Draft
MEETING REPORT
UNOLS
ANNUAL MEETING
8:30 A.M., Friday, 14 October 2005
National Science Foundation, Room 1235
4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA
To obtain a pdf version of these minutes including all appendices, click here
The UNOLS Annual Meeting was held at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in Arlington, VA on October 14, 2005. The focus of this year’s meeting was fleet renewal and budget concerns. A keynote panel consisting of Dr. David Halpern, Office of Science & Technology Policy; Mr. Peter Hill, CORE, and Ms. Margaret Spring, Dept. of Commerce Subcommittee on Ocean, Fisheries, and Coast Guard provided their personal background information and then gave insight as to each of their organizations’ views on implementing the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s Recommendations. There followed a question and answer period. All reports/presentations from the Federal Agency representatives also revolved around budget issues.
UNOLS Council elections were also held. Robert Pinkel, UCSD/SIO was elected Representative at Large. Incumbent, Peter Ortner, UM/RSMAS was re-elected to a second term at Operator Representative. A Ballot Measure to approve a new UNOLS Standing Committee, the Marcus Langseth Science Oversight Committee (MLSOC) was also passed.
The UNOLS Annual Meeting was
held at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in Arlington, VA on October
14, 2005. The focus of this year’s meeting was fleet renewal and budget concerns.
A keynote panel consisting of Dr. David Halpern, Office of Science & Technology
Policy; Mr. Peter Hill, CORE, and Ms. Margaret Spring, Dept. of Commerce Subcommittee
on Ocean, Fisheries, and Coast Guard provided their personal background information
and then gave insight as to each of their organizations’ views on implementing
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s Recommendations. There followed a question
and answer period. All reports/presentations from the Federal Agency representatives
also revolved around budget issues.
UNOLS Council elections were also held. Robert Pinkel, UCSD/SIO was elected
Representative at Large. Incumbent, Peter Ortner, UM/RSMAS was re-elected
to a second term at Operator Representative. A Ballot Measure to approve a
new UNOLS Standing Committee, the Marcus Langseth Science Oversight Committee
(MLSOC) was also passed.
Peter Wiebe, UNOLS Chair, called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. Introductions were made around the room. The meeting agenda is included as appendix I and the attendance list is included as appendix II.
Peter then gave a brief overview of UNOLS activities over the past year (appendix III) including providing recommendations on budget shortfalls and the impact on 2006 ship use to the National Science Foundation (NSF).
In the area of fleet renewal, UNOLS conducted an evaluation of Ocean Class hull type alternatives and provided recommendations to the Chief of Naval Research (CNR) as well as participating in an extensive review and edit of the Regional Class performance specifications for NSF. The Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee (AICC) conducted a thorough review of the U.S. Coast Guard’s (USCG) icebreaker mission analysis and provided significant input to improve this study. Many of the other activities undertaken by UNOLS over the past year will be reported during this meeting.
Peter then introduced the keynote
panelists and the intent of the panel. Dr. David Halpern works in the President's
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and is a co-chair of the Joint
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) with Margaret Leinen
and Rick Spinrad. Mr. Peter Hill is a former Ocean Commission staff member
and is currently working with ADM Watkins and Leon Panetta on the Joint Ocean
Commission Initiative as well as working at the Consortium for Oceanographic
Research and Education (CORE). Ms. Margaret Spring is the Senior Minority
Counsel for the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee of the US Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, & Transportation.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's recommendations for a coordinated and
comprehensive national ocean policy "An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st
Century," were provided to the President and Congress one year ago. In
response, the Administration has developed the “U.S. Ocean Action Plan,” which
outlines immediate, short-term and additional long-term actions that provide
direction for ocean policy. Similarly, the U.S. Congress has conducted various
oversight hearings and is acting on important legislation designed to implement
many of the Commission's recommendations.
Peter Hill reviewed the key elements of the Ocean Commission recommendations
and provided a status of progress made to date. He also shared some thoughts
from the perspective of CORE.
David Halpern covered the
Administration’s structure for ocean science research, technology and education
within the Office of Science and Technology. He also discussed the President’s
response to the Ocean Commission’s recommendation in the Ocean Action Plan
as well as the Ocean Research Priorities Plan, currently under development.
Margaret Spring addressed how the Senate and Congress in general plan to implement the Ocean Commission recommendations, covering the role of the National Ocean Policy Study subcommittee and significant legislation in the works.
It is about one year since the
report was issued and many of the problems outlined in the report still exist
such as declines in Cod stocks, beach closures due to pollution and red tides.
Action taken to date has not addressed many of these issues and we are not
moving forward fast enough.
The Commission tried to
bring a sense of the value of the coastal regions to our economy. 50% of the
nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is generated in our coastal areas. Hurricane
Katrina showed that some poor planning and the lack of ecosystem based planning
can lead to serious problems. We need to move towards an ecosystem based management
plan and change the governance system for coastal and ocean areas. We also
need to include science in the decision making process and enhance stewardship
of the ocean. This means that we need to enhance science, infrastructure,
and double the research budget. We need a national ocean science research
strategy and a national science infrastructure strategy. We also need to improve
ocean education and literacy of the public.
The progress to date includes the Administration’s formation of the Cabinet level Committee on Ocean Policy and also the published Ocean Action Plan. This plan calls for the development of a National Ocean Science Research Plan and Implementation Strategy by December 2006. This will be the Administration’s roadmap for future ocean science research and the community will want to be involved in this drafting this strategy.
In the Congress, the Senate has some fifty bills in progress, a few have passed to the House but not many have been signed into law. We are in a time of a difficult political climate and there are many other pressing issues facing Congress at this time, which have taken their attention away from much of this proposed legislation. There are come critical bills that must be passed such as the NOAA Organic Act.\
At the same time, there has been some significant progress at the State and Regional level. California has created its own Ocean Council and intends to lead the way in coastal governance. Alaska has created an Ocean Policy Coordinator and several other states are considering or implementing similar actions. Support from these State and regional organizations will be critical to moving the ocean agenda forward.
Admiral James D. Watkins, chair of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Honorable Leon E. Panetta, chair of the Pew Oceans Commission have joined forces with the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative to promote and move the ocean agenda forward, using their respective reports recommendations. A few of the key issues that this joint initiative will focus on include:
• Doubling of the Ocean Sciences
budget including funding for the supporting infrastructure.
• Strengthen NOAA - Pass a NOAA Organic Act, (HR-50) that would officially
establish NOAA within the Department of Commerce and define its mission as
a lead civilian agency for the oceans and atmosphere.
• Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act.
• Urge the Senate to expeditiously provide advice and consent for United States
accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
• Strengthen the Coastal Zone Management Act and enhance our ability to preserve
coral reefs under the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000.
A question to consider is how
UNOLS and the UNOLS community fit into the process of defining the broader
strategies. The CORE Board of Governors met last week and high on their list
of priorities is the UNOLS Fleet. CORE will continue to provide a voice in
support of Academic Fleet Renewal. Admiral West is about to send forth a letter
in support of fleet renewal funding and operational support within the ONR
budget.
