OOI RFA Cover Sheetoceanleadership.org/files/Miller_URI.pdf · unique educational resource for learning about sound in the sea and marine mammals. These charismatic megafauna attract

Please fill out requested information in all gray boxes

Title:

Proponent(s):

Keywords: (5 or less)

Area:

Contact Information:

Contact Person: Department:

Organization: Address

Tel.: Fax: E-mail:

Permission to post abstract on ORION Web site: Yes No

Abstract: (400 words or less)

OOI RFA Cover Sheet LOI Full Addendum

Above For Office Use Only

Please describe below key non-standard measurement technology needed to achieve the proposed scientific objectives: (250 words or less)

Proposed Sites: Proposed Duration

Site Name Position Water Depth (m)

Start Date

Deploy (months)

Revisits during

deployment

Site-specific Comments

List of Project Participants

Suggested Reviewers

Long Term Observations of the Ocean Acoustic Environment and its Impact on Marine Mammals

1

I. Abstract and Summary The future ocean observing infrastructure investments of the NSF ORION OOI provide an opportunity, with modest additional resources, to address the issue of anthropogenic noise and its potential impact on marine mammals. Given the extensive (global, regional and coastal) systems planned, a selected subset of buoys, cabled nodes and coastal observatories can be augmented with passive acoustic sensors with minimum additional effort. A wide range of basic-science hypotheses can be tested with the addition of ocean acoustic data along with those data that already are part of the collection effort. For example, two such hypotheses are: 1) that long-term increases in the levels of man-made noise in the marine environment are occurring over large areas of the world’s oceans, and 2) that these increases are occurring in parallel with changes in marine mammal calling behavior since acoustics is the primary means of communication for many species. To date, there have been no well-calibrated measurements of noise in the ocean over a span of a decade or more; and there have been few if any measurements of noise at frequencies up to tens of kilohertz over time spans of more than a few months; this frequency band is invaluable for studying the impact of noise on odontocetes (toothed whales) and pinnipeds (seals), as well as for measurements of wind-driven ocean surface wave processes and acoustic rainfall measurement. The ORION program offers the possibility of providing the necessary data to fill this information vacuum. The initial phase of the proposed work is to identify those OOI assets that, with the addition of an underwater acoustic component, will best provide data for critical tests of the hypotheses under consideration. Initial focus will be on those OOI assets that are to be (or already are) located in marine mammal activity areas, whether the activity is associated with feeding, migration, breeding, communication, or some other activity. Another aspect of the initial phase is an analysis of conditions in the local acoustic environment, including using pre-existing information as well as data from minimal, temporary measurement efforts. The focus of the analysis effort will be on the degree of anthropogenic activity (shipping lanes, fishing, water sports activities, shoreline industrial facilities, etc.) and with particular attention to areas coincident to oil exploration operations), as well as on the sounds created by marine life. The evolution of this scientific experiment is exactly that envisioned by the ORION program and its OOI infrastructure: an adaptive observatory. Taking advantage of the power, broad bandwidth, and real-time information that underpin the OOI, the acoustic data would be web-accessible and would provide a unique view of the acoustic environment and mammal acoustic behavior simultaneously. An appropriately designed web site tied to other science-based sites (e.g., Discovery of Sound in the Sea (DOSITS) site [www.dosits.org], Acoustical Society of America site [asa.aip.org], etc.) also would provide a unique educational resource for learning about sound in the sea and marine mammals. These charismatic megafauna attract a lot of public attention that can be guided to more awareness of oceanography in general. Many synergies (e.g., sharing hydrophones) are foreseen with other acoustics-based ORION experiments, including tomography over various scales, geodesy, seismic T-phase, ambient sound for wind and rain, mobile platform navigation, acoustic communications, etc. Measurement platforms may be fixed OOI components, as well as ORION mobile platforms such as floats, gliders, and propeller-driven AUVs. This is also the first opportunity to join the oceanography, biology and physics research communities together to address the basic science


2

issues associated with marine mammals and sound. Progress in this highly inter-disciplinary subject will be made only with this coupling. II. Program Rationale and Key Scientific Hypotheses II.1 Rationale The implementation of the ORION OOI infrastructure for adaptive observatories is a timely opportunity, with minimal additional investment in infrastructure resources, to initiate a long-term program in coincident measurements of the acoustic environment and marine mammal calling (in general, acoustic transmission/reception) behavior, along with collection of the ancillary oceanographic, biological, and geophysical data already planned for ORION. At issue, as expressed in the latest NAS/NRC Report on Marine Mammals and Sound (NRC 2005), are changes in the oceanic noise background caused by human activity adversely affecting the acoustic environment in which the mammals live? II.2 Testable Hypotheses: The hypotheses (in italic) that can be tested with long term acoustic measurements in ORION are provided below, although it is recognized that many of these hypotheses address overlapping issues with regards to animal acoustic behavior and anthropogenic noise: 1. Low frequency noise is increasing at a rate of approximately 3 dB per decade (Andrew et

al., 2002, Ross, 1993). 2. The single largest man-made contributor to time and space-averaged ocean noise levels at

low frequencies is shipping, and noise is masking long-range whale communications. 3. A related hypothesis is that baleen whales are adapted to hear in the low noise notch

between low frequency wave-wave interaction and geophysical noise and the wind noise (near 100 Hz), and that this minimum has been filled in by shipping noise in the last 100 years.

4. Noise fields at high latitude are, and will be, undergoing significant changes over the next few decades and that these changes will impact Arctic marine mammal communications.

5. Global climate change will 1) reduce ice cover, 2) increase wind noise, 3) allow shipping in formerly-ice covered areas, 4) promote the formation of internal waves and 5) significantly change the acoustic environment in which marine mammals live.

6. Because of geographical differences in low-frequency anthropogenic noise, northern right whales cannot communicate as far in the northern hemisphere as southern right whales can in the southern hemisphere, and that this limitation has effects on their survival or breeding.

7. There is a statistically significant difference between the acoustic behavior of blue and fin whales in areas where they are exposed to intense human sound (Monterey Bay, California) compared to areas where there is little human sound (Sea of Cortez, Mexico).

8. Marine mammals are sophisticated and adaptable users of sonic energy for communications, predation and social interaction.


