Appendices
INTRODUCTION - The UNOLS Council met in Room 1235 of the National Science Foundation on 17 September 1997. The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. by Ken Johnson, UNOLS Chair. The items of the agenda, Appendix I, were addressed in the order as reported below. The participants of the meeting are listed in Appendix II.
ACCEPTING MINUTES - The minutes from the June 1997 Council meeting were accepted as amended (page 8 was corrected, replacing "PMEL" with "NOAA."
COMMITTEE REPORTS - The Committee Chairs submitted their written reports in advance of the meeting and are included as Appendix III. Each report was briefly summarized by Ken Johnson. The chairs provided any updates and additional information not included in the written reports.
Research Vessel Operators' Committee (RVOC): Paul Ljunggren reported that the RVOC meeting agenda has been changed. The three planned workshops will be replaced with a report from Bill Hurley of The Glosten Associates. His report will address the impact new regulatory changes may have on the current and future UNOLS Fleet operations.
Fleet Improvement Committee: Ken Johnson reported that Chris Mooers' term as FIC Chair is ending and Larry Atkinson will be the new FIC Chair. Chris distributed a draft Interim Fleet Improvement Plan along with a memorandum to the FIC and Council with his reflections regarding UNOLS.
DEep Submergence Science Committee: Mike Perfit reported that on September 16, SIO hosted a meeting to investigate the future of ATV as a science tool. The issue will be addressed by the Council later in the meeting.
Ship Scheduling Committee (SSC) - Ken Johnson provided a viewgraph, Appendix IV, with the statistics of ship usage from 1995 through 1998. The ship day totals are down almost 500 days from last year. The table also depicted the increase of ship time for the smaller ships with a decrease of large ship time. The agency summaries over the years reflected the reduction in ship use, primarily for NSF, over this period. Ken presented a ship cost summary for 1998, Appendix V. This summary was provided by the individual ship operators representing their anticipated costs based on the schedules presented at the 15 September Ship Scheduling Committee Meeting. In past years the total costs exceeded the anticipated funds available from $3M to $10M. This year the total was nearly $5M less than the anticipated funds available for 1998. There was a general discussion on ship use trends. It was noted that there are no large field programs on the horizon.
Ken concluded by noting that pressure for the use of ALVIN and the deep submersible tools is high in 1998. Scheduling of these assets has been a complex, iterative process. With the exception of the scheduling the deep submergence assets, the remainder of the scheduling meeting went smoothly with few issues to be resolved at the meeting. As a result, Ken suggested that the format of the scheduling meeting needs to be reviewed to determine its effectiveness.
Federal Agency Reports -
Department of State (DoS) - Tom Cocke reported that clearance difficulties remain with Mexico and Russia. There have been an increasing number of coastal states providing late responses to clearance requests. Additionally, jurisdictional disputes between countries have resulted in instances of delays in issuing clearances. Tom reported that a greater number of coastal states are requesting to participate in coastal science cruises. This often results in additional logistics and travel expenses for the PI and reduces the bunk space available for the science party.
Tom provided statistics reflecting the trend toward fewer clearance requests being submitted on time. In 1997 only 37% of the requests to date were submitted on time. These late requests could be impacting the problem for late coastal state responses. Ken Johnson suggested that a subcommittee be established to examine what is causing the late submissions and what can be done to alleviate the problem. It was suggested that a mechanism be integrated into the web-based ship time request form to electronically remind PIs that a clearance request is needed.
National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) - CDR Beth White provided the report for NOAA, see Appendix VI. She began by reporting that the Memorandum of Understanding between NOAA and UNOLS is scheduled to be signed by Jim Baker Ken Johnson immediately following the Council meeting. AQUARIUS, an underwater laboratory, has been reactivated and is located in the Florida Keys. Fisheries will have $2.1M in the 1998 budget for concept design of the next generation fisheries research vessel. NOAA expects to charter 285 ship days of UNOLS ships in 1998 costing approximately $2.8M. RON BROWN completed its first science program, a PACS cruise, from 21 July to 6 September. The ship is presently on the first leg of a Vents cruise off Oregon. KA'IMIMOANA continues its work in the Pacific with the TOGA TAO buoys. The A76 process is proceeding on schedule which will determine the most cost effective way that this ship should be operated. The conclusion and results of this process are expected by May 1998. Beth reported that a bill to disestablish the Corps has been introduced, but for the time being the Corp is still active.
National Science Foundation (NSF)- The NSF report was provided by Don Heinrichs. His viewgraphs are included as Appendix VII. Lisa Rom has returned to NSF and will be working half time as Assistant Program Director for the Oceanographic Technology and Interdisciplinary Coordination (OTIC) Program. Sandy Shor will continue on as Program Director for Instrumentation and Technical Services for the rest of the year. This position will be advertised in the near future. The 1998 NSF budget is still in Congress. An increase over 1997 of 2.1% is likely which would bring the Ocean Science budget to $206.2M. The Facilities budget would most likely remain level funded at $52.3M. Don reported that at least one UNOLS ship would be laid up in 1998. Additional or continuing lay-ups are anticipated for 1999.
The UN has designated 1998 as the Year of the Ocean. EXPO '98 will be held in Lisbon, Portugal. Mike Reeve has been designated as official coordinator for NSF. NSF will encourage "outreach" activities associated with this event.
Don provided the details of the Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA) as it relates to NSF Facilities, see Appendix VII. The NSF required documents for the GRPA will include 1) a Strategic Plan; 2) an Annual Performance Plan (goals and objectives) and 3) Documentation of Workforce Issues. Significant effort will be necessary to keep these plans current. Changes to the cruise reporting form may be necessary to assist in collecting the data. Don thanked Annette DeSilva for her work in providing statistics for the GPRA pilot review this year. An NSF Committee of Visitors (COV) will review the plans every three years.
Don announced that a new publication "Grant Proposal Guide" has been published. Copies were available for the Council with additional copies available upon request. Also available was the publication "Instruction for Preparation of Proposals".
Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO) - CDR Jim Trees provided the NAVO report (see Appendix VIII). The first year of the NAVO/UNOLS partnership has been a success. Approximately $6.3M was provided for 432 UNOLS ship days and $769K for data processing. The planning went from concept to execution with few perturbations. The number one requirement of two fleet commanders were met. The UNOLS effort ensured an earlier forward deployment of two T-AGS-60 ships. Tactically significant data and Fleet requirements were accomplished.
Oceanographer of the Navy (OON) - Sujata Millick reported for the OON. She announced the U.S. Navy "Name This Ship" Contest for the T-AGS 64 and passed out the brochure, Appendix IX. The OON in partnership with the Navy League, National Geographic Society and the Navy Memorial are sponsoring this contest for school children K-12. The winner will be invited to attend the ship's christening and launch ceremonies.
Office of Naval Research (ONR) - Sujata continued with a report from ONR. Level funding is expected for the ONR Facility budget which should be approximately $5M. The ONR use of UNOLS ships has gone down in 1997 and 1998, however, is expected to grow in the out years. The Navy's inspection (INSURV) is being conducted on KNORR this week. THOMPSON is scheduled for an INSURV in October. The NAVSEA/SCN funding ends in September 1997 for REVELLE and May 1998 for ATLANTIS. A study by The Glosten Associates has been funded to evaluate the fuel efficiencies and propulsion problems experienced on the AGORs.
Sujata distributed a copy of the ONR "Commerce Business Daily Announcement for Operator Selection" for the newly funded AGOR 26 (see Appendix X). Interested parties are to request the RFP by 17 October 1997. Proposals are due 5 December and a decision is expected by January 1998. ONR is investigating the use of the CNR 804 process for the design and construction of this ship. Under this process the designing and construction of the ship is accelerated through the early participation of industry.
Frank Herr continued the ONR report by noting that within ONR the Ocean Science Division are held in high regard by Admiral Gaffney. The budget for ships and science are reasonably level and they are working to at least maintain the budget at a level state. Mike Craig along with John Orcutt have been awarded the Walter Munk Award - Congratulations. In other personnel announcements, Frank reported the need for IPA's to serve as program Officers. In particular they are seeking high-latitude expertise. Frank Herr concluded by announcing that ONR was pleased to present Sujata with a promotion.
United States Coast Guard (USCG) - CDR George Dupree who replaced CDR Rick Rooth in August as Chief, Ice Operations Division gave the USCG report. CDR Dupree explained that POLAR STAR has completed a ten-month overhaul and is now on a Deep Freeze deployment to Antarctica. POLAR SEA is entering a six month shipyard period and should be available for a Science of Opportunity cruise in the spring. A two month cruise is planned for equipment shakedown and crew training. The Coast Guard would like to allow four weeks for science. HEALY is scheduled for launch on 15 November 1997 with a delivery date scheduled for December 1998. Unrestricted operations are scheduled for 2000. The decision of homeport has yet to be made. The Coast Guard would like to increase training for their crew in preparation for science operations on HEALY. CDR Dupree requested any operators that may have openings on their ships for crew to contact him. CDR Dupree announced a GS-13 position vacancy in their Washington, DC Office. This person would be the civilian liaison with the community. They hope to have the position filled by the end of the year.
Consortium for Oceanographic Research
and Education (CORE) - Dan Schwartz presented the CORE report. CORE
has been selected as the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) program
office (see Appendix XI). Two
of the three NOPP Office positions have been filled as this office begins to
organize. They will be coordinating a "Virtual Ocean Data Center Workshop" which
will be a web-based forum. The NOPP Office is assisting in the development of
Terms of Reference for the National Oceanographic Research Leadership Council
(NORLC). They are helping to establish the Ocean Research Advisory Panel (ORAP)
charter and membership. The NOPP Office will prepare an annual report to congress
on the progress of NOPP. Dan reported that the 1998 program will have many of
the same elements as in 1997 and is expected to be funded at $28.5M with $7.5M
for the Navy use of UNOLS vessels. For FY99 the program should be included in
the various agency budgets. Ten agencies have expressed interest in supporting
the Partnership Program in out years.
NOAA/UNOLS Cooperation - RON BROWN was included in the 1998 UNOLS scheduling process as part of the cooperative efforts between NOAA and UNOLS. Brown's schedule for 1998 contains only NOAA funded science. However, in 1999 BROWN will likely be scheduled into the Indian Ocean and could accommodate programs of NSF, ONR and/or NAVO that would traditionally be the work for UNOLS ships. In return, NOAA programs in the Atlantic and Pacific would likely be scheduled on UNOLS ships. NOAA is planning approximately $2.8M for UNOLS ship time in 1998 which could increase in 1999.
