Report on the Alternative Platform Observer Program in North Carolina: March 2006 to March 2007

In February 2006, an Alternative Platform Observer Program (APP) was implemented in North Carolina (NC) to observe commercial gillnet trips by small vessels [<24 ft (7.2 m)] in nearshore waters out to three nm (5.6 km). Efforts began with outreach to the fishing industry while simultaneously gathering information to be incorporated in a Database of Fishermen. From 30 March 2006 through 31 March 2007, 36 trips were observed. Observed trips of the NC nearshore gillnet fishery targeted seven species: kingfish (Menticirrhus spp.), Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus), spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis). Of the 36 trips, 20 (55.6%) were with vessels that were new to the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP), having never carried an observer. Based on the landings data for small vessels from North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF), the APP has achieved 10.1% coverage by number of trips and 4.0% by pounds landed. No incidental takes of bottlenose dolphins were observed by the APP, although bottlenose dolphins were sighted during 19 (52.8%) observed trips. The APP has drastically increased the number of observed trips of small vessels in the nearshore waters of NC. When combined with trips observed by NEFOP (n=205), the APP resulted in a 15.6% increase in the number of observed gillnet trips. (PDF contains 34 pages)

Wave Sensor Technologies, St Petersburg, Florida, March 7-9, 2007: workshop proceedings

The Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) convened a workshop on "Wave Sensor Technologies" in St. Petersburg, Florida on March 7-9, 2007, hosted by the University of South Florida (USF) College of Marine Science, an ACT partner institution. The primary objectives of this workshop were to: 1) define the present state of wave measurement technologies, 2) identify the major impediments to their advancement, and 3) make strategic recommendations for future development and on the necessary steps to integrate wave measurement sensors into operational coastal ocean observing systems. The participants were from various sectors, including research scientists, technology developers and industry providers, and technology users, such as operational coastal managers and coastal decision makers. Waves consistently are ranked as a critical variable for numerous coastal issues, from maritime transportation to beach erosion to habitat restoration. For the purposes of this workshop, the participants focused on measuring "wind waves" (i.e., waves on the water surface, generated by the wind, restored by gravity and existing between approximately 3 and 30-second periods), although it was recognized that a wide range of both forced and free waves exist on and in the oceans. Also, whereas the workshop put emphasis on the nearshore coastal component of wave measurements, the participants also stressed the importance of open ocean surface waves measurement. Wave sensor technologies that are presently available for both environments include bottom-mounted pressure gauges, surface following buoys, wave staffs, acoustic Doppler current profilers, and shore-based remote sensing radar instruments. One of the recurring themes of workshop discussions was the dichotomous nature of wave data users. The two separate groups, open ocean wave data users and the nearshore/coastal wave data users, have different requirements. Generally, the user requirements increase both in spatial/temporal resolution and precision as one moves closer to shore. Most ocean going mariners are adequately satisfied with measurements of wave period and height and a wave general direction. However, most coastal and nearshore users require at least the first five Fourier parameters ("First 5"): wave energy and the first four directional Fourier coefficients. Furthermore, wave research scientists would like sensors capable of providing measurements beyond the first four Fourier coefficients. It was debated whether or not high precision wave observations in one location can take the place of a less precise measurement at a different location. This could be accomplished by advancing wave models and using wave models to extend data to nearby areas. However, the consensus was that models are no substitution for in situ wave data.[PDF contains 26 pages]

Biological Platforms for Environmental Sensor technologies and their uses as indicators of the marine environment, Seward, Alaska, September 19-21, 2007: workshop proceedings

The Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) Workshop entitled, "Biological Platforms as Sensor Technologies and their Use as Indicators for the Marine Environment" was held in Seward, Alaska, September 19 - 21,2007. The workshop was co-hosted by the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) and the Alaska SeaLife Center (ASLC). The workshop was attended by 25 participants representing a wide range of research scientists, managers, and manufacturers who develop and deploy sensory equipment using aquatic vertebrates as the mode of transport. Eight recommendations were made by participants at the conclusion of the workshop and are presented here without prioritization: 1. Encourage research toward development of energy scavenging devices of suitable sizes for use in remote sensing packages attached to marine animals. 2. Encourage funding sources for development of new sensor technologies and animal-borne tags. 3. Develop animal-borne environmental sensor platforms that offer more combined systems and improved data recovery methodologies, and expand the geographic scope of complementary fixed sensor arrays. 4. Engage the oceanographic community by: a. Offering a mini workshop at an AGU ocean sciences conference for people interested in developing an ocean carbon program that utilizes animal-borne sensor technology. b. Outreach to chemical oceanographers. 5. Min v2d6.sheepserver.net e and merge technologies from other disciplines that may be applied to marine sensors (e.g. biomedical field). 6. Encourage the NOAA Permitting Office to: a. Make a more predictable, reliable, and consistent permitting system for using animal platforms. b. Establish an evaluation process. c. Adhere to established standards. 7. Promote the expanded use of calibrated hydrophones as part of existing animal platforms. 8. Encourage the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) to promote animal tracking as effective samplers of the marine environment, and use of animals as ocean sensor technology platforms. [PDF contains 20 pages]

