alaska 

Magazine (March 2013). A copy of the article is available at: 

http://ak.audubon.org/sites/default/files/documents/navigating_through_living_map_alaskamagaz

ine_march2013.pdf 

List of Publications 

The following publications were based in part on the marine bird data collected during this project, or 

used some component of that data. 

Bodenstein B, Beckmen K, Sheffield G, Kuletz K, Van Hemert C, Berlowski B, Shearn-Bochsler 

V. 2015. Avian Cholera Causes Marine Bird Mortality in the Bering Sea of Alaska. Journal of Wildlife 

Diseases 51(4):934-937. doi: 10.7589/2014-12-273. (Seabird surveys provided background data on 

species present in the northern Bering Sea during fall and spring). 

Day RH, Gall E, Morgan TC, Rose JR, Plissner JH, Sanzenbacher PM, Fenneman JD, Kuletz KJ, Watts 

BH. 2013. Seabirds new to the eastern Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska: Response to a changing 

climate? Western Birds 44(3):174-182. 

Gall AE, Morgan TC, Day RH, Kuletz KJ. 2016. Ecological shift from piscivorous to planktivorous 
13 

seabirds in the Chukchi Sea, 1975-2012”. Polar Biology. doi:10.1007/s00300-016-1924-z. 

Grebmeier JM, Bluhm BA, Cooper LW, Danielson S, Arrigo K, Blanchard AL, Clarke JT, Day RH, Frey 

KE, Gradinger RR, Kedra M, Konar B, Kuletz KJ, Lee SH, Lovvorn JR, Norcross BL, Okkonen 

SR. 2015. Ecosystem characteristics and processes facilitating persistent macrobenthic biomass hotspots 

and associated benthivory in the Pacific Arctic. Progress in Oceanography. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2015.05.006 

Hunt GL, Renner M, Kuletz KJ. 2014. Seasonal variation in the cross-shelf distribution of seabirds in the 

southeastern Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Research II 109: 266-281.Topical Studies in Oceanography. doi: 

10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.08.011 

Irons DB, Petersen A, Anker-Nilssen T, Arthukin Y, Barrett R, Boertman D, Gavrilo M, Gilchrist HG, 

Hansen ES, Hario M, Kuletz K, Mallory ML, Merkel F, Mosbech A, Labansen AL, Olsen B, Österblom 

H, Reid J, Robertson G. M. Rönkä & H. Strøm. 2015. Circumpolar Seabird Monitoring Plan. CAFF 

Monitoring Report No. 17. Akureyri, Icleand, CAFF International Secretariat: 70. 

Kuletz KJ, Ferguson C, Hurley B, Gall A, Labunski E, Morgan T. 2015. Seasonal spatial patterns in 

seabird and marine mammal distribution in the eastern Chukchi and western Beaufort seas: Identifying 

biologically important pelagic areas. Progress in Oceanography 136:175 

Kuletz KJ, Renner M, Labunski EA, Hunt GL. 2014. Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of 

Albatrosses in the Eastern Bering Sea: 1975-2010. Deep Sea Research II 109: 282 – 292. 

Moore SE, Logerwell E, Eisner L, Farley E, Harwood L, Kuletz K, Lovvorn J, Murphy J, Quakenbush L. 

2011. Marine fishes, birds and mammals as sentinels of ecosystem variability and reorganization in the 

Pacific Arctic Region. In: Grebmeier JM., Maslowski W. (Eds.), The Pacific Arctic Region: Ecosystem 

Status and Trends in a Rapidly Changing Environment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 337–392 (Chapter 11). 

Nishizawa B, Matsuno K, Labunski EA, Kuletz KJ, Yamaguchi A, Watanuki Y. 2017. Seasonal 

distribution of short-tailed shearwaters and their prey in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Biogeosciences

14:1-12, doi:10.5194/bg-14-1-2017. 

Petersen A, Irons DB, Gilchrist HG, Robertson G, Boertmann D, Strøm H, Gavrilo M, Artukhin Y, 

Clausen D, Kuletz K, Mallory M. 2015. The status of glaucous gulls Larus hyperboreus in the 

circumpolar Arctic. Arctic 68(1):107 – 120. http://dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic4462. (Information from 

seabird surveys was included in this overview). 

Renner M, Parrish JK, Piatt JF, Kuletz KJ, Edwards EA, Hunt GL. 2013. Modeling the distribution and 

abundance of a pelagic seabird in relation to fisheries. Marine Ecology Progress Series 484: 259–277. 

Renner M, Salo S, Eisner L, Ressler P, Ladd C, Kuletz K, Santora J, Piatt J, Drew G, Hunt G. 2016. 

"Timing of ice retreat alters seabird abundances and distributions in the southeast Bering Sea" Biology 

Letters 12: 20160276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0276. 

Sigler MF, Mueter J, Bodil A, Bluhm B, Busby MS, Cokelet ED, Danielson SL, De Robertis A, Eisner 

LB, Farley EV, Iken K, Kuletz KJ, Lauth RR, Logerwell EA, Pinchuk AI. 2016. Late summer 

zoogeography of the northern Bering and Chukchi seas, Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in 

Oceanography, Available online 21 March 2016, ISSN 0967-0645. doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2016.03.005 

Sigler MF, Renner M, Danielson SL, Eisner LB, Lauth RR, Kuletz KJ, Logerwell EA, Hunt GL. 2011. 
14 

Fluxes, fins, and feathers: Relationships among the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas in a time of 

climate change. Oceanography 24(3):250–265. doi. org/10.5670/oceanog.2011.77 

Smith MA, Walker NJ, Free CM, Kirchhoff MJ, Drew GS, Warnock N, Stenhouse IJ. 2014. Identifying 

marine Important Bird Areas using at-sea survey data. Biological Conservation 172:180-189. 

doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.039. 

Suryan RM, Kuletz KJ, Parker-Stetter SL, Ressler PH, Renner M, Horne JK, Farley EV, Labunski EA. 

2016. Temporal shifts in seabird populations and spatial coherence with prey in the southeastern Bering 

Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 549: 199–215. doi:10.3354/meps11653 

Reports 

This project relied on collaboration with a variety of vessel-based research and monitoring projects, 

typically requiring cruise reports within a month of completing the cruise. K. Kuletz and the USFWS 

team provided individual cruise reports (Supplement) which were often incorporated into the multidisciplinary project report; many of these are now available online through the respective projects. These 

cruise reports typically include species’ lists and counts and distribution maps of selected species specific 

to the cruise. Information on marine mammal sightings, including those beyond the seabird transect 

window, are also included in the cruise reports. In addition, major ecosystem projects required quarterly 

or semi-annual progress reports and final reports to the primary funding entities; K. Kuletz provided the 

seabird component of those reports as scheduled. Because this report is required to be comprehensive and 

stand alone, components of the Arctic EIS final report (Pham and Kuletz 2015) and the AMBON annual 

report (Iken 2016) have been incorporated into the BOEM 2017-004 report, because they were funded by 

the same IA and were integral components of this project. 

The seabird data collected during this project was included in an international collaboration to examine 

distribution of, and risk to upper trophic levels, organized via the North Pacific Marine Science 

Organization (PICES). The goals of this effort were to integrate datasets and review the application of 

spatial distributional data for marine birds and mammals in the North Pacific. The applications potentially 

included the design of pelagic marine protected areas, assessments of ecosystem health, modeling topdown effects of marine predators on food web dynamics, and projecting the future distributions of rare or 

threatened populations and species under climate change. The following report, which included the use 

of this project data, was submitted to PICES in 2015: 

Watanuki, Y., R. Suryan, H. Sasaki, T. Yamamoto, E. Hazen, M. Renner, J.A. Santora, W.J. 

Sydeman, 2015. Spatial ecology of marine top predators in the North Pacific: Tools for 

integrating across datasets and identifying high use areas. Report of the Marine Birds and 

Mammals Advisory Panel to the North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES). 

Information about the at-sea surveys conducted through BOEM 2017-004, and some of our results, were 

also presented during various workshops, including the Pacific Arctic Group (PAG), Distributed 

Biological Observatory (DBO) Workshops, and the Circumpolar Seabird Group (Cbird; an Arctic 

Council Expert Network). The latter included collaborative efforts for a five-year summary of progress 

in Arctic seabird monitoring; this State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity Report (SAMBR) was initiated 

in October 2015 and is scheduled for submission to the Arctic Council in February 2017. 

Study Objectives 

The goal of this IA was to provide more information on the distribution, timing and abundance of marine 

birds in oil and gas planning areas, specifically the North Aleutian Basin (subsequently withdrawn 

through 2017), and the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea planning areas (Fig. 1). This was to be 

accomplished by implementation of an at-sea survey program for seabirds. Adjacent areas that were 
15 

potentially subject to impacts, such as the Hope, Norton, St. Matthew-Hall, and St. George Basins (Fig. 

1), were surveyed opportunistically depending on routes and additional sampling areas of each cruise. 

Specific Study Objectives:

 Contact and coordinate with research programs using vessels in the North Aleutian Basin or 

Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, to place seabird observers on the vessels during research cruises. 

Using these ships of opportunity, we conducted surveys of all marine birds to obtain density 

estimates and distribution patterns.

 Estimate the distribution, species composition, and abundance of marine birds in designated and 

potential offshore planning areas.

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. 

Figure 1. Study area and BOEM offshore planning areas in Alaska as outlined at the 

beginning of the project (2010). 

Planning areas are highlighted in yellow and lease blocks (in 2010) highlighted in brown. Areas currently 

closed to leasing are highlighted in gray. Previous lease sale areas in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas are 

highlighted in red; these were removed from leasing in 2016. 
16 

Study Chronology 

This OCS Study BOEM 2017-004 (hereafter, Seabirds Offshore Project) was proposed in December 2009 

and initiated through an Interagency Agreement (IA) between the USFWS and Minerals Management 

Service (now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management) in March 2010. The original period of 

performance was designated from May 15, 2010 to December 30, 2014. Modifications to the IA were 

made annually to extend the period of performance and provide additional funds to continue the at-sea 

surveys through fall 2016, with a focus on the Chukchi Sea. The final (No. 8) modification was granted in 

December 2016 for a no-cost extension to accommodate the integration of 2016 data into the dataset and 

report, to be submitted to BOEM in February 2017. 

The impetus for this study was to provide BOEM with updated information on seabirds in offshore 

planning areas (Fig. 1). Although the Seabirds Offshore Project focused on the Chukchi Sea, it also 

provided seabird data and analyses from the adjacent Beaufort Sea and Bering Sea planning areas (Fig. 

1). In addition, this study overlapped with at-sea surveys funded by the North Pacific Research Board 

(NPRB) during 2010, and we’ve included those 2010 cruises (Table 1) that leveraged NPRB and USFWS 

backing with BOEM support. Therefore, this report incorporates distribution data and relevant results 

from the southern Bering Sea and northern Gulf of Alaska (GOA) (Fig. 2). We included seabird 

distribution data from the latter regions for logistical and biological reasons. Logistically, most of the 

cruises (which provided survey platforms for seabird observers) utilized ports of call from the GOA (i.e., 

Seward, Kodiak) or Dutch Harbor in the Aleutian Islands (Fig. 2). We took advantage of these transits to 

conduct surveys; therefore these data resulted from Seabirds Offshore Project funds. Furthermore, the 

physical oceanography, ice dynamics, and seabirds of these ocean planning areas are interrelated. 

This project built off of North Pacific Research Board (NPRB) Project No. 637, through which the 

USFWS developed the current survey protocol and began collaborative efforts (2006-2008) with vesselbased research and monitoring projects (Kuletz et al. 2008). The survey protocol was further refined and 

additional offshore surveys conducted through NPRB Project B64 (Seabird Broad-scale Distribution; 

Kuletz and Labunski 2014) as part of the NPRB and National Science Foundation (NSF) Bering Sea 

Integrated Ecosystem Research Project (BSIERP). Other components of BSIERP that expanded the 

seabird survey effort were NPRB projects B67 and B77, within the Patch Dynamics Study. These NPRB 

projects were instrumental in the USFWS establishing working relationships with Chief Scientists and 

Principal Investigators conducting research at sea. 
17 

Figure 2. Major geographic features and place names for areas covered during BOEM 

2017-004 (Seabirds Offshore Project). 

