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:
- Approval of the 2005 Council Slate
- UNOLS Office Review and Competition
·
Annual Meeting plans
·
Establishing Safety
Standards for Human Occupied Vehicles (HOVs)
- National
Oceanographic Seismic Facility
·
FOFC Fleet Renewal
Update and FIC Fleet Improvement Plan Update
- UNOLS objectives, priorities and goals for 2005
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
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 percentage of ship time requests are for the larger, more
expensive Global class vessels, which keeps the total fleet costs higher
despite a dramatic decrease in total operating days. There does not appear to be, at this point in time, any incentive
for PIs to accommodate their science on smaller, less expensive research
vessels. NSF should explore whether or not such incentives are feasible. If
not, this trend towards the use of larger, more expensive vessels will need to
be accommodated in planning future operations budgets. It is not clear that any
of these methods will result in major savings, so it will be important to keep
operations budgets in line with the actual costs necessary to properly support
the funded seagoing science.
Comments:
·
Marcia
recommended that some of the ship operation costs associated with complying
with new homeland security regulation be examined to see if they and exemptions
could be requested.
·
Marcia doesn’t
see much creativity on the part of PIs to come up with ways to use smaller less
expensive vessels. Perhaps UNOLS could
work with NSF to provide more incentive for PIs to use smaller vessels.
·
Linda Goad
replied that NSF Program Managers know the ship costs associated with proposed
fieldwork. They have experienced the
scheduling process and sometimes move PIs to save funds.
·
Rose Dufour
commented she feels that there will be a decline is ship time requests (STRs)
because PIs think that proposals with ship time requests have less chance of
award.
·
Peter Wiebe –
There are many PIs who think critically about the appropriate ship for their
work.
·
Mike Reeve –
NSF is considering fleet wide cost savings measures. Some years back they conducted an Academic Fleet Review to
evaluate if they were spending their money in the best way. The Director of NSF, Dr. Bement has asked if
an independent review should again be carried out.
·
Linda Goad
remarked that the Europort study of UNOLS indicated that the Fleet doesn’t have
any incentive to save money since there is no competition. She feels that there is price fixing and
that operators consult with each other when developing operating costs. Linda added that the ship operation proposal
reviews indicate that there is too much shore support.
·
Mike Prince –
Should an outside group (non-operator and non agency rep) be asked to examine
the ship op proposals to provide recommendations on our cost structure. They could define what could be considered
legitimate cost items.
·
Cindy Van Dover
expressed concern about a lack of competition.
·
Bruce Corliss
feels that there is competition. In
lean times operators try to trim budgets.
·
Mike Prince
indicated that some operators are more concerned over costs than others. Those with non-agency funding have to try to
keep day rates low in order to attract outside work.
·
Marcia – This
item will need additional revision. The
recommendation should indicate that there are factors outside of our
control. But it should also indicate
that UNOLS should look at all cost factors.
We should also look at incentives for reducing costs.
Longer
term recommendations assuming level funding for next four years
Ø
Issue: Should
ships be permanently retired to meet the budget projections? NSF and
ONR in conjunction with FOFC fleet renewal planning should consider retiring
research vessels early based on a more thorough evaluation of past utilization
trends versus projected budgets for the next few years. If the decision is made to devote long-term
a proportion of the current operations budget as a facilities account for new
construction or if operational under-utilization is projected to continue, then
the standing UNOLS fleet will need to be smaller than the current fleet (e.g.,
some ships retired and not replaced). Alternatively, retirement dates could be
accelerated to devote the funds saved directly to fleet renewal. Once
construction is complete, those funds can be returned to support operations of
the new ships.
Comments:
·
Marcia – If future budget reductions persist, then
retirements should be considered. This
should be addressed by FOFC.
The review and discussion regarding the
UNOLS response to Larry Clark’s letter will be continued during Day 2 of the
meeting, as some Council members needed to sign-off from the meeting. Discussion on other UNOLS items continued.
Nominating Committee Report–
Bruce Corliss, Nominating Committee Chair, presented the draft 2005 Council
Slate. In addition to Bruce, the
Committee included Denis Wiesenburg and Eileen Hofmann. The draft slate is included as Appendix IV.
There are two Council positions open for elections and three candidates
have been selected to run in each position.
A motion was made and accepted to approve the 2005 slate as drafted.
UNOLS Office
Review and Competition – A subcommittee of Peter Wiebe (Chair), Margo Edwards, and Wilf Gardner
have been tasked with performing a review of the UNOLS Office and announcing
the opportunity for competition. Peter reported that he would draft a
letter to the membership explaining the NSF request for a review and
competition. The letter will announce
that operator institutions can compete on hosting of the UNOLS Office. The subcommittee will also review the
performance of the Office. If the
review is favorable, MLML will be asked to recompete as the host. Mike Prince displayed a copy of the draft
letter.
