Skip to main content

April 6, 2011

CIET Conference Calls


  • Overview of where we stand
    • Outstanding issues summarized in: Cascadia Issues March 2011
    • CIET workflow/communications
      • Web site
      • Conference calls
      • Meeting face-to-face
  • 2011 Deployments
    • July deployment
      • Chief and co-chief are Maya Tolstoy and Anne Trehu
      • Instrument status update
      • Port call?
      • Bathymetry update
      • Hazards/biology
      • Fine-tuning site locations. We need information and a mechanism
  • Oct-Nov deployment
    • Chief and co-chief?
      • Leg 1
      • Leg 2
    • R.A.T.S form
  • NSF Proposal for year 1 deployments
    • update
    • UO requires subcontracts from institutions likely to participate in deployments
  • May 2011 mapping cruise
    • Status/update
    • CIET input to bathymetry needs for 2011 deployments
  • Education and Outreach
    • CC@Sea


Participants : Richard Allen, Rick Carlson, John Collins, Bob Dziak, Emilie Hooft, Jeff McGuire, Susan Schwartz, Maya Tolstoy, Anne Trehu, William Wilcock

Overview and Communications : The call began with a brief overview of outstanding issues and a discussion of how best to coordinate communications between CIET. CIET members were encouraged to review a summary of outstanding issues Cascadia Issues March 2011

Following a brief discussion of the CIET site, conference calls and a face-to-face meeting, it was decided that a combination of the CIET site and bi-weekly conference calls could achieve most of our goals.

✔✔Action Item 1: Schedule bi-weekly conference calls (Toomey)

In terms of communications and workflow, it was decided that the web site is useful as a repository of information but that it has limitations in terms of facilitating efficient collaboration. It was decided that the best way to move topics ahead is to assign a moderator to the topic. A moderator's responsibility is to track the topic, send out e-mails, set deadlines, bring the topic to closure. The results of that effort can then be summarized/posted on the CIET site.

Action Item 2: Report from moderators at next bi-weekly call (McGuire, Tolstoy, Trehu, Wilcock)

  • Jeff McGuire: Fine tuning Northern FA
  • Maya Tolstoy: Bathymetry for Norther NA
  • Anne Trehu: Trawling and biology hazards
  • William Wilcock: Bathymetry for all Cascadia deployments

2011 Deployments

July deployment Andrew Barclay (LDE), very cautious and thus anxious regarding close time schedule. Anticipates that OBSs will be built and ready to go, however, not well tested in July. Long lead time on ordering parts contributes to delays. LDEO would like to revisit issue in May to see where we are. Issues to consider:

  • Is there any possibility of switching with later Wecoma legs to allow deployment of OBSs that are better tested?
  • If instruments are deployed without testing, do we want to recover a subset in Aug/Sep to check status?

Action Item 3: Open discussion on above issues (Tolstoy, moderator)

Port Call: There is sufficient space on board the Wecoma to field all 20 TRM OBSs

Bathymetry: There is a lack of full multibeam coverage in the NFA region. Not entirely clear how critical this is for shallow water deployments. Maybe more critical is fishing and defining trawl hangs. Also edge of shelf and canyon. Shallow part may not be a high priority.

Hazards/biology: Anne Trehu will moderate this issue and provide a report for next call. Noted that there is a detailed report from Andrew on the trawling page. It was decided to address this from the perspective of the whole experiment so as not to lose credibility with the fishing industry. Anne to talk with Paul Johnson. Anne knows individuals involved, will look at between now and next call.

Fine-tuning site locations: Jeff will e-mail and get opinions on the Northern FA. Richard suggested using the same sort of guidelines that the TA uses for refining and scale accordingly for FAs. It was decided that for the Northern FA the inter-station spacing and staggering of instruments was most crucial, but that shifting the entire array by 5 km is not a problem. Thus avoiding canyon is easy, large scale is easy. Harder question is detailed inter-station spacing. We discussed pros/cons of pulling the array closer to the coast. Is there a minimum water depth for the OBSs? Wind waves on bottom is the operational issue.

Action Item 4: Draft recommendations related to moving sites (Jeff McGuire)

Oct-Nov deployment The two main issues now are chief/co-chief scientists for the 2 legs and completion of the R.A.T.S. forms. The consensus was that a Chief and Co-chief are necessary for each leg.

Bob Dziak, Del Bohnenstiehl and student of Bob's will participate in one of the legs.

We discussed availability of bunks for other participants, outreach personnel, graduate students, interns, etc. Great opportunity to fill the bunks with others!

Action Item 5: Volunteer to be Chief/Co-chief for other leg

Action Item 6: Determine availability of bunks during July cruise (Tolstoy/Trehu)

NSF Proposal We discussed whether the first proposal would be to support the deployment of instruments during the 2011 field season and supporting activities. In this case, a follow-on, multi-year proposal would be prepared latter in 2011 and this proposal would better respond to the issues outlined in the memo to NSF.

A proposal covering just the first year of operations is the most likely route and would request funds for 2011 field operations, CIET planning activities for the coming year, Education and Outreach for 2011 field season and technical IT services to support a content management system and portal. It is hard for me (DRT) to see how we can thoughtfully prepare a multi-year proposal at this time.

Comments from NSF were along the lines of:

  • We may want to consider whether or not a renewal every year of the project is beneficial
  • There are advantages to a multi-year proposal, do it and its done.
  • The CIET team has a good idea of tasks, should ask for what is needed and if excessive can revise. Time at sea and on shore should be covered.
  • Support for planning activities ought to be included

There was a discussion of how individuals at universities should budget for time. I.e., is it valid for university personnel to budget for graduate student support in the event their salary may be paid from other sources? There was no consensus on this topic. It will be discussed further.

Several discussions were begun and not concluded, including the above, support for a meeting of the CIET prior to the July cruise, data QC/metadata.

Regarding meeting prior to the July cruise, Rick noted that travel funds could be provided via a supplement to OBSIP. If a group gets together to discuss the deployments then travel support could be included as part of drop costs and via a supplement to LDEO IIC.

  • Anne has trip to Boston in June; June 17th could be at LDEO

✔✔Action Item 7: Poll CIET on proposal related issues (Toomey)

✔✔Action Item 8: Poll CIET on meeting at LDEO on June 17 (Toomey)

Action Item 9: Poll CIET on time for face-to-face meeting to discuss overall project in June/July/August time frame (Toomey)

May 2011 mapping cruise: 28 day cruise starting on May 28. Goldfinger/Rasmos taking lead. They are currently compiling all the bathymetry on the margin. Geotiffs in a few weeks to plan the mapping. William looking for additional bathy further offshore. Clearly some that is not in goemapapp. Will’s aim there is to site on multibeam mapping. Need to find out what data exists.

We discussed whether multibeam coverage was needed for mid-plate sites. Provided that turbidite channels are avoided, the answer was proably not.

We discussed whether or not Langseth/Thompson/Atlantis transits could be used to collect data on the Pacific plate in regions of rough topography.

Action Item 10: Follow up on ships of opportunity (Wilcock/Tolstoy)

Action Item 11: CIET to discuss priorities for bathy meeting at future calls

Miscellaneous topics

  • Discussed timing of Nabelek Blanco experiment. Best if the deployment occurs in summer of 2012
  • Discussed instrumentation needs of OBSIP in Newport.
  • Proposal pending for deployment of OBSs in Gorda.

There was some discussion as to why the Wecoma was assigned for Cascadia in October/November. Given weather conditions and cost of mapping sites, it would have been preferable if NSF had consulted the science team. It might have actually saved some money too.

Action Item 12: Determine OBSIP space needs in Newport (Collins)