Dr. David Halpern continued the panel discussion. Dr. Halpern serves in the Science Division of the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). He is also a co-Chair with Margaret Leinen (NSF) and Rick Spinrad (NOAA) of the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST). The OSTP was created by an Act of Congress in 1976. Dr. Halpern explained the role of OSTP in setting our National priorities for ocean research and education and the actions being taken by the Administration to implement the "Ocean Action Plan". The OSTP advises the President on science and technology policies, plans, programs and budgets. They are the designated-chair of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). The NSTC leads interagency efforts to develop Science and Technology (S&T) policies, plans, programs and budgets. They establish goals for Federal investments in S&T, coordinate S&T through NSTC, and provide annual interagency guidance on priorities, with OMB. Dr. Halpern reviewed the NSTC organization structure.
The Administration's response to the Ocean Commission’s recommendations, the "Ocean Action Plan" was implemented by Executive Order 13366 to establish a Committee on Ocean Policy and develop the Ocean Action Plan. The Plan will work to develop strategies that conserve living resources, advance policy through the best science and data, and work towards an ecosystem-based approach in resource management. They seek enhanced coordination, collaboration, and synergies between Federal agencies, State and local governments, academia, industry, nongovernmental organizations. The principles for an Ocean Research Priorities Plan will be developed in an open and transparent manner. Dr. Halpern explained that Town Hall meetings and other open forums are planned in December 2005 and early 2006. These forums allow opportunity for community input and UNOLS should keep abreast of these opportunities. They will develop performance metrics on meeting national goals and identify areas of highest priority and opportunity. They are establishing pillars for the Ocean Research Priorities Plan that will identify gaps and deficiencies of knowledge for enhancing stewardship of ocean resources, advancing economic growth, improving national security, and promoting homeland security.
Dr. Halpern continued by discussing the governance of JSOST. Major governance areas include Ocean Observations, Ocean Infrastructure, Harmful Algal Blooms, Hypoxia and Human Health, Ocean and Coastal Mapping, Ocean Education, and Partnership Programs. Within the ocean infrastructure area, the task to develop a strategic plan for major infrastructure (ships, submersibles, ROVs, aircraft, observatories) is included.
Ms. Spring is involved in the
drafting of ocean related legislation and with the National Ocean Policy Study
(NOPS), which is a subcommittee of Commerce. She discussed how the Senate
and Congress in general plan to implement the Ocean Commission recommendations,
covering the role of the National Ocean Policy Study subcommittee and any
significant legislation in the works. She began by noting that it has been
a very busy year for the Government as they have had to respond to the natural
disasters. She indicated that the most important committee for UNOLS to focus
on is NOPS, which is chaired by Senator John Sununu (R-NH) and includes ranking
member Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). The re-creation of this committee is
a signal from the Senate of its high importance. They have the ability for
cross cutting other areas of the Government with subcommittee members who
are also members of the Appropriations Committee. The Senate has moved a lot
of legislation, but they will need to figure out how they can work with the
House. In 2005, the NOPS did not receive much attention because of other more
pressing issues. Hopefully in 2006, the second session, we will see more activity.
Questions and discussion:
Bob Knox – where are the roadblocks
or friendly forces within the House?
(Reply) There used to be an ocean and fisheries committee, now there are transportation
and resources and science committees. Resources include terrestrial resources.
Because of the splitting up of resources, every bill has to go to several
committees. If they can be dealt with simultaneously, then it is useful, but
this usually happens at the staff level. If not then there are roadblocks.
Also, House members cannot serve on authorization and appropriations simultaneously.
Dan Schwartz – why is UNCLOS
stuck in Congress?
(Reply) A few conservatives make the Senate leader nervous about bringing
it to the floor. It may require the President to request this directly of
the Majority Leader.
Mike Prince – asked about
the effectiveness and roll of the Ocean Caucus in the House.
(Reply) They have no real jurisdiction. They didn’t even have members on relevant
committees, but have moved to change this. Also, they need to put some focus
on individual legislation, instead of broad vision bills.
Dennis Nixon - asked about the
Magnusson Act (The Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976) re-authorization.
Margaret discussed some
of the details and political issues in creating this legislation as well as
the international aspects.
Peter Wiebe - Asked about
support for NSF funding.
Margaret said there is support for this in the Senate, but not sure where
it stands in the House.
David Halpern mentioned that understanding was a theme of the Action Plan and that this in fact cuts across and is part of all the themes. Also, under OMB divisions NOAA is under Commerce, while NSF, NASA and other science agencies are differently reviewed. Recommendation is that NOAA be put under the same umbrella.
Bruce Corliss - asked about whether
there was focus on ships in terms of support.
Margaret feels that it is considered as part of the view that infrastructure
is needed for research.
The Oceans Act of 2000 is a good piece of legislation. It requires an integrated report every two years about Ocean and Coastal activities report, with where money is being spent. This year’s report will come out any day now and we should look at it.
Agency Reports:
Larry began by recommending to
everyone that they read Mel Bricso’s article in Oceanography Magazine concerning
the Ocean Action Plan. He then went over staff changes at NSF. Larry Epp has
retired after 17 years of service. They will begin recruiting for someone
to take over his position. New people at NSF include Elise Ralph and Mary
Ellen Carr. NSF also plans to hire an environmental officer beginning in January
2006.
Larry then provided information on the proposed NSF budget. His slides are
included as appendix
IV. Because appropriation bills have not yet been passed
NSF is still operating under a continuing resolution. Their appropriations
bill is waiting the outcome of the conference committee. The proposed increase
for Ocean Sciences (OCE) in FY06 is 1.1% or about a $3.47M increase to $315M.
The total Geosciences budget increase is 2.2% with Atmospheric and Earth sciences
getting slightly larger increases because of new major infrastructure coming
online for those divisions.
Next, Larry showed the trends
of Geosciences and Ocean Sciences budgets and how they have spent their money
over the past five to ten years. The trend for all divisions of Geosciences
was to have steady increases in the early 2000’s and then to start leveling
off after FY03. Within OCE there was a large cut in FY05 following a record
year for facilities spending. The FY06 budget attempts to restore some of
the funding for research and education grants and keeps total support for
the Academic Research Fleet level. Within that flat budget there is a requirement
to spend more on new infrastructure, so for 2006 there will be about a $5M
reduction in OCE’s support for ship operations.
Larry showed the trends
of OCE spending by category over the last five years. Core research support
peaked in 2003 and is declining the last couple of years. Ship ops funding
peaked in 2004 and is now declining. A category that covers everything else
except drilling has been increasing and includes education, OTIC, BE, and
etc. At the same time that the budget for operations is flat or declining,
the day rates for large ships are going up dramatically due to fuel cost increases
and other factors. Also, NSF’s share of the total fleet operating costs has
been rising steadily while all other users of the fleet have remained relatively
constant. The challenge for schedulers this year was to stay within a budget
that was $5M less and this could well be the challenge for several years to
come.
Larry also presented slides showing
the alignment of NSF/OCE goals with the UNOLS goals, in particular fleet renewal
using the mid-size infrastructure account for Langseth, Alvin replacement,
and Regional Class research vessels.
What is ahead? – They were able to come close to meeting the 2006 budget.
NSF will be really challenged in 2007 with new, more expensive ships coming
on-line (Langseth and Sharp), unless there is a real increase in funding.
