Yesterday Marla Holt and I teamed up to measure the source levels (broadband and spectrum) of a new device called the Thrustor. Essentially a cowling that houses the propeller, the Thrustor is known to increase the efficiency and “bollard-pull” power of an outboard or stern-drive engine propulsion system. The Thrustor was co-patented by Terry Smith in 2005 and is manufactured by Marine Propulsion Technologies.
52734
Terry drove his test boat up from California, his brother Chris flew out from Colorado to lend a hand, and Leif Bentzen provided and captained a boat from which to deploy the hydrophones. Marla and the Northwest Fisheries Science Center donated her expertise, her calibrated Resond hydrophone system, laser range finder, and hand-held GPS. I brought along the Beam Reach calibrated Inter-Oceans system and some buoys to mark the 100m and 400m ranges from the hydrophones. And thankfully, the weather really cooperated — while we expected drizzle and wind, we got clear skies and placid waters.
Despite substantial background noise from the Edmonds-Kingston ferry and passing freight trains, we gathered a bunch of data using dual-hydrophones that have a flat frequency response from 1-40kHz and are capable of recording up to frequencies up to 96kHz. First we tested Terry’s boat (powered by a Honda 80hp outboard) without the Thrustor, then with it. We made passes at 7-30 knots at ranges of 400, 100, and ~50m. We also measured the noise generated when accelerating from an idle to cruising speed.
Stay tuned for some preliminary acoustic results… For now, here are some photos from the day.
Lead Instructor Jason Wood (also Research Curator at The Whale Museum) is a guest speaker at the Port Townsend Marine Science Center this month (Sat 2/21/09, 4pm, Fort Worden Building 204, $5 non-members).  This should be a great talk that combines Jason’s 15+ years of experience in Africa with his more recent immersion in killer whale acoustics with Beam Reach and The Whale Museum.
Thanks to Fred Felleman for the appended articles: new B.C. ferries are drawing complaints about being too noisy in air. One has to wonder whether the Coastal Celebration and its two sister ships, the Coastal Inspiration and the Coastal Renaissance, are also noisier underwater than their predecessors. The Celebration
As killer whale scientists and conservationists we need to be more watchful of the ferry replacement process, particularly the standards for underwater broadband source levels and spectrum levels. We should all consider influencing the ferry selection/design process — on both sides of the border. For future replacements, let’s ensure that reliable estimates of noise impacts are available for existing designs and that strong underwater noise standards are required for new designs.
While the team who has selected designs for the new Washington ferries is confident that the new 144-car ferry will be more quiet than the fleet average, their modeling effort suggests there may be no improvement. The smaller ferry design is in operation on the east coast, but its underwater signature remains unmeasured.
Lead Beam Reach instructor Jason Wood makes a cameo appearance in this nice video put out a week ago by the Puget Sound Partnership.  Here he is wearing his Research Curator hat for The Whale Museum and pointing out the aesthetic value of the Salish Sea along with Kari Koski, Jenny Atkinson, and other local marine conservationists.
The appended story is a great example of sustainability science. Ed is a bioacoustician who found a way to understand why manatees were getting hit by so many boats. Then he devised a technological solution: an alarm sound beamed out in front of a boat.
While I’m curious to know how he plans to work with managers and boat owners to install the devices, he already deserves accolades for setting a good example. I hope that Beam Reach can make similar strides in not only identifying risks to species of concern in the Pacific Northwest, but using technology and partnerships to reduce the risks. It’s telling that Ed has been grappling with the collision issue for 17 years!
Acoustic Phenomena Explain Why Boats And Animals Collide
Researchers at Florida Atlantic University have laid the groundwork
for a sensory explanation for why manatees and other animals are hit
repeatedly by boats. Last year, 73 manatees were killed by boats in
Florida’s bays and inland waterways. Marine authorities have
responded to deaths from boat collisions by imposing low speed
limits on boats.
In spite of manatee protection policies that have been in effect for
nearly two decades to slow down boats passing through manatee-
protection habitats, the number of injuries and deaths associated
with collisions has increased and reached record highs.
In an effort to reduce manatee deaths and injuries from boats, Dr.
Edmund Gerstein, director of marine mammal research and behavior in
FAU’s Charles E. Schmidt College of Science, set out in 1991 to
investigate what might be the underlying cause for these collisions.
Gerstein disagreed with the unsubstantiated assumptions, which
wildlife officials had relied upon, that manatees could hear boats,
but they were just too slow and could not learn to avoid boats.
“Manatees have the cognitive prowess to learn and remember as well
as dolphins and killer whales,” said Gerstein. “Furthermore, when
startled or frightened, manatees explode with a burst of power and
can reach swimming speeds of up to 6.4 meters per second in an
instant.”
Given that manatees have the cognitive ability to recognize danger
and the physical prowess to evade boats, Gerstein sought to explore
the answers to some simple questions. “After a manatee has been hit
more than once (some have been hit up to 50 different times) why
doesn’t the animal learn to get out of the way?” “Is it possible
that manatees are not aware or cannot hear the sounds of an
approaching boat?”
Gerstein and his colleagues conducted rigorous, controlled
underwater psychoacoustic (audiometric) studies to understand what
sounds manatees can hear in their environment. After a comprehensive
series of hearing studies, his research revealed that manatees
cannot hear the dominant low frequency sounds of boats and that
those sounds do not transmit well in shallow water. Furthermore,
ambient noise in manatee habitats can conceivably mask the
perception of many kinds of signals. Unlike dolphins, which can use
active sonar to navigate and detect objects in the environment,
manatees are passive listeners restricted to listening to their
auditory landscape.
“It is ironic that slow speed zones result in quieter and lower
frequency sounds which manatees can’t hear or locate in Florida’s
murky waters,” said Gerstein. “Slow speed zones make sense in clear
water where the boater and the manatee can see each other and
therefore actively avoid encounters. However, in turbid waters where
there is no visibility, slow speeds actually exacerbate the risks of
collisions by making these boats inaudible to manatees and
increasing the time it takes for a boat to now travel through
manatee habitats thereby increasing the risk and opportunities for
collisions to occur.”
With these issues in mind, Gerstein and his colleagues developed an
acoustic alerting device specifically tailored to exploit the
manatees’ hearing ability. The environmentally friendly device is
narrowly focused in front of the boat so that only manatees in its
direct path are alerted.
“The alarm emits a high-frequency signal which isn’t loud, doesn’t
scare or harm manatees and doesn’t disturb the marine environment,”
said Gerstein.
Gerstein has been testing this alarm in a NASA wildlife refuge where
controlled studies are possible. He has reported that 100 percent of
the controlled approaches toward manatees by a boat with the alarm
have resulted in the manatees avoiding the boat up to 30 yards away.
Without this alarm, only three percent of the manatees approached by
the same boat moved to avoid the boat.
Manatees aren’t the only animals that collide with boats. Other
passive-listening marine mammals, including great whales, are
vulnerable to collisions when near the surface, where the risk of
collisions with ships and boats is greatest or in shallow water.
Gerstein and his colleagues are using the findings from their
studies to help understand and reduce collisions in the open seas
where great whales are regularly injured and often killed by large
ships.
Reporter Robert Santos covered the issue of underwater noise pollution in the oceans on KOMO4 TV yesterday. Thanks to referrals from Fred Felleman and Kelly Balcomb-Bartok, I was contacted to provide a connection between the bioacoustics of our local killer whales and the conference of the UN Environment Program in Rome this week that is considering a resolution of member countries to recognize and address ocean noise pollution.
Just happened upon this nice plot of the summertime salinity gradient in the Salish Sea. I was surprised to see the average salinity gradient focused at the sill separating Haro Strait and the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. While the variability due to tidal forcing must be dramatic, the steepest gradients are located at the southern end of Haro Strait, the vicinity of “Salmon Bank.” I’ve come to believe that this same general area (centered around False Bay) is a focus of killer whale foraging, but no one (and no telemetry data for adult salmon) has clarified why the foraging (and presumably fish) might concentrate here.
Salinity gradient in the Salish Sea
This figure makes me wonder if (on average) this is where the Fraser Chinook are beginning their physiological adjustment to fresh water chemistry. A migrating salmon could pause at about this position in the estuary and access a wide range of salinities (changes of 2-6ppt) simply by moving between the surface and 100m at different stages of the tide. Alternatively, they could sit still at one depth and have a smooth gradient of salinity wash past them with each tidal exchange.
Last Sunday (11/09/2008), Jason Wood and Scott Veirs deployed a receiver that can detect and record the signals emitted by acoustic tags implanted surgically in migratory fish, like the Chinook and chum salmon that southern resident killer whales appear to prefer. The Vemco “VR2″ receiver, provided by Fred Goetz through a collaboration with UW Fisheries, was deployed during a scheduled maintenance dive on the hydrophones at the Lime Kiln lighthouse. The plan is to retrieve the VR2 in early 2009, download any serendipitous detections that may help in the interpretation of the echosounder data (to be presented at the Puget Sound Georgia Basin conference), and then redeploy it for the remainder of the winter (and perhaps the entire year).
The dive went well and lasted from about 11-12am. We enjoyed visibility of about 20m and pleasantly calm seas (it was very rough on Saturday when we initially planned to dive). We cleaned and secured the intertidal hydrophone and echosounder cable protectors, checked the VR2 mooring for buoyancy, and then followed the hydrophone cable to the two hydrophone stands (cement-filled paint-buckets with a broad tripod of embedded rebar). The VR2 was deployed 3m NW of the southern hydrophone and its mooring anchor was tethered to that hydrophone stand’s embedded chain and one of its rebar legs.
The VR2 mooring had a total height above bottom of 2m, with the receiver hydrophone oriented upwards about 1.4m above bottom. Since the mooring was deployed in 9m of water when the tidal height was ~2m, the depth of the receiver is about 6m below the tidal datum (0m). The mooring consists of a ~2m length of 1/2″ 3-strand polypropelene line connecting a ~3kg buoyancy crab float (used in lieu of an incompressible trawl float since minimal compression is expected at this depth), the VR2 (cabled-tied through and around the strands), and a stainless steel threaded shackle (bowlines at both ends). The shackle connects to a loop of 3/16” plastic-coated wire rope that extends through a pier-block (via a 3/4 inch hole drilled through center line). The loop is secured with a clamp and is attached via sheet-bend to the ~4m-long tether (same type of line). All knots’ tails are secured with electrical tape. The float is marked with UW Fisheries research and Scott’s cell phone number.
A series of talks and discussions hosted by The Whale Museum and coordinated by Cindy Hansen.
10:25 Intros by Jenny Atkinson
10:35 Cindy announces opening of membership for Naturalists Association
conceived at spring Gear Up, 2008
New members get digital version of Naturalist teacher’s guide to SJI from SJI Nature Institute
$25 to join plus $20 annual membership fee
%15 off books from Whale Museum with membership card
Google group for communication initially
The Whale Museum will host a page and members only section
Request for 10 hours of outreach volunteering and 10 hours of continuing education
Two types of membership: Regular membership (for graduates of Marine Naturalists Training or 1 yr experience); Associate membership (for new-comers who want efficient, local training)
Ended 2008 summer with 83: J 24, K 19, L 40 (7 lost)
New calf and J7 did not show up in any 2008 photos
L101 (L67’s male calf) was photographed in Jan ’08 Monterey photo
L21 lost around end of June; last seen heading out of western Strait of Juan de Fuca
L67 looked emaciated in late summer ’08, had depression behind blow hole and in front of dorsal fin; last
L111 (calf born in late august to L?7) didn’t survive more than about a week
K42 was male calf born this year to K14 (still alive)
L106 had definite peanut head in June, but he filled back out. The had never seen a recovery from that state.
I was surprised K11 (ribs, but doing fine fall ’08) and J8 (alive as of Oct 30) made it through summer. (Worried L87 would lose another mother figure…)
10:47 Questions?
How many other emaciated late this year? We have lumpy whales. Bumps along backs, range in skinniness, and teeny dip behind blowhole. Melon and fat on back can be confusing.
How many calves born and surveyed? If you count J43 born fall, 3. L11 born in August (L47 is probably mom; she has issues keeping her 4 calves alive; none survived first year). Confusion can arise because new calves don’t necessarily stay with their mother initially.
Any information from the neonate that washed ashore on Henry? Not yet.
Any insights from aerial photos? I’ve been id-ing those photos this last month (John Durban and NMFS) was trying to get baseline and wanted to compare to aerial studies in tropical Pacific (length, width). Personal impression is that it’s easier to see emaciation from the side. John Durban is using laser spacer to measure dorsal fins and blowhole-dorsal distance to infer growth rates (Marine Mammal Science pub). K25 and L88 are examples of sprouters who don’t seem to be growing, but perhaps a small dorsal fin doesn’t indicate body size — often breach shots show pectoral fins that look more typical for animals of their age. K21 is from a smallish matriline (except K40) compared to the big whales that died in the 90s.
Could small dorsal fins be due to estrogen-mimetics? Could be…
Do dorsals shrink with age? I don’t think so, nor do I believe any longer that older bulls have wavier dorsals. Unfortunately, most small males don’t live much beyond 20, so I’m worried about some of our sprouters that seem to be growing slowly.
Did the animals that died provide recent samples? L67 gave biopsy and “nastiest-ever” poop sample.
Do you see variations in length? L67 is tiny; not sure she can have a calf. J30 is huge for his age. Others seem normal. In other populations, similar size variation has been observed.
Are different pods different in their mean size? J pod seems to have less issues than Ks and Ls. J mothers have kids, sprouters growing well, J30 big. K/Ls are going to have matrilines L67’s death doomed the L2s. L9s (L84 + 3) are tiny. “I don’t know why some of these animals seem to be happy with two kids!”
What is avg length and weight of southern residents? I’d be suprised if any males were over 7m. Seriously doubt 8m (no 30 footers). But small dorsal fins may be faking me out. Some females (J2, K40) are about as big as some of the bulls. Not sure about weight range… only seen two dead whales and both (one a transient) were ~20′.
Any indication that boys are sprouting earlier? It really seems to vary. Some do sprout earlier than others, but don’t know of any (of known age) that sprouted late and then got huge. That’s why J pod is so encouraging (J33 sprouting at 13 — right on time). One transient sprouted at age 8 and he’s huge… Graham Ellis said some N males grew so fast the dorsals collapsed.
Why are young more yellow? Immature liver jaundice, but I’m no expert on that.
With matrilines dying out, when does inbreeding become a problem? Have they ever been observed interbreeding with other populations? He’s seen N and S residents across the W Strait of Juan de Fuca and S residents near offshores, but didn’t get close to each other.
Jeanne Hyde: Why do you think J and L pods are having more male than female calves (and maybe K, too)? L111 was a girl but didn’t make it? Seems like J pod has best chance of increasing…
Why is J pod a more stable population? Is it related to being more resident? Not sure. “I don’t know enough about what is going on fish-wise to give you a good answer.”
You sound pessimistic, but there are more now than when you started the survey? My own personal opnion: I see them slowly declining for next ~100yrs. The AT1s in Prince Williams Sound had 22 or so before Exxon, now they’re down to 6 with no calfs since mid-80s. No interbreeding of Aleutians despite presence of AT haplotype out there.
Ever seen conflict between Transients and Residents? Only seen body blows and loud chatter a couple times (then a ferry broke them up). Definitely seen transients dissapear as residents approached?
What changes have you seen over the years? Super pods were bigger, more fun in the past. Maybe fewer resting groups?
Why more transients around? Maybe more folks looking, but there are some transient groups that seem to be coming through more frequently. Transients are weird. T14 only seen in SE Alaska once (he likes it here); Tofino transients never seem to come in…
Status of Center’s permit application for satellite tags? Still in process.
Is it true that our population only logs, never rests? I don’t think they rest as often as they used to, but may also be because people don’t get to spend the whole day with them.
Jeanne Hyde: Why do healthy whales seem to disappear in July? Where is Blossom (J11) and Hugo (L71)!? K31 Tatoosh was lagging, but these summer whale are right in the middle of pods and not logging excessively.  Dave: Heart attacks? Ship strikes? Maybe immune suppression? A counter example is L110 (L83’s calf) had an evil looking flapper on his lip, yet he survived. L67 had a melon slice, but he survived. Many years ago, J6 had a divot behind his eye, but scarred over and he survived. However, L39 died suddenly too.
Kari: What do you make of unusual grouping: L groups with J’s, never really had L pod? With northern residents, they gave up on pods and subpods. Graham and John only refer to matrilines now. Historically, there were K18 subgroup that was originally L pod whales. K19 and K30 used to be L pod whales. To this day, K21 and K40 are the most independent (all of this October they weren’t with K pod).
Scott Questions (unasked):
Does genetic sampling illuminate the patterns of association between calves and mothers vs non-mothers in post-partum period?
11:48 Barbara Rosenkotter: Salmon recovery in San Juan County
This talk will focus on habitat (not harvest, hatcheries, or hydropower)
What fish are here when and what habitats are important to them?
Chinook salmon originating from a wide area (northern BC to Snake)
Chinook present year round
Many types of salmon use San Juans as juveniles for feeding and growth and as returning adults
Fun facts about San Juan County:
1/3 of kelp in Puget Sound (“politically, ‘Puget Sound’ means all U.S. waters” says Shan)
eelgrass along 20% of shoreline
408 miles of shoreline (most of any U.S. County)
63 documented surf smelt spawning sites
80% population growth in last 20 years, but sill small at ~16,000; growth of 35% expected in next 20 years; currently only 50% of buildable parcels have buildings
But we have severe problems (despite beauty of the San Juans):
Chinook listed in 1999!
Bull trout listed in 2007
We’re at ~10% of estimated historic abundance of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound!! (Though select populations — like Skagit — are sorta okay.)
Primary threats (to juveniles?)
Single family development dominates (and there are many shoreline parcels still undeveloped)
Residential development and construction impact water quality
14 miles of roads along backshore and 85 bulkheads potentially impact forage fish spawning
Scott Questions (unasked):
Can you review for me what adult fish are here when and what habitats are important for them?
What studies of returning adults will SRB be funding that could assist foraging southern residents?
Toxics in the Puget Sound Food Web: Understanding the Problem in Order to Move Towards Improvement (Sandra is from WDFW; this was a Monster Jam presentation at NWFSC/NOAA)
11:03 Intro from Tracy in Korea
11:08 Data presented today are mostly collected through the Puget Sound Assessment and Monitoring Program (PSAMP). Jim West of WDFW and Steve ?? are collaborators.
11:10 Outline:
Assessing pollution impacts on biota
Three case studies (POPs, PAHs, EDCs)
How should science proceed?
11:11 Assessment of impacts on biota can happen on many scales from micro-organisms to entire ecosystems. Policy makers usually don’t respond unless it is a major threat to ecosystem, and the “eye-lid factors” are really only: ESA listed species, potential economic losses, human health threat. PCBs are a good example of dramatic polcy change (ban) and subsequent decrease in pollution (concentration in PS Chinook) in late 80s, but implications for killer whales (and their policy makers) weren’t clarified until recently: Hickie et al., 2007 PcB levels in PS salmon may impair health of killer whales
11:16 Case studies
A) POPs (PCBs and Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers = PDBEs)
Long et al., 2005 Envir. Monitoring and Assess. 111:173-222: “Relative to many other estuaries… in USA, PS sediments ranked among those with minimal evidence of toxicant-induced degradation.” Though there are pollution hot spots (Vancouver, Everett, Seattle) in bays, PS overall is very deep and most of it is well away from the hot spots).
PCB in English sole muscle increases linearly with PCB in adjacent sediment.
PCB’s biomagnify: muscle concentrations along Seattle waterfront are 62 micrograms/kg for English sole avg, 100 for female rockfish avg, and 250 for male rockfish avg because they don’t shed PCBs in egg lipids as females do.
Herring in central basin of PS have higher [PCB] than in San Juans or Georgia Basin: 150 ng/g wet wt in South PS, vs 140 in Central PS, 30 in N PS, and <10 off WA/BC coasts and in SF Bay. For PDBEs in herring, 45ng/g in S PS, 50 in central PS, <10 N PS, <5 off WA/BC coasts and in SF Bay.
So why is pelagic food web so contaminated? Short answer: PS is deep and hydrologically constricted, so it’s exchange is limited and its biota are isolated (herring and some Chinook are resident).
Gina Yltalo collaborated on KW prey study: contaminant levels in coho, Chinook, pink, chum, and sockeye from low to high human population areas. Sockeye were Fraser River collected in San Juans. Chinook were collected more broadly, up and down coast N BC to CA. Results: pink, chum, sockeye are all clean (non-detectable); Coho <1 ng/g offshore, ~5 ng/g [PBDE] in PS; Chinook <2.5 offshore, ~20 in PS. THIS IMPLIES THERE *ARE* CLEAN FISH AVAILABLE TO KILLER WHALES, JUST DON’T FORAGE IN PUGET SOUND?
Why are PS Chinook so contaminated? Hypothetically, it is because their migration pattern is more loca: loop migrants vs ocean migrants. Stable isotopes of PS Chinook are similar to non-PS, implying that they’re eating similar prey. So maybe their eating in different areas… Since 1950’s we’ve known there is a residnent population of Chinook — the “blackmouth.” PS Chinook have highly variable muscle concentrations (up to 10x difference).
Coded wire tag data in : O’Neill and J.E. West 2008 Marine distribution, life history traits, and the accumulation of polycholinated biphenyls in Chinook salmon in Puget Sound (in review, TAFS). Percentage of recreational and commercial catch of PS Chinook salmon displaying resident behavior from coded wire tag data: 29% of sub-yearly smolts, 49% yearling smolts.
Fillet data: PCBs in Chinook — 404 samples from Nooksack, to Deschutes, mostly sampled in commercial fisheries. TPCB (ng/g lipid normalized) for 29% of PCB fillets (’92-’96) meet or exceed the threshold for adverse health effect in salmon (2500 ng/g).
S Resident male biopsy [PCB}: 66,000 ng/g lipid for SRKW
11:39 PAHs
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons don’t bioaccumulate, but they harm fish when metabolized
Same patterns as in PCBs: herring have highest concentrations in central Sound (e.g. Port Orchard)
Herring eggs are very sensitive to PAHs (lab studies are using Zebra fish as a model for Pacific herring); some evidence of reduced growth in juvenile salmon.
11:45 Endocrine disrupting chemicals
capable of acting as hormone mimics (impaired reproduction, sex switching, etc)
11:48 What’s next for science and policy
Biota vector of pollution is clearly important for chemicals that biomagnify (don’t eat ratfish!)
PAHs appear to be important for some species
11:51 End, questions
What about pollution in plankton? The plankton all have lipid sacks and we expect both phytoplankton and zooplankton to be contaminated. Bethic organisms emit fatty things (eggs, sperm, larvae) into water column which are a vector from sediment to pelagic plankton and fish. There are some fledgling, small, underfunded efforts to look at out-migrating Juvenile salmon.
Do some of these chemicals impair fish’s ability to evade predators? It’s been looked at for other chemicals.
Are POP concentrations different enough in salmon between PS and the San Juans/Georgia Basin that we should prevent SRKWs from foraging in PS?
Unasked: Does J pod have higher [POP] than K or L? Or do blackmouth move between these regions and blur [PCB] gradients?
Lead Instructor Jason Wood (also Research Curator at The Whale Museum) is a guest speaker at the Port Townsend Marine Science Center this month (Sat 2/21/09, 4pm, Fort Worden Building 204, $5 non-members).  This should be a great talk that combines Jason’s 15+ years of experience in Africa with his more recent immersion in killer whale acoustics with Beam Reach and The Whale Museum.
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook