Minutes of the First Meeting of U.S. Southern Ocean GLOBEC Science Investigators

# MINUTES FROM FIRST MEETING OF U.S. SOUTHERN OCEAN GLOBEC SCIENCE INVESTIGATORS

## Arlington, VA
25-26 May 2000

The Science Investigator meeting started with introductions by Polly Penhale and Bernie Lettau from the Office of Polar Programs (OPP), National Science Foundation (NSF). Penhale welcomed everyone and briefly mentioned the procedure that NSF has used to make decisions concerning SO GLOBEC program components.

Eileen Hofmann made a presentation on the interim Science Steering Committee (SSC) that had been appointed by NSF OPP prior to the Science Investigator meeting. The purpose of this group was to get started on the development of a cohesive plan for the U.S. Southern Ocean GLOBEC field program. The interim SSC consists of Eileen Hofmann, Bob Beardsley, Dan Costa, Doug Martinson, Tom Powell, Jose Torres, and Peter Wiebe. The suggestion was made that a SSC is needed for a program the size of the U.S. SO GLOBEC program. This is the approach that has been used in the Georges Bank and Northeast Pacific GLOBEC programs, which are of comparable size. It was suggested that the SO GLOBEC program follow the procedure used in these programs which is to have the SSC elected by the program investigators. The approach used in these programs was to put forward a slate of candidates and request additional nominations. After a period of time, the nomination process is closed and all program science investigators are asked to vote and the SSC membership is determined by this vote. The initial slate of candidates was taken as the membership of the interim SSC. Additional nominations for SSC membership are to be sent to Julie Morgan within the two weeks following the workshop.

Al Sutherland, from NSF OPP, gave a presentation on the role of contractor, which is Raytheon Polar Services, in supporting Antarctic research. He mentioned that many of the people employed with ASA, the previous contractor, are now employed by Raytheon. Therefore, the system at Raytheon will be similar to what was encountered under ASA. He also mentioned that Raytheon brings a direct connection with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), which provides a university connection that was not available through ASA.

Sutherland said that about 700 researchers go to Antarctica in a year (1/3 on ships, 2/3 on continent) and that Raytheon provides logistic support for all of these. Sutherland provided an explanation of procurement of equipment through Raytheon and made a request for economizing in the purchase of equipment and materials. He then said that the two U.S. Antarctic research vessels (RVIB N.B. Palmer and L.M. Gould) are provided through a subcontract with Edison Chouest Offshore.

Sutherland said that the U.S. SO GLOBEC cruises are on the ship schedules, which are available at www.polar.org. The dates for the first cruise are now leaving Punta Arenas on 16 April 2001 and returning to Punta Arenas on 30 May 2001. The second cruise is scheduled for departure from Punta Arenas on 14 July 2001 and to return on 25 August 2001. However, Sutherland asked if it would be possible to shift these dates by one week. This would alleviate some other ship scheduling difficulties. Sutherland said that in between the two GLOBEC cruises, there is another cruise scheduled by Dietrich and Sidell. The needs of this cruise are such that six weeks are needed between the two GLOBEC cruises, If the first cruise is shifted one week later, the second one would also need to go a week later. Captain Sanamo said that a couple of days are needed for stocking at Palmer Station. Doyle said that shifting to one week later may lessen time problems experienced with the mooring cruise, which is scheduled for the three weeks just before the 16 April cruise. Doyle said that berthing will be needed for two extra people on mooring cruise, which will be on the Gould because of the need to drop Brenda Hall's group off at King George Island. This will require an additional three days. Fraser mentioned that a decision will need to be made on when to pick up this group as well. Hofmann asked if there are any science issues and/or trade-offs that will arise by shifting schedule one week later. [NOTE: Subsequently, the Science Investigators voted to shift the cruise dates by one week. Dates are now for the first cruise leaving Punta Arenas on 23 April and returning on 6 June. Dates for the second cruise are departing Punta Arenas on 21 July and returning 2 September.]

Sutherland said that, in the second year (2002), only one ship, the L.M. Gould, is currently available for SO GLOBEC. The Palmer will be off contract then and not available. March 2002 ends the 10-year Palmer charter. A competition is currently underway to determine who receives the new contract. The current hiatus in the ship schedule for mid 2002 would allow for N.B. Palmer to be reworked at its shipyard if the new charter goes to this ship. He said that proposals for the Palmer replacement vessel are currently being considered and that he could not comment on the status of this process since it is still underway. He said that there may be options for a second vessel in year two and suggested that no firm decisions be made about the second field season until Fall 2000.

