UNOLS COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday- Wednesday, March 29-30, 2005, 8:30 am
National Science Foundation
Stafford II Building, 595
A copy of these minutes can be downloaded as
a pdf by clicking: <200503cncmi.pdf>.
Meeting Summary
Executive
Summary
Federal agency plans for Fleet renewal implementation were reviewed. RADM Cohen, Chief of Naval Research,
addressed the Council meeting participants via phone conference to discuss
Ocean Class Acquisition. He thanked
UNOLS for their efforts in recommending a hull form and the thoroughness of the
process. He emphasized that the initial
costs and life cycle costs are critically important for this ship Class. A construction cost of approximately $60M
can be expected. He reiterated the
requirement for eight vans in a covered area and capability for UAV and
helicopter hover support.
NSF and NAVSEA reported on plans for Regional Class ship
acquisition. They plan to issue a
solicitation for design/build teams in summer 2005. Once the RFP is issued,
there would likely be a 60-day response period. Operator selection is also slated for this year. A mechanism for UNOLS representation during
the process was presented. UNOLS can
have two individuals on the source selection team and 6-8 representatives on a
technical advisory committee. Peter
Wiebe appointed a small UNOLS subcommittee to solicit volunteers and identify
representatives for both the Source Select team and the UNOLS Technical Advisory
group. Mike Prince has compiled
community comments on the Regional Class Performance Specifications. He will provide these to NSF.
There was a lengthy discussion on agency budget projections and
shortfalls, and the impact on Fleet operations. NSF has asked for advice on reducing NSF's overall
Fleet operating costs. Peter Wiebe
appointed a small ad hoc group
to work with the Ship Scheduling Committee to address this issue. To the extent that the funds available do
not meet the operational needs, they will develop a plan for ship lay-ups that
will fit the budget realities and minimize impact on funded scientific
programs. This plan would take into consideration longer term issues such as
the impact of retirements versus lay-ups or the various forms of lay-ups
(“ready to go” versus mothballed) and funding prospects in the out years.
The Council reviewed an application from
Bermuda Biological Station for Research (BBSR) requesting designation of the R/V
Seward Johnson II as a UNOLS vessel to replace the R/V Weatherbird II. The Council voted to approve the designation of Seward Johnson II
as a UNOLS vessel to be operated by BBSR pending the acquisition of Seward
Johnson II by BBSR, the successful completion of the NSF inspection of Seward
Johnson II, and the retirement of Weatherbird II.
Notification and reporting of mooring
locations, safety zones, and release code conflicts were discussed. UNOLS Office will investigate ways to
collect information regarding installation and locations of moorings.
A white paper drafted by Terry Whitledge on ADA
Guidelines and how they can be accommodated in ship designs was reviewed. It was recommended that a committee be
formed and include Terry Whitledge, Dennis Nixon, a member of the Safety
Committee, a Ship's Captain, and seagoing scientist with a disability. The ad hoc committee should review and
provide input to the paper drafted by Terry Whitledge. Additionally the group should recommend how
procedural guidelines could be established for accommodating seagoing
scientists with disabilities.
The MLML
UNOLS Office will complete their second 3-year term on April 30, 2006. MLML
has stated their desire to host the office for one more three-year period.
A small committee was appointed to review the performance of the current office.
In the process of doing this review, they should seek input from all the UNOLS
representatives and ask if any other institutions would be interested in competing
to host the office.
Actions Items:
|
Minutes of the October 2005 Council Meeting
– incorporate changes from Tim Cowles and Wilf Gardner |
DeSilva (Complete) |
|
Establish the 2005 Council Slate – The
Nominating Committee will prepare a slate to fill Council positions (Terms
ending – Wiesenburg (2nd term) and Ortner (1st term)). |
Bruce Corliss, Chair; Eileen Hofmann, and
Denis Wiesenburg |
|
Regional Class Acquisition Process: |
|
|
Community representation in Regional Class
Acquisition Process – The Ad hoc Committee shall draft a message for
community distribution calling for volunteers to participate on Regional
Class Government Teams (2 people as advisors on the source Select Team and
6-8 individuals as a UNOLS Advisory Group).
Provide the UNOLS Chair
with nominations by mid May. UNOLS Chair to
shall provide NSF with the list of representatives by mid May 2005. |
Dave
Hebert, Wilf Gardner, Tim Askew, and Bill Martin (Complete) Peter
Wiebe (complete) |
Performance
Specification – Mike Prince will compile community responses and provide to
NSF. UNOLS will review the next draft
of the Performance Specs when made available.
|
Mike Prince (complete) Awaiting next draft from Govt. |
|
Designation of Seward
Johnson II as a UNOLS Vessel – Peter Wiebe will send a letter to
BBSR indicating that the Council voted to approve the designation of Seward Johnson II as a UNOLS
vessel to be operated by BBSR pending the acquisition of the vessel by BBSR,
the successful completion of the NSF ship inspection, and the retirement of
the Weatherbird II. |
Peter Wiebe (complete) |
|
National Oceanographic Seismic Facility –Revise
the Terms of Reference for the
MLSOC based on comments received.
Provide the revised terms and nomination suggestions to Council during
the summer meeting. |
Marcia
McNutt and subcommittee |
|
Notification and reporting of mooring locations, safety zones, and
release code conflicts – UNOLS Office will investigate ways to collect
information regarding installation and locations of moorings. |
UNOLS Office |
|
Frequency Spectrum Management – Form a small committee from
those who have expressed interest to liaison with Government managers. |
Mike Prince |
|
ADA Guidelines – Form an ad hoc committee to address ADA guidelines for
new ship construction/conversion. The ad hoc committee should review and
provide input to the paper drafted by Terry Whitledge. Additionally the group should recommend
how procedural guidelines could be established for accommodating seagoing
scientists with disabilities. The ad
hoc committee should include Terry Whitledge (FIC), Dennis Nixon (Risk
Manager), one person from the Safety Committee, Seagoing scientists with
disability (Amy Bower and/or Dave Glover), Eric Buck (Ship Master, SIO), and
Dolly Dieter as ex-officio. The
Committee would be asked for a status report at the July Council meeting. |
Peter Wiebe |
|
Guideline for PIs submitting
proposals involving seismic fieldwork – Provide a link from UNOLS web page to
the NSF guidelines. |
UNOLS Office (Complete) |
|
UNOLS Response to
Larry Clark letter: |
|
|
An Ad-hoc committee has been formed to address the concerns identified
in Larry Clark’s letter and make recommendations. They will work to develop a plan for ship lay-ups that will fit
the budget realities and minimize impact on funded scientific programs. With input from the Ship Scheduling
Committee, the UNOLS Office, and agency representatives, they will: 1) Determine a best estimate of the UNOLS Fleet utilization based on
funded science by class, by region/season, by special requirements. 2) Estimate the ship operation funding from all sources. Evaluate the
probability of NOAA funds and additional Navy funds. 3) To the extent that the funds available do not meet the operational
needs, develop a plan for ship lay-ups that will fit the budget realities and
minimize impact on funded scientific programs. This plan should take into consideration
longer-term issues such as the impact of retirements versus lay-ups or the
various forms of lay-ups (“ready to go” versus mothballed) and funding
prospects in the out years (Observatories). Marine Superintendents and
Directors should be asked to recommend a lay-up process. The cost of lay up scenarios should be
provided. |
Marcia McNutt (Chair), Eileen Hofmann, and
Denis Wiesenburg Input from Ship Scheduling Committee, Ship
operators, UNOLS Office, and agency representatives. |
|
The Ship Scheduling
Chairs shall send a message to all UNOLS Schedulers asking that they provide
Schedule Letters of Intent by mid April. |
Rose Dufour and Liz Brenner (complete) |
|
UNOLS Office Competition –
A subcommittee was formed to review the operation of the current office,
and make recommendations about whether or not the Office at MLML is
suitable for continued operation. In the process of doing
this review, they should seek input from all the UNOLS representatives
and ask if any other institutions would be interested in competing to
host the office. They would indicate that MLML has stated their
desire to host the office for one more three-year period of time and
will submit a proposal for doing so. The Committee should notify the UNOLS members
before the summer, with a recommendation to the Council by August/September. |
Peter Wiebe (Chair), Margo Edwards, and
Wilf Gardner |
|
Safe Working Load
– Contact Tom Althouse, Safety Committee Chair, to request that the committee
address this item. |
UNOLS Office |
|
Fall Meeting dates
- Finalize FIC, Council, and Annual meeting dates. |
UNOLS Office, Peter Wiebe, Dave Hebert
(complete): FIC- 10/5, Council 10/13,
Annual 10/14. |
|
Identify Keynote speaker for Annual Meeting |
UNOLS Office and Peter Wiebe |
|
Summer Council
Phone/web meeting – UNOLS Office will poll Council for dates in July. |
Complete, July 13-14 |
Appendices:
| I |
|
| II |
|
| III |
|
| IV |
|
| V |
|
| VI |
UNOLS
Letter to RADM Cohen dated March 7, 2005 and Appendices
(3.1 MB) |
| VII |
|
| VIII |
|
| X |
BBSR Application
to Designate Seward Johnson II as a UNOLS Vessel |
| XI |
National
Oceanographic Seismic Facility - Adhoc Committee Report |
| XII |
|
| XIII |
|
| XIV |
|
| XV |
Reporting
of Mooring Locations, Safety Zones and Release Code Conflicts |
| XVI |
|
| XVII |
Meeting Minutes:
Call
the Meeting: The
UNOLS Council met at the National Science Foundation (NSF), Stafford II, Room
595, Arlington, VA on Tuesday, March 29, 2005. Peter Wiebe, Chair, opened the
meeting at 0830. Agenda items were followed in the order as reported
below. Meeting participants introduced
themselves. The agenda and meeting
participants are included as Appendix
I and Appendix II,
respectfully.
