UNOLS FLEET IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
The Spring 2007
UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee Meeting (FIC)
will be held on March 20-21, 2007 (Tuesday and Wednesday)
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
T-29 Martin Johnson House,
Executive Summary:
The UNOLS Fleet Improvement
Committee met at Scripps Institution of Oceanography on March 20-21, 2007. Day
two of the meeting included a joint session with the UNOLS Council. Reports and updates on Fleet renewal plans
and implementation were provided. Agency
representatives reported on budget projections and facility acquisition
efforts. The status of the development of ADA
Guidelines for Research Vessels was also provided.
New and Continuing Action
Items:
|
Task
Description |
Action/Status |
|
Ocean Class SMRs - Over the next two months verify whether or not these SMRs still represent the community’s requirements. Prioritize the SMRs with input provided by Navy on constraints. |
FIC |
|
Global Class: Update SMRs – send out one last call for
community input and finalize |
Global Class SMR
Committee |
|
KILO MOANA Actions: |
|
|
·
Contact Brian Taylor to keep abreast of
Handling System details. |
Dave H. |
|
·
Draft EOS or other appropriate article |
Dave and Brian Taylor |
|
Design and Constructions Efforts
- Stay engaged in ongoing design and construction efforts (Regional
Class, ARRV, Langseth Conversion, etc.) |
FIC |
|
Fleet
Improvement Plan Update: ·
Finalize all writing assignments, Revise and
generate new charts as suggested during meeting, incorporate alternative/new
technologies, complete Ship requirements table. |
FIC & Office |
|
·
Complete |
Terry Whitledge |
|
Develop Webpage(s) for Science and Educational Opportunities – incorporate
FIC suggestions, request Nixon review, finalize |
DeSilva |
|
Science User
Debriefs for R/V Hugh Sharp - Dave
working with Matt Hawkins will draft user debrief questions that will
evaluate the new technologies of the ship.
· Conduct debrief interviews with Sharp users. |
Dave Hebert ·
FIC |
|
Ocean
Observatories – Stay in contact with ORION Office. |
Dave Hebert |
|
Science User
Debriefs for Knorr’s Long Coring Capability - Dave working with Jim
Broda/Bill Curry will draft user debrief questions that will evaluate the
operation of Knorr’s long core capability.
It will also assess the impact on the general-purpose capability of
the ship. ·
Conduct debrief interviews with Knorr
users. |
Dave Hebert ·
FIC |
|
FIC Membership
Changes – Seek nominations to fill Terry Whitledge’s FIC
position. Representation from a
Biologist is desired. Geographic areas
not represented include |
Office and FIC |
Appendices:
|
I |
||
|
II |
||
|
III |
||
|
IV |
||
|
V |
||
|
VI |
||
|
VII |
Summary
list of Ship Requirements needed to meet Future Science Directions |
|
|
VIII |
Fleet Improvement Committee Report to Council |
|
|
IX |
||
|
X |
||
|
XI |
||
|
XII |
||
|
XIII |
||
|
|
|
|
Meeting Summary:
Call the Meeting: The UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC)
met at Scripps Institution of Oceanography on March
20-21, 2007. Dave
Hebert, FIC Chair, called the meeting to order at 0830 and provided an opportunity for
introductions. The meeting agenda was
followed in the order as recording in these minutes. The meeting agenda is included as Appendix
I and the meeting participants are listed in Appendix II.
October 2006 FIC Meeting Minutes – Editorial changes to the October 2006 Meeting Minutes were suggested
to correct text on pages 9 and 10. A motion was made to accept the minutes of
the October 2006 FIC Meeting with the revisions as noted. The
motion passed (Garfield/Conte).
Review FIC Action/Task
List from March meeting – Dave Hebert
reviewed the status of the Committee action items that are listed on slides 2
and 3 in Appendix III.
Fleet Improvement Plan
(FIP) Discussion - Dave reviewed the status of the Fleet
Improvement Plan and explained that this meeting would focus on the Fleet
utilization projections.
Interagency
Working Group on Facilities (IWG-F) Report – Bob Winokur
reported that the IWG-F Federal Fleet Plan has been sent to the Joint
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) twice. There were substantial comments from the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and OSTP.
They objected to any words that commit to funds. OMB didn’t want anything in the report that
wasn’t in a budget. Only facilities with
funding are permitted. They have
recommended that the report be released as a “status report” as opposed to “Plan.” Any out-year projections are removed. The plan will project to the year 2015 and
through that period the Federal fleet size remains relatively stable.
Bob
continued by discussing potential future activities for IWG-F. One suggestion has been to develop a facility
priorities plan modeled after the ocean priorities plan. IWG-F will propose the facilities priorities
plan to JSOST. The plan would address
facility priorities for the next decade.
He welcomes everyone’s ideas.
Ideas can be sent to Dave and Annette.
Bob
Houtman further explained the OMB and OSTP view of IWG-F’s Fleet Plan. They felt that the plan had a strident tone
in its statement for the need for ships.
