Pembrokeshire marine SAC grey seal

monitoring 2005.

Strong P.G., Lerwill, J., Morris, S.R. & Stringell, T.B.

Marine Monitoring Report No: 26 Redacted version

This is a report of research commissioned by the Countryside Council for Wales. The Council has a programme of research in scientific and other areas, which supports the development of policies and practical work and helps point the way to new countryside legislation. However, the views and recommendations presented in this report are not necessarily those of the Council and should, therefore, not be attributed to the Countryside Council for Wales.

©CCGC/CCW 2006

Report series: CCW Marine Monitoring Reports

Report number: 26

Publication date: December 2006

Contract number: FC 73-02-319

Contractor: Coastal Zone & Marine Environment Research Unit, Pembrokeshire College

Nominated officer(s): T. Stringell, B. Bullimore

Title: Pembrokeshire marine SAC grey seal monitoring 2005.

Author(s): Strong P.G., Lerwill, J., Morris, S.R. & Stringell, T.B.

Series editor(s): Bill Sanderson & Mandy McMath

Restrictions: Redacted version: No restrictions.

Distribution list (core):

CCW HQ Library, Bangor x1 CCW N Region Library, Mold x1 CCW N Region Library, Bangor x1 CCW SE Region Lib., Cardiff x1 CCW W Region Library, Llandeilo x1 CCW W Region Library, Pemb x1 CCW Skomer MNR x1 National Library of Wales x1

WAG Library x1 British Library x1 NHM Library x1 JNCC Peterborough, Library x1 SNH Edinburgh, Library x1 EN Peterborough Library x1 EHS Library x1

Distribution list (others):

Pembrokeshire College Library, x1 RSPB, Ramsey Island x1 Pembrokeshire Coastal Forum x1 P Strong, Pembrokeshire College x5 S Morris, Pembrokeshire College x1 J Lerwill, c/o Pembrokeshire College x1 T Stringell, CCW x1 B Sanderson, CCW x10 B Bullimore, CCW x1 M McMath, CCW x5 M Camplin, CCW x1

P Hammond, SMRU x1 C Duck, SMRU x1 B McConnell, SMRU x1 E Rogan, University College Cork x1 S Westcott x1 M Baines x1 R Penrose, MEM x1 J Goold, University Wales Bangor x1

Recommended citation for this volume:

Strong P.G., Lerwill J., Morris S.R. & Stringell, T.B. (2006). Pembrokeshire marine SAC grey seal monitoring 2005. CCW Marine Monitoring Report No: 26; redacted version. 51pp.

i

Pembrokeshire Marine SAC Grey Seal Monitoring 2005. Final Report, 2006. CCW Contract Number: FC 73-02-319 Strong P.G.1, Lerwill J. 2, Morris S.R. 1 & Stringell T.B.3 1Coastal Zone and Marine Environment Research Unit, Pembrokeshire College, Merlins Bridge, Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire, SA61 1SZ 2Esyrn Farm, Llanychaer, Fishguard, Pembrokeshire, SA65 9SA 3Countrside Council for Wales, Marine & Freshwater Science Group, Hafod Elfyn, Plas Penrhos Campus, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DN

Coastal Zone & Marine Environment Research Unit

i

Executive Summary The aims of this project were to 1) monitor pup production, 2) assess supporting habitat, 3) estimate population structure, and 4) collect pelage photographs to complement the existing catalogue. Pup production on Ramsey Island and the North Pembrokeshire mainland was estimated using methods comparable with those used in 1995, 96 & 97. The study area extended beyond the northern limit of the SAC. The survey period was from mid August to mid November. Field workers were experienced at using the age classification system. Methods involved counting pups from cliff top on a sample of sites, nine on Ramsey and eight on the mainland. Pup production was estimated from data recorded using Smith’s five stage age classification system (Smith, 1966). Estimates of pup production were generated using a probability method and a statistical modelling method based on maximum likelihood. Estimates are reported and compared with data obtained for the same sampling locations for 1992-2000. The data for 1992-94 was extracted from the report of Baines et al. (1995), which was estimated using different methodology. The data for 1995-2000 was collected and estimated using the same methods with some variation in observer. Pup production in 2005 was higher than that observed over the years 1992-2000 and this difference could not be reasonably explained on uncertainty or methodological grounds and therefore appears to be real. Examination of the temporal distributions of occurrence of white-coated pups shows both a higher and an earlier peak in 2005 than in 1995-1997. Examination of spatial variation leads us to conclude that pup production over the area in general remained within constant proportions, but that events in particular years lead to significant departure from this generality. Consideration is given to the validity and reliability of the data and its relationship to the overall status of the population. It is concluded that statistically modelled pupping estimates give a robust estimate, but the accuracy of this estimate is dependent on the reliability of input parameters, especially time to moult and consistent field methods. The importance of ground truthing modelled data against more comprehensive sweeps is highlighted. A series of recommendations for ongoing monitoring is developed out of this analysis. Pelage photographs were taken on an opportunistic basis. Few opportunities occurred, mainly due to time constraints. Images obtained are of comparable quality to those taken from sea level. Disturbance of seals was more likely to occur when photographing seals than during pup production monitoring. Data was collated to allow future monitoring of the supporting habitat and population structure. The nature of the supporting habitat was considered to be comparable with that monitored during 1995 – 1997, with the exception of a considerably increased incidence of commercial tour boats around Ramsey Island.

ii

Crynodeb Gweithredol Nodau’r project hwn oedd 1) monitro cenhedliad morloi bychain 2) asesu’r cynefin cynhaliol 3) amcangyfrif ffurf y boblogaeth 4) casglu ffotograffau o gotiau’r morloi bychain i gwblhau’r catalog a geir eisoes. Amcangyfrifwyd cenhedliad morloi bychain ar Ynys Dewi ac ar dir Gogledd Sir Benfro gan ddefnyddio dulliau tebyg i’r rhai a ddefnyddiwyd ym 1995, 96 a 97. Estynnodd y maes astudiaeth tu hwnt i ffin ogleddol yr Ardal Cadwraeth Arbennig. Roedd cyfnod yr arolwg o ganol mis Awst i ganol mis Tachwedd. Roedd gweithwyr maes yn brofiadol mewn defnyddio’r system dosbarthiad oedran. Roedd y dulliau a ddefnyddiwyd yn cynnwys cyfrif morloi bychain o glogwyni ar sampl o safleoedd, naw ar Ynys Dewi ac wyth ar y tir mawr. Amcangyfrifwyd cenhedliad morloi bychain o ddata a gofnodwyd yn defnyddio system Smith, sef dosbarthiad oedran pum cyfnod (Smith, 1966). Cafodd amcangyfrifon o genhedliad morloi bychain eu creu gan ddefnyddio dull tebygolrwydd a dull modelu ystadegol yn seiliedig ar uchafswm tebygolrwydd. Caiff amcangyfrifon eu cofnodi a’u cymharu gyda data a geir ar gyfer yr un lleoliadau samplu yn 1992-2000. Cafwyd y data ar gyfer 1992-94 o adroddiad Baines et al. (1995), a gafodd ei amcangyfrif trwy ddefnyddio methodoleg wahanol. Cafodd y data ar gyfer 1995-2000 ei gasglu a’i amcangyfrif trwy ddefnyddio’r un dulliau, gyda pheth amrywiad yn yr arsylwi. Roedd cenhedliad morloi bychain yn 2005 yn uwch na’r hyn a welwyd yn ystod y blynyddoedd 1992-2000, ac ni ellir egluro’r gwahaniaeth hwn ar sail ansicrwydd neu ddulliau methodolegol. Wrth edrych yn fanwl ar ddosbarthiadau tymhorol morloi bychain â chotiau gwyn, gwelir bod mwy ohonynt i’w cael yn ystod 2005 na rhwng 1995-1997, a bod eu niferoedd yn cyrraedd eu penllanw ynghynt. Mae archwiliad o amrywiad gofodol yn ein harwain i gasglu bod cenhedliad morloi bychain yn yr ardal yn gyffredinol wedi parhau o fewn cyfartaleddau cyson, ond bod digwyddiadau mewn blynyddoedd arbennig yn gallu newid y duedd gyffredinol hon yn arw. Rhoir ystyriaeth i ddilysrwydd a dibynadwyedd y data a’i berthynas â statws cyffredinol y boblogaeth. Deuir i’r canlyniad bod amcangyfrifon morloi bychain sydd wedi’u modelu ar ystadegau yn rhoi amcangyfrif cadarn, ond mae cywirdeb yr amcangyfrif hwn yn dibynnu ar ddibynadwyedd paramedrau mewnbwn, yn enwedig amser i golli blew a dulliau maes cyson. Caiff pwysigrwydd data wedi’i fodelu ar dystiolaeth wirioneddol ar y tir yn erbyn ysgubiadau mwy cynhwysfawr ei amlygu. Mae cyfres o argymhellion yn ymwneud â monitro parhaus yn cael eu datblygu o ganlyniad i’r dadansoddiad hwn. Tynnwyd ffotograffau o groen y morloi bychain fel y deuai cyfle. Eithaf prin fu cyfleoedd o’r fath, yn bennaf oherwydd cyfyngiadau amser. Mae’r lluniau a gafwyd o ansawdd tebyg i’r rhai a dynnwyd o lefel y môr. Roedd tarfu ar y morloi yn fwy tebygol o ddigwydd wrth dynnu ffotograffau yn hytrach nag wrth fonitro cenhedliad y morloi bychain.

iii

Casglwyd data er mwyn gallu monitro’r cynefin cynhaliol a ffurf y boblogaeth yn y dyfodol. Ystyriwyd bod natur y cynefin cynhaliol yn debyg i’r rhai a gafodd eu monitro yn ystod 1995-1997, ac eithrio’r ffaith fod llawer mwy o gychod teithio masnachol i’w gweld o amgylch Ynys Dewi.

iv

CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................i Crynodeb Gweithredol ............................................................................................................ii 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1 2. AIMS (taken from CCW contract specification) ......................................................2 3. OBJECTIVES ..............................................................................................................3 4. METHODS .......................................................................................................................5 4.1 FIELD METHODS......................................................................................................5 4.1.1 Pup production monitoring sites ............................................................................5 4.1.2 Seal population structure ........................................................................................8 4.1.3 Supporting Habitat ..................................................................................................9 4.1.4 Pelage photography ...............................................................................................10 4.1.5 Pup Spatial Distribution (Coastal Sweeps)..........................................................10 4.2 DATA HANDLING, ANALYSIS AND ARCHIVING ..........................................10 4.2.1 Data transcription and storage .............................................................................10 4.2.2 Estimating pup production using data modelling...............................................11 4.2.3 Intuitive and Probability methods........................................................................12 5. RESULTS .......................................................................................................................14 5.1 Number of samples and intervals .............................................................................14 5.2 Pup Production estimates..........................................................................................14 5.3 Spatial distribution ....................................................................................................16 5.4 Correlating Skomer MNR to Ramsey & North Pembrokeshire ...........................19 5.5 Population structure ..................................................................................................20 5.6 Supporting Habitat ....................................................................................................20 5.7 Pelage photography ...................................................................................................21 6 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................24 6.1 Pup production...........................................................................................................24 6.2 Spatial distribution ....................................................................................................25 6.3 Field of view correction factors ................................................................................26 6.4 Population structure ..................................................................................................26 6.5 Quality of supporting habitat and disturbance.......................................................26 6.6 Temporal distribution discussion .............................................................................27 6.7 Pelage photography ...................................................................................................28 6.8 Status of grey seals in Pembrokeshire and the SAC...............................................28 6.8.1 Pup production.......................................................................................................28 6.8.2 Pup spatial distribution .........................................................................................30 6.8.3 Supporting habitat .................................................................................................30 6.8.4 Temporal distribution ...........................................................................................30 6.8.5 Population structure ..............................................................................................30 7. RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................31 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................32 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................33 Appendix 1 - Vantage points for North Pembrokeshire monitoring sites ........................34 Appendix 2 - Proportion of historic North Pembrokeshire pup production covered by

2005 monitoring sites. ................................................................................................35 Appendix 3 - Ramsey field of view correction factors ........................................................36 Appendix 4 - Disturbance Data ............................................................................................37 Appendix 5 - Pelage photography file list ............................................................................38 Appendix 6 - Pup count data 2005........................................................................................42 Appendix 7: Data Archive.....................................................................................................51

