Cruise Report NOAA Ship McARTHUR II Cruise AR-04-04: Leg 2 (June 1-12, 2004): A pilot survey of deepwater coral/sponge assemblages and their susceptibility to fishing/harvest impacts at the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS)

Summary: The offshore shelf and canyon habitats of the OCNMS (Fig. 1) are areas of high primary productivity and biodiversity that support extensive groundfish fisheries. Recent acoustic surveys conducted in these waters have indicated the presence of hard-bottom substrates believed to harbor unique deep-sea coral and sponge assemblages. Such fauna are often associated with shallow tropical waters, however an increasing number of studies around the world have recorded them in deeper, cold-water habitats in both northern and southern latitudes. These habitats are of tremendous value as sites of recruitment for commercially important fishes. Yet, ironically, studies have shown how the gear used in offshore demersal fishing, as well as other commercial operations on the seafloor, can cause severe physical disturbances to resident benthic fauna. Due to their exposed structure, slow growth and recruitment rates, and long life spans, deep-sea corals and sponges may be especially vulnerable to such disturbances, requiring very long periods to recover. Potential effects of fishing and other commercial operations in such critical habitats, and the need to define appropriate strategies for the protection of these resources, have been identified as a high-priority management issue for the sanctuary. To begin addressing this issue, an initial pilot survey was conducted June 1-12, 2004 at six sites in offshore waters of the OCNMS (Fig. 2, average depths of 147-265 m) to explore for the presence of deep-sea coral/sponge assemblages and to look for evidence of potential anthropogenic impacts in these critical habitats. The survey was conducted on the NOAA Ship McARTHUR-II using the Navy’s Phantom DHD2+2 remotely operated vehicle (ROV), which was equipped with a video camera, lasers, and a manipulator arm for the collection of voucher specimens. At each site, a 0.1-m2 grab sampler also was used to collect samples of sediments for the analysis of macroinfauna (> 1.0 mm), total organic carbon (TOC), grain size, and chemical contaminants. Vertical profiles of salinity, dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, and pressure were recorded at each site with a small SeaCat conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) profiler. Niskin bottles attached to the CTD also obtained near-bottom water samples in support of a companion study of microbial indicators of coral health and general ecological condition across these sites. All samples except the sediment-contaminant samples are being analyzed with present project funds. Original cruise plans included a total of 12 candidate stations to investigate (Fig. 3). However, inclement weather and equipment failures restricted the sampling to half of these sites. In spite of the limited sampling, the work completed was sufficient to address key project objectives and included several significant scientific observations. Foremost, the cruise was successful in demonstrating the presence of target deepwater coral species in these waters. Patches of the rare stony coral Lophelia pertusa, more characteristic of deepwater coral/sponge assemblages in the North Atlantic, were observed for the first time in OCNMS at a site in 271 meters of water. A large proportion of these corals consisted of dead and broken skeletal remains, and a broken gorgonian (soft coral) also was observed nearby. The source of these disturbances is not known. However, observations from several sites included evidence of bottom trawl marks in the sediment and derelict fishing gear (long lines). Preliminary results also support the view that these areas are important reservoirs of marine biodiversity and of value as habitat for demersal fishes. For example, onboard examination of 18 bottom-sediment grabs revealed benthic infaunal species representative of 14 different invertebrate phyla. Twenty-eight species of fishes from 11 families, including 11 (possibly 12) species of ommercially important rockfishes, also were identified from ROV video footage. These initial discoveries have sparked considerable interests in follow-up studies to learn more about the spatial extent of these assemblages and magnitude of potential impacts from commercial-fishing and other anthropogenic activities in the area. It is essential to expand our knowledge of these deep-sea communities and their vulnerability to potential environmental risks in order to determine the most appropriate management strategies. The survey was conducted under a partnership between NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) and National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) and included scientists from NCCOS, OCNMS, and several other west-coast State, academic, private, and tribal research institutions (see Section 4 for a complete listing of participating scientists). (PDF contains 20 pages)

Deciding to evacuate: Gathering the information to make this important decision

When hazardous storms threaten coastal communities, people need information to decide how to respond to this potential emergency. NOAA and NC Sea Grant are funding a two-year project (Risk Perceptions and Emergency Communication Effectiveness in Coastal Zones) to learn how residents, government officials, businesses and other organizations are informed and use information regarding hurricane and tropical storms. (PDF contains 4 pages)

Grants for Libraries

More and more libraries, museums and cultural institutions rely on fundraising and grant writing to sustain their services, special projects, or new initiatives Since most MLIS programs do not include grant project planning and proposal writing as part of their curriculum, librarians learn the process through trial and error, or continuing education classes. There are numerous books and websites that can assist the novice grant writer. We hope to provide beginners with basic information on the types of grants available, where to look for funding agencies, selected grant writing resources, and a few helpful grant writing hints to get you started. The presentation will be a three-person panel providing a short overview of the areas mentioned above, and discussion of sample grants submitted or received. The overview will be presented in Power Point format with an accompanying handout for each attendee.