OMB doesn’t think that ships should be viewed as the only tool. OMB recommended that new technologies be
considered in addition to ships. They
need to look at other cost effective means for doing science (novel, less man
power). Bob Houtman explained that we
would all be more effective in promoting Fleet renewal if we can also address
the benefits of new technologies.
Discussion followed:
·
Clare asked if the Navy’s Ocean Class
ships are in the plan. Bob Winokur replied that the two Ocean Class ships are
in the plan.
·
Al Hine asked what other facilities are
needed and being considered by IWG-F.
Bob Houtman gave the example of AUVs and explained that IWG-F fully
recognizes the need for ships, but they are looking at what other technologies
are needed
·
Dave suggested that FIC also consider
other technologies and determine if they will reduce the need for the ships and
if so, to what extent?
·
Al Hine questioned whether there has ever
been a meeting where the technology people have sat down with the ship people
to determine how the technologies would impact ship demand.
·
Terry Whitledge recommended that mission
scenarios are needed.
Dave
presented Figure 17 of the 2001 FOFC plan that shows the Fleet renewal plans (Appendix
III). He then went through the
evolution of renewal plans and what is now presented in the IWG-F status
report. FIC will need to justify what
facilities are needed above the IWG-F report.
Annette
explained that one difference between the IWG-F status report and the UNOLS FIP
is the dates that the new ships are scheduled to enter the Fleet (Appendix
III). The FIP dates reflect the latest
estimates of retirement dates. All
agreed that the UNOLS renewal dates should be used in the FIP report.
Regional
Class Acquisition Status – In late 2006, a 90-day stop work order
was issued to each of the Regional Class design/build teams. The order ended in mid-March. Work will resume and the teams will be given
revised specifications that include constraints for ship construction cost and
life cycle costs. As for the Regional
Class operator selection, NSF would like to have the operator selected by the
time of ship construction. The revised
Regional Class specifications call for a maximum length of 155-ft and that the
ship be uninspected.
Ship Time Request Award Statistics – Mike Prince has prepared a paper on Ship Time Request award statistics and it was distributed prior to the meeting (Appendix IV). The paper estimates proposal success as it relates to ship time requests. It is based on all of the “active” ship time requests in the UNOLS system. It does not include requests submitted prior to 2006 that had been declined, but it does include (in the funded category) earlier requests. This skews the results in favor of funded requests. The requests are for NSF only, except that OPP has been excluded. Basically the ship time proposal success rate in 2007 is about 30%, which is probably a bit high. The UNOLS Office doesn’t have a good way to track success rates. The bottom line is that to increase ship utilization, funding support must be increased.
Fleet Improvement Plan Projections
- Next discussion focused on the projection charts contained in Appendix
III. The chart that projects ship demand
as compared to the number of ship days available through 2025 was discussed and
concern over the gap between ship demand and the available ship days was
expressed. The gap would potentially
make it difficult to justify the need for new vessels. Discussion followed:
·
Maureen Conte – We need to highlight the
point about the funding shortfall.
Demand is high, but due to funding constraints, not as much ship time
can be afforded.
·
Al Hine - Can commercial time be
sold? Marc explained that selling
commercial time has to be handled very carefully. Federally funded vessels cannot be considered
as competition to the commercial vessels.
·
Jim Bauer – Perhaps there could be
different versions of the projections with curves that show an
-
Annual increase in ship demand of 1%
-
Annual increase in ship demand of 2%
-
Remove the axis that shows the number of
ships
·
Bob Winokur – Avoid the ship demand
projection that is a flat line. This
would make it difficult for them to justify the acquisition of Ocean Class
ships.
Ocean Observatory Projections -
Dave reported that Kendra Daly (ORION Office) provided ocean observatory
projections (see Appendix V). Support for
science days associated with research at ocean observatory are not included in
the Major Research Equipment (MRE) account budget. Bob Detrick explained that the MRE account
budget only covers the installation costs for the ocean observatories and that
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are not included in the MRE. According to the observatory projections
provided by Kendra, the 140 maintenance days plus transit would need to be
supported from the traditional basic research budget. The UNOLS projection chart that includes
observatory facility needs in Appendix III is incorrect; there shouldn’t be any
blue bars. ORION hopes that the NSF
budget would grow enough by 2013 to support O&M.
Discussion:
·
It was pointed out that once an
observatory is installed, it would have to be serviced. The service costs will compete with science
funds.
·
Suggestion – In the FIP, change
“utilization” to “funded ship time.”
·
Excess ship capacity could be used to
accommodate event response needs that are more likely once the observatories
are installed.
·
A suggestion was made to add another
chart that shows ship time request days, days available, and days funded.
Service Life Extension Plans
(SLEPs) – In February 2007 the operators for Endeavor, Oceanus, Wecoma, Point Sur, and
The summary of their response is included in Appendix VI.
The
current projected retirement dates for these ships are all within the next 5
years. It was suggested that the Endeavor, Oceanus, and Cape Hatteras retirement dates could be
extended a couple years before a SLEP is needed. All of the ship service lives could be
extended for five or ten years with SLEPs.
The question before FIC is whether or not the retirement dates in the
plan should be revised. If needed the
SLEPs could be implemented until a new ship comes on line.
