CIET Meeting September 13 and 14, 2011
Day 1, Sept. 13th
- Year 1 Cruises - 2011
- Other Topics
- Conference call with OBSIP representatives
- Year 2 Planning
Day 2, Sept. 14th
Facilitating Community Involvement
- What can we do to assure that the scientific community can use the CI data? How will metadata be obtained and where will funding come to support the science?
- How can we increase community involvement in sea going activities and should we consider CIET member rotation?
- CIET Communication Responsibilities
- Conference Call with AASC/NSF
- Software to use at sea
- EFHS and working with US and Canadian Fisheries
- Facilitating Community Involvement
Participants : John Collins, Robert Dziak, Emilie Hooft, Dean Livelybrooks, Jeff McGuire, Doug Toomey, William Wilcock, Susan Schwartz, Richard Allen, Anne Trehu, Maya Tolstoy, Rick Carlson
For part of the meeting Andrew Barclay (LDEO) and Jeff Babcock (SIO) called in to discuss OBSIP operations.
Maya and Anne (Chief Scientists for Leg 1) provided an update on the first CI deployment cruise. The cruise objective was to deploy LDEO TRM OBSs along the northern focused array site off of Grays Harbor.
Evaluation of Leg 1: Focused array original plan called for the southern line of the focused array, one OBS was not deployed because of EFH issues and several OBS were deployed at northern line. This statement will be added to cruise report.
J57 – engineers decided nor ready to be deployed, metal wraps would not hold together, batteries would come lose. This site will be deployed during Leg 2.
Action Item 1: Cruise reports need to have specific content including:
One page summary including deployment goals and what was achieved
Table of contents
standardized table (initial prioritized list, sites deployed, evaluation of deviations, final locations and method of locations, estimate of accuracy of location, comment field)
map showing before and after deployments of each cruise
Bob Dziak and Del (Chief Scientists) will deploy 10 LDEO APGs and 15 SIO Abalones; 11 along the margin and 4 SIO Abalones in a patch off of central Oregon. We decided not to put APGs at Co-axial or Middle Valley in order to minimize shiptime costs/transits in year 2. 4 SIO Abalones are also in a patch off of Oregon to simplify recovery operations in year 2.
Bob estimates 3-4 days to deploy LDEO instruments, offload in Newport, 4-5 days to deploy 15 abalones. This work will require less than the requested 15 days of ship time.
Action Item 2: Bob Dziak Discuss with LDEO and SIO about breaking this leg in two deployment legs that mix the two types of instruments. .
Action Item 3: Bob Dziak and Doug Toomey determine expected number of ship days and inform the Wecoma
Action Item 4: Bob Dziak contact Canadian and US fishermen.
Action Item 5: Bob Dziak Obtain picture and dimensions and weight of SIO anchor
Action Item 6: Bob Dziak Find out what the NOAA rules are for deploying in the marine sanctuary and decide on where to locate M4 and J65.
John Collins and Emilie (Chief Scientists) will deploy 15 WHOI OBSs and 10 WHOI Keck OBSs at the Reference Array sites and throughout the Juan de Fuca plate.
John estimates 14 days of ship time @ 10 knts for their 25 deployments. The 10 Keck instruments will be ready. Because of instrument readiness they will stick with Oct 30 departure date. May have to request an extra day or two at the end of the cruise. Keeping OSU up to date on plan. Foreign clearances have been requested.
Action Item 7: John Collins and Doug Toomey determine the expected number of extra ship days and inform the Wecoma
Doug: Sent NSF-Navy agreement on OBS data review to all CIET.
Action Item 8: CIET Team Talk with John Nabelek about his deployment plan, and which stations will be openly available.
Action Item 9: CIET Team minimize ship time as much as possible in year 2 for budgetary concerns.
Participants : CIET team, Rick Carlson, Andrew Barclay, Jeff Babcock
Issue of ICC personnel and ships for deployments of summer 2012. Cruises of import: Carbotte and Nabalek.
Anchors: 4 x4 feet, 150 lbs. square anchor, with eyebolt protrusions no more than 6 inches high. Babcock will send a picture soon.
Request to remove flags because they create noise.
Action Item 10: NSF – Rick/Doug to request space for OBS refurbishment at NOAA facility in Newport
Leg 1: Recover 25 WHOI obs, 7 May to 21 May (earliest May 1, latest start 14 May to end 29 May, On Wecoma.
(John *, Emilie, Jeff)
Leg 2: Recover 14 LDEO TRMs, deploy 6 TRMs, recover 10 LDEO, 27 June to 10 July, (earliest June 1, latest July 1 – most likely to get Thompson).
