Final Technical Report: - Southwest Fisheries Science Center - NOAA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6.0 Transition Plan The models of cetacean densities developed for this project are expected to have immediate utility to the Navy and its contractors who are required to conduct Environmental Assessments or prepare Environmental Impact Statements regarding Navy activities that might impact marine mammals. The cetacean habitat models for the Pacific Coast and Eastern Tropical Pacific (our project SI-1391) and for the Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Mexico (Duke University’s project SI-1390) are currently accessible online at a web portal maintained by Duke University (http://serdp.env.duke.edu/). Using the web-based Spatial Decision Support System (SDSS) software at that site, users can access our models to view how cetacean densities vary spatially within our two study areas (the CCE and ETP). Users can define an area of interest (either from a pull-down menu of operational areas or by entering or uploading coordinates) and estimate the densities of most cetaceans that are expected to be present. Soon the SDSS will also include stratified estimates so that densities can be estimated for Hawaiian EEZ waters and for those rare species for which small sample size prevented us from modeling densities. Although this transition should work well in the short-term (roughly through the next year or two), there is a need to transition the SDSS to a permanent web site maintained by the US Government or other entity with a commitment to maintain the software over a longer term. Although the US Navy may be interested in taking on this role, many other potential users have been identified for this software tool. A partial list of potential users was identified at a joint planning meeting between the SWFSC and Duke teams. This list includes: Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, Minerals Management Service, National Science Foundation, National Marine Fisheries Service science centers and regional offices, universities, and oil exploration companies. Basically, any entity that might need a Government permit for any activity that might affect marine mammals is a likely user of the SDSS software. Because the Navy is not the only likely user of the SDSS, NOAA (a major secondary supporter of this project) will likely insist that the ultimate web host for the system must be willing to make the system publically available to other users. For that reason, NOAA might be a better host than the Navy. Ultimately, information about the potential impacts of Navy activities will submitted to NOAA Fisheries for review. Clearly, to be accepted, that information should be generally recognized by NOAA as the scientifically valid source of the best available information on cetacean densities. That condition is most likely to be achieved if NOAA is, itself, the source of the information by hosting the SDSS software on one of their web sites. Regardless of who hosts the SDSS software website, the long-term success of this project in solving the Navy’s marine mammal information needs will depend on several steps beyond 94
the mere completion of this project. The most critical next steps for full Navy implementation and use of this system include: 1) Obtaining acceptance and buy-in by the regulatory community. For most marine mammals, that means the NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources in Silver Springs, Md. [The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has regulatory authority over manatees, sea otters, polar bears, and walruses, but none of those species are included in the current version of the SDSS software.] The lead PI on our SWFSC project (Barlow) has already given two seminars describing our SERDP project at the NOAA Office of Protected Resources and has provided a basic tutorial on the use of the software. To be accepted as the “best available information” on the density of ceteceans, that office needs to be convinced that the scientific basis for