Eliciting and using stakeholder input to guide Puget Sound nearshore restoration decisionmaking

The goal of the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) is to improve system-wide functionality of nearshorei ecosystem processes. To achieve that goal, PSNERP plans to strategically restore nearshore sites throughout Puget Sound. PSNERP scientists are assessing changes to the nearshore, and will recommend an environmentally strategic restoration portfolio. Yet, PSNERP also needs stakeholder input to design a socially strategic portfolio. This research investigates the values and preferences of stakeholders in the Whidbey Sub-Basin of Puget Sound to help PSNERP be both socially and environmentally strategic. This investigation may be repeated in the six other Puget Sound Sub-Basins. The results will guide restoration portfolio design and future stakeholder involvement activities. This study examines four areas of stakeholder values and preferences: 1) beliefs about the causes, solutions, and severity of nearshore problems; 2) priorities for nearshore features, shoreforms, developments, and restoration objectives; 3) thoughts about ecosystem servicesiii and trade-offs among them; and 4) visions of a future, restored Puget Sound nearshore and the role of science in attaining this vision. The study is framed by two hypotheses from the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), which suggests that groups of policy advocates form around shared “policy core beliefs” which can transcend traditional categories of stakeholders.(PDF contains 3 pages)

Marine Vertebrates and Low Frequency Sound: Technical Report for LFA EIS

Over the past 50 years, economic and technological developments have dramatically increased the human contribution to ambient noise in the ocean. The dominant frequencies of most human-made noise in the ocean is in the low-frequency range (defined as sound energy below 1000Hz), and low-frequency sound (LFS) may travel great distances in the ocean due to the unique propagation characteristics of the deep ocean (Munk et al. 1989). For example, in the Northern Hemisphere oceans low-frequency ambient noise levels have increased by as much as 10 dB during the period from 1950 to 1975 (Urick 1986; review by NRC 1994). Shipping is the overwhelmingly dominant source of low-frequency manmade noise in the ocean, but other sources of manmade LFS including sounds from oil and gas industrial development and production activities (seismic exploration, construction work, drilling, production platforms), and scientific research (e.g., acoustic tomography and thermography, underwater communication). The SURTASS LFA system is an additional source of human-produced LFS in the ocean, contributing sound energy in the 100-500 Hz band. When considering a document that addresses the potential effects of a low-frequency sound source on the marine environment, it is important to focus upon those species that are the most likely to be affected. Important criteria are: 1) the physics of sound as it relates to biological organisms; 2) the nature of the exposure (i.e. duration, frequency, and intensity); and 3) the geographic region in which the sound source will be operated (which, when considered with the distribution of the organisms will determine which species will be exposed). The goal in this section of the LFA/EIS is to examine the status, distribution, abundance, reproduction, foraging behavior, vocal behavior, and known impacts of human activity of those species may be impacted by LFA operations. To focus our efforts, we have examined species that may be physically affected and are found in the region where the LFA source will be operated. The large-scale geographic location of species in relation to the sound source can be determined from the distribution of each species. However, the physical ability for the organism to be impacted depends upon the nature of the sound source (i.e. explosive, impulsive, or non-impulsive); and the acoustic properties of the medium (i.e. seawater) and the organism. Non-impulsive sound is comprised of the movement of particles in a medium. Motion is imparted by a vibrating object (diaphragm of a speaker, vocal chords, etc.). Due to the proximity of the particles in the medium, this motion is transmitted from particle to particle in waves away from the sound source. Because the particle motion is along the same axis as the propagating wave, the waves are longitudinal. Particles move away from then back towards the vibrating source, creating areas of compression (high pressure) and areas of rarefaction (low pressure). As the motion is transferred from one particle to the next, the sound propagates away from the sound source. Wavelength is the distance from one pressure peak to the next. Frequency is the number of waves passing per unit time (Hz). Sound velocity (not to be confused with particle velocity) is the impedance is loosely equivalent to the resistance of a medium to the passage of sound waves (technically it is the ratio of acoustic pressure to particle velocity). A high impedance means that acoustic particle velocity is small for a given pressure (low impedance the opposite). When a sound strikes a boundary between media of different impedances, both reflection and refraction, and a transfer of energy can occur. The intensity of the reflection is a function of the intensity of the sound wave and the impedances of the two media. Two key factors in determining the potential for damage due to a sound source are the intensity of the sound wave and the impedance difference between the two media (impedance mis-match). The bodies of the vast majority of organisms in the ocean (particularly phytoplankton and zooplankton) have similar sound impedence values to that of seawater. As a result, the potential for sound damage is low; organisms are effectively transparent to the sound – it passes through them without transferring damage-causing energy. Due to the considerations above, we have undertaken a detailed analysis of species which met the following criteria: 1) Is the species capable of being physically affected by LFS? Are acoustic impedence mis-matches large enough to enable LFS to have a physical affect or allow the species to sense LFS? 2) Does the proposed SURTASS LFA geographical sphere of acoustic influence overlap the distribution of the species? Species that did not meet the above criteria were excluded from consideration. For example, phytoplankton and zooplankton species lack acoustic impedance mis-matches at low frequencies to expect them to be physically affected SURTASS LFA. Vertebrates are the organisms that fit these criteria and we have accordingly focused our analysis of the affected environment on these vertebrate groups in the world’s oceans: fishes, reptiles, seabirds, pinnipeds, cetaceans, pinnipeds, mustelids, sirenians (Table 1).

Assessing trends in the density of Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus): a comparison of passive acoustic and trawl methods

Using data collected simultaneously from a trawl and a hydrophone, we found that temporal and spatial trends in densities of juvenile Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) in the Neuse River estuary in North Carolina can be identified by monitoring their sound production. Multivariate analysis of covariance (MA NCOVA) revealed that catch per unit of effort (CPUE) of Atlantic croaker had a significant relationship with the dependent variables of sound level and peak frequency of Atlantic croaker calls. Tests of between-subject correspondence failed to detect relationships between CPUE and either of the call parameters, but statistical power was low. Williamson’s index of spatial overlap indicated that call detection rate (expressed by a 0–3 calling index) was correlated in time and space with Atlantic croaker CPUE. The correspondence between acoustic parameters and trawl catch rates varied by month and by habitat. In general, the calling index had a higher degree of overlap with this species’ density than did the received sound level of their calls. Classification and regression tree analysis identified calling index as the strongest correlate of CPUE. Passive acoustics has the potential to be an inexpensive means of identifying spatial and temporal trends in abundance for soniferous fish species.