Beth White was unable to attend and so the presentation was given by Ralph Rogers. Ralph said that NOAA is also still under a continuing resolution. There is a wide disparity between the Senate and House budget marks. NOAA has a budget for about $12M in charters under the Senate version. NOAA Ocean Exploration (OE) has about $8M in charter, but this amount will probably go down with the advent of the Okeanus Explorer. NOAA Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis (DART) work will be a small part of UNOLS work in the future. NOAA is in the program planning stage for putting together future NOAA budget and charter plans.
Over the past few years, ONR
use of the fleet was around 700 days of ship time. In 2005 they were down
to about 500 days due primarily to programmatic requirement changes and not
budget. They are back to 700 days in 2006 and unless fuel goes through the
roof he believes that he can cover scheduled days with his budget. Every one
dollar change in fuel price corresponds to about a $3,500 increase in the
day rate.
Mike Prince mentioned that
NSF director provided some additional support with sweep up funds to help
cover the cost of fuel increases. Also, the Navy plus up for $5M is still
included in the House mark. Lastly, some attempts by the DART program manager
to contract for support has found very high prices, so they are coming back
to UNOLS for some possible support.
Future Ship Time Initiatives and Demand
Peter addressed the need to decide
if there were action items with respect to budget problems for UNOLS (appendix
V). Among other things we need to make accurate future fleet
use projections for fleet renewal planning recommendations. If you take 2006
utilization and project forward you get a much different answer than we do
using past utilization trends that have been the basis for our projections.
Also of great concern is the prospect of delayed access to sea. There appears
to be an increasing back-log of projects that are delayed a year or more in
getting scheduled. We need to talk about this. We need to study and understand
this more clearly. We need to consider what kinds of changes are needed to
alleviate these problems. It is not something that we are used to dealing
with.
Wilf Gardner mentioned that in the past we did see some deferred work, but this was usually for reasons other than budget. Bob Detrick thought we should dispel the perception that the success of proposals including shiptime is in a death spiral. It is important to get the message out to the community about realities, including showing that there is still a lot of work going to sea every year. Suggestions include using the UNOLS Newsletter, an EOS article, or an NSF letter. Carin Ashjian suggested other science organizations such as ASLO should be employed as well. She also said that it was important to emphasize the continuing need to write good proposals. Peter Ortner said that when we do this we need to be careful about how we explain that the various components are impacted to different levels. There was a consensus that we should work carefully with NSF to make sure we agree on what the delay really is and what it magnitude is. Larry Clark said that this has been a bit of a moving target, but no matter what, we should dispel the rumors and that there will be a healthy budget and a need to continue submitting proposals.
Mike Reeve reported that once the NAVSEA/NSF agreement is signed, ship designs for the Regional Class would take about a year to complete. The current timeline, indicates that award to the two design/build teams could happen in January 06, with a final design selection one year later in January 07. This will incorporate a bid for the actual cost to build the ships of about $25M. So it is hoped that construction of the first ship would begin in 2007. There was some discussion as to selection of ship operators. NSF’s default position is that this decision cannot be made until the NSF board has approved actual construction (late 2006/early 2007). Margaret Leinen will discuss this with the Board to see if there are alternatives.
Frank began by thanking UNOLS
for their help on the Ocean Class hull form selection process.
ONR is in the middle of a discussion between the Navy and the Congress about
how ONR funds research vessel construction. The Navy has twice helped to renew
the UNOLS fleet. But now, with the growth of NOAA and NSF in promoting the
civil side of ocean research (something the Navy used to do), and with the
rapidly changing world we live in, the Navy’s focus has also changed.
The question is, should funding be an infrastructure expenditure under the SCN funds or should it be under the research funding as infrastructure in the ONR budget? At present, the Navy fleet is about half its previous size and the Ships Construction Navy (SCN) fund is much smaller than it used to be.
$4M was put in the 6.1 account for design, which displaces some research funds. RADM Cohen has offset some of this with other funds. The $25M per year for construction would displace an unacceptable amount of research funding. Language in the Appropriations bill calls for the construction money to be in the SCN accounts. Defense appropriation bills might not come out until December. Only new starts are being impacted.
The House Armed Services Committee has asked ONR to prepare a report on the issue of the renewal of the Academic Research Fleet and what provisions the Navy will make for the Ocean Class Research Vessel. They also looked at the issue of using the basic research funding for the design and construction. They de-authorized the funds in the basic research account and re-authorized it in a higher level research fund. The Senate disagreed with this decision and said basic research funds could be used to do the design, but that it would be detrimental to fund the construction from research funds. They directed the Navy to look at funding the construction through SCN.
The appropriators in the House did not say anything about construction of new ships, but they added $5M for use of the UNOLS Fleet. The Senate appropriators included $4M for the design, but used the same language to express their displeasure with using research funds for construction.
In the appropriations conference – the $4M and $5M will have to be justified. What is not clear is that the President’s budget already included $4M for the design. So this needs to be resolved, because the $4M is included twice. Appropriations may not be finalized until December or January and the 2007 budget will be going up in January.
Every year in January the President
reveals the FY07 budget. The FY06 language could end up in the FY08 budget.
Frank says they have lost about a year and a half on the process. In the interim,
they have received a strong message from Congress about the value of the Academic
Fleet and the roll of the Navy in maintaining the infrastructure.
Bob Houtman commented that within the context of all the issues that have been discussed thus far, the Fleet Renewal Plan addresses these issues.
This new Plan has been in the works for over a year. The National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC) was briefed in July of what they had hoped would be a final draft plan in September. The principals involved sent back a number of comments that the FOFC group is now working to address.
Bob presented the slides shown at the Council (appendix VI).
The FOFC plan has moved forward with the agency plans as they are depicted now.
We need to have an ongoing specific outline in place for moving forward with construction plans and designs for new ships. This could also be seen as presumptuous especially when ships are being laid up.
There is also the potential for rapid reductions in the fleet if appropriations for planned and authorized vessels do not materialize.
Planning suggests that renewal is keeping up with aging fleets.
We need to punch up the message on why ships are needed. He has been working with Peter Wiebe and Dave Hebert on developing the draft.
Curt Collins emphasized that support for education needs to be included in the FOFC Plan.
Dan Schwartz commented that perhaps the 30-year lifespan should be revisited. It has a huge effect on the affordability of the ships. Bob Houtman noted that this is a good point. Question: Do the existing ships have an increasing day rate?
Marcia McNutt provided background
information on the ballot measure to form a new UNOLS standing committee to
oversee science and operations for the R/V Marcus Langseth as a National Oceanographic
Seismic Facility. The proposed terms of reference for the new standing committee
are included as appendix
VII. The recommended name for the committee is the Marcus
Langseth Science Oversight Committee (MLSOC). The membership voted to approve
this ballot measure.
Elections were also held
to fill two UNOLS Council positions. The Nominating Committee of Bruce Corliss
(Chair), Eileen Hofmann, and Denis Wiesenburg assembled a slate of candidates
for the UNOLS Council positions to be filled (appendix
VIII).
The following individuals were
elected to serve on the UNOLS Council:
• Peter Ortner, UM/RSMAS,
was elected to a second 3-year term as an Operator Member (from any UNOLS
Ship Operating Institution).
