UNOLS COUNCIL MEETING
Wed. Mar. 5 & Thurs. Mar.
6, 2003
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Martin Johnson House (T-29)
La Jolla, CA
Meeting Summary Report
To download a copy of these minutes click on: <200303cncmi.pdf>
Appendices
I.
Agenda
II.
Attendance List
III.
ONR Report
IV.
FIC Report and FIC Presentation
V.
Common Hull Study and Phase II Effort (JJMA)
VII.
CAPE HENLOPEN Replacement Vessel
VIII.
CAPE HATTERAS Mid-Life Improvement status
IX.
Alaska Region Research Vessel Design Status
X.
EWING Mid-Life Workshop Report
XI.
KILO MOANA Initial Operations
XII.
Ocean Observatory Working Group Report
XIII.
NSF Report to CORE Board
XIV.
OSB Deep Submergence Facility Needs Study
XV.
DESSC Report
XVI.
Post Cruise Assessment Summary
XVII.
Wire and Cable Proposal
XVIII.
Icebreaker Plans and Major Issues
XIX.
Ship Scheduling Committee Report
XX.
Defined Levels of Technical Services
XXI.
Nominating Committee and Membership Changes
XXII.
NSF Report on Marine Mammal Issues
Call the Meeting: Tim Cowles, UNOLS Chair, opened the meeting at 0830. The agenda for the meeting is included as Appendix I. Meeting participants introduced themselves. The attendance list is included as Appendix II. Tim thanked Bob Knox for his guidance as UNOLS Past-Chair. Bob Knox welcomed the meeting participants to Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO).
Accept the minutes of September 2002 Council Meeting – A motion
was made and approved to accept the minutes as written.
UNOLS FLEET RENEWAL ACTIVITIES:
Navy Report to Congress on Renewal of The UNOLS Fleet – John Freitag
reported on the Navy’s report to Congress. His viewgraphs are included as Appendix III.
The Navy’s report to Congress on Fleet Renewal was signed by Acting
Secretary of the Navy, Hansford T. Johnson and submitted to the House Armed
Services Committee on 25 February 2003.
The report was based on the FOFC Report and the JJMA Common Hull Study.
The major differences are in the timing of construction and cost of construction. The
JJMA
Common Hull Study provided cost estimates for both SWATH and Monohull implementations.
The estimated cost of construction for the Ocean Class is $63 M - $80
M and the cost for the Regional Class is $28M - $37M.
The low end of the range represents the cost for a monohull and the
high end of the cost range represents cost for the SWATH. The timing changes
invoked a more realistic timeline from a Congressional funding standpoint. The timeline chart in Appendix III indicates the year the money
becomes available for construction.
Admiral Cohen is dedicated to the renewal of the UNOLS Fleet.
His POM-04 budget included $80M for Ocean Class vessels. This budget was not included in the Navy's budget request due to competing internal Navy priorities. It is very likely that the Ocean Class request will be resubmitted for the FY06 budget.
While at the present time there are no funds appropriated for UNOLS Fleet renewal by Congress,
NSF has expressed a commitment to funding the Regional Class and the
Navy has expressed continuing commitment to construction of the Ocean Class.
The
Navy report recommends a streamline acquisition process, which could be similar
to what was used for AGOR26.
There
was discussion about the timeline in the Navy report and concern that there
could be some gaps between the procurement of new vessels and the estimated
ship retirement dates.
(Q)
Should the ship retirement dates be re-evaluated and changed to reflect the
apparent shift in new ship acquisition dates?
(A) Not at this time.
(Q)
Why was the Gulf vessel construction date in the Navy report different from
the FOFC report date? (A) The revised
date is based on the premise that NSF program funds would be available for
fleet renewal by FY 2008.
(Q)
Would the FOFC plan be revised to reflect the dates shown in the Navy report
timeline? (A) This is up for agency
discussion.
John
continued by reporting that as part of the JJMA Common Hull study the TAG51
design was evaluated to determine if it could be effectively converted to
an Ocean Class vessel. The study concluded
that the required conversion would be too expensive. The TAG 51 is a very good coastal, survey vessel, but it is not
appropriate for general oceanography.
NSF process for Funding Vessel Construction Efforts - Mike Reeve reported that nothing has changed since the FIC meeting. The NSF FY04 budget request to Congress includes Major Research Equipment (MRE) requests totaling approximately $200 million. The items in the FY04 budget are from other divisions. The MRE items for Ocean Sciences that have been approved by the NSB and mentioned in the FY04 budget request include the International Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) at $76.8M in FY05 and the Seafloor Observatory Initiative in FY06 at $24.7M. The ARRV construction MRE item will be reviewed this summer by NSF to determine if it is to be forwarded to the NSB for inclusion in future budget requests.
The
concept for including program funding for mid-size infrastructure in NSF Division
budgets has been blessed by the NSF administration and was included in the
FY04 request. The FY04 budget request
includes $12.5M for development of new deep submergence capability. The FY04 budget request also mentions the plan
for increased funding for FY05 & FY06 to support the fleet renewal process.
Summary of Fleet Improvement
Committee (FIC) meeting –
Annette DeSilva reported for Larry Atkinson, FIC Chair, who could not attend
the Council meeting. Larry provided
a written committee report, which is contained as Appendix IV.
Also contained in Appendix IV are viewgraphs presented by
Annette.
Final Recommendations from the Navy’s Common
Hull Study - Dan Roland (JJMA, Inc) reported on the findings
of the Navy’s Common Hull Study. His
viewgraphs are included as Appendix V.
The purpose of the study was to determine if there would be cost savings by developing a common hull for the Navy’s T-AGS vessel and the Academic AGORS. Six different hull forms were developed and sized to meet T-AGS and AGOR mission requirements. The study tasks include:
·
Determine Rough
order of Magnitudes (ROMs) for the Ocean and Regional vessel designs.
·
Identify commonality
between T-AGS and AGORs
·
Develop Ocean
Class and Regional Class construction cost estimates
·
Examine feasibility
of converting T-AGS 51 and 52 to an Ocean Class vessel.
The study revealed that there is minor commonality between T-AGS and AGORS primarily in mission handling systems and hull mounted sensors. There are significant differences in capabilities in the areas of:
• Speed - maximum, sustained, and survey
• Number of accommodations
• Working deck/lab areas (T-AGS is 2:1 over Ocean Class)
• Habitability requirements (T-AGS are required to meet MSC standards)
• Moon pool (T-AGS)
• Helicopter landing capability – T-AGS (X)
• Mission electronics and communications systems
• Resulting platforms are significantly different in size (T-AGS 50% longer and 150% larger displacement).
• A common platform would result in ships not optimized for particular operations.
• A common hull would burden the Ocean Class AGOR with a much larger and more expensive than necessary ship.
• If based on scalable hull, resulting platforms would be poorly optimized for their particular operating profiles and day rates would suffer.
• A common hull is not feasible.
§ $63M to $67M for mono-hull
§ $70M to $80M for SWATH
§ $28M to $30M for mono-hull
§ $33 to $37M for SWATH
This includes program and construction cost of approximately
10%.
· T-AGS 51 was designed as a coastal survey ship.
· It has no dynamic positioning capability.
· T-AGS 51 has a single screw, geared diesel, and no bow thruster.
· Accommodations for only 18 scientists (vs. 25 required by the Ocean Class).
· The day rate expected to be slightly higher (3-4%) than new OCEAN Class.
· The T-AGS 51 Chine hull form is designed for slower speed.
