UNOLS COUNCIL – Phone/Web Conference

Wednesday and Thursday, July 13 & 14, 2005, 1:00 pm – 4:00 PM EDT (each day)

 

A copy of these minutes can be downloaded at <200507cncmi.pdf>

Executive Summary:

 

The UNOLS Council convened a phone/web conference on July 13 and 14, 2005.  This conference would serve as their summer meeting.  The primary focus of the meeting was to review UNOLS recommendations regarding budget shortfalls and their impact on Fleet operations.  As background material Fleet utilization and agency budget projections were reviewed.  This was followed by a detail review of each draft UNOLS recommendation.  Revisions, based on the Council comments were incorporated into the draft document.  The Council accepted the revised UNOLS recommendations and recommended that they be distributed to the UNOLS community.  Peter Wiebe will prepare a cover letter to forward the recommendations to Larry Clark.  Following the Council meeting, the final recommendations were posted on the UNOLS Website at <http://www.unols.org/_projects/UNOLS_response_to_Clark_July05.pdf>.

 

Other Council discussion items included:

·         Annual Meeting plans

·         Establishing Safety Standards for Human Occupied Vehicles (HOVs)

·         FOFC Fleet Renewal Update and FIC Fleet Improvement Plan Update

 


Action Items:

 

CONTINUING ACTIONS (revised and updated)

Regional Class Acquisition Process:

Performance Specification – UNOLS will review the next draft of the Performance Specs when made available.

Awaiting next draft from Govt.

National Oceanographic Seismic Facility –Recirculate the revised Terms of Reference for the MLSOC to the subcommittee and NSF.  Incorporate any changes.  Provide recommendations for the Committee Membership by the end of August.

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

UNOLS Response to Larry Clark letter - The Ad-hoc committee and UNOLS Office will finalize the UNOLS recommendations by 7/15/05.  Peter Wiebe will draft a cover letter to forward the recommendations to Larry Clark by 7/15/05.  Circulate the cover letter and recommendations to the <unols_all> email list.  Send letter to Larry Clark by 7/18/05.  Post the Recommendations on the UNOLS website.  Provide hardcopies of the

Marcia McNutt (Chair), Eileen Hofmann, Denis Wiesenburg, Peter Wiebe, and UNOLS Office.

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.   Peter Wiebe has drafted a letter to ask if any other operator institutions would be interested in competing to host the office.  Finalize the letter and send to the membership.  Statements of interest are due by 8/31/05.  The Committee should provide a recommendation to the Council in 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

Identify Keynote speaker for Annual Meeting – Peter has drafted a letter to Senator Sununu.  The Office has sent the letter.  If Senator Sununu declines, Representative Wolf or a senior political staff member could be approached.

UNOLS Office and Peter Wiebe

NEW ACTION ITEMS – JULY 2005

Survey of Untenured Faculty – Draft a brief survey to untenured faculty believe that their chances for a successful career are equal whether or not his/her research involves field work. 

Council and UNOLS Office

Establishing Safety Standards for the use of Human Occupied Vehicles - NSF will send a letter to DESSC with a charge to establish safety standards for HOVs.  The safety standards will address certification of the vehicle, certification of the ship, and training (vehicle and ship crew).  In response to NSF’s charge a subcommittee will be formed.  Potential members include RVOC Safety Committee representative, HOV operators from WHOI, HBOI, and HURL, and science users (DESSC).  Input from the Navy and legal council would likely be required.  This effort might span 2 years.

Peter Wiebe and Debbie Kelley

Images for FOFC Report – The UNOLS Office will put out a call for high resolution ship images that can be used in the FOFC Fleet Renewal Update and the FIC Fleet Improvement Plan

UNOLS Office

UNOLS Briefing Package - Peter will draft a document that provides information about UNOLS that can be used to brief policy makers.  The draft will be circulated to the Council.