UNCLOS Discussion - Dan Schwartz continued with a report on the status of the UNCLOS. Dan provided a copy of an article, "LOS and the Academic Research Scientist" by J. ASHLEY Roach, see Appendix XII. CORE recently conducted an abbreviated study of the effect on science of the U.S. not signing the Law of the Sea Treaty. Dan Schwartz reported that the premise of the study was that foreign coastal states may be less receptive to the U.S. clearance requests for work in their waters and that this may be a cause for the increase in delays and declines. CORE conducted a telephone survey, requesting facts and opinions regarding the U.S. position regarding the LOS. Dan noted that the survey was not scientific in nature. The preliminary findings of the survey indicated that there have been few actual sitings of problems related to the U.S. not signing the LOS. However, the consensus was that signing the treaty can only help with the process of gaining clearance responses. It was noted that one problem with the current situation is that the U.S. can not take part in conflict resolution and that the "implied consent" portion of the law can not be utilized. The Council agreed that CORE should continue to take the lead in this issue.
NOAA Fishery Needs - CDR Rick Brown from the NOAA Corps provided a summary of the ship requirements for NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service. NMFS is presently utilizing eight NOAA ships for 1700 days of in-house fish assessment and research. In addition they are chartering 400 days. Their plan is to build six new fishery research vessels to replace their aging fleet. These will be capable of both stock assessment and oceanographic research. They are looking to universities for cooperative efforts. The 1998 NOAA budget includes $2.1M for a concept design of the new fisheries vessels. Low acoustic signatures are considered very important for these vessels. NOAA will be working with the Navy for the newest quiet ship technology. NOAA is hopeful that the 1999 budget will contain construction money for the beginning of this new class of ships.
ENDEAVOR/OCEANUS Discussion - WHOI and URI submitted identical 1998 schedules for OCEANUS and ENDEAVOR realizing that one ship would be laid up. Neither institution volunteered their ship but instead asked that Ken Johnson mediate the decision. Ken received letters from the operators of both institutions as well as letters from scientists. It was noted that 13 of the scheduled cruises had WHOI PI's with associated ship loading and unloading requirements. Also, the ship characteristics of OCEANUS seemed to be better suited for the required field work. It was noted that OCEANUS had been the last ship to lay up. Ken's recommendation was that ENDEAVOR should lay up for 1998 but that a strong schedule should be developed for this ship in 1999. In the event of another year of low ship time requests, Ken recommended that all of the east coast intermediate ships be included into the lay-up rotation schedule including SEWARD JOHNSON. It was the consensus of the Council to endorse the sentiments of Ken's letter and forward it to NSF. The Council added that under the presumption that a similar scenario exists to some degree in 1999, the preference is to not lay-up ENDEAVOR.
Long Term Utilization of the UNOLS Fleet - The Council discussed at length the long term utilization of the UNOLS Fleet. It was suggested that the past may not be a guide for the future. There were concerns that there were no mega-programs such as WOCE and JGOFS on the horizon but we should not react on short term trends. The concern was that it is easy to retire a ship but it takes ten years to bring one on line. The science cycles are counted in years while ship cycles are in decadal time scales. This mismatch can be the cause of lean years.
Mike Purdy was asked about the long term prognosis of shipboard science. He indicated that the number of focused initiatives is constantly increasing. There are, however, no large programs on the table for the next two years. This period is a time of data interpretation and assimilation. NSF is reviewing the four disciplines as well as interdisciplinary science asking where the most exciting science opportunities may be in the next few years. The results of this inquiry will be shared. The Council agreed that a plan was necessary to deal with the lean years.
Application for UNOLS Membership - The Council briefly reviewed the request for membership by The New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium. A subcommittee of Bob Knox, Rich Jahnke and Clare Reimer has been established to review the UNOLS Charter, including annexes, defining what an "Institution" is as used in the Charter, and how consortium fit into this definition. The membership request was deferred pending the outcome of this subcommittee.
SEA CLIFF Retirement - Mike Perfit's comments relating to SEA CLIFF are included in his written committee report, see Appendix III. He commented that to date, a decision has not been made by the Navy on the future use of SEA CLIFF after de-activation.
ATV Retirement - In the spring, the Navy announced the possible retirement of the ATV (Advanced Tethered Vehicle). Scripps indicated an interest in operating the ROV and hosted a meeting on 16 September to discuss with the community some of the options for use and operation of the vehicle. WHOI, DESSC and agency representatives attended this meeting. WHOI also expressed an interest in being the operator for ATV. DESSC recommended to the agencies that ATV should be made available to the academic community if it is retired from the Navy. DESSC requested additional information on the vehicle to determine its capabilities. Community input will be solicited at the San Francisco AGU Meeting. Costs for operation are of concern. DESSC, SIO, and WHOI will continue to assess the viability of operating this vehicle after receiving community input and evaluating its capability and operating costs.
Scheduling Improvements - Jack Bash provided a summary of the Ship Scheduling Procedure Review Committee efforts. This subcommittee, chaired by Rich Jahnke, was charged to look at perceived weakness in the ship scheduling process. A summary of Jack's remarks are included in the viewgraph included as Appendix XIII. The viewgraphs include the committee's recommendations along with the actions to date.
AGOR Z-drive Thruster Status - Dick Pittenger provided an update on the AGOR Z-drive thruster problems, see Appendix XIV. The Glosten Associates are presently studying the cause of these failures. It would appear that there have been several different causes for the various failures including defective manufacturing. Where no spares are available, as with the upper unit on THOMPSON, it takes 13 weeks for manufacture and delivery of replacement units. This presents an unacceptable situation. After receiving the results of the Glosten study a course of action will be recommended to ensure greater reliability.
Ship Inspection Program - Jack Bash reported that a contract has been let to Jamestown Marine Services to conduct the NSF inspection on the non-Navy vessels of the UNOLS Fleet. The first inspection has been completed on LAURENTIAN. This inspection went well. An aggressive inspection schedule is planned.
White Paper on Crewing Requirements - A contract was let to The Glosten Associates to study the impact of new regulations with respect to fleet operations and new ship construction. A preliminary presentation of this study is scheduled for the RVOC meeting in October.
Interim Fleet Improvement Plan - Chris Mooers provided the Council with a revised draft of the Fleet Improvement Committee Interim Fleet Improvement Plan. The Council was asked to review the document and provide feedback to Ken Johnson for finalization.
Long Range Issues - The Council opened discussion on long range issues that should be considered. These included the need to consider new construction, particularly with the intermediate ship class. This effort should get started after hearing the results of the Glosten study on crewing and admeasurement. There was expressed a need that our community become more pro-active on issues and take a greater advocacy role. It was also suggested that the community as a whole needs to get involved and have a greater understanding of the UNOLS activities. Forums at AGU and the Oceans Sciences meetings were suggested.
UNOLS Brochure - Plans to update the UNOLS brochure are in process. The format will be similar to the present format. Vicky Cullen, WHOI, who prepared the original brochure has agreed to put together the update. Suggestions for the update are welcome.
Dues - Jack Bash reported that the balance of UNOLS dues for 1996 was $3,603.86. A total of $1450.00 was collected for 1997. To date in 1997, $1,300.00 has been expended leaving a current balance of $3,753.86. The 1997 expenditures included $100.00 to Hospice in memory of Marcus Langseth, $1000.00 for a Marcus Langseth memorial and $200.00 deposit on the 16 September evening UNOLS reception.
UNOLS Council Slate - Dennis Hayes, chair of the nominating committee, presented a slate for the Council elections. This slate is included as Appendix XV.
Thanks to Out-going Council Members - Dennis Hayes, Cindy Lee and Chris Mooers were thanked for their efforts on the UNOLS Council.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
NOAA/UNOLS MOU Signed -
Immediately following the UNOLS Council Meeting, the NOAA/UNOLS MOU was signed
by NOAA Director, Dr. James Baker and UNOLS Chair, Dr. Kenneth Johnson.
Call the Meeting: Ken Johnson, UNOLS Chair, will call the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m., 17 September 1997.
Accept Minutes of June, 1997 Meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS: Ken Johnson will provide a brief summary of the UNOLS Committee written reports and open the floor to a question/answer period. (Prior to the meeting, Committee Chairs submitted written reports for distribution to meeting participants.) Chairs will identify any important issues that need to be addressed further by the Council.
AGENCY and OTHER REPORTS: Reports from agency representatives on funding outlooks, facility updates, and special projects:
UNOLS ISSUES:
Science Mission Requirements for Central Pacific - Sujata Millick will provide the status on the Navy's plan for construction of a Central Pacific research vessel.
NOPA 2 - Dan Schwartz will give an update on plans and funding status for NOPA-2.
NOAA/UNOLS Cooperation - Ken Johnson will review the status of the NOAA-OAR/UNOLS Memorandum of Understanding.
UNCLOS Discussion - Tom Cocke will report on the potential impact of the U.S. decision not to ratify the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Dan Schwartz will provide an update on CORE's study on this issue.
NOAA Fishery Needs - Ken Johnson will open a discussion on NOAA fishery needs.
ENDEAVOR/OCEANUS Discussion - Ken Johnson will open a discussion on his recent letter to Dolly Dieter regarding ENDEAVOR and OCEANUS in 1998, see Attachment 1.
Long Term Utilization of the UNOLS Fleet - Discussion on 1998 ship utilization and ship use projections for the future.
Consortia Membership Issue - Discussion on UNOLS Membership issues in relation to consortia.
Charter Review - Cindy Lee will report on the ad hoc committee plans to review the UNOLS Charter and Council structure.
SEA CLIFF Retirement - Sujata Millick will review plans for the future of DSV SEA CLIFF following its retirement from the Navy. Mike Perfit will review DESSC's recommendations regarding SEA CLIFF's future.
ATV Retirement - Bob Knox will summarize the ATV meeting discussions held on 16 September. Mike Perfit will report on DESSC's preliminary recommendations regarding the retirement plans for ATV.
Ship Scheduling Improvements - Jack Bash will report on the progress of the improvements to the UNOLS ship scheduling process.
AGOR Z-drive Thruster Status - Bob Knox and Dick Pittenger will review the latest status of any AGOR Z-drive issues.
Ship Inspection Program - Jack Bash will provide the status of the UNOLS Ship Inspection program.
White Paper on Crewing Requirements - Jack Bash will provide the status of the contract to The Glosten Associates for their efforts to address the impact of Coast Guard Regulations regarding crew size requirements.
Interim Fleet Improvement Plan (IFIP) - The revised Interim Fleet Improvement Plan as provided by Chris Mooers will be reviewed.
Long Range Issues - Identification of long range issues for UNOLS Council attention.
Application for UNOLS Membership - The New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium has applied for UNOLS Membership. A copy of their application along with information about their consortium is included as Attachment 2.
UNOLS Brochure - Annette DeSilva will provide an update on plans for updating the UNOLS brochure.
UNOLS Dues - Jack Bash will provide an accounting report of the UNOLS dues budget.
UNOLS Council Membership - Dennis Hayes, Nominating Committee Chair, will present the slate of candidates for replacement of those Council members completing terms. The terms of Dennis Hayes, Bob Knox, and Cindy Lee are expiring.
