A bioregional classification of the continental shelf of northeastern North America for conservation analysis and planning based on representation

Understanding how well National Marine Sanctuaries and other marine protected areas represent the diversity of species present within and among the biogeographic regions where they occur is essential for assessing their conservation value and identifying gaps in the protection of biological diversity. One of the first steps in any such assessment should be the development of clearly defined and scientifically justified planning boundaries representing distinct oceanographic conditions and faunal assemblages. Here, we propose a set of boundaries for the continental shelf of northeastern North America defined by subdivisions of the Eastern Temperate Province, based on a review and synthesis (i.e. meta-analysis) of the scientific literature. According to this review, the Eastern Temperate Province is generally divided into the Acadian and Virginian Subprovinces. Broad agreement places the Scotian Shelf, Gulf of Maine, and Bay of Fundy within the Acadian Subprovince. The proper association of Georges Bank is less clear; some investigators consider it part of the Acadian and others part of the Virginian. Disparate perspectives emerge from the analysis of different groups of organisms. Further, while some studies suggest a distinction between the Southern New England shelf and the rest of the Mid-Atlantic Bight, others describe the region as a broad transition zone with no unique characteristics of its own. We suggest there exists sufficient evidence to consider the Scotian Shelf, Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, Southern New England, and Southern Mid-Atlantic Bight as distinct biogeographic regions from a conservation planning perspective, and present a set of proposed mapped boundaries. (PDF contains 23 pages.)

Survey report of NOAA Ship McArthur II cruises AR-04-04, AR-05-05 and AR-06-03: Habitat classification of side scan sonar imagery in support of deep-sea coral/sponge explorations at the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

Habitat mapping and characterization has been defined as a high-priority management issue for the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS), especially for poorly known deep-sea habitats that may be sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance. As a result, a team of scientists from OCNMS, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), and other partnering institutions initiated a series of surveys to assess the distribution of deep-sea coral/sponge assemblages within the sanctuary and to look for evidence of potential anthropogenic impacts in these critical habitats. Initial results indicated that remotely delineating areas of hard bottom substrate through acoustic sensing could be a useful tool to increase the efficiency and success of subsequent ROV-based surveys of the associated deep-sea fauna. Accordingly, side scan sonar surveys were conducted in May 2004, June 2005, and April 2006 aboard the NOAA Ship McArthur II to: (1) obtain additional imagery of the seafloor for broader habitat-mapping coverage of sanctuary waters, and (2) help delineate suitable deep-sea coral/sponge habitat, in areas of both high and low commercial-fishing activities, to serve as sites for surveying-in more detail using an ROV on subsequent cruises. Several regions of the sea floor throughout the OCNMS were surveyed and mosaicked at 1-meter pixel resolution. Imagery from the side scan sonar mapping efforts was integrated with other complementary data from a towed camera sled, ROVs, sedimentary samples, and bathymetry records to describe geological and biological (where possible) aspects of habitat. Using a hierarchical deep-water marine benthic classification scheme (Greene et al. 1999), we created a preliminary map of various habitat polygon features for use in a geographical information system (GIS). This report provides a description of the mapping and groundtruthing efforts as well as results of the image classification procedure for each of the areas surveyed. (PDF contains 60 pages.)

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Habitat Mapping: Survey report and classification of side scan sonar data from surveys HMPR-114-2004-02 and HMPR-116-2005-01.

The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) continues to invest significant resources into seafloor mapping activities along Washington’s outer coast (Intelmann and Cochrane 2006; Intelmann et al. 2006; Intelmann 2006). Results from these annual mapping efforts offer a snapshot of current ground conditions, help to guide research and management activities, and provide a baseline for assessing the impacts of various threats to important habitat. During the months of August 2004 and May and July 2005, we used side scan sonar to image several regions of the sea floor in the northern OCNMS, and the data were mosaicked at 1-meter pixel resolution. Video from a towed camera sled, bathymetry data, sedimentary samples and side scan sonar mapping were integrated to describe geological and biological aspects of habitat. Polygon features were created and attributed with a hierarchical deep-water marine benthic classification scheme (Greene et al. 1999). For three small areas that were mapped with both side scan sonar and multibeam echosounder, we made a comparison of output from the classified images indicating little difference in results between the two methods. With these considerations, backscatter derived from multibeam bathymetry is currently a costefficient and safe method for seabed imaging in the shallow (<30 meters) rocky waters of OCNMS. The image quality is sufficient for classification purposes, the associated depths provide further descriptive value and risks to gear are minimized. In shallow waters (<30 meters) which do not have a high incidence of dangerous rock pinnacles, a towed multi-beam side scan sonar could provide a better option for obtaining seafloor imagery due to the high rate of acquisition speed and high image quality, however the high probability of losing or damaging such a costly system when deployed as a towed configuration in the extremely rugose nearshore zones within OCNMS is a financially risky proposition. The development of newer technologies such as intereferometric multibeam systems and bathymetric side scan systems could also provide great potential for mapping these nearshore rocky areas as they allow for high speed data acquisition, produce precisely geo-referenced side scan imagery to bathymetry, and do not experience the angular depth dependency associated with multibeam echosounders allowing larger range scales to be used in shallower water. As such, further investigation of these systems is needed to assess their efficiency and utility in these environments compared to traditional side scan sonar and multibeam bathymetry. (PDF contains 43 pages.)

