January 2009
Environmental Impact Statement for the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project
F
Fiis
sh
h a
an
nd
d F
Fiis
sh
h H
Ha
ab
biitta
att
Report 2 of 11
Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project Environmental Baseline Report
Seal Abundance and Distribution
Submitted To:
Labrador Hydro Project Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro
500 Columbus Drive P.O. Box 12400
St. John’s, NL A1B 4K7
Submitted By:
Sikumiut Environmental Management Ltd. 200-80 Elizabeth Avenue
St. John’s, NL. A1A 1W7 27 June 2007
January 2009
Environmental Impact Statement for the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project
F
Fiis
sh
h a
an
nd
d F
Fiis
sh
h H
Ha
ab
biitta
att
Report 2 of 11
Executive Summary
Sikumiut Environmental Management Ltd. (Sikumiut) was engaged by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (Hydro) to conduct an aerial survey of Lake Melville, Labrador, to assess seal abundance and distribution. A standard strip transect survey of Lake Melville was flown; the species of primary interest was ringed seals (Phoca hispida), however, observations of harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) were also recorded. In addition, a reconnaissance flight of the Churchill River was flown to assess presence of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina). Field work for the survey was conducted from May 2 to May 4, 2006, inclusive.
The objectives of the survey were to:
• Fill baseline data gaps by determining how the ice in Goose Bay/Lake Melville area is used as habitat by seals;
• Fill baseline data gaps by estimating the spatial and temporal relative abundance of seals in Goose Bay during the ice season;
• Support the description of the existing environment; and • Support evaluation of environmental effects.
Standard strip transect survey methods (as per Lunn, et. al., (1997)), with adjustments made to reflect the use of a rotary versus fixed wing platform, were followed for the seal abundance and distribution survey of Lake Melville.
Survey conditions ranged from very good to excellent during the entire survey and complete, uniform coverage of the study area was obtained. With the exception of open water areas, ice surface covered was predominantly 8/8 rotten ice and there was negligible variability in ice type. The overall ringed seal density calculated for Lake Melville is 1.66 seals/Km2 (SE = 0.221, error variance = 2.08 x 10-4). When the area is split to segregate the heavily disturbed section in the western end of Lake Melville, density calculations rise to 2.25 seals/Km2 (SE = 0.246; error variance = 6.58 x 10-4). At the time of the survey, the ice coverage was estimated at 2790 Km2; thus an index of abundance for ringed seals is in the order of 4631.4 to 6277.5 individuals.
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...1 2.0 Study Team...2 3.0 Methods ...3 4.0 Results ...6 4.1 Weather Conditions...6 4.2 Coverage...7 4.3 Seal Density ...12
4.3.1 All Transects (1-58 & 68) ... 12
4.3.2 Transects 1-17... 13
4.3.3 Transect 18-58, 68... 14
5.0 References...16
List of Tables Table 4.2.1 Summary of seal observations……….7
Table 4.3.1.1 Data analysis results for all transects………13
Table 4.3.2.1. Data analysis results for transects 1-17………..…….13
Table 4.3.3.1 Data analysis results for transects 18-58 and 68……….14
List of Figures Figure 3.1. Study area and planned transect coverage……….………4
Figure 4.1.1. Weather conditions for Happy Valley – Goose Bay, May 1-5, 2006……….…...…6
Figure 4.2.1. Ringed seal density and distribution, all transects………....…..8
Figure 4.2.2. Ringed seal density and distribution, transects 1 - 9………...….9
Figure 4.2.3. Ringed seal density and distribution, transects 20 - 39………...…..10
Figure 4.2.4. Ringed seal density and distribution, transects 40 - 58, 68………….…………....11
Appendices
Appendix A – Safety Rules Appendix B – Field Data Sheet
Appendix C – Variables for Data Analysis Appendix D – Chronology
1.0 Introduction
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (Hydro) is proposing to develop the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project on the lower Churchill River, Labrador. The proposed project will include hydroelectric generating facilities at Gull Island and Muskrat Falls, and interconnecting transmission lines to the existing Labrador grid. The Gull Island facility will consist of a generating station with a capacity of approximately 2,000 megawatt (MW) and will include:
• a dam 99 m high and 1,315 m long and
• a 200 km² reservoir at an assumed full supply level of 125 m above sea level (asl) The dam will be a central till-cored, rock-fill, zone embankment. The reservoir will be 225 km long and the area of inundated land will be 85 km² at full supply level. The powerhouse will contain four to six Francis turbines.