Sutherland was asked that if the Palmer wins new contract, could it be reworked in 2003 instead? Sutherland said that this could be considered. He said that the N.B. Palmer is not absolutely, positively unavailable in second year and suggested that the GLOBEC program be be flexible in planning the second year, if possible. Some discussion occurred about using the Argentine ice breaker in the second year. This ship is primarily for transport but has good helicopter facilities (which are good for predator studies). Also, the Brazilian ice breaker is an effective platform for physical oceanography studies and moorings and using this ship may be a possibility.

Alice Doyle described the Support Information Packet (SIP) that each research group will need to submit. These will be due in September or October. She stressed that this document is very important because this is how Raytheon determines science support needs, which are needed to plan the cruises. She said that everyone would be notified for the deadline for submitting SIPS soon.

Doyle said that equipment needing to be shipped to the Antarctic needs to be sent to the departure port in California. She suggested that this equipment be shipped 45 days prior to the sailing date of the ship. Holik said that 90 days is better. She also said that the RVIB Palmer will be in Louisiana in September and that this is an opportunity to send equipment to the Antarctic on the Palmer. She suggested that people who may want to do this contact her. She said that the support group in Punta Arenas, Agunsa, is very good and will remain as a contractor with Raytheon.

Sutherland said that Raytheon needs a good budgetary idea of what equipment needs to be purchased. The program investigators should provide this to to Alice Doyle within month. Sutherland asked that rough estimates of equipment costs also be provided. Doyle said that there is a big pool of equipment available at Raytheon and that this information is on the web site (www.polar.org). This should be checked before ordering additional equipment. Sutherland said that equipment that Raytheon buys is either common-use equipment or expendable equipment, such as XBTs. He said cost for instrumentation that is bought to upgrade individual laboratories comes out of grants.

Alice Doyle said that Raytheon travel services will provide travel support for getting people to and from Punta Arenas. However, individual grants are responsible for payment of per diem in Punta Arenas. She suggested budgeting for a 5-day port call. All investigators stay in a local hotel in Punta Arenas until the day before the ship sails.

Jim Holik (from Raytheon) provided an overview of Raytheon's services. He said that Alice Doyle and Karl Newyear, who are science cruise coordinators from Raytheon, will be the points of contacts for the SO GLOBEC program. They will take program from beginning to end. However, Alice Doyle will be the primary point of contact for the SO GLOBEC program. The primary goal now is to determine the SO GLOBEC program's requirements and how to handle these. Doyle encouraged everyone to contact her with information about individual research needs.

Holik also mentioned that Raytheon has a summer intern program, which is an ideal opportunity for students to help Alice Doyle with coordination (undergraduate or graduate). The students may even get to go on one of the cruises.

Holik said that the amount of involvement with WHOI, through Raytheon, is unknown at this time and may range from very small to huge. Jose Torres asked if there would be access to WHOI's equipment pool. Holik said that it will take time to determine what is available. Sutherland said that the current arrangement is still under consideration and that it is not likely to be free of cost, although the relationship with WHOI can allow for infusion of specialized technicians that are not available through Raytheon. Holik said that Raytheon would like to utilize WHOI for what they are really good at doing.

Holik said that the Raytheon staff complement that participates on the Antarctic research vessels is usually cruise-specific. Several people asked questions about how how many people are going on the cruises and how much space is available for technicians. The Gould has berthing space for 28 people and the Palmer has berthing space for 39 people. Holik said that the RVIB Palmer usually has about 7 Raytheon technicians on average. The Gould has about 4-5 Raytheon technicians. The role of WHOI technicians is undefined at the moment. There are also berthing vans on the Gould, which can hold 10 extra people. These vans are used only for transport of people to Palmer Station and they do not take up science storage space. The berthing vans are not ideal for long times and do not contain toilet facilities.