3

III. Scientific Objectives The scientific objectives for the proposed project include

(a) Through long term measurements in widely-distributed geographical areas, quantify the changes in oceanic acoustic noise levels and in other characteristics of the ocean noise field,

(b) Establish a set of noise budgets, with different metrics, to i. identify the major contributors to the changes in ocean noise characteristics and

ii. understand the impact on marine mammals, (c) Through coincident measurements of background noise and mammal acoustic

behavior, as well as ancillary oceanographic, biological, and geophysical data collected by ORION, investigate the adaptations of marine mammals to oceanic noise conditions, including anthropogenic ocean noise,

(d) Through a web-site system, provide the data sets to the ocean science community and the public, and

(e) Utilize ORION observatories to provide a unique opportunity to observe mammals in their habitat and simultaneously, collect a broad spectrum of ancillary data to define that environment; observing their behavior in terms of their total environment.

IV. Experimental Design and Observing Requirements IV.1 Spectral Coverage Marine mammals vocalize over a wide frequency range, from ~10 Hz to ~100 kHz, depending on species. These sounds are used for communication, navigation, and foraging. The desired passive acoustic bandwidth of 10 Hz to 50 kHz will allow us to monitor the known signals of all baleen whale species, as well as many odontocetes including sperm and killer whales. From six years of low frequency ambient noise measurements made off central California, the most striking signals are blue and fin whale calls, which increase the noise levels at frequencies of 17–20 Hz during the fall and winter months (Fig. 1; Curtis et al. 2000; Kumar, 2003). ORION sites near or within known marine mammal habitats, such as Monterey Bay (one of the world’s most diverse regions with regards to marine mammal species), will be instrumented with passive acoustic sensors (e.g., on the MARS cabled observatory system being installed this year). Marine mammal vocalizations detected in the passive acoustic data can be used to determine which species are present and when. A single vertical line array (VLA) can be used to give range and depth using matched field processing (Thode et al., 2000). Data on the depth at which large whales vocalize then can be used in transmission loss models to determine the range at which animals may be detected. Data such as these are important both from a marine mammal behavior perspective and also for evaluation of potential for acoustic impact from man-made sources. In the longer term, multiple passive acoustic recording installations in the cabled regional observatory and the global moored buoy observatory will enable the study of various animal behaviors, including migration patterns, feeding behaviors, and communication between animals.


4

Figure 1. Spectrogram from the Point Sur SOSUS array from January 1995 to January 2001. (Reproduced from Andrew et al., 2002.)

The average oceanic ambient noise spectrum appropriate for deep water was originally determined by Wenz (Wenz, 1962) and Figure 2 shows his results displayed in a simplified way to show three things: 1) The noise environment marine mammals live in and therefore, have optimally evolved their acoustic behavior to ensure survival; 2) the region of primary---not solely---anthropogenic activity; and 3) The major contributors to ambient noise in various frequency regions.

REGION OF MAJOR ANTHROPOGENIC

IMPACT

Figure 2. Oceanic ambient noise from Wenz (1962) with the region of major anthropogenic impact highlighted.

The lowest-frequency (yellow) part of the ambient noise spectrum is dominated by noise from nonlinear wave-wave interactions, i.e., what Wenz called “surface waves – second order pressure effects” and what seismologists call microseisms since it is the dominant source of background noise on land-based seismographic measurements. It is not due to turbulence.


5

Note also that the stated units on the vertical axis of this plot differ from those on Fig. 4 (below). Wenz normalized his “spectral levels” to 1-Hz-wide bins and so the vertical axis justifiably can be labeled as dB re 1 uPa^2/Hz, as in Fig. 4. Figure 3 shows the representative vocalizations of marine mammals by frequency on the horizontal axis and average body weight on the vertical axis. The region of the spectrum dominated by shipping noise (10 – 1000 Hz) from Figure 3 is used by practically all of the baleen whales and by some of the toothed whales for communication. The increases in noise from anthropogenic sources (the pink region in in the red cross-hatched region of Figure 2) (shown in more detail in Figure 4), have caused concern about the effects of these increases on whales that use this portion of the frequency band.

Figure 3. Representative vocalizations of marine mammals by average adult body weight. Tonal vocalizations are

plotted in red; impulsive vocalizations are shown in blue. The thicker line represent the predominant band of vocalizations.

IV-2 Long-Term Monitoring and Impact on Marine Life Long-term comparisons of ocean noise levels are largely nonexistent (NRC 2003). However, there are several lines of evidence indicating that noise levels in the oceans, principally due to shipping, are increasing over time scales of decades to centuries. Figure 4 shows the measurements of Wenz over the time of the early 1950s to the early 1960s. The combination solid and dashed line is the speculative prediction of Ross as to the increase in low frequency ambient noise due to anthropogenic activity—primarily shipping. The region labeled Curtis/Andrew represents the measurements from the North Pacific (most northeast Pacific) deep water sites from 1994 to 2002 (Curtis et al. 1999) although the overall noise levels in the ocean appear to be rising.


6

Wenz, JASA (1962); Ross, Acoustics Bulletin (1993); Curtis, et. al. JASA (1999); Andrew, et. al ARLO (2002)

Curtis/Andrew

Wenz

Figure 4. The ambient noise measurements between 20 and 80 Hz of Wenz over the time of the early 1950s to the

early 1960s, the speculative prediction of Ross and the Curtis/Andrew measurements from the North Pacific deep-water sites from 1994 to 2002.

Additional evidence comes from measurements at a SOSUS acoustic receiver near Pt. Sur Figure 5 shows the trends in global commercial shipping from 1914 to 1998 in terms of numbers of ships and gross tonnage. The increasing numbers and gross tonnage of ships have raised concerns for the potential impact of ship-generated ocean noise on the central California coast (Fig. 5), where a difference in ambient sound of approximately 10 dB in the 10-60 Hz band was measured between the mid-1960s and the late 1990s. There are many variables in time and space associated with these data sets, but the trend is clear: Ross may have been overly pessimistic, but there is no question that noise levels are rising. Shipping is thought to be the primary contributor to rising noise levels, with seismic oil exploration, naval operations, and offshore construction as secondary sources (NRC 2003). Cato (1997b, 2001) examined noise levels at sites off Australia that have relatively little shipping and compared them with similar sites in the northern hemisphere. He discovered spectrum-level differences of approximately 20-25 dB at low frequencies between the sites; these differences was probably due to differences in shipping and possibly other anthropogenic noise, rather than wind-generated waves or other natural sources (NRC 2003). This is consistent in the global increase in shipping: Figure 6 shows the trends last century in global commercial shipping.


7

Figure 5. Changes in ambient noise at a receiver off Pt. Sur on the central California coast (Andrew et al. 2002).

