1. pets
2. large animals

OOI RFA Cover Sheet
LOI
Full
Addendum
Above For Office Use Only
Please fill out requested information in all gray boxes
Fluxes of pelagic nekton: Using temporally indexed movements of fish and
marine mammals to understand ecosystem processes
Title:
Proponent(s):
John K. Horne, David K. Mellinger, Sue E. Moore, Kate M. Stafford
Keywords:
(5 or less) acoustics, biomass flux, fish, marine mammals
Area:
Contact Information:
Contact Person: John K. Horne
Department: School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
Organization: University of Washington
Address Box 355020, Seattle, WA 98195
Tel.: 206 221-6890
E-mail: [email protected]
Fax:
206 221-6939
Permission to post abstract on ORION Web site:
✔
Yes
No
Abstract: (400 words or less)
The fundamental difference between conventional biological surveys and stationary observing systems
is the potential for wide-area spatial and long-term temporal sampling from a suite of sensors in real
time. This unprecedented sampling provides both opportunities and logistic challenges to the fisheries
and marine mammal science communities. Strategic choice and placement of sensors should enable a
suite of organisms to be continuously monitored over a broad range of spatial and temporal scales.
Fisheries (i.e. fishes and invertebrates) research opportunities include examining spatial and temporal
fluxes of biomass; resource assessment with extended temporal sampling; quantifying distribution
variability in space and time; and species-specific habitat use. Marine mammal research opportunities
include quantifying spatiotemporal distributions of animals; investigating biological responses to
oceanographic variability; and monitoring behavioural responses to anthropogenic noise sources.
Elements common to both groups include opportunities to monitor changes in densities, distributions,
and fluxes of aquatic organisms over annual cycles and in response to episodic variability and longer
trends in the ecosystem. Observing systems also offer the opportunity to concurrently examine
ecosystem processes ranging from physical oceanography (wind stress, currents, mixing), through
primary and secondary production, to feeding ecology of top predators. The major challenge to both
groups is processing voluminous data streams and the subsequent conversion of data to useable
products. Despite the collection of many ‘empty’ data cells, observatories facilitate spatially and
temporally scale-dependent observations of aquatic organisms that have not been possible using
mobile platforms. Acoustic systems will be deployed in association with other project infrastructure.
Since most pelagic biomass is located over continental shelves and slopes, highest priority sites are
associated with spur lines from the NEPTUNE observatory. Inshore buoy platforms will provide
additional shelf locations associated with specific physical features. Offshore buoy locations provide an
opportunity to monitor vertical and horizontal movements of mesopelagic fish and invertebrate species
that comprise deep scattering layers and are a major food source for deep-diving marine mammals.
Please describe below key non-standard measurement technology needed to achieve the proposed
scientific objectives: (250 words or less)
Active and passive acoustic recording systems. Splitbeam or multibeam sonars will be
used to transmit and then receive echoes from macroscopic, pelagic organisms. Passive
acoustic systems are comprised of hydrophone arrays, amplifiers, digitizers, and data
transmission/recording components. The arrays receive ambient ocean noise and
biologically produced sounds. AUVs are used to investigate the oceanography, biological
and physical, of concentration areas of marine mammals and fishes.
Proposed Sites:
Site Name
Position
Water
Depth
(m)
Continental Shelf
Shelf Slope
<200 m
2001000 m
Basin
Deep
Start
Date
Proposed Duration
Revisits
Deploy
during
(months)
deployment
List of Project Participants
Bruce M. Howe, University of Washington
Suggested Reviewers
D. Van Holliday (BAE Systems, San Diego)
Olav Rune Godo (Institute for Marine Research, Bergen)
Whitlow Au (Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, Kailua)
John Hildebrand (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego)
Donald Croll (University of California, Santa Cruz)
Site-specific Comments
1. PROGRAM RATIONALE
Until recently, spatial and temporal sampling of the water column by acoustic and other
remote sensing technologies was limited in range and duration. The combination of
continuous power, data transmission, and long term deployments associated with ocean
observatories provides both opportunities and logistic challenges to the fisheries and marine
mammal science communities. Unlike other groups involved in planning ocean observatory
experiments, fisheries and marine mammal science communities focus on mobile, apex
predators that are located primarily over continental shelves. Predator-prey interactions
among organisms that move independent of water motion (i.e. nekton) influence the structure
of ecosystems from the top down to other trophic levels. This perspective differs from the
oceanographic view of ‘bottom up’ structuring where biological-physical coupling facilitates
the transfer of energy from physical structures such as upwelling that supplies nutrients to
phytoplankton and the subsequent consumption by zooplankton, fish, and then marine
mammals.
Primary science themes common to marine mammal and fisheries research include
biomass fluxes, population monitoring, and episodic physical events that initiate a biological
response. Specific marine mammal science themes that can be exploited using an ocean
observatory include seasonal distributions, ocean dynamics, and anthropogenic influences.
Seasonal distribution research will map and monitor the timing and spatial variability of
migration routes, feeding assemblages, and spawning aggregation areas. Ocean dynamics is
characterized as the reaction of individual and groups of animals to environmental variability
at small (e.g. fronts) and large (e.g. El Niño) scales. A fixed grid fitted with sensors provides
the advantage of a large region simultaneously monitored over a wide range of spatial scales.
Anthropogenic influences include the response by animals to noise (e.g. vessels, seismic
airguns), and potential conflicts with shipping traffic and commercial fishing.
Dominant fisheries science themes include biomass fluxes, resource assessment with
extended temporal sampling, distribution variability in space and time, and habitat use. The
flux of biomass through space over time has not been traditionally quantified over large
spatial and temporal scales (Haury et al. 1978; Horne et al. 1999). Long-term sensor
deployments would facilitate investigations into the kinematic processes of migration,
dispersal, and the coupling of biomass flux to environmental gradients. Assessment surveys
of pelagic and demersal fish species are traditionally conducted using research vessels.
Sample synopticity, resolution, and range of these Eulerian (i.e. stationary grid) surveys are
limited by vessel speed, time available, vessel manoeuvrability, gear restrictions, and surface
conditions. Temporal surveys from a single location or surveys conducted by a suite of
sensors have not been used in the management of harvestable resources. Tracking variability
in fish distributions over time facilitates demographic (e.g. births, survival) investigations at
the temporal scale of a generation and the spatial scale of a population. Habitat use by
pelagic and demersal fish species is an emerging topic in resource management. Challenges
associated with this theme are defining essential habitat, and quantifying the impacts of loss
or damage to essential fish habitat.
The marine mammal and fisheries research communities will benefit from the opportunity
to monitor changes in densities and distributions of aquatic organisms in response to
ecosystem variability. Many life history characteristics (e.g. timing and path of annual
migrations) are not known for fish and mammal species. A continuous suite of sensors can
provide a network to quantify and understand aquatic life cycles and over longer temporal
scales, may be used to monitor biologic responses to climate change.
A combination of Eulerian (i.e. fixed grid) and Lagrangian (i.e. mobile) sampling
strategies are required to adequately sample fish and marine mammals through the range of
spatial and temporal scales encompassed by an ocean observatory. Detection ranges of most
active and passive sensors limit the feasibility of relying solely on a grid sampling design.
Strategic choice and placement of sensors should enable a suite of organisms to be
continuously monitored. This combined sampling approach can be used to detect high
concentrations and strong gradients as indicators of biological or physical significant events.
Detected changes in static or dynamic quantities such as biomass flux or temperature
gradients can be used to trigger intensive sampling aimed at quantifying dominant processes
that produced observed patterns. Given that the bulk of nektonic biomass is located on
continental shelves, the availability of sampling platforms on the continental slope is
imperative for a successful nekton sampling program. Location of sensor arrays should be
oriented relative to species’ migration routes and/or habitat types that exist within any region
of interest.
Acoustic examination of fish and invertebrates has evolved from qualitatively describing
spatial and temporal distributions to quantifying and identifying species-specific abundances.
Early studies investigated relations between echo returns from deep scattering layers and the
presence of mesopelagic nekton (Holliday 1972). Tools used to gather acoustic data range
2
from broadband, low frequency explosions to discrete, high frequency (i.e. > 10 kHz)
echosounders. Advances in digital electronics and data processing have lead to quantitative
descriptions of fish aggregation shapes (e.g. Smith 1970; Hewitt 1975; Hewitt et al. 1976;
Gerlotto et al. 1999), characteristics (e.g. Nero and Magnuson 1989), and densities (e.g.
Misund 1993). Identification of constituent species within an aggregation uses statistical
properties of echoes or imaging analysis techniques. Statistical descriptors have been used to
form discriminant functions (e.g. Rose and Leggett 1988; Simmonds and Armstrong 1990;
Scalabrin et al. 1996), and as input to neural networks (e.g. Haralabous and Georgakarakos
1996; Simmonds et al. 1996; Zakharia et al. 1996) but the efficacy of knowledge-based
techniques remains constrained by the reference data used to categorize groups. In a parallel
approach, metrics characterizing registrations on an echogram are used to discriminate and
identify fish species (e.g. Kloser et al. 2002) but no current universal metric is available to
acoustically identify fish species (see Horne 2000 for a review).
Marine mammal populations have traditionally been monitored using observers on
vessels. These surveys suffer similar constraints to fisheries surveys described above. In the
past decade, passive acoustic monitoring of vocal marine mammals has become more
common but is typically conducted at coarse resolution (i.e. 100’s of kilometres between
instruments) over broad geographic areas, or at high resolution (i.e. 1-2 kilometres between
instruments) over restricted ranges. Instrumenting observatory platforms with broadband
hydrophones, facilitates coarse and fine resolution surveys of inter-seasonal and inter-annual
residence times, and the tracking of individual animals though time and space. These data
enable investigations on marine mammal responses to changing oceanographic, ambient
noise, and climate conditions over a wide range of temporal scales.
This document provides background on the types of investigations that can be conducted,
types and configurations of hardware and software currently available, and expected
instrumentation costs. Specific locations for experiments are not included as it is assumed
that instruments will be mounted on available platforms within the regional cabled
observatory (e.g. coastal nodes within NEPTUNE), the Global Array (e.g. surface moorings),
and the Coastal Array (e.g. Endurance and Pioneer arrays).
2. SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES
Macroscopic biomass in pelagic, marine ecosystems is composed of mammal, fish, and
invertebrate aggregations. High-density aggregations of any species are biologically
3
important as animals may be concentrating to forage, spawn, or to avoid predators.
Describing and understanding distributions, abundances, fluxes, and the community structure
of biological aggregations is a common goal of aquatic researchers and of resource managers.
Acoustic technologies are increasingly used to map, count, and identify biological
constituents due to the long propagation ranges of acoustic relative to optic technologies.
Marine mammal studies, and a smaller proportion of invertebrate investigations, are utilizing
relatively short-term deployments (i.e. months) of autonomous recording systems to increase
encounter probabilities with animals of interest. This approach is not common in the
fisheries research (but see Benoit-Bird et al. 2001) or management communities due, in part,
to the need to categorize and discriminate target from non-target species when estimating
abundance or biomass.
Continuous power, control, and data offload capabilities facilitate new types of nekton
research. Two themes common to the fisheries and marine mammal communities include
distribution and density observations of aquatic organisms over a broad range of temporal
scales, and biological responses to physical episodic events and longer-term trends. Regional
Cabled Observatories (RCOs), coastal buoy systems, and an oceanic global network of buoys
will enable the tracking of mammal, fish, and invertebrate fluxes as a function of time
(migrations, episodic fluxes, diel migrations), stationary assessment of biological resources,
species-specific habitat preferences, biological responses to physical events (e.g. upwelling,
tidal fluxes), and temporally scale-dependent distribution patterns.
Specific objectives include:
- determining variability in timing and route of marine mammal migrationsunderstanding lower-trophic-level factors and physical forcing that influence
distributions of feeding marine mammals
- quantifying distributions and fluxes of fish relative to environmental conditions
- understanding the intensity of biological-physical coupling across trophic levels in
response to episodic physical events
3. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND OBSERVING REQUIREMENTS
Passive Acoustic Systems
Four types of passive acoustic packages will be used:
(1) The simplest package will consist of a low-frequency omni-directional hydrophone that
will be used to continuously sample ambient sound in basin areas (where long-distance sound
4
transmission is possible). Hydrophones at sites deeper than about 800 m should be deployed
in or above the deep sound channel axis (ranges between ~600 to 900 m) to increase the
reception range. The sampling rate for these hydrophones is 2 kHz, which will capture
sounds up to 1 kHz. This frequency band will allow detection of cetacean species that
produce low-frequency sounds, including blue (Balaenoptera musculus), fin (Balaenoptera
physalus), humpback (Balaenoptera musculus), right (Eubalaena japonica), and sperm
(Physeter macrocephalus) whales. The basic biology and seasonal distributions of these
species are poorly understood. All of these species are listed as endangered species (NMFS
2005).
(2) Hydrophones at sites near the continental shelf break and slope will be configured to
study ziphiid species (i.e. beaked whales), which feed in these areas. To capture echolocation
sounds of these species, hydrophone arrays will sample up to a maximum rate of 200 kHz.
Recent research has revealed that some of these species make echolocation sounds above
48 kHz (Johnson et al. 2004; Madsen et al. 2005) and perhaps as high as 100 kHz (J.
Hildebrand, pers. comm.). Due to this very high sample rate, a suite of detection triggers will
be used to detect and then record high frequency sounds. Suites of triggers have been
developed at Scripps Institute of Oceanography (J. Hildebrand) and at the Applied Physics
Laboratory (J. Nystuen).
(3) Some instruments will be set to sample at a rate of 48 kHz which will capture and
communication sounds of delphinids (e.g., Ford 1989, Oswald et al. 2004), large whales, and
most pinnipeds. This rate should be used for hydrophone packages installed on the
continental shelf.
(4) Studies of marine mammal feeding ecology and prey-patch dynamics will use
Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) equipped with hydrophones sampling at 48 kHz,
optical plankton counters, active acoustics, and CTD sensors. An AUV will be launched
when a concentration of feeding cetaceans is detected in real time. The AUV will survey the
region to sample prey patch characteristics: depth- and distance-dependent density of prey,
species composition, and evolution prey distributions over time, as well as the diving and
feeding behavior of cetaceans.
Active Acoustic Systems
Two limitations of current active acoustic assessments are the lack of extended temporal
range and minimal spatial synopticity. Spatial and temporal sampling coverage by an
echosounder is constrained by beam geometry, pulse repetition rate, and vessel speed.
Transducer beam widths (i.e. angle between half power points) are relatively narrow. On
5
continental shelves where depths may average 200m, the sampling swath (i.e. diameter) of a
10o transducer is 35 m. This conical shaped cone will sample one-third the volume of an
equivalent cylinder (64,118.9 m3 of 192,356.6 m3). The resulting fish density estimates are
standardized per unit volume through the entire water column. A combination of the vessel
speed and pulse repetition rate determines the amount of overlap between successive echoes.
The sample volumes from two successive pings at a one second interval and a vessel speed of
10 knots (i.e. 5.14 ms-1) will start to overlap at a depth of 29.4 m and result in a 62% overlap
relative to the volume of one pulse. Fish density estimates within arbitrarily set data bins are
then averaged along the survey track. Linear interpolation is used to derive final abundance
estimates. Survey transects are typically laid out in parallel lines to cover the entire
geographic area of interest. The resolution of transect sampling is a function of area to be
covered, vessel speed, and the time available for a survey. Transect spacing may range from
1 km to over 35 km depending on the location and available time. Measured fish densities are
vertically integrated and assumed to be representative of the area midway between any two
adjacent transects. If inter-transect distance is 10 nautical miles (i.e. 18.52 km) and the swath
of a 10o transducer at 100m is 17.5 m, then the proportion of the area sampled relative to the
interpolation area is 0.009%. The range ensonified by a transducer is a function of frequency,
transmit power, and beam angle. Sound intensity is lost as a function of range due to sound
spreading and absorption.
Fixed location sensors extend the temporal sampling range, can be used to measure flux
through a volume, and depending on instrument number and placement, synoptically monitor
a large geographic area (Fig. 1).
6
Figure 1. Conceptual schematic of an acoustic monitoring system for herring movements
into, within, and out of a fjord entrance in coastal Norway. Bottom mounted echosounder
transducers and a moored ADCP sample from the bottom to the surface. An AUV patrols the
entire fjord sampling with a downward looking echosounder. Data is transmitted from the
surface to a shore station (line of sight) and then to the Internet. Figure courtesy of O.R.
Godo, Institute for Marine Research.
Beam angles from standard transducers will not change, so the same range-dependent
sampling constraints apply to fixed-location deployments. Echosounders can be mounted
near surface looking down, in the water column looking in any direction, or near bottom
looking toward the surface. Frequency choice will influence target resolution, range, and
sensitivity to animal orientation. Lower frequency systems (e.g. 38 kHz) have longer ranges
and are less sensitive to animal orientations than higher frequency systems. Due to shorter
wavelengths, higher frequency systems are able to resolve smaller targets. A 38 kHz or 70
kHz frequency is recommended for Ocean Observatories. These frequencies will detect and
resolve small targets and provide a suitable range to collect total reflected energy (i.e.
backscatter) from fish and invertebrates as they pass through the acoustic beam. Commercial
systems are available for immediate deployment and continue to evolve. Multibeam sonars
are an attractive option for fixed location deployments as they increase the volume of water
ensonified. Multibeam systems have traditionally been used for bottom mapping and are
recently available to collect water column data. It is prudent to wait until the design and data
processing matures before these systems are routinely deployed within ocean observatories.
Current research and commercial hardware and software projects are predicted to provide
useable packages within the next two to five years.
3.1.
Adapting experiments to platforms
Acoustic systems can be adapted to any sampling platform, require minimal maintenance,
and can be applied to multiple tasks. We envision a combined passive/active package on
numerous platforms. Assuming a cabled grid, inshore buoy, and offshore buoy systems, we
briefly mention the advantages of each platform system.
The regional cabled observatory, NEPTUNE, will include trunk and spur lines that will
cross the continental shelf. Acoustic packages deployed across the shelf will provide regional
7
scale measurements of biomass flux north-south along the continental margin, east-west
following strong cross-shelf physical gradients, up-down through diel migrations, and
potentially mixed paths as some organisms track episodic, propagating events. Acoustic
systems mounted in AUVs may be deployed on regular sampling routes to increase areas
covered or to track bio-physical events as they propagate.
The Endurance and Pioneer Arrays in the coastal system proposed by Barth and
colleagues will enable high density observations in dynamic coastal areas that emphasize
strong, flow-topography interaction along the Oregon coast and strong river-influenced
dynamics along the Washington coast. Priority locations include traditional high biomass
areas and areas intersecting marine mammal migration routes.
The moored surface sensor Global network proposed by Daley and colleagues facilitates
long-term investigations of mesopelagic fish and invertebrate species, monitoring marine
mammal migration routes, and assessing the response of nekton to short term variability and
longer trends in the physical environment.
3.2.
Example community experiments
To illustrate the potential for fisheries and marine mammal applications within an ocean
observatory, two sampling approaches are described that address the question, “What is the
distribution, relative abundance and movements of nekton within the monitored volume and
how do these parameters vary with environmental conditions?” Nekton can be divided into
three size categories: large pelagics (e.g. large whales, tunas), middle pelagics (e.g. dolphins,
Pacific hake), and small pelagics (e.g. herring, sardines, shrimp, small squid). Monitoring
each category requires different sampling technologies.
3.2.1. Physical-biological coupling
An experiment that combines physical-biological coupling across many trophic levels is
the entrainment by and exploitation of dynamic features (e.g. eddies, jets, seasonal upwelling)
by aquatic organisms. The purpose is to examine the role of dynamic physical structures in
the trophic organization, dynamics, and distribution of aquatic organisms. There are many
examples of predators attracted to or keying on concentrations of prey items at high gradient
areas (e.g. fronts, upwellings). The survival and recruitment of zooplankton, some
invertebrates, and larval fish species are influenced by the availability of food and conditions
within water masses during transport to nursery areas (Lasker 1981). Marine mammals, fish,
8
and macro-zooplankton exploit patches of prey that are concentrated within or at boundaries
of physical structures. These structures may be permanent (e.g. boundary currents, river
plumes) or ephemeral (e.g. wind-induced upwelling) features of an area.