Calendar for UNOLS Meetings:
| MEETING | LOCATION | DATES |
| Ship Scheduling Committee | Arlington, VA | 15 September 1997 |
| Scheduling Review | Arlington, VA | 16 September 1997 |
| UNOLS Council | Arlington, VA | 17 September 1997 |
| UNOLS Annual | Arlington, VA | 18 September 1997 |
| RVOC | Woods Hole, MA | 21-23 October 1997 |
| RVTEC | Seattle, WA | 27-29 October 1997 |
| FIC | TBD | Fall, 1997 |
| DESSC | San Francisco, CA | 7 December 1997 |
| AICC | New Orleans, LA | Jan/Feb 1998 |
Adjournment
| Participant | Affiliation | Phone/fax/email |
| Tim Askew | HBOI | (561) 465-24OOx262/(561) 465-2116/taskew@hboi.edu |
| Larry Atkinson | ODU | (757) 683-4926/(757) 683-5550/atkinson@ccpo.odu.edu |
| John Bash | UNOLS | (401) 874-6825/(401) 874-6167/unols@gso.uri.edu |
| Rick Brown | NOAA | (301) 713-2367/ /rick.brown@noaa.gov |
| Tom Cocke | Department of State | (202) 647-0240/(202) 647-1106/tcocke@state.gov |
| Paul Dauphin | NSF/ODP | (703) 306-1581/jdauphin@nsf.gov |
| Annette DeSilva | UNOLS | (401) 874-6825/(401) 874-6167/unols@gso.uri.edu |
| Dolly Dieter | NSF/OCE | (703) 306-1577x7233/(703) 306-0390/edieter@nsf.gov |
| George DuPree | USCG | (202) 267-1456/(202) 267-4222/gdupree@comdt.uscg.mil |
| David Epp | NSF | (703) 306-1586/depp@nsf.gov |
| John Freitag | URI | (401) 874-6579/(401) 874-6578/jfreitag@gso.uri.edu |
| Dennis Hansell | BBSR | (441) 297-188Ox2lO/(441) 297-8143/dennis@bbsr.edu |
| Dennis Hayes | LDEO | (914) 365-8470/(914) 365-8156/deph@ldeo.columbia.edu |
| Don Heinrichs | NSF | (703) 306-1576/(703) 306-0390/heinr-ic@nsf.gov |
| Frank Herr | ONR | (703) 696-4125/herrf@onr.navy.mil |
| Eric Itsweire | NSF | (703) 306-1583/(703) 306-0390/eilsweire@nsf.gov |
| Ken Johnson | MLML | (408) 755-8657/(408) 753-2826/johnson@mlml.calstate.edu |
| Bob Knox | SIO/UCSD | (619) 534-4729/(619) 535-1817/rknox@ucsd.edu |
| Paul Ljunggren | LDEO | (914) 365-8845/(914) 359-6817/pwl@ldeo.columbia.edu |
| Sujata Millick | ONR | (703) 696-4530/(703) 696-2007/millics@onr.navy.mil |
| Don Moller | WHOI | (508) 289-2277/(508) 457-2185/dmoller@whoi.edu |
| Chris Mooers | RSMAS/U of Miami | (305) 361-4825/(305) 361-4797/cmooers@rsmas.mia@.edu |
| Mike Perfit | U of Miami | (352) 392-2128/(352) 392-9294/perfit@geology.ufl.edu |
| Tim Pfeiffer | U of Delaware | (302) 645-4341/pfeiffer@udel.edu |
| Dick Pittenger | WHOI | (508) 289-2597/(508) 457-2185/rpittenger@whoi.edu |
| Dave Powell | U of Miami/RSMAS | (305) 361-4832/(305) 361-4174/dpowell@rsmas.miami.edu |
| Mike Purdy | NSF/OCE | (703) 306-1580/mpurdy@nsf.gov |
| Steve Rabalais | LUMCON | (504) 851-2808/(504) 851-2874/srabalais@lumcon.edu |
| Michael Reeves | NSF | (703) 306-1577 |
| Claire Reimers | Rutgers University | (908) 932-6555x236/(908) 932-8578/reimer@ahab.rutgers.edu |
| Lisa Rom | NSF/OCE | (703) 306-1585x7225/(703) 306-0390/erom@nsf.gov |
| Tom Royer | ODU | (757) 683-5547/(757) 683-5550/royer@ccpo.odu.edu |
| Terry Schaff | CORE | (202) 232-39OOx2lO/(202) 797-5979/tschaff@brook.edu |
| Daniel Schwartz | CORE/NOPP | (202) 232-39OOx222/(202)986-5072/dschwartz@brook.edu |
| Alexander Shor | NSF | (703) 306-1578/ashor@nsf.gov |
| Brian Taylor | SOESTIU of Hawaii | (808) 956-6649/(808) 956-2538/taylor@soest.hawaii.edu |
| Alan Thomas | NOAA/OAR | |
| CDR. Jim Trees | Naval Oceanographic Off. | (601) 688-4370/(601) 688-5514/jtrees@navo.navy.mil |
| Robert Wall | U of Maine | (207) 799-7734 |
| Tom Weingartner | U of Alaska | (907) 474-7993/(907) 474-7204/weingart@ims.alaska.edu |
| Richard West | NSF | (703) 306-1579/(703) 306-0390/rwest@nsf.gov |
| CDR Beth White | NOAA/OAR | (301) 713-2465 x~l84/(301) 713-0158/Elizabeth.White@noaa.gov |
| Gordon Wilkes | NAVOCEANO | (601) 688-4376/(601) 688-5602/gwilkes@navo.navy.mil |
Research Vessel Operators' Committee:
The 1997 RVOC meeting is scheduled to be held at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Woods Hole, Massachusetts on 21, 22, 23 October 1997. We have a full agenda for this meeting. In order to keep to this schedule many of the first days reports, specifically the "Special Reports" will be submitted as written reports with the period previously devoted to presentation of these reports now primarily being devoted to questions and answers. Of note on the agenda is-
Introductory presentation by Jamestown Marine. Jamestown Marine has been awarded the contract for the NSF ship inspection. They will be on hand to meet the members of RVOC and introduce personnel who will be carrying out the inspections.
A presentation will be made on marine communications. Existing and new systems that permit more effective communication and can be used to extend the Internet to sea. In conjunction with this there will be a presentation by SeaNet on JOI's recently funded proposal to provide five Inmarsat B installations on R/V's.
Three workshops are presently being
planned to address the following topics:
Tech./Operator workshop - Invite reps.
from RVTEC to discuss their needs and what operators should do to increase
the technical viability of their platforms.
Medical standards workshop-Follow on
to last year's work group.
Workshop to identify and standardize
ancillary service and equipment costs normally charged to programs.
Other RVOC Activities Include:
The Safety Committee has assigned members to review and update of the various chapters of the RVOC Research Vessel Safety Standards. This revision is due in January 1999. Two new topics which need to be included in the Safety Standards are Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) and Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS).
The proposal for a Safety Training Video was funded. A meeting of the Safety Committee to address the production of this video is scheduled for 1,2,3 October 1997 at URI - GSO. Jamestown Marine was selected to produce the video and will be present for the meeting. Items to be addressed include:
Selection of topics to be covered in
the video. These topics will be selected from Chapter I of the RVOC Safety
Training Manual. Chapter 1 is the Research Party Supplement.
Establish schedule for script preparation.
Establish review and control procedures.
Discussion of ideas for shooting video.
Ship availability for shooting.
Submitted by Paul Ljunggren
Fleet Improvement Committee:
1. The IFIP97 has been further revised into the (hopefully) final draft form for the Council's review.
2. Increments have been added to the draft FIP98 by various FIC members.
3. Activity associated with planning for the construction of a mid-Pacific R/V has been placed on hold by ONR.
4. With cancellation of the FIC summer meeting on short notice, FIC does not have its usual high level of activity to report.
5. A message has been prepared for the Council (w/cc to FIC) summarizing the accomplishments and shortfalls of FIC over the past three years, and providing several recommendations.
Submitted by Chris Mooers
DEep Submergence Science Committee:
DESSC's deliberations and planning with the Deep Submergence Facility (DSF) operator, WHOI, and national funding agencies have resulted in an upgraded and completely overhauled ALVIN which has successfully been merged with the new R/V ATLANTIS. In addition to the overhaul WHOI has been funded by the federal agencies to upgrade navigation, imaging and operational equipment. DESSC is continuing to work with WHOI-DSF to upgrade the capabilities and data products of the vehicles, and to work on a policy and plan for archiving data from all of the DSF vehicles. Last Fall, DESSC asked WHOI review its management and operations policies and at the December DESSC meeting they presented an Integrated Deep Submergence Plan that outlined the integrations of ALVIN and ROV programs and provided for shore based and shipboard operations that accommodates various operational scenarios. The plan also addressed management communications within DSOG and with PI's planning to utilize DSOG facilities.
In June, ALVIN engineering dives and recertification took place off Bermuda. ATLANTIS/ALVIN then completed two successful dive programs on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge; one that included filming by the British Broadcasting Corp and another that was in cooperation with U.K. BRIDGE scientists. ATLANTIS has also completed work off the California coast and is now on the Juan de Fuca Ridge completing several deep submergence research programs that were in serious jeopardy of being delayed for a year because of mechanical problems with R/V THOMPSON's Z-drive. The remainder of the year will see ALVIN/ATLANTIS on the northern EPR before ATLANTIS must undergo a NAVY Post Availability Shakedown (PSA) inspection in San Diego that will last until approximately April 1998. Jason, Argo-II and the DSL-120 sonar are working well and ready to be used on ATLANTIS and other UNOLS platforms in the coming year. DESSC and WHOI are working on methods to educate the community about Jason capabilities and the optimal operational approach for deep submergence field programs using the full suite of DSF vehicles. DESSC, UNOLS and WHOI have developed an on-line ÒUNOLS/National Deep Submergence Facility Vehicle Request Form - DSV ALVIN, ROV Jason, Argo-II, DSL-120 SonarÓ, that can now be accessed on the World Wide Web through the Deep Submergence Operations Group at WHOI and the DESSC homepage.
Scheduling problems have plagued us for the past few months and were hopefully resolved at this week's scheduling meeting. Deep submergence facilities scheduling problems were compounded by the fact that ALVIN was in overhaul and many scientists have been waiting for more than a year to use ATLANTIS, and by the addition of unscheduled programs on the Juan de Fuca Ridge. There is so much funded science in diverse field areas, that arranging a schedule that meets all of the PIÕs needs/schedules/desires, funding agencies priorities and fiscal constraints, as well as the requirements for the Navy inspection in early 1998, has been complex; requiring extensive communication and coordination between all parties. DESSC has worked to facilitate communication and spent a significant portion of the July 16-18 DESSC meeting working together with funding agency representatives and the facility operator to achieve a workable schedule for 1998. The scheduling procedure is becoming more complicated with many more time-series programs being funded, the ability to use the ROV and tethered vehicles in different areas on other large UNOLS ships, and our new global approach to deep submergence science. DESSC will continue to advocate for increased facilities support for the excellent scientific programs that are being funded.