Accept Minutes – A motion was made and approved to accept the minutes of the October 2005 Council Meeting with minor editorial changes as indicated by Tim Cowles and Wilf Gardner.
Nominating Committee – Two Council positions will open in 2005. Denis Wiesenburg (At-Large rep) is completing his second term and Peter Ortner (Operator Rep) is completing his first term. Peter Wiebe appointed a Nominating Committee of Bruce Corliss, Chair; Eileen Hofmann, and Denis Wiesenburg to prepare a slate to fill the Council positions. Annette DeSilva will send the committee the nominating procedures and a draft Call for Nominations. A slate of candidates shall be prepared for distribution at least 30 days in advance of elections consisting of at least two candidates for each position being considered.
Agency Budget discussions – The discussion on agency budgets began prior to RADM Cohen’s phone call. However, for continuity the entire agency budget discussion is reported in these minutes after RADM Cohen’s phone call.
RADM Cohen, Chief of Naval Research, - Ocean Class Vessel Acquisition - RADM Cohen, Chief of Naval Research (CNR), addressed the Council meeting participants via phone link. He thanked UNOLS for their recommendations regarding the Ocean Class hull form. Peter Wiebe thanked the Admiral on behalf of UNOLS for the opportunity to comment. Peter explained that the UNOLS committee looked very hard at the X-Craft, SWATH, and monohull. JJMA was very helpful in the process. Although RADM Cohen indicated that he is not sure what the right hull type should really be, he is satisfied with the thoroughness of UNOLS’ response. The initial ship construction costs and life cycle costs are critically important. A cost of $80M per ship construction would not be supportable, but a cost under $60M would be. RADM Cohen reiterated the requirement for the ship to accommodate eight vans in a covered area and a "lily pad" for UAVs and Helo hover. Seakeeping, survivability, coring capability and other SMRs requirements are important as well. They would like to be able to go to contract for design in FY06. The construction contract would have options for additional ships. They would seek multi-year spending authority for advanced procurement. Assuming the cost is under $60M per ship, there could be four ships, one every two years.
RADM Cohen believes that there would be a requirement to use an Integrated Product Team (IPT) approach for the acquisition. The Oceanographer of the Navy, CNR for program requirements and NAVSEA would partner for the contract process.
RADM Cohen discussed the prospects of funding for Ocean Class R/Vs. He included funds in the ONR budget request. [Note: the phone connection was weak and it was difficult to decipher all that was said.] The SECNAV response to Congress indicated that the Navy would commit to construction funding in FY06. Options for SCN money and R&D money for ship construction were not available in FY06. As a result, RADM Cohen used the only option available to him, which was to request the construction funds from 6.1 money (Science funding). The community responded to this strategy with concern that this method of funding would jeopardize science support money. However, the budget went forward that way. The Congress is aware of the issues and it will ultimately be up to them on how to handle the funding for these ships.
RADM Cohen discussed the decreasing size of the Navy's fleet and the traditional response of Congress to increase the number of commercial vessels that could be used in the time of war if necessary (i.e. a ready reserve). RADM Cohen suggested the concept of a dual-use platform for the Ocean Class vessels; general oceanography and mine-countermeasures as needed. Their configuration and ability to support sensors would allow them to support mine countermeasures. When needed, research on the Ocean Class ships could be suspended during active warfare. The ships would be manned by the Navy and be able to support AUVs and mission modules. RADM Cohen explained that this would make the Ocean Class vessels easier to promote with Congress in a time when the Grey Fleet is shrinking. This opens up the potential for putting the funding line for these ships where it should be.
The phone link with RADM Cohen ended and Frank Herr provided a recap. The FY06 ONR budget request is for $4M to start the Ocean Class design process. Starting in FY07 the budget would include $25M per year to build the ships from the 6.1 budget line. The Admiral is working with Congress to find an alternate source for funding. ONR would have to take a 39% cut in their science budget in order to support the construction of Ocean Class ships starting in FY07. It is difficult to balance the need for infrastructure funding with the science budgets so that you have the proper tools, but still have the funds to operate and use them.
Frank explained that they don't have an immediate schedule for choosing operators for the Ocean Class ships. ONR is constructing an RFP for the operators along lines similar to the Kilo Moana. The process would require the retirement of a ship so as to not increase the size of the UNOLS Fleet. ONR plans to move forward this spring or summer with choosing an operator (depending on funding decisions).
Frank indicated that ONR would become much more involved with NAVSEA to define the selection process for the design/build team. The team will be contracted to create preliminary designs and a firm cost bid package by the end of 2006. ONR is looking for savings in the out-years with a multiple ship construction contract. The number of change orders would be limited so that the benefits of the single design could be achieved. Operators could propose minor changes to the design.
Frank concluded by adding his thanks to UNOLS and Peter for the hull evaluation work and the unique document that UNOLS prepared. He also added that with regards to the prospect of making the Ocean Class vessels available for reserve duty, the AGORS are presently in that status and the impact will not be significant.
Agency Reports, Budget
Projections, and Future Fleet Utilization – Agency representatives from NSF, ONR,
and NOAA provided reports. The
following topics were covered and discussed:
-
NOAA DART
moorings and other requirements
-
NAVY
programs
Peter Wiebe explained that budget shortfalls have been experienced and as a result fleet operations have been impacted. NSF has sent a letter to UNOLS asking for recommendations on how to reduce operating costs.