· Working deck area 300 sq-ft vs. 1,500 required by the Ocean Class SMRs.
· The working deck is not designed to ruggedness or load requirements of the Ocean Class working deck, no bolt grid.
· The T-AGS 51 has no space for vans.
· Lab area 700 sq-ft vs. 2,000 required by the Ocean Class.
· Handling Systems are inadequate.
· There is no suitable over-side or over-stern handling equipment presently installed on T-AGS 51.
· Need to install aft A-frame and side hydroboom (including underdeck strengthening).
· No suitable winches currently installed on T-AGS 51.
· New stern aft of mid-ship with new propulsion plant.
· New 20-foot long hull section.
· Add bow thruster.
· Expansion of accommodations and storage areas.
·
Converted ship does meet stability requirements.
Dan showed the T-AGS 51 seakeeping performance charts. At Sea State 5 the ship would start to greatly exceed motion limits.
Dan continued by reporting on the work that has been done in relation to the Regional Class monohull and SWATH designs. The Regional Class monohull design used in the JJMA study is based on the NEW HORIZON design. A NOAA coastal SWATH design was used as the template for the SWATH variant. These designs were used to examine how well Regional Class SMRs could be met and what the costs would be.
In Phase II, JJMA would develop the information necessary for
NSF to draft a call for Concept Design proposals and strategies on how to
proceed. There will need to be some
level of prioritization of the SMRs as part of the Phase II study. The study is the key to moving forward with
both the NSF and ONR acquisition process.
JJMA will try to estimate cost savings resulting from multiple ship
contracts for a class with realistic time spacing. They will further evaluate hull form choices and common hull issues.
The Phase II study has a four-month timeline once started.
Curt Collins commented that he would like to see the concept
of a <500 GT ship design be considered for the Regional Class vessel. It was remarked that it appears from design
studies and the CHRV effort that the SMRs can be met with a ship of this size.
There is concern regarding the increasing size of future vessel designs,
“ship size creep.” Can the operating costs for these new ships
be supported? Perhaps smaller Regional
ships should be considered. It was
suggested that the minimum SMRs that can meet future should be evaluated.
The Phase II task will begin in March and completion is planned
for July (four months). Continual
communications between JJMA and UNOLS are planned throughout the process.
Science Mission Requirements
(SMRs) – The Ocean Class and Regional
Class SMRs were available in hardcopy at the meeting. Tim Cowles opened the discussion by remarking
that the draft SMR documents were on display at the UNOLS AGU booth in the
fall and there was considerable traffic.
Additionally, the draft SMRs were available on the UNOLS website for
community comment and some good feedback was received.
Mike Prince continued by reporting on the changes to the document
that were made since the January FIC meeting:
· Larry Atkinson drafted a preface to the SMR documents.
· Editorial changes and corrections were made.
· The table of participants for the Ocean Class was corrected to include Dave Hebert.
· Appendices were added to reference sea/wind states and for motion standards.
· The table of contents was expanded to include all SMR elements and make the table of contents dynamic in pdf, Word and online versions.
Tim Cowles stated that the SMRs are meant to be living documents
and they can be revised. The documents
are intended for use as the foundation for follow-on design efforts.
There was concern that the SMRs are seen as a “dream list” of
requirements and it is not possible to fit these all in one design. It was recommended that text be added to explain
the purpose and intended use of the SMRs. It should be explained that the SMRs define the range of desired
requirements and that priorities would be needed. There was also discussion on the placement of the executive summary.
All agreed that it should be moved to the front of the document.
It should also be shortened to two pages.
It was recommended that both the preface and executive summary include
a statement regarding the need for prioritization and that the SMRs are not
ship specifications.
Peter Wiebe – Raised a few specific issues regarding the SMR
parameters. He will provide his comments
directly to the UNOLS Office.
In summary, the following
changes are recommended to finalize the Ocean and Regional Class SMRs:
·
Executive summary
– Move to front of document, shorten, add text to explain that these are not
specifications, they define a range of requirements and prioritization would
be needed. (Steering Committee Chairs and Mike Prince)
·
Preface - Add
text to explain that these are not specifications, they define a range of
requirements and prioritization would be needed. Jointly sign by Larry and Tim. (Tim Cowles)
The Council approved the SMR documents as final conditional
on the incorporation of the recommended changes. The documents will be titled, “Version 1.”
Tim Cowles closed by commending the UNOLS Office, FIC, and the
Steering committees for their efforts in developing the SMRs.
Bay Marine Inc. Study – Mike Prince presented the findings of the Bay Marine Study. Their full report is included as Appendix VI. Bay Marine Inc. was contacted by UNOLS to do a study of the relative cost comparison between a Regional research vessel similar to the CHRV, and one that is larger than the CHRV and thus exceeds the key regulatory thresholds of 500GT(ITC) and 300GRT(US). This vessel would meet the regional requirements of the FOFC report and the Regional Class SMRs. Bay Marine, Inc. is the Naval architect contracted by the University of Delaware for the design of the CAPE HENLOPEN Replacement Vessel (CHRV).
The CHRV has been designed to fall just under the 500 gross ton international tonnage limit and just under the 300 GRT domestic regulatory tonnage. This design represents a good benchmark for a new vessel that will not be subject to many International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations and will not be U.S. Coast Guard inspected. The international tonnage regulations do not include any significant exemptions that would allow a vessel with any greater internal volume to be designed that would fall under the 500-ton limit. This means that any vessel larger than the CHRV would be over this limit and would be subject to IMO regulations such as STCW, ISM, etc. A larger vessel could be designed that could be kept under 300 GRT domestic and remain un-inspected but this would be more difficult as the vessel became larger. During the course of developing SMRs for the Regional Class vessel it became apparent that it would be useful to have a better understanding of the initial cost and life cycle costs resulting from crossing these regulatory boundaries.
The study was limited to comparing the CHRV with a vessel that met the SMR and was approximately 160 ft LOA. The report made the assumption that since the CHRV was choosing to meet most of the requirements of an inspected vessel with the exception of manning and that IMO and ABS requirements would supercede the Subchapter U requirements that a vessel that was designed to be over 500 GT international would also be over 300 GRT domestic and would be inspected. The study did not consider an un-inspected vessel over 500 GT.
Some of the principal characteristics of Bay Marine’s Regional vessel design include:
· Length Overall = 160 ft
· Beam (Max) = 37 ft
· Depth = 16 ft
· Draft (Full) = 11’-0”
· Displacement (Full) = 720 LT
· Power 2 x 750 KW Schottel SRP 550M Z drives
· Max Full load service speed = 13.25 knots
· Crew = 14
· Science Party = 18
· Science Party (expanded) = 26 (convertible lounge, berthing van)
· Working Deck area (aft of portable vans) = 1036 sf
· Labs (Total) = 1040 sf
The study concluded that the life cycle cost increase would be more significant than the initial construction costs, primarily due to the required increase in manning. The CHRV comes in at an estimated initial construction/program cost of $11.5 million. The 160-ft Federal Regional Vessel comes in at an estimated cost of $16.3 million (this translates to $25M when program costs are added). Both of these figures are estimates only and much of the estimate comes from empirical data in Bay Maine files. The day rate for the CHRV is estimated at $7461, whereas the Regional Ship is $12,402.