At last years UNOLS meeting, ONR asked DESSC for input regarding the effective utilization of the SEACLIFF and the facility needs of the US academic, deep submergence community. A preliminary response to these issues was provided to ONR in December 1996, and a specially convened Working Group met in March, 1997 to deliberate on these issues. The SEACLIFF Working Group completed a report that summarizes the responses by scientists who filled out a DESSC questionnaire regarding the future of deep submergence science. This report provides ONR with recommendations pertaining to specific options regarding the disposition of Navy assets. The full report can be obtained from the DESSC web site. The SEACLIFF Working Group and DESSC strongly recommended that ONR fund an engineering study to be carried out by WHOI so that well-constrained estimates of costs for the effective utilization of SEACLIFF for academic science can been made within the next 12-18 months.
The federal funding agencies also recently asked DESSC for input regarding interest in the academic community for using the NavyÕs ATV (Advanced Tethered Vehicle) that will be retired in 1998. DESSC sent a memo to the agencies stating that there is community interest in ATV, and supported a meeting (held on Tuesday) at NSF to discuss the operational capabilities of ATV.
DESSC plans to focus on topics associated with future (10-20 year) facility needs (submersible, ROV, AUV) for deep submergence science, science justifications for the facilities, and the potential fiscal impacts of various options for providing adequate deep submergence facilities that would serve academic research and possible strategic needs into the future.
Submitted by Mike Perfit
Research Vessel Technical Enhancement Committee:
Since the last Council meeting in Grand Haven progress has been made toward the RVTEC Annual meeting scheduled for October 27 through 29 in Seattle. A meeting room has been scheduled on the University of Washington campus and rooms have been blocked for participants at the Meany Tower close by. The meeting is being hosted by Neil Bogue from University of Washington with assistance from Mike Webb from NOAA PMC.
The major presentation will be made by Mr. Bill Riffe, president of Marine Environmental Research, and will be on the subject of Marine Corrosion and its impact on shipboard systems and overboard instruments. Arrangements are also being made with Sea-Bird Corporation for a plant tour and evening presentation at their facility. Sea-Bird is a major supplier of instrumentation used on board UNOLS vessels.
Other agenda items will include discussion of continuing efforts toward updating the salary survey for technicians originally conducted in about 1988 by Bill Coste, a report from the cable subcommittee headed by Don Moller of WHOI and report from the data standards sub-committee headed by Steve Poulos from University of Hawaii.
The RVTEC chair will be attending the JOI SeaNet workshop in Washington on 29-30 September and participation by SeaNet principals is expected at the RVTEC meeting in Seattle.
Respectfully submitted,
John S. Freitag
Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee:
Report from the UNOLS Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee to the UNOLS Council - September 1997
The UNOLS Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee (AICC) provides scientific oversight of Arctic polar science support on US surface vessels, with primary focus on USCGC Polar Star, USCGC Polar Sea, and the new USCGC HEALY. The AICC consists of eight members from the US academic community, and is supported by NSF and the US Coast Guard. We try to maintain ties to other agencies and organizations concerned with marine research in the Arctic.
While there has been little new business since the last report in June 1997, the following updates the last AICC report:
With regards to ship scheduling, we have recommended that the Coast Guard take advantage of the on-line system provided by the UNOLS Office. To that end, the AICC has moved towards scheduling the USCG Arctic science missions within the UNOLS framework and the icebreakers are now on the UNOLS on-line ship-time request site. The AICC would like to see seamless incorporation of the icebreakers into the UNOLS scheduling, notification, and tracking system. Having said that, there will be only limited opportunities for scheduled USCG Arctic science missions (i.e. other than ship-of-opportunity) until January 2000 when USCGC HEALY becomes available.
Presently, the dominant mode of operation
for USCG Arctic science support is via the ship-of-opportunity (SOO) cruises.
These cruises receive no agency cost recovery because their primary mission
is to test the vessel(s) and to act as training missions for the USCG. The
AICC has been tasked with the responsibility of coordinating science participation
in the SOO cruises. Although the 1997 Arctic SOO program was canceled, we
feel that the AICC coordination of the science plan went well. All requests
were more or less feasible and we were able to put like-minded groups in contact
with one another so that they could maximize their planned science programs.
Each 1997 group will be contacted to see if they wish to participate in the
planned 1998 SOO cruise. Since there were a number of questions and concerns
from the community regarding the AICC's role in SOO cruise planning, we have
reformulated SOO guidelines for 1998 and have
posted them on the UNOLS web site. We
will also publicize them via electronic mailing lists and notices at appropriate
national meetings.
SOO cruises exploit a gray area in science
support, which has inevitably lead to some problems. Because such cruises
are seen by some as fiscally advantageous to funding agencies, and may even
be seen by some program managers as a preferred means of data acquisition
support, we would like to note that SOO cruises carry considerable risks.
Since there is no USCG commitment to science support for SOO cruises, when
schedule changes materialize, there has been considerable disappointment on
the part of investigators and their program managers, and as a result, image
problems for the USCG. We note that true dedicated science missions will put
the
responsibility for ship support squarely
upon the USCG. Such missions will test the USCG commitment to science missions
and its readiness for science support operations.
The AICC has recommended that the planned
field testing of USCGC HEALY in 1999 not be considered an SOO. We asked the
USCG to concentrate on tests and training without being constrained by accomplishing
"good science" on its maiden voyage at the expense of fully testing all systems.
UNOLS is assisting the Coast Guard with identification of science groups to
assist
with and monitor the science systems
tests. The AICC feels it is very important that procedures be worked out to
provide "corporate memory" for science systems support. During HEALY construction,
John Boaz, a senior technician at SIO, has been contracted by the USCG (through
NSF) for consultation on science systems. In the long-term, because of the
nature of USCG assignment rotation, the AICC felt it best to have some form
of civilian science support. This topic continues to be under discussion.
One issue of concern to the AICC - scientific clearance in foreign EEZs - has been largely laid to rest. The final step of having the Coast Guard play the same role as a UNOLS operator will probably be adopted following additional consultations between the Coast Guard and the UNOLS Office. AICC questions regarding HEALY's status under Canadian regulations appear to have been resolved satisfactorily.
The AICC continues to build liaisons, for example with RVTEC and the Antarctic Research Vessel Oversight Committee while the AICC e-mail list continues to expand. Progress on USCGC HEALY and work of the AICC was presented to the Arctic Research Commission at their meeting in Barrow, Alaska in August.
At present, USCGC HEALY brings no new dedicated ship/science funds from the federal funding agencies. The AICC hopes that via publicity of the new ship's capabilities and the ease of submitting shiptime requests through the UNOLS ship scheduling process, planned use of USCGC HEALY will generate the number and type of cutting edge proposals envisioned by planners. We feel that availability of HEALY on the UNOLS on-line request system is a first step in developing the proposal pressure that can help engender commitment of new science funds.
With respect to HEALY construction, progress has been good and launch is expected in late 1997. In exchange for a six-month delivery delay, the shipyard agreed to complete most of the "top 10" science-related modifications requested by the AICC. We regard this as a strongly positive move which will greatly benefit science support. Delivery is set for December 1998 with most of 1999 planned as shakedown and testing. We plan to tour HEALY at our next scheduled meeting in New Orleans, tentatively planned for January or February 1998.
| SHIP | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 |
| Atlantis | 319 | 93 | 185 | 272 |
| Ewing | 310 | 315 | 273 | 91 |
| Knorr | 350 | 279 | 293 | 257 |
| Melville | 297 | 297 | 308 | 179 |
| Revelle | 80 | 287 | 280 | |
| Thompson | 333 | 246 | 260 | 290 |
| CLASS I/II | 1609 | 1310 | 1606 | 1369 |
| AVERAGE | 268 | 218 | 268 | 228 |
| Edwin Link | 175 | 186 | 212 | 238 |
| Endeavor | 228 | 147 | 201 | 199 |
| Gyre | 122 | 219 | 148 | 18 |
| Moana Wave | 195 | 144 | 203 | 185 |
| New Horizon | 240 | 174 | 262 | 180 |
| Oceanus | 187 | 168 | 201 | 199 |
| Seward Johnson | 271 | 304 | 290 | 233 |
| Wecoma | 145 | 198 | 200 | 217 |
| CLASS III | 1563 | 1540 | 1717 | 1469 |
| AVERAGE | 195 | 193 | 215 | 184 |
| Alpha Helix | 144 | 73 | 120 | 180 |
| Cape Hatteras | 175 | 230 | 242 | |
| Cape Henlopen | 198 | 185 | 206 | 188 |
| Longhorn | 72 | 130 | 53 | 40 |
| Pelican | 182 | 201 | 211 | 192 |
| Point Sur | 164 | 118 | 197 | 195 |
| Sproul | 180 | 132 | 88 | 75 |
| Sea Diver | 145 | 155 | 185 | 168 |
| Weatherbird II | 154 | 167 | 150 | 154 |
| CLASS IV | 1414 | 1161 | 1440 | 1434 |
| AVERAGE | 157 | 145 | 160 | 159 |
| Barnes | 77 | 86 | 133 | 100 |
| Blue Fin | 75 | 96 | 105 | 146 |
| Calanus | 48 | 50 | 115 | 140 |
| Laurentian | 91 | 72 | 44 | 146 |
| Urraca | 173 | |||
| <CLASS IV | 291 | 304 | 397 | 705 |
| AVERAGE | 58 | 61 | 79 | 141 |
| FLEET TOTAL | 4877 | 4315 | 5160 | 4977 |
| AVERAGE | 174 | 154 | 184 | 178 |
| FLEET TOTAL (less <class IV) | 4586 | 4011 | 4763 | 4272 |
| **Endeavor or Oceanus wil not operate in 98 |
| 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | |
| NSF Days | 3249 | 2738 | 2965 | 2848 |
| % | 66.6 | 63.5 | 58.0 | 57.7 |
| ONR Days | 403 | 454 | 511 | 386 |
| % | 8.3 | 10.5 | 10.0 | 7.8 |
| NOAA Days | 354 | 145 | 366 | 330 |
| % | 7.3 | 3.4 | 7.2 | 6.7 |
| NAVO Days | 0 | 0 | 398 | 478 |
| % | 0 | 0 | 7.8 | 9.7 |
| Other Days | 872 | 978 | 872 | 891 |
| % | 17.9 | 22.6 | 17.1 | 18.1 |
| Total | 4877 | 4315 | 5112 | 4933 |
| NSF | NAVY | OTHER | TOTAL | DAILY RATE | |||||
| SHIP | DAYS | $ | DAYS | $ | DAYS | $ | DAYS | $ | |
| Revelle | 127 | 2,121 | 135 | 2,255 | 18 | 301 | 280 | 4,677 | 16,704 |
| Melville | 172 | 3,044 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 124 | 179 | 3,166 | 17,698 |
| Knorr | 185 | 3,034 | 53 | 869 | 19 | 312 | 257 | 4,215 | 16,400 |
| Atlantis | 223 | 3,524 | 11 | 174 | 38 | 600 | 272 | 4,296 | 15,801 |