National Science Foundation: (Larry Clark) - Larry Clark discussed the NSF budget and issues raised in his letter of February 25th. Larry’s letter is Appendix III and his slides are in Appendix IV. He noted that he worked at the UNOLS Office in 1976 and has worked in ship operations, technical services and ocean sciences so he is very familiar with the difficulty of what he is asking us to advise on. Within NSF there has been budget increases for other divisions because of a commitment to support the operations of new MRE facilities. OCE does not yet have new starts in the MRE account, but major facility efforts are in the MRE queue: ODP, OOI and the ARRV. OCE has experienced a budget cut from FY04 to FY05 and there is a minimal increase in the budget request from FY2005 to FY2006. Details of the OCE budget show flat funding for operation of the academic Fleet and a slight decrease in IODP. There have been some positive activities. NSF has undertaken planning to improve the condition of the facilities with long-term investments: replacement for Alvin, Ewing replacement, and construction of Regional Class ships.
Larry showed a pie chart with the FY04 funding for the Academic Research Fleet. Support for ship operations was $42.5M and there was $13M for technical services. Larry presented a chart showing the increasing total NSF ship ops costs as compared to the slightly decreasing costs for other agencies. There has been a significant cost increase to NSF for fleet operations. This is exacerbated by the decline in support from other agencies. Also presented was a chart showing the increase in Global Class day rates over the recent years.
A chart showing the NSF research grants funding rate from FY1999 to FY2004 was presented. The rate is decreasing from 30% in 1999 down to 21% in FY2004. At the same time the number of proposals is increasing and the number funded are more or less even. An increase in R&E funds of 4.9% is paying back the research accounts for the money borrowed to cover 2004 and 2005 ship operations costs. The budget shortfall could mean the lay-up of multiple ships in 06. They are asking for UNOLS advice, but are prepared to make the decision.
Peter Wiebe offered Mike Reeve an opportunity to follow up on Larry's presentation. Mike Reeve reiterated the fact that their costs in the past few years have been higher than ever and that it is not sustainable in the current budget environment. At the same time they have made commitments to infrastructure renewal.
Bruce Corliss asked if NSF considered any scenarios for reducing
costs. Mike Reeve stated that they have
not. They haven’t looked at specific
ships in terms of lay-up scenarios.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Beth White) – Beth White discussed the new initiatives for tsunami response and warning system and the DART moorings. There is an emergency funding supplement for the system in Congress, but it has not passed yet. Bill O'Clock handed out preliminary information on DART mooring requirements. NOAA plans call for 39 moorings to cover the Pacific, Atlantic and Caribbean by mid 2007. A buoy summit was held at the end of February. There is a supplemental budget for FY05/06 to support the buoys in Congress, but will not be funded until May or June. NOAA can't move forward until the funding is approved. There are currently six operational buoy sites in the Pacific and the proposal is to add 33 more. There is no prioritization for the mooring deployments and there is no budget. The timeline and table presented in Bill’s handout is a best guess of the requirements. The installation will depend on actual support. Servicing of the DART moorings is a concern. Bob Detrick asked about the level of support required for DART installation and servicing. Bill replied that approximately one day is needed to map the area and one day is needed for deployment. Servicing requirements should require less time. They would like to be able to take advantage of ships working in the area where the moorings are to be located. They are also hoping for international support. The NOAA scientists are still finalizing the mooring positions. They are looking at vandalism avoidance.
Linda Goad asked when NOAA would have funding commitments for 2006 operations. Bill replied that they have asked NOAA leadership for a commitment for FY06 funding by July 1 so they can make firm scheduling decisions. There was discussion on the number of potential ship days and possible funding amount. The required days will depend on transits, etc.
NOAA’s UNOLS ship time support for FY06 was discussed. It includes $1.5M for PMEL work in the Pacific (Ron Brown is in the Atlantic), $2.4M for OAR programs, $2.7 for NOS (Ecohab), and some supplemental funding for DART and possibly OE. The amount of Ocean Exploration funding is unclear. Terry Whitledge asked about the cost of operating the new Ocean Exploration vessel. Reply – Operations support would come from the OAR budget at around $5M.
Navy - John Freitag (ONR) provided information about the Navy budget for fleet operations. FY05 ship days were down for programmatic reasons (low field work demand) rather than budget. FY06 use seems to be up with some new programs, such as Plus Net with 120 to 140 days. The total ONR budget covers about 750 days with approximately $9M support for ships operations plus outside money from NRL, NUWC, and NPS (approximately $1M). There has been some NOPP ship time in the Navy budget. Bruce Corliss asked about Ocean Class acquisition funding impacts on ship operations. John explained that since the ONR Research Facilities budget is supported by 6.1 money, it would be affected if the ship construction were funded from this source. John reported that in the case of catastrophic failures on the Navy-owned UNOLS ships, ONR supports the repair.
Summary of Community Input regarding Larry Clark’s Letter - Peter Wiebe summarized the
community response to Larry’s letter.
Comments were received from Kennell/Knox (SIO), Cowles (OSU), Taggert
(U.Del), Lamerdin (MLML), Dufour (SIO), and Detrick (WHOI). The full list of comments is included in Appendix
V. The comments/suggestions
varied and included suggestions such as:
·
Select
reductions that do least harm to science.
·
Balance
reductions in ship use with reductions in research program funding.
·
With prospect
of new construction, consider retirement of an old ship in advance of new ship
for cost reduction, if needed.
·
Look at both
reducing costs and increasing revenue.
Get other federal agencies involved – increase the user base.
·
Historically
underutilized vessels should be permanently removed from the UNOLS Fleet first.
·
Keep regional
vessels below regulatory thresholds (300 GRT/500 ITC) as method for reducing
operating cost.
·
The replacement
cost for new vessels should be a funding partnership with the operating
institution – particularly for the Regional vessels.
· Institute a “cancellation penalty” for an agency that removes scheduled programs which has repercussions for other funded cruises
·
Take a longer
view than just 2006 - don't make short-term decisions.
·
In the short
term, ship lay-ups should be preferred over early ship retirements.
Bob Detrick recommended that an ad hoc committee be established to
develop recommendations to NSF in response to Larry Clark’s request. He
recommended that the committee should include representatives from at least all
of the global and intermediate ship operators and possibly 2-3 reps from
local/regional operators. Mike Reeve commented that the NSF
program managers should not be included as members of the Ad-hoc
committee.
Peter Wiebe indicated that the subject would be revisited later in
the meeting.
Other
Agency and CORE Reports:
Department of State - Status of Clearances Database (Elizabeth Tirpak)
– Liz Tirpak reported that she has been at the Department of State since 1999
and it has been her long-term goal to make the clearance process as easy as
possible. Last year they had
approximately 400 requests for work in foreign waters and about 60 requests for
work in U.S. waters. A web-based system
is desired. They purchased a prototype
database program for tracking and managing clearance paperwork and
reports. The original purchase (~$30k)
did not cover the job. The actual cost
of the program to develop the database application is $300K. She will not be able to fund this with just
State Department money and will need help from other agencies. If they don’t get the money soon the
contractor will stop work and all momentum will be lost.
On
a positive note, Roberta got a raise after 20 years. There are some new interns who have been hired to the
office. Online clearance information
has been updated over the past few years to provide current country
information.
The
Advisory body of experts on the Law of the Sea advises on how the Law of the
Sea impacts the activities of UNESCO.
The group will be looking at marine policy and issues related to
maritime boundaries. This year will
focus on marine scientific research.
Liz
has been appointed as chair of a working group to look at State practices on
clearances for research. They issued a
questionnaire to coastal states and received responses from 70 out of the 120
polled. When the working group report
is approved, she will post it.
United States Coast Guard (USCG) (Jon Berkson) – Jon reported that the presence of the large icebergs in the vicinity of McMurdo since 2001 has doubled the operation tempo for the USCG Polars and reduced their availability for maintenance. Polar Sea is currently in the shipyard unavailable for service pending funding for repairs. The Polar Star is undergoing overhaul to get ready for DEEP FREEZE 06. Healy is in good shape and is getting ready for Arctic deployment including a trans-Arctic leg. USCG has been working with NSF and others to get full funding for the operation and maintenance of the icebreaker fleet. There is a proposal in the President’s budget for funding of the icebreaker fleet for FY06. This is pending congressional action. For the long term, the Polars need replacing or overhaul. There are two studies: Mission Needs Analysis by Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) that is nearing completion and the National Research Council (NRC) study that will evaluate the role of the Coast Guard in supporting polar icebreaking needs. The USCG is waiting the outcome these studies and the budget.
Academic Fleet Renewal Activities and
Plans:
Status of FOFC Fleet Renewal Plan - Bob Winokur, Technical Director, Oceanographer of the Navy and FOFC Chair provided
an update on the FOFC activities. His
presentation is included as Appendix VII. Bob began by commenting that the Naval
Oceanographic fleet is faced with the same dilemma of reduced operations
funding and lay-up considerations. The
updated Federal fleet renewal plan will be a coordinated agency plan spanning
the years 2005 to 2025. It expands the FOFC December 2001 National
Academic Research Fleet Plan. Agencies
represented include the Navy,
USGS, EPA, USCG, NOAA, NASA, NSF, and MMS.
They will coordinate with
UNOLS. The working group is developing an initial draft for
completion by 30 April. They hope to have a technical writer by mid
April and have a draft available for NORLC approval by 31 July 2005. The report release is planned for 30
September 2005.
The initial assumptions for the FOFC update are
that ocean research and
operations will continue to be a national priority in support of agency missions and special
programs (Tsunami Warning System, OOI).
Vessels will be available
for a minimum 30-year service life. As
in the last report, the plan only considers vessels greater than 40
meters. Requirements for heavy lift
capability, such as those required by ocean observatories will be contracted to
industry.
The FY05 science
funding levels resulted in overcapacity.
FY06 and outyear science funding levels will be less than FY05. The Fleet identified in the FOFC plan will
have fewer but more efficient ships with greater capability. Compliance with complex regulations will
increase operational costs. National
icebreaker renewal issues will be resolved by 2006.
Bob reviewed the
plan outline, which includes Fleet requirements and gaps, concept designs and
technology infusion, and implementation.
Bob presented a few charts showing fleet costs by agency, and percentage
of fleet operating costs by class.
Bob indicated that
there are 43 Federal oceanographic ships in the plan. He presented a chart showing all of the Federal Global Class
ships included in the FOFC plan. These
include general-purpose ships, survey vessels, and USCG icebreakers. The Plan will indicate no replacements for Knorr
and Melville, which will reach retirement age by 2014.
For the Ocean/Intermediate class the FOFC plan
includes six NOAA fisheries
survey vessels. One Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV) is
planned for 2007 construction and the Navy proposes three additional
ships. Five UNOLS ships will be at/beyond retirement age
by 2010.
For the Regional
Class, three ships will reach their retirement age by 2011 and NSF has planned
for three new Regional vessels.
The floor was open
to questions and discussion:
Question – Are there any significant changes from the original report? Bob W. – The revised plan is primarily a continuation and update. No big changes are expected other than the inclusion of all Federal ships.
There was a question regarding the interaction between FIC and FOFC. Bob W. explained that Dave Hebert attended the last FOFC meeting and Bob Houtman and Dolly attended FIC.
There was discussion about projected NOAA needs for renewal and how they might impact the requirements for UNOLS vessels. NOAA has in recent year acquired new vessels and vessels through Navy transfers. Additionally, the Ocean Exploration program is converting a Navy vessel for their use. There is concern that this will result in a decreased use of UNOLS vessel from NOAA.
The FOFC plan will be updated every five years.
There was discussion about the Integrated Oceanographic Observatory System (IOOS) facility requirements. The requirements have not been defined yet. There will be a need for some UNOLS support, but it is not clear to what level. Industry can play a role as a provider.
FIC Fleet Improvement Plan Update –Dave Hebert reported on the status of the FIC Fleet Improvement Plan update. His viewgraphs are included as Appendix VIII. FOFC is developing their plan based on fiscal restraints. FIC’s plan will be based on science needs. Dave reviewed the plan outline. The major sections are:
• Executive Summary
• Identify Future Science Initiatives
• Current Fleet Composition and Utilization Trends –
• Future Fleet projections
• Fleet Budget projections and requirements.
• Recommendations
The FIC hopes to have a draft available for the Council in the fall.
Wilf Gardner asked if there is a big difference between the FOFC and UNOLS plan. Dave replied that the Academic Fleet of the FOFC plan would be able to accommodate significantly fewer days than the current UNOLS Fleet. There will be fewer days available for science in the future.
Peter Wiebe commented that the IOOS plan isn’t available yet from Ocean.US. Peter asked if industry has enough vessels to support IOOS, or will they have to come back to UNOLS. Bob Winokur indicated that he has not heard a decision. Bob Houtman reported that the IOOS Implementation plan has not gone forward because Ocean.US does not have funding. The agencies will have to provide the funding and approve the plan.
Lunch Break
Regional Class Acquisition Process - Mike Reeve (NSF) reported on the status of the Regional Class Acquisition process. At the moment they are on track with creating specifications and Request For Proposals (RFPs). There is a plan to have UNOLS representatives on the selection team for the Integrated Project Teams (IPTs) and as members of a technical advisory group. NSF plans to issue a solicitation for IPTs this summer (2005). Once the RFP is issued, there would likely be a 60-day response period. An RFP for operator selection is also slated for this year and a 90-day response period is expected. Mike Reeve turned the discussion over to Pete Kilroy and Lorena Castro, both from NAVSEA.
Pete Kilroy reported that during the next year and half there will be two periods of source selection where government teams will be reviewing proposals from industry. The first source selection period is for selection of the two IPTs and is slated to take place during September 2005. The RFP for design/build teams is expected around the beginning of July. The performance specifications will be an attachment to the RFP along with other materials. [Note: the timeline has slipped a couple months since the Council Meeting.]
During Phase I, Each IPT will be performing work under a government contract to develop designs and prepare a construction bid package. Phase I will be a one-year effort. The second source selection will take place at the end of Phase I. The Government team will select one design for ship construction from the two competing teams. There will be options for follow on ships. Pete indicated that the Government would own the designs from each team (winning and losing). There may be some aspects of the design that are proprietary; these items need to be identified by the teams along with a cost.
Lorena Castro continued with details
about selection of the UNOLS representatives for the source select team and
the technical advisory team. The Phase
I and II source selection periods are planned for fall 2005 for 2 weeks and fall 2006 for 3-4 weeks. They will be held in a secure work area at
the Washington Navy Yard, National Science Foundation or other Government
site. Two individuals from the UNOLS
community are needed to review the data submitted with the team proposals
and provide technical advice.
A second
UNOLS group, a team of 6-8 UNOLS
operators and scientists is needed during the Phase I design period. The individuals will review technical data
to verify that it meets the contract requirements and they will provide
technical advice. The group would provide advice for both design/build
teams. When one team asks a question the questions and answer goes to
both teams. Information will be available on a secure web
site. Reviewers may also attend all
shipbuilder design reviews. The advisory group should have
broad disciplinary and profession experience with ships. The time commitment for the group would
involve travel to three design meetings and probably consume a minimum of six
to eight weeks of time.
