[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNDERSEA RESEARCH AND OCEAN EXPLORATION:
H.R. 3835, THE NATIONAL OCEAN EXPLORATION
PROGRAM ACT OF 2005 AND THE UNDERSEA
RESEARCH PROGRAM ACT OF 2005
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,
AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 27, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-58
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
28-758 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
KEN CALVERT, California DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland MARK UDALL, Colorado
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan DAVID WU, Oregon
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JO BONNER, Alabama JIM MATHESON, Utah
TOM FEENEY, Florida JIM COSTA, California
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas AL GREEN, Texas
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana DORIS MATSUI, California
JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
------
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota DAVID WU, Oregon
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland MARK UDALL, Colorado
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan JIM MATHESON, Utah
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York BART GORDON, Tennessee
AMY CARROLL Subcommittee Staff Director
MIKE QUEAR Democratic Professional Staff Member
JEAN FRUCI Democratic Professional Staff Member
OLWEN HUXLEY Professional Staff Member
MARTY SPITZER Professional Staff Member
CHAD ENGLISH Professional Staff Member
DEVIN BRYANT Majority Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
July 27, 2006
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative David Wu, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Witnesses:
Dr. Richard W. Spinrad, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Biography.................................................... 22
Mr. Andrew N. Shepard, Director, Southeastern U.S. and Gulf of
Mexico, National Undersea Research Center, University of North
Carolina-Wilmington
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 24
Biography.................................................... 28
Dr. Marcia K. McNutt, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31
Biography.................................................... 34
Hon. Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New Jersey
Oral Statement............................................... 42
Written Statement............................................ 44
Discussion
Support for H.R. 3835.......................................... 47
Support for Interagency Coordination........................... 48
Merger of NURP and OE.......................................... 49
Priorities for Ocean Exploration and Research.................. 50
Duplication, Cooperation, and the Great Lakes.................. 52
Proposed Appropriations in H.R. 3835........................... 53
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Richard W. Spinrad, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce........ 56
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Letter to Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher from J. Val Klump,
Director and Senior Scientist, Great Lakes WATER (Wisconsin
Aquatic Technology & Environmental Research) Institute,
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, dated November 29, 2005.... 60
Statement of Representative Rob Simmons, Co-Chairman,
Congressional Long Island Sound Caucus; Co-sponsor, H.R. 3835,
the National Ocean Exploration Program Act of 2005 and the
Undersea Research Program Act of 2005.......................... 63
Statement of Mr. Robert I. Wicklund, Director, Federal Programs,
and Dr. Daniel G. Baden, Director, Center for Marine Science,
University of North Carolina, Wilmington....................... 64
UNDERSEA RESEARCH AND OCEAN EXPLORATION: H.R. 3835, THE NATIONAL OCEAN
EXPLORATION PROGRAM ACT OF 2005 AND THE UNDERSEA RESEARCH PROGRAM ACT
OF 2005
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and
Standards,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon J.
Ehlers [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Undersea Research and Ocean Exploration:
H.R. 3835, the National Ocean Exploration
Program Act of 2005 and the Undersea
Research Program Act of 2005
thursday, july 27, 2006
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On July 27, 2006 at 2:00 p.m., the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards of the House Committee on Science will hold a
hearing to examine the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) National Undersea Research Program (NURP) and
Ocean Exploration (OE) Program and to receive comments on H.R. 3835,
the National Ocean Exploration Program Act of 2005 and the Undersea
Research Program Act. On July 1, 2005 the Senate passed S. 39, a bill
largely identical to H.R. 3835 that would also authorize these
programs. The Committee will examine the current programs, including
their relationship to one another, in the context of pending
legislation.
The Committee plans to explore these overarching questions:
1. What are the goals and missions of the Undersea Research
and Ocean Exploration programs? How do these goals and missions
relate to and complement other U.S. marine research programs?
2. Would a merger or consolidation of the NURP and OE programs
still support the programs' activities and maintain the
programs' role in national marine research?
3. Does H.R. 3835 provide sufficient guidance for the scope
and direction of these programs and, if appropriate, for a
merger?
Witnesses:
Panel 1
The Honorable Jim Saxton
The Honorable Robert Simmons
Panel 2
Dr. Richard Spinrad, Assistant Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research (OAR).
Mr. Andrew Shepard, Director, National Undersea Research Center,
University of North Carolina-Wilmington.
Dr. Marcia McNutt, President and CEO, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research
Institute.
Background on H.R. 3835:
H.R. 3835 was introduced by Mr. Saxton on September 20, 2005. The
bill would authorize, for the first time in legislation, two existing
programs within NOAA, the National Ocean Exploration Program (OE),
which is the subject of Title I of the bill, and the NOAA Undersea
Research Program (NURP), which is the subject of Title II (see Appendix
II for a section-by-section summary of the bill).
The House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held a
hearing on H.R. 3835 on May 4, 2006. On July 1, 2006, the Senate
companion to H.R. 3835, S.39 (sponsored by Senator Stevens), passed the
Senate by unanimous consent, and was referred to the Committee on
Science, and in addition to the Committee on Resources.
Background on NURP and OE:
NURP, which had its origins in the 1970s, funds applied research in
areas such as ecology and fisheries management that can be of use to
policy-makers, and generally focuses on areas that are relatively close
to shore. NURP also funds the development of technology for undersea
research, and education and outreach programs (such as the Aquarius
underwater habitat, and JASON, which lets schools participate in
undersea research).
NURP, housed in NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
(OAR), operates through six regional centers at University of
Connecticut (covering the North Atlantic and Great Lakes); Rutgers
University (covering the Mid-Atlantic); University of North Carolina at
Wilmington (covering the Southeastern United States and Gulf of
Mexico); Perry Institute of Marine Science (covering the Caribbean)
\1\; University of Hawaii (covering Hawaii and the Western Pacific);
and University of Alaska at Fairbanks (covering the West Coast and
Polar Regions). In addition to those six centers, the National
Institute for Undersea Science and Technology (NIUST), established in
2002 by Congress, is based at the University of Mississippi and the
University of Southern Mississippi. Each center manages its own
operations and grant program, but research priorities and strategic
direction are coordinated through the National Program Office at NOAA
Headquarters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Caribbean center will merge with the Gulf of Mexico and
Southeast Atlantic center later this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The six centers use about 74 percent of their funding for
competitively awarded research grants for scientists studying in their
region. NURP support often includes the provision to scientists of
equipment developed and owned by the centers, as well as technical
support.
The OE program, also located in OAR, provides grants to researchers
for expeditions to discover and document unknown or little know
features of the oceans and Great Lakes. The program is run by NOAA
Headquarters and focuses on a smaller pool of scientists who attempt to
discover and record new and novel physical, biological or chemical
aspects of the deep ocean far from the continental shelf, often deeper
than 10,000 feet. The program supports development of new technologies
and works with academic and industry partners to adapt commercial and
experimental technologies to deep-water exploration activities.
Education and outreach is a high priority, and OE uses its high-profile
expeditions to engage students and the general public in the
exploratory process and raise awareness of marine issues and their
impacts on people's daily lives.
OE and NURP complement Office of Naval Research (ONR) and National
Science Foundation (NSF) support for basic oceanographic research. OE
expands the boundaries of the ``known'' marine environment, which can
open up new lines of scientific inquiry, while NURP supports applied
marine research that bridges the gap between basic marine science
(funded by ONR and NSF) and the applied science and information needs
of marine policy makers and resource managers.
Issues with NURP and OE:
Congressional Support for NURP
NURP has always received substantial Congressional direction in
terms of the location of the regional centers and the allocation of
funding for each center. Some of the regional NURP centers were
established by Congressional direction rather than by a competitive
process. This led to a perception among many academic scientists that
some NURP centers operate within closed communities whose resources
were not allocated in a transparent, competitive and rigorous way, and
whose activities have been unresponsive to NOAA's science needs and
strategic goals.
In the last decade, NOAA has attempted to bring NURP activities
more in line with NOAA priorities and has formalized a centrally-
coordinated and transparent grant program. While research grants are
still awarded through the individual centers, there is now a uniform
peer review process that is patterned after NSF's peer review process
and coordinated with NOAA research priorities.
However, a new issue arose in the FY 2006 appropriations process.
NURP funding was cut from approximately $17 million to $9 million and
all NURP center funding was directed to the two centers on the West
Coast. NOAA reprogrammed funding to maintain minimal services at the
East Coast centers but it is unclear how the centers will fare in FY
2007.
Measuring Program Success
Some scientists remain concerned about the clarity of NURP's and
OE's missions and the metrics used to measure the programs' success.
NURP's mission is largely to enable and support marine research by
developing and supporting technology and technical knowledge. Many of
the benefits that NURP provides to the marine research community
(accrued expertise and regional knowledge, for example) can be
difficult to define or quantify. OE's mission is to observe and survey
little-known regions of the ocean. However, some scientists have
criticized the OE program for not providing support or guidance for
research beyond the initial observation of unexplored areas.
Merger of NURP and OE
In response to appropriations report language in 2004, which
directed NOAA to consider realigning programs in OAR, NOAA has begun
the process of merging NURP and the OE program, although it has not yet
provided any details on how it will accomplish this. However, the
current organization of the two programs is quite different. OE is a
highly centralized program, run out of NOAA Headquarters, that manages
and enables large-scale, deep water exploration of oceans around the
world. In contrast, NURP is a regionally organized program that
supports detailed study of marine resources and habitats within 200
miles of U.S. coasts and focuses its scientific support on operational
and strategic priorities in line with NOAA's stewardship missions.
Scientists have expressed concern that the structures of the two
programs are divergent and that a merger may result in the loss of
significant and important benefits of one or both programs. Experts who
are concerned with the vitality of the Nation's ocean exploration
programs express concern that OE funding would be directed to
operational and mission-oriented efforts rather than the deep water
discovery that they see as the most critical. Marine researchers and
managers who interact with the NURP program are concerned that if the
merged program became more centralized the emphasis on regionally-
important research would decrease. Proponents of both programs are
concerned that combining the programs will result in a net decrease in
funding for both efforts and an associated decline in the quality and
quantity of marine research.
Administration of the Ocean Exploration Program
In 2003, the National Research Council of the National Academies
released a study of ocean exploration programs that called for a
dedicated national ocean exploration program. The report suggested the
National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) would be the most
appropriate place to form the program, rather than NOAA. (NOPP is a
collaboration of 15 federal agencies that is supposed to coordinate all
national ocean research.) Concerns over placing the program in NOAA
stemmed from recurring problems in existing programs such as ``slow
grant processing and a lack of responsiveness to researchers'' and
NOAA's focus on internal NOAA agency topics that do not explicitly
include exploration of the marine environment.
In contrast, in September 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, established by the Oceans Act of 2000, submitted a report
entitled ``An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century,'' in which the
Commission recommended that NOAA and NSF lead an expanded national
ocean exploration program with collaboration from the U.S. Geological
Survey and the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research.
Funding History of NURP and OE:
From its inception in 1981 until the mid-1990s appropriations for
NURP grew to approximately $20 million annually, then dropped to below
$15 million. Between 1996 and 2005, NURP appropriations remained
between $13 million and $18 million. Of that amount, approximately 70-
75 percent was directed to NURP centers; each East Coast center
received approximately $1-$1.5 million and each of the two West Coast
centers received approximately $2.5 million. As depicted in the table
below, in FY 2006, NURP funding was cut from approximately $17 million
to $9 million and all NURP center funding was directed to the two
centers on the West Coast.
The Office of Ocean Exploration was organized in 2001 with an
appropriation of $4 million. The OE appropriation for 2002 was $14
million, and for 2003 was $15.1 million. FY 2006 funding for OE dropped
from $29 million to $14 million.
Background on Undersea Research and Ocean Exploration:
The Need for Ocean Exploration and Undersea Research
More than 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by oceans.
The oceans and Great Lakes are a source of valuable living and non-
living resources, provide enormous benefit to the transportation and
recreation industries, impact development and human health around the
country, contain vast quantities of mineral and fossil fuel deposits,
and play a key role in Earth's climate system. The oceans also
influence the economy. NOAA estimates that in 2003 commercial and
recreational fishing contributed $43.5 billion to the national GDP. In
addition, over 90 percent of the U.S. population is served by shipping
on the oceans and Great Lakes.
Despite the present and future benefits that the oceans and Great
Lakes provide, the world's oceans remain virtually unexplored and un-
described. A few examples illustrate this:
NOAA estimates that over 99 percent of the oceans'
floors have yet to be explored, and maps of Earth's ocean
bottoms have a resolution of seven miles. By comparison the
Mars Global Surveyor has photographed the surface of Mars with
a resolution as high as 1.6 feet.
Pulley Ridge, a 60-mile-long reef off the coast of
Florida, hosts a diverse and thriving ecosystem in water that
is shallow enough to dive in, but was unknown until less than a
decade ago.
Discovered only within the last decade, deep-sea
corals appear to offer critical habitat to many marine species
including commercially important fish species.
Our incomplete understanding of the marine environment raises
concern among many researchers and policy-makers that resource
management and research priorities cannot be set to make the best
possible use of research dollars and to most effectively support policy
decisions. For example, because they were unknown, deep-sea corals were
not being included in research, conservation and management efforts
until very recently.
The Federal Role in Undersea Research and Ocean Exploration
One of NOAA's missions is to understand and predict changes in the
oceans and Great Lakes to enable effective conservation and management
of the Nation's marine resources. Developing the information and
knowledge base to meet this mission requires thorough study of marine
environments. However, the study of underwater environments is not as
simple as equivalent studies on land. Aquatic environments pose
significant technical challenges to the use of observing and recording
technologies that land-based scientists take for granted, such as
satellite observations, aerial photography, GPS, and simple human
observation. To be able to spend time beneath the surface of lakes and
oceans to perform marine research, humans require sophisticated
technology such as SCUBA, submersibles, remotely operated and
autonomous underwater vehicles, and in situ observation systems. Each
of these technologies has taken years to develop and, in some cases,
years to adapt to research use. These technologies are costly and
require significant technical expertise to reduce the risk to
researchers and equipment to acceptable levels. Few researchers have
the time and resources to devote to acquiring and mastering these
technologies and many marine science programs cannot afford the
infrastructure and support staff needed to sustain such programs. By
providing long-term funding and strategic direction for marine science,
NURP and OE have become repositories of the equipment and expertise
that scientists need to pursue underwater exploration and research. See
Appendix II for a more detailed history of the two programs.
Witness Questions:
The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in
their testimony:
1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of H.R. 3835? In
particular:
Does the bill capitalize on the strengths of
the programs, and effectively address their weaknesses?
If not, what changes to the bill would you recommend?
Does the bill provide appropriate guidance
for the scope and direction of these programs? If not,
should the bill language be more or less prescriptive,
and how?
What specific changes to the bill do you
recommend to strengthen the legislation?
2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current
National Undersea Research and Ocean Exploration Programs? What
steps need to be taken to ensure the rigor of these programs
and to encourage appropriate follow-on projects to meet their
missions? Do you believe that these programs would be
strengthened by a merger? If so, what form should a merger
take? If not, why not?
Appendix I
Section by Section Summary of H.R. 3835
Title I--National Ocean Exploration Program
Sec. 101--Short Title
Specifies that this title may be referred to as the ``National
Ocean Exploration Program Act.''
Sec. 102--Establishment
Directs that the Secretary of Commerce, through the Administrator
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), shall,
in consultation with the National Science Foundation and other
appropriate federal agencies, establish a coordinated national ocean
exploration program within NOAA that promotes collaboration with
existing programs, including NURP.
Sec. 103--Authorities
The Administrator of NOAA shall: conduct interdisciplinary
exploration voyages or other scientific activities in conjunction with
other federal agencies or academic institutions to survey little known
areas of the marine environment, inventory, observe and assess living
and non-living marine resources, and report such findings; give
priority attention to deep ocean regions, with a focus on surveying
deep water systems that hold potential for important scientific
discoveries; conduct scientific voyages to locate, define, and document
historic archaeological sites; in consultation with the National
Science Foundation, develop a transparent process for peer review of
proposals; enhance the technical capabilities of the United States
marine science community; accept donations of property, data, and
equipment for exploring the oceans or increasing knowledge of the
oceans; and establish an ocean exploration forum to encourage
partnerships and promote communications.
Sec. 104--Ocean Exploration Technology and Infrastructure Task Force
In coordination with the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Naval Research,
and relevant governmental, non-governmental, academic and other
experts, NOAA shall convene an ocean exploration technology and
infrastructure task force to develop and implement a strategy to:
facilitate the transfer of new technology to the ocean exploration
program; improve the availability of communications infrastructure to
the program; develop an integrated, workable, and comprehensive data
management information processing system that will make information on
unique and significant features obtained by the program available for
research and management purposes; conduct public outreach in
conjunction with relevant programs of NOAA, NSF and other agencies; and
encourage cost-sharing partnerships that will assist in transferring
exploration technology and expertise to the program.
Sec. 105--Interagency Financing
NOAA, NSF, and other involved federal agencies are authorized to
participate in interagency financing.
Sec. 106--Application with Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
Specifies that nothing in this title or in Title II shall
supersede, or limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.).
Sec. 107--Authorization of Appropriations
Authorizes appropriations to NOAA to carry out this title.
Authorization levels begin at $30.5 million for FY 2006 and increase by
approximately 10 percent each year to $71.92 million for FY 2015.
Title II--Undersea Research Program
Sec. 201--Short Title
Specifies that this title may be referred to as the ``NOAA Undersea
Research Program Act of 2005.''
Sec. 202--Establishment
Specifies that the Administrator of NOAA shall establish and
maintain an undersea research program and shall designate a Director of
that program.
Sec. 203--Purpose
Specifies that the purpose of the program is to increase scientific
knowledge essential for the informed management, use and preservation
of oceanic, coastal, and large lake resources through undersea
research, exploration, education, and technology development. Also
specifies that the program shall be part of NOAA's undersea research,
education and technology development efforts and shall make available
the infrastructure and expertise to service the undersea science needs
of the academic community.
Sec. 204--Program
Specifies that the program shall be conducted through a national
headquarters, a network of regional undersea research centers, and a
national technology institute. The Director shall provide overall
direction with advice from a Council comprised of the directors of the
regional centers and the national technology institute.
Sec. 205--Regional Centers and Technology Institute
Specifies that the regional centers and national technology
institute shall provide: core research and exploration based on
national and regional priorities; further advance undersea technology
development to support NOAA's research mission and programs, including
technology associated with seafloor observatories such as LEO-15 and
the Aquarius habitat, remotely operated vehicles, autonomous underwater
vehicles, and new sampling and sensing technologies; undersea science-
based education and outreach programs to enrich ocean science education
and public awareness of the oceans and Great Lakes; programs for the
discovery, study, and development of natural products from ocean and
aquatic systems.
Sec. 206--Competitiveness
Specifies that no more than 10 percent of the program budget may be
set aside for discretionary spending on rapid response activities and
NOAA-related service projects. Further specifies that all other
external projects supported by the regional centers shall be managed
using an open and competitive process to evaluate scientific merit,
relevance to NOAA, regional and national research goals, and technical
feasibility.
Sec. 207--Authorization of Appropriations
Authorizes appropriations to NOAA to carry out this title.
Authorization levels begin at $12.5 million for the regional centers
and $5 million for the national technology institute for FY 2006, and
increase by approximately 10 percent each year to $29.47 million for
the regional centers and $11.79 percent for the national technology
institute in FY 2015. Stipulates in each fiscal year that 50 percent of
the funds for the regional centers shall be for West Coast Regional
Centers and 50 percent shall be for East Coast Regional Centers.
Appendix II
NURP and OE Program History
NOAA has been a center of technical marine expertise since it was
established by executive order in 1970. The Manned Undersea Science and
Technology (MUST) office, established in the early 1970s, supported
NOAA SCUBA dive and undersea habitat operations around the world. The
National Research Council examined the MUST program and related efforts
in a 1980 report entitled, ``The OceanLab Concept'' which proposed a
reorganization of MUST into a NOAA Dive Program and a regional undersea
research and technology program designed to better integrate NOAA with
academic and industry dive communities. The report supported the
formation of a National Underwater Laboratory System which culminated
in the formation of the National Undersea Research Program in 1981.
During most of the following 15 years, NURP was a Congressionally-
directed program for which the Administration did not request funding.
Starting in 1995, NURP became a line item in NOAA's budget request. In
1997, NURP underwent ``Reinvention'' in which the program was realigned
to match NOAA's strategic mission more closely, and a three to five
year review process was implemented to periodically review each of the
NURP centers.