| Ewing | 73 | 1,278 | 48 | 840 | 18 | 315 | 139 | 2,432 | 17,496 |
| Thompson | 112 | 1,773 | 76 | 1,204 | 34 | 4538 | 290 | 4,591 | 15,831 |
| Moana wave | 104 | 1,452 | 16 | 224 | 65 | 907 | 185 | 2,583 | 13,962 |
| Class I/II | 996 | 16,226 | 339 | 5,565 | 199 | 7,150 | 1602 | 25,964 | |
| Avg | 142 | 2,318 | 48 | 795 | 28 | 1,021 | 229 | 3,709 | |
| Edwin Link | 29 | 261 | 0 | 0 | 209 | 1,881 | 238 | 2,142 | 9,000 |
| Endeavor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Oceanus | 152 | 1,611 | 40 | 424 | 7 | 74 | 199 | 2.109 | 10,600 |
| Gyre | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| New Horizon | 77 | 754 | 97 | 950 | 37 | 362 | 211 | 2,066 | 9,791 |
| Seward Johnson | 173 | 1,678 | 34 | 330 | 26 | 252 | 233 | 2,260 | 9,700 |
| Wecoma | 71 | 703 | 58 | 574 | 86 | 851 | 215 | 2,128 | 9,898 |
| Class III | 502 | 5,007 | 229 | 2,278 | 365 | 3,420 | 1,096 | 10,705 | |
| Avg | 63 | 626 | 29 | 285 | 46 | 428 | 137 | 1,338 | |
| Pelican | 62 | 233 | 25 | 94 | 105 | 394 | 192 | 721 | 3,755 |
| Longhorn | 54 | 216 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 120 | 84 | 336 | 4,000 |
| Point Sur | 121 | 762 | 28 | 176 | 46 | 290 | 195 | 1,228 | 6,297 |
| Cape Hatteras | 104 | 724 | 81 | 564 | 57 | 397 | 242 | 1,685 | 6,963 |
| Alpha Helix | 132 | 1,417 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 129 | 144 | 1,546 | 10,736 |
| Sproul | 81 | 482 | 44 | 262 | 20 | 119 | 145 | 863 | 5,952 |
| Cape Henlopen | 104 | 593 | 68 | 388 | 16 | 91 | 188 | 1,072 | 5,702 |
| Weatherbird | 139 | 1,043 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 139 | 1,043 | 7,504 |
| Sea Diver | 18 | 86 | 22 | 105 | 45 | 214 | 85 | 405 | 4,761 |
| Class IV | 815 | 5,556 | 268 | 1,589 | 331 | 1,754 | 1,414 | 8,899 | |
| Avg | 91 | 617 | 30 | 177 | 37 | 195 | 157 | 989 | |
| Blue Fin | 0 | 0 | 1,816 | ||||||
| Laurentian | 140 | 630 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 27 | 146 | 657 | 4,500 |
| Barnes | 65 | 99 | 17 | 26 | 18 | 27 | 100 | 152 | 1,520 |
| Calanus | 80 | 248 | 0 | 0 | 60 | 186 | 140 | 434 | 0 |
| Urraca | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| < Class IV | 285 | 977 | 17 | 26 | 84 | 240 | 386 | 1,243 | |
| Avg | 57 | 195 | 3 | 5 | 17 | 48 | 77 | 249 | |
| Fleet Totals | 2,598 | 27,766 | 853 | 9,458 | 2,560 | 12,564 | 4,498 | 46,811 | |
| Avg | 90 | 957 | 29 | 326 | 88 | 433 | 155 | 1,614 | |
Dear Students and Teachers:
On behalf of the Navy League of the United
States, I am pleased to invite you to participate in the "Name This Ship"
contest to choose the name for the U.S. Navy's newest oceanographic survey
ship (T-AGS 64). As an educational non-profit organization established almost
one hundred years ago with the help of President Theodore Roosevelt, the Navy
League is proud to provide this poster and play a key role in this historic
event.
The United Nations has declared 1998 as the Year of the Oceans. The Navy League, in partnership with many other national organizations such as the Navy, Coast Guard, the Maritime Administration, NOAA, NASA, and the Department of Education, is working to ensure that all Americans, especially young people, leam more about this delicate and crucial element of the global ecosystem. By entering this competition, you will leam about things like weather and climate, oceanography, geography, history and more!
As we approach the 21st Century, it
is very important that the United States shoulders its responsibility as a
world leader and a maritime nation. A vital component of our leadership role
is to help advance scientific discovery with respect to the world's oceans.
Expanded understanding of the complex interactions between the sea, air and
land is critical if we are to ensure the long-term good health of our environment.
I am very excited about the fact that using the Intemet is key to participating
in this contest. In order to get the most up-to-date information about the
contest, please visit our website at http://www.navyleague.org, or go to our
partners in this contest, the Oceanographer of the Navy (http://oceanographer.navy.mil),
the National Geographic Society (http://www.nationalgeographic.com) and the
Navy Memorial (http://www.lonesailor.org).
Be a part of history and form your team
to Name This Ship today! I look forward to seeing you in Washington, DC!
Sincerely,
Jack M. Kennedy
National President
The Navy League Cadet Corps (NLCC) is
a youth program designed for boys and girls
aged 11 - 13 sponsored and supported
by the Navy League. This exciting educational and training program was established
to provide younger Americans with an opportunity to learn more about our nation's
proud maritime heritage through training, education and hands-on instruction.
The Navy League awards Scholarships
and also conducts an annual Essay Contest.
Navy League National Headquarters and
local Councils awarded over $100,000 in
scholarships and awards over the 1996/1997
school year to deserving students all over the country.
To learn more about the Navy League
of the United States and its Youth Programs, call us at (800) 356-5760, or
visit our website at http://www.navyleague.org.
FUNDING
CNR requested use of 804 process (Feb
97)
Supported by NAVSEA 00, N096, ASN(RD&A),
SECNAV
Need to resolve use of process with ~SCN
funds
Exploring conversion of SCN to R&D
(under Navsea)
SHIP DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
If SCN, refinement of requirements, similar
to AGOR process
If R&D/804 process, development of
performance needs
Inclusion of operator, ship design, and
shipyard.
If R&D (FY 97 $$), the funds must
be obligated before Oct 98.
NOPP Program Office Status
FY 99 and outyears
SECNAV
NSF Dir.
DEPSEC Energy
Coast Guard Comm.
MMS Dir.
OSTP Dir.
NOAA Admin.
NASA Admin.
EPA Admin.
USGS Dir.
DARPA Dir.
OMB Dir
7 others (NAS, NAE, IoM, State Gov.,
Academia, Industry, TBD)--Maybe.
The LOS Convention solidifies
coastal State control over Marine Scientific Research (MSR) in
waters subject to their
jurisdiction, waters which now encompass considerably more of the globe
now than in 1958 (2). Nevertheless,
U.S. policy is to encourage freedom of marine scientific
research. That policy was
fostered by the U.S. decision, first stated in the President's Oceans
Policy Statement of March
10, 1983, (3) and reaffirmed in October 1994 in the documents
transmitting the LOS Convention
to the Senate,(4) to not claim jurisdiction over MSR in its EEZ,
a right provided for under
international law reflected in the LOS Convention. The United States
declined to assert jurisdiction
in its EEZ over MSR because of its interest in encouraging MSR
and promoting its maximum
freedom while avoiding unnecessary burdens. The Department of
State is charged with facilitating
access by U.S. scientists to foreign EEZ's under reasonable
conditions. Consequently,
since 1983 the U.S. requests permission through diplomatic channels
for U.S. research vessels
to conduct MSR within 200 miles of a State asserting such jurisdiction.(5)
The United States does not claim jurisdiction over fisheries research except when it involves commercial gear or commercial quantities of fish, and even then it may qualify as scientific research. The United States does, however, claim jurisdiction over marine mammal research (6).
Role of the U.S. State Department in MSR
Within the Bureau of Oceans
and Intemational Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) is
the Office of Ocean Affairs
(OA), a division of which is the Marine Science and Technology
Affairs Division (OA/MST).
The Marine Science Division
is responsible for assuring that U.S. policy is adhered to
in acquiring permission
from the coastal State, when required for such research, and for
coordinating and processing
of tlhe request, as well as in processing requests from foreign
researchers to conduct
MSR in the U.S. territorial sea.
OES is headed by Assistant
Secretary Elinor Constable. The Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Oceans is Ambassador
David Colson (OES/0). The Office of Ocean Affairs is headed by
Tucker Scully, and the
Director of the Marine Science Division is Bill Erb. Mr. Erb is ably
assisted by Mr. Tom Cocke,
who is charged with processing all applications to conduct MSR.
Definitions
Coastal State jurisdiction
over foreign marine scientific research differs depending on which
activity is involved and
on the maritime zone in which it is conducted.
The LOS Convention does
not define the terms "marine scientific research", "survey activities",
"hydrographic survey",
or "military survey". However, the concepts are distinct.
MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
The United States accepts
that "marine scientific research" (MSR) is the general term most often
used to describe those
activities undertaken in the ocean and coastal waters to expand scientific
'knowledge of the marine
environment and its processes (7). MSR includes oceanography, marine
biology, fisheries research,
scientific ocean drilling and coring, geological/geophysical scientific
surveying, as well as other
activities with a scientific purpose. It is distinguished from
hydrographic survey, from
military activities, including military surveys, and from prospecting
and exploration (8).
HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY
The generally accepted
modem international interpretation of "hydrographic survey", which is
shared by the United States,
is to obtain information for the making of navigational charts and
safety of navigation. It
includes determination of one or more of several classes of data in
coastal or relatively shallow
areas--depth of water, configuration and nature of the natural
bottom, directions and
force of currents, heights and times of tides and water stages, and hazards
for navigation--for the
production of nautical charts and similar products to support safety of
navigation, such as Sailing
Directions, Light Lists and Tide Manuals for both civil and military
use (9). Coastal, harbor
and harbor approach charts and other products are published by the U.S.
Defense Mapping Agency
and made available to mariners of all nations (10).
In many areas of the world,
the production of up-to-date charts has had a positive impact
on economic development
in coastal areas, stimulating trade and commerce and the construction
or modernization of harbor
and port facilities. By helping safety of navigation for ships transiting
off-shore, up-to-date charts
also play a role in protecting coastal areas from the environmental
pollution which results
from wrecks of freighters and tankers carrying hazardous cargoes. Data
collected during hydrographic
surveys may also be of value in coastal zone management and
coastal science and engineering.
MILITARY SURVEYS
The United States considers
that military surveys refer to activities undertaken in the ocean and
coastal waters involving
marine data collection (whether or not classified) for military purposes.
Military surveys can include
oceanographic, marine geological, geophysical, chemical, biological
and acoustic data. Equipment
used can include fathometers, swath bottom mappers, side scan
sonars, bottom grab and
coring systems, current meters and profilers. While the,means of data
collection used in military
surveys may sometimes be the same as that used in MSR, information
from such activities, regardless
of security classification, is intended not for use by the general
scientific community, but
by the military (11).