•Rob Pinkel, UCSD/SIO, was elected to his first 3-year term as Member-At Large
(from any UNOLS Institution)
Research Vessel Operators’ Committee (RVOC) – Tim Askew, RVOC Chair, provided the committee report (see appendix IX). The RVOC would normally be holding the Annual Meeting the month of October; however, at the 2004 Annual Meeting it was decided to change the date to April 2006. This one time delay will ultimately allow the membership to attend meetings during a less demanding time of the operating year, leaving the September through November window open for maintenance/overhaul planning, and proposal writing.
The 2005 year has been busy on several fronts. Group purchases of radars were handled by Oregon State University (OSU). This purchase provided Furuno radars to seven vessels. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has ordered Furuno Doppler Speed logs for eight vessels and due to the long lead time the Speed logs have not yet been received. WHOI also did a group purchase for life rafts. Stability reviews for all UNOLS vessels that don’t have a recent review in place is in the works by Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The plan will be to include eight vessels in 2005 and ten vessels in 2006.
The science van construction is progressing nicely with the East Coast pooled aluminum isotope van being completed along with the aluminum isotope van for the University of Rhode Island / Endeavor, and the steel general purpose van for a University of Delaware Scientist. Construction is in progress on the WHOI aluminum hydro van and scheduled to begin on a 10 foot isotope van for University of Minnesota / Blue Heron.
Regulatory issues still remain high on the RVOC list even thought the deadlines are long past and all the effected vessels over 500 GRT now have Vessel Security Plans (VSP), port facilities have Facility Security Plans (FSP) where required, and Non-Tank Vessel Response Plan (NTVRP) for vessels over 400 GRT. The NTVRP in some cases is still being reviewed by the U.S. Coast Guard but the vessels have a provisional letter in the interim.
The Spring RVOC Meeting Agenda is currently under development with crew retention and soaring fuel costs being hot topics. The meeting will be hosted by the University of Washington in Seattle. The meeting dates are April 25 through 27, 2006.
Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC) - Dave Hebert reported on the many FIC activities over the past year. His slides are included as appendix X. Much of their focus has been on Fleet Renewal activities. Over the past year, FIC provided input to NSF on the Regional Class ship in regard to UNOLS Team representatives and Performance Specifications. FIC also provided input to ONR regarding the Ocean Class. UNOLS provided a recommendation that the hull form be a monohull in February 2005. Another activity that FIC is involved in the development of general purpose Global Vessel Science Mission Requirements (SMRs). Three of the Global ships are approaching the age that –Mid-Life refits are often carried out. The SMRs could provide guidance on some of the upgrades that could be considered during refits. A Global Class SMR Steering Committee has been formed and the Chair –is Bruce Howe (UW). Their tasking is to produce a Global Class general-purpose SMR document. As a follow-on activity they could incorporate heavy lift considerations, and seismic capabilities. Additional information about the project is available on the web at <http://www.unols.org/committees/fic/global/global_smr.html>. An upcoming activity is to conduct a community on-line survey to identify global ship facility needs. Community input is requested.
Dave reviewed the Table of Contents for the UNOLS Fleet Improvement Plan that is under development by FIC. He also showed a chart of the current fleet versus the fleet of 2020. By 2020, there will be fewer ship days available than current utilization.
Other FIC activities include:
• Provide input to FOFC Long-Range Fleet Renewal Plan.
• Establishing ADA Guidelines.
• Ocean Observatories – Keep abreast of ORION Facility Needs
• Kilo Moana – Follow-up on issues previously identified - FIC Chair and University
of Hawaii discussions are planned.
One position on FIC will open in January 2006. A Call for Nominations will
be announced. Volunteers are needed.
United States Coast Guard (USCG) – Jon Berkson reported that the future course of the Nation’s icebreaker fleet would be determined in the next year or so. Booz Allen Hamilton drafted a Science Mission Needs Analysis Report. The report is in its final review. Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is conducting a study on the need for USCG icebreakers. An interim report from NAS is expected in late November 2005 and the final report is expected in mid-2006.
Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee (AICC) – Carin Ashjian, co-Vice-Chair, provided the AICC report. Slides are included as appendix XI. The USCGC Healy has completed her 2005 science field season of three research legs and is transiting back from the Eastern Arctic with port calls in Tromsø, Norway (Sept. 20-Oct. 4) and Dublin, Ireland (October 10th). After two highly successful cruises for the National Science Foundation and NOAA’s Ocean Exploration Initiative in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, with science personnel transfers in Barrow and a port call in late July in Dutch Harbor for refueling and to embark a new science party, Healy set sail for her final 2005 scientific mission, the transect of the Arctic Ocean. This third research leg involved a combination of detailed sampling and coring at specific sites and geophysical data acquisition using a seismic streamer and the ship’s hull-mounted mapping systems during the transits between coring sites. Healy met up with the Swedish Icebreaker Oden on September 1 in the northern Canada Basin and transited to the North Pole, reaching the Pole on September 12 (Healy’s second visit to the Pole). Upon leaving the Pole, the ships encountered heavy ice that seriously slowed their progress and limited the opportunities for science. Despite the difficulties encountered with the ice, all of the 2005 science missions were successful. The new laboratory layouts installed prior to the field season have received positive reviews from science participants on all three 2005 legs. Healy is scheduled to return to Seattle in early December.
At the request of the National Science Foundation, AICC has extended its efforts to improve Healy performance through the debriefing process. Since Healy’s first surveys, AICC members have joined principal investigators and Healy personnel in teleconferences to discuss the ship’s performance during each individual field program. Suggestions for improving the ship and crew’s operations were discussed verbally and recorded in the debrief notes, but no effort was made to formalize the recommendation process. Beginning with the 2004 field season, AICC members prioritized the list of recommendations that resulted from the teleconferences and forwarded this list to the Healy’s captain, the NSF and USCG HQ for further action. At the AICC meeting in December the prioritized list of recommendations from 2004 will be discussed in an effort to monitor how well the recommendations of the science parties are being addressed.
The news continues to be less favorable for the POLAR Class icebreakers. Some funds (~$48M) have been obtained to initiate repairs to the engines of the Polar Sea. Polar Star completed repairs from damage incurred during the 2005 Deep Freeze in Antarctica, but the NSF has contracted the Russian icebreaker Krasin to support the 2006 McMurdo Station breakout, with the Polar Star serving as backup. Ice conditions near McMurdo Station are quite light this year. The present plan is for Polar Star to head south from Seattle in November, but as soon as Krasin is able to complete the break-in, Polar Star will return to Seattle.
In early August, the USCG and the NSF signed a Memorandum of Agreement outlining the terms for funding and scheduling the USCGC icebreakers for NSF science. The issue of the US icebreakers continues to be discussed. A National Academy Sciences Panel has been convened on the “Assessment of US Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Roles and Future Needs”. The Chair of the AICC, Margo Edwards, will speak to the panel via teleconference at their next meeting (November 3/4). The Coast Guard science mission needs analysis report commissioned by the Coast Guard from Booz Allen Hamilton has been completed and delivered to the Coast Guard. At the request of CDR Tom Wojahn, the AICC reviewed both the initial and revised versions of the report. Many science users contributed to the report either through interviews or through web-based surveys.
