⇒ NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationhttps://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/16452024-03-28T23:04:05Z2024-03-28T23:04:05ZDeepwater Exploration Mapping Procedures Manual.Hoy, ShannonLobecker, ElizabethCandio, SamSowers, DerekFroelich, GrantJerram, KevinMedley, RachelMalik, MashkoorCopeland, AdrienneCantwell, KaseyWilkins, CharlieMaxon, Amandahttps://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/22482023-06-06T16:31:44Z2020-01-01T00:00:00ZDeepwater Exploration Mapping Procedures Manual.
Hoy, Shannon; Lobecker, Elizabeth; Candio, Sam; Sowers, Derek; Froelich, Grant; Jerram, Kevin; Medley, Rachel; Malik, Mashkoor; Copeland, Adrienne; Cantwell, Kasey; Wilkins, Charlie; Maxon, Amanda
The purpose of this manual is to describe OER’s principles and procedures for deepwater ocean exploration acoustic mapping. It supports the National Strategy for Mapping, Exploring, and Characterizing the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (OPC, 2020), which was developed by the Ocean Policy Committee of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy in coordination with NOAA. The national strategy calls for coordinating interagency mapping and exploration activities for the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), developing new and emerging science and mapping technologies, building public and private partnerships, and completing mapping of the deep water of the U.S. EEZ by 2030 and the near shore by 2040.
2020-01-01T00:00:00ZHydrographic Survey Specifications and Deliverables.https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/18422022-01-06T21:09:47Z2021-01-01T00:00:00ZHydrographic Survey Specifications and Deliverables.
Detail the requirements for hydrographic surveys undertaken either by NOAA field units or by organizations under contract to the NOAA. These specifications are based in part on the International Hydrographic Organization’s Standards for Hydrographic Surveys, Special Publication 44. The 2019 edition includes new specifications and changes made since the 2018 version. Those who acquire hydrographic survey data in accordance with NOAA specifications should use the current version.
These specifications define standards and requirements on the following topics:
- Horizontal and vertical position uncertainty
- Tides and water levels requirements
- Coverage and resolution requirements for multibeam, singlebeam, side scan, and lidar data
Features
- Required field reporting
2021-01-01T00:00:00ZField Procedures Manual, February 2021.https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/590.32021-12-30T19:48:15Z2021-01-01T00:00:00ZField Procedures Manual, February 2021.
The goal of the Field Procedures Manual (FPM) is to provide NOAA field units with a set of standardized guidelines and best practices for conducting, processing, and generating final deliverables. This FPM has received a major revision from the one released in 2014 and will be adopting a new collaborative format before the 2021 field season to keep up with further changes. NOAA field units drive the changes to better enhance our products. Modernizations do not start with silence, and we are inviting the field units to contribute to future editions and continual development.
Future FPMs will require more than periodic maintenance. To ease this change, the document will be released on a digital interactive page. This will allow users to navigate between topics with a simple click. Additionally, a digital version will allow our field units to better contribute, edit, and share methods to the data collections standards outlined in this manual.
The benefits of hydrography can be seen daily in its contribution to the nation’s economy, maritime defense, marine and environmental science, tourism, and recreational activities. This list has grown since explorers started charting the coastline, and I imagine hydrography will continue to deserve greater attention than it has previously. Together, we can continue to develop the best practices to serve and contribute to national and worldwide needs.
Any mention of a commercial company or product within this manual does not constitute an endorsement by NOAA. The use for publicity or advertising purposes of information concerning proprietary products or software or the tests of such products is not authorized. Any new procedures put into effect will be implemented via a Hydrographic Surveys Technical Directive.
2021-01-01T00:00:00ZBenthic Assessment Protocols for the Atlantic Region: U.S. Caribbean, Florida and the Gulf of Mexico: 2021.https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/18172022-01-14T17:40:37Z2021-01-01T00:00:00ZBenthic Assessment Protocols for the Atlantic Region: U.S. Caribbean, Florida and the Gulf of Mexico: 2021.
The National Coral Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP) provides a biennial ecological
characterization at a broad spatial scale of general reef condition for reef fishes,corals and benthic
habitat (i.e., fish species composition/density/size, benthic cover, and coral
density/size/condition). Data collection occurs at stratified random sites where the sampling
domain for each region ( e.g., Florida, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Flower Garden B anks
National Marine Sanctuary [FGBNMS]) is partitioned by habitat type and depth, sub-regional
location (e.g., along-shelf position) and management zone. NCRMP will provide broader
geographic context to supplement local monitoring efforts and studies of tropical reef ecosystems.