There was a question regarding conflict of interest and Pete Kilroy
replied that NAVSEA does not see a conflict with having a member of the advisory committee from an
institution with an interest in becoming an operator of the new vessel. Mike Reeve indicated that this probably
would not be a problem with NSF as well.
NAVSEA will need the names of all UNOLS team members (both teams) by 6 May 2005. Each individual would be required to submit conflict of interest/non-disclosure of information form and a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report. The question was asked why the names would be needed by May 6th and the reply was that the names would be included in the RFP document. Lorena reviewed the dos and don'ts for the UNOLS representatives.
Discussion followed. Peter Wiebe stated that a process for selecting the UNOLS representatives is needed. He appointed the Chairs from the Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC), Dave Hebert; Regional Class Advisory Committee (RCAC), Wilf Gardner; Research Vessel Technical Enhancement Committee (RVTEC), Bill Martin; and the Research Vessel Operators’ Committee (RVOC), Tim Askew as an ad-hoc committee to recommend the members of the two teams of UNOLS representatives. A motion was made and passed to form this ad hoc committee. The committee tasking is to:
-
Draft
a message for Community distribution calling for volunteers to participate on
Regional Class Government Teams (2 people as advisors on the Government source
select team and 6-8 individuals as a UNOLS Advisory Group). Articulate the
responsibilities and time commitment of the team members. The two individuals on the source select
team can also be on the technical advisory team.
-
Send
the draft message to NSF for review and comment prior to distribution.
- Identify representatives for both the Government Source Select team (2-person) and the UNOLS Advisory group (6-8 people). The Source select team should include one sea going scientist and one individual from ship operations. The Technical Advisory group should include representation from the four major science disciplines, marine superintendents, ship captains, and marine technical support groups.
- Provide the UNOLS Chair with nominations by May 5th
Dave Hebert commented on the community concern regarding input during the design process and the need for a mechanism to provide input. FIC has requested that NAVSEA and NSF clearly outline in the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the IPT teams the need for a defined - feedback" process. FIC suggested that IPT proposals must explicitly define how they will seek out and obtain input from the academic community to the design process. Additionally, the RFPs should require that each IPT agree to at least one community design review meeting. Pete Kilroy replied that they were not intending to include a requirement for anything as specific as a process for community input in the RFP.
Regional Class Performance Specifications- Mike Prince stated that the Performance Specifications could represent the last time that the community will have direct input into the Regional Class acquisition project. There have been 509 performance specification comments to date from the community. Mike has provided these as preliminary input to Dolly and Mike. Some of the comments conflict with each other. Mike will narrow the comments down to those that need vetting and provide that list to Council/FIC/RCAC for review and discussion/decision. The comments will need to be sent to NSF by mid-April. Mike Prince asked NSF if UNOLS would have the opportunity to review the Performance Specifications after the next revision that considers the UNOLS comments. Mike Reeve replied that they would try to get them to UNOLS.
Ocean Class Acquisition - Peter Wiebe reviewed the process that UNOLS used to evaluate the hull forms for the Ocean Class design. At the 2004 UNOLS Annual meeting RADM Cohen tasked UNOLS to evaluate various potential Ocean Class hull forms. UNOLS visited the X-Craft. It is an impressive vessel, but the configuration is not optimal for oceanography. With the help of JJMA, UNOLS looked at about eight hull form variants. Through a series of web/phone and in person meetings, the variants were evaluated. Dan Rolland came to us will a template for weighting the Ocean Class SMR parameters and scoring the hull variants. Additionally new Navy SMRs were introduced and evaluated. There were about 11 UNOLS reviewers. In the process of weighting, two approaches were taken, one in which all parameters were weighted regardless of source, and the other where the Navy parameters were all weighted high. In both cases, the monohull scored the highest. Attractive features of the monohull included:
· Lower cost for construction and operation.
· Access along the rail. This was important for operations such as coring, etc
· Access to the water – reasonable freeboard
· Sea keeping
· Survivability
· Draft
UNOLS circulated their evaluation to the community for comment and 82 responses were received. They mostly recommended the monohull. In the UNOLS letter to RADM Cohen the process was described and the recommendation of a monohull provided. The letter was sent with lengthy appendices. Frank Herr indicated that the information in the UNOLS hull selection letter would be provided to bidders for the Ocean Class design/build teams.
Frank Herr reviewed the budget process and acquisition process for the Ocean Class. How the project is carried out is dependent on how the ships are funded and this may control the cost structure. If construction were funded out of 6.1 funds, the funds would be available over multiple years.
Peter Wiebe asked Frank if a set of performance specs would be developed similar to the Regional Class. Frank had not seen the Regional specifications, so could not comment.
ONR is interested in low operating costs and may specifically ask for that in the RFP to the design/builders. ONR would like to have the operator selected early so that they can have the operator involved in the IPT process of putting together the design. The vessel operators will all be competed. Consortia operation is a possibility. Once they select the operator, the operator would have an important role. ONR paid for Robert Hinton to be a full time employee representing the University of Hawaii on the design and build team. Robert was there from the beginning until the end of the Warranty period. This attention to the details and commitment is needed. After the design is complete, changes would be minimal, so as to avoid costly change orders.
Frank asked UNOLS whether or not aluminum is an appropriate material for a research vessel. Marcia McNutt replied that MBARI would probably not build another aluminum vessel. The cost is twice as much for aluminum. Survivability is an issue. Getting repairs done is a problem. Aluminum superstructures on steel hulls can be a good, workable compromise.
There was a question from Brian Taylor about whether or not all the operators will be picked at once or in sequence as the ships are funded. Frank said they were still considering this issue and were open to advice. He felt that they would likely select the operator for the first ship only, but would be open to input. If there is language to indicate multiple vessels, ONR might be able to select all operators. Brian Taylor commented that if the acquisition were for a class design, then not having the second and third operators involved would keep them out of decisions on design and construction. Frank said that they expect to have a selection board for the operator, which would not include any UNOLS institutions, but would be people we all trust. There will be a second board to select the design/build teams. They haven't decided what the UNOLS input to the design process will be. It may be similar to the NSF process, but the Navy hasn't decided.
Ship Design,
Construction, and Operational Changes:
BBSR plan to acquire Seward Johnson II from HBOI and retire the Weatherbird II – Bermuda Biological Station for Research (BBSR) has submitted a proposal to replace Weatherbird II with Seward Johnson II (Appendix X). Peter introduced Linda Glover (BBSR Trustee), Dr. William Jenkins (From WHOI, Chair of BBSR's External Review Committee), and Capt. Lee Black (BBSR Marine Supt.). Linda Glover, Chair of the governing board for BBSR and Chair of their ship committee introduced the subject and said that they considered lengthening the Weatherbird II but when the opportunity for a larger vessel became possible, they decided to recommend acquiring the Seward Johnson II. Weatherbird II is 115 ft LOA and Seward Johnson II’s length is 168 ft. Seward Johnson II is owned and operated by Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution (HBOI).
Bill Jenkins talked about the benefits of having a larger vessel to support the time series work, the larger moorings, etc. There are four time series off Bermuda (BATS, OFP, BTM, and Hydrostation S). Maintenance of the high quality of these programs is important and dependent on an adequate platform. Quality and size of labs on Weatherbird II is inadequate. Limited deck space on the ship requires that moorings be brought to shore for servicing, increasing the amount of ship time needed. Programs could be enhanced with a larger vessel.