SURVEY ACTIVITIES
This term is used to include hydrographic surveys and military surveys.
MILITARY ACTIVITIES
Military activities include
launching and landing of aircraft, operating military devices,
intelligence collection,
weapons exercises, and military surveys.
Legal Regimes Under the 1958 Geneva Conventions
Prior to the Third LTN
Law of the Sea Conference, each coastal State possessed sovereignty over
a narrow territorial sea
and sovereign rights over its continental shelf for the purpose of
exploring and exploiting
its natural resources. High seas freedoms, including the freedom to
conduct MSR and surveys,
pertained in the water column seaward of the territorial sea,
including over the continental
shelf, and of the seabed seaward of the outer limits of
exploitability of the continental
shelf.
The United States is a
party to the four 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea,
which established a regime
-- of sorts -- for MSR and surveys. The Continental Shelf
Convention recognizes coastal
State jurisdiction over MSR involving the continental shelf and
physically undertaken there,
but is silent regarding surveys. The coastal State is normally
expected to give its consent
if the request is in connection with purely scientific research and is
submitted by a qualified
institution. The coastal State has the right to participate or be
represented in research.
The results of the research must be published (12). The High Seas
Convention, expressly codifying
customary international law, recognizes the freedom of the seas,
including the water column
over the continental shelf, without specifically mentioning MSR or
surveys as one of those
freedoms among the illustrative list of freedoms (13). Nevertheless, the
conduct of MSR is regarded
as a exercise of the freedom of the high seas (14). The Convention
on the Territorial Sea
and the Contiguous Zone is silent on MSR and surveys, except to provide
that the territorial sea
and subjacent seabed and subsoil are under the sovereignty of the coastal
State." If follows that
the consent of the coastal State must be obtained for research work in
its territorial sea." The
Fishing Convention" is silent on marine scientific research. Thus, the
1958 Geneva Conventions
contain very little treaty law on MSR and marine surveys (18).
Nevertheless, prior to
the LOS Convention, freedom of MSR and to conduct marine surveys
existed in most of the
oceans seaward of the narrow territorial sea, and of the seabed seaward
of 200 meters depth or
where the continental shelf could not be exploited.
Legal Regimes Under the LOS Convention
During that decade-long
negotiations that culminated in the adoption on December 10, 1982, of
the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea, the United States sought to maximize the areas in
which MSR could continue
to be conducted free of coastal State control, to create a regime that
maximized timely and unencumbered
access by foreign researchers to areas under coastal State
jurisdiction, and to maintain
the right to conduct marine surveys seaward of the territorial sea
free of coastal State control.
These negotiations were conducted in the context of increasing
acceptance of a 12-mfle
territorial sea under coastal State sovereignty, of the 200-mile exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) under
coastal State jurisdiction for economic purposes, and of an expanded
continental shelf that
was at least 200 miles wide, and could be even wider for the broad-margin
States such as the United
States.
The results of those difficult
negotiations resulted in a diminution of the oceanic areas
in which there was freedom
of MSR, coupled with a consent regime for MSR in the EEZ and
on the subjacent continental
shelf, (19) while the freedom to conduct marine surveys was largely
unchanged (20). In 1983,
the President decided that, Part 3U aside, the rest of the LOS Convention
supported U.S. interests,
including that of encouraging freedom of marine scientific research (21).
During the decade following
adoption of the LOS Convention, questions arose as to the
legal status of the non-seabed
provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention. Some of its
provisions -- mostly coastal
State rights, including the right to control MSR -- have been widely
accepted and thus came
to be considered as part of international law. However, other provisions
-- mostly duties, including
coastal State duties to foreign researchers regarding MSR -- were not
adequately followed and
thus are clearly binding only on States party to the Convention now that
it has entered into force.
More specifically, the
LOS Convention clearly recognizes the maximum breadth of the
territorial sea is 12 nautical
miles. Only those 17 States now claiming a broader territorial sea
might disagree(22), and
their number is steadily diminishing (23). Entry into force of the LOS
Convention increases the
pressure on them to roll back their claims. Within that territorial sea,
the coastal State exercises
complete sovereignty, and MSR is now clearly under its exclusive
control. The LOS Convention
explicitly provides that the coastal State has "the exclusive right
to regulate, authorize
and conduct" MSR in its territorial sea, which may be "conducted only
with the express consent
of and under the conditions set forth by the coastal State (24)." Further,
the LOS Convention expressly
states that the "carrying out of research or survey activities"
makes passage through the
territorial sea not innocent (25) and expressly authorizes the coastal State
to enact laws and regulations
relating to innocent passage through the territorial sea in respect
of "marine scientific research"
as well as "hydrographic surveys" (26).
Under the LOS Convention,
the regime of passage through international straits does not
in other respects affect
the legal status of the waters forming such straits or the exercise by the
States bordering the straits
of their sovereignty or jurisdiction over such waters (27). Accordingly
article 40 provides that
during transit passage through such straits, foreign ships, "including
marine scientific research
and hydrographic survey ships," may not carry out any research or
survey activities without
the prior authorization of the States bordering straits. The same rules
apply to archipelagic sea
lanes passage (28).
Intemational law now recognizes
the right of all coastal States to claim EEZS, that may
extend seaward 200 miles
from their territorial sea baselines, or to median lines where the
opposite coasts are less
than 400 miles apart. Indeed, some 90 coastal States have done so. (29)
Intemational law further
recognizes that within its EEZ a coastal State may exercise jurisdiction
over MSR (30). The LOS
Convention provides the legal framework for the exercise of that
jurisdiction (31).
Intemational law also
now recognizes the sovereign right of the coastal State to explore
(and exploit) the natural
resources of its continental shelf, which may -- as in the case of the
United States -- extend
beyond 200 miles, but in most cases no more than 350 miles from the
territorial sea baseline
(32). The Convention provides the legal framework for the exercise of MSR
jurisdiction on the continental
shelf (33).
Seaward of the EEZ lie
the high seas and the seabed beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction. Here the
LOS Convention clearly advances the rights of the scientific community
by expressly recognizing,
for the first time, that MSR is a freedom of the high seas that may be
exercised by all States
(34). Further, all States, as well as the Intemational Seabed Authority, are
permitted to carry out
MSR in the seabed beyond national jurisdiction (35). On the other hand, the
LOS Convention is silent
regarding marine surveys seaward of the territorial sea.
MSR Under the LOS Convention
The conduct of MSR is
fully regulated by Part XIII of the LOS Convention which does not
apply to marine surveys
of any sort. The Convention confirms the right of all States and
competent international
organizations to conduct MSR (36) and the duty to facilitate the conduct of
MSR in accordance with
the terms of the Convention (37). The Convention sets forth the rights
and obligations of States
and competent international organizations with respect to the conduct
of marine scientific research
in different areas.
TERRITORIAL SEA
Article 245 recognizes
the unqualified right of coastal States to regulate, authorize and conduct
marine scientific research
in the territorial sea. Therefore, access to the territorial sea, and the
conditions under which
a research project can be conducted there, are under the exclusive
control of the coastal
State (38).
ARCHIPELAGIC WATERS
As archipelagic waters
are under the sovereignty of the archipelagic State, marine scientific
research is subject to
the consent of that State (39).
INTERNATIONAL STRAITS AND ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANES
Part XIII contains no
provisions specifically targeted to international straits or archipelagic
sea
lanes. However, under article
40, during transit passage, marine scientific research and
hydrographic survey ships
"may not carry out any research or survey activities without the prior
authorization of the States
bordering straits. " The same rule applies to such ships exercising the
right of archipelagic sea
lanes passage (40).
EEZ AND CONTINENTAL SHELF
Under article 246, coastal
States have the right to regulate, authorize and conduct marine
scientific research in
the EEZ and on the continental shelf. Access by other States or competent
international organizations
to the EEZ or continental shelf for a marine scientific research project
is subject to the consent
of the coastal State. The consent requirement, however, is to be
exercised in accordance
with certain standards and qualifications.
In normal circumstances,
the coastal State is under the obligation to grant its consent to
requests to conduct MSR
in its EEZ or on its continental shelf. (It is explicitly provided that
circumstances may be normal
despite the absence of diplomatic relations.(41)) The coastal State,
nevertheless, has the discretion
to withhold its consent if the research project is of direct
significance for the exploration
and exploitation of living or non-living resources; involves
drilling, the use of explosives
or introduction of harmful substances into the marine environment;
or involves the construction,
operation and use of artificial.islands, installations or structures. (42)
(The first of these grounds
for withholding consent may be used on the continental shelf beyond
200 miles only in areas
specially designated as under development (43)). It may also withhold
consent if the sponsor
of the research has not provided accurate information about the project
or has outstanding obligations
in respect of past projects (44). If requested, the coastal State
should state the reasons
for denying consent, otherwise the researching State will not be in a
position to determine what
adjustments would be require to enable the project to proceed (45).
The consent of a coastal
State for a research project may be granted either explicitly or
implicitly. Article 248
requires States or organizations sponsoring projects to provide to the
coastal State, at least
six months in advance of the expected starting date of the research
activities, a full description
of the project. The research activities may be initiated six months
after the request for consent,
unless the coastal State, within four months, has informed the State
or organization sponsoring
the research that it is denying consent for one of the reasons set forth
in article 246 or that
it requires more information about the project. If the coastal State fails
to
respond to the request
for consent within four months following notification, consent may be
presumed to have been granted
(46). This provision should encourage timely responses from
coastal States to requests
for consent.
Consent may also be presumed
under article 247 to have been granted by a coastal State
for a research project
in its EEZ or on its continental shelf undertaken by a competent
international organization
of which it is a member, if it approved the project at the time that the
organization decided to
undertake the project and it has not expressed any objection within four
months of the notification
of the project by the organization.
Article 249 sets forth
specific conditions with which a State or competent international
organization sponsoring
research in the EEZ or on the continental shelf of a coastal State must
comply. These include the
right of the coastal State to participate in the project, in particular
through inclusion of scientists
on board research vessels; provision to the coastal State of reports
and access to data and
samples; assistance to the coastal State, if requested, in assessing and
interpreting data and results;
and ensuring that results are made internationally available as soon
as practicable. Additional
conditions may be established by the coastal State with respect to a
project falling into a
category of research activities over which the coastal State has discretion
to withhold consent pursuant
to article 246.
If a State or competent
international organization sponsoring research in the EEZ or on
the continental shelf of
a coastal State fails to comply with such conditions, or if the research
is not being conducted
in accordance with the information initially supplied to the coastal State,
article 253 authorizes
the coastal State to require suspension of the research activities. If those
carrying out the research
do not comply within a reasonable period of time, or if the
non-compliance constitutes
a major change in the research, the coastal State may require its
cessation.
