GSN SC Fall 2013 Action Items
La Jolla, Ca
Oct 10-11, 2013
AI-1. (Davis and Gee) SC would like a written report from Network Operators at both Spring and Fall meetings. In the past, this has only been required during Spring meetings as a part of the annual formal reporting process. However, in an attempt to make meeting time more efficient, it is of valuable to get early written reports available to the committee prior to the meeting. These reports are to be uploaded to the GSN SC webpage at least 2 weeks prior to the SC meeting.
AI-2: (Gee) The SC requests the test plan for the borehole test from ASL. If the test is complete, the SC would like a written report.
Status: After follow up call with USGS, ASL expects to have a report to the GSN SC in ~1 month (~1 December, 2013)
AI-3: (Anderson, Ahern) SC requests the plan for DMC review of MUSTANG metrics for the GSN. How will this be coordinated with the DCC’s?
AI-4: (Anderson) Kent will share the KML with instructions on how to set up google earth to display the GSN tour.
Resolution: kml file sent to committee on 10/18/13
AI-5: (Anderson, Woodward) will share access of MUSTANG database.
Resolution: Access information sent to committee on 10/18/13
AI-6: (Anderson and Woodward) BW and KA will give some sort of cheat sheet/tip sheet for using this interface as it currently exists. Need an update on the status of LASSO in the next 2 weeks in order to evaluate this as soon as possible. Ideally we have a distribution to evaluate on that timescale. BW will send to whole committee. We will need a timeline for feedback from committee after that.
Resolution: Tutorial created by Frassetto sent to committee on 10/18/13
AI-7: (Committee) Will review current LASSO and provide feedback to Anderson and Woodward within 2 weeks of receiving information from previous action item.
AI-8: (Gee) The SC requests a timeline/status of DQA, and when the SC may be able to use this tool, in followup call with GS.
AI-9: (Anderson): It was noted by the SC that the Quality webpage quarterly reports have not been updated in quite some time. Anderson update link and if no data are available, will post a notice to ensure link isn’t stale.
AI-10: (Anderson): Post all presentations from meeting on GSN SC webpage
Resolution: Presentations uploaded and committee notified on 10/11/13
AI-11: (Anderson, Nettles and SC): Action Items related to OBS
AI-12: (Anderson and committee): Now that the tools for assessing data quality for the GSN are coming together, the SC needs to determine specific metrics to allow them to assess GSN performance. First, the tools for analyzing quality need to be complete and stable (DQA and LASSO/MUSTANG – see AI’s above). Appropriate metrics may include noise levels, uptime, station longevity. In preparation for this discussion, the committee should review the GSN Design Goals (GSNSC webpage – Historic documents) and the ASL paper on Data Quality Goals (Spring 2013 GSNSC document page). Need to have externally digestible metrics for a variety of audiences that shows the performance of the GSN. Important to compare GSN performance to other networks. Revisit at Spring meeting??
AI-13: (Anderson, Ammon) ID 4-5 people to recommend to the board for replacing Mike Thorne and Michael Hedlin. Provide reasoning behind suggestions and needs for expertise in GSNSC.
AI-14: (Wolfe, Earle, Gee, Wilson): Provide input on or approval of GSN SC Spring 13 minutes
Resolution: Anderson and Ammon met with USGS personnel and reviewed and accepted minutes from Spring meeting 10/25/13
AI-15: (Woodward): Draft charge for the IS standing committee will be coordinated with the GSN SC through the Chair and the PM.
AI-16: (Anderson) Anderson will post links to previous review materials (GSN, PASSCAL, DMS, EandO, and Management).
Resolution: Links and review materials distributed on 10/18/13
Recommendations
We recommend to Davis that he pursue both opportunities in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan for new GSN stations and prepare cost proposals for each. As for a direct replacement for ABKT, the USGS strongly suggests that a station in west-central Asia (Uzbekistan) would be much more suitable replacement for ABKT. Prioritization for both stations would be with a priority on an Uzbek station first and if we can add two, GARM second. We will pursue funding opportunities including in country contributions, DOE contributions and what IRIS/NSF can support and reassess the need for either one or both of the new proposed stations. We will consider an appropriate budget request at the Spring meeting.