The Muskrat Falls facility will consist of a generating station that will be approximately 800 MW in capacity and will include:
• a concrete dam with two sections on the north and south abutments of the river and • a 107 km² reservoir at an assumed full supply level of 39 m asl
The north section dam will be 32 m high and 180 m long, while the south section will be 29 m high and 370 m long. The north section will serve as a spillway in extreme precipitation events. The reservoir will be 60 km long and the area of inundated land will be 36 km² at full supply level. The powerhouse will contain four to five propeller or Kaplan turbines, or some combination of both.
The interconnecting transmission lines will consist of:
• a 735 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between Gull Island and Churchill Falls and • two 230 kV transmission lines between Muskrat Falls and Gull Island
The 735 kV transmission line will be 203 km long and the 230 kV transmission lines will be 60 km long. Both lines will likely be lattice-type steel structures. The location of the transmission lines will be north of the Churchill River; the final route is the subject of a route selection study that will be included in the environmental assessment. The lines between Muskrat Falls and Gull Island may be on separate towers, or combined on double-circuit structures.
Sikumiut Environmental Management Ltd. (Sikumiut) was engaged by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (Hydro) to conduct an aerial survey of Lake Melville, Labrador, to assess seal abundance and distribution. A standard strip transect survey of Lake Melville was flown; the species of primary interest was ringed seals (Phoca hispida), however, observations of harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) were also recorded. In addition, a reconnaissance flight of the Churchill River was flown to assess presence of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina). Field work for the survey was conducted from May 2 to May 4, 2006, inclusive. This report documents the study team; describes methods used; presents a summary of the weather conditions encountered; provides a detailed data analysis including maps of observed seal density, estimates of seal density, calculations of error variance; and provides a chronology of events
Expert Advisor Tom Smith Literature Review L. Metcalfe Office/Admin Support Right Observer David Wolfrey* Data Recorder/ Front Observer L. Metcalfe* Left Observer Tim Pottle* Pilot/Front Observer Lorne Pike Field Team Project Manager Leroy Metcalfe * = Inuit participant
The objectives of the survey were to:
• Fill baseline data gaps by determining how the ice in Goose Bay/Lake Melville area is used as habitat by seals;
• Fill baseline data gaps by estimating the spatial and temporal relative abundance of seals in Goose Bay during the ice season;
• Support the description of the existing environment; and • Support evaluation of environmental effects.
2.0 Study Team
The field team identified above remained consistent throughout the duration of the survey and maintained the same seating arrangements throughout. Following is a brief overview of qualifications and relevant experience of the study team:
Leroy Metcalfe, B. Sc. (Biology), is an Inuk from Nain, Labrador currently residing in St. John’s.
Leroy lived in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and has extensive knowledge of the study area gained while traveling throughout the Goose Bay and Lake Melville area for work and recreation. He worked on previous environmental baseline studies (mercury sampling, fish and fish habitat and waterfowl surveys) for the Labrador Hydro Project and the Granite Canal Hydroelectric Development (Caribou data GIS, fish habitat). In addition, he has conducted seal whelping surveys in Anaktalak Bay, Labrador, as part of the monitoring program for the Voisey’s Bay Nickel Project. Leroy has 10 years of experience in designing and implementing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and 15 years of experience in designing and conducting field surveys on various fish, bird and mammal species. His work experience includes extensive field surveys in Labrador and Newfoundland.
David Wolfrey, an Inuk from Rigolet who currently resides in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, NL,
has spent over 30 years hunting and trapping through central and northern Labrador and still maintains a trap line in the area. David works as an Aboriginal Guardian for the Nunatsiavut Government and has previous experience in conducting helicopter and snowmobile based caribou and seal surveys. He assisted by providing input on survey timing, data collection and seal identification.
Tim Pottle is an Inuk from Rigolet, Labrador who is currently studying biology at Memorial
University. For over ten years Tim has hunted and fished extensively in the Rigolet area and is very familiar with identification of various seal species occurring in Lake Melville.
Lorne Pike, Universal Helicopters, has several years of flight experience in Labrador and has
participated in numerous wildlife studies. He flew transects as specified while maintaining a consistent altitude and speed. He was also responsible for ensuring all work was conducted in a safe manner and that all personnel received safety briefings on working in and around helicopters.
Tom Smith served as scientific advisor on the study team. Prior to mobilizing to the field, Tom
provided input on the survey design and data to be collected.
3.0 Methods
Standard strip transect survey methods (as per Lunn, et. al., (1997)), with adjustments made to reflect the use of a rotary versus fixed wing platform, were followed for the seal abundance and distribution survey of Lake Melville.