1

1. INTRODUCTION Grey seals, Halichoerus grypus, are a protected species of nature conservation importance and a feature of both the Pembrokeshire Marine Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Skomer Marine Nature Reserve (MNR). The West Wales population is considered the largest in southern Britain (Baines et al., 1995). There is considerable local and national interest in the status of seal populations. There is perceived competition with fishing interests as well as perceived disturbance by an expanding boat based eco-tourism industry around the Pembrokeshire coast. It is important for nature conservation management and measurement of the achievement of Favourable Conservation Status that reliable estimates of the number of seals, their trends and the effects of human activity on the population in the SAC are made. The UK’s Common Standards Monitoring (CSM) programme led by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) requires monitoring of mandatory attributes in SACs across Britain. For grey seals the mandatory attributes are ‘pup production’, ‘pup distribution’ and ‘accessibility to sites’ within the SAC. Population dynamics, natural range and supporting habitat are valuable indicators identified as attributes for monitoring seals in Welsh SAC’s. The conservation objectives for the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC relate to: 1) Population size 2) Reproductive success – pup production and survival, 3) Population structure – age distribution and sex ratio 4) Physiological health – reproductive capability, immunity / exposure to disease 5) Range and distribution – seal distribution throughout site (pupping, moulting,

resting haul-out ) 6) Extent and accessibility of habitat – feeding, pupping, moulting and resting haul-out

habitat 7) Structure, function and quality of supporting habitat, and 8) Prey availability and quality Pup production and survival provide measures of the size and health of seal colonies. Data on the supporting habitat, the use of pupping sites and disturbance provides additional management information. In due course, the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) wishes to consider attributes such as population structure, physiological health, seal movements, abundance estimates and distribution of adults. The 1992-94 West Wales seal Census (Baines et al., 1995) established a ‘population’ baseline for the area between Caldey Island in the southeast and Aberystwyth in mid Cardigan Bay. The pupping data for Skomer Island is the longest running dataset for the area (beginning 1974, then annually since 1983). The data set for the Skomer MNR as a whole (Skomer Island and MNR mainland) runs from 1991 to the present.

2

Within the West Wales breeding population, the Skomer Island and MNR data alone cannot be extrapolated directly to the whole west Wales ‘population’ (or that proportion breeding in the SAC) (Bull, 2004). The reason for this is that Skomer constitutes a relatively small proportion of the breeding population and could also be considered to be close to the geographic edge of the west wales breeding population distribution. The majority of pup production occurs on Ramsey Island and the North Pembrokeshire mainland coast, between St Davids Head and the Teify Estuary. Much of this coast lies outside the Northern limit of the Pembrokeshire SAC. The coastal topography of Ramsey and North Pembrokeshire and the distribution of pupping sites are such that the comprehensive recording of pupping and survival, such as that undertaken on Skomer Island, is not possible without major logistical and financial effort. Consequently, this project is directed at recording pup production and survival at selected key sites (Baines et al., 1995; Strong, 1995) on Ramsey Island (the geographical centre of pup production) and the north of Pembrokeshire mainland. Data were collected from these sites during the three seasons 1995-1997 (Strong 1995, 1996, 1998). Methods developed were low cost. Their aim was to provide an index of pup production for Ramsey and mainland North Pembrokeshire. Key sites selection was based on field of view from cliff top and pup production, as recorded by Baines et al. (1995). The cliff top monitoring sites represent 48% of the Ramsey island production and 22% of the mainland North Pembrokeshire (see appendix 2) production (between St Davids Head and the Teify estuary) as recorded by Baines et al. (1995). Pups were not dye marked, a key methodological difference between those used both on Skomer and by Baines et al. (1995). This project also addressed habitat availability including disturbance in relation to pupping sites and a preliminary assessment of seal population structure (sex and age). Images of individual seals were collected as part of this project through pelage photography techniques in order to assess seal movements, distribution and abundance in future work. The data collected will contribute to an estimate of whole site (SAC) production using indices developed following the 1992-94 seal census. The Skomer data is complementary and an essential reference because it provides a continuous record and provides detailed West Wales population specific data. This project will continue the work previously carried out in Pembrokeshire by Strong (1995, 1996, 1998) in an effort to be comparable to the previous work and concurrently address monitoring objectives.

2. AIMS (taken from CCW contract specification) To record, document and report indicators of the condition of grey seals within Pembrokeshire Marine SAC using selected sites on Ramsey Island and the mainland north Pembrokeshire coast. Whilst monitoring grey seals, evidence of any human activities and impacts, assessment of supporting habitat and estimation of population structure (age and sex) is also intended. Images collected at sites within and outside the key study area, using pelage photography techniques, will be used to evaluate seal movements, abundance estimates and distribution of adults in future work.

3

3. OBJECTIVES 3.1 Record, document and report numbers of grey seal pups by age class, using

the Smith (1966) five stage classification and dead pups, at 3-4, maximum 5, day intervals at the key sites using standard cliff top vantage points as monitored by Strong (1998). This will allow comparison with data collected in 1995, 96 and 97.

3.2 Record, document and report presence of live and dead seal pups (including

numbers and estimated age classes) and cows exhibiting maternal behaviour at all beach pupping sites visible from cliff-tops and shores (documented in Baines et al., 1995), on Ramsey Island and the North Pembrokeshire mainland on two occasions during the period of peak pup production. This provides data on the clusters of pup production documented in Strong (1995).

3.3 To document and report on the presence of pups and their measure of abundance

against documented sites from Baines et al. (1995) where possible. This is to allow comparison with and analysis of extant data and literature to highlight any significant distributional shift in pupping sites from those found during the last seal census (Baines et al., 1995).

3.4 Whilst conducting 3.1 and 3.2 where possible, to count numbers of juveniles, female and male grey seal adults at each site in the study area, in order to report on crude population structure parameters (age and sex ratios) and site use. Where the site consists of different habitats to record usage of the respective habitats and the location of each habitat within the site. Also to record relevant standard environmental and physical parameters at the time of monitoring. The purpose of this work is to investigate the nature of supporting habitat.

3.5 Whilst conducting 3.1 and 3.2, and 3.6, quantitatively record and document all

observed incidents of: • Human activity and impacts at each site, e.g., number of people on the beach or

overlooking the beach at time of survey, number of dogs, number of boats operating off the beach or launching, and amount of large anthropogenic debris items.

• Evidence of any recent change in human use of sites. This allows evaluation in light of any

historical recorded changes in use or otherwise • Seal disturbance by anthropogenic or other factors, its cause and outcome • Seal absence from historically used sites that can be attributed to an activity (human or

otherwise) whether the activity is present or not at the time of observation • Entanglement of seal adults and pups in anthropogenic debris. • Staining or marking of seals with oil, tar or other oily residues • Significant fresh injuries commensurate with propeller or boat collision

4

The combination of information from habitat type in objective 3.4 and some of the above list will allow an assessment of the ‘quality’ of each to be made in order to describe habitat accessibility in the SAC. 3.6 Whilst conducting the above objectives, in order to supplement the current pelage

catalogue, take photographs of the pelage of as many adult female seals as possible where the opportunity arises, using established methodologies (Baines et al., 1995; Kiely et al., 2000)

3.8. To interpret past and current data, including data from Skomer MNR, in order to

provide a reasoned opinion on the status of grey seals in the SAC. 3.9 Critically review the sampling methodology and report on best scientific and

fieldwork practice for the future seal work in Wales, including a thorough and detailed account of methods and discussion of statistically robust sampling strategies.

5

4. METHODS

4.1 FIELD METHODS

4.1.1 Pup production monitoring sites The following monitoring sites were sampled during 2005. These sites were all sampled during 1995, 96 & 97 (Strong 1998) and during 1992, 93 & 94 (Baines et al., 1995). See Figure 1 for site locations. The site code and cluster nomenclature was taken from Baines et al. (1995) and structured as follows. The coast was divided into sections, each given a letter code, e.g. G for Ramsey, with pupping sites numbered numerically within each section. The numerical code was followed by either a B, indicating a beach, or C indicating a cave type habitat. Within coastal sections, bio-geographic clusters of sites were named. Our monitoring sites fall within Ramsey Island, Morlanod, Trewen and Aberfelin clusters. Mainland North Pembrokeshire – eight sites [site grid references and names redacted] Aberfelin cluster sites E070B, E080B, E090B. Morlanod cluster sites F200B, F190B, F180B. Trewen cluster sites F120B, F140B. Ramsey Island – nine sites [site grid references and names redacted] G030B, G020B, G360B, G320B, G260B, G250B, G230B, G190B, G140B.

6

Figure 1. Pembrokeshire monitoring site locations, 2005. Site codes and cluster nomenclature from Baines et al. (1995).

Map of monitoring site cluster locations.

[figure redacted] Ramsey Island monitoring sites.

Morlanod Cluster

Trewen Cluster

Aberfelin Cluster

Ramsey Island Cluster

7

[figure redacted] Mainland North Pembrokeshire, monitoring sites in the Aberfelin cluster.

[figure redacted] Mainland North Pembrokeshire monitoring sites in the Morlanod and Trewen clusters

8

Vantage Points The same vantage points as used in 1995, 96 & 97 monitoring were used where possible. Different observation points were used only when it was not considered safe or practical to reach the former observation position. Only two former observation positions were not used on the mainland. The same observation positions were used on Ramsey Island. The significance of using the same, or the best possible vantage points cannot be overstressed. Using vantage points that provide a reduced field of view will result in a reduced pup count. For vantage points see appendix 1. Vantage points have also been marked on the CCW Mapinfo GIS files. Sample Interval A three or four, with a maximum of five day sample interval was intended. Age Classification Smith’s five class age classification system (given in Radford et al., 1978) was applied without dye marking. The age classification system was refined as in Strong (1998), by subdividing Class 1 pups into early, mid and late categories and by assuming each age class to be of six days duration as opposed to the five days used by Smith. Field Recording

• Care was taken to avoid disturbing seals, especially if very young pups (less than 1 day old) were present.

• Field records were made in A6 sized hardback field books using pencil. This allowed

greater mobility than if carrying A4 sized recording sheets. Mobility was considered important as many sites require crouching or crawling to a cliff edge.

• Environmental conditions were recorded, including date, time, wind, cloud cover and

sea conditions (sea state and swell). Recent wind, sea and tidal conditions were also recorded as field notes.

• Natal sites were scanned thoroughly and systematically using binoculars (10x40 or 8x

40) from the standard observation points.

• Field maps of sites were made of location and age classification of pups. This was essential for larger sites with many pups. It was also important when moving between observation positions in order to avoid double or mis-counting pups. Age class data was checked with a count of total pups before leaving the site.

4.1.2 Seal population structure At each monitoring site, abundance, estimated age, sex and behavioural categories were recorded.

9

There was subjectivity involved with estimating these categories but there were some clear indicators for each category, including:

• Bull with territory – Defends territory, situated within group of cows, situated between group of cows and other bulls, may not be apparent until females in oestrus.

• Bull without territory - may not be apparent until females in oestrus, but then approaches territory, repelled by territorial bull, may haul out with other immature or bulls without territory. Opportunistic mating whilst territorial bull distracted/unaware.

• Cow maternal behaviour hauled out – Suckling, close attendance to pup or observation of pup from water, swimming with pup, cow in lactation, cow heavily pregnant (bulging).

• Cow maternal behaviour in water - Suckling, close attendance to pup or observation of pup from water, swimming with pup, cow in lactation, cow heavily pregnant (bulging).

• Sub adults – smaller than adults but difficult to distinguish from some adults. • Juveniles – much shorter than adults, sometimes difficult to distinguish from current

year’s moulted pups.

4.1.3 Supporting Habitat Habitat condition Notes were only taken where habitat condition were considered to have changed significantly since 1997. Human activities and impacts At each monitoring site the following activities were recorded:

• commercial tour boats, • private boats, • people (cliff top), • boat distance, • boat speed, • disturbance level, • cause of disturbance, • outcome of disturbance, • debris, • oil staining, • propeller injuries, • entanglement, • change of human usage, • absence of seals,

Field notes were also recorded in the spreadsheet.