Linda Glover followed up with more details about the benefits of a larger vessel. Seward Johnson II is much more capable and can carry multiple 20-ft vans. BBSR has made a formal letter of offer to HBOI.
Marcia McNutt had a few questions. What is the difference in day rate? Reply – The day rate for Seward Johnson II is approximately $10.5K and $9.5K for Weatherbird II. The difference in total costs is about $500K annually. Linda Glover pointed out that although there is a cost increase, total Fleet costs would decrease with one ship being taken out of service.
Marcia asked about the amount of transit costs from the east coast that could potentially be saved. The round trip from the east coast to Bermuda is about 8 days and outside ships charge operational days when away from homeport. About five round trips annually would pay for the difference in operating cost for Seward Johnson II home ported at BBSR. In addition, the days lost to weather would decrease with the availability of a more capable ship, which would mean that there would be an overall gain in available science days for the increased costs.
BBSR is planning to make upgrades to the port facilities. There would need to be some dredging in parts of Ferry Reach. A high-speed ferry service is planned and they will carry out the dredging. Dock upgrading would be needed, but BBSR is already in discussions with the government and thinks that this would not be a problem. They are also planning to make some improvements to the CTD garage/launching area. Dolly asked how the improvements would be paid for. Reply - The sale of Weatherbird II would generate some of the funds and they would borrow or seek donations for the balance.
Tim Askew commented that Seward Johnson II is very well maintained. It is 23 years old. HBOI would not be looking for a replacement. They are selling an intermediate vessel and it will become a “regional” ship. The ship has been out of service since December 2004.
Linda Glover said that BBSR would like to have Council endorsement, so that they can move forward and perhaps schedule operations on the ship for summer 2006. Linda Goad commented that there is currently about 132 days funded for work off Bermuda in 2006. To fill a 200-day schedule, the ship would need to pick up additional ship time. This is work that other east coast ships would normally carry out. Projections currently show excess capacity on the east coast ships as compared to funded days. 2006 might not be the best year to bring Seward Johnson II into operation at Bermuda.
Wilf Gardner said that the last day rate for Seward Johnson II was $12,300. How will BBSR get the rate down to $10,500? Tim Askew replied that the HBOI day rate included depreciation for modifications.
Peter Wiebe commented that when Hawaii applied for UNOLS designation for R/V Kaimikai-O-Kanaloa, NSF considered the ship an Ocean Class vessel and asked UNOLS which existing Ocean Class ship would be removed so as to not expand the Fleet size. What is NSF’s stance now? Reply from NSF – The FOFC classification of ships is not merely size, it also represents how the ship would be operated. In terms of operations, the Seward Johnson II could be considered a large “local” vessel. Dolly added that they agree that Seward Johnson II is more capable for the region.
A Council motion was made to “approve the designation of Seward Johnson II as a UNOLS vessel to
be operated by Bermuda Biological Research Station pending:
(1) The acquisition of Seward Johnson II by BBSR,
(2) The successful completion of the NSF inspection of Seward Johnson II, and
(3) The retirement of Weatherbird II.”
(Wiesenburg/Cowles). The
Council approved the motion with one abstaining.
UNOLS requests that BBSR send written notification to the UNOLS Office when the conditions stated in the motion have been successfully carried out so that the designation can be made official.
UNOLS Discussion Items:
Marcia explained that Mike Purdy has raised the issue that there are a growing number of non-technical users that would like seismic data from the Facility. In the past, seismic ship users were responsible for providing technical expertise in order to get the data needed. There is a need for the Facility to provide this expertise to users. This will be one of the issues to be addressed by the MLSOC.
Dolly Dieter raised the issue of archiving and suggested that it would need to be addressed.
Bill Martin raised the issue of data acquisition. If the MLSOC and Facility operator provide recommendations regarding data acquisition policies, would these policies then apply to the other ships in the Fleet, and if so how? A new policy might not be a bad thing, but it might be difficult to implement.
Linda Goad commented that the charge to the committee is very ambitious. The short term scheduling responsibilities for the committee are of concern. Linda indicated that the wording pertaining to scheduling by the committee should be revised.
Marcia stated that she would revise document and circulate it for review.
GYRE Decommissioning Plans - Wilf Gardner reported R/V Gyre will be decommissioned by Texas A&M in August of
2005. The ship has been in service for 32 years. The announcement is included as Appendix XIII.
A website has been posted that contains information about the project: <http://www.unols.org/committees/fic/global/global_smr.html>.
The committee has taken on a
variety of activities. They will review
past SMRs and evaluate construction projects under
development in other countries (UK ship, GOSars vessel). They plan to identify
modifications that have been made to the current Global Vessels since they
entered service. Past workshop recommendations as well as the ORION
requirements will be considered. They
plan to investigate technology developments in new commercial ship
construction. Large ship utilization
trends and ship demand have been reviewed.
A community survey is being drafted and will be post for community input
regarding Global Vessel SMRs. Mike
Prince briefly reviewed the draft survey.
The survey is modeled after the surveys conducted during the Regional
and Ocean Class efforts.
Cape Henlopen Replacement Vessel – Annette summarized a report from Matt Hawkins (U. Delaware). Construction is moving along well and on schedule/budget. The final module (stern section) is nearing completion and will be added to the vessel in April 2005. Installation of major electrical components in the auxiliary machinery space has begun. The stern A-frame and starboard trawl winch is expected to arrive at the yard in May. The CTD handling system (based on Load Handling System (LHS) study findings) is going out for bid in April. The ship launch is tentatively scheduled for June 12th. Dock trials are planned for July, with sea trials in August. The ship will be delivery to Florida in October 2005. UNOLS Council should expect an application for "preliminary" acceptance as a UNOLS vessel during their summer meeting.
Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV) – Denis Wiesenburg briefly reported that the ARRV design
is complete. Funds for construction of
the ship are included as a request in the NSF Major Research Equipment account
(MREFC) for FY07.
R/V Marcus Langseth
- Paul Ljunggren provided a written report, which is included as Appendix
XIV. Annette DeSilva briefly
summarized the report. On March
9, after the ship’s final cruise, R/V Maurice Ewing was moored astern R/V
Marcus G. Langseth in Quonset Point, Rhode Island. Columbia University took
title of the Langseth on 20 September 2004. The Langseth reflagging plans have been submitted to the
Coast Guard and several determinations have been made. The bulkheads will require subdividing the
Engine room and the Recording Room. Also, the Halon fire suppression system
will have to be replaced and a CO2 system installed. All required drawings have been submitted to ABS for change of
class and a shipboard survey has been completed. An interim class certificate
has been issued and they await final issuance of class. A detailed list of capabilities and the
status of equipment acquisitions is provided in the written report.
A plan for the Langseth IT and Data System is currently posted on the web at <http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/oma/replacement/index.html>. There is a link from the UNOLS website. LDEO is looking forward to receiving community comment.
Berthing remains an issue with the 8-person berthing clusters presenting a challenge. It has generally been felt that ADA provisions for visually impaired and hearing-impaired individuals could be effectively responded to. Addressing the issues of mobility impairment remains a matter of concern for an existing ship.
Shipyard specifications completion has been delayed. LDEO expects to put the final package of specifications before EROCC next month after which they will be submitted to NSF for review and approval.
Several potential buyers for the Ewing have expressed interest in the vessel. All funds from the sale of the ship will be applied to the conversion. Currently efforts are underway to cross deck equipment from the Ewing to the Langseth.
Dolly Dieter commented that there are a lot more steps and new requirements under the new charter agreements for construction efforts. Both LDEO and WHOI have had to deal with these. The new requirements require approval for purchases over $250,000. This is slowing down the process considerably. Langseth will probably not be available for operations until summer 2006 at the earliest.