Abstract 

Seabirds are wide-ranging upper trophic level foragers and good indicators of changes in marine 

ecosystems. Seabirds spend most of the year offshore, yet our data gaps are greatest for the pelagic 

aspect of their lives. The goal of the Seabirds Offshore Project was to conduct at-sea surveys in lease sale 

areas and adjacent ocean planning areas, to provide current temporal and spatial data on marine birds and 

mammals, and submit the data to the North Pacific Pelagic Seabird Database (NPPSD). During this 

project, 2010-2016, we placed seabird observers on 45 research and monitoring vessels, usually in 

association with multidisciplinary ecosystem projects. Because many of these cruises transited from 

southern Alaska ports, we included all surveyed routes in this report. We surveyed a total of 97,525 km, 

with the majority (31,497 km) in the Chukchi Sea, followed by the southern Bering Sea (30,265 km), 

northern Bering Sea (26,326 km) and Beaufort Sea (9,438 km). Our survey coverage extended from the 

northern GOA shelf to the eastern Aleutian Islands, north throughout the Bering Sea shelf, into the 

eastern Chukchi Sea, and the western Beaufort Sea shelf, including the Arctic Basin. The seabird survey 

data collected under the Seabirds Offshore Project has been included in over 30 presentations and 17 

publications to date, as well as at least 12 public outreach and education venues and 7 websites. We have 

described seasonal distribution patterns of seabirds in offshore waters of Alaska, and identified ‘hotspots’ 

of foraging and migration activity. Through several collaborative projects, including on-going efforts, we 

have linked seabird survey data to oceanographic and prey data collected during concurrent cruises, and 

from remote sensing data. These efforts test hypotheses about the distribution of upper trophic level 

predators in response to changes in prey and ice cover. All seabird data collected during this project has 

been submitted to the NPPSD, to the Alaska BOEM office, and to affiliated ecosystem projects (available 

via Alaska Ocean Observing System work spaces). 
18 

1. Introduction 

1.1 Need for information on seabirds in lease sale areas 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC 4321-4347) requires that all Federal 

Agencies use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach that will ensure the integrated use of the natural and 

social sciences in any planning and decision-making that may have an effect on the human environment. 

The BOEM efforts in this direction include environmental impact statements, environmental assessment 

teams, studies that acquire and analyze marine- environmental data, literature surveys, and special 

studies. Data on the distribution of marine birds is needed for Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 

consultations, NEPA analyses, and other documentation. The information obtained from these surveys 

will assist in development of mitigation measures and strategies to reduce potential impacts. To provide 

information used in environmental impact statements and environmental assessments under NEPA, and 

to assure protection of marine birds under the ESA of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543), BOEM Environmental 

Studies Program fund numerous studies involving acquisition and analysis of marine birds and other 

environmental data. 

Marine bird species listed under the ESA in Alaska include spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri), 

Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri), and short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus). The information 

obtained from these surveys may assist in development of mitigation measures and strategies to reduce 

potential impacts to listed species. Basic information on marine bird timing and duration of use within 

designated (Chukchi and Beaufort Seas) and potential (North Aleutian Basin; NAB) Planning Areas is 

necessary to better define the impacts of perturbations and ultimately population effects. In this report, 

we refer to ‘marine birds’ when including all major taxa that rely on the marine environment during some 

portion of their lives; this includes birds that spend considerable time inland during nesting season, such 

as loons (Family Graviidae), waterfowl and seaducks (Family Anatidae), phalaropes (genus Phalaropus), 

and jaegers (genus Stercorarius), and ‘true’ seabirds that nest along the coast, typically in colonies, and 

spend the majority of their lives at sea (i.e, Procelarids, Phalacrocoracidae, Laridae, Alcidae). 

Breeding seabirds are generally monitored at colonies yet they spend most of the year dispersed offshore. 

Additionally, one half or more of all seabirds do not breed in a given year, and other marine bird species 

occur at sea seasonally, thus management of marine birds requires knowledge of their spatial and 

temporal patterns at sea. The NPPSD consolidates and archives marine bird survey data, but most of these 

data were collected in the 1970s-80s (Drew and Piatt 2005). More recently, at sea surveys were 

conducted by the USFWS in 2006-2010 via grants from the NPRB (Kuletz et al. 2008, Kuletz and 

Labunski 2015). However, few of the cruises prior to 2010 covered the Chukchi or Beaufort seas. The 

Seabirds Offshore Project filled this data gap by supporting surveys from 2010-2015, with a focus on the 

Pacific Arctic. 

These recent surveys provide a more complete and current data set on marine bird use of sub-Arctic and 

Arctic marine areas of Alaska. Offshore resource exploration and extraction, increases in shipping traffic 

and tourism, and concern over subsistence hunting and food resource availability, are additional reasons 

for obtaining science-based knowledge of marine birds in this region. 

1.2. Study Area 

1.2.1 Physical Properties 

The main study area for the Seabirds Offshore Project was the Chukchi Sea, northern Bering Sea, and 

western Beaufort Sea (Fig. 2). The northern Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea continental shelf ecosystem is 

influenced by three water masses that are defined primarily by salinity and temperature gradients —the 

Anadyr Water, Bering Shelf Water, and Alaska Coastal Water (Coachman et al. 1975, Weingartner et al. 

1999; Fig. 3). These water masses advect nutrients, heat, and plankton biomass northward from the 
19 

Bering Sea, supporting high productivity in the Chirikov Basin (north of St. Lawrence Island; Fig. 2) and 

through the Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea (Springer & McRoy 1993). Anadyr Water is relatively 

cold, saline, and rich in nutrients; Bering Shelf Water has similar properties (Coachman & Shigaev 1992, 

Weingartner 1997). Alaska Coastal Water (ACC) originates from the GOA (Fig. 3) and river input into 

the eastern Bering Sea and is relatively warm, fresh, and nutrient-poor (Springer et al. 1984, Coachman & 

Shigaev 1992, Weingartner 1997). North of the Bering Strait, Anadyr Water and Bering Shelf Water 

merge into Bering Sea Water, which bifurcates towards the Arctic Basin (Coachman et al. 1975). These 

two currents pass around a shallow shelf (40 m depth) on the eastern Chukchi Shelf known as Hanna 

Shoal (Fig. 2), making the shoal a particularly rich area of the eastern Chukchi Sea (Schonberg et al. 

2014). 

The ACC remains close to the Alaska coast, and splits near Pt. Barrow to the west or east along the 

Beaufort shelf. The Beaufort and northern Chukchi seas are also influenced by easterly flowing deep 

Atlantic water and the westerly flowing Beaufort Gyre in the Arctic Basin (Fig. 3). The properties, extent, 

and mixing of these water masses varies seasonally and interannually due to changes in atmospheric 

circulation, regional wind patterns, and timing and spatial extent of sea ice (Weingartner et al. 1999, 

2005; Woodgate et al. 2005). 

Seasonally, sea ice cover changes dramatically, which has direct and indirect consequences for seabirds 

and marine mammals. There are some open water areas (polynyas) in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in 

winter (Stringer and Groves 1991), but solid sea ice cover typically extends into the middle of the Bering 

Sea by March (Fig. 3). Sea ice retreats in the spring, generally reaching the Bering Strait by mid-June. 

Ice continues to retreat in the Arctic unevenly (depending on bathymetry and currents), with minimum ice 

coverage in late September. The extent of sea ice during the preceding winter and the timing of its annual 

retreat can affect the physical properties of the water masses of the region for the remainder of the year 

(Weingartner et al. 2005, Arrigo et al. 2008). 

Figure 3. Major circulation currents in the North Pacific Arctic. (reprinted Sigler et. al. 

2011). 
20 

1.2.2 Lower Trophic Levels 

Major biogeographic domains of the pelagic ecosystem (Sigler et al. 2011), can shift in geographic 

location as a result of seasonal variability in the underlying physical dynamics (Day et al. 2013, Hunt et 

al. 2014). The biogeography of the northern Bering and Chukchi seas appears to be tied to water mass 

properties and latitudinal gradients. Sea ice is a driving factor, and in the late summer and early fall 

(when most of the vessel-based surveys occurred) it affects water masses and thereby the biotic 

communities. During summer, the zooplankton and pelagic fish communities of the northern Bering and 

eastern Chukchi seas reflect the underlying hydrography, with strong gradients running from nearshore to 

offshore, and south to north (Sigler et al. 2016). From zooplankton to seabirds, Sigler et al. (2016) 

defined three biogeographic communities: those associated with the ACC (warm, fresh, nutrient-poor), 

the Chirikov Basin/southern Chukchi Sea (cold, salty, nutrient-rich), and the northern Chukchi shelf 

associations. 

Overall, zooplankton densities are greatest just north of the Bering Strait and in high salinity Bering Sea 

waters, although their distribution and abundance varies within and among years (Eisner et al. 2013, 

Hopcroft et al. 2010). Zooplankton communities are strongly associated with specific water masses, e.g., 

large copepods are most abundant in high salinity Anadyr Water, while small copepods tend to be in low 

salinity Alaska Coastal Water (Eisner et al. 2013, Hopcroft et al. 2010, Piatt & Springer 2003). There is 

also a latitudinal gradient, with sub-arctic species most abundant in the northern Bering Sea and southern 

Chukchi Sea, and Arctic species abundant in the Chukchi Sea (Eisner et al. 2013, Hopcroft et al. 2010, 

Piatt & Springer 2003). 

The primary prey of piscivorous seabirds are structured primarily along a latitudinal gradient and 

secondarily with water masses (Eisner et al. 2013). Juvenile saffron cod (Eleginus gracilis), juvenile 

Arctic cod (Boreogadus glacialis), and adult Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) are most 

abundant in the central and northern Chukchi Sea, while adult Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), walleye 

pollock (Theragra chalcogramma), and capelin (Mallotus villosus) are most abundant in the northern 

Bering and southern Chukchi seas. Both diversity and biomass decrease with latitude, and high diversity 

and biomass are associated with Alaska Coastal Water (Eisner et al. 2013, Piatt & Springer 2003). 

1.2.3 Marine Birds 

The offshore waters of Alaska support a diversity of marine birds, including taxa that use marine areas 

only during migration or for portions of their annual cycle. Members of the families Gaviidae (loons), 

Anatidae (in particular eiders and other seaducks), Stercorariidae (jaegers), and phalaropes (genus 

Phalaropus) are considered marine birds, but for portions of the year they depend on inland habitats and 

prey, particularly during the breeding season. In contrast, we consider ‘seabirds’ to only include species 

that feed primarily in marine environments and typically nest near the water on coastal cliffs or islands, 

often in colonies; these families include the Procellariidae (albatross, fulmars, shearwaters, stormpetrels), Phalacrocoracidae (cormorants), Laridae (gulls and terns), and Alcidae (murres, puffins, 

murrelets, auklets, guillemots). Our surveys recorded all marine birds, but where relevant we refer 

specifically to seabirds, which are the most abundant category of marine birds in Alaska’s offshore 

waters. 

The Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea have some of the largest seabird breeding populations in the world 

(Stephensen and Irons 2003), and seabird colonies extend throughout most of the coastline of the northern 

Bering Sea and southern Chukchi Sea (Fig. 4). An estimated 12 million seabirds nest at colonies either 

side of the Bering Strait, with at least 5 colonies of > 1 million birds and another 8 with > 125,000 birds 

(USFWS 2014). The largest colonies located along the Chukchi coast are between Cape Thompson and 

Cape Lisburne. With the exception of a few small colonies east of Pt. Barrow, seabirds do not nest along 

the Beaufort coast (Fig. 4). Seabird densities at sea in the study area are also high (Gall et al. 2013, Kuletz 

et al. 2015), with areas near the Bering Strait among the highest recorded in the North Pacific and 
21 

Atlantic (Humphries and Huettmann 2014, Wong et al. 2014). The high seabird densities at sea are 

augmented by an influx of millions of migrants from the southern hemisphere, primarily the short-tailed 

shearwaters (Ardenna tenuirostris). 

Seabirds can be monitored at their breeding sites and counted at sea, and they respond to changes in 

bottom-up food web dynamics, making them excellent indicators of marine ecosystem conditions (Piatt 

et. al. 2007). The specific mechanisms responsible for shifts in seabird distribution are poorly understood 

because they are influenced by multiple biological and physical processes that operate at hierarchical 

scales (Hunt & Schneider 1987, Sydeman et al. 2012). At the broadest scales (>1000 km), seabirds are 

constrained by oceanographic habitats and to a lesser extent by distribution of prey within those habitats 

(Hunt & Schneider 1987). Seabirds can track prey over large distances, but they are constrained by 

colony location during the breeding season. At smaller scales (<100 km), seabirds are patchily 

distributed with the greatest densities found in areas of high prey availability (Hunt & Schneider 1987; 

Benoit-Bird et al. 2011, 2013). Hunt & Schneider (1987) proposed that meso to large scale processes in 

the range of 10 – 500 km, combined with prey patchiness, result in distinct seabird communities 

associated with particular physical habitats. These are the scales at which our surveys were conducted 

and the scales used for most of our analyses and interpretation. 