10

4.1.4 Pelage photography This was carried out opportunistically from cliff top observation points using a hand held, high resolution 8.1 mega pixel digital SLR camera with 80-400mm optically stabilized lens. Care was taken to minimise disturbance to seals. Accompanying notes to identify seals by frame number were not taken due to time constraints. Records were made in the data spreadsheet to indicate which images had been taken at a particular site on a particular date. The digital image files were renamed to include site and date data as well as the individual image code. Table 1. Pelage photography image file name system. Individual image code IMG_0001 (number increasing) Date CCYYMMDD e.g. 20051015 Site code e.g. E070B Site name e.g. Aberfelin Other e.g. Cow A, right hand side

4.1.5 Pup Spatial Distribution (Coastal Sweeps) On two occasions, timed within the peak pupping period, the entire coast of Ramsey Island and the North Pembrokeshire mainland (from Pen Dal-aderyn to Porthgain) were surveyed using the same methods as for the routine monitoring given above.

4.2 DATA HANDLING, ANALYSIS AND ARCHIVING

4.2.1 Data transcription and storage Field data was transferred from field book into an Excel spreadsheet (see electronic raw data annex) before taking the field book back into the field again. To compare data sets from 1995 to 2005 the common site data was extracted and reprocessed using two methods, the maximum likelihood data modelling method and the probability method. The intuitive method as applied in previous reports was considered too operator dependent to provide a useful ongoing monitoring tool and has therefore not been used. Field of view correction factors from Strong (1997) were applied to raw data before applying pup production estimation methods (see Appendix 3).

11

4.2.2 Estimating pup production using data modelling The total number of white-coated pups was used as the predictor in the statistical model. The model used is comparable to but simpler than that proposed by Conservation Research Ltd. in Strong (1998). The births curve is modelled by the normal function:

2

2

2

)(

c

bx

aey−−

= Where b and c are the mean and standard deviation of the observed total white coat data and a is derived from the mean time to moult Parameters b and c are estimated from observed data using curve fitting in NCSS Statistical & Power Analysis Software (Hintze 2004). The integral of the birth curve yields the estimate of the total production. A simulated population of production estimates is generated using these parameters and published standard deviations of time to moult (Conservation Research Ltd. in Strong (1998), Matthews (2004) and Poole & Poole (1998)). The population of production estimates thus generated is used to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of mean production and confidence intervals by polling of the simulated population. The confidence intervals thus obtained use a non-parametric bootstrapping method. Time to moult for the estimates given for all results calculated by us is taken as 21 days. Our methods were compared to the Conservation Research Ltd model and Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) predictions made in previous reports, (Strong 1997 and Baines et al., 1995). This involved applying our method to their data, where it was presented in an appropriate form. For these comparisons, an average time to moult of 23 days was taken; the reliability and affect of altering this assumption is discussed later. Our production estimates correlated well with those previously published (Figure 2), especially where the sample size is high (for large sites and pooled data).

12

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 50 100 150 200 250

V alues from prev io us reports

Val

ues

fro

m p

rese

nt

stu

dy

Figure. 2. Correlation between values quoted in Baines et al. (1995) and Strong 1998 and the same data

reworked through our method. This correlation is significant at 0.1% level, and demonstrates that our method returns estimates consistent with those previously employed. Our method consistently underestimated the other models by about 9 pups. This variation is small compared to the breadth of the confidence intervals (see table 4) around production estimates either by our method or those previously described.

4.2.3 Intuitive and Probability methods The intuitive method was used by Strong (1998, 97 & 96) to estimate pup production from age classified pup count data collected by observation from cliff top and without the use of dye marking. The term “intuitive” was used because production estimates were based on the field recorder’s estimate of the number of new births since the previous recording visit. This method does provide a reasonably quick estimate that is probably reasonably accurate for the less crowded and more physically secure sites, i.e. sites less likely to be affected by weather and tides. However, this method obviously has a number of precision problems. These include:

• field recorder subjectivity in age class estimation. • the “intuitive” estimation of whether a pup has been previously counted or is new

born. These non-systematic errors must be further complicated by:

• the potential for variation in the rate of pup development • the amount of immigration and emigration between pupping sites. • Pups not visible due to remote recording, (from cliff top as opposed to landing on

beach) The probability method was devised by Strong (1998; 1997) to replace “intuitive” with systematic estimation of whether a pup has been previously counted or is new born. The probability method does not address any of the other non-systematic errors, as listed above,

13

associated with age classified pup count data collected by observation from cliff top without the use of dye marking. Probability method - When sample interval equal or less than six days. In order to calculate probable number of newborn pups since last count, we need to discount those pups that have remained as class I pups since last count. The number of re-counted class I pups is assumed to be a function of the sample interval. The number of re-counted class I pups is assumed to be zero when sample interval is six days and to be 100% when sample interval is zero days. The method assumes no error involved with the age classification process. The number of recounted class I pups is calculated in two stages, the number of recounted class I pups is then subtracted from the current class I pup count, (step 3) to give the probability pup production estimate. Step 1.

Probability of re-counting from previous class I count = 1 – (Sample interval) 6 Step 2.

Estimated number pups re-counted from previous class I count

= Previous count of class I pups x Probability of re-counting Step 3. Probability estimate of pups produced since last count

= Current class I count - Estimated number pups re-counted Probability method - When sample interval between six and 12 days. The above method is adapted to allow for a larger sample interval as follows: Stage 1 becomes:

Probability of re-counting from previous class II count = 1 – (Sample interval - 6) 6 Stage 2 becomes:

Estimated number pups re-counted from previous class II count

= Current class II pups x Probability of re-counting Stage 3 becomes: Probability estimate of pup production since last count = Current class I count + (Current class II count - Estimated number pups re-counted)

14

5. RESULTS

5.1 Number of samples and intervals There was a total of 16 Ramsey sample days and 24 mainland North Pembrokeshire sample days. Coastal “sweeps” from cliff top were completed on Ramsey on 21 September and 14 October and on the mainland on 20 September and 13 October. Table 2. Sample Intervals Sample Interval Frequency Ramsey Frequency Mainland N.

Pembrokeshire 8 days 2 7 days 1 6 days 2 5 days 3 3 4 days 2 7 3 days 4 12 2 days 2

5.2 Pup Production estimates Pup production estimates for 2005 were made for two mainland groups of sites (E and F sites), for East and West Ramsey, and these grouped to make overall estimates. For the purposes of these estimates, modelling was adjusted to use the estimates of average time to moulting of 21 days accumulated by the surveys done at the MNR over 10 years, (Matthews (2004) and Poole & Poole (1998)) rather than the 23 days used in Strong (1998), as this was felt to be more likely to be representative of the values in North Pembrokeshire. The estimates were arrived at by applying maximum likelihood (MLE) methods and probability methods.

Table 3. Pup production estimates Mainland Total Ramsey Total

Year

MLE Probability MLE Probability 1992 134 228 1993 128 246 1994 140 228 1995 133 108 171 133 1996 120 138 183 239 1997 112 163 209 337 1998 173 200 1999 171 316 2000 164 210 2005 168 230 297 373

15

Table 4. 95% Confidence Intervals for Pup production MLE estimates.

Ramsey totals Mainland totals

Year MLE Lower 95% Upper 95% Year MLE Lower 95% Upper 95%

1995 171 148 201 1995 133 115 156

1996 183 159 216 1996 120 105 142

1997 209 182 247 1997 112 97 132

1998 173 150 204

1999 171 148 201

2000 164 143 194

2005 297 258 350 2005 168 145 198 Data for 1992-1994 is from Baines et al. (1995), for 1995-1997 is from Strong (1998), for 1998 -2000 is from Ramsey Island Annual Seal Reports (RSPB unpublished), data for 2005 are from surveys carried out for this report. Where figures for both the probability and maximum likelihood methods are available, a scatterplot analysis was undertaken to assess how well the one method reflected the other (Figure 3).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 100 200 300 400

Probability

ML

E

Figure 3. Correlation between two independent methods of estimating pup productivity. The independent estimates vary together with a coefficient significant at the 0.1% level It is clear that although the probability and statistical modelling (MLE) methods are significantly correlated (Figure 2.) the probability method results in a higher estimate of pup production than the MLE model, with the exception of 1995 data. This is probably in part accounted for by the total white coat count incorporating a much greater proportion of the average mortality (estimated at around 20% by MNR data) than the probability estimate which is based on class 1 counts.

16

In comparing the data over as many years as is possible, it was concluded that use of the modelled data made a more realistic, consistent and conservative comparison with the Baines et al. (1995) data than with the probability method although both are presented here. Using the MLE data to compare with the dye-marking data obtained by Baines et al. (1995) suggests that there was little variation in pup production in North Pembrokeshire between 1995 and 2000, with levels somewhat lower in these latter years than in 1992-1994, however this difference may be an artefact due to the methodological difference in the two data sets. This scaling problem is discussed later in the report. The probability method by comparison is more variable from year to year and site to site and can return substantially higher numbers based on class 1 comparisons. These data may be more sensitive to small variations in weather/mortality/mobility etc. What is absolutely clear from the data, whichever estimates are used, is that pup production in 2005 is higher than that observed over the years 1992-2000 (see Table 4) and that this difference could not be reasonably explained on uncertainty or methodological grounds.

5.3 Spatial distribution As we are examining the idea that monitoring of a selection of sites can be a useful representation of the overall status of the population, one issue we should examine is whether there is any spatial variation in pup production at the level of geographical area evident in our own data. If this is the case it weakens the assumption that such a sampling is a reasonable way to proceed. To assess this, pairwise Heterogeneity Chi-square analyses were carried out comparing Ramsey with Mainland production, and also between the two mainland sectors (all data from table 3). Each test was carried out on a 2x2 table such as the one displayed in Table 5, the result of which was used for the first cell test in Table 6.

Table 5. Example 2x2 matrix for Heterogeneity Chi-Square analysis Year Mainland Production Ramsey Production Totals 1992 134 228 362 1993 128 246 374 Total 262 474 736

The null hypothesis is that the distribution of pups between Ramsey Island and the North Pembrokeshire Mainland sites does not vary between years. Yates’ correction was applied to minimise the impact of false positives.

17

Table 6. Pairwise Heterogeneity Chi-Square comparisons of Ramsey and Mainland pup production in North Pembrokeshire. Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 2005 1992 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s n.s n.s 1993 n.s. sig n.s. n.s. n.s. 1994 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 1995 n.s. sig sig 1996 n.s. n.s. 1997 n.s. n.s.= not significant sig = significant at 5%

A similar test was applied to the two mainland sites as these are geographically well separated (Table 7).

Table 7. Pairwise Chi-Square comparisons of E and F Mainland sites pup production in North Pembrokeshire. Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 2005 1992 sig n.s. n.s. n.s n.s n.s 1993 sig sig sig sig sig 1994 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 1995 n.s. n.s. n.s. 1996 n.s. n.s. 1997 n.s. n.s.= not significant sig = significant at 5%

Significant results were taken to reject the null hypothesis and assert significant heterogeneity in distribution of pup production between the sites compared for the years being compared. It must be noted, that one of the assumptions of the chi-square test is independence of the scores, and that a significant value could also imply violation of this criterion. The implications of such violation are examined in the discussion. The comparisons between the mainland and Ramsey proportions of production (Table 6) show a significant difference for some comparisons involving the 1995 data. The comparison of the two mainland regions (Table 7) show a significant difference in proportion between 1993 and all the other data. The effect of limiting sampling to a smaller area than the seals actually occupy is estimated by looking at the coastal sweep data. (Table 8).

