From - Thu Feb 01 15:07:03 2001

Fleet Improvement Committee Meeting
University of Miami, RSMAS
Dean’s Conference Room
February 21, 2001

Meeting Report

Introduction: The meeting of the Fleet Improvement Committee was a working meeting. It contained an open discussion among its members to primarily address the Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee (FOFC) discussion paper entitled “Charting the Future for the National Academic Research Fleet.”

The agenda for the working meeting is attached below.

Meeting Participants included:
Larry Atkinson (ODU), FIC Chair
Mark Brzezinski (UCSB)
Joe Coburn (WHOI)
Annette DeSilva (UNOLS Office)
David Hebert (URI)
Bob Knox (SIO), UNOLS Chair
Chris Measures (U. Hawaii)
Mike Prince (UNOLS Office)
Terry Whitledge (U. Alaska)

The following is a summary of the general discussion of the FOFC paper. Comments, questions, and opinions are recorded in the order made.

To begin the discussion, Larry Atkinson presented the UNOLS fleet utilization chart showing ship time planned through 2001. The chart demonstrates that demand for the fleet is on the increase in 2001. If this trend continues, it is unlikely that the FOFC long-range plan will be able to meet ship needs of the future. It was also pointed out that RON BROWN, HEALY and the other USCG Icebreakers are not included in the utilization figures or the FOFC plan.

Through the FOFC surveys, the science community indicates the need for ships will increase in the future. The Oregon Workshop Report and the Brewer/Moore Millennium Report reemphasize this. There will be non-traditional ship support needs in the future. Some of these non- traditional ship needs might include:

- Field programs for model verification,
- Support platforms for AUVs,
- Observatory support
- Event response

Along with the many new non-traditional ship uses, conventional ship use will continue.

By reducing the size of the future fleet, the FOFC long-range projections may work to constrain the future of oceanographic field programs. The limited size of the fleet will constrain the flexibility of fleet operations and in turn its ability to respond to events (seismic, storm, environments biological, etc.) This concern was expressed through many of the FOFC survey responses. Limited fleet size will constrain research in the globally remotely areas. Henry Dick (WHOI) recently pointed out that it took 11 years to plan and schedule his 2000/2001 cruise to the South Atlantic. He finally conducted the cruise and important discoveries were made.

The planning factors for the fleet of the future must address excess capacity and the associated costs to accommodate surge season operations, event response work, multi-ship operations, globally remote research, etc. The costs of maintaining ship crews during this period must be considered as part of the plan.

Implementation of the FOFC Fleet Plan has the potential to jeopardize the effectiveness of the academic fleet. The FOFC plan addresses efficiency, but not effectiveness.

There is concern that the FOFC plan does not include the smaller vessels of the UNOLS Fleet which have played an important role. Their utilization in recent years has been high and continues to increase. It is difficult to evaluate the Fleet Plan without including the smaller vessels.

FOFC Survey Summary - Mike Prince reviewed his viewgraphs which summarize the community survey responses to the FOFC paper http://www.mlml.calstate.edu/unols/fltdisc/surveyresults/surveyppt/. Some comments and FIC discussion regarding the viewgraphs are provided below:

Does the plan meet the needs of Marine science? – Community Response, “no.”
Number of vessels needed compared to the plan – The Community response generally indicated that more ships are needed. Few felt that the FOFC plan was ok as projected.
Is the distribution of ships in the plan right? – Most indicated that the plan should provide a better distribution for the various classes of vessels.
Fleet capabilities:

Vessel Size – There is concern that as new ships are planned, there is often a trend for them to be larger than their predecessor, the “creep” factor. Many indicated that they did not like the idea of having a larger oceans class ships.
Many indicated the need for multi-ship operations.
Access to wire time is an issue. There needs to be technology development in this area.
The community was divided on the need for additional berthing capacity. It was commented that PIs tend to request what they know they can expect. So in looking at past trends this should be kept in mind. If the PI had additional choices, how would this have affected their requests?
More lab and deck space needs to be considered as this directly relates to the number of bunks available. If bunks are added, the corresponding additional lab and deck requirements must also be considered. On regional and intermediate vessels this is a concern. The point to be made is that if you increase bunks you need to add deck and lab space.

Other vessel capabilities:

Heavy weather capability – the community indicated a need for this capability. Additionally, it was pointed out that the limited size of the projected fleet could impact weather windows. Fewer ships would likely dictate operations outside optimum weather windows. Although more capable ships are envisioned, should weather windows be built into the fleet plan? Safety considerations must be addressed.

Political Comments – The community generally supports open competition for operation of future vessels.
Comments on lifespan – The Community in general indicated that the lifespan of vessels could be longer.
Comments on funding – The responses favorably viewed a cautious growth plan.

The FIC discussion continued. Oceanography is on the threshold of a new phase of growth. NSF plans are calling for a doubling of their budget. The FOFC fleet plan should follow this direction. The FOFC plan should address future science facility needs as reported by the Brewer/Moore Millennium Paper, the Cowles OSU Workshop Report, and community survey responses. The tune of the Fleet paper is negative. By projecting the need for a smaller fleet, the FOFC plan has the potential to be self-fulfilling. The plan is too conservative. There needs to be a strategic fleet plan that addresses the vision of oceanographic research directions. A vision statement is needed.

In summary, UNOLS has circulated the FOFC document and the community has responded by pointing out major concerns. The paper lacks a vision of where ocean sciences should go. There is a much greater role for ocean sciences in the future than the paper conveys. FIC would like to work with the FOFC group in redrafting a long-range fleet plan. The revised plan should be less conservative and more forward thinking. Oceanography needs to adopt a champion to advocate for future growth.

The remainder of the morning and much of the afternoon was spent reviewing and commenting on the FOFC Paper. Mike Prince incorporated the FIC comments into the paper (distributed after the meeting by e-mail). In general, the comments are intended to make the document more positive and visionary, while at the same time realistically project the needs of the future.

At the UNOLS Council meeting (2/22), FIC/UNOLS will propose to assist the agencies in a rewrite of the Fleet Plan. There was some concern on whether one paper could adequately express the budgetary concerns of the federal agencies and at the same time adequately reflect the science facility needs of the future. It was emphasized that the science directions need to be incorporated in the revised plan. The FIC agreed that if the agencies cannot adopt the recommendations of UNOLS, UNOLS would need to come up with their own long-range fleet plan.