Hydroacoustic surveys: a non-destructive approach to monitoring fish distributions at National Marine Sanctuaries

The science of fisheries acoustics and its applicability to resource management have evolved over the past several decades. This document provides a basic description of fisheries acoustics and recommendations on using this technology for research and monitoring of fish distributions and habitats within sanctuaries. It also describes recent efforts aimed at applying fisheries acoustics to Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary (GRNMS) (Figure 1). Historically, methods to assess the underwater environment have included net trawls, diver censuses, hook and line, video, sonar and other techniques deployed in a variety of ways. Fisheries acoustics, using active sonar, relies on the physics of sound traveling through water to quantify the distribution of biota in the water column. By sending a signal of a given frequency through the water column and recording the time of travel and the strength of the reflected signal, it is possible to determine the size and location of fish and estimate biomass from the acoustic backscatter. As a fisheries assessment tool, active hydroacoustics technology is an efficient, non-intrusive method of mapping the water column at a very fine spatial and temporal resolution. It provides a practical alternative to bottom and mid-water trawls, which are not allowed at GRNMS. Passive acoustics, which uses underwater hydrophones to record man-made and natural sounds such as fish spawning calls and sounds produced by marine mammals for communication and echolocation, can provide a useful, complementary survey tool. This report primarily deals with active acoustics, although the integration of active and passive acoustics is addressed as well. (PDF contains 32 pages)

Underwater Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Remote Regions, Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, Coconut Island, Hawaii, February 7-9, 2007: workshop proceedings

The Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) convened a workshop, sponsored by the Hawaii-Pacific and Alaska Regional Partners, entitled Underwater Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Remote Regions at the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology from February 7-9, 2007. The workshop was designed to summarize existing passive acoustic technologies and their uses, as well as to make strategic recommendations for future development and collaborative programs that use passive acoustic tools for scientific investigation and resource management. The workshop was attended by 29 people representing three sectors: research scientists, resource managers, and technology developers. The majority of passive acoustic tools are being developed by individual scientists for specific applications and few tools are available commercially. Most scientists are developing hydrophone-based systems to listen for species-specific information on fish or cetaceans; a few scientists are listening for biological indicators of ecosystem health. Resource managers are interested in passive acoustics primarily for vessel detection in remote protected areas and secondarily to obtain biological and ecological information. The military has been monitoring with hydrophones for decades;however, data and signal processing software has not been readily available to the scientific community, and future collaboration is greatly needed. The challenges that impede future development of passive acoustics are surmountable with greater collaboration. Hardware exists and is accessible; the limits are in the software and in the interpretation of sounds and their correlation with ecological events. Collaboration with the military and the private companies it contracts will assist scientists and managers with obtaining and developing software and data analysis tools. Collaborative proposals among scientists to receive larger pools of money for exploratory acoustic science will further develop the ability to correlate noise with ecological activities. The existing technologies and data analysis are adequate to meet resource managers' needs for vessel detection. However, collaboration is needed among resource managers to prepare large-scale programs that include centralized processing in an effort to address the lack of local capacity within management agencies to analyze and interpret the data. Workshop participants suggested that ACT might facilitate such collaborations through its website and by providing recommendations to key agencies and programs, such as DOD, NOAA, and I00s. There is a need to standardize data formats and archive acoustic environmental data at the national and international levels. Specifically, there is a need for local training and primers for public education, as well as by pilot demonstration projects, perhaps in conjunction with National Marine Sanctuaries. Passive acoustic technologies should be implemented immediately to address vessel monitoring needs. Ecological and health monitoring applications should be developed as vessel monitoring programs provide additional data and opportunities for more exploratory research. Passive acoustic monitoring should also be correlated with water quality monitoring to ease integration into long-term monitoring programs, such as the ocean observing systems. [PDF contains 52 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]

Diversity of estuarine movements of striped bass (Morone saxatilis): a synoptic examination of an estuarine system in southern New Jersey

We determined the dis-tribution of multiple (n=68; 508−978 mm total length [TL]) striped bass (Morone saxatilis) along the estua-rine salinity gradient in the Mullica River−Great Bay in southern New Jersey over two years to determine the diversity of habitat use and the movements of striped bass. Ultrasoni-cally tagged fish were detected in this estuarine area by means of wireless hydrophones deployed at four gates inside the entrance of the study area and farther up to tidal freshwater (38 km). Numerous individuals frequently departed and returned to the estuary, primarily in the spring and late fall over periods of 15−731 days at liberty. The period of residency and degree of movement of individuals to and from the estuary varied extensively among seasons and years. The diversity of movements in and out of, as well as within, the estuary differed from the less-complex patterns reported in earlier studies, perhaps because of the comprehensive and synoptic nature of this study.