Figure 4. Location of seabird colonies north of 60° N latitude in the US and Russia. 

Red dots indicate seabird colony site. 

2. Data Collection and Processing 

2.1 Methods 

2.1.1 Coordination with select research programs and vessels 

Principal Investigator K. Kuletz coordinated with Chief Scientists and Project Leads from government 

agencies and universities to include seabird surveys in their projects and cruise plans. Seabird observers 

were placed on research ships of opportunity, primarily NOAA, BOEM, and NSF-funded research 

vessels conducting research in the region. Most of these cruises occurred during summer and fall, when 
22 

there is more open water in the Arctic and when researchers were targeting biological processes. We 

preferentially placed observers on vessels with concurrent oceanographic and biological projects. 

Collaborative projects collected data on the physical and biological oceanography, plankton, fish, and 

marine mammals. Although the research projects were focused on Arctic waters, the ports of call often 

began or ended in Seward, Kodiak, or Dutch Harbor (Fig. 2). During the vessel’s transit between port and 

the sampling site we conducted additional surveys while underway. 

In total, we joined 45 cruises between 2010 and 2016 (Table 1). Twenty-one of these were part of multiyear projects that had standardized sampling grids occupied each year (i.e., Arctic EIS, NBS Fish, 

AMBON; (Fig. 5). Other projects were multi-year but did not always visit the same sites (i.e., COMIDA, 

RUSALCA, ARCWEST/ALTIMA). We also joined single-season projects (i.e., the Oshoromaru and 

Chukchi Borderlands Project). The Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO; 

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/dbo/) sampling scheme was incorporated into many of the research cruises, 

and these sites (Fig. 6) were visited multiple times by different projects. 

 

 

Figure 5. Sampling station grids for (A) BASIS-southern grid, (B) BASIS-northern grid. 

A B

C

D

Legend 

 

 Sampling 

 Stations 
23 

Figure 6. Location of Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) sites in the Northern 

Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas. 
24 

Table 1. Summary of survey cruises, associated projects, regions, dates and kilometers (KM) surveyed, 20Year Survey Project Name Agency Region KM 

Survey 

2010 BEST II Bering Sea Ecosystem Project NOAA Bering 2152 2010 CHAOZ Chukchi Acoustic Oceanographic & Zooplankton Study NOAA Bering-Chukchi 2146 2010 HLY1003 Beaufort Chukchi Shelf Moorings WHOI Chukchi-Beaufort 1694 2010 FOCI- Ichthyology Fisheries-Oceanography Coordinated Investigations NOAA Bering 1158 2010 FOCI- fall 

moorings 

Fisheries-Oceanography Coordinated Investigations NOAA Bering 748 

2010 BASIS I Bering-Aleutian Salmon International Survey NOAA Bering 1447 2010 BASIS II Bering-Aleutian Salmon International Survey NOAA Bering 1794 2011 CHAOZ Chukchi Acoustic Oceanographic & Zooplankton Study NOAA Bering-Chukchi 2652 2011 HLY1102 US and Canada Extended Continental Shelf Survey NOAA Chukchi 2960 2011 BeauFish Central Beaufort Fisheries Cruise UAF Beaufort 1133 2011 BASIS Bering-Aleutian Salmon International Survey NOAA Bering 2087 2011 FOCI- fall 

moorings 

Fisheries-Oceanography Coordinated Investigations NOAA Bering 553 

2011 HLY1103 Ocean Acidification of Western Arctic Ocean NOAA Beaufort 2979 2011 HLY1104 WHOI- Winter Expedition Bering, Chukchi, Beaufort WHOI Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort 1710 2012 Arctic EIS Arctic Ecosystem Integrated Survey UAF Bering-Chukchi 5202 2012 HLY1201 Chukchi Sea Offshore Monitoring (COMIDA) NOAA Bering-Chukchi 1654 2012 CHAOZ Chukchi Acoustic Oceanographic & Zooplankton 

Study 

NOAA Bering-Chukchi 3085 

2012 RUSALCA Russian-American Long-Term Census of the Arctic NOAA Chukchi 1244 2012 HLY1203 Beaufort Chukchi Shelf Moorings NOAA Chukchi 2475 2013 Oshoromaru University of Hokkaido Bering-Chukchi Research UH Bering-Chukchi 3503 2013 SWL201301 Western Arctic / Distributed Biological Observatory CWS Bering-Chukchi 1385 2013 SWL201302 Western Arctic / Distributed Biological Observatory CWS Beaufort 958 2013 HLY1301 Chukchi Sea Offshore Monitoring (COMIDA) NOAA Bering-Chukchi 2103 2013 ARCWEST Arctic Whale Ecology NOAA Bering-Chukchi 1099 2013 HLY1302 Chukchi-Beaufort Shelf Mapping Expedition WHOI Chukchi-Beaufort 2078 2013 Arctic EIS Arctic Ecosystem Integrated Survey (Arctic EIS) UAF Bering-Chukchi 5751 2014 RUSALCA Russian-American Long-Term Census of the Arctic NOAA Chukchi 1225 2014 SWL2014 Western Arctic / Distributed Biological Observatory CWS Bering-Chukchi 970 2014 BASIS I Bering-Aleutian Salmon International Survey NOAA Bering 1323 2014 NBS Fish Arctic EIS / Northern Bering Sea Fish Survey NOAA Bering 1931 
25 

Year Survey Project Name Agency Region KM 

Survey 

2014 BASIS II Bering-Aleutian Salmon International Survey NOAA Bering 698 2014 BASIS III Bering-Aleutian Salmon International Survey NOAA Bering 1875 2014 ARCWEST Arctic Whale Ecology NOAA Bering-Chukchi 878 2015 Sikuliaq National Science Foundation funded ship trials NSF Bering 2985 2015 SWL2015 Western Arctic / Distributed Biological Observatory CWS Bering-Chukchi 792 2015 Eco-FOCI Ecosystem & Fisheries-Oceanography Coordinated 

Investigations 

NOAA Bering-Chukchi 4150 

2015 NBS Fish Arctic EIS / Northern Bering Sea Fish Survey NOAA Bering 3719 2015 BASIS I Bering-Aleutian Salmon International Survey NOAA Bering 2752 2015 ARCWEST Arctic Whale Ecology NOAA Bering-Chukchi 1615 2015 BASIS II Bering-Aleutian Salmon International Survey NOAA Bering 3014 2016 HLY1601 Chukchi Borderlands Survey NSF Bering‐Chukchi 3732 2016 SWL2016 Western Arctic / Distributed Biological Observatory CWS Bering‐Chukchi 1661 2016 NBS Fish Arctic Eis / Northern Bering Sea Fish Survey NOAA Bering 2170 2016 ARCWEST Arctic Whale Ecology NOAA Bering‐Chukchi 1923 2016 BASIS III Bering‐Aleutian Salmon International Survey NOAA Bering 1768 Total 45 Project Cruises 94922 
26 

2.1.2 At-Sea survey protocols 

Observers were trained on land and at sea in the protocol and data entry. Training sessions were 

conducted at USFWS offices, and occasionally on small vessels in Kachemak Bay or Prince William 

Sound. On larger vessels, where two berth spaces were available, we used that opportunity to train a new 

observer at sea. 

Marine bird surveys were conducted using visual observations and modified strip transects (Tasker et al. 

1984, Kuletz et al. 2008) during daylight hours while transiting among ports or between project sample 

stations. The observer recorded all marine bird and mammal sightings within 300m and a 90° arc forward 

from the center line of travel. Transect width was occasionally reduced to 200 m or 100 m depending on 

visibility conditions, and surveys were discontinued if visibility was <100 m (i.e., due to fog or seas), or 

if seas were Beaufort Scale > 6. Birds and marine mammals on or in the water were recorded 

continuously, while flying birds were recorded during quick ‘Scans’ of the transect window at intervals of 

approximately 1 min-1 (depending on vessel speed) to avoid overestimating. Birds actively foraging from 

the air, such as surface plunging or touching the water surface were recorded as if ‘on water’ (i.e., 

continuously). Although we recorded marine mammals, we maintained the seabird protocol and focused 

on the 300 m transect window, thus the densities for marine mammals are not to be used for other than 

distributional inference. Most of our marine mammal sightings were ‘off transect’ (>300 m off one side 

of the vessel), and those records are summarized by cruise (Supplement) or can be obtained from the raw 

data. 

Surveying was generally conducted from the port side of the bridge but transferred to the starboard side if 

glare or weather conditions were more favorable. Data were entered directly into a computer using survey 

software DLog3 (A.G. Ford, Inc., Portland, OR). Latitude and longitude were continuously recorded (at 

20 sec intervals) using a Garmin 60CSx handheld GPS unit connected to the laptop, or connected to the 

ship’s GPS when possible. Binoculars (10x42) were used to aid in species identification, and a digital 

camera was occasionally used to confirm identification. A geometrically marked wooden dowel was used 

to estimate distance from the line of travel to the bird or mammal, and verified when possible with a laser 

rangefinder. Observers also regularly practiced estimating distances using the rangefinder when time 

allowed maintaining proficiency in distance estimation. 

The observer recorded species, number of individuals, behavior (on water or in air), and distance bin 

from the center line of the ship (bin 1 = 0-100 m; bin 2 = 101-200 m; bin 3 = 201-300 m). For selected 

cruises (i.e., AMBON) we used distance sampling, and truncated observations to 300 m for use in most 

analyses. Birds were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible. Environmental variables such as 

sea state (Beaufort Scale), glare, weather, and sea ice cover (proportion in tenths) were recorded at first 

entry and automatically thereafter unless updated as necessary. For details see Kuletz et al. 2008. 

2.1.3 Data processing and analysis 

Data were edited on-site within a day or two of collection. Final data editing and quality checks were 

conducted at the USFWS office in Anchorage. Edited data were transferred to Dr. Martin Renner (Tern 

Again Consulting, Homer, AK) for processing, using R programing. The processing binned all daily 

sequential transect lines into 3 km segments, which were adjusted to area covered (i.e., transect width 

used at time of survey, in 100 m increments to 300 m), and densities (birds/km2

) calculated for each 

species in each 3 km segment. Processed data were submitted to the North Pacific Pelagic Seabird 

Database (NPPSD). The original data files (in csv format), cleaned and edited data (Excel format) and 

processed data (Excel format; these do not have environmental attributes) are housed at the Migratory 

Bird Management office of USFWS, Anchorage, AK, and will be transferred to BOEM by February 

2017. 

In most cases, data summaries and mapping of distribution were done in a geographic information system 
27 

(GIS; ArcGIS 10.1, Redland, CA) framework. We used raw numbers (counts of birds, each with latitude 

and longitude) or processed data (densities in 3 km segments, with a centroid latitude and longitude); data 

treatment and analyses varied by project, but for most final mapping products and publications, the 

sample unit was marine bird density for each 3 km segment. Detectability of marine birds is affected by 

the bird’s size and behavior and by sea conditions (Spear et al. 2004). For most analyses presented in this 

report, we did not correct for detection because our primary goal was to describe distribution and 

seasonal patterns, as well as relative abundance. For some projects, detection analysis was used to 

calculate marine bird densities (i.e., Arctic EIS, AMBON). For our analyses we did not include 

observations of shorebirds (with exception of phalaropes) or land birds, thus the seven taxa of marine bird 

families included Gaviidae (loons), Procellariidae (fulmars, shearwaters), Phalacrocoracidae 

(cormorants), Alcidae (auks), Laridae (gulls), Sternidae (terns), and Stercorariidae (jaegers), Alcidae 

(auks) plus phalaropes (genus Phalaropus) and marine species of Anatidae (eiders and other seaducks). 

This report summarizes general marine bird distribution by combining the data from the Seabirds 

Offshore Project with data collected by USFWS (K. Kuletz, PI) as part of earlier (2006-2010) and related 

projects (i.e., NPRB and USFWS projects, 2006-2016). We did this to provide a comprehensive look at 

marine bird distribution and species composition, as well as provide a preliminary examination of 

seasonal links between the OCS study areas and more southerly Alaska waters. The distributions of most 

species observed during USFWS surveys (2006-2016) were mapped (Appendix 1; D. Cushing, Pole Star 

Ecological Consulting) using a polar stereographic projection, with 3 km segment density values 

averaged in a single step, using a 60 km hexagonal grid. 

As a comparison of marine bird community diversity (a single value of evenness for species richness and 

abundance) we applied the Shannon Diversity Index to compare among three major Arctic regions 

(northern Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort). To estimate species richness, statistical procedures must be 

applied to account for the biases of survey effort and presence of very abundant or very rare species. 