Note the ~10 dB rise in the 10-60 Hz band between the two thin lines, the one with stars from the mid-1960’s and the one with triangles from the late 1990’s. “Heavy” and “moderate” in the Urick curves refer to levels of shipping

(Urick 1975).

Figure 6. Global shipping trends, 1914-1998, expressed as the number of ships (left) and gross tonnage (right). Only

US-flagged vessels are subject to US regulations when operating in international waters. (From McCarthy 2001).

The impact of these rising levels of noise on marine mammals, fishes, and other marine organisms remain largely unknown. Shipping noise, which is loudest below frequencies of several hundred Hertz, will impact animals that use low frequencies, principally baleen whales, sharks, larger fishes, and possibly sea turtles. One type of impact is on communication: an increase in noise of 10 dB can decrease the area over which an animal’s long-distance communication calls may be heard by a factor of 10, and an increase of 20 dB can decrease the area by a factor of 100; these differences could be significant for mate-finding and other breeding behavior, though evidence remains thin. Some behavioral changes have been seen in response to noise. Some species are known to produce louder (Au et al. 1985) or longer (Miller et al. 2000) sounds when exposed to noise, while others cease calling (Bowles et al. 1994), or change their movements to avoid noise


8

sources (Maybaum 1993). Another impact is seen in breathing patterns of marine mammals: in response to anthropogenic noise, bowhead whales, for instance, have shorter dives, longer intervals between blows (breaths), and shorter surfacings (Richardson et al. 1995). The possibility of noise impacting large numbers of marine mammals, combined with the dearth of long-term data, argue strongly for a long-term, wide-scale noise monitoring effort. Indeed, the National Research Council (2003) has made exactly this point: “A long-term ocean noise monitoring program over a broad frequency range (1 Hz to 200 kHz) should be initiated.” Such a monitoring effort would be relatively simple to do with cabled and moored systems such as those of ORION. IV-3. Spatial Coverage Anthropogenic noise at low frequencies is dominated by shipping. Figure 7 depicts the major shipping lanes of the world. Not apparent in the figure is the fact that shipping in the northern hemisphere is significantly greater than the southern hemisphere (NOAA Workshop on Shipping Noise and Marine Mammals, www.shippingnoiseandmarinemammals.com, 2004). The locations of current and past offshore seismic survey activity are shown in Figure 8. They represent a unique set of source points for measurement of anthropogenic activity that is both low frequency and impulsive from a time perspective.

Figure 7. Major shipping lanes of the world. (NOAA Workshop on Shipping Noise and Marine Mammals,

www.shippingnoiseandmarinemammals.com, 2004).


9

(23)

Figure 8. Locations of current and past offshore seismic exploration activity (Caldwell, 2005). Potential observatory locations are shown in Figure 9, including ORION OOI sites, both funded and planned for the future. While superbly (possibly!) equipped for standard oceanographic sensing, the effectiveness of the sites could be greatly enhanced by equipping them with acoustic sensors for ambient noise and mammal vocalization collection. Figure 9 shows existing sites that are populated with a variety of hydrophone systems. Some sites have been exploited for ambient noise and marine mammal acoustic emission characterization and others are potential future sites. However, they are not equipped with standard oceanographic sensors for ancillary data collection We are not proposing ourselves to deploy hydrophone equipment, but rather use core and community experiment hydrophones. The former are installed as part of the OOI infrastructure, the latter as part of large scale community experiments that have need of hydrophones for other purposes. We request that as part of core instrumentation associated with each global buoy, each cabled node of the RCO, and each major coastal “node”, a small bottom mounted hydrophone array be included. Specifications include sampling to 100 kHz (50 kHz cut-off), a minimum of 4 phones over a 3-m tetrahedron, and possibly vector sensors based on recent breakthroughs in transduction technology (Traweek, 2005) for determining directionality. When hydrophones are used for other purposes (e.g., seismic T-phase, wind, rain, tomography, inverted echosounders, navigation, communications, etc), we request that ORION dictate the sampling frequencies be increased as much as practical so as to allow marine mammal vocalizations and anthropogenic and natural sources of noises to be recorded.


10

The locations of some acoustic observations that have been collected in the past are shown in Figure 10. But these observations have been of limited duration. A long term (decadal) set of measurements carried out at locations as illustrated in Figure 11 would significantly enhance our knowledge about the ocean’s acoustic environment, its impact on marine mammals, and address the eight key scientific hypotheses listed in this proposal.

Opportunities for acoustic sensors

Figure 9. Potential observatory sites (both funded and planned) that could be enhanced with hydrophones for ocean noise monitoring and marine mammal vocalization detection.

SOSUS cabled arrayautonomous hydrophone

civilian cabled arrayCTBTO cabled hydrophone

MILS hydrophone

Yellow – have data on handRed – potential data sources

19911996199920012002

Figure 10. Acoustic sites that have been populated with a variety of hydrophone systems in the past.


11

Figure 11. Locations of 30 potential “OOI Global Buoy Sites” as suggested by Orcutt, Send and Weller (2005). IV-4. Metrics Man-made sound in the ocean environment has the potential to impact marine mammals in various ways. These impacts include permanent or temporary threshold shifts in hearing sensitivity, alteration of natural behavior, masking of biologically significant sounds, habituation or sensitization to specific sounds, and stress, Therefore, a number of metrics of the acoustic field could be relevant to evaluating the effect of man-made sound on marine mammals. The most commonly used metric is the sound level, equivalent to the mean squared pressure in a specified frequency band converted into the decibel scale. In the frequency domain, these levels are most appropriately measured in 1/3-octave bands since these bandwidths are those in which mammalian hearing process sound (NRC, 2003). For those species where audiograms have been measured or estimated, sound levels can be weighted by the inverse of the audiogram, akin to A-weighted spectra for human hearing. In addition to sound level, “sound exposure” has been most closely associated with temporary threshold shift (TTS). Sound exposure is equal to the square of the acoustic pressure integrated over the duration of the sound. As with sound level, it can be weighted by an audiogram to account for species-dependent hearing sensitivity. The rise time, i.e., the time required for an acoustic signal to reach its peak value once it exceeds background levels, appears to be correlated to degree of hearing damage resulting from exposure to high-level transient signals. In the same context, the peak pressure amplitude is an important quantity. As for masking, the spatial diffusivity of the noise appears to play a significant role, where spatially distributed noise sources are more likely to result in masking than spatially concentrated sources. Several methods can be used to quantify the spatial diffusivity of the noise field if data from an acoustic array are available. Finally, the novelty of a sound, as measured by its frequency of occurrence in a data set, can result in an adverse behavioral reaction. All of these metrics of the sound field can be determined from the data collected by the acoustically-augmented ORION OOI observatory.