Enabling Sensor* Interoperability, Portland, Maine, October 16-18 2006: workshop proceedings

The ACT workshop "Enabling Sensor Interoperability" addressed the need for protocols at the hardware, firmware, and higher levels in order to attain instrument interoperability within and between ocean observing systems. For the purpose of the workshop, participants spoke in tern of "instruments" rather than "sensors," defining an instrument as a device that contains one or more sensors or actuators and can convert signals from analog to digital. An increase in the abundance, variety, and complexity of instruments and observing systems suggests that effective standards would greatly improve "plug-and-work" capabilities. However, there are few standards or standards bodies that currently address instrument interoperability and configuration. Instrument interoperability issues span the length and breadth of these systems, from the measurement to the end user, including middleware services. There are three major components of instrument interoperability including physical, communication, and application/control layers. Participants identified the essential issues, current obstacles, and enabling technologies and standards, then came up with a series of short and long term solutions. The top three recommended actions, deemed achievable within 6 months of the release of this report are: A list of recommendations for enabling instrument interoperability should be put together and distributed to instrument developers. A recommendation for funding sources to achieve instrument interoperability should be drafted. Funding should be provided (for example through NOPP or an IOOS request for proposals) to develop and demonstrate instrument interoperability technologies involving instrument manufacturers, observing system operators, and cyberinfrastructure groups. Program managers should be identified and made to understand that milestones for achieving instrument interoperability include a) selection of a methodology for uniquely identifying an instrument, b) development of a common protocol for automatic instrument discovery, c) agreement on uniform methods for measurements, d) enablement of end user controlled power cycling, and e) implementation of a registry component for IDS and attributes. The top three recommended actions, deemed achievable within S years of the release of this report are: An ocean observing interoperability standards body should be established that addresses standards for a) metadata, b) commands, c) protocols, d) processes, e) exclusivity, and f) naming authorities.[PDF contains 48 pages]

Integrated Sensor Systems for Vessels of Opportunity, National Oceanographic Centre, Southampton, UK, October 10-12,2006 : workshop proceedings

The use of self-contained, low-maintenance sensor systems installed on commercial vessels is becoming an important monitoring and scientific tool in many regions around the world. These systems integrate data from meteorological and water quality sensors with GPS data into a data stream that is automatically transferred from ship to shore. To begin linking some of this developing expertise, the Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) and the European Coastal and Ocean Observing Technology (ECOOT) organized a workshop on this topic in Southampton, United Kingdom, October 10-12, 2006. The participants included technology users, technology developers, and shipping representatives. They collaborated to identify sensors currently employed on integrated systems, users of this data, limitations associated with these systems, and ways to overcome these limitations. The group also identified additional technologies that could be employed on future systems and examined whether standard architectures and data protocols for integrated systems should be established. Participants at the workshop defined 17 different parameters currently being measured by integrated systems. They identified that diverse user groups utilize information from these systems from resource management agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to local tourism groups and educational organizations. Among the limitations identified were instrument compatibility and interoperability, data quality control and quality assurance, and sensor calibration andlor maintenance frequency. Standardization of these integrated systems was viewed to be both advantageous and disadvantageous; while participants believed that standardization could be beneficial on many levels, they also felt that users may be hesitant to purchase a suite of instruments from a single manufacturer; and that a "plug and play" system including sensors from multiple manufactures may be difficult to achieve. A priority recommendation and conclusion for the general integrated sensor system community was to provide vessel operators with real-time access to relevant data (e.g., ambient temperature and salinity to increase efficiency of water treatment systems and meteorological data for increased vessel safety and operating efficiency) for broader system value. Simplified data displays are also required for education and public outreach/awareness. Other key recommendations were to encourage the use of integrated sensor packages within observing systems such as 100s and EuroGOOS, identify additional customers of sensor system data, and publish results of previous work in peer-reviewed journals to increase agency and scientific awareness and confidence in the technology. Priority recommendations and conclusions for ACT entailed highlighting the value of integrated sensor systems for vessels of opportunity through articles in the popular press, and marine science. [PDF contains 28 pages]