By the late 1990s, NOAA exploration efforts were not an organized
part of the agency's activities. In June 2000, the President
commissioned the Secretary of Commerce to hold a panel on the state of
ocean exploration. The final report was presented to the President in
October of 2000 and outlined the need for a national ocean exploration
program focused on the goal of discovery. The panel recommended the
undertaking of multidisciplinary expeditions to include physical,
geological, biological, chemical and archaeological oceanographic
exploration and mapping, exploration of ocean dynamics and
interactions, the development of new sensors and technologies to ensure
that the United States remain at the forefront of ocean exploration,
and an extensive campaign to utilize new methods to improve ocean
literacy and information dissemination to research communities and the
public. The report emphasized the need to revitalize a purely oceanic
exploratory program to expand our general knowledge of the extent and
content of marine environments around the world.
In response, NOAA established the Office of Ocean Exploration
within OAR in 2001. OE was directed to study new ocean resources,
research ocean acoustics, document American maritime heritage, explore
ocean frontiers, and conduct a census of ocean life. In collaboration
with other NOAA programs, academic institutions, and several non-
governmental organizations, this Program has completed over 100
expeditions and has explored a wide variety of unique ecosystems from
the deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska's continental shelf,
where more than 4,000 shipwrecks line the ocean bottom.
Chairman Ehlers. This hearing will come to order.
Good afternoon. I want to welcome everyone to this hearing
on undersea research and ocean exploration, and I especially
want to thank our witnesses for testifying. We have an
excellent panel with us today to help us discuss how best to
organize NOAA's marine research efforts.
The bill that we will discuss today authorizes two ocean
programs at NOAA, the National Undersea Research Program, or
NURP, and the Ocean Exploration Program, known as OE. These two
programs provide critical tools and information that allow
scientists and policy-makers to better understand and manage
our nation's marine resources.
Unfortunately, not everyone appreciates, yet, just how
important the oceans and the Great Lakes are to our daily
lives. More than 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered
by oceans, seas, and the Great Lakes. Together, they are a
source of valuable living and nonliving resources, are critical
corridors for transportation and shipping, and provide some of
the most popular recreation and vacation sites in the country.
Large quantities of mineral and fossil fuel wealth exist
beneath the surface of the Earth's oceans, and novel new
compounds with potential practical applications, are discovered
on a regular basis. We could spend this entire hearing just
talking about how important the oceans and Great Lakes are to
all of us, but the most amazing fact about these incredible
resources and the reason that we are here today is how little
we know about them, and how much we have yet to learn.
I know our panel will make this point even more clearly, so
I will give just a few brief illustrations of how much we don't
know, and by the way, I think it is very important in science
to know what you don't know, and so that you can ask the right
questions.
NOAA estimates that over 95 percent of the world's oceans
and over 99 percent of the ocean floor have yet to be explored.
Today, maps of Earth's oceans' bottoms have a resolution of
seven miles. This means that we can't even see features the
size of the National Mall. By comparison, the Mars Global
Surveyor has photographed the surface of Mars with a resolution
as high as 1.6 feet. Amazingly, we have even been able to
locate the Mars Rover, a device the size of an average office
desk.
Pulley Ridge, a 60-mile long reef off the coast of Florida,
hosts a diverse and thriving ecosystem, but was unknown until
less than a decade ago. A good comment I heard over National
Public Radio a few months ago pointed out that well over a
thousand people have now climbed to the top of Mount Everest,
several hundred astronauts have gone out into space, but only a
few people have reached the bottom of the ocean to do
exploration. One of our closest resources is yet largely
unexplored.
Effective management of our marine resources requires a
well organized, carefully thought out science program to both
fill in the gaping holes in our knowledge, and give our
managers and policy-makers the tools and information they need
to do their jobs. We are here today to talk about two critical
pieces of that science program.
Ocean exploration helps us define the scope and scale of
marine environments, and gives us proper context within which
to ask the best scientific and policy questions. NURP gives
scientists the specialized technical support they need to fill
the gap between basic marine science and the more applied
science and information needs of policy-makers and resource
managers around the country.
There are two issues that I hope we will be able to address
clearly today. The first has to do with clarifying the benefits
that NURP and OE provide to the country. In the increasingly
challenging budget environment, we cannot afford to squander
resources on unfocused or poorly guided programs. I hope to
learn from our witnesses whether the bill before us provides an
appropriate structure for the two programs.
The second issue has to do with the proposed merger of the
two programs. We need to be assured that this process has been
carefully thought through, and includes adequate input from the
broader marine science--pardon me--community. Without careful
planning and the support of the community, a merger may do more
harm than good. We need to decide if the bill provides
appropriate guidance and flexibility to this process, so that
whatever comes out in the end will strengthen, not weaken, our
nation's marine science efforts.
I again want to thank our witnesses for being here today. I
certainly look forward to your testimony and to an informative
discussion.
I am now pleased to recognize Mr. Wu for his opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers
Good afternoon! I want to welcome everyone to this hearing on
undersea research and ocean exploration, and I especially want to thank
our witnesses for testifying. We have an excellent panel to help us
discuss how best to organize NOAA's marine research efforts. The bill
that we will discuss today authorizes two oceans programs at NOAA: The
National Undersea Research Program--or NURP--and the Ocean Exploration
Program--known as OE. These two programs provide critical tools and
information that allow scientists and policy-makers to better
understand and manage our nation's marine resources.
Unfortunately, not everyone appreciates--yet--just how important
the oceans and Great Lakes are to our daily lives. More than 70 percent
of the Earth's surface is covered by oceans, seas, and the Great Lakes.
Together they are a source of valuable living and non-living resources,
are critical corridors for transportation and shipping, and provide
some of the most popular recreation and vacation sites in the country.
Large quantities of mineral and fossil fuel wealth exist beneath the
surface of the oceans, and novel new compounds with potential practical
applications are discovered on a regular basis. We could spend this
entire hearing just talking about how important the oceans and Great
Lakes are to all of us, but the most amazing fact about these
incredible resources--and the reason that we are here today--is how
little we know about them, and how much we have yet to learn. I know
our panel will make this point even more clearly, so I will give just a
few brief illustrations of how much we don't know:
NOAA estimates that over 95 percent of the world's
oceans and over 99 percent of the ocean floor have yet to be
explored.
Today, maps of Earth's ocean bottoms have a
resolution of seven miles. This means that we can't even see
features the size of the National Mall. By comparison the Mars
Global Surveyor has photographed the surface of Mars with a
resolution as high as 1.6 feet. Amazingly, we have even been
able to locate the Mars Rover, a device the size of an average
office desk.
Pulley Ridge, a 60-mile-long reef off the coast of
Florida, hosts a diverse and thriving ecosystem, but was
unknown until less than a decade ago.
Effective management of our marine resources requires a well
organized, carefully thought-out science program to both fill in the
gaping holes in our knowledge and give our managers and policy-makers
the tools and information they need to do their jobs. We're here today
to talk about two critical pieces of that science program. Ocean
Exploration helps us define the scope and scale of marine environments
and gives us proper context within which to ask the best scientific and
policy questions. NURP gives scientists the specialized technical
support they need to fill the gap between basic marine science and the
more applied science and information needs of policy-makers and
resource managers around the country.
There are two issues that I hope we will be able to address clearly
today. The first has to do with clarifying the benefits that NURP and
OE provide to the country. In the increasingly challenging budget
environment, we cannot afford to squander resources on unfocused or
poorly guided programs. I hope to learn from our witnesses whether the
bill before us provides an appropriate structure for the two programs.
The second issue has to do with the proposed merger of the two
programs. We need to be assured that this process has been carefully
thought through and includes adequate input from the broader marine
science community. Without careful planning and the support of the
community, a merger may do more harm than good. We need to decide if
the bill provides appropriate guidance and flexibility to this process
so that whatever comes out in the end will, strengthen--not weaken--our
nation's marine science efforts.
I again want to thank our witnesses for being here today--I look
forward to your testimony and to an informative discussion.
I will now recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Wu.
Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon, ladies
and gentlemen.
Our nation has the fortunate advantage of vast coastal and
oceanic resources, including those of the Great Lakes. Over
half of our citizens live in coastal watersheds. Our ocean and
coastal resources are the basis of billions of dollars of
economic activities, including recreation, fisheries, oil and
mineral extraction, and transportation.
Healthy oceans are critical to our future. Improved
knowledge to manage ocean and coastal resources in a more
sustainable fashion is essential if we are to continue to
derive the full benefit of these valuable assets now and into
the future.
We are coming upon the two year anniversary of the release
of the report by the U.S. Ocean Commission. Sadly, few of its
recommendations have moved forward.
The Commission's report notes the President's Panel on
Ocean Exploration called for a robust national ocean
exploration program in 2000. The panel's recommendation was to
initiate multidisciplinary expeditions funded at a level of $75
million per year. Their recommendation led to the establishment
of NOAA's Office of Exploration in 2001, with a budget of $4
million.
The Commission report indicates the small budget of NOAA's
Office of Exploration and its agency-specific focus limit its
effectiveness. They recommend that NOAA combine its efforts
with those of the National Science Foundation to link NOAA's
exploration activities to NSF's strong traditional oceanic
research programs.
There is no shortage of enthusiasm for ocean exploration,
and there are still vast, unexplored areas of the ocean, as the
Chairman has noted. However, we are constrained by the budget
available to fund all the expeditions we would like to
undertake. H.R. 3835 authorizes additional funding for NOAA's
programs in ocean exploration and undersea research, but
without expanding NOAA's overall budget, I do not see how we
will be able to act upon the recommendations of the U.S. Ocean
Commission.
The Administration proposed combining NOAA's Ocean
Exploration Program with the National Undersea Research
Program. H.R.3835 appears to maintain these programs as
separate entities. I am very interested to hear the opinions of
our panel about this--these differing proposals.
I would like to welcome all of you today and thank you for
participating in this hearing. I look forward to hearing your
testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative David Wu
Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on
ocean exploration and research.
Our nation has the fortunate advantage of vast coastal and oceanic
resources. Over half of our citizens live in coastal watersheds. Our
ocean and coastal resources are the basis of billions of dollars of
economic activities including recreation, fisheries, oil and mineral
extraction, and transportation. Healthy oceans are critical to our
future. Improved knowledge to manage ocean and coastal resources in a
more sustainable fashion is essential if we are to continue to derive
the full benefit of these valuable assets now and into the future.
We are coming upon the two-year anniversary of the release of the
report by the U.S. Ocean Commission. Unfortunately, few of its
recommendations have moved forward.
The Commission's report notes the President's Panel on Ocean
Exploration called for a robust national ocean exploration program in
2000. The panel's recommendation was to initiate multidisciplinary
expeditions funded at a level of seventy-five million dollars per year.
Their recommendation led to the establishment of NOAA's Office of
Exploration in 2001 with a budget of four million dollars.
The Commission report indicates the small budget of NOAA's Office
of Exploration and its agency-specific focus, limit its effectiveness.
They recommended NOAA combine its efforts with those of the National
Science Foundation to link NOAA's exploration activities to NSF's
strong traditional oceanic research programs.
There is no shortage of enthusiasm for ocean exploration and there
are still vast unexplored areas of the ocean. However, we are
constrained by the budget available to fund all the expeditions we
would like to undertake. H.R. 3835 authorizes additional funding for
NOAA's programs in ocean exploration and undersea research, but without
expanding NOAA's overall budget I do not see how we will be able to act
upon the recommendations of the U.S. Ocean Commission.
The Administration proposed combining NOAA's ocean exploration
program with the National Undersea Research Program (NURP). H.R. 3835
appears to maintain these programs as separate entities. I am very
interested to hear the opinions of our witnesses this afternoon about
this proposal.
I would like to welcome our panel of witnesses today and thank you
for participating in the hearing. I look forward to hearing your
testimony.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Wu.
If there are Members who wish to submit opening statements,
their statements will be added to the record. Without
objection, so ordered.
Just a word of explanation about procedure. We have two
Members of Congress who are going to constitute Panel I, and
this group is to be Panel II. The Honorable Jim Saxton of New
Jersey and the Honorable Robert Simmons of Connecticut.
Unfortunately, they are tied up in another committee meeting
and cannot get away at this time. They will come when they are
able to, and I apologize, but you will summarily be displaced
while we take their testimony. It would not take long, because
we normally don't question fellow Members of Congress, because
we have immediate access to them at any time. So, it would be a
brief probably 15-minute interlude, and then we would resume
the hearing. If they don't show up by the time you are
finished, you have nothing to fear. They may have something to
fear, but you won't.
All right. At this time, I would like to introduce our
first panel of witnesses. First, Dr. Richard Spinrad, Assistant
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
better known as OAR.
Next, Mr. Andrew Shepard, Director of the National Undersea
Research Center, University of North Carolina, Wilmington. If
we have a lot more global warming, will your entire lab be
undersea as well?
Okay. Next, we have Dr. Marcia McNutt, President and CEO of
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, which is not only an
outstanding research institute, but has the best view of any of
them.
We are pleased to welcome all of you. I assume the
witnesses have been informed that spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes each. We have the little black box up there.
Green means go, go, go. Yellow means you don't have much time
left, wrap it up, and red means you are in trouble. So, you
have five minutes each, and if your testimony is longer than
that, it will certainly go into the record in total, but we
will ask you to wrap up as soon as possible after five minutes.
So, we will start hearing the testimony of Dr. Spinrad.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD W. SPINRAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Spinrad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you
today about undersea research and ocean exploration. I am Dr.
Richard Spinrad, the Assistant Administrator for NOAA's Office
of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.
My office is responsible for leading and conducting
scientific research, environmental studies, and technology
development for NOAA. Today, I will discuss the programs
detailed in H.R. 3835, an Act to Establish a Coordinated
National Exploration and Undersea Research Program in NOAA.
My written testimony addresses NOAA's technical comments on
the bill. However, I want to emphasize today NOAA's strong
support for the overall intent of H.R. 3835. In keeping with
the Administration's commitment to ocean exploration, as
described in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, this piece of
legislation elevates the importance of science-based ocean
exploration and undersea technology development. The Act
recognizes these activities as vital national missions, and
strengthens federal efforts to pursue and support our
understanding of the planet. We must remember that over 70
percent of the Earth's surface is covered by our oceans and
remains vastly unexplored.
Our understanding of the ocean environment will be enhanced
by our creation of a dedicated, integrated national program for
exploration and advanced ocean technology development. In 2006,
NOAA began a multiyear process to merge our National Undersea
Research Program, or NURP, with the Office of Ocean
Exploration, into a single Office of Ocean Exploration and
Research. NOAA undertook this merger at the behest of Congress
and NOAA's Science Advisory Board to increase the synergies
between the two programs, focus on undersea technology, and
leverage the program's broad expertise in regional partnership
networks.
Congress agreed to the merger in 2005, and in a spirit of
transparency, we are currently conducting a series of workshops
and discussions with our external partners to resolve the
details. From my perspective, the merger is also about
preserving research assets, which include our scientists and
infrastructure in NOAA, and in our regional undersea research
centers.
Unfortunately, however, recent Congressional support for
the program has dwindled, as evidenced by the fiscal year 2006
appropriation and the 2007 House mark, which have been
substantially below the President's request. The fiscal year
2007 President's budget request restores funding to our
undersea research and ocean exploration programs at appropriate
levels to meet the Nation's needs. Though NOAA has taken
extraordinary steps to protect these assets, in the absence of
sufficient funding, the effectiveness and future of the
programs are at risk.
So, what is at stake? Let me describe a few capabilities
that each of these programs brings to the table in this merger,
and how each benefits our great Nation. Ocean exploration is an
exciting adventure. It immediately captures the imagination. It
is also serious, hardcore science. At its most fundamental,
exploration improves our knowledge of living marine resources,
their habitats, and ecosystems. Our knowledge in turn enhances
fisheries and ocean stewardship, and benefits marine resource
management. The economic and social benefits of exploration are
significant. Wherever the program has looked, valuable new
discoveries and information have been found.
For instance, our explorations have discovered deep sea
organisms that have significant potential for new cancer drug
treatments, pain inhibitors, and other pharmaceutical uses.
Importantly, no other dedicated source of federal funding or
logistics exists for pure exploratory-based ocean science. In
2007, we launch a new voyage of learning and discovery through
ocean exploration when the Okeanos Explorer, a former Navy
vessel, is converted to join the NOAA fleet as the Federal
Government's only dedicated ocean exploration ship.
For over 25 years, NOAA's National Undersea Research
Program has served the Nation by supporting research and
providing cutting edge advanced technologies. NURP also
provides the infrastructure necessary to support undersea
operations for both the academic community and NOAA. The
program has also played a strong role in developing next
generation concepts for coastal observing systems.
NURP has also developed a series of autonomous or remotely
operated undersea vehicles. These vehicles let us explore parts
of the world never seen before. In fact, in May, one of these
vehicles was used to observe lava actively erupting from an
undersea volcano in the Pacific for the first time. These
unique observations will help us learn more about the
contribution of oceanic volcanoes to the Earth's climate and
their effects on ocean ecosystems.
NURP's autonomous undersea vehicles and next generation
chemical, physical, and biological sensor development will also
help us study critical elements in the marine environment. For
example, deposits of methane hydrates in the Gulf of Mexico,
which NURP helped discover, have potential benefits as an
untapped domestic energy source, but also may contribute to
climate change.
NOAA's Office of Ocean Exploration and Undersea Research
will have the special technological expertise and equipment to
contribute to this research. With the merger of the Office of
Ocean Exploration and the National Undersea Research Program,
we combine the search for new discoveries with the development
of the advanced marine technologies to furthering our
exploration of the oceans. This new ocean exploration and
advanced technology development program will present a powerful
new capability, and provide a sound foundation for the
aggressive ocean exploration and undersea technology
development that our nation needs.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Spinrad follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard W. Spinrad
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am
Richard W. Spinrad, Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
in the Department of Commerce. Thank you for inviting me to discuss
H.R. 3835 and the role of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in ocean exploration and undersea research.
NOAA's vision is an informed society that uses a comprehensive
understanding of the role of the oceans, coasts, and atmosphere in the
global ecosystem to make the best social and economic decisions. NOAA's
mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment
and conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to meet our
nation's economic, social, and environmental needs. NOAA's Office of
Ocean Exploration and National Undersea Research Program (NURP) are
contained within the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR).
In support of NOAA's mission, OAR conducts the scientific research,
environmental studies, and technology development needed to improve our
operations and broaden our understanding of the Earth's atmosphere and
oceans. The Office of Ocean Exploration is devoted exclusively to the
critical mission of exploring the still largely unknown ocean. The
ocean exploration program focuses on discovery of new ocean resources
for societal and economic benefits, serves as an effective means to
promote ocean education and ocean literacy, and enables NOAA to become
aware of ocean issues that may become the basis for future NOAA
missions. NURP harnesses the academic community to focus on NOAA's
undersea research needs. NURP currently supports NOAA's mission by
providing undersea scientists inside and outside NOAA with advanced
technologies, such as an underwater laboratory, submersibles and
remotely operated vehicles, and the expertise needed to work in the
undersea environment.
I am pleased to be here today to discuss H.R. 3835, an act to
establish a coordinated national ocean exploration program within NOAA.
NOAA supports the intent of this legislation. Title I of the bill
addresses ocean exploration; Title II addresses NOAA's complementary
program in undersea research. Together, these two programs provide a
solid foundation for the aggressive ocean exploration and undersea
technology program for our nation. Today, I will outline our current
ocean exploration and undersea research programs, describe our planned
merger of these programs, and explain why this legislation is important
to NOAA.
In his preface to the President's Panel on Ocean Exploration report
in 2000, former Secretary of Commerce Norman Mineta eloquently stated
the importance of ocean exploration to our nation's interests and
future:
``Our nation's history, from colonization and westward
expansion to the deployment of the Hubble telescope, is
testament to the fact that America is a country of explorers.
Our pride as a nation is founded upon our yearning to make new
discoveries and to seek out new knowledge. Exploration of the
oceans responds to a growing national interest in our seas and
an acknowledgement of their importance to our environment and
quality of life.
We are growing in the awareness that the ocean influences our
daily lives in hundreds of ways. From providing fisheries
resources or cures for disease, to unlocking the secrets of
long-term climate variations, we are constantly reminded of the
ocean's importance in sustaining life. Truly, our economic,
environmental, and national security depends on our ability to
understand the ocean frontier, as well as balancing the
competing interests of conservation and economics.''
Historical Perspective
In 2007, NOAA will celebrate 200 years of history of science and
exploration, service, and stewardship of our nation's oceans, coasts,
and Great Lakes. National interest in establishing a comprehensive
ocean exploration program stretches back over 40 years, when, in the
late 1960's, the Stratton Commission initiated the International Decade
of Ocean Exploration. The resulting programs dramatically enhanced
understanding of the global climate system, geochemical cycling, ocean
circulation, plate geodynamics, and life in extreme environments. In
1971, NOAA established the Manned Undersea Science and Technology
(MUST) program, which pioneered exploration from undersea habitats.
MUST was transitioned in 1980 from a primarily headquarters program to
the extramural NURP. Since then, NURP has continued to provide the
scientific community with the undersea tools to conduct exploration and
cutting edge research.
In 1983, an interagency effort to comprehensively map the U.S.
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) was initiated. Our EEZ is the largest in
the world spanning over 12,300 miles of coastline and contains 3.4
million square nautical miles of ocean--larger than the combined land
mass of all 50 states. While the surface of the ocean has been studied
via remote sensing for basic physical and biogeochemical properties,
today less than 10 percent of the U.S. EEZ has been mapped with current
multi-beam technology. Less than five percent of the EEZ has been
mapped at a resolution required for accurately defining habitat. In
addition to our nation's EEZ, approximately 95 percent of the world's
oceans have not been visited or studied in situ. This includes the
major features such as the 31,000 miles of mid-ocean ridge crest, 6,200
miles of deep sea trenches, over 30,000 sea mounts and the water-column
of the ocean--which together are home to 99 percent of the Earth's
living organisms. Because the scope of what remains unknown below the
surface is enormous, we will continue to carefully prioritize the work
we undertake.
Increasing national interest in ocean exploration, in large part
stimulated by NURP-sponsored activity, culminated in 2000, when a
Presidential Panel on Ocean Exploration convened by the Department of
Commerce called for a robust national ocean exploration program
propelled by the spirit of discovery. The panel proposed a strategy of
interdisciplinary expeditions, new partnerships, and integrated federal
programs to characterize the vast array of biological, physical, and
chemical environments of the oceans and foster the development of
technology. The panel's recommendations led to the establishment of the
Office of Ocean Exploration within NOAA in 2001.
In 2003, a National Research Council report expressed support for a
comprehensive national ocean exploration program strongly linked to
traditional research, with broad international partnerships, and a
commitment to educational opportunities. This report was followed in
2004, by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommendation to
establish an expanded ocean exploration program. In response to the
report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the Administration
developed the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. Ocean exploration will be
addressed in the context of the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and
Implementation Strategy, which was called for as part of the U.S. Ocean
Action Plan. The National Science and Technology Council Joint
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) is currently
developing this interagency planning document and implementation
strategy on priorities for ocean science technology for the next five
to 10 years. As one of the Co-chairs of the JSOST (along with the
National Science Foundation and the Office of Science and Technology
Policy) I am closely involved in this work, and can report that we
continue to make progress. On April 4, 2006, we released our Ocean
Priorities Framework for developing the Ocean Research Priorities Plan
and Implementation Strategy; the detailed plan is due at the end of
this calendar year.
The Office of Ocean Exploration
The recent sustained national interest in ocean exploration has
resulted in an exciting, successful ocean exploration program within
NOAA. The mission of this program is to conduct interdisciplinary ocean
exploration expeditions and projects that provide scientific
information as well as technical and educational leadership that
contributes to NOAA's evolving environmental and economic missions. The
program pursues this mission by focusing on four key goals:
Explore unknown and poorly known areas of the ocean: Exploration
science expands our understanding of what resources and processes are
in the oceans. The wealth of living and non-living resources yet to be
discovered holds vast untapped economic potential and offers new
opportunities for medical science. For example, microbial organisms
that thrive in deep-sea environments produce novel enzymes and other
compounds as a consequence of living in extremes of temperature and
chemistry which have significant potential for creating bioproducts for
use in pharmaceutical and industrial applications. Recent screenings
show that these marine samples are 20 times more active than their
terrestrial counterparts.
Ocean Mapping: Less than 10 percent of the U.S. EEZ has been mapped
with current technology, and many resources, habitats, and features
remain undiscovered. Our ability to manage ecosystems is dependent upon
our ability to define the area these ecosystems cover. In conjunction
with other NOAA mapping efforts, ocean exploration routinely maps ocean
areas during expeditions to discover and record the physical,
biological, geological, archaeological, and chemical nature of the
oceans. This information is critical for both expanding our
understanding of the U.S. EEZ, and supporting future establishment of
the U.S. continental shelf, where potential resources such as mineral
deposits, valued at $1.3 trillion, are estimated to exist.
New Technology: The Office of Ocean Exploration invests in new
technologies to increase the pace, efficiency and scope of ocean
discovery and to enhance the technical capability of the United States
by promoting the development of improved oceanographic research,
communication, navigation, and data collection systems, as well as
underwater platforms and sensors. The program coordinates new
technology needs and investments with other NOAA programs, other
federal agencies, and through the National Oceanographic Partnership
Program. The program also invests in projects that test and evaluate
new and emerging technologies under live conditions. A merger of NOAA's
ocean exploration program and undersea research program, which I will
discuss later, will enhance NOAA's ability to support emerging
technology in these areas.
Education and Outreach: The President's Ocean Action Plan calls for
promoting lifelong ocean education as essential for fostering a strong
economy, promoting healthy ecosystems and preparing a competitive
workforce with the scientific understanding needed to balance the
sustainable use and conservation of our natural resources. The ocean
exploration program is a leader in this effort dedicating 10 percent of
its budget to education and outreach to improve ocean literacy in the
United States and to stimulate interest in ocean science. The program
is uniquely positioned to use interdisciplinary expeditions as a
catalyst to bring the excitement of ocean exploration to teachers and
school children. The program's web site (www.oceanexplorer.noaa.gov) is
rated in the top five worldwide in its category, by a major
international science education authority. This web site, which
includes teaching materials for educators, daily logs of expeditions,
immediate reports of the discoveries, and live images of the seafloor,
was visited by more than four million people last year. These efforts
are inspiring a whole new generation to explore and work in the oceans
which will help ensure that in the future the United States will have a
competitive edge in the oceans and remain a global leader in ocean
science and technology.
In less than five years, the Office of Ocean Exploration has been
able to successfully leverage federal funding, equipment, and expertise
to assemble interdisciplinary teams of scientist-explorers in support
of more than 100 ocean expeditions and projects to unknown and poorly
known areas of the ocean. These ocean expeditions have discovered many
new marine ecosystems (including fish and coral habitats); new species
of micro and macro-organisms; and chemical and geological processes
that impact the oceans such as large quantities of carbon dioxide
produced by underwater volcanoes. These expeditions have also mapped
thousands of square miles of ocean floor that had never been mapped
before, where they discovered new land forms, including large submarine
volcanoes, sea mounts, and extensive areas of deep water coral reef and
sponge habitats.
NOAA's partnerships with other federal agencies, academia,
industry, ocean institutions and scientists from U.S. and international
organizations are a vital component of NOAA's ocean exploration
program. Together with our partners, NOAA increases our national
understanding of ocean systems and processes by undertaking six to 10
major voyages of discovery per year and funding up to 25 additional
missions and exploration-related projects per year. All expeditions are
selected through a rigorous peer-reviewed process. The program spends
approximately 70 percent of its funds outside of NOAA on science that
benefits the Nation's understanding of the oceans and ecosystems.
Programs across NOAA benefit from new sources and scales of
information generated by the Office of Ocean Exploration. These
benefits include greater knowledge of living marine resources, their
habitats, and ecosystems which enhance fisheries and ocean stewardship
and comprehensive site surveys and inventories that inform management
of NOAA's National Marine Sanctuaries. The program's characterization
of the EEZ improves the management of habitat and marine resources, and
by providing inventories of our nation's submerged cultural and
historical resources, the Office of Ocean Exploration aids in the
preservation of this heritage. The Office of Ocean Exploration also
provides important governance and scientific investigation in support
of the international Census of Marine Life, which is helping to
identify important breeding areas and inform strategies for sustainable
management.
The Office of Ocean Exploration's efforts are, in turn, supported
by other programs within NOAA including the National Oceanographic Data
Center, which provides vital data access, archive, and assessment
support. NOAA has also assembled a team of data and information experts
from its National Geophysical Data Center, the National Coastal Data
Development Center, NURP, and the NOAA Library to ensure the broadest
public access and use of the results from its ocean expeditions. This
team has developed procedures for ensuring archival and public access
to the variety of the data products generated on these expeditions
including underwater video, which has become an important new source
for quantitative data about the ocean environment, as well as for
stimulating public interest and life-long learning.
We will see more opportunity for learning and discovery through
ocean exploration when a new vessel dedicated to ocean exploration
joins the NOAA fleet. After conversion, a former Navy vessel will be
commissioned and named NOAA vessel Okeanos Explorer. The vessel will be
available in 2008 to serve the Nation as a premier ocean research
platform to conduct critical deep-sea missions including ocean floor
mapping and biological and chemical oceanographic research. The vessel
will also be equipped for ``telepresence,'' a satellite-based
communications technology that allows shore-side scientists, teachers,
and students to connect in near real-time with scientists at sea and to
view images from the ocean and seafloor using high-speed Internet. The
near real-time data and images are transmitted to science command
centers ashore where teams of scientists augment the work of scientists
and explorers at sea. By bringing multiple high-quality video streams
and sensor data from the remote seafloor to scientists, teachers, and
students on shore, the potential exists to revolutionize oceanographic
research and ocean education. ``Telepresence'' technology was
successfully pioneered on a NOAA-sponsored expedition to the deep-sea
hydrothermal vent field known as the ``Lost City'' on the Mid-Atlantic
Ridge in July 2005.
The goals and missions of the current Ocean Exploration and
Undersea Research Programs not only complement existing programs at
NOAA, they also form the basis for growing partnerships with the
National Science Foundation, and other federal agencies. For example,
NOAA's Office of Ocean Exploration has initiated a pilot partnership
with the National Science Foundation that has recently resulted in a
highly successful, jointly funded exploration expedition to the
Galapagos Ridge. This is a model for future, jointly funded cruises
that support both OE's and NSF's interests in exploring unknown areas
of the ocean.
NOAA's ocean exploration program is a national program that
provides the opportunity of discovery to our partners in academia,
federal and State agencies, and industry. No other federal dedicated
source of funding or logistics exists for discovery-based ocean
science. The economic and social benefits of discovery are significant
and the promise of future discovery is clear; wherever the program has
looked, new discoveries and information have been found.
The National Undersea Research Program
NURP has served NOAA and the Nation for over 25 years as an
underwater research and technology program. NURP places scientists
underwater using advanced technologies, either directly or remotely,
and focuses its considerable expertise and connections to the academic
community on NOAA's undersea research agenda. In recent years, the
program has functioned through a network of six regional centers and an
institute, hosted primarily by universities. Two centers are located on
the West Coast in Hawaii and Alaska, and four are located on the East
Coast in North Carolina, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Florida.
NURP has a proven record of providing the advanced technologies and
infrastructure necessary to support undersea research and exploration
operations for both the academic community and NOAA. Through regional
competitive processes, the program sponsors cutting edge undersea
research, which is applicable to NOAA's stewardship and management
missions. The program also fosters innovative uses of existing
technologies to meet undersea exploration and research challenges.
Through ownership or leasing, NURP has provided undersea systems that
work from the coast to the deep sea. For example:
NURP owns and operates the Aquarius, the world's only
underwater science laboratory, located in the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary. Aquanauts live on and study
sensitive coral reef ecosystems threatened by natural and
human-caused impacts and are able to perform studies not
possible through traditional diving techniques.
NURP operates undersea remotely operated vehicles
(ROVs) and autonomous undersea vehicles (AUVs) that increase
the access of researchers to the depth and breadth of the
oceans.
NURP owns and operates the Pisces IV and V, human
occupied submersibles that enable scientists to explore the
deep ocean-depths down to 6,000 feet. In partnership with the
Office of Ocean Exploration in the summer of 2005, the Pisces
submersibles completed a historic expedition to the South
Pacific where scientists examined more than 20 previously
unexplored sub-sea volcanic ecosystems. The program also
provides scientists with access to research submarines
including the Alvin, Johnson Sea-Link, and Delta submersibles.
NURP, as the lead office for fulfilling NOAA's
statutory responsibility to improve the safety and performance
of civilian divers, has supported advanced diving techniques,
which enable researchers to explore and characterize little
known habitats such as deep corals.
NURP supports pioneering uses of technologies such as
multi-beam sonar, advanced cameras, and sea bed observing
instrumentation to address emerging ocean exploration and
undersea ocean observing, sampling, monitoring and modeling
issues for the National Ocean Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service within NOAA.
NOAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
share the mission of exploration in remote and hostile ocean and space
environments, respectively. Humans working both in space and under the
ocean face similar challenges of lack of oxygen, weightlessness,
extreme pressure differentials, and remote, cramped living quarters.
Currently, the National Undersea Research Program and NASA conduct a
uniquely successful partnership in which astronauts train and simulate
Moon exploration at the Aquarius undersea laboratory. In addition to
the operational benefits, this partnership provides a springboard for
increased leveraging of exploration technology development between NOAA
and NASA.
In FY 2006, Congress appropriated funds for NURP at a level
significantly below the President's budget request. This reduction
eliminated support for the four East Coast centers, and reduced funding
at the West Coast and Polar Regions Center at the University of Alaska,
Fairbanks, by one half. NOAA redirected a small amount of funds
internally to enable NURP to maintain essential personnel and equipment
at the four centers during restructuring efforts. NURP, as supported by
the Administration's FY 2007 request, will include both an East and
West Coast capability. Further details of the restructuring are
currently under discussion in consonance with the merger of the program
with NOAA's Office of Ocean Exploration.
Office of Ocean Exploration and NURP Merger
In FY 2007, NOAA will further address the need for ocean technology
development by refocusing the priorities, direction, and partnerships
of its National Undersea Research Program and merging it with the
Office of Ocean Exploration (OE) (the Appropriations Committees
concurred with this reorganization in 2005). Both NURP and OE strive to
meet NOAA, national, and international needs for innovative undersea
exploration and research. The merger of the two programs will help meet
these needs and also effectively address NOAA's undersea technology
requirements. Merging the two programs will more efficiently utilize
our resources to focus on exploration and undersea technology
challenges; expand the excitement of ocean exploration with a regional
network of partnerships; and take advantage of efficiencies of time,
personnel, and funding between both programs. The merged program will
also allow NOAA to capitalize on the synergy between these programs to
achieve the goal of expanding exploration into focused research, and
then to finding operational or commercial applications for our
discoveries. Together, these programs will provide a more robust
program of ocean discovery.
This merger is also an opportunity for NOAA to increase its
emphasis and effectiveness in utilizing and developing advanced
undersea technology. Despite recent technological advances, the current
pace of discovery and acquisition of new knowledge is slow and is
limited by the present requirement of having to conduct nearly all
ocean exploration from surface ships. Ships support a variety of
advanced technologies for accessing the underwater environment, but
information collection is limited to observations from humans in
submersibles or remote observations from cameras carried by robots
tethered to the ship. An increased focus on ocean technologies would
complement ship-based explorations by advancing the development and use
of new underwater exploration assets and sensors, especially including
autonomous underwater vehicles and remote sensing. Autonomous robots
with their expanded sensing capabilities could significantly increase
the pace of exploration, discovery, and generation of new knowledge.
Such technological advancements would benefit the entire marine science
community by developing improved systems for oceanographic research,
communication, navigation, and data collection.
The OE and NURP programs currently collaborate in a number of areas
including expedition planning and execution, and data management. The
full details of the merger are currently under discussion and will
depend upon several factors including input from the regional undersea
research centers and the extramural community, and program funding
levels.
Support of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan
NOAA is lead or co-lead for roughly half of the assigned items from
the President's U.S. Ocean Action Plan, and has made significant
strides on several actions. The Office of Ocean Exploration and NURP
provide unique capabilities to gather, synthesize, and apply
information collected during expeditions of discovery to directly
address many of the challenges described in the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy report and the President's Ocean Action Plan. The Office
of Ocean Exploration and NURP are supporting several of NOAA's Ocean
Action Plan actions through activities including: conversion of the
ship Okeanos Explorer for dedicated ocean exploration, providing
advanced undersea technologies to support and integrate with the U.S.
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), participating in the Joint
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology development of an Ocean
Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy, participating in
Integrated Coastal and Ocean Mapping activities, and conducting and
participating in a range of educational activities. In addition, NURP
and OE support exploration and research projects which further
conservation of deep corals, including deep corals within the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. An OE-sponsored
expedition recently discovered extensive deep-water corals in the
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. In direct response to the
Ocean Action Plan recommendation to ``Research, Survey, and Protect
Deep-Sea Coral Communities,'' the Office of Ocean Exploration supported
four expeditions with international partners in FY 2005 and is
conducting additional activities in FY 2006 and FY 2007.
NOAA's Views on H.R. 3835
NOAA supports the intent of H.R. 3835 to establish a coordinated
national ocean exploration program by building on the current
capability within NOAA. This legislation would elevate the importance
of science-based ocean exploration, and undersea technology development
as a vital national activity and strengthen federal efforts to pursue
and support it. H.R. 3835 recognizes the critical components of NOAA's
current ocean exploration activities, including the development of new
undersea technologies, outreach, and education. As part of its
responsibilities NOAA supports the authorization of interdisciplinary
exploration to expand our knowledge of the ocean's living and non-
living resources.
H.R. 3835 advances undersea technology development and furthers
support for undersea research and exploration by mandating that the
program ``make available the infrastructure and expertise to service
the undersea science needs of the academic community.'' The legislation
supports two of the most successful and unique aspects of NURP: (1)
harnessing the Nation's extramural, academic expertise to provide
solutions to NOAA's undersea challenges, and (2) conducting an open,
competitive process for allocation of resources. It also supports the
important program areas of undersea science-based education and
outreach programs to enrich ocean science education and public
awareness, and the discovery, study, and development of natural
products from ocean and aquatic systems. The bill also provides a
sufficient framework and guidance for ensuring that data generated by
the programs will be made available to a broad spectrum of users, in
essence supporting the approach that has already been developed within
NOAA.
We do recommend that the following changes to the bill be
considered. While NOAA agrees with the goal of Section 104, to promote
coordination, such a statutory requirement is unnecessary and would
duplicate existing efforts. NOAA currently coordinates with other
federal agencies on ocean exploration activities and plans for the
future. In addition, the coordination among federal agencies mentioned
in the bill will increase under the auspices of the new National
Science and Technology Council's Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science
and Technology. The functions of the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean
Science and Technology include identifying national ocean science and
technology priorities and facilitating the coordination of
interdisciplinary ocean research, ocean technology, and infrastructure
development.
Section 107 authorizes appropriations to carry out the National
Ocean Exploration Program described above in increasing amounts from
$30,500,000 in fiscal year 2006 to $71,917,000 in fiscal year 2015,
including $33,550,000 for fiscal year 2007. The Administration requests
that the authorization levels in the bill be consistent with the
President's FY 2007 Budget Request, which provides $15,128,000 for the
Ocean Exploration Program.
In light of the NURP restructuring effort, the language of H.R.
3835 remains pertinent with few changes. The purpose of NURP remains
consistent with Title II of the Act, to ``increase scientific knowledge
essential for the informed management, use and preservation of oceanic,
coastal and large lake resources through undersea research,
exploration, education and technology development.'' However, NOAA
requests that particular named equipment not be enacted into law so
that the program can best maintain the flexibility required to meet
rapidly changing technological developments and needs.
Section 207 authorizes appropriations to carry out the Undersea
Research Program described above in increasing amounts from $12,500,000
in fiscal year 2006 to $29,474,000 in fiscal year 2015, including
$13,750,000 in fiscal year 2007. The Administration requests that the
authorization levels in the bill be consistent with the President's FY
2007 Budget Request, which provides $9,152,000 for NURP in FY 2007. In
addition, the bill includes authorization language and authorization
for appropriations for the National Technology Institute. The
Administration requests this language be removed to remain consistent
with the President's Budget, which does not provide funding for the
National Technology Institute.
NOAA also notes that in Section 207, all funding is directed to
regional centers leaving no funding for administration of the program.
Program administration should be provided, with a cap of 10 percent of
appropriated amounts. NOAA supports an undersea research program that
is national in scope. The Administration requests in the authorization
of funding that no specific percentage of funding be authorized to
either the West Coast or East Coast Regional Centers. This change would
allow NOAA the flexibility to address research and technology needs
from a national perspective covering our interests in the Atlantic,
Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and Great Lakes.
Conclusion
NOAA supports elevating the importance of ocean exploration based
on sound scientific research as a vital national activity and endorses
the strengthening of federal efforts to pursue and support it. H.R.
3835 recognizes the critical components of NOAA's current ocean
exploration activities, including the development of new undersea
technologies, and outreach and education programs. We are encouraged
that the House of Representatives is considering this legislation to
promote the importance of ocean exploration, and maintain and
strengthen our ability to generate new ocean knowledge. The U.S.'s
strength and leadership in the oceans depends on our nation's ability
to generate and harness the latest in scientific and technological
developments and to apply these developments to real world applications
such as the management of our coastal and marine resources. A national
ocean exploration and undersea technology development program is vital
to sustaining the scientific advancement and innovation needed to
maintain our nation's competitive edge in ocean science and technology,
as well as to continue to meet the new emerging needs of NOAA's
mission.