Peter Wiebe

UNOLS objectives, priorities and goals for 2005/2006 – The Council should review the 2004/05 objectives <http://www.unols.org/info/issues.html#objectives> and provide the UNOLS Office with their 2 or 3 high priority items by the end of August.  UNOLS will compile the objectives and recirculate by email for Council prioritization.  The list can be finalized at the fall Council meeting.

Council and UNOLS Office

 

 

Appendices:

 

        I.            Agenda

     II.            Attendees

   III.            Budget Trends and Ship Demand

  IV.            Draft Slate

     V.            Fleet Renewal Updates

  VI.            R/V Marcus Langseth Conversion Update

VII.            UNOLS Briefing Package

VIII.            Safety Standards for HOVs

  IX.            Committee Reports

 

Meeting Minutes:

 

Day 1:  Wednesday, July 13th

 

Call the Meeting:  Peter Wiebe, UNOLS Chair, called the meeting to order at 1300 EDT and provided an opportunity for participant introductions.  The meeting agenda is included as Appendix I and the participant list is Appendix II.  The meeting was conducted via phone/web conferencing.

 

Accept the Minutes of the March 2005 Council Meeting – A motion was made and approved to accept the March 2005 meeting minutes as written.

 

FOFC Meeting – Peter Wiebe reported that a Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee (FOFC) meeting is planned for tomorrow.  He will join and participate via phone conference.

 

Agency Budget Projections – Mike Prince presented Fleet utilization and budget projections, NOAA DART moorings facility needs, and other requirements.  His viewgraphs are included as Appendix III. 

 

The FY 2006 Budget Request for the Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) is $709.10 million, an increase of $14.94 million, or 2.20 percent over the FY 2005 Current Plan of $694.16 million.  The outcome of the request is unknown at present.  Within Ocean Sciences, the Research Facilities section would see level funding if the FY06 budget were authorized.

 

A slide was presented that shows the Facility funding profile and breaks down the amount budgeted for renewal implementation and operations and maintenance for the fiscal year (FY) 2001 to FY 2010.  Implementation is the money that is put aside for fleet renewal and mid size infrastructure.  Maintenance and Operations budget includes funds for support of technical services and science outfitting, shipboard equipment, and ship operations.  Between FY05 and FY06, the OCE budget totals are flat.  In order to have enough funds for renewal implementation, this translates to a decrease in operation funds for FY06. 

 

Mike reviewed the total 2006 scheduled operating days as compared to estimated budget levels.  The NSF OCE estimated operations cost is $42M, but by refining the schedules the cost may go down to about $40m.  Linda Goad has been told that she will have a budget of $37m, but this will also have to cover the cost of any ship lay-ups.  So the total budget for ship operations is roughly $35.5M 

 

The $5M included in the ONR FY06 request is not included in the UNOLS budget estimates.  John Freitag has indicated that if it authorized, it would be used for support of ONR projects on the Navy AGORS.  John also pointed that there are other items that have to be supported out of his Facilities budget (FLIP, CIRPAS, UNOLS, etc).  His funds to support ship time is actually about $8 - $9M.

 

There is still uncertainty in the NOAA budget estimate, but the most realistic view is represented in the slide projections.

 

The bottom line is that there is a lot of uncertainty in the budget and there are still programs that need to be scheduled.

 

Mike presented a slide showing ship days scheduled versus ship days available:

·        There is underutilization in all ship classes, but this is because of budget shortfalls and not ship time demand.

·        The Global ships are underutilized by one ship.

·        On the East Coast there is 1.5 ships over capacity.  No ships have time scheduled in the first part of the year.  Multi-ship operations mid year make it difficult to consolidate work onto fewer ships.

·        On the West Cost there are four ships available, but only 2.4 ships worth of time scheduled.

·        Most of the local vessels have fairly light schedules.

 

A slide was presented showing the operational days as compared to cost for the years 2002 to 2006.  Total operating days is less than 4000 days in 2006 as compared to greater than 5000 days in 2004.