18

Table 8. Coastal Sweeps for Mainland and Ramsey 2005

Mainland Total Ramsey Total Site Site No. Pups Site Site No. Pups

Name Code 20/09/05 Name Code 9/21/05 [Redacted] F210B 11 [Redacted] G220B 2 [Redacted] F169-166C 0 [Redacted] G200C 1 [Redacted] F120B/C 8 [Redacted] G190 7 [Redacted] F140B 5 [Redacted] G181C 1 [Redacted] F127B 1 [Redacted] G210 0 [Redacted] F138 1 [Redacted] G180B 0 [Redacted] F? 1 [Redacted] G160B [Redacted] F100C/B 1 [Redacted] G140 11 [Redacted] F080B 2 [Redacted] G130B 0 [Redacted] 0 [Redacted] G030 60 [Redacted] F30B 0 [Redacted] G020 15 [Redacted] F20B 1 [Redacted] G010C 3 [Redacted] F18B 0 [Redacted] G360 24 [Redacted] F017.5 2 [Redacted] G320 11 [Redacted] F147? 0 [Redacted] G310B 1 [Redacted] F145/146C 0 [Redacted] G300B 1 [Redacted] F150 5 [Redacted] G270B 0 [Redacted] F155B 0 [Redacted] GG260 5 [Redacted] F180 7 [Redacted] G250 5 [Redacted] F190 20 [Redacted] G240B/C 0 [Redacted] F200 10 [Redacted] G235B 0

[Redacted] G230 5 [Redacted] G150 2 [Redacted] G119B 5

Count at standard monitoring sites

50 144

Total Count 75 159 Percentage of total accounted for by

standard sites

67 91

Table 9. Grid references for new pupping sites identified on mainland North Pembrokeshire. Site Name Site code OS Grid reference [Redacted] F147 C SM 76[Redacted] [Redacted] F138 B SM 77[Redacted] [Redacted] F090B SM 78[Redacted] [Redacted] F080B SM 79[Redacted] Only the first sweep data is presented because the second sweep produced very low numbers, due to the temporal shift in the pupping season (see section 6.6). The sweep data shows that the monitoring sites cover 91% of the total Ramsey Island sites observable from cliff top. For the mainland North Pembrokeshire this proportion is much lower, at 67%.

19

5.4 Correlating Skomer MNR to Ramsey & North Pembrokeshire Comparison of the pup production estimates from North Pembrokeshire including Ramsey (MLE estimates) with that of the MNR (estimates derived from through/direct pup counts)) shows no significant trend or correlation (Table 10 & Figure 4). The summed MNR (MNR Mainland and Skomer Island) pup production estimates vary by only about 10% from year to year: an average of 209 ±24. The summed North Pembrokeshire estimates (Mainland and Ramsey) vary by about 30%: an average of 350 ±112. The lack of any discernible correlation is unremarkable given the differences in the coefficient of variation (CV) between MNR and North Pembrokeshire data. Analysis of smaller sections of the populations e.g. the two islands of Skomer and Ramsey does not yield any correlation (results not presented here). The estimate of pup production in 2005 increased in relation to previous years for Ramsey, Mainland North Pembrokeshire and Mainland MNR, but not for Skomer Island.

Table 10. Comparison of pup production estimates for North Pembrokeshire sites with those recorded for the MNR. North Pembrokeshire estimates are MLE values. MNR estimates are derived from through counts

Year N. Pembs. Mainland

N. Pembs. Ramsey

N. Pembs. Total

MNR Mainland

MNR Skomer Island

MNR Total

1992 134 228 362 50 149 199 1993 128 246 374 42 178 220 1994 140 228 368 46 165 211 1995 133 171 304 46 163 209 1996 120 183 303 40 156 196 1997 112 209 321 42 173 215 1998 173 44 178 222 1999 171 44 141 185 2000 164 58 158 216 2005 168 296 464 70 145 215

Average 133.6 206.9 356.6 48.2 160.6 208.8 ± 95% CI 35.7 85.6 112.3 18.4 26.4 23.7

CV 0.27 0.41 0.31 0.38 0.16 0.11

190

195

200

205

210

215

220

225

0 100 200 300 400 500

Npembs +Ramsey total

MN

R t

ota

l

Figure 4. Scatterplot of total North Pembrokeshire & Ramsey pup production estimates against total

MNR (Skomer island plus MNR mainland) pup production estimates for 1995-2005. Correlation excludes 1998, 1999 and 2000. North Pembrokeshire estimates are MLE values. MNR estimates are derived from through counts. There is no significant correlation.

20

5.5 Population structure Population structure data was collected at each monitoring site, (See electronic data annex) and summarised in Table 11. Table 11. Pup and adult count data summed over 2005 monitoring period. Ramsey Mainland N. Pembrokeshire Class I Pups 504 322 Class I – IV Pups 1150 780 Total No. Pups 1309 875 Maternal Cows 866 711 Territorial Bulls 121 69 Non Territorial Bulls 31 0 Sub Adults 17 7 Juveniles 8 1 The number of maternal cows was correlated with numbers of pups for each site visit. Correlation coefficients of approx 0.7 were obtained when correlating maternal cows against either class I pups or against total white coated (class I-IV) pups on Ramsey Island. On the mainland a correlation coefficient of 0.84 was obtained when correlating maternal cows against class I pups. A new haul out site, since the 1997 monitoring, was identified on the mainland in the Aberfelin cluster (E070), with up to 15 cows present on 12 November, approximately one month after the last birth on this site. On Ramsey there seemed to be a distinct beginning to male territorial (fighting) and sexual behaviour, on 24 September. The “bachelor” haul out on [Redacted] G 270 was apparent but not possible to monitor safely from the island.

5.6 Supporting Habitat Human activities and impacts Seal Watching. Records were made whilst monitoring pup production on Ramsey island (Table 12) and mainland North Pembrokeshire (Table 13) and also whilst walking between monitoring sites. Table 12. Ramsey Island. Observer effort = 75.5 hours Commercial boats Other boats Cliff top persons Number 70 7 11 Number per observer hour

0.9 0.09 0.15

Maximum number of boats observed on Ramsey in one hour was, at [Redacted] (G250B) and [Redacted] (G241) on 22/08/2005.

21

Table 13. Mainland North Pembrokeshire. Observer effort = 64.1 hours Commercial boats Other boats Cliff top persons Number 1 2 85 & 10 Dogs Number per observer hour

0.016 0.03 1.3 persons 0.16 dogs

Habitat condition Access to monitoring sites had not changed since 1997, although detailed comparison was not made with site descriptions given by Baines & Pierpoint (1993). Debris accumulation was consistent with previous observations. No entanglement with fishing gear was recorded. Some rust coloured staining was recorded on seal pups. No distinctive or fresh propeller scarring was recorded (see electronic data annex). Cliff falls have continued with little apparent effect on seal habitat. In many cases cliff falls increase or improve habitat by raising vertical beach height or increasing shelter from surf. Disturbance as a result of Seal Watching The level and cause of disturbance to seals was classified as in Table 14. The causes of disturbance were observed to be due to: commercial tour boats, private boats, people on the cliff top, dog noise (with people on cliff top), monitoring persons on cliff top and possibly aircraft noise (Table 15). (For disturbance data see Appendix 4 and electronic data annex) Table 14. Categories of Disturbance Type Level Description Aware 1 Seals notice but not continuous attention Alert 2 Aware with continuous attention. Suckling of pup may be interrupted as result

of disturbance Aligned 3 Alert and have moved or aligned themselves in direction of sea, often as a

group. Suckling of pup interrupted as result of disturbance Moved 4 Seals have moved towards sea. May stop before reaching sea. Suckling of pup

interrupted as result of disturbance Into Water 5 Seals have moved into water. Maternal cows usually remain observing pup and

cause of disturbance. Suckling of pup interrupted as result of disturbance Recovered R Resumption of pre-disturbance behaviour

22

Table 15. Causes of disturbance.

Disturbance Summary Mainland North Pembrokeshire

For All levels For Disturbance

of Disturbance Level 3, 4 & 5

Total Number disturbance events 5 1

Causes of these disturbance events No. % No %

Commercial Tour boats 1 20 0 0

Private boats 1 20 0 0

Cliff top Monitoring 1 20 1 100

Clifftop people 1 20 0 0

Dogs 1 20 0 0

Disturbance Summary Ramsey Island

For All levels For Disturbance

of Disturbance Level 3, 4 & 5

Total Number disturbance events 31 21 Causes of these disturbance events. No % No %

Commercial Tour boats 17 55 7 33

Private boats 3 10 3 14

Cliff top Monitoring 8 26 8 38

Cliff top people 3 10 3 14

23

5.7 Pelage photography Pelage photography was undertaken opportunistically and only if there was time available after all other recording had taken place at a site. This resulted in relatively few useful pelage images taken on only a handful of occasions. Dedicated monitoring time was not available for pelage photography. Results, though limited, were encouraging and of comparable quality (see example Figure 5) with the existing CCW pelage photograph catalogue. Pelage photographs were taken on three mainland sites, E070B, F180B and F200B as well as on two Ramsey sites, G190B and G250B. The other monitoring sites were either at too steep an angle to obtain a profile shot, or too distant. Another problem was the increased likelihood of disturbing the seals, as it was often not possible to remain hidden from the seals whilst taking the photograph. For index of pelage photographs see Appendix 5.

Figure 5. Example of pelage photograph from cliff top vantage point.

24

6 DISCUSSION

6.1 Pup production Statistical modelling to yield pup production estimates is based on a number of assumptions and parameters derived from data other than that recorded in the observations. The model will therefore return estimates based on the observed data, but key parameters such as time to moult, will influence quite strongly the numerical value obtained. Table 16 shows the effect of altering the time to moulting estimate on the Ramsey data.

Table 16. Effect of time to moult on pup production estimates at Ramsey derived by statistical modelling

Average time to moult 23days 21days 18days 1995 156 171 199 1996 167 183 213 1997 191 209 244 1998 158 173 202 1999 156 171 199 2000 150 164 192 2005 271 297 346

How good each estimate is as an absolute value for pup production could only be confirmed by extensive “ground truthing” of the model against observations of the dye marking type. It would be possible to verify age class counts against counts derived from dye marked pups only if data from these two techniques exist concurrently; this may be possible from existing Skomer data if the white coat counts could be extracted in appropriate form. However, if sound, observation based principles are adopted in estimating the key parameters, the method will yield consistent, comparable results which reflect the changes in population over time. In any event the width of the confidence intervals associated with the method suggest that the method is not able to discriminate small variations in production. However, one can be confident that as a method for expressing the relative, year on year productivity it is likely to be robust, as the method is based on relatively large observation numbers, and the least subjective of the pup age classification categories. The statistical modelling has the further advantage that it is not dependent on frequent observations. Instead, it is dependent on assessing effectively the shape of the distribution of pup numbers over time. The importance here is to gain a reliable estimate of start time, and to be confident that our data points cover the distribution adequately, especially around the peak. The probability method is more likely to yield a realistic estimate of births before mortality/migration effects, but clearly becomes more speculative the greater the sample interval becomes. More frequent observations, of the type already carried out, are required if estimates are to be more reliable. Because the estimates rely on the manipulation of much smaller numbers, the method is much more sensitive to variations in these numbers. Whether this makes it more or less precise is a moot point, but in general, statistics become more robust when based on greater sample numbers.

25

6.2 Spatial distribution Chi-square tests for heterogeneity between the Ramsey and North Pembrokeshire mainland estimates showed significant differences between 1995 and three other years. This suggests that pup distribution was somewhat different in 1995. As 1995 is the shortest observation season, the estimates are possibly less reliable. Another possible explanation was that 1995 was the year following three years of extremely intense disturbance caused by the approximately two weekly dye marking methods applied by Baines et al. (1995) on all sites. Otherwise the proportions of production between mainland and Ramsey have remained consistent, within the bounds of random variation, over the years of observation. For comparisons between the mainland E sites and F sites, (which are separated by approximately 20 km) significant differences were found for the comparison of 1993 with all other years. This variation is clearly due to an unusually low estimate for the E70-90 sites in 1993. We can offer no explanation for this discrepancy. The observers were the Baines’ team; we have no indication of variation in personnel for this site/year. Otherwise the proportions of production between Mainland E sites and Mainland F sites have remained consistent, within the bounds of random variation, over the years of observation. We conclude that pup production over the area in general remains within constant proportions, but that events in particular years can lead to significant departure from this generality. Coastal sweep data was used to assess the proportion of pup production contained within our monitoring sites. It is important to note that this data only incorporates sites visible by clifftop monitoring, and does not include the proportion of production only observable from the sea. For the 1992 -94 data the cliff monitored sites accounted for 48% of the production for all of Ramsey and 22% (see Appendix 2) of production for all of the North Pembrokeshire mainland. The same data also showed that production at sites with caves over the whole of the West Wales Census area was 42-43%, and that cave production was favoured earlier in the season, (Baines et al., 1995). Any variation from this could be picked up by full seaborne coastal sweep data in the year concerned. For the Ramsey sites in 2005, the vast majority of production (91%) on open beaches visible from cliff tops is concentrated in the sites observed (Table 8), and production at other visible sites is consistently too small to have a major influence on estimates. For the mainland sites the limited number of sites observed in this census constitute a much smaller proportion of the total (67%) and leaves out some significant production sites (Table 8). As long as proportions of production remain relatively constant (as the chi-square analysis indicates that they do between the monitored sites in most years) this would not be a problem. However the mainland North Pembrokeshire is clearly more prone to unobserved spatial variation because of the greater proportion of unmonitored sites. Our conclusion is that neither the regular monitoring nor the coastal sweeps tell us anything about sites which cannot be seen, especially cave sites, and any use of cliff top observation as a method for indicating the overall status of pup production relies on there being a relatively constant relationship between production at these unseen sites and the sites being regularly

26

monitored. This is especially the case for cave sites where there seems to be a preference for these sites earlier in the pupping season, which is modified by tides and weather as the autumn progresses. At the area level the proportion does seem to remain remarkably consistent. Baines et al. (1995) reported that pupping in caves consistently accounted for 28-29% of pupping in the period 1992-1994 across the West Wales area, while cave locations accounted for 15% of births on Skomer in 2004.