Prior to going in the field, GIS analysis of Lake Melville was conducted using 1:50,000 scale NTDBS data. Survey transects were placed at 2Km intervals such that when a 500m total transect width was factored in and islands were excluded, approximately 25% of the lake surface would be covered by the survey transects (see Figure 3.1).
One of the authors of Lunn, et. al., (1997), Ian Stirling, was contacted by Sikumiut and the survey methods were discussed, particularly with respect to use of a rotary wing versus a fixed wing platform. Dr. Stirling indicated that he felt the platform would be quite adequate provided appropriate air speed and altitude were maintained and maneuvers such as hovering and turning were avoided, as they produce additional noise which could startle seals and cause them to dive before they could be identified. In addition, the width of transects and availability of front observers was discussed. For the field work conducted in support of their work, Lunn et.
al. utilized a total transect width of 800m. For each side observer, the transect was split into a
200m wide inner and a 200m wide outer transect. This was done so data analysis could be conducted to account for variability in sighting and identifying seals between the inner and outer transect portions.
Figure 3.1. Study area and planned transect coverage
For this work, a total transect width of 500m was specified. As this required each side observer to cover a width of 250m, it was determined that splitting observations into inner and outer transects would not be necessary. In addition, as the pilot and data recorder had excellent forward visibility in the rotary platform, there was no blind spot to the front of the aircraft as is the case when using fixed wing platforms. Consequently, data analysis need not be adjusted to account for missed observations of seals directly on the flight path.
For the current work, a Bell 206 Long Ranger helicopter equipped with side bubble windows and floats was used. Lorne Pike, the pilot, was seated at the front right position and assisted with navigation and observation of seals. Leroy Metcalfe, data recorder and navigator, sat at the left front position and was responsible for ensuring the flight path followed the survey routing and recording observations of seals. David Wolfrey sat at the rear right and functioned as observer. Tim Pottle filled the observer role for the rear left. These seating arrangements were kept consistent during the entire survey period.
Prior to initiating the survey, the Field Team conducted transect width calibrations at the Goose Bay air field utilizing distance markers present at the sides of the runway. The pilot held the aircraft at a hover at 150m altitude and the rear observers placed a strip of tape across their windows marking a line coincident with a line 250m out from the side of the aircraft. Observers also noted their relative vertical head position with respect to the marker to avoid looking lower
or higher than the calibrated distance as this would alter the observed area to be larger or smaller, respectively, than prescribed for the survey.
The survey transects were delineated using ESRI GIS software (ArcGIS 3.2) and loaded onto a Garmin GPS Map 76C prior to going in the field. The GPS unit was equipped with an easily visible color display showing a basemap of the area and the planned survey lines. In addition, the GPS unit also showed the aircraft’s current position on the screen relative to the survey lines. This GPS setup served as the primary navigation tool for the duration of the survey. The survey was flown at an altitude of 150m and a speed of approximately 180 Km/h. The actual flight path was recorded using the tracking feature of the GPS and later uploaded to a laptop, thereby preserving a record of the actual survey flight path. In a similar manner, each observation was marked and saved using the GPS waypoint record function. All waypoints were also uploaded to a laptop for recording purposes. In addition to the digital file, each observation was documented on a data sheet (see Appendix B). The data sheet was used to record date; observer names; recorder name; transect number; waypoint cross reference number; species and number of seals seen by each observer, both on and off transect; ice cover in eighths; ice condition as per Lunn et. al., (1997); sky condition as per Lunn et. al., (1997); wind speed; and air temperature. At the end of each field day the data sheets were stored in a secure location.
The observers identified the number and species of seals seen, including those observed outside the transect area. The data recorder recorded all observations and aided in navigation, while also assisting with forward observations. To ensure forward observers did not duplicate sightings with the rear observers, constant communication was maintained among the field team. When a forward observer saw a seal directly on the flight path, the observation was passed directly to the recorder. When the forward observer saw a seal on the margin of the rear observers line of sight, the observation was corroborated with the rear observer before being passed on to the recorder. Similarly, the forward observers corroborated observations to ensure a single animal was not recorded multiple times.
Observations of breathing holes were not recorded as there is a high variability among observers’ abilities to distinguish between seal breathing holes and thawed holes. Furthermore, no accepted method has been developed to correlate the number of breathing holes with the associated number of seals.
Once back from the field, the data sheets were transcribed to a digital file in Microsoft Office Excel format. The GPS recorded flight path and waypoints were transferred to the GIS and the observation point file was linked to the data spreadsheet to produce a complete digital record of the entire survey including area covered and observations made.
