OCS Study

MMS 2006-067 

 

Sperm Whale Seismic Study 

in the Gulf of Mexico

Annual Report: Years 3 and 4 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 
OCS Study

MMS 2006-067 

Sperm Whale Seismic Study 

in the Gulf of Mexico 

Annual Report: Years 3 and 4 

Editors 

Ann E. Jochens 

Douglas C. Biggs 

Prepared under MMS Contract 

1435-01-02-CA-85186 

by 

Texas A&M University 

Department of Oceanography 

College Station, Texas 77843 

Published by 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

New Orleans

November 2006 
iii

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared under contract between the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and 

the Texas A&M Research Foundation. This report has been technically reviewed by the MMS,

and it has been approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily

reflect the views and policies of the MMS, nor does mention of trade names or commercial

products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. It is, however, exempt from review

and compliance with the MMS editorial standards.

REPORT AVAILABILITY

Extra copies of the report may be obtained from the Public Information Office (Mail Stop 5034)

at the following address:

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region

Public Information Office (MS 5034)

1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard

New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394

Telephone: (504) 736-2619 or

1-800-200-GULF

CITATION

Suggested citation:

Jochens, A.E. and D.C. Biggs, eds. 2006. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico;

Annual Report: Years 3 and 4. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2006-067. 111 pp.

ABOUT THE COVER

The cover art shows a sperm whale breaching in the northwest Gulf of Mexico in June 2005

(photo by Craig Hayslip, Oregon State University).
v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report would not have been possible without the contributions of a large number of people.

Each principal investigator (PI) of the Sperm Whale Seismic Study (SWSS) contributed to the

progress of the research. Many participated in the cruises, contributed material for this report,

and worked on data reduction and processing. The principal investigators, their affiliations, and 

their tasks are:

Ann E. Jochens TAMU Program Manager, PI for habitat characterization

Douglas C. Biggs TAMU Project Scientist, PI for habitat characterization

Kelly Benoit-Bird OSU PI for habitat characterization - fisheries detection

Dan Engelhaupt UDurham PI for genetic analyses

Jonathan Gordon Ecologic1 PI for photo-ID and mesoscale survey

Matthew K. Howard TAMU Data Manager

Chuanmin Hu USF PI for habitat characterization - ocean color

Nathalie Jaquet TAMUG2 PI for photo-ID and mesoscale survey

Mark Johnson WHOI PI for D-tag/CEE study

Robert L. Leben CU PI for habitat characterization - sea surface height

Bruce Mate OSU PI for S-tag whale tagging and tracking

Patrick Miller WHOI

3 PI for D-tag/CEE study

Joel Ortega-Ortiz OSU PI for S-tag study

Aaron Thode SIO PI for 3-D passive acoustic tracking study

Peter Tyack WHOI PI for D-tag/CEE study

Bernd Würsig TAMUG PI for photo-ID and mesoscale survey

For habitat characterization, Dr. Steve DiMarco and graduate students Alyson Azzara, Leila

Belabbassi, Mike Lalime, Julia O'Hern, and Xiaoqian Zhang of TAMU contributed to the

processing and analysis of data sets.

To all who participated on the four SWSS cruises, we extend our great appreciation for making

the 2004 and 2005 field programs a great success. In particular, thanks to:

• 2004 S-tag cruise science team: Doug Biggs (Chief Scientist; TAMU), Alyson Azzara

(TAMU), Marty Bohn (TAMU), Paul Clark (TAMU), R. Iliana Ruiz-Cooley (OSU), Carol

DeLancey (OSU), Dan Engelhaupt (UD), Deborah Epperson (MMS), Glenn Gailey (OSU), Bill

Green (TAMU), Ladd Irvine (OSU), Rhoni Lahn (OSU), Daniel Lewer (OSU), Bruce Mate

(OSU), Mary Lou Mate (OSU), Michael Noack (OSU), Thomas Norris (SAIC), Joel Ortega

(OSU), Carol Roden (MMS), Aaron Thode (SIO), Sarah Tsoflias (MMS), Eddie Webb (TAMU),

and Elizabeth Zele (OSU).

• 2004 Mesoscale Population Study team: Jonathan Gordon (Chief Scientist, Legs 1 and 4;

Ecologic), Nathalie Jaquet (Chief Scientist, Legs 2 and 3; TAMUG), Ricardo Antunes, Steve

 1 also at the University of St. Andrews, UK

2 presently at Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies, MA

3 presently at the University of St. Andrews, UK
vi

Brown (Skipper, TAMUG), Raul Diaz-Gamboa (TAMUG), Thomas Gordon (TAMUG),

Christoph Richter (TAMUG), and Trudi Webster (TAMUG).

• 2005 S-tag cruise science team: Ann Jochens (Chief Scientist; TAMU), Alyson Azzara

(TAMU), Kyle Baker (NMFS), Marty Bohn (TAMU), Lars Bejder (OSU), Lee Benner (MMS),

Bill Burgess (Greenwood Sciences, Inc.), Paul Clark (TAMU), R. Iliana Ruiz-Cooley (OSU),

Dan Engelhaupt (UD), Deborah Epperson (MMS), Glenn Gailey (OSU), Bill Green (TAMU),

Craig Hayslip (OSU), Sara Heimlich (OSU), Ladd Irvine (OSU), Rhoni Lahn (OSU), Dave

Lundquist (TAMU), Thomas Norris (SAIC), Joel Ortega (OSU), Carol Roden (MMS), Charlie

Short (OSU), Andy Szabo (OSU), Aaron Thode (SIO), Eddie Webb (TAMU), Chris Wingard 

(OSU), and Suzanne Yin (OSU).

2004 Mesoscale Population Study team: Jonathan Gordon (Chief Scientist, Legs 1 and 4;

Ecologic), Christoph Richter (Chief Scientist, Legs 2 and 3; TAMUG/Ecologic), Ricardo Antunes

(TAMUG), Pip Bauerlein (Skipper; TAMUG), Sierra Deutsch (TAMUG), Raul Diaz-Gamboa

(TAMUG), Sam DuFresne (TAMUG), and Thomas Gordon (TAMUG).

Without the hard work of the ships' masters and crew, the science teams would not have been 

able to complete their tasks successfully and safely. So we extend sincere thanks to Captain Dana

O. Dyer III and the crew of the R/V Gyre. The dedicated shore-based efforts of Desmond Rolf,

Sandy Green, and Bill Green of the Gyre TAMU Marine Operations went above and beyond the

call of duty and contributed to the success of the study. We also thank Dr. Norman Guinasso and

Mr. John Walpert of TAMU GERG for their assistance with preparing the 38-kHz ADCP, and 

Mr. Tomas Follett of OSU for facilitating delivery of S-tag whale location information to SWSS

scientists during their cruises.

The Industry Research Funders Coalition (IRFC), consisting of BP Corporation, ExxonMobil

Exploration Company, Shell Exploration & Production Company, ConocoPhillips, ChevronTexaco Exploration & Production Company, and the International Association of Geophysical

Contractors (IAGC) on behalf of its members, provided supplementary funding that made the

2004 MPS cruise possible. We greatly appreciate this support as well as the IRFC contributions

for the 2005 S-tag cruise 3-D hydrophone array and tags. SWSS scientists extend thanks to Chip

Gill and Bernard Padovani of IAGC, as well as all members of IRFC, for their enthusiastic work 

in support of SWSS. We also thank the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which also

provided funding for the 2004 MPS cruise.

The enthusiastic support of Dr. William Lang, the MMS Project Officer, is greatly appreciated.

We also thank Deborah Epperson, Carol Roden, and Sarah Tsoflias of MMS for their cruise

participation and thoughtful support of SWSS.

Finally, any program as large and complex as this one needs the help of many in the

administration of the project. We thank Stacie Arms of TAMUG, Carol Delancey of OSU,

Tracie Robertson of TAMRF, and Mary Jane Tucci of WHOI for their many efforts in support of

SWSS.
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

List of Figures................................................................................................................... ix

List of Tables.................................................................................................................... xi

Acronyms......................................................................................................................... xiii

1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1

1.2 Field Measurements in 2004 ...................................................................... 1

1.3 SWSS Planning Meeting of 2005............................................................... 2

1.4 Field Measurements in 2005 ...................................................................... 3

2. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Program Participants.................................................................................. 5

2.2 Program Activities for Year 3 (April 2004 - March 2005).......................... 6

2.3 Program Activities for Year 4 (April 2005 - March 2006).......................... 8

2.4 Report Organization................................................................................... 12

3. Data Collection on S-tag Cruises........................................................................... 13

3.1 S-tag Cruise 2004 ...................................................................................... 13

3.2 S-tag Cruise 2005 ...................................................................................... 39

4. Data Collection on Mesoscale Population Study Cruises ....................................... 67

4.1 Mesoscale Population Study Cruise of 2004............................................... 67

4.2 Mesoscale Population Study Cruise of 2005............................................... 83

5. Literature Cited ..................................................................................................... 95
ix

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

2.1. SWSS S-tag cruise on R/V Gyre in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico in June

2005................................................................................................................... 9

2.2. SWSS tag boat operations were sometimes hindered by waterspouts that

formed during local squalls on the S-tag cruise in June 2005.............................. 10

2.3. SWSS R2 boat with scientists at work collecting photo-identification shots on

the S-tag cruise in June 2005.............................................................................. 10

2.4. SWSS Mesoscale Population Study sailboat, Summer Breeze, at a port stop in

Galveston, TX, in July 2005............................................................................... 11

2.5. Whale observations being collected during the SWSS Mesoscale Population

Study cruise in summer 2005. ............................................................................ 11

3.1.1. Cruise tracks for 2004 S-tag cruise..................................................................... 14

3.1.2. Locations of S-tag deployments and biopsies in 2004......................................... 18

3.1.3. Visual survey effort during the 2004 S-tag cruise. .............................................. 23

3.1.4. Visual survey effort and locations of sperm whale sightings in and around

Mississippi Canyon............................................................................................ 23

3.1.5. Schematic of passive acoustic recording system on the 2004/2005 S-tag 

cruises................................................................................................................ 25

3.1.6. Geometry of tandem array for finding range of animal. ...................................... 27

3.1.7. Locations of CTD and XBT stations on the 2004 S-tag cruise.. .......................... 35

3.1.8. Sea surface height field for 21 May 2004. .......................................................... 36

3.1.9. Transit through windrows of floating freshwater vegetation on 5 June 2004....... 38

3.2.1. MODIS image for 11 June 2005......................................................................... 41

3.2.2. Cruise tracks for 2005 S-tag cruise..................................................................... 42

3.2.3. Tag deployment locations for the 2005 S-tag cruise. .......................................... 45

3.2.4. Locations of biopsy samples on the 2005 S-tag cruise. ....................................... 47

3.2.5. Locations of sperm whale fixes recorded by the S-tag visual team in 2005......... 49

3.2.6. Real-time output of Ishmael/MATLAB software showing estimated range and

bearing of 4 contacts over a 5-min interval starting at 6:07 AM on 11 June

2005................................................................................................................... 55

3.2.7. Spectogram of unusual "croda" sound recorded on 15 June 2005.. ..................... 56

3.2.8. Locations of CTD and XBT stations on the 2005 S-tag cruise. ........................... 64

4.1.1. Cruise tracks for Legs 1-4 of the 2004 MPS cruise............................................. 69

4.2.1. Cruise tracks for the 2005 MPS cruise................................................................ 84

4.2.2. Track for Leg 1 of the MPS cruise from 13-20 June 2005. ................................. 85

4.2.3. Tracks for Legs 2 and 3 of the MPS cruise from 23 June - 15 July 2005............. 86

4.2.4. Track for Leg 4 of the MPS cruise from 23 July - 3 August 2005....................... 87

4.2.5. The Summer Breeze, a 46' sloop, served as the research vessel for the 2005 

MPS cruise......................................................................................................... 89
xi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

2.1 SWSS Cruises Conducted in 2004 and 2005 ...................................................... 6

3.1.1. Science Team for the SWSS 2004 S-tag Cruise.................................................. 15

3.1.2 S-tag Deployments, Biopsy Samples, and Photo-ID Images on the 2004 S-tag

Cruise ................................................................................................................ 18

3.1.3 Tissue Samples Collected During 2004 S-tag Cruise .......................................... 20

3.1.4 Day-by-day Synopsis of Visual Survey Effort.................................................... 22

3.1.5 Visual Sightings of Species Other Than Sperm Whales on the 2004 S-tag

Cruise ................................................................................................................ 24

3.1.6 Synopsis of Acoustic Effort ............................................................................... 28

3.1.7 Synopsis of Acoustic Detections........................................................................ 28

3.1.8 Acoustic Detections of Cetaceans Other Than Sperm Whales on 2004 S-tag

Cruise ................................................................................................................ 29

3.1.9 Summary of Detection of Seismic Activity on the 2004 S-tag Cruise ................. 30

3.1.10 Summary of Acoustic Recordings on the 2004 S-tag Cruise............................... 30

3.1.11 XBT and Extracted Chlorophyll Stations on S-tag 2004 Cruise ......................... 33

3.1.12 CTD and Extracted Chlorophyll Stations on S-tag 2004 Cruise .......................... 34

3.1.13 ADCP Configuration Summary for S-tag Cruises in 2004 and 2005................... 35

3.2.1. Science Team for the SWSS 2005 S-tag Cruise.................................................. 39

3.2.2 S-tag and B-probe Deployment Locations.......................................................... 44

3.2.3 Tissue Samples Collected from Sperm Whales During the 2005 S-tag Cruise .... 46

3.2.4 Tissue Samples Collected from Rough-toothed Dolphins During the 2005 

S-tag Cruise ....................................................................................................... 47

3.2.5 Visual Team Effort and Sperm Whale Sightings ................................................ 50

3.2.6 Cetacean Sightings, Other Than Sperm Whales, During the 2005 S-tag Cruise .. 51

3.2.7 Number of 1-hour Periods with Type of Sounds Detected Relative to Presence

or Absence of Seismic Survey Sounds ............................................................... 53

3.2.8 Locations of Near-surface Chlorophyll Sampling............................................... 59

3.2.9 Start-stop Times for 38-kHz ADCP Data Logging ............................................. 61

3.2.10 CTD and XBT Stations on the 2005 S-tag Cruise............................................... 62

3.2.11 Operation Times for the Fishery Echosounders.................................................. 65

4.1.1. Science Team for the 2004 MPS Cruise ............................................................. 67

4.1.2 Summary of Dates and Port Calls for Each 2004 MPS Cruise Leg ..................... 68

4.1.3 Summary of MPS Research Effort During 2004................................................. 74

4.1.4 Sightings of Species Other Than Sperm Whales in Waters Greater Than 500-

m Depth............................................................................................................. 75

4.1.5 Number of Identification Photographs Taken During Each Leg and 

Cumulative Number of Different Individuals Identified Each Day ..................... 77

4.1.6 Biopsy Samples and Their Locations ................................................................. 79

4.1.7 Summary of Occasions on Which Calibrated Recordings Were Made of

Production Platforms and Drill Ships................................................................. 81

4.1.8 Locations of CTD Casts That Reached 50 m or More......................................... 82

4.2.1. Science Team for the SWSS 2005 MPS Cruise .................................................. 83
xii

LIST OF TABLES

(continued)

TABLE PAGE

4.2.2 Summary of Legs and Port Calls for the 2005 MPS Cruise................................. 88

4.2.3 Summary of Dedicated Coda Recordings........................................................... 92

4.2.4 Locations of Tissue Sample Collection .............................................................. 92

4.2.5 Sightings of Species Other Than Sperm Whales During the 2005 MPS Cruise... 93

4.2.6 Recordings of Rig Noise Made During the 2005 MPS Cruise............................. 94

4.2.7 Locations of CTD Casts on 2005 MPS Cruise.................................................... 94
xiii

ACRONYMS

ADCP Acoustic Doppler current profiler

AGU American Geophysical Union

B-probe Bioacoustics probe

CCAR Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research, University of Colorado

CDT Central Daylight Time

CEE controlled exposure experiment

CHL chlorophyll

CTD conductivity-temperature-depth sensor

CU University of Colorado

DGPS Differential Global Positioning System

D-tag Digital-recording acoustic tag (tag name and SWSS program component)

EDT Eastern Daylight Time

GDAS Gyre Data Acquisition System

GERG Geochemical and Environmental Research Group at TAMU

GPS Global Positioning System

GulfCet Gulf of Mexico Cetacean Study

IAGC International Association of Geophysical Contractors

IRFC Industry Research Funders Coalition

ITM Information Transfer Meeting

LC Loop Current

LCE Loop Current eddy

MCS middle continental slope

MMS Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

MPS Mesoscale Population Study of SWSS

MRD Mississippi River Delta

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NSF National Science Foundation

ONR Office of Naval Research

OSU Oregon State University

Photo-ID Photographic-Identification

PI Principal Investigator

PMEL Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

RHIB Rigid-Hulled Inflatable Boat

R/V research vessel

SAIC Science Applications International Corporation

SCF surface chlorophyll fluorescence

SeaWiFS Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor

SIO Scripps Institution of Oceanography

SRB Science Review Board

SSH Sea surface height

SSS Sea surface salinity

SST Sea surface temperature

S-tag Satellite-tracked radio tag (tag name and SWSS program component)
xiv

ACRONYMS

(continued)

SWAMP Sperm Whale Acoustic Monitoring Program

SWSS Sperm Whale Seismic Study

TAMU Texas A&M University

TAMUG Texas A&M University-Galveston

TAMRF Texas A&M Research Foundation

TDTR Time Depth and Temperature Recorder

UD University of Durham, UK

USA University of St. Andrews, UK

USF University of South Florida

UTC Universal Coordinated Time

WHOI Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

WSE Warm Slope Eddy

XBT expendable bathythermograph probe

3-D three-dimensional
1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction

This is the third annual report of the Sperm Whale Seismic Study (SWSS). SWSS is a multiinstitutional, interdisciplinary study supported by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of

the U.S. Department of the Interior under Cooperative Agreement 1435-01-02-CA-85186 for

Cooperative Research on Sperm Whales and their Response to Seismic Exploration in the Gulf of

Mexico through the Texas A&M Research Foundation. Under SWSS, scientists from Ecologic,

Oregon State University (OSU), Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO), Texas A&M

University (TAMU), Texas A&M University-Galveston (TAMUG), University of Colorado 

(CU), University of Durham (UD), University of St. Andrews (USA), and Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) develop and implement scientific research plans in

coordination with MMS, the Office of Naval Research (ONR), National Science Foundation 

(NSF), and Industry Research Funders Coalition (IRFC).

The principal study tasks and associated institutions are: Satellite-tracked radio tags (S-tags) by 

OSU; Digital-recording acoustic tags (D-tags) and Controlled Exposure Experiments (CEEs) by 

WHOI and USA; Habitat characterization by TAMU; Photo-identification and mesoscale

population studies (MPS) by Ecologic and TAMUG; Biopsy/genetic analyses by UD; 3-D

passive acoustic tracking by SIO; Program management by TAMU; and Data management by

TAMU. All fieldwork associated with sperm whales was conducted pursuant to approved

permits from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The program objectives and task 

goals are set out in the first annual report (Jochens and Biggs 2003).

1.2 Field Measurements in 2004

The 2004 field work consisted of an S-tag cruise in May/June 2004 and an MPS cruise in JuneAugust 2004. Near real-time remote sensing images of sea surface height, ocean color, and sea

surface temperature were obtained before and during the cruises and emailed to the scientists at

sea on the S-tag and MPS cruises.

The S-tag cruise was conducted 24 May through 19 June 2004 out of Galveston, TX, aboard the

R/V Gyre. There was an unplanned 48-hour port stop in Gulfport, MS, on 2-4 June, so that

engine repairs could be made to the primary tag boat, and a 40-hour unplanned stop in the lee of

the Mississippi River Delta on 14-15 June to escape bad weather offshore that was generated by

a tropical cyclone. The 23-person science team searched for and tagged sperm whales in the

northern Gulf of Mexico between 93.5°W and 86.5°W in water depths ranging from 500 m to

2200 m. Because bad weather made conditions unsafe for launch and operation, the small tag

boats were deployed on only nine days during the cruise. Also as a consequence of the poor

weather, no bioacoustic probe (B-probe) deployments were attempted. A total of 8 whales were

tagged, all in the Mississippi Canyon area. A total of 18 sperm whale flukes were

photographically captured. Of these, four were of whales tagged in 2004 and one each tagged in

2003 and 2002. A total of four skin samples were collected during the cruise, all of which were

from whales tagged with satellite-monitored tags. A new towed passive acoustic hydrophone

array was deployed from the starboard side of the R/V Gyre to test various algorithms for

acoustically tracking sperm whales in range and depth. When towed in conjunction with the
2

Ecologic array deployed on the port side, the acoustic team sought to determine threedimensional characterizations of selected sperm whales. Habitat characterization data collection

consisted of sea surface temperature, salinity, and chlorophyll fluorescence data logged every 

minute from a continuous flow pumped from ~3.5 m depth, chlorophyll extracted from water

samples at 74 locations for calibration of the fluorescence to chlorophyll fluorescence, ocean

current velocity in the upper 300 and 1000 m from, respectively, 153-kHz and 38-kHz hullmounted acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) instruments, temperature profiles from 70 

expendable bathythermograph (XBT) probes, and temperature-salinity profiles from five casts

using a vertically profiling conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) instrument.

The MPS cruise was mobilized on 12-20 June. Major mobilization activities were to reconfigure

and provision the 46' Hunter-class motor sailboat, Summer Breeze, into a research platform for

the cruise. The cruise left out of St. Petersburg, FL, on 20 June and returned on 11 August 2004.

During the four legs of this cruise, the region of the northern Gulf of Mexico between 90.5°W

and 84.5°W was surveyed acoustically and visually for sperm whales. The primary study area

was the area between the 500 and 1500-m depth contours in the region of high oil/gas platform

density and anthropogenic activity off the Mississippi River Delta and in the Mississippi Canyon,

although observations also were made between the 200 and 500-m isobaths during transits

to/from port and between 1500 and 2100-m depths to assess the effects on whale behavior of offmargin flow of riverine water by a cyclone-anticyclone pair. The primary goals of the cruise

were to expand baseline information on population size, habitat use, social organization,

movements and behavior of sperm whales and to help determine natural variability and potential

responses to anthropogenic activities. Other integral tasks were to determine distribution and 

movements of sperm whales in relation to natural changes in environmental conditions,

investigate population structure and calving rate, investigate residency of known individuals in

the northern Gulf of Mexico. When the opportunity arose, data were collected to allow study of

the behavioral reactions to acoustic emissions from platforms and seismic ships, and to make

opportunistic calibrated recordings of rig noise. The goals were achieved mainly by photoidentification and length measurements of individuals made during follows of groups extending 

over 10 to 60 hours, recordings of vocalizations and anthropogenic sounds, and collection of 6 

biopsy samples.

1.3 SWSS Planning Meeting of 2005

Seventeen SWSS speakers made presentations at the all day SWSS session held at the 23rd MMS

Information Transfer Meeting on 12 January 2005 in Kenner, LA (McKay and Nides 2005). A

SWSS planning meeting followed on 13 January 2005 to discuss activities for a two-year

extension of SWSS. Attendees included representatives from all SWSS components, MMS,

ONR, NMFS, and industry. Four of the five members of the SWSS Science Review Board

(SRB) attended. The goal of this meeting was to determine the tasks and objectives of the two 

year extension of SWSS. As a result of recommendations of the SRB and participating agency

and science personnel, it was decided the extension would consist of field work in summer 2005 

followed by a year of analysis and synthesis, with the final Synthesis Report to come out in

2007.
3

1.4 Field Measurements in 2005

The 2005 field work consisted of an S-tag cruise in June and an MPS cruise in June-August.

Near real-time remote sensing images of sea surface height, ocean color, and sea surface

temperature again were used in pre-cruise planning and were provided to the scientists at sea.

The S-tag cruise was conducted from 2000 CDT 2 June through 1700 CDT 30 June, with

mobilization on 30 May to 2 June and demobilization on 30 June to 2 July. The cruise was

conducted aboard the R/V Gyre out of the home port of Galveston, TX. There were two port

calls: one unplanned at Port Aransas, TX, on 13 June to allow an ill crew member to be replaced 

and one planned at Harbor Island, TX, on 19 June to exchange science personnel. The study

region was the northwestern Gulf. The 23-member science team collected data between about

500 m to 2200 m water depths from west of approximately 93°W to just north of the border with

Mexico. In the first ever deployment of tags on sperm whales in the northwestern and deep water

central Gulf, 12 S-tags were successfully attached. The bioacoustics probe (B-probe) was

successfully deployed twice with 1.5 hours and 2 hours of dive data collected. Twenty-two

biopsies from sperm whales were obtained. Three samples from rough-toothed dolphins were

also collected and stored for later analyses. Twenty-three individuals were photo-identified.

Passive acoustic monitoring data, suitable for three-dimensional sperm whale tracking analyses,

were recorded. High quality acoustic recordings were obtained of clicks. Using 70-kHz and 38-

kHz instruments, fishery echosounder data on the deep scattering layer were collected 

simultaneously with observations on sperm whales. Physical oceanographic data were collected,

including 38-kHz ADCP current velocity and acoustic backscatter intensity measurements,

continuously logged temperature, salinity, and chlorophyll fluorescence data at 3.5-m depth,

filtered chlorophyll measurements from 3.5-m depth, and 82 XBT and 4 CTD profiles.

The second summer of MPS fieldwork was conducted out of St. Petersburg, FL, again using the

Summer Breeze. The cruise was conducted between 1600 EDT 13 June through 1900 EDT 3 

August 2005. Mobilization occurred June 4-11. Passage of Hurricane Arlene caused about a 2-

day delay in departure. Demobilization was August 3-6. The marina on the return was changed

from that of the departure because Hurricane Dennis demolished the marina of departure. The

fieldwork was conducted in 4 legs of roughly 2 weeks each. Weather, in the form of tropical

storm events A through E, crew illnesses, and engine trouble caused there to be more time on

shore than planned. In addition to Hurricanes Arlene and Dennis causing lost weather days,

Tropical Storm Cindy and Hurricane Emily also resulted in unplanned time ashore. Tropical

Storm Bret caused only anxious watching. Illnesses, ranging from ear and eye infections to an

infected foot, resulted in unplanned time ashore as well. Finally nearly a week was lost on shore

when the engine malfunctioned and the boat had to be sailed to Galveston, TX, for repairs. The

management of the Small Boat Basin of Texas A&M University-Galveston graciously provided

assistance to SWSS in the form of docking space, shore connections, and general help to the

sailboat personnel while repairs were being done. Despite these difficulties, the team collected

unique data, observing that in summer 2005 there seemed to have been a substantial change in

along-margin distribution of whale groups. They observed maturing males rather than mixed

groups in the region of the designated survey areas, and they found that the more “typical” mixed 

group assemblages were only encountered well to the west of DeSoto Canyon and Mississippi

Canyon.
5

2 INTRODUCTION

The first and second annual reports for the Sperm Whale Seismic Study (SWSS) detailed the

program objectives, tasks, and participants, and the data collection and processing for the S-tag

and D-tag cruises in field years 1 and 2, as well as presenting preliminary technical discussions

(Jochens and Biggs 2003, 2004). This report focuses on the data collection and analysis efforts

during field years 3 and 4 of the study. No results are presented in this report. The SWSS

Summary Report, 2002-2004, presented results by program elements, without extensive

synthesis (Jochens et al. 2006). The SWSS Synthesis Report will be finalized in 2007.

2.1 Program Participants

SWSS is a multi-institutional, interdisciplinary study supported by the Minerals Management

Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior under Cooperative Agreement 1435-01-

02-CA-85186 for Cooperative Research on Sperm Whales and their Response to Seismic

Exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Additional direct support for SWSS activities in years 3 and 4

was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) and the Industry Research

Funders Coalition (IRFC), which is a coalition of the International Association of Geophysical

Contractors (IAGC) and five oil and gas exploration and production companies.