THE HIGH SEAS AND THE AREA
Article 87 expressly recognizes
conduct of marine scientific research as a freedom of the high
seas. Articles 256 and
257 further clarify that marine scientific research may be conducted
freely by any State or
competent international organization in the water column beyond the limits
of the EEZ, as well as
in the Area, i.e., the seabed and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof,
beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction (47). Under article 143, research in the Area is to be
carried out exclusively
for peaceful purposes.
RESEARCH INSTALLATIONS AND EQUIPMENT
The conditions applicable
to marine scientific research set forth in the Convention apply equally
to the deployment and use
of installations and equipment to support such research seaward of
the baseline (48). Such
installations and equipment do not possess the status of islands, though
safety zones of a reasonable
breadth (not exceeding 500 meters) may be created around them,
consistent with the Convention.
They may not be deployed in such fashion as to constitute an
obstacle to established
international shipping routes. They must bear identification markings
indicating the State of
registry or the international organization to which they belong, and have
adequate internationally
agreed warning signals (49).
RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY
Pursuant to article 263(l),
States and competent international organizations shall be responsible
for ensuring that marine
scientific research, whether undertaken by them or on their behalf and
wherever conducted seaward
of the baseline, is conducted in accordance with the Convention.
Pursuant to article 263
(2), States and organizations shall be responsible and liable for any
measures they take in contravention
of the Convention in respect of research by other States,
their natural or juridical
persons or by competent international organizations and shall provide
compensation for damage
resulting from such measures. With respect to damage caused by
pollution of the marine
environment arising out of marine scientific research undertaken by or
on the behalf of States
and competent international organizations, such States or organizations
shall be liable pursuant
to article 235 (50).
Coastal State Practice Regarding MSR Under the LOS Convention
Many coastal States are
complying with the MSR regime of the LOS Convention, (51) perhaps in
no small part with the
assistance of a practical guide to the implementation of the MSR
provisions published in
1991 by the UN's Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. (52)
Now that the Convention
has entered into force, this booklet takes on increased importance in
influencing States to comply
with their particular duties.
There are, however, a
number of States that are not complying with the Convention's
MSR provisions. Some of
them are party to the Convention (e.g., Brazil, Mexico); others are
not (e.g., Chile, Colombia,
Russia). The problems the United States has encountered include
the following:
The foregoing naturally
casts doubt on the value, today, of the LOS Convention to the marine
scientific community. That
need not be the case.
The Convention is approaching
universal acceptance. The Convention entered into force
November 16, 1994, for
more than 60 States, and is now in force for more than 70 States,
including Brazil and Mexico,
Germany, Italy and Australia. Many other industrialized countries
have indicated they have
taken political decisions to adhere to the Convention, including the
United Kingdom, Japan,
New Zealand and South Korea. Israel has announced that it too is
reconsidering adhering
to the Convention (65). Finally, as noted above, the President has
transmitted the LOS Convention
to the Senate for its advice and consent to accession.
Regarding MSR, the President's
Letter of Transmittal stated: "In light of the essential
role of marine scientific
research in understanding and managing the oceans, the Convention sets
forth criteria and procedures
to promote access to marine areas, including coastal waters, for
research activities."(66)
The Secretary of State's Report expanded on the importance of the
Convention to MSR:
The essential role of marine scientific research in understanding and managing
the oceans is also secured. The Convention affirms the right of all States to conduct
marine scientific research and sets forth obligations to promote and cooperate in such
research. It confirms the rights of coastal States to require consent for such research
undertaken in marine areas under their jurisdiction. These rights are balanced by specific criteria to ensure that coastal States exercise the consent authority in a predictable and reasonable fashion to promote maximum access for research activities."(67)
So how can those coastal States be convinced to accept and carry out their new duties?
More than a decade's experience
before the Convention entered into force suggests little
hope for doing so outside
the convention regime. However, in at least three ways the
Convention helps make real
the balance reflected in the Convention's terms?
First, States party to
the Convention are legally bound by their treaty relationships to
comply with the Convention's
provisions which by their nature are more explicit than customary
law.
Second, U.S. accession
to the Convention would finally place it on a level playing field
with other countries. Coastal
States would no longer have the excuse that they were bound by
the Convention and the
United States was not - a significant political improvement.
Third, the Convention
provides a scheme for resolving MSR disputes with coastal States.
This, in and of itself,
is an improvement over the present situation. Further, the dispute
settlement regime is a
major accomplishment. Indeed, it may provide the only way to restrain
and roll back excessive
coastal State constraints on the conduct of MSR.
MSR DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REGIME
Article 264 provides that
"disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the provisions
of [the LOS] Convention
with regard to marine scientific research shall be settled" in accordance
with the sections on "compulsory
procedures entailing binding decisions" and the limitations and
exceptions thereon, set
out in Part XV, "Settlement of Disputes", Parts 2 and 3, respectively.
Fora
The Convention permits
a State to choose one or more fora for the settlement of disputes
concerning the interpretation
or application of the Convention:
The President has indicated
that the U.S. intends to elect arbitration and special
arbitration where permitted
by the Convention, and to exempt from compulsory dispute
settlement (CDS) those
activities permitted by article 298, including military activities, such as
military activities by
government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and
disputes concerning law
enforcement activities, in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or
jurisdiction over marine
scientific research (68).
CDS Regime for MSR
With regard specifically
to MSR, the Convention provides that "disputes concerning the
interpretation or application
of the provisions of this Convention with regard to marine scientific
research shall be settled"
by the compulsory dispute procedures(69).
Unfortunately, article 272 (2)(a) goes on to carve out two substantial exceptions:
MSR exempted from CDS
thus includes the following:
Interim measures
There are two other provisions
favoring the coastal State:
Remedies for Improper
Exercise of Discretion
What aspects of MSR then
are subject to dispute resolution? Two important coastal State duties
come to mind: The duty
of the coastal State to grant consent, in normal circumstances, for MSR
projects in the EEZ or
on the continental shelf, and the duty to establish rules and procedures
ensuring that such consent
will not be delayed or denied unreasonably.
Although these may not
appear to be very important, it seems that the very existence of
these areas provides the
researching State leverage over the coastal State that is not implementing
the MSR regime consistent
with the terms of the Convention.
In a situation where the
United States now has very little leverage over recalcitrant
coastal States, and there
is little incentive for those States to change their laws, regulations or
procedures, the mere fact
that their non-compliance can be brought before third parties can only
be an improvement in the
present situation, and should lead to greater conformity with the MSR
regime in the Convention.
Further, U.S. accession
to the LOS Convention would provide the opportunity to try, an
opportunity present while
the United States remains outside the treaty regime.
Finally, U.S. accession
to the Convention would enable the United States to consider
establishing a Freedom
of MSR Program analogous to the NSC-directed State-Defense Freedom
of Navigation Program that
since 1979 has helped conform state practice with the navigational
provisions of the Convention
(72). Similar results should be sought for MSR.
(1) Captain, JAGC, USN (ret.), Office
of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State. This paper is a revised
version of a speech delivered at a conference
on observing the oceans at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on January
10, 1995.
(2) Accompanying Germany's instrument
of accession to the LOS Convention was a declaration concerning
marine scientific research, which reads
as follows:
Although the traditional freedom of
research suffered a considerable erosion by the Convention,
this freedom will remain in force for
States, international organizations and private entities in
some maritime areas, e.g., the sea-bed
beyond the continental shelf and the high seas. However,
the exclusive economic zone and the continental
shelf, which are of particular interest to marine
scientific research, will be subject
to a consent regime, a basic element of which is the obligation
of the coastal State under article 246,
paragraph 3, to grant its consent in normal circumstances.
In this regard, promotion and creation
of favourable conditions for scientific research, as
postulated in the Convention, are general
principles governing the application and interpretation
of all relevant provisions of the Convention.
The marine scientific research regime
on the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles denies
the coastal State the discretion to withhold
consent under article 246, paragraph 5(a), outside areas
it has publicly designated in accordance
with the prerequisites stipulated in paragraph 6. Relating
to the obligation, to disclose information
about exploitation or exploratory operations in the
process of designation is taken into
account in article 246, paragraph 6, which explicitly excluded
details from the information to be provided.
Multilateral Treaties Deposited with
the Secretary-General: Status as at 31 December 1994, UN Doc.
ST/LEG/SER.E/13, at 859 (UN Sales No.
E.95.V.5, 1995).
(3) When claiming its EEZ in 1983, the
United States chose not to assert the right of jurisdiction over marine
scientific research within the zone.
President Reagan explain the rationale for not doing so, as follows:
While international law provides for
a right of jurisdiction over marine scientific research
within such a zone, the proclamation
does not assert this right. I have elected not to do so
because of the United States interest
in encouraging marine scientific research and avoiding any
unnecessary burdens. The United States
will nevertheless recognize the right of other coastal
states to exercise jurisdiction over
marine scientific research within 200 nautical miles of their
coasts, if that jurisdiction is exercised
in a manner consistent with international law .
President's Ocean Policy Statement,
Mar. 10, 1983, 1 PUBLIC PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS: RONALD REAGAN 1983, at 378-79.
(4) Commentary, Sen. Treaty Doc. 103-39,
at 80; 6 State Dept. Dispatch Supplement No. 1, Feb. 1995, at 44.
(5) The United Kingdom similarly acts
on behalf of British scientists seeking authorization to conduct MSR in foreign
waters. 56 Br. Y.B. Int'l L. 1985, at 500.
(6) 16 U.S.C. 1374(c).
(7) Accord, SOONS, MARINE SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH AND THE LAW OF THE SEA 124 (1982) (hereinafter, SOONS).
(8) Commentary on LOS Convention, Sen.
Treaty Doc. 103-39, at 80: SOONS 125 (MSR differs from
hydrographic surveys and resource exploration).
In discussing MSR for military purposes, Soons (at 135) does not mention military
surveys or other military activities.
(9) Cf. IHO Definition 40 [any better
cite?]
(10) 10 U.S.C. 2791 et seq.
(11) ROACH & SMITH, EXCESSIVE MARITIME
CLAIMS 248, 66 U.S. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE, INTERNATIONAL LAW STUDIES (1994).
(12) 1958 Convention on the Continental
Shelf, 15 UST 47 1, TIAS 5578, 499 UNTS 31 1, article 5(l) & (8).
SOONS 56-58 examines the meaning of these
two paragraphs, concluding that the customary international law rules are
essentially the same as those set out in paragraphs I and 8 of article 5.
(13) 1958 Convention on the High Seas,
13 UST 2312, TIAS 5200, 450 UNTS 82, article 2.
(14) The United Kingdom agreement with
the position may be found in 56 Br. Y.B. Int'l L. 1985, at 501. The
United States concurs in this position.
Soon comes to the same conclusion after reviewing the travaux preparatoires
state practice, and the views of publicists. SOONs 47-55.
(15) 1958 Convention on the Territorial
Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 15 UST 1606, TIAS 5639, 516 UNTS 205. articles
1-2.