Bob
Detrick cautioned that the retirement dates should be carefully evaluated. Ships must be available to support the ORION
Pioneer array in the mid-Atlantic.
Before taking ships off line, the needs of science and observatories
should be considered. Some of the ships
will have to stay in service.
Annette
commented that there will be a UNOLS subcommittee appointed each year to
evaluate ship scheduling recommendations and non-operational periods. As part of their tasking, they will consider
the retirement dates of vessels.
In
conclusion, it was decided to keep the retirement dates as they currently are
stated and add an explanation that the dates can be extended without major new
investment. Given the future needs that
are known (ORION installation), the current ship service lives can be
extended. Until the new ships come on
line, the current ships can be operated, but it must be realized that they are
less capable. Refer to the retirement
date as the “projected end of service” date.
Additional Chart
Suggestions:
·
Include a chart that shows the average fleet
age by year.
·
On the projection chart – split out the
bar so that it shows the average age of the ship. Base the age on the year the ship was built.
·
Ships that have dynamic positioning and
multibeam systems (ships that support observatories should have DP)
·
Another Chart - Make a table that
compares the SMRs to the Fleet
Lunch
Break
Fleet
Improvement Plan (FIP) Discussion - continued
Science Facility Requirements
- Dave reported that he created a summary list of ship requirements needed to
meet future science directions (Appendix VII). To create the list, he went through each of
the science sections of the FIP and pulled out the science facility needs. He was looking at the facility needs that go
beyond the SMRs. The list was an attempt
at identifying all of the facility needs.
He compared his list to the SMRs and there was considerable
overlap. As a follow-on, a table could
be put together to identify which items are needed for each discipline.
·
Maureen – Uncontaminated air sampling
should be added to the list. This item
should be separated out, or it should be better defined. Say “Clean Air”
·
Al Hine – There should be a rock-dredging
ability. Dave replied that the new
handling system should be able to support rock-dredging.
·
Al Hine – A freezer should be included.
·
Some of the items in Dave’s table could
be accommodated in vans.
As
a next step, the question of how new/alternative technologies affect how
science is carried out should be addressed.
Some of these technologies include:
·
AUVs
·
Gliders
·
ROVs
·
Observatories
·
Remote aircraft
·
Off shore stable platforms
·
Floats (disposable)
·
Shore based instruments
The
technologies should be examined to determine how they would impact ship
time. Their limitations and benefits
should be identified. Toby suggested
that we determine what portion of the ocean cannot be sampled with
gliders. This section can be added after
the IWG-F
Fleet Renewal Recommendations
- The table that compares the Fleet of 2005 to the Fleet of 2020 was reviewed (Appendix
III). General discussion
followed:
·
Clare – Are we losing our national
capability compared to the other countries that are making investments into
facilities. A chart could be added
showing the foreign ships that are coming on line.
·
The facility needs that are required by
the Ocean Research Priorities Plan should be stated. Basically, what facilities are needed to meet
demand in future?
·
Bob Detrick – We are facing the problem
that the new facilities being built will be too expensive too operate. We won’t be able to afford them. There is a need to have a balanced renewal plan
that considers operating costs. It is
better if UNOLS can come up with the plan rather than the agencies.
·
Marc Willis – There must be a compelling
argument as to why more ships are needed.
·
Maureen – A question that could be addressed
is “Will the current fleet and projected fleet meet the requirements of the Pew
and Ocean Commission Report”
·
Dave – The FIC needs to identify the
number of ships that will be needed in the future.
·
It was suggested that a couple of ships be
added to the renewal plan and be shown as gray ships (as was done in the 2001
FOFC Plan). These could fall between the
classes in terms of size and capability:
2015 - Regional/Ocean
Class vessel
2017 - Ocean/Global
Class vessel
By 2015, the current
MRE projects should be completed and perhaps NSF would be receptive to new
acquisition initiatives.
·
Maureen said that we need to articulate
why SLEPs won’t be beneficial.
New UNOLS
Web Page – Volunteering and Cruise Opportunities - Annette
DeSilva reviewed the draft UNOLS web page <http://www.unols.org/info/cruise_opportunities.html>
that could be used as a tool for chief scientists/PIs to recruit watchstanders for
cruises. It can also be used by students
and educators to volunteer to serve on cruises.
The FIC recommended that the list of volunteers should
not be listed for public viewing, instead the names could be provided upon
request. It was also recommended that Dennis
Nixon (UNOLS risk manager) be asked to review the site.
Break –The
FIC moved to a new meeting room for the remainder of the meeting.
American’s with Disabilities Act (
Most of Terry’s focus
has been on the
Annette added that procedural
Global Science
There have been some new capabilities that could be desired for these
ships. Bob Detrick pointed out that the
Global vessels might potentially be useful in servicing the observatories. More information would be needed on the final
design of the benthic nodes and how frequently they would have to be
serviced.
Dave Hebert added that a long piston core capability might also be
desired for the Global Ships.
Bob Detrick said that an upgraded dynamic positioning systems for the
Global ships would be useful.