Bruce Corliss asked why
there were new NSF rules for the office.
Mike Reeve explained that this was not a rule that singling out the
Office. It is a recommendation from the
Academic Fleet Review (AFR) that all facilities be reviewed every five
years. NSF would like to comply with
the AFR recommendations. Peter Wiebe
commented that we should bring the UNOLS charter into alignment with the NSF
plans.
Mike Prince reported that
the Charter indicates that the Office should be regularly reviewed. The Charter specifies an Office review on a
regular interval and that the Office can be held by an institution for up to
nine years. It also allows two periods
of review and provides an opportunity for competing.
Mike Reeve would like to
ensure that there is the opportunity to compete every five years.
Peter stated that this is a
discussion that should take place at the next full Council meeting. He will edit the membership letter to comply
with the Charter.
Annual Meeting – The
meeting date is October 14th. Peter
Wiebe explained that he plans to contact Senator Sununu. He asked the Council if the Senator were not
available, would a Staff member be appropriate? Another suggestion was to contact Representative Wolf. The Council agreed that a member of the
Staff would be fine.
1640 Adjourn Day One
Day 2: Thursday, July 14th
Opening Remarks – Peter Wiebe re-opened day two of the
meeting. The meeting resumed with
review and discussion of the draft UNOLS letter to Larry Clark.
Longer
term recommendations assuming level funding for next four years
Ø
Issue: Should ships be permanently retired to
meet the budget projections? NSF and ONR in conjunction with FOFC
fleet renewal planning should consider retiring research vessels early based on
a more thorough evaluation of past utilization trends versus projected budgets
for the next few years. If the decision
is made to devote long-term a proportion of the current operations budget as a
facilities account for new construction or if operational under-utilization is
projected to continue, then the standing UNOLS fleet will need to be smaller
than the current fleet (e.g., some ships retired and not replaced).
Alternatively, retirement dates could be accelerated to devote the funds saved
directly to fleet renewal. Once construction is complete, those funds can be
returned to support operations of the new ships. Longer term issues –
should ships be permanently retired
Comments:
·
Eileen Hofmann –
expressed concerned that once a ship is retired, it cannot be brought back into
service. She worries about putting this
in the letter.
·
Denis Wiesenburg
indicated that retiring ships early could free money now.
·
Tim Cowles voiced
concern that there could be the impression that by retiring ships early we can
make due with a smaller fleet.
·
Marcia McNutt –
Perhaps we need to state that this recommendation is a result of budget
shortfalls, not demand on ships.
·
Mike Prince – Start
the recommendation by reminding that UNOLS and the scientific community have
recommended increasing the size of fleet, we are considering this only because
of budget shortfalls.
·
Wilf Gardner – Change
title so that it indicates early retirements as opposed to permanent
retirements.
·
Present options for
meeting budget shortfalls could include rotating lay-ups or early retirements
in the anticipation of new vessels coming on-line.
·
The paragraph could
start by explaining that a temporary reduction in fleet is only under
consideration in order to meet demands.
·
Linda Goad pointed out
that there has been precedence for taking ships off line early (Washington,
Thompson, Moana Wave).
·
Bruce Corliss – We
could take a more cautious approach. If
the timeframe for construction is known, it would be easier to take a ship
off-line early while new ships are constructed.
·
Peter Wiebe commented
that it would be difficult if Endeavor and Oceanus go offline at
the same time.
·
Bruce Corliss –
Retirement dates could be accelerated by one to two years, but access to
geographical region must be ensured.
·
Add the term “Or near
term operational deficits.”
·
Add that it will be
necessary for ship operations budgets to increase to support the future fleet.
Ø
Issue: How can UNOLS plan long term for
fleet size and composition?
-
Given the uncertainty from year to year in what
portions of the budget are devoted to research funding for ship time, science
support, and fleet renewal, long-term planning is difficult to achieve.
Ideally, the relative proportion of funding devoted to ship time versus science
support should be set such that funded proposals for field programs have
approximately the same panel and reviewer scores (averaged over the long term)
as those that do not include field programs. If NSF is not currently tracking
the relative success rates for these two classes of programs, it should be
tracked, and we recommend that this information be made available to UNOLS in
the future for planning fleet size. In addition, except under unusual
circumstances, PIs should not have to wait more that a year to execute funded
field programs. The proportion of the budget devoted to fleet renewal should be
set so as to meet the future demands as vessels are retired. To date, this
subcommittee has not seen the basis for determining the amount of the budget
devoted to fleet renewal to know whether the increased amounts currently
budgeted are sufficient or appropriate. In planning for new ships, an emphasis
needs to be placed on the future day rates of the ships in order to avoid the
natural tendency to want to upgrade the capabilities of each new ship
regardless of the overall balance in the fleet.
Comments:
·
Mike Reeve – NSF
doesn’t track proposal success. It is
complex and there are levels of reviews and various scores.
·
Marcia McNutt – How
does NSF decide on what is the appropriate percentage for ship operations
budgets as compared to science budgets?
·
Mike Reeve –
Traditionally, there has been a relative disconnect between the science and the
ship operations budgets. NSF has
traditionally tried to put all awarded proposals to sea. When they have had an excess in the ship
operations budget, the excess would be returned to science. Up until now, they haven’t been faced with a
shortfall in the ship operations budget.
·
Marcia McNutt –
Perhaps this section needs rewording. - UNOLS would welcome the opportunity to
work with NSF to make long-term projections.
·
Deb Kelley – There is
a perception among the science community that it is becoming more difficult to
get large programs funded, so PIs are starting to propose smaller
programs. Reduced ship time demand will
become self-fulfilling.
·
Marcia McNutt – If
oceanographers rely on ship time to obtain their tenure, there will be less
desire to follow the career path of a sea-going scientist.
·
Peter Wiebe – There
should be a look at how many requests were for ship time ten years ago and how
many of these were successfully awarded, as compared to the request and success
level now.
·
Marcia McNutt
commented that if there is a perception that chances of proposal success are
lower for sea-going requests, it doesn’t matter if it is a reality. Perhaps a survey should be sent to the UNOLS
member representatives asking that untenured faculty provide input on this
topic.
·
Bruce Corliss added
that recently tenured faculty be included in the survey.
·
Margo Edwards
indicated that this perception is very prevalent at RIDGE meetings.
·
Marcia McNutt -
Ideally young scientists should believe that their chances for successful
careers are equal whether they pursue fieldwork or laboratory based
research. UNOLS welcomes the
opportunity to work with NSF ensure that this is reality and the
perception.
·
Linda Goad commented
that the facility budget represents about 1/3 of the oceans sciences budget,
with the remaining 2/3 for science support.
Ø
Issue: What steps can UNOLS take to ensure
implementation of long-term fleet plans?
-
Recommendations in the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s report call for an increase in funding for
the ocean sciences and for maintaining a capable research vessel fleet. Discussions currently ongoing at CORE
and JOI are focusing on ways to advocate for Federal support to implement these
recommendations and on the necessity for fleet renewal to support other major
ocean research initiatives, such as observatories. UNOLS should work more closely with these organizations to ensure
coordinated long-term fleet planning and funding.
Comment:
·
UNOLS will work to
make fleet information more available to policy makers. Sections of the document that were reviewed
on Day 1 and earlier in the meeting were reviewed.
General Discussion:
Mike Prince pointed
out the high demand for large ships in 2006 is a result of the fact that most
of the deferred work from previous years is for large ship work. A lot of the requests for smaller ships come
out of the May panels, which are not being considered for scheduling in
2006. Rose suggested a footnote to
indicate this.
Mike Prince will make the revisions to the
recommendations to reflect the comments and suggestions raised during this
meeting.
A motion was made and passed to accept the Ad-hoc
committee recommendations as revised in this meeting (Gardner/Corliss).
Next steps:
·
Peter will complete a
cover letter to forward the UNOLS recommendations to Larry Clark.
·
Mike will distribute
the recommendations as a final revision to all UNOLS Member representatives and
committees). We will ensure that RVTEC
managers are included in the distribution.
·
Linda Goad requested
an electronic version of the recommendations so that they would be available at
the Ship Scheduling meeting.
Break
UNOLS Issues:
Post Cruise Assessment Committee - Curt Collins announced that an individual is needed
on the Post Cruise Assessment Committee to replace Dale Chayes. Peter Wiebe appointed Bill Martin to the committee.
Establishing Safety Standards for Human
Occupied Vehicles (HOVs)– Peter Wiebe
reported that at the spring DESSC meeting NSF expressed the
need to establish safety standards for HOVs.
His slides are included as Appendix VIII. Alvin, owned by the Navy, has always
been certified by the Navy. The
replacement HOV currently under design will not be Navy owned and will not be
Navy inspected. John Freitag explained
that the Navy only certifies their own vehicles. NSF has traditionally only supported submergence science HOV
programs that use Navy certified HOVs.
