UNOLS COUNCIL – Phone/Web Conference
Wednesday and Thursday, July 13 & 14, 2005, 1:00 pm – 4:00 PM EDT
(each day)
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
VI. R/V Marcus Langseth Conversion Update
VIII. Safety Standards for HOVs
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.
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