6.3 Field of view correction factors Although field of view corrections have been incorporated in this analysis to render the estimates comparable with previous years, it was noted that these corrections are based on a minimal ground-truthing exercise of one coastal sweep in 1997. Given the small numbers this is based on, the effect of small variations in the numbers on any subsequent ground truthing would introduce a considerable error factor into the data. On the whole it is better, where possible, to base analyses on actual observations rather than using such “fudge factors” unless the reliability of these factors is thoroughly examined. Any correction for “missed data” may be better made using a global estimate based on the overall difference between seaborne and cliff top estimates.

6.4 Population structure Population structure data was compiled which will allow comparison with subsequent data. Initial impressions were that juvenile seals were conspicuous by their absence. A new adult haul out site (E070B) was identified on the mainland in the Aberfelin cluster, one of the monitoring sites outside the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC. It is perhaps relevant to note that at least two other significant and well documented adult haul out sites exist on the mainland North Pembrokeshire coast outside the boundary of the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC.

6.5 Quality of supporting habitat and disturbance The quality of the beach habitat seemed comparable with previous observations, in all aspects monitored, except for an obvious increase, compared to the early and mid 1990’s (pers. obs.), in the level of commercial tour boat activity, with 70 boats observed in 75.5 hours of observation time and a peak of 6 boats per hour on one particular site. Boat presence was affected by weather and tidal condition, the result being increased commercial tour boat pressure on the East coast of Ramsey. Rough sea conditions often prevent access to the West coast of Ramsey. Porpoise are another important eco-tourism feature of Ramsey sound in particular. Tidal conditions often mean that porpoise are not present in Ramsey sound. The overall effect being to concentrate commercial tour boat presence on the seal pupping sites on East coast of Ramsey during the pupping season. Only 7 disturbance events due to commercial tour boats were recorded where seals actually moved, compared to 8 caused by a single seal monitoring person conducting photographic identification. This result does have to be taken in the context that all disturbance caused by cliff top seal monitoring was recorded, whereas, only a small proportion of commercial tour boat presence was monitored.

27

Access to beach habitat seemed comparable with observations made by Strong (1995, 1996 & 1997) but detailed comparisons were not made with the descriptions given by Baines & Pierpoint (1993). The other features used to monitor the quality of the supporting habitat were recorded if apparently impacting on seals, otherwise features such as debris were not routinely recorded.

6.6 Temporal distribution discussion Examination of the temporal distributions of the numbers of white coated (class I-IV) pups in Figures 6 & 7, shows an earlier peak in 2005 compared to years 1995-1997 for both the mainland North Pembrokeshire and Ramsey Island. This corresponds with the temporal distribution reported on the Skomer marine nature reserve (Lock, pers. comm. 2005; Matthews, 2004).

Timing of Ramsey Pupping season

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Day (Day 1 = Aug 1)

Num

ber

of w

hite

coa

t pup

s

I-IV 95 RamI-IV 96 RamI-IV 97 RamI-IV 05 Ram

Figure 6. Timing of pupping season at Ramsey monitoring sites: comparison of counts of white coated

(class I-IV) pups in 1995-97 and 2005.

28

Timing of Mainland Pupping season

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Day (Day 1 = Aug 1)

Num

ber

of w

hite

coa

t pup

s

I-IV 95 MLI-IV 96 MLI-IV 97 MLI-IV 05 ML

Figure 7. Timing of pupping season at Mainland North Pembrokeshire monitoring sites: comparison of

counts of white coated (class I-IV) pups in 1995-97 and 2005.

6.7 Pelage photography Dedicated monitoring time was not available for pelage photography. Results, though limited, were encouraging and of comparable quality with the existing CCW pelage photograph catalogue. Pelage photography from cliff top vantage points caused an increased but site specific likelihood of seal disturbance. Five of the seventeen monitoring sites provided useful pelage photographs.

6.8 Status of grey seals in Pembrokeshire and the SAC

6.8.1 Pup production Using our MLE data with the dye-marking data obtained by Baines et al. (1995) suggests that there was little variation in observed pup production in North Pembrokeshire between 1995 and 2000, with levels somewhat lower in these latter years than in 1992-1994 (Figure 8). However this difference may be an artefact of the methodological differences in the two data sets, in which case it would seem that the population has followed the apparent oscillation around a level value as that of the Skomer population during this time. Pup production in 2005 was higher than that observed over the years 1992-2000. This difference cannot be reasonably explained on uncertainty or methodological grounds and

29

therefore appears to be real. An increase has also been observed at the mainland sites within the MNR, but not so on Skomer Island itself.

0

200

400

600

800

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

Po

ole

d M

LE

pro

du

ctio

n

esti

mat

es f

or

pu

p

pro

du

ctio

n

Figure 8. Pooled estimates for pup production within SAC and North Pembrokeshire for 1992 – 1997 &

2005 (years where a complete set of estimates are available for each region). Data taken from pooled rows of estimates in Table 10. MNR estimates are derived from through counts and North Pembrokeshire estimates are derived from MLE calculations.

Comparisons of yearly pup production estimates calculated using the probability method are more variable from year to year and site to site than those calculated from the MLE method (see Table 3). Using the probability method can also return substantially higher numbers than the MLE estimates, especially with class 1 comparisons (data not shown in this report). However there is no clear trend or obvious overall difference between these and the MLE estimates. The probability data may be more sensitive to small changes in variables because the calculations are based on very small numbers of individual classes; changes that can happen, for instance due to weather, mortality, and mobility, can have a disproportionately large effect on the outcome. Interpretation of a trend in the pup production data is based on years for which we have complete data to compare (see Figure 8). The gap in the data of pooled estimates between 1997 and 2005 does not exclude the fact that the population may have been gradually increasing to the observed 2005 level. However, the number of pups on Ramsey via RSPB monitoring (see Tables 3 & 10) did not increase gradually but remained relatively stable. This suggests that during this period pup numbers in North Pembrokeshire probably also did not increase gradually. The evidence from any apparent trend in the previous data does not predict the increase seen in 2005, leaving the possibility that this was a “one off” bumper year, especially for North Pembrokeshire. Given the lack of any upward or downward trend in the MNR data (see Table 10), coupled with this collation of the available North Pembrokeshire and Ramsey data, it would be reasonable to suggest that the population of Grey seals in Pembrokeshire and the SAC was varying around an approximately constant level, except for an apparent increase for 2005. This conclusion assumes that proportional variations were occurring in the unobserved parts of the population. Conversely, there is no evidence for any declining trend in the population of grey seals in the SAC, and thus no evidence within the population data for any adverse effects (e.g. from increased disturbance) on their status within the SAC.

Poo

led

esti

mat

es f

or

pup

prod

ucti

on

30

6.8.2 Pup spatial distribution Regular surveillance and coastal sweeps do not tell us much about sites, which cannot be seen, especially cave sites. An indication of the overall status of pup production in the region relies on there being a relatively constant relationship between production at these unseen sites and those being regularly monitored. This is an assumption that is made when extrapolating our results to the whole of the SAC in an effort to give a reasoned opinion on the status of grey seals in the SAC.

6.8.3 Supporting habitat The nature of the supporting habitat was similar when compared to 1995-1997. There was a very high incidence of commercial tour boats compared to the early and mid 1990’s (pers. obs.) around Ramsey, nevertheless seal numbers were high.

6.8.4 Temporal distribution Examination of the temporal distributions of the observations (Figures 6 & 7.) shows a higher and earlier peak in pup numbers during 2005 for both Ramsey and the North Pembrokeshire mainland than in 1995-2000.

6.8.5 Population structure Data for this was not recorded in previous monitoring. Sub adult and juvenile seals were only recorded in very low numbers on the pup monitoring sites.

31

7. RECOMMENDATIONS In terms of having detailed and accurate population data, the type of effort put in for the original Baines et al. (1995) survey, and that which has continued to be done at the MNR is probably as good as can be hoped for. However it is unlikely that this sort of effort can be justified over large population areas on a continuous basis. For a cost-effective assessment of the population on an ongoing basis we recommend the following:

• Given the general robustness of the statistical data modelling from the cliff top observations, and its relative insensitivity to sample interval or observer expertise, this method would form a simple and reliable barometer of population status.

• Field of view correction, introduces another source of error on the basis of minimal ground truthing and should therefore be abandoned.

• Covering more sites less frequently, especially on the mainland of North Pembrokeshire, could improve the representative quality of the data.

• A minimum of 7 sample days, with three of these close to the production peak, would provide sufficient data to model at confidence levels similar to those obtained this year.

• Only white coat/moulted pups need be recorded to apply the model; however, as it requires little additional time in the field, Smith’s five class age classification system (Smith, 1966) should continue to be used for field recording to enable other potential analyses such as the age class MLE estimate of Bakke & Lorentsen (1999).

• Should it be considered necessary to confirm the constancy of the relationship between seen and unseen (beach and cave) sites, infrequent (perhaps decadal) seaborne surveys of the area should be carried out.

• The plot sampling method of Stringell et al (2004) offers good potential for reducing bias in the estimate, and should be examined for possible applicability to the North Pembrokeshire surveys. However, as the current method essentially monitors nearly all the sites suitable for cliff top observation the potential for application is constrained, unless some boat-based observation is introduced. Also a change of methodology at this stage, especially one that may exclude previous observation sites, does have the disadvantage of reducing comparability with the existing time series.

32

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to RSPB Ramsey Island wardens for provision of historic data and also to the assistant warden and especially the island volunteers for clearing paths in the bracken. Also to CCW staff at the Skomer MNR and the Llanion office for provision of data, advice and GIS assistance. Thanks also to the staff and owners of Thousand Island Expeditions, for the ferry service to Ramsey. Also to the owners and residents of Treleddyd Fawr and Penberry Farms, for allowing parking on their land.