For the next step, the Committee decided to put out one last community
call for Global SMR input before updating the SMRs.
Day Two - Wednesday, March 21, 2007:
Introduction - The UNOLS Council met at Scripps
Institution of Oceanography on March 21-22, 2007. Day one of the meeting
included a joint session with the UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee. Marcia McNutt, UNOLS Chair, called the
meeting to order at 0830 and provided an opportunity for participant
introductions.
A motion was made and
approved to accept the minutes of the October 2006 Council Meeting (Rob Pinkel/Margo Edwards).
Agency Reports,
Budget Projections, Future Fleet Utilization, and Fleet Renewal Activities:
National Science Foundation (NSF) - Dolly Dieter provided the report for NSF. The Agency is working under a continuing resolution at the FY06 budget levels with some increases. There are no new starts under the MRE account, but they have asked for an exception. When NSF gets their final budget authority for FY07, they will have to spend the funds quickly. NSF is optimistic about the FY08 budget, but uncertain about the 2009 budget level, which they are starting work on.
Regional Class Research
Vessel (RCRV) Acquisition – NSF and PEO-Ships requested a stop work order on the
Regional Class design efforts last fall.
The new work specification to resume work by the two design teams is
expected within days. The RCRV designs
were growing too large and expensive to build or operate. NSF has now put a cap of 155 feet length and
made other changes to stay within budget.
They have also raised the cap on construction costs. One estimate has the current budget to build
these vessels as high as $40M, which is a number that approaches a level that
might preclude using "mid-size" infrastructure funds. NSF will have to review what they can
afford. If they have to pursue MRE funds,
the project would get delayed. NSF will
wait to see what comes from the RCRV design efforts, as this will determine if
they can move forward. Until these
matters are settled, NSF will wait on the ship operator selection. All of their large infrastructure projects
(ARRV, Drill ship, OOI) are behind schedule and over budget. It is not the best time to build ships as
there is currently a shipyard boom and everything is more costly. The Ocean Sciences Division of NSF has so
many large acquisition projects in the queue that they are under careful
scrutiny by the highest administrative levels at NSF.
Marcia asked if new people with large project management experience would be hired to support NSF in their acquisition efforts. The projects will have to include this type of project management expertise. Dolly replied that NSF is recruiting a new section head and will also hire an IPA to help with infrastructure project management.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - Beth White provided the NOAA report. NOAA, like NSF, does not have a final FY07 budget yet. Their Continuing Resolution spending plan must still be approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the pertinent Appropriations Committee. They have finalized FY07 allocation plans based on the current understanding of the continuing resolution. The FY07 budget will not support as many operating days for the NOAA fleet or UNOLS charter as in FY06.
The Ocean Exploration vessel, Okeanos Explorer is undergoing conversion in Todd Shipyard. It came with an earmark for conversion of $18M, which is not enough to support the entire conversion plan. Another $9M is required for a telepresence capability and to complete scientific outfitting. The vessel is expected to be mission ready in July 2008.
V.T. Halter Marine is constructing a $15.5M SWATH to replace Rude, NOAA's smallest hydrographic vessel operating on the east coast. The caterpillar propulsion engines intended for the SWATH were affected by new EPA regulations concerning emissions. The wait for engines that will meet the new EPA pollution requirements has delayed the project by at least 75 days.
NOAA believes the arcing and flashback problems experienced on the new Fisheries Survey Vessels (FSVs) Oscar Dyson and Henry B. Bigelow have been corrected and the vessels are now operating. FSVs 3 & 4 delivery is now delayed by a couple months due to the need for VT Halter shipyard to repair structural damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. A third quarter 2008 and 2009 delivery is now anticipated. School naming contests resulted in the name Pisces for FSV3 and Bell M. Shimada for FSV4.
NOAA is trying to move forward with a shallow water fishery survey vessel design, but has been told by the Department of Commerce that they will need to show solid requirements for the ship in a Fleet Capitalization Plan that is currently being drafted. NOAA is working closely with Commerce and OMB during the development of the Plan in the hope it will meet with success and be provided to Congress.
Office of Naval Research (ONR) - Bob
Houtman provided the report for ONR. ONR
has an FY07 budget and it is similar to past years. Bob expects that his base budget for FY08
will continue at about $10M with additional funds from other Navy users.
For 2007, Melville was taken out of the normal scheduling and is being used
for Navy projects in the
Two Ocean Class vessels are identified in the FY08 budget to be funded in SCN budgets in FY11 and FY12. ONR has sent funds to PEO-Ships to put together a conceptual plan for these ships. They need to put together the project plan and supporting documents to get a milestone A decision by October of this year. ONR will ask UNOLS to assist by reviewing the Ocean Class SMRs over the next two months and verifying whether or not these SMRs still represent the community’s requirements. The Navy will also look at Navy requirements and they will use these to build the documents for the decision A. Jim Cochran asked if prioritization was something they wanted also. Bob indicated that prioritization would be very useful. UNOLS will need information on any Navy constraints to help with the prioritization efforts.