One recent example (Croll et al. 2005) describes physical-biological coupling that extends
from physical forces to apex predators. In Monterey Bay, seasonal wind stress led to
seasonal upwelling of nutrient-rich waters; primary production, as measured by chlorophyll-a
concentration, increased followed by an increase in zooplankton density. Whale occurrence,
measured during sighting surveys, increased with the zooplankton bloom. A set of buoy
platforms or a cabled observatory in the Pacific Northwest would enable a similar experiment
over larger space and time scales and increase the monitoring of complex physical processes
including the bifurcation of the West Wind Drift, the Columbia River plume, and seasonal or
longer-term variations in the California Current and Undercurrent.
Several shelf locations are appropriate for fisheries and marine mammal sensor arrays:
Cape Blanco, Heceta Bank, the Columbia River plume, and southern Vancouver Island.
Sensor arrays would be attached to buoy platforms or spur lines running from junction nodes
onto the continental shelf. Sensor arrays would be spaced at sufficient resolution to detect
eddy movements. Satellite detection of sea surface temperature, ocean color, and altimetry
would be used in combination with acoustic tomography, local arrays and physical models to
detect the formation and track movement of eddies as they propagate. Relevant data from
other instruments would potentially include winched CTDs, video plankton recorders (VPR),
fluormeters, ADCP, and dissolved oxygen. Passive hydrophone arrays would be used to
detect the presence of vocalizing marine mammals and could be used to detect acoustically
tagged mammals or fish. Additional active acoustic systems would be used to monitor fluxes
of fish.
As a propagating event approached or passed one of the spur lines or buoys, mobile
samplers such as AUVs, gliders, or robotic fish would be deployed to run transects across the
feature to map its boundaries, water properties, and its velocity. Sensors on these mobile
platforms would include active and passive acoustics, optics, and collection systems to
sample phytoplankton (e.g. fluorometry, optical plankton counter), zooplankton (e.g. video
plankton recorder), and fish (e.g. nets or biosensors). Sampling would be used to assess
biological constituents, collect samples for trophic transfer studies, and behavioral
observations including predator-prey interactions.
3.2.2. Marine mammal and fisheries long term observations
9
Monitoring distributions and movements of cetaceans and some fish populations would
greatly improve the biological and ecological understanding of many species. The relevant
science question is, “What are the movements of nekton within the monitored volume and
their relationship to environmental conditions during those movements?” This question
addresses the biological processes of migration and interaction with the environment. If
animals can be identified, then species-specific census counts can be used for population
monitoring and stock assessment. Specific studies that could be conducted during this
monitoring include: distribution and migration patterns in relation to environmental
variability and climate change, trophic dynamics, and comparing contributions by exploited
and habitat reserves to density distributions and recruitment of aquatic populations.
A monitoring system at the scale of a tectonic plate (e.g. Neptune) is particularly
appropriate for studying vocalizing cetaceans. Cetaceans produce sounds ranging from
infrasonic to supersonic frequencies, the widest range of any group of organisms (Fig. 2).
10
B
lu
e
Fi
n
G
ra
y
B
ry
d
H e's
um
M pb
in ac
k
k
R e
ig
h
P y t (3
gm )
B y
ow ri
g
Se hea ht
d
i
Sp
er
M m
on w
h
B odo ale
ea n
k
t
C ed s ( 2
ep w )
h
h
R alo ale
iv
er ryh s (
N do nc 3)
.R l
hi
t p
St . w hin nae
en ha s
( (2
D ina le d 3) )
el
e
o
p
lp
(
hi
Pi hin 3)
n
lo in
t w ae
Po h (
rp al 14)
K ois es (
ill
er es 2)
w (3)
ha
le
s
(2
)
Dolphins
Mysticete whales
100000
Frequency, Hz
?
10000
?
1000
?
100
10
Figure 2. Vocal ranges of cetacean species.
To illustrate by example, a large-scale monitoring system was deployed using autonomous
hydrophone arrays in the Gulf of Alaska from October 1999 until June 2002 (Stafford 2003;
Mellinger et al. 2004a, b). The instruments recorded data that were used to document the
seasonal use of the Gulf of Alaska by two acoustic populations of blue whales, the year-round
use by sperm whales (Stafford 2003; Mellinger et al. 2004a), and sporadic use by highly
endangered North Pacific right whales (Mellinger et al. 2004b). But, these buoys contained
recording systems that were limited in power and data storage, and had to be retrieved before any
data could be accessed. Power and data storage constraints restricted the frequency bandwidth
monitored (1-470 Hz), and each instrument had to be retrieved annually. Unfortunately, a full
year’s data was lost when an instrument malfunctioned and was not being monitored in real time.
Cabled, broadband instruments would remedy many of the deficiencies inherent in such standalone systems.
Many strategies could be used to locate sensor arrays within an ocean observatory. For
cetaceans, an ideal design would place vertical and horizontal hydrophone arrays on every buoy
platform and on every spur line that crosses the continental shelf. Regional coverage would
11
ensure detection of all vocalizing animals because there are offshore (e.g. blue, fin, sperm,
beaked whales) and nearshore (e.g. gray, humpback whales, many dolphins) forage areas and
migration routes used by different species. Vocalizing cetaceans are best detected using arrays
of multiple hydrophones (e.g. 20 to 40). Multiple, vertical hydrophone arrays permit
beamforming and matched field processing, which increases the detection and three-dimensional
tracking range of individual animals. A more restricted approach would place pairs of
hydrophones and a compass in sound corridors along offshore and nearshore migration routes. A
pair of directional horizontal hydrophones can be used to determine the bearing from which calls
arrive. A pair of vertical hydrophones allows the study of diving behavior of vocalizing animals.
Satellite tags on individual animals could be used to augment identification and tracking
movements of individuals or groups of whales. Additionally, passive tags could be placed on
animals for tracking, using acoustic signals from tomography or navigational sources.
Hydrophones encompassing two frequency ranges would receive sound from a variety of
cetacean species. The first group is targeted to receive signals from dolphins (including killer
whales) that produce whistles in the 10s of kHz range and echolocation clicks into the 100s of
kHz. Since high frequency sounds attenuate quickly in water, and these species spend most of
their time in the upper water column, some of these hydrophones should be located near the
surface. To detect deep diving species that produce high-frequency sounds such as sperm and
beaked whales, canyons or sharp slopes should be instrumented with vertical arrays of high
frequency hydrophones. Hydrophones targeted to receive vocalizations from large whales do not
need comparable bandwidth due to the lower frequencies of these animals’ calls. Hydrophones
that capture sounds up to 5 kHz combined with signal sampling at 10kHz is sufficient to
characterize low frequencies.
Large volume, long term passive monitoring is also appropriate for pelagic fish species. As
an example, oceanic distributions, movements, and survival of anadromous salmon are not well
known. In a demonstration project, horizontal arrays of hydrophones have been deployed straits
surrounding Vancouver Island to detect acoustically tagged fish as they migrate from river
mouths to marine habitats (see http://www.postcoml.org/intro.php). Acoustically tagged fish are
detected as they pass within the range of hydrophones in an array. Migration and survival rates
as fish return to natal rivers and streams can be estimated for different species and populations.
This approach has been successfully used to track salmon species, sturgeon, rockfish, and
12
herring. A permanent deployment of hydrophone ‘fences’ placed orthogonal to the coastline is
envisioned to run from the Aleutian Islands in the Gulf of Alaska to southern Washington State
(www.postcoml.org).
Active acoustic systems could be used to examine seasonal fluxes of fish along continental
shelves (e.g. annual Pacific hake migration in North America) and diel movements within the
water column. Echosounders or multibeam sonar systems could be mounted on bottom or on
platforms suspended in the water column. Mobile platforms such as AUVs could be used to
survey transects along fixed paths from a single node or transit among regularly spaced docking
stations. Once transects are completed, the AUV would dock to recharge batteries, download
data, and receive instructions for the next deployment. A variety of sensors could be installed on
the mobile platform depending on the fish species being tracked, and ancillary data needs.
In contrast to these Eulerian sampling strategies, Lagrangian methods could be used to
monitor specific fish populations or biological responses to physical events. Tracking platforms
such as AUVs could be used to follow populations by focusing on a few tagged individuals
during the migration. When an AUV is close to a satellite node, it could dock to recharge
batteries and download data. A second AUV would assume tracking or once the original AUV
was recharged, it would resume tracking. Recent developments in material science and robot
kinematics potentially make the tracking platform less obtrusive to fish within an aggregation.
The greatest challenge to Lagrangian tracking by mobile platforms is the ability to navigate and
accurately log position while underwater. The capability to detect other acoustic signals
broadcast for acoustic tomography will increase navigational accuracy.
Two additional challenges are associated with active acoustic sampling of fish populations.
At this time, with the minor exception of high latitude ecosystems containing limited species
diversity, acoustically identifying targets to species is not routinely possible based on acoustic
signals alone. Two current solutions are available. Ship-based surveys using scientific
echosounders and trawling can be used to identify constituent fish species, to sample length
frequencies, and to compare temporal distribution patterns at any fixed location to those within
the region. As a second option, fish tagged within large aggregations could be detected with
hydrophones at fixed locations while fluxes of animals are monitored using active sonar systems.
Since similar fish tend to travel together, the combination of passive and active acoustics could
be used to monitor fish populations. The second challenge to using active acoustic systems in
13
cabled observatories is data processing and management. Current data processing techniques are
not automated. A person is still required to examine data for quality control and to discriminate
acoustic target categories. Efforts are underway in several countries to automatic target
recognition and to reduce non-informative data volumes. Active acoustic systems are notorious
for producing large data volumes. A single system may acquire megabytes to gigabytes of raw
data per minute depending on the sampling rate and range. The challenge of managing large
data volumes will continue to diminish as data handling and storage clients continue to evolve.
4. PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Acoustic systems are essential components of ocean observatories. Integration of instruments
within and among platforms increases data acquisition efficiency, improves cost effectiveness,
and should reduce logistic challenges of installation and maintenance. Sensors targeting fish and
marine mammal populations can be used or integrated with other instruments to measure
chemical, physical, and geological properties of the water column and substrate. A current
challenge is to integrate existing or develop new acoustic sensors that are robust, long-lived,
easily calibrated, and can provide data streams for multiple users. The potential for synergistic
acoustic-based research exists within the ocean observatory community. Marine mammal and
fisheries biologists are interested in how animals respond to and interact with their environment.
The evolution of the ‘ecosystem approach’ to resource management will encourage and
ultimately force additional linkages between physically and biologically oriented investigators.
Our approach in this document has been to outline the types of instruments and experiments that
are possible within an observatory infrastructure and indicate how they differ from applications
using conventional platforms. We expect that passive and active acoustic systems will be
included on a variety of platforms under the umbrella of core infrastructure and/or specific
projects. The ubiquitous distribution of nekton over continental shelves, slopes, and even
abyssal plains does not restrict the placement of these systems. If general priority were assigned
proportional to abundance or biomass, then areas would be ranked shelves, slopes, and plains.
Specific placement of instruments will be prioritised relative to annual migration routes and
dynamic flow structures that may or may not be associated with bathymetric features.
14
Natural synergies exist among investigators interested in nekton populations and existing or
proposed institutions and programs. The planning and implementation of NEPTUNE is
underway. To be relevant to nekton species, the NEPTUNE backbone must provide spur lines
and instrument nodes on the continental shelf. This point was emphasized and is now
incorporated in the compilation of experimental sites proposed by workshop participants at the
NEPTUNE Pacific Northwest Workshop (see Fig. 2, Howe et al. 2003).
The NOAA Alaska and Northwest Fisheries Science Centers (in conjunction with the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada) are responsible for the assessment and
management of all marine mammal, commercial fish, and invertebrate resources off the west
coast of North America. Anadromous fish species, comprised mainly of salmon, are included
within this mandate. Current marine fish assessments are conducted using vessels equipped with
acoustic and net sampling technologies to provide data for population abundance and biomass
estimates. The used of data from stationary platforms has not been included in recent
management plans. The National Marine Mammal Laboratory based at the Alaska Fisheries
Science Center has responsibility for research on and the management of marine mammals off
the coasts of California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska. This work includes stock assessments,
life history determinations, and status and trends of populations.
Several regional ocean observing system associations currently exist for waters off the west
coast of North America. In the north, NEPTUNE-CANADA and VENUS are finalizing plans to
lay cable in Saanich Inlet. Reviews and recommendations are being finalized for community
science projects and revised plans for final bids of the cable and node infrastructure are
underway. A final memorandum establishing the Northwest Association of Ocean Observing
Systems (NANOOS) was signed in March 2005 to “coordinate and support the development,
implementation, and operation of a regional coastal ocean observing system (RCOOS), as part of
the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), and to provide data and data products
regarding the ocean to a diversity of end users in a timely fashion, on spatial and temporal scales
appropriate for their needs.” This association includes: the Alaska Ocean Observing System
(AOOS), Central and Northern California Ocean Observing System (CeNCOOS), and Southern
California Coastal Ocean Observing System (SCCOOS). The Pacific Coast Ocean Observing
System (PacCOOS) has been established to “provide information for the sustained use of the
15
California Current Large Marine Ecosystem under a changing climate.” The ability for these
associations to coordinate goals, activities, and data reporting will depend on the member
agencies and participating individuals and is expected to evolve with experience.
5. DATA MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Acoustic data associated with tracking and monitoring marine mammal and fish populations
are voluminous. As an example, twenty passive hydrophone sensors sampling a frequency range
of 0-10 kHz at a rate of 20 kHz will require ~25 terabytes/year data storage. Storage
requirements increase at higher sampling rates. At this time, commercially available archive
media, such as digital linear tape or optical disks, can accommodate these volumes, but data
management remains cumbersome. Digital linear tape costs the least of these two solutions,
roughly $60/day, but does not provide random access to the data. Although continuous
recording is desirable, these large data volumes may necessitate sub-sampling (e.g. one hour out
of every 10), with the time of sampling rotating from day to day to capture diel effects.
Active acoustic systems also record large data volumes. A splitbeam echosounder will log 1
megabyte per minute if collecting raw data though the water column. Multibeam sonar systems,
with increased beam diameters, typically record 1 gigabyte of data per minute. To adequately
monitor a sample water volume over long temporal periods, duty cycles of active systems can be
limited to pulse rates of once per second for a few minutes per hour. If a biological threshold is
reached or environmental conditions radically change (e.g. upwelling event indicated by a drop
in water temperature), a system could be triggered to continuously record data for the duration of
the event.
Analyzing large volumes of acoustic data remains a challenge. For hydrophone data,
automated methods for detecting calls of many marine mammal species currently exist
(Mellinger and Clark 1997; Gillespie and Chappell 2002; Mellinger et al. 2004a, b, c). These
algorithms would form the first step in any large-scale investigation of marine mammal
distributions, movements, and behaviors. Detectors exist for blue, fin, sperm, and right whale
vocalizations, and for tonal whistles produced by most delphinids. Further development of
automated detectors is needed for classifying delphinid whistles to species. Increasing the
automation of echosounder data processing is under development. Algorithms are being
16
developed to recognize unusual data segments, bad echo returns, and lost bottoms. When
completed, operators will only have to examine extra ordinary data as part of routine postprocessing prior to echo integration or target strength analyses.
REFERENCES
Benoit-Bird, K.J., W.W.L. Au, R.E. Brainard, and M.O. Lammers. 2001. Diel horizontal
migration of the Hawaiian mesopelagic boundary community observed acoustically. Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 217: 1-14
Croll, D.A., B. Marinovic, S. Benson, F.P. Chavez, N. Black, R. Ternullo, and B.R. Tershy.
2005. From wind to whales: trophic links in a coastal upwelling system. Mar. Ecol. Prog.
Ser. 289: 117-130.
Ford, J.K.B. 1989. Acoustic behaviour of resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) off Vancouver
Island, British Columbia. Can. J. Zool. 67:727-745.
Gerlotto, F., Soria, M., and Freon, P. 1999. From two dimensions to three: the use of multibeam
sonar for a new approach in fisheries acoustics. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56: 6-12.
Gillespie, D., and O. Chappell. 2002. An automatic system for detecting and classifying the
vocalisations of harbour porpoises. Bioacoustics 13: 37-62.
Haralabous, J. and Georgakarakos, S. 1996. Artificial neural networks as a tool for species
identification of fish schools. ICES J. mar. Sci. 53: 173-180.
Haury, L.R., J.A. McGowan, and P.H. Wiebe. 1978. Patterns and processes in the time-space
scales of plankton distributions, In Spatial Pattern in Plankton Communities, J.H. Steele
Editor, pp. 277-327.
Hewitt, R.P. 1975. Sonar mapping in the California Current area: a review of recent
developments. Calif. Coop. Oceanic Fish Invest. Rep. 18:149-154.
Hewitt, R.P., Smith, P.E. and Brown, J.C. 1976. Developments and use of sonar mapping for
pelagic stock assessment in the California current. Fish. Bull. US 74:281-230
Holliday, D.V. 1972. Resonance structure in echoes from schooled pelagic fish. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 51: 1322-1332.
Horne, J.K. 2000. Acoustic approaches to remote species identification. Fish. Oceanogr. 9: 356371.
17
Horne, J.K., P.E. Smith, and D.C. Schneider. 1999. Comparative examination of scale-explicit
biological and physical processes: recruitment of Pacific hake. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56:
170-179.
Howe, B.M., A.M. Baptista, J.A. Barth, E.E. Davis, J.K. Horne, S.K. Junipe, R.M. Letelier, S.E.
Moore, J.D. Parsons, D.R. Toomey, A.M. Tréhu, M.E. Torres, an dN.L. Penrose, 2003.
Science Planning for the NEPTUNE Regional Cabled Obseratoy in the Northeast Pacific
Ocean. Report of the NEPTUNE Pacific Northwest Wrokshop, Portland State University,
Portland, Oregon, 72 pp. http://www.Neptune.Washington.edu/documents.
Johnson, M., P.T. Madsen, W.M.X. Zimmer, N.A. de Soto, and P.L. Tyack. 2004. Beaked
whales echolocate on prey. Proc. Royal Soc. London B (Supplement 6):S383-S386, DOI
10.1098/rsbl.2004.0208.
Kloser, R.J., Ryan, T., Sakov, P., Williams, A., and Koslow, J.A. 2002. Species identification in
deep water using multiple frequencies. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59: 1065-1077.
Lasker, R. 1981. The relationship between oceanographic conditions and larval anchovy food in
the California Current: Identification of factors contributing to recruitment failure. Rapp. P.v. Réun. int. Explor. Mer 173: 212-230.
Madsen, P.T., M. Johnson, N.A. de Soto, W.M.X. Zimmer, and P. Tyack. 2005. Biosonar
performance of foraging beaked whales (Mesoplodon densirostris). J. Exper. Biol. 208:181194.
Mellinger, D.K., and C.W. Clark. 1997. Methods for automatic detection of mysticete sounds.
Mar. Freshwater Beh. Physiol. 29: 163-181.
Mellinger, D.K., K.M. Stafford, and C.G. Fox. 2004a. Seasonal occurrence of sperm
whale (Physeter macrocephalus) sounds in the Gulf of Alaska, 1999-2001, Mar. Mamm. Sci.
20: 48-62.
Mellinger, D.K., K.M. Stafford, S.E. Moore, L. Munger and C. G. Fox. 2004b. Detection of
North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) calls in the Gulf of Alaska. Mar. Mamm. Sci.
20: 872-879.
Mellinger, D.K., S. Heimlich, and S. Nieukirk. 2004c. A comparison of optimized methods for
detecting blue whale calls. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116: 2587.
18
Misund, O.A. 1993. Dynamics of moving masses: variability in packing density, shape, and size
among herring, sprat, and saithe schools. ICES J. Mar Sci. 50: 145-160.
Nero, R.W. and Magnuson, J.J. 1989. Characterization of patches along transects using highresolution 70-kHz integrated acoustic data. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46: 2056-2064.