Data observation points, actual survey coverage, total lake area, total survey coverage (transects) and total ice cover surveyed was calculated using ESRI ArcView 3.2 software. Observation data was split by seal species and left and right observer. Only data for ringed seals observed within the transect areas were utilized for data analysis. Too few harp seals (n=16) were observed to allow thorough data analysis. A Mann-Whitney Test was conducted to determine if a statistically significant difference in number of seal observed by left and right observers occurred. Following this, all data for ringed seals observed on transect was analyzed using Minitab release 12.0 as per Lunn et. al. (1997) to provide an estimate of seal density for Lake Melville and to calculate the error variance. Results from the current work were then compared with literature for similar surveys.
4.0 Results
A summary of results obtained, including weather conditions and data analysis findings are summarized below. Survey conditions ranged from very good to excellent during the entire survey and complete, uniform coverage of the study area was obtained. With the exception of open water areas, ice surface covered was predominantly 8/8 rotten ice and there was negligible variability in ice type. Consequently, data analysis did not take into account variability of observed seal density based on ice type.
4.1 Weather Conditions
Weather Conditions Happy Valley-Goose Bay
May 1 to May 5, 2006 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Date Deg ree s Cel c iu s 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 R a in ( m m )
Max Temp Min Temp Total Rain
Figure 4.1.1. Weather conditions for Happy Valley – Goose Bay, May 1-5, 2006.
May 2, 2006 was sunny and very warm (above 20 degrees Celsius) with moderate winds just over 30Km/h. May 3 was sunny with virtually no wind and temperatures of approximately 18 degrees Celsius. May 4 was cloudy, although it was still warm at about 17 degrees Celsius. Winds were calm and the high overcast was thin, allowing dull shadows to be cast. Generally, survey conditions ranged from excellent to very good. In the judgment of the Inuit hunters participating in the survey, there were no conditions encountered which would discourage seals from hauling out (e.g., cold temperatures, high winds) and all three days were conducive to seal haul out. As the last transect was completed, rain showers began and for the following days, rain occurred in the study area. Surveys were conducted between 10:00 AM and 4:30 PM each day. While slightly longer than survey periods identified in Lunn et. al. (1997), the air temperatures in Labrador are considerably higher than in the high Arctic and a longer survey day was available. On days with good weather conditions, seals bask on Lake Melville from about 9 AM to 6 PM (D. Wolfrey, pers. comm.).
Within a week of completion of the survey, the ice on Lake Melville had melted almost entirely (pers. comm., D. Wolfrey). As such timing of the survey was ideally matched to environmental conditions. However, it should be noted that ice degradation was approximately two weeks earlier than normally experienced. Consequently, the survey may have occurred slightly ahead of the peak ringed seal haul out rates usually encountered during the late spring moulting period (around late May for Labrador, (B. Sjare, pers. comm.)). Had the survey been conduced any later in 2006, a lack of ice would likely present very unreliable results.
4.2 Coverage
A total of 15.8 hours of helicopter time, including ferry time for re-fueling, was used to complete the survey.
The reconnaissance flight of the Churchill River from the mouth to Muskrat Falls was flown at 150m and 185Km/h. The helicopter traveled west on the north side of the river (except for a brief detour to the south side to avoid flying too close to a fur farm) and east on the south side of the river. No seals were observed in the river. It should be noted that a large portion of the river from Goose Bay to Muskrat Island was virtually ice free at the time the flight was conducted.
The strip transect survey of Lake Melville (area = 3000 Km2) covered predominantly rotting landfast ice with some long, narrow cracks in the center of the lake and small areas of open water near the shoreline. In the vicinity of Northwest River and Sandy Point there were some areas of open water, interspersed with small floes. The lake was also ice free in the vicinity of Big Island (Henrietta Island) in the west and this area was excluded from the survey. Consequently, 59 of the proposed 68 transects were flown. Of the total surface area of Lake Melville, approximately 2790 Km2 (93%) was ice covered at the time the survey was conducted.
The survey transects covered an area of 689 Km2 (22.97 % of the total lake area); of this, 667.4 Km2 was ice covered (22.25% of the total lake area). The lake was consistently covered with 22.97% of its surface area included in the survey coverage (see Figure 4.2.1). Of the surveyed area, there was little variation in ice condition, with the dominant ice type characterized as 8/8 cover, rotten ice.