The AICC has no new members this year, but will replace three members (outgoing chair Margo Edwards, Dr. Robert Bourke and Dr. Peter Minnett) at the end of next year. The next AICC meeting is scheduled to take place December 12th and 13th in Seattle, WA.
DEep Submergence Science Committee (DESSC) – Annette DeSilva reported on DESSC activities, 2004/2005 Alvin and ROV operations, and National Deep Submergence Facility equipment/instrumentation upgrades (appendix XII). Annette began by reporting that Deb Kelley, DESSC Chair, could not attend the Annual Meeting because she as at sea aboard the Thompson. Her cruise, VISIONS ’05 - Expedition to the Underwater Volcanoes of the Northeast Pacific, has had many highlights. The project included operations with ABE and Jason II and a high-definition underwater video camera. John R. Delaney and Deborah S. Kelley (UW) were the co-chief scientists. VISIONS ‘05 featured the first real-time broadcast of high-definition video from the seafloor.
Since last year’s Annual Meetings, DESSC has met twice, once at the DESSC Annual community meeting in San Francisco on December 12, 2004 and then again on June 13-14, 2005 at WHOI. During these meeting they heard reports from vehicle science users, Agency representatives, and the NDSF Operator. The learned the status of the NDSF Vehicle operations, tools and upgrades.
An activity that NSF and NOAA have tasked DESSC with is to establish safety standards for Human Occupied Vehicles (HOVs). The DESSC will form a subcommittee to carry out this task. The safety standards will address certification of the vehicle, certification of the ship, and training (vehicle and ship crew). Potential members of the subcommittee include a RVOC Safety Committee representative, HOV operators from WHOI, HBOI, and HURL, HOV pilots, Marine Superintendents, and science users. Input from the Navy and legal counsel would likely be required. This effort might span two years.
DESSC is also working to establish criteria for bringing new assets into the NDSF. In anticipation of the development of new deep submergence assets (ROVs, AUVs) and the potential requests for these assets to be included in the NDSF DESSC is drafting the criteria. At the June DESSC meeting, DESSC reviewed the draft criteria. Once the draft has been finalized, it will be circulated to the agencies, then the NDSF operator for comment. Pending revision, the draft criteria will be sent to the UNOLS Council for approval.
Annette presented slides showing the geographic area of requests for Alvin and the ROVs. Demand for Alvin is high and there is interest to continue work in the traditional research areas. Interest in using the Jason II and the towed vehicles is also high. Work areas include the Atlantic, off Hawaii, East, West, and South Pacific.
The Replacement HOV project is proceeding with a two-phase approach. Progress will be evaluated at the end of Phase One, which includes feasibility testing for prospective energy system, qualification testing for syntactic buoyancy foam, preliminary vehicle design for sphere attachments, and design and forging of the personnel sphere. Phase two (completion of sphere and final vehicle fabrication/testing) will proceed based on the review. The anticipated vehicle final assembly is 2008 and testing/technical support would take place in late 2008. In mid-2009 the vehicle could begin support of science programs.
The Hybrid ROV (HROV) project is underway at WHOI with expected testing and trials of the vehicle system in late 2006.
In DESSC membership news, Dave Mindell completed his second term in September. Nominations are needed to fill his position.
Lastly, DESSC will hold their
winter community meeting on Sunday, December 4, 2005 in San Francisco.
Research Vessel Technical Enhancement Committee (RVTEC) – Bill Martin, RVTEC
Chair, report on activities in 2004/2005 and plans for the 2005 RVTEC Annual
Meeting to be hosted by Oregon State University. His slides are contained
in appendix
XIII. The annual RVTEC meeting was held November 3-5, 2004.
Rob Walker of the Florida Institute of Oceanography at the University of South
Florida hosted the meeting. Highlights of the meeting included reports from
UNOLS, NSF, NOAA, ONR, US Coast Guard, FIC, AICC, RVOC and RVOC Safety Committee.
Vessel replacements for the R/V Ewing and Cape Henlopen were presented as
well as an update for the new Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV). Various
technical and instrumentation topics relative to our community were discussed.
Presentations regarding collating installation data and performance information
from vessel mounted ADCPs, current and future installations of the HiSeasNet
satellite communication system, SeaWave communication system, dragging for
a lost mooring, and towed vehicles supported within the RVTEC community were
given, to list a few.
Ongoing issues and topics of discussion included:
INMARTECH 2006 – Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution will host the conference in the fall of 2006.
Defined Level of Service In 2002 RVTEC created a subcommittee to address a problem that the UNOLS Council had presented to the RVTEC chair. The problem was the inconsistency of levels of support and instrumentation science users are confronted when utilizing different vessels within UNOLS. UNOLS requested a means of standardizing the support between platforms. The subcommittee worked during the next year and came to one conclusion; neither this subcommittee nor RVTEC could mandate what instrumentation or level of support institutions must provide. The committee then focused their work on how to present the information each institution publishes so users could easily compare, review, and access the data for cruise preparation. In 2004 the outline was groomed and is now awaiting web-based development. The technical services outline was reviewed. Each institution will complete the outline with their information. Users preparing to go aboard a particular ship can then click on a pull-down link and be taken to that vessel’s support information. Once the web-based development is completed this outline will become an integral part of the UNOLS Data Information System under development.
HiSeasNet - The HiSeasNet
Earth Station is maintained at the Scripps Institute of oceanography. Current
C-Band links through the Pacific satellite (an IntelSat IS-701) to the R/V
Revelle, R/V Melville, R/V Thompson, R/V Atlantis and R/V Kilo Moana. The
R/V Knorr is linked through an Atlantic satellite. Shore-to-ship bandwidth
is 160 kbps and each ship has 96 kbps bandwidth ship-to-shore. Additionally
a Ku-Band antenna is operational with the R/V Endeavor running on this satellite.
Future C-band additions include the R/V Langseth and Seward Johnson and Ku-Band
on the R/V New Horizon.
Safe Working Loads -
During the 2004 RVTEC meeting the ‘Safe Working Loads’ topic was addressed.
It was the consensus of the RVTEC Group that this issue should be addressed
by the RVOC Safety Committee. During the spring UNOLS Council meeting this
year RVTEC asked for UNOLS to assist RVTEC to have the Safety Committee address
this issue. RVTEC is confident progress will continue and the RVOC Safety
Committee will address this issue.
SCOAR Appointment - Steve
Hartz from the University of Alaska was appointed as the RVTEC representative
to SCOAR. He attended his first SCOAR committee meeting in April 2005.
The meeting concluded after determining that Marc Willis of Oregon State University
will host the 2005 RVTEC Meeting on November 8-10. The agenda is posted on
the UNOLS website and major discussion topics include:
• INMARTECH 2006 planning
• Seismic Operations Discussion - Permitting, observers, other requirements
• ADCP Update
• Defined Levels of Technician / Instrumentation Support Update / Equipment
Inventories
• Wire Terminations
• Email and Data Downloading
• Vendor Calibrations in PDF Format
• Impeller anemometers versus heated sonic anemometers
• Shipboard Data Acquisition Systems - What is out there? - Dale Chayes
• Show and Tell Period
• Tours:
o WET Labs Facility
o OSU Marine Facilities and Research Vessels
o NOAA Facilities in Newport, OR
• RVTEC Manager's Roundtable Discussion
The 2006 RVTEC Meeting will be hosted by Barrie Walden at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution in conjunction with the INMARTECH 2006 conference.