Brian Taylor asked how the Langseth
would accommodate a 1-degree multibeam system. Reply - LDEO will use a gondola to accommodate the system.
Notification and reporting of mooring locations, safety zones, and
release code conflicts - Mike
Prince summarized a message from Maureen Conte (BBSR) regarding mooring hazards
and implementation of a centralized UNOLS mooring directory. Her message is included as Appendix XV. An increasing amount of science is being
conducted using moorings, many of which are subsurface. These can present
hazards to science (equipment and people) when research ships conduct
operations in areas were moorings are located but are unaware of their
location. Currently there is no effective way for scientists who have moorings
to communicate where their moorings are.
Marcia McNutt suggested that there be a web site on the UNOLS page
where people installing the moorings could post the mooring coordinates. Others planning fieldwork could search the
site to see if there are any moorings in the area of their work. It was pointed out that there is some fear
in publicizing the mooring locations because of vandalism.
Mike Prince said that the UNOLS
Office would investigate ways to collect information regarding installation and
locations of moorings.
Ocean Class Vessel Security Plans - Tim Askew provided an
update on the status of Ocean Class Vessel Security Plans. The USCG changed the ruling such that security plans would now be
required for ships 500 gross tons international or larger. Tim polled the Intermediate/Ocean Class
operators. Of the Intermediates,
Endeavor, Wecoma, Seward Johnson, and Seward Johnson II have plans. New Horizon’s plan is in progress. The plans will need to be in place by July
1, 2005. Western Flyer’s plan is in
progress.
Frequency Spectrum Management –
Mike Prince reported that there has not been a lot of activity on this issue
since the last meeting. He will look to
see who replied to his newsletter article and form a small committee to liaison
with the frequency
management agency managers.
Adjourn Day 1
Day 2 – March 30, 2005
Open
Day 2 Council Meeting:
Peter Wiebe, UNOLS Chair, called the meeting to order.
ADA
Guidelines – Mike Prince reported that the Univ. Delaware
and LDEO were asked by NSF to address Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements in their new ship design and conversion plans. Guidelines are available on how to implement
ADA requirements for passenger vessels.
These are being reviewed to determine how they could be implemented on
research vessels. LDEO and U. Delaware
both have tried to implement the ADA requirements as much as feasible. The agencies are interested in having a set
of ADA guidelines for research vessels that best address the intent of the
law. The UNOLS Risk Manager, Dennis
Nixon, is following an ADA court case that involved a passenger vessel. He is waiting for the final recommendation
from the Supreme Court ruling.
Terry
Whitledge indicated that the University Alaska and Glosten have attempted to
accommodate the ADA requirements for mobility, hearing and vision impairments
in the design of the ARRV. Terry has
drafted a white paper that provides ADA guidelines for research vessels. He provided the first draft to FIC at their
last meeting.
ADA
guidelines should take into consideration the size of the vessel, as well as
the nature of the disability (hearing, vision, and mobility). There are levels of accommodations that can
be made. Wilf Gardner commented that
Terry as done a good job of addressing the issues. His draft should be reviewed to determine if anything is missing.
The
question was asked if NOAA has any ADA guidelines in place for work from their
research vessels. It appears that they
have not addressed the ADA requirements with the FRVs.
The
Council agreed that an ad hoc committee should be formed to address ADA
guidelines for new ship construction/conversion. The ad hoc committee should
review and provide input to the paper drafted by Terry Whitledge. Additionally the group should recommend how
procedural guidelines could be established for accommodating seagoing
scientists with disabilities. The ad
hoc committee should include Terry Whitledge (FIC), Dennis Nixon (Risk Manager),
one person from the Safety Committee, seagoing scientists with disabilities,
Eric Buck (Ship Master, SIO), and Dolly Dieter as ex-officio. Suggestions for scientists included Amy
Bower and/or Dave Glover. The Committee
would be asked for a status report at the July Council meeting.
Tim
Askew indicated that he would contact Tom Althouse, Chair of the Safety
Committee, to let him know of this task.
Overboard Handling System Report – Mike Prince provided a summary of the Load Handling System Workshop report provided by Matt Hawkins at the last FIC Meeting. The presentation is included as Appendix XVI. The goal of the workshop was to develop a conceptual design for the “next-generation” over-the-side load handling system for the UNOLS Fleet.
Brian
Taylor reported that U. Hawaii has been working with Matt on handling system
recommendations for Kilo Moana.
A winch doesn’t exist that could reach the water for use on Kilo
Moana. They have requested that
Dynacon develop a modified design.
The
workshop report and findings will be provided to NSF and ONR. Once accepted, the handling system
guidelines could be incorporated into the UNOLS SMRs.
The RVOC Safety Committee will review the report and will likely provide it to the USCG for comment and ruling on alternate applications of the load handling design requirements. Pete Kilroy expressed concern that if the report is incorporated into the Regional Class CFR as a ship builder requirement, they should have some reasonable expectation that it would be approved.
Acoustic Marine
Mammal Permitting Issues – (Sandy Shor) - Sandy Shore
reported on progress with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
regulatory processes, the programmatic permit for Langseth and the
studies being completed on the affects of noise on marine mammals. The studies/reports are not being well received
by environmental groups. The National Research Council (NRC) Report was presented at their last advisory meeting in New
Orleans. The environmental groups were
very unhappy with the study.
Sandy reported that for the final Ewing cruise it was difficult to
get clearances from Mexico. The cruise
finally took place in January and February 2005. Unfortunately, after the science program was complete, the ship
hit an uncharted reef (not a live reef).
The Mexican Government claims that since the Ewing was sailing in
Mexican waters without Mexican charts they will likely be fined. The Mexican charts in the Yucatan are old
and to 1/1,000,000 scale. UNOLS
operators are not familiar with this requirement. On the Ewing cruise there were six observers (3 Mexican
and 3 US). There were also aircraft
observations and two spotter boats in the water at all times. They observed two porpoises and one turtle.
NSF requested UNOLS to post a link to the NSF Guidelines for Acoustic Work Permitting on the UNOLS website. The Office will get the link from Carolyn Ruppel.
Marcia McNutt suggested that there be a more proactive method for putting out press releases that provide the truth about seismic activities. She will provide some input on how the Monterey Bay Aquarium does their press relations to Sandy.
In preparations for Langseth operations, LDEO is working on addressing acoustic
permitting issues through the Environmental Impact Statement. Whether it would be a 5-year impact
statement or if it would be handled on a case-by-case statement is still up in
air. There will be a minimum of three
marine mammal observers on each seismic cruise. The UNOLS standing committee (MLSOC) will have to address marine
mammal monitoring strategies.
Break
Response to Larry Clark’s Letter (continued from Day one) – Peter continued the discussion from the
previous day on how to provide a UNOLS response to Larry Clark’s letter. He presented the recommendation that a small
ad hoc group work with the Scheduling Committee to address NSF’s request for
advice. Draft terms of reference were
presented and Tim Cowles suggested a few changes:
Draft Terms of Reference:
1) Scheduling committee determines a best estimate of the UNOLS Fleet
utilization based on funded science by class, by region/season, by special
requirements.
2) UNOLS Office, in concert with federal agencies, provides a best
estimate the 2006 ship operation funding from all sources. Evaluate the
probability of NOAA funds and additional Navy funds.
