This dataset contains GIS layers that depict the known spatial distributions (i.e., ranges) and reported breeding areas of spotted seals (Phoca largha). It was produced as part of a U.S. Endangered Species Act status review, which included delineating the species in question and assessing its risk of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Its boundaries are based on previously published range maps and/or descriptions of the species' distribution in published or unpublished accounts. All boundaries should be considered approximate.

This dataset contains GIS layers that depict the known spatial distributions (i.e., ranges) of the two subspecies of bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus). It was produced as part of a U.S. Endangered Species Act status review, which included delineating the species in question and assessing its risk of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Its boundaries are based on previously published range maps and/or descriptions of the species' distribution in published or unpublished accounts. All boundaries should be considered approximate. The approximate North American boundary between the two sub-species was changed to 130W (from 112W), based a re-analysis of the genetic data.

This dataset contains GIS layers that depict the known spatial distributions (i.e., ranges) and reported breeding areas of ribbon seals (Histriophoca fasciata). It was produced as part of a U.S. Endangered Species Act status review, which included delineating the species in question and assessing its risk of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Its boundaries are based on previously published range maps and/or descriptions of the species' distribution in published or unpublished accounts. All boundaries should be considered approximate

This data layer represents the 12 uniquely identified stocks of harbor seals found in Alaskan waters. Stocks were identified by NMFS and their co-management partners, the Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission, in 2010 based largely on genetic structure. Given the genetic samples were not obtained continuously throughout the range, a total evidence approach was used to consider additional factors such as population trends, observed harbor seal movements, and traditional Alaska Native use areas in the final designation of stock boundaries. The 12 stocks of harbor seals currently identified in Alaska are 1) the Aleutian Islands, 2) the Pribilof Islands, 3) Bristol Bay, 4) North Kodiak Island, 5) South Kodiak Island, 6) Prince William Sound, 7) Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait, 8) Glacier Bay/Icy Strait, 9) Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage, 10) Sitka/Chatham Strait, 11) Dixon/Cape Decision and 12) Clarence Strait.

Database of seal counts from aerial photography. Counts by image, site, species, and date are stored in the database along with information on entanglements and other human interactions.

This dataset contains information regarding the capture and tagging of northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands and Bogoslof Island, Alaska, from 1992 to 2017.

Floating glacial ice serves as a haul-out substrate for a significant number (10-15%) of Alaskan harbor seals, and thus surveying tidewater glacial fjords is an important component of statewide efforts to estimate seal abundance. Surveys conducted during pupping suggest that glacial haul outs have higher than average productivity and thus may serve as important source populations statewide. The availability of ice for hauling out varies with seasonal glacial dynamics, but over decades of climate change most tidewater glaciers are now retreating toward eventual grounding with many already ceasing to calve ice into the water. Compounding glacial retreat and thinning is the trend at most of these sites toward increasing tourism and a low compliance of tour vessels to seal approach guidelines and regulations. It is thus important to track glacial populations over the long-term especially as various impacts may degrade seal habitat leading to fewer glacial seals and potential impacts to the population state-wide. There are currently 28 glacial sites that have at least one actively calving tidewater glacier and in turn seals that haul out on the ice during the seals’ molting period, when most surveys have occurred. Due to concerns about vessel disturbance, Disenchantment and Icy Bays have been surveyed during molting almost annually between 2001-2011 (ex 2003); surveys occurred during pupping and molting in 2004 and 2005, and have occurred just during molting apx. every other year since 2011. Johns Hopkins Inlet in Glacier Bay has been surveyed annually using these methods since 2007, with surveys occurring during both pupping and molting. The remaining 25 sites have been surveyed on an opportunistic schedule (based on weather and aircraft availability), which for most sites equates to about every 2-3 years. Some of the smallest sites have been surveyed on a 4-5 year schedule. These schedules will likely continue with more abundant sites in Prince William Sound (e.g., College Fjord and Columbia) and Southeast Alaska (Tracy Arm, Endicott Arm, LeConte Bay, and Glacier Bay) having higher priority and contingent on management concerns.

This dataset supports efforts to estimate the abundance and trends in population size of Alaska harbor seals. Annual surveys of harbor seal populations are fundamental to estimation of seal abundance, distribution, and trends, which in turn are essential for stock assessment, conservation, and management. The most feasible approach to determining harbor seal distribution and abundance is to use aircraft to count seals when they haul out of the water and are visible. Harbor seals in Alaska occupy a geographically extensive range from approximately long. 172ºE to 130ºW (over 3,500 km east to west) and from lat. 51ºN to 61.5ºN (over 1,000 km north to south). Estimation of the abundance of harbor seals statewide requires broad-scale aerial surveys and these surveys have been conducted by NOAA Fisheries, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and other collaborators since the early 1980s. This dataset reflects counts of harbor seals from surveys conducted between 2003 and 2011. This dataset differs from earlier datasets in a few key areas: 1) records generally correspond to a count of the number of harbor seals within a single, geo-referenced digital photo, 2) photographs were not taken when no seals were present so additional analysis of survey effort and flight tracks was required to determine 0 counts.

Aerial surveys were conducted during 1983–2006 in the Ketchikan, Sitka, Kodiak, and Bristol Bay areas of Alaska to estimate trends in abundance of harbor seals.

This dataset supports efforts to estimate the abundance and trends in population size of Alaska harbor seals. Annual surveys of harbor seal populations are fundamental to estimation of seal abundance, distribution, and trends, which in turn are essential for stock assessment, conservation, and management. The most feasible approach to determining harbor seal distribution and abundance is to use aircraft to count seals when they haul out of the water and are visible. Harbor seals in Alaska occupy a geographically extensive range from approximately long. 172ºE to 130ºW (over 3,500 km east to west) and from lat. 51ºN to 61.5ºN (over 1,000 km north to south). Estimation of the abundance of harbor seals statewide requires broad-scale aerial surveys and these surveys have been conducted by NOAA Fisheries, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and other collaborators since the early 1980s. This dataset reflects counts of harbor seals from surveys conducted in Alaska between 1998 and 2002. During this period, the range of Alaska harbor seals was divided into five survey regions and only one region was surveyed each year. This approach allowed observers to survey the entire coastline of each region, sometimes twice per year, to identify new harbor seal haul-out sites, and for individual haul-out sites to be surveyed multiple times in a given year, weather permitting. This intensive effort produced a lot of data for each region in a given year, but surveying the entire range to produce state-wide abundance and trend estimates required a period of 5 years.