 

Current projections of deferred ship time indicate 499 days for 2006 and 308 days for 2007.  In addition there are 1400 days pending from May panels that will not be approved for ship time in 2006.  Linda indicated that of the 1400 pending days, probably half would be declined.  Ship time requested in the May panels will be considered only if it makes the scheduler healthier, as an example, it would displace transits.

 

The potential for additional ship time was discussed.  The Navy $5M budget request seems promising and ONR managers are considering how it could be used.  NOAA is evaluating options for support of the DART moorings. They are considering commercial contractor support.  They will need flexible ship scheduling because of unknowns associated with the buoy construction timeline.  They will require ships with spacious aft working deck and crews to support this type of work.  It would be difficult for UNOLS to accommodate the DART time without dedicating a ship fully to the program.  Shannon McArthur (NOAA) has asked that UNOLS consider support of two mooring locations, A1 and A2, one is off Cape Verde and the other in the Caribbean.  Mike pointed out that there are UNOLS vessels in many of the areas where buoys are located. 

 

UNOLS Response to Larry Clark letter – The Ad-hoc committee of Marcia McNutt (Chair), Eileen Hofmann, and Denis Wiesenburg with assistance from Mike Price has drafted preliminary recommendations regarding fleet operations in 2006 and plans for ship lay-ups that will fit the budget realities and minimize impact on funded scientific programs.    Their draft recommendations were distributed to Council and UNOLS members prior to the meeting.  Most feedback has been favorable.

 

Marcia reviewed each individual recommendation and Mike Prince displayed the text on the web conference screen.  Revisions were made to the draft as it was reviewed.  There was considerable discussion as the draft was reviewed.  The draft text is provided below in italics and the associated comments/suggestions follow. 

 

Short term recommendations (2006 operating year)

Ø                  Issue: How many ships should be taken out of service in 2006 to meet the budget projections?

-              In the absence of additional funded work or an increase in the ship operations budget, there are not enough days next year to fully utilize all of the ships in the UNOLS fleet. Ship Schedulers and Agency Program Managers should develop scheduling options that lay-up the Alpha Helix, one intermediate-class vessel on the west coast, one intermediate-class vessel on the east coast and one global- or ocean-class vessel.  The Weatherbird II (as it is being replaced by the Seward Johnson II) should be retired from service and current plans to retire the Gyre should be carried out. NSF should make a determination regarding the optimal start date for the Marcus Langseth operations. Should the $5M for UNOLS operations that is currently in the Navy budget be appropriated, it would obviate the need to lay up the one global- or ocean-class vessel. A preliminary evaluation shows that there is little funded work for a regional-class vessel in Alaska, about two and a half ships’ worth of regional and intermediate work on the west coast, and about four ships’ worth of similar work on the east coast. There is around five ships’ worth of work for the global- and ocean-class vessels (not including Marcus Langseth). The local vessels all have light schedules, but laying these up does not save significant amounts of money and would leave many projects stranded.

 

Comments:

·        Mike Prince – Providing recommendations regarding lay-ups is proving difficult because of plans for multi-ship operations. 

·        The Council approved the wording of this item.

·        Linda Goad suggested changing “$5m …would obviate the need” to ““$5m …might obviate the need.”

·        Mike Price asked John Freitag to provide specific guidance to the schedulers regarding how Navy funds should be spent/scheduled.

 

Ø                  Issue: How should UNOLS deal with uncertain budgets for NOAA?

-              Schedulers should be careful to create schedules that do not leave the vessel stranded in remote locations or rendered unworkable by the lack of approval for funding a particular project.  All NOAA field work is dependent on Congress appropriating the budget requested by NOAA for each project.  In some cases, the requested budget is for an increase over the base budget for the program and is more vulnerable than the other scheduled projects.  Also, care should be taken to ensure that the total cost of a scheduled NOAA project is less than or equal to the proposed budget. Given the NOAA budget uncertainties, scheduling will need to be concluded without NOAA programs, while trying to retain some flexibility for inserting those programs at a later date when the agencies needs are certain. While this approach is not optimal for UNOLS or NOAA, it is the only fiscally responsible course of action unless the agency is willing to guarantee some level of UNOLS support.  