Meteorological Buoy Sensor Workshop, Solomons, Maryland, April 19-21, 2006: workshop proceedings

The co-organized Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) and National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) Workshop "Meteorological Buoy Sensors Workshop" convened in Solomons, Maryland, April 19 to 21,2006, sponsored by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES) Chesapeake Bay Laboratory (CBL), an ACT partner institution. Participants from various sectors including resource managers and industry representatives collaborated to focus on technologies and sensors that measure the near surface variables of wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, humidity and air temperature. The vendor list was accordingly targeted at companies that produced these types of sensors. The managers represented a cross section of federal, regional and academic marine observing interests from around the country. Workshop discussions focused on the challenges associated with making marine meteorological observations in general and problems that were specific to a particular variable. Discussions also explored methods to mitigate these challenges through the adoption of best practices, improved technologies and increased standardization. Some of the key workshop outcomes and recommendations included: 0cean.US should establish a committee devoted to observations. The committee would have a key role in developing observing standards. The community should adopt the target cost, reliability and performance standards drafted for a typical meteorological package to be used by a regional observing system. A forum should be established to allow users and manufacturers to share best practices for the employment of marine meteorological sensors. The ACT website would host the forum. Federal activities that evaluate meteorological sensors should make their results publicly available. ACT should extend their evaluation process to include meteorological sensors. A follow on workshop should be conducted that covers the observing of meteorological variables not addressed by this workshop. (pdf contains 18 pages)

Optical Remote Sensing of Coastal Habitats, Moss Landing, California, 9-11 January, 2006: workshop proceedings

The Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) Workshop on Optical Remote Sensing of Coastal Habitats was convened January 9-11, 2006 at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories in Moss Landing, California, sponsored by the ACT West Coast regional partnership comprised of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML) and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). The "Optical Remote Sensing of Coastal Habitats" (ORS) Workshop completes ACT'S Remote Sensing Technology series by building upon the success of ACT'S West Coast Regional Partner Workshop "Acoustic Remote Sensing Technologies for Coastal Imaging and Resource Assessment" (ACT 04-07). Drs. Paul Bissett of the Florida Environmental Research Institute (FERI) and Scott McClean of Satlantic, Inc. were the ORS workshop co-chairs. Invited participants were selected to provide a uniform representation of the academic researchers, private sector product developers, and existing and potential data product users from the resource management community to enable development of broad consensus opinions on the role of ORS technologies in coastal resource assessment and management. The workshop was organized to examine the current state of multi- and hyper-spectral imaging technologies with the intent to assess the current limits on their routine application for habitat classification and resource monitoring of coastal watersheds, nearshore shallow water environments, and adjacent optically deep waters. Breakout discussions focused on the capabilities, advantages ,and limitations of the different technologies (e.g., spectral & spatial resolution), as well as practical issues related to instrument and platform availability, reliability, hardware, software, and technical skill levels required to exploit the data products generated by these instruments. Specifically, the participants were charged to address the following: (1) Identify the types of ORS data products currently used for coastal resource assessment and how they can assist coastal managers in fulfilling their regulatory and management responsibilities; (2) Identify barriers and challenges to the application of ORS technologies in management and research activities; (3) Recommend a series of community actions to overcome identified barriers and challenges. Plenary presentations by Drs. Curtiss 0. Davis (Oregon State University) and Stephan Lataille (ITRES Research, Ltd.) provided background summaries on the varieties of ORS technologies available, deployment platform options, and tradeoffs for application of ORS data products with specific applications to the assessment of coastal zone water quality and habitat characterization. Dr. Jim Aiken (CASIX) described how multiscale ground-truth measurements were essential for developing robust assessment of modeled biogeochemical interpretations derived from optically based earth observation data sets. While continuing improvements in sensor spectral resolution, signal to noise and dynamic range coupled with sensor-integrated GPS, improved processing algorithms for georectification, and atmospheric correction have made ORS data products invaluable synoptic tools for oceanographic research, their adoption as management tools has lagged. Seth Blitch (Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve) described the obvious needs for, yet substantial challenges hindering the adoption of advanced spectroscopic imaging data products to supplement the current dominance of digital ortho-quad imagery by the resource management community, especially when they impinge on regulatory issues. (pdf contains 32 pages)

Transfer of Medical Sensor Technologies to Environmental Monitoring, Solomons, Maryland, April 6-8, 2005: workshop proceedings

(pdf contains 23 pages)

Ground water-surface water interactions sensor technology, Savannah, Georgia, March 7-9, 2005: workshop proceedings

The Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) held a Workshop on Sensor Technology for Assessing Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions in the Coastal Zone on March 7 to 9,2005 in Savannah, GA. The main goal of the workshop was to summarize the general parameters, which have been found to be useful in assessing groundwater-surface water (GW-SW) interactions in the coastal zone. The workshop participants (Appendix I) were specifically charged with identifying the types of sensor systems, if any, that have been used to obtain time-series data and to make known which parameters may be the most amenable to the development/application of sensor technology. The group consisted of researchers, industry representatives, and environmental managers. Four general recommendations were made: 1. Educate coastal managers and agencies on the importance of GW-SW interactions, keeping in mind that regulatory agencies are driven by a different set of rules than researchers: the focus is on understanding the significance of the problem and providing solutions. ACT could facilitate this process in two ways. First, given that the research literature on this subject is fairly diffuse, ACT could provide links from its web site to fact sheets or other literature. Second, ACT could organize a focused meeting for managers and/or agency groups. Encourage development of primary tools for quantifying flow. The most promising technology in this respect is flow meters designed for flux chambers, mainly because they should be simple to use and can be made relatively inexpensively. However, it should be kept in mind that they provide only point measurements and several would need to be deployed as a network in order to obtain reliable flow estimates. For evaluating system wide GW-SW interactions, tools that integrate the signal over large areas would be required. Suggestions include a user-friendly hydrogeologic models, keeping in mind that freshwater flow is not the entire story, or continuous radon monitors. Though the latter would be slightly more difficult to use in terms of background knowledge, such an instrument would be low power and easy to operate and maintain. ACT could facilitate this recommendation by identifying funding opportunities on its web site and/or performing evaluations of existing technologies that could be summarized on the web site. (pdf contains 18 pages)

Seabed Sensor Technology, Savannah, Georgia, February 1-3, 2006: workshop proceedings

Future coastal management practices require that a holistic, ecosystem management approach be adopted. Coastal ecosystems, however, present a variety of specific and unique challenges relative to open ocean systems. In particular, interactions with the seabed significantly influence the coastal ecosystem. Observing technologies must be developed and employed to incorporate seafloor interactions, processes and habitat diversity into research and management activities. An ACT Workshop on Seabed Sensor Technology was held February 1-3, 2006 in Savannah, Georgia, to summarize the current state of sensor technologies applicable to examining and monitoring the coastal seabed, including the near-bed benthic boundary layer and surface sediment layer. Workshop participants were specifically charged to identify current sensors in use, recommend improvements to these systems and to identify areas for future development and activities that would advance the use of sensor technology in the observation, monitoring and management of the coastal benthic environment. (pdf contains 23 pages)

Interactions Between Platform Terminal Transmitters and Turtle Excluder Devices

Satellite telemetry is a common tool for examining sea turtle movements, and many research programs have successfully tracked adults. Relatively short satellite track durations recorded for juvenile Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, Lepidochelys kempii, in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico raised questions regarding premature transmission loss. We examined interactions between juvenile sea turtles outfitted with platform terminal transmitters (PTT’s) and turtle excluder devices (TED’s) and the potential for transmission loss due to this interaction. A pilot study was conducted with eight 34-month-old, captive-reared loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta; a larger trial the following year used twenty 34-month-olds. Half of the turtles in each trial were outfitted with dummy PTT’s (8×4×2 cm), and all turtles were sent through a trawl equipped with a bottom-opening Super-Shooter TED. No apparent damage was sustained by any PTT, but four of five PTT-outfitted loggerheads encountering the TED carapace-first exhibited increased escape times when the PTT wedged between the TED deflector bars (10.2 cm apart). Overall, 15 loggerheads (54%) impacted the TED carapace-first. Attachment of PTT’s to smaller sea turtles may slow or, in worst cases, inhibit escape from TED’s. Likewise, loose or poorly secured PTT’s could impede escape or be shed during such an interaction. Researchers tracking small turtles in or near regions with trawling activity should consider PTT size and shape and the combined PTT/adhesive profile to minimize potentially detrimental interactions with TED’s.

Adjustment of ocean color sensor calibration through multi-band statistics

The band-by-band vicarious calibration of on-orbit satellite ocean color instruments, such as SeaWiFS and MODIS, using ground-based measurements has significant residual uncertainties. This paper applies spectral shape and population statistics to tune the calibration of the blue bands against each other to allow examination of the interband calibration and potentially provide an analysis of calibration trends. This adjustment does not require simultaneous matches of ground and satellite observations. The method demonstrates the spectral stability of the SeaWiFS calibration and identifies a drift in the MODIS instrument onboard Aqua that falls within its current calibration uncertainties.