3) To the extent that the funds available do not meet the operational
needs (defined in #1), the Ad Hoc Committee develops a plan for ship lay-ups
that will fit the budget realities and minimize impact on funded scientific
programs. This plan should take into consideration longer term issues such as
the impact of retirements versus lay-ups or the various forms of lay-ups
(“ready to go” versus mothballed) and funding prospects in the out years
(Observatories). Marine Superintendents and Deans/Directors should be asked to
provide their recommendations regarding a lay-up process.
4) Circulate a draft plan by end of June to UNOLS leadership.
Submit revised draft to Council in advance of the Summer UNOLS conference
call meeting.
It was recognized that the composition of the ad-hoc committee is
sensitive and they should be unbiased.
Brian Taylor indicated that he feels a more direct approach is
needed. He is attending the meeting
because this issue is so important. In
his opinion, the Council should address the issues identified in Larry Clark’s
letter now and leave the meeting with a recommendation. It should not be assigned to an ad hoc
committee. Peter Wiebe replied that
additional information is needed, including firm budget estimates from the
agencies. A UNOLS decision and recommendations
would not be provided at this time.
Community input is needed. Rose
Dufour added that the details are important in the decision process. Various issues need to be addressed, such as
permitting issues, before a recommendation could be made. Tim Cowles said that we recognize that at
least one or two ships will need to be laid up, but unless we know where the
ship time requests areas are located and when ships are needed, we cannot move
forward with a recommendation. Brian
Taylor emphasized that he feels that it is ultimately the Council’s
responsibility to provide recommendations.
As a first step, Mike Prince, Rose and Linda Goad will send a message to
the ship operators asking that they provide 2006 Letters of Intent. Although this is before the May panel
decisions for 2006 program awards, Linda indicated that there will be no ship
time funded from the May panel unless it replaces ship time already funded and
provides a cost savings.
There are short term and long term issues to be considered. Input for 2006 scheduling and lay-ups are
needed by summer. Retirement issues
need to be addressed, but are not needed by June.
Peter Wiebe appointed an Ad-hoc committee of Marcia McNutt (Chair),
Eileen Hofmann, and Denis Wiesenburg.
The terms of reference for the committee will need to be finalized. Input from the operators, schedulers, UNOLS
Office, and agency representatives are needed.
The cost of ship lay-ups should be identified and various scenarios for
lay-ups considered. The Ad hoc
Committee was asked to provide a status report to the Council by June 1.
UNOLS STR/Scheduling Database (Mike Prince) – Mike reported that the Office is in
the process of developing the code for the new UNOLS Ship Time Request
scheduling database. They are importing
the data from the existing ship time system.
It will be a database web application.
Principal Investigators would need to have only one password to access
the system. The new system will not be
ready for this ship scheduling cycle, but a demonstration will be presented
during the summer scheduling meeting. A
feature of the system will be a calculator for estimating the cost of the
cruise.
UNOLS Office Competition – The MLML UNOLS Office will complete their second
3-year term on April 30, 2006. Peter reported that NSF has indicated a new
requirement that the Office be competed every five years. This conflicts with the current process and
would present inconsistencies with the UNOLS Charter. Peter reported that the Charter states that the UNOLS Office
could be held at one institution nine years in three-year increments. The charter indicates that the office would
be periodically reviewed and recommendations made.
Mike Reeve remarked there is no strict NSF rule
regarding a competition every five years, but this would be more consistent
with the agency’s other agreements. The
ships are an example of 5-year agreements.
The position of NSF is to keep the review and competition process
shorter and more stringent. They feel
that UNOLS should make an effort to advertise the office on a more regular
basis (less than nine years). They
don’t have a problem with the Council indicating that the current office has an
interest to continue as host.
Mike Prince indicated that MLML would like to host the
office for another three years, not five years.
The Council agreed that Peter should
appoint a small committee to review the performance of the current office
and make a recommendation about whether or not the Office at MLML is suitable
for continued operation. In the process of doing this review,
they should seek input from all the UNOLS representatives and ask if any other
institutions would be interested in competing to host the office. They
would make it clear that MLML has stated their desire to host the office for
one more three-year period of time and plans to submit a proposal for doing
so.
There was discussion by the Council on whether or not
the process and Charter should be changed to have competition every five years
with a two-term limit for any institution.
No recommendation for a change was made at this time.
Peter Wiebe appointed a review committee of himself
as Chair, Wilf Gardner, and Margo Edwards.
They will send an announcement to the membership by summer with a
recommendation in the fall.
Administration response to Ocean
Commission Report - Peter Wiebe commented that basic research does not
seem to get much attention in the response.
The facilities renewal is included in the report and seems to be in the
hands of FOFC and NORLC. The role of
NORLC will transition into a new organization.
Committee Reports – Committee Chairs had an opportunity to raise
issues requiring Council attention.
Full written Committee reports are included in Appendix XVII.
RVOC – Tim Askew reported
that at the October 2004 RVOC meeting they voted to change their annual meeting
time from the fall to the spring. Their
next meeting will be in April 2006.
RVTEC – Bill Martin
reported that the RVTEC nominated Steve Hartz to serve as a liaison to SCOAR. The Council endorsed the nomination and
appointed Steve to the SCOAR. Another
area that Bill brought to the attention of the Council was the need for the
Safety Committee to address safe working loads. While Dale Chayes was RVTEC Chair he sent a message to the Safety
Committee Chair indicating that safe working loads and safety factors were
areas of concern for RVTEC and requested that it be addressed. Tim Askew replied that this item is high on
the Safety Committee list, but they just haven’t had an opportunity to address
it.
SSC – Rose Dufour
reported that the ship scheduling committee has been busy scheduling and
rescheduling. In November 2004, the
schedulers learned that NOAA overscheduled ship time by approximately 100 days. The schedules began to unravel. NSF also had to remove some scheduled
work. The ship schedules were
reduced. The written report includes
tables indicating deferred work, costs and agency support levels.
AICC – Margo Edwards
reported that Healy is doing exceptionally well. Unfortunately the USCG Polar Class
Icebreaker news is not good. The AICC
has completed a science requirements report for the Polars and the USCG
has completed an engineering feasibility study. The USCG and Booz Allen Hamilton have the final draft mission
needs analysis, which AICC will review.
Margo reported on the President’s budget regarding the USCG Icebreakers. The Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessment of the Coast Guard Polar Icebreaking
Program yielded an outcome of “Results Not Demonstrated,” due to a combination
of poor alignment of the program with the user community and inadequate
performance measures. By contrast, NSF’s Polar Tools, Facilities, and Logistics
program received an “Effective” PART score. The budget proposes to transfer
funding for the Polar Icebreaking Program from USCG to NSF to better align
resources with those who benefit from the program. While the Coast Guard will
continue to operate the polar icebreaking fleet on a reimbursable basis, NSF
will ultimately be responsible for the long-range planning required to
refurbish or replace the ships, as necessary, which are nearing the end of
their serviceable lives. The Government
is not allowed to discuss this issue.
SCOAR – Mike Prince
summarized a report from John Bane. The
SCOAR has a new committee member and will establish a committee rotation to
bring on additional new members. An
advertisement is planned in the fall.
The SCOAR has had two articles published this year that provide
information about their committee and plans.
They are pleased that the aircraft facilities will be included in the
FIP update. Funding for aircraft
operations appears to be a challenge.
Increasing access to the Aircraft facilities is a focus of SCOAR.
FIC – Dave Hebert
reported that Niall Slowey is completing his first term and FIC nominates him
for a second term. The Council approved
the nomination.
DESSC – Debbie could
not be present, but she provided a written report. The DESSC includes many new members. A current action item for the committee is to define the criteria
/ process for bringing new assets into the National Facility.
Other Business:
Summer Council Phone/web meeting dates were discussed. Early July was suggested as a possible date.
1215
Adjourn