Table 4.2.1 Summary of seal observations. Harp Seals On
Transect
Harp Seals Off Transect
Ringed Seals on Transect
Ringed Seals Off Transect
Left Observer 7 0 517 271
Right Observer 9 0 606 338
Totals 16a 0 1123b 609c
a – no further analysis of harp seal observations was conducted due to the small sample size. b – 5 of the 1123 ringed seal observed on transect were dead; these were excluded from further analysis on ringed seal density (therefore, n = 1118 for ringed seals).
c – Ringed seals observed off transect were not included in data analysis as they could not be ascribed within a known surface area.
Figure 4.2.1 indicates the survey transects flown during the survey between May 2 and May 4, 2006 with observations of ringed seals shown as dot densities. Figures 4.2.2, 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 depict the same information at a larger scale with labels included to identify the number of seals observed at each point.
4.3 Seal Density
Calculations of seal density were made after Lunn et. al. (1997). Analysis of all results was completed, but the western most transects showed very low seal density. As this area is heavily traveled by residents of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Northwest River, Sheshatshit and Mud Lake via snowmobile, it is possible that the disturbance and hunting pressure (seals are actively hunted from snowmobile during spring) might affect density and distribution in the area. Other parts of Lake Melville are used for similar purposes, but by much lower concentrations of people.
To further investigate this possibility, the data set was split as follows:
Heavy use area: Transects 1 to 17, inclusive, Rest of Lake Melville (Transect 18-58 & 68)
The analysis of each area was conducted separately to produce the density estimate and error variance for each. The following variables were calculated for each analysis and applied to the equations supplied in Lunn et. al. (1997):
Yi = weighted total number of seals
Xi = weighted total area of each transect (square kilometers)
Zi = weighted ice surface area (square kilometers)
R = estimated mean density (seals/square kilometer ice) S2(R) = error variance
“Weight” was determined to be W/w; W = distance between transect lines, w = width of the transect (Lunn et al. 1997, Harwood et al. 1996).
The results of the analyses are provided below.
4.3.1 All Transects (1-58 & 68)
There was no statistically significant difference in total number or density of seals observed by left or right observers (Mann-Whitney Test, p-value 0.55, p-value 0.52, respectively). Consequently, observations made by left and right observers were pooled to provide a total number and density of seals observed on each transect. Data were analyzed using non-parametric tests as data were not normally distributed and could not be transformed (values of zero cannot be transformed).
Table 4.3.1.1 Data analysis results for all transects.
Weighted Number of seals Yi = 4428
Weighted Area of transects (Km2)
Xi = 2756
Weighted Ice surface area (Km2)
Zi = 2669.56
Estimated mean density of seals (R=Yi/Zi)
1.66 seals/Km2 of ice
SE Mean
0.221
Error Variance (10-4)
2.08
The estimated mean density of seals, calculated at 1.66 seals/Km2 of ice, for Lake Melville is higher than that reported for western Hudson Bay by Lunn et. al. (1997) (density = 0.381 for 1994 and density = 1.690 for 1995) and for the Canadian high Arctic by Kingsley, et. al. (1985) (density = 0.341 to 0.356 for 1980 and density = 0.374 to 0.434 for 1981). Error variances reported in Lunn et. al. (1997) were calculated at 1.513 x 10-3 in 1994 and 10.409 x 10-3 in 1995.
4.3.2 Transects 1-17
There was no statistically significant difference in total number or density of seals observed by left or right observers (Mann-Whitney Test, p-value 1.0; T-Test, p-value 0.66 for both). Consequently, observations made by left and right observers were pooled to provide a total number and density of seals observed on each transect. Data were analyzed using non-parametric tests as data were not normally distributed and could not be transformed (values of zero cannot be transformed).
Transects 1 to 17 covered a total area of 197.50 km2; 177.03 km2 was ice covered.
Table 4.3.2.1. Data analysis results for transects 1-17
Weighted Number of seals Yi = 24
Weighted Area of transects (Km2)
Xi = 790
Weighted Ice surface area (Km2)
Zi = 708.12
Estimated mean density of seals (R=Yi/Zi)
0.03 seals/Km2 of ice
SE Mean
0.201
Error Variance (10-4)
4.3.3 Transect 18-58, 68
There was no statistically significant difference in total number or density of seals observed by left or right observers (Mann-Whitney Test, p-value 0.26, 0.24 respectively). Consequently, observations made by left and right observers were pooled to provide a total number and density of seals observed on each transect. Data were analyzed using non-parametric tests as data were not normally distributed and could not be transformed (values of zero cannot be transformed).
Transects covered a total area of 490.97 km2; 490.36 km2 was ice covered. Therefore, 99.9% of the area covered by transects was ice covered and not considered to be affected by anthropogenic influences.