Initial construction/program cost for the Regional ship would be increased mostly due to the increased size and associated increase in power requirements. Initial cost would also be increased by approximately $200k because of the requirement to have double bottom tanks instead of wing tanks. This increase may not be a real difference since double bottom tanks may be desired anyway in order to achieve the endurance and range requirements. Many existing un-inspected research vessels, such as the Cape Class, have double bottom tanks. Other increases in initial cost that are directly related to crossing the regulatory boundaries have to do with inspection and documentation requirements.
The total estimated increase in initial construction/program costs is approximately $5 million and of that it appears that 10 to 15% are due to crossing regulatory boundaries and the remainder is due to the added size of the vessel.
One interesting observation was that if you designed a vessel that was only slightly larger than the CHRV, which resulted in an increased manning requirement due to subchapter U (inspected vessel) status, you would reduce the science capability while increasing the costs. This happens because of the requirements for additional crew, the requirements for single person staterooms and the requirement for a hospital, which all reduce the amount of space left over for science staterooms, lab space and working deck. To make up for that loss, it appears that if you cross the line, you need to make a significant increase in size in order to meet the SMR. On the other hand, many of the “requirements” associated with becoming an inspected vessel are consistent with some of the goals stated in the SMR, such as providing single person staterooms for crew and technicians, increasing habitability, etc.
The Council discussed the findings. The feasibility of designing a ship to be under 300 GT but over
500 tons was questioned. There was
concern that by attempting to keep crew size down, service to science would
be compromised. It was suggested that
the USCG be asked to revisit the regulations.
One area they can evaluate is the need for a ship hospital when the
ship will contain numerous single staterooms.
Further evaluation of the impact of regulations on ship size and costs
can be made during the conceptual design process. It was also suggested that study should evaluate the uninspected
vessel design that is less than 500 tons and determine how close it can come
to meeting the Regional Class SMRs.
Ocean Class Follow-On Efforts
– Tim Cowles lead a discussion on the next steps needed to keep the Ocean
Class design effort moving. The SMRs
will be finalized in the upcoming weeks.
The agencies are moving forward with the Phase II effort, which will
focus on the Regional Class design and acquisition strategies. Tim asked if a similar effort could be carried out for the Ocean
Class design.
From
the Navy’s timeline, the first Ocean Class acquisition funds are indicated
in FY06. R&D funds would be needed
by FY04 to be prepared to award a construction contract in FY06. To keep the project on track, a Phase II effort
for the Ocean Class should be initiated soon. Additionally, by beginning this task now, some of the results from
the Regional Class Phase II effort could be applied. There may be some overlap of effort.
From an agency perspective,
this is an issue that involves funding. Currently
construction funds for the Ocean Class are not in the Navy’s budget.
However, ONR plans to continue with their requests for funds.
The
Council recommends that in the interest of preparedness and efficiency, the
agencies should be encouraged to move forward with the Ocean Class Phase II
effort. Tim Cowles will send a formal
letter from UNOLS with this request.
Wilf
Gardner raised the issue that if renewal follows the Navy timeline, there
will be serious ship shortage in the Gulf of Mexico region. The GYRE retirement date is rapidly approaching.
The Navy timeline indicates the acquisition funds for a regional vessel
will not come available until FY08. If
a construction time of two years is assumed, the ship will not come on line
until 2010. Wilf emphasized that the FOFC timeline should
be pursued in respect to Gulf of Mexico ship needs.
Other Fleet Renewal Implementation Items: Operator Selections and Construction management plans – It was
agreed that it is premature to
discuss these items at this time and they will be tabled for now.
Break
On-going Design and Construction Efforts:
The tank tests were completed in early November at Vienna Model Basin (SVA). Improvements made include the addition of a bulbous bow and a stern extension for improved flow from the Z-drives. Propeller cavitation tests with SVA and Schottel were in late February. The dynamic ship’s motion analysis will be conducted by OCEANIC Consulting.
•
Replacement of
HVAC, water piping
Bruce showed a sketch of the ship highlighting the areas that
have been modified. A storage area
was converted to a 2-person stateroom. This
increases the number of science berths to 14.
There has already been some interest in using all of these bunks. The stores will go in the engine room. The boiler is not requiring as much space as
before the mid-life. There will be
an inclining estimate when the modifications are complete.
Bruce reviewed the project timeline. The final engineering drawings were prepared
in early fall. The interior work will
be done at the dock. The budget for
the project is $1,200,000 and was funded by NSF.
The project is on schedule and in budget. There was quite a large range in shipyard cost estimates for the
work. The ship is scheduled to be
back in the water for science operations in mid-June.
Status on
ARRV Preliminary Design, Model tests, funding – Mike Prince provided a
report on the ARRV design effort. Viewgraphs
are included in Appendix IX.
The ARRV design committee and consultants
held a meeting for preliminary design review in Seattle on 4-5 February 2003
at Glosten Associates. The topics
of the meeting included the radiated noise test results and open water model
test and make final decisions on the hull design, propulsion and other key
elements in the preliminary design.
The radiated noise topic generated a lot of discussion at the
design review. The noise characteristics
of the ARRV design with the Azipod propulsion system were compared with REVELLE
with the z-drive propulsion system. The Azipod manufacturer provided noise specifications,
but did not provide an explanation of how these numbers were derived.
The ARRV radiated noise results are much higher than the ICES goal.
Glosten has looked at ways of masking the noise, but that would contribute
to the overall radiated noise. It
is predicted that by replacing the Azipod with z-drives the radiated noise
will come closer to meeting requirements.
There was a question on what impact ice would have on the z-drives.
Answer - The structure around the z-drives would need to be strengthened.
Currently, there are icebreakers in use that have z-drive systems.
There are impacts of changing the design to z-drive propulsion
that need to be considered. The length
of the vessel would increase. There are some benefits with an increased length. They will be able to accommodate a larger variable
science load. Modified lab and deck
arrangements are being considered. With
this major design change, finalization of the preliminary design is delayed.
Glosten needs extra time to incorporate the z-drive modifications.
Design changes are expected by the end of April 2003.
PELICAN Mid-life Status – Steve Rabalais reported that the PELICAN is undergoing a mid-life refit. In 1995, support for the refit was requested from the state of Louisiana. In 2001, $1.5 M was received. The mid-life effort includes replacement of all piping and electrical improvements. As the work progressed, it was recognized that the improvements needed were more extensive than originally planned. All of the wiring required replacement. Additional funds in the amount of $300K for the added electrical work was requested and granted from the state. The ships cabinetry is being replaced. All work is being done to USCG regulations. During the mid-life the ship will be extended 10 feet and the height of the A-frame will be increased. The ship will be able to carry two vans. The dry lab size will increase by 200 sq ft. Two new science berths are being added bringing the total science accommodations to 16 berths. A new Dynacon winch is being purchased that will have interchangeable drums and carry 0.5-inch, 0.322 and 0.680 wires. There will be more storage for the marine technicians. A request has been submitted for a new crane. They had planned to be complete by 2 April, but this may slip. The first cruise is planned in the end of April. They are pleased with the yard work.
EWING
Mid-Life Improvement Plans - Annette DeSilva reported that L-DEO has
been planning for the EWING mid-life refit.
Viewgraphs are included in Appendix X.
On 22,23 October 2002 a R/V MAURICE EWING Midlife Workshop
was conducted. The report of this workshop is now available on the web at,
<http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/Ewing/Home.html>. The Overall Summaries and Conclusions as contained
in this report are:
“Key Statements:
* Only a replacement vessel can provide all the
desired capabilities for improved 2-D MCS, an effective 3-D MCS capability,
and substantially improved general-purpose capabilities.