The principal academic SWSS scientists conducting the study are

Ecologic: Jonathan Gordon (also at the University of St. Andrews, UK)

Oregon State University (OSU): Bruce Mate, Joel Ortega-Ortiz, and Kelly Benoit-Bird

Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies: Nathalie Jaquet

Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO): Aaron Thode

Texas A&M University (TAMU): Ann Jochens (SWSS Program Manager), Douglas

Biggs, Matthew Howard (SWSS Data Manager), and John Wormuth

Texas A&M University-Galveston (TAMUG): Bernd Würsig

University of Colorado (CU): Robert Leben

University of Durham, UK (UD): Daniel Engelhaupt

University of St. Andrews, UK (UStA): Patrick Miller

University of South Florida (USF): Chuanmin Hu

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI): Peter Tyack and Mark Johnson

The principal study tasks and associated institutions are: Satellite-tracked radio tags (S-tags) by 

OSU; Digital-recording acoustic tags (D-tags) and Controlled Exposure Experiments (CEEs) by 

WHOI and UStA; Habitat characterization by TAMU, CU, USF, and OSU; Photo-identification 

and Mesoscale Population Studies (MPS) by Ecologic, Provincetown, and TAMUG;

Biopsy/genetic analyses by UD; 3-D passive acoustic tracking by SIO; Program management by 

TAMU; and Data management by TAMU. All activities associated with marine mammals are

conducted pursuant to approved permits from NOAA Fisheries.

The SWSS fieldwork for years 3 and 4 was conducted in, respectively, summer 2004 and

summer 2005. Both years consisted of an S-tag cruise aboard the R/V Gyre and a Mesoscale

Population Study (MPS) cruise aboard the motor-sailor, Summer Breeze. Table 2.1 shows the

cruises with start and end dates. In addition to the major funding support of MMS, the funding 
6

support for the year 3 fieldwork included funds from NFWF, which covered costs associated

with the Summer Breeze bareboat charter for the MPS cruise, and from the IRFC, which

provided support for the MPS cruise and analysis, purchase of the 3-D passive acoustic tracking 

hydrophone array, and enhanced data analysis of S-tag whale and seismic shot location data.

IRFC also provided funding support in year 4 for purchase of new depth-recording S-tags,

upgrades of the 3-D passive acoustic tracking hydrophone array, and continuation of the

enhanced data analysis of S-tag whale and seismic shot location data.

Table 2.1

SWSS Cruises Conducted in 2004 and 2005

Year Ship Cruise Cruise ID Dates

2004 R/V Gyre S-tag 04G05 05/24/2004 - 06/19/2004

2004 Summer Breeze MPS MPS1 06/20/2004 - 08/11/2004

2005 R/V Gyre S-tag 05G09 06/02/2005 - 06/30/2005

2005 Summer Breeze MPS MPS2 06/13/2005 - 08/03/2005

2.2 Program Activities for Year 3 (April 2004 - March 2005)

The field effort in year 3 consisted of two cruises between May and August 2004. The S-tag

cruise was on the R/V Gyre, sailing out of Galveston, TX. The cruise dates were 24 May through 

19 June 2004. Cruise work consisted of S-tag deployments, visual and passive acoustic

observations, habitat characterization data (remote sensing fields of sea surface eight and ocean

color, CTD and XBT temperature and salinity profiles, shipboard ADCP measurements of

currents, and continuous near-surface temperature, salinity, and fluorescence/chlorophyll

measurements), skin sampling for genetic typing, and a full 3-D passive acoustic tracking study.

The study area was between 93.5°W and 86.5°W in water depths ranging from 500 m to 2200 m.

The second cruise was the MPS cruise, conducted aboard a quiet vessel, the 46' Hunter sailboat

Summer Breeze. It left St. Petersburg, FL, on 20 June 2004 and returned on 11 August 2004. The

MPS study area was the region of the northern Gulf of Mexico between 90.5°W and 84.5°W,

primarily between the 500 and 1500-m depth contours. Water depths out to 2100 m were

searched. Data were collected on the social behavior of sperm whale groups using photographs,

photogrammetry, passive acoustic recordings, and visual observations as groups were followed

for 1-3 days each. In addition to social behavior data, continuous near-surface temperature and 

CTD profiles were collected on this cruise and remote sensing fields were obtained.

A number of presentations on SWSS results were made at scientific conferences in year 3, three

publications were submitted to and accepted by scientific journals, and one Master of Science

thesis was successfully defended. The publications and thesis are:
7

1. Miller, P. J. O., M. P. Johnson, and P. L. Tyack. 2004. Sperm whale behaviour indicates

the use of echolocation click buzzes 'creaks' in prey capture. Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 271, 2239-

2247. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2863.

2. Sindlinger, L. R., D. C. Biggs, and S. F. DiMarco. 2005. Temporal and spatial variability of

ADCP backscatter on a continental slope. Continental Shelf Research. 25, 259-275.

(SWAMP).

3. Thode, A. 2004. Tracking sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) dive profiles using a

towed passive acoustic array. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116 (1), 245-253.

4. Kaltenberg, A. M. 2004. 39-kHz ADCP Investigation of Deep Scattering Layers in Sperm

Whale Habitat in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. M.S. Thesis, December 2004. Department

of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 102 pp.

A SWSS-related presentation was made at the Aquatic Sciences Meeting of the American

Society of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO) in February 2005. The oral presentation was:

1. Kaltenberg, A.M., A.D. Thode, D. C. Biggs, and S.F. DiMarco. 2005. Measurement of

ADCP backscatter from deep scattering layers while tracking the dive depth of foraging 

sperm whales. Session TS44, Biocomplexity in Marine Ecosystems, ASLO Aquatic

Sciences Meeting. February 2005, Salt Lake City, UT.

Seventeen science talks were presented by SWSS scientists at the all day session on 12 January

2005 for the Sperm Whale Seismic Study at the 23rd MMS Information Transfer Meeting. The

written presentation summaries for the 17 SWSS science talks were published in McKay and

Nides (2005). The talks, in order of presentation with the speaker's name underlined, were:

1. Overview of Sperm Whale Seismic Study (SWSS). Ann Jochens (Texas A&M University)

2. Seasonal Movements, Range, and Aspects of Sperm Whale Diving Behavior. Bruce Mate

(Oregon State University)

3. Social Structure of Satellite-tracked Sperm Whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Joel OrtegaOrtiz and Bruce Mate (Oregon State University), Dan Engelhaupt (University of Durham)

4. Habitat Characterization of Satellite-tracked Sperm Whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Joel

Ortega-Ortiz and Bruce Mate (Oregon State University), Robert Leben (University of

Colorado), Douglas Biggs and Matthew Howard (Texas A&M University)

5. Seismic Survey Activity and the Proximity of S-Tagged Whales. Martha Winsor and Bruce

Mate (Oregon State University)

6. Brief Outline of Sperm Whale Airgun Controlled Exposure Experiments (CEEs). Peter

Tyack (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

7. Diving, Foraging and Vocal Behavior of Sperm Whales. Stephanie Watwood (Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution), Patrick Miller (St. Andrews University), Mark Johnson, Peter

Madsen, and Peter Tyack (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

8. The Sounds of Airguns as Recorded on Sperm Whales and Methods to Quantify Acoustic

Exposure. Peter Madsen and Mark Johnson (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution),

Patrick Miller (St. Andrews University), and Peter Tyack (Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution)

9. Preliminary Modeling of DTAGS Acoustic Arrivals from the Gulf of Mexico in 2002 and

2003. James Lynch, Stacy DeRuiter, Peter Tyack, Arthur Newhall, and Ying-Tsong Lin

(Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)
8

10. Controlled Seismic Airgun Exposures: Effects on the Movement and Foraging Behaviour

of Sperm Whales. Patrick Miller (St. Andrews University), Mark Johnson, Peter Tyack,

Peter Madsen, and Stephanie Watwood (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

11. D-tag/CEE Concluding Remarks. Peter Tyack (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

12. Mesoscale Sperm Whale Studies in the Gulf of Mexico I: Responses to Seismic Line Starts,

Acoustic Length Measurements, Codas and Cultural Organization. Jonathan Gordon

(Ecologic and University of St. Andrews), Nathalie Jaquet (Texas A&M UniversityGalveston), Ricardo Antunes (Ecologic and University of St. Andrews), Luke Rendell

(University of St. Andrews) and Bernd Würsig (Texas A&M University-Galveston)

13. Sperm Whales in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Abundance, Habitat Use, and Aspects of

Social Organization. Nathalie Jaquet (Texas A&M University-Galveston), Jonathan 

Gordon (Ecologic and University of St. Andrews) and Bernd Würsig (Texas A&M

University-Galveston)

14. Gulf of Mexico Sperm Whales – A Genetic Perspective. Dan Engelhaupt (University of

Durham)

15. Three-dimensional tracking of sperm whales using passive acoustics. Aaron Thode

(Scripps Institution of Oceanography)

16. Physical Environment of the Northern Gulf of Mexico During Summers 2002-2004. Ann

Jochens, Matt Howard, Steve DiMarco, and Doug Biggs (Texas A&M University)

17. Analysis Of The Mesopelagic Community In Areas Of Feeding And Non-feeding By

Sperm Whales In The Northern Gulf Of Mexico. John Wormuth (Texas A&M University)

A SWSS planning meeting followed the ITM session. It was held to determine activities for a

two-year extension. Based on recommendations of participants, the extension was to consist of

field work in summer 2005, a year of analysis, and publication of the Synthesis Report in 2007.

2.3 Program Activities for Year 4 (April 2005 - March 2006)

Field work in year 4 consisted of two cruises between June and August 2005. The S-tag cruise

was out of Galveston, TX, on the R/V Gyre (Figure 2.1) from 2-30 June 2005. The study area

shifted from the region associated with the Mississippi River Delta, which was the focus of field

work in the three previous SWSS years, to the northwest Gulf. The area covered was over the

slope from ~92.5°W to the U.S.-Mexico border at 26°N in water depths of 800 m to ~3000 m.

The main focus area was west of 94°W and centered approximately along the 1000-m isobath.

The cruise consisted of S-tag deployments (Figure 2.2), visual and passive acoustic observations

(Figure 2.3), habitat characterization data (remote sensing fields of sea surface height and ocean

color, CTD and XBT temperature and salinity profiles, shipboard ADCP measurements of

currents, and continuous near-surface temperature, salinity, and fluorescence/chlorophyll

measurements), skin sampling for genetic typing, and a full 3-D passive acoustic tracking study.

The second cruise was the MPS cruise aboard the Summer Breeze (Figure 2.4), which departed 

St. Petersburg, FL, on 13 June 2005 and returned 3 August 2005. The MPS study area was the

region of the northern Gulf of Mexico approximately between 94°W and 85°W, primarily 

between the 500 and 1500-m depth contours. This cruise gathered data on the social behavior of

sperm whale groups from photographs (Figure 2.5), photogrammetry, passive acoustic

recordings, and visual observations as the groups were followed for 1-3 days each. In addition to 

social behavior data, continuous near-surface temperature and CTD profiles were collected on

this cruise and remote sensing fields were obtained.
9

In SWSS year 4, a number of presentations on SWSS results were made at scientific conferences

and five publications were published by scientific journals based in part or in whole on SWSS

work. The publications are:

1. Biggs, D., A. Jochens, M. Howard, S. DiMarco, K. Mullin, R. Leben, F. Muller-Karger,

and C. Hu. 2005. Eddy forced variations in on-margin and off-margin summertime

circulation along the 1000 m isobath of the northern Gulf of Mexico, 2000-2003, and

links with sperm whale distributions along the middle slope, pp 71-85. In Circulation in

the Gulf of Mexico: Observations and Models, W. Sturges and A. Lugo-Fernández,

Editors. Geophysical Monograph Series, Volume 161, American Geophysical Union, 360 

pp.

2. Jaquet, Nathalie. 2006. A simple photogrammetric technique to measure sperm whales at

sea. Marine Mammal Science. In press.

3. Madsen, P.T. 2005. Marine mammals and noise: Problems with root mean square sound

pressure levels for transients J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117 (6), 3952-3957.

4. Thode, A. 2005. Three-dimensional passive acoustic tracking of sperm whales (Physeter

macrocephalus) in ray-refracting environments. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118 (6) 3575-3584.

5. Watwood, S.L., P.J.O. Miller, M. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, and P.L. Tyack. 2006. Deep 

diving foraging behavior of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). J. Animal Ecology,

75, 814-825.

Figure 2.1. SWSS S-tag cruise on R/V Gyre in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico in June 2005.
10

Figure 2.2. SWSS tag boat operations were sometimes hindered by waterspouts that formed

during local squalls on the S-tag cruise in June 2005.

Figure 2.3. SWSS R2 boat with scientists at work collecting photo-identification shots on the

S-tag cruise in June 2005.
11

Figure 2.4. SWSS Mesoscale Population Study sailboat, Summer Breeze, at a port stop in

Galveston, TX, in July 2005.

Figure 2.5. Whale observations being collected during the SWSS Mesoscale Population Study

cruise in summer 2005.
12

A number of talks and posters that included information from SWSS were presented at the 16th 

Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, which was held in San Diego, CA, on

December 12-16, 2005. Among the talks given were:

1. Habitat Characterization of Satellite-Tracked Sperm Whales in the Gulf of Mexico. OrtegaOrtiz, Joel G. ; Mate, Bruce; and Engelhaupt, Dan.

2. A New View of Sperm Whale Social Organization: Potential Influences of History, Habitat

and Predation. Jaquet N., D. Gendron, J. Gordon and B. Würsig.

3. Quantification and Acoustic Propagation Modeling of Airgun Noise Recorded on Dtagtagged Sperm Whales in the Gulf of Mexico. DeRuiter, Stacy L.; Lin, Ying-Tsong; Newhall,

Arthur E.; Madsen, Peter T.; Miller, Patrick J.O.; Lynch, James F.; Tyack, Peter L.

4. The Communication Capacity of Sperm Whale Echolocation Clicks. Miller, Patrick J.O.;

Johnson, Mark, P.; Madsen, Peter T.

Posters were:

1. Acoustic Length Measurement in Sperm Whales: Temporal Integration Improves

Consistency of Inter Pulse Interval Measurement. Antunes, Ricardo; Würsig, Bernd; Jaquet,

Nathalie; Gordon, Jonathan.

2. Fluke Scarring to Determine Anthropogenic and Predatory Interactions of Sperm Whale

Populations. Guerrero-De la Rosa, Fabiola J.; Jaquet, Nathalie; Gendron, Diane; Gordon,

Jonathan; Würsig, Bernd.

Three SWSS presentations were given at two other science conferences. These were:

1. Thode, A. 2005. 3-D tracking of sperm whale dive profiles from a mobile towed array

platform. Presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Detection and Localization of

Marine Mammals Using Passive Acoustics, held in Monaco on 16-18 November 2005.

2. Ortega-Ortiz, J.G and B.R. Mate. 2006. Sperm Whales in a Subtropical, Mesoscale

Upwelling System: Temporal Variability. Presented in Session OS11A, Operational

Applications of Ocean Satellite Observations I, 20 February 2006. AGU/ASLO/TOS 2006

Ocean Sciences Meeting, Honolulu, HI.

3. Biggs, D.C. and A.E. Jochens. 2006. Sperm Whales in a Subtropical, Mesoscale Upwelling

System: Spatial Variability. Presented in Session OS15C, Operational Applications of Ocean 

Satellite Observations III, Posters, 20 February 2006. AGU/ASLO/TOS 2006 Ocean 

Sciences Meeting, Honolulu, HI.

2.4 Report Organization

This is the third annual report for SWSS. Section 1 of this report is the executive summary. The

data acquisition of the tag measurements, visual and acoustic observations, genetic samples, and 

physical and biological oceanographic data, as well as a discussion of changes in methodology 

for data collection, are detailed in Section 3 for the S-tag cruises and Section 4 for the MPS

cruises. Other instrumentation and methods for data collection, quality assurance/quality control

(QA/QC), and analysis were as reported in the first and second SWSS annual reports (Jochens

and Biggs 2003, 2004). All times are reported in Universal Coordinated Time (UTC) unless

stated otherwise. References are given in Section 5.
13

3 DATA COLLECTION ON S-TAG CRUISES

The data collection effort for the S-tag cruises conducted in 2004 and 2005 are summarized here.

This information summarizes the daily and final cruise reports.

3.1 S-tag Cruise 2004

General Introduction

R/V Gyre cruise 04G05 surveyed for sperm whales in the northern Gulf of Mexico between

93.5°W and 86.5°W. The cruise departed Galveston, TX, at 2300 CDT on 24 May 2004 and

returned at 0800 CDT on 19 June 2004. An unplanned 48-hour port stop was made in Gulfport,

MS, on 2-4 June, so that engine repairs could be made to the primary tag boat. A second

unplanned stop of 40 hours was made on 14-15 June to escape bad weather offshore. For that

weather stop, the ship anchored in the lee of the Mississippi River Delta to avoid high winds and

5-7 foot seas generated by a storm in the central Gulf. Because of the two unplanned stops, the

cruise track was divided into three legs (Figure 3.1.1).

The primary goal of the cruise was to tag animals with satellite-tracked radio tags (S-tags).

Tagging was done from small boats, along with photo-identification (photo-ID) and biopsy 

sampling for genetic typing. Other integral tasks for the survey effort were to acoustically

determine three-dimensional (3-D) dive profiles and to gather physical and biological

oceanographic data for characterization of the habitat in which whales were encountered. SWSS

Principal Investigators (PIs) who participated on the cruise were Doug Biggs (Chief Scientist),

Bruce Mate (Tag Team Leader), Dan Engelhaupt (Biopsy), Joel Ortega (Visual Team

Coordinator), and Aaron Thode (3-D passive acoustic monitoring). These PIs and their

supporting teams, together with Deborah Epperson, Carol Roden, and Sarah Tsoflias of MMS,

constituted the 23-person science party (Table 3.1.1).

On two SWSS cruises on Gyre in summer 2003, the greatest success in locating whales was in

water depths of 800-1000 m (Jochens and Biggs 2004). Additionally, transmissions from most of

the whales that had been radio-tagged in summers 2002 and 2003 showed they stayed in or near

this depth range most of the time (Jochens et al. 2006). Thus the visual and acoustic search effort

on the 2004 S-tag cruise was centered on water depths of 800 m to 1000 m.

During Leg 1, the middle continental slope (MCS) in the north central Gulf was surveyed by 

starting at 93.5°W and working as far east as 87.5°W to the head of DeSoto Canyon (Figure

3.1.1a). The survey then continued along the eastern side of DeSoto Canyon, heading south to

about 28°N before moving north again on a course farther offshore into deeper water. For Leg 2,

the ship returned to the MCS in the north central Gulf to survey from the southwest side of

Mississippi Canyon as far east as the Petronius tower in the Viosca Knoll lease block 786 

(Figure 3.1.1b). However, most of the effort during Leg 2 focused on the Mississippi Canyon.

For Leg 3, the ship deadheaded from the bad weather anchorage to the Mississippi Canyon for

tagging efforts on 16-17 June before returning to Galveston (Figure 3.1.1c).

The search for sperm whales over the MCS was conducted both acoustically and visually. Either

one or two hydrophone arrays were towed, one off the port quarter and the other off the starboard 

quarter of the stern. BigEyes were generally manned from 0700 – 2000 CDT each day, except

during rain squalls or when breeze and sea conditions exceeded Beaufort 4.
14

Figure 3.1.1. Cruise tracks for 2004 S-tag cruise. Contour lines indicate 200, 1000, 2000, and 

3000 m water depths.
15

Table 3.1.1

Science Team for the SWSS 2004 S-tag Cruise

Responsibility Participant

Oceanography Doug Biggs (Chief Scientist)

Alyson Azzara

Tagging team Bruce Mate (tagging)

Mary Lou Mate (video)

Ladd Irvine (boat driver)

Dan Engelhaupt (biopsy/genetic typing)

Joel Ortega (visual team coordinator, tagging)

Photo-ID team Daniel Lewer

Glenn Gailey

Visual team Carol Roden

Deborah Epperson

Rocio Cooley

Rhoni Lahn

Michael Noack

Acoustic team Thomas Norris (acoustic team coordinator)

Aaron Thode (3-D passive acoustic tracking)

Sarah Tsoflias

Elizabeth Zele

TAMU Techs Paul Clark (Electronics Tech)

Eddie Webb (Electronics Tech)

Bill Green (Deck Engineer)

Marty Bohn (Deck Engineer)

The Gyre carried three rigid-hull inflatable boats (RHIBs) for this cruise: RHIB-1 (principal tag 

boat) was a 6.4 m OSU-owned Zodiac Hurricane powered by an inboard Volvo diesel; RHIB-2 

(back-up tag boat and principal photo-ID boat) was the 7.5 m MMS-owned R2 with two 4-stroke

150 HP Yamaha outboard engines; RHIB-3 was a 4.5 m Avon Searider with a 70 HP 2-stroke

Johnson outboard engine. Two RHIBs were deployed when weather and sea conditions allowed,

one for radio-tagging and biopsy/genetic typing and the other for photo-identification and 

photogrammetry. During the west to east survey of the deepwater MCS on 25 May – 1 June on

Leg One, RHIBs were launched on 2 days. On these 2 days, the tag boat encountered sperm

whales either individually or in groups of 2-9 animals. During Leg Two while surveying in and

around Mississippi Canyon over deepwater on 4-13 June, RHIBs were launched on 6 days.

During Leg Three only the largest of the two RHIBs could be launched and that was on 17 June.

Accomplishments of SWSS 2004 S-tag Cruise

The 2004 S-tag cruise concentrated mainly on the region of the Mississippi Canyon. All tags and

biopsies were from this region. Major accomplishments of the SWSS 2004 S-tag cruise included:
16

1. Eight satellite tags (S-tags) were successfully attached, all in the Mississippi Canyon area.

This accomplishment continues the time series of tagged sperm whales from this area.

2. Four biopsies from sperm whales were obtained. These data will allow genetic comparisons

with the whales in the central Gulf, as well as in other populations

3. Passive acoustic monitoring data, suitable for 3-D sperm whale tracking analyses, were

recorded, allowing further advancements in the passive acoustic monitoring of sperm whales.

4. In spite of inclement weather, the visual team searched for sperm whales on 18 days with 517

location fixes recorded.

5. The acoustic team identified at least 31 unique acoustic contacts of geographically separated

groups of sperm whales.

6. Also in spite of poor weather, one or two RHIBs were safely launched and recovered on 9

days in a variety of wind, rain, and wave conditions.

7. Sightings of other cetaceans and leatherback turtles were made; information was recorded.

8. Eighteen fluke pictures were taken for photo-identification of individuals; six had been tagged

in 2002, 2003, or 2004.

9. Physical oceanographic data, including remote sensing of ocean color and sea surface height

fields, were used to help locate areas with whales for tagging.

Permits

Radio-tagging and Photo-ID and Biopsy/Genetic Typing activities were conducted in accordance

with federal permits from NMFS to Bruce Mate/Oregon State University (permit 365-1440-01),

and to Dan Engelhaupt/University of Durham (permit 909-1465-01).

Satellite-Tracked Radio Tag Work from Small Boats

The objectives for summer 2004 were to deploy up to 20 S-tags and as opportunity would allow,

to also attach B-probes. The tag plan was to put about 12-15 S-tags on whales along the northern 

shelf break in the central Gulf (where S-tags have been applied in the past) and put the rest on

whales farther offshore that may more consistently inhabit deepwater areas. B-probe

deployments of opportunity were to allow acquisition of depth and vocalization records to be

used in the design and development of a future GPS-linked S-tag. However, the cruise was

characterized by the consistently worst weather (most unstable April-May-June) ever

experienced by Gyre Captain Dana Dyer in 34 years working in the Gulf. Because there were

only nine days in which the RHIBs could be launched during the 25-day cruise, all the tag boat

time was dedicated to S-tag deployment at the expense of B-probe work.

In general, the pre-cruise planned track line was followed, using acoustics and visual observers

during daylight hours while cruising at less than 6 kts during reasonable weather. Acoustic

detection was used by itself at night and during periods of inclement daylight weather. On the

latter occasions, the ship sometimes traveled at higher speeds for 15-25 minutes and then 

dropped to low speed (2.5-3.5 kts) to listen with greater range than could be obtained at 4-6 kt
17

speeds. On a few occasions the ship transited at 8 or more knots without acoustics in order to

make it to a prime survey area by daylight.

Prior to the cruise, six 2003-tagged whales were reporting recent locations. As the cruise began,

the number dropped to four tags, which were reporting in the region of the Mississippi River

Delta (MRD). While in transit from Texas, all of the tagged whales left the MRD; one going east

to the western slope of the DeSoto Canyon and three going into the Mississippi Canyon. From a

mark-recapture perspective, the high proportion of tagged whales in Mississippi Canyon

suggested a very high abundance of whales would be found in that region.

The weather was not good during the first transit of Leg 1 through the Mississippi Canyon. After

transiting the canyon, the ship headed east at night through the MRD and western DeSoto 

Canyon, cruising at high speed to get to the most northeast survey point. From this point, the ship 

surveyed along the southeast transect en route to a turning point 155 km southeast of DeSoto

Canyon. Only three whales were encountered on this transect. The ship then surveyed northwest,

parallel to the southwest survey track but in deeper water 43 km farther west. Only one whale

was encountered during this transect. The team was disappointed that whales were so scarce in

this area and decided that the area did not deserve further attention this summer. On 28 May, a

2003-tagged whale (PPT # 1385) was re-sighted. On 29 May, a tagged whale with an all yellow

antenna was photographed from the bow of the Gyre, showing that it was a 2002-tagged animal.

Leg 2 began after an unscheduled two-day port call in Gulfport to repair the tagging vessel

(RHIB-1). During Leg 2, the MRD area was surveyed. No whales were sighted as the ship

surveyed southwest to the Mississippi Canyon area. The recent locations of 2003-tagged whales

in the central and eastern regions of the Mississippi Canyon were used as a template to design

the survey path within the Mississippi Canyon.

Eight whales total were tagged in the Mississippi Canyon area: three on 6 June, four on 10 June,

and one on 17 June (Figure 3.1.2). Data summarizing the whales, tags and antenna color

combinations are given in Table 3.1.2. All tags were well deployed with good antenna

orientation, although one tag attachment was lower on the flank than ideal. Biopsies were

successfully obtained from the first three tagged whales (two at the time of tagging and one

several days later) and the last. Others were not biopsied because (1) on two the tag was applied

too late to provide a biopsy target, (2) on one the biopsy dart stayed in the whale too long to be

recovered, and (3) one was missed. On 7 June, a tagged whale from a previous year was seen

with a 2004-tagged whale.

Between the two days of tagging, bad weather occurred on all but one day, while surveying the

MRD to the Petronius platform east of the DeSoto Canyon. This day was absolutely beautiful

with Beaufort 0 and 1 conditions prevailing. Because the tagging platform on RHIB-1 had 

broken, the R2 RHIB and the Gyre’s RHIB were used to acoustically survey 3 miles on either

side of the Gyre. This provided an acoustic detection swath essentially 10 miles wide as the ship

traversed the most traditionally dependable areas for finding sperm whales in the entire Gulf

under ideal sighting conditions. Surprisingly, not a single whale was seen or heard during the 13-

hour survey period. This result was a shock to all of those on board. With no sightings in the

MRD and very few in the eastern Gulf, the ship returned to Mississippi Canyon, which was the

only area where whales had been dependably found on this cruise. Leg 2 ended when bad

weather forced the ship to take shelter for two days on the west side of the MRD.
18

Figure 3.1.2. Locations of S-tag deployments and biopsies in 2004. The cruise track for the

days on which tags were deployed is shown (thick lines). Bathymetry contours

(thin lines) show the 200-m and 1000-m isobaths.

Table 3.1.2

S-tag Deployments, Biopsy Samples, and Photo-ID Images on the 2004 S-tag Cruise

PTT

No.

Tag

No.

Tag

Base

Color

Tag

Tip

Color

Date/Time

(UTC)

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

Animal

size

Tag

location

(side)

Biopsy PhotoID

5660 1 Red White Jun-06-2004

14:30

28.266 -89.429 9 m Right 04060601

5670 2 Blue Yellow Jun-06-2004

15:51

28.271 -89.485 8.5 m Right 04060701

2083 3 All yellow Jun-06-2004

23:00

28.247 -89.670 8.5 m Right 04060602

845 4 All white Jun-10-2004

17:05

28.332 -89.436 9.5 m Left

1390 5 Yellow Red Jun-10-2004

17:46

28.311 -89.433 9 m Left PM04aGM0028*

838 6 All blue Jun-10-2004

18:51

28.320 -89.394 9.5 m Right

1387 7 Black White Jun-10-2004

19:45

28.300 -89.372 9 m Left PM04aGM0037

841 8 All red Jun-17-2004

20:02

28.213 -89.645 8 m Left 04061701 PM04aGM0047
19

Leg 3 began as soon as rough weather calmed enough that seas became navigable for the Gyre.