Line point-intercept (LPI) sampling, the main component of the Benthic Assessment protocols,
provides benthic cover estimates for ecologically important cover types/groups (e.g., macroalgae,
turf algae, crustose coralline algae, corals, sponges, sand/sediment, etc.). This method is
complementary to the NCRMP Coral Demographics sampling method that collects detailed
information on scleractinian corals, including density, size and condition (percent mortality and
bleaching) measurements (Refer to Coral Demographic Survey Protocol for the Atlantic Region:
U.S. Caribbean, Florida and Gulf of Mexico: 2021).
As a result of NCRMP standardization throughout the project’s regions (e.g. Florida and Pacific
regions), the protocols previously known as the ‘LPI Survey Protocols’ have been renamed to
Benthic Assessment Protocols. Most notably, changes to the document format and sections have
been re-formatted to identify the four main components of the Benthic Assessment protocols.
Specific differences in methodologies between regions, where applicable, are noted within the
protocols.
2021-01-01T00:00:00ZPhoto-Identification field and laboratory protocols utilizing FinBase Version 2.Melancon, RachelLane, SuzanneSpeakman, ToddHart, LeslieSinclair, CarrieAdams, JeffRosel, PatriciaSchwacke, Lorihttps://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/18162022-01-12T22:02:13Z2011-01-01T00:00:00ZPhoto-Identification field and laboratory protocols utilizing FinBase Version 2.
Melancon, Rachel; Lane, Suzanne; Speakman, Todd; Hart, Leslie; Sinclair, Carrie; Adams, Jeff; Rosel, Patricia; Schwacke, Lori
Marine mammal photo-identification surveys are conducted for multiple reasons that include estimating or evaluating abundance, survival, spatial and temporal habitat use, social structure and/or health. Surveys are performed along set tracklines in designated survey areas. When animals are sighted during a survey they are digitally photographed with an effort to capture images of all animals in a sighting for individual identification. Additionally, ancillary data and observations of the animals are recorded onto datasheets. The data obtained is then entered into FinBase, a customizable database system for managing photo-identification catalogs.
These protocols were designed for small boat based dolphin photo-identification surveys, but can be utilized for any type of photo-identification surveys. Since FinBase is customizable the user can make changes to fit the needs of their specific survey. All the data and cropped images collected from photo-identification surveys can be stored in and managed with FinBase. Using the cropped images a catalog of individuals can be created and structured based on the attributes assigned to each animal. Within FinBase the user can track the sighting history of each individual, mother and calf relationships, and known associates of the individual.
2011-01-01T00:00:00ZCoral reef restoration monitoring guide: Methods to evaluate restoration success from local to ecosystem scales.Goergen, E.A.Schopmeyer, S.Moulding, A.L.Moura, A.Kramer, P.Viehman, T.S.https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/17132021-08-23T19:49:31Z2020-01-01T00:00:00ZCoral reef restoration monitoring guide: Methods to evaluate restoration success from local to ecosystem scales.
Goergen, E.A.; Schopmeyer, S.; Moulding, A.L.; Moura, A.; Kramer, P.; Viehman, T.S.
As coral restoration efforts continue to increase in size and number, there is an overwhelming need to define restoration
success and determine progress towards successful restoration.
Meaningful, consistent, comparable, and quantitative data is
required to quantify the changes that result from restoration
actions. However, there may be many definitions of success
depending on the program or project goal(s). Restorations
can have one or many goals that can be very different (e.g.,
ecological, educational), and therefore, goals cannot be
addressed in a “one size fits all” monitoring approach. The
application of quantitative approaches to monitoring not only
provides a reliable way to evaluate progress towards restoration
success, but also provides means to identify problems and apply
adaptive management efforts as needed.
The CRC established a priority for the Restoration Monitoring
Working Group to develop guidance for monitoring coral
reef restorations and to determine restoration success. This
“Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide: Best Practices
for Monitoring Coral Restorations from Local to Ecosystem
Scales” was developed for practitioners and programs in any
stage of their practice: from starting up a new restoration effort,
to scaling up current efforts, to improving efficiency. Coral
restoration practitioners can use the hypotheses- and datadriven
monitoring framework presented in this Guide to make
confident comparisons between projects, programs, and regions,
increase the efficiency of data collection, and make informed
decisions about the data necessary to describe the success of
the restoration goal or objective.
Two categories of coral restoration monitoring metrics are
included in this Guide: Universal Metrics and Goal-Based
Performance Metrics. The four Universal Metrics, Landscape/
Reef-level, Population-level, Colony-level, and Genetic and
Genotypic Diversity, are suggested as basic requirements for
monitoring all restoration projects, regardless of the goal of the
project. These metrics provide data on restoration scale, growth,
survival, and diversity, yet require minimal equipment and time.
These Universal Metrics should be monitored on any restoration
project regardless of the restoration scale, species, habitat,
location, expertise, or budget. Goal-Based Performance Metrics address five major coral
restoration goals: Ecological Restoration, Socioeconomic, Eventdriven
Restoration, Climate Change Adaptation, and Research.
Metrics are tailored within each goal to address key components
of the goal. For example, when monitoring a restoration with an
ecological goal, a practitioner should evaluate coral condition,
species diversity, habitat quality, and vertebrate and invertebrate
communities, and potentially others. Metrics are detailed for
each goal including key points, suggested methods, reporting
guidelines, and criteria to evaluate the performance towards the
restoration goal and towards restoration success.
Coral reef restoration, while a quickly growing field, is
still relatively new. This document is the first to provide
comprehensive guidance for monitoring coral restorations to
evaluate progress towards meeting restoration goals. Metrics
and associated methods developed herein are based on our
experiences, working group and workshop input, practitioner
interviews, and current published peer reviewed literature and
manuals. While every effort was made to address every situation,
we recognize that as this field develops and the metrics are ful ly
vetted, some metrics may need to be improved, modified, or
deemed unnecessary. We therefore encourage the evolution of
this Guide as a living document to be updated when necessary
to be relevant and representative. Our experiences and the
examples provided are mainly from the greater Caribbean
region; however, reviews and feedback from practitioners who
have worked globally indicate that the metrics developed are
applicable on coral restorations in all regions.
This Guide should be used to measure and describe the
progress of coral restoration projects towards meeting restoration
goals. The CRC Monitoring Working Group has also developed
a Coral Restoration Database and Evaluation Tool to be
complementary to this Guide and used together. The Coral
Restoration Database allows the input of comparable restoration
projects and monitoring data. The Coral Restoration Evaluation
Tool allows the practitioner to score the performance of their
project, program, or region and determine what is working
well and what needs improvement. The use of this Guide and
feedback provided by practitioners will improve the evaluation of
coral restoration success.
2020-01-01T00:00:00ZA Practitioner’s Handbook for Fisheries Social Impact Assessment.Clay, Patricia M.Colburn, Lisa L.https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/17082021-08-19T13:43:24Z2020-01-01T00:00:00ZA Practitioner’s Handbook for Fisheries Social Impact Assessment.
Clay, Patricia M.; Colburn, Lisa L.
As United States fisheries managers develop and modify fisheries management plans that set catch limits for the Nation’s commercially important fish stocks, the importance of including and weighing the social impacts associated with changes in management has gained increasing attention. In recognition of the potential for social impacts, social impact assessments have been made a requirement of the overall environmental impact assessment process under the National Environmental Policy Act. To date, there has not been a standardized way of conducting and presenting a fisheries social impact assessment (SIA). In addition, there is a need for a template that incorporates existing data streams and identifies potential new sources of information while being applicable to a wide range of fisheries management decisions. The objective of this Handbook is to provide technical advice for NOAA Fisheries and fishery management councils to streamline the SIA process while fully capturing relevant social impacts. The Handbook provides a primer on SIA in fisheries, the purpose of an SIA, key elements that should be included in SIAs, and common types of social impacts associated with particular management measures. It also reviews the legal requirements for conducting SIAs and provides a set of best practices and analytical tools for conducting SIAs. In addition, it describes the relationship of this Handbook to NMFS Guidance for Social Impact Assessment.
2020-01-01T00:00:00ZGuidelines for Bathymetric Mapping and Orthoimage Generation using sUAS and SfM: An Approach for Conducting Nearshore Coastal Mapping.Slocum, R.K.Wright, W.Parrish, C.Costa, B.Sharr, M.https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/16502021-08-06T01:01:16Z2019-01-01T00:00:00ZGuidelines for Bathymetric Mapping and Orthoimage Generation using sUAS and SfM: An Approach for Conducting Nearshore Coastal Mapping.
Slocum, R.K.; Wright, W.; Parrish, C.; Costa, B.; Sharr, M.
Battista, T.A.
The absence of accurate, contemporary, or detailed bathymetric data in nearshore coastal waters impedes coastal research, conservation, disaster response, planning, and management efforts. The use of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) and low cost RGB (red, blue, green) cameras, coupled with advanced
photogrammetry methods, structure from motion (SfM), provides a portable, efficient, rapid-response, and cost-effective method to fill nearshore data gaps. The sUAS–SfM approach provides an alternative method to traditional nearshore collection techniques, and is one that can benefit a diverse user community. The
digital elevation models (DEMs) and photomosaics that result from the sUAS-SfM approach can provide
users access to data of unparalleled resolution, previously unavailable. This methodology works well in environments with clear water, low wave conditions, and distinct visible features on the seafloor. Areas with poor water clarity, high wave conditions, breaking waves, or homogeneous sandy bottoms, are not well suited for this acquisition and processing methodology. Additionally, it is recommended that the sUAS platform selected be capable of acquiring a high accuracy trajectory (e.g., Carrier phase global
navigation satellite systems), in order to generate accurate data products. These recommendations, and others introduced in this report are intended to encourage and aide the coastal mapping community in
implementation and further advancement of this technique.
2019-01-01T00:00:00ZApplication of the Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS) to Deep-Sea Benthic Surveys in the Northeast Pacific: Lessons from Field Tests in 2015.Bassett, R.D.Finkbeiner, M.Etnoyer, P.J.https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/16482021-08-04T11:50:25Z2017-01-01T00:00:00ZApplication of the Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS) to Deep-Sea Benthic Surveys in the Northeast Pacific: Lessons from Field Tests in 2015.
Bassett, R.D.; Finkbeiner, M.; Etnoyer, P.J.
The Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS) is a comprehensive, standard terminology published in 2014. The standard is intended to unify habitat classification efforts, in order to allow for broader integration and comparison of data. The standard is well-developed, and has been implemented in some regions, but CMECS not been tested extensively in the deep sea. NOAA has set a milestone to adopt recommended best practices and standards, such as CMECS, within NOAA's Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping Program, since 2013 (NOC 2013), so there is a timely need for guidance directed toward the deep-sea research community about how to apply this standardized methodology. This report summarizes the findings from a short-term research project that engaged field teams during three deep-sea benthic surveys in the US Pacific in 2015, including telepresence-enabled cruises in Southern California and Hawaii. The researchers conducted post-cruise analyses to process images from surveys aboard NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer, E/V Nautilus from Ocean Exploration Trust (OET), and R/V Shearwater from the NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS). Thirty-two remotely operated vehicle (ROV) dives and more than 6,400 still images were analyzed using a simple CMECS annotation. The report considered three of the four CMECS components geoform, water column, and substrate. The biotic component was not reported here, this was reserved for separate study. Biotic units can be derived from species diversity and abundance but the quantification of these categories is evolving and needs refinement.
2017-01-01T00:00:00ZBest Practices for Collecting Onsite Data to Assess Recreational Use Impacts from an Oil Spill.Horsch, E.Welsh, M.Price, J.https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/16372021-08-03T21:01:33Z2017-01-01T00:00:00ZBest Practices for Collecting Onsite Data to Assess Recreational Use Impacts from an Oil Spill.
Horsch, E.; Welsh, M.; Price, J.
In the aftermath of an oil spill, state and federal natural resource trustees (“Trustees”) often need to assess impacts to recreational use as part of a Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA). A lost recreational use assessment—one component of a broader “Human Use” assessment that can also include financial, cultural, and subsistence losses—measures losses to the public due to a reduced ability to interact with Trust resources. For spills affecting coastal areas, this often means reduced recreational fishing, boating, beach use, and other activities along the coast (e.g. birdwatching, diving, and hunting). For these assessments, data are needed to estimate changes in the amount of recreation at sites potentially affected by the spill. Actual use levels during the spill and the period of recovery (“spill period use”) are compared to use levels that would have occurred if not for the spill (“baseline use”) to determine the change in use. In some cases, existing data sources alone are insufficient to conduct the assessment, and new data must be collected.
This manual provides guidance to Trustees (and responsible parties (“RPs”) in the case of “cooperative assessments”) on the relevant methods and considerations for collecting data for recreational use assessments. While a range of methods may be used, this manual focuses only on onsite data collection using ground personnel and aerial photography. Other methods that may be considered but are not discussed in this manual include mail, telephone, and internet surveys; automated vehicle or people counters; and roving or fixed-point ground photography (see Leggett, 2015). This manual provides several examples, both to illustrate the application of different approaches and to provide ideas and templates for future data collection efforts. The examples cover a range of activities, including general beach recreation (swimming, sunbathing, etc.), shore-based fishing (i.e., saltwater fishing not occurring on sandy beaches), and boating (including pleasure boating and boat-based fishing).
The chapters in this manual address all the necessary steps for onsite data collection: sampling design, developing data collection materials, study implementation (e.g., staffing logistics and safety), field data intake and review, and data entry and processing.
2017-01-01T00:00:00Z