First, we estimated species richness for major regions (Arctic Basin, Beaufort, Chukchi, northern Bering, 

southern Bering) by sampling a randomized selection of the 3 km segments from throughout all surveyed 

areas. Second, to examine and map seasonal changes in species richness from the Bering to Chukchi seas 

we used the Chao Index, which is a non-parametric estimator that controls for under sampling of rare 

species (Gotelli and Colwell 2001). We also highlight key projects and findings related to the northern 

Bering and Chukchi seas, with details available in our publications (see List of Publications). 

3. Results 

3.1 Survey effort (temporal and spatial coverage) 

From August 2010 – October 2016 we surveyed a total of 97,525 km of transects (Table 2; Fig. 7). Total 

survey effort since 2006, which combines data from the Seabirds Offshore Project with other USFWS 

surveys, extends from the northern GOA to the western Beaufort Sea shelf and Arctic Basin (Fig. 8). 

High densities of 3 km segments are evident near approaches to major ports of call (Seward and Kodiak 

in the GOA, Dutch Harbor in the southeast Bering Sea) and along primary routes north, through Bering 

Strait and across Hope Basin in the Chukchi (Fig. 8). These routes, such as the 70 m isobaths in the 

Bering Sea, and high-use routes in the Chukchi Sea, also include sampling stations and buoys occupied 

by multiple projects, including DBO, Arctic EIS, AMBON and others. The high survey effort in the 

southeastern Bering Sea in mid and outer shelf domains largely occurred during 2007-2010 MACE 

surveys (Fig. 7A). Survey effort west of the International Date Line was primarily from RUSALCA 

cruises, which extended to 179.6°E (especially in 2012, Fig. 7C and 2014, Fig. 7E). There was low effort 

on the Beaufort shelf, but surveys did extend east to 113.4°W (especially in 2011, Fig. 7B and 2013, Fig. 

7D). Survey effort was low in the Arctic Basin, with the farthest north excursions to ~77°N during the 

July/August 2016 Chukchi Borderlands cruise (Fig. 7G). Little to no survey effort occurred near coastal 
28 

waters, especially upper Cook Inlet in the GOA and along the southwestern coast of Alaska, nor in deep 

basins off shelf of all regions. 

Table 2. Total seabird survey effort (km) conducted by region 2010-2016. 

Year Beaufort Chukchi

North

Bering

South

Bering   Total

2010 959 2006 6326 18012 27303

2011 3984 3798 2202 2720 12703

2012 1074 7662 3310 1277 13323

2013 3038 8254 4864 1446 17602

2014 84 1827 3575 1919 7405

2015 299 3757 2946 3585 10587

2016 0 4193 3103 1306 8602

Total 9438 31497 26326 30265 97525

Figure 7. Transects surveyed in 2010 - 2016 by USFWS surveys funded as part of BOEM 

2017-004 (Seabirds Offshore Project). See Table 2 for km surveyed by region. 

A B

C D
29 

Figure 7. Continued- Transects surveyed in 2010 – 2016 by USFWS surveys funded as 

part of BOEM 2017-004 (Seabirds Offshore Project). See Table 2 for km surveyed by 

region.

E F

G
30 

Figure 8. At-sea survey effort 2006 – 2015 represented in 60 km hexagons. 

Density maps include data collected by USFWS in 2006-2009, as well as from 2010-2015. 

Data from 2016 has not been processed at the time of this report, and is not included. 

Scale=square root values of length. 

We examined survey effort in four seasons, based on typical phases of sea ice coverage and seabird 

phenology: winter (December – March), spring (April-May), summer (June-July) and fall (AugustNovember). Lowest coverage was in winter (Fig. 9A), with surveys mainly along the southwestern GOA 

shelf (primarily NOAA fisheries sampling in February and March) and outer to mid Bering Sea shelf, 

especially south of St Lawrence Island (from early spring walrus cruises and the Shelf-Basin Interaction 

project), all of which used US Coast Guard icebreakers. Survey effort increased in spring (Fig. 9B), 

including the Seward Line stations in the GOA and the mid and outer domains of the Bering Sea shelf 

and around St Lawrence Island in the northern Bering Sea. As the ice retreated north of Bering Strait in 

June, survey effort increased during summer (Fig. 9C) throughout the Bering shelf, the northern Bering 

Sea, eastern Chukchi and western Beaufort shelf. During fall (Fig. 9D) when sea ice was at its lowest, 

sampling effort was highest along the route from ports of call north through the Bering Strait, across 

Hope Basin and throughout the eastern Chukchi Sea. In fall there was low, but well distributed survey 

effort either side of these major routes and along the Beaufort shelf, including the deep Arctic Basin. 

The majority of the marine bird surveys were conducted July through September when the waters in the 

main study area were relatively ice free. Survey effort was focused in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas 

where we surveyed a total of 31,497 km and 9,438 km, respectively, within the main OCS planning areas 

(Table 2). During transits through the northern and southern Bering Sea, we surveyed a total of 26,326 

km and 30,265 km respectively. 
31 

Figure 9. Seasonal survey effort 2006 – 2015 represented in 60 km hexagons 

Scale=square root values of length. 

3.2 Spatial distribution, species composition, and species abundance 

3.2.1 Species Richness and Diversity 

Across all surveys combined we observed 63 marine bird species (not counting land birds and most 

shorebirds; Table 3) and 20 marine mammal species (Table 4). Relative abundance of species varied by 

region (Table 5), but typically 6-10 species accounted for up to 90 % of all birds recorded on transect. 

The numerically dominate species (Fig. 10) included wide-ranging northern fulmars and the southern 

hemisphere shearwaters; the latter arrive in summer to feed in Alaska. Other abundant species included 

(in decreasing order of overall abundance) thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia), black-legged kittiwake 

(Rissa tridactyla), common murre (U.aalge), crested auklet (Aethia cristatella), and least auklet (Aethia 

pusilla). Northern fulmars predominated in the northern Bering Sea (although mainly due to a few very 

high density sightings), while shearwaters, murres, and Aethia auklets were predominately in the Chukchi 

Sea (Fig. 10). Shearwaters, kittiwakes and glaucous gulls (Larus hyperboreus) were the most abundant 

birds in the western Beaufort Sea. The Chukchi Sea had the highest species diversity as measured by the 

Shannon Index (Fig. 10), but overall the three regions were fairly similar, despite the much lower 

densities of birds in the Beaufort Sea. 
32 

Figure 10. Log density bar graph displaying density by region. 

Species listed by AOU code. See Table 3 for complete species list. 
33 

Table 3. List of marine birds and their species codes used in the NPPSD. 

NPPSD Code Common Name Scientific Name 

 

COLO Common Loon Gavia immer 

YBLO Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii 

RTLO Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata 

PALO Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica 

UNLO Unid. Loon Gavia spp. 

RNGR Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena 

HOGR Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus 

STAL Short-tailed Albatross Diomedea albatrus 

BFAL Black-footed Albatross Diomedea nigripes 

LAAL Laysan Albatross Phoebastria immutabilis 

UALB Unid. Albatross Family Diomedeidae 

NOFU Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis 

BUSH Buller's Shearwater Puffinus bulleri 

SOSH Sooty Shearwater Ardenna grisea 

STSH Short-tailed Shearwater Ardenna tenuirostris 

UNLS Unid. Light Shearwater Procellariidae spp. 

UNDS Unid. Dark Shearwater Procellariidae spp. 

UNSH Unid. Shearwater Procellariidae spp. 

MOPE Mottled Petrel Pterodroma inexpectata 

UNPE Unid. Petrel Family Procellariidae 

FTSP Fork-tailed Storm-petrel Oceanodroma furcata 

LESP Leach's Storm-petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa 

UNSP Unid. Storm-petrel Family Hydrobatidae 

UNPR Unid. Procellariiformes Procellariiformes spp. 

PRCO Pelagic/Red-faced Cormorant Phalacrocorax spp. 

DCCO Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

PECO Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus 

RFCO Red-faced Cormorant Phalacrocorax urile 

UNCO Unid. Cormorant Phalacrocorax spp 

BLBR Black Brant Branta nigricans 

NOPI Northern Pintail Anas acuta 

GWTE Green-winged Teal Anas crecca 

GRSC Greater Scaup Aythya marila 

LTDU Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis 

HADU Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus 

UNDU Unid. Duck, Goose, Swan Family Anatidae 

COEI Common Eider Somateria mollissima 

KIEI King Eider Somateria spectabilis 

SPEI Spectacled Eider Somateria fischeri 

UNEI Unid. Eider Somateria or Polysticta spp. 

 
34 

NPPSD Code Common Name Scientific Name 

 

WWSC White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca 

SUSC Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata 

BLSC Black Scoter Melanitta nigra 

UNSC Unid. Scoter Melanitta spp. 

RBME Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator 

UNME Unid. Merganser Mergus or Lophodytes spp. 

PEFA Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 

RUTU Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres 

BLTU Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala 

DUNL Dunlin Calidris alpina 

SURF Surfbird Aphriza virgata 

RNPH Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 

REPH Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicaria 

UNPH Unid. Phalarope Phalaropus spp. 

UNSB Unid. Shorebird Charadrii (suborder) 

POJA Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus 

PAJA Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus 

LTJA Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus 

UNJA Unid. Jaeger Stercorarius spp. 

GLGU Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus 

GWGU Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens 

SBGU Slaty-backed Gull Larus schistisagus 

HEGU Herring gull Larus argentatus 

MEGU Mew Gull Larus canus 

RLKI Red-legged Kittiwake Rissa brevirostris 

BLKI Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla 

UNKI Unid. Kittiwake Rissa spp. 

IVGU Ivory Gull Pagophila eburnea 

ROGU Ross' Gull Rhodostethia rosea 

SAGU Sabine's Gull Xema sabini 

UNGU Unid. Gull Larinae spp. 

ARTE Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea 

ALTE Aleutian Tern Sterna aleutica 

UNTE Unid. Tern Sterninae spp. 

COMU Common Murre Uria aalge 

TBMU Thick-billed Murre Uria lomvia 

UNMU Unid. Murre Uria spp. 

DOVE Dovekie Alle alle 

BLGU Black Guillemot Cepphus grylle 

PIGU Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba 

UNGI Unid. Guillemot Cepphus spp. 

 
35 

NPPSD Code Common Name Scientific Name 

 

BRMU Brachyramphus Murrelet Brachyramphus spp 

MAMU Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus 

KIMU Kittlitz's Murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris 

ANMU Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus 

UNML Unid. Murrelet Brachyramphus or Synthliboramphus spp. 

CAAU Cassin's Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus 

PAAU Parakeet Auklet Aethia psittacula 

CRAU Crested Auklet Aethia cristatella 

LEAU Least Auklet Aethia pusilla 

WHAU Whiskered Auklet Aethia pygmaea 

RHAU Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocerata 

UNAU Unid. Auklet Aethia or Ptychoramphus spp. 

HOPU Horned Puffin Fratercula corniculata 

TUPU Tufted Puffin Fratercula cirrhata 

UNPU Unid. Puffin Fratercula spp. 

USDA Unid. Small Dark Alcid Aethia spp. 

UNAL Unid. Alcid Family Alcidae 

RTPI Red-throated Pipit Anthus cervinus 

LALO Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus 

SNBU Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis 

MCBU Mckay's Bunting Plectrophenax hyperboreus 

UNPA Unid. Passerine Oscines spp. 

UNBI Unid. Bird Aves 

 
36 

Table 4. List of marine mammal species codes used in the NPPSD. 

NPPSD Code Common Name Scientific Name 

 

KIWH Killer Whale Orcinus orca 

HAPO Harbor Porpoise Phocoena phocoena 

DAPO Dall's Porpoise Phocoenoides dalli 

UNPO Unid. Porpoise Phocoenidae spp. 

SPWH Sperm Whale Physeter catodon 

BKWH Baird's Beaked Whale Berardius bairdii 

GRWH Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus 

MIWH Minke Whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata 

SEWH Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis 

FIWH Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus 

HBWH Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae 

BOWH Bowhead Whale Balaena mysticetus 

UNWH Unid. Whale Cetacea spp. 

UNBW Unid. Baleen Whale Mysticeti spp. 

SEOT Sea Otter Enhydra lutris 

STSL Steller Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus 

NOFS Northern Fur Seal Callorhinus ursinus 

UNPI Unid. Pinniped Caniformia spp. 