After conducting a nighttime box core at the head of the Mississippi Canyon, the ship arrived at

the beginning waypoint of the survey midway along the western edge of the Mississippi Canyon

on the morning of 16 June. The swells were too large to launch boats; these conditions persisted

all day. By mid-morning, sperm whales had been found in the southwest portion of the canyon.

The ship stayed with them all day and all night as it moved east into the central axis of the

canyon. On the morning of the 17th, the R2 was launched for tagging by 0715 CDT with both

acoustic and visual teams reporting at least 4 whales in the general area. One tag was deployed.

Although this was applied at just 1.5 m distance, it was the only one not to deploy completely. It

had excellent vertical antenna orientation, but the tag was exposed 11 cm. One of the 2003 tags

still transmitting was similarly exposed when it was deployed. This 2003-tag has not been resighted to determine if it remained exposed or became more completely embedded with time.

In general, almost half of the whales encountered during the cruise were less than 7.5 m, which is

below our self-imposed limit for tagging size. Within the Mississippi Canyon, two operational

and one inoperative 2003 tags were re-sighted. This included the re-sighting on the last field day

of PTT #5710, which had provided routine locations in the Mississippi Canyon throughout the

entire cruise. Its tag, like the other observed 2003 tags, looked virtually identical to the day it was

applied with no swelling or tissue degradation or scarring. All of the previously tagged whales

themselves looked excellent as well, with no outward signs of emaciation or disease. Whales that

were seen with marks or scars that were suggestive of tags showed small areas of scarring,

occasionally associated with a small divot and/or very limited swelling around the immediate

site. The largest of these was about 3.5 cm scar in a small divot (up to 1.5 cm deep) with a small

raised lip (up to 1/2” high) around the lost tag site.

During the course of the cruise, an automatic direction finder was used to obtain bearings to

2003-tagged whales on four different occasions during their infrequent transmit cycles. Up to

two whales were heard during a single period, but each time there were circumstances which

prevented us from actually relocating the whales, mostly due to heavy sea states.

Photo-ID Work from Small Boats

On the 2004 S-tag cruise a total of 19 sperm whale flukes were photographically captured and 17 

different individuals were identified. Of those, three were 2004-tagged whales and four were

individuals previously photo-identified. One whale, which had been identified in 2002, was

tagged in 2004. Three individuals photo-identified (two tagged) in 2003 were re-sighted in 2004.

Of the 2004 tags deployed, all but one (PPT #5660, red/white) were photographed on the animal

with a definitive description of tag placement and condition (for details, see Table 3.1.2). At least

two 2003-tagged animals were observed with their tags still in place. One of these was

photographed (PTT #5710), although the photo is not ideal. Three animals with what could be

considered tag scars were photographed and described.

Biopsy Tissue Collection/Genetic Typing Work from Small Boats

Biopsy sampling techniques were combined with satellite-monitored tagging during the 2004 

Gyre S-tag cruise in the northern Gulf of Mexico. A total of four skin samples were collected 

during the cruise, all of which were from whales tagged with satellite-monitored tags (see Tables

3.1.2 and 3.1.3; Figure 3.1.2). All tissue samples obtained were expected to provide ample

material for genetic applications. Sub-sections of all biopsy samples taken during the cruise were
20

stored for a potential stable isotope analysis to be conducted in the future. No significantly large

males (whales that appear to be sexually and physically mature based on estimated sizes) were

encountered and therefore none were sampled.

Overall, the combination of satellite-monitored tagging and biopsy sampling was successful, but

less so than previous years due mainly to long delays caused by weather and mechanical

problems with RHIB-1. Although a biopsy sample was obtained from each of two members in

one group (both of which have satellite tags to match) and one individual member from two

separate groups, no samples were collected from the other four S-tagged whales due to several

unavoidable factors (see tagging above). Degrees of relatedness will be tested between the two

whales found within Group 1 (Table 3.1.3), allowing us to continue to answer questions on how

related and unrelated whales found within groups in the northern Gulf of Mexico maintain long

or short term associations over space and time. A change in the pre-cruise plan track inhibited

the primary biopsy goal to acquire samples from ‘new’ whales located in the southeast,

southwest and deepwater (>2000 meters) areas.

Table 3.1.3

Tissue Samples Collected During 2004 S-tag Cruise

(Sample number code gives the date (yymmdd) followed by the consecutive number for multiple

samples taken on any given day (01 to 04).)

Sample

No.

S-tag

No.

Tissue Type Group

No.

Approx. No. of

Whales in Area

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

04060601 5660 Biopsy 1 7 28.2664 -89.4285

04060602 2083 Biopsy 1 7 28.2467 -89.6693

04060701 5670 Biopsy 2 8 28.0311 -89.9294

04061701 841 Biopsy 3 10 28.2128 -89.6449

Visual Survey and Monitoring

A visual observation station was established on the flying bridge consisting of three standmounted 25x150 “big-eye” binoculars and a data entry station. At least three observers

maintained a continuous watch during daylight hours (0700 – 2000 CDT) while R/V Gyre

surveyed/tracked in water depths > 500 m during suitable weather. A rolling watch system was

implemented such that each observer stood a 1.5-hour watch followed by 1.5 hours rest. While

on watch observers moved between roles on the flying bridge every 30 minutes. Two observers

scanned with big-eye binoculars while the third person entered data into the Logger program on

a laptop computer. Logger is a data collection and depiction program written by Douglas

Gillespie and made freely available by the International Fund for Animal Welfare to assist

marine conservation projects. The watch order was chosen so that observers with complimentary 

skills and levels of experience were distributed through the rotation. The visual team operated in 

two modes: “survey” and “tracking”. During survey mode, each observer on the big-eye
21

binoculars searched from 10 degrees on the opposite side of the ship to 90 degrees on their side

while the third person (data recorder) concentrated on the near field using only naked eye and 

7x50 binoculars. The visual team operated in concert with the acoustic team to maximize sperm

whale detection, ‘searching’ whenever the ship followed predetermined survey tracks, with or

without the RHIBs to augment sightings or acoustic contacts. Survey tracks were determined the

evening before as having a high probability for finding whales (i.e., searching an area or areas

reported to have a satellite-tagged whale).

Once sperm whales were sighted, the visual team switched to tracking mode. The main objective

during tracking mode was to register time, location, whale movements, and direct the small boats

towards the whales as soon as possible. Therefore, while tracking sperm whales, the observers

did not regularly scan the whole sector on their side and rather focused on the area where sperm

whales were sighted. The recorder gathered information from the observers and acoustic team

and communicated it to the small boats. The computer program Fixin’, developed by Joel Ortega

(OSU), was used to calculate location of whales from bearing angle and reticle measurement

obtained with the big-eye binoculars. Fixin’ was also used to quickly estimate the range (km) and 

magnetic heading from the boat to the whales.

The locations of all first sightings, dives (fluke-ups), and whale headings were recorded in

Logger as well as notes on any behaviors observed by the visual team and/or behaviors reported

by RHIB teams. During tracking mode, whale and boat locations determined with the program

Fixin’ were automatically sent to Logger for data recording. Logger plots of these locations and

whale headings were used to plan vessel movements.

In tracking mode the visual and acoustic teams worked closely together. The aim was to 

amalgamate all information on the location and behavior of whales (visual data, acoustic data

from the Gyre’s arrays, and acoustic information from the RHIB boats' directional hydrophones)

to form a comprehensive view of the whales' movements and behavior. The visual team also 

requested course and speed changes from the Gyre bridge to keep the vessel in a position in

which its visual coverage of whale aggregations (which typically spread over several miles) was

optimal. The officers on the Gyre bridge responded professionally to the numerous requests for

course changes, while navigating the vessel safely around other shipping and oil rigs.

For all three legs combined, the visual team searched for sperm whales on 18 days. A total of just

under 200 hours was spent by the observers either on survey effort or tracking whales (Table

3.1.4, see also Figure 3.1.3). This cumulative effort only counts the hours when the computer

recording was operating on the flying bridge and does not count the additional time the visual

observers were on watch inside on the ship's bridge (i.e., during rain or other inclement weather).

A total of 517 sperm whale location fixes were recorded (Table 3.1.4; see also Figure 3.1.4).

However, many of these sightings are of the same individual when the vessel was in tracking

mode. Additionally, 23 sightings of other cetacean species and 3 sightings of leatherback turtles

were recorded during the cruise (Table 3.1.5).

Acoustic Detection and Monitoring

Hardware: The passive acoustics monitoring system consisted of two linear hydrophone arrays

referred herein as the Ecologic array (manufactured by Ecologic Ltd., UK) and the “Norris

array” (manufactured by Don Norris of Biomon, USA). Both arrays were equipped with pressure
22

sensors to allow real-time depth measurements to be made. The Ecologic array was deployed

from the port side and the Norris array was deployed on the starboard side of the R/V Gyre so 

that the last element in both arrays was approximately 350 m from the stern of the ship.

Ecologic Towed Array: The active section of the Ecologic array had sections consisting of 2 

hydrophone elements (Benthos AQ-4) and respective pre-amplifiers that provided 30dB gain and

a 100Hz hi-pass filter. The transducer elements were positioned 3 m apart and housed in an 

approximately 10-m long polyurethane tube that was filled with non-hazardous isopar oil. The

hydrophone array was attached to 400 m of strengthened tow cable with a hair-fairing sheath to

reduce noise caused by cable strumming. A pressure sensor (Keller PA-9SE-50 50bar 4-20mA

sensor) was located at the end of the active section of the array to measure array depth.

Hydrophone and pressure sensor signals were fed via a deck cable into the acoustic acquisition

system located in the acoustics lab of the R/V Gyre (Figure 3.1.5). Two channels from the

Ecologic array were passed to a high-pass filter/gain breakout box (Magrec HP 27/ST). Depth

sensor data were sent from the break-out box to a panel meter (Asahi Keiki A5000) that was

used to digitize and display the readings. The digitized signal was passed from the panel meter to 

a computer via a serial port connection.

Table 3.1.4

Day-by-day Synopsis of Visual Survey Effort

Day Effort (hr) Sperm whale location fixes

05/26/04 11.6 0

05/27/04 12.8 2

05/28/04 11.4 54

05/29/04 11.9 23

05/30/04 7.5 0

05/31/04 9.0 2

06/01/04 7.6 0

06/05/04 10.4 4

06/06/04 13.5 49

06/07/04 12.7 70

06/08/04 12.8 52

06/09/04 12.1 51

06/10/04 12.5 75

06/11/04 12.6 50

06/12/04 12.7 0

06/13/04 3.9 1

06/16/04 12.3 21

06/17/04 11.9 63

TOTAL 199.2 517
23

Figure 3.1.3. Visual survey effort during the 2004 S-tag cruise. Depth contour lines are 200,

2000, and 3000 m.

Figure 3.1.4 Visual survey effort and locations of sperm whale sightings in and around

Mississippi Canyon. Depth contours are 200 and 2000 m.
24

Table 3.1.5

Visual Sightings of Species Other Than Sperm Whales on the 2004 S-tag Cruise

Date and Time

(UTC)

Longitude

(

o

W)

Latitude

(

o

N)

Species Name Number of

Animals

05/26/2004 05:47:52 PM -92.17098 27.47148 Pantropical spotted dolphin 25

05/27/2004 12:58:14 PM -90.77998 27.68957 Clymene dolphin 60

05/27/2004 05:58:16 PM -90.45324 27.78789 Pantropical spotted dolphin 1

05/28/2004 02:22:10 PM -89.54980 28.11313 Kogia sp. 1

05/31/2004 03:01:35 PM -86.90150 28.58620 Pantropical spotted dolphin 30

06/05/2004 04:13:14 PM -88.50606 28.86719 Turtle 1

06/05/2004 06:39:15 PM -88.58700 28.84084 Turtle 1

06/05/2004 09:19:16 PM -88.63786 28.81322 Turtle 1

06/05/2004 10:29:47 PM -88.74529 28.78658 Melon-headed whale 5

06/05/2004 11:22:47 PM -88.82139 28.76379 Bottlenose dolphin 14

06/05/2004 11:59:47 PM -88.85890 28.75025 Risso's dolphin 8

06/06/2004 05:47:15 PM -89.46320 28.26229 Unidentified beaked whale 1

06/06/2004 06:24:45 PM -89.49114 28.27686 Unidentified dolphin 6

06/06/2004 06:52:46 PM -89.51766 28.28757 Unidentified whale 1

06/06/2004 07:57:46 PM -89.55801 28.25280 Kogia sp. 2

06/12/2004 01:35:22 PM -89.03558 28.67468 Kogia sp. 1

06/12/2004 02:02:22 PM -89.00020 28.70156 Unidentified dolphin 10

06/12/2004 02:48:53 PM -88.91727 28.73335 Risso's dolphin 2

06/12/2004 03:15:23 PM -88.88828 28.74225 Kogia sp. 1

06/12/2004 04:04:23 PM -88.82046 28.76954 Risso's dolphin 20

06/12/2004 04:05:53 PM -88.81831 28.77075 Risso's dolphin 2

06/12/2004 05:54:54 PM -88.75516 28.69169 Unidentified whale 3

06/12/2004 06:07:24 PM -88.74313 28.70295 Ziphius (Cuvier's) beaked whale 2

06/12/2004 06:53:24 PM -88.71579 28.76553 Risso's dolphin 6

06/12/2004 08:03:25 PM -88.62161 28.82520 Bottlenose dolphin 8

06/12/2004 10:13:55 PM -88.45791 28.86784 Pantropical spotted dolphin 50

Norris Towed Array: The second hydrophone array was the 440-m 8-element towed array,

developed by Biomon, Inc., for the 3-D passive acoustic tracking project (see below). This

system included two pressure sensors and two pairs of closely spaced hydrophones (sub-arrays).

A pair of hydrophones from each sub-array was used to determine bearings to individuals for

tracking and locating vocalizing sperm whales. Signals from the towed array were passed to the

acoustic lab via a deck cable and fed into a breakout-box that included panel meters for the depth 

sensors (Figure 3.1.5). Four of the hydrophone inputs were passed through a high-pass filter

(Krone-Hite Model 3944) before the signals were recorded to digital audio hard drive. This

system is described in further detail later in the 3-D acoustic tracking section of this cruise

report.

Signal Conditioning and Recording System: Acoustic signals from the Norris array and the

Ecologic array were passed to a multi-channel digital audio recorder (Alesis ADAT HD24-X0).

Both channels of the Ecologic array also were sent to an external sound card (Sound Blaster

Audigy 2NX) for digitization and data acquisition. Signals from both arrays were sent to a 12-
25

channel audio mixing board (Behringer Eurorack UB1204-Pro). The mixing board was used for

signal conditioning (for monitoring from headphones and speaker outputs) and to allow the user

to select and send different channels to various devices (e.g., computers, speakers). A graphic

equalizer was used for additional signal conditioning for the signal sent to the external speakers

for monitoring. All recorded signals were sent to recording devices "pre-mixer and preequalizer" so that the only signal conditioning, beyond what occurred from the array preamplifiers, was high-pass filtering (usually 80 or 100 Hz corner frequency) and amplification.

Signals from all the arrays could be recorded on the multi-channel Alesis recorder, which 

allowed time-synched recordings of all channels. The 2-channel signals from the ecologic array

could be recorded to computer hard-drive using ISHMAEL running on a lap-top computer.

Figure 3.1.5. Schematic of passive acoustic recording system on the 2004/2005 S-tag cruises.

Sperm Whale Tracking and Monitoring: For the purposes of sperm whale monitoring, a dual

hydrophone array configuration (Norris and Ecologic array) was used to form a two dimensional

directional array to eliminate the right-left ambiguity that usually results with a single linear

array. One element of the Norris array was in conjunction with a single element of the Ecologic

array for left-right bearing determination when actively tracking sperm whales. The relative
26

bearings were displayed using either Rainbow Click (2004), or more commonly ISHMAEL

(2004 and 2005) software.

Hydrophone tow depth was dependent upon tow speed, array buoyancy, drag (mostly due to 

cable thickness), and cable length. With all the cable deployed and traveling at 3.5 knots (typical

tracking surveying speed) the hydrophone elements towed at an approximate depth of 50 m. Tow

depth increased to ~ 100 m when the ship slowed to 1.5-2 knots. During transit times between 

listening periods, the R/V Gyre typically maintained a speed of 6 knots resulting in a tow depth

of approximately 20m. These data were digitally displayed on a panel meter and automatically

logged using a Labview interface developed by Eddie Webb. Hydrophone tow depths did not

directly affect system performance other than related to noise from the R/V Gyre, and when 

animals were close to the array.

Software: Signal acquisition, processing and data-logging software consisted of “Rainbow

Click”, “Logger” (by Douglas Gillespie International Fund for Animal Welfare) and “Ishmael”

(written by Dave Mellinger of NOAA/PMEL Newport, Oregon). Rainbow Click and Ishmael

provide real-time signal acquisition, processing, signal display and bearing-to-source

determination capabilities. Rainbow Click and Ishmael were used primarily to monitor

hydrophone signals, calculate bearings-to-source (sperm whales), and display bearing tracks of

animals. Rainbow Click calculates bearings to individual sperm whale clicks, using the time

delay of clicks arriving at the 2 hydrophone elements of a single array. This information is

displayed on a time-bearing plot with different colors used to represent potentially different

animals. Logger was used for acoustic, location, and environmental data acquisition and display

as well as providing tracking capabilities. Logger also acquired GPS data, displayed tracks of the

research vessel and automatically plotted bearings to animals. Ishmael provided real-time

spectrographic display capabilities as well as the capability to automatically calculate bearings

and plot the bearing-time history sperm whale clicks. “Whaltrak” was used with Ishmael to plot

user selected bearings to whale sources as well as the ship track. All three programs ran 

continuously during monitoring.

Passive Acoustic Monitoring, Surveys and Tracking: A team of 3-4 bio-acoustic personnel

provided 24-hour acoustic monitoring while underway. Acoustic monitoring was conducted

during standard sperm whale surveys (coordinated with visual survey effort), and when 

searching and tracking sperm whales for tagging purposes. Logger was set up to automatically

record acoustic data (48 kHz sample rate) for 1 minute every 15 minutes. The bio-acoustician on 

watch also listened during the same 1 minute period with a headset to monitoring the pair of

hydrophones from the array being recorded. This recording/monitoring scheme coincided with

an acoustic data form that was filled out by the bio-acoustician on watch. During survey and

passive whale tracking the estimated group size of sperm whales was estimated, the relative

loudness of cetacean vocalizations and relative loudness of seismic survey and other noise were

scored and entered into the Logger program. Continuous recordings were made (48 kHz sample

rate, 2-channels) of all acoustic signals of interest (e.g. sperm whale clicks, codas and creaks,

dolphins whistles, unusual biological or anthropogenic sounds). All acoustic data from logger

were stored to hard disk (Maxtor Drive E) and backed up on a second hard drive (Maxtor Drive

F). Additional data forms (e.g. survey effort, acoustic recording settings) were completed by bioacousticians as needed.
27

Once detected, sperm whales were tracked using the Rainbow Click/Logger (RC-L) or

Ishmael/Whaltrak (I-W) software combinations. The main purpose of this procedure was to

provide the visual and the tagging team with information about the bearings and, when possible,

distances to vocalizing sperm whales. To achieve this, the bio-acoustics team utilized the tandem

arrays and RC-L and I-W software running on the two different computers. One array and 

associated computer station was used to determine horizontal bearings to the source (this

measurement was right-left ambiguous) and the second array and computer station was used to

resolve the left/right ambiguity. When only a few animals were being tracked (e.g. < 5), it often 

was possible to differentiate which group of sperm whales was on which side of the ship (by 

correlating bearing plots on each computer). Using this technique, it was possible to determine

the bearing and direction of sperm whales relative to the array without having to turn the ship (as

is necessary when using a single array). In addition, the cessation of clicking for individuals or

groups of sperm whales being tracked was noted, and this information was passed on to the

visual team (cessation of clicking usually is an indication that an animal or group of animals is

coming to the surface).

A range spreadsheet developed by Aaron Thode calculated the intersection of two bearings using

the forward and rear pairs of hydrophones on the Norris array (Figure 3.1.6). This allowed 

animal locations to be determined nearly instantaneously from a short series of clicks. These

methods greatly enhanced the ability of the acoustic team to locate and track individual animals,

which provided greater ability to guide the RHIBS to animals for the purpose of tagging.

Night-time effort was conducted both to survey for concentrations of sperm whales and to track

large (> 4-5) group through the night so that the visual and tagging team were in the area to work 

with them in the morning. Night-time surveys frequently consisted of transiting along

predetermined survey transects. All detections of sperm whales and other cetaceans were

recorded in Logger and an Excel spreadsheet. This information was used to determine areas of

high whale density for planning tagging activities.

Figure 3.1.6. Geometry of tandem array for finding range of animal. If the bearings between the

arrays are different, the range to the animal can be triangulated.
28

Acoustic Tracking Results: Approximately 350 hours of acoustic monitoring/surveying were

completed during 20 days at sea (Table 3.1.6). At least 31 unique acoustic contacts of sperm

whales (i.e., geographically separate groups of animals) were made (Table 3.1.7). In some cases

groups were tracked for several hours, so groups may have merged or split. During night time

surveys, 12 detections of unique sperm whale groups (21% of the total of detections) were made

at night. In addition to monitoring for cetacean vocalizations, the presence of anthropogenic

noise was noted. In addition to the sperm whale detections, approximately 25 acoustic detection

of odontocetes, delphinids, or other unidentified cetaceans were made (Table 3.1.8).

Air-gun surveys were heard during 99 (7.3%) of approximately 1350 one-minute listening

periods every 15 minutes (Table 3.1.9). All were west of 89.5°W. Only two sperm whale groups

were detected when seismic activity was detected, representing 3.5% of the total sperm whale

groups detected acoustically. However, these data are likely biased by sampling effort and lack

of a systematic/random survey design and are not intended to imply any causal relationship.

Table 3.1.6

Synopsis of Acoustic Effort

Description Quantity

Total hours of effort 350.36

Number of workable days 20

Full days of effort 11

Partial days of effort* 9

Total days of effort 20

* days were considered "partial" if < 20 hours of effort

Table 3.1.7

Synopsis of Acoustic Detections

Description Number of

detections

% of total

acoustic

detections

% total of

sperm whale

detection

Total acoustic detections 57 100

Unique sperm whale (SW) detection 31 54.4

SW detection occurring at night 12 21.1 38.7

SW detection occurring during seismic activity 2 3.5 6.5
29

Table 3.1.8

Acoustic Detections of Cetaceans Other Than Sperm Whales on 2004 S-tag Cruise

Date Species Best

estimate* of

group size

UTC first

detection

UTC last

detection

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

05/26/04 unidentified dolphin >3 0540 0726 27.4218 -93.2042

05/26/04 unidentified dolphin >3 0927 0956 27.4388 -92.8602

05/26/04 Stenella attenuata >3 1746 1810 27.4717 -92.1557

05/26/04 unidentified dolphin >3 2203 2215 27.5020 -91.8092

05/27/04 unidentified dolphin >3 0111 0140 27.5443 -91.5007

05/27/04 unidentified dolphin >3 0439 0551 27.5832 -91.2498

05/27/04 unidentified dolphin >3 0635 1058 27.6198 -91.0057

05/27/04 unidentified dolphin >3 1250 1316 27.6917 -90.7738

05/27/04 Stenella attenuata >3 1801 1835 27.7947 -90.4380

05/28/04 unidentified dolphin >3 0151 0330 28.1552 -89.7247

05/29/04 unidentified dolphin >3 1321 1340 27.9788 -89.8498

05/31/04 unidentified dolphin >3 0038 0046 29.1627 -87.5507

05/31/04 unidentified dolphin >3 0420 0547 29.0595 -87.3927

05/31/04 unidentified dolphin >3 0728 0744 28.9302 -87.2685

05/31/04 Stenella attenuata >3 1425 ~1500 28.5683 -86.9048

05/31/04 unidentified dolphin >3 1813 1838 28.5187 -86.8835

06/01/04 unidentified dolphin >3 0145 0457 28.0952 -86.7115

06/06/04 unidentified dolphin >3 0032 ~0100 28.7305 -88.9032

06/06/04 unidentified dolphin >3 1031 1054 28.3030 -89.2667

06/07/04 blackfish/unidentified cetacean >3 0456 ~0525 28.2193 -89.7413

06/10/04 unidentified dolphin >3 0214 ~0230 28.3092 -89.3123

06/10/04 unidentified dolphin >3 0435 0446 28.3295 -89.3772

06/12/04 Stenella attenuata and Tursiops truncatus 150 1745 1108 28.8722 87.5962

06/13/04 unidentified dolphin >3 1520 1530 28.2492 -89.3975

06/16/04 probable blackfish >3 1504 1531 28.0005 88.1353

06/17/04 unidentified dolphin >3 1112 1122 27.9538 -89.6288

Total Detections = 26

*Best estimate of group size: if more than 3 animals detected, value is given as ">3"

Over 6.92 Gb Rainbow Click files and approximately 50 Ishmael autolog files were written to

the hard drive. These files are created by the Rainbow Click and Ishmael during signal

acquisition and can be used to replay or post-process bearing versus time of sperm whale click

series. A total 1385 acoustic files were written using the Logger software (Table 3.1.10). These

are formatted as “.wav” files at 48 kHz sample rate (24 kHz bandwidth) and 2 channels. For each 

15 minute listening period a one minute “Autorec” file was automatically written and saved

automatically by Logger (during pre-determined sampling periods, or manually selected

periods). Approximately 1141 one- minute autorec files (~13 gB) were written. In addition, 244 

continuous recordings (30 Gb) were manually recorded to archive various sperm whale, dolphin 

whistles, anthropogenic noise and other sounds. Finally, approximately 200 hrs of continuous

recordings were made to the ADAT Hard Drive recorder in addition to the samples above.
30

Table 3.1.9

Summary of Detection of Seismic Activity on the 2004 S-tag Cruise

Date Begin End Position at Begin Time Position at End Time

Time

(UTC)

Time

(UTC)

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

5/26/04 0417 1215 27.4367 -93.3203 27.4492 -92.6357

5/26/04 2115 To 5/27 27.4893 -91.8853

5/27/04 From 5/26 1404 27.6910 -90.7133

5/27/04 1915 1944 27.8243 -90.3783 27.8385 -90.3383

5/28/04 1120 1516 28.1557 -89.5998 28.1277 -89.5082

5/29/04 0745 0945 27.8308 -89.8752 27.9052 -89.8553

Table 3.1.10

Summary of Acoustic Recordings on the 2004 S-tag Cruise

Description No. of files % total files Total Gb

Auto recordings 1141 82.4 13

Continuous recordings 244 17.6 30

Total 1385 100 43

Three-Dimensional Passive Acoustic Sperm Whale Tracking

In 2004 a new towed acoustic array was deployed from the starboard side of the R/V Gyre

during the S-tag cruise, to test various algorithms for acoustically tracking sperm whales in range

and depth. When used in conjunction with the Ecologic array deployed on the port side, a full

three-dimensional fix should be possible.

The new array was designed and built by Don Norris of Biomon, Inc., Santa Barbara, CA. The

Dual Aperture array, or Norris array, is an 8-sensor, 440-m towed underwater hydrophone

system. It is composed of two sub-arrays in tandem, a forward and an aft array, interconnected

by an in-line pair of underwater connectors. Each array has three acoustic sensors separated by

one meter from each other and one pressure sensor located about 5 ft in front of the leading 

acoustic sensor in each array subsection. The two arrays are separated by about 200 m length

(from the #3 or tail hydrophone in the front array measured to the pressure sensor in the aft

array). The tail of the array (the aft section) has a disconnectable 70 ft drogue (restricting line

type).