Ship Scheduling Committee
(SSC) – Rose Dufour, SSC co-Chair, reviewed ship-scheduling issues
over the past year including agency budget shortfalls and their impact on
ship schedules. Her slides are included as appendix
XIV.
The Ship Scheduling Committee held its July and September meetings in order
to move towards viable 2006 operating schedules. Just prior to the summer
scheduling meeting, ONR advised large ship schedulers that NSF and ONR had
come to an agreement to use rotating extended maintenances periods in homeport.
This would help absorb some of the monetary shortfall in the 2006 ship budgets
for Navy owned AGOR ships rather than “laying-up” these vessels. This changed
the momentum of efficiently scheduling ships and anticipating full schedules
for all but one or two, back towards re-distribution of work on all AGOR Class
vessels. The schedulers were instructed to prepare schedules for the Global/Ocean
Class vessels with approximately 200-225 days.
A large portion of the shortfall in funds and ship days will fall upon intermediates and regional class vessels in 2006. Alpha Helix will be in lay-up status, while, Marcus Langseth, Oceanus, Endeavor, New Horizon and Wecoma are working on the premise of partial lay-ups. Many other vessels are operating well below optimal utilization. Some institutions will receive a monetary supplement from NSF to help with crew retention.
In 2006 there are 3,829 operating days scheduled. Rose presented a chart showing the operating days by agency. The next chart shows 2006 utilization after lay-ups by region. The lay-ups represent planned and partial lay-ups. A chart showing the estimated operating costs versus estimated budgets indicates that the estimated costs are still slightly higher than available budgets for NOAA, ONR and NSF.
The schedulers are working on their 2006 ship schedules. Large ship schedules still have questions, which can only be resolved with the final congressional appropriations for the Navy’s plus-up and NOAA ship charters. During the September scheduling review, NOAA may have underestimated their ship/ROV costs. The net result will be a reduction of NOAA time to fit within their projected budget. Schedules are slowly moving from the Letter of Intent to posted preliminary 2006 schedules for public viewing. The 2006 UNOLS Ship utilization indicates that almost the entire fleet will be operating below their Full Optimal Year levels. A pie chart showing percent operating days by agency indicates that NSF will fund 55% of the days, Navy 19%, and NOAA 17% of the days. In 2006 the estimated cost for operating the fleet is $77M (ship and technician costs). NSF will provide 61% of the funding support; while Navy and NOAA will each provide 16%.
A chart showing fleet utilization from 2000 to 2006 shows a sharp decline in the number of funded days in 2006. The Navy and NOAA days have remained relatively level over the last few years, but the NSF days are down 1000 days since 2004. Unfortunately, the decline in ship days has not resulted in a reduced cost. Instead, fleet costs rose sharply in 2006. Increased fuel costs and the added costs associated with new regulations and security measures have contributed to the high costs.
Rose commented on some miscellaneous scheduling items. Some activity has occurred for UNOLS to play a small role in DART deployments in 2005/2006. NOAA/NDBC has taken a stance that once schedules have been developed, then they can better decipher opportunities to insert work for deployments, turnarounds, and repairs. The status of the Navy UNOLS $5M remains in the House bill. Thus at conference it is likely, though not guaranteed to survive. The NSF director provided OCE with approximately $3M to cover increases in fuel costs, which will help prevent deferring even more field programs into 2007. Despite large ship availability, some NSF programs have been moved to non-UNOLS ships in order to capitalize on savings realized by using regional assets.
Next Rose discussed 2007 scheduling.
There are already a significant number of funded and deferred requests for
2007. The total 2007 funded NSF days is close to the level of days that were
supported in 2006.
Ship scheduling has become a year-round activity.
Scientific Committee for
Oceanographic Aircraft Research (SCOAR) – John Bane, SCOAR Chair
report on the committee’s activities in 2004/05 and major initiatives for
the future. His slides are included as appendix
XV. John provided a list of the SCOAR membership. SCOAR
activities completed and planned include:
• Drafted a white paper on how aircraft can and should support ocean sciences.
• Draft a letter to the ocean science community asking for feedback on aircraft
requirements and current and future uses of them.
• Create a feedback questionnaire as a companion to the letter.
• Develop plans for a workshop with aircraft operators and ocean science users
(and perhaps other science users) and funding agencies.
John showed a series of slides, “Visualizing the Coastal Ocean and Atmosphere.” This was a recent exercise. The charts represent seven hours of aircraft time.
Recognition of departing
Council and Committee members - Peter Wiebe recognized the individuals
who are completing their service on the UNOLS Council and Committees (appendix
XVI). They included:
• Council: Denis Wiesenburg, UAK
• DESSC: David Mindell, MIT
• RVTEC: Steve Poulos (Vice Chair), UHI - 2nd term ends 11/05
On-going Design and
Construction Efforts:
Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV) Design status and funding -
Denis Wiesenburg (University of Alaska) reported on the status of the ARRV.
His slides are contained in appendix
XVII. Denis began by reporting on the type of waters that
the ARRV would service. Alaska has a huge coastline with nasty weather. A
ship capable of operating in that climate is needed. The ship design has been
completed and calls for a ship length of 236 feet, a beam of 48 feet, and
draft of 18 feet. The cruising speed is 12 knots with an endurance of 44 days
with an ice capability of 2.5 ft at 2.5 knots. The ship can accommodate 26
scientists.
Denis gave a recap of the timeline
to date:
• Scientific Mission Requirements - April 2001
• Concept Design – Aug 2001
• Model Testing – April 2002
• Preliminary Design – Jan 2003
• Construction Design – July 2004
• Design Submitted to NSF – December 2004
Tasks remaining before construction includes the final design spiral, updated science instrumentation, enhance ADA configuration, and an updated science justification. Plans are underway to upgrade the Seward Marine Center to support the ARRV. They feel that an all weather dock, a dedicated warehouse, shops, and administrative offices are needed. Denis showed a sketch of what the new facility would look like along with a timeline for construction of the dock and ship.
R/V Hugh R. Sharp replacement of Cape Henlopen - Matt Hawkins (University of Delaware) provided an update on the R/V Hugh R. Sharp. His slides are included as appendix XVIII. Cape Henlopen retired from service on October 2005. The new ship will be delivered to Florida in early December 2005. A cross-decking and final outfitting period will take place between December 2005 and February 2006. Sharp is scheduled to begin operations in late March 2006 following NSF Inspection and final test & trials in Lewes, DE.
Preliminary Acoustic Trials were conducted in September 2005 in Puget Sound. Extensive airborne, vibration, and underwater radiated noise measurements were made while the vessel was underway. The underwater radiated noise goal is to stay below the ICES curve at 8.0 knots. Preliminary results appear to be excellent and significant propeller cavitation does not appear until ~10.0 knots. There was a 60 dB reduction in gen-set noise transmission to the hull from the double-stage raft. The only machinery excess is “gear mesh” tone from the Z-drives. This is to be remedied by adding additional noise treatments to hull in motor room. Formal acoustic trials are planned for late October at Dabob Bay near Seattle. Matt showed ICES curve charts in comparison to the noise measurements from Sharp.