(Richard *, Will, Maya *, Jeff, Doug, Emilie, Dean)
Leg 3: Deploy 25 WHOI, recover 15 SIO. 22 July to 4 August (Earliest 15 July to latest 29 July). Two mini legs (whoi/sio).
(Susan, Will, Doug, Emilie, John*, Dean)
Leg 4: Deploy 15 SIO, 5-12 August, (earliest 5 August, latest 9 days before LDEO leg)
(Susan*, Will, Emilie, Bob, Dean, Doug *)
Leg 5: Deploy 14 TRM, 10 LDEO, 21 August to 3 Sept (earliest 21 August, latest is 7 Sept)
(Anne *, Will, Emile, Jeff, Dean*, Doug)
Leg 6: Mop up, earliest is unconstrained.
(Jeff, Anne, Doug*)
Action Item 11: * are the people tasked with estimating actual cruise lengths
Action Item 12: CIET Team work out length of 2012 cruises.
Discussed Emilie's suggested instrument placing and made some modifications.
Discussion of what quality of bathy maps are available of each deployment site from Romsos and Goldfinger, provides estimate of Geohazards at each site. Will do southern area next year.
Southern Focused Array needs to have design refined. The question is how do to design the array to address the 3 goals of the southern focused array given in the workshop report. Have a small CIET group discuss a focused array plan, then send out to community via email for input.
Action Item 13: Susan, Anne, Doug, Richard, Jeff to develop plan for southern focused array geometry. Susan will organize the effort
Scope of 2012 CIET NSF proposal: implementation plan, cruise participation, travel, education/outreach.
Aim for mid-January for submittal. Keep proposal bare bones. Publicize salary formulas.
Action Item 14: Maya requested that Doug send last year’s proposal reviews to the CIET. \\
Workshop after 1st year of data is collected. Separate from CIET proposal.
Metdata/QC:CIET request to OMO that they coordinate/request proposals submitted to NSF to evaluate metadata/QC for OBSIP data. Solve the problem for this and future experiments. Or at least coordinate the effort, not necessarily the proposals. But ask them to solve the problem as it is an important component to success.
Action Item 15: Doug Request OMO oversee requests for proposals for QC/metadata analysis.
Participants: Rodey Batiza joined the meeting and Doug gave him an overview of yesterday’s meeting accomplishments.
Richard commented that the question of funding for CI science is an AASC issue and he intends to discuss it during our AASC/NSF conference call. Rodey and Rick discussed the present NSF policy of returning proposals that wish to analyze amphibious array data because they believed that data quality should be demonstrated first. The CIET argued that the NSF review process can assess whether or not what is proposed is likely. Rodey and Rick requested information about data quality. CIET suggested that NSF get the relevant program managers together to write a community letter (Dear Colleague) announcing that proposals using CI data will be accepted. They will decide the mechanism (single submission with program preference stated is one option) and if proposals for data quality will be accepted as well. NSF can make an announcement that information about CI funding will be forthcoming in various quarterly newsletters. They will issue a “Dear Colleague” letter before AGU and expect a proposal deadline for February-March 2012 timeframe.
Doug believes that the team should remain fixed. Rodey suggested that CIET might think about mechanisms to get input to committee. Richard thinks thata CI cruise program should be formalized and and an announcement about it should go out but this program does not have include rotating CIET members. Jeff expressed his opinion of keeping CIET membership as is but advertising for co-chief scientists. Anne noted that there are 2 related steering committees (AASC and OBSIP Management Oversight Committee, OMO scientific steering committee) whose membership needs NSF approval that have rotating members. Since AASC is Cascadia specific and OMO is technical oriented and reports to IRIS, Doug suggested an OBS Science Planning committee. Where should this committee reside? Will thinks it should be in Ocean Leadership Richard and I think it should be in IRIS. Rodey suggests that AASC write a letter to Simpson/Stump and Ocean Leadership director Bogosian asking them to consider establishing a joint OBS science panel. Richard suggested that the OMO play this role and join with Ocean Leadership in a Polar Programs joint committee.
CIET/GeoPRISMS/EarthScope/Ocean Leadership all have websites that contain CI information. How do we coordinate these resources to best benefit the community? CIET has an explicit E&O component and we will be advertising for people to go to sea, so we need to maintain a strong presence. What information should go where? Should we report progress on our website and ask GeoPRISMS and EarthScope to advertise this? Richard suggests sending out announcements of CIET progress and Doug thinks that these should be monthly for now and less frequently later on. Anne thinks that we should ask people to sign up for a CIET listserv to build community. Richard believes announcements should go to a VERY large group.