Hofmann presented the draft document describing a SO GLOBEC field program and potential field study site that was developed by the interim SSC. Relevant points from this presentation are:

- the U.S. SO GLOBEC program is a coordinated program
- there is a long history of planning for SO GLOBEC in the national and international communities
- focus shifted to planning through international committee
- IWC interest in SO GLOBEC; wants to participate
- year-round ship schedule with U.S. program looking at fall and winter
- science issues (transparency of Sciences Issues)
- this is not just a krill program - focus is on habitat, predators and competitors of krill
- year-round program with emphasis on winter processes
- science questions have been developed for zooplankton and top predators and the U.S. SO GLOBEC research program should be designed to address these questions
- the Antarctic Peninsula and 70°E regions have been identified as SO GLOBEC study sites by the international community
- winter and summer programs are not necessarily identical
- the U.K. and Germany have SO GLOBEC programs planned for the west Antarctic Peninsula region; IWC wants to have observers on ships for whale census
- potential site for the U.S. SO GLOBEC program in Marguerite Bay and the surrounding region. This area is the site of planned U.K. and German GLOBEC studies and has: 1) consistent population of krill, 2) gyre-type circulation on this part of shelf (shown by historical hydrographic data and ADCP), and 3) has consistent sea ice cover in winter
- Marguerite Bay region has UCDW intrusion across shelf which potentially has very strong effects on sea ice properties and biology of region
- current meter deployment: potential mooring sites in Marguerite Bay
- proposed sampling program consists of one ship to be large-scale survey and one ship to do more focused process studies; 4-5 process sites
- IWC meeting in June 2000: will provide 2 ships to work in austral summer of 2002 (maximum involvement); minimum involvement is to provide observers on ships
- Korea, Spain, and Peru have expressed interest in participating in GLOBEC cruises in west Antarctic Peninsula region
- German and UK cruises will work in same sites; program plans to be provided upon completion
- a mooring cruise will precede field program cruises
- program plan is draft; discussion is encouraged

A question and answer period followed this presentation. Al Sutherland asked for clarification of the study area. Hofmann said that the one site for process studies is offshore of Adelaide Island, that the entire area used for context, existing sea ice conditions will ultimately determine the study area. Hofmann also mentioned that discussions have begun with Brazil and Argentina about their participation and providing of icebreakers as the second ship for the second field season.

Sutherland asked if the predator studies would require another cruise. Bill Fraser said no and that the satellite tags would be placed on the penguins at end of season (April) at Palmer Station. Hofmann said that the predator tagging studies could modify study area.

Sutherland asked about potential problems in the austral winter with access to the Marguerite Bay region. Captain Sanamo from the RV Gould said that he did not anticipate problems for his ship for the March, April, and May periods. However, he did not think that the Gould could go into the Marguerite Bay region in August alone, that is without icebreaker/Palmer support. He said that the Gould is ice-capable, but that previous winter work would suggest that this vessel may not be able to get into the region.

Sutherland suggested that the Gould could go as far as permitted by the sea ice conditions and that planning for the cruises should remain flexible. Hofmann said that there is the option of letting ice determine area, depending on conditions. Wiebe mentioned that the current meter moorings can be picked up when access is possible and that these do not need to retrieved at a specific time. Wiebe said that six moorings are planned and will require a minimum of 7 days and maximum of 12 days for deployment. This is exclusive of the time needed to deploy the acoustic moorings that are part of the Hildebrand group.

A question was asked about the relationship of the process stations to sea ice. Hofmann said that a process site near the ice edge is desirable to determine initial conditions. Captain Sanamo said that the study region should be covered with sea ice in July and August. Hofmann said that the climatology of sea ice shows ice in this region is consistently thinner (likely due to double diffusive process). Fraser mentioned that there are no predators (or very few) in winter at Palmer Station and that the likely site for predators in winter is around Marguerite Bay. Hofmann reminded everyone that predator studies are an important component of SO GLOBEC.

***BREAK***

Doyle reminded everyone that:

- the list of equipment available on ships is on web
- all field participants must be medically qualified at least two weeks prior to deployment
- individual grants to pay for medical exams
- there is time frame of six months for deployment for medical exam and that
- the physicals are good for one year
- Raytheon arranges and pays for travel to PA
- tickets can't be issued unless physically qualified
- grants pay for hotel and per diem; Raytheon only pays for airline ticket

Other reminders are that:

- chemicals must be managed and tracked in/out of Antarctica according to the Antarctic treaty
- extreme cold weather gear is provided by Raytheon
- each individual is to pick up and return extreme cold weather gear in Punta Arenas
- a program participant guide is available and will be mailed to everyone
- scientists are responsible for paying for shipping of equipment to California for delivery to Punta Arenas
- videos of both ships are available

Tom Powell made a presentation on data management in the GLOBEC program. The points from this presentation are:

- U.S. GLOBEC Report No. 10 has data policy
- period of exclusive use, i.e., restricted access (PI only), is short
- primarily oriented towards ship-based data collection
- addresses model, archives, remote (e.g., satellite)
- document measurement, analytical techniques
- PIs responsible for accuracy and precision
- physical context (as well as biological quantities) is important; minimal information to be provided is date, time, temperature, and salinity
- PIs responsible for corrections and calibrations
- be sensible if using other people's data (co-authors)
- detailed data inventory three months after data collection
- data available six months after collection (not involving manual analysis)
- one year limit (no holding out)
- other measurements available after one year
- transfer of data into long-term data archives (NODC)
- biological samples preserved for 20 years
- exceptions: petition to SSC and program managers

Penhale mentioned that archiving of invertebrate samples can be done through the Smithsonian Institution archive, which receives some funding support from her program.

Next, Peter Wiebe made a presentation on the U.S. GLOBEC data management system that is used for the U.S. Georges Bank GLOBEC program. Important points from this presentation are:

- data office is at WHOI (www.globec.whoi.edu); available 24 hours a day
- Bob Groman is the administrator
- event log is very important to data managers
- cruise report is narrative of what happened (comprehensive)
- doesn't need to be a time lag with cruise report because of word processing capability on ships
- have info online for accessibility; hard copies provided too
- data should be made available when it is useful, not perfect
- want along-track data
- mailing list is set up for all participants
- would take SO GLOBEC data and put it online
- bathymetry data is the problem with this program

Hofmann mentioned that she and Bob Beardsley visited the National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, CO and that few bathymetry data sets from the west Antarctic Peninsula region from Palmer, Polar Duke, and Gould cruises were in the bathymetry data holdings available through this center. Holik said that the policy of Raytheon is to provide bathymetry data to the National Geophysical Data Center if this is agreeable with the cruise PI. Wiebe said that the proposed SO GLOBEC survey cruises are optimal to do bathymetry mapping.

Wiebe made further remarks concerning GLOBEC data availability/policy:

- data visualization - more people are asking for having data visualized
- JPL has done code work for UNIX machines
- investigators are given tool kit in MatLab to do 2-D plots of data sets
- data can be put online almost immediately
- openness of data policy is critical to this program
- no security on database, completely public
- very important obligation of courtesy to give credit for using data
- admonition is presented up-front
- thinks community ought to be self-policing

Polly Penhale said that OPP has a data policy, this has been provided to investigators, and copies of the policy were available at the workshop. Flierl said that data should be available in various formats. Hofmann said that there is an International SO GLOBEC data policy and there is an International Data Management working group that is headed by Manfred Rienke from Alfred-Wegener Institute. This group is considering a single repository for all Southern Ocean data.

Wiebe said that some data sets, such as multi-frequency acoustics, are too large to put online in the data management system. How to serve these data is a difficult issue. He said that the data system should at least acknowledge these data are part of the program and to provide information on whom to contact to acquire the data.

Padman asked if permission needed to be obtained prior to using data outside of GLOBEC community? Wiebe said that the user of data sets should contact the relevant PI directly.

Holik said that the SIP contains a section on data acquisition and distribution. He said that the GLOBEC program needs to identify on the SIP what data are needed, such as bathymetry and meteorological data sets. Wiebe suggested that the SO GLOBEC program as a whole complete a SIP for general data needs. This was identified as a task for the executive committee.

Hofmann said that the data management plan for the U.S. SO GLOBEC program is to have all the data handled by the GLOBEC data management office at WHOI. This will allow for closer comparison with other GLOBEC data sets and will avoid duplication of effort in this area.

Joey Comiso, from NASA, made a presentation on potential collaboration with a NASA experiment scheduled for austral winter 2001 that is designed to provide in situ calibration for satellite-based sea ice sensors. Comiso started his presentation with an overview of the sea ice conditions in the Marguerite Bay area. Points from this presentation are:

- last year's data (austral winter 1999) shows that the Antarctic Peninsula was not dominated by heavy sea ice
- multi-year ice does not seem to be in study area
- summer conditions can tell how much ice will be retained for winter
- expected for study region: much of the ice expected to encounter should be first year ice, which is generally thinner
- less ice in the region in the last decade
- historical trend is that ice has been retreating in Bellingshausen Sea region
- retreat in ice cover in this area over last 20 years

Comiso then indicated that NASA would like to collaborate with the U.S. SO GLOBEC field studies. They are interested in doing a post-Launch Validation Program (aircraft and ships) for a satellite-based sea ice sensor in August 2001 and winter 2003. The NASA program has the flexibility to over-fly Marguerite Bay region with their aircraft based in South America. Comiso would like to put a radiometer on one of the ships (most useful would be the survey vessel) to measure thickness of sea ice. He also mentioned that the Marshall Space Flight Center processes sea ice data continuously and the University of Colorado (NSIDC) has web site with sea ice data from 1987 onwards.

Hofmann made a brief presentation about the need for a SO GLOBEC coordination office. This has been the approach used in other U.S. GLOBEC programs. She presented a proposal for the program office to be at Old Dominion University. Penhale indicated that her program would provide some funds to support such an effort. Hofmann asked for comments on this proposal by the end of the workshop.

Each Science Investigator was asked to provide a brief explanation of his/her research interests in the SO GLOBEC program. These are summarized as follows.

PADMAN and MUENCH: participate with ODU people, CDT & ADCP data collection, small-scale structures, water column turbulence, flux estimates, circumantarctic tidal model (high resolution version of this model for this area), have one person on four different cruises, tidal modeling component

COSTA, BURNS, and CROCKER: crabeater seals as predators, satellite-tracking info about individual dives, isotype tracers and fatty acids for diet, water temperature profiles may be available, needs incubators

WIEBE, ASHJIAN, GALLAGER, STANTON, and DAVIS: broad-scale survey, BIOMAPER II, MOCNESS, ROV for under-ice work (with video plankton recorder - can get 3D tracking of animals and can go up to ice interface), ADCP and tracking system, should take 14 days, plankton distribution will be plotted in real-time from ship, need 20 ft. van

ZHOU, DALY, and TORRES: process study, size distribution of krill, ADCP, MOCNESS, OPC

POWELL (with ESR group, Jeff Musak, and a student): vertical density microstructure, process cruise, focus on coastal areas, vertical transport, trying to find ways to balance heat budget, individual-based models for krill (to link with modeling work done by Hofmann and Klinck), intends to go on both cruises in 2001, survey cruise

TORRES, DALY, and ZHOU: krill energetics (ingestion/growth/metabolism/ excretion), fish distribution and abundance with MOCNESS and 45 ft. auto trawl, under-ice surveys for fish (threat to krill larvae?), container experiments, get fluorescence/gut contents, metabolic proxies

FLIERL: modeling studies, small-scale aggregation processes in presence of fluid flow, dynamics of eddies, eddy transport (on/offshelf)

MARTINSON, PEROVICH, and SMITH: optics of sea ice in upper ocean, irradiance propagation and distribution, in situ measurements and buoys, hope to model irradiation, couple optical model with physical model, process cruise

MATANO: can use models for other regions (circumpolar), high resolution models for Marguerite Bay

KLINCK and HOFMANN: create circulation model for this region, sea ice processes, focus on circulation and sea ice modeling, survey cruise

HILDEBRAND, MacDONALD, and MOORE: baleen whale distribution and abundance, acoustics - bottom recorder acoustic packages to be deployed during mooring cruise and sono buoys (temp. acoustic recorders), could work with IWC observers

HARVEY: link biology and chemistry of krill, process cruise, age structure of krill populations (age of populations under ice), molecular level distributions of lipids, differentiate feeding behaviors under ice

GIBSON: quantify biota of sea ice communities, focus on availability, ice coring of floes (epifluorescent microscopy)

FRASER: predators are not migratory, what is sustaining predators during winter?, where are the predators and what are they doing?, process cruise, satellite tracking of penguin distribution during winter - what are they eating during winter?, stomach levaging

RIBIC: distribution and abundance of seabirds, survey work (Ribic + one), strip-transect surveys, daylight surveys

ROSS, QUETIN, GARRISON, GIBSON, and VERNET: distribution and physiological, how ice formation and deformation processes impact larval krill populations, characterize underwater pack ice habitat (SCUBA), emphasis on factors impacting krill physiology and ecology, quantify link between larval krill growth and nutrition, what is level of spatial and temporal fidelity?, time series at ice station (long enough to look over a series of days and later return to repeat time series)

FRITSEN: distribution and dynamics of sea ice microbial communities, distribution of ice types in region, selection of process sites, stocks of microbiota in ice types and how they change over time, diagnostic models, process and survey cruises, geophysical and biological characterization of sea ice

VERNET: primary production as prey, experiments, interface with modeling

BEARDSLEY and LIMEBURNER: mooring program, drifters, floats

FANNING: nutrient samples on process and survey cruises

HOFMANN: hydrography data, biological models

Rennie Holt provided some comments on the U.S. Antarctic Marine Living Resources (AMLR) program. He said that this program is focused on the effects of fishing on krill and predator-prey interactions during summer. He said that AMLR has a data base that extends from 1986 to present. He suggested that these data are complementary to the SO GLOBEC data sets and that they provide information from a region that is to the north of the U.S. SO GLOBEC study site.

Al Sutherland next led a discussion on the pros and cons of using the Palmer as the vessel for the either the survey or process cruises. The pros of the Palmer for the process cruise is that it has berthing space for 32 scientists + 7 Raytheon (Gould is 24 + 4 Raytheon), has large laboratories, has a walk-in freezer and considerable deck space. For the survey cruise, the Palmer allows for less backing and ramming in sea ice (important for BIOMAPER), less ice in its wake, has multibeam and terra scan facilities, provides greater aerial coverage, and has considerable deck space.

Peter Wiebe said that the survey cruise would require 14-16 days, which leaves 14 days for coordinated joint ship operations. Wiebe said that one issue is how many more bunks are needed for process cruise than survey cruise. Sutherland said that Edison Chouest Offshore is not concerned about people switching between ships and that such transfers are possible.

Maria Vernet asked if the SO GLOBEC program is site-specific and what is the minimum common denominator that the program needs to achieve? Hofmann said that the program must have contingency plans if Marguerite Bay is not accessible in July and August. The available sea ice data sets show considerable year-to-year variability in sea ice coverage in this region and thus a large amount of flexibility is going to be needed in the planning. Sea ice is needed for both field time periods in order to address the many science objectives of the program.

Wiebe said that the level of funding will determine if participation in both field efforts is feasible. He said that funding limitations may be more important than location in determining the program structure. Penhale encouraged science investigators to consult with program managers about budgets, if this is a problem.

Captain Sanamo said that the Gould can follow in behind N.B. Palmer, depending on temperature and thickness of sea ice. He said that the overall program would be negatively impacted by having the Gould as the survey vessel, especially in the second field period. He said that the Gould has less maneuvering flexibility. He also said that having the Palmer break the Gould into a region and then leave for a few days would not be a problem. These comments from Captain Sanamo settled the question of which vessel would be used for the survey and process cruises. The survey cruises will be on the Palmer and the process cruises will be on the Gould in each field period.

Peter Wiebe reiterated the need for flexibility and accommodation in the science planning. He said the program has many people who are doing models and that the models can be used to determine a synoptic view even if data are not collected synoptically. Hofmann mentioned that some of the models may be to the point of being available during the cruise.

The program Science Investigators were then asked to give estimates of berthing needs for the cruises.

For the process cruise:

Costa (4)
Zhou (2)
Torres (4)
Daly (4)
Martinson (3-4)
ODU (1-2) CTD
Gibson (2)
Fraser (2)
Quetin/Ross (8)
Fritsen (3)
Harvey (2)
Fanning (2)
Vernet (2)

For the Survey Cruise:

Wiebe (9) BIOMAPER, MOCNESS, ROV
Powell (2)
ERS (1) CTD
ODU (1) CTD
Beardsley (1) CTD
Hildebrand (4) IWC observers (2)
Ribic (2)
Fritsen (1-2)
Fanning (2)
Vernet (2)

[NOTE: The above distribution of individuals and needed personnel were modified after the working group discussions. See working group reports for details.]

Holik mentioned that some technical support, such as a person to do nutrient samples, can be provided by Raytheon. Sutherland reminded everyone that generally there are seven Raytheon techs on N.B. Palmer and four on the Gould. Doug Martinson said that it is possible to have training ahead of time for Raytheon techs to assist with specific activities.

The issue of ship operations in uncharted areas was brought up. Gisclair said that this will need to be an on-site decision and will be made by the Captain of the ship. Captain Sanamo said that, for these conditions, the ship will proceed slowly and safely and will try to go as far as possible. He also said that if BIOMAPER is on the Gould for the July-August cruise that it will negatively affect the science. This is further support for having the Palmer be the survey vessel. Joint ship operations will allow for surveys around the process sites in the first year. Again, Captain Sanamo said that having the Gould stuck in ice for a few days is not a problem if N.B. Palmer is in area to get Gould out in case of trouble. Wiebe reiterated the need to plan for one survey and joint ship operations.

The Science Investigators broke into working groups and the reports from these are available as separate documents.