Benthic habitat mapping in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary: Classification of side scan sonar data from survey HMPR-108-2002-01: Version I

In September 2002, side scan sonar was used to image a portion of the sea floor in the northern OCNMS and was mosaiced at 1-meter pixel resolution using 100 kHz data collected at 300-meter range scale. Video from a remotely-operated vehicle (ROV), bathymetry data, sedimentary samples, and sonar mapping have been integrated to describe geological and biological aspects of habitat and polygon features have been created and attributed with a hierarchical deep-water marine benthic classification scheme (Greene et al. 1999). The data can be used with geographic information system (GIS) software for display, query, and analysis. Textural analysis of the sonar images provided a relatively automated method for delineating substrate into three broad classes representing soft, mixed sediment, and hard bottom. Microhabitat and presence of certain biologic attributes were also populated into the polygon features, but strictly limited to areas where video groundtruthing occurred. Further groundtruthing work in specific areas would improve confidence in the classified habitat map. (PDF contains 22 pages.)

NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Coastal Change Analysis Programl (C-CAP) is developing a nationally standardized database on landcover and habitat change in the coastal regions of the United States. C-CAP is part of the Estuarine Habitat Program (EHP) of NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program (COP). C-CAP inventories coastal submersed habitats, wetland habitats, and adjacent uplands and monitors changes in these habitats on a one- to five-year cycle. This type of information and frequency of detection are required to improve scientific understanding of the linkages of coastal and submersed wetland habitats with adjacent uplands and with the distribution, abundance, and health of living marine resources. The monitoring cycle will vary according to the rate and magnitude of change in each geographic region. Satellite imagery (primarily Landsat Thematic Mapper), aerial photography, and field data are interpreted, classified, analyzed, and integrated with other digital data in a geographic information system (GIS). The resulting landcover change databases are disseminated in digital form for use by anyone wishing to conduct geographic analysis in the completed regions. C-CAP spatial information on coastal change will be input to EHP conceptual and predictive models to support coastal resource policy planning and analysis. CCAP products will include 1) spatially registered digital databases and images, 2) tabular summaries by state, county, and hydrologic unit, and 3) documentation. Aggregations to larger areas (representing habitats, wildlife refuges, or management districts) will be provided on a case-by-case basis. Ongoing C-CAP research will continue to explore techniques for remote determination of biomass, productivity, and functional status of wetlands and will evaluate new technologies (e.g. remote sensor systems, global positioning systems, image processing algorithms) as they become available. Selected hardcopy land-cover change maps will be produced at local (1:24,000) to regional scales (1:500,000) for distribution. Digital land-cover change data will be provided to users for the cost of reproduction. Much of the guidance contained in this document was developed through a series of professional workshops and interagency meetings that focused on a) coastal wetlands and uplands; b) coastal submersed habitat including aquatic beds; c) user needs; d) regional issues; e) classification schemes; f) change detection techniques; and g) data quality. Invited participants included technical and regional experts and representatives of key State and Federal organizations. Coastal habitat managers and researchers were given an opportunity for review and comment. This document summarizes C-CAP protocols and procedures that are to be used by scientists throughout the United States to develop consistent and reliable coastal change information for input to the C-CAP nationwide database. It also provides useful guidelines for contributors working on related projects. It is considered a working document subject to periodic review and revision.(PDF file contains 104 pages.)