Biography for Richard W. Spinrad
Dr. Spinrad is the Assistant Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research (OAR). He is a native of New York City, and a
graduate of the Johns Hopkins University (B.A.), Dr. Spinrad has broad
experience in marine science, technology, operations and policy. During
his career he has worked in a wide range of positions in government,
academia, industry and nongovernmental organizations. Spinrad earned an
M.S. in physical oceanography and a Ph.D. in marine geology from Oregon
State University. As a research scientist at Bigelow Laboratory for
Ocean Sciences he developed and published concepts critical to our
understanding of the relationship between water clarity and marine
biological productivity. Spinrad served as President of Sea Tech,
Incorporated during that company's development of several now-standard
oceanographic sensors. He went on to manage oceanographic research at
the Office of Naval Research (including serving as the Navy's first
manager of its ocean optics program), eventually becoming the Division
Director for all of the Navy's basic and applied research in ocean,
atmosphere and space modeling and prediction. In 1994 Dr. Spinrad
became the Executive Director of the Consortium for Oceanographic
Research and Education (CORE) where he led the development of the
National Ocean Sciences Bowl for High School Students, and he co-
authored, with Admiral James D. Watkins, ``Oceans 2000: Bridging the
Millennia,'' which served as the guiding document for the establishment
of the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP). In 1999
Spinrad became the Technical Director to the Oceanographer of the Navy.
In this position he provided leadership and guidance for the
development of the U.S. Navy's oceanographic and meteorological
operational support to Naval forces. Currently, Spinrad serves as the
United States permanent representative to the Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, and co-chairs the White House Joint
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology.
Rick Spinrad is the President-Elect of The Oceanography Society,
and served as
Editor-in-Chief of Oceanography magazine; he has served on numerous
professional committees of organizations including the National Academy
of Sciences and the American Meteorological Society. Spinrad also
served on the faculties of the U.S. Naval Academy and George Mason
University. He has spent over 300 days at sea conducting research, and
has published more than 50 scientific articles. Spinrad is the editor
of a textbook on ocean optics and several special issues of marine
science journals.
In 2003 Spinrad was awarded the Department of Navy Distinguished
Civilian Service Award, the highest civilian award that can be given by
the Navy Department, and he has received a Presidential Rank Award. Dr.
Spinrad lives in Falls Church, Virginia with his wife Alanna and two
beagles.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you very much. Mr. Shepard.
STATEMENT OF MR. ANDREW N. SHEPARD, DIRECTOR, SOUTHEASTERN U.S.
AND GULF OF MEXICO, NATIONAL UNDERSEA RESEARCH CENTER,
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA-WILMINGTON
Mr. Shepard. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to address H.R. 3835. I have been
working for NOAA for 28 years, the last 22 for the NOAA
Undersea Research Program. In that time, the program has
evolved to better serve the Nation, and now, we are on the
verge of another major step in this evolution.
My written testimony provides some history of this change
and accomplishments. Over the past two decades, the Undersea
Research Program has supported more scientific diving than any
other single federal program in the country, matching the
number of dives performed by all the rest of NOAA combined per
year. The program has stressed innovation, discovery, and
capacity building, aiding NOAA in areas it needed our
specialized help, such as ecosystems science and development of
ocean observatories.
For two years, in 1999 and 2000, I commuted from my home in
North Carolina to NOAA headquarters in Maryland. My major task
was working with Barbara Moore, the NURP Director, the regional
NURP centers, and others in NOAA to devise a new ocean
exploration program. In 2001, with the guidance from the
Presidential Panel coordinated by Ms. Moore, the Ocean
Exploration Program was born.
We in NURP are gratified to see the Ocean Exploration
Program mature and engage the world in the excitement of ocean
frontiers. Their risky, discovery-driven science, wherein the
investigator does not entirely know what they will find at the
frontier, involves the kind of uncertainty that often counts
against exploratory work and NSF-style peer review processes,
unless specifically encouraged.
Now, it is time to recognize the need for a coordinated
full spectrum of undersea science applications, from the high
risk and high reward expeditions and technology developments to
how these discoveries benefit NOAA's mission. Authorization for
NURP and OE together is a critical first step.
Does the bill capitalize on the strengths of the programs
and address weaknesses? The bill addresses the major weakness
of the programs, and that is funding, both underfunding and
instability of funding. We strive to support the top scientists
and technologists in the Nation conducting relevant, high
quality science, using advanced technologies. Trying to
accomplish this goal on a year-to-year uncertain funding cycle
has been a major weakness. This is now how most federal
programs that sponsor ocean science and technology support
their grant projects. Stable funding will allow our science and
technology developments to mature to useful results, and
attract the very best experts.
Does the bill provide appropriate guidance for scope and
direction? We are pleased with the bill's guidance, which
recognizes, retains, and builds on the existing strengths of
the programs. Scientific research, for example, is recognized
as a critical component of the continuum from exploration to
management needs, and a driver for technology developments. The
regional centers and their local partners complement the global
endeavors of ocean exploration by connecting discoveries to
research and management done at regional ecosystem scales, the
heart of NOAA's mission.
What steps are needed to ensure the rigor of these
programs, and will the programs be strengthened by the merger?
Programmatic rigor will be sustained through stable funding and
business practices, such as credible peer review and outside,
unbiased advisory panels, as prescribed in the bill. As Chair
and spokesperson for the NURP Council Center Directors, we
endorse the merger and its benefits for a stronger, more
relevant national program.
How should this merger be accomplished? At the request of
NOAA management, NURP and OE are now actively engaged in
planning for a new merged program. The bill lays the groundwork
for this planning. We especially look forward to the hiring of
the merged program's director. This position is an opportunity
to mold the merged program into a fully integrated team.
In closing, as stated by the President in 1970, in his
address to Congress regarding NOAA's birth, and still relevant
today: ``We face a compelling need for exploration and
development leading to the intelligent use of our marine
resources.'' Meeting this challenge through authorization of
these programs is long overdue.
Thank you for this opportunity to address you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shepard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew N. Shepard
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
before you concerning H.R. 3835 entitled the ``National Exploration
Program Act'' in Title I, and the ``NOAA Undersea Research Program Act
of 2005'' in Title II. I am grateful to the Committee for your
recognition of the importance and need for enhanced support and
integration of ocean exploration and undersea research. I have been
working for NOAA since 1978, the last 22 years with the NOAA Undersea
Research Program. In that time, I have seen the program go through many
evolutions to better serve the Nation--we are on the verge of another
such evolution.
Why do we need specialized undersea research programs?
This a two part question: 1) why do we need to dive; and 2) why are
dedicated programs needed? Mysteriously to me, we often must justify
why we endure risk and spend time and money going underwater to study
oceans. No one doubts the need to study forest ecology or demographics
of a city by entering them! Oceanography has traditionally relied on
surface ships, and in recent decades, remote sensing, largely as these
approaches are traditional or accessible. We are entering a new age for
ocean science: ecology is not a fringe discipline, but the core of the
``ecosystem approach to management;'' an electronic age when data and
information can flow at unprecedented rates using robotics and sensors
for a vast array of new ocean applications. The Undersea Research
Program's technology developments and operations have changed the face
of ocean science; the Long-term Ecological Observatory (LEO15) off New
Jersey is a prototype coastal ocean observing system that early
recognized the importance of quality dive support. Nitrox scuba diving
is now supported by most dive shops and academic dive lockers in the
country, spurred primarily by NURP development activities.
Why do we need dedicated programs? Simply stated, NOAA needs
specialized undersea research programs as diving can be risky and
complex. Most marine science programs cannot afford to sustain the
technologies and expertise required to keep up evolving advanced diving
techniques and technologies, which include robots, submarines, advanced
scuba, and variety of related sampling tools.
Why have regional presences?
The practice of regionally located ``centers of expertise'' is
common in many national programs, for example, Department of Energy's
National Labs or National Institute of Health Centers of Excellence.
Their proven success lies partly in economy of scale and common access
to pools of specialized resources. NURP provides such specialized
undersea assets on over 11,000 scientific dives per year, involving
over 200 separate partnering institutes, including 27 U.S. states
(Attachment). This mostly regional community functions as a vital
research capacity needed to address many of NOAA's ocean science and
management priorities. The concept of peer review-driven, regionally
customized components of a national program encourages quality,
relevance, productivity, and cost-effectiveness. The NURP refereed
publication rate mirrors academia as a whole, which is ten times higher
than government as a whole, at about 10 percent of the cost per
publication, in part due to the invaluable contributions of teams of
scientists, technologists, and students.
Regional presence enhances public outreach and extension. We
actively participate in region-based management activities, such as the
fishery management councils, state coastal management forums, and
sanctuary and reserve advisory boards. It is not just a matter of
saving money on travel; we offer local knowledge and expertise that is
hard to sustain through a single national program. We want to sustain
high-quality useful science, but we also need to make it available to
managers and the people who live on the coasts.
Why are NURP, OE and NSF all supporting undersea science?
It is instructive to consider how these programs arose and their
missions. NSF was established in 1950 as ``the Federal Government's
only agency dedicated to the support of education and fundamental
research in all scientific and engineering disciplines. Its mission is
``to ensure that the United States maintains leadership in scientific
discovery and the development of new technologies'' (http://
www.nsf.gov/about/history/). By 1954, studies ranging from use of high
speed computing for oceanography and deep sea bottom cores began. Since
inception but especially in recent decades, NSF's peer review process
heavily favors hypothesis-driven, fundamental research. While this
culture meets the NSF mission, it does not necessarily encourage
exploratory endeavors or applied research.
NOAA was established in 1970, pursuant to the Stratton Commission,
essentially by combining the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey
(formed in 1807), the Weather Bureau (formed in 1870), and the Bureau
of Commercial Fisheries (formed in 1871) (http://www.history.noaa.gov/
noaa.html). As stated by President Nixon in his address to Congress
that accompanied the related Reorganization Plan (Number 4 of 1970),
``We face a compelling need for exploration and development leading to
the intelligent use of our marine resources. We must understand the
nature of these resources, and assure their development without either
contaminating the marine environment or upsetting its balance.''
The first undersea science and technology program in NOAA, the
Manned Undersea Science and Technology program, soon followed in 1971.
In 1980, the National Research Council endorsed the need for such a
program in NOAA, but expanded it to become the NURP model with regional
centers of expertise. For its first 20 years, NURP research spanned the
spectrum of undersea science from deep exploration to shallow applied
science, such as coral reef studies. However, as funding was cut
drastically in 1996, more expensive exploration and new technology
developments were compromised to sustain the applied scientific dive
programs most needed by NOAA.
In 2000, with a mandate from a Presidential Executive Order, a
special panel led by the NURP Director, Ms. Barbara Moore, produced a
report, ``Discovering Earth's Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean
Exploration'' (http://explore.noaa.gov/about/
pres-panel-report.pdf) that led to creation of
the NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration (OE).
NURP endorsed this new program and initially expected that it would
be integrated with the existing NURP program. I believe that NOAA
decided to keep the programs separate for a few reasons. At least
initially, NOAA management wanted to control the types of projects
supported, as opposed to allowing open peer-review to dictate the
program direction. NOAA management was also concerned that the
exploration-based objectives remain distinct from NURP's strategic
(mission-related) research focus.
Should NURP and OE be merged?
Times have changed and now NURP and OE should be authorized and
merged. HR 3835, as presented in Title I and Title II, lays out the
focus and strengths of each program, and provides a foundation upon
which NOAA can build a new, coordinated program. OE has established a
solid community of users, reputation, and need for exploration science,
and operates in global waters. The program encourages quests and
queries that might not survive an NSF peer review competition, but
often are led by NSF-sponsored investigators seeking to venture into
poorly understood science and regions. However, as a NOAA program, it
cannot afford to end its investigations by only asking questions.
NURP's regional Centers conduct research and technology development to
support NOAA's mission, particularly in the area of ecosystem-based
management. The Centers have relationships at the regional level, with
NOAA field offices, academic institutions, managers, and other State-
and regional-level entities. The Centers also have expertise in
undersea technologies needed in their regions, and in some cases
provide those technologies themselves. A closer working partnership
between OE and NURP will allow the regional programs to follow up on
the OE explorations with more focused research that will serve NOAA's
mandate to both understand and manage ocean resources.
Closing Remarks:
In closing, this authorization is long overdue. The Bill addresses
the major weakness of the programs--under-funding and instability of
funding. We seek to support cutting edge science projects using
advanced technologies, wielded by the top scientists and technologists
in the Nation. Trying to accomplish this goal on a year-to-year
uncertain funding cycle has been our major weakness. This is not how
NIH, ONR, NSF or NASA, for example, support their research grant
projects. With stable funding we can allow the science and technology
development projects to mature to useful results, and attract the very
best experts.
Previous attempts to authorize have been thwarted by political
concerns more than need for the programs. H.R. 3835 lays the groundwork
for a credible, long-lasting, and flexible national program of science,
technology development, and ocean literacy. With your help and
guidance, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, we can clear the final
hurdles to authorizing these important national programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Committee's
deliberations.
Biography for Andrew N. Shepard
CAREER GOAL AND RESEARCH INTERESTS
Utilize technical, academic and research background to conduct
scientific undersea research, and generate funds for marine research
and education. Areas of scientific interest and expertise include:
benthic ecology of off-shore reef ecosystems, fishing gear technology;
impacts of fishing gear on seafloor habitats; applications of
Information Technology for organizing and presenting research results.
EXPERIENCE HIGHLIGHTS
Director, NURC at UNCW (1988-Present). Previous positions as Center
Science Director (1988-1999), Center Associate Director (2000-2004).
Program objectives: provide advanced undersea research systems to
regional scientists for investigations in support of NOAA's mission--
health of ocean resources and environments. Primarily responsible for:
1) administration, 2) program development and 3) oceanographic
research: Supervisor: Dr. Dan Baden Director, UNCW Center for Marine
Science (910-962-2308, [email protected]).
Other relevant positions related to career goal:
Program Development Coordinator--Coastal Ocean
Monitoring and Research Program (2001-2002): Ocean observing
system and research program off North and South Carolina
coasts. Responsibilities included development of data
management system, development of co-funding opportunities,
creation of program progress reports.
Program Officer--National Undersea Research Program
(1999-2001): Headquarters for National Undersea Research
Centers; 18-month contract, on leave of absence from UNCW;
responsibilities included grants and contracts management,
development of NURP management information system and web site,
development of future funding initiatives, and strategic
planning.
Deputy Science Director--NURP regional center for New
England and the Great Lakes (1984-1988): Responsibilities
included direction of Center's Fishing Gear Evaluation Program,
administrative and technical support (computers and LAN
management), center progress reports; diving support (e.g., ROV
pilot, scuba) for field center research projects.
NOAA Commissioned Officer, Lieutenant (Navy rank)
(1978-1984): Assignments included: Manned Undersea Research and
Technology Program, Woods Hole, MA; Field Operations Officer,
NOAA ship Mt. Mitchell overseeing hydrographic (bathymetric
charting) and oceanographic research missions.
EDUCATION
1975-1977: University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA; Master of Science
Degree in Marine Science
1971-1975: Bates College, Lewiston, ME; Bachelor of Science Degree in
Biology
SPECIALIZED TRAINING, CERTIFICATIONS AND SKILLS
Navigation: Visual, Celestial, Electronic (SatNav,
Loran, GPS)
Surveying: Triangulation, Geodesy, Horizontal
Leveling
Diving: Surface Supplied, divemaster, decompression,
saturation, mixed gas technical (to 70 meters), Nitrox, dry
suit; submersible pilot (DeepWorker 2000); ROV pilot (DOE
Phantoms, Benthos Minirover), Diver Medical Technician (EMT
plus Recompression Chamber Operation, Diving Medicine, and
Accident Management, Oxygen Administration)
Statistics: ANOVA, COANOVA, Non-parametrics,
Graphical Interpretation; SAS, SPSS, Minitab
Computers: C++ Programming, HTML/Active Server Pages/
Web Page creation, Relational Database Management, Geographic
Information System (ArcView 3.3)
CURRENT ORGANIZATIONS & COMMITTEES
Governor appointee, Advisory Council, North Carolina
Museum of Natural Science (2004-present)
Co-Chair, Executive Board of Advisors, NSF Center for
Ocean Science Education Excellence-Southeast Region COSEE-SE
(2002-present)
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Coral
Advisory Panel (2005-present)
NOAA Deep Sea Coral Planning Team (2002-present)
Dive Safety Control Board, UNCW
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Shepard, A.N. and A.J. McCurdy. 2003. The Link Project: Partnerships to
Promote Sea and Space Exploration and Technology Development.
Sea Technology 44(7):47-52.
Koenig, C.C., A.N. Shepard, J.K. Reed, F.C. Coleman, S.D. Brooke, J.
Brusher, and K.M. Scanlon. 2005. Habitat and fish populations
in the deep-sea Oculina coral Ecosystem of the western
Atlantic. American Fisheries Society Symposium 41:795-805.
Reed, J.K., A. Shepard, C. Koenig, K. Scanlon, and G. Gilmore. 2005.
Mapping, habitat characterization, and fish surveys of the
deep-water Oculina coral reef Marine Protected Area: a review
of historical and current research. Proceedings of Second
International Symposium on Deep Sea Corals, Sept. 9-12, 2003,
Erlangen, Germany. Springer-Verlag.
Harter, S. and A.N. Shepard. In press. Deep sea coral ecosystem
monitoring: case study of the Oculina Bank marine reserve.
Bull. Mar. Sci.
Reed, J.K., C.C. Koenig, and A.N. Shepard. In press. Effects of Bottom
Trawling on a Deep-Water Oculina Coral Ecosystem. Bull. Mar.
Sci.
Chairman Ehlers. And Dr. McNutt.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARCIA K. MCNUTT, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Dr. McNutt. Good afternoon, Chairman Ehlers and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am Marcia McNutt,
Director of MBARI, a small, private, nonprofit research
institute that was founded and funded by David Packard to be a
technology incubator for the ocean research community.
I also chaired the 32-member President's Panel, which in
just 60 days, convened, deliberated, and completed a succinct
report laying out the motivation, objectives, priorities, and
essential elements of a comprehensive national program in ocean
exploration. This report led to the establishment of NOAA's OE
program, and continues to guide it to this day.
Let me briefly explain the importance of NOAA's OE program
to the Nation, and also to NOAA. With a healthy and vigorous
ocean exploration program, the Nation benefits from policy-
makers, such as yourselves, and citizens so inspired by the
wonders and mysteries of the ocean that they insist on the
acquisition and application of state of the art knowledge and
understanding of the ocean that enriches us both economically
and spiritually.
Ocean exploration supports NOAA's mission by making new and
unexpected discoveries that overthrow reigning paradigms,
leading to new management strategies that actually work. Ocean
exploration is distinguished from research by the fact that
exploration leads to questions, research leads to answers.
Often, novel discoveries are made accidentally in the process
of performing hypothesis-driven research, but with a purposeful
exploration program, those discoveries are more likely to be
appreciate for what they are documented, and followed-up.
For example, one of the greatest surprises in oceanography
in the 20th century was the discovery of the hot-vent
communities, the deep sea oases that thrive in seawater
geothermally heated to several hundred degrees centigrade. This
entire new ecosystem led to huge new possibilities for how life
might be sustained elsewhere in the universe. This discovery
led to new questions. What is their energy source? How do
proteins fold at such high temperatures? We would not even know
enough to have asked these questions had this discovery not
been made, and in fact, it almost wasn't.
The shipboard party involved was entirely geologists and
geophysicists. There wasn't a single biologist on board that
ship to witness what was to become the most important discovery
made in marine biology ever. The shipboard party lacked such
basic biological supplies that the geophysicists had to
sacrifice all of their vodka to preserve the novel specimens
they collected.
Such discoveries don't need to be rare, accidental, or
potentially unappreciated, with a strong, vigorous, and
systematic ocean exploration program. This graphic that is up
here shows how NOAA's OE program might ideally relate to the
broader ocean research agenda and to the NURP program.
New discoveries are made by either looking in new places,
the left side of the upper box, or by deploying new tools, the
right side of the box, which see the ocean in new dimensions.
Now, the strength of a federal organization like NOAA
undertaking this program is that they can be systematic about
going to new places, the left side of the box. NOAA's weakness
in this undertaking is the right side of the box. They are not
known for their prowess in technology development. That is a
strength of H.R. 3835, in that it creates this interagency
taskforce, which brings in ONR, NASA, and other agencies, which
can help contribute new technology to ocean exploration.
The discoveries lead to new questions, the white arrow
going down, and some of these questions will be relevant to
NOAA's mission. Others will be relevant to the missions of
other agencies. Again, the interagency taskforce in H.R. 3835
will facilitate the sharing of discoveries with other parties
that are more likely to follow up on them. The National Science
Foundation should be added explicitly to that taskforce, as it
is mostly likely that NSF will support the early research
resulting from exploration discoveries, until such time as
their relevance to other agency missions or commercial
organizations is clear.