Dolly emphasized that it
is important to keep the ship design within constraints. The vessels must have a realistic day rate
and construction cost.
Rose Dufour
asked Beth White for the projection of the support needs for the Deep-ocean Assessment
and Reporting of Tsunamis (DART) project. Beth didn’t have the projection available.
Fleet Renewal Plans:
Interagency Working Group on Facilities (IWG-F) Fleet
Renewal Plan Update –
Bob Winokur provided the report. He
began by first mentioning that Congress provided the Navy with $116M to build a
new oceanographic vessel (T-AGS66). The
Navy cannot request any additional funds for the ship’s construction and must
keep the acquisition within the budget.
Bob thanked UNOLS for
their help with the Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee (FOFC) Fleet
Renewal Plan. At the direction of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) and OMB, the “Plan” will now be a “Status Report.”
The report went through repeated review processes, and although IWG-F thought
that they had accommodated all comments, OSTP and OMB disagreed. In general OSTP and OMB felt that the plan
was overly strident and too optimistic.
The Status report
addresses the federal fleet through 2015.
Any ship that is not in a budget appropriation had to be removed from
the plan. Through 2015, the federal
fleet stays relatively constant. Past
2015, the size of the fleet is reduced.
IWG-F had to move from stating requirements in the report, to stating
missions. OSTP and OMB questioned the
impact new technology would have on ship demand and asked, “Can technology
replace ships?” IWG-F had to address
this question, and pointed out that often new technologies do not replace
ships, but instead increase demand on ships.
IWG-F is now a
subcommittee of the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology
(JSOST). IWG-F will provide the draft
Status Report to JSOST at their meeting on 22 March.
IWG-F is contemplating
what their focus should be next. The
IWG-F charter is to address facilities, not just ships. Bob would like to suggest that the Group
build upon the Ocean Research Priorities Plan (ORPP) to create what might be
called an Ocean Facilities Priorities Plan.
The plan would look out 20 years and determine what facilities would be
needed to support the recommendations of the ORPP. They would build a report around the themes
identified in the ORPP. It would be
based on science and agency needs.
Discussion followed:
Marcia thought this was a good strategy because OSTP and OMB were heavily invested in the ORPP. Also NSF put in a lot of effort to make sure that the ORPP was scientifically sound. Using the ORPP would mitigate any comments that it was not appropriate to look at facilities planning out in the future. Putting a facilities plan together with the ORPP will make the whole more acceptable to the community and perhaps to OMB.
Margo Edwards asked if the new icebreaker assets that were recommended by the recently released Ocean Studies Board (OSB) report had been included in the IWG-F Status Report. Bob Houtman replied they were not included by direction because the icebreakers are not appropriated and the icebreaker policy is being developed.
Jeff Callahan asked if
the status report would be an annual report.
Bob Houtman replied that it would not, but the report would be reviewed
at regular intervals.
Beth White mentioned that Barbara Moore had made the case during a recent IWG-F meeting that unique facilities such as underwater habitats (Aquarius) should be included in facilities plans. Marcia explained that Rick Spinrad has suggested an interagency review of major facilities to determine their demand and support needs, as well as, how they might be shared among the agencies. The review could evaluate which facilities are truly unique and what their demand is. Those facilities with low demand would be removed from consideration. The study would help establish the real facility priorities on an interagency basis.
Bob Winokur said that there are members of the IWG-F who think the IWG-F should address satellites. Bob feels that these are already covered by other groups and it is something that he doesn't want to deal with.
Mary Jane Perry asked if facilities such as Toga-Tao arrays and ocean observatories would fit into the facilities. Bob Winokur thought that the Toga-Tao arrays and other in-place arrays would be included, but is undecided as to whether observatories should be included. The boundaries on what facilities the IWG-F addresses will have to be defined.
Marcia thought that it might be a good idea to let new facilities like observatories develop more before becoming part of the agenda for UNOLS and IWG-F.
Fleet Improvement
Committee (FIC) Meeting Summary and Fleet Improvement Plan Recommendations - Dave Hebert (FIC Chair) summarized the FIC meeting that was held just
prior to the Council Meeting. His slides
are included as Appendix VIII.
The FIC spent much of
their meeting discussing the Fleet Improvement Plan (FIP). Dave showed the FIP table of contents and the
project website. The FIC has been having
phone conferences about every two weeks since October to review the Fleet Plan.
The
IWG-F fleet status report will be used by FIC as the baseline for the minimum
fleet requirements in the Fleet Improvement Plan. FIC would then articulate what they felt the
requirements were beyond the minimum based on scientific demand.
Through a series of
slides, Dave showed how the projections called for in Figure 17 of the 2001
FOFC Fleet Renewal Plan have changed over the years. Figure 17 is a projection of ship
construction through 2020. The 2001 Plan
included “gray” ships, which were ships that UNOLS had recommended for
construction (if the budget could accommodate them). These ships have been removed by the IWG-F
status report. The seismic ship moved
forward from 2018 to 2007 with the acquisition and conversion of R/V Marcus Langseth. The ARRV funding and projected construction
will take longer that originally planned and it will not enter the fleet until
2010. Dolly cautioned that the ARRV is
not in the MRE approved budget yet. She
projected that the ARRV would not operate until 2011. The Ocean Class ships have been reduced from
a total of four to two ships. The
revised Figure 17 shows a scaled back renewal plan.
Dave explained that to
be consistent with the IWG-F status report, they would consider a ship to be
operational for a full year even if it only operates one day in that year. However, there are still some differences
between IWG-F and UNOLS in ship service dates (see Appendix III, slide 8). The UNOLS dates are based on the latest available
information. The timeline shows the new
UNOLS dates for ships beginning operation.
These dates will continue to change, for example the ARRV will probably
enter the fleet in 2011 at the earliest.
The FIC members spent a lot of time discussing the UNOLS Fleet Projections, which always get a lot of attention. In the past, the FIC had used the averages of past years of utilization as the projection. They are now considering either flat line or curve projections to evaluate various scenarios. The committee would also like to point out that during the summer months, ships are often used to full capacity to meet demand.
The chart showing a comparison of today's fleet with the fleet of 2025 was reviewed and options of looking at the fleet at points other than 2025 should be considered. For example, the IWG-F status report only projects to 2015, so that might be a year to consider.
Other items discussed that are related to the need for additional ships beyond what are included in the IWG-F status report include items such as the Ocean Commission reports, the ORPP, and new initiatives related to global climate change (see Appendix VIII for additional items).
Dave reported on new ships that the Fleet Improvement Plan might recommend that include a vessel between the Regional and Ocean Class size, a Regional Ship that can meet all of the desired SMRs (Intermediate size), and another Global Class vessel.
The FIC also reviewed Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) recommendations and costs. The bottom line is that there is some flexibility that would allow vessels to operate beyond the currently stated retirement dates. The Intermediate Class SLEPS do not enhance science capabilities and these ships will still not meet the Ocean Class SMRs. (See slides for other SLEP constraints)
Toby
Dave showed the changes in the FIC membership. Jim Cochran is finishing his first term. A motion to reappoint Jim Cochran to a second FIC term was approved unanimously. Nominations to replace Terry Whitledge will be entertained as he is finishing his second term. They will be looking for a biologist.
Beth White asked if
there has been any thought on people support.
New ships with advanced technologies will require a different skill
base. Marcia McNutt replied that the
Marine Technology Society visited MBARI to discuss this issue. They are very concerned with this and are
beginning to address it.
Facility
Design, Construction, and Conversion Efforts
UNOLS Facilities:
Marcus Langseth Conversion Status - Steve Holbrook reported
on the first official Marcus Langseth Science Oversight Committee (MLSOC)
meeting, which was held earlier in the week on March 19-20 in
The terms of reference for MLSOC include providing state-of-the-art seismic acquisition capabilities. This goal is probably unrealistic because the capabilities have been reduced by removing half the seismic equipment from the ship, however, the facility will be near to state of the art.
Other goals are to lower the threshold of expertise needed for users of the seismic facility and to increase the quality and accessibility of archived data.
Steve reported that the first meeting was very productive and to some extent was a handing off from the Ewing Replacement Oversight Conversion Committee (EROCC) to the MLSOC during this joint meeting. The committee is very broad based with representation from industry, marine mammal expertise, and general oceanographic people.
The key issues covered during the meeting include:
· Staffing - Staffing of cruises for four different scenarios such as 3D, 2D, OBS deployment with guns only, and general oceanography were considered. The committee felt that it was critical to provide adequate staffing, especially for 3D cruises. The model of just having a science officer will not work.
· Shipboard processing needs were discussed. Navigation is crucial. Real-time brute stack capability is required. Hardware and software will be in place, but not necessarily the onboard processing staff.
· Lowering the threshold for user expertise was discussed. This will be difficult, but important.
· Shakedown cruise - The cruise plan is extremely tight and some rearranging was discussed. There was some danger of not getting the 3D test portion done to the point that a 3D image data could be obtained to verify that everything works properly.
· Marine Mammal Observation (MMO) - LDEO and NSF will take the lead on this. R/V Langseth will be proactive and be a prime MMO platform. Five full time observers will be on all seismic cruises.
· Ombudsman role – The MLSOC will work to liaison between the facility operator and the community. They will communicate via a web site, AGU town hall meetings, and direct contact with future and past PIs.
· Long range planning – This will be difficult, but the committee will communicate pending research sites to the community. They will try to avoid long transits.
R/V Langseth Conversion Status - John Diebold continued with a report
on the ship’s conversion status. The
ship is finally in
LDEO will conduct multi-beam calibration, dynamic positioning (DP) calibration and an NSF inspection before conducting a combined testing and calibration cruise. They have about two and a half months before they need to get underway with an ambitious plan for completing all required conversion and outfitting tasks. There is a lot of work left on the ship interior. Most of the exterior conversion work has been completed.
Lab outfitting is just
beginning. John showed a picture of the
main lab. Much of the overhead, joiner
work and flooring work that should have been done in the
Rose Dufour asked what the ship’s day rates would be for the various seismic operations. John replied that they have not done the final calculations yet. The 3D operations will require additional people and fuel. Ship operation costs are expected to be about $33K per day. The cost for 2D seismic is expected to cost an additional $12K per day, and slightly more for 3D seismic.
UNOLS Vessel Application - Mike Prince reported that LDEO has
submitted an application to approve the R/V Marcus
G. Langseth as a UNOLS vessel with contingencies for reflagging, conversion
completion and a successful NSF inspection. The application was distributed to
the Council prior to the meeting. Mike
explained that in
the past, applications have been approved conditional upon the successful
completion of the contingencies and the appropriate correspondence to indicate
that the contingencies no longer exist.
Often the NSF inspection is carried out just prior to science
operations. A motion was made to approve
the R/V Marcus G Langseth application
for UNOLS vessel status conditional on the contingencies being removed
(Ortner/Corliss). The motion passed.
Replacement
HOV Status
– Bob Detrick reported on the status of the Replacement Human Occupied Vehicle
(RHOV) project. His slides are included
as Appendix
X. The first phase, fabrication
of the personnel sphere, is moving forward with Southwest Research Institute as
the contractor. Testing of the hull
titanium has been completed. The hull
Preliminary Design Review (PDR) was completed in December 2006. In February, the Replacement HOV Oversight
Committee (RHOC) met and decided to move forward with the project. Detailed design has started. Ingot production of the titanium began in
March. The titanium was purchased last
year to lock in the price (titanium prices have tripled in the past few years).
A new hull forging process will be used and a slide showing the various steps
was presented. The timeline for Phase 1
was reviewed. The forging process will
take a year to complete. This will be
followed by machining and welding. The
hull is expected to be complete in 2009.
Next
Bob discussed Phase II of the project, which is for vehicle design and
construction. WHOI issued a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the vehicle design in November 2006. The RFP was sent to seven potential offerors,
but only two proposals were received.
The decision was made to cancel the RFP because the bids were too
high. WHOI has explored options to
reduce cost. These are outlined in Bob’s
slides. One option was to revise the
contracting strategy, which is how WHOI is moving forward. Under the new strategy, they will negotiate
the price for detailed design, fabrication, and testing six weeks after
completion of the vehicle PDR. They will
include a clause that allows WHOI to cancel the contract based on the
estimate. There will be more
collaboration between WHOI and the Contractor in developing the Statement of
Work (SOW), providing a clearer understanding by both parties. WHOI just received approval from NSF to move
forward with the revised RFP.
Bob
reviewed the RHOV timeline. They hope to
have the vehicle fabrication bids by the end of May. Design and costing will take about four
months and would be followed by the decision on whether or not to move forward
with the project. The personnel sphere
would be integrated with the vehicle in early 2009 and system tests would take
place later that year. If all progresses
on schedule, the RHOV would be ready for science operations in 2010.
Dolly added a few
comments. It was decided to go ahead
with the sphere construction despite the possibility that they won't build the
RHOV because of high costs. This is
because the sphere could be used to improve the
Non-UNOLS Facilities:
Ocean Observatories - Bob Detrick provided a status report on the
Ocean Research Initiative Observatory Network (ORION) and the Ocean Observatory
Initiative (OOI). His slides are
included as Appendix XI. Bob
presented the OOI Funding Profile. OOI
was slated for a FY07 start, but that is still under negotiation. The continuing resolution will not allow new
starts under the Major Research and Equipment (MRE) account. OOI is in the FY08 budget.
One of the issues that came up during the FIC meeting was operation and maintenance (O&M) support funds for OOI. Bob explained that there is money in the MRE account for ship time to install the observatory; however, O&M ship time requirements will not be funded from the MRE account. O&M funds would come from the normal Research and Related Activities (R&RA) OCE funds. Bob’s slides show the budget timeline for funding OOI.
The components of OOI are Coastal, Regional Cabled Observatory and Global Arrays. A series of slides was shown that outlined the scope, changes and potential budgets for each component.
Regional Cabled Observatory (RCO) includes two stages. Stage I is the Neptune Canada section, which is funded separately. Stage II is the NSF funded section, which is now down to four nodes from the original fifteen.
The Global Scale Observatory
includes six sites that would focus on remote, high latitude sites where
observations are scarce and hard to come by.
There are five discus buoys that send data back through telemetry. There is one SPAR buoy in the mid
Coastal arrays includes the Pacific Northwest Endurance Array off of Oregon and Washington and a Coastal Pioneer Array on the east coast that would include moorings, gliders and Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) to provide a 4D view of a block of the coastal ocean. This array is moveable.
Details about each of these types of observatories are included in Appendix XI.
Bob provided the status of OOI planning (see slide). The ORION office is moving ahead with the hiring of Implementing Organizations (IO). The RCO IO is in the final review stage and is expected to be awarded in March 2007. The Cyber-infrastructure IO is under review and an award is expected in April 2007. The Coastal/Global IO award is planned for August 2007. According to the FY07 schedule timeline, construction proposals will be submitted in late 2007 followed by a design review and National Science Board (NSB) approval before money could be spent starting somewhere in 2008.
In other supporting activities,
the MARS cable has been laid and the trawl resistant node will be installed by
the end of March 2007. The MARS
commissioning is planned for September 2007, which represents a major milestone. Neptune
In concern over the
projected OOI budget, NSF placed a cap on the O&M budget of $50M. In response, some de-scoping of the project
was done to stay within the $50M limit.
Bob explained that this was a big challenge and more of a constraint in
terms of the final OOI design. These
O&M constraints were particularly restrictive for the Global arrays and the
Coastal observatories. The basic result
of de-scoping is fewer nodes.
Mary Jane Perry made the comment that it seems necessary to look at where geographically the installation ship time would be needed, how much time is needed, and what types of platforms are required. As UNOLS considers vessel retirement dates, the OOI facility needs must be considered. Dave Hebert showed a table that had been presented during the FIC meeting <http://www.unols.org/meetings/2007/200703fic/200703ficap_03.pdf>, slide 18. The table provides estimates for potential utilization of UNOLS vessels to install and then maintain the various OOI components. The table was complied with the latest information provided from the ORION office. It lists the types of vessels that could support the work. The total O&M days are estimated at around 259 per year.
Marcia made the point that as OOI moves forward, UNOLS will need to build in flexibility into ship scheduling to allow event response, or response to a problem with a remote (or even nearby) component of the observatories. We will also have to look at flexibility on the part of scheduled PIs if an observatory component needs to be visited by a ship nearby. Use of other assets such as NOAA and foreign ships should also be evaluated. If flexibility cannot be accommodated, the observatories will have to face down periods.
USCG Icebreakers - Margo Edwards, past Chair for the Arctic
Icebreaker Coordinating Committee (AICC) gave a brief status of the USCG
icebreakers. Pictures of the ships and
multibeam data are provided in Appendix XII.
USCGC Healy completed her dry dock period in February and conducted sea trials March 1-3 and a shakedown cruise from March 8-16. The AICC participated in a shipyard visit and looked over the hull, fuel tanks, and multibeam system. The multibeam system has been problematic on Healy where the more ice you have, the more problems you have. Margo showed multibeam data to support the need for a system upgrade. In the next couple of years, the hope is to have a new multibeam. SAIC has been awarded a contract to look at what multibeam would work best on Healy. They had hoped to see how the EM122 would work on Oden in the ice this year, but the delivery is behind schedule.
Healy will sail in early April for
American’s with Disabilities Act (
At the request of NSF, the UNOLS subcommittee was
asked to draft ADA Guidelines that would address structural modifications and
improvements as well as procedural guidelines for at-sea research operations by
seagoing scientists with disabilities. The
Committee’s first task was to draft preliminary
To assist in the
task of generating general
As part of the
workshop, a tour of R/V Knorr was
provided. The tour was very instructive in identifying the challenges for
persons with disabilities. Some of the workshop science participants and one of
the crewmembers are people with vision, hearing, and mobility
disabilities. Obtaining their perspective
on operations aboard a ship and responding to various situations was extremely
useful. It was quickly realized that
some of their suggested solutions to accessibility issues would enhance safety
for all people on board the ships, such as improving markings and the
visibility of hazards and the use of a buddy system for emergency situations.
The workshop findings
reveal that many hearing and sight disabilities can be accommodated with modest
cost and little to no redesign. Some
examples include:
·
Adding
warning tactile stripping at the base and top of ladders and on weather deck
edges.
·
Extending
railings at both the top and bottom of ladders.
·
Providing
adequate lighting in all areas, especially at ladders.
·
Minimizing
trip hazards by use of high contrast coatings.
·
Reducing
passageway obstacles.
·
Implementing
audio signals (door open/close, etc).
Many
of the modifications that are required to accommodate mobility disabilities
will be more difficult to implement on existing vessels because they could
involve structural modifications to passageway widths, room size and layout,
and ladders/stairs. It is better to
implement these structural
The
Workshop participants recognized that there are many procedural issues that
would best be addressed by the UNOLS Safety committee. These relate to pre-cruise planning, at-sea
operations, and emergency procedures.
The workshop participants recommended that
The
workshop identified challenges that still need to be addressed. One of the biggest challenges in
accommodating mobility disabilities is with egress to the ship and the
gangway. Portable/temporary accommodations
(people-rated personnel cages) for dockside access could be considered and
further evaluated.
Once
finalized, the general
Terry
Whitledge is working to incorporate the workshop recommendations into the draft
ADA Guidelines for Research Vessels. The
revised document should be ready for review soon.
Mary-Jane Perry asked if emergency
evacuation procedures were discussed.
Terry said this was a lively discussion at the workshop. Modifications
to immersion suits will also be needed to allow use by disabled
individuals. It was suggested that
Alaska Cruise lines by contacted for “Gumby” suit suggestions. The steps that should be taken after evacuation
must be well defined. Some of these
details will need to be addressed in shipboard procedures.
Lunch Break
This concluded the joint
meeting of the FIC and Council. The Council meeting continued.
1200 FIC Meeting Adjourns