Oswald, J.N., S. Rankin, and J. Barlow. 2004. The effect of recording and analysis bandwidth on
acoustic identification of delphinid species. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116:3178-3185.
Rose, G.A. and Leggett, W.C. 1988. Hydroacoustic signal classification of fish schools by
species. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45: 597-604.
Scalabrin, C., Diner, N. Weill, A., Hillion, A. and Mouchot, M.-C. 1996. Narrowband acoustic
identification of monospecific fish shoals. ICES J. mar. Sci. 53: 181-188.
Simmonds, E.J. and Armstrong, F. 1990. A wideband echosounder: measurements of cod,
saithe, herring, and mackerel from 27 to 54 kHz. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer
189: 381-387.
Simmonds, E.J., Armstrong, F., and Copland, P.J. 1996. Species identification using wideband
backscatter with neural network and discriminant analysis. ICES J. mar. Sci. 53: 189-195.
Smith, P.E. 1970. The horizontal dimensions and abundance of fish schools in the upper mixed
layer as measured by sonar, p. 563-591 in G.B. Farquhar (ed.), Proceedings from the
International Symposium on the Biological Sound Scattering in the Ocean, Maury Center for
Ocean Science, Dep. Navy, Washington, D.C.
Stafford, K.M. 2003. Two types of blue whale calls recorded in the Gulf of Alaska. Mar. Mamm.
Sci. 19: 682-693.
Zakharia, M.E., Magand, F., Hetroit, F., and Diner, N. 1996. Wideband sounder for fish species
identification at sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 53: 203-209.
19
FOR ORION USE ONLY
SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET
Year I
ORGANIZATION
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
University of Washington & Oregon State University
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
John K. Horne
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
Funded
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
1. J. Horne
2. D. Mellinger
3. K. Stafford
4. S. Moore
5.
_3_
_4_
_4_
_2_
__
__
13
6. (___) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
7. (5) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (2) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
24
2. (7) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
63
3. (3) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (1) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (___) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (___) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
(If Different)
24000
22000
19200
0
_____
_____
65200
$_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__
__
__
__
87600
242520
94800
960
_____
_____
491080
137376
628456
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
26% of (direct – tuition – [equipment > 2k])
_____
Granted
Proposer
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
$ 0
2. TRAVEL
0
3. SUBSISTENCE
0
4. OTHER
0
6. OTHER Student Tuition
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
Funds
Requested By
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
Hydrophones & receivers (30 x 10000)
Echosounders (15 shallow =770550; 15 deep=1331100)
Data Storage System
Analytic Software
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (1)
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
Funds
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
300000
2101650
10000
25000
2436650
24500
13500
_____
_____
_____
0
_____
32200
2500
_____
_____
_____
10156
44856
3147962
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
258221
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
258221
3406183
_____
$3,406,183
_____
_____
_____
$_____
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $
DATE
FOR ORION USE ONLY
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
_____
_____
OOI Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked
Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG
20
FOR ORION USE ONLY
SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET
Year II
ORGANIZATION
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
University of Washington & Oregon State University
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
John K. Horne
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
Funded
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
1. J. Horne
2. D. Mellinger
3. K. Stafford
4. S. Moore
5.
_3_
_4_
_4_
_2_
6. (___) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
__
7. (5) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
11
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (3) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
36
2. (7) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
48
3. (3) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (1) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (___) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (___) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
Funds
Requested By
Granted
Proposer
(If Different)
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
$24960
22880
19968
0
_____
_____
67808
$_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__
__
__
__
138528
175677
98592
1040
_____
_____
481645
135918
617563
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Analytic software upgrade
5000
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
$ 0
2. TRAVEL
0
3. SUBSISTENCE
0
4. OTHER
0
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (1)
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
Funds
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
5000
22500
13500
TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
6. OTHER Student Tuition
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
0
_____
12150
4000
_____
_____
_____
10562
26712
685275
26% of (direct – tuition – [equipment > 2k])
_____
174125
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
174125
859400
_____
$859,400
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
$_____
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $
DATE
FOR ORION USE ONLY
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
_____
_____
OOI Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked
Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG
21
FOR ORION USE ONLY
SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET
Year III
ORGANIZATION
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
University of Washington & Oregon State University
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
John K. Horne
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
Funded
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
1. J. Horne
2. D. Mellinger
3. K. Stafford
4. S. Moore
5.
_3_
_4_
_4_
_2_
6. (___) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
__
7. (5) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
11
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (3) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
36
2. (7) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
48
3. (3) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (1) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (___) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (___) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
Funds
Requested By
Granted
Proposer
(If Different)
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
$25958
23795
20767
0
_____
_____
70520
$_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__
__
__
__
144069
182705
102536
1200
_____
_____
501029
141366
642395
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Analytic software upgrade
5000
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
$ 0
2. TRAVEL
0
3. SUBSISTENCE
0
4. OTHER
0
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (1)
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
Funds
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
6. OTHER Student Tuition
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
5000
22500
13500
_____
_____
_____
0
_____
4150
4000
_____
_____
_____
10985
19135
702531
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
26% of (direct – tuition – [equipment > 2k])
_____
178502
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
178502
881032
_____
$881,032
_____
_____
_____
$_____
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $
DATE
FOR ORION USE ONLY
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
_____
_____
OOI Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked
Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG
22
FOR ORION USE ONLY
SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET
Year IV
ORGANIZATION
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
University of Washington & Oregon State University
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
John K. Horne
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
Funded
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
Funds
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
1. J. Horne
2. D. Mellinger
3. K. Stafford
4. S. Moore
5.
_3_
_4_
_4_
_2_
6. (___) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
__
7. (5) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
11
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (3) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
36
2. (7) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
48
3. (3) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (1) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (___) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (___) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
Funds
Requested By
Granted
Proposer
(If Different)
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
$26997
24747
21597
0
_____
_____
73341
$_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__
__
__
__
149832
190012
106638
1248
_____
_____
521071
147021
668092
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Analytic software upgrade
Echosounder (1 shallow, 1 deep)
5000
140110
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
$ 0
2. TRAVEL
0
3. SUBSISTENCE
0
4. OTHER
0
145110
22500
13500
_____
_____
_____
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (1)
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
0
_____
12150
4000
_____
_____
_____
11424
27574
876776
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
6. OTHER Student Tuition
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
26% of (direct – tuition – [equipment > 2k])
_____
185183
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
185183
1061959
_____
$1,061,959
_____
_____
_____
$_____
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $
DATE
FOR ORION USE ONLY
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
_____
_____
OOI Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked
Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG
23
FOR ORION USE ONLY
SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET
Year V
ORGANIZATION
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
University of Washington & Oregon State University
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
John K. Horne
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
Funded
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
1. J. Horne
2. D. Mellinger
3. K. Stafford
4. S. Moore
5.
_3_
_4_
_4_
_2_
6. (___) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
__
7. (5) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
11
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (3) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
36
2. (7) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
48
3. (3) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (1) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (___) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (___) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
Funds
Requested By
Granted
Proposer
(If Different)
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
$28077
25737
22461
0
_____
_____
76275
$_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__
__
__
__
155825
197614
110902
1298
_____
_____
541914
152902
694816
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Analytic software upgrade
5000
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
$ 0
2. TRAVEL
0
3. SUBSISTENCE
0
4. OTHER
0
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (1)
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
Funds
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
6. OTHER Student Tuition
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
5000
22500
13500
_____
_____
_____
0
_____
12150
4000
_____
_____
_____
11881
28031
763847
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
26% of (direct – tuition – [equipment > 2k])
_____
194211
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
194211
958058
_____
$958,058
_____
_____
_____
$_____
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $
DATE
FOR ORION USE ONLY
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
_____
_____
OOI Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked
Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG
24
FOR ORION USE ONLY
SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET
Year VI
ORGANIZATION
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
University of Washington & Oregon State University
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
John K. Horne
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
Funded
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
1. J. Horne
2. D. Mellinger
3. K. Stafford
4. S. Moore
5.
_3_
_4_
_4_
_2_
6. (___) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
__
7. (5) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
11
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (2) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
24
2. (7) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
48
3. (3) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (1) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (___) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (___) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
Funds
Requested By
Granted
Proposer
(If Different)
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
$29200
26766
23360
0
_____
_____
79326
$_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__
__
__
__
106578
205517
115339
1350
_____
_____
508110
134053
642163
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Analytic software upgrade
5000
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
$ 0
2. TRAVEL
0
3. SUBSISTENCE
0
4. OTHER
0
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (1)
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
Funds
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
6. OTHER Student Tuition
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
5000
22500
13500
_____
_____
_____
0
_____
4150
4000
_____
_____
_____
12356
20506
703669
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
26% of (direct – tuition – [equipment > 2k])
_____
178441
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
178441
882110
_____
$882,110
_____
_____
_____
$_____
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $
DATE
FOR ORION USE ONLY
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
_____
_____
OOI Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked
Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG
25
FOR ORION USE ONLY
CUMULATIVE PROPOSAL BUDGET
ORGANIZATION
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
University of Washington & Oregon State University
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
John K. Horne
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
Funded
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
Funds
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
1. J. Horne, PI
18
2. D. Mellinger, PI
24
3. K. Stafford, PI
24
4. S. Moore, PI
12
5. _____
__
6. (___) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
__
7. (4) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
78
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (2-3) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
192
2. (7) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
183
3. (3) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (1) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (___) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (___) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
(If Different)
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
$159,192
145,925
127,353
0
_____
_____
432,470
$_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__
__
__
__
782,432
1,194,045
628,807
7,096
_____
_____
3,044,850
848 636
3,893,486
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
300,000
2,241,760
10,000
50,000
2,601,760
137,000
81,000
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
$ _____
2. TRAVEL
_____
3. SUBSISTENCE
_____
4. OTHER
_____
TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
6. OTHER student tuition
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
Granted
Proposer
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
Hydrophones & receivers (30 x 10000)
Echosounders (16 shallow, 16 deep)
Data Storage System
Analytic Software + Maintenance
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (_____)
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
Funds
Requested By
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
76,950
22,500
_____
_____
_____
67,364
166,814
6,880,060
1,094,843
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
1,094,843
7,974,903
_____
$7,974,903
_____
_____
_____
26% of (direct – tuition – [equipment > 2k])
_____
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
$_____
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $
DATE
FOR ORION USE ONLY
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
_____
_____
OOI Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked
Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG
26
Budget Justification
A single budget combines a marine mammal group, centered at Oregon State University, and a
fisheries acoustics group at the University of Washington.