(16) 56 Br. Y.B. Int'l L. 1985, at 501;
SOONs 46.
(17) 1958 Convention on Fishing and Conservation
of Living Resources of the High Seas, 17 UST 138, TIAS
5969, 559 UNTS 285.
(18) This regime is replaced by the detailed
regime set out in the LOS Convention, for States parties to these
treaties. LOS Convention, article 31
l(l).
(19) SOONs 261.
(20) de Marffy, Marine Scientific Research,
in 2 A HANDBOOK ON THE NEW LAW OF THE SEA 1140 (Dupuy & Vignes eds, 1991)
('the balance is tipped much more in favour of coastal States than in favour
of researching States, and. this is perhaps harmful to scientific research
in general").
(21) President's Ocean Policy Statement,
supra n. 3.
(22) Eleven of them claim a 200 mile
territorial sea: Benin, Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Liberia, Nicaragua,
Panama, Peru, Sierra Leone, Somalia,
Uruguay. Cameroon claims a 50 mile territorial sea; Syria claims a 35 mile
territorial sea; Nigeria and Togo claim a 30 mile territorial sea; Angola
claims a 20 mile territorial sea. The Philippines claims a territorial sea
which extends to 285 miles in some locations.
(23) Sixteen States have rolled back
their territorial sea claims to 12 miles since international agreement was
reached on that limit: Albania, Argentina,
Brazil, Cape Verde, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,Haiti, Madagascar,
Maldives, Mauritania, Senegal, Tanzania and Tonga. As recently as May 16,
1995, Panama announced at the second meeting of States Parties to the LOS
Convention that it was considering rolling back its 200 mile territorial sea
claim to 12 miles.
(24) LOS Convention, article 245.
(25) Id., article 19(2)0).
(26) Id., article 21(l)(g).
(27) Id., article 34(l).
(28) Id., article 54.
(29) For a recent list, see U.S. Dep't
of State, Limits in the Seas No. 36 (Rev. 7, 1995).
(30) LOS Convention, article 56(l)(b)(ii).
(31) Id., article 246.
(32) Id., article 76.
(33) Id., article 246.
(34) Id., articles 87(i)(f) & 257.
(35) Id., articles 143 & 256.
(36) Id., article 238.
(37) Id., article 239.
(38) See also id., articles 21(l)(g),
19(l@)O)), 40 and 54. There is no appeal if consent is refused or unreasonable
conditions are imposed. 56 Br. Y.B. Int'l L. 1985, at 501.
(39) SOONS 153.
(40) LOS Convention, article 54.
(41) Id., article 246(3)-(4).
(42) Id., article 246(5)(a-c).
(43) Id., article 246 (6).
(44) Id., article 246 (5)(d).
(45) IV UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON
THE LAW OF THE SEA 1982: A COMMENTARY 519, para. 246.17(b) (Rosenne &
Yankov, eds. 1991).
(46) LOS Convention, article 252.
(47) If no EEZ is claimed, continental
shelf restrictions apply only as stated in article 246.
(48) LOS Convention, article 258.
(49) Id., articles 259-262.
(50) Id., article 263 (3).
(51) The various legislative enactments
are briefly summarized in UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law
of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs,
The Law of the Sea: Practice of States at the time of entry into force of
the
United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UN Sales No. E.94.V. 13, 1994), at 18, 37-38, 75-76, 83-84,
97-98, 134-35 & 182. National legislation
is collected in UN Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, The Law
of the Sea: National Legislation, Regulations and Supplementary Documents
on Marine Scientific Research in Areas Under National Jurisdiction (UN Sales
No. E.89.V.9, 1989).
(52) UN Office for Ocean Affairs and
the Law of the Sea, The Law of the Sea: Marine Scientific Research - A
Guide to the Implementation of the Relevant
Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UN Sales
No. E.9l.V.3, 1991) (hereinafter, UN, MSR Guide). This pamphlet also suggests
standardization of the forms for seeking consent and for granting permission
to conduct marine scientific research in areas of national jurisdiction.
(53) The last sentence of article 246
(3) requires coastal States to establish rules and procedures ensuring that
consent will not be delayed or denied
unreasonably. The UN MSR Guide states the coastal State 'should therefore
respond as quickly as can reasonably
be expected to requests for consent.' UN, MSR Guide I 1, at para. 52.
(54) Ibid.
(55) Article 249(l)(b) sets no fixed
time-limits for providing the preliminary reports, final results and conclusions
of the research to the coastal State. Providing even a preliminary report
prior to the ship's departure is not practicable. SOONS 190. Common practice
is to provide the preliminary report 30 days after completion of the field
portion of the research.
(56) The UN MSR Guide states that "[all
efforts should be made to supply the final results and conclusions
within a reasonable period of time" noting
that the "time span between the end of the cruise and the availability of
the final results can vary substantially depending upon the nature of the
research.' UN, MSR Guide 19, para. 92. Final reports usually take a year or
longer to prepare.
(57) The coastal State has no right under
the Convention to receive such data, until it is made public.
(58) Article 249(l)(e) requires the data
be made internationally available, unless it is of direct significance for
the exploration and exploitation of natural
resources. U.S. law requires that U.S. govemment-funded data must become part
of the public domain. CITE
(59) The Convention is silent on this
question. The UN MSR Guide recommends that consideration be given to providing
the coastal State with reports 'written in a language which can be read by
scientists of the coastal State.' UN, MSR Guide 19, para. 93.
(60) The right to participate under article
249(l)(a) is qualified to the extent that it must be 'practicable". The
UN MSR Guide notes that, if the right
to participate is to be meaningful at all, the researching State "must always
reserve space for at least one coastal State scientist on board,' while recognizing
only in extreme situations would that be impracticable, such as on a two-
or three-man submersible. The Guide also cautions that "excessive demands
should not be made'. UN, MSR Guide 16, para. 78. Consistent with the UN MSR
Guide conclusion that "[the coastal State may be able to claim more than one
participant only if, and to the extent that, there is space available," two
scientific participants are generally permitted on board U.S. research vessels
when space allows. However, there may be occasions when participation is not
practical, or, conversely, when more than two may participate. Accord, SooNs
189.
(61) This is not authorized by article
249.
(62) Under article 250, all communications
concerning marine scientific research projects "shall be made through appropriate
official channels, unless otherwise agreed.' Soons states that it is always
most safe to use diplomatic channels. SOONS 193.
(63) To avoid problems the UN MSR Guide
recommends also sending a copy directly to the coastal State
scientists involved. UN, MSR Guide 19,
para. 90. The Guide also recommends the researching State expressly inform
the coastal State involved, after all results and conclusions of a research
project have been provided to it, that all obligations related to a specific
research project have in its opinion been fulfilled, to avoid invocation of
article 246 (5) by the coastal State to withhold consent to future projects
because of outstanding obligations to it from a prior research project. UN,
MSR Guide 20, para. 99.
(64) The UN MSR Guide points out the
need for the coastal State to have a single office to process applications
for consent and be able to coordinate the request among the relevant government
agencies. UN, MSR Guide 9, paras. 42, 43, 46.
(65) State Dep't Dispatch Supplement
No. 1, Feb. 1995, at 53.
(66) Sen. Treaty Doc. 103-39, at IV;
6 State Dept. Dispatch Supplement No.1, Feb. 1995, at 1.
(67) Sen. Treaty Doc. 103-39, at VII;
6 State Dept. Dispatch Supplement No. 1, Feb. 1995, at 2.
(68) Sen. Treaty Doc. 103-39, at IV,
X; 6 State Dept. Dispatch Supplement No. 1, Feb. 1995, at 1, 4.
(69) LOS Convention, article 297(2).
(70) Id., article 246(i).
(71) See id., articles 73 (2), 220(7)
and 226(l)(b); cf. article 27 (3).
(72) See ROACH & SMITH, EXCESSIVE
MARITIME CLAIMS, Chapter 1.
SCHEDULING PROCEDURE REVIEW
A Ship Scheduling Procedure Review Committee chaired by Rick Jahnke met 7 January 1997 to address perceived weakness in the ship scheduling process. These were
The following recommendations were presented:
ACTION TO DATE:
Revised Electronic Ship Time Request form (work in progress).
Two parts, single page for proposals
and scheduling followed by an extensive
second part for cruise planning. Part
one submitted with proposal, par two after
funding or special request. Each request
will have a backup archive file of pertinent
traffic.
Posted by year to web on world chart, geographically located in pull down box.
On-line ship schedule form. Auto cruise
track posted to web on world chart. All
PIs automatically notified at posting
and for subsequent changes.
Transit bank auto-update for no cost cruises of opportunity.
Future work. Program ship daily cost,
distance and fuel use into ship track
program to provide a first level cut
at a cost analysis.
John Diebold Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory
Richard HeyUniversity of Hawaii
Thomas ShipleyUniversity of Texas
NON-OPERATOR REPRESENTATIVE (3-year term) - from among designated representatives of Member Non-Operator institutions:
Cindy Lee State University of
New York, Stony Brook
Barbara PrezelinUniversity of California,
Santa Barbara
AT-LARGE (3-year term) - individual affiliated with any UNOLS Member institution:
Robert Knox Scripps Institution
of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Thomas LeeRSMAS/University of Miami
VITAE
John Diebold Research Scientist,
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Research interests include application
of Multichannel seismic and wide angle seismic techniques to study genesis
and development of oceanic crust, plateaus, and continental accretion.
Participated in more than 50 legs on
various research ships as technician, scientist, and chief scientist.
Richard Hey Professor, Hawaii
Institute if Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean and Earth Science
and Technology/University of Hawaii
Plate Tectonics.
Seagoing scientist with extensive experience
using UNOLS research vessels.
Robert Knox Associate Director,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography Ship Operations and Marine Technical Support
Research Oceanographer, Physical Oceanography
Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California,
San Diego
Physical Oceanography; Global and equatorial
ocean circulation and acoustic remote sensing.
Cindy Lee Professor, Marine Sciences
Research Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Chemical Oceanography; Marine organic
geochemistry; production and decomposition of biogenic organic matter; organic
nitrogen cycle biogeochemistry; analytical chemistry of amino acids and amines.
Thomas Lee Research Professor,
Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science/University of Miami
Chair, RSMAS Ship Operations Committee
Chair of the Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Institution/RSMAS Joint Marine Operations Oversight Committee
Physical Oceanography
Thomas Shipley Research Scientist,
University of Texas, Institute for Geophysics
Marine Geology and Geophysics: Research
specializations include convergent margin tectonics and deep ocean seismic
stratigraphy. Most experience has been with geophysical remote sensing tools,
including multichannel seismic techniques.
Participated in over 30 cruises in the
last 25 years.
Barbara Prezelin Professor, University
of California, Santa Barbara
Biological Oceanography: Phytoplankton
ecology, with an emphasis on light regulation of photosynthesis and primary
production in diverse ocean regions. Publication of close to 120 scientific
publications and environmental assessment and policy reports. Served on numerous
science policy boards.