Topics not covered by the standard

Certain areas will not be covered by this standard:

(A) Determining the required detection range of the system for various marine mammal species:  as discussed previously, determining a required detection range requires information about the exposure criteria for given set of species,  the propagation environment, noise environment, and goals of a given project.

Consensus by the community on exposure criteria seems unlikely at this time.  Given this uncertainty and complexity, it is therefore suggested that procedures for determining the required detection range of a given PAM operation should belong in a separate, future standard.

(B) For PAM conducted primarily for mitigation purposes, important operational aspects are the decision criteria and procedures for initiating operational shutdowns if a marine mammal is detected.  However, these topics are not addressed in this proposal, because shutdown criteria must be heavily based (once again) on exposure criteria, which in turn depends on the knowledge of the impact of sound on marine mammal physiology and behavior, a topic where community consensus is judged to be unlikely at this point.

(C) Sound source verification techniques would not be covered under this standard, in part because they are being addressed by other ANSI standards.  An example is the recent standard on determining the radiated noise output of a ship (ANSI/ASA S12.64-2009/Part 1).

(D) Specific data formats for acoustic data and metadata would not be covered under this standard, primarily because there are already existing efforts working to define standards for formatting metadata records (e.g.  Tethys) for use in databases like OBIS Seamap, etc.  However, this standard will define what types of metadata are required by towed PAM operations for raw acoustic data, derived data products, and environmental measurements.  If metadata standards emerge in parallel with this effort, then the towed PAM standard can simply reference the new metadata standards.

 

One thought on “Topics not covered by the standard”

  1. (Stanley Labak, BOEM)

    “Given this uncertainty and complexity, is therefore suggested that procedures for determining the appropriate detection range of PAM operations should belong in a separate, future standard”

    This type of data is very important to helping PAM data be used to mitigate or be used to update and improve marine mammal density estimates. Does this standard limit PAM to bearing only reporting?? Also, I would think that one of the best “calibrations” for PAM might be using animal signals from known (observed) locations close to the array, where the nearest hydrophone to an animal when it vocalizes could be used to approximate the animals’ source level for that ping, and then be used to check or test the other hydrophones.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

We listen.

scripps oceanography uc san diego