Research Salaries, Wages, Tuition, and Fringe Benefits
Funds are requested to support a marine mammal research group consisting of Mellinger (4
months/year), Moore (2 months/year, no cost), Stafford (4 months/year), two PostDocs (full
time), and two graduate students for the duration of the project. The PIs (Mellinger, Stafford,
Moore) will oversee the project, including the hardware engineering, automated detection
development, data processing, and ecosystem analysis; advise the students and postdocs
involved; and direct the research assistants as needed. Funding is included for two students, one
to study low-frequency marine mammals, principally baleen whales, and the other for the higherfrequency odontocetes. Funding for two postdoc positions is included: one (with funding from
year 1 and to the second-to-last year) for studying automatic detection of marine mammal calls,
which will comprise the first stage of acoustic analysis of incoming data, and one (with funding
from year 2 through project end) for analysis of interactions between marine mammals and the
wider ecosystem, including physical processes and lower trophic levels. Each of these postdocs
positions is expected to be filled by 2-3 different people.
Engineering time at the start of the project is needed for designing the hydrophone/data
acquisition/interface system to collect acoustic data and get it into the format needed by the
ORION node infrastructure. Additional engineering time is budgeted throughout the project to
handle unforeseen events. An instrument technician is needed for assembly and deployment of
the hardware, and 1.5 FTE research technicians are budgeted for data management, data
processing, and other support services. No ship time is included, on the assumption that ORION
cruises will be budgeted elsewhere.
The fisheries acoustics group will be composed of Horne (3 months/year), a PostDoc (full
time), a Research Technician (full time), and a graduate student. Howe will participate in the
program at no cost. Horne will oversee the entire project and direct research activities for the
fisheries acoustics group. Research activities by the fisheries PostDoc will focus on temporal
distribution patterns of nekton while the graduate student project will concentrate on spatial
fluxes of stocks over annual migrations. The marine mammal and fisheries acoustics groups will
share a Programmer/Data Manager (full time) to manage local data, and an hourly employee
27
(half time) to help with logistics and data cleaning. Tuition fees for the UW graduate student are
included in each year of the project.
All salaries and tuition fees include a 4% cost of living increase in each year of the project.
Fringe benefits and tuition are those in place at the University of Washington and Oregon State
University in 2005.
Equipment
This budget includes costs for the marine mammal hydrophone and fisheries acoustics
equipment packages. The cost of the completed hydrophone system and interface is not known,
but is estimated at $10k/phone. Each active acoustics package consists of a Simrad EK-60
splitbeam echosounder operating at 38 KHz. A total of 30 passive and active acoustic packages
are planned, 15 to be mounted on moorings (shallow) and 15 to be mounted on moorings or on
bottom (deep). The shallow transducer for the active package is a 12o x 12o beam rated to 50 m.
The deep transducer is a 7 o x 7 o beam rated to 1500 m. A titanium pressure housing and
connectors is included in the deep echosounder package to house the transceiver unit. An
additional shallow and deep system is budgeted in year four of the project to provide a
replacement or a spare for servicing the equipment. A data storage system including a gigabit
ethernet switch, a VPN router, a network attached disk storage system, and a data archive system
(2 terabytes) is included in the budget. This capability will enable us to work with large data sets
over our laboratory network. The Echoview software package will be used for processing the
data. Continued developments and refinements in acoustic processing make batch processing
and bad data recognition more automated. Costs are included for an initial license in the first
year with upgrades and support in subsequent years.
Travel
Within the marine mammal group, funds are requested to support travel for deployment of
instruments in the first year, project meetings, domestic conferences (1 trip/person/year), and
foreign scientific conferences (3 people/year).
Costs for two people to participate in an instrument package field-servicing trip are included
in each year of the fisheries acoustics budget. It is assumed that this trip will be made in
conjunction with ORION infrastructure or other maintenance cruises. Attendance at a national
scientific conference for all science personnel is included in each year of the budget. An
additional two trips to international conferences are included in each year of the budget.
28
Other Direct Costs
Funds are requested to purchase computer peripherals, software upgrades, and data storeage
media. Shipping costs of equipment are included in the budget. Publication costs for color
plates and graphics are included. PC computers are requested to support the PostDoc, students,
and the network.
29
JOHN K. HORNE
University of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
Box 355020
Seattle, WA 98195-5020
USA
Phone: (206) 221-6890
Fax: (206) 221-6939
E-mail:
[email protected]
Professional Preparation
Dalhousie University
Dalhousie University
Memorial University of Newfoundland
SUNY Buffalo State College
Marine Biology
Fisheries Ecology
Fisheries Ecology
Fisheries Acoustics
B.Sc. (Honours), 1985
M.Sc., 1988
Ph.D, 1995
1995-1997
Appointments
2004Research Associate Professor -- University of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery
Sciences. Affiliated with the Quantitative Ecology and Resource Management Program.
2001-2004 Research Assistant Professor – University of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery
Sciences. Affiliated with the Quantitative Ecology and Resource Management Program.
1999-2000 Research Scientist – NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center and University of
Washington, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean.
1997-1999 Research Scientist - NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory. Adjunct
Assistant Professor - School of Natural Resources and Environment and College of Engineering,
University of Michigan.
1996-1997 Adjunct Assistant Professor - Geography and National Center for Geographic Information
and Analysis. State University of New York, University at Buffalo.
Relevant Publications
Gauthier, S. and J.K. Horne. 2004. Potential acoustic discrimination of boreal fish assemblages. ICES
Journal of Marine Science 61: 836-845.
Horne, J.K. 2003. Influence of ontogeny, physiology, and behaviour on target strength of Walleye pollock
(Theragra chalcogramma). ICES Journal of Marine Science 60: 1063-1074.
Horne, J.K. 2000. Acoustic approaches to remote species identification: a review. Fisheries
Oceanography 9: 356-371.
Horne, J.K. and C.S. Clay. 1998. Sonar systems and aquatic organisms: matching equipment and model
parameters. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 1296-1306.
Horne, J.K. and D.C. Schneider. 1997. Spatial variance of mobile marine organisms: capelin and cod in
Newfoundland coastal waters. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B 352: 633642.
Other Publications
Gauthier, S. and J.K. Horne. 2004. Acoustic characteristics of forage fish species in the Gulf of Alaska
and Bering Sea. Canadian Journal of Aquatic and Fishery Science 61: 1839-1850.
Jech, J.M. and J.K. Horne. 2001. Effects of in situ target spatial distributions on acoustic density
estimates. ICES Journal of marine Science 58: 123-136.
30
Horne, J.K., P.E. Smith, and D.C. Schneider. 1999. Comparative examination of scale-explicit biological
and physical processes: recruitment of Pacific hake. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 56: 170-179.
Horne, J.K. and D.C. Schneider. 1995. Spatial variance in ecology. Oikos 74: 18-26.
Clay, C.S. and J.K. Horne. 1994. Acoustic models of fish: the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). The Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America 96: 1661-1668.
Synergistic Activities
Member of Acoustical Oceanography Technical Committee, Acoustical Society of America.
Founder and coordinator of the NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center and University of Washington,
School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences Undergraduate Summer Intern Program.
Developer of web-based simulcast of Fisheries Acoustics course lecture content.
University of Washington’s research committee member of the North Pacific Universities Marine
Mammal Consortium.
Co-coordinator of University of Washington and University of Alaska multicast of Acoustics Seminar
course using Internet II.
Collaborators & Other Affiliations
Kelly A. Allman
Whitlow L. A.
Elizabeth L. Connors
Don J. Deegan
John K.B. Ford
Stephane Gauthier
R. Scott Hale
Elliott L. Hazen
Sarah Hinckley
J. Michael Jech
Rudy J. Kloser
Richard Towler
Paul D. Walline
Marine Mammal Center, California
University of Hawaii
NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center
Aquacoustics Inc., Alaska
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada
University of Washington
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Duke University
NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center
NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center
CSIRO, Australia
NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center
NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center
Graduate and Postdoc Advisors
Stephen B. Brandt
David C. Schneider
Steven E. Campana
NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada
Thesis Advisor (total: 13) and Postgraduate-Scholar Sponsor (total: 4)
Carlos Alvarez-Flores
Stephen Barbeaux
Julian Burgos
Stephane Gauthier
Elliott Hazen
Mark Henderson
Patrick Nealson
Sandra Parker-Stetter
Carolina Parada
Alaska Fisheries Science Center
University of Washington
University of Washington
University of Washington
University of Washington
University of Washington
University of Washington
University of Washington
Alaska Fisheries Science Center
31
Bruce M. Howe
Professional Preparation
Stanford University
University of California, San Diego
Mechanical Engineering, Fluid Mechanics B.Sc. 1978
Engineering Science, Fluid Dynamics M.Sc. 1978
Oceanography, Ocean Acoustic Tomography Ph.D. 1986
Appointments
University of Washington
Applied Physics Laboratory, College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences
1998 –
Principal Oceanographer
1992 – 1998
Senior Oceanographer
1987 – 1992
Oceanographer
School of Oceanography, College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences
1994 –
Research Associate Professor
1988 – 1992
Research Assistant Professor
Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering
2004 –
Adjunct Research Associate Professor
University of California, San Diego
1986 – 1987
Postgraduate Researcher, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics
1981 – 1986
Research Assistant, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Universität Karlsruhe
1979 – 1981
Research Associate, Institut für Hydromechanik
Stanford University
1976 – 1979
Research Assistant, Department of Civil Engineering
Scientific Expeditions
Participant in 30 cruises with 400 days at sea, 14 cruises as Chief Scientist, one each using DSV SeaCliff,
the ATV ROV, and R/P FLIP.
Publications - Author or co-author of 43 refereed papers and 160 other works.
Selected Publications
Howe, B. M., and J. H. Miller, Acoustic sensing for ocean research, J. Mar. Tech. Soc., 38, 144–154,
2004.
Andrew, R. K., B. M. Howe, J. A. Mercer, and M. A. Dzieciuch, Ocean ambient sound: Comparing the
1960s with the 1990s for a receiver off the California coast, Acoust. Res. Lett. On-line, 3(2), 65–70,
2002.
Dushaw, B. D. et al., Observing the ocean in the 2000’s: A strategy for the role of acoustic tomography in
ocean climate observation, Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Ocean
Observing System, San Rafael, France, 18-22 October 1999, in: Observing the Oceans in the 21st
Century, C.J. Koblinsky and N.R. Smith (eds), Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia,
2001.
Delaney, J. R., G. R. Heath, A. D. Chave, B. M. Howe, and H. Kirkham, NEPTUNE: Real-time ocean
and earth sciences at the scale of a tectonic plate, Oceanography, 13, 71–83, 2000.
Curtis, K. R., B. M. Howe, and J. A. Mercer, Low frequency ambient sound in the North Pacific: Long
time series observations, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 106, 3189–3200, 1999.
Other Publications
Howe, B. M., H. Kirkham, and V. Vorpérian, Power system considerations for undersea observatories,
IEEE J. Oceanic Engr., 27, 267–274, 2002.
32
Howe, B. M., K. Runciman, and J. A. Secan, Tomography of the ionosphere: Four-dimensional
simulations, Radio Science, 33, 109–128, 1998.
ATOC Consortium: A. B. Baggeroer, T. G. Birdsall, C. Clark, J. A. Colosi, B. D. Cornuelle, D. Costa, B.
D. Dushaw, M. Dzieciuch, A. M. G. Forbes, C. Hill, B. M. Howe, J. Marshall, D. Menemenlis, J.
A. Mercer, K. Metzger, W. Munk, R. C. Spindel, D. Stammer, P. F. Worcester, and C. Wunsch,
Observing ocean climate change: Comparison of acoustic tomography, satellite altimetry, and
modeling, Science, 281, 1327–1332, 1998.
ATOC Instrumentation Group: B. M. Howe, S. G. Anderson, A. Baggeroer, J. A. Colosi, K.R. Hardy, D.
Horwitt, F. Karig, S. Leach, J. A. Mercer, K. Metzger, Jr., L. O. Olson, D. A. Peckham, D. A.
Reddaway, R. R. Ryan, R. P. Stein, K. von der Heydt, J. D. Watson, S. L. Weslander, and P. F.
Worcester, Instrumentation for the Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) prototype
Pacific Ocean array, Proc. Oceans '95 MTS/IEEE, San Diego, California, 1483–1500, 1995.
Worcester, P. F., B. D. Cornuelle, J. H. Hildebrand, W. S. Hodgekiss, Jr., T. F. Duda, J. Boyd, B. M.
Howe, J. A. Mercer, and R. C. Spindel, A comparison of measured and predicted broadband arrival
patterns in travel time-depth coordinates at 1000-km range, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 95, 16,365–
16,378, 1994.
Synergistic Activities
2005 NEPTUNE Canada RFP Team, Member
2004 – Global Class Science Mission Requirements, Chair of UNOLS Committee
2003 – 2004 AGU Oceans Sciences 2004 Meeting, Member of Program Committee
2003 – Integrated Acoustics Systems for Ocean Observatories, Co-chair of ASA Committee
2003 – Current Measurement Technology Committee, Member
2000 – 2003 Acoustical Oceanography Technical Committee, ASA, Member
1999 Fellowship, Science and Technology Agency, Japan
1997 – NEPTUNE planning and technical activities
1992 – 2002 Scientific Use of Undersea Cables, Member of IRIS Steering Committee
1991 – 1995 Tomographic Data in Ocean Models, Chair of ONR Committee
Professional Societies
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
The Oceanography Society (charter life member)
Acoustical Society of America
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Sigma Xi
Collaborators and Other Affiliations
Collaborators and Co-Editors
R. Andrew (UW), P. Beauchamp (JPL), E. Boss (UMaine), A. Chave (WHOI), J. Colosi (WHOI), B.
Cornuelle (SIO), J. Delaney (UW), B. Dushaw (UW), M. Dzieciuch (SIO), M. El-Sharkawi (UW), R.
Heath (UW), H. Kirkham (JPL), C-C. Liu (UW), R. Lukas, T. McGinnis (UW), J. Mercer (UW), W.
Munk (SIO), R. Spindel (UW), L. Scherliess (USU), R. Schunk (USU), V. Vorperian (JPL), W.
Wilcock (UW), P. Worcester (SIO)
Graduate and Postdoctoral Advisors
Graduate Advisors: MSc: Robert Street (Stanford). PhD: Walter Munk (SIO) and Peter Worcester (SIO).
Postdoctoral: Peter Worcester (SIO)
Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate-Scholar Sponsor
PhD: Michael Zarnetske (current), Chris Walter (1999). MSc: Keith Curtis (1998)
Postgraduate: Brian Dushaw (UW).
33
David K. Mellinger
Cooperative Institute for Marine Resources Studies
2030 SE Marine Science Dr.
Newport, OR 97365
[email protected]
+1-541-867-0372
fax +1-541-867-3907
Goals
To lead a research and teaching program in marine bioacoustics.
To develop algorithms and tools for studying natural sounds.
To build perceptually-based signal processing systems.
To apply results to biological and conservation research problems.
Work and Education History
2000–present. Oregon State University. Assistant Professor, Senior Research. Conducting
research in marine mammal acoustics and developing software for digital acoustic signal
processing.
1997–1999. Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Moss Landing, CA. Postdoctoral
research fellow. Research on signal processing and on the acoustic behavior of harbor seals.
Developed methods for long-term continuous acoustic monitoring, studied harbor seal behavior,
and implemented algorithms for automatic call recognition.
1992–1996. Bioacoustics Research Program, Cornell University. Postdoctoral research associate.
Research in signal processing methods for automatic detection and classification of animal
sounds, and in acoustic methods for studying the behavior of marine mammals. Lab director:
Prof. Christopher W. Clark.
1986–91. Stanford University. Ph.D., Computer Science. Research in computational auditory
models and signal processing systems. Thesis: Event Formation and Separation in Musical
Sound. Advisor: Prof. Bernard M. Mont-Reynaud.
1984–1986. Interleaf, Inc., Cambridge, MA. Senior Software Engineer.
1979–83. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Bachelors of Science (2) in Mathematics and in
Philosophy.
Selected Publications
Mellinger, D. K., G. E. Garnett, and B. Mont-Reynaud. 1989. Virtual digital signal processing in
an object-oriented system. Comp. Mus. J. 13(2): 71–76.
Potter, J. R., D. K. Mellinger, and C. W. Clark. 1994. Marine mammal call classification using
artificial neural networks. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96(3): 1255–1262.
Mellinger, D. K., and C. W. Clark. 1996. Methods for automatic detection of mysticete sounds.
Mar. Freshwater Beh. Physiol. 29(1): 163–181.
Mellinger, David K. 1997. A low-cost, high-performance sound capture and archiving system for
the subtidal zone. Proc. Inst. Acoust. 19(9): 115–121.
Evans, W. R., and D. K. Mellinger. 1999. Monitoring grassland birds in nocturnal migration.
Studies Avian Biol. 19:219–229.
Mellinger, D. K., and C. W. Clark. 2000. Recognizing transient low-frequency whale sounds by
spectrogram correlation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107(6): 3518–3529.
Mellinger, D. K., Carol D. Carson, and Christopher W. Clark. Characteristics of minke whale
(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) pulse trains recorded near Puerto Rico. Mar. Mamm. Sci.
16(4): 739–756.
34
Hayes, S. A., D. K. Mellinger, J. F. Borsani, D. P. Costa, and D. A. Croll. 2000. An inexpensive
passive acoustic system for recording and tracking wild animals. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107(6):
3552–3555.
Mellinger, D. K. 2001. Ishmael 1.0 User’s Guide. NOAA Tech. Memo. OAR–PMEL–120
(NOAA PMEL, Seattle). 30 pp.
Charif, R. A., D. K. Mellinger, K. J. Dunsmore, and C. W. Clark. 2002. Estimated source levels
of fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) vocalizations: Adjustments for surface interference.
Mar. Mamm. Sci. 18(1): 81–98.
Mellinger, D. K., A. Thode, and A. Martinez. 2003. Passive acoustic monitoring of sperm whales
in the Gulf of Mexico, with a model of acoustic detection distance. Proc. Twenty-first
Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, January 2002, pp. 493-501. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region,
New Orleans.
Mellinger, D. K., and J. Barlow. 2003. Future Directions for Marine Mammal Acoustic Surveys:
Stock Assessment and Habitat Use. Report of a workshop held in La Jolla, CA, 20-22
November 2002. NOAA/PMEL Contribution No. 2557, NOAA PMEL, Seattle. 45 pp.
Waite, J. M., K. Wynne, and D. K. Mellinger. 2003. Documented sighting of a North Pacific
right whale in the Gulf of Alaska and post-sighting acoustic monitoring. Northwest. Natur.
84(1): 38-43.
Van Parijs, S. M., P. J. Corkeron, J. Harvey, S. Hayes, D. K. Mellinger, P. Rouget, P. M.
Thompson, M. Wahlberg, and K. M. Kovacs. 2003. Global patterns in vocalizations of male
harbor seals. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113(6): 3403-3410.
Mellinger, D. K., and C. W. Clark. 2003. Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) sounds from the
North Atlantic. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114(2): 1108-1119.
Mellinger, D. K., K. M. Stafford, and C. G. Fox. 2004. Seasonal occurrence of sperm whale
(Physeter macrocephalus) sounds in the Gulf of Alaska, 1999-2001. Mar. Mamm. Sci.
20(1):48-62.
Nieukirk, S. L., K. M. Stafford, D. K. Mellinger, and C. G. Fox. 2004. Low-frequency whale and
airgun sounds recorded from the mid-Atlantic Ocean. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115(4):1832-1843.
Hayes, S. A., A. Kumar, D. P. Costa, D. K. Mellinger, J. Harvey, B. Southall, B. LeBoeuf. 2004.