 

Comments:

·        Bruce Corliss – Can programs such as NOAA’s still be accommodated if submitted late during the scheduling process?  Mike Prince – Yes, but maybe not optimally. 

·        Peter Wiebe indicated that NOAA has been aware of this stance.

·        The Council accepted this section as written.

 

Ø                  Issue: Which ships should be laid-up?

-              The choice of actual ships to be laid up in 2006 should be made by Agency program managers based on criteria that maximizes the amount of field work accomplished within the budget, meets any ship specific science requirements, and fairly distributes the pain of lay-ups among operating institutions. The ship operators and schedulers working with the UNOLS office can provide scheduling options to choose from with associated financial models and analysis of scientific impacts. The UNOLS Council and this committee can also provide further recommendations about the relative merits or considerations for the specific options once they are developed.

 

Comments:

·        Marcia – Lay-up recommendations are best made by NSF working with the ship schedulers.

·        Mike Prince – A comment was submitted by David Farmer (URI) suggesting that ships with outside funding should be given special consideration when considering lay-ups.  These institutions could stand to lose the outside funding if they are laid-up. 

·        Linda Goad voiced concern over day rate increases.

·        Mike Prince – We want to make sure that we don’t discourage outside funding.  In lay-ups we should consider the outside funding.

·        Bill Martin added that if Thompson was laid up, there is a concern that their state support would be lost.

·        Peter recommended that text be added to this section that would take into consideration institutional contributions to vessel support and use of the ships by organizations outside traditional groups such as NSF, ONR, and NOAA. 

·        This section will be revised to reflect comments.

 

Ø                  Issue: What type of lay-up should be recommended?

-              The minimum number of ships should be put into cold lay-up for an entire year (as opposed to partial lay-ups for a larger number of vessels) with any required inspections or surveys delayed to the end of the lay-up period as part of the re-activation process.  Any shipyard periods should occur at the end of the lay up period unless scheduling at other times does not increase the cost of lay-up. Crew members and technicians should be employed on other UNOLS ships to the maximum extent possible.  Lay-ups should be considered temporary cost-saving measures. Efforts should be made to retain experienced crew or technicians and maintain the research vessel and its equipment. 

 

Comments:

·        A comment was submitted by Knox, et al regarding concern over the types of ship lay-ups and their impact on future operations.  It is good to try to save money, but the fleet should not be left with the scenario that it is difficult or impossible to reactivate the ship when needed.  Marcia recommended that this recommendation be redrafted so that it includes the need to maintain certifications during lay-ups. 

·        John Freitag has indicated that he prefers rotating partial lay-ups.  Marcia said that they received considerable input indicating that the partial, rotating lay-ups were not preferred since they did not save money.  There are significant costs associated with partial lay-ups.  John would like this to be referred to as a rotational “maintenance” instead of a “lay-up.” 

·        If the Navy supports the cost of rotational maintenance and they result in no increase to the ship day rate, NSF would likely be receptive it. 

·        This section will be revised to reflect Council comments.

 

1500    Break

 

UNOLS Response to Larry Clark letter (continued)

 

Ø                  Issue: Can the cost of operating UNOLS vessels be reduced?

-              Other methods for fleet-wide cost savings should also be explored thoroughly, but it is likely that many of these trends in increasing costs are outside the control of UNOLS operators.  Recent increases in the cost of fuel from commercial and Navy sources along with the costs and level of effort necessary to implement new regulations for vessel security, oil spill response, and International Safety Management (ISM) plans have caused increases in total operating costs and daily rates. Increased training and experience requirements for crew members and a competitive market for experienced crew, along with increasing costs of maintaining aging vessels to higher standards of readiness, have also contributed to these higher operating rates. Operators and the funding agencies should continue to explore methods such as group purchases, sharing crewmembers and the use of Navy fuel sources to help control costs. In 2006, a higher percenta