1. CASE STUDIES TRAWL-RESISTANT BOTTOM MOUNTS (TRBM)

2. TRBM Case 1 – Bangor, ME Configuration –TRBM with Benthos 867-A Transponding release and Timeframe –Deployed April 5, 2005 under extreme conditions (flow>4 knots according to USCG readings) –1 st Attempted Recovery in late May –Recovered 04 August by Divers (using a combination of transponder readings/ locator readings and a search sweep. Recovery was 130 meters downstream. Recovery Deployed

3. TRBM Case 1 – Bangor, ME Operational Environment –Assumed bottom type was pebbles to cobbles, which appears to have been correct. Divers found the instrument sitting upright on bottom with no obvious external issues. –This turned out to be a sediment laden river flow environment with river currents of >4 knots. Assessment –The station was found to have silted on the inside with a large amount of sticks and twigs throughout, most probable cause of failure. –Release seems to have responded correctly. –Station recovered with crowbar Data Quality –N/A. ADCP failed to record anything, (this was a problem that we thought we had solved).

4. TRBM Case 2 – Snub Point, ME Configuration –TRBM with Benthos 867-A Transponding release. Timeframe –Deployed April 5, 2005 –1 st Attempted Recovery in late May –Recovered July by Divers at deployment location. Operational Environment –Assumed bottom type was hard mud to cobbles (not charted, not visited prior to deployment, no bottom sample). –Divers found the instrument sitting slightly buried (~2-4”) by sedimentation. –This was during an exceptional flow period bringing in higher than expected sediment.

5. TRBM Case 2 – Snub Point, ME Assessment –The station was found to have silted on the inside with a large amount of mud, sticks and twigs throughout, most probable cause of failure. –Release seems to have responded correctly; the pod released from the base as the base was being moved. Data –Instrument worked until batteries wore out. –Bottom Mounted (TRBM and ES- 2) ADCP data is the benchmark for other platform types due to its stability (<4 knots in aluminum).

6. TRBM Case 3 – Winterport, ME Configuration –TRBM with Benthos 867-A Transponding release. Timeframe –Deployed April 5, 2005 –1 st Attempted Recovery in late May –Recovered by Divers at deployment location in August.

7. TRBM Case 3 – Winterport, ME Operational Environment –Assumed bottom type was Sand and Pebbles (charted - no site visit, no bottom sample). which appears to have been incorrect. –Divers found the instrument buried to the gimbals. The divers only could see the blue ADCP head. Our attempt to recover the base parted the spectra and additional lifting lines. –This was during an exceptional flow period bringing in higher than expected sediment.

8. TRBM Case 3 – Winterport, ME Assessment –The station was found to have buried deep into mud. Most probable cause of failure. –Release seems to have responded correctly. Diver used a crow bar to release pod. Data –Instrument worked until batteries wore out. –TRBM ADCP data is the benchmark for other platform types due to its stability (<4 knots in aluminum).

9. TRBM Case 4 – Humboldt, CA Assessment Heavy sediment buried entire pod. Found by divers with staff, bridal was made to attach to gimbals so fire hose could be used to pump out pod. Data Buried after a few days. Other TRBMs Two other stations partially buried. Divers located instruments using diver locator. One side of pod was jammed into sand. Divers had to push down to level out system.

10. Where TRBM’S Work Low sedimentation & hard bottom –Southeast Alaska of all the TRBM’s deployed in SEAK from 2001-2005 only 1 (very deep) station didn’t get recovered. –Hudson River 4 (so far) All seem to have had low sed. rates during deployments

11. CASE STUDIES EDDIE SHIH 2 (ES2) Failure

12. ES2 Case 1 – Haverstraw Hudson River, NY Configuration –ES2 with Benthos 875 PUB release. Timeframe –Deployed, June 2004 –Recovery first attempted July 27 2004. –Recovered by Divers at deployment location in July 28 2004.

13. ES2 Case 1 – Haverstraw Hudson River, NY Operational Environment –Bottom type was hard mud (bottom sample). –Divers found the instrument sitting slightly buried (~2-4”) by sedimentation. –Divers found the instrument on location with no pop-up buoy. Recovery line still had a bowline tied into it! Assessment –The station was found to have very little mud and moderate growth. –Release seems to have disengaged prematurely. –The Bowline still being in the line with no release??? See ES2 Case 2- Bucksport Data –Instrument worked as expected with no quality issues.

14. ES2 Case 2 – Bucksport, ME Configuration –TRBM with Benthos 867-A Transponding release. Timeframe –Deployed April 5, 2005 –1 st Attempted Recovery in late May –Recovered by Divers at deployment location in August.

15. ES2 Case 2 – Bucksport, ME Operational Environment –Bottom type was assumed to be hard. –First Dive attempt found the site covered by wood chips (sit is just off a paper mill) –Second divers found the instrument sitting upright with no chips on location with no pop-up buoy in the canister and the line paid out. Assessment –Release seems to have disengaged at some point, but didn’t rise to the surface until we were onsite moving the base with the dive boat. The ring holding the line to the popup had become brittle/corroded and parted while during the movement. Thus, the line became free and still had a bowline tied on it… –DO WE NEED THE RING??? (AKA Its always the 25c part that fouls you!) Data –Instrument worked as expected with apparent covering at times (data times being collected, but no current data).

16. ES-2 Case #3 George Washington Bridge Deployment #2 ES2 Deployed July 2005 Attempted recovery in August 2005 Station has not been recovered Station was deployed longer than the First GW Bridge deployment, which was recovered successfully

17. Where ES2’S Work Hudson River Deployment 1…but a ton (literally!) of mud collected in the base. ES4 might have been a better option!

18. Where ES2’S Work Chesapeake Bay Florida