* Quality of these seismic operations would be
substantially improved through increased repeatability of the airgun source.
* In the refit of Ewing use of a linear airgun array forces a serious compromise of OBS and general-purpose capabilities (but needs more investigation of alternative deck arrangements).
* In the refit of Ewing, without a linear airgun array, there are excellent options for new deck and lab layout.
Recommendations:
• Investigate
thoroughly the replacement vessel option because it is the only way to get long streamer 3-D, a linear airgun array, and improved
general-purpose capabilities.”
If EWING
refit is the choice, then the following improvements were recommended:
·
Optimize 2-D seismics,
12 km streamer, improve source.
·
Acquire a high-resolution multi-streamer capability.
·
Investigate the handling capability for larger paravanes
and reels for 3 x 4 km streamer capability.
·
Study mechanisms to improve source repeatability
(Would a port side upper deck linear array be workable?).
·
Improve over-the-side
capabilities and lab layout.
·
Dynamic positioning:
Highest priority for DP is “Option 4” ($1.05M) with control stand, retractable
azimuthing, bow thruster and a stern tunnel thruster. Next highest priority
is “Option 4” less the stern thruster ($800k).
· Acoustics: Highest priority is Kongsberg Simrad EM-300. Workshop attendees preferred EM-300 plus EM-120 plus parametric sonar.
· To address increased personnel requirements relating to QA, 3-D MCS, and marine mammal observers further consideration must be given to providing additional berths/rooms.
Mike Purdy plans to go to NSF with the various options in the next month. There is a lot of science that isn’t getting done because EWING does not have the necessary capabilities. A replacement vessel is expensive, upkeep of systems is expensive and the training of crew will cost money. However, decisions regarding the various options need to be made so that upgrade efforts can be carried out.
In general, the users are very pleased with the ship. Some common comments include:
· Praise of the ship’s stability.
· The ship’s labs are very spacious with a lot of storage area (not weight).
· Fore and aft access on some decks is not possible. This was a tradeoff that was decided early in the process, as it was not possible to penetrate the bulkheads.
· Multibeam system is working well.
· The biggest problem on KILO MOANA is the CTD operations. These problems are being addressing by building a moonpool for CTD deployment. As a general lesson deployment of the CTD should not be off the ship’s aft end as there is excessive vertical motion. Future SWATH designs should consider installation of moon pools. The KILO MOANA moon pool is about 8 ft square. There will need to be a constraining devise so that the CTD doesn’t hit the poolsides.
· Over-the-side operations are different on a SWATH and novel approaches are being developed to accommodate the SWATH features. There needs to be a method for communicating these procedures to the SWATH users. FIC has recommended that the University of Hawaii marine technicians develop a handbook.
· The steep gangplank due the ship’s high freeboard is a problem. This hasn’t been adequately addressed. Loading and off-loading gear from the ship can be difficult and often requires use of a crane.
· There is noise problem in the aft cabin, however, noise measurements have been taken and they are within the specified standard.
· The SONTEK ADCP does not function. They plan to try it one last time and if it still doesn’t work, they will switch to a RDI ADCP unit.
The FIC has recommend that NSF and ONR support a proposal to evaluate
the ship motion for monohull and swaths.
Sea State vs. motion of ship and its impact on science operations should
be evaluated. Joe Coburn has initiated
this effort.
The FIC has discussed ways to inform the community about the SWATH capabilities. In 2003, KILO MOANA is scheduled to go to the North Pacific and Bering Sea. It is likely that the ship will experience high Sea States. Also, mooring deployment and recovery operations are planned. The FIC is drafting a short EOS article on KILO MOANA’s initial operations. Its tone will be fairly positive, but indicate that additional information is needed. After a full year of operations and work in higher sea states, the FIC will prepare a more in-depth assessment. It was suggested that coring operations from KILO MOANA be evaluated and considered during this first year.
FOFC Long-Range Fleet Plan
– plans for an update? –
There have been inquiries into whether or not the FOFC plan will soon be updated
to reflect the increased facility demands forecast for support of Ocean observatories.
Additionally, will an updated plan incorporate other facilities in
addition to ships, such as, aircraft and submersibles?
FOFC
has indicated that they may want to incorporate other agencies facility needs
in addition to the Academic Research Fleet.
Congress would probably want to see a more comprehensive plan. At this time, FOFC has not addressed NOAA ship
replacement needs nor the ship renewal plans for the Navy or USCG. There is some concern that the current FOFC
plan will be set back considerably if the other agency needs are included. The needs of the Academic Research Fleet will
be overshadowed by facility needs of these larger entities. UNOLS will need to stay well informed about
these potential changes to the Fleet Plan.
The next meeting FOFC meeting is planned for May 28th.
Working Group to address Observatory Facility
Needs – In January the Council approved the formation
of a UNOLS working group to address Observatory Facility Needs. Alan Chave (WHOI) is serving as Chair of this
group. Annette DeSilva provided information about the working group
membership, tasking, and their first meeting. Alan Chave provided a
series of viewgraphs that are included in Appendix XII.
The
working group includes individuals familiar with the establishment and operation
of ocean observatories. The membership
list and full task statement is included in Appendix XII. The tasking to the group includes the following
major items:
Deck handling and mooring deployment/recovery needs were reviewed. A map showing moored-buoy locations was presented. The map provided locations of the sites that are currently operating or funded, as well as those sites to be implemented during the pilot phase of DEOS.
Some
of the sites are in high latitudes where high sea state conditions can be
expected. Discus
buoys, as well as spar
buoys are planned.
UNOLS vessels currently have the capabilities needed to service discus
type buoys. No added handling gear is needed. In terms of ship time, however, there will be much higher demand.
A conceptual drawing of the DEOS spar buoy
was presented. Its features and service
requirements include:
·
Requires servicing
once or twice a year.
·
The spar buoy
is 40 m long and will not fit on a UNOLS vessel.
·
For servicing
and fueling, the ship and buoy would need to be secure to each other.
Fuel spills are a concern during fueling operations.
·
Between 20-40
DEOS spar buoys are planned.
·
Deployments
in high latitude regions are desired.
·
The oil industry
currently deploys much larger spar buoys and their expertise should be explored.
The working group reviewed the role of ROVs in support of ocean observatories. The intervention tasks related to the observatory infrastructure should be predictable and well defined with time. As these tasks become routine, the ROV work could be appropriate for commercial contracts. It is predicted that observatories will generate much work similar to conventional vehicle science operations. This type of work is probably best suited to a facility such as presently exists with a science ROV. The
ROV issues that still need to be addressed is, is the present ROV capability is sufficient for both observatory and non-observatory needs?
If not, how should the facility be expanded? The current ROV facilities are full utilized and the addition of observatory work will likely increase demand significantly.
Ocean observatory mapping requirements were reviewed and the existing commercial mapping tools appear to be adequate for observatory work. However, better access via UNOLS vessels may be needed.
The working group considered coastal observatory requirements.