Historical knowledge of sharks: ancient science, earliest American encounters, and American science, fisheries, and utilization

In western civilization, the knowledge of the elasmobranch or selachian fishes (sharks and rays) begins with Aristotle (384–322 B.C.). Two of his extant works, the “Historia Animalium” and the “Generation of Animals,” both written about 330 B.C., demonstrate knowledge of elasmobranch fishes acquired by observation. Roman writers of works on natural history, such as Aelian and Pliny, who followed Aristotle, were compilers of available information. Their contribution was that they prevented the Greek knowledge from being lost, but they added few original observations. The fall of Rome, around 476 A.D., brought a period of economic regression and political chaos. These in turn brought intellectual thought to a standstill for nearly one thousand years, the period known as the Dark Ages. It would not be until the middle of the sixteenth century, well into the Renaissance, that knowledge of elasmobranchs would advance again. The works of Belon, Salviani, Rondelet, and Steno mark the beginnings of ichthyology, including the study of sharks and rays. The knowledge of sharks and rays increased slowly during and after the Renaissance, and the introduction of the Linnaean System of Nomenclature in 1735 marks the beginning of modern ichthyology. However, the first major work on sharks would not appear until the early nineteenth century. Knowledge acquired about sea animals usually follows their economic importance and exploitation, and this was also true with sharks. The first to learn about sharks in North America were the native fishermen who learned how, when, and where to catch them for food or for their oils. The early naturalists in America studied the land animals and plants; they had little interest in sharks. When faunistic works on fishes started to appear, naturalists just enumerated the species of sharks that they could discern. Throughout the U.S. colonial period, sharks were seldom utilized for food, although their liver oil or skins were often utilized. Throughout the nineteenth century, the Spiny Dogfish, Squalus acanthias, was the only shark species utilized in a large scale on both coasts. It was fished for its liver oil, which was used as a lubricant, and for lighting and tanning, and for its skin which was used as an abrasive. During the early part of the twentieth century, the Ocean Leather Company was started to process sea animals (primarily sharks) into leather, oil, fertilizer, fins, etc. The Ocean Leather Company enjoyed a monopoly on the shark leather industry for several decades. In 1937, the liver of the Soupfin Shark, Galeorhinus galeus, was found to be a rich source of vitamin A, and because the outbreak of World War II in 1938 interrupted the shipping of vitamin A from European sources, an intensive shark fishery soon developed along the U.S. West Coast. By 1939 the American shark leather fishery had transformed into the shark liver oil fishery of the early 1940’s, encompassing both coasts. By the late 1940’s, these fisheries were depleted because of overfishing and fishing in the nursery areas. Synthetic vitamin A appeared on the market in 1950, causing the fishery to be discontinued. During World War II, shark attacks on the survivors of sunken ships and downed aviators engendered the search for a shark repellent. This led to research aimed at understanding shark behavior and the sensory biology of sharks. From the late 1950’s to the 1980’s, funding from the Office of Naval Research was responsible for most of what was learned about the sensory biology of sharks.

Weighing your options: how to protect your property from shoreline erosion, a handbook for estuarine property owners in North Carolina

If you own property on one of North Carolina’s estuaries, you can use this guide as a tool to learn about the choices you have to control your shoreline erosion and help decide which approach may be right for you. In North Carolina, we make a distinction between waterfront property that is located on the estuary, referred to as estuarine, shoreline, soundfront or riverside property, and waterfront property located directly on the ocean, referred to as oceanfront. Why? State laws and regulations addressing estuarine and oceanfront property, and the available erosion control methods, are quite different. This guide focuses on estuarine property. We’ll introduce you to the six main erosion control options in use in North Carolina and give you information about the out-of-pocket costs and tangible benefits of each option. We’ll also give you information about “hidden” costs and benefits that you may want to factor into your decision-making. You are fortunate to have a piece of estuarine shoreline to call your own, whether it’s your year-round residence or a weekend getaway. And if you’ve noticed some shoreline erosion lately, you’re probably a little concerned. But there are ready solutions.