Rodey and Rick updated Bilal Haq on the procedure outlined above. Juli asked if something would be decided in time to advertise in the November GeoPRISMS and Rodey thought so. Juli also asked about the possibility of putting out a new RFP and Rodey commented that NSF is under a continuing resolution so no new RFPs are allowed. However, a Dear Colleague letter can go out to announce how proposals will be accepted. Richard raised the issue of the Dear Colleague letter including a request for work on data quality/metadata preparation. Richard asked for input from the AASC. Bill Haq asked for ASSC to make a recommendation to accept data quality assurance/metadata preparation proposals. Geoff Abers suggested including a special request for integrated land/OBS products . Richard will draft a letter to NSF program managers outlining the AASC recommendations.
GeoPRISMS has limited material about the five primary sites. This material comes from the science planning document. As the primary site workshops occur the web site will be updated with new information. The Cascadia information is slim now, the desire is to increase this into early 2012. EarthScope has a link to the CIET website and can make it more prominent. The GeoPRISMS and EarthScope offices need to implement a common CI website and make sure there is a prominent CIET link.
What opinion/role does AASC want to play in a Cascadia Primary Site Workshop in Spring 2012? The previous Lamont and Portland Cascadia meetings were primarily seismic and there is a need for a broader Cascadia science workshop. Geoff Abers suggested getting the USGS Cascadia Volcano Observatory involved in this workshop. Juli asked if there is any CIET need/desire for a GeoPRISMS sponsored AGU mini-workshop about Cascadia. CIET felt there was not but requested time at the GeoPRISMS and EarthScope Town Hall meetings to update the community on CIET activities.
The suggestion was made to include a representative of the EarthScope Steering Committee on AASC. The conflict of interest between AASC and CIET was discussed. NSF does not see an operational conflict and leaves it to AASC to decide. Maya sees a scientific conflict. Geoff is concerned about the amphibious array nature of AASC and that there is little representation from the land component. Richard will query the existing AASC members to ascertain their desire to stay or leave the committee and set up a nomination committee. Maya suggested a deformation person be on AASC.
Goldfinger and Romsos – one month on Thompson with focus on mapping the margin with bathymetry for all sites including all years. Did not get offshore on the Gorda as planned.
Wilcock has been keeping track of what data exists offshore. Ferrini has been including existing NGDC data into GeoMapApp. She is contininuing to do this and this should be out soon in spite of some problems.
Sites mapped this summer:
Fischer – J53 and J52. Some proprietary data which Will is removing.
Chadwick – J47 (hoped to do other but not because of Axial eruption)
Jim Mercer/Alford – J44
Delaney and Kelley mapped J36 J37 J38 with one swath
NOAA PMEL data in their database or very close to light blue dots. Plan to get this in to the NGDC database and then it would migrate into GeoMapApp. In the short term we have 10×10 km grids around the sites in question.
Action Item: Del Bohnensteihl – will make EM302 and EM102 data w GeomapApp w NOAA PMEL grids into a working grid for this fall.
Sites are all reported to be flat mud.
RA sites G30 and J6 can be moved onto the nearby tracks.
Next year deployment sites G22, G13 and G5 could be mapped on the Thomson transit in spring 2012.
MacGPS Pro ($69) input maps and stream real time data. NNEA format data on serial port. Can see your position on a map. Read in a map and tell it what the map projection is. Geotiffs are easy. Can enter files of points with stations. Can measure ranges and bearings between points and define a track.
John Collins uses Fledermaus. No GPS feed possible with this.
GeoMapApp will also be on the Wecoma –
Action Item: Chief Scientists make sure that the latest bathymetry is on there. Notify Wecoma when the latest GeoMacPro data is released.
Affects Leg 2 – one site away from EFHS. 6 sites that are within 10-25 km of an EFH. We need to make plots and check that these changes are OK. Action Item: Bob Dziak Communicate w fishermen re recommended places closer to the original sites that are not so far.
Need response from McMullin re the one site.
Fisheries have been contacted.
Marine sanctuary issues….
Will all OBSs be ready for all cruises? SIO is ahead of WHOI. LDEO is good. When will this be know and when should there be prioritization? WHOI might want to slide the cruise by one week.
Action Item: Deployment order should be prioritized – task for Chief scientists of each leg.
Prioritize ones over the locked zone versus the ones over the deformational front. Do not un-densify around the northern focused array. Can sacrifice redundancy in S part of the deployment. Northernmost Y1M1 can easily be sacrificed.
Action Item: Jeff Contact Kelin Wang re JAMSTEC deployment and when.
Action Item: CIET should evaluate Leg 2 and any impacts on Leg 3 prior to departure.