Major requirements can be met with the present facilities. However, enhancement of coastal vessels will be required. The desired features of a mid-size Coastal Research Vessel include:
· Shallow water operations (10m)
· 24 Hour operations (including Marine Techs)
· Sustained operations for several days
· Standard sensor suites that include Met, ADCP, CTD, Bio-optics, Acoustic Mapping
· Broader bandwidth communications with shore that can send data back in real time
· Computer Lab
· Electronics Shop
· Wet Lab
· Deck space for a portable Lab van
· Towing Capabilities (Outside the wake, both sides)
There will be increased demand for these mid-size vessels. Regions that may require this type of ship support include:
· Gulf of Maine
· Middle Atlantic Bight
· South Atlantic Bight
· Eastern Gulf of Mexico
· Western Gulf of Mexico
· Southern California
· Northern California
· Oregon
· Washington
· Southern Gulf of Alaska
· Northern Gulf of Alaska
· Bering Sea
· Arctic Seas
BREAK
Scientific Committee for Oceanographic Aircraft
Research (SCOAR) – Carl Friehe, SCOAR Chair, reported on
SCOAR’s membership, first meeting, and future plans.
Committee
members include Carl Friehe, Chair (University of California at Irvine), John
Bane (University of North Carolina), Charles Flagg (Brookhaven National Laboratory),
Ken Melville (SIO, Marine Physical Laboratory), and Daniel Riemer (University
of Miami, RSMAS). Three ex-officio
members associated with the CIRPAS facility are also on SCOAR: Bob Bluth and
Haflidi Jonsson (both from CIRPAS, Naval Postgraduate School) and John Seinfeld
(California Institute of Technology).
The
Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Studies (CIRPAS) has been operational for about
six years. They have six aircraft
including three manned aircraft (a Twin Otter and two Cessnas). Most of their work is in support of ONR programs. The aircraft are in the public use category
and they are not subject to FAA certification.
They have their own government inspection program.
The
SCOAR held their inaugural meeting on February 25 & 26, 2003 at CIRPAS
in Marina, California. They reviewed
their Committee membership, goals and objectives.
They discussed the services to be provided to facility users. This was an organizational meeting. Federal agency representatives including John
Freitag (ONR), Jim Huning (NSF - GEO/ATM), Jim McFadden (NOAA – AOC), and
Cheryl Yuhas (NASA – ICCAGRA) attended the meeting.
Their
initial goals are to distribute through various publications an inventory
of available aircraft, contacts, specification links, etc. There are other aircraft facilities that they
would like to explore. At this time,
aerostats (big balloons) have not been discussed.
They
are very excited about being a part of UNOLS.
They like the concept of the ship time request form and think that
a similar form for aircraft would be useful.
R/V Safety Standards (RVSS) –Tom
Althouse, Chair of the R/V Safety Committee reported on the RVSS update. The committee tried to update the RVSS with
the new items/regulations that have come along in recent years including STCW
and ISM, and ballast management. They
did not address new security issues resulting from the events of the last
18 months, but these will need to be included in the next revision. They reviewed the things that were firm.
There is a new section expanding the topic of safety equipment.
They feel that the document is up-to-date.
Over the next year they plan to address some new items and also look
at the format. They need to insure
that the standards will provide guidelines for the uninspected ships. There needs to be a determination of whether
the standards are “recommendations,” or are they “mandatory.” They need to look at “shalls” and “wills.”
This has been prompted by the NSF ship inspections.
It needs to be clarified for the inspectors.
The
RVSS exceeds the requirements for uninspected vessels, but not the USCG requirements
for inspected vessels. The RVSS, however,
are designed to address the safety issues involving scientific activities
on research vessels.
There
was a question on hazardous material responsibilities. The RVSS specifies that it is the responsibility
of the Chief Scientist.
The
RVSS goes through a review every three years.
The updated document requires Council endorsement. A Council motion was made and approved to endorse
the updated Research Vessel Safety Standards. Editorial changes can follow.
ISM Compliance
– Steve Rabalais reported that by July 2002 all UNOLS large ships were required
to be in ISM compliance. All met the
deadline. Steve has heard from the
large ship operators. Dan Schwartz
and Joe Coburn indicated that things are going smoothly. WHOI decided to bring all of their ships in compliance. OCEANUS is in voluntary compliance with ISM.
At
the last RVOC meeting the issue of ISM voluntary compliance was discussed
and the committee voted to work towards bringing all of the un-inspected ships
into voluntary compliance phased over the next few years. The UNOLS Office proposal includes a request to support training
for internal auditors to help achieve this voluntary ISM compliance. The first step in compliance is a status assessment.
Steve
hasn’t heard of any reports of science being negatively impacted by ISM.
Tom
Althouse reported that the extra hours required maintaining the ISM system
by the operator is costly both in terms of staffing and resources. This is the concern of the smaller ship operators.
However, Tom Althouse stated that ultimately, ISM compliance is better
for science in terms of safety.
Ship Operations Cooperative Program (SOCP) - Steve Rabalais reported that SOCP is an organization
of ship operators that works to address programs of mutual interest. The organization includes commercial operators,
NOAA and UNOLS. Full membership costs
$5K annually and allows participation in decision making and voting.
Access to the SOCP publications and training films is also included
with the membership fee. The RVOC appointed Paul Ljunggren as their
SOCP rep.
Paul
Ljunggren is in San Diego attending the SOCP meeting. He stopped in at the Council meeting and gave an update of on the
SOCP activities. The SOCP meeting
is addressing security issues, both in port and underway. They have a number of work groups. One of the working groups is responsible for
filmmaking. These include training
films. The SOCP is also focusing on
the issue of crew retention.
Marine Mammals and Acoustic Permitting Issues – The Council discussed marine mammal permitting
issues and the impact on future operations. Tim Cowles opened the discussion
by reporting that over the past few months the issue of permitting has repeatedly
been a problem. The EWING cruise was
curtailed after reported whale deaths. In the case of the NEW HORIZON, their proposed
acoustic work was challenged and the cruise had to be deferred. This has become a troublesome issue. UNOLS would like to minimize the impact of
permitting on individual operators and PIs, avoiding major impacts on ship
schedules. The Council will have an
opportunity for discussion on this issue during both days of this Council
meeting. On Thursday the Council will
participate in a discussion of this issue with the Ocean Studies Board (OSB)
meeting in Hawaii through a conference call.
The floor was open to discussion.
The comments, questions and concerns are provided below:
National Science Foundation Marine Mammal Plan
Marine Mammal and Acoustics Expert reporting to UNOLS Office
Draft: 28 January 2003
1) Advise and assist investigators and institutions in the preparation of permit applications under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act. Maintain database of permit applications originating from UNOLS member institutions.
2) Compile, evaluate for accuracy, and make available to UNOLS member institutions factual information on marine mammals and acoustic sources, including links to other electronic sources.
3) Prepare and provide information written in simple, non-technical language describing the acoustic sources commonly used in oceanographic research with respect to potential impacts on marine mammals. Recommend innovative ways to demonstrate to non-specialists acoustic source strengths and potential impacts on marine mammals. Make information available in response to inquiries from institutions, federal agencies, the press and general public.
4) Act as a liaison between UNOLS Office and NOAA-NMFS and other federal agencies, as well as organizations such as the Marine Mammal Commission, NGOs and ocean industry involved with acoustic sources (e.g. petroleum exploration industry).
Qualifications: Candidates must have strong qualifications in marine mammal research and/or the application of existing laws and regulations, and have competence recognized by agencies (including NMFS) and the academic community.
Jim reported that he attended the CORE Annual meeting yesterday (3/5). Rita Colwell made a presentation to the CORE Board. Additionally, the NSF Division of Ocean Sciences programmatic update was provided as a handout to the Board and is included as Appendix XIII. Some major items of interest in the programmatic update include:
· FYO3 Budget increase of >$30M for ocean science research/education, facilities and technology. FYO4 request is problematic, but they are optimistic.
· Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) begins in CYO3. The RFP Synopsis was released on 4 March to be soon followed by an RFP for "IODP System Integration".
· Ocean Observatory Initiative (001) development and planning continues in preparation for MRE funding in FY06.
· Design for Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV) (an Ocean Class ship) is close to completion. Later this year (spring to summer), OCE will submit internal proposal for consideration by National Science Board and NSF management for MRE-FC funding line.
· OCE is planning release of an RFP later this year to fund concept designs for Regional Class ships (ca. $25M per vessel) leading to NSF-funded construction (process TBD) of 3 ships in 6 years beginning in FY06 using OCE program funds (for midsize infrastructure).
· Along with ONR and NOAA, OCE funded an NRC/OSB committee to evaluate deep submergence needs for research, including the possibility of an NSF-funded human occupied submersible to replace AL VIN. Report expected in fall, 2003.
· Using guidance from NRC/OSB reports, NSF and ONR will promote a NOPP-led initiative for research on the effects of acoustic sources on marine mammals and other marine organisms. In addition to other federal agencies, we hope to engage industry, and possibly NGO, partners in the research program.
DESSC has provided background information (documents) to OSB for use in their study. DESSC will make efforts to keep the user community apprised of the activities of the committee and encourage input from them.
DESSC will continue to keep in contact with the committee and in Patty Fryer’s absence (at sea) DESSC members Bob Embley and Tim Shank have been asked to spearhead this effort.
At the December DESSC meeting there was a discussion on the replacement for ALVIN. They discussed the general design goals for a new HOV, relative merits of HOV/ROV, and the desired depth capability of a New ALVIN. Some of the desired capabilities that could be designed in a replacement for ALVIN include:
· Greater speed
· Improved science sensors and tools
· Improved maneuverability
· Increased power for propulsion and payload
· Greater endurance and improved ergonomics
· Better visibility and lighting
· Improved navigation
Improved safety systems
· Improved manipulation ability
· Greater external sample storage and increased science payload
· Better communications
· Improved data collection, logging and interface capability to science instruments
· Depth capability to 6000-7000m (depending on the technical feasibility and cost-benefit analysis)
· Engagement of the operator
· Visibility in 3-D
· Maneuverability/reliability
· Unobtrusiveness
· Capacity for outreach, education and recruitment
At the Link Symposium in May 2002 a discussion on “Full” ocean depth (11,000 m) vs. ~6500 m came up. In response to the full-ocean depth issue, DESSC recommendations include:
· Concerns regarding effective use of resources
· Current effort is outgrowth of community-wide discussions and workshops
· Maintain the deployment capability from the existing support ship (no major modifications to the ship design, or submersible launch-recovery system)
· Meet the stated needs of the scientific community
The DESSC held their fall meeting in San Francisco on 5 December 2002. The presentations from this meeting are available on the UNOLS website at http://www.unols.org/meetings/2002/200212des/200212desmi.html. The meeting included reports from the NDSF science users, as well as, the NDSF operator. There has been no progress by WHOI in finding a Chief Scientist replacement for Dan Fornari. DESSC recommends that finding an individual to perform this function is critical.
Upgrades to DSL-120 and the new Jason 2 field tests have been completed. The first science programs with Jason 2 have been successful. Jason 2 will be used at 6500 m, its full depth capability, in early May on Patty’s cruise.
Patty’s viewgraphs summarize the activities of the NASA/NOAA LINK Symposium. She and other organizers of the LINK Symposium have drafted a summary article that has been published in the Marine Technology Society (MTS) Journal. Some of the hoped-for products from the symposium include a web-based inventory of tools and sensors and recommendations for new technologies. A list of new technologies is included in the Appendix XV.
The December DESSC meeting included a variety of educational and outreach reports and discussions. These included:
· REVEL
· NOAA Vents program Dive and Explore
· MATE ROV competition at LINK
§ Nontraditional fields (marine archeology and educational efforts)
§ IMAX movie and outreach activities
§ Discovery Channel series
Marv Lilley and Joris Gieskes have rotated off DESSC. Their replacements are Debbie Kelley (UW) and Hedy Edmonds (UT). The next DESSC meeting will held at WHOI on June 11 & 12, 2003
Mike
Reeve reported that the currently scheduled release date for the deep submergence
IMAX movie is October 2003.
Quality of Service, Post Cruise Assessments
– Mike Prince reported on the utilization of the
new on-line Post Cruise Assessment Report (PCAR) and feedback received on
2002 operations. His viewgraphs are
included as Appendix XVI, which include a series of charts. The first charts show the number of PCARs that have been received
by ship since July 2002 when the new form was introduced. The charts also show the response by Chief
Scientist, Captain, and Marine Technician.
Some are still submitting the old paper forms. We would like to phase these out. Mike commented that the on-line form is available onboard WECOMA
and as a result they are getting a strong response from all (Master, technicians
and Chief Scientist). In general,
the response from the marine technicians has been very low.
Mike
reviewed the responses that are received.
The ships’ personnel received the most positive comments fleet wide.
Areas that receive the most suggestions include ship supplied science
equipment, ship’s equipment and pre-cruise planning.
In generally, ratings are positive.
The
Council discussed how the forms should be used and their role in the assessment
process. It was recommended that a
subcommittee of Council be established to review the assessments. Their responsibilities would include evaluation
of follow-up measures to PCAR comments. The subcommittee would not take the role of enforcers. Instead the group should work to identify problem
areas. They should review the form
and the assessment process. Lisa Clough
commented that in the HEALY debriefs they are able to identify improvement
recommendations as well as action items. The form is a good tool for justifying ship and equipment improvements.
Mike
Reeve commented that NSF is very impressed by PCAs. The agency would like to have representation on the subcommittee.
The
Council recommended that the subcommittee include the RVOC and RVTEC chairs,
Curt Collins, Wilf Gardner, and NSF rep (Linda Goad), and an ONR rep (John
Freitag).
UNOLS Wires and Cables
– Mike Prince reported on plans for developing a new UNOLS wire and establishing
safe working load parameters. His
viewgraphs are included in Appendix XVII.
In 1999 a UNOLS Symposium on wire and cables was held.
There has been little progress since that meeting. We have been trying to address the project
by using volunteers and it is difficult to get a real time commitment.
The RVTEC discussed this effort at their meeting and a recommendation
has been made to seek paid services to get job done. Mike has included support for the new cable
design project in the UNOLS proposal.
A cable project steering committee has been formed and includes
Jon Alberts, Mike Prince, Dale Chayes, and Rich Findley. Walter Paul has agreed to serve as the project
engineer. A design advisory committee
made up of members of the cable user community has been formed and includes
Frank Bahr, Tim McGinnis, Carl Matson, Marshall Schwartz, and John Erickson. These people have all agreed to serve.
The cable project goals include:
The timeline calls for a 2-year effort. Mike Reeve indicated that NSF is very interested
in this effort moving forward.
2003 Icebreaker
Plans and Major Issues - Lisa Clough reported on HEALY’s operations and 2003 icebreaker
plans. Her viewgraphs are included
as Appendix XVIII.
The
heavy ice conditions this year in the Antarctic required the USCG to send
two icebreakers to McMurdo. The POLAR
SEA #1 blade on the starboard prop broke off while breaking heavy ice. Fortunately, the HEALY was already on its way
south to assist with the breakout. Ice
conditions predicted for the next ten years make it very likely that two icebreakers
will be required annually to support McMurdo breakout and supply operations.