12

V. Education and Outreach V-1. Connection to ORION Educational Initiatives The Education Group at the ORION workshop in San Juan made a number of recommendations. They proposed that ORION use “ocean-observing science and technology infrastructure to engage communities in ocean exploration and discovery; increase awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the oceans; strengthen science and technology education; and inspire, motivate, and nurture people from all backgrounds to pursue science and technology careers generally, and ocean sciences careers specifically.” They proposed to contribute to a national ocean observing education infrastructure by creating

1. An ORION education and communications coordination office 2. A data management and content translation facility 3. A community of educator leaders who coordinate, sustain, and support local education leadership in their science education improvement initiatives1 Address key national education needs for which ORION is uniquely suited 4. Engage communities across America in ocean-observatory science and technology to develop their understanding and appreciation of the vital role the ocean plays in the Earth system and in their lives 5. Promote the development and diversity of the ocean-related workforce 6. Create an education incubator facility whose focus is to advance understanding of science and technology learning and practice in areas where ocean observatories can uniquely contribute.

We propose to work with the ORION educations and communications coordination office and the data management and content translation facility to educate younger students about the role of noise in the ocean and its potential effects on marine mammals. Using the ORION outreach offices, we will be the bridge between the acoustics instruments/database and published science, we will also be the bridge to middle school students and teachers, high school students and teachers, undergraduates and faculty. The Discovery of Sound in the Sea website (www.dosits.org) is a very popular informational site and we propose to interface with that site along with the ORION sites for delivering our data and our message to the public. Marine mammals have been referred to as “charismatic megafauna”, animals that the public finds affinity with. The incredible number of web hits on the Discovery of Sound web site (x million per year) is a reflection of this. ORION needs to make the most of this outreach path. VI. Program Management Considerations VI-1. Five Year Plan The PI’s represent 5 institutions, each with an unique set of strengths that are a mixture of reinforcing and complementary. Because of the breadth of data and with time, the vastness of it, it will require a multi-disciplinary team to efficiently exploit the information gathered. That is a fundamental reason for the broad range of expertise represented by the PI’s.


13

Year 1—Investigation and identification of potential OOI sites for maximum data collection opportunities and minimal program cost. Involvement in sensor installation (to assure specific sensor location and site conditions are optimal for this program. Year 2—Establishment of web site and initial data throughput tests. More measurement sites added to the core set (expect to ultimately equip 10 sites). Data analysis underway and linkage webs established to incorporate ancillary data. Year 3—Complete measurement site installations. Data analysis continuing, with shorter term hypotheses under test and longer term hypotheses baselines established. Adjustment (if necessary and fiscally possible) of measurement systems Year 4—Data analysis continuing, with emphasis increasing toward coincident mammal observations (funded independently) and well defined ocean environment events. Year 5—Data collection and analysis continuing with longer term hypotheses under test. Planning for a second 5-Year program. VI-2. Role of PIs, Researchers, Post-docs, Graduate Students, and Undergraduate Students in Project The intent of this program is strongly interdisciplinary, with graduate students as the principal work force and those students are/will be marine biologists that will be receiving training in ocean science and acoustics (or vice versa) to provide a future community of scientists with a strong and broad ocean science capability. The program is student centric and it is the intent of the PI’s to strongly encourage inter-institution student teams for data acquisition, analysis and results papers and presentations. PI’s will be science leaders, teachers and thesis advisors. VI-3. Yearly Workshops Workshops will be held yearly, supplemented by attendance at AGU, ASA, Marine Mammal Conferences. This program has an excellent chance to act as a focal point for a number of disciplinary communities and it will be through these meetings that members of those communities will learn of the science opportunities and bring their independently funded resources to bear on the scientific goals. VI-4. Outreach Plan We propose to work closely with outreach professionals early in the project to maximize the educational and societal impact of our work. The ORION Project Office will be a key in facilitating the outreach initiatives and we commit to supporting the Project Office’s outreach mission. (See Section V-1.) VI-5. Automated Data Production Schedule


14

Site design completed in Year 1 with (real) data throughput in Year 2 and site service in place thereafter. It is intended to make the data available to interested users effectively immediately (effectively here means after quality checks are made to be sure the program is not allowing incorrect information into the public domain). VI-6. In Situ Surveys to Collect Additional Ancillary Data that is not Anticipated through OOI (Mammals, Airguns, Shipping, etc) It is planned to either propose these tasks under independently funded programs with other agencies or aggressively encourage independent (especially Marine Mammalogists) researchers to team with us. VI-7. Work Breakdown URI---Site selection, data analysis and noise budget development SIO---Site selection, data analysis, metrics, noise budget studies PSU---Data analysis, mammal signal structure analysis, noise budget development OSU---Anthropogenic activity analysis, mammal behavior studies, site variability analysis UW----Site variability analysis, anthropogenic activity analysis, ocean environment studies Marine mammal behavior analysis, marine mammal signal structure analysis, data analysis VI-8 Milestones Referenced to Beginning of Funding 1) Site Selection Year 1 2) Installation of core sites Year 2 3) Web site up and running Year 2 4) Initial data throughput Year 2 5) Installation of second set of sites Year 3 6) Ancillary data web in place Year 3 7) Site installations completed Year 4 8) Short term hypothesis testing Year 5 9) Long term hypothesis baselines established Year 7 10) Coincident Marine Mammal investigations Years 3-7 11) Focused environmental event tests Years 3-7 Add workshop every year and show data analysis spanning several years VII. Data Management Considerations VII-1. Scope of proposed work Interdisciplinary, drawing on marine biologists, physicists, ocean physicists. The data content is both vast and complex and in many instances, not independent, requiring a spectrum of researchers for interpretation and understanding. Specifically, marine mammal behaviorists, physiologists, physical oceanographers, underwater acousticians, general ocean scientists, and meteorologists are a minimum set required to make this program a success.