WALR Walrus Odobenus rosmarus 

SPSE Spotted Seal Phoca largha 

RISE Ringed Seal Pusa hispida 

RBSE Ribbon Seal Histriophoca fasciata 

HASE Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina 

BESE Bearded Seal Erignathus barbatus 

UNSE Unid. Seal Phocidae or Procyonidae or Otariidae spp. 
37 

Species North Bering Chukchi BeaufortUNBI 0.01932 0.02295 0UNLO 0.00144 0.00392 0.00502

COLO 0.00038 0.00326 0.00026

YBLO 0.00087 0.00065 0.00291

RTLO 0.00077 0.00141 0.00211

PALO 0.00586 0.01664 0.02115

RNGR 1.00E‐04 0 0

UNPR 0.00077 0.00044 0

STAL 0.00058 0 0

LAAL 0.00894 0 0

NOFU 3.30371 0.28153 0.02154

UNSH 0.00654 0.00011 0

UNDS 0.36445 0.50479 0.00476

SOSH 0.00087 0.00489 0

STSH 1.57712 3.89722 2.22204

UNPE 0.00019 0 0

MOPE 0.00096 0 0

UNSP 1.00E‐04 0.00011 0FTSP 0.40391 0.0021 0PRCO 0.00279 0 0

PECO 0.01173 0 0

RFCO 0.00231 0 0

CAGO 0 0 0.00317

BLBR 0.00529 0.00881 0.00053

UNDU 0.00173 0.00076 0.0037

NOPI 0.00019 0 0

LTDU 0.0026 0.04438 0.08803

HADU 0.00163 0 0

UNEI 0.03221 0.02197 0.01983

STEI 0.00019 0.00011 0

COEI 0.00288 0.0273 0.03912

Species North Bering Chukchi BeauKIEI 0.10556 0.03426 0.01SPEI 0.13315 0.00729 0.00UNSC 0.00029 0 0.00

WWSC 0.00365 0.00054 0.00SUSC 0.00019 0.00033 0.00BLSC 0.00038 0 

COME 0.00019 0.00011 

RBME 1.00E‐04 0 UNSB 0.00933 0.02567 0.02RUTU 0.00125 0 BLTU 0.00096 0 UNSA 0.00856 0.00011 

ROSA 0.00452 0 STSA 1.00E‐04 0.00011 

PESA 0.00125 0.00033 0.00WESA 1.00E‐04 0.00065 

DUNL 1.00E‐04 0 SURF 0 0 DOWI 0 0 

LBDO 0.00019 0.00087 

UNPH 0.07383 0.19872 0.06REPH 0.31148 0.76485 0.06RNPH 0.03538 0.09082 0.02

UNJA 0.00452 0.00446 0.00POJA 0.0374 0.03143 0.00PAJA 0.0075 0.0074 0.00

LTJA 0.00356 0.00261 0.00SPSK 0 0 

UNGU 0.01942 0.00511 0.00

GLGU 0.05143 0.05667 0.06

GWGU 0.01894 0.00098 0.00

Table 5. Mean density of marine birds (see Table 3 for names) recorded during surveys in three regions. 
38 

Species North Bering Chukchi BeaufortSBGU 0.015 0 0HEGU 0.01923 0.00185 0

THGU 1.00E‐04 0 0.00026

BHGU 0 0.00022 0

IVGU 0.00019 0.0012 0.00053UNKI 0.0148 0.00054 0

BLKI 0.79967 0.42188 0.17132

RLKI 0.00238 0.00012 0

ROGU 1.00E‐04 0.00979 0.03595SAGU 0.0024 0.01871 0.03489

UNTE 1.00E‐04 0 0.01322

ARTE 0.0062 0.00722 0.14984

ALTE 0 0.00022 0

UNAL 0.02913 0.02545 0.00026

USDA 0.08489 0.08227 0

UNML 0.00038 0.00065 0.00053

UNMU 0.39031 0.412 0.01129

COMU 0.47039 0.23254 0.00026

TBMU 0.92625 0.59425 0.08237

DOVE 0.00038 0.00065 0

UNGI 0.00048 0.00022 0

BLGU 0.00087 0.00805 0.01533

PIGU 0.01019 0.0012 0BRMU 0.00144 0.00283 0

MAMU 0.00135 0.00022 0

KIMU 0.00144 0.01806 0.00978

ANMU 0.07649 0.04319 0.00267

UNAU 0.00942 0.00729 0

CAAU 0.00154 0 0

PAAU 0.19727 0.0881 0.00053CRAU 0.52201 1.85338 0.00185

Species North Bering Chukchi BeauLEAU 1.70967 1.42702 0.00WHAU 1.00E‐04 0 UNPU 0.00087 0.00011 HOPU 0.10152 0.05629 0.00

TUPU 0.21082 0.0472 0.00

Total Bird 12.41567 11.6788 3.29

Table 5. Continued- Mean density of marine birds (see Table 3 for names) recorded during surveys in three 
39 

To examine species richness we used data from 2007-2015; data from 2006 was not included because of 

very low survey effort that year. Using a random selection of the 3 km transect segments from marine 

bird data collected throughout the Bering Sea and Arctic waters, we found that species richness increased 

with km surveyed (as expected), which for these regions reached an asymptote of ~45 species after 

~7,000 km surveyed (Fig. 11). The low survey effort in the Beaufort, and particularly in the Arctic Basin, 

means evaluation of species richness, and likely abundances of marine birds as well, should be viewed 

with caution. The Chukchi Sea has relatively higher species richness than the Arctic Basin and Beaufort 

Sea, but lower than that of the northern Bering Sea. Although the Chukchi Sea has approximately half of 

the survey effort as the southern Bering Sea, species richness is equivalent (Fig. 11), indicative of the 

importance of the region to seabirds in late summer and fall. 

Figure 11. Species richness relative to sampling effort (number of 3 km transect 

segments). 

Species richness (total number of marine bird species) for each of five marine regions 

(colored circles) was based on survey data (2007-2015) for that region. Predicted species 

richness (black dots) was generated from a randomized selection of 3 km segments 

using the entire data set. Regions are Arctic (Arctic Basin), Beaufort (east of Pt. Barrow), 

Chukchi (west of Pt. Barrow), northern Bering Sea (North BSEA; 60°N to Bering Strait) 

and southern Bering Sea (South BSEA; south of 60°N to Aleutian Islands). 

3.2.2 Distribution and Seasonal Changes 

In the northern Bering and Chukchi regions, seasonal changes occur rapidly from July through 

September, when marine bird densities are highest. Using the Chao index of species richness (to control 

for unequal effort and under sampling of rare species), our surveys show that highest species richness 

occurred primarily along the outer Bering Sea shelf, with more species (and numbers of birds) moving 

into the Chukchi Sea in August (Fig. 12). Although there is little coverage of the outer Bering shelf in 

August, greater species richness is evident in the mid and inner shelf (compared to July), and throughout 

the Chukchi. In September, species richness is high throughout both regions. 
40 

Figure 12. Species richness (Chao Index) in the northern Bering, eastern Chukchi, and 

western Beaufort Seas. 

See Methods for Chao Index details; Figure courtesy of Tawna Morgan, ABR, Inc., 

Fairbanks, Alaska. This figure includes USFWS and ABR survey data. 

The distributions of most species observed during USFWS surveys were mapped by pooling all survey 

data across years, for all months combined (Appendix 1); these provide an overview of range and 

distribution for each species. For three abundant and widespread species groups (shearwaters, murres, 

kittiwakes), we also mapped seasonal patterns (Figures 13-15). 
41 

Figure 13. Seasonal distribution of shearwaters (sooty and short-tailed combined). 

The short-tailed and sooty shearwaters are long-distance migrants that nest in the southern Hemisphere 

and travel to Alaska waters to feed during the northern summer. To map shearwater distribution we 

combined the two Ardenna species, although identified birds tend to be sooty shearwaters in the GOA 

and short-tailed shearwaters in the Bering and Chukchi seas (see Appendix 1 species’ maps). Shearwaters 

were nearly absent in winter throughout the surveyed area (Fig. 13A). They appeared in spring around the 

northern GOA shelf and Aleutian Islands, with low numbers in the southeast Bering Sea (Fig. 13B). 

During summer, shearwaters were abundant near Aleutian passes, with low densities throughout the mid 

and outer Bering Sea shelf domains (Fig. 13C). During fall (Fig. 13D), shearwater densities ranged as 

high as ~400-800 birds /km2

, as at Unimak Pass and outer Bristol Bay/Cape Newenham. For 

shearwaters, the fall distribution represents birds moving north into the Chukchi Sea as well as birds 

returning south. Shearwaters were not recorded east of ~150°W in the Beaufort Sea. Given that most of 

the survey effort in the Beaufort occurred during fall months (Fig. 9D), when shearwaters were at peak 

abundance in the Arctic (Gall et al. 2013, Kuletz et al. 2015), this abrupt break in distribution is not likely 

an artifact of sampling effort. 
42 

Figure 14. Seasonal distribution of black-legged kittiwakes. 

The black-legged kittiwake is a widespread, abundant seabird in Alaska that is a ‘focal ecosystem 

species’ for the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (Irons et al. 2015). This species breeds 

throughout Alaska, including in the Chukchi region, but in winter a large portion of the population 

migrates south to areas of the North Pacific (Orben et al. 2014). Our surveys show that in winter (Fig. 

14A), black-legged kittiwakes were present in low densities in the northern GOA and near the southeast 

Bering Sea shelf break, although birds also appeared near the breeding colonies of St. Matthew Island 

(likely in March). In spring (Fig. 14B) they increased throughout the GOA shelf and outer and mid shelf 

of the Bering Sea, but not in the eastern Chukchi Sea (although birds were near the Siberian coast of the 

western Chukchi). In summer, kittiwakes were widely distributed at low densities throughout all 

surveyed areas, including the eastern Chukchi Sea, with low numbers on the Beaufort Sea shelf (Fig. 

14C). In fall, kittiwakes remained widespread but at higher densities than in summer, particularly the 

inner shelf of the southeast Bering Sea (Fig. 14D); the high densities in fall were likely due to birds 

leaving their coastal breeding areas and foraging offshore. 
43 

Figure 15. Seasonal distribution of murres (common and thick-billed combined). 

The common and thick-billed murres (combined here for mapping to include murres not identified to 

species) are abundant and widespread in Alaska, and they are focal ecosystem species for the 

Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (Irons et al. 2015). Murres leave coastal nesting areas and 

migrate to offshore waters, but do not generally leave Alaska waters in winter (Hatch 2000, Orben 2014). 

In winter they occurred in most surveyed areas of the GOA shelf and southeast Bering Sea (Fig. 15A), 

and were widespread in surveyed areas up to the Bering Strait in spring (Fig. 15B) and summer (Fig. 

15C); in the latter they also occurred throughout the Chukchi Sea. In fall (Fig. 15D), murres occupied 

most of the surveyed areas, with the exception of Norton Sound in the northern Bering Sea, and the 

northernmost waters of the Chukchi Sea and Arctic Basin; few murres were observed in the Beaufort Sea. 

3.3 Highlights of collaborative research 

During the Seabirds Offshore Project, we participated in four major collaborative ecosystem studies: 

Synthesis of Arctic Research, Arctic Ecosystem Integrated Surveys, Arctic Marine Biodiversity 
44 

Observation Network, and Distributed Biological Observatory. These research and monitoring projects 

examined physical oceanographic and biological aspects of marine ecosystems of the northern Bering, 

eastern Chukchi seas, and to a lesser extent, the western Beaufort Sea. 

3.3.1 Synthesis of Arctic Research 

The Synthesis of Arctic Research (SOAR) project was a BOEM-funded effort to facilitate collaboration 

and synthesis of Arctic data from oceanography to whales, now available in a special issue in the journal 

Progress in Oceanography (Vol. 136, 2015). In Kuletz et al. (2015), we joined with NOAA and ABR, 

Inc. (Fairbanks, AK) to determine hotspots of distribution for marine birds and mammals in the eastern 

Chukchi and western Beaufort Sea. We combined vessel-based seabird survey data (49,206 km surveyed) 

with aerial marine mammal survey data (~139,000 km surveyed) to identify important areas of use for 

upper trophic levels. The study determined summer (15 June–31 August) and fall (1 September – 20 

November) distribution of selected species and species groups, and used Getis-Ord Gi* hotspot analysis 

to statistically identify clusters of cells (hotspots) with higher abundance (densities or encounter rates) 

than expected when compared to all grid cells within the study area. We used data from 2007–2012 and 

standardized all survey data by using 40 km grid cells. The location of hotspots varied among species 

(see Appendix 2), but were often near underwater canyons or shelf breaks. Hotspots for marine birds in 

summer occurred in the Bering Strait region, offshore of Cape Lisburne, between Wainwright and 

southern Hanna Shoal, and over Barrow Canyon (Fig 16A). In fall, most marine bird hotspots were in the 

southern Chukchi Sea (Fig 16B). By overlapping the marine mammal and bird hotspots, we identified 

three ‘shared’ hotspots during summer (Fig. 17A) and one during fall (Barrow Canyon mouth; Fig. 17B). 

A related analysis (Gall et al. 2016), published in Polar Biology compared these surveys to historic data 

in the NPPSD, and identified a significant shift in species composition in offshore waters, with 

planktivorous seabirds now dominate in the Chukchi in summer and fall, where piscivorous birds once 

prevailed. 

In a separate effort (in prep) we conducted similar analyses for the northern Bering Sea, using survey data 

from 2007-2012 (including data collected by ABR, Inc.). We had sufficient survey effort in spring in the 

northern Bering Sea to allow for hotspot analysis over three seasons (as opposed to two seasons for the 

Chukchi Sea analysis). For total marine birds, densities in spring were highest near the Bering shelf 

break, despite much greater survey effort closer to St. Lawrence Island (Fig. 18). The high density cells 

during spring were along the marginal ice edge near the shelf, or open polynyas near islands. In summer 

densities were high, and hotspots occurred again near the outer Bering shelf, but also in Bering Strait. In 

fall, high densities of marine birds, and hotspots, occurred in Bering Strait and east and north of St. 

Lawrence Island, despite relatively low survey effort in the latter (Fig. 18). 
45 

Figure 17. The distribution and hotspots (red highlighted cells) for all marine birds combined in summer (A) and fall (B). Density scale is unique to each season. Published in Kuletz et al. 2015.

Figure 16. Marine bird and marine summer (A) and fall (B). The species or forage groups incluand mammal hotspots are labeled. al. 2015. 
46 

Figure 16. Survey effort (top row) for northern Bering Sea and total birds hotspot analysis 2002-2012 (bottom row

Figure 18. Survey effort (3 km transect segments; top row) and total marine birds (bottom row) foBering Sea, 2007-2012. Hotspots (cells with statistically higher densities than expected compared to all cells surveyed) wGetis-Ord Gi* hotspot analysis (methods described in Kuletz et al. 2015). Darker colors indicate transect segments or marine birds; hotspots are highlighted in green. 
47 

3.3.2 Arctic Ecosystem Integrated Survey 

The Arctic Ecosystem Integrated Survey (Arctic EIS) examined distributional and community changes in 

response to interannual changes in marine habitats and prey, during late summers of 2012 and 2013. We 

used concurrent physical and biological data from the Arctic EIS to examine prey and oceanographic 

factors that influenced seabird community structure within and between two study years (Pham and 

Kuletz 2015). Seabird surveys totaled 6,500 km of effort across both study years. The most abundant 

species were least auklets, crested auklets, and short-tailed shearwaters (Fig. 19; see Supplement, cruise 

report for details). The relative abundance of the most commonly observed species showed strong 

latitudinal patterns, as well as interannual variability (Fig. 19). 

Figure 19. Seabird community by degree of longitude from Arctic EIS Surveys. 

STSH = short-tailed Shearwater; NOFU= northern fulmar; Laridae = the gull family; 

Phalaropus = red-necked and red phalarope; Uria = common and thick-billed murre; 

Aethia (genus) = crested, least, parakeet auklet

Pham (2016) defined seabird communities and their associations with habitats and prey using a nonmetric 

multidimensional ordination. The ordination identified three habitats based on associated seabird 

communities. These habitats were most strongly correlated with latitude, longitude, salinity, chlorophylla, slope, and fish catch-per-unit-effort. A multi-response permutation procedure grouped by year and 

geographic region revealed differences between years in seabird community structure. These results 

suggest that seabird communities are structured by ecotones that may change in location interannually, 

with oceanographic properties being slightly stronger predictors than prey abundance. Pham (2016) also 

examined these correlations on a coarse scale by using generalized additive models to determine the most 

important factors that influence the distribution of seabird foraging guilds and numerically dominant 

species. 
48 

3.3.3 Arctic Marine Biodiversity Observing Network 

The goal of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity Observing Network (AMBON) is to build a marine 

biodiversity observation network (MBON) for the US Chukchi Sea continental shelf, as a prototype for 

future national efforts. AMBON collaborators work with the Alaska Ocean Observing System (AOOS) to 

coordinate data streams from past and ongoing programs into one observation network for the US Arctic. 

Collaborative links connect AMBON to other MBON efforts in the nation and globally. Information on 

the observing networks is available at: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/apr16/mbon.html. 

During AMBON we conducted 228 hours (~ 3275 km) of seabird surveys between 9 August and 3 

September, 2015. On transect, we observed 10,914 individuals of 32 species of marine birds, primarily 

short-tailed shearwater, least auklet, crested auklet, red phalaropes, thick-billed and common murre and 

black-legged kittiwake. Details and full species list are available in the AMBON cruise report (see 

Supplement). 

 

For this project we estimated the detection-corrected density (birds/km2

) of each marine bird species 

within each cell, using two different geographic grids (40 km and 80 km). Maps with corrected density 

estimates for all species are available on the AOOS research workspace. Contractor Dan Cushing (Pole 

Star Consulting, Seattle, Washington) also examined spatial patterns of community composition relative 

to environmental variables using Nonmetric Multi-dimensional Scaling ordination (details in Cushing et 

al. in prep). 

In brief, preliminary analyses found a strong gradient in community composition related to sea surface 

temperature, and secondarily with distance from shore (Table 6), with these two axis explaining 80 % of 

the variance in marine bird densities. A third axis defined largely by depth and chlorophyll explained an 

additional 13 % of compositional variability. A large group of piscivorous and planktivorous marine bird 

species (including murres and loons; Fig. 20) tended to co-occur in locations with warmer waters close to 

shore (associated with the Alaska Coastal Current). An exception was the crested auklet, which was most 

abundant in cold, offshore waters (Fig. 20) near Hanna Shoal. A group including Pacific loon, common 

eider, king eider, and glaucous gull, co-occurred in nearshore areas in the eastern portion of the study 

area. This group was also negatively associated with crested auklet; we interpret this pattern as 

distinguishing the nearshore marine bird community. These preliminary results support the hypothesis 

that marine bird communities of the Chukchi Sea are structured in relation to water masses. In addition, 

nearshore communities differed from those offshore. 

Table 6. Correlations between Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling Ordination axes and 

environmental and geographic variables. 

Variable Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 

 r p r p r p 

Sea Surface Temperature 0.783 < 0.001 -0.072 0.617 0.064 0.656 

Distance from Shore -0.415 0.002 0.584 <0.001 0.134 0.342 

Depth -0.140 0.324 0.196 0.165 0.341 0.013 

Int. Water Column Chl-a -0.073 0.683 0.177 0.317 -0.290 0.096 

Sediment Chl-a -0.199 0.302 0.071 0.713 -0.422 0.023 

Latitude -0.758 < 0.001 0.081 0.569 -0.007 0.963 

Longitude -0.424 0.002 -0.488 < 0.001 -0.270 0.052 
49 

Figure 20. Plots of first two axes of 3-dimensional Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling 

Ordination of seabird densities with geographic grid cells in the Chukchi Sea. 

Points represent grid cells; those closer together have greater similarity in their seabird 

community composition. Densities (birds/km2

) of each of three selected species of 

seabirds are represented by the three plots. The X-axis (NMS Axis 1) represents moving 

from colder to warmer waters. The Y-axis (NMS Axis 2) represents going from nearshore 

to offshore waters; these two variables explained most of the species’ distributions 

(Table 6). 

3.3.4 Distributed Biological Observatory 

The Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) is an international effort to monitor the biological and 

physical parameters from the northern Bering Sea to western Beaufort Sea (for more information, see: 

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/dbo/). A series of eight monitoring sites were selected (Fig. 6) to document 

seasonal and annual variation in the region, and ultimately to monitor long-term changes in the 

ecosystem. Samples are collected at the DBO sites from US and international research vessels, with the 

goal to ensure collaboration and data sharing. 

 

During the Seabirds Offshore Project we conducted 35 surveys covering 12,513 km within the DBO 

polygons. To date, seabird data analysis has compared seabird species richness, species composition, and 

abundance among the DBOs and with respect to overall regional patterns. The Chukchi area includes 

three DBO sites: DBO3 (Hope Basin), DBO4 (between Wainwright and south Hanna Shoal) and DBO5 

(upper Barrow Canyon). Among the Chukchi sites, DBO3 had the highest species richness, although all 

three sites were within the predicted values based on survey effort (Fig. 21). Preliminary results suggest 

that analyses of marine bird relationships with the physical environment and prey would be most robust if 

they focus on six abundant seabird species: short-tailed shearwaters, common and thick-billed murres, 

least and crested auklets, and black-legged kittiwakes. 
50 

Figure 21. Species richness relative to sampling effort (number of 3 km transect 

segments) for the three DBO sites in the Chukchi Sea (blue dots). 

The predicted species richness for the entire Chukchi Sea (green dots) was generated 

from a randomized selection of 3 km segments from surveys in 2007-2015. 

4. Discussion 

4.1 Status of Marine Bird Surveys and Data Archiving 

Seabird data derived from the Seabirds Offshore Project, was annually contributed to the North Pacific 

Pelagic Seabird Database (NPPSD), totaling 97,525 km of survey effort. All data from 2010 through 

2015 has been processed and submitted to the USGS for inclusion in the NPPSD, with data through 2012 

now integrated into a publically accessible online release (NPPSD 2.0, with data from 1973 to 2012; 

Drew et al. 2015). The USGS is in the process of integrating the remaining survey data through 2015, and 

data we collected in 2016 will be submitted by February 2017. This long-term dataset has allowed 

researchers and managers to examine current and historic patterns of seabird distribution (see 

Publications section), and will continue to add to our understanding of seabird distribution, habitat 

requirements, and seasonal patterns. The more recent survey data from this project can be applied to 

NEPA requirements in BOEM offshore planning areas, and serve as a baseline to examine seabird 

responses to climate change and human activities in the Arctic. 

4.2 Monitoring changes at sea for marine birds and their habitats 

There have been major changes in the North Pacific ecosystem since the 1970s (Grebmeier et al. 2010, 

Stabeno et al. 2012), particularly in regions heavily influenced by seasonal sea ice cover such as the 

northern Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas (Wang and Overland 2015). By combining recent marine 

bird surveys with historic survey data we have begun to examine how these changes may be altering the 

distribution and community composition of marine birds. For example, since the 1970s three species of 

albatrosses have shown increased use of the Bering Sea and shifted their distributions farther north 

(Kuletz et al. 2014). During the same period, the center of distribution for northern fulmar in the Bering 
51 

Sea has also shifted north, but their densities at sea indicate a decline of 0.83 % per annum (Renner et al. 

2013). In offshore waters of the Chukchi Sea, the marine bird community has changed over the past 40 

years, with planktivorous seabirds (primarily auklets and shearwaters) now outnumbering the piscivorous 

seabirds (murres, kittiwakes, puffins) (Gall et al. 2016). Notably, the influx of planktivorous seabirds into 

the Chukchi region consists largely of species that do not nest in the region, thus they must come from 

colonies south of Bering Strait. The late summer and fall increase in seabird abundance (Gall et al. 2016, 

Kuletz et al. 2015) corresponds to peak seasonal ice retreat and high abundance of zooplankton (Hopcroft 

et al. 2010, Eisner et al. 2013). Indeed, the shift in distribution of short-tailed shearwaters, from the 

Bering into the Chukchi in August and September, appears to coincide with the occurrence of high 

biomass of large euphausiids in the region (Nishizawa et al. 2017). 

The new predominance of planktivorous seabirds in the offshore waters of the Chukchi Sea does not 

necessarily mean that locally breeding birds, which tend to be piscivorous or nearshore benthic feeding 

species (Piatt and Springer 2003), have declined. There have been few colony-based studies of seabirds in 

the northern Bering or Chukchi in recent decades, thus extrapolations to the region must be made with 

caution; nonetheless monitored sites at Cape Lisburne suggest stable or even increasing populations for 

some species. The Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge conducts periodic plot counts at Cape 

Lisburne, which indicate that murres and kittiwakes have increased at these sites, despite low to average 

breeding success at the colonies (Dragoo et al. 2016). Moderate breeding success with increasing counts 

of birds at the colony might be indicative of high survival of fledglings to breeding age, or immigration 

from southern regions, or both. Coupling more colony-based work with the at-sea surveys would increase 

our understanding of seabird response to changes in the Arctic. In contrast to these far-ranging seabirds, 

however, a long-term study at a colony of black guillemots (Cepphus grylle) has shown that these 

nearshore foragers have experienced breeding failure and population decline. For these birds, changes in 

prey use and foraging patterns indicate that retreating sea ice coverage has reduced access to their 

preferred prey, Arctic cod (Divoky et al. 2015). 

Marine birds are excellent indicators of environmental change because they can be observed at sea and at 

their colonies and feed throughout the water column to the ocean floor (Piatt et al. 2007). However, their 

mobility and for some species, somewhat flexible dietary habits also pose challenges for long term 

monitoring. For example, in the Bering Sea there is evidence that densities of total seabirds in offshore 

waters have been substantially lower during years of early ice retreat (warmer summers) compared to 

years of late ice retreat (colder summers) (Renner et al. 2016; using data from Seabirds Offshore Project 

and NPPSD). Furthermore, during years of early ice retreat, surface foragers increased in number over the 

middle shelf of the Bering Sea (50-150 m depth) and decreased over the shelf slope (200-500 m depth), 

whereas pursuit-diving seabirds didn’t show a clear trend (Renner et al. 2016). Thus, birds with different 

foraging modes may show variable responses to long term changes in Alaska’s marine ecosystems. Such 

broad scale shifts in marine bird distribution suggest that focusing studies in a single geographic area may 

not capture the scale of response to environmental change. 

The large-scale movement of marine birds into the Chukchi in late summer and fall indicates the area’s 

importance as a foraging, molting, and staging area during the critical period between breeding and 

winter migration (review in Moore et al. 2014). Within the eastern Chukchi, specific regions have been 

identified as ‘hotspots’ for multiple species of marine birds and marine mammals (Kuletz et al. 2015). In 
52 

particular, the southern Hanna Shoal area, the waters off Wainwright, and over Barrow Canyon attract 

birds and mammals throughout the ice-free period (Okkonen et al. 2011, Moore et al. 2014, Gall et al. 

2013, Kuletz et al. 2015). Because of their prominence within the Chukchi marine ecosystem, these areas 

will continue to be the focus of on-going studies (e.g., AIERP, AMBON, DBO). Conducting marine bird 

surveys in conjunction with these research cruises will improve our knowledge of the processes that 

affect marine birds and help to predict future responses to environmental change. However, conducting 

surveys from ‘ships of opportunity’ can also be problematic for studies of upper trophic levels, including 

highly mobile marine birds. 

The limitations of using ships of opportunity include lack of sampling design specific to the study 

subject, and confounded temporal and spatial coverage (i.e., unequal survey effort across seasons or 

areas). Nearly all of our data were collected >50 km offshore, due to the size of vessels and focus on 

offshore processes of host projects. Thus, our surveys do not reflect the abundance of benthic feeding sea 

ducks, or other nearshore marine birds in the Chukchi and Beaufort regions (Moore et al. 2014, 

Grebmeier et al. 2015). Our data are heavily biased for late July through September (Table 1), when 

most research projects conduct their studies and more vessels can travel in ice-free waters. As a result, we 

know less about spring migrants and distribution offshore of locally breeding seabirds prior to July. 

Additionally, during any cruise there are lost opportunities to sample important areas of interest due to 

schedules built around other projects and vessel transits during hours of darkness. 

The generally low density of most of the 45+ species that occur in the Arctic (Table 5) means that high 

survey effort is necessary to obtain an adequate sample size to examine patterns of marine bird 

distribution. The randomly generated species richness curve based on all data from the Seabirds Offshore 

Project (Fig. 11) indicates that approximately 7,000 km of survey effort is required to capture most 

species present in these regions, an effort barely achieved in the Beaufort for all years combined of this 

study (see Table 2), and not yet achieved in the deep basin waters. If ships are not equipped to enter 

waters with heavy ice, or the host project is focused on open water processes, surveys will miss iceassociated species like the black guillemot, which in our study area occurs in regions averaging 30-60 % 

sea ice coverage, and shifts distribution accordingly (Divoky et al. 2016). 

In addition to seasonal changes in the marine bird community, there are interannual shifts in distribution, 

even though the communities (species composition) may show strong broad scale longitudinal and 

latitudinal structure. For example, during the Arctic EIS study of 2012 and 2013, the seabird community 

showed strong clustering of species along gradients of nearshore to offshore and latitudinally, but the 

community clusters differed between years, largely driven by changes in the abundance of auklets (Aethia 

spp.) and short-tailed shearwaters (Pham and Kuletz 2015, Pham 2016). Super abundant species may 

therefore mask patterns of less abundant groups, which highlights the importance of obtaining adequate 

sample sizes for a given study area. Dedicated marine bird survey tracklines repeated at different 

seasons, such as occurred during the Chukchi Sea Environmental Studies Program (2008–2010; Gall et 

al. 2013), while preferable, may not be feasible for long term sustainability. To that end, a designated set 

of stations or well defined region shared by multiple programs, such as attempted via the Distributed 

Biological Observatory system, may be a reasonable alternative. 
53 

5. Conclusion and Management Implications 

Our at-sea survey data has already been applied to management and policy decisions about marine birds, 

particularly through the USFWS Divisions of Migratory Bird Management (MBM) and Endangered 

Species (ES). The distribution data has also been used by NOAA for their Stock Assessment Fisheries 

Evaluation (SAFE) reports and Environmental Assessments. The surveys have updated the NPPSD and 

now comprise the majority of offshore seabird survey data in that data set for the Bering, Chukchi, and 

Beaufort seas. Following are some of the management applications of the Seabirds Offshore Project: 

 Kittlitz’s murrelet listing package (ES), with final ruling (not warranted for listing) in September 

2013. The non-breeding, seasonal distribution at sea for this Candidate species relied almost 

entirely on our pelagic data. 

 Status assessments and reviews that relied on at-sea data for information on seasonal patterns of 

distribution at sea included those for the Yellow-billed Loon and the Aleutian Tern. 

 The Circumpolar Seabird Group (A U.N. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Expert 

Network) incorporated this data into status reviews for the Arctic Tern and Glaucous Gull. 

 The Ecosystem Consideration Chapters (annually, 2010-2015) incorporated project survey data 

as background on seabird distribution and to inform management decisions for the North Pacific 

Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC), as part of the NOAA/AFSC SAFE reports. 

 Fisheries Management Plans / Environmental Assessments (NOAA) prepared for the NPFMC 

from 2010-2015 regularly incorporated at-sea survey data into their assessments to anticipate 

impacts of fisheries management options on marine birds, including incidental take, particularly 

for listed species such as short-tailed albatross, Steller’s eider, and spectacled eider. 

 At-sea survey data was incorporated into the Audubon effort to identify important marine areas to 

assist in evaluation of potential impacts from increased shipping traffic (i.e., Bering Strait) and 

oil/gas exploration and development (i.e., Chukchi lease sale areas). The publication “Identifying 

marine Important Bird Areas using at-sea survey data” is available online at: 

http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S0006320714001001. Audubon Alaska. The PI (Kuletz) 

participated in meetings to guide and assess their analyses. 

Acknowledgements 

This project was funded by a grant from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (Project BOEM 2017-

004). The US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, provided in-kind 

support for K. Kuletz (Principal Investigator) and E. Labunski (Biologist), as well as community outreach 

conducted by T. Zeller. We depended on the hospitality and expert seamanship of the vessel crews of the 

USCGC Healy and Polar Sea (US Coast Guard), Oscar Dyson (NOAA), Sir Wilfrid Laurier (Canadian 

Coast Guard), Thompson (UW), Alpha Helix and Sikuliaq (UAF), Alaska Endeavour, Alaskan 

Enterprise, Aquila, Noresman II, Oshoro Maru IV, Professor Khromov, and Wacoma. We thank all of the 

captains and crew for their seamanship, safe operations, hospitality, and exceptional efforts in support of 

our studies. 

Chief Scientists and Principal Investigators that contributed logistic and scientific support during the this 

project included: J. Duffy-Anderson, A. Andrews, C. Ashjian, K. Benoit-Bird, C. Berchok, C. Crane, L. 

Cooper, L. Eisner, E. Farley, J. Grebmeier, I. Hartwell, T. Honkalehto, R. Hopcroft, K. Iken, J. Lovvorn, 

E. Martinson, L. Mayer, J. Moss, F. Mueter, J. Murphy, J. Napp, B. Norcross, R. Pickart, R. Sambrotto, 

P. Stabeno, N. Williamson, R. Woodgate, and T. Yasenak. 
54 

In addition to the authors of this report, the following were seabird observers during this project, and we 

thank them for their dedication and professionalism at sea: A. Bankert, N. Bool, L. DeCicco, N. Jones, N. 

Hajdukovich, B. Hoover, S. Jennings, R. Kaler, A. Lang, S. Lorentz, B. Nishizawa, M. Reedy, M. Smith, 

C. Pham, D. Troy, T. Van Pelt, S. Walden, Y. Watanuki, S. Webb, C. Wright, and T. Zeller. 

We thank Martin Renner for his work at processing the raw data, and his involvement in the analyses and 

publications produced from this work. We also appreciate the contributions of our co-authors and 

collaborators - in particular, Adrian Gall, Tawna Morgan, and Robert Day of ABR, Inc., George Hunt, 

Jr., Megan Ferguson, and Brendan Hurley. Athina Catherine Pham conducted analyses for the ArcticEIS 

project, Dan Cushing conducted analyses for the AMBON project and produced the Alaska-wide updated 

distribution maps. Erik Osnas (USFWS) conducted analyses and provided several figures for this report. 
55 

References 

Arrigo KR, van Dijken G, Pabi S. 2008. Impact of a shrinking Arctic ice cover on marine primary 

production. Geophys Res Lett 35:L19603. doi: 10.1029/2008GL035028. 

Benoit-Bird KJ, Battaile BC, Heppell SA, Hoover B, Irons D, Jones N, Kuletz KJ, Nordstrom CA, 

Paredes R, Suryan RM, Waluk CM, Trites AW. 2013. Prey patch patterns predict habitat use by top 

marine predators with diverse foraging strategies. PLoS ONE 8:e53348. 

Benoit-Bird KJ, Kuletz K, Heppell S, Jones N, Hoover B. 2011. Active acoustic examination of the 

diving behavior of murres foraging on patchy prey. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 443:217-235. 

Bodenstein B, Beckmen K, Sheffield G, Kuletz K, Van Hemert C, Berlowski B, Shearn-Bochsler 

V. 2015. Avian Cholera Causes Marine Bird Mortality in the Bering Sea of Alaska. Journal of Wildlife 

Diseases 51(4):934-937. DOI: 10.7589/2014-12-273. (Seabird surveys provided background data on 

species present in the northern Bering Sea during fall and spring). 

Coachman LK, Aagaard K, Tripp RB. 1975. Bering Strait: the regional physical oceanography. 

University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 

Coachman LK and Shigaev VV. 1992. Northern Bering-Chukchi Sea Ecosystem: The Physical Basis. In 

P. A. Nagel [ed.]. Results of the Third Joint US-USSR Bering and Chukchi Seas Expedition (BERPAC), 

Summer 1988. US Fish and Wildlife Service, pp. 406. 

Day RH, Weingartner TJ, Hopcroft RR, Aerts LAM, Blanchard AL, Gall AE, Gallaway BJ, Hannay DE, 

Holladay BA, Mathis JT, Norcross BL, Questel JM, Wisdom SS. 2013. The offshore northeastern 

Chukchi Sea, Alaska: a complex high-latitude ecosystem. Cont Shelf Res 67:147–165. 

doi:10.1016/j.csr.2013.02.002. 

Divoky GJ, Douglas DC, Stenhouse IJ. 2016 Arctic sea ice a major determinant in Mandt’s black 

guillemot movement and distribution during non-breeding season. Biol. Lett. 12: 20160275. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0275. 

Divoky GJ, Lukacs PM, Druckenmiller ML. 2015. Effects of recent decreases in arctic sea ice on an 

ice-associated marine bird. Progress in Oceanography. 136, 151–161. doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2015.05.010. 

Dragoo DE, Renner HM, and Kaler RS. 2016. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in 

Alaska, 2015. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2016/03. Homer, Alaska. 

Drew GS, Piatt JF, Renner M. 2015, User’s guide to the North Pacific Pelagic Seabird Database 2.0: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015-1123. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151123. 

Eisner L, Hillgruber N, Martinson E, Maselko J. 2013. Pelagic fish and zooplankton species assemblages 

in relation to water mass characteristics in the northern Bering and southeast Chukchi seas. Polar Biology 

36, 87–113. 