HEALY
is scheduled to return from Hobart and arrive in Seattle in early April. A lot of repair work will be done while on
transit and after return to homeport. The ship is scheduled to depart Seattle
on 13 June to begin Arctic science operations.
Three missions are planned this summer in the Nares Strait, the Chukchi
Cap and for SBI mooring operations. There
will be no POLAR icebreakers in the Arctic this summer. A Canadian icebreaker may be used to support
the SBI survey cruise.
The SLEP estimate for both ships is $400M. The funds need to be secured by FY07. These funds will compete against other USCG priorities (Homeland Security, the Deepwater ship renewal program ($20B), and Rescue 21, the modernization of the USCG's National Distress and Response System ($800M).
Some alternatives that are being considered to reduce the SLEP cost are:
·
Reduce power (75k SHP down to 45k SHP)
·
SLEP only one ship
·
Put HEALY into the DF mix on a regular basis
A
meeting is planned at NSF on March 21st to address some of these
issues. It will include representation by NSF, CG, AICC and ARVOC. Agenda items include:
1.
Status
(ice, machinery, refit/replacement)
2.
What
can science do to help?
3.
What
science can be included?
4.
How
to maximize use of USCG icebreakers for next few years
A
workshop to address the science issues may be planned sometime between May
and November.
Lisa
will have additional information for the Council after the March 21st
meeting.
Research Vessel Security and the impact
on scheduling - Joe Ustach reported on security issues. KNORR is operating in the Black Sea. The ship might return to the US or move elsewhere
if war breaks out in Iraq and the area becomes unstable. THOMPSON will not operate off Vietnam this
year due to a lack of a foreign clearance.
2003 Operations and Scheduling Issues - Joe Ustach provided a written report in advance of the meeting. It is included as Appendix XIX. Many vessels lost ship days in 2003 due to a number of factors:
· Acoustic permitting
· Weather
· Clearance problems
· Lack of funding
· Instrumentation availability
· Endangered species permitting
· International political unrest
A detailed account of these lost days is included in Joe’s report.
The 2004 scheduling depends a lot on the activities this year.
Initial scheduling Letters of Intent are starting to be submitted.
Mission Goals and Objectives
– Tim Cowles remarked that the UNOLS mission, goals and objectives are on
the UNOLS website < http://www.unols.org/issues2003.html>.
He encouraged all to visit them. Mike Prince added that any new input
is needed by the time of the summer Council meeting so that the Council can
set the goals and objectives for the next year.
RVTEC Representation on UNOLS Committees
- Dale continued by commenting that RVTEC doesn’t
have adequate representation on many of the UNOLS committees. They would be better integrated if they were
more engaged. The technicians are
deeply involved in the operations and safety and should be part of the decision
making process. Dale sent a letter
to Tim Cowles requesting RVTEC representation on UNOLS committees and working
groups.
The
Council recommended that RVTEC identify the committees that they should be
involved in and also identify liaisons. Dale
will also look at the various UNOLS ad hoc committees to determine if RVTEC
representation is needed.
Ocean Commission Study – Tim
encourage the Council to review draft Ocean Commission documents and provide
feedback. The final report has been deferred until
September and is expected it to be supportive of academic fleet renewal needs.
Various Council members have participated in the Commission study and
we have had good opportunities for input.
State Department, Hiring new
personnel, LOS status, Procedures – Bob Knox reported that when Tom Cocke retired from the State
Department, another person was never added back into the office staff. The
need for this additional support had been previously recognized and covered
by adding Liz Tirpak to the staff. There
is no reason to believe that the workload has diminished in the recent past.
Liz Tirpak is providing the necessary staffing for obtaining research
clearances, but there are other longer term issues that could be better addressed
by having two people in their office. Bob
has previously sent a note to Margaret Hayes inquiring into the hiring status,
but has not had an opportunity to discuss the issue with her as yet.
Knox commented that the clearance process is working for the most part
and there haven’t been any major problems yet.
However, the office would benefit by better coverage so that when Liz
is out of the office there is someone to respond to problems and enquiries. Tim Cowles stated that in his role as the new
UNOLS Chair he would try to visit Margaret Hayes to discuss this and other
related issues.
Summer Council Meeting –
Tim requested suggestions for a site and date to hold the summer Council meeting. Denis Wiesenburg suggested that the meeting
be scheduled just prior to the TOS meeting in New Orleans (June 4-6). He offered to host the meeting in Long Beach,
MS on June 2-3, if a facility could be arranged. The UNOLS Office will work with Denis to explore
this option and notify the Council.
Nominating Committee for Council – Annette DeSilva reported that a Nominating Committee is needed to draft this year’s slate of candidates. Details are provided in Appendix XXI. The following Council terms are expiring:
BREAK
Marine
Mammal & Acoustic Permitting Issue – The Council meeting joined the
Ocean Studies Board (OSB) Hawaii meeting’s special session on Recent Developments Involving Noise and Marine Mammals by
teleconference. Jim Yoder (NSF), Mel
Briscoe (ONR), and Roger Gentry (NOAA) provided short presentations on recent
developments.
Nancy Rabalais introduced Jim Yoder. Jim read his paper,
which details the EWING case, permits and the EEZ issue. His paper is included in Appendix XXII.
Jim gave a summary of the EWING case. In spring 2002, LDEO began consultations with NOAA-NMFS on MMPA and ESA permitting issues for all EWING cruises scheduled in CY2003. They also implemented marine mammal mitigation measures for EWING cruises in CY02, beginning with the cruise to Gulf of California in September. On September 24 two beaked whales were reported stranded on Isla de San Jose at a time when the EWING was making seismic measurements approximately 100 km away. EWING suspended operations for about 10 days to assess the situation. When there was no evidence of a link between Ewing operations and the strandings, EWING resumed operations with some precautionary measures. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in Federal Court in San Francisco, which was granted on Oct. 28, 2002. NSF immediately requested that the Ewing cease seismic operations, which it did. A hearing is scheduled for early April.
Both NSF and Lamont have met several times with Roger Gentry, Ken Hollingshead and others at NOAA/NMFS; Office of Protected Resources to discuss MMPA and ESA permits for small take authorizations. This will now be standard procedure for all NSF-funded seismic cruises, with the exception of seismic work exclusively in the EEZ of other countries. NSF will not let NSF-funded operators who are doing seismic work exclusively in the EEZ of other countries file for MMPA and ESA permits. This issue is being debated and the policy may be modified in the future, but is NSF policy at this time.
Jim discussed some of the measures that NSF is taking to assist in the permitting process:
· NSF is evaluating the possibility of a special panel to evaluate marine mammal safety for each cruise.
· NSF is discussing with UNOLS the possibility of a person to help and advise our investigators and operators on MMPA and ESA permit issues and related activities.
· NSF will fund the costs of obtaining any required assessments associated with the permit process for NSF-funded investigations.
· NSF is considering a "Marine mammal safety panel" as part of the proposal review process.
· ONR and NSF will propose a NOPP-funded research program to study effects of acoustic sources on marine mammals using guidance from NRC/OSB.
Mel Briscoe (ONR) was the next presenter. He
began by explaining that at ONR they have a team of people who deal with the
MMPA issues. They are trying to do
the right thing, but don’t always have the information needed. It is a difficult problem.