15

VII-2. Data management to published science paradigm Data, collected continuously from the second year onward will be the basis for hypotheses testing by graduate students and post-doctoral scientists. Data sets and in many cases, multiple data sets spanning time frames from minutes for episodic events to years for more subtle changes. These analyses, will be the basis of theses, papers presented at conferences, society meetings and workshops and papers prepared for peer reviewed journals. Not all, but most of these “products” will be interdisciplinary with multiple authors, representing particular science expertise, from multiple institutions. VII-3. Role of PIs and graduate students in the paradigm This proposal is graduate student centric. There are an extremely large set of scientific issues and consequent hypotheses and the potential data sets are rich with interpretive potential. The sheer size of the dimensionality of the science makes it challenging goal, but one that can be reached. The role of PI’s is advisory and guidance oriented, with many opportunities to bring related, but independently funded resources to bear on the tasks discussed above. VII-4. Data management requirements a. data granularity—requirements are for high resolution in both time and space, which in turn, is high bandwidth (acoustically), high sample rates, and high spatial resolution where possible. b. database query structures—data is to be made available to everyone with the constraints of quality checking discussed above. The query structure, because of the multidisciplinary nature of the program will require tiering by discipline, with time as a common metric, and location specificity . Within a given discipline tier, the data will be further subdivided by fundamental properties: e.g., acoustic measurements would be categorized by frequency bands, pressure levels, time extent, spatial characteristics(if available). The query structure is, due to the breadth of the data sets to be collected, a complex and not easily resolved problem. The suggested method outlined above is a first pass. It is clear that this structure will evolve with time. c. data analysis macros—Macros will be pre-designed for user convenience. d. automated call recognition—Algorithms developed by the community will be integrated into the data management system.


16

VIII. References Andrew, R.K., B.M. HoweAu, W. 1993. The sonar of dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York, 277

pp.

Barlow, J.A. Mercer, and M.A. Dzieciuch. 2002. Ocean ambient sound: comparing the 1960s with the 1990s for a receiver off the California coast. Acoust. Res. Letters Online 3:65-70, “Abundance of cetaceans in California waters: I. Ship surveys in summer/fall 1991," Fish. Bull. 93, 1-14 (1995).

Au, W. 1993. The Sonar of Dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York, 277 pp.

Au, W.W.L., D.A. Carder, R.H. Penner, and B.L. Scronce. 1985. Demonstration of adaptation in beluga whale echolocation signals. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 77:726-730.

Bendat, J.S., and A.G. Piersol. 1986. Random Data: Analysis and Measurement Procedures. 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Benson, S.R., Croll, D.A., Marinovic, B.B., Chavez, F.P. & Harvey, J.T. 2002. Changes in the cetacean assemblages of a coastal upwelling ecosystem during El Niño 1997-98 and La Niña 1999. Progress in Oceanography 54, 279-291.

Bowles, A.E., M. Smultea, B. Würsig, D.P. LeMaster, and D. Palka. 1994. Relative abundance and behavior of marine mammals exposed to transmissions from the Heard Island Feasibility Test. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96:2469-2484.

Brekhovskikh, L.M., and Y. Lysanov. 1991. Fundamentals of Ocean Acoustics. 2nd Edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, 270 pp.

Calambokidis, J., G.H. Steiger, J.C. Cubbage, K.C. Balcomb, C. Ewald, S. Kruse, R. Wells, and R. Sears, “Sightings and movements of blue whales off central California 1986–88 from photo-identification of individuals," Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 12, 343-348 (1990).

Caldwell, J, 2005. Personal Communication. Cato, D.H. 1997a. Ambient sea noise in Australian waters. Proceedings of the 5th International

Congress on Sound and Vibration, International Institute of Acoustics and Vibration, p. 2813.

Cato, D.H. 1997b. Features of ambient noise in shallow water. Proceedings of International Conference on Shallow-Water Acoustics (SWAC’97), pp. 385-390.

Cato, D.H. 2001. Doug Cato Notes. Marine mammals comparison of natural ambient noise with traffic noise, Woods Hole, MA, June 2001.

Cato, D.H., and R.D. McCauley. 2002. Australian research in ambient sea noise. Acoustics Australia 30:13-20.

Clark, C.W. 1983. Acoustic communication and behavior of the southern right whale. In R.S. Payne (ed.).), Communication and Behavior of Whales. Westview Press, Boulder CO. Pp 163-198.

Croll DA, Marinovic B, Benson S, Chavez FP, Black N, Ternullo R, Tershy BR. 2005. From wind to whales: trophic links in a coastal upwelling system


17

Marine Ecology Progress Series 289:117-130

Curtis K.R., B.M. Howe, and J.A Mercer. 1999. Low-frequency ambient sound in the North Pacific: Long time series observations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106:3189-3200.

D’Spain, G.L., W.S. Hodgkiss, and G.L. Edmonds. 1991. Energetics of the deep ocean’s infrasonic sound field. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 89:1134-1158.

Ellison, W.T., Clark, C.W. and Bishop, G.C. 1987. Potential use of surface reverberation by bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, in under-ice navigation: preliminary considerations. Reports of the International Whaling Commission. 37:329-332.

Erbe, C. 2000. Detection of whale calls in noise: Performance comparison between a beluga whale, human listeners, and a neural network. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108:297-303.

Erbe, C., and D.M. Farmer. 1998. Masked hearing thresholds of a beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) in icebreaker noise. Deep-Sea Research Part II—Topical Studies in Oceanography 45:1373-1388.

Etter, P.C. 1996. Underwater Acoustic Modeling: Principles, Techniques, and Applications. 2nd Edition. E&FN Spon, London, 344 pp.

Gisiner, R.C. 1998. Proceedings: Workshop on the Effects of Anthropogenic Noise in the Marine Environment. Office of Naval Research, 141 pp.

Johnson, M.P., P.L. Tyack, W.M.X. Zimmer, P.J.O. Miller, and A. D’Amico. 2001. Acoustic vocalizations ad movement patterns of a tagged sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) during foraging dives. Abstract. Presented at the 14th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

M. Kahru, S. G. Marinone, S. E. Lluch-Cota, A. Parés-Sierra and B. G. Mitchell. 2004. Ocean-color variability in the Gulf of California: scales from days to ENSO. Deep-Sea Research II, 51, 139-146.

Kerman, B.R., ed. 1988. Sea surface sound: Natural mechanisms of surface generated noise in the ocean. In Proceedings NATO Advanced Research Series Workshop 1987, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Holland, 639 pp.

Kerman, B.R., ed. 1993. Natural Physical Sources of Underwater Sound. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Holland, 750 pp.

Knudsen, V.O., R.S. Alford, and J.W. Emling. 1948. Underwater ambient noise. Journal of Marine Research 7:410-429.

Lloyd’s Register—Fairplay Ltd. 2001. World Fleet Statistics. Lloyd’s Maritime Information Services, Stamford, CT.

Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. 1983. Investigations of the potential effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray whale behavior. Report No. 5366 submitted to the Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, NTIS PB86-174174, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Washington, DC.