For those discoveries deemed relevant to NOAA's mission,
the NURP program can serve as something of a halfway house,
serving as a bridge between OE's discoveries and the eventual
incorporation and application of that knowledge and
understanding within NOAA's line agencies.
Currently, I see two challenges to NOAA's OE program, and
the first isn't money. The first is that ocean exploration is
not part of NOAA's mission. Exploration is part of NASA's
mission. NASA is our space agency. Why isn't it part of NOAA's
mission, if NOAA is our oceans agency? I would like to see,
under section 103, that the NOAA Administrator be advised to
add exploration to NOAA's mission.
I do see that this bill goes in the right direction, in
terms of bringing critical funding to OE's budget, but just in
comparison, my own institution spends $30 million a year
exploring Monterey Bay. It is a big ocean out there, and we
need more money for ocean exploration.
I would also like to comment on the potential merger.
Strengths of the merger would be in facilitating the transfer
of ocean exploration discoveries to followup within NOAA
through the NURP program, but I also see challenges. An ideal
OE program undertakes multi-disciplinary voyages of discovery
for the benefit of all ocean sciences. NURP is intended to be
more targeted to serve NOAA's line agencies in their basic
science needs.
OE's explorers will not necessarily be the same people who
benefit from the discoveries, whereas NURP investigators fully
expect to be the ones who reap the scientific rewards. OE must
be systematic in its program, whereas NURP has traditionally
supported a portfolio of disconnected projects. OE will be most
successful if it has strong central management to ensure common
standards, professional data management, and extensive
research, whereas NURP has employed a very distributed
management system.
I think that this merger could be successful, but in the
arrangement that I show here, where NURP acts to follow up on
OE discoveries, and that also benefits OE by allowing OE to
shed the burden of capitalizing on its discoveries deemed
relevant to NOAA's line agencies, such that OE can remain true
to its focus on pure exploration for the benefit of all ocean
sciences.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. I hope my views
are of some help. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. McNutt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marcia K. McNutt
Good afternoon, Chairman Ehlers, and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards. I am Marcia
McNutt, director of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
(MBARI) in California. MBARI is a small, private, non-profit research
laboratory founded by David Packard to serve as a technology incubator
for the ocean research community. I am pleased to be here today to
provide my views on two of the National Ocean and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA's) programs, Ocean Exploration (OE) and the
National Undersea Research Program (NURP), and more specifically on
pending legislation H.R. 3835.
First, allow me to preface my remarks with the statement that I
have nothing to gain personally from this legislation. My own research
is not now and never has been funded by NOAA, and only an insignificant
amount of my institution's entire budget is derived from NOAA programs.
My motivation in addressing you today is simply to do what is right for
the Nation and for the oceans.
Next, I will explain my involvement with the Ocean Exploration and
NURP programs. I chaired the 32-member President's Panel on Ocean
Exploration which, in just 60 days, convened, deliberated, and
completed a succinct report laying out the motivation, objectives,
priorities, and essential elements of a comprehensive national program.
This report led to the establishment of the NOAA exploration program
and continues to guide it to this day. In addition, my institution has
had a long-standing agreement with the West Coast office of NURP
whereby NURP-funded investigators get access to my institution's unique
ships and remotely operated vehicles for undersea research, neither of
which are ordinarily available to outside users. This arrangement not
only provides access to state-of-the-art capabilities for academic and
NOAA researchers, but also provides greater external visibility and
demand for MBARI's technology and marine assets. The NURP program,
while having hardly any impact on MBARI's budget, is an important
factor in our technology transfer strategy.
Let me briefly explain the importance of NOAA's Ocean Exploration
program to the Nation and to NOAA. With a healthy and vigorous Ocean
Exploration program, the Nation benefits from policy makers, such as
yourselves, and citizens so inspired by the wonders and mysteries of
the ocean that they insist on the acquisition and application of state
of the art knowledge and understanding of the oceans for informed ocean
management. Ocean Exploration supports NOAA's mission by exploring the
ocean in all dimensions to make new and unexpected discoveries that
overthrow reigning paradigms.
Ocean exploration is distinguished from research by the fact that
exploration leads to questions, while research leads to answers. When
one undertakes exploration, it is without any preconceived notion of
what one might find or who might benefit from the discoveries.
Research, on the other hand, is undertaken to test a certain
hypothesis, with the clear understanding of the benefits of either
supporting or refuting the hypothesis under consideration. Often novel
discoveries are made accidentally in the process of performing
hypothesis-driven research, but with a purposeful exploration program,
those discoveries are more likely to be appreciated for what they are,
properly documented, and followed-up.
Here is a concrete example. One of the greatest surprises in
oceanography in the 20th century was the discovery of the hot-vent
communities, deep-sea oases that thrive in sea water geothermally
heated to several hundred degrees centigrade. These animals form an
entire ecosystem completely independent of the sun's energy, and their
existence opens up huge new possibilities for how life might be
sustained elsewhere in the universe. This discovery led to a host of
new research questions. What is the energy source for this new style of
community? How do proteins fold at such high temperatures? By what
reproductive strategy do deep-sea vent organisms manage to find and
colonize new, isolated vent systems as the old ones die? These are
important questions, but ones that we would not know enough to even ask
had the discovery not happened. And it almost didn't. The shipboard
party involved was entirely geologists and geophysicists. There wasn't
a single biologist on board to appreciate the significance of what was
to become the most important discovery in marine biology. Ever. Lacking
basic biological supplies, the geophysicists had to sacrifice all of
their vodka to preserve the novel specimens they collected.
Such discoveries don't need to be rare, accidental, or potentially
unappreciated with a strong, vigorous, and systematic ocean exploration
program. I created a graphic (Figure 1) to show how NOAA's OE program
might ideally relate to the broader ocean research agenda and to the
NURP program.
The upper box is meant to represent NOAA's Ocean Exploration
program. New discoveries are made by exploring new places, and/or by
deploying new tools which ``see'' the ocean in new dimensions. With
roughly 95 percent of the ocean still unexplored, and new tools that
image the physics, chemistry, biology, and geology of the ocean at all
scales being developed constantly, the opportunities for discovery are
virtually limitless. The greatest strength of having a federal
organization such as NOAA leading this effort is the fact that it can
undertake a systematic, multi-disciplinary exploration of the ocean.
However, if I had to identify NOAA's weakness in terms of being the
lead agency for this effort, it is the fact that NOAA is not widely
known for its prowess in developing new technology. For this reason, I
support the provision in H.R. 3835 that establishes an interagency task
force which includes NASA and ONR to facilitate the transfer of new
exploration technology to the program.
Those discoveries lead to new research questions. In the case of a
NOAA Ocean Exploration program, some of the research questions will be
quite relevant to NOAA's mission, while others will need to be pursued
by other agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, Navy, or
the National Institutes of Health. Again, the interagency task force
established in H.R. 3835 will facilitate the sharing of discoveries
with other parties who would be more likely to follow them up.
Definitely the National Science Foundation should be added explicitly
to this list, as it is most likely that NSF will support the early
research resulting from exploration discoveries until such time as
their relevance to other agency missions or commercial organizations is
clear.
For those discoveries that are deemed relevant to NOAA's mission,
the NURP program provides an excellent mechanism for research follow-
up. The NURP program is peer reviewed, so that only the most exciting
hypotheses proposed by the top researchers are pursued, and it provides
access to the necessary deep-sea assets, such as manned submarine,
remotely operated vehicles, and autonomous underwater vehicles. The
NURP program can be considered something of a half-way house, serving
as a bridge between OE's discoveries and eventual incorporation and
application of the scientific knowledge and understanding within NOAA's
line agencies.
NOAA's OE program is the only ocean exploration, sensu stricto,
accomplished with federal funds. The only other organizations that
undertake ocean exploration for the sake of unfettered discovery are my
own institution, using funds we receive from the David and Lucile
Packard Foundation, and Bob Ballard's Institute for Exploration. The
NOAA OE program, thanks to some inspired and dedicated leadership
within NOAA, is trying to build a first-class program. But they face
two challenges. One is that, to date, exploration is not specifically
in NOAA's mission statement. Exploration is part of NASA's mission, and
NASA is the Nation's space agency. Why shouldn't exploration be part of
NOAA's mission, if NOAA is our oceans agency? It certainly isn't
because we have already found everything that needs to be discovered!
In the most recently released NOAA Strategic Plan, the words ``ocean
exploration'' did not appear even once. I believe it would very much
help the situation if under Section 103 in H.R. 3835, the NOAA
Administrator was advised to add exploration to NOAA's mission. A
second problem is the lack of sufficient funding for the program. The
amount of funds appropriate for OE is equivalent to the round-off error
in NASA's budget. My own institution spends about $30 M/year, twice
OE's budget, exploring just Monterey Bay. It is a big ocean out there,
and H.R. 3835 does a credible job at ramping up the OE budget
authorization.
I was also asked to specifically comment on a potential merger of
OE and NURP. Strengths of a merger would be in facilitating the
transfer of exploration discoveries to research follow-up, as diagramed
in Figure 1 above, and in turn making deep sea assets available to the
Ocean Exploration program through mechanisms already in place with
NURP. However, I also see many challenges. An ideal OE program
undertakes multi-disciplinary voyages of discovery for the benefit of
all of ocean sciences. NURP is intended to be more targeted in the
projects it undertakes so as to serve the needs of NOAA's line agencies
for basic scientific understanding. OE's ``explorers'' will not
necessarily be the same people who will benefit from the discoveries.
NURP investigators fully expect to be the ones who reap the scientific
rewards from their efforts. OE must be systematic in its program in
order to make any progress, whereas NURP has traditionally supported a
portfolio of disconnected projects. OE will be most successful if there
is strong central management to ensure common standards, professional
data management, and extensive outreach, whereas NURP has employed a
very distributed management system. If OE is managed like NURP or as a
component of NURP, it would be a disaster. However, I believe that a
relationship as I identified above in Figure 1 could be successful:
NURP acting to follow up with OE discoveries. In that arrangement, OE
sheds the burden of capitalizing on its discoveries deemed relevant to
the missions of NOAA's line agencies, and can remain true to its focus
on pure exploration for the benefit of all ocean sciences.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment, and I hope my views are
of some help in your deliberations.
Biography for Marcia K. McNutt
2/19/52 Born, Minneapolis, Minnesota
6/70 Graduated from high school, Northrop Collegiate School,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
5/73 B.A. in Physics from Colorado College, Colorado Springs,
Colorado.
1/78 Ph.D. in Earth Sciences from Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
La Jolla, California. Dissertation title: Continental and
Oceanic Isostasy.
Awards and Fellowships
1970--Class valedictorian, recipient of awards for mathematics, science
and French.
1970-1971--National Merit Scholarship
1973--Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude
1973-1976--National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship
1977-1978--University of California Dissertation Fellowship
1984, 1993--Journal of Geophysical Research Editor's Citation for
Excellence in Refereeing
1985--Graduate Student Council Award for Teaching
1985-1986--Mary Ingraham Bunting Fellow, Radcliffe College
1988--Macelwane Award, American Geophysical Union
1988--Fellowship, American Geophysical Union
1988--Doctor of Science, honoris causa, Colorado College
1989-1990--NSF Visiting Professorship for Women, Lamont-Doherty
Geological Observatory of Columbia University
1991-1997--Griswold Professor of Geophysics
1993--Outstanding Alumni Award, The Blake Schools, Minneapolis
1995--Capital Science Lecturer, Carnegie Institution
1996-1997--Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholar
1996--MIT School of Science Graduate Teaching Prize
1998--Fellowship, Geological Society of America
1997--Science and Technology Fellow, CSU Monterey Bay
1998--Fellowship, American Association for the Advancement of Science
1999--Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
1998--Sanctuary Reflections Award, Special Recognition Category,
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
2002--Elected member American Philosophical Society
2003--ARCS Scientist of the Year
2004--National Associate, National Academy of Science
2004--Alumna of the Year, University of California, San Diego
2004--Doctor of Science, honoris causa, University of Minnesota
2005--Elected member, National Academy of Sciences
Post-graduate Employment
1/78-6/78--Postdoctoral Research Associate, Scripps Institution of
Oceanography.
6/78-7/79--Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis.
6/79-6/82--Geophysicist, Branch of Tectonophysics, Office of Earthquake
Studies, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California.
7/82-7/86--Assistant Professor of Geophysics, Department of Earth,
Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
7/86--Associate Professor of Geophysics, EAPS, MIT.
7/89-3/98--Professor of Geophysics, EAPS, MIT.
7/93-7/95--Associate Director, MIT SeaGrant College Program.
7/95-8/97--Director, MIT/WHOI Joint Program in Oceanography and Applied
Ocean Science and Engineering.
9/97-present--President/CEO Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute.
6/98-present--Professor, Department of Earth Science, UC-Santa Cruz (on
leave).
10/98-present--Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University.
Special Training
8/74--Completed U.S. Navy UDT and Seal Team training course in
underwater demolition and explosives handling. Also, NAUI
certified SCUBA diver and Red Cross Water Safety Instructor.
Sea Experience
Participant on 14 oceanographic expeditions on ships from Scripps,
Woods Hole, Oregon State University, and Columbia University.
Co-chief scientist on Crossgrain 2 marine geophysical expedition to the
Marquesas Islands, April 1987.
Co-chief scientist on the R/V Maurice Ewing EW9103 multi-channel
seismic expedition to French Polynesia, May, 1991.
Chief scientist on the R/V Maurice Ewing EW9106 marine geophysical
survey of the Marquesas Fracture Zone, September-October, 1991.
Chief scientist on the R/V Maurice Ewing EW9204 ocean bottom
seismometer experiment in the Marquesas Islands, May, 1992.
Co-chief scientist on BARGE, a multi-channel seismic survey on Lake
Mead of the Colorado Plateau--Basin and Range breakaway zone,
March, 1994.
Chief scientist on R/V Maurice Ewing EW9602, multi-channel seismic
survey of the Austral Islands, March-May, 1996.
Chief scientist on R/V Roger Revelle expedition to measure hydrothermal
heat flux in the Hawaiian Islands, August-September, 1997.
Professional Societies
American Geophysical Union (Fellow)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (Fellow)
Geological Society of America (Fellow)
Other Activities
Past
Journal of Geophysical Research Associate Editor, 1980-1983
Journal of Geophysical Research guest editor, 1983
Pure and Applied Geophysics, editorial board, 1987-1988
Member, IUGG special studies group on density and stress differences
within the Earth, 1980-1983
Member, IUGG special studies group on geodynamics of mountain belts,
1983-1987
Member, NSF panel for graduate fellowships in Earth Sciences, 1985,
1986, 1987 (Chairman 1988, 1989, 1990)
NSF Ocean Sciences, Panelist, 1986-1988, 1990
NSF Science and Technology Centers Panelist, 1989
Member NASA science steering group for the Geopotential Research
Mission 1978-1988.
Chairman, Science Working Group, NASA Gradiometer Study Team, 1987
Panel Co-Chairman, NASA Coolfont Workshop, 1989
Member, Committee on Geodesy, National Research Council, 1982-1984
Member, Geodynamics Committee, National Research Council, 1984-1987
Member, Earth Science Committee, National Research Council, 1987-1989
Member, AGU Tectonophysics nominating committee, 1983, 1985
Member, AGU Budget and Finance Committee, 1986-1988
Chairman, AGU Journals Board, 1988-1990
Chairman, Tectonophysics Fellows Committee, AGU, 1990, 1992
Chairman, AGU Publications Committee, 1990-1992
Member, Tectonics editor search committee, 1983
Member, Lithosphere Panel, Ocean Drilling Program, 1986-1988
Member, National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Advisory
Committee, 1991
Chairman, AGU Publications Committee, 1990-1992
Chairman, Joint Committee for Marine Geology and Geophysics, MIT/WHOI
Joint Program, 1984-1988, 1991-1995
President, special study group ``Transmission of Stress and Geodynamic
Implication,'' International Association of Geodesy, 1987-1991
Tectonophysics editorial board, 1982-1991
Member, Atolls and Guyots Detailed Planning Group, Ocean Drilling
Program, 1991
Member, Performance Evaluation Committee, Ocean Drilling Program, 1991
Member, Organizing Committee for the Frontiers of Science Symposium,
National Academy of Sciences, 1991-1992, 1994
Chairman, Visiting Committee, Geological Sciences Department, U of
Arizona, 1992
Member, Advisory Committee for Earth Sciences, National Science
Foundation, 1990-1993
Member, NASA Earth Science and Applications Division Advisory
Subcommittee, 1990-1993
Member, Advisory Structure Review Committee, Ocean Drilling Program,
1992-1993
Chairman, Organizing Committee for the Frontiers of Science Symposium,
National Academy of Sciences, 1993
Chairman, Visiting Committee, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 1993
SEI (Study of the Earth's Interior) Committee, American Geophysical
Union, 1992-1994
Audit and Legal Affaris Committee, American Geophysical Union, 1992-
1994
Nominating Committee, American Geophysical Union, 1992-1994
Member, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, National Research
Council, 1994
Member, Committee on Geophysical and Environmental Data, National
Research Council, 1994
Member, National Academy of Sciences Television Advisory Committee,
1994
Member, Committee to Study the Criteria for Federal Support for
Research and Development (Press Committee), 1995
President, Tectonophysics section, American Geophysical Union, 1992-
1994
Chair, Audit and Legal Affaris Committee, American Geophysical Union,
1994-1996
Member, Organizing Committee for the German-American Frontiers of
Science Symposium, 1995, 1996
Chair, External Review Committee, Department of Geological Sciences, UC
Santa Barbara, 1997
Member, External Review Committee, Department of Geology and
Geophysics, U of Minnesota, 1997
Member, Lincoln Lab Advisory Board, 1994-1997
Member, National Medal of Science Committee, 1995-1997
Member, New England Aquarium Advisory Board, 1995-1997
Co-Chair, NSF-OCE Workshop on the Future of Marine Geosciences, 1995-
1998
Vice-Chair, Advisory Committee for Geosciences, National Science
Foundation, 1996-1998
Chair, Macelwane Award Committee, American Geophysical Union, 1996-1998
Co-Chair, Chinese-American Frontiers of Science Symposium, August, 1998
Member, Government-University-Industry-Research-Roundtable committee on
Stress in Universities, 1995-1998
Member, NRC committee on the Science of Earthquakes, 1996-1999
Member, NRC Committee on 50 Years of Ocean Sciences at NSF, 1998
Member, ODP Executive Committee for Drilling Opportunities in the 21st
Century, 1998-1999
Member, German-American Academic Council, 1994-1999
Member, Ocean Research Advisory Panel, National Ocean Partnership
Program, 2000-2001
Member, Ocean Science Synthesis Committee, NSF, 1998-2001
Chair, NOAA Exploration Panel, 2000-2001
President, American Geophysical Union, 2000-2002
Member, Exploration of the Seas Committee, National Research Council,
2001-2004
Member, Review Committee for the Division on Earth and Life Sciences,
National Academy of Sciences, 2003-2004
Member, Jackson School Vision Committee, University of Texas at Austin,
2003-2004
Past President, American Geophysical Union, 2002-2004
Member, Visiting Committee, Department of Ocean Engineering, MIT, 1999-
2004
Chair, Ocean Research Advisory Panel, National Ocean Partnership
Program, 2001-2005
Present
Member, Visiting Committee, Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT,
2005-present
Whale Conservation Fund Advisory Council, 2004-present
Member, Visiting Committee, School of Earth Sciences, Stanford
University, 1999-present
Chair, Visiting Committee, Department of Earth and Planetary Science,
Harvard University, 2002-present
Member, External Review Committee for Marine Science Institute,
University of California at Santa Barbara, 2006
Member, Advisory Board, Winchell School of Earth Sciences, University
of Minnesota, 2005-present
Member, Board of Directors, Monterey Bay Aquarium, 1998-present
Member, Schlumberger Technical Advisory Committee, 2000-present
Member, Editorial Advisory Committee, Science magazine, 2001-present
Chair, Monterey Bay Crescent Ocean Research Consortium, 2000-2006
Chair-elect, Board of Directors, Joint Oceanographic Institutions
Member, Ocean Council, joint task force for Joint Oceanographic
Institutions and the Consortium for Ocean Research and
Education
Member, Class membership committee, National Academy of Sciences
Reviewer for JGR, GJRAS, Tectonophysics, Nature, Tectonics, Journal of
Geophysics, EPSL, PEPI, GRL, RGSP, PAGEOPH, NSF, NASA, LPRI,
NERC
Invited Lectures
Caltech (1978, 1980, 1997), U. of Minnesota (1978, 1996, 125th
Anniversary Lecturer, 1999, IT Distinguished Woman Lecturer, 2003,
2005), Harvard (1978, 1984), U.C. Santa Barbara (1978, 1981), Cornell
University (1978, 1983), U. of Michigan (1979, 1989, 1994), Dalhousie
(1979), Lamont-Doherty (1980, 1985, 1986, 1989, 1995; 50th Anniversary
Lecture 1999), Stanford (1980, 1984, 1998, 2003), Sandia Labs (1981),
MIT (1981; Wallace Lecture: 1998, 2005), Woods Hole (1981, 1985, 1987,
1989), UC Berkeley (1982; 1989; 1995; 1998), UCLA (1982, 1989), Society
of Engineering Science (1982), Washington University at St. Louis
(1982), Brown (1983, 1989, 1994), Yale (1983, 1985, 1995), Scripps
Institution of Oceanography (80th Anniversary Lecturer: 1983; 1995,
2002), 27th International Geological Congress, Moscow (1984), Institute
of Physics of the Earth, Moscow (1984, 1987), U. of Wyoming (1985,
Dedication of Geosciences Building: 1998), Colorado College (1985,
1988, 2003), SUNY Stony Brook (1985), IUGG Workshop in Zurich (1985),
U. Lowell (1986), University of Rhode Island (1986, 1994), Radcliffe
Summer Science Program (1986, 1987), WHOI College Teachers Workshop
(1987), Geological Society of Washington (1988, 2005), IGPP Los Alamos
(1989), IPG, Paris (1989, 1996), Institute of Computational Geophysics,
Moscow (1989), Institute of Petroleum Research, Tel Aviv (1989), York
University (1990), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (1990),
Northwestern (1990), Penn State (1990), University of New Mexico
(1991), University of Texas at Austin (1991), Boston University (1992),
Duke University (1992), UMass, Amherst (1992, 1996), U of Washington
(1993), Princeton University (1993), National Academy of Sciences
(1994), Keystone Scientist to Scientist Colloquium (1994), Berlin
Symposium on Issues Facing the German-American Academic Council (1994),
U of Toronto (1994; J. Tuzo Wilson Lecture, 2004), MacMaster University
(1994), University of Maine (1995), Workshop on Science Education,
University of Iowa (1995, 1996), Amherst College (1996), Smith College
(1996), University of Brest, France (1996), Western Maryland College
(1996), Hiram College (1997), Carnegie-Mellon University (1997), St.
Lawrence University (1997), Birmingham-Southern College (1997),
University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee (1997), Ripon College (1997),
College of St. Catherine (1997), University of Hawaii (1998), UC Santa
Cruz (1998), Augsburg College (Sverdrup Lectures: 1998), Arizona State
Univeristy (1998), AAAS (1998, 1999), Library of Congress (1999), U.S.
Geological Survey (2000), Purdue University (Crough Lecture, 2000),
White House Millenium Matinee (2000), Trinity University (2000),
University of Utah (2001), ACM1 Computer Conference (Keynote Speaker,
2001), Revelle Lecture (NAS, 2001), American Academy of Arts and
Sciences (2001), Oceans 2001 (Keynote lecture, 2001), University of
South Carolina (Convocation Speaker, 2002), Ocean's Symposium,
Anchorage, AL (2002); JAMESTEC 30th Anniversary Symposium (2002),
Oregon State University (Condon Lecture: 2002, 2005), University of
California, San Diego (2002), Illinois Math and Science Academy (2003),
ARCS Foundation (2003), Women in Science and Engineering, UCSD (2003),
Nuclear and Space Radiation Effects keynote speaker (2003), Division of
Planetary Sciences, American Astronomical Society plenary speaker
(2003), Barrow Arctic Science Consortium public lecture (2003),
Portuguese-American Foundation Annual Lecture in Marine Sciences,
Lisbon (2004), 9th Circuit Court Judicial Conference (2004); Marin
County Women Lawyers (2004), MIT-ME dept (2005), Santa Fe Institute
(2005), Naval Postgraduate School (2005), PopTech (2005), Space Mission
Challenges (2006).
PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS
1. McNutt, M.K. and R.L. Parker, Isostasy in Australia and the
evolution of the compensation mechanism, Science 199, 773-775, 1978.
2. McNutt, M.K. and H.W. Menard, Lithospheric flexure and uplifted
atolls, J. Geophys. Res. 83, 1206-1212, 1978.
3. Shih, J.S.F., T. Atwater, and M.K. McNutt, A near-bottom
geophysical traverse of the Reykjanes Ridge, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
39, 75-83, 1978.
4. McNutt, M.K., Continental and Oceanic Isostasy, Ph.D. thesis,
University of California, San Diego, California, 1978.
5. McNutt, M.K. and H.W. Menard, Reply to comments on `Lithospheric
flexure and uplifted atolls' by R.D. Jarrard and D.L. Turner, J.
Geophys. Res. 84, 5695-5697, 1979.
6. McNutt, M.K., Compensation of oceanic topography: An application
of the response function technique to the Surveyor area, J. Geophys.
Res. 84, 7589-7598, 1979.
7. McNutt, M.K. and H.W. Menard, Reply to comments on `Lithospheric
flexure and uplifted atolls' by H.T. Stearns, J. Geophys. Res. 84,
7698, 1979.
8. Parker, R.L. and M.K. McNutt, Statistics for the one-norm misfit
measure, J. Geophys. Res. 85, 4429-4430, 1980.
9. McNutt, M.K., Implications of regional gravity for state of stress
in the Earth's crust and upper mantle, J. Geophys. Res. 85, 6377-6397,
1980.
10. McNutt, M.K. and Thomas Heaton, An evaluation of the seismic
window theory for earthquake prediction, California Geology 34, 12-16,
1981.
11. McNutt, M.K. and Rodey Batiza, Paleomagnetism of Northern Cocos
seamounts: Constraints on absolute plate motion, Geology 9, 148-154,
1981.
12. Rundle, John and M.K. McNutt, Southern California uplift: Is it or
isn't it? EOS, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union 62, 97-98, 1981 (refereed
journal article).
13. Chase, C.G. and M.K. McNutt, The geoid: effect of compensated
topography and uncompensated trenches, Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, 29-32,
1982.
14. McNutt, M.K. and H.W. Menard, Constraints on yield strength in the
oceanic lithosphere derived from observations of flexure, Geophys. J.
Roy. Astr. Soc. 71, 363-395, 1982.
15. Menard, H.W. and M.K. McNutt, Evidence for and consequences of
thermal rejuvenation of the lithosphere, J. Geophys. Res. 87, 8570-
8580, 1982.
16. Dixon, T.H., M. Naraghi, M.K. McNutt and S.M. Smith, Bathymetric
prediction from SEASAT altimeter data, J. Geophys. Res. 88, 1563-1571,
1983.
17. McNutt, M.K., Influence of plate subduction on isostatic
compensation in northern California, Tectonics 2, 399-415, 1983.
18. McNutt, M.K., Reply to comments on ``Nasal surgery and airflow,''
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 73, 700-701, 1984.
19. McNutt, M.K., Lithospheric flexure and thermal anomalies, J.
Geophys. Res. 89, 11, 180-11, 194, 1984.
20. Committee on Geodesy, Geodesy: A Look to the Future, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1985.
21. McNutt, M.K., Nonuniform magnetization of seamounts: a least-
squares approach, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 3686-3700, 1986.
22. Sheffels, B. and M.K. McNutt, The role of subsurface loads and
regional compensation in the isostatic balance of the Transverse
Ranges, California: Evidence for intracontinental subduction, J.
Geophys. Res. 91, 6419-6431, 1986.
23. McNutt, M.K. and L. Shure, Estimating the compensation depth of
the Hawaiian swell with linear filters, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 13915-
13923, 1986.
24. Fischer, K., M.K. McNutt, and L. Shure, Thermal and mechanical
constraints on the lithosphere beneath the Marquesas swell, Nature 322,
733-736, 1986.
25. McNutt, M.K. and L. Royden, Extremal bounds on geotherms in
eroding mountain belts from metamorphic pressure-temperature
conditions, Geophys. J. Roy. Astr. Soc. 88, 81-95, 1987.
26. Kogan, M.G. and M.K. McNutt, Isostasy in the USSR I: Admittance
data, in The Composition, Structure, and Dynamics of the Lithosphere-
Asthenosphere System, K. Fuchs and C. Froidevaux, eds., Geodynamics
Series, AGU, vol. 16, 1987.
27. McNutt, M.K. and M.G. Kogan, Isostasy in the USSR II:
Interpretation of admittance data, in The Composition, Structure, and
Dynamics of the Lithosphere-Asthenosphere System, K. Fuchs and C.
Froidevaux, eds., Geodynamics Series, AGU, vol. 16, 1987.
28. McNutt, M.K., Lithospheric stress and deformation, Rev. Geophys.
25, 1245-1253, 1987.
29. McNutt, M.K. and K.M. Fisher, The South Pacific superswell, in
Seamounts, Islands, and Atolls, B. Keating, P. Fryer, R. Batiza, and
G.W. Boehlert, eds., Geophysical Monograph #43, American Geophysical
Union, Washington, D.C., 1987.
30. McNutt, M.K., Temperature beneath midplate swells: the inverse
problem, in Seamounts, Islands, and Atolls, B. Keating, P. Fryer, R.
Batiza, and G.W. Boehlert, eds., Geophysical Monograph #43, American
Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., 1987.
31. McNutt, M.K., Thermal and mechanical properties of the Cape Verde
Rise, J. Geophys. Res. 93, 2784-2794, 1988.
32. McNutt, M.K., M. Diament, and M.G. Kogan, Variations in elastic
plate thickness at continental thrust belts, J. Geophys. Res. 93, 8825-
8838, 1988.
33. McNutt, M.K., If only we had better gravity data. . ., Special
Report of the Committee on Geodesy, National Research Council, May,
1988.
34. Kruse, Sarah, and M. McNutt, Compensation of Paleozoic orogens: a
comparison of the Urals to the Appalachians, Tectonophysics 154, 1-17,
1988.
35. McNutt, M.K., Isostasy, in Encyclopedia of Structural Geology and
Plate Tectonics, C. Seyfert, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,
1988.
36. McNutt, M., K. Fischer, S. Kruse, and J. Natland, The origin of
the Marquesas Fracture Zone Ridge and its implications for the nature
of hot spots, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 91, 381-393, 1989.
37. Sheehan, Anne, and M. McNutt, Constraints on the thermal structure
of the Bermuda Rise from geoid height and depth anomalies, Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett. 93, 377-391, 1989.
38. Filmer, Paul, and M. McNutt, Geoid anomalies over the Canary
islands group, Marine Geophys. Res. 11, 77-87, 1989.
39. McNutt, M.K., Gravity and Isostasy, Encyclopedia of Solid Earth
Geophysics, D.E. James, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1989.
40. McNutt, M.K. and A.V. Judge, The superswell and mantle dynamics
beneath the South Pacific, Science 248, 969-975, 1990.
41. McNutt, M.K., Deep causes of hot spots, Nature 346, 701-702, 1990.
42. McNutt, M.K., E.W. Winterer, W. Sager, J. Natland, and G. Ito, The
Darwin Rise: A Cretaceous superswell? Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 1101-
1104, 1990.
43. Ruppel, Carolyn, and M. McNutt, Regional compensation of the
Greater Caucasus Mountains based on an analysis of Bouguer gravity
data, Earth Planet. Sci. Letts. 98, 360-379, 1990.
44. Wolfe, Cecily and M.K. McNutt, Compensation of Cretaceous
seamounts of the Darwin Rise, northwest Pacific Ocean, J. Geophys. Res.
96, 2363-2374, 1991.
45. Kruse, Sarah, M.K. McNutt, J. Phipps-Morgan, L. Royden, and B.
Wernicke, Lithospheric extension near Lake Mead, Nevada: a model for
ductile flow in the lower crust, J. Geophys. Res. 96, 4435-4456, 1991.
46. Judge, Anne, and M.K. McNutt, The relationship between plate dip
and elastic plate thickness: A study of the Peru-Chile Trench, J.
Geophys. Res. 96, 16, 625-16, 639, 1991.
47. McNutt, M.K., Lithospheric Plates, Encyclopedia of Earth System
Science, W.A. Nierenberg, Ed., Academic Press, San Diego, Ca, 1991.
48. Christeson, Gail C. and M.K. McNutt, Geophysical constraints on
the state of stress along the Marquesas Fracture Zone, J. Geophys. Res.
97, 4425-4438, 1992.
49. Bonneville, A. and M.K. McNutt, Shear strength of the great
Pacific fracture zones as derived from shipboard bathymetry and
gravity, Geophys. Res. Letts. 19, 2023-2026, 1992.
50. Kogan, M.G. and M.K. McNutt, Gravity field over northern Eurasia
and variations in the strength of the upper mantle, Science 259, 473-
479, 1993.
51. Ruppel, Carolyn, M.G. Kogan, and M.K. McNutt, Implications of new
gravity data for Baikal Rift zone structure, Geophys. Res. Letts 20,
1635-1638, 1993.
52. Winterer, E.L., J.H. Natland, R. Van Waasbergen, R.A. Duncan, M.K.
McNutt, C.J. Wolfe, I. Premoli-Silva, W.W. Sager, and W.V. Sliter,
Cretaceous guyots in the northwest Pacific: An overview of their
geology and geophysics, in Mesozoic Pacific: Geology, Tectonics, and
Volcanism, Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 77, edited by M. Pringle, pp.
307-334, AGU, Washington, D.C., 1993.
53. Filmer, Paul E., M.K. McNutt, and Cecily J. Wolfe, Elastic
thickness of the lithosphere in the Marquesas Islands and Society
Islands, J. Geophys. Res. 98, 19, 565-19, 578, 1993.
54. Wolfe, Cecily J., Marcia K. McNutt, and Robert S. Detrick, The
Marquesas archipelagic apron: Seismic stratigraphy and implications for
volcano growth, mass wasting, and crustal underplating, J. Geophys.
Res. 99, 13, 591-13, 608, 1994.
55. Waschbusch, Paula J. and Marcia K. McNutt, Yellowstone: A
continental midplate (hot spot) swell, Geophys. Res. Letts. 21, 1703-
1706, 1994.
56. Filmer, P. E., M.K. McNutt, H. Webb, and D. Dixon, Volcanism and
archipelagic aprons in the Marquesas and Hawaiian Islands, Marine
Geophys. Res. 16, 385-406, 1994.
57. Makedonskii, E.L., G. Balmino, V. Galazin, M.G. Kogan, and M.K.
McNutt, Gravity field over the former Soviet Union mapped, EOS, Trans.
Amer. Geophys. Union 75, 463-464, 1994.
58. Jin, Yu, Marcia McNutt, and Yongshen Zhou, Evidence from gravity
and topography for folding of Tibet, Nature 371, 669-674, 1994.
59. Kuykendall, Martha, Sarah Kruse, and Marcia McNutt, The effects of
changes in plate motions on the shape of the Marquesas Fracture Zone,
Geophys. Res. Letts. 21, 2845-2848, 1994.
60. Caress, D.W., M.K. McNutt, R.S. Detrick, and J.C. Mutter, Seismic
imaging of hotspot-related crustal underplating beneath the Marquesas
Islands, Nature 373, 600-603, 1995.
61. Ito, G., M.K. McNutt, and R.L. Gibson, Crustal structure of the
Tuamotu Plateau, 15 S and implications for its origin, J. Geophys. Res.
100, 8097-8114, 1995.
62. McNutt, M.K., Marine geodynamics: depth-age revisited, Rev.
Geophys., U.S. National Report Supplement, 413-418, 1995.
63. Jordahl, Kelsey, Marcia McNutt, Helen Webb, Sarah Kruse, and
Martha Kuykendall, Why there are no earthquakes on the Marquesas
Fracture Zone, J. Geophys. Res. 100, 24, 431-24, 447, 1995.
64. McNutt, Marcia K. and Leigh H. Royden, The building of Tibet, The
Explorers' Journal 73, 10-17, 1995.
65. Haggerty, J., I. Premoli Silva, F. Rack, and M.K. McNutt (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, 144,
College Station, Texas, 1995.
66. Jin, Yu, Marcia McNutt, and Yongshen Zhou, Mapping the descent of
Indian and Eurasian plates beneath the Tibetan plateau from gravity
anomalies, J. Geophys. Res. 101, 11275-11290, 1996.
67. McNutt, M.K., L. Sichoix, and A. Bonneville, Modal depths from
shipboard bathymetry: There IS a South Pacific Superswell, Geophys.
Res. Letts. 23, 3397-3400, 1996.
68. McNutt, M.K. and A. Bonneville, Mapping the seafloor from space,
Endeavour 20, 157-161, 1996.
69. McNutt, M.K., D. Caress, J. Reynolds, and K. Jordahl, Failure of
plume theory to explain multiple episodes of stress-triggered volcanism
in the Austral Islands, Nature 389, 479-482, 1997.
70. McNutt, M.K., Superswells, Rev. Geophys. 36, 211-244, 1998.
71. Jordahl, K.A., M.K. McNutt, and H. Zorn, Pacific-Farallon relative
motion 42-59 determined from magnetic and tectonic data from the
southern Austral Islands, Geophys. Res. Letts. 25, 2869-2872, 1998.
72. Sichoix, L.A. Bonneville, and M. McNutt, Analysis of modal depths
and re-examination of the swells and the Superswell in the South
Pacific, J. Geophys. Res. 103, 27, 123-27, 133, 1998.
73. McNutt, M.K., Achievements in marine geology and geophysics, in
Fifty Years of Ocean Discovery, National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C., pp. 51-64, 1999.
74. McNutt, M.K., The future of marine geology and geophysics: a
summary, in Fifty Years of Ocean Discovery, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., pp. 172-183, 1999.
75. Kogan, M.G. and M.K. McNutt, Viscosity of the upper mantle:
continent versus ocean differences, in revision for J. Geophys. Res.,
1999.
76. McNutt, M.K., Earth and Environmental Science, in Frontiers of the
Mind of the Twenty-first Century, Library of Congress, 1999.
77. McNutt, M.K. and Alain Bonneville, Chemical origin for the
Marquesas swell, Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems, 19999GC000028, 2000.
78. Brady, R., B. Wernicke, M. McNutt, J. Mutter, and G. Correa,
Results of the Basin and Range Geoscientific Experiments (BARGE): A
marine-style seismic reflection survey across the eastern boundary of
the central Basin and Range Province, Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems 1,
2000.
79. Harris, R.N., R.P. Von Herzen, M.K. McNutt, Grant Garven, and
Kelsey Jordahl, Submarine hydrogeology of the Hawaiian archipelagic
apron, Part 1, Heat flow patterns north of Oahu and Maro Reef, J.
Geophys. Res. 105, 21, 371-21, 385, 2000.
80. Harris, R.N., Grant Garven, Jennifer Georgen, M.K. McNutt, and
R.P. Von Herzen, Submarine hydrogeology of the Hawaiian archipelagic
apron, Part 1, Numerical simulations of flow, J. Geophys. Res. 105, 21,
353-21, 369, 2000.
81. McNutt, M.K. and R.D. Ballard, Two case studies of collaborations
between aquariums and research institutions in exploration and
education, Mar. Tech. Soc. J. 35, 76-85, 2001.
82. McNutt, M.K., Engineering the ocean, in The Invisible Future: The
Seamless Integration of Technology in Everyday Life, P. Deming, ed., p.
27-42, McGraw-Hill, 2001.
83. McNutt, M.K., Heat flow variations over Hawaiian swell controlled
by near-surface processes, not plume properties, in Hawaiian Volcanoes:
Deep Underwater Perspectives, E. Takahashi, ed., AGU Monograph 128,
Washington, D.C., 2002.
84. McNutt, M.K., Ocean exploration, Oceanography 15, 112-121, 2002.
85. Jiang, Xiaodian, Yu Jin, and M.K. McNutt, Lithospheric deformation
beneath the Altyn Tagh and West Kunlun faults from recent gravity
surveys, J. Geophys. Res. 109, B05406, doi:10.1029/2003JB002444, 2004.
86. Jordahl, Kelsey, D. Caress, M. McNutt, and A. Bonneville, Seafloor
topography and morphology of the Superswell region, The Pacific Ocean
Hot Spots, R. Hekinian, P. Stoffers, and J.-L. Cheminee, Eds.,
Springer-Verlag, pp. 9-28, 2004.
87. Jordahl, Kelsey, M. McNutt, and D. Caress, Multiple episodes of
volcanism in the Southern Austal Islands: Flexural constraints from
bathymetry, seismic reflection, and gravity data, J. Geophys. Res. 109,
B06103, doi:10.1029/2003JB002885, 2004.