Evaluating the function of the male harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) roar through playback
experiments. Anim. Behav. 67(6):1133-1139.
Mellinger, D. K. A comparison of methods for detecting right whale calls. 2004. Canad. Acoust.
32(2):55-65.
Stafford, K. M., D. R. Bohnenstiehl, M. Tolstoy, E. Chapp, D. K. Mellinger, and S. E. Moore.
2004. Antarctic-type blue whale calls recorded at low latitudes in the Indian and the eastern
Pacific Oceans. Deep-Sea Res. I 51(10):1337-1346.
Mellinger, D. K., K. M. Stafford, S. E. Moore, L. Munger, and C. G. Fox. 2004. Detection of
North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) calls in the Gulf of Alaska. Mar. Mamm. Sci.
20(4): 872-879.
Munger, L. M., D. K. Mellinger, S. M. Wiggins, S. E. Moore, and J. A. Hildebrand. 2005.
Performance of spectrogram correlation in detecting right whale calls in long-term recordings
from the Bering Sea. To appear, Canad. Acoust. 33(2).
35
SUE E. MOORE, Ph.D.
AFFILIATION
NOAA/NMFS/Alaska Fisheries Science Center
Applied Physics Laboratory – University of Washington
1013 NE 40th Street
Seattle, WA 98105 [email protected] [email protected]
POSITION
Principal Oceanographer/Senior Scientist
Director, National Marine Mammal Laboratory
Cetacean Assessment and Ecology Program Leader
2004
2002
1998
EDUCATION
Ph.D. UCSD/Scripps Institution of Oceanography
M.S. San Diego State University
B.A. UCSD/Third College
1997
1979
1976
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
Principal Investigator/Program Manager:
Aerial Surveys for Arctic Whales offshore Alaska
Marine Mammal Visual and Acoustic Assessments
Prototype Navy/LMRIS Marine Animal Database
MMS/Aerial Surveys for Whales offshore Alaska
1988-98
PROFESSIONAL
EXPERIENCE
SEACO, Incorporated
1978-88
Program Manager/Field Team Leader:
MMS/Aerial Surveys for Whales offshore Alaska
Research Assistant- Navy/Marine Mammal Program
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Research Technician – Marine Ecology
PROFESSIONAL
SOCIETIES
1975-78
Society for Marine Mammalogy (Charter Member)
Acoustical Society of America
Society for Conservation Biology
Association of Women in Science
RESEARCH
INTERSTS Polar marine ecology; marine mammal habitat selection and bio-acoustics;
oceanographic correlates of cetacean habitats
SYNERGISTIC ACTIVITIES
In April 2004, I began a 2-year detail from the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) to the
Applied Physics Laboratory-University of Washington (APL-UW), in part to further develop
NOAA/Fisheries capabilities to: (1) detect marine mammals using passive acoustic tools, and (2)
assess the potential risk to marine mammals posed by anthropogenic noise. As Director of the
36
Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML), I was the AFSC representative to NOAA/Anthropogenic
Noise Workshop (August 2003) and NOAA/Acoustic Research Planning Meetings (November
2002; March 2004). In addition, I was an invited panelist at the Marine Mammal Commission
(MMC) Beaked Whale Workshop (April 2004), and prepared the focus paper on ‘Effects of
Long-Term Environmental Change on Marine Mammals’ for the MMC Consultation on the
Future Directions in Marine Mammal Research (August 2003). Since initiating my APL-UW
detail, I have contributed to research coordination between NOAA/AFSC and NOAA/PMEL
regarding future ecosystem investigations in the Bering Sea (NPCREP Workshop, October 2004)
and in the Bering and Chukchi Sea during the International Polar Year. I recently Chaired a
session on seabirds and marine mammals at the GLOBEC/ESSAS Open Science meeting in
Victoria Canada (May 2005) and will co-chair a special Symposium on Sea Ice and Polar
Cetaceans at the International Whaling Commission, Scientific Committee meeting in Ulsan,
Korea (June 2005).
RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS
Moore, S.E. 2005. Long-term environmental change and marine mammals. pp.: in press. In J.E.
Reynolds et al. (eds.), Marine Mammal Research: Conservation Beyond Crisis. The Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Shelden, K.E.W., S.E. Moore, J.M. Waite, P.R. Wade and D.J. Rugh. 2005. Historic and current
habitat use by North Pacific right whales Eubalaena japonica in the Bering Sea and Gulf of
Alaska. Mammal Review 35(2): 129-155.
Stafford, K.M. and S.E. Moore. 2005. Atypical calling by a blue whale in the Gulf of Alaska.
Journal Acoustical Society of America 117 (5): 2724-2727.
Stafford, K.M., S.E. Moore and C.G. Fox. 2005. Diel variation in blue whale calls recorded in the
Eastern Tropical Pacific. Animal Behavior 69: 951-958.
Mellinger, D.K., K.M. Stafford, S.E. Moore, L. Munger and C.G. Fox. 2004. Detection of North
Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) calls in the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Mammal Science
20(4): 872-879.
Širovic, A. J.A. Hildebrand, S.M. Wiggins, M.A. McDonald, S.E. Moore and D. Thiele. 2004.
Seasonality of blue and fin whale calls and the influence of sea ice in the Western Antarctic
Peninsula. Deep-Sea Research II 51: 2327-2344.
Stafford, K.M., D.R. Bohnenstiehl, M. Tolstoy, E. Chapp, D.K. Mellinger and S.E. Moore. 2004.
Antarctic-type blue whale calls recorded at low latitudes in the Indian and eastern Pacific Oceans.
Deep-Sea Research I 51(1): 1337-1346.
Moore, S.E., J.M. Grebmeier and J.R. Davies. 2003. Gray whale distribution relative to forage
habitat in the northern Bering Sea: current conditions and retrospective summary. Canadian
Journal of Zoology 81: 734-742.
Moore, S.E. and J.T. Clarke. 2002. Potential impact of offshore human activities on gray whales
(Eschrichtius robustus). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 4(1): 19-25.
Moore, S.E., W.A. Watkins, M.A. Daher, J.R. Davies, M.E. Dahlheim. 2002. Blue whale habitat
associations in the Northwest Pacific: analysis of remotely-sensed data using a Geographic
Information System. Oceanography 15 (3): 20-25.
Moore, S.E., J.M. Waite, N.A. Friday and T. Honkahehto. 2002. Cetacean distribution and relative
abundance on the central-eastern and the southeastern Bering Sea shelf with reference to
oceanographic domains. Progress in Oceanography 55: 249-261.
Moore, S.E., J Urban, W.L. Perryman, H. Perez-Cortes, P.R. Wade, L. Rojas-Bracho and T.
Rowles. 2001. Are gray whales hitting ‘K’ hard? Marine Mammal Science 17(4): 954-958.
Moore, S.E. 2000. Cetacean habitat selection in the Alaskan Arctic during summer and autumn. Arctic
53(4): 432-447.
37
Kathleen M. Stafford, PhD
9503 48th Ave NE
Seattle WA 98115 USA
206-524-3599 (h)
Applied Physics Laboratory,
University of Washington
206-526-8617 (o)
206-526-6615 (f)
[email protected]
PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION
University of California, Santa Cruz
Oregon State University
National Research Council
Biology and French
Literature (honors)
Wildlife Science
Oceanography
Animal Bioacoustics
BA
1989
MSc. 1995
PhD 2001
10/01-9/04
APPOINTMENTS
University of Washington, Applied Physics Laboratory, College of Ocean and
Fishery Sciences
Oceanographer 10/04-,
National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center
Research Associate 10/01-9/04
Oregon State University, Cooperative Institute for Marine Resource Studies,
Senior Research Assistant 1/95 –6/01.
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Stafford, K.M. and Moore, S.E. 2005. Atypical calling by a blue whale in the Gulf of
Alaska. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117(5):2724-2727.
Stafford, K.M., Moore, S.E. and Fox, C.G. 2005. Diel variation in blue whale calls
recorded in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Animal Behaviour 69:951-958.
Mellinger, D.K., Stafford, K.M., Moore, S.E., Munger, L. and Fox, C.G. 2004.
Detection of North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) calls in the Gulf of Alaska.
Marine Mammal Science 20: 872-879.
Stafford, K.M., Bohnenstiel, D., Tolstoy, M., Chapp, E., Mellinger, D.K. and Moore,
S.E. 2004. Antarctic-type blue whale calls recorded at low latitudes in two oceans. DeepSea Research I 51(10):1337-1346.
Nieukirk, S.L., Stafford, K.M., Mellinger, D.K., and Fox, C.G. 2004. Low-frequency
whale sounds recorded from the mid-Atlantic Ocean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 115(4):1832-1843.
38
Mellinger, D.K., Stafford, K.M. and Fox, C.G. 2004. Seasonal occurrence of sperm
whale (Physeter macrocephalus) sounds in the Gulf of Alaska, 1999-2001. Marine
Mammal Science 20:48-62
Stafford, K.M. 2003. Two types of blue whale calls recorded in the Gulf of Alaska.
Marine Mammal Science 19:682-693.
Stafford, K.M., Nieukirk, S.L. and Fox, C.G. 2001. Geographic and seasonal variation
of blue whale calls in the North Pacific. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management
3:65-76.
Stafford, K.M., Nieukirk, S.L. and Fox, C.G. 1999. Low-frequency whale sounds
recorded on hydrophones moored in the eastern tropical Pacific. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America 106:3687-3698.
Stafford, K.M., Nieukirk, S.L. and Fox, C.G. 1999. An acoustic link between blue
whales in the northeast Pacific and the eastern tropical Pacific. Marine Mammal Science
15:1258-1268.
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
Phi Kappa Phi National Honor Society
Society for Marine Mammalogy
Acoustical Society of America
SYNERGISTIC ACTIVITIES
Animal Bioacoustics subcommittee representative at the Technical Program Organizing
Meeting for the Acoustical Society of America, Vancouver, B.C. January 2005.
Invited speaker at the National Educational Lecture Series on marine mammal acoustic
communication and the potential impacts of natural and human-made sources of
underwater sound. Seattle Aquarium 30 September 2004.
39