33

REFERENCES Baines, M.E. & Pierpoint, C.J.L. (1993). Ramsey Island Grey Seal Census 1992. Dyfed Wildlife Trust Report as part of The West Wales Grey Seal Census. Baines, M E, Earl, S J, Pierpoint, CJL & Poole, J (1995). The West Wales Grey Seals Census CCW contract science report 131. Bakke, Ø. & Lorentsen, S-H. (1999), Estimation of offspring production from a limited number of stage-structured censuses. Biometrics 55, 321-325 Bull, J., Skomer MNR staff & Bonsall, M. (2004) Noise and population structure determine the grey seal abundance in the Skomer marine Nature Reserve. CCW Marine Monitoring Conference 2004, Aberystwyth. Burton, M, Lock, K, Luddington, L & Newman, P (March 2005) Skomer Marine Nature Reserve Project Status Report 2004/5 CCW Regional Report CCW/WW/04/5 Hintze, J. (2004) NCSS and PASS, Number Cruncher Statistical Systems, Kaysville, Utah, www.NCSS.com Kiely, O, Lidguard, D, McKibben, M., Connolly, N. and Baines, M., (2000). Grey seals: status and monitoring in the Irish and Celtic Seas. Maritime Ireland/Wales INTERREG Report No. 3 76pp. Matthews, J. H, (2004) Grey Seal Breeding Census: Skomer Island 2004. Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales, unpublished report to the Countryside Council for Wales. CCW report no. CCW/WW/04/7

Poole, A & Poole, J. (1998) Skomer Seal Review. CCW DRAFT report. RSPB (unpublished 1998, 1999 & 2000) Ramsey Island Annual Seal Reports, Smith, E.A. (1966) A review of the world’s grey seal population. J. Zool., Lond. 150: 463-489 Stringell, T., McMath, M. & Westcott, S. (2004) Abundance estimates of Grey Seal Halichoerus grypus pups in North Wales 2004. CCW Marine Monitoring Conference 2004, Aberystwyth. Strong, P.G. (1995) Grey seal pup production monitoring, Ramsey Island and North Pembrokeshire 1995. CCW contract science report 161 Strong, P.G. (1996) Grey seal pup production monitoring, Ramsey Island and North Pembrokeshire 1996. CCW contract science report 192 Strong, P.G. (1998) Grey seal pup production monitoring, Ramsey Island and North Pembrokeshire 1997. CCW contract science report 253

34

Appendix 1 - Vantage points for North Pembrokeshire monitoring sites [Figures Redacted] Site codes and cluster nomenclature from Baines et al, (1995). Vantage points indicated by number. Bold line indicates extent of the monitoring site drawn at cliff edge. Dashed line indicates landform. The continuous lines indicate mean high and low water. (See also Map files in electronic annex.) Ramsey Island

Site G230B – [Redacted] Site G250B – [Redacted] Site G260B - [Redacted] Site G320B – [Redacted] Site G360B – [Redacted] Site G030B – [Redacted] Site G020B – [Redacted] Site G140B/C – [Redacted] Site G190B – [Redacted] Mainland North Pembrokeshire – Part of Porth Trewen cluster. Site F140B – [Redacted] Site F120B/C – [Redacted] Mainland North Pembrokeshire – Part of Morlanod cluster. Site F200B – [Redacted] Site F190B – [Redacted] Site F180B – [Redacted] Mainland North Pembrokeshire – Part of Aberfelin cluster Site E070B - [Redacted] Site E080B - [Redacted] Site E090B - [Redacted]

35

Appendix 2 - Proportion of historic North Pembrokeshire pup production covered by 2005 monitoring sites.

Table 1. Proportion of pups born on the nine Ramsey monitoring sites as a percentage of the whole island production. Data from Baines et al. (1995) 1992 1993 1994 Total Whole Island Production (A) 499 464 433 1396 Nine monitoring sites production (B)

217 230 225 672

B / A %

44

50

52

48

Table 2. Proportion of pups born on the eight North Pembrokeshire mainland monitoring as a percentage of the North Pembrokeshire mainland coast, (Teify estuary to St David’s Head.) Data from Baines et al. (1995)

1994 1993 1992 Total All sites (A)

600 588 525 1713

Eight monitoring sites (B)

134 120 125 379

B / A %

22

20

24

22

36

Appendix 3 - Ramsey field of view correction factors

Table 1. Ramsey field of view correction factors. (From Strong 1998). Combined sample days are total counts from ground-truthing over two sampling visits on dates shown in column 2 for sites shown in columns 1 & 3. Field of view correction factor has a minimum of 1.0. Mean Ramsey Field of View Correction factor = 1.1. Seaborne = Sb; Clifftop = Ct.

Combined sample days

Seaborne Cliff top Seaborne Cliff top Field of Site Class I-IV Class I-IV Class I-IV Class I-IV Ct/Sb View

Site Date Code total total (Sb) (Ct) % Sb / Ct Correction

[Redacted] 14/09/96 G020 0 0

[Redacted] 10/10/96 G020 14 13 14 13 93 1.077 1.077

[Redacted] 14/09/96 G030 0 0

[Redacted] 10/10/96 G030 32 29 32 29 91 1.103 1.103

[Redacted] 14/09/96 G140 5 4

[Redacted] 10/10/96 G140 12 10 17 14 82 1.214 1.214

[Redacted] 14/09/96 G190 0 0

[Redacted] 10/10/96 G190 5 4 5 4 80 1.250 1.250

[Redacted] 14/09/96 G230 2 2

[Redacted] 10/10/96 G230 9 11 11 13 118 0.846 1.000

[Redacted] 14/09/96 G250 1 1

[Redacted] 10/10/96 G250 8 8 9 9 100 1.000 1.000

[Redacted] 14/09/96 G260 1 1

[Redacted] 10/10/96 G260 4 7 5 8 160 0.625 1.000

[Redacted] 14/09/96 G320 2 3

[Redacted] 10/10/96 G320 12 13 14 16 114 0.875 1.000

[Redacted] 14/09/96 G360 0 0

[Redacted] 10/10/96 G360 8 12 8 12 150 0.667 1.000

Table 2. Mainland field of view corrections for 1996 data of counts of pups class I to IV. All 1996 seabourne data from Baines et al. (1995). Seaborne = Sb; Clifftop = Ct. Cliff top Seaborne FoV Correction Factor Ct Sb (=Sb/Ct)

[Redacted] Site in Morlanod and Trewen clusters

17 20 1.18

[Redacted] Site in Strumble Head Region

39 51 1.31

[Redacted] Site in Aberfelin Cluster

35 39 1.11

Totals 91 110 1.21

37

Appendix 4 - Disturbance Data Table 1. Disturbance data for Mainland North Pembrokeshire, 2005.

Level of Disturbance Cause of Disturbance Outcome

1 Commercial Tour Boat 1

2 Dogs R

1 Private Boat R

5 Cliff top monitoring 5

1 Cliff top people 1

Table 2. Disturbance data for Ramsey Island, 2005.

Level of Disturbance Cause of Disturbance Outcome

4 Private Boat 4

5 Private Boat 5

5 Private Boat 5 2 Commercial Tour Boat R

2 Commercial Tour Boat R 2 Commercial Tour Boat 5

2 Commercial Tour Boat 2

2 Commercial Tour Boat R

2 Commercial Tour Boat 2

2 Commercial Tour Boat 2

2 Commercial Tour Boat 2

2 Commercial Tour Boat 2

2 Commercial Tour Boat 2

4 Commercial Tour Boat 4 5 Commercial Tour Boat 5 5 Commercial Tour Boat 5 5 Commercial Tour Boat 5 5 Commercial Tour Boat 5 5 Commercial Tour Boat 5 6 Commercial Tour Boat 5 4 Cliff top monitoring 4 4 Cliff top monitoring 4 4 Cliff top monitoring 4 5 Cliff top monitoring 5 5 Cliff top monitoring 5 5 Cliff top monitoring 5 5 Cliff top monitoring 5 5 Cliff top monitoring 5 5 Cliff top people 5 5 Cliff top people 5 5 Cliff top people & aircraft 5

38

Appendix 5 - Pelage photography file list ���� Pelage photography North Pembrokeshire mainland 2005 IMG_0207_20050922-[Redacted] E070- fem lft side.jpg IMG_0208_20050922-[Redacted] E070. 2 cows.jpg IMG_0209_20050922-[Redacted] E070.jpg IMG_0210_20050929-[Redacted] E070. Fem bottling rt side.jpg IMG_0211_20050929-[Redacted] Pembs F180. Fem B scar (2).jpg IMG_0212_20050929-[Redacted] Pembs F180. Fem B Scar.jpg IMG_0213_20050929-[Redacted] Pembs F180. Fem C lft side.jpg IMG_0214_20050929-[Redacted] Pembs F180. Fem C rt side (2).jpg IMG_0215_20050929-[Redacted] Pembs F180. Fem C rt side.jpg IMG_0216_20050929-[Redacted] Pembs F180. Fem A & B Scars.jpg IMG_0217_20050929-E070 Pembs. Fem A rt side (3).jpg IMG_0218_20050929-E070 Pembs. Fem A rt.side (2).jpg IMG_0219_20050929-E070 Pembs. Fem A rt.side.jpg IMG_0220_20050929-E070 Pembs. Fem B.pelage & scars.jpg IMG_0221_20050929-[Redacted] F200- Alpha bull (2).jpg IMG_0222_20050929-[Redacted] F200- Pembs. Fem A lft side.jpg IMG_0223_20050929-[Redacted] F200- Pembs. Fem B lft side (2).jpg IMG_0224_20050929-[Redacted] F200- Pembs. Fem B lft side.jpg IMG_0225_20050929-[Redacted] F200- Pembs. Fem C lft side (2).jpg IMG_0226_20050929-[Redacted] F200- Pembs. Fem C lft side (3).jpg IMG_0227_20050929-[Redacted] F200- Pembs. Fem C lft side.jpg IMG_0228_20050929-[Redacted] F200- Pembs. Fem C rt side.jpg IMG_0229_20050929-[Redacted] F200- Pembs-Fem C rt side (2).jpg IMG_0230_20050929-[Redacted] F200-. Alpha bull.jpg IMG_0231_20050929-[Redacted] F200- Pembs. Alpha Bull (3).jpg IMG_0232_20050929-[Redacted] F190-Pembs. Fem A lft side.jpg IMG_0233_20051003 -[Redacted] F200. Fem rt side.jpg IMG_0234_20051003-[Redacted] E070.jpg IMG_0235_20051003-[Redacted] F200..jpg IMG_0236_20051010- [Redacted] E070 Fem lft side.jpg IMG_0237_20051010- [Redacted] E070 Fem rt side.jpg IMG_0238_20051010-[Redacted] E070- Fem lft side (1).jpg IMG_0239_20051010-[Redacted] E070- Fem lft side (2).jpg IMG_0240_20051010-[Redacted] E070- Fem lft side (3).jpg IMG_0241_20051010-[Redacted] E070- Fem lft side (4).jpg IMG_0242_20051010-[Redacted] E070- Fem lft side (5).jpg IMG_0243_20051010-[Redacted] E070- Fem lft side (6).jpg IMG_0244_20051010-[Redacted] E070- Fem lft side (7).jpg IMG_0245_20051010-[Redacted] E070- Fem lft side (8).jpg IMG_0246_20051010-[Redacted] E070- Fem lft side.jpg IMG_0247_20051010-[Redacted] E070- Fem rt side (2).jpg IMG_0248_20051010-[Redacted] E070- Fem rt side(3).jpg IMG_0249_20051010-[Redacted] E070- Fem rt side.jpg IMG_0250_20051010-[Redacted] E070. Fem rt side.jpg IMG_0251_20051116-[Redacted] E070- Female (2).jpg IMG_0252_20051116-[Redacted] E070- Female hauled out.jpg

39

IMG_0253_20051116-[Redacted] E070- Female(1).jpg IMG_0254_20051116-[Redacted] E070- scar and rt side profile (1).jpg IMG_0255_20051116-[Redacted] E070- scar and rt side profile (2).jpg IMG_0256_20051116-[Redacted] E070- scar and rt side profile (3).jpg IMG_0257_20051116-[Redacted] E070. Fem.jpg IMG_0258_20051116-[Redacted] E070.jpg IMG_0259_20051119- [Redacted] E070- Class V (1).jpg IMG_0260_20051119- [Redacted] E070- Class V (2).jpg IMG_0261_20051119- [Redacted] E070- Class V (3).jpg IMG_0262_20051119- [Redacted] E070- Class V (4).jpg IMG_0263_20051119- [Redacted] E070- Class V (5).jpg IMG_0264_20051119-[Redacted] E070 - only cow in the water.jpg IMG_0265_20051119-[Redacted] E070- 2 cows hauled ou (2).jpg IMG_0266_20051119-[Redacted] E070- 2 cows hauled ou(1).jpg IMG_0267_20051119-[Redacted] E070- Fem lft side emerging from water (1).jpg IMG_0268_20051119-[Redacted] E070- Fem lft side emerging from water (2).jpg IMG_0269_20051119-[Redacted] E070- Fem lft side emerging from water (3).jpg IMG_0270_20051119-[Redacted] E070- Female lineout.jpg IMG_0271_20051119-[Redacted] E070- heavily moulting f + blind f 2.jpg IMG_0272_20051119-[Redacted] E070- heavily moulting f + blind f.jpg IMG_0273_20051119-[Redacted] E070.jpg IMG_0274_20051119-[Redacted] E070-cow(2).jpg ���� Pelage photography Ramsey Isalnd 2005 IMG_0079_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0080_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0081_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0082_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0083_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0084_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0085_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0086_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0087_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0088_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0089_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0090_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0091_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0092_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0093_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0094_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0095_20050910_ G190.JPG IMG_0098_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0099_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0100_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0101_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0102_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0103_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0104_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0105_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0106_20050910_G250.JPG

40

IMG_0107_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0108_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0109_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0110_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0111_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0112_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0113_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0114_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0115_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0116_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0117_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0118_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0119_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0120_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0121_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0122_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0123_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0124_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0125_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0126_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0127_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0128_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0129_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0130_20050910_G250.JPG IMG_0131_20050912_G190.JPG IMG_0132_20050912_G190.JPG IMG_0133_20050912_G190.JPG IMG_0134_20050912_G190.JPG IMG_0135_20050912_G190.JPG IMG_0136_20050912_G190.JPG IMG_0137_20050912_G190.JPG IMG_0138_20050912_G190.JPG IMG_0139_20050912_G190.JPG IMG_0140_20050912_G190.JPG IMG_0141_20050912_G190.JPG IMG_0142_20050912_G190.JPG IMG_0143_20050912_G190.JPG IMG_0144_20050912_G140.JPG IMG_0145_20050912_G140.JPG IMG_0146_20050912_G140.JPG IMG_0147_20050912_G140.JPG IMG_0148_20050912_G140.JPG IMG_0149_20050912_G140.JPG IMG_0150_20050912_G140.JPG IMG_0151_20050912_G140.JPG IMG_0152_20050912_G140.JPG IMG_0153_20050912_G140.JPG IMG_0154_20050912_G140.JPG IMG_0155_20050912_G320.JPG IMG_0156_20050912_G320.JPG

41

IMG_0157_20050912_G320.JPG IMG_0158_20050912_G320.JPG IMG_0159_20050912_G320.JPG IMG_0160_20050912_G320.JPG IMG_0161_20050912_G250.JPG IMG_0162_20050912_G250.JPG IMG_0163_20050912_G250.JPG IMG_0164_20050912_G250.JPG IMG_0165_20050912_G250.JPG IMG_0166_20050912_G250.JPG ���� Survey sites Pembrokeshire mainland 2005 IMG_0342_20050929 [Redacted].jpg IMG_0343_20050929- [Redacted].jpg IMG_0344_20050929-[Redacted] F200 Pembs.jpg IMG_0345_20051010 - [Redacted] E070 part of..jpg IMG_0346_20051010 - [Redacted] E080.jpg IMG_0347_20051010 - [Redacted] E090 part II.jpg IMG_0348_20051010 - [Redacted] E090.jpg IMG_0349_20051010 - [Redacted] E090 part I Pembs.jpg IMG_0350_20051119 - [Redacted].jpg IMG_0351_20051119 - [Redacted]. l-r E070, E080, E090 (2).jpg IMG_0352_20051119 - [Redacted]. l-r E070,E080,E090 (1).jpg IMG_0353_20051119 - [Redacted]. Haul out beach in shade.jpg IMG_0354_20051119 - [Redacted] l-r E070,E080,E090 (3).jpg

42

Appendix 6 - Pup count data 2005

Table 1. Pup production data for Ramsey Island: number of pups by age class at each site at specific date (successive site visits), 2005.

One Two Total Site Early mid late early Three Four Five No.

Site Name Code Date Ie I IL Iie II III IV V Pups [Redacted] G190 22/08/2005 0 [Redacted] G140 22/08/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G030 22/08/2005 0 [Redacted] G020 22/08/2005 2 2 [Redacted] G360 22/08/2005 0 [Redacted] G320 22/08/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G260 22/08/2005 0 [Redacted] G250 22/08/2005 0 [Redacted] G230 22/08/2005 0

[Redacted] G190 25/08/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G140 25/08/2005 1 1 2 [Redacted] G030 25/08/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G020 25/08/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G360 25/08/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G320 25/08/2005 1 1 [Redacted] GG260 25/08/2005 0 [Redacted] G250 25/08/2005 0 [Redacted] G230 25/08/2005 0

[Redacted] G190 30/08/2005 1 1 2 [Redacted] G140 30/08/2005 2 2 4 [Redacted] G030 30/08/2005 5 1 1 7 [Redacted] G020 30/08/2005 1 1 1 [Redacted] G360 30/08/2005 2 2 [Redacted] G320 30/08/2005 2 1 1 1 5 [Redacted] GG260 30/08/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G250 30/08/2005 1 1 2 [Redacted] G230 30/08/2005 1 1

[Redacted] G190 02/09/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G140 02/09/2005 4 1 5 [Redacted] G030 02/09/2005 2 1 5 1 9 [Redacted] G020 02/09/2005 3 1 2 6 [Redacted] G360 02/09/2005 3 1 3 7 [Redacted] G320 02/09/2005 1 2 1 2 6 [Redacted] GG260 02/09/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G250 02/09/2005 1 1 2 [Redacted] G230 02/09/2005 1 1 2

[Redacted] G190 06/09/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G140 06/09/2005 1 1 1 1 4 [Redacted] G030 06/09/2005 4 2 2 3 1 12

43

[Redacted] G020 06/09/2005 3 2 1 1 7 [Redacted] G360 06/09/2005 5 3 2 2 12 [Redacted] G320 06/09/2005 2 2 1 1 1 7 [Redacted] GG260 06/09/2005 1 1 2 [Redacted] G250 06/09/2005 2 2 3 1 8 [Redacted] G230 06/09/2005 1 2 1 4 [Redacted] G150 06/09/2005 1 1

[Redacted] G190 10/09/2005 1 1 2 1 1 6 [Redacted] G140 10/09/2005 1 1 2 1 1 6 [Redacted] G030 10/09/2005 23 9 4 1 4 41 [Redacted] G020 10/09/2005 1 3 2 6 [Redacted] G360 10/09/2005 4 1 4 3 1 2 15 [Redacted] G320 10/09/2005 5 1 2 1 1 10 [Redacted] GG260 10/09/2005 2 2 [Redacted] G250 10/09/2005 1 1 2 1 5 [Redacted] G230 10/09/2005 3 1 2 1 7 [Redacted] G150 10/09/2005 1 [Redacted] G119B 10/09/2005 1

[Redacted] G190 12/09/2005 1 3 1 1 1 7 [Redacted] G140 12/09/2005 2 1 2 1 2 1 9 [Redacted] G030 12/09/2005 7 29 6 1 1 44 [Redacted] G020 12/09/2005 1 2 3 3 9 [Redacted] G360 12/09/2005 2 5 3 1 3 1 15 [Redacted] G320 12/09/2005 4 1 3 1 2 11 [Redacted] GG260 12/09/2005 1 1 2 [Redacted] G250 12/09/2005 4 3 3 1 11 [Redacted] G230 12/09/2005 3 1 1 1 6 [Redacted] G150 12/09/2005 [Redacted] G119B 12/09/2005

[Redacted] G190 18/09/2005 1 4 4 1 10 [Redacted] G140 18/09/2005 5 1 1 1 1 9 [Redacted] G030 18/09/2005 10 20 17 7 3 3 60 [Redacted] G020 18/09/2005 2 1 3 1 1 8 [Redacted] G360 18/09/2005 2 2 6 2 2 5 19 [Redacted] G320 18/09/2005 2 3 4 1 1 11 [Redacted] GG260 18/09/2005 1 1 2 [Redacted] G250 18/09/2005 1 1 2 1 5 [Redacted] G230 18/09/2005 1 1 3 1 1 7 [Redacted] G150 18/09/2005 1 1 2 [Redacted] G119B 18/09/2005 2 1 3

[Redacted] G220B 21/09/2005 2 2 [Redacted] G200C 21/09/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G190 21/09/2005 4 1 1 1 7 [Redacted] G181C 21/09/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G210 21/09/2005 0 [Redacted] G180B 21/09/2005 0

44

[Redacted] G160B 21/09/2005 1 1 1 [Redacted] G140 21/09/2005 4 3 2 1 1 11 [Redacted] G130B 21/09/2005 0 [Redacted] G030 21/09/2005 12 18 10 11 5 4 60 [Redacted] G020 21/09/2005 3 3 1 4 4 15 [Redacted] G010C 21/09/2005 3 3 [Redacted] G360 21/09/2005 4 6 2 3 3 6 24 [Redacted] G320 21/09/2005 1 5 2 2 1 11 [Redacted] G310B 21/09/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G300B 21/09/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G270B 21/09/2005 0 [Redacted] GG260 21/09/2005 2 2 1 5 [Redacted] G250 21/09/2005 1 2 1 1 5 [Redacted] G240B/C 21/09/2005 0 [Redacted] G235B 21/09/2005 0 [Redacted] G230 21/09/2005 1 1 2 1 5 [Redacted] G150 21/09/2005 1 1 2 [Redacted] G119B 21/09/2005 2 3 5

[Redacted] G190 24/09/2005 1 3 3 1 1 9 [Redacted] G140 24/09/2005 1 5 3 1 10 [Redacted] G030 24/09/2005 8 5 1 12 20 11 3 60 [Redacted] G020 24/09/2005 5 3 1 1 1 11 [Redacted] G360 24/09/2005 3 3 2 9 6 6 29 [Redacted] G320 24/09/2005 2 1 3 2 2 2 12 [Redacted] GG260 24/09/2005 1 1 1 1 1 5 [Redacted] G250 24/09/2005 1 2 1 2 6 [Redacted] G230 24/09/2005 1 1 3 1 6 [Redacted] G150 24/09/2005 0 [Redacted] G119B 24/09/2005 0 [Redacted] G210 24/09/2005 1 1

[Redacted] G190 29/09/2005 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a [Redacted] G140 29/09/2005 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a [Redacted] G030 29/09/2005 10 4 2 1 14 5 16 12 64 [Redacted] G020 29/09/2005 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 13 [Redacted] G360 29/09/2005 3 2 4 3 4 7 23 [Redacted] G320 29/09/2005 3 2 1 3 9 [Redacted] GG260 29/09/2005 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a [Redacted] G250 29/09/2005 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a [Redacted] G230 29/09/2005 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a [Redacted] G150 29/09/2005 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a [Redacted] G119B 29/09/2005 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a [Redacted] G210 29/09/2005 1 2 3

[Redacted] G190 03/10/2005 2 1 1 1 3 8 [Redacted] G140 03/10/2005 1 2 1 2 1 2 9 [Redacted] G030 03/10/2005 3 4 7 1 7 4 13 12 51 [Redacted] G020 03/10/2005 2 2 2 5 1 12 [Redacted] G360 03/10/2005 1 2 2 3 2 9 7 26

45

[Redacted] G320 03/10/2005 2 1 1 3 2 9 [Redacted] GG260 03/10/2005 1 1 2 4 8 [Redacted] G250 03/10/2005 2 2 2 1 1 2 10 [Redacted] G230 03/10/2005 2 1 1 3 3 10 [Redacted] G150 03/10/2005 0 [Redacted] G119B 03/10/2005 0 [Redacted] G210 03/10/2005 1 1

[Redacted] G190 06/10/2005 1 1 2 1 3 8 [Redacted] G140 06/10/2005 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 9 [Redacted] G030 06/10/2005 2 4 1 7 2 12 7 35 [Redacted] G020 06/10/2005 2 1 2 2 2 3 12 [Redacted] G360 06/10/2005 2 2 4 3 4 5 20 [Redacted] G320 06/10/2005 1 3 1 1 3 9 [Redacted] GG260 06/10/2005 1 3 3 7 [Redacted] G250 06/10/2005 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 [Redacted] G230 06/10/2005 2 1 2 1 2 8 [Redacted] G150 06/10/2005 [Redacted] G119B 06/10/2005 [Redacted] G210 06/10/2005

[Redacted] G190 14/10/2005 1 1 1 1 4 [Redacted] G140 14/10/2005 1 1 1 1 1 5 [Redacted] G030 14/10/2005 2 4 3 0 3 5 3 7 27 [Redacted] G020 14/10/2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 [Redacted] G360 14/10/2005 1 1 2 2 6 12 [Redacted] G320 14/10/2005 3 3 6 [Redacted] GG260 14/10/2005 2 2 [Redacted] G250 14/10/2005 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 13 [Redacted] G230 14/10/2005 2 3 3 8 [Redacted] G150 14/10/2005 1 1 2 [Redacted] G119B 14/10/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G210 14/10/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G010C 14/10/2005 1 1 2 [Redacted] G310B 14/10/2005 1 1 1 3 [Redacted] G300B 14/10/2005 1 1 1 2 1 1 7 [Redacted] G270B 14/10/2005 2 2 [Redacted] G180B 14/10/2005 0 [Redacted] G160B 14/10/2005 0 [Redacted] G200C 14/10/2005 [Redacted] G181C 14/10/2005 [Redacted] G220B 14/10/2005

[Redacted] G030 20/10/2005 3 1 1 3 2 3 13 [Redacted] G020 20/10/2005 1 1

[Redacted] G190 22/10/2005 2 1 3 [Redacted] G140 22/10/2005 1 1 [Redacted] G030 22/10/2005 2 3 1 1 3 1 11 [Redacted] G020 22/10/2005 1 1

46

[Redacted] G360 22/10/2005 1 2 1 2 2 3 11 [Redacted] G320 22/10/2005 1 1 1 3 [Redacted] G260 22/10/2005 1 1 2 [Redacted] G250 22/10/2005 0 [Redacted] G230 22/10/2005 1 2 3

Table 2. Pup production data for North Pembrokeshire Mainland: number of pups by age class at each site at specific date (successive site visits), 2005.