88. Harris, Robert and M.K. McNutt, Heat Flow on Hot Spot Swells:
Evidence for Fluid Flow, accepted, J. Geophys. Res., 2006.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you very much, and thank you to all
the witnesses. As I announced earlier, we would stop the
proceedings as soon as the sponsor of the bill arrived, and
Congressman Saxton is here. Mr. Spinrad, would you be kind
enough to just step aside for a moment, and Mr. Saxton, you can
take that seat.
Mr. Saxton is the author and principal sponsor of H.R.
3835, which is the subject of the hearing today. He has a
number of eminent cosponsors as well, and we are very pleased
to welcome you, Jim. I have explained that you had scheduling
problems, so we will fit you in whenever you get here, and we
will not bother you with questions, because we can always
question you later.
But we would appreciate your testimony on this issue. Thank
you for being here. I think your mike is not on.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Saxton. Okay, thank you. Chairman Ehlers, thank you
very much, and Ranking Member Wu, and Members of the Committee.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify, and
particularly, thank you for your consideration of the National
Ocean Undersea Research Program, and for considering this bill
today.
Our dependence on healthy marine ecosystems continue to
grow. Mr. Gilchrest and I work on these issues almost all day
every day, and so, we are very eager to have this bill enacted
into law. Ocean exploration and undersea research remain a
relatively minor component of the U.S. ocean science, and is a
missing link in our national strategy to better understand the
Earth's environment.
When I walked into the room, I saw the Tennyson quote on
the wall, which I find quite fascinating, and fits right into
today's hearing: ``For I dipped into the future, far as human
eyes could see; Saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder
that would be.'' These programs are intended to give us that
vision beneath the Earth's--beneath the ocean's surface, and
therefore, become an extremely important component in our
understanding of earth sciences.
Consequently, the report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy recommended the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the National Science Foundation should lead
an expanded National Ocean Exploration Program. I am proud to
be the sponsor of the National Ocean Exploration Program Act to
promote implementation of the Commission's recommendation.
The bill authorizes two important ocean programs, the Ocean
Exploration Program and the National Undersea Research Program.
The National Ocean Exploration Program Act would create better
coordinated--better coordination between NOAA and the National
Science Foundation. Among the purposes of the Act are to expand
ocean exploration, to discover the new marine substances, which
would potentially have therapeutic benefits; and to study
unique marine ecosystems, organisms, and the geology of the
world's oceans. As the federal agency responsible for managing
living marine and coastal resources, NOAA requires a presence
beneath the sea and Great Lakes to better understand the
systems under its management. The Undersea Research Program
provides NOAA with the unique ability to access the undersea
environment, either directly, with submersibles and technical
diving, or virtually, by using robots and seafloor
observatories.
Both of these programs authorized by the legislation are
core to the mission of NOAA. This past year, several weather
events, hazardous material spills, the increasing occurrence of
harmful red tide events, and the continued decline of the
coastal resources and habitats demonstrated the need for
timely, accurate environmental information that can inform
decision-making to reduce loss of life, property, and coastal
infrastructure, and to improve management of marine and coastal
resources. A primary focus of NOAA's Undersea Research Program
is to help provide the information to meet these very needs.
As Members of this committee will recall, I have a long
history of Undersea Research Program interest, which was
established by NOAA shortly before I came to Congress. As a
matter of fact, with the Mid-Atlantic Bight Undersea Research
Center, which is based in my district, I am very familiar with
the work conducted through this regional center.
As an example, in mid-1996, the Mid-Atlantic Bight Center
established the world's first long-term ecosystem observatory,
commonly referred to, Mr. Chairman, as Leo XV. Situated on the
continental shelf off New Jersey, Leo XV provides a real-time
interface with advanced samplers and sensors, enabling
investigators to plug in instruments, conduct and modify
experiments remotely, and access data via the Internet. This
has been a very interesting part of the 3rd District of new
Jersey.
Critical research on the fate and effects of deep sea waste
disposal that redefine our national waste management strategy;
a few more examples include: development of new samplers and
sensors for ocean observing systems, via the Leo XV underwater
observatory; novel applications of autonomous undersea
vehicles, and emerging acoustic technologies to track and
monitor fish, their migration, and habitat use; major studies
on the effects of trawling on the bottom continues to have
informed fisheries' managements' efforts; development of the
REMUS autonomous undersea vehicle that enables investigators to
conduct detailed transects of the coastal ocean processes and
features; and finally, the creation of acclaimed education and
outreach programs that capitalize on real-time data systems to
enrich science education, teaching of basic skills, and
enhancement of ocean literacy among the young people of our
country.
H.R. 3835 is co-sponsored by our colleagues who host
regional NURP centers in their districts, as well as others who
recognize the strengths and benefits of the program, a
regionally based structure that leverages the Nation's best
talent to address NOAA's undersea research and technology
requirements, mechanisms to transfer science-based information
to the management, education, and science communities, and an
unparalleled record of safe field operations in the ocean.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I have a longer
statement I would like to submit for the record, but this is,
in effect, a summary of my feelings on this matter, and I thank
you once again for giving me the opportunity to come here and
say these things.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jim Saxton
Talking Points on H.R. 3835
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of H.R. 3835,
which will authorize the Ocean Exploration and NOAA Undersea Research
Programs.
Although our dependence on healthy marine ecosystems continues to
grow, ocean exploration and undersea research remain a relatively minor
component of U.S. ocean science and is a missing link in our national
strategy to better understand the Earth's environment.
Consequently, the report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
recommended the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
National Science Foundation should lead an expanded national ocean
exploration program. I am proud to be the sponsor of the National Ocean
Exploration Program Act to promote implementation of the Commission's
recommendation.
This bill authorizes two important ocean programs--the Ocean
Exploration Program and the National Undersea Research Program.
The National Ocean Exploration Program Act will create better
coordination between NOAA and the National Science Foundation. Among
the purposes of the Act are to expand ocean exploration to discover new
marine substances that potentially have therapeutic benefits; to study
unique marine ecosystems, organisms and the geology of the world's
oceans.
As the federal agency responsible for managing living marine and
coastal resources, NOAA requires a presence beneath the sea and Great
Lakes to better understand the systems under its management. The
Undersea Research Program provides NOAA with the unique ability to
access the undersea environment either directly with submersibles and
technical diving, or virtually using robots and seafloor observatories.
Both of the programs authorized by this legislation are core to the
mission of NOAA.
This past year, severe weather events, hazardous material spills,
the increasing occurrence of harmful red tide events, and the continued
decline of coastal resources and habitats demonstrated the need for
timely, accurate environmental information that can inform decision-
making to reduce loss of life, property and coastal infrastructure, and
to improve management of marine and coastal resources. A primary focus
of NOAA's Undersea Research Program is to help provide the information
to meet these needs.
As Members of this committee will recall, I have a long history
with Undersea Research Program, which was established by NOAA shortly
before I came to Congress. With the Mid-Atlantic Bight Undersea
Research Center based in my district, I am very familiar with the work
conducted through this regional center. A few examples include:
In 1996, the Mid-Atlantic Bight Center established
the world's first Long-term Ecosystem Observatory, commonly
referred to as LEO-15. Situated on the continental shelf off
New Jersey, LEO-15 provides a real-time interface with advanced
samplers and sensors enabling investigators to plug in
instruments, conduct and modify experiments remotely, and
access data via the Internet.
Critical research on the fate and effects of deep sea
waste disposal that redefined our national waste management
strategy.
Development of new samplers and sensors for ocean
observing systems via the LEO-15 underwater observatory, novel
applications of autonomous undersea vehicles, and emerging
acoustic technologies to track and monitor fish behavior,
migration, and habitat use.
Major studies on the effects of trawling on bottom
communities that have informed fisheries management efforts.
Development of the REMUS autonomous undersea vehicle
that enables investigators to conduct detailed transects of
coastal ocean processes and features, and
Creation of acclaimed education and outreach programs
that capitalize on real-time data streams to enrich science
education, teaching of basic skills, and enhancement of ocean
literacy among our youth.
H.R. 3835 is co-sponsored by our colleagues who host regional NURP
centers in their districts, as well as others who also recognize the
strengths and benefits of the program:
A regionally-based structure that leverages the
Nation's best talent to address NOAA's undersea research and
technology requirements,
Mechanisms to transfer science-based information to
the management, education and science communities, and
An unparalleled record of safe field operations in
the ocean.
Mr. Chairman, I have a longer statement I would like to submit for
the record that elaborates on each of these key elements--elements that
I am hopeful will be preserved in H.R. 3835, as well as in the ongoing
merger of the Ocean Exploration and Undersea Research Programs in NOAA.
Thank you again for holding this hearing today and for the
opportunity to testify. I look forward to working with the Committee to
move the bill forward.
Addendum to Mr. Saxton's oral testimony:
1) Regional Structure
NOAA has a long history of partnering with academic institutions to
leverage regional benefits on behalf of agency science, management and
education programs. This is evident in programs such as Sea Grant and
the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. The benefits of the
NURP partnership with university-based regional Centers are many:
Access to a broad talent pool of researchers,
engineers and educators
Ready access to regional and local management
agencies
Enhanced ability to leverage partnerships and
resources
Efficient mechanism to disseminate information to
stakeholders at regional and local levels
Regional-scale programs are required to enable
ecosystem approaches to management
Development and experienced, safe operation of
advanced undersea technology.
With respect to the last point, I want to point out that despite a
relatively modest budget, the NURP program has contributed greatly to
development of advanced undersea technology. Most notable for me is the
establishment of LEO-15, an undersea observatory that serves as the
model for the Nation's emerging ocean observing system. This platform
was recently renovated with the latest software and hardware to enable
it to continue to serve as a testbed for development of samplers and
sensors. In addition, NURP has developed a broad suite of samplers and
sensors for undersea vehicles. Support for this and other technology
development should continue to be provided by NOAA and is recognized as
a distinct part of this bill under authorization of appropriations.
I'm aware that, due to funding constraints, efforts are underway to
consolidate the four existing regional centers on the east coast. This
is an effort that I've been tracking closely. I want to ensure that the
benefits provided by the regional construct are not lost in this
consolidation, or in the merger process. Ideally, there should be at
least two centers on the east coast with one of these centers serving
the needs of the northeast. I'm well aware, and my colleague from
Connecticut is well aware that the respective center directors for the
Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions have been working on a joint or
consolidated center to serve the Mid-Atlantic, New England and Great
Lakes regions. I believe that H.R. 3835 codifies the regional NURP
structure, and I urge NOAA to ensure that a northeast regional presence
be maintained to capitalize on the expertise resident in the existing
Mid-Atlantic and Northeast Undersea Centers.
2) Transfer of Science-Based Information
In collaboration with partners leveraged via the regional centers,
NURP has excelled in the delivery of science-based information to user
groups such as fishery managers, coastal managers, educators, students
and the general public. This has been accomplished largely with
external sources of funding and is a good example of a benefit of the
regional center construct. For example, the NURP Centers on the east
coast worked with the Office of Ocean Exploration to produce the at-sea
education program for the Deep East expedition in 2001, an expedition
that featured submersible dives to unexplored parts of the Hudson
Submarine Canyon. In addition, the Mid-Atlantic Center works in
partnership with the Mid-Atlantic center for Ocean Sciences education
Excellence to deliver real world science to students throughout the
region, an effort that is now being expanded throughout the country.
The NURP Centers possess strong capabilities in education and outreach,
an element that is recognized in H.R. 3835 and must be preserved in the
merger between OE and NURP.
3) Safety
For more than 30 years, the NURP program has conducted undersea
research activities without mishap. This is a tribute to the knowledge,
expertise and capabilities of the science and operations staff at the
regional centers. This is yet another example of the benefit of the
existing regional centers. If this capability were lost, either through
consolidation or the merger, it would be extremely difficult to
reestablish. As I noted earlier, great care must be taken to ensure
that strengths of the NURP program be codified in H.R. 3835 and
maintained in the merger process. Center personnel and infrastructure
represent key strengths that must be preserved in the regions.
Merging NURP and OE
NOAA has begun a process to merge NURP and OE. This process is
expected to take about 12 to 18 months. During this time, I will ask
NOAA to provide regular progress reports to the House Fisheries and
Oceans Subcommittee. In addition, I strongly urge NOAA to continue
active engagement of the NURP Center directors in the merger process.
The merger should preserve the strengths of the NURP program as I
outlined earlier. In addition, the merger should provide a clear role
for the NURP Center Directors in the leadership, direction, and
decision-making of the NURP/OE program.
Recommendations:
1) In an effort to remain as similar as possible to the other
chamber's bill, H.R. 3835 retained the same title as S. 39--to
establish a coordinated national ocean exploration program
within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I
now recommend changing the short title to recognize the
importance of the NOAA Undersea Research Program.
2) Instruct NOAA to preserve the regional center structure and
its associated benefits in the merger between NURP and OE.
3) Ensure that the NURP regional centers are adequately
represented in the leadership and decision-making of the merged
NURP/OE program.
4) At the Fisheries and Oceans Subcommittee hearing on the
bill in the Resources Committee, it became apparent that there
were questions regarding how the two programs, NURP and OE,
would be merged and coordinated. This largely stems from the
fact that the bill establishes similar authorities for both
ocean exploration and undersea research. For example, both
programs are authorized to develop technology, administer
proposal-driven programs, and conduct education and outreach
activities. A mechanism to ensure coordination of effort among
these programs is recommended.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you very much, and without
objection, your longer statement will be entered into the
record, as well as a copy of the letter we have received from,
it was addressed to Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, from J. Val
Klump of the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
So, thank you very much for being here, Mr. Saxton. And I
do want to mention, I am sure you are aware that I have been
working for six years on the NOAA Organic Act. We are finally
making considerable progress. It passed this committee long
ago. I hope to get it passed into law before the end of the
year, and I hope it will mesh well with your bill.
Thank you very much.
Discussion
Thank you for the quick switch back and forth, and we will
get into the questions. I did want to mention Dr. McNutt, your
point about exploration not being explicitly part of NOAA's
mission. As part of the NOAA Organic Act, which I just
mentioned, we have put it in the bill, as one of their duties
is ``conducting and supporting research and development of
technology for exploration of the oceans.'' That is probably
not as direct and clear as you would like, but we may be able
to clear that up, as it goes through the process, but I think
your point is very well taken. That should be clearly stated as
part of NOAA's mission.
Support for H.R. 3835
At this time, we open up our first round of questions. The
Chair recognizes himself for five minutes, and first of all,
Mr. Shepard, I just wanted to check with you on one point. We
just heard from Mr. Saxton about the H.R. 3835, National Ocean
Exploration Program Act of 2005, and the Undersea Research
Program Act of 2005. Dr. McNutt, you have already stated your
support of that.
If you are familiar with the bills, Mr. Shepard, are you in
support of them as well?
Mr. Shepard. Yes.
Support for Interagency Coordination
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. I appreciate your support for
that. The--Dr. McNutt, do you explicitly endorse the idea of
interagency coordination, as provided in the bill? Dr. Spinrad,
do you explicitly oppose it?
Can you each comment on the other's position, as fairly and
temperately as you can. Mr. Shepard, we will ask you for your
thoughts too, as well.
So, Dr. Spinrad, first.
Dr. Spinrad. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to clarify.
There is absolutely no objection to interagency coordination.
In fact, we support it strongly, and if I may point out, one of
the positions I hold is, as Co-chair of the White House Joint
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology, with my colleague
from the National Science Foundation, Dr. Margaret Leinen, and
in fact, that is precisely the reason why we feel we have a
structure in place, in fact, codified in the Administration's
U.S. Ocean Action Plan, through the Committee on Ocean Policy
and its subordinate committees, to accommodate the kind of
interagency activity we talked about here, that being the Joint
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology.
I would that, in fact, through that structure, we bring in
a much more diverse and vast collection of agencies than we
might otherwise, and in fact, in complete support of the
comment made by Dr. McNutt, we would have NSF as a co-chair of
that by definition, using an existing structure. That body, in
fact, right now is tasked with putting out the first ever
statement of our national ocean research priorities, which will
be delivered 31 December, and in there, will be specific
identification of ocean exploration.
So, I think we are well on the way to using that particular
structure, and that is the basis of our comment with respect to
that technical feature of the bill.
Chairman Ehlers. Well, thank you, and we will look into
that in more depth, because if we take up the Saxton bill, and
there may not be time this year, but we could take a good look
at what you are doing now, look at what he proposes, maybe we
can come up with a very good plan to handle that.
Dr. Spinrad. Thank you.
Chairman Ehlers. Mr. Shepard, do you have any comment on
that issue?
Mr. Shepard. Yes, thank you.
As I pointed out in the testimony, first of all, we are
strongly in support of the advisory boards. The taskforce, we
are uncertain of the nature of the taskforce, but in an
advisory capacity, fully support that.
We understand that our activities need to be merged with
the other federal agencies that are doing work in the oceans,
and we want to make sure that whatever we do complements both
ocean exploration and the other federal agencies. So, we don't
have any objections to working--we also would suggest that we
would like to see a NOAA, a strong NOAA advisory component as
well, of the various line offices in NOAA.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you very much.
Another question for--did you want to add some further
comments, Dr. McNutt?
Dr. McNutt. Just to state one.
I understand what Dr. Spinrad means about these other
mechanisms in place for interagency coordination, and I think
those would be fine, if ocean exploration were a top priority
for any of those groups meeting around the table.
Unfortunately, I am afraid right now it is not a top
priority, and therefore, I like this provision in H.R. 3835,
because it instructs them specifically to make sure, in meeting
in those--it could be in those same fora, that ocean
exploration is part of the discussion.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you for clarifying that.
Merger of NURP and OE
I appreciate that. Mr. Shepard and Dr. McNutt, the
Committee, this committee has many options, as it considered
H.R. 3835, in light of NOAA's planned merger of NURP and OE.
So, we could, for example, add language to allow or prohibit
the merger, or add additional requirements about the merger
process.
Is your suggestion that we include something along this
line in the bill, or do you have any other suggestions? And
this time, I will start from the other end, Dr. McNutt.
Dr. McNutt. Well, I think my view of this is that the less
prescriptive that this bill is on it, perhaps the better. I
think that there are a lot of nuances as to how this merger
comes together, and frankly, I think the success of it may
actually boil down to who is chosen to lead the charge within
NOAA, and therefore, I could imagine ways that it could be
prescribed in the language that might be harmful or supportive,
and perhaps, it is best to be nonprescriptive.
Chairman Ehlers. Mr. Shepard, any comment?
Mr. Shepard. Yes, thank you. As we pointed out, again, in
the testimony, we are very comfortable with the wording as it
is in the bill, because what it does is it takes the strengths
of these two programs, and lays them out. And NOAA is working
hard now to, and the two programs involved are working hard to
come up with a plan that can then be vetted with our partners.
So, I think there is action already on the way, and we should
give it time to work. Thank you.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. My time is expired. I am
pleased next to recognize an eminent Member of this committee,
who is extremely interested in these issues, Mr. Gilchrest from
Maryland.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I like the idea that--I think one of the issues that
brought NASA to the forefront of the consciousness of
Americans, besides Sputnik, was that they were going to
explore, to go where no man has gone before, that was an
intriguing natural inherited quality of most human beings. If
they can't get out there and explore themselves, they want
somebody else to do it. So, I think if we use that as a
provision in NOAA, in a few years, it would be nice if we could
bring NOAA up to the same level of funding as NASA, which I
think should be a priority of this committee and the other
committees in Congress.
I guess the issue, and you have clarified it quite well,
merge or not to merge. The issue is, though, coordination,
unimpeded exchanges of information, so that people can
collaborate with that information, become more competent, and
work together, in that sense, to begin to understand, at this
stage in our nation's history and world history, what are the
priorities, as far as the Earth and the oceans are concerned.
Priorities for Ocean Exploration and Research
So, the question that I would have is how do you set
priorities for the various programs, whether it is research or
exploration? Number two, is ocean chemistry, in light of
CO2 sink for the ocean, one of your priorities? And
the consequences over the next few decades of that to ocean
life.
Do you have as a priority, as a result of the thermohaline
system with global warming, understanding, new understanding of
ocean circulation, the conveyor belt phenomenon in the North
Atlantic?
And then one thing that Mr. Saxton raised was what is the
understanding, or the nexus between global warming, hurricanes,
sea surface temperature, and the consequences, pretty direct,
to coastal communities?
So, I guess if you got all of that, I am not sure if I
could remember all that myself, but just a brief comment from
each person would be appreciated.
Dr. McNutt. Okay. I will start by making a stab at this.
First of all, the last question first, connection between
hurricanes, global warming, et cetera. From what we know now of
the genesis of hurricanes, they live off an energy transfer
from the thermocline up into the atmosphere, and to the extent
that we are increasing the strength of that, there is a
definite concern about increasing frequency, and in fact, there
has been some new studies published in Science magazine that
shows that even the historical record is starting to show the
increased pace of destructive hurricanes.