Table 4.3.3.1 Data analysis results for transects 18-58 and 68
Weighted Number of seals Yi = 4404
Weighted Area of transects (Km2)
Xi = 1963.9
Weighted Ice surface area (Km2)
Zi = 1961.4
Estimated mean density of seals (R=Yi/Zi)
2.25 seals/Km2 of ice
SE Mean
0.246
Error Variance (10-4)
6.58
Three survey transects were flown on May 4 to provide replicates of previously surveyed areas. On two replicates, no seals were observed and on the third only three were observed. Consequently, no analysis could be performed to compare densities across survey days.
The overall ringed seal density calculated for Lake Melville is 1.66 seals/Km2 (SE = 0.221, error variance = 2.08 x 10-4). When the area is split to segregate the heavily disturbed section in the western end of Lake Melville, density calculations rise to 2.25 seals/Km2 (SE = 0.246; error variance = 6.58 x 10-4). It is noted that factors other than human disturbance might affect seal density in the western end of Lake Melville, including water depth; fish species diversity, distribution and abundance, and a large influx of fresh, sediment laden water from the Churchill River. No data was available to evaluate the effects of these factors on seal distribution in Lake Melville.
Results obtained by Sikumiut for the seal survey of Lake Melville are of the same order of magnitude as those obtained for ringed seals in western Hudson Bay and the Canadian high Arctic. There was no data available for comparison of previous seal densities on Lake Melville and the current effort marks the first aerial strip transect survey for purposes of assessing seal density in Labrador.
Based on the estimates of seal density calculated for Lake Melville, an index of abundance can be calculated. The overall ringed seal density calculated for Lake Melville is 1.66 seals/Km2 (SE
= 0.221, error variance = 2.08 x 10-4). When the area is split to segregate the heavily disturbed section in the western end of Lake Melville, density calculations rise to 2.25 seals/Km2 (SE = 0.246; error variance = 6.58 x 10-4). At the time of the survey, the ice coverage was estimated at 2790 Km2; thus an index of abundance for ringed seals is in the order of 4631.4 to 6277.5 individuals. These figures are not population estimates as there is currently no information to correlate the number of seals observed on the ice surface with the total number of seals in Lake Melville.
5.0 References
Harwood, L., Innes, S., Norton, P., and M. Kingsley. 1996. Distribution and abundance of
beluga whales in the Mackenzie estuary, southeast Beaufort sea, and went Amundsen Gulf during late July 1992. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 2262 – 2273.
Kingsley, M., Stirling, I., and W. Calvert. 1985. The distribution and abundance of seals in the
Canadian high Arctic, 1980-82. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42: 1189 –
1210.
Lunn, N., Stirling, I. and S. Nowicki. 1997. Distribution and abundance of ringed (Phoca hispida)
and bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) in western Hudson Bay. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 914 – 921. Personal Communications:
Ian Stirling, Environment Canada, Edmonton, AB, 780-435-7349
Becky Sjare – Department of Fisheries and Oceans, St. John’s, NL 709-772-4049
Appendix A Safety Rules
Appendix B Data Sheet
Appendix C
Seals - Left
Seals - Right
Area per observer
Density Left
Density Right
Total seals