Dolly will send UNOLS a draft charge to establish HOV safety
standards. The safety standards should
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 a 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. It is a complex
issue and the effort might span two years.
National
Oceanographic Seismic Facility – Marcia McNutt reported that during
the last Council meeting the
draft terms of reference for a UNOLS standing committee, the Marcus Langseth
Seismic Oversight Committee, were presented.
At that time NSF expressed concern about the words regarding committee
scheduling responsibilities. The draft
has been revised to address these concerns.
The revised draft will be circulated for approval. Once the charge is finalized, committee
appointments can be made.
The terms of reference should be finalized by the end of August so that
it can be distributed at least 30 days in advance of the UNOLS Annual
meeting.
The ad hoc Committee will recommend their top choices for the standing
committee membership. Staggered membership
terms will be indicated. All MLSOC charter members could serve at least one
full first term.
Mike Reeve agreed with this plan.
Academic Fleet Renewal Activities and
Plans:
FOFC Fleet Renewal Update and FIC Fleet Improvement Plan Update - Dave Hebert reported that he and Peter have participated in FOFC meetings. The FOFC has developed a draft Long-Range plan document. It has not been released to the full FIC. FOFC and FIC have been working to make sure that the statistics between the two reports are consistent. FOFC has hired a technical writer, John Everett from Ocean Associates, to assist in writing and editing their document. They hope to have a final draft available for review by 1 August. FOFC has requested high-resolution pictures to include in their report. The UNOLS will send out a call to the ship operators for images.
Dave reported that the FIC has met and held phone conferences to discuss the UNOLS Fleet Improvement Plan update. Almost all of the science sections have been drafted and the Fleet trends and utilization figures are being finalized. The Committee hopes to have a draft version in October. The level of detail will be on the scale of the 1995 Fleet Improvement Plan.
Renewal Implementation – Brief written summaries of various fleet renewal implementation efforts were distributed to the Council prior to the meeting. The summaries are included as Appendix V. They included:
·
Regional Class Acquisition
·
Ocean Class Acquisition
·
Global SMRs
·
Ship Design, Construction, and Operational
Changes
§
BBSR plan’s to acquire Seward
Johnson II from HBOI and retire the Weatherbird II
§
R/V Hugh R. Sharp
§
GYRE Decommissioning Plans
Peter asked if there were any actions needed from
UNOLS regarding the Gyre retirement.
Mike Prince indicated that Texas A&M should send a letter to UNOLS
with notification that once Gyre is decommissioned.
A report on the R/V Marcus Langseth
conversion effort was provided by LDEO and is included as Appendix VI.
UNOLS
Briefing Package for Congressional Staffers - Peter Wiebe explained that a UNOLS briefing package would be useful
to explain what is UNOLS and what it does. His slides are in Appendix VII. The
package could explain Committee structure and tasks, a Fleet description and
distribution, and their decommissioning dates.
The status of the UNOLS fleet today in terms of current and near-term
funding shortfalls and consequences could be addressed. The funding status of design and
construction efforts could be included.
The briefing package could be used when approaching the Senate,
House and others.
Wilf suggested that we could coordinate with UCAR on the effort. Denis Wiesenburg suggested that the document
be a one-page glossy flyer. John Bane
recommended that aircraft be included in the flyer. Eileen Hofmann suggested that the brochure include information
about important discoveries made while working aboard the ships. Margo Edwards suggested that although USCG
icebreakers aren’t part of the UNOLS fleet, they should be included in the
package. Peter Wiebe will prepare a
draft package and send it to the Council when ready.
Break
UNOLS
STR/Scheduling Database - Mike Prince provided a brief status
report on the UNOLS database project.
Aaron Payne is working on the system.
The system is based on a sequel server database. The active server pages are still under
construction, but the Ship Time Requests are complete. Users will have one password to log into the
system. The system will be database
driven. Funds to support Aaron will
likely run out by the end of the year.
UNOLS objectives,
priorities and goals for 2005 – 2006
– Mike Prince reported that
last year’s objectives, priorities and goals are available at <http://www.unols.org/info/issues.html#objectives>. These should be updated on an annual basis.
They are used to tell the community where our focus is for the year.
They are also included in the UNOLS Office proposal. Mike reviewed the posted objectives and goals
and asked that the Council give them further consideration. He asked the Council to look at the 2004/05
objectives and let the office know what the objectives will be in the coming
year. He asked that input be provided
by the end of August. Each Council
member should send in two to three items.
Committee Reports – Committee Chairs provided written reports
in advance of the meeting. They are
included as Appendix IX.