The front of the leading array is terminated in a 37 pin shell type in-line connector that mates to a

similar connector on a topside breakout box. The topside breakout box contains a 15 volt power
31

supply for the hydrophones, two Omega DP 41 Process indicators for the pressure sensors,

power switches for the two indicators and a power switch for the hydrophone power supply, and 

6 output BNC connectors for the six acoustic sensors. The breakout box uses standard 120 VAC

60 Hz input power. At first we were concerned that using AC line power instead of a DC battery

might contaminate the signal, but these fears proved to be unfounded.

Data from two hydrophones in the forward array and two hydrophones in the rear array were

filtered using a Khron-hite model 3944 filter/amplifier before being recorded onto an Alesis

ADAT HD24XR hard disk digital recorder, along with two channels from the Ecologic array.

Thus a total of six hydrophones were sampled at 96 kHz and stored in 24 bit WAV format. The

start time of each recording was entered into both an Excel spreadsheet and the Acoustic Team

Microsoft Access database. At first the signal was not filtered or amplified, but beginning on

June 1 the signal was high-pass filtered above 100 Hz to eliminate potential DC and highamplitude line noise. Beginning on June 13 (Song 18 HD 5) an additional 20 dB of gain was

added before recording.

The two pressure sensors were sampled by two process indicators in the breakout box, and both a

digital LED display and a serial port signal were produced. The serial port signals, sent at 9600

baud, odd parity, and 1 stop bit, were sampled by a dedicated laptop. The serial ports were first

sampled using Hyperterminal between May 28 and June 4. In the meantime, Eddie Webb of

TAMU wrote a Labview program to timestamp the sampled array depths. The program was used

starting June 4 and was used for the rest of the cruise.

The array was initially deployed without any additional weight on the cable, but it was found that

the forward array was being towed too shallow to detect surface reflections needed for rangedepth fixing. Thus more weight was added to the cable in two stages: on May 30 a 15 lb. anchor

chain was taped about 30 ft forward of the forward pressure transducer, and on June 4 three

shaped lead weights (borrowed from the Pascagoula MS NMFS lab) were attached forward of

the anchor chain, for an estimated total of 30 lb. of weight added to the cable. The resulting tow

depth for the forward array was 30 m at 3 knots, and the rear array at about 55 m depth, which

was judged to be acceptable.

Brief timeline of events: The array was shipped to Galveston, TX, three days before cruise

departure, where it was discovered that a deck cable connector had not been built into the array.

With the assistance of Eddie Webb, a section of the forward array cable was cut to form a deck

cable and a cable connector mailed by Don Norris was built. During 25–28 May, we worked on

getting the depth acquisition system up and running.

On May 27 the array hit a longline, causing superficial surface damage to the rear pressure

transducer and one of the rear hydrophones. A hook was found embedded in the rope drogue,

which was subsequently removed. The rear pressure transducer was streamlined, and no further

incidents were experienced through June 17.

On May 30 ship noise from the Gyre was used to align the Ecologic and Norris array cable

lengths so that left/right ambiguities could be resolved without turning the vessel. We found that

the arrays would often collide whenever ship speed changed suddenly, or during sharp turns, and

particularly during both. No sustained damage from the collisions was visible on either array.
32

By May 30 data of sufficient quality for eventual 3D tracking was being collected, and by June 4

the array setup attained its final form. Over the next two weeks a dive computer was attached to

the forward and rear arrays to confirm the accuracy of the pressure transducers. Beginning June

13 digital inclinometers were also attached to the array cable to collect data for testing a variant

of the 3-D tracking algorithm.

One June 11 a simple technique for obtaining whale slant range was tested. By measuring the

bearings to an animal simultaneously from the forward and rear arrays, the distance to the whale

could be triangulated (Figure 3.1.6). On this day a single whale was tracked and the tagging

boats were placed within 500 m of the surfacing animal. The ranging algorithm was made into a

spreadsheet that became a standard part of the acoustic watch.

We also gained experience on how to tow the arrays as deep as possible while maintaining ship

steerage. We found that having the ship face into the swell worked well, as was moving with the

current on measured with the ADCP. On June 13 the arrays were towed at their deepest depth

yet—120 m on the rear array. The Gyre seems to be most acoustically quiet at about 600 engine

rpm.

As of June 16, 180 hours of data were recorded. Data were recorded whenever dolphins or sperm

whale clicks were audible. Total data volume was about 1 Terabyte.

Oceanographic Habitat

When the cruise track was seaward of the continental shelf break, routine monitoring was done

for surface temperature (SST), surface salinity (SSS), and surface chlorophyll fluorescence

(SCF) in real time with a pumped, continuous flow system to show when and where river plumes

and/or thermal fronts were transited (see cruise track in Figure 3.1.1). Conditions below the

surface were monitored with Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs), expendable bathytemperature probes (XBTs), and a vertically profiling conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD)

instrument. Gyre’s Data Acquisition System (GDAS) recorded SST and SSS data once per

minute from surface water pumped from ship's hull depth of 3.5 m through SeaBird temperature

and conductivity sensors and SCF data from water pumped through a Turner Designs Model 10

fluorometer.

Seventy XBT probes were deployed to profile temperature in the upper 760 m while the MCS

was surveyed (Table 3.1.11; Figure 3.1.7). CTD casts were made with a Sea Bird Electronics

SeaCat internally-recording CTD at 5 locations (Table 3.1.12; Figure 3.1.7). At most XBT and 

CTD stations, water samples were filtered and the filters were analyzed to determine chlorophyll

concentrations for calibration of the flow-through fluorometer (Tables 3.1.11 and 3.1.12). XBTs

generally were dropped every 10 nautical miles (18 km) while surveying the MCS, and every 20

nautical miles while surveying in deepwater on the eastern side of DeSoto Canyon. Six Sippican 

T7 XBTs left from previous cruises and 54 Sippican Deep Blue XBTs were used. Ocean current

velocity in the upper 300 m and upper 1000 m was monitored continuously with RD Instruments

hull-mounted 153 kHz ADCP and 38 kHz ADCP, respectively. Table 3.1.13 shows the

configurations used for these instruments on the cruise.
33

Table 3.1.11

XBT and Extracted Chlorophyll Stations on S-tag 2004 Cruise

XBT

No.

Date Time

(UTC)

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

15°C depth

(m)

Sfc temp

(°C)

Sfc salin Sfc fluor

(mvolts)

Extracted CHL

(μg/L)

1 05/26/04 0637 27.423 -93.148 197 26.4 35.61 79 0.09

2 05/26/04 0934 27.438 -92.880 202 26.1 36.35 75 0.08

3 05/26/04 1312 27.453 -92.540 214 26.4 36.16 79 0.10

4 05/26/04 1500 27.462 -92.338 187 26.4 36.06 77 0.10

5 05/26/04 1834 27.475 -92.093 194 26.5 35.77 79 0.10

6 05/26/04 2102 27.487 -91.907 201 26.7 35.98 79 0.09

7 05/26/04 2305 27.513 -91.720 204 26.9 35.78 83 0.10

8 05/27/04 0103 27.538 -91.540 204 26.3 35.88 79 0.07

9 05/27/04 0310 27.565 -91.362 197 26.5 35.56 78 0.07

10 05/27/04 0623 27.597 -91.175 202 26.5 35.65 81 0.09

11 05/27/04 0920 27.622 -90.988 206 26.6 35.66 80 0.10

12 05/27/04 1224 27.678 -90.812 240 26.7 36.08 81 0.11

13 05/27/04 1517 27.728 -90.632 264 26.4 36.21 76 no sample

14 05/27/04 1757 27.787 -90.453 303 26.3 36.06 76 0.07

15 05/27/04 1950 27.842 -90.330 294 26.4 36.12 76 0.07

16 05/27/04 2155 27.893 -90.153 285 26.6 36.11 77 0.06

17 05/27/04 2322 27.993 -89.948 242 26.6 36.21 80 0.08

18 05/28/04 0039 28.078 -89.777 222 26.6 34.80 91 0.12

19 05/28/04 0355 28.212 -89.682 241 26.8 33.12 97 0.12

20 05/28/04 1410 28.117 -89.553 230 26.7 34.57 87 0.16

21 05/28/04 2307 27.965 -89.698 218 26.9 35.02 88 0.12

22 05/29/04 0545 27.825 -89.800 239 26.8 36.25 78 0.08

23 05/30/04 0149 28.252 -89.682 241 27.3 33.13 95 0.15

24 05/30/04 0302 28.332 -89.512 239 27.0 34.00 100 0.20

25 05/30/04 0414 28.415 -89.347 226 27.3 31.06 813 5.03

26 05/30/04 0527 28.485 -89.170 243 27.6 32.24 328 1.65

27 05/30/04 0641 28.577 -89.003 202 27.5 32.87 645 4.78

28 05/30/04 0752 28.663 -88.840 202 27.8 31.57 455 3.08

29 05/30/04 0911 28.752 -88.670 165 27.3 35.58 106 0.16

30 05/30/04 1031 28.838 -88.505 202 26.9 36.42 97 0.10

31 05/30/04 1149 28.922 -88.338 202 27.1 36.17 94 0.12

32 05/30/04 1305 29.002 -88.170 200 27.1 36.42 72 0.12

33 05/30/04 1434 29.087 -87.977 212 27.1 36.43 75 0.12

34 05/30/04 2037 28.988 -87.988 212 27.3 35.89 78 0.10

35 05/30/04 2337 29.113 -87.638 214 27.2 36.21 75 0.10

36 05/31/04 0140 29.208 -87.475 228 27.3 36.36 75 0.09

37 05/31/04 0508 29.058 -87.392 211 27.4 36.39 79 0.08

38 05/31/04 0736 28.932 -87.270 222 27.4 36.40 80 0.07

39 05/31/04 0959 28.800 -87.153 237 27.4 36.37 78 0.09

40 05/31/04 1223 28.667 -87.037 224 27.5 36.35 83 0.11

41 05/31/04 1634 28.547 -86.917 223 27.9 36.36 75 0.12

42 05/31/04 1956 28.413 -86.805 225 27.9 36.27 77 0.10

43 05/31/04 2216 28.255 -86.682 251 27.9 36.26 79 0.10

44 06/01/04 0055 28.080 -86.538 188 27.9 36.33 75 0.09

45 06/01/04 0410 28.098 -86.823 207 27.9 36.38 75 0.09

46 06/01/04 0717 28.110 -87.110 194 27.8 36.40 77 0.09

47 06/01/04 1038 28.320 -87.300 184 27.5 36.40 74 0.11

48 06/01/04 1338 28.522 -87.463 218 27.6 36.37 73 0.11
34

Table 3.1.11

XBT and Extracted Chlorophyll Stations on S-tag 2004 Cruise (continued)

XBT

No.

Date Time

(UTC)

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

15°C depth

(m)

sfc temp

(°C)

sfc salin sfc fluor

(mvolts)

Extracted

CHL

(mg/L)

49 06/01/04 1721 28.755 -87.653 218 27.8 34.92 79 0.12

50 06/05/04 0727 28.990 -88.243 bad probe 27.5 34.32 86 0.14

51 06/05/04 1147 28.840 -88.587 194 27.4 34.70 97 0.33

52 06/05/04 2316 28.767 -88.812 186 27.8 32.16 233 2.14

53 06/06/04 0156 28.723 -89.000 178 28.2 28.19 411 3.40

54 06/06/04 0700 28.380 -89.085 194 28.0 28.50 737 8.81

55 06/06/04 1428 28.268 -89.388 265 27.6 33.00 332 3.40

56 06/06/04 2251 28.230 -89.693 239 27.8 35.56 84 0.15

57 06/07/04 0153 28.352 -89.715 224 28.2 35.97 78 0.09

58 06/11/04 2355 28.142 -89.800 220 28.6 35.84 77 0.10

59 06/12/04 2105 28.850 -88.558 209 29.7 31.59 106 0.30

60 06/13/04 0004 28.885 -88.272 197 29.2 35.78 75 0.09

61 06/13/04 0257 28.782 -88.363 194 29.0 34.02 85 0.12

62 06/13/04 0408 28.702 -88.542 200 29.2 32.82 87 0.10

63 06/13/04 0539 28.628 -88.713 200 29.5 32.65 91 0.12

64 06/13/04 0716 28.550 -88.880 195 29.2 31.09 107 0.18

65 06/13/04 0845 28.475 -89.052 189 29.5 31.08 124 0.37

66 06/13/04 1020 28.383 -89.210 184 28.8 35.99 79 0.18

67 06/13/04 1237 28.345 -89.347 202 28.4 35.90 78 0.12

68 06/14/04 0903 28.453 -89.408 191 28.3 36.11 78 0.10

69 06/16/04 1058 28.538 -89.830 225 28.1 33.37 194 1.15

70 06/16/04 1238 28.347 -89.830 214 27.8 31.53 326 2.26

Table 3.1.12

CTD and Extracted Chlorophyll Stations on S-tag 2004 Cruise

CTD

No.

Date

(m/d/y)

Time

(UTC)

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

15°C depth

(m)

Sfc temp

(°C)

Sfc salin Sfc fluor

(mvolts)

Extracted CHL

(μg/L)

1 05/26/04 0244 27.477 -93.353 205 26.1 35.31 80 0.07

2 05/27/04 1606 27.755 -90.565 273 26.3 36.30 77 0.09

3 05/30/04 1556 29.112 -87.832 198 27.1 36.43 75 0.12

4 06/04/04 2227 29.457 -88.252 n/a 27.0 33.56 210 1.27

5 06/09/04 0208 28.287 -89.480 214 28.0 35.93 77 0.10
35

Figure 3.1.7. Locations of CTD and XBT stations on the 2004 S-tag cruise. Bathymetric

contours shown are the 200, 1000, 2000, and 3000-m isobaths.

Table 3.1.13

ADCP Configuration Summary for S-tag Cruises in 2004 and 2005

Parameter 150-kHz 38-kHz

Year 2004 2004, 2005

Instrument type narrow-band broad-band

Frequency (kHz) 150 38

Transducer pattern Concave flat

Depth cell length (m) 4 16

Maximum number of depth cells 60 63

Segment time (minutes) 5 5

Time between pings (sec) 1 3

First bin depth (m) 11.6 41.1

Transit pulse length (m) 4 16

Blank after transmit (m) 4 16

Navigation type DGPS DGPS

Data recorded raw, navigation, 5-min averaged,

20-min averaged

raw, navigation, 5-min averaged,

20-min averaged

Total usable segments in 2004 1725 4449

Total usable segments in 2005 NA 5008
36

The pre-cruise sea surface height (SSH) map for 21 May 2004 (Figure 3.1.8) indicated that

surface currents over the middle continental slope (MCS) should be on margin near 93°-92°W

and off margin near 89°-88°W, along the western and eastern margins, respectively, of a

clockwise-rotating warm-slope eddy (WSE) with long axis elongated W-E along the MCS from

92°-89°W. The SSH analysis further indicated that to the east of the WSE was a counter-rotating 

(cyclonic) circulation, as shown by the region of SSH anomaly from –15 to –20 cm over the

MCS from 88.5°W to 86.5°W. In deepwater south of the MCS, the SSH analysis indicated the

northern boundary of a large deepwater anticyclonic (clockwise) Loop Current eddy (LCE)

reached to about 27°N in the eastern Gulf. This LCE was named “Titanic Eddy” or LCE T. The

altimetry indicated LCE T, which had begun to pinch off from the Loop Current in early May

2004, was still attached to the Loop Current on 21 May and that the northern portion, which was

expected to break away, had a SSH anomaly of greater than 50 cm.

Subsequent SSH analyses for 26 and 31 May and for 3, 8, and 10 June showed only minor

variations on this same general geometry for the eddy field. The cyclonic circulation in DeSoto

Canyon intensified a little as indicated by an increase in the SSH anomaly from –15 to –20 cm

over a large area of deepwater DeSoto Canyon by 10 June. The location of the northern edge of

Titanic Eddy remained south of 27°N in the eastern Gulf, and the eastern edge of the elongated 

WSE was found between 90°W and 88°W.

Figure 3.1.8. Sea surface height field for 21 May 2004.
37

The surface currents running clockwise around the WSE outside the interior region between 

91.5°W to 89.5°W were expected to entrain the low salinity, higher chlorophyll shelf water near

the mouth of the Mississippi River and transport this "green" water to the east and off the margin

between Mississippi Canyon and the west side of DeSoto Canyon. Data from the flow-through

system, XBT drops, and CTD stations confirmed there was on margin flow along the MCS near

93°W and off margin flow between 90°W and 88°W. Between 92.5°W and 89.8°W, SSS was

generally > 35 and the water appeared azure blue in color; SCF in this "blue" water generally

was less than 85 mvolts, equivalent to < 0.15 μg CHL/L. In contrast, in “green-brown” water

area of off-margin flow on the east side of the WSE, SCF reached 800-1200 mvolts, equivalent

to 5-12 μg CHL/L.

When the green-brown water off-margin flow was first crossed during the survey from west-toeast on 29-30 May, it extended from 89.7°W to 88.6°W. In the core of the brown water, SST

averaged 1°C greater than adjacent water, SSS dipped as low as 31, and SCF was elevated to

800-900 mvolts. This off-margin flow was crossed again one week later, during the return eastto-west survey on 5-7 June. At that time, the green-brown water extended from 89.65°W to

88.75°W. In the core of the brown water, SSS now dipped as low as 23 and SCF was elevated to

1200-1300 mvolts.

During daylight on 6 June, windrows of freshwater aquatic plants were observed in the core of

the brown water off-margin flow. Floating clumps of water hyacinths and pickerel weed

appeared to be quite freshly exported out to sea, since some clumps that were gaffed and brought

aboard were green and turgid (Figure 3.1.9). The off-margin flow was recrossed two more times,

during daylight on 12 June and again during the night of 12-13 June. During these crossings, SSS

in the core of the green-brown water dipped to 27-29. However, this time SCF only reached 150-

200 mvolts, equivalent to 0.8-1.5 μg CHL/L. The windrows of freshwater vegetation were still

present, but by 12-13 June all of the windrows were brown rather than green in color, and the

individual clumps of water hyacinths were quite wilted.
38

Figure 3.1.9. Transit through windrows of floating freshwater vegetation on 5 June 2004.

Deborah Epperson of MMS holds a big clump of water hyacinth and pickerel

weed that she gaffed and brought aboard as we passed through this floating

vegetation.
39

3.2 S-tag Cruise 2005

Introduction

R/V Gyre cruise 05G09 surveyed for sperm whales in the northern Gulf of Mexico between

approximately 96°W and 93°W on 2-30 June 2005. The primary goal was to tag animals with

satellite-tracked radio tags (S-tags) and bioacoustic probes (B-probes). Tagging was done from

small boats, along with photo-identification (photo-ID) and biopsy sampling for genetic typing.

Other integral tasks for the survey effort were to acoustically determine three-dimensional dive

profiles (3-D passive acoustic tracking of sperm whales), to collect fishery echosounder

measurements, and to gather physical and biological oceanographic data for characterization of

the habitat in which whales were encountered. Table 3.2.1 lists the 23 members of the scientific

party and their responsibilities.

Table 3.2.1

Science Team for the SWSS 2005 S-tag Cruise

Responsibility Participant Participation

Oceanography team Ann Jochens (Chief Scientist)

Alyson Azzara (Leg 1 assisted with acoustics)

Chris Wingard (fisheries echosounder; Leg 1 assisted with acoustics)

Legs 1 and 2

Legs 1 and 2

Leg 1

Tagging team Joel Ortega (Tag Team Leader)

Dan Engelhaupt (biopsy/genetic typing)

Ladd Irvine (boat driver)

Andy Szabo (video)

Craig Hayslip (photographer)

Legs 1 and 2

Legs 1 and 2

Legs 1 and 2

Legs 1 and 2

Legs 1 and 2

Photo-ID team Charlie Short (boat driver)

Carol Roden (photographer)

Glenn Gailey (photographer)

Legs 1 and 2

Leg 1

Leg 2

Visual team Lars Bejder (Visual Team Coordinator)

R. Iliana Ruiz-Cooley

Rhoni Lahn

Suzanne Yin

Glenn Gailey

Dave Lundquist

Lee Benner

Kyle Baker

Legs 1 and 2

Legs 1 and 2

Legs 1 and 2

Legs 1 and 2

Leg 1

Leg 1

Leg 2

Leg 2

Acoustic team Aaron Thode (Acoustic Team Coordinator and 3-D passive acoustic

tracking)

Thomas Norris (Acoustic Team Coordinator)

Sara Heimlich

Deborah Epperson

Bill Burgess

Leg 1

Leg 2

Legs 1 and 2

Legs 1 and 2

Leg 2

TAMU Techs Paul Clark (Electronics Technician)

Eddie Webb (Electronics Technician)

Bill Green (Deck Engineer)

Marty Bohn (Deck Engineer)

Legs 1 and 2

Legs 1 and 2

Legs 1 and 2

Legs 1 and 2
40

Mobilization for the cruise began on 30 May 2005 when the acoustics team arrived to begin set

up of the acoustics lab. Other science team members arrived 31 May - 2 June and set up their

various components. The cruise left Galveston, TX, at 2000 CDT on 2 June and returned to 

Galveston, TX, at 1700 CDT on 30 June 2005. The 28-day cruise was conducted in two legs.

Leg 1 was from 3-19 June 2005, and Leg 2 was from 19-30 June 2005. The port call on 19 June

was at Harbor Island, TX, to exchange personnel on the visual and acoustic teams. An unplanned

port call was made to Port Aransas, TX, on 13 June to allow an ill crew member to disembark 

and a replacement to board. Thus Leg 1 is split into parts A and B.

The geographic focus during this cruise was the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. The S-tag cruises

in 2002-2004 tagged animals in the north central Gulf, mainly between Mississippi Canyon and

DeSoto Canyon. Results from whales tagged in those years suggest an affinity of female whales

for specific sites in the north central Gulf (e.g., see Chapter 6 in Jochens et al. 2006). However,

during shipboard surveys conducted at the time that S-tags were active, sightings of sperm whale

groups were recorded in areas different from those where tagged females whales were located.

Moreover, some of the groups observed in those surveys included calves and were most likely

female groups rather than immature males. Therefore, the goal for 2005 was to tag whales in

areas different from previous years. Specifically the waters of the western Gulf and the

deepwater central Gulf were selected for survey to compare the movement patterns and the home

range of sperm whales from different regions of the Gulf.

At the time of the cruise, there were two anticyclone-cyclone eddy pairs in the northwestern Gulf

(Figure 3.2.1). The geometry of the northern cyclone-anticyclone eddy pair created on-margin

flow in the confluence of the two circulations and a region of off-shelf flow at about 94°W that

was being driven by the southward flow on the east side of that anticyclone. The cruise track 

(Figure 3.2.2) consisted of three parts, separated by the two port calls. Leg 1A focused on the

region of the cyclone (Figure 3.2.2a). Leg 1B surveyed across the cyclonic-anticyclonic eddy 

confluences. Leg 2 surveyed along the 1000-m isobath between 95°W and 93°W and in the deep 

waters about the 2000-m isobath between 96°W and 94°W. All work was in U.S. territorial or

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters.

Accomplishments of SWSS 2005 S-tag Cruise

The S-tag cruises in 2002-2004 concentrated on the region between the Mississippi Canyon and

DeSoto Canyon. All tags and biopsies were from this region. The goal for the SWSS 2005 S-tag 

cruise was to attempt to put tags on and obtain biopsies from sperm whales in the western Gulf

of Mexico. Data collected on the 2005 cruise were from west of approximately 93°W. The

SWSS 2005 S-tag cruise had a number of accomplishments, including:

1. Twelve satellite tags (S-tags) were successfully attached. Ten were location-only and two

were satellite tags with depth sensors. All 12 tags were successfully reporting locations as of July

6. This accomplishment will provide information that can be used to compare the distributions of

whales tagged in the western Gulf with those tagged in the central Gulf.

2. The bioacoustic probe (B-probe) was successfully deployed on two occasions: one for 1 hour

and one for 2 hours (this excludes the initial deployment of 37 seconds). These were the first

deployments ever of a B-probe on sperm whales. The data possibly represent two different

behaviors, with one shallow diving for most of the period recorded and the other deep diving.
41

Figure 3.2.1. MODIS image for 11 June 2005. Image shows regions with enhanced

productivity (reds to blues are biologically productive regions; purples are nonproductive).

3. Twenty-two biopsies from sperm whales were obtained. These data will allow genetic

comparisons with the whales in the central Gulf, as well as in other populations. Three samples

from rough-toothed dolphins were also collected and will be stored for later analyses.

4. Passive acoustic monitoring data, suitable for 3-D sperm whale tracking analyses, were

recorded. This accomplishment will allow further advancements in the passive acoustic

monitoring of sperm whales.

5. High quality acoustic recordings were obtained of clicks, creaks, and codas.

6. Fishery echosounder data on the deep scattering layer were collected simultaneously with

observations on sperm whales.

7. Physical oceanographic data, including remote sensing of ocean color and sea surface height

fields, were successfully used to locate areas with whales for tagging.

Off-shelf transport

Cyclone

Anticyclones Cyclone
42

Figure 3.2.2. Cruise tracks for 2005 S-tag cruise. Bathymetry contours shown are 200, 1000,

2000, and 3000 m.

(a)

(b)
43

Figure 3.2.2. Cruise tracks for 2005 S-tag cruise. (continued)

8. The visual and acoustic teams, using the computer program "Whale Track II", were well

coordinated and successfully navigated the tag boats to whales even in conditions with many 

white caps and rain.

9. Two RHIBs were safely launched and recovered most days in a variety of wind, rain, and

wave conditions.

10. Sightings of other cetaceans, whale sharks, and birds were made and information on them

was recorded.

11. Twenty-five fluke pictures were taken for photo-identification of individuals.

Permits

All work with sperm whales and other marine mammals encountered was conducted in

accordance with the terms of permits issued by the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service to

Bruce Mate of Oregon State University (Permit No. 369-1757-00, Joel Ortega, Co-Investigator)

and Dan Engelhaupt of the University of Durham (Permit No. 909-1726-00).

Satellite-tracked Radio Tag and B-probe Deployment

Small boats were deployed 17 times on 16 days during the 2005 SWSS S-tag cruise. The tagging

boat spent a total of 109.75 hours on the water. Weather conditions were windy for most of the

(c)
44

cruise days. There was one day with a Beaufort sea state of zero and one day with Beaufort 1.

All other cruise days had Beaufort sea states ranging from 3 to 5.

Two types of satellite tags were deployed on sperm whales during the 2005 SWSS S-tag cruise:

location-only tags and depth tags. A total of 12 tags were deployed: 10 location-only and 2 depth

tags (Table 3.2.2 and Figure 3.2.3).

Table 3.2.2

S-tag and B-probe Deployment Locations

Date

(mdy)

Time

(UTC)

PTT# Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

Biopsy

ID

Number

Tag

Type

Whale size

(m)

Tag

Base

Color

Tag

Tip

Color

Deployment

Side

06/11/05 1445 5650 26.5518 -95.7190 Loc 8.00 White Black Right

06/11/05 1535 836 26.5665 -95.7318 05061101 Loc 8.50 Black Black Right

06/15/05 1452 5800 27.0100 -95.1177 05061501 Depth 7.50 - 8.00 White White Right

06/21/05 1659 5644 26.9498 -95.4015 05062101 Depth 8.00 Black Red Right

06/21/05 1852 846 26.9310 -95.4838 05062102 Loc 8.00 Black Yellow Right

06/21/05 1901 1386 26.9275 -95.4875 05062103 Loc 8.00 Blue Red Right

06/21/05 2246 5648 26.8908 -95.4578 05062104 Loc 7.50 White Blue Left

06/21/05 2343 5726 26.9092 -95.4852 05062105 Loc 8.50 White Red Right

06/24/05 1615 5701 27.2738 -93.8453 05062401 Loc 7.50 Red Black Right

06/27/05 0053 847 27.2880 -93.7752 05062601 Loc 8.25 Yellow Black Left

06/28/05 2252 5654 27.0168 -95.2075 05062803 Loc 8.00 Blue White Right

06/29/05 1516 5709 26.8153 -95.9828 Loc 8.00 Red Blue Right

Loc = Location only tag; Depth = Location plus depth tag

The new depth plus location tags were deployed on this cruise. Calibrations were done by

deploying the tags on the CTD casts of June 3 and 7. This was followed by deployment of two

depth tags on sperm whales on June 15 and 21. Location data from those tags were reported by

ARGOS. However, the depth data received via satellite from the two deployed depth tags could

not be decoded. Therefore, the decision was made to cancel deployment of more depth tags and

to deploy location-only tags for the remainder of the cruise.

Not all the whales encountered during the cruise were approached for tagging. Only robust

whales (i.e., no vertebrae distinguishable on the dorsum) estimated to be at least 7.5 meters long

were approached for satellite tag deployment. No approaches were made on groups of whales

that included a calf less than 6.5 m long. Some individuals greater than 6.5 m but not big enough

for tag deployment were approached for biopsy or B-probe attachment.
45

Figure 3.2.3. Tag deployment locations for the 2005 S-tag cruise. Shown are locations of the 10 

location-only type tags (crosses), 2 depth plus location type tags (diamonds), and

2 B-probe type tags (triangles). Contour lines indicate the 200-m, 1000-m, 2000-

m and 3000-m isobaths.

Three B-probe deployments were done. The first was not successful; the probe detached after 37 

seconds. On the second and third deployments, the probe remained attached to the whale for,

respectively, 1:55 and 1:07 hrs and recorded a dive to a depth of, respectively, 500 m and 822 m.

Overall, the sperm whales encountered during this cruise were smaller than those observed on

previous SWSS S-tag cruises in the central and eastern Gulf of Mexico. Out of 61 whales

observed within 200 meters of the tagging boat, only 29 were considered big enough for S-tag 

attachment. Moreover, only 2 of the tagged whales were estimated to be 8.5 m or larger.

Photo-ID Work from Small Boats

A total of 23 different individuals were photo-identified during the 2005 S-tag cruise. Of these,

20 were of good to excellent quality for photo-ID purposes. Flukes from 4 satellite tagged

whales, 1 B-probe tagged whale, and 10 biopsied whales where photographed. Photographs or

video that show tag placement and condition were taken of all tagged whales. Fluke photos taken

during this cruise will be compared to the photo-ID database from previous cruises and to the

Gulf of Mexico/North Atlantic catalogue.

2005 Tissue Collection/Genetic Typing

Biopsy sampling techniques were combined with satellite-monitored tagging during the 2005 Stag cruise in the northern Gulf of Mexico. A total of twenty-two skin samples were collected
46

from sperm whales during the cruise, ten of which were from whales tagged with satellitemonitored tags and two of which were from whales tagged with the B-probe (Table 3.2.3; Figure

3.2.4). All tissue samples obtained were expected to provide ample material for genetic

applications. Sub-sections of eighteen biopsy samples taken during the cruise were prepared and

stored for eventual stable isotope analysis. No significantly large males (whales that appear to be

sexually and physically mature based on estimated sizes) were encountered and therefore none

were sampled. Opportunistic biopsy samples of rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis)

were also collected (Table 3.2.4; Figure 3.2.4). These samples were stored for later analysis to

assist in any future population structure studies relating to this species.

Table 3.2.3

Tissue Samples Collected from Sperm Whales During the 2005 S-tag Cruise

(Sample number code gives the date (yymmdd) followed by the consecutive number for multiple

samples taken on any given day (01 to 05).)

Sample ID

No.

S-tag PTT

No.

Tissue

Type

Group

Number

Approx. #

Whales in

Area

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

05061101 836 Biopsy 1 14 26.5665 -95.7318

05061102 Biopsy 1 14 26.5450 -95.7998

05061501 5800 Biopsy 2 5 27.0100 -95.1177

05061502 Biopsy 2 5 26.9737 -95.1407

05061503 Biopsy 2 5 26.9537 -95.1365

05061801 Biopsy 3 5 26.9757 -95.4078

05061802 Biopsy 3 5 26.9595 -95.3978

05061803 Biopsy 3 5 26.9737 -95.3607

05062101 5644 Biopsy 4 8 26.9223 -95.4508

05062102 846 Biopsy 4 8 26.9310 -95.4838

05062103 1386 Biopsy 4 8 26.9275 -95.4875

05062104 5648 Biopsy 4 8 26.8908 -95.4578

05062105 5726 Biopsy 4 8 26.9092 -95.4852

05062401 5701 Biopsy 5 7 27.2738 -93.8453

05062402 Biopsy 5 7 27.3105 -93.8582

05062403 Biopsy 5 7 27.3528 -93.7833

05062601 847 Biopsy 6 3 27.2988 -93.7680

05062701 B-Probe Biopsy 7 8 27.5020 -94.5535

05062702 Biopsy 7 8 27.5370 -94.5108

05062801 B-Probe Biopsy 8 8 27.0837 -95.0742

05062802 Sloughed

Skin

8 8 27.0657 -95.1240

05062803 5654 Biopsy 8 8 27.0168 -95.2075
47

Figure 3.2.4. Locations of biopsy samples on the 2005 S-tag cruise.

Table 3.2.4

Tissue Samples Collected from Rough-toothed Dolphins During the 2005

S-tag Cruise

(Sample number code gives the date (yymmdd) followed by the consecutive number for multiple

samples taken on any given day (01 to 03).)

Sample

ID No.

Tissue

Type

Group

No.

Approx. #

Dolphins in Area

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

05061601 Biopsy 1 20 26.8233 -94.5002

05061602 Biopsy 1 20 26.8183 -94.4928

05061603 Biopsy 1 20 26.8147 -94.4890

Rough-toothed dolphins (steno bredanensis)

Overall, the combination of satellite-monitored tagging and biopsy sampling was highly

successful. A biopsy sample was obtained from multiple members of seven groups. Degrees of

relatedness will be tested between whales found within groups and clusters, allowing
48

development of answers to questions on how related and unrelated whales found within groups

and clusters in the northern Gulf of Mexico maintain long or short term associations over space

and time. Group 4 has five whales tagged, all of which have biopsy samples to match. This is

very exciting as it should provide data to watch how related/unrelated whales move together or

split apart through space and time. An interesting note is that the majority of whales found within

the western Gulf of Mexico were ‘small’ whales averaging 7.5 meters in length (based on visual

observations only). On only one occasion was a whale seen that may have been close to 9 meters

in length. Future studies using proper photogrammetry techniques would allow further

clarification. Young and old calves (based on visual observation estimates only) were sited in the

area, suggesting several of these groups may fit the classic ‘mixed group’ scenario comprised of

adult females and immatures of both sexes - similar to what is seen in other areas of the northern 

Gulf of Mexico. Gender results will add further clarification to this aspect.

Visual Team Search and Track Effort

Visual Team Methods: A visual observation station was established on the flying bridge that

consisted of three mounted 25x150 “big-eye” binoculars and a data entry station. At least three

observers maintained a continuous watch during daylight hours (0700 – 2000 CDT) weather

permitting) while the R/V Gyre surveyed in water depths of 800 – 2200 m. A rolling watch

system was implemented such that each observer stood a 1.5 hour watch followed by 1 or 1.5 

hours rest. While on watch, observers moved between roles on the flying bridge every 30

minutes. Two observers scanned with big-eye binoculars while the third person entered data into

the data acquisition software program (Whale Track II) on a laptop computer. Whale Track II is

a data collection and depiction program written by Glenn Gailey for SWSS.

The watch order was chosen so that observers with complementary skills and levels of

experience were distributed through the rotation. The visual team operated in two modes:

“survey” and “tracking.” During survey mode, each observer on the big-eye binoculars searched

from 10 degrees on the opposite side of the ship to 90 degrees on their side while the third 

person, the data recorder, concentrated on data input and supported visual observations in the

near field using only naked eye and Fujinon 7x50 binoculars. The visual team operated in 

concert with the acoustic team to maximize sperm whale detections, ‘searching’ whenever the

ship followed predetermined survey tracks, with or without the RHIBs to augment sightings or

acoustic contacts. Survey tracks were determined each preceding evening.

Once sperm whales were sighted, the visual team switched to tracking mode. The main

objectives during tracking mode were to register time, location, whale movements, and direct the

RHIBs towards the whales as rapidly as possible. Therefore, while tracking sperm whales, the

observers did not regularly scan the whole sector on their side, but rather, they focused on the

area where sperm whales were sighted. The recorder gathered information from the big-eye

observers and acoustic team and communicated it to the RHIBs. The computer program Whale

Track II was used to calculate location of whales using bearing and reticle measurements

obtained with the big-eye binoculars. Whale Track II was also used to quickly estimate the range

(km) and magnetic heading from the RHIBs to the whales.

Locations of first sightings, blows and dives (fluke-ups), and whale headings were recorded in

Whale Track II with notes on any behaviors observed by the visual team or reported by RHIB

teams (Figure 3.2.5). Information on relative locations of whales, RHIBS, and the R/V Gyre was

then used to dictate the movement of the vessels to maximize tagging probabilities.
49

While in tracking mode the visual and acoustic teams worked closely together. The aim was to

amalgamate all information on the location and behavior of whales (visual data, acoustic data

from the R/V Gyre’s arrays, and acoustic information from the RHIBs directional hydrophones)

to form a comprehensive overview of the whales' movements and behavior. Whale Track II

proved useful in accomplishing this by allowing information about whale locations to be shared

between acoustic and visual teams. The visual team also requested course and speed changes

from the R/V Gyre bridge to keep the vessel in a position in which its visual coverage of whale

aggregations, which typically spread over several miles, was optimal. The visual team

acknowledges the valuable help from the officers on the R/V Gyre bridge who all responded to

our numerous requests for course changes, while navigating the vessel safely around other

vessels and oil rigs.

Figure 3.2.5. Locations of sperm whale fixes recorded by the S-tag visual team in 2005. Some

whales were fixed more than once during tagging operations; these have not been

filtered out from this information.

Visual Team Effort: In total, the visual team searched for sperm whales on 24 days. A total of

256 hours were spent by the observers either on survey effort or tracking whales (Table 3.2.5).

Visual Team Sightings: A total of 666 sperm whale location fixes were recorded (Table 3.2.5;

Figure 3.2.5). However, many of these sightings are of the same individual when the vessel was

in tracking mode. The estimated total of sperm whales encountered is 100 – 121 sperm whales
50

during the SWSS 2005 cruise. Note that it is not known whether this estimate includes multiple

counts of the same individuals encountered on different days. Additionally, 27 sightings of other

cetacean species (Table 3.2.6) were recorded during the cruise.

Table 3.2.5

Visual Team Effort and Sperm Whale Sightings

Day

(d/m/y)

Effort

(h:m)

Sperm whale

location fixes

Number of different

sperm whales encountered

(estimate)

04/06/05 1:30 0 3

05/06/05 8:01 17 10

06/06/05 11:01 0 0

07/06/05 6:04 19 8 – 10

08/06/05 8:40 0 0

09/06/05 12:56 63 6 – 12

10/06/05 11:07 0 0

11/06/05 13:21 129 10 -18

12/06/05 6:08 7 5 – 7

14/06/05 13:00 2 2

15/06/05 12:04 67 5 – 7

16/06/05 12:06 0 0

17/06/05 12:48 32 3 – 4

18/06/05 13:00 26 5 – 6

20/06/05 13:04 16 3 – 5

21/06/05 12:28 49 8 -12

22/06/05 13:05 0 0

23/06/05 11:07 0 0

24/06/05 9:17 7 6 – 8

25/06/05 11:00 0 0

26/06/05 13:17 13 3

27/06/05 12:18 120 12 – 15

28/06/05 12:35 73 8 – 12

29/06/05 6:09 26 3 – 5

TOTAL 256:06 666 100 - 121
51

Table 3.2.6

Cetacean Sightings, Other Than Sperm Whales, During the 2005 S-tag Cruise

Date

(m/d/y)

Time

(UTC)

Species name Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

06/06/2005 1027 Unidentified dolphin 27.1028 -95.4656

06/16/2005 0805 Unidentified dolphin 26.9471 -94.5996

06/16/2005 0941 Rough-toothed dolphins 26.8414 -94.5159

06/16/2005 1035 Rough-toothed dolphins 26.7835 -94.4566

06/16/2005 1050 Unidentified dolphin 26.9190 -94.4757

06/16/2005 1158 Rough-toothed dolphins 26.8694 -94.4737

06/16/2005 1259 Unidentified cetacean 26.9259 -94.4519

06/16/2005 1335 Unidentified cetacean 27.0520 -94.3616

06/16/2005 1405 Unidentified dolphin 27.0438 -94.4641

06/16/2005 1418 Unidentified cetacean 27.0475 -94.3867

06/16/2005 1439 Unidentified dolphin 27.0591 -94.4582

06/16/2005 1500 Unidentified dolphin 27.1489 -94.3681

06/16/2005 1627 Risso's dolphins 27.2110 -94.3661

06/17/2005 0730 Rough-toothed dolphins 26.7079 -95.1807

06/17/2005 0747 Unidentified dolphin 26.7219 -95.2047

06/20/2005 1648 Melon-headed whales 26.8051 -95.7347

06/22/2005 1126 Rough-toothed dolphins 26.1379 -96.1243

06/23/2005 0730 Unidentified cetacean 26.1893 -94.6350

06/25/2005 1315 Bottlenose dolphins 27.4921 -93.1113

06/25/2005 1448 Bottlenose dolphins 27.5441 -93.0472

06/26/2005 1955 Melon-headed whales 27.2973 -93.7941

06/26/2005 2004 Fraser's dolphins 27.3034 -93.7893

06/28/2005 1110 Clymene dolphin 27.2253 -94.9666

06/28/2005 1352 Unidentified cetacean 27.0666 -95.0809

06/29/2005 0930 Unidentified dolphin 26.8377 -95.9643

06/29/2005 1052 Pan-tropical spotted dolphins 26.8332 -96.0143

06/29/2005 1210 Rough-toothed dolphins 26.7972 -96.0551

Passive Acoustic Monitoring, Detection and Tracking

The passive acoustic monitoring, detection, and tracking work on the S-tag 2005 cruise followed 

the techniques used on the 2004 S-tag cruise, as described in Section 3.1.1. The primary

difference between the two cruises was in the software used for tracking and recording sperm

whales acoustically. Differences from the 2004 techniques are described below.

Sperm Whale Tracking and Monitoring: During the 2005 cruise, the use of one element of the

Norris array and one element of the Ecologic array for left-right bearing determination was

discontinued because of problems related to lining up the array elements from the two arrays.
52

We believe this was due to differences in array depths for the two arrays. Additionally, the depth

sensor for the Ecologic array was not functioning properly during the 2005 cruise so these data

were not logged. Instead a dive computer (Sunto Vyper) was used to collect a time-stamped 

series of data that could be used later to calibrate the array depths relative to tow-speeds.

Software: Signal acquisition, processing and data-logging software consisted of ISHMAEL

(written by Dave Mellinger of NOAA/PMEL Newport, Oregon) and Whale Track II (developed 

by Glenn Gailey for OSU). ISHMAEL provided real-time signal acquisition, processing, signal

display and bearing-to-source determination capabilities. ISHMAEL was also used to monitor

and record 2 channel hydrophone signals via the SoundBlaster Audigy 2NX external sound card

(96 kHz sample rate). Whale Track II was used to display the bearings on a geographic plot with 

different colors used to represent potentially different animals. Whale Track II also acquired

GPS data, displayed tracks of the research vessel and logged ancillary data (e.g. effort,

comments, etc. as entered by an operator). Whale Track II was networked with the visual team

computer so that data could be exchanged between the two platforms via the network. All three

programs ran continuously during monitoring.

Passive Acoustic Monitoring, Surveys & Tracking: The 4-person bio-acoustic team provided 24-

hour acoustic monitoring while underway, and the procedures used on the 2004 cruise were also

used in 2005. However, Logger was not used on the 2005 S-tag cruise. As in 2004, shift

durations were 3-4 hours long and consisted of a single operator. Listening stations were

conducted when searching for sperm whales, usually during transits between pre-determined

waypoints. Typically, the vessel was slowed down to approximately 3 knots to decrease vessel

noise and flow-noise. During the second leg, listening stations were conducted for 10 minutes

every 20 min (i.e., twice per hour). During these listening stations, the bio-acoustician on watch

used a headset to monitor the pair of hydrophones from the Ecologic array. This

recording/monitoring scheme coincided with an acoustic data form that was filled out by the bioacoustician on watch. Continuous recordings were made (96 kHz sample rate, 2-channels) of all

acoustic signals of interest (e.g., sperm whale clicks, codas and creaks, dolphins whistles,

unusual biological or anthropogenic sounds). All acoustic data were stored to hard disk and

backed up on a second hard drive (Maxtor Drive F). Additional information (e.g., changes in

survey effort, acoustic configuration settings) were noted by bio-acousticians as needed. In 

addition to monitoring for cetacean vocalizations, the presence of anthropogenic noise (e.g.,

seismic survey sounds) was noted in Whale Track II.

Once detected, sperm whales were tracked using the ISHMAEL and Whale Track II software

system. The main purpose of this operation was to provide the visual and the tagging team with

information about the bearings and, when possible, distances to vocalizing sperm whales. To

achieve this, the bio-acoustics team used ISHMAEL and Whale Track II to determine horizontal

bearings to the source. Because only one array was used, this measurement was right-left

ambiguous. By turning the vessel to an arbitrary direction, it was possible to determine on which 

side of the ship the sperm whale(s) were located. This was achieved by examining the relative

change in the bearing versus time plots displayed by ISHMAEL. Bearing tracks that decreased 

after the turn indicated that the ship had turned toward that sperm whale. Bearings that increased

indicated that the associated animals were on the side of the ship opposite the turn direction.

This information was conveyed to the visual tracking team as needed.
53

The cessation of clicking for individuals or groups of sperm whales, which usually is an

indication that an animal or group of animals is coming to the surface, was conveyed to the

visual team. This information was particularly useful for the RHIBS when tagging animals.

Night-time effort was conducted so that multi-channel recordings of sperm whales could be

obtained for the 3-D passive acoustic tracking project and to track large (> 4-5) groups through

the night so that the tagging team could work with them in the morning. Night-time surveys

frequently consisted of transiting along predetermined survey transects (as determined by the

chief scientists) until a group of whales was encountered. Usually, if the group was large enough 

(> 4-5 animals), an attempt was made to stay with the animals until morning so that tagging

operations could occur. Groups of less than 4 animals were recorded using the Alesis recorder

and were followed as described in the 3-D passive acoustic sperm whale tracking section below.

All detections of sperm whales and other cetaceans were recorded in Whale Track II.

Acoustic Tracking Results: Approximately 574 hours of acoustic monitoring effort were

completed over 26.5 days out of 28 days at sea. Effort was conducted on all workable days at sea

with 1.5 days used for transiting to and from ports. A minimum of 27 unique acoustic contacts of

sperm whale groups was made, with the unique groups being determined spatially. This estimate

is only an approximation because of the difficulties of defining groups and because some groups

may have merged or split or were spatially contiguous. In addition to the sperm whale detections,

approximately 28 acoustic detections of odontocetes, delphinids, or other unidentified cetaceans

were made.

Sperm whale clicks were detected in a total of 173 one hour periods (Table 3.2.7). Of these,

seismic survey sounds were detected only during 4 one-hour periods. Dolphins sounds (whistles

and/or echolocation clicks) were detected in 67 one hour periods, none of which included

seismic survey sounds. All seismic sounds were heard during the first leg only. Ten minute

listening stations were conducted consistently only during the second leg of the cruise and 

therefore were not summarized for the cruise.

Table 3.2.7

Number of 1-hour Periods with Type of Sounds Detected Relative to Presence or Absence of

Seismic Survey Sounds

Type of

Animal

Sound

No Seismic

Sounds

Present

Seismic

Sounds

Present

Total

Number of

Periods

Sperm Whales 169 4 173

Dolphins 67 0 67

Total 236 4 240
54

A total 65 acoustic files consisting of 4.4 GB of data were written using the ISHMAEL software.

These are formatted as “.wav” files at 96 kHz sample rate (24 kHz bandwidth) and 2 channels.

In addition, over 100 hours of continuous recordings were made to the Alesis ADAT Hard Drive

recorder, sampled at 96 kHz; these recordings are summarized in the 3-D passive acoustic sperm

whale tracking report given below.

3-D Passive Acoustic Sperm Whale Tracking

The goal of the 3-D passive tracking component of the SWSS program is to develop and

demonstrate the use of a single towed array cable for tracking sperm whales in three-dimensions

using their vocalizations. By placing two sub-arrays a distance L apart on a cable, the slant range

to a sound source can be determined. In addition, if echoes of the sound from the ocean surface

can be detected, then the animal's depth can also be derived. The basic concept was demonstrated 

in 2003 and 2004. The three goals of the 2005 3-D tracking SWSS program were:

(1) to extend the tracking system to ranges beyond a kilometer by lengthening the amount

of cable deployed;

(2) to test a first version of a real-time tracking algorithm, developed by combining the

field-tested tracking program ISHMAEL with customized code written in MATLAB;

and

(3) to simultaneously collect tracking data along with acoustic backscatter measurements,

collected by a Simrad echosounder deployed by Chris Wingard under the direction of

Kelly Benoit-Bird. The motivation behind these measurements is to search for

potential correlations between whale foraging depths and the measured depths of any

backscattering layers.

The tracking range of the system would have been extended by inserting an additional 200 m

length of cable in between the two sub-arrays used in the 2004 work, creating a total separation

of 400 m between the elements. Unfortunately, this extra cable length was prepared only just in

time for the May 2005 cruise and, so, could not be thoroughly tested before being shipped to

Galveston. On June 1 it was determined that the preamps on the rear hydrophone array were not

able to drive the signal down the extra 20 ohm resistance of the cable, so when the cable was

inserted no signal was strong enough to be detected on the hydrophones, although the pressure

sensor signal was fine. On June 4 the cable insert was removed and stored on deck. Although 

the sub-array spacing was reduced to 200 m, the same as the 2004 deployment, the signal quality

was still an improvement over 2004, as an additional 200 m length of cable had been inserted

between the sub-arrays and the ship stern. The hydrophones were thus towed deeper and, as a

result, the ship noise received at the hydrophones was much quieter. About 20 lb. of lead weight

were added to the cable during the first deployment. Inclinometers were attached to the array to

further quantify the effect on tracking of a slight vertical inclination of the towed array.

The new program Whale Track II was installed, debugged and configured for acoustic

monitoring use. Acoustic observers would make notes on the presence of creak, codas, and other

unusual sperm whale sounds, as well as whistles and echolocation clicks from dolphins.

Whenever bottom echoes were heard the observers would record the fact, along with the ocean

depth as read from either the Simrad or ADCP.

Close acoustic encounters with whales were obtained on June 4, with numerous codas and creaks

also detected and recorded on a calibrated 24-bit system at 96 kHz sampling rate. Similar data
55

were collected throughout June 5, even through the weather was too rough to permit other SWSS

activities. Also on June 5 the 3-D tracking array deployed on the starboard side of the ship was

aligned with an Ecologic array deployed on the port side in an attempt to make a system that

could distinguish between port and starboard without requiring changes in ship heading.

Although the alignment was successful, it was found that both array cables were deployed at

substantially different depths, which precluded the ability to distinguish left from right.

By the afternoon of June 5 an early version of the real-time tracking system had been

implemented. The focus of the initial code was to test to see if slant range to the whales could be

instantaneously determined, by crossing bearings measured simultaneously from both sub-arrays.

It was found that decent results could only be obtained when the data were sampled at 48 kHz or

above; unfortunately, this sampling rate was too high for the Ishmael/MATLAB software to

perform continuously; it became clear that the Ishmael software would have to be modified

further to permit actual real-time tracking. Nevertheless, the system could be run for a few

minutes at a time before it had to be stopped and restarted. The system was run off-and-on over

the next two weeks--see an example of a real-time output over a five minute period in Figure

3.2.6. Further refinements of the real-time system, including adding a depth component, will be

added and verified post-cruise.

Figure 3.2.6. Real-time output of Ishmael/MATLAB software showing estimated range and 

bearing of 4 contacts over a 5-min interval starting at 6:07 AM on 11 June 2005.
56

Despite windy conditions and at times heavy swell, groups of sperm whales were acoustically

located and tracked on June 4–12 and 15. Every day provided data of sufficient quality for 3-D

tracking for at least some animals. On most of these days the 38 kHz fishery echosounder also

was deployed. Although the PI was not present during Leg 2, acoustic and hydrophone depth 

data continued to be collected, and some of these data also may be usable for 3-D tracking.

One consistent and surprising feature of the acoustic tracking was how often sperm whale codas

were detected in the Western Gulf. On every day mentioned above at least some codas were

recorded. The morning of June 15 in particular, yielded some sounds that were neither creaks nor

codas but seemed some combination of both (Figure 3.2.7). It seems likely that sperm whales

made these sounds as no other dolphin sounds were recorded in the vicinity, and the bearings of

the sounds were consistent with regular clicks produced by the sperm whales. The collection of

such large numbers of creaks and unusual codas is a windfall for this work. Acoustic recordings

of stenella attenuata have also been collected for testing a 2-D tracking algorithm for dolphins.

Figure 3.2.7. Spectrogram of unusual "croda" sound recorded on 15 June 2005. The croda is

between 0.6 and 1.2 s on the time axis.

The electrical noise on the 3-D array increased consistently during the first leg of the cruise;

thereafter, it stayed relatively the same throughout Leg 2. The forward pressure sensor was
57

damaged just before Leg 2. Acoustic data were recorded on the array during both tagging 

sessions with the Burgess B-probe. We are curious to learn whether sperm whale sounds were

simultaneously recorded on both the tag and the array.

Habitat Characterization

Habitat characterization data were collected to supplement rather than to compete for ship time

with the tagging and acoustic survey efforts. Accordingly, most of the hydrographic data

collection was carried out while the vessel was underway. Four activities were conducted: (1)

continuous collection of near-surface observations of temperature, salinity, and fluorescence

from the flow-through system with data logged once per minute, (2) except when turned off for

other acoustic work, continuous collection of ADCP data from a 38-kHz phased array instrument

with data binned every 5 minutes, (3) operation of a Simrad-60 fishery echosounder system that

logged backscatter continuously from a 70-kHz fishery echosounder transducer and

intermittently from a 38-kHz fishery echosounder transducer, and (4) collection of 4 CTD and 82

XBT profiles. Remote sensing fields of ocean color and sea surface height also were available.

Continuous flow-through sampling used water from an in-line flow that was pumped from the

ship's hull depth of 3.5 m to laboratory sensors that measured sea surface temperature (SST),

conductivity/salinity (SSS), and fluorescence (SCF). Gyre's Data Acquisition System (GDAS)

recorded SST and SSS data once per minute from the SeaBird temperature and conductivity 

sensors and SCF data from a Turner Designs Model 10 fluorometer. The 1-minute bin intervals

give a horizontal resolution of about 0.25 km for the near-surface temperature, salinity, and 

fluorescence if the ship is underway at a cruising speed of 9 knots.

The fluorometer was calibrated by Doug Biggs and Alyson Azzara using samples collected from

the Texas and Louisiana continental margin on cruise 05G06 in late April 2005, by filtering 1-

liter samples taken from the flow line concurrently with recorded fluorescence and then

measuring the extracted CHL in these samples. However, additional samples were collected 

during S-tag 2005. These will be used to compare and contrast with the April 2005 calibration 

sampling. Near-surface chlorophyll samples were taken at 76 locations, many of which were

associated with XBT or CTD stations (Table 3.2.8).

A 38kHz ADCP phased-array instrument was installed on the Gyre to collect upper water current

velocity and backscatter data (see Table 3.1.13 for ADCP configuration). The ADCP collects

data in 16-m bins down to depths of 500 m while underway at 8 knots, and often to a depth of

1000 m when the ship slows to 4 knots or less. The ADCP was turned off whenever the 38 kHz

fishery echosounder was on (see discussion of echosounder and associated table for times of

echosounder operation). Table 3.2.9 shows the periods of operation of the 38 kHz ADCP.

CTD casts were made only when both hydrophone arrays were brought back on board. Since at

least one array was deployed for most of the cruise, only four CTD casts were made. The casts

were to approximately 1000 m using a SeaBird SeaCat CTD (Table 3.2.10; Figure 3.2.8). The

first CTD cast was made after the 1000-m isobath had been reached at the start of the cruise and

before the hydrophone arrays were deployed. The second was made when both arrays were

brought on board on 7 June. The third was made when both arrays were brought back on board

to go to Harbor Island for the unplanned port call. The fourth cast was made at the end of the

cruise. Eighty-two XBTs were successfully deployed out of 84 probes (Table 3.2.10; Figure
58

3.2.8). Sampling was approximately every 10 nm when we were in the cyclone and about 20 nm

when we were transiting.

Echosounder-based Sperm Whale Prey Assessments in the Gulf of Mexico

The objective of this study component is to assess the distribution and availability in space and

time of potential prey for sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico. This is part of the long term goal

of understanding how anthropogenic noise may impact sperm whales and how this risk can be

mitigated. Prey assessment was done in conjunction with measures of sperm whale distribution,

diving behavior and vocalizations, and surface patterns of temperature, salinity, circulation and

primary productivity (phytoplankton fluorescence) as part of the June 2005 SWSS S-tag cruise.

A two-frequency split-beam echosounder (Simrad EK60 at 38 and 70 kHz) was used from the

R/V Gyre to measure the distribution of midwater organisms for the month long cruise in the

Gulf of Mexico during June of 2005. The downward looking echosounder system has a

maximum depth range of approximately 1200 to 1500 m. Raw echo data from each frequency 

was simultaneously saved to a laptop computer. The target (or echo) strength of animals detected

individually will be calculated for each frequency and combined using mathematical scattering

models. For animals detected in groups, numerical density will be estimated with an echo

integration technique (MacLennan and Simmonds 1992). The Webster method (Webster 1973)

will be used to determine the edges of patches in the prey. The position, depth and signal

strength data from the echosounders will then be analyzed in ArcView Geographic Information 

System with 3-D Analyst in order to determine the vertical, horizontal and temporal distribution

of potential prey animals.

Surveys using the 70 kHz echosounder (hull mounted) were conducted continuously throughout

the cruise in conjunction with other field efforts. The 38 kHz echosounder (mounted on a

overboard pole) was deployed during periods when whales were being tracked and for short time

periods afterwards as the vessel moved away from whales (see Table 3.2.11). Special attention

will be paid to times when sperm whales were tracked, including when animals were tagged and

when vocalizations were used to locate the whales. Prey results will be compared between areas

where whales were and were not seen or heard.

The total number of hours of operation of the 70 kHz echosounder was 562.23, which represents

100% operation. The 38 kHz echosounder was operated for 132.77 hours or 23.61% of the time.

Table 3.2.11 shows the dates, times, and elapsed time for each echosounder.
59

Table 3.2.8

Locations of Near-surface Chlorophyll Sampling

Sample

Name

Date

(m/d/y)

Time

(UTC)

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

Station

Number

3.1 06/02/05 1735 27.5932 -95.8410 test

3.2 06/02/05 2200 27.1532 -94.8677 CTD#1

4.1 06/03/05 1812 27.5112 -95.2447 XBT#3

4.2 06/03/05 2352 27.2167 -95.4853 XBT#4

4.3 06/03/05 0150 27.1370 -95.4638 test

5.1 06/04/05 1515 27.0837 -95.3373 XBT#5

6.1 06/05/05 2025 27.0822 -95.8033 XBT#6

6.2 06/05/05 0252 26.8372 -95.9113 XBT#8

7.1 06/06/05 1747 26.7925 -95.5997 XBT#9

8.1 06/07/05 1737 27.3612 -95.6183 XBT#10

9.1 06/08/05 1437 27.0390 -95.1057 XBT#11

10.1 06/09/05 2145 26.8250 -94.9933 XBT#12

10.2 06/09/05 0041 26.5283 -94.0280 XBT#13

10.3 06/09/05 0417 26.6117 -95.2537 XBT#14

11.1 06/10/05 1446 26.4967 -95.7468 near XBT#15

12.1 06/11/05 0820 27.0000 -95.8135 XBT#18

12.2 06/11/05 1550 27.2283 -95.7267 n/a

12.3 06/11/05 0356 27.0533 -95.6693 near CTD#3

14.1 06/13/05 0134 27.2033 -95.5175 XBT#19

14.2 06/13/05 0435 26.7997 -95.2702 XBT#20

15.1 06/14/05 1350 26.9687 -94.0820 XBT#22

15.2 06/14/05 2000 26.9682 -95.0397

15.3 06/14/05 2110 26.8613 -95.7332 XBT#23

15.4 06/14/05 0250 27.1710 -94.9808 XBT#24

16.1 06/15/05 0526 27.4687 -94.7080 XBT#25

16.2 06/15/05 0920 27.2392 -94.7257 XBT#26

16.3 06/15/05 1538 26.8013 -94.4993 XBT#29

16.4 06/15/05 1925 26.8613 -95.7332 XBT#30

16.5 06/15/05 2326 27.2537 -94.3520 XBT#31

17.1 06/16/05 1459 26.6622 -95.3975 XBT#35

17.2 06/16/05 1839 26.5897 -95.7048 XBT#37

17.3 06/16/05 2310 26.5240 -95.8093 XBT#38

18.1 06/17/05 1340 26.7715 -95.4643 XBT#44

18.2 06/17/05 1750 26.9390 -95.3160 XBT#45

18.3 06/17/05 0125 26.9695 -95.3997 XBT#46

20.1 06/19/05 1356 27.0067 -95.5427 n/a

20.2 06/19/05 1525 27.1740 -95.6785 XBT#52

20.3 06/19/05 1851 26.8023 -95.5905 n/a

20.4 06/19/05 2050 26.7563 -95.7092 XBT#53

20.5 06/19/05 0120 26.7367 -95.7052 n/a

21.1 06/20/05 1300 26.9440 -95.5028 XBT#54
60

Table 3.2.8

Locations of Near-surface Chlorophyll Sampling

(continued)

Sample

Name

Date

(m/d/y)

Time

(UTC)

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

Station

Number

21.2 06/20/05 1907 26.9107 -95.4547 n/a

21.3 06/20/05 0057 26.9227 -95.4388 n/a

21.4 06/20/05 0405 26.7885 -95.6417 n/a

22.1 06/21/05 1336 26.3095 -96.0703 XBT#57

22.2 06/21/05 1800 26.1428 -95.9837 XBT#58

22.3 06/21/05 1905 26.1448 -95.8845 n/a

22.4 06/21/05 2100 26.1537 -95.7238 XBT#59

22.5 06/21/05 0025 26.1903 -95.4953 n/a

22.6 06/21/05 0227 26.1007 -95.3892 XBT#60

23.1 06/22/05 1342 26.1915 -94.5453 XBT#62

23.2 06/22/05 1730 26.1408 -94.1908 XBT#63

23.3 06/22/05 1945 26.0993 -94.0452 n/a

23.4 06/22/05 2220 26.2405 -92.4375 XBT#64

23.5 06/22/05 0314 26.4572 -93.8170 XBT#65

24.1 06/23/05 1300 27.1928 -93.8928 n/a

24.2 06/23/05 1855 27.2680 -93.8243 n/a

24.3 06/23/05 2150 27.1703 -93.6283 XBT#69

24.4 06/23/05 0045 27.1703 -93.6283 n/a

24.5 06/23/05 0235 27.1908 -93.6777 XBT#70

25.1 06/24/05 1315 27.1102 -93.2562 n/a

25.2 06/24/05 1915 27.5773 -93.0670 XBT# 72

25.3 06/24/05 0132 27.1213 -92.8062 n/a

25.4 06/24/05 0417 26.9443 -92.6738 XBT#73

26.1 06/25/05 1310 27.3010 -93.4150 n/a

26.2 06/25/05 1855 27.4733 -93.8928 XBT#76

26.3 06/25/05 0104 27.2955 -93.7834 n/a

26.4 06/25/05 0435 27.4052 -93.9550 n/a

27.1 06/26/05 1335 27.4371 -94.5960 n/a

27.2 06/26/05 1826 27.4067 -94.5592 n/a

27.3 06/26/05 0152 27.5660 -94.3807 n/a

28.1 06/28/05 1430 27.1467 -94.9050 n/a

28.2 06/28/05 1930 27.0658 -95.1012 n/a

28.3 06/28/05 0113 26.9840 -95.2097 XBT#79

28.4 06/28/05 0406 26.9777 -95.4533 XBT#80

29.1 06/28/05 1325 26.8900 -95.9582 n/a
61

Table 3.2.9

Start-stop Times for 38-kHz ADCP Data Logging

Start Date

(m/d/y)

Start Time

(UTC)

Stop Date

(m/d/y)

Stop Time

(UTC)

06/03/2005 0330 06/03/2005 2359

06/04/2005 1602 06/05/2005 0328

06/06/2005 1345 06/07/2005 2302

06/08/2005 1310 06/09/2005 0216

06/09/2005 1326 06/10/2005 0116

06/10/2005 0833 06/12/2005 0053

06/12/2005 0126 06/12/2005 1701

06/13/2005 0315 06/13/2005 1235

06/14/2005 0152 06/15/2005 1606

06/15/2005 2257 06/16/2005 0831

06/16/2005 0850 06/16/2005 1834

06/16/2005 1946 06/17/2005 2254

06/18/2005 0101 06/18/2005 2019

06/19/2005 0016 06/19/2005 1349

06/20/2005 0205 06/21/2005 1605

06/22/2005 0050 06/22/2005 2115

06/23/2005 0026 06/25/2005 0317

06/25/2005 0320 06/27/2005 1509

06/28/2005 0048 06/28/2005 1759

06/29/2005 0113 06/30/2005 1403
62

Table 3.2.10

CTD and XBT Stations on the 2005 S-tag Cruise

(Of 84 XBTs, 2 collected no data.)

Event Date

(m/d/y)

Time

(UTC)

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

15°C

Isotherm

Depth

(m)

Chl

Sample

Taken?

Surf.

Temp.

(°C)

Surf.

Salinity

Approx.

Water

Depth

(m)

CTD1 06/03/2005 2214 27.2602 -94.8628 229 Y 26.972 33.990 ~1250

XBT1 06/04/2005 0638 27.0072 -95.0895 * N 27.280 36.480 na

XBT2 06/04/2005 1030 27.1569 -95.1764 * N 26.960 36.030 na

XBT3 06/04/2005 1813 27.5110 -95.2445 263 Y 27.018 35.434 955

XBT4 06/04/2005 2354 27.2160 -95.4866 213 Y 27.114 34.449 1223

XBT5 06/05/2005 1513 27.0821 -95.3361 193 Y 26.708 34.149 1260

XBT6 06/06/2005 0752 27.1150 -95.5761 177 Y 27.120 34.040 1260

XBT7 06/06/2005 2022 27.0733 -95.8008 190 N 27.501 34.206 870

XBT8 06/07/2005 0253 26.8380 -95.9126 177 Y 27.508 34.067 955

CTD2 06/07/2005 0525 27.7442 -95.7905 163 N 27.404 34.233 ~1250

XBT9 06/07/2005 1747 26.7895 -95.6035 161 Y 27.418 34.098 na

XBT10 06/08/2005 1710 27.3475 -95.6348 213 Y 27.649 34.695 1013

XBT11 06/09/2005 1431 27.0324 -95.0954 210 Y 28.000 36.491 1412

XBT12 06/10/2005 2145 26.7597 -94.9900 222 Y 28.516 36.448 1595

XBT13 06/11/2005 0038 26.5284 -95.0281 239 Y 28.359 36.473 ~1750

XBT14 06/11/2005 0418 26.4289 -95.3586 223 Y 28.193 36.446 1644

XBT15 06/11/2005 1430 26.4816 -95.7474 220 Y 27.064 35.450 1365

XBT16 06/12/2005 0322 26.6583 -95.6446 189 N 28.332 33.847 1414

XBT17 06/12/2005 0549 26.8614 -95.7333 156 N 28.018 34.190 1110

XBT18 06/12/2005 0820 27.0678 -95.8136 171 Y 27.843 34.108 911

CTD3 06/13/2005 0242 27.0099 -95.6263 150 Y 27.951 34.253 na

XBT19 06/15/2005 0133 27.2156 -95.5241 169 Y 28.565 34.252 1204

XBT20 06/15/2005 0434 27.0084 -95.3705 170 Y 28.534 34.183 1186

XBT21 06/15/2005 0533 26.9385 -95.3170 164 N 28.583 34.032 1517

XBT22 06/15/2005 1346 26.9688 -95.0821 197 Y 27.784 34.453 1461

XBT23 06/15/2005 2106 26.8527 -95.2189 196 Y 28.636 34.217 na

XBT24 06/16/2005 0250 27.1711 -94.9809 217 Y 28.841 34.244 na

XBT25 06/16/2005 0526 27.3759 -94.8723 245 Y 28.819 36.396 1122

XBT26 06/16/2005 0920 27.2555 -94.7334 250 Y 28.560 35.490 1165

XBT27 06/16/2005 1114 27.1047 -94.6615 247 N 28.765 35.557 1091

XBT28 06/16/2005 1309 26.9512 -94.5878 254 N 28.596 35.091 1206

XBT29 06/16/2005 1504 26.8177 -94.5232 261 Y 28.690 35.056 1211

XBT30 06/16/2005 1921 27.0294 -94.4302 247 Y 28.886 34.428 ~1700

XBT31 06/16/2005 2327 27.2526 -94.2774 226 Y 29.276 34.462 1108

XBT32 06/17/2005 0743 26.8649 -94.7358 237 Y 29.046 36.531 1555

XBT33 06/17/2005 1024 26.7646 -94.9787 235 N 28.743 36.514 1389

XBT34 06/17/2005 1221 26.7183 -95.1647 244 N 28.814 36.511 1607

XBT35 06/17/2005 1428 26.6695 -95.3618 227 Y 28.757 36.521 1502

XBT36 06/17/2005 1631 26.6311 -95.5354 222 N 28.135 34.395 1497

XBT37 06/17/2005 1839 26.5897 -95.7049 204 Y 28.458 35.076 1369

XBT38 06/17/2005 2309 26.5165 -95.8154 200 Y 28.471 35.499 1280

XBT39 06/18/2005 0412 26.4871 -96.0435 210 N 28.493 35.413 1012

XBT40 06/18/2005 0602 26.6401 -96.0351 209 N 28.520 35.588 986

XBT41 06/18/2005 0752 26.8067 -96.0173 207 N 28.493 34.571 917

XBT42 06/18/2005 1002 26.8076 -95.8132 198 N 28.583 34.748 1248

XBT43 06/18/2005 1146 26.7888 -95.6530 203 N 28.574 34.529 1268
63

Table 3.2.10

CTD and XBT Stations on the 2005 S-tag Cruise

(continued)

Event Date

(m/d/y)

Time

(UTC)

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

15°C

Isotherm

Depth

(m)

Chl

Sample

Taken?

Surf.

Temp.

(°C)

Surf.

Salinity

Approx.

Water

Depth

(m)

XBT44 06/18/2005 1339 26.7717 -95.4644 204 Y 28.748 35.409 1499

XBT45 06/18/2005 1749 26.9391 -95.3160 195 Y 28.832 35.465 1523

XBT46 06/19/2005 0108 26.9763 -95.3859 185 Y 29.165 34.227 1253

XBT47 06/19/2005 0425 27.1527 -95.7178 184 N 28.934 34.684 1020

XBT48 06/19/2005 0549 27.2573 -95.9085 193 N 28.837 34.433 575

XBT49 06/20/2005 0721 27.1859 -95.9950 202 N 29.139 34.703 564

XBT50 06/20/2005 0954 27.0849 -95.8097 183 N 29.028 34.867 892

XBT51 06/20/2005 1158 27.0331 -95.6284 182 N 28.832 34.367 1031

XBT52 06/20/2005 1523 26.9390 -95.3205 195 Y 28.681 36.124 1503

XBT53 06/20/2005 2051 26.7564 -95.7093 173 Y 29.063 35.928 1155

XBT54 06/21/2005 1300 26.9441 -95.5029 193 Y 28.516 36.284 1434

XBT55 06/22/2005 0738 26.6448 -95.8644 220 N 28.399 35.551 1315

XBT56 06/22/2005 1116 26.4962 -96.0456 216 N 28.601 36.546 1005

XBT57 06/22/2005 1336 26.3096 -96.0704 217 Y 28.868 34.524 866

XBT58 06/22/2005 1650 26.1359 -96.0965 240 N 28.970 36.572 847

XBT59 06/22/2005 2100 26.1538 -95.7240 256 Y 29.267 36.525 1240

XBT60 06/23/2005 0227 26.1878 -95.3564 261 Y 29.014 36.488 1677

XBT61 06/23/2005 1011 26.2233 -94.8601 265 N 28.783 35.773 1873

XBT62 06/23/2005 1343 26.1915 -94.5453 274 Y 29.001 34.945 deep

XBT63 06/23/2005 1731 26.1462 -94.2065 279 Y 29.241 35.365 deep

XBT64 06/23/2005 2221 26.1079 -93.8567 236 Y 29.147 35.848 deep

XBT65 06/24/2005 0312 26.4426 -93.8163 209 Y 28.903 34.507 1642

XBT66 06/24/2005 0704 26.7701 -93.8396 ** N 28.739 34.318 1500

XBT67 06/24/2005 0714 26.7794 -93.8399 211 N 28.765 34.290 1732

XBT68 06/24/2005 1106 27.1050 -93.8640 210 N 28.797 36.104 1022

XBT69 06/24/2005 2148 27.3321 -93.7612 209 Y 28.894 36.107 804

XBT70 06/25/2005 0312 26.4426 -93.8163 214 Y 28.828 35.961 808

XBT71 06/25/2005 0957 26.8791 -93.4471 176 N 28.850 35.825 1256

XBT72 06/25/2005 1913 27.5753 -93.0778 208 Y 28.961 36.270 511

XBT73 06/26/2005 0417 26.9513 -92.6792 233 Y 28.765 36.282 1420

XBT74 06/26/2005 0818 27.0919 -93.0136 219 N 28.757 36.278 1264

XBT75 06/26/2005 1224 27.2669 -93.3508 211 N 28.850 36.029 1193

XBT76 06/26/2005 1856 27.4858 -93.8840 215 Y 28.899 36.138 837

XBT77 06/27/2005 0827 27.5401 -94.2859 215 N 28.502 36.200 825

XBT78 06/28/2005 0704 27.3732 -94.8616 185 N 28.636 35.756 1049

XBT79 06/29/2005 0118 26.9843 -95.2095 200 Y 29.179 35.360 1430

XBT80 06/29/2005 0406 26.9760 -95.4480 191 Y 29.094 34.635 1190

XBT81 06/29/2005 0810 27.0857 -95.8121 197 N 28.921 35.390 874

XBT82 06/29/2005 1552 26.8323 -95.9852 215 N 28.828 34.938 968

CTD4 06/29/2005 2208 26.8225 -95.9052 208 N 29.147 34.771 ~950

na = not available

* set to record to 200 m so no data at 15oC depth

**wire hit ship at 200 m; re-shoot as XBT67
64

Figure 3.2.8. Locations of CTD and XBT stations on the 2005 S-tag cruise.
65

Table 3.2.11

Operation Times for the Fishery Echosounders

Start Date

(d/m/y)

Start Time

(UTC)

End Date

(d/m/y)

End Time

(UTC)

38-kHz

On/Off

Elapsed Time

70-kHz (hours)

Elapsed Time

38-kHz (hours)

03/06/05 1242 03/06/05 2142 0 9.00

03/06/05 2149 03/06/05 2155 0 0.10

03/06/05 2157 03/06/05 2203 0 0.10

03/06/05 2226 03/06/05 2246 0 0.33

03/06/05 2307 04/06/05 0001 0 0.90

04/06/05 0005 04/06/05 1604 1 15.98 15.98

04/06/05 1605 04/06/05 1742 0 1.62

04/06/05 1747 05/06/05 0334 0 9.78

05/06/05 0417 05/06/05 1524 1 11.12 11.12

05/06/05 1536 06/06/05 1315 1 21.65 21.65

06/06/05 1315 07/06/05 2317 0 34.03

07/06/05 2317 08/06/05 1238 1 13.35 13.35

08/06/05 1238 09/06/05 0230 0 13.87

09/06/05 0230 09/06/05 1318 1 10.80 10.80

09/06/05 1318 10/06/05 0127 0 12.15

10/06/05 0129 10/06/05 1330 1 12.02 12.02

10/06/05 1330 12/06/05 0102 0 35.53

12/06/05 0102 12/06/05 0122 1 0.33 0.33

12/06/05 0122 12/06/05 1914 0 17.87

12/06/05 1914 13/06/05 0125 1 6.18 6.18

13/06/05 0125 13/06/05 0607 0 4.70

14/06/05 1229 15/06/05 1616 0 27.78

15/06/05 1616 15/06/05 2254 1 6.63 6.63

15/06/05 2254 16/06/05 1837 0 19.72

16/06/05 1837 16/06/05 1944 1 1.12 1.12

16/06/05 1944 17/06/05 2257 0 27.22

17/06/05 2257 18/06/05 0103 1 2.10 2.10

18/06/05 0104 18/06/05 2025 0 19.35

18/06/05 2026 19/06/05 0013 1 3.78 3.78

19/06/05 0014 19/06/05 0454 0 4.67

19/06/05 2235 21/06/05 1615 0 41.67

21/06/05 1616 22/06/05 0051 1 8.58 8.58

22/06/05 0051 22/06/05 2150 0 20.98

22/06/05 2151 23/06/05 0028 1 2.62 2.62

23/06/05 0029 27/06/05 1513 0 110.73

27/06/05 1514 28/06/05 0043 1 9.48 9.48

28/06/05 0044 28/06/05 1806 0 17.37

28/06/05 1807 29/06/05 0108 1 7.02 7.02

29/06/05 0109 29/06/05 2240 0 21.52

Total 562.23 132.77
67

4 DATA COLLECTION ON MESOSCALE POPULATION STUDY CRUISES

Mesoscale Population Study (MPS) cruises were conducted in summers 2004 and 2005 aboard

the quiet, 46' Hunter-class, motor-sailor, Summer Breeze, which was chartered from a Floridabased charter company. In both years, these summer cruises were conducted in 4 legs with

durations of approximately 2 weeks each. This section summarizes the data collection activities

for the MPS cruises conducted in summer 2004 (Section 4.1) and summer 2005 (Section 4.2).

4.1 Mesoscale Population Study Cruise of 2004

Introduction

The 2004 SWSS Mesoscale/PhotoID cruise surveyed for sperm whales in the northern Gulf of

Mexico between 90.5°W and 84.5°W. This cruise started two days after the 2004 S-tag cruise

(Section 3.1) had finished. This provided an extended temporal coverage of SWSS cruises during 

summer 2004, so that, overall, sperm whales were studied from 25 May to 11 August 2004.

Table 4.1.1 illustrates the international make-up of the MPS science team.

The primary goal was to expand baseline information on population size, habitat use, social

organization, movements and behavior of sperm whales and to help determine natural variability

and potential responses to anthropogenic activities. Other integral tasks of the cruise were to

determine distribution and movements of sperm whales in relation to natural changes in 

environmental conditions, investigate population structure and calving rate, and investigate

residency of known individuals in the northern Gulf of Mexico. If and when opportunities

presented themselves we planned to study behavioral reactions to acoustic emissions from

platforms and seismic ships and to make opportunistic calibrated recordings of rig noise. These

goals were achieved mainly by photo-identification and length measurements of individuals

made during follows of groups extending over 10 to 60 hours, recordings of vocalizations and

anthropogenic sounds, and collection biopsy samples. The primary study area was between 500

and 1500 m depth contours in the region of high oil/gas platform density and anthropogenic

activity off the Mississippi River Delta and in the Mississippi Canyon.

Table 4.1.1

Science Team for the 2004 MPS Cruise

Participant Nationality

Jonathan Gordon, Field Party Chief United Kingdom

Nathalie Jaquet, Field Party Chief Switzerland

Ricardo Antunes Portugal

Steve Brown, Captain USA

Raul Diaz Gamboa, Biopsy Mexico

Thomas Gordon United Kingdom

Chistoph Richter Germany

Trudi Webster New Zealand
68

The MPS cruise left St. Petersburg, FL, at 1500 EDT on 20 June 2004 and returned to St.

Petersburg at 2100 EDT on 11 August 2004. The cruise closely followed the cruise plan, with

three scheduled stops in Gulfport, MS, at the end of June, mid-July and late July (Table 4.1.2).

We also made a 24-h stop in Pensacola, FL, on 8 August during inclement weather. Most of our

visual and acoustic search effort occurred in water depths between 500 and 1500 m. While

transiting to deeper water to-from port, we searched water depths ranging from 200 to 2100 m.

Figure 4.1.1 shows the tracks of the research vessel during the four legs.

During Leg 1 (Figure 4.1.1a), we carried out a two and a half-day survey of the deep waters off

Florida’s northwest coast while transiting to the study area, surveyed through the DeSoto Canyon 

region, and spent the last three days of the leg in the Mississippi Canyon. During Leg 2 (Figure

4.1.1b), we concentrated our efforts in the area south of the Mississippi River Delta (MRD) and

the Mississippi Canyon area. We also surveyed the most western part or our study, to as far west

as 90.5°W. During Leg 3 (Figure 4.1.1c), we again concentrated our efforts in the MRD and 

Mississippi Canyon areas. We also spent 3 days surveying waters deeper than 1500 m, south of

the MRD and Mississippi Canyon, when near real-time remote sensing information indicated

that a Loop Current Eddy to the south of this part of the continental margin was entraining strong 

off-the-shelf flow into the deepwater area. During Leg 4 (Figure 4.1.1d), we spent two days in

the Mississippi River Delta area, and then headed east, surveying towards DeSoto Canyon. After

the port call in Pensacola, we headed south, again surveying the head of the DeSoto Canyon and

the waters south of it as we made our way back toward St. Petersburg. Weather forecasts

predicting the imminent arrival of Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane Charley, forced us to 

curtail Leg 4 by one day. We headed directly for Tampa Bay arriving at 2100 CDT on 11

August. Although our course was a straight line, we surveyed acoustically until we arrived in

waters shallower than 100 m.

When seaward of the continental shelf break, we routinely listened with the Ecologic towed

stereo-hydrophone array for one minute every 15 minutes, noting sperm whale clicks, other

cetacean vocalizations, and man-made noises; monitored sea-surface temperature (SST)

continuously; and recorded environmental data every hour. Several times during each leg, we

monitored basic oceanographic conditions to ~50 m below the surface with a vertically profiling 

conductivity-temperature-depth instrument (CTD).

Table 4.1.2

Summary of Dates and Port Calls for Each 2004 MPS Cruise Leg

Leg Start date Start Port End date End Port Field Party Chief

1 20 June 2004 St. Petersburg 30 June 2004 Gulfport Jonathan Gordon

2 2 July 2004 Gulfport 14 July 2004 Gulfport Nathalie Jaquet

3 17 July 2004 Gulfport 29 July 2004 Gulfport Nathalie Jaquet

4 1 August 2004 Gulfport 11 August 2004 St. Petersburg Jonathan Gordon
69

90°0'0"W

90°0'0"W

89°0'0"W

89°0'0"W

88°0'0"W

88°0'0"W

87°0'0"W

87°0'0"W

28°0'0"N 28°0'0"N

29°0'0"N 29°0'0"N

Key

Water Depth

0

200

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

# Deep Rigs

Survey Activity

(! Survey

! Tracking

(! Off Effort

(! Passage

Survey Block 1

Survey Block 2

Survey Block 3

/ 0 5 10 20 30 40Nautical Miles

Figure 4.1.1. Cruise tracks for Legs 1-4 of the 2004 MPS cruise. Vessel track is colored by

survey activity: blue during survey mode, red while tracking groups, black off

effort and green when making passage.

a) Leg 1: 20 June – 30 June

b) Leg 2: 2 July – 14 July

30°N

29°N

28°N

29°N

28°N
70

90°0'0"W

90°0'0"W

89°0'0"W

89°0'0"W

88°0'0"W

88°0'0"W

87°0'0"W

87°0'0"W

28°0'0"N 28°0'0"N

29°0'0"N 29°0'0"N

Key

Water Depth

0

200

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

# Deep Rigs

Survey Activity

(! Survey

! Tracking

(! Off Effort

(! Passage

Survey Block 1

Survey Block 2

Survey Block 3

/

89°0'0"W

89°0'0"W

88°0'0"W

88°0'0"W

87°0'0"W

87°0'0"W

86°0'0"W

86°0'0"W

85°0'0"W

85°0'0"W

28°0'0"N 28°0'0"N

29°0'0"N 29°0'0"N

30°0'0"N 30°0'0"N

Key

Water Depth

0

200

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

# Deep Rigs

Survey Activity

(! Survey

! Tracking

(! Off Effort

(! Passage

Survey Block 1

Survey Block 2

Survey Block 3

/

0 5 10 20 30 40

Nautical Miles

Figure 4.1.1. Cruise tracks for Legs 1-4 of the 2004 MPS cruise. (continued)

c) Leg 3: 17 July – 29 July

d) Leg 4: 1 August – 11 August

29°N

28°N

30°N

29°N

28°N
71

Permits

Photo-ID/Photogrammetry and Biopsy/Genetic Typing activities were conducted in accordance

with federal permits from NMFS to Texas A&M University-Galveston (permit 821-1588-00),

and to Dan Engelhaupt/University of Durham (permit 909-1465-02).

Research Vessel and Equipment

Vessel: Our previous experience, and that of other groups working on sperm whales in various

locations around the world, has made us aware of the advantages of using modest sized motor

sailing vessels for conducting certain types of research on individual marine mammals in 

offshore waters. These include the fact that they are quiet, easy to run by small teams, safe,

maneuverable, independent and extremely cost effective. This can allow small teams to complete

extended field seasons with time factored in for poor weather. As with any research vessel, there

are very substantial advantages to having a platform that is dedicated and specially adapted to its

task; however, for this first year, no such vessel was available and we had to charter a standard 

vessel and adapt it as well as we could. A suitable vessel, Summer Breeze, was available to

charter from St. Petersburg Florida. Summer Breeze is a 46’ Hunter sloop with a 76-HP engine

and 7 berths.

Our first task was to adapt the vessel to our requirements and the first week of the charter was

devoted to this while the last two days were dedicated to restoring it to its original state. The

main tasks were to provide extra storage for food and equipment by adapting the heads, to

provide an acoustic workstation in the saloon and fit hydrophones and acoustic equipment, to 

provide a mount for a directional hydrophone off the quarter, to fit a Global Star satellite

telephone system, a navigation and communication computer and additional GPS receivers. To

provide additional fuel capacity, 32 five-gallon jerry cans were stowed on deck. Lee cloths, new

berths and extra fans were also provided.

The provision of clean electrical power and the elimination of electrical noise is often a problem

on a small vessel. A pure sine wave inverter (Prosine 1800) was installed running directly off the

vessel’s house batteries. This provided clean AC power for laptop computers and for the acoustic

work station. DC power was provided for preamplifiers and panel meters using a DC power

supply. As the engine was run for much of the time its alternator charged the house batteries.

Additional earthing and a suppressor served to eliminate electrical noise from the alternator.

Acoustic equipment: Summer Breeze carried essentially the same basic passive acoustic

monitoring equipment as the R/V Gyre. The challenge was to house all this in a compact

enclosure that could be closed up to protect the equipment if the vessel got into rough weather

and to power it from the available power supply. Two stereo “Ecologic” towed hydrophones one

with 100 and the other 200m of cable were carried and towed off each quarter. Having two

matched hydrophones provided a spare in the event of loss or damage and also allowed them to

be towed as “tandem” arrays to allow more accurate acoustic tracking using programs such as

Rainbow Click and Ishmael. Rainbow Click is a computer program written by Douglas Gillespie

with support from the International Fund for Animal Welfare to promote benign and noninvasive research. Ishmael is a multi-purpose bio-acoustic analysis tool written by David

Mellinger. Each array contained a depth sensor. An acoustic work station was established on the

saloon table. This consisted of two Magrec HP27ST preamplifiers rack mounted in a waterproof

SKB instrument case, USB sound card (Creative Platinum), two panel meters to measure depth,

a calibration tone generator and an audio switch to determine which hydrophone was being
72

monitored, were fitted in the same case. As only one computer was available for acoustic

analysis, an audio switch was used to switch between different elements to resolve left/right

ambiguity when the hydrophones were deployed as tandem arrays. A feed from the main system

was also available to the helm allowing the steering person to monitor the hydrophones on deck 

using headphones. In addition, the output from the hydrophones could be fed into the vessel’s

HiFi system providing general monitoring of underwater acoustic activity.

Two hand held directional hydrophones (originally made for use from rigid-hulled inflatable

boats (RHIBs) on the Gyre) were available. In addition a more elaborate directional hydrophone

within a streamlined pod was built following designs of directional hydrophones used from

motor sailors by Hal Whitehead and colleagues. The advantage of this design is that it can stay

mounted to the vessel. A mount for this was built from the main-sheet arch of “Summer Breeze”.

Operational Equipment: Summer Breeze has a “sugar scoop” stern with a swim platform and

this provided very good access to the water and it proved straightforward to stop the boat and use

a hand held directional hydrophone from this in calm conditions. The streamlined directional

hydrophone was not used successfully. More time was needed to make an appropriate reflector

to work within the streamlined housing as the hydrophone did not have any directional

capability. It also proved impossible to make a sufficiently strong attachment as we were

constrained to not make permanent alterations to the boat. For this project we were able to

manage very well using just the hand held hydrophones but it would be sensible to continue to

develop the fixed hydrophone to make tracking easier especially in poor weather conditions.

As we were able to track whales well using hand held directional hydrophones, and it was more

straight forward keep all the tracking work on deck, tandem array techniques were little utilized.

However, it will remain useful to be able to employ multiple hydrophone tracking methods on

future projects, especially as software being developed by Aaron Thode, which should enhance

these capabilities, becomes available.

Data Collection: Wherever possible data were collected directly to computers to minimize

transcription errors and speed up later analysis. We relied on two programs for this. The Logger

program ran continuously on the computer at the acoustic station in the saloon. Logger is a

computer program written by Douglas Gillespie with support from the International Fund for

Animal Welfare to promote benign and non-invasive research. It collected the vessel’s track

from GPS, information on search status and effort, hourly environmental data, non-sperm whale

sightings and acoustic data into a coordinated relational database. Initial sperm whale sightings

and fluke up positions were entered into Logger to generated a map of whale and boat

movements and headings. All recordings from the towed hydrophones were made using the tape

recorder within Logger with a 96-kHz sampling rate and on some occasions its automatic

recording and buffering capabilities were used. In addition, data on hydrophone depth and

surface water temperature was stored within the Logger database using programs written for this

project by Ricardo Antunes. The second program “Encounter” ran on an HP 200 LX palmtop

computer which was located on deck at the steering column. This was used to collect detailed 

data on sperm whale encounters including cluster sizes, headings, individual attributes, behavior

and photographs taken. One of our first analysis tasks will be to integrate these two datasets

within a single relational database.
73

Mast Climbing: Vessels of this type used for cetacean research usually have mast steps and

access to a crow’s nest on the mast. This provides an elevated vantage point both for improved 

visual searching and to allow images to be taken for length estimation. It was not possible to fit

mast steps or a crows nest to this vessel. We hoped to be able to access the vessel’s lower

spreaders using a rock climbing harness and equipment, and a climbing rope was rigged on the

mast. We attempted to use this on two occasions at sea but with a swaying boat it proved too 

risky to both equipment and personnel.

Survey Tracks and Monitoring

Even on large vessels, such as the Gyre, which are relatively noisy but provide good stable high

sightings platforms and accommodate large visual teams, acoustic monitoring has proven to be

the most effective method of finding sperm whales. On a small quiet vessel which is a poor

sightings platform it becomes completely dominant. While searching for whales the hydrophones

were monitored for 1 minute every 15 minutes while a standard 1-minute recording was made. If

the vessel was under power the engine was eased back so that it was just ticking over, which

greatly reduced noise. A significant source of electrical noise was the autopilot and during

monitoring sessions the vessel was steered by hand. On some occasions, a single person would

keep watch at night to allow the rest of the team to get a longer rest. In these cases Logger was

set up to record automatically every 15 minutes and hydrophones were monitored by the

helmsman at the wheel using headphones with data being entered into Logger as soon as the

vessel was underway again.

We wished to achieve a representative coverage within the survey blocks designated beforehand

with higher coverage within the blocks which were of greater interest because of their whale and 

oil platform densities. Our survey area was determined by the 500 and 1,500m depth contours.

One practical way to achieve this is by laying down zigzag tracks with the turning angle between

tracks being determined by the level of coverage required. While we planned to follow this

approach it provide impractical for a number of reasons. On the first leg, the amount of fuel we

carried constrained the extent to which we could use the engine. We didn’t want to loose

valuable field time by making a fuel run so we shaped our course to make best use of the

available wind. The addition of extra jerry-jugs during the first port call in Gulfport took care of

this problem. However, it was also impossible to predict in advance the amount of time we had

available for survey as once whales were detected survey would cease and we would start

tracking groups, often for 24 hours or more. Furthermore, to achieve even coverage of the study 

area, we would then lay down survey tracks in areas that had not been previously surveyed using

the Show data module in Logger. On some occasions we would divert a track slightly to close

with oil platforms or drills ships so that we could make opportunistic recordings of them. What

was essential was that we did not choose courses directed to areas of known or suspected whale

abundance. This might occur if we tried to locate a tagged whale based on its latest locations, for

example. Any such tracks (which we called hunches) were specifically noted as such in Logger.

These compromises as far as following pre-determined tracks should not present special analysis

problems for a photo-id study such as this one, as the tracks (Figure 4.1.1) indicate that the

overall area was covered quite well.

Table 4.1.3 summarizes the effort in survey and tracking mode over the study season. It can be

seen that almost as much time was spent tracking whales as was spent surveying for them.
74

Table 4.1.3

Summary of MPS Research Effort During 2004

Description Hours of Effort Nautical Miles

Covered

Survey 437 2,194

Directed “Hunch” Survey 26 112

Tracking Photo-ID 350 1,029

Regular Acoustic Monitoring 

(1877 Stations)

600 2,645

Acoustic Monitoring: Overall, some 1876 standard monitoring stations were completed with

1511 being performed while the vessel was on survey mode, and sperm whales were detected on

174 (11%) of these. As the vessel would enter tracking mode as soon as the whales were detected 

this number under-represents the proportion of random stations at which a whale would be

detectable. A better way to analyze these data will be to consider discovery times (=survey time

between different encounters with sperm whales) in different areas.

Dolphins were detected at 200 out of 1511 (13%) stations on survey mode. As survey activity

was not affected by dolphin detections this percentage probably does closely reflect the general

probability of hearing dolphins in these waters.

Seismic surveys were heard on only 79 (5%) of all monitoring sessions and these were all in the

westerly portions of the study area. This is lower than detection rates in previous seasons, for

example seismic was heard at 30% of all stations in 2003. This probably accurately reflects the

fact that fewer seismic surveys were being conducted in our study area than in previous seasons

and we only saw one seismic vessel during our cruises. Of course this also restricted the extent to

which we were able to make opportunistic observations of sperm whale responses and

movements in the presence of seismic vessels.

Sightings of Other Species of Cetaceans

A modest motor sailing vessel is not an ideal sightings platform, and our team was a small one

with many other priorities. In addition, we were well aware that other teams operating from

much better visual platforms are continuing visual survey programs in this area. For these

reasons we decided not to put a large effort into visual survey during daylight hours.

Consequently, few sightings of cetaceans other than sperm whales were made (Table 4.1.4).

Photo-identification, Photogrammetry and Behavioral Observations

The use of the motor-sailing vessel R/V Summer Breeze proved to be efficient for photoidentification, photogrammetry and behavioral observations. As the vessel was relatively quiet, it

was easy to detect whales acoustically; and because we were able to use a directional

hydrophone from the stern of the vessel, we had no problems in tracking whales at night. As
75

there was no need to launch an independent small boat, we were usually able to start working 

with a group at first light, indeed many of our identification photographs were taken before 8 am.

We could thus take full advantage of the light, and were able to work visually with the whales

for approximately 13 hours per day, weather permitting.

Table 4.1.4

Sightings of Species Other Than Sperm Whales in Waters Greater Than 500-m Depth

Species

Number

of

Sightings

Group

Size

Date

(m/d/y)

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 1 5 07/29/2004 29.5144 -88.5074

Pygmy or dwarf sperm whales (Kogia sp) 1 2 07/20/2004 28.1628 -89.5934

Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra) 1 30 07/08/2004 28.1200 -89.5712

Pantropical Spotted Dolphin

(Stenella attenuata) 7 35 mean

Sighting 1 12 06/23/2004 28.8918 -87.1082

Sighting 2 50 06/24/2004 29.3155 -87.2537

Sighting 3 3 07/08/2004 28.1523 -89.6173

Sighting 4 100 07/09/2004 27.5003 -90.3396

Sighting 5 20 07/26/2004 28.1282 -88.1162

Sighting 6 15 08/10/2004 28.2786 -86.1327

Sighting 7 45 08/10/2004 28.2540 -86.1215

Short-finned Pilot Whale

(Globicephala macrorhynchus) 2 10 mean

Sighting 1 15 07/05/2004 28.1798 -89.6682

Sighting 2 5 07/08/2004 28.1678 -89.6860

Rough Toothed Dolphin (Steno bredanensis) 1 12 06/22/2004 27.9874 -86.2284

Clymene Dolphin (Stenella clymene) 1 8 06/24/2004 29.2153 -87.6458

Cuvier's Beaked Whale (Ziphius cavirostris) 1 1 07/27/2004 27.8247 -88.3872

Unidentified dolphin 3 27 mean

Sighting 1 50 06/24/2004 29.3317 -87.1528

Sighting 2 20 06/24/2004 29.2136 -87.6441

Sighting 3 10 06/29/2004 28.4657 -89.0692

When whales were seen, they were approached slowly from behind their orientation, to within a

distance of 50 to 70 m. At the beginning of a deep dive, sperm whales usually lift their tail flukes

above the surface, allowing for an identification photograph to be taken with a Canon EOS D1

digital camera and 100-300 mm Sigma lens (f4). For the purpose of photogrammetry (size

measurement), ranges to whales were measured with a Bushnell 1000 Yard Pro laser range

finder. Once the whale fluked-up, the vessel was quickly positioned in the slick ("foot-print" left

by the whale at the location it dove) to check for possible defecation. The engine was then 

switched off and we recorded the time of the whale's first click as well as the first several

minutes of its vocalization. The exact time the individual was first seen (± 5 sec); time the whale

fluked-up (±5 sec); size of the whale cluster; presence/absence and behavior of calves; behavior
76

of the individual, its heading, whether it had a callus or not; and whether there was defecation in 

the slick were all recorded onto an HP 200 XL palmtop computer in a water-proof housing,

linked to a Garmin 12LX GPS.

Photo-Identification: During the 4 legs, we spent 37 days in waters deeper than 200 m (i.e.,

excluding the days transiting to and from port in shallow waters). Of these 37 days at sea, 32

days were spent in visual contact with sperm whales, and during one day (July 18) we had 

numerous acoustic contacts but could not track the whales due to strong winds (>30 knots) and

heavy rain. Therefore, during the entire cruise, only four days (two on Leg 1, one on Leg 2 and

one on Leg 4) were spent without visual or acoustic contact with whales.

As in previous years, we found a strong segregation between groups of bachelor males and

groups of female/immature whales. Most of the bachelor groups were found in the DeSoto

Canyon area, while all of the groups of female/immature were found between approximately

90°W and 88°W. We did not find large aggregations of whales (15-25 individuals), as we had in 

the Mississippi River Delta area on June 17 and 18, 2003. All groups of female/immature sperm

whales that we encountered consisted of approximately 8 to 12 individuals.

Fifteen groups of female/immature whales were followed during this cruise; seven groups for 10 

to 24 hours; seven for 24 to 48 hours; and one for about 60 hours. On nine days, we encountered

either lone whales or small groups of what appeared to be bachelor males. Two of the lone

whales occurred in the Mississippi River Delta area and all the others in the DeSoto Canyon area

and along the Florida coast. None of the lone whales appeared to be large enough to be breeding 

males; however, they appeared to be larger than females. Analyses of their click interpulse

intervals as well as photogrammetry will give us more accurate estimates of their sizes. Over

one-half of the groups of female/immature sperm whales had at least one calf with them, and on

two occasions we saw very young calves that were still unable to swim effectively. One “older

calf” conveniently stretched itself alongside the research vessel, and we were able to measure it

relative to marked areas on deck. We were surprised to find that it was only about 3.3 meters in

length, while the literature states that calves are born at about 4 meters.

A total of 302 identification photographs were taken during this cruise. Table 4.1.5 shows the

number of identification photographs taken on each leg, as well as the cumulative number of

different individuals identified each day. To date only the matching within each day has been 

performed, and thus the total of different individuals identified during each leg will be slightly 

less than the number provided in the last column of Table 4.1.5. As some groups were followed

on more than one occasion, the total of different individuals identified during this 2004

mesoscale population study cruise is expected to be slightly less than 147. Matching of these 302

identification photographs will be carried out during the next several months, and exact numbers

cannot yet be specified.

Only preliminary matching of sperm whale individuals within the SWSS collection has been 

performed at this time. Preliminary results indicate that one group of sperm whales was seen on

two occasions, on July 28 and August 3, both times off the Mississippi River Delta. Otherwise,

there presently appear to have been no re-sightings of groups between non-adjacent days. At

least 11 individuals identified this year had been previously identified in 2002/2003. Five of

these individuals were identified together in 2002, re-identified together in 2003 and once more
77

re-identified together during this cruise. Therefore, these individuals seem to have stayed

together, as would be expected for mixed group members.

Table 4.1.5

Number of Identification Photographs Taken During Each Leg and Cumulative Number of

Different Individuals Identified Each Day

(Note the cumulative number is a simple summation over the leg dates of the different

individuals identified for each day, with no correction for individuals that may have been 

identified on more than one day during the leg.)

Leg Number of photo-ID

sequences

Cumulative number of

different individuals

identified each day

1 36 24

2 92 48

3 135 58

4 39 17

Cruise Total 302 147

At the end of 2003, the “GulfCet-SWSS” sperm whale catalog for the Gulf of Mexico, which has

images collected over nine years between 1994 and 2003 by GulfCet, SWAMP, and SWSS

cruises, contained 123 individuals represented by good quality photo-identification photographs.

This cruise on which photo-ID has been one of several research priorities has made a significant

contribution to the catalog, as 302 identification photographs were taken, probably representing 

about 100 different individuals. Our previous estimates suggest that the population of the

northern Gulf of Mexico is roughly 300 individuals, and thus we may now have identified well

over one-half of the population. However, new population estimates and discovery curves will

now be re-calculated, taking into account this wealth of new data. As the size and quality of the

catalog increases, so does its utility as a tool for providing reliable answers to management

questions on population size, movements and demographics.

Resightings of Satellite Tagged Whales: Nine of the groups encountered while working in the

Mississippi Canyon area or Mississippi River Delta area contained one or two tagged whales.

Preliminary analyses suggest that we saw 12 different tagged whales. For most of the tagged 

whales, we obtained good photographs of the tag as well as the attachment area, for the majority

of them we also obtained good identification photographs. Unfortunately, it may not always be

easy to link an identification photograph to a tag number as the colors of the tags were difficult

to distinguish even when we approached the whales to within approximately 40 meters. We

found it particularly difficult to distinguish between white and yellow, and blue and black tag
78

bands. All tagged whales were found in waters <1000 meters in the Mississippi Canyon and

Mississippi River Delta areas.

Length Measurements: To estimate sperm whale total length, roughly 200 identification

photographs were taken in conjunction with a measurement of the distance to the fluke using a

Bushnell Yardage 1000 laser range finder. This method allows for accurate calculation of fluke

width. Using a polynomial regression derived from whaling data, total length will be calculated 

for all of these encounters.

Sperm whale size can also be estimated acoustically by measuring interpulse intervals within 

sperm whale clicks. Recordings for this must be made soon after a whale flukes so that clicks can 

be reliably linked to particular identified individuals. We had found making such recordings

challenging working from RHIBs but on “Summer Breeze”, with the towed hydrophones

continuously deployed, useful recordings were made at the beginning of the dives of most

identified individuals.

Behavioral Observations: Generally, sperm whale groups exhibit two broad types of behavior:

1) foraging behavior is characterized by individuals forming small clusters of one or two whales

on average, deep-diving about every 50 minutes, and emitting usual clicks, 2) socializing 

behavior is characterized by individuals forming large clusters (>5 individuals on average), not

fluking up, the emission of codas, and activities that can be seen at the surface such as breaches

and head-outs. As groups were followed closely for 10 to 60 hours, we were able to record in

detail the amount of time that each group spent in each behavior, as well as time of the day of the

socializing period. Most of the groups that we encountered spent considerable time in socializing

behavior (up to one-half of daylight hours). However, several groups on Leg 3 and the two 

groups that we encountered on Leg 4 did not socialize at all. Post-cruise data analyses will tell us

whether aspects of oceanography or feeding success (as indicated by defecations) were different

for these groups than for others.

During three days on Leg 2 (July 10, 12, and 13), individuals that appeared to be foraging (as

indicated by being in small clusters and spread out over a couple of miles, as well as the

production of usual clicks) did not fluke-up. They tended to remain at the surface for about ten

minutes, then shallow dive for about 40 minutes before resurfacing again. About two minutes

after they shallow-dived they would begin to emit usual clicks. We had never observed such

behavior before, and wondered whether these whales were feeding on shallower prey during

these days. On each of these days, the water was very green and very murky (especially on July 

12-13), more so than what was observed at other times of the cruise.

Indicators of Feeding Success: The capability of being able to stand at the relatively stable bow

of the vessel, about 2 meters higher than on a RHIB, allowed us to check slicks for defecation 

and thus to get an indication of feeding success. For this purpose, the vessel was quickly 

positioned in the slick of the whale after most fluke-ups. However, in very green/brown murky 

water, defecations could not be seen reliably, and data will not be used for feeding success

analyses for such conditions. On rare occasions, squid beaks can be found in the defecation, and

on July 4, three squid beaks were collected. Squid species can be identified from squid beaks,

and thus this finding represents a first step in our understanding of sperm whale diet in the Gulf

of Mexico. On one occasion we also collected an arm of a squid in the wake of a whale; this arm

had probably been regurgitated by the whale.
79

Skin Samples: Despite being of low priority in the proposal, a total of six biopsy samples were

taken during the cruise (Table 4.1.6), each with an associated identification photograph. Biopsy 

sampling occurred only during the last three legs as the only person allowed by permit to take

biopsy samples (Raul Diaz-Gamboa) was not on board during Leg 1. A large number of biopsies

have been taken over the last few years in the Mississippi River Delta and Canyon area and a few

of these samples have an associated photo-identification. To avoid duplication of samples, we

only took biopsies when we believed that the target individual had probably not been biopsied

before, or when we saw a tagged whale for which there was no associated biopsy sample. As

most of the effort during previous years has targeted groups of female/immature whales, few

lone males are likely to have been biopsied and thus our effort was concentrated on probable

males.

No special effort was deployed to collect sloughed skin. However, on five occasions, we easily

collected large sloughed skin samples usually from identified whales. Furthermore, on August 9,

when attempting to biopsy an identified lone male, the dart missed but collected a sample of

sloughed skin. Sloughed skin can be used both for genetic and stable isotope analyses. Stable

isotope techniques are useful for indicating the trophic levels of individuals, differences in diet

between sexes and areas, etc., and thus could give us more information on sperm whale diet in

the northern Gulf of Mexico.

Table 4.1.6

Biopsy Samples and Their Locations

Biopsy

Sample

Number

Date Time

(UTC)

Latitude

(

o

N)

Longitude

(

o

W)

Region* Comments Photo-ID

Number

B1 03/07/2004 16:14:27 28.930150 88.223333 MRD Lone whale, likely male #736

B2 06/07/2004 14:25:07 28.095233 89.678100 MC Individual who left the group

for half of the day (male?)

#1242

B3 10/07/2004 16:51:44 28.205733 89.312333 MC Yellow/red tag (1390); left side PM04aGM

0028

B4 22/07/2004 15:20:28 27.738617 90.192433 MC Part of group not seen before #2538

B5 05/08/2004 19:18:48 29.099367 87.855633 DSC Lone male #5251

B6 06/08/2004 17:38:39 29.227033 87.242283 DSC Lone male #5424

*MRD = Mississippi River Delta region; MC = Mississippi Canyon region; DSC = DeSoto Canyon region

Small Scale Movements: From the present research platform, we found it straightforward to 

track groups of whales after dark and to stay within acoustic contact to them all night. Therefore,

we obtained detailed small-scale movements of groups for up to 60 hours at a time. In total, eight

groups were followed for two to three days each.
80

Coda Recordings

Codas are vocalizations consisting of sperm whale clicks repeated in stereotyped patterns. They

are usually heard from groups of whales socializing at the surface. Recent work suggests that

analysis of coda repertoires can reveal information on the cultural organization of sperm whale

populations, indicating how individuals and groups interact and exchange information. This can

provide information on individual interactions and “cultural” population structure at a relatively

short temporal scale that will often be important for management. For example, groups that share

similar coda repertoires are likely to interact frequently, may have had similar experience of

exposure to natural and anthropogenic activities and may show similar learned responses to such

activities. Codas do not propagate as far as regular sperm whale clicks, and for this reason good 

recordings of codas have been difficult to collect from larger vessels such as the Gyre; in

addition, it was difficult to allocate coda recordings to particular groups. On this cruise however,

the boat would either heave to or sail slowly close to socializing groups and as a consequence

extensive coda recordings were made from most of the groups encountered.

Calibrated Recordings of Rig Noise

Recordings were made close to rigs and drill ships on an opportunistic basis using a calibrated

hydrophone and amplifier (Table 4.1.7). If we were in the vicinity of a rig or drill ship, were not

with whales and weather conditions were favorable the structure would be approached, usually to 

a range of 500-1000m so that recordings could be made using both our towed hydrophones and a

calibrate system used only for this purpose. We always attempted to raise the rig or drill ship on

VHF radio so that we could explain our activities and request information about the rig or ship’s

current activities. We were not always successful in establishing contact but when we did

personnel were usually co-operative and helpful. The calibrated system consisted of a Reson

TC4033 hydrophone and a Reson VP200 Voltage preamp being captured by a National

Instruments digital acquisition card (DAQ AI-16E-4) in a laptop computer. The Reson

hydrophone was individually calibrated by the manufacturer and provided with its own

calibration chart. The voltage amplifier and sound card are manufactured as measurement

instruments and the sensitivity of this part of the chain will also be measured in lab. Recordings

were made using the Ishmael acoustic analysis and recording program. At the same time

recordings from the towed hydrophones were made using Logger with 1-kHz and 10-kHz

calibration tones being recorded during each session. While recordings were being made the

vessel’s location was logged every 10 seconds and the range to the structure was also regularly

measured using laser range finding binoculars and noted.

It is evident from monitoring close to rigs and drill ships during this and previous seasons that

their noise output is highly variable, depending no doubt on the activities in which they are

involved in. Fully capturing this variability would require a significant dedicated long-term

characterization effort. However, the opportunistic recordings we were able to make this summer

represent an alternative approach to collecting some of these data at low cost.

Habitat Data

On most evenings, a CTD cast was made using a Seabird CTD. The CTD was lowered and 

retrieved by hand to a depth of approximately 50 meters. Table 4.1.8 gives the location of each 

of the 23 CTD casts. Sea surface temperature was recorded continuously using a 4-20mA

temperature sensor (Omni-Instruments) mounted through a skin fitting on the boat whose output

was displayed using a Asahi Keiko panel meter. The RS232 output from the panel meter was

read and values were stored it the Logger Database using a program specially written for the
81

project by Ricardo Antunes. Temperature was typically logged every minute and some 92,000 

readings were made during the project.

A description of water color was recorded every hour. Whales were heard/seen both in green

water and in blue water environments, and in all depths from 500 to 2000 meters. As our survey

track was determined without integrating knowledge on either sea surface height (except for

three days during Leg 3) or bathymetry, and as we attempted to survey all water depths between

500 and 1500 meters as well as different sea surface heights, we should have a relatively

unbiased picture of sperm whale habitat in the northern Gulf during June-August 2004.

Concluding Statements

The R/V Summer Breeze cruise was the first SWSS cruise to use a motor-sailing vessel to study

sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Such vessels have been used widely to study sperm whales

in other areas of the world, and we are pleased to find that it was just as efficient and productive

in the Gulf of Mexico as elsewhere. The use of such a vessel allowed us to collect a large amount

of identification photographs (302 in total), as well as good quality coda recordings, recordings

of vocalizations during the 1st few minutes of a dive for length measurement analyses, long-term

follows, and defecation rates. Such information on the biology of the species cannot be reliably 

and consistently gathered from a large vessel.

The success of this cruise was aided by good weather enjoyed for most of the field season.

Although we were working from a much smaller vessel than the R/V Gyre, we were less

constrained by weather than is the case when poor weather constrains our ability to launch

RHIBs from a larger vessel. Thus, Summer Breeze provided a more stable and capable working 

platform than a RHIB in poor weather conditions.

Table 4.1.7

Summary of Occasions on Which Calibrated Recordings Were Made of Production Platforms

and Drill Ships

Date Approx.

Time

Rig Name Notes

25/06/2004 18:00 Petronius Could not make radio contact

28/06/2004 18:00 Medusa Could not make radio contact

28/06/2004 19:50 Ocean Lexington Not drilling, reported had been using vibrator

29/06/2004 12:30 Matterhorn

04/07/2004 19:30 Ursa Made contact by radio requested 500m exclusion zone, not drilling

25/07/2004 11:00 Ursa Made contact, not drilling

02/08/2004 14:00 Discovery

Enterprise Drill

Ship

Concreting casings, not drilling

02/08/2004 19:30 Devil’s Tower Spoke by radio. Exchanged information on cetacean sightings

05/08/2004 13:00 Petronius Heavy Weather
82

Table 4.1.8

Locations of CTD Casts That Reached 50 m or More

Date Time Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

CTD

Number

Leg 1

23 June 2004 16:00 28.8924 87.1103 1

25 June 2004 20:50 28.4997 89.0721 2

Leg 2

3 July 2004 16:58 28.9166 88.2213 3

4 July 2004 18:54 28.1482 89.1169 4

6 July 2004 19:15 28.1089 89.6108 5

7 July 2004 20:00 28.0548 89.6357 6

10 July 2004 18:20 28.2536 89.3166 7

11 July 2004 17:20 28.2186 89.8129 8

12 July 2004 19:15 28.5899 88.9972 9

Leg 3

19 July 2004 18:30 28.7478 88.9219 10

20 July 2004 18:34 28.2919 89.7365 11

22 July 2004 19:00 27.8366 90.1798 12

23 July 2004 18:45 28.2665 89.7432 13

24 July 2004 18:45 27.5221 89.7593 14

25 July 2004 11:10 28.1484 89.1076 15

26 July 2004 19:20 28.0923 88.1241 16

27 July 2004 18:40 27.8155 88.4168 17

28 July 2004 18:47 28.3476 88.5994 18

Leg 4

2 Aug 2004 17:35 28.2078 88.8011 19

3 Aug 2004 19:20 28.1394 88.8150 20

5 Aug 2004 19:25 29.0954 87.8562 21

6 Aug 2004 19:10 29.2354 87.2513 22

9 Aug 2004 18:45 29.0392 86.8005 23
83

4.2 Mesoscale Population Study Cruise of 2005

Introduction

Our primary goal during the second summer of MPS cruises was to survey for sperm whales

along the shelf edge of the northern Gulf of Mexico approximately between longitude 91°W and 

86°W, with a particular emphasis on the survey blocks that included the Mississippi Canyon and

Mississippi River Delta outflow regions. These are the areas that had the highest sperm whale

encounter rates in previous years. This was particularly the case for mixed groups, which

comprise females and immature animals. Because our survey vessel, the same 46' motor-sailor

that we had chartered in summer 2004, was based in St. Petersburg, Florida, a passage had to be

made along the western Florida coast to and from our main study areas. We aimed to survey

between the 500 and 1500-m depth contours in this eastern area but with a lower level of effort.

Within our main survey area we expected, based on experience from previous years, to encounter

mainly large mixed groups in the Canyon and Delta outflow regions and maturing males in small

and dispersed groups to the east and in the DeSoto Canyon and Florida coast regions. The

primary data to be collected on this project were photo-id images, along with visual and acoustic

measures of length, acoustic recordings and where possible, biopsy samples. The photo-id data

are useful for revealing a variety of basic biological data for this population, including 

population size, range of movements, residence patterns, and social organization.

The cruise was conducted in four legs, described below. The science team members for each leg

are shown in Table 4.2.1. Jonathan Gordon and Christoph Richter were the Field Party Chiefs for

Legs 1 and 4 and Legs 2 and 3, respectively. Figure 4.2.1 summarizes the planned survey blocks

and the actual tracks over the four legs.

Table 4.2.1

Science Team for the SWSS 2005 MPS Cruise

Participant Function Participation in legs

Jonathan Gordon Party chief, legs 1+4 1 and 4

Christoph Richter Party chief, legs 2+3 1-3

Pip Bauerlein Skipper 1-4

Ricardo Antunes Acoustics 1-4

Sierra Deutsch Observer 1-4

Raul Diaz-Gamboa Biopsy 2-4

Sam DuFresne Observer 1-4

Thomas Gordon Logistics 1-4
84

Figure 4.2.1. Cruise tracks for the 2005 MPS cruise. The predetermined survey blocks (Blocks

0 to 3) are overlaid by the actual track of the Summer Breeze (thick colored lines:

blue is survey mode [regular acoustic monitoring] (SU); red is tracking and photoID mode (TP); black is off-effort or on-transit (X)). Depth contours are shown

with thin colored lines.

The charter of the vessel began on 4 June but work to assemble and check equipment stored in

Galveston, Texas, had been underway for several weeks beforehand. Equipment was driven to

St. Petersburg in a rented truck by two of the team. Most of the rest of the team assembled in St.

Petersburg on 3 June. Mobilization, which essentially involved adapting a standard inshore

charter yacht to be a viable offshore research vessel, was extensive and took nine days of intense

work. Preparations were hampered somewhat by the fact that some of the key personnel arrived

late because of delays in receiving visas and by a few days of torrential rain and stormy weather

from “Arlene”, the first hurricane of the season, which passed offshore. Mobilization work

included establishing an acoustic monitoring and science work station, fitting two towed and one

directional hydrophones, fitting a through-hull temperature sensor system, fitting a satellite

communications system and a navigation computer, fitting a man-overboard alarm system,

converting two heads to food storage, adapting the vessel’s accommodation to provide seven

reasonable sea berths, and augmenting the vessel’s fuel supplies with 32 jerry cans on deck.

Summer Breeze left St. Petersburg on 13 June and monitoring work began on 14 June, when we

reached deep water. The first leg consisted of surveys along the Florida Shelf edge, into the

DeSoto Canyon and along the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico as far as the Mississippi

Delta Region. During this leg, whales seemed generally to be less abundant than in previous

32°N

31°N

30°N

29°N

28°N

27°N

26°N

25°N
85

years. No large mixed groups were encountered and maturing males seemed to be distributed 

further to the west than in other years. Many of the whales that we did see appeared not to be

feeding during the day, thus were not fluking and could not be photo-identified. The vessel made

its first port call in Gulfport, Mississippi, on 20 June, a day earlier than planned, in part because

one of the team had developed a worrying ear infection but also to allow time to attend to a

number of mechanical problems which had developed on the boat. We also used this time to

build a mount for a new directional hydrophone. Figure 4.2.2 shows the tracks of Leg 1.

The second leg began on 23 June and continued the survey to the west. No whales were

encountered in the Mississippi Canyon (previously an area with a high encounter rate) and most

encounters were with small groups (≤ 4 animals) towards the western end of our survey blocks.

Work was hampered by poor weather due to frequent thunder squalls and persistent high winds.

Leg 2 was curtailed on 29 June when one of the team developed a serious eye infection. The

boat returned to Gulfport; the ill team member attended hospital and was then required to recover

at her family home.

Figure 4.2.2. Track for Leg 1 of the MPS cruise from 13 – 20 June 2005. Green line: survey

mode (regular acoustic monitoring); red line: tracking and photo-ID mode (TP),

black line: off effort or transiting. Depth contours are shown (thin colored lines).
86

A reduced team left Gulfport after this emergency port call to continue the survey on 2 July. The

team soon picked up a loose aggregation of four whales and tracked them over 33 hours as they 

moved some 60 miles roughly following the 1000m contour into the DeSoto Canyon region.

However, tropical storm Cindy then intervened, forcing a port call to Pensacola, Florida.

Immediately after this storm passed, hurricane Dennis began moving up the eastern Gulf, with

Pensacola directly on its track. Due to the lack of shelter in Pensacola, the team decided to move

the boat to the west as quickly as possible and took shelter at Morgan City, Louisiana, on 9 July.

This also provided an opportunity for the team member with the infected eye, now recovered, to 

rejoin the vessel.

Summer Breeze put to sea again on 12 July, reaching deep water and resuming monitoring on 13

July. Just after midnight, a major electrical fault developed in the vessel’s engine resulting in the

starter motor, alternator and all of the engine’s wiring burning out. With no propulsion, major

repairs required and hurricane Emily now threatening, the boat sailed slowly towards Galveston,

where TAMUG could provide support. Summer Breeze eventually arrived at the TAMUG Small

Boat Basin late on 15 July. Figure 4.2.3 shows the tracks during Legs 2 and 3.

Figure 4.2.3. Tracks for Legs 2 and 3 of the MPS cruise from 23 June – 15 July 2005. Green 

line: survey mode (regular acoustic monitoring); red line: tracking and photo-ID

mode; black line: off-effort or transiting. Depth contours are shown (thin colored

lines).
87

Repairs to the engine took over a week to complete but it was possible to rearrange travel to

bring the start of the final leg forward by a few days and Summer Breeze left Galveston on 23

July. Figure 4.2.4 shows the track of Leg 4. The boat was once again operating with a reduced

team as the biopsy collector had an injured foot which had become infected and required shore

rest. Although Galveston was well to the west of the planned survey areas, it was decided to

survey from there, in part to cover a gap between the areas surveyed by the S-tag and MPS

projects but also to further investigate the apparently anomalous patterns of sperm whale

distribution this year. With generally good weather conditions and whales encountered on most

days, this final leg was especially productive. One large mixed group was encountered and

followed for two days. It was well to the west of our designated survey area. In the main study

area, only maturing males were encountered. A brief port stop was made at Port Fourchon, LA,

to pick up the team member whose injured foot had recovered and to take on fuel and fresh 

provisions. On 30 July, a loose grouping of three whales was tracked as they crossed the track of

an active seismic survey vessel. This should provide interesting opportunistic observations of

such interactions.

Figure 4.2.4. Track for Leg 4 of the MPS cruise from 23 July – 3 August 2005. Green line:

survey mode (regular acoustic monitoring); red line: tracking and photo-ID mode,

black line: off effort or transiting. Depth contours are shown (thin colored lines).
88

No sperm whales were encountered during the passage along the Florida coast during the final

return leg though monitoring was also affected by torrential rain and thunderstorms.

Hydrophones were recovered and surveying ended in the evening of 2 August. The vessel

arrived back in St. Petersburg on the evening of 3 August. Three days were spent removing our

equipment from the boat, refitting its normal charter inventory, cleaning and tidying up.

Research equipment was driven back to Galveston in a rented truck by two of the team members

and the rest of the team members dispersed. Information on all legs and port calls is summarized 

in Table 4.2.2.

Table 4.2.2

Summary of Legs and Port Calls for the 2005 MPS Cruise

Leg Start End Field Comments

Date Port Date Port Party Chief

1 June Galveston, TX 12 June St. Petersburg, FL mobilization

1 13 June St. Petersburg, FL 20 June Gulfport, MS Gordon

2a 23 June Gulfport, MS 29 June Gulfport, MS Richter medical

2b 2 July Gulfport, MS 5 July Pensacola, FL Richter tropical storm Cindy

3a 7 July Pensacola, FL 9 July Morgan City, LA Richter hurricane Dennis

3b 12 July Morgan City, LA 15 July Galveston, TX Richter engine breakdown

4a 23 July Galveston, TX 30 July Fourchon, LA Gordon team member pick-up

4b 30 July Fourchon, LA 3 August St. Petersburg, FL Gordon

3 August St. Petersburg, FL 8 August Galveston, TX demobilization

Accomplishments

During the 2005 MPS cruise on the Summer Breeze, we completed 333 hours in survey mode

during which we covered 1969 nautical miles. This included 1262 regular one-minute acoustic

monitoring stations. In addition, 311 hours were spent in tracking and photo-ID mode, covering

680 nautical miles.

June and July 2005 were record-setting months for hurricanes, with seven tropical storms in all.

This project was affected by four of them. Nevertheless, because the vessel was able to be on the

water over a span of approximately 6 weeks, overall results and success with sperm whale

encounters was satisfactory, and new data on sperm whale age and sex distribution, sounds,

behavioral patterns, and photo-identifications were gathered. This information is outlined in

more detail below. Probably the most significant finding from this season will prove to be the

provision of evidence of an apparent shift in the distribution of different components of the

population.

Permits

The behavioral/photo-identification part of this project was conducted under NMFS Scientific

Research Permit To Take Marine Mammals, Amendment No. 1, Permit No. 821-1588-01

(Principal Investigator Dr. Randall W. Davis; Co-Investigator Dr. Bernd Würsig). Biopsy
89

sampling was conducted under NMFS Permit No. 909-1726-00 (Principal Investigator Dan 

Engelhaupt of the University of Durham.).

Vessel

The research platform used for this leg of the survey was the Summer Breeze, which had also

been used last year. It was chartered from Sunsail in St. Petersburg, Florida. Summer Breeze is a

46’ sloop with a 76-HP engine and 7 berths (Figure 4.2.5).

Summer Breeze was modified to provide extra storage for food and equipment by adapting the

heads and providing lee cloths and additional fans to improve its accommodation. An acoustic

work station (see below for details) was set up in the main cabin. Communication and navigation

was improved by adding a Global Star satellite telephone system, a dedicated navigation and

communication computer, and additional GPS receivers. In addition, a man-overboard alarm

system was fitted to enhance team safety. Finally, to provide additional fuel capacity, 34 fivegallon jerry cans were lashed on deck.

The provision of clean electrical power and the elimination of electrical noise is often a problem

on a small vessel. A pure sine wave inverter (Prosine 1800) was installed running directly off

the vessel’s house batteries. This provided clean AC power for computers and for the acoustic

work station. A separate DC power supply served preamplifiers and panel meters.

Figure 4.2.5. The Summer Breeze, a 46’ sloop, served as the research vessel for the 2005 MPS

cruise. To extend the reach of the vessel, 34 red and yellow jerry cans were lashed 

to the deck. One of the towed hydrophones can be seen coiled up at the port stern.

(Photo: Bill Lang)
90

Acoustic

Two stereo “Ecologic” towed hydrophone arrays, one with 100m and the other with 200m of

cable, were carried and were towed off each quarter. Having two matched hydrophones

provided a spare in the event of loss or damage, and also allowed them to be towed as “tandem”

arrays to allow more accurate acoustic tracking using programs such as Rainbow Click1. Each

array contained a depth sensor.

The acoustic work station was housed in a waterproof SKB instrument case. It consisted of a

laptop computer and two Magrec HP27ST preamplifiers, which were interfaced via a USB sound 

card (M Audio). Two panel meters measured depth of the hydrophone arrays. As only one

computer was available for acoustic analysis, an audio switch was used to select between the

arrays when the hydrophones were deployed as tandem arrays to resolve left/right ambiguity. A

calibration tone generator was also mounted in the instrument case to allow for calibration of the

system.

A feed from the main system in the acoustic work station was available at the helm allowing 

monitoring of the hydrophones on deck using headphones. In addition, the output from the

hydrophones could be fed into the vessel’s HiFi system providing general monitoring of

underwater acoustic activity.

Two hand held directional hydrophones mounted on long fiberglass poles were used when

tracking sperm whales at close range. In addition, a more elaborate directional hydrophone

within a streamlined pod was built following designs for directional hydrophones used from

motor sailors by Hal Whitehead and colleagues. The advantage of this design is that it can stay

mounted to the vessel. A mount for this was attached to the main-sheet arch of Summer Breeze.

Operation: The towed hydrophone systems worked well. The 100-m hydrophone was used

continuously whenever the vessel was in water deeper than 200 m. The second hydrophone was

occasionally deployed to assist with tracking whales. Hand held directional hydrophones were

normally used by stopping the boat and deploying them from the swim platform at the stern of

the boat. With such good access to the water this proved feasible in calm conditions. The

streamlined directional hydrophone was not completely successful. Sufficient tests were done to 

demonstrate that it could be monitored underway and provided reliable bearings to whales being

tracked. However, it proved impossible to make a sufficiently strong but temporary attachment

on a vessel that was only available for a short term charter.

Data collection: Wherever possible data were collected directly to computers to minimize

transcription errors and speed up later analysis. The Logger

2

program ran continuously on the

computer at the acoustic work station. It collected the vessel’s track from GPS, information on

search status and effort, hourly environmental data, non-sperm whale sightings, acoustic data,

and information on encounters with sperm whale groups and individuals. All data were stored in

a coordinated relational database. All recordings from the towed hydrophones were made at a

96kHz sampling rate using the tape recorder within Logger. On some occasions Logger’s

 

1 Rainbow Click is a computer program written by Douglas Gillespie with support from the International Fund for Animal Welfare to

promote benign and non-invasive research.

2 Logger is a computer program written by Douglas Gillespie with support from the International Fund for Animal Welfare to promote

benign and non-invasive research.
91

automatic recording and buffering capabilities were used. In addition, data on hydrophone depth

and surface water temperature were stored within the Logger database using programs written

for this project by Ricardo Antunes. A new feature in Logger is the ability to open forms and 

control some functions using external buttons. We installed a system of wireless remote control

buttons to be able to open key forms and initiate tape recordings from deck which made it easier

to record data on a computer below decks. Occasionally, for example when working with larger

schools of sperm whales, notes were also made on paper forms. This information was transcribed 

into Logger immediately after these encounters ended.

Photo-ID and Photogrammetry

The primary data collected on this project were photographs and observations to characterize

individual animals, in particular images to allow animals to be identified. To collect these,

animals were carefully approached from astern to allow sequences of photographs of the fluke up

to be taken as close to perpendicular as possible. We used two digital SLR cameras (Canon 1D

and 1D-MarkII), equipped with Sigma 100-300 mm lenses. Observers also looked carefully at

the whale’s dorsal fin using stabilized 12X binoculars (Fujinon) to determine whether or not it

carried a callus (calluses are more common on mature females). Ranges to whales were

measured using laser range finders. These distances served two purposes. Firstly, relaying this

information to the helm helped with maneuvering. A range of between 40-50 meters is ideal for

photo-identification. Secondly, the exact range to the whale when it fluked can be used to

estimate fluke width, and consequently body length of the whale. Along with the distance to the

fluke, we also recorded an estimate of the relative angle between us and the fluke, since this

measure influences the quality of the estimates of fluke width.

Some 180 photographic sequences were taken of fluke ups for photo-identification. Of these, 31

were taken on Leg 1, 37 on the middle legs and 112 on the final leg. This distribution reflects

both the poor weather and other problems encountered in the middle of the cruise. It also points

to the general lack of large mixed groups within our study area and the fact that the whales

encountered during the first and middle legs often were not feeding and thus not fluking up.

Some individuals bore such obvious marks that we are confident that several animals have

already been identified in previous years.

Acoustic Monitoring

Hydrophones were monitored every 15 minutes for one minute when the vessel was offshore and 

in survey mode. This year we experienced some electrical noise on the system (emanating from

the alternator) which we were unable to fully eliminate. We believe that this must relate to 

changes made to the boat between the two seasons but we were never able to isolate the cause.

To facilitate monitoring, the engine would be turned off on every second monitoring station. A

total of 1262 standard one minute monitoring stations were completed. Dolphins were detected

at 19% of these (compared to 13% in 2004). Seismic airguns could be heard at 28% of these.

This compares with detection rates for seismic of 5% and 30% in 2004 and 2003 respectively.

Sperm whales were detected at 8% of stations compared to 11% in 2004. However, as the vessel

would come off survey mode and start tracking soon after whales are detected, these are much 

lower than detection rates one would expect for a non-closing survey mode.

Coda Recordings

Codas, stereotyped patterns of clicks believed to be used for communication and most often

heard from socializing whales, can be analyzed to reveal the cultural organizational structure of
92

sperm whale populations. This year we continued to add to our repertoire of recordings from

mixed groups and were particularly excited to obtain substantial recordings from groups of

maturing males, which have previously been poorly sampled. Table 4.2.3 summarizes dedicated

coda recordings.

Tissue Collection

Biopsy samples were collected for Dr. Dan Engelhaupt. Only one of the team, Raul DiazGamboa, was permitted for this work. Diaz was not available for the first leg and was injured for

the first part of the final leg, consequently only two samples were collected from individuals

believed to be males. The biopsy samples were stored in 20% DMSO solution to preserve the

tissues. In addition, three sloughed skin samples were collected. Table 4.2.4 gives the locations

of the tissue samples.

Table 4.2.3

Summary of Dedicated Coda Recordings

Date

(d/m/y)

Number of

Recordings

Made

Minutes

of

Recording

17/06/2005 8 31.6

18/06/2005 3 11.2

19/06/2005 8 66.6

03/07/2005 11 47.8

04/07/2005 5 27.2

25/07/2005 7 46.2

26/07/2005 3 20.5

01/08/2005 7 81.1

Table 4.2.4

Locations of Tissue Sample Collection

Biopsy Sample Number

Date

(m/d/y)

Latitude

(

o

N)

Longitude

(

o

W)

05073001 07/30/2005 28.2104 -89.0015

05080102 08/01/2005 29.2413 -87.3053
93

Other Sightings

The small team on this project had a heavy workload to maintain round the clock monitoring.

While the small research vessel used was quiet and excellent for acoustic monitoring it lacked a

good visual observation platform. Thus an effective visual monitoring watch was not maintained 

when sperm whales were not being tracked. Nonetheless, a number of sightings of species other

than sperm whales were made in offshore waters; these are summarized in Table 4.2.5. Two 

highlights were an encounter with a Bryde’s whale on the continental shelf south of Pensacola

and an encounter with false killer whales offshore from the Florida coast.

Rig Recordings

A number of opportunistic recordings of noise fields close to oil platforms and drill ships were

made. Both the vessel’s primary towed hydrophones and a calibrated recording setup were used.

Recordings are summarized in Table 4.2.6.

Table 4.2.5

Sightings of Species Other Than Sperm Whales During the 2005 MPS Cruise

Date

(m/d/y)

Time

(UTC) Species

Estimated

Group Size

Latitude

°N

Longitude

°W

06/15/05 1910 Pantropical spotted dolphins 25 28.0565 -86.2254

06/15/05 2037 Unidentified dolphin 10 28.1535 -86.2913

06/15/05 2210 Pantropical spotted dolphins 50 28.2820 -86.3450

06/16/05 1626 Kogia species 1 29.0025 -87.1074

06/16/05 1841 Kogia species 1 29.1668 -87.0249

06/17/05 1325 Pantropical spotted dolphins 2 29.0932 -87.5456

06/17/05 1340 Melon-headed whale 200 29.1012 -87.5674

06/19/05 0114 Pantropical spotted dolphins 20 28.7635 -88.6207

06/19/05 1305 Risso’s dolphin 6 28.9864 -88.4402

06/19/05 1854 Pygmy Killer Whale 12 28.9887 -88.3981

06/19/05 1949 Risso’s dolphin 6 28.9987 -88.3568

06/19/05 2254 Short-snouted spinner 15 29.0614 -88.2765

06/25/05 1245 Pantropical spotted dolphins 30 28.1161 -88.9061

06/27/05 1807 Short-snouted spinner 8 27.7987 -90.5462

06/28/05 1939 Melon-headed whale 15 27.9655 -90.3579

07/03/05 1050 Unidentified dolphin 50 28.8631 -88.4214

07/04/05 1508 Pilot whale 20 29.2398 -87.6502

07/04/05 1844 Unidentified dolphin 7 29.2527 -87.5555

07/06/05 1800 Bryde’s whale 1 29.67 -87.22

07/13/05 1552 Bottlenose dolphin 8 27.7401 -91.5214

07/25/05 2151 Melon-headed whale 80 26.8406 -92.9924

07/30/05 1103 Melon-headed whale 30 28.1644 -88.8874

08/02/05 1600 False killer whale 18 28.2296 -86.1789

08/02/05 2227 Pantropical spotted dolphins 20 27.6618 -85.5828
94

Habitat Characterization

Surface water temperature was logged every minute at a water depth of approximately 1 m.

These data were recorded in Logger through an interface program written by Ricardo Antunes

and over 24,000 measurements were recorded. In addition, whenever time allowed, usually at

the end of the day, a CTD cast to a depth of approximately 50 m was completed using a hand

deployed Seabird SeaCat CTD. Table 4.2.7 summarizes the CTD casts.

Table 4.2.6

Recordings of Rig Noise Made During the 2005 MPS Cruise

Date Time

(UTC)

Rig Name

14 July 2005 02:18 Ocean Victory

27 July 2005 17:00 Ocean Saratoga

27 July 2005 17:40 Brutus

27 July 2005 19:00 Genesis

28 July 2005 02:26 Ocean America

27 July 2005 06:17 TranOcean

Table 4.2.7

Locations of CTD Casts on 2005 MPS Cruise

Date

(m/d/y)

Time

(UTC)

Latitude

(°N)

Longitude

(°W)

CTD #

06/16/2005 15:31:39 28.9417 -87.1349 1

06/17/2005 17:04:40 29.1558 -87.7920 2

06/18/2005 17:16:33 28.7999 -88.4239 3

06/19/2005 16:19:40 28.9989 -88.4331 4

06/24/2005 16:32:30 28.5475 -88.6289 5

06/27/2005 16:18:24 27.8417 -88.6289 6

07/03/2005 17:42:06 28.9849 -88.2332 7

07/13/2005 16:03:25 27.7371 -91.5421 8

07/24/2005 17:56:35 27.2901 -93.5184 9

07/25/2005 18:12:25 26.9316 -93.0966 10

07/26/2005 17:40:06 26.8848 -92.3699 11

07/27/2005 16:57:17 27.7929 -90.6901 12

07/30/2005 17:19:14 28.2376 -88.9914 13

07/31/2005 17:46:44 28.9034 -88.5012 14

08/01/2005 17:43:48 29.2697 -87.3594 15

08/02/2005 17:57:39 28.0733 -85.9902 16
95

5 LITERATURE CITED

Jochens, A.E. and D.C. Biggs, eds. 2003. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico;

Annual Report: Year 1. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of

Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-069. 139 pp.

Jochens, A.E. and D.C. Biggs, eds. 2004. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico,

Annual Report Year 2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service,

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2004-067. 154 pp.

Jochens, A., D. Biggs, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben, B. Mate, P.

Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, J. Wormuth, and B. Würsig. 2006. Sperm

whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico; Summary Report, 2002-2004. U.S. Dept. of

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans,

LA. OCS Study MMS 2006-034. 352 pp.

MacLennan, D.N. and E.J. Simmonds. 1992. Fisheries Acoustics. Chapman and Hall, London.

325 pp.

McKay, M. and J. Nides, eds. 2005. Proceedings: Twenty-third Gulf of Mexico information

transfer meeting, January 2005. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, La. OCS Study MMS 2005-066.

612 pp.

Webster, R. 1973. Automatic soil-boundary location from transect data. Math. Geol. 5:27-37.
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses 

our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. 

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities 

and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

The Minerals Management Service Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) 

primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation's Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and Indian 

lands, and distribute those revenues. 

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management Program

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally 

sound exploration and production of our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral 

resources. The MMS Minerals Revenue Management meets its responsibilities by ensuring the 

efficient, timely and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and 

production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury. 

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being 

responsive to the public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially 

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the 

quality of life for all Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic 

development and environmental protection.