Gall AE, Day RH, Weingartner TJ. 2013. Structure and variability of the marine-bird community in the 

northeastern Chukchi Sea. Cont Shelf Res 67:96-115. 

Gall AE, Morgan TC, Day RH, Kuletz KJ. 2016. Ecological shift from piscivorous to planktivorous 

seabirds in the Chukchi Sea, 1975-2012”. Polar Biology. doi:10.1007/s00300-016-1924-z. 
56 

Gotelli NJ, and Colwell RK. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement 

and comparison of species richness. Ecology letters, 4(4): 379-391. 

Gould P, and Forsell D. 1989. Techniques for shipboards surveys of marine birds. Fish and Wildlife 

technical report, 25. http://dx.doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.23841.

Grebmeier JM, Bluhm BA, Cooper LW, Danielson S, Arrigo K, Blanchard AL, Clarke JT, Day RH, Frey 

KE, Gradinger RR, Kedra M, Konar B, Kuletz KJ, Lee SH, Lovvorn JR, Norcross BL, Okkonen 

SR. 2015. Ecosystem characteristics and processes facilitating persistent macrobenthic biomass hotspots 

and associated benthivory in the Pacific Arctic. Progress in Oceanography 136:92-114. 

Grebmeier JM, Moore SE, Overland JE, Frey KE, Gradinger R. 2010. Biological response to recent 

Pacific Arctic Sea ice retreat. EOS 91, 161–168. 

Hatch SA, Meyers PM, Mulcahy DM, Douglas DC. 2000. Seasonal movements and pelagic habitat use of 

murres and puffins determined by satellite telemetry. The Condor 102(1):145-154. 

Hopcroft RR, Kosobokova KN, Pinchuk AI. 2010. Zooplankton community patterns in the Chukchi Sea 

during summer 2004. Deep-Sea Ressearch II 57:27–29. 

Humphries GR, and Huettmann F. 2014. Putting models to a good use: a rapid assessment of Arctic 

seabird biodiversity indicates potential conflicts with shipping lanes and human activity. Diversity Distrib 

20(4):478-490. 

Hunt GL, Renner M, Kuletz KJ. 2014. Seasonal variation in the cross-shelf distribution of seabirds in the 

southeastern Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Research II 109: 266-281.Topical Studies in Oceanography. doi: 

10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.08.011 

Hunt GL, and Schneider DC. 1987. Scale dependent processes in the physical and biological environment 

of marine birds. In Croxall J [ed.]. Seabirds: feeding biology and role in marine ecosystems. Cambridge 

Univ Press, Cambridge, UK, pp.7-41. 

Iken K. 2016. Initiating an Arctic Marine Biodiversity Observing Network (AMBON). AMBON Annual 

Report, National Oceanographic Partnership Program, http://ambon-us.org. 

Irons DB, Petersen A, Anker-Nilssen T, Arthukin Y, Barrett R, Boertman D, Gavrilo M, Gilchrist HG, 

Hansen ES, Hario M, Kuletz K, Mallory ML, Merkel F, Mosbech A, Labansen AL, Olsen B, Österblom 

H, Reid J, Robertson G. M. Rönkä & H. Strøm. 2015. Circumpolar Seabird Monitoring Plan. CAFF 

Monitoring Report No. 17. Akureyri, Icleand, CAFF International Secretariat: 70. 

Kuletz KJ, Ferguson C, Hurley B, Gall A, Labunski E, Morgan T. 2015. Seasonal spatial patterns in 

seabird and marine mammal distribution in the eastern Chukchi and western Beaufort seas: Identifying 

biologically important pelagic areas. Progress in Oceanography 136:175-200. 

Kuletz KJ, and Labunski EA. 2015. Seabird Broad-Scale Distribution. North Pacific Research Board 

Bering Sea Integrated Ecosystem Research Program, Project B64 Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, Alaska, 99503. 

Kuletz KJ, Renner M, Labunski EA, Hunt GL. 2014. Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of 

Albatrosses in the Eastern Bering Sea: 1975-2010. Deep Sea Research II 109: 282 – 292. 
57 

Kuletz KJ, Labunski EA, Renner MH, Irons DB, 2008. The North Pacific Pelagic Seabird Observer 

Program. North Pacific Research Board Final Report, Project No. 637. North Pacific Research Board, 

Anchorage, AK. 

Moore SE, Logerwell E, Eisner L, Farley E, Harwood L, Kuletz K, Lovvorn J, Murphy J, Quakenbush L. 

2011. Marine fishes, birds and mammals as sentinels of ecosystem variability and reorganization in the 

Pacific Arctic Region. In: Grebmeier JM., Maslowski W. (Eds.), The Pacific Arctic Region: Ecosystem 

Status and Trends in a Rapidly Changing Environment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 337–392 (Chapter 11). 

Nishizawa B, Matsuno K, Labunski EA, Kuletz KJ, Yamaguchi A, Watanuki Y. 2017. Seasonal 

distribution of short-tailed shearwaters and their prey in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Biogeosciences

14:1-12, doi:10.5194/bg-14-1-2017. 

Okkonen S, Ashjian CA, Campbell R, Clarke TJ, Moore SE, Taylor KD, 2011. Satellite observations of 

circulation features associated with bowhead whale feeding hotspot near Barrow, Alaska. Remote 

Sensing Environment 115, 2168– 2174. 

Orben RA, 2014. Comparative non-breeding foraging ecology of surface foraging kittiwakes (Rissa sp.) 

and deep diving thick-billed murres (Uria lomvia). Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz, 

CA. 

Orben RA, Irons DB, Paredes R, Roby DD, Phillips RA, Shaffer SA. 2014. North or south? Niche 

separation of endemic red-legged kittiwakes and sympatric black-legged kittiwakes during their nonbreeding migrations. J Biogeography 42: 401-412. 

Petersen A, Irons DB, Gilchrist HG, Robertson G, Boertmann D, Strøm H, Gavrilo M, Artukhin Y, 

Clausen D, Kuletz K, Mallory M. 2015. The Status of Glaucous Gulls Larus hyperboreus in the 

Circumpolar Arctic. Arctic 68(1):107 – 120. http://dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic4462. (Information from 

seabird surveys was included in this overview). 

Pham AC. 2016. Seabird response to interannual variability in oceanographic properties and prey 

abundance in the northern Bering and Chukchi seas. Master’s thesis, Hawaii Pacific University. 

Pham AC, and Kuletz KJ. 2015. Seabird Distribution and Abundance in the Northeastern Bering Sea and 

Chukchi Sea. Final Component Report for Arctic Ecosystem Integrated Survey, OCS Study BOEM AK11-08a/b. Alaska OCS Region, US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 58 

pp. 

Piatt JF and Springer AM. Advection, pelagic food webs and the biogeography of seabirds in Beringia, 

Mar. Ornithol., 31, 141–154, 2003. 

Piatt JF, Sydeman WJ, Wiese F. 2007. Introduction: a modern role for seabirds as indicators, Mar. Ecol. 

Prog. Ser., 352, 199–204, doi: 10.3354/meps07070, 2007. 

Renner M, Parrish JK, Piatt JF, Kuletz KJ, Edwards EA, Hunt GL. 2013. Modeling the distribution and 

abundance of a pelagic seabird in relation to fisheries. Marine Ecology Progress Series 484: 259–277. 

Renner M, Salo S, Eisner L, Ressler P, Ladd C, Kuletz K, Santora J, Piatt J, Drew G, Hunt G. 2016. 

"Timing of ice retreat alters seabird abundances and distributions in the southeast Bering Sea" Biology 

Letters 12: 20160276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0276. 
58 

Schonberg SV, Clarke JT, Dunton KH. 2014. Distribution, abundance, biomass and diversity of benthic 

infauna in the Northeast Chukchi Sea, Alaska: Relation to environmental variables and marine mammals. 

Deep Sea Research II, Vol 102:144-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.11.004. 

Sigler MF, Mueter J, Bodil A, Bluhm B, Busby MS, Cokelet ED, Danielson SL, De Robertis A, Eisner 

LB, Farley EV, Iken K, Kuletz KJ, Lauth RR, Logerwell EA, Pinchuk AI. 2016. Late summer 

zoogeography of the northern Bering and Chukchi seas, Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in 

Oceanography, Available online 21 March 2016, ISSN 0967-0645. doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2016.03.005. 

Sigler MF, Renner M, Danielson SL, Eisner LB, Lauth RR, Kuletz KJ, Logerwell EA, Hunt GL. 2011. 

Fluxes, fins, and feathers: Relationships among the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas in a time of 

climate change. Oceanography 24(3):250–265. doi. org/10.5670/oceanog.2011.77 

Smith MA, Walker NJ, Free CM, Kirchhoff MJ, Drew GS, Warnock N, Stenhouse IJ. 2014. Identifying 

marine Important Bird Areas using at-sea survey data. Biological Conservation 172:180-189. 

doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.039. 

Spear LB, Ainley DG, Hardesty BD, Howell SNG, Webb SW. 2004. Reducing biases affecting at-sea 

surveys of seabirds: use of multiple observer teams. Marine Ornithology 32:147-157. 

Springer AM, and McRoy CP. (1993) The paradox of pelagic food webs in the northern Bering Sea–III. 

Patterns of primary production. Cont Shelf Res 13:575–599. 

Springer AM, Roseneau DG, Murphy EC, Springer MI. 1984. Environmental controls of marine food 

webs: food habits of seabirds in the eastern Chukchi Sea. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 41(8):1202-1215. 

Stephensen SW, Irons DB. 2003. A comparison of colonial breeding seabirds in the eastern Bering Sea 

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

Stringer WJ. and Groves JE. 1991. Location and areal extent of polynyas in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. 

Arctic 44 (1): 164-171. 

Suryan RM, Kuletz KJ, Parker-Stetter SL, Ressler PH, Renner M, Horne JK, Farley EV, Labunski EA. 

2016. Temporal shifts in seabird populations and spatial coherence with prey in the southeastern Bering 

Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 549: 199–215. doi:10.3354/meps11653 

Sydeman WJ, Thompson SA, Kitaysky A. 2012. Seabirds and climate change: roadmap for the future. 

Mar Ecol Prog Ser 454:107-117. 

Tasker ML, Jones PH, Dixon T, Blake BF. 1984. Counting seabirds at sea from ships: a review of 

methods employed and a suggestion for a standardized approach. The Auk 101(3):567-577. 

USFWS (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. North Pacific Seabird Colony Database. Online. 

External link: http://axiom.seabirds.net/maps/north-pacific-seabirds. Accessed on 08 May 2014. 

Weingartner TJ, Aagaard K, Woodgate RA, Danielson S, Sasaki Y, Cavalieri D. 2005. Circulation on the 

north central Chukchi Sea shelf. Deep-Sea Res II 52(24-26):3150-3174. 

Weingartner TJ, Danielson S, Sasaki Y, Pavlov V, Kulakov M. 1999. The Siberian Coastal Current: a 

wind- and buoyancy-forced Arctic coastal current. J Geophys Res 104(C12):29697–29713 
59 

Weingartner TJ. 1997. A review of the physical oceanography of the northeastern Chukchi Sea. In Fish 

ecology in Arctic North America. American Fisheries Society Symposium 19:40-59. 

Wang M, and Overland JE. 2015. Projected future duration of the sea-ice-free season in the Alaskan 

Arctic. Progress in Oceanography 136: 50–59. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.pocean.2015.01.001. 

Wong SN, Gjerdrum C, Morgan KH, Mallory ML. 2014. Hotspots in cold seas: The composition, 

distribution, and abundance of marine birds in the North American Arctic. J Geophys Res Ocean 

119:1691–1705. doi: 10.1002/2013JC009198. 

Woodgate RA, Aagaard K, Weingartner TJ. 2005. A year in the physical oceanography of the Chukchi 

Sea: Moored measurements from autumn 1990–1991. Deep-Sea Res II 52(24-26):3116-3149. 
 

Appendix 1. Seabird and Marine Mammal Distribution Maps

Distribution of (A) seabirds and (B) marine mammals based on densities calculated from observations during 

surveys from 2006 – 2015. White hexagons indicate density values that equaled zero. Light blue hexagons 

were not surveyed. Species maps are arranged in taxonomic order. 

A. Seabird distribution maps 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

B. Marine mammal distribution maps 
 
 
 
 

 
 

Appendix 2. Chukchi Hotspot Maps from SOAR Analysis 

See Kuletz et. al. 2015 

	 	

Surface Feeding Seabirds 
 

					 	 	

Subsurface Feeding Seabirds 
 

 

 

Benthic Feeding Seabirds 

Shearwaters 
 

 

Gulls 
 

 

Alcids 
 

 

Alcids 
 
 

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.