the model-based estimates is sound. We have been pursuing that goal by publishing our methods as we develop them (see Appendix C). Furthermore, the developers of our models include some of NOAA’s own experts on the estimation of cetacean abundance from line-transect surveys (Barlow, Gerrodette, and Forney). Unfortunately, the NOAA expertise on the SWFSC SERDP team is entirely based on the US West Coast. NOAA experts on line-transect estimation on the US East Coast and Gulf of Mexico were not directly involved in the Duke SERDP modeling project (although they did provide their data). To facilitate NOAA buy-in at all levels, the NOAA cetacean researchers along the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico need to also be convinced that the methods we used are sound and result in scientifically defensible estimates of cetacean density. Again, that might be best facilitated by direct face-to-face meetings, perhaps with a seminar to introduce the methods and a workshop to familiarize them with the SDSS software. 2) Establishing a program for continued development of habitat-based density models for cetaceans in new areas, for other species of marine mammals, and, when new survey data become available, for cetaceans in areas that are already modeled. Although density models are now developed for many areas in the Pacific, many other areas are not covered. Data are currently too sparse to model cetacean densities around Hawaii and the Northern Marianas Islands, two areas with considerable Naval activities. Similar critical gaps in information exist in the Bahamas and Caribbean. Habitat models currently do not include any pinnipeds, sea otters, or manatees. Densities were also not modeled for near-shore cetaceans (harbor porpoises, gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), and coastal bottle-nose dolphins). The methods we have developed here for offshore cetaceans could easily be extended to model the at-sea densities of pinniped species and (with modifications) nearshore cetaceans. Finally, there is a need to continually update habitat models as new information becomes available. A 4-month survey of cetaceans in the CCE was completed by the SWFSC in 2008, and data from that survey will be edited and could be used to improve West Coast models as early as summer of 2009. NOAA does not have a base-funded program for cetacean habitat modeling. Although SERDP and the Navy may want to continue funding these modeling efforts, a base-funded NOAA program might provide more continuity. However it is funded, new modeling efforts will be 95
Page 1 and 2:
U N I R A P E D T T E M D S E N TA
Page 3:
C O L A N IO T A N U N C I EA .S. D
Page 6 and 7:
This report was prepared under cont
Page 8 and 9:
Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbr
Page 10 and 11:
C.1 Journal Publications ..........
Page 12 and 13:
Figure 18. Encounter rate models bu
Page 14 and 15:
List of Tables Table 1. Summary of
Page 16 and 17:
Appendix B, Table B-6. Summary of m
Page 18 and 19:
Acknowledgements This project was f
Page 20 and 21:
of these choices as possible and us
Page 22 and 23:
Although our models include most of
Page 24 and 25:
2.0 Background The Navy and other m
Page 26 and 27:
comparison is based on a separate s
Page 28 and 29:
Figure 1. Transects (green lines) s
Page 30 and 31:
used to evaluate the ability of sum
Page 32 and 33:
3.1.5 Mid-trophic Sampling with Net
Page 34 and 35:
variable. Interpolated maps of the
Page 36 and 37:
Table 2. Variogram model results. A
Page 38 and 39:
“number of individuals” as the
Page 40 and 41:
Encounter Rate and Group Size Model
Page 42 and 43:
were built separately for each of t
Page 44 and 45:
Expanding models to the entire U.S.
Page 46 and 47:
Table 4. Summary of the weighted ef
Page 48 and 49:
Consistent with Barlow and Forney (
Page 50 and 51:
incorporation of geographic coordin
Page 52 and 53:
overwhelming majority of “Bryde
Page 54 and 55:
the genera Ziphius and Mesoplodon.
Page 56 and 57:
Table 7. Geographically stratified
Page 58 and 59:
above, and the data themselves, are
Page 60 and 61:
(hereafter “summer”). SWFSC has
Page 62 and 63:
avoid these problems, we decided to
Page 64 and 65:
Figure 9. Thermocline depth (m) obs
Page 66 and 67: Attempts to adjust search parameter
Page 68 and 69: CAMMS 1991 PODS 1993 ORCAWALE 1996
Page 70 and 71: 4.2 Modeling Framework : GLM and GA
Page 72 and 73: 4.2.4 Conclusions Regardings Modeli
Page 74 and 75: Table 10 cont. Comparison of the si
Page 76 and 77: Table 11 cont. Comparison of the si
Page 78 and 79: Figure 15. The transect lines used
Page 80 and 81: A) Striped dolphin 10 km B) Short-b
Page 82 and 83: dependent. For example, the number
Page 84 and 85: Figure 19. Predicted average densit
Page 86 and 87: ecosystem, eastern spinner dolphins
Page 88 and 89: Table 13. Variables selected for mo
Page 90 and 91: Table 14. Starting and final AIC va
Page 92 and 93: Table 17. Ratios of observed to pre
Page 94 and 95: species represented in the acoustic
Page 96 and 97: 0.29 (Risso’s dolphin) to 3.20 (n
Page 98 and 99: Figure 25. Sample 2005 validation p
Page 100 and 101: Table 18. (continued) 1991 1993 Nor
Page 102 and 103: Blue whales had the greatest deviat
Page 104 and 105: Table 20. Abundance (number of anim
Page 106 and 107: Table 22. Proportion of deviance ex
Page 108 and 109: Figure 27. Average density (AveDens
Page 110 and 111: Table 23. Effective degrees of free
Page 112 and 113: We attempted to build encounter rat
Page 114 and 115: 5.0 Conclusion The field of predict
Page 118 and 119: needed to ensure that the SDSS rema
Page 120 and 121: Administrative Report LJ-07-02. NOA
Page 122 and 123: Forney KA, Barlow J (1993) Prelimin
Page 124 and 125: Redfern JV, Barlow J, Ballance LT,
Page 126 and 127: Appendix A: Detailed Model Results
Page 128 and 129: Table A-1 (continued) Blue whale 19
Page 130 and 131: Figure A-1a. Striped dolphin 108
Page 132 and 133: Figure A-1c. Risso’s dolphin 110
Page 134 and 135: Figure A-1e. Northern right whale d
Page 136 and 137: Figure A-1g. Sperm whale 114
Page 138 and 139: Figure A-1i. Blue whale 116
Page 140 and 141: Figure A-1k. Baird’s beaked whale
Page 142 and 143: Figure A-2. Predicted average densi
Page 144 and 145: Figure A-2b. Short-beaked common do
Page 146 and 147: Figure A-2d. Pacific white-sided do
Page 148 and 149: Figure A-2f. Dall’s porpoise 126
Page 150 and 151: Figure A-2h. Fin whale 128
Page 152 and 153: Figure A-2j. Humpback whale 130
Page 154 and 155: Figure A-2l. Small beaked whales 13
Page 156 and 157: Table B-2. Summary of model validat
Page 166 and 167:
Table B-7. Summary of model validat
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Table B-10. Summary of model valida
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Figure B-1. Predicted yearly and av
Page 186 and 187:
Figure B-1. b) Eastern spinner dolp
Page 188 and 189:
Figure B-1. c) Whitebelly spinner d
Page 190 and 191:
Figure B-1. d) Striped dolphin 168
Page 192 and 193:
Figure B-1. e) Rough-toothed dolphi
Page 194 and 195:
Figure B-1. f) Short-beaked common
Page 196 and 197:
Figure B-1. g) Bottlenose dolphin 1
Page 198 and 199:
Figure B-1. h) Risso’s dolphin 17
Page 200 and 201:
Figure B-1. i) Cuvier’s beaked wh
Page 202 and 203:
Figure B-1. j) Blue whale 180
Page 204 and 205:
Figure B-1. k) Bryde’s whale 182
Page 206 and 207:
Figure B-1. l) Short-finned pilot w
Page 208 and 209:
Figure B-1. m) Dwarf sperm whale 18
Page 210 and 211:
Figure B-1. n) Mesoplodon beaked wh
Page 212 and 213:
Figure B-1. o) Small beaked whales
Page 214 and 215:
Figure B-2. Predicted average densi
Page 216 and 217:
Figure B-2. (cont.) c) Whitebelly s
Page 218 and 219:
Figure B-2. (cont.) g) Bottlenose d
Page 220 and 221:
Figure B-2. (cont.) k) Bryde’s wh
Page 222 and 223:
Figure B-2. (cont.) o) Small beaked
Page 224 and 225:
Ferguson MC (2005) Cetacean Populat
Page 226 and 227:
Barlow J, Kahru M, Mitchell BG (In
Page 228 and 229:
Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-374, U.S. Dep
show all

Final Technical Report: - Southwest Fisheries Science Center - NOAA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?