Total Seal Density
Transect Area - ice on
ly Weight - W/w Yi ai Xi oi Zi ZRhat di 1 0 0 0.45 0 0 0 0 0.9 4 0 0.9 3.6 1 3.6 5.976 -5.976 2 0 0 0.95 0 0 0 0 1.9 4 0 1.9 7.6 1 7.6 12.616 -12.616 3 0 0 1.45 0 0 0 0 2.9 4 0 2.9 11.6 1 11.6 19.256 -19.256 4 0 0 1.37 0 0 0 0 2.74 4 0 2.74 10.96 1 10.96 18.194 -18.194 5 0 0 1.89 0 0 0 0 3.78 4 0 3.78 15.12 1 15.12 25.099 -25.099 6 0 0 2.055 0 0 0 0 4.11 4 0 4.11 16.44 1 16.44 27.29 -27.29 7 0 0 2.105 0 0 0 0 4.21 4 0 4.21 16.84 1 16.84 27.954 -27.954 8 0 0 3.18 0 0 0 0 6.36 4 0 6.36 25.44 1 25.44 42.23 -42.23 9 0 0 4.695 0 0 0 0 9.39 4 0 10.3 41.2 0.91165 37.56 62.35 -62.35 10 0 0 7.895 0 0 0 0 15.79 4 0 17.3 69.2 0.91272 63.16 104.846 -104.846 11 0 0 9.375 0 0 0 0 18.75 4 0 20.5 82 0.91463 75 124.5 -124.5 12 0 0 9.84 0 0 0 0 19.68 4 0 22.2 88.8 0.88649 78.72 130.675 -130.675 13 0 0 9.19 0 0 0 0 18.38 4 0 22.6 90.4 0.81327 73.52 122.043 -122.043 14 4 2 8.785 0.45532 0.22766 6 0.34149 17.57 4 2 4 21.6 86.4 0.81343 70.28 116.665 -92.665 15 0 0 8.3 0 0 0 0 16.6 4 0 20.2 80.8 0.82178 66.4 110.224 -110.224 16 0 0 8.51 0 0 0 0 17.02 4 0 18.7 74.8 0.91016 68.08 113.013 -113.013 17 0 0 8.475 0 0 0 0 16.95 4 0 17.2 68.8 0.98547 67.8 112.548 -112.548 18 5 1 8 7.975 0.62696 2.25705 23 1.44201 15.95 4 9 2 16.4 65.6 0.97256 63.8 105.908 -13.908 19 1 2 8.865 0.1128 0.22561 3 0.1692 17.73 4 1 2 17.73 70.92 1 70.92 117.727 -105.727 20 14 4 9.385 1.49174 0.42621 18 0.95898 18.77 4 7 2 18.77 75.08 1 75.08 124.633 -52.633 21 6 3 9.19 0.65288 0.32644 9 0.48966 18.38 4 3 6 18.38 73.52 1 73.52 122.043 -86.043 22 25 22 8.85 2.82486 2.48588 47 2.65537 17.7 4 188 17.7 70.8 1 70.8 117.528 70.472 23 22 25 8.2 2.68293 3.04878 47 2.86585 16.4 4 188 16.4 65.6 1 65.6 108.896 79.104 24 79 30 8.395 9.41036 3.57356 109 6.49196 16.79 4 436 16.79 67.16 1 67.16 111.486 324.514 25 3 6 8.395 0.35736 0.71471 9 0.53603 16.79 4 3 6 16.79 67.16 1 67.16 111.486 -75.486 26 16 15 8.24 1.94175 1.82039 31 1.88107 16.48 4 124 16.48 65.92 1 65.92 109.427 14.573 27 11 4 8.13 1.35301 0.492 15 0.92251 16.26 4 6 0 16.26 65.04 1 65.04 107.966 -47.966 28 3 7 7.715 0.38885 0.90732 10 0.64809 15.43 4 4 0 15.43 61.72 1 61.72 102.455 -62.455 29 7 8 7.615 0.91924 1.05056 15 0.9849 15.23 4 6 0 15.23 60.92 1 60.92 101.127 -41.127 30 3 1 8 7.42 0.40431 2.42588 21 1.41509 14.84 4 8 4 14.84 59.36 1 59.36 98.538 -14.538 31 4 7 6.995 0.57184 1.00071 11 0.78628 13.99 4 4 4 13.99 55.96 1 55.96 92.894 -48.894 32 16 29 6.535 2.44836 4.43764 45 3.443 13.07 4 180 13.07 52.28 1 52.28 86.785 93.215 33 4 4 6.51 0.61444 0.61444 8 0.61444 13.02 4 3 2 13.02 52.08 1 52.08 86.453 -54.453 34 8 1 3 6.47 1.23648 2.00927 21 1.62287 12.94 4 8 4 12.94 51.76 1 51.76 85.922 -1.922 35 7 3 6.375 1.09804 0.47059 10 0.78431 12.75 4 4 0 12.75 51 1 5 1 84.66 -44.66 36 5 9 5.965 0.83822 1.5088 14 1.17351 11.93 4 5 6 11.93 47.72 1 47.72 79.215 -23.215 37 17 18 6.695 2.53921 2.68857 35 2.61389 13.39 4 140 13.39 53.56 1 53.56 88.91 51.09 38 15 14 6.675 2.24719 2.09738 29 2.17228 13.35 4 116 13.35 53.4 1 53.4 88.644 27.356 39 10 20 7.065 1.41543 2.83086 30 2.12314 14.13 4 120 14.13 56.52 1 56.52 93.823 26.177 40 22 40 7.48 2.94118 5.34759 62 4.14439 14.96 4 248 14.96 59.84 1 59.84 99.334 148.666 41 28 23 7.48 3.74332 3.07487 51 3.40909 14.96 4 204 14.96 59.84 1 59.84 99.334 104.666 42 37 34 7.435 4.97646 4.57297 71 4.77471 14.87 4 284 14.87 59.48 1 59.48 98.737 185.263 43 26 30 7.41 3.50877 4.04858 56 3.77868 14.82 4 224 14.82 