Matt reported that the CTD handling system has been acquired from Caley Ocean Systems. This is a “Next Generation” system based on the results of the UNOLS Load Handling System Study. It is an all-electric AC winch. The system features motion compensation and a docking head with “auto-tension” capability to capture the science package. Delivered is planned for January 2006. Matt showed a picture of Sharp on the day of its launch, July 16, 2005.
R/V Marcus G. Langseth Conversion - John Diebold (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory) reported on the status of the Langseth Conversion. His slides are includes as appendix XIX. Langseth has been in port at SYNESCO Shipyard in Quonset Point, RI awaiting the decision of which shipyard will conduct the conversion. While at the SYNESCO shipyard, LDEO has been carrying out dockside removals of some of the winches.
John displayed a sketch of what the ship would look after conversion. There will be space for 100 OBS storage and handling. A bottom sketch of the ship shows a 1 x 1 degree Kongsberg multibeam system. The ship includes a mammal observation tower. The principal mission for R/V Langseth is multichannel seismic work. It will have a multistreamer 3D capability and linear source arrays. There are now three management and national oversight groups for the facility: the Ewing Replacement Oversight Conversion Committee (ERROC), the Marine Operations Working Group, and the UNOLS Marcus Langseth Science Oversight Committee (MLSOC). A timeline of the conversion effort indicates that the ship would be ready for science operations in the fall 2006.
John showed a map of pending projects for Langseth. Work areas include off Bermuda, off Alaska, the Equatorial Pacific, the South Pacific and Western Pacific.
As a final note, John reported that R/V Ewing has been sold.
2005/2006 UNOLS Goals and Priorities - Peter Wiebe presented the 2005/2006 UNOLS Goals and Priorities as established by the UNOLS Council. The UNOLS Charter was originally adopted in 1972 and serves as the bylaws and guiding document for operation of the organization. The introduction and objectives underscore the overall purpose of UNOLS. In recent years, the UNOLS Council has adopted a vision and mission statement and over-arching goals. Prior to the fall Council meeting, major issues were suggested by members of the UNOLS Council and Committees and by UNOLS representatives. These issues have been compiled into the list of goals and priorities for 2005/2006 and are contained in appendix XX and listed below. The appendix also contains a summary of the suggestions and comments that were received regarding the priorities.
UNOLS Vision and Mission
Statement
• Vision - A healthy and vigorous United States research
and education program in the ocean sciences requires broad access to the best
possible mix of modern, capable and well-operated research vessels, aircraft,
submersibles and other major shared-use facilities.
• Mission - UNOLS provides a primary forum through which
the ocean science research and education community, research facility operators
and the supporting Federal agencies can work cooperatively to improve access,
scheduling, operation and capabilities of current and future academic oceanographic
facilities.
Goals
• Promote broad, coordinated access to oceanographic research facilities
o Maintain a system and procedures that facilitate and promote broad access
to research vessels and other major ocean science facilities.
o Support coordinated, efficient and effective scheduling of research vessels
and facilities.
• Support continuous improvement of existing facilities
o Foster co-operation among facility operators, funding agencies and research
scientists with the goal of continuously improving the quality and capability
of existing ocean science facilities and the quality, reliability and safety
of their operation.
• Plan for and foster support for the oceanographic facilities of the future
o Provide leadership and broad community input to the process of planning
for and supporting the improvement, renewal and addition of facilities required
to support the ocean sciences in the future.
2005/2006 Important Issues and Objectives
• Fleet Renewal - Support the implementation of existing
FOFC plan, vessel design efforts and funding for new ship construction.
• Facilities Improvement Planning - Update the UNOLS Fleet
Improvement Plan with respect to the current and projected status of other
major facilities and with respect to the interaction between fleet renewal
and fleet midlife refits etc.
• Scheduling - Make the best use of existing vessels, in
light of financial limitations and prior commitments restricting ship availability
in 2006 and beyond and look at the possibility of new scheduling paradigms.
• Communications - UNOLS is in a unique position to communicate
between the scientific user, support facilities, and funding agencies. UNOLS
should strive to improve communications and interactions between these three
groups regarding major facility issues
• Facilities improvement - Promote and assist with planning
for new types of facilities for ocean sciences such as ROVs, AUVs, Aircraft,
UAVs and observatories.
• Permitting - Support efforts for improving the processes
for obtaining permits related to research cruises.
• Education and Outreach - Support and promote shipboard
capabilities to facilitate
public education and outreach by scientific users, educators and facility
operators.
• Balancing the impacts of increasing costs – work with the
community to establish the appropriate balance between available resources
and the level of support required to support quality operations.
• Regulatory Impacts - the burden in time and money imposed
by new regulatory requirements with regard to safety, security, conservation,
and environmental impact have affected the cost and capabilities of ships
in the UNOLS fleet. Work with the funding agencies to find support, resources
and relief with regard to these requirements including the facilitation of
cooperative UNOLS-wide solutions wherever possible.
• Personnel - Technical and Marine - finding, recruiting
and retaining qualified, technically literate personnel to operate our ships
and instrumentation is an increasing challenge for the member institutions,
which needs to be addressed cooperatively by UNOLS institutions, agencies
and the maritime/technical training industry.
Issues Before UNOLS -Various UNOLS activities and issues of interest to UNOLS Members have arisen during the year. Peter Wiebe provided a summary of these issues (appendix XXI):
UNOLS Office Review and Competition – Peter Wiebe explained that NSF requested that competition for hosting the UNOLS Office be made about every five years to be consistent with how other similar Cooperative Agreements for facilities and offices are conducted. If the Office was not awarded to another institution then a review of the current Office would be made. This was the first formal review ever made of a UNOLS Office. An ad hoc subcommittee was assembled comprised of Peter Wiebe (Chair), Margo Edwards, and Wilf Gardner. An e-mail message was then sent out to all the UNOLS Institutions asking if anyone was interested in competing to host the UNOLS Office. Only three responses were received, none offering to compete. A review of the Office then followed. All Council members were asked to complete a survey and the results were then compiled. Sixteen (16) out of 18 Council members responded. Peter presented a histogram showing the results. The average score was 1.2 showing the UNOLS Office doing an excellent job. Based on this evaluation, the Council approved a motion to endorse MLML to host the UNOLS Office for a third 3-year term.
Shipboard Over-the-Side Handling Systems – The goal of the workshop was to develop a conceptual design for the “next-generation” over-the-side load handling system (LHS) for the UNOLS Fleet. Committee members included Matt Hawkins, Chair, Tom Althouse, Andy Bowen, Marc Willis, and Jim Holik. It was a one-year effort joint-funded by NSF and ONR. It focused on ship visits and field evaluations of existing systems. They were tasked to address:
• Loading Handling System design
standards
• Incorporation of “Next-generation” UNOLS wire
• “Next-generation” science packages
• Motion compensation
• “Hands-free” deployment and recovery
• Size/Weight: “Scale-able” to different vessel classes
The LHS Workshop addressed handling moderately sized, fairly common, science packages over the side and stern (examples - CTDs, AUVs and ROVs, Scanfish and Triaxis, MOCNESS). It does not address, or attempt to replace, the stern A-frame. The LHS also does not address, or attempt to investigate, highly specialized or large handling systems like long coring.