Mel described the related marine mammal and acoustic activities
at ONR:
-
They have had
a marine mammal program for the last 25 years
-
They conduct
bio-sonar research (study animals that use sonar)
-
Databasing and
tagging
The Navy’s tag program attempts to monitor the sounds received
by whales, as well as, monitor the whales’ heartbeat in response to sounds
received. Unfortunately, it is difficult
to tag whales and more whale research is needed. It is often difficult to find whales, until
they are beached. Databases on whale
distribution and abundance are poor. Better
tools than eyeballs are needed for surveying. Surface radar systems are needed.
There is work on aerial detection and on radars underway.
The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program is supporting
most of this research.
Mel discussed the recent NRC study on Ocean Noise and Marine
Mammals. They are comparing the document’s
recommendations with the areas that the Navy has funded. Some of the NRC recommendations have not been
addressed. The Navy has modified funding
directions based on the NRC recommendations. Another NRC study in this area is expected. The current NRC report addressed everything
related to ocean noise and marine mammals.
Some of the items will need more detailed study.
The Navy plans to produce a document to educate the community
and teachers on the all issues related to marine mammal protection, acoustic
issues, permitting, and preventive measures.
They hope to have the NRC committee review the document. They will work with NOPP.
Roger Gentry (NOAA) continued the presentations. He focused his discussion on regulatory issues.
The noise issue does not pertain to just marine mammals and turtles.
These fall under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection
Act and therefore there is a requirement under law to provide protection against
the affects of anthropogenic noise. But,
they are also concerned about fishes and other species as well. NOAA has been
addressing each case individually. It is a long-term problem. They
need to evaluate the noise problem to determine the level at which it impacts
marine mammals. However, they have
been too busy addressing daily decisions. They do not have a good set of specifications and regulations upon
which to base their decisions. NOAA
is under intense scrutiny in this area and they are sued often.
They now spend a lot of time defending lawsuits.
Only one person in their office is assigned to process permit applications
and there are increasing numbers of permit applications.
A
NMFS goal is to try to understand the impact of noise and define the magnitude
of the problem. They plan to conduct
a workshop to address this issue. They
have also convened a panel of experts to draft noise standards. The panel just met last week. This standard will provide guidance to everyone.
NMFS is trying to get the seismic community to determine the impact
of airguns on marine mammals. They also plan to discuss noise issues with
the shipping industry.
Other
NMFS needs include:
-
An ocean budget for noise.
-
Measurements of on-going trends
-
Mechanism for making measurements.
-
The NRC report indicates the need
for a monitoring system – NMFS agrees.
-
Information on beaked whales,
as these are very elusive animals. A study is needed.
-
A lot of information is needed
on noise response. There is not enough
research on behavior.
-
Identify benign noise sources
so that permits for this type of work can be excluded.
-
Need public education to avoid
trivial lawsuits.
UNOLS Council discussion followed. Comments, questions and suggestions are provided reported below:
EEZ
issue - Jim Yoder commented that NSF attorneys have
determined the NSF position regarding permits in foreign EEZs. After the EWING
case is resolved, the foreign EEZ issue can be readdressed. Bob Knox remarked that it wouldn’t be long
before the NGOs are on the hill to dispute science operations involving any
noise sources. He is concerned that
NGOs will paint NSF and the community with black hats because of the NSF EEZ
stance. Jim Yoder indicated that most of the other
agencies are in support of NSF. Also,
they would make every effort to act in the spirit of the law and take the
same precautions that might be required by a permit.
Permitting
Requirements - Denis Wiesenburg asked what requires
permitting? Jim Yoder replied military
sonars and seismic work would require permits, but not ADCPs or multibeam. Some feel that it is just a matter of time
before ADCP and multibeam operations get challenged. There is a fair amount of confusion. A table of benign acoustics would be useful. The results from the panel on noise standards
will be useful.
Education
- Tim Cowles remarked that the community needs to be educated so that we can
move forward. Denis Wiesenburg commented
that education is important, and the judges also need to be informed.
Yoder remarked that the judge in the EWING case looked at case history
and science consensus and came to the conclusion that sound can cause injury.
Requirements
and Liability - Peter Worcester explained that the agency
supporting the work is supposed to do the initial assessment to determine
if there is a need for a permit. If
they decide that it is not needed, then the project moves forward as is.
This is the internal assessment policy within ONR, but not within NSF.
Jim Yoder replied that this summer NSF could look at the funded NSF
programs to see which might need an assessment. NSF attorney thinks that this is an excellent idea. There was a question on what criteria NSF should
use in making their decisions. The
ONR criteria have been suggested. This
does not guarantee that there will not be a lawsuit but would indicate due
diligence with regard to adhering to the law.
Bob Knox suggested that
common operations requiring permits be covered by some sort of umbrella permit.
Dennis Nixon has suggested this concept of one “blanket” impact statement.
Jim Yoder cautioned that by putting all acoustic operations into one
assessment, if it gets challenged, all systems and ships on the list would
be affected.
UNOLS
Expert proposal - Tim Cowles commented that NSF has offered
to support a proposal for a UNOLS expert to provide assistance in marine mammal
permitting requirements. The Council
needs to provide advice on what should be proposed.
NSF
Panel - UNOLS can also make a recommendation for NSF
to assemble a panel of experts to review proposals and identify concern areas.
Jim Yoder commented that the panel could start this summer by looking
at the funded 2004 programs. They could identify calving seasons and provide
input on how to adjust programs accordingly.
Operator/PI
Response template – Paul Ljunggren stated that when there
is a marine mammal concern or lawsuit the PI, and the ship operators can receive
hundreds of letters and emails. It
would be good for the PI and operator to have a well thought out and accurate
response to provide.
Timing
– Jim Yoder asked when a permitting assessment is needed for 2004 operations.
Paul Ljunggren replied that a lot of time is
needed, approximately six months. A
summer (July) panel meeting would be cutting it close for cruises early in
the next year.
Potential
responsibilities of a UNOLS expert were discussed:
-
Assist in the permitting process.
-
Provide advise and steer PIs and operators in the
right direction
-
Improve public perception
-
Be a spokesperson
-
The person could help move projects along through
NSF
-
Provide advice to PIs and operators on the level
of legal responsibility
If
the NMFS gets confidence in the UNOLS expert, additional permitting responsibilities
might be added for some projects.
Tim
Cowles wrapped up the discussion by stating that NSF’s willingness to provide
support for a UNOLS expert is a good step.
Writing the job description would be difficult. The Council passed
a motion to move forward with a UNOLS expert.
Mike Prince will contact Roger Gentry to discuss the task statement
and job description.
UNOLS
will also send a letter to NSF recommending that they consider creating a
panel of experts to review proposals for identification of acoustic permitting
and marine mammal concerns.
UNOLS Business:
2003 Meeting Calendar – The September meetings dates have been set:
· September 17 – FIC and Ship Scheduling
· September 18 – Council
· September 19 – Annual
Annual Meeting agenda items and keynote speakers were discussed. Major agenda items will include marine mammal and acoustic permits and ice breaker support. Admiral Watkins from the Ocean Commission was suggested as a speaker. Tim Cowles will send him a letter.
Annual Report – Mike Prince reported that it would be distributed very soon.
UNOLS Membership Changes – Lehigh University has indicated that they plan to drop their
UNOLS membership. Their one researcher
in marine science, Bob Carson, is retiring.
Tim will send them a letter acknowledging the change and wishing Dr.
Carson well in retirement.
UNOLS Proposal submitted for first year of 2nd grant – Mike Prince reported that the proposal has been submitted. It will go out for review.
Adjourn
– The meeting adjourned at 12:48 pm.