In terms of whether chemistry is involved in ocean
exploration, exactly. In the President's Panel report, where we
lay out the priorities of the program, mapping the ocean in all
of its dimensions is a very high priority. The beauty of
exploration is if you do it in a systematic way, that mapping
can be multidimensional, such that at the same time you are
looking at the thermohaline circulation, you are also looking
at the changing chemistry of the ocean, and you are also
looking at the changing biology. And when we talk about
mapping, it is four dimensional. We have to map in time too,
and there is the beautiful connection to the National Science
Foundation's Ocean Observing Program, and to NOAA's IOOS, the
Integrated Ocean Observing System.
And so all of these programs need to be brought together,
and that is why, in my diagram, I tried to show the importance
of this interagency cooperation and collaboration. When you
talk about the fact that NASA has definitely captured the
imagination of the public, and wouldn't we like to have NOAA on
that same pedestal, I think to too many Americans, NOAA is
viewed as a bunch of lawyers who deal with lawsuits when their
data is used incorrectly and fisheries collapse. Wouldn't we
love it if NOAA was viewed as explorers who are adding to our
basic understanding of this planet?
Just in, rewriting, Mr. Saxton brought up Tennyson's. I
think that should be changed to: ``I dipped into the ocean
further than human eyes could see. Saw the vision of this water
world, and all the wonder that would be.''
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Spinrad, do you have a comment?
Dr. Spinrad. First, Mr. Gilchrest, let me take this
opportunity, and thank you for your strong support for these
activities. This, as your set of questions indicates, is an
extraordinarily diverse, and also, extraordinarily exciting
portfolio of opportunities.
I would like to address my comments to your focus on
prioritization, how do we move towards priorities? As a mission
agency, NOAA has specific mission goals, in climate, in
ecosystems, in weather, in commerce and transportation. So, the
initial answer to your question, as we look at our priorities
within those mission goals, and then, working, this is where
that interagency collaboration is critical, we have to work
with the Office of Naval Research, who has a national security
mission. We have to work with NIH, who has a health mission,
all the way down the line. We have to work with Energy.
All of these issues, the research associated with them will
be driven by the particular questions we need to answer, and
the fascinating part about some of what you are hearing among
this panel is that one of the best ways to identify those
questions is through exploration and discovery, especially in
an environment where we have such a great unknown, whether it
is 95 percent or 70 percent, we have a large percentage of
unknown with regard to processes, parameters, features, and the
oceans.
So, my perspective on us is that the value of the ocean
exploration program is it helps us define those particular
questions which we can take into a multi-mission, that is to
say interagency venue, and determine who has got what
responsibility for addressing these particular questions in
climate, in human health, in natural hazards.
The other point I will make, and your questions with
respect to CO2, ocean acidification climate, those
questions beg the vibrant nature of the collaboration between
mission agency scientists, that is to say, our own scientists
at our laboratories at NOAA, and at the Naval Research Lab and
other labs, with the academic research community, which is why
the kinds of capabilities that the NURP program brings to the
table, in terms of established academic, Federal Government
relationships, are so critical to addressing the kinds of
questions which would be defined through exploration addressing
agency missions.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Shepard, do you wish to add anything?
Mr. Shepard. Yes, thank you. I just want to segue directly
from the last thing Rick said. I think that is right on the
mark, in that what we are saying, the strength of this bill is,
is the question between ocean exploration and the regional
presence that the NURP centers bring, all the issues that you
mentioned now have a direct impact on coastal oceans and the
coastal communities.
Coral reefs, hurricanes, the impacts on coastal communities
as far as shoreline erosion, sea level rise, those are all
things that the regional coastal ocean observing system is
connected to, and attempting to build the system that we need
to detect these things and understand their impact. These
regional ocean--regional undersea research centers are actively
engaged at the regional level, with the regional associations.
They are called that for a reason. They are set up that way for
a reason, and having the regional presence gives you a direct
conduit from ocean exploration directly into the management
community. So, I think we really can add quite a bit to this
partnership. Thank you.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you all. The gentleman's time
expired. Next, I am pleased----
Mr. Gilchrest. If the Chairman will indulge for nine and a
half seconds.
Chairman Ehlers. One, two, three.
Mr. Gilchrest. The--at the expense of sounding too
philosophical, bringing in another quote from Norman Cousins,
editor of the Saturday Review some decades ago, which in
essence is, I think, the mission of NOAA. Norman Cousins said:
``Knowledge is the solvent for danger.''
And there is potential problems out there, but it is the
collaboration of that information, and then, the dissemination
of that knowledge to us, the policy-makers, that can resolve
some of those future problems.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Ehlers. I am pleased to recognize Dr. Schwarz for
five minutes.
Mr. Schwarz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a fellow
Michigander, I am going to--I am just going to throw a couple
of things out here, numbers of them.
Duplication, Cooperation, and the Great Lakes
Mr. Spinrad, you dealt with, as I wrote my questions down,
Mr. Gilchrest asked his, and you covered some of mine, so, I am
going to probably ask you to free associate with some of these
again, if you don't mind.
For all three of you, are there any good private analogues
to NURP and OE, and are we doing anything that is duplicative
here that doesn't need to be duplicative, or is duplicativeness
a good thing in this sense? Cooperation with the U.S. Navy,
which you mentioned the Navy Research Labs. Are there others,
areas where the Navy and yourselves can and should cooperate?
Strategic missions, which would have the Navy involved, or
other strategic missions that the new combined agency or office
might deal with, and with whom would you cooperate, if there
were some strategic mission that you were involved in, or
strategic information you were tasked to assemble?
And finally, tell me how you feel that the new agency would
deal with issues having to do with the Great Lakes?
Dr. Spinrad. I would be glad to walk through each of those,
sir.
Let me start by saying, and I am going to interpret your
question with respect to the private analogues to mean the
private corporate sector, because clearly, there are private
research sectors----
Mr. Schwarz. 501(c)(3)s, universities, and flat out
private.
Dr. Spinrad. Okay. The--in terms of the specificity we are
talking about with the NURP and the OE program, I am not aware
of specific analogues, and in fact, I would argue that one of
the goals here, speaking as a representative of the Department
of Commerce, one of our objectives, of course, is to stimulate
competition, stimulate new economic sectors, and I firmly
believe that with the kinds of activities we are talking about,
for example, I could look you in the eye and say that we will
spur the development of new technologies for underwater
vehicles, for sensors, that sort of thing, and I think that is
where the strength of the private sector intersection is with
this activity.
One of my favorite subjects, you raised cooperation with
Navy. Most of my career in Washington was with the Navy, with
the Office of Naval Research, and with the Oceanographer of the
Navy. I feel comfortable in saying that we have got very good
connections with both the operational and research sides of the
Navy. Your specific question about where those intersections
might be, I would identify four areas. One is in technology
development. Navy has strong activities with respect to
development of sensors and platforms and systems. Another is in
mapping, and in fact, one of the things we are looking at is an
integrated ocean and coastal mapping capability, where
basically, everything we are doing in our OE and NURP programs
is coordinated with Navy's hydrographic survey capabilities.
Data management. Navy has extraordinary capabilities down in
Mississippi for archiving and managing data. And then,
observations. Dr. McNutt alluded to the Integrated Ocean
Observing System. We look forward to working with Navy on that,
and many of the concepts embedded in OE and NURP would be part
of the IOOS' development.
With regard to whom we would work with in the Navy, it is
three sectors. It is the research sector, through the Office of
Naval Research. It is the policy sector, through the
Oceanographer of the Navy, and it is the fleet, so all three of
those would be groups we would work with.
And very succinctly, everything we have talked about here
is intimately connected with NOAA mission objectives in the
Great Lakes, whether it is sanctuaries, whether it is
transportation, whether it is invasives. All of those issues
are central to what we are talking about in ocean exploration
and NURP, and I would foresee using the existing Great Lakes
resources of the Sea Grant institutions, as well as our own
Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab being central to
activities.
Mr. Schwarz. And let us put invasives in italics.
Dr. Spinrad. Understood.
Mr. Schwarz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Ehlers. The gentleman yields back.
We have a series of votes called. It will probably take a
half-hour or more, and I don't want to detain you that long.
So, I have just one quick question, and the remainder of
questions that we wish answers to, we will simply put in the
mail to you rather than keep you here an extra hour.
Proposed Appropriations in H.R. 3835
The quick question is the bill that is under discussion,
H.R. 3835, and this is just for Mr. Shepard and Dr. McNutt,
because I think I know what Dr. Spinrad's question would be.
The authorization numbers in there, in other words, the amount
of money authorized, which is a maximum that could be
appropriated. Do you believe they are appropriate in the two
bills? Mr. Shepard, is that enough money?
Mr. Shepard. Yes. We have thought about it a long time. We
understand the realities that face the Federal Government at
this time, and we think those numbers will allow us growth.
Chairman Ehlers. Okay. Dr. McNutt.
Dr. McNutt. For ocean exploration, given the realities of
the other demands on the federal budget, I think these are very
appropriate numbers, and if appropriated to those levels, would
lead to a very vigorous and successful program.
Chairman Ehlers. Okay. And then one other quick question.
Do you think the funding in the bill for the NURP centers
should be split between the East and West Coast centers, or
provided in one large pot, as recommended by Dr. Spinrad, so
that NOAA would decide how to split it? Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard. I have a conflict of interest. I am on the
East Coast. I think I had better stay out of it.
Chairman Ehlers. You both have a conflict of interest. Dr.
McNutt, are you going to bite the bullet, or----
Dr. McNutt. I will declare the same conflict.
Chairman Ehlers. All right. Thank you for your help on that
one.
So, thank you all very, very much for being here. It has
been most helpful to me. I have a great love for NOAA. I have a
great love for the research they do. I would certainly love to
see it expanded. That, of course, is from the perspective of a
scientist and someone on the Science Committee. But I certainly
hope we can get the NOAA Organic Act passed, which would help
everyone in the field, and we can perhaps incorporate the
important elements of this in that, or take this part up early
next year and deal with it.
So thank you very, very much for being here. You have been
most helpful to us, and I deeply appreciate it.
If there is no objection, the record will remain open for
additional statements from the Members, and for answers to any
followup questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses.
Without objection, so ordered.
The hearing is now adjourned. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Richard W. Spinrad, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Questions submitted by Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. With regard to the process of the proposed merger of OE and NURP,
the merger has been planned since 2005, but there is still no clear
picture of how NOAA will plan and conduct the merger. You also
mentioned that you want the merger process to be inclusive. Can you
please explain in detail (1) how you expect the planning process to
unfold, and (2) how you plan to solicit and incorporate extramural
input? For example, will you use informal meetings, Federal Register
notices, or other means to reach out to the community, and will
extramural input be included as you define the ``essential functions''
of the merged program?
A1. The details of an Office of Ocean Exploration (OE) and National
Undersea Research Program (NURP) merger are being finalized in an
integrative process that involves a core team comprised of the
leadership of the existing OE and NURP programs, including the
extramural directors of the regional NURP centers, and six program
teams. The program teams are each focused on one of six functional
areas--science, data management, technology development, education &
outreach, administration, and operations. The program teams are
comprised of OE and NURP staff, and personnel from the regional NURP
centers. The regional center participants are encouraged to bring input
from their external research partners to the process. The program teams
are compiling recommendations as to the scope, procedures, and
structure of their functional area. These recommendations will be used
by the core leadership team to draft business and strategic plans, as
well as an abstract which describes the essential function and
anticipated structure of the new program, by early 2008. NOAA will
solicit recommendations from the core and program teams on procedures
to further engage the external community.
NOAA values the involvement of the external research community in
discussions of the merger. Accordingly, NOAA held meetings in March
2005 and June 2006 involving external partners to characterize the
merged program structure, short-term goals and long-term areas for
potential collaborations. One of the outcomes from these meetings was
the creation of the six program teams described earlier whose
recommendation will form the basis for the draft business and strategic
plans.
Once internal planning has matured, external review will be sought
from the broader undersea research and ocean exploration community and
will be incorporated, as appropriate, into the final business and
strategic plans. The mechanism for soliciting this review will be
determined by NOAA before the abstract is presented to the external
community and may include expansion of the purview of NOAA's external
Science Advisory Board Ocean Exploration Advisory Working Group to
include the new merged enterprise. External review may also include
collaboration with the Consortium for Ocean Research and Education or
other preeminent professional societies such as the American
Geophysical Union, the Oceanographic Society, and the Marine Technology
Society.
Q2. With regard to the substantive outcome of the proposed merger of
OE and NURP, prominent members of the OE community continue to express
concern about possible downsides of a merger, particularly from the
perspective of OE missions. For example, exploration advocates worry
that resources will be directed away from pure exploration into
mission-oriented survey work, diluting the goals of the program. Are
you aware of these concerns? If so, how do you plan to address them?
A2. NOAA has been made aware of these concerns both during the hearing,
by Dr. Marcia McNutt, and during its Ocean Exploration Advisory Working
Group meeting in April 2006. The Ocean Exploration Advisory Working
Group is comprised of 11 members of the extramural community and is a
standing committee of the NOAA Science Advisory Board. NOAA will give
concerns of the Ocean Exploration Advisory Working Group and the ocean
exploration community full consideration as the merger progresses.
Maintaining a robust ocean exploration program is important to
NOAA. The merging of the Office of Ocean Exploration and the National
Undersea Research Program will allow NOAA to bring additional
nationwide capabilities to bear on ocean exploration. The scientific
discoveries from ocean exploration expeditions as well as the technical
and educational leadership demonstrated during these expeditions are
critical to NOAA being able to meet its evolving environmental and
economic missions. Involvement of NURP's expertise, capabilities and
regional presence in NOAA's ocean exploration enterprise will
strengthen the ability of the ocean exploration program to bring the
results of discoveries to bear on NOAA's ecosystem and environmental
prediction challenges.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement of U.S. Representative Rob Simmons (CT-2)
Co-Chairman, Congressional Long Island Sound Caucus
Co-sponsor, H.R. 3835, the Ocean Exploration and Undersea Research Act
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to appear before your
Committee on legislation important to me and to my district.
As a co-sponsor of the bill, I would like to add my support for
passage of H.R. 3835 that would formally incorporate the relatively
young Office of Ocean Exploration and long-running Undersea Research
Program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).
As you may know, the University of Connecticut, located in my
district, is host to the National Undersea Research Center for the
North Atlantic and Great Lakes. For the past 20 years, the regional
NURC center at UConn has been at the forefront of supporting research
to meet NOAA's needs, developing and applying new technologies, and
supporting innovative hands-on teacher professional development
programs.
The National Undersea Research Program already promotes working
side by side with NOAA programs such as the National Marine Fisheries
Service. Together they have provided support for research--directly
aiding the New England Fishery Management Council in developing
management actions to conserve deep water coral habitats on Georges
Bank and better defining the role that seafloor habitats play in the
survival and production of juvenile lobsters.
Before coming to Congress, I served in the Connecticut General
Assembly where I worked to provide $40 million in state investment in
marine sciences. Much of this investment--including a 137,000 square
foot marine science building, a state-of-the-art 77'' coastal research
vessel, dock facility and infrastructure--directly allows the NOAA
programs, NURC and Sea Grant to better meet NOAA's mission. By
supporting regional centers, H.R. 3835 will continue to promote such
fruitful partnerships.
As you know, my district borders the Long Island Sound, a unique
estuary with economic and ecological importance to the region and to
the Nation. The Sound contributes approximately $6 billion annually to
the regional economy and is a cherished resource for the 28 million
people living within 50 miles of its shores. The Sound is heavily used
for recreation and for commerce by residents of Connecticut and New
York as well as numerous visitors each year. This treasure, along with
all of our waters, deserves our utmost support.
H.R. 3835 provides the building blocks upon which NOAA can build a
coordinated ocean exploration and research program, ideally one with
sustained funding levels. Our nation must maintain all the tools to
study the complex ecosystems that lie beneath our oceans and Great
Lakes. By authorizing H.R. 3835, we ensure that our nation maintains
the capacity to explore, understand and promote the Earth's waters.
I am pleased that you will have the opportunity today to hear from
so many individuals that have committed their lives to working on and
studying our waters. Again, I thank you and the witness panels for your
time and consideration of H.R. 3835.
Statement of Mr. Robert I. Wicklund,
Director--Federal Programs, UNCW
and
Dr. Daniel G. Baden,
Director--Center for Marine Science, UNCW
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we are pleased to submit
this statement in the discussion of H.R. 3835 entitled the ``National
Ocean Exploration Program Act'' in Title I, and the ``NOAA Undersea
Research Program Act of 2005'' in Title II. We first want to commend
the Committee for recognizing the importance of ocean exploration and
undersea research to this nation. The National Ocean Exploration
Program contained in Title I and the Undersea Research Program
contained in Title II of the bill complement each other in many ways
and they belong together in this legislation.
We never expected to be submitting testimony to this august body in
2006 for the passage of legislation that would give authorization to
programs dedicated to the understanding of the undersea environment.
Three decades ago the Senate, with a keen interest in how the Nation
could benefit from underwater exploration and research, introduced S.
2285 the ``Manned Undersea Science and Technology Act.'' Much of this
old bill is similar to the legislation that we are considering here
today, and other bills and drafted amendments have been attempted on
both sides of the aisle since 1977. After almost thirty years, we are
still trying to pass a bill to legitimize the need and enhance our
ability to understand the environment that covers most of the planet.
Our hope is that through this legislation Congress has finally come to
recognize the enormous importance of providing the means to explore and
study the oceans in every way possible.
Having said that, and after much effort by this and the Resources
Committee to move this bill, we want to add that we and our colleagues
are dismayed by the recent actions of the House Appropriations
Committee to virtually gut FY 2007 ocean funding for NOAA. Over a half
billion dollars was cut from last year's funding level, almost all
coming from the ocean side of the Agency. The programs that your
legislation addresses in this hearing are also part of that cut. The
Appropriations Committee provided only $16 million dollars for the two
programs combined. This is less than half of funds that would be
authorized in H.R. 3835. There is a disconnect here that makes little
sense. We collectively recognize the importance of the oceans and their
resources to the Nation's strategic and economic base in terms of
climate, fisheries, transportation, human safety and health, tourism
and general well being. We also recognize, as did the U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy, that the oceans are under siege. Coral reefs are dying
off at record levels, killed by disease, rising temperatures, or
crushed by destructive fishing practices. Fish population decline and
habitat destruction are rampant. Coastal water quality is degrading.
Coastal hazards to human life and property is on the increase due to
hurricanes and other storm systems. These are all critical issues that
are tied directly to the oceans. If we do not put the energy and funds
into increasing our knowledge of the oceans, then we cannot manage
their resources wisely nor mitigate the hazards. We find it
inconceivable that just two years ago the Commission's Report ``An
Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century'' set forth a bold course to make
understanding, protection, use and management of the oceans the highest
of priorities. Now and over the past few years the trend seems to be to
reduce our commitment to ocean issues. What is the reasoning, the
complacency, the downright lack of commitment and caring for our oceans
that is demonstrated by this nation?
We should not, therefore, allow this important legislation, that
will do much to address some of these concerns, slip away. We urge you,
Mr. Chairman, in the strongest terms, to do what it takes to see that
the Committee, the full House and the Senate pass the provisions H.R.
3835 into law.
We believe that it would help your committee if we gave you a quick
history of the government's involvement in undersea research and how it
led to where we are today. First, undersea research in NOAA began when
the Agency was created by the Stratton Commission around 1970 as the
Manned Undersea Science and Technology Program (MUST). One year later
the Hydro-Lab Undersea Laboratory Program and others were launched,
giving scientists first-hand working experience living in an undersea
laboratory and using lock-out submersibles. It was immediately obvious
to us that there was great potential to advance our knowledge of the
ocean by placing humans directly into the sea. By 1980, based upon a
report from the National Research Council, Congress worked with NOAA to
change the program to a regional system with a stronger scientific and
technical base in academia and industry. This was named the National
Undersea Research Program (NURP). Also about this time, the Aquarius
Undersea Laboratory was built and is still operating today as the only
remaining seafloor lab in the world.
As of 2006, the program consists of six regional Centers covering
all coasts of the U.S. and Caribbean and a National Institute of
Undersea Science and Technology.
NURP has continued to operate for the past twenty-six years making
discoveries and improving the management of our coastal, ocean and
Great Lakes resources, placing thousands of scientists in all forms of
diving equipment, undersea laboratories and research submersibles as
well as using remotely operated vehicles.
But, here again is another ocean program under siege. NURP's
funding decreased from a high of a little over $18 million dollars ten
years ago to about $4.5 million dollars last year. Around six years ago
the Ocean Exploration Program was started to increase our ability to go
even further to places never before seen by man. Although the two
programs complemented each other in many ways, they continued to
operate as separate entities.
As we realized that a change was needed back in 1980 to make the
program in undersea research more effective, it appears that it is
time, once again, to reassess how we can make it work better and to
bring the two programs- Ocