BC’s Noisy New German Ferries

BC’s German Ferries May Be Lemons

BC Ferries Battles Fuel Costs

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.

More specifics at the Beam Reach wiki on ship quieting technologies

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.

Source: Florida Atlantic University.

Making noise about noise

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.

Fred’s copy of the PI article that sparked Robert’s interest.

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.

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.

Detailed photos of the mooring, including closeups of each component are available in the Beam Reach gallery.

10:25 Intros by Jenny Atkinson

10:35 Cindy announces opening of membership for Naturalists Association

1. conceived at spring Gear Up, 2008
2. New members get digital version of Naturalist teacher’s guide to SJI from SJI Nature Institute
3. $25 to join plus $20 annual membership fee
4. %15 off books from Whale Museum with membership card
5. Google group for communication initially
6. The Whale Museum will host a page and members only section
7. Request for 10 hours of outreach volunteering and 10 hours of continuing education
8. 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)

David Ellifrit, Center for Whale Research

• Ended 2007 with 87 or 88 animals
• 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?

Scott Veirs: Recent findings in killer whale acoustics

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:

1. Assessing pollution impacts on biota
2. Three case studies (POPs, PAHs, EDCs)
3. 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

1. 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.
2. Do some of these chemicals impair fish's ability to evade predators?  It's been looked at for other chemicals.
3. 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?

Today, a tidal and solar power system has replaced the twin 15kW diesel generators that provided electrical power (and noise, air pollution, environmental risks) during most of the 20th century and much of the history of the Race Rocks reserve (established in 1980). I assume wind was judged inappropriate because so many sea birds nest and rest on the Rocks.  I’m still just learning about the details, but wanted to share some notes and frame-grabs I took while watching a nice overview video of the Race Rocks tidal power project.

My overall impression is the turbine is big.  Approximately 4m in diameter, the ~65kW turbine is designed to be scaled up to 1MW (presumably for future commercialization by CCPS). The forces exerted on the support column during the maximum 3.35 m/s tidal flows must be tremendous.  A cool innovation I didn’t anticipate is that the blades are designed to turn in current from opposite directions.  This means that the whole turbine assembly doesn’t have to rotate on the support column (like wind turbines do).

It’s hard to find measurements or engineering data on the blade rotation rate.  Quoting from generic references about tidal turbines on the EIA page, “The blades themselves rotate quite slowly relative to hydroelectric and wind turbines, namely a few revolutions per minute depending on current speed, blade curvature and size but always to maintain a blade tip speed of less than 7m/s (when cavitation is likely to occur)” and typical rotation rates are “10-20 rpm.”  For a blade radius of 2m, the tip velocity would be ~4m/s at 20rpm and ~2m/s at 10rpm.  Given the arrangement of guided vanes I certainly wouldn’t want to swim through it at those rotation rates… but maybe a fish would do alright?

Funding for the project has come from Encana (natural gas and oil company’s Environmental Innovation Fund) and Sustainable Development Technology Canada (non-profit foundation created by Canadian government; Vicky Sharpe).

Chronology:

• Late 2005: preparatory (concrete) work on island for cable route and battery storage
• Jul 2006: Drilling complete (after 3 weeks), piling installation continues
• Sep 2006: Installation of turbine; hydraulic and electrical performance testing begins
• Dec 2006: Testing complete; cables connected to shore storage; Summary Report on Environmental Monitoring final draft submitted
• Apr 2007: Turbine raised to repair bearings
• Oct 2008: New turbine with stainless steel bearings, lubrication system, and reinforced augmenter duct.

Artists depiction of installed turbine

Technical details (these are surprisingly hard to find… values to be filled in are in italic):

1. located ~100m from Island, ~15m depth, ~20m of water
2. The top of the turbine is at a mean depth of 10m, or ~5m below MLLW; thus the whole assembly reaches about 10m off the seafloor.
3. post diameter?
4. turbine and funnel dimensions? (~3m diameter, but not sure if that’s augmenter or blades)
5. power and voltage (what function of current speed?)

Diver guiding generator unit onto post

The generator sans cowling

Clean Current Power Systems staff interviewed in video

• Russel Stothers
• Glen Darou
• Virgil Young (aerospace)
• Chris Gora

Pearson College staff interviewed in video

• Gary Fletcher
• Dave Skilling

Other projects to keep an eye on:

• 1.2 MW project in northern Ireland
• Tidal prospecting by Snohomish County
• Pilot project planning by Tacoma Power
• Monitoring by Biosonics of the Verdant Power turbines in the East River, NY

Listen to 5min clip of repeated calls off Port Townsend just after midnight

After a while, though, it became clear that these sounds were a very consistent killer whale call.  The calls were of the S19 call, favored by L pod, and many were spaced 2.6-2.7s apart.  Eventually, the mesmerizing repetitious call was replaced by a wide variety of calls, whistles, and buzzes.  What in the world was going on as they passed into Puget Sound.

S19 repeated about 40 times

Based on the great sequence of observations from the Orca Network today, it’s clear that some portions of L and J pod made a brief foray into Puget Sound.  Twelve hours after passing Port Townsend (presumably southbound as J, K, and L pod members were observed within ~5nm of Dungeness Spit ~8 hours earlier), members of J and L pod were documented heading back to the north from Bush Point (12:45) to Keystone (14:30).

Perhaps a school of chum they were persuing dispersed after getting into Puget Sound proper?