Site Naming Conventions
Bathymetry and Mapping Software
Status of NSF grant and subcontracts
Participants : Robert Dziak, Emilie Hooft, Dean Livelybrooks, Jeff McGuire, Doug Toomey, William Wilcock, Susan Schwartz, Richard Allen, Anne Trehu, Maya Tolstoy
Update on Leg 1, July 23 - August 2, 2011, R/V Wecoma (W1107A)
Maya and Anne (Chief Scientists for Leg 1) provided an update on the first and eventful CI deployment cruise! The cruise objective was to deploy LDEO TRM OBSs along the northern focussed array site off of Grays Harbor.
Value of 2 Chief Scientists: Both Maya and Anne emphasized the importance of having two chief scientists on board during operations. One advantage of having two co-chiefs is that it provides peer-to-peer discussions regarding operations and necessary changes. With the CIET being responsible to the community at large, there is considerable extra pressure to make sure that any changes made at sea are well thought out and reflect community intent. As these changes are, by necessity, being made on the fly and in challenging conditions, it is vital that a Chief have a partner to bounce ideas off of and to reach consensus. In the future we will need to make this case to the NSF and our community.
On the justification for two chief scientists, I would also like to add that, at least with the TRM instruments, it was simply an awful lot of work for one person to undertake. The logistics of deploying a new design in shallow water combined with the fishing issues, the bathymetry questions, and just all the decisions that go into adapting a cruise plan as the variables of weather, instruments and schedule are navigated is a lot to take on. I had my hands full with the OBS issues, and Anne led the fishing and bathymetry questions. It was a very functional division of labor, and I can't imagine either of us having to take on the others work load (we already slept very little). This should be much easier for the deep water cruises, and the sites are less likely to be changing, so one chief sci may be fine for that. But I think our hope also for the chief sci model was to start training new people (e.g. the more land based ones), so eventually it would be good to be able to transition to that mode (though TRM work won't be ready for that next year).
If cost is the primary issue, the cost is minor compared to the cost of having the ship idle for significant periods of time while folks sleep. While some deployments may have long transits between sites, deployments with focused arrays have very little transit between sites and are in sites where there are other things that can be done. In future years, the co-chiefs may be needed only on a subset of the cruises. Moreover, perhaps in some cases co-chiefs could be folks who competitively get grants to do related work while the deployment crews are resting. In the latter case, they may or may not be members of the CIET.
I completely agree, a co-chief is needed. Deploying 25 instruments during a 2 week cruise is a lot to do, I am really glad Del has agreed to help out.
Fisheries Communication: Anne noted that one lesson from the just completed cruise is that we need to improve our communication with the fisheries. This communication needs to be started well in advance of the cruise so that fisheries personnel have the time to respond. For the communication to be effective we need to provide the fisheries with:
Pictures of the OBSs
A clear map of where we want to go.
It is also important that our communication with fisheries be efficient and clear.
EFHs: Anne also noted the importance of taking advantage of EFHs and in a separate email following the call noted:
During our CIET conference call, I was looking at the EFHs on the OR/WA margin. Looks to me like many of the the shallow water sites you will deploy can be moved to fall within these zones without major disruption to the overall pattern. I think it would be worth playing around with this well before the cruise, to allow for communication with the fishermen and with the science community. The EFHs are available as kmz files as well as ascii lists of points. Putting the planned sites into Google Earth would provide an easy way to have a interactive discussion with the community. These are places that are more-or-less permanently off limits to bottom trawling, which is active to 1000m or more. For example, check out the Siletz Deepwater, Heceta Bank and Daisy Bank EFHs. I've attached the folder of kmz files I downloaded from NOAA. It's confusing - apparently most of the groundfish closures change frequently; only the EFHs are long-term reliable closures.
Site Naming Conventions
During the conference call and afterwards we discussed site naming conventions and the available number of characters in SEED format. SEED format allows for 5 UPPER CASE characters, including numbers. The deployment plan included sites with names such as CFN19. Due to changes at sea, these names went through modifications by adding a letter to indicated the modification, e.g., CFN19A, CFN19B, etc. Since 6 characters is not compatible with SEED, the following was decided:
Sites beginning with CFN will be renamed to FN, e.g. FN19B.
This change only applies to the Cascadia Focus North (CFN) sites which are deployed in years 1 and 3.
The focussed arrays deployed in years 2 and 4 had an acceptable naming convention (FC for focus central and FS for focus south).
Action Item 1: Doug needs to update the mat-files for SEED compatibility
Cruise Preparations for Legs 2 and 3
Canadian Clearances: Clearances for leg 2 have been submitted. Clearances for Leg 3 have not yet been submitted. It was noted that clearances do not normally arrive until 2 or 3 days prior to embarkation.
Action Item 2: Emilie will follow up with John Collins and Liz Turpak re Canadian clearances for leg 3
SEAJADE and CI: Jeff noted that the SEAJADE experiment is likely to continue with a deployment in 2012. In determining detailed station siting the CIET should communicate with PIs of the SEAJADE experiment (e.g. Kelin Wang and PGC)
Siting Shallow water OBSs for Leg 2: Leg 2 will deploy SIO and LDEO instrumentation. Leg 3 will deploy WHOI OBS. The SIO Abalone instrument will be capable of shallow water deployment. The chiefs of leg 2 need to determine the locations of the remaining shallow water sites
Action Item 3: Bob Dziak to determine sites that are to be deployed in shallow water.
Action Item 4: Bob to contact George Spence at UVIC who has visited the trawlers association in Vancouver. Good to make that connection so that the trawlers know where the OBSs are located.
Deployment objectives of Legs 2 and 3: Chiefs of Legs 2 and 3 will need to make an initial plan for which OBS sites are deployed on each leg. Items to consider include:
Shallow water sites
Number of OBSs with APGs
Location of WHOI Keck OBSs which have longer period sensor.
✔✔Action Item 5: Maya to determine if remaining LDEO OBSs will have APGs. They all have APGs
We briefly discussed instrument readiness for the October/November cruises. Following the call an update was provided by Bill Ball at Oceanleadership who noted that WHOI is on track, but just barely. No news from SIO to OL at this time.
CIET noted that the SIO OBS will leave behind an anchor in shallow water.
Action Item 6: Revisit instrument readiness at next call.
Action Item 7: Determine if leaving an SIO anchor on bottom in shallow water is an issue. Bob Dziak will take the lead on this one.
Notes from Bob's email:
Ok, I'll contact Scripps. Who is the POC there? As I understand it, Oregon state requires anchors to be recovered from instruments deployed with 3 miles of the coast. In the past, we have attached a separate float to the anchor that we pop up (via a release) once the main part of the instrument is recovered.
I'll find out if SIO is aware of this and how many of our stations are within the 3 miles limit. I am not sure if this restriction is the same in Washington or Canada, perhaps SIO will know? I also plan to look at our shelf locations to see if some can be adjusted to be within the EFHs. Lastly, I checked with Liz Tirpak and our clearance to work in Canadian waters has been approved.
Bill Chadwick was able to map one site. Also mapped one CI site at the end of Jim Mercer's cruise. John Delaney/Deb Kelley slated to map 3 more on upcoming Thompson cruise to Axial. After that we will be in good shape for the 1st year.
Next year it might be possible to map sites west of Gorda.
Bathymetric Data Base and Plotting Software
During the call and off line we discussed how best CI and the community could make use of the growing bathymetric data base. We also discussed what software is useful for Chiefs to have at sea so that one can simultaneously see real time navigation and bathymetry.
Bathymetry Data Base: Much, but not all, of the existing bathymetry data is available via GeoMapApp. Some of the more recently collected data is not yet available in the database. How will the CI get easy access to this data? Options include:
Get it uploaded pronto to GeoMapApp
Paper plots at the CIET meeting
Get someone to build a CI grid at 100 m intervals.
Action Item 8: William to send out an email on the above and see if it is possible to get a CI grid made.
Plotting Software: Emilie inquired about software used during the cruise. Anne Trehu recommends that Mac GPS Pro is very useful as it can be interfaced with real time navigation fed from the ship. It is also capable of opening many different file types, including ones that Chris Goldfinger recently provided. Cheap software, reads files, interprets projections. Given a serial to USB converter can hook up to R/V Wecoma.
The CIET meeting will be held in Seattle on Sept. 13 and 14. The CIET will meet along with representatives of NSF. An AASC conference call will be scheduled for the 2nd day of the meeting. Some of the issues to be discussed include:
Where is the funding for the science coming from?
Data availability and usability
What constitutes having the data ready?
Development of a letter to the community with a plan on how to proceed during the next year. Letter should come from NSF and AASC. CIET also?
2012 Ship Schedule
We briefly discussed the cruise schedule. The TRM OBSs probably require a heave compensated winch. Will take up deck space and limit number of instruments that can be on board. This, combined with LDEO requesting a long time on shore to refurbish instruments suggests a series of shorter cruises, say 5 and 5, going up and down.
How does this affect recovery of TRMs? 14 are down there. At least 4 need to be picked up with an ROV. 2 upside down. 2 in water too deep for pop-up buoys. Only 10 can be recovered with pop-up buoys. Short cruise to recover as many as we can with pop-ups. But good to request time to recover all 14 with ROV. Complicated scheduling.