Stocks of Dolphins (Stenella spp. and Delphinus delphis) in the Eastern Tropical Pacific: A Phylogeographic Classification

Current information is reviewed that provides clues to the intraspecific structure of dolphin species incidently killed in the yellowfin tuna purse-seine fishery of the eastern tropical Pacific (ETP). Current law requires that management efforts are focused on the intraspecific level, attempting to preserve local and presumably locally adapted populations. Four species are reviewed: pantropical spotted, Stenella attenuata; spinner, S. longirostTis; striped, S. coeruleoalba; and common, Delphinus delphis, dolphins. For each species, distributional, demographic, phenotypic, and genotypic data are summarized, and the putative stocks are categorized based on four hierarchal phylogeographic criteria relative to their probability of being evolutionarily significant units. For spotted dolphins, the morphological similarity of animals from the south and the west argues that stock designations (and boundaries) be changed from the current northern offshore and southern offshore to northeastern offshore and a combined western and southern offshore. For the striped dolphin, we find little reason to continue the present division into geographical stocks. For common dolphins, we reiterate an earlier recommendation that the long-beaked form (Baja neritic) and the northern short-beaked form be managed separately; recent morphological and genetic work provides evidence that they are probably separate species. Finally, we note that the stock structure of ETP spinner dolphins is complex, with the whitebelly form exhibiting characteristics of a hybrid swarm between the eastern and pantropical subspecies. There is little morphological basis at present for division of the whitebelly spinner dolphin into northern and southern stocks. However, we recommend continued separate management of the pooled whitebelly forms, despite their hybrid/intergrade status. Steps should be taken to ensure that management practices do not reduce the abundance of eastern relative to whitebelly spinner dolphins. To do so may lead to increased invasion of the eastern's stock range and possible replacement of the eastern spinner dolphin genome.(PDF file contains 24 pages.)

Hydrocarbon sensors for oil spill prevention and response, Seward, Alaska, April 8th-10th, 2008: workshop proceedings

During April 8th-10th, 2008, the Aliance for Coastal Technology (ACT) partner institutions, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), Alaska SeaLife Center (ASLC), and the Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI) hosted a workshop entitled: "Hydrocarbon sensors for oil spill prevention and response" in Seward, Alaska. The main focus was to bring together 29 workshop participants-representing workshop managers, scientists, and technology developers - together to discuss current and future hydrocarbon in-situ, laboratory, and remote sensors as they apply to oil spill prevention and response. [PDF contains 28 pages] Hydrocarbons and their derivatives still remain one of the most important energy sources in the world. To effectively manage these energy sources, proper protocol must be implemented to ensure prevention and responses to oil spills, as there are significant economic and environmental costs when oil spills occur. Hydrocarbon sensors provide the means to detect and monitor oil spills before, during, and after they occur. Capitalizing on the properties of oil, developers have designed in-situ, laboratory, and remote sensors that absorb or reflect the electromagnetic energy at different spectral bands. Workshop participants identified current hydrocarbon sensors (in-situ, laboratory, and remote sensors) and their overall performance. To achieve the most comprehensive understanding of oil spills, multiple sensors will be needed to gather oil spill extent, location, movement, thickness, condition, and classification. No single hydrocarbon sensor has the capability to collect all this information. Participants, therefore, suggested the development of means to combine sensor equipment to effectively and rapidly establish a spill response. As the exploration of oil continues at polar latitudes, sensor equipment must be developed to withstand harsh arctic climates, be able to detect oil under ice, and reduce the need for ground teams because ice extent is far too large of an area to cover. Participants also recognized the need for ground teams because ice extent is far too large of an area to cover. Participants also recognized the need for the U.S. to adopt a multi-agency cooperation for oil spill response, as the majority of issues surounding oil spill response focuses not on the hydrocarbon sensors but on an effective contingency plan adopted by all agencies. It is recommended that the U.S. could model contingency planning based on other nations such as Germany and Norway. Workshop participants were asked to make recommendations at the conclusion of the workshop and are summarized below without prioritization: *Outreach materials must be delivered to funding sources and Congressional delegates regarding the importance of oil spill prevention and response and the development of proper sensors to achieve effective response. *Develop protocols for training resource managers as new sensors become available. *Develop or adopt standard instrument specifications and testing protocols to assist manufacturers in further developing new sensor technology. *As oil exploration continues at polar latitudes, more research and development should be allocated to develop a suite of instruments that are applicable to oil detection under ice.

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)