59.28 1 59.28 98.405 125.595 44 10 24 6.125 1.63265 3.91837 34 2.77551 12.25 4 136 12.25 49 1 4 9 81.34 54.66 45 14 37 5.43 2.57827 6.814 51 4.69613 10.86 4 204 10.86 43.44 1 43.44 72.11 131.89 46 15 22 4.79 3.13152 4.5929 37 3.86221 9.58 4 148 9.58 38.32 1 38.32 63.611 84.389 47 22 28 4.97 4.42656 5.6338 50 5.03018 9.94 4 200 9.94 39.76 1 39.76 66.002 133.998 48 12 14 4.1 2.92683 3.41463 26 3.17073 8.2 4 104 8.2 32.8 1 32.8 54.448 49.552 49 16 22 4.26 3.75587 5.16432 38 4.46009 8.52 4 152 8.52 34.08 1 34.08 56.573 95.427 50 0 0 2.055 0 0 0 0 4.11 4 0 4.11 16.44 1 16.44 27.29 -27.29 51 4 1 3 2.31 1.7316 5.62771 17 3.67965 4.62 4 6 8 4.62 18.48 1 18.48 30.677 37.323 52 3 1 2.235 1.34228 0.44743 4 0.89485 4.47 4 1 6 4.47 17.88 1 17.88 29.681 -13.681 53 3 5 2.055 1.45985 2.43309 8 1.94647 4.11 4 3 2 4.11 16.44 1 16.44 27.29 4.71 54 1 0 2.065 0.48426 0 1 0.24213 4.13 4 4 4.13 16.52 1 16.52 27.423 -23.423 55 3 2 1.885 1.59151 1.06101 5 1.32626 3.77 4 2 0 3.77 15.08 1 15.08 25.033 -5.033 56 3 1 1.615 1.85759 0.6192 4 1.23839 3.23 4 1 6 3.23 12.92 1 12.92 21.447 -5.447 57 1 1 3 1.57 0.63694 8.28025 14 4.4586 3.14 4 5 6 3.14 12.56 1 12.56 20.85 35.15 58 4 4 1.495 2.67559 2.67559 8 2.67559 2.99 4 3 2 3.6 14.4 0.83056 11.96 19.854 12.146 68 2 2 0.755 2.64901 2.64901 4 2.64901 1.51 4 1 6 1.51 6.04 1 6.04 10.026 5.974
Appendix D Chronology
May 2, 2006
07:00 to 09:30 - Sikumiut’s Project Manager, Leroy Metcalfe, and Field Assistant, Tim Pottle,
departed St. John’s and traveled to Happy Valley - Goose Bay where the remainder of the Field Team was stationed.
10:00 to 11:30 – Leroy Metcalfe met with Tim Pottle and David Wolfrey to discuss the survey
methods and Sikumiut’s Health and Safety Policy. In addition, all present were asked to read and acknowledge acceptance of Sikumiut’s Safety Rules for the work (attached, Appendix A).
13:00 to 13:45 – The Field Team assembled at the hangar of Universal Helicopters of
Newfoundland and Labrador (UHNL). Lorne Pike provided a thorough briefing on helicopter safety. The general approach to the survey was discussed in terms of helicopter logistics and the pilot was briefed on methodology for the survey and his role as front observer. The crew proceeded to establish the survey transect width using ground markers present on the Goose Bay airfield.
14:00 to 16:00 – A reconnaissance flight of the Churchill River from the mouth to Muskrat Falls
was conducted to determine presence of Harbour seals (Phoca vitulina), known locally as rangers. Following this, the strip transect survey of Lake Melville was initiated. The area of Terrington Basin east to Sandy Point (transect 12) was surveyed.
16:30 – The Field Team returned to the UHNL hangar. May 3, 2006
09:00 to 09:15 - The Field Team assembled at the UHNL hangar and conducted a safety
briefing. No safety concerns or issues were identified.
09:45 to 16:30 – Strip transect surveys were conducted from transect 13 west to Hare’s Ears
(transect 35).
17:30 – The Field Team returned to the Universal Helicopters hangar. May 4, 2006
09:00 to 09:15 – The Field Team assembled at the UHNL hangar and conducted a safety
meeting. No safety concerns or issues were identified.
9:55 to 14:30 – Strip transect surveys were conducted from transects 37 to 58, and transect 68
(transects 59 to 67 were ice free).
15:30 to 16:30 – Completed replicate surveys of transects 18, 13 and 8. 16:45 – The Field Team returned to the UHNL hangar.