18

Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. 1984. Investigations on the potential effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray whale behavior. Phase II: January 1984 migration. Report No. 5586 submitted to the Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, NTIS PB86-218377.

Maybaum, H.L. 1993. Responses of humpback whales to sonar sounds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94:1848-1849.

McCarthy, E.M. 2001. International regulation of transboundary pollutants: The emerging challenge of regulating ocean noise. Ocean and Coastal Law Journal 6:257-292.

Mazzuca, L. L. “Potential Effects of Low Frequency Sound (LFS) from Commercial Vessels on Large Whales," Master’s Thesis, School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (2001).

McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adihyta, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000. Marine seismic surveys: Analysis and propagation of air-gun signals; and effects of exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Australian Petroleum Production Association, Canberra, Australia, 198 pp.

Miller, P.McDonald, M. A., J.O., N. Biassoni, A. SamuelsA. Hildebrand, and P.L. Tyack. 2000. Whale songs lengthenS.C. Webb, “Blue and fin whales observed on a seafloor array in response to sonar the Northeast Pacific," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 98, 712-721 (1995).

Milne, A.R. 1967. Sound propagation and ambient noise under sea ice. Pp. 120-138 in Underwater Acoustics, Volume 2, V.M. Albers, ed. Plenum Press, New York.

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 Zooogy. 81: 734-742.

The NPAL Group (J A. Colosi, B.D. Cornuelle, B.D. Dushaw, M.A. Dzieciuch, B.M. Howe, J.A. Mercer, R.C. Spindel, and P.F. Worcester) “The North Pacific Acoustic Laboratory (NPAL) Experiment," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 2384 (2001).

National Research Council (NRC). 1994. Low-Frequency Sound and Marine Mammals: Current

Knowledge and Research Needs. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 75 pp.

National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Marine Mammals and Low-Frequency Sound. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 146 pp.

National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 192 pp.

National Research Council. 2005. Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise: Determining When Noise Causes Biologically Significant Effects. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington. 126 pp.

Nystuen, J.A. 1986. Rainfall measurements using underwater ambient noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 79:972-982.


19

“The ORION Workshop Report, Chapter V. Education,” http://www.geo-prose.com/projects/pdfs/orion_rpt_pdfs/V_education.pdf (2005).

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 576 pp.

Ross, D. 1976. Mechanics of Underwater Noise. Pergamon Press, New York, 375 pp.

Ross, D.G. 1993. On ocean underwater ambient noise. Acoustics Bulletin, January/February, pp. 5-8.

Rugh, D. J., K. E.W. Shelden, and A. Shulman-Janiger. 2001. Timing of the gray whale southbound migration. Journal of Cetacean Reearch and Management: 3(1): 31-39.

Sparrow, V.W. 2002. Review and status of sonic boom penetration into the ocean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111:537-543.

Tershy, B.R. 1992. Body size, diet, habitat use, and social behavior of Balaenoptera whales in the Gulf of California. Journal of Mammalogy 73:477-486.

Tershy, B.R.; Breese, D; Alvarez Borrego, S. 1991. Increase in cetacean and seabird numbers in

the Canal de Ballenas during an El Niño-Southern Oscillation event. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 69 (3): 299-302.

Thode, A.M., G.L. D’Spain, and W.A. Kuperman. 2000. Matched-field processing, geoacoustic

inversion, and source signature recovery of blue whale vocalizations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107:1286-1300.

Tolstoy, I., and C.S. Clay. 1987. Ocean Acoustics: Theory and Experiment in Underwater Sound. Acoustical Society of America, New York, 293 pp.

Tyack, P.L. 2000. Functional aspects of cetacean communication. Pp. 270-307 in Cetacean Societies: Field Studies of Dolphins and Whales, J. Mann et al., eds. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Urick, R.J. 1975. Principles of Underwater Sound. McGraw-Hill, New York, 384 pp.

Urick, R.J. 1984. Ambient Noise in the Sea. Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC.

Wartzok, D., and D.R. Ketten. 1999. Marine Mammal Sensory Systems. Pp. 117-175 in Biology of Marine Mammals, J.E. Reynolds III and S. Rommel, eds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Wenz, G.M. 1962. Acoustic ambient noise in the ocean: Spectra and sources. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 34:1936-1956.

Wilson, J.H. 1979. Very low frequency (VLF) wind-generated noise produced by turbulent pressure fluctuations in the atmosphere near the ocean surface. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66:1499-1507.

Budget Justification The proposed project requests a budget consisting mainly of labor costs (2 months for each of the 6 PIs for three years), costs for one graduate and one undergraduate student at each of the 5 institutions for three years, travel to workshops, and a small amount of miscellaneous expenses for each of the 5 institutions. The student costs make up the majority of the request and reflect the PIs’ emphasis and priority for the education of a new generation of engineers and scientists who will be utilizing the ORION infrastructure for many years.

SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET (Year 1)

FOR ORION USE ONLY

ORGANIZATION Combined Ocean Noise Group: URI, PSU, UW, SIO, OSU

PROPOSAL NO. DURATION (MONTHS)

Proposed Granted PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR James H. Miller

AWARD NO.

A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates Funded Funds Funds List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets) Person-months Requested By Granted

CAL ACAD SUMR Proposer (If Different) 1. James H. Miller (URI) __ __ 2 20000 $_____ 2. David Bradley (PSU) 2 __ __ 20000 _____ 3. Bruce Howe (UW) 2 __ __ 20000 _____ 4. Gerald D'Spain (SIO)____ 2_ __ __ 20000____ _____ 5. Kate Stafford (UW) 2 __ __ 20000 _____ 6. David Mellinger (OSU) 2 __ __ 20000 _____ 7. (6) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6) 10 __ 2__ 120000____ _____ B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS) 1. (___) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES __ __ __ _____ _____ 2. (___) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.) __ __ __ _____ _____ 3. (5) GRADUATE STUDENTS 175000____ _____ 4. (5) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS 20 20000 _____ 5. (___) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY) _____ _____ 6. (___) OTHER _____ _____ TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B) 315000 _____ C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS) 50000____ _____ TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C) 365000____ _____ D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.) _____ _____ _____ TOTAL EQUIPMENT _____ _____ E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS) 25000 _____ 2. FOREIGN _____ _____ F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT 1. STIPENDS $ _____ 2. TRAVEL _____ 3. SUBSISTENCE _____ 4. OTHER _____ TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (_____) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS _____ _____ G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS ____ _____ 1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 50000____ _____ 2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION _____ _____ 3. CONSULTANT SERVICES _____ _____ 4. COMPUTER SERVICES _____ _____ 5. SUBAWARDS _____ _____ 6. OTHER _____ _____ _____ TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS 50000____ _____ H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G) 440000 _____ I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE) Labor + fringe + travel + materials and supplies – tuition (assumed 50% average on total direct costs for 5 institutions) TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) 195000 _____ 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) $635000 $_____ M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $_____ AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $_____ PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE* DATE FOR ORION USE ONLY

James H. Miller May 25, 2003 INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION

ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE* DATE Date Checked Date of Rate Sheet Initials-ORG _____ _____

OOI Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions *SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)


FOR ORION USE ONLY




AWARD NO.







FOR ORION USE ONLY




AWARD NO.






SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET (Culmulative)

FOR ORION USE ONLY




AWARD NO.


CAL ACAD SUMR Proposer (If Different) 1. James H. Miller (URI) __ __ 6 60000 $_____ 2. David Bradley (PSU) 6 __ __ 60000 _____ 3. Bruce Howe (UW) 6 __ __ 60000 _____ 4. Gerald D'Spain (SIO)____ 6 __ __ 60000____ _____ 5. Kate Stafford (UW) 6 __ __ 60000 _____ 6. David Mellinger (OSU) 6 __ __ 60000 _____ 7. (6) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6) 30 __ 6__ 360000____ _____ B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS) 1. (___) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES __ __ __ _____ _____ 2. (___) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.) __ __ __ _____ _____ 3. (5) GRADUATE STUDENTS 525000____ _____ 4. (5) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS 20 60000 _____ 5. (___) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY) _____ _____ 6. (___) OTHER _____ _____ TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B) 945000 _____ C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS) 150000___ _____ TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C) 1095000___ _____ D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.) _____ _____ _____ TOTAL EQUIPMENT _____ _____ E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS) 75000 _____ 2. FOREIGN _____ _____ F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT 1. STIPENDS $ _____ 2. TRAVEL _____ 3. SUBSISTENCE _____ 4. OTHER _____ TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (_____) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS _____ _____ G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS ____ _____ 1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 150000___ _____ 2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION _____ _____ 3. CONSULTANT SERVICES _____ _____ 4. COMPUTER SERVICES _____ _____ 5. SUBAWARDS _____ _____ 6. OTHER _____ _____ _____ TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS 150000___ _____ H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G) 1320000 _____ I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE) Labor + fringe + travel + materials and supplies – tuition (assumed 50% average on total direct costs for 5 institutions) TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) 585000 _____ 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) $1905000 $_____ M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $_____ AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $_____ PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE* DATE FOR ORION USE ONLY




Biographical Sketch of James H. Miller (i) Professional Preparation Worcester Polytechnic Institute Electrical Engineering B.S.E.E, 1979 Stanford University Electrical Engineering M.S.E.E, 1981 Massachusetts Institute of Technology & Oceanographic Engineering Sc.D., 1987

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (ii) Appointments Professor of Ocean Engineering University of Rhode Island 1995-present Assistant/Associate Professor Naval Postgraduate School 1987-1995

of Electrical Engineering (iii) Publications closely related to the proposed project 1. Frisk, G., D. Bradley, J. Caldwell, G. D’Spain, J. Gordon, M. Hastings, D. Ketten, J. Miller, D. L. Nelson, A. N.

Popper, and D. Wartzok, Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals, National Academy Press, (2003). 2. Howe, B. M., and J. H. Miller, Acoustic sensing for ocean research, J. Mar. Tech. Soc., 38, 144–154, 2004. 3. Potty, G., J. H. Miller, J. F. Lynch, and K. B. Smith, "Tomographic inversion for sediment parameters in shallow

water," J. Acoust. Soc. Am, 108(3), pp. 973-986, (2000). 4. Miller, J. H. and G. Potty, "Geoacoustic tomogaphy: range dependent inversions on a single slice," Jour. Comp.

Acoust., 8(2), pp. 325-345, 2000. 5. Miller, J. H., L. R. Bartek, G. R. Potty, D. Tang, J. Na, and Y. Qi, “Sediments in the East China Sea,” IEEE J.

Oceanic. Eng. 29 (4), 940-951 (2004). Other publications 1. J. H. Miller, J. F. Lynch, and C.-S. Chiu, "Estimation of sea surface spectra using acoustic tomography," J. Acoust.

Soc. Am., 86(1), 326-345, (1989). 2. J. H. Miller and C.-S. Chiu, "Localization of the sources of short duration acoustic signals," J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,

92(5), 2997-2999, (1992). 3. J. H. Miller, J. F. Lynch, C.-S. Chiu, E. L. Westreich, J. S. Gerber, R. Hippenstiel, and E. Chaulk, "Acoustic

measurements of surface gravity wave spectra in Monterey Bay using mode travel time fluctuations," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 94(2), 954-974 (1993).

4. A. B. Baggeroer, K. Lashkari, J. H. Miller, C.-S. Chiu, P. N. Mikhalevsky, K. Von Der Heydt, "Vertical array receptions off Monterey for the Heard Island Feasibility Test signals," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 96(4) 2395-2413 (1994).

5. Yang, K.; Ma, Y.; Sun, C.; Miller, J.H.; Potty, G.R., “Multistep Matched-Field Inversion for Broad-Band Data from ASIAEX2001,” J. Oceanic. Eng., 29 (4), 964-972 (2004).

(iv) Synergistic Activties 1. 2001-2003 - Member of National Academy of Sciences Committee on Potential Impacts of Noise in the Ocean on Marine Mammals, assessed our state of knowledge of underwater noise and recommended research areas to assist in determining whether noise in the ocean adversely affects marine mammals, co-authored Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals, The National Academies Press, 2003. 2. 1999-2000 - Developed a course for sophomore ocean engineering on design of autonomous underwater vehicles using team-based learning. Teams of 3-4 students designed and built AUVs and competed in a underwater obstacle course. Winning team went to the national AUV competition in Orlando, Florida and won against MIT, Cornell, and other universities in 2000. 3. 1995 and 1999 - Lecturer in the Acoustical Society of America Short Courses in Marine Mammal Bioacoustics, provided basic knowledge in the field of ocean acoustic for biologists interested in the effects of sound on marine mammals. 4. 1996-2000 - Member of Acoustical Society of America Committee on Women in Acoustics, investigated the treatment of women in the society in publications, medals, awards, and holding office. 5. 1993-1997 - Associate Editor on Underwater Sound of the Journal of Acoustical Society of America, processed approximately 80 papers per year submitted to the journal for publications. Elected Fellow of the Acoustical Society of America in 2003.

(v) Collaborators and Other Affiliations (a) Collaborators and Co-Editors Louis R. Bartek Univ. of North Carolina David Bradley Pennsylvania State Univ. Peter Cable BBN Technologies Jack Caldwell WesternGeco Joan M. Cembrola Naval Undersea War. Cen. Chuen-Song Chen University of Rhode Island Ching-Sang Chiu Naval Postgraduate School Anthony F. D’Agostino Naval Postgraduate School Gerald D’Spain Scripps Inst. of Ocean. Peter H. Dahl University of Washington Eugene Dorfman BBN Technologies George Frisk Woods Hole Ocean. Inst. Jonathan Gordon Getty Marine Laboratory Mardi Hastings Office of Naval Research Darlene Ketten Woods Hole Ocean. Inst. David Knobles University of Texas Colin R. Lazauski University of Rhode Island Fenghua Li Institute of Ocean Acoustics Zhenglin Li Institute of Ocean Acoustics James F. Lynch Woods Hole Ocean. Inst. Chris W. Miller Naval Postgraduate School Jungyul Na Hanyang University Daniel L. Nelson BBN Technologies Arthur Newhall Woods Hole Ocean. Inst. Arthur Popper University of Maryland David C. Potter NOAA Fisheries Zhaohui Peng Institute of Ocean Acoustics Gopu R. Potty University of Rhode Island Yiquan Qi South China Sea Inst. Ocea. Steven R. Ramp Naval Postgraduate School Kevin B. Smith Naval Postgraduate School Brian Sperry Science Appl. Int. Corp. Dajun Tang University of Washington Angela Tuttle Raytheon Corporation Douglas Wartzok Florida Inter. University Thomas Weber Penn. State University Katy Westhoff Univ. of North Carolina Thomas W. Yudichak Univ. of Texas Renhe Zhang Institute of Ocean Acoustics (b) Graduate and Postdoctoral Advisors James F. Lynch Woods Hole Ocean. Inst. Arthur B. Baggeroer Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. Umran S. Inan Stanford University (c) Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate-Scholar Sponsor (43 graduate students, 1 postdoctoral scholar) Richard T. Barock U.S. Navy Jeffrey L. Benson U.S. Navy Edward Chaulk Canadian Navy Chuen-Song Chen University of Rhode Island

David Cousins BBN Technologies Steven E. Crocker U.S. Navy Robert Dees U.S. Navy Randy Eldred U.S. Navy Mark Elliot U.S. Navy John M. Emblidge U.S. Navy Michelle Estaphan Raytheon Corp. Richard Fortgang University of Rhode Island Jeroun Franken Dutch Navy Gary Frogner U.S. Navy Robert Gampert Sentech Inc. Warren G. Huelsnitz U.S. Navy Joseph M. Iacovetta U.S. Navy Glen E. Kaemmerer U.S. Navy James K. Kresge U.S. Navy John Laliberte Naval Undersea War. Cen. Colin Lazauski University of Rhode Island Chih-Chung Kao Taiwan Navy Peter Lynch U.S. Navy Phillip G. McLaughlin U.S. Navy Jennifer Miksis University of Rhode Island Charles E. Muggleworth U.S. Navy John L. Mykyta U.S. Navy Charles L. Nicholson U.S. Navy Peter Obuchowski University of Rhode Island Glenn A. Omans U.S. Navy David Pierce U.S. Navy Gopu Potty University of Rhode Island Theresa Rowan U.S. Navy Kevin Schaaff U.S. Navy Johnny L. Schultz U.S. Navy Robert Scott Canadian Armed Forces Donald Smith Canadian Navy Frederic Strohm French Navy Angela Tuttle Raytheon Corp. Adele Wang University of Rhode Island Thomas Weber Penn. State University Eric L. Westreich U.S. Navy Michael Zarnetske University of Washington

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Bruce M. Howe

Professional Preparation Stanford University Mechanical Engineering, Fluid Mechanics B.Sc. 1978 Engineering Science, Fluid Dynamics M.Sc. 1978 University of California, San Diego 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. 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).

David L. Bradley

Title: Senior Scientist in Environmental Acoustics Organization: The Applied Research Laboratory at The Pennsylvania State University Degrees: 1960, B.S., Physics 1963, M.S., Physics 1970, Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering (Underwater Acoustics) Experience: 37 Years Areas of expertise include ASW, undersea surveillance, mine warfare, acoustics, marine geology and geophysics and Arctic sciences. Currently a Senior Scientist in Environmental Acoustics at ARL Penn State and Professor of Engineering in Acoustics at The Pennsylvania State University. Supervises graduate students, and teaches graduate level courses. As head of the Environmental Acoustics Department at ARL, supervises faculty and staff. Worked for the Naval Surface Warfare Center in White Oak from 1960-1978, the Naval Ocean Research and Development Activity to 1979, OPNAV to 1982, the Office of Naval Research to 1985, the Naval Research Laboratory to 1993, SACLANT Undersea Research Centre to 1996. A previous graduate course lecturer at Catholic University, received the Meritorious Civilian Service Award in 1982 from the Chief of Naval Operations for his work in mine warfare and Superior Civilian Service Award in 1993 from the CNR for his work in undersea warfare. A Fellow of the Acoustical Society of America and member of the American Geophysical Union.

Kathleen M. Stafford, PhD 9503 48th Ave NE

Seattle WA 98115 USA 206-524-3599 (h)

Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington

206-526-6867 (o) 206-526-6615 (f)

[email protected] PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION University of California, Santa Cruz Biology and French BA 1989

Literature (honors) Oregon State University Wildlife Science MSc. 1995

Oceanography PhD 2001 National Research Council Animal Bioacoustics 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. Antarctic-type blue whale calls recorded at low latitudes in two oceans. 2004. Deep-Sea 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. 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.

David K. Mellinger

Cooperative Institute for Marine Resources Studies [email protected] 2030 SE Marine Science Dr. +1-541-867-0372 Newport, OR 97365 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 B. Mont-Reynaud. 1996. Scene analysis. Chapter in Auditory Computation, H. L. Hawkins, T. A. McMullen, A. N. Popper, and R. R. Fay, eds. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 271–331.

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.

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).

Documents

OOI RFA Cover Sheetoceanleadership.org/files/Miller_URI.pdf · unique educational resource for learning about sound in the sea and marine mammals. These charismatic megafauna attract