One Two Total Site Early mid late early Two Three Four Five No.

Site Name Code Date Ie I IL Iie II III IV V Pups [Redacted] E070 22/08/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] E080 22/08/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] E090 22/08/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F120 22/08/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F140 22/08/2005 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 [Redacted] F180 22/08/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F190 22/08/2005 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 [Redacted] F200 22/08/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[Redacted] E070 26/08/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] E080 26/08/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] E090 26/08/2005 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 [Redacted] F120 26/08/2005 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 [Redacted] F140 26/08/2005 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 [Redacted] F180 26/08/2005 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 [Redacted] F190 26/08/2005 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 [Redacted] F200 26/08/2005 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 4

[Redacted] E070 29/08/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] E080 29/08/2005 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 [Redacted] E090 29/08/2005 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 [Redacted] F120 29/08/2005 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 [Redacted] F140 29/08/2005 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 [Redacted] F180 29/08/2005 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 [Redacted] F190 29/08/2005 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 6 [Redacted] F200 29/08/2005 4 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 11

[Redacted] E070 01/09/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] E080 01/09/2005 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 [Redacted] E090 01/09/2005 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 [Redacted] F120 01/09/2005 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 [Redacted] F140 01/09/2005 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 [Redacted] F180 01/09/2005 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 5 [Redacted] F190 01/09/2005 1 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 7 [Redacted] F200 01/09/2005 2 3 3 0 1 0 1 0 10

[Redacted] E070 06/09/2005 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 [Redacted] E080 06/09/2005 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 [Redacted] E090 06/09/2005 0 0 3 0 3 2 0 0 8

47

[Redacted] F120 06/09/2005 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 0 6 [Redacted] F140 06/09/2005 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 [Redacted] F180 06/09/2005 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 6 [Redacted] F190 06/09/2005 0 0 2 2 3 1 0 0 8 [Redacted] F200 06/09/2005 1 3 0 0 3 1 0 3 11

[Redacted] E070 09/09/2005 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 4 [Redacted] E080 09/09/2005 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 [Redacted] E090 09/09/2005 1 0 3 0 2 3 0 0 9 [Redacted] F120 09/09/2005 0 1 2 0 2 5 0 0 10 [Redacted] F140 09/09/2005 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 [Redacted] F180 09/09/2005 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 5 [Redacted] F190 09/09/2005 2 1 1 0 2 3 1 0 10 [Redacted] F200 09/09/2005 1 2 1 0 2 4 2 1 13

[Redacted] E070 12/09/2005 1 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 [Redacted] E080 12/09/2005 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 [Redacted] E090 12/09/2005 1 4 1 1 2 1 0 0 10 [Redacted] F120 12/09/2005 1 3 0 0 5 0 2 1 12 [Redacted] F140 12/09/2005 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 [Redacted] F180 12/09/2005 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 5 [Redacted] F190 12/09/2005 3 1 1 0 2 4 2 1 14 [Redacted] F200 12/09/2005 3 0 0 0 1 6 3 0 13

[Redacted] E070 15/09/2005 1 3 0 0 3 1 0 0 8 [Redacted] E080 15/09/2005 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 [Redacted] E090 15/09/2005 0 2 0 0 3 1 1 2 9 [Redacted] F120 15/09/2005 1 2 0 0 0 3 1 0 7 [Redacted] F140 15/09/2005 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 [Redacted] F180 15/09/2005 1 0 0 0 1 4 3 1 10 [Redacted] F190 15/09/2005 2 4 0 0 2 3 2 1 14 [Redacted] F200 15/09/2005 2 3 0 0 3 3 3 2 16

[Redacted] E070 19/09/2005 4 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 10 [Redacted] E080 19/09/2005 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 [Redacted] E090 19/09/2005 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 [Redacted] F120 19/09/2005 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 6 [Redacted] F140 19/09/2005 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 [Redacted] F180 19/09/2005 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 [Redacted] F190 19/09/2005 5 3 1 0 4 2 2 2 19 [Redacted] F200 19/09/2005 2 2 0 0 2 1 3 1 11

[Redacted] E070 22/09/2005 3 2 0 0 4 2 1 1 13 [Redacted] E080 22/09/2005 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 [Redacted] E090 22/09/2005 2 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 7 [Redacted] F120 22/09/2005 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 6 [Redacted] F140 22/09/2005 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 6 [Redacted] F180 22/09/2005 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 6 [Redacted] F190 22/09/2005 1 5 0 0 3 4 3 1 17 [Redacted] F200 22/09/2005 3 3 0 0 2 2 2 1 13

48

[Redacted] E070 26/09/2005 3 2 1 0 1 4 1 2 14 [Redacted] E080 26/09/2005 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 [Redacted] E090 26/09/2005 0 2 0 0 2 5 1 0 10 [Redacted] F120 26/09/2005 3 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 8 [Redacted] F140 26/09/2005 2 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 8 [Redacted] F180 26/09/2005 3 1 0 0 1 3 0 2 10 [Redacted] F190 26/09/2005 1 1 1 0 4 5 2 1 15 [Redacted] F200 26/09/2005 2 5 0 0 1 0 1 4 13

[Redacted] E070 29/09/2005 1 0 5 0 1 3 2 1 13 [Redacted] E080 29/09/2005 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 [Redacted] E090 29/09/2005 0 1 1 0 0 4 1 0 7 [Redacted] F120 29/09/2005 4 2 0 0 1 2 2 2 13 [Redacted] F140 29/09/2005 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 6 [Redacted] F180 29/09/2005 1 3 0 0 1 3 0 1 9 [Redacted] F190 29/09/2005 1 1 0 0 2 3 2 2 11 [Redacted] F200 29/09/2005 2 2 4 0 0 1 1 4 14

[Redacted] E070 03/10/2005 1 2 1 0 2 2 1 2 11 [Redacted] E080 03/10/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 [Redacted] E090 03/10/2005 1 1 0 0 1 4 0 1 8 [Redacted] F120 03/10/2005 2 1 2 0 0 0 4 0 9 [Redacted] F140 03/10/2005 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 4 [Redacted] F180 03/10/2005 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 0 8 [Redacted] F190 03/10/2005 0 2 0 0 1 4 1 3 11 [Redacted] F200 03/10/2005 2 1 1 0 2 3 1 4 14

[Redacted] E070 06/10/2005 0 2 0 0 3 1 1 2 9 [Redacted] E080 06/10/2005 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 [Redacted] E090 06/10/2005 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 6 [Redacted] F120 06/10/2005 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 6 [Redacted] F140 06/10/2005 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 [Redacted] F180 06/10/2005 0 1 0 0 3 2 2 2 10 [Redacted] F190 06/10/2005 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 7 [Redacted] F200 06/10/2005 1 0 2 0 2 4 0 3 12

[Redacted] E070 10/10/2005 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 0 6 [Redacted] E080 10/10/2005 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 [Redacted] E090 10/10/2005 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 5 [Redacted] F120 10/10/2005 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 2 7 [Redacted] F140 10/10/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 [Redacted] F180 10/10/2005 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 7 [Redacted] F190 10/10/2005 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 4 [Redacted] F200 10/10/2005 0 1 1 0 2 1 3 0 8

[Redacted] E070 13/10/2005 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 5 [Redacted] E080 13/10/2005 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 [Redacted] E090 13/10/2005 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 [Redacted] F120 13/10/2005 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 2 6 [Redacted] F140 13/10/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3

49

[Redacted] F180 13/10/2005 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 6 [Redacted] F190 13/10/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 [Redacted] F200 13/10/2005 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 5

[Redacted] E070 17/10/2005 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 [Redacted] E080 17/10/2005 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 4 [Redacted] E090 17/10/2005 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 [Redacted] F120 17/10/2005 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 [Redacted] F140 17/10/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F180 17/10/2005 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 [Redacted] F190 17/10/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F200 17/10/2005 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2

[Redacted] E070 20/10/2005 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 [Redacted] E080 20/10/2005 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 [Redacted] E090 20/10/2005 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 [Redacted] F120 20/10/2005 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 [Redacted] F140 20/10/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F180 20/10/2005 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 [Redacted] F190 20/10/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F200 20/10/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[Redacted] E070 25/10/2005 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 [Redacted] E080 25/10/2005 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 4 [Redacted] E090 25/10/2005 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 [Redacted] F120 25/10/2005 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 [Redacted] F140 25/10/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 [Redacted] F180 25/10/2005 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 [Redacted] F190 25/10/2005 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 [Redacted] F200 25/10/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[Redacted] E070 01/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 [Redacted] E080 01/11/2005 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 [Redacted] E090 01/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F120 01/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 [Redacted] F140 01/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F180 01/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F190 01/11/2005 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 [Redacted] F200 01/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[Redacted] E070 04/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] E080 04/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 [Redacted] E090 04/11/2005 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 [Redacted] F120 04/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F140 04/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F180 04/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F190 04/11/2005 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 [Redacted] F200 04/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[Redacted] E070 07/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] E080 07/11/2005 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

50

[Redacted] E090 07/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 [Redacted] F120 07/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F140 07/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F180 07/11/2005 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 [Redacted] F190 07/11/2005 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 [Redacted] F200 07/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

[Redacted] E070 12/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 [Redacted] E080 12/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] E090 12/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F120 12/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F140 12/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F180 12/11/2005 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 [Redacted] F190 12/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 [Redacted] F200 12/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[Redacted] E070 16/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] E080 16/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] E090 16/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 [Redacted] F120 16/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F140 16/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F180 16/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 [Redacted] F190 16/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [Redacted] F200 16/11/2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

51

Appendix 7: Data Archive The report and data collected under CCW contract FC73-02-319 is archived as Media 355 and is stored in fire-proof storage facilities at CCW headquarters on optical media. This archive is also maintained on backed-up server based storage at CCW headquarters. The data archive consists of: [A] Digital versions of the contract report: Microsoft Word document(s); and an

equivalent Adobe Portable Document Format version. [B] Digital photographs (in .jpg format):

1. A series of 13 photos showing survey sites used for data collection. 2. A series of 68 grey seal pelage photos from N.Pembrokeshire mainland sites. 3. A series of 86 grey seal pelage photos from Ramsey Island sites.

[C] An index of grey seal pelage photography filenames in Microsoft Word format (as

reproduced in Appendix 5 of the report). [C] A series of 8 MapInfo (GIS) tables in MapInfo format (.dat, .id, .map, .tab) [D] A series of 4 Microsoft Excel spreadsheets containing raw survey data & field

observations. [E] A list of grey seal sites used in the work and their grid references.

Matt Tiahlo MBA Contractor for CCW 22 May 2006