The report describes the handling apparatus and winch systems. The handling apparatus in general is an articulated crane. There are three different arrangements: “Aft Deck,” “Side,” and “Overhead.” They should be able to reach very near the water surface. The winch may be electric or hydraulic depending on vessel. It may be direct pull or traction depending on vessel and use. The winch should be co-located with the handling apparatus to simplify the cable path.
Preliminary Findings are available
on the UNOLS website at:
<http://www.unols.org/publications/reports/lhsworkshop/index.html>
Two LHS systems are currently under detailed design and fabrication at Caley Ocean Systems using the Functional Requirements developed during the LHS Workshop – one for Kilo Moana and one for the Hugh R. Sharp (Cape Henlopen Replacement). The systems have different arrangements for the handling apparatus (to suit each vessel). However, both use all-electric winches having motion-compensation, “slip-mode”, “auto-tension”, and use docking heads for capturing the science package. Both are being built to ABS standards in lieu of Sub-Chapter U. These systems are due to be delivered and installed in early 2006, and both operators will keep the community and LHS Committee informed on how well they perform.
Marine Mammals and Acoustic Permitting Issues - A contractor for NSF is developing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for conducting seismic reflection work primarily for the Marcus Langseth. This process may take up to 18 months with more public meetings after the draft EIS is published. The idea behind the programmatic EIS will be that future permits would focus on the area and season more than on the whole process and ship.
NSF has announced plans to hire an Environmental Specialist to assist with permitting and other related issues.
Frequency Spectrum Management Issue - Otis Brown, a member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Radio Frequencies, has asked UNOLS for information about the use of the communication spectrum by the oceanographic community. RVTEC will be tasked to provide input to Dr. Brown.
Status of Bermuda Biological Station for Research (BBSR) plans to acquire Seward Johnson II from HBOI and retire the Weatherbird II - BBSR is moving forward with plans to acquire R/V Seward Johnson II and retire R/V Weatherbird II. A sale closing is anticipated for late October. On October 22, SJII will arrive at Lyon’s Shipyard in Norfolk, VA for a 4.5-month modification and maintenance period. In late January 2006, Weatherbird II arrives at Lyon’s shipyard for cross-decking. In spring 2006, SJII will begin operations and support of BATS.
Gyre Decommissioning - After 32 years of service, the R/V Gyre retired from the UNOLS Fleet in August 2005. Gyre, a 182-foot research ship, began operations for the Department of Oceanography at Texas A&M in January 1974.
UNOLS Briefing Package – Peter Wiebe reported on plans to develop a UNOLS Briefing Package that could be provided to the National leaders and others. The package would be useful in educating people on what UNOLS is and plans for Fleet renewal. The package would include a brochure that would address:
• What is UNOLS? Short description
of what UNOLS is and what it does. Committee structure and tasks. The number
of ships, their distribution, and retirement dates.
• Status of the UNOLS fleet today in terms of:
- Current and near-term funding shortfalls and consequences
- Longer term oceanographic scientific community needs: OOI (Orion) and IOOS
etc.
• Status of funding
- What is in the budget? (Regional vessels)
- What’s in the budget planning stages? (ARRV, OOI (Orion observatories)
- What’s proposed? - Longer range outlook (IOOS, Ocean Class vessels)
ADA Guidelines for New Ship Construction/Conversion (Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Guidelines for Research Vessels) - NSF has indicated the need for new ship construction and ship conversion efforts to address ADA requirements. Although UNOLS vessels are not passenger vessels and fall under USCG Subchapter U, vessels that support Federally funded academic research should be equipped and arranged as feasible to accommodate persons with disabilities. Procedural guidelines to carry out shipboard operations with persons with disabilities on board are needed.
UNOLS will form an ad hoc committee that will include sea-going scientists (with and without disabilities), a ship captain, marine superintendents, a member of the R/V Safety Committee, and an RVTEC representative. The tasking was reviewed. At the present time, the Regional Class RFP does not include ADA, so it was considered important to quickly draft some preliminary ADA guidelines for the Regional Class Acquisition effort. A two-day community workshop to define shipboard and procedural guidelines could be included as part of this effort. From this, the group could develop general ADA guidelines to be used for new research vessel construction and for refits. They would also draft the procedural guidelines.
Notification and reporting of mooring locations, safety zones, and release code conflicts –The UNOLS Office will investigate ways to collect information regarding installation and locations of moorings.
UNOLS Ship Time Request and Scheduling Database – The database is under development by the UNOLS Office.
New Actions –
At the UNOLS Council meetings held this year, two issues arose that will be
further addressed in 2006:
• Gender Climate at Sea - In a survey of current or recently graduated MIT/WHOI
Joint Program students, over 50% of the sixty respondents reported having
experienced inappropriate gender or sex-related behavior at. Incidents reportedly
occurred on a number of different research vessels operated by UNOLS, as well
as vessels operated by U.S. government agencies and international organizations.
Few, if any, of these incidents were reported, and therefore, they were not
formally investigated. Ensuring that going to sea is a positive experience
for all is an important goal for the entire UNOLS fleet. The RVOC will take
this item as an action item at their April 2006 meeting.
• Codes of Conduct – The impact of Scientific Studies on the Environment -
Issues related to the potential adverse the Council discussed impacts of scientific
research on deep-sea environments, such as hydrothermal vent communities during
their recent meeting. Examples include the likely un-authorized sale of vent
invertebrates or their shells on e-Bay and the possible transport of deep-sea
organisms from one site to another in submersible ballast waters or sampling
devices. This could easily result in the inadvertent introduction of invasive
species or diseases from one location to another.
There needs to be greater effort to understand these deep sea ecosystems and to identify impacts that marine scientific research and other activities, such as fishing, have on these ecosystems. There are a couple of examples of actions that can be taken to minimize impacts on research sites. We could ensure that new submersibles have ballast systems or ballasting procedures that eliminate the possibility of bio-contamination. Limiting the real estate used for ongoing research projects would minimize and localize the impacts to smaller areas. Making these issues more widely known in the community is an important step.
UNOLS Dues Accounting - Membership Dues collected this year totaled $1,800.00. Expenditures for the year (reception) totaled $1,953.87, leaving a balance as of 10/14/05 of $1,487.59.
UNOLS Calendar and activities at winter conferences – Peter Wiebe reviewed the Calendar of upcoming meetings. The RVTEC and SCOAR will hold meetings in November. DESSC will hold their annual community meeting on the day before the AGU Fall meeting in San Francisco. UNOLS will have a booth at AGU. UNOLS members are encouraged to stop in.
UNOLS Appointments to
Committees - Peter Wiebe announced new appointments to UNOLS standing
committees:
• FIC – James Cochran, LDEO - 1st term began 10/04
• RVTEC – Bill Martin, UW - 1st term began 11/04
• SCOAR – Richard Zimmerman, ODU - 1st term began 11/04 and Steven Hartz,
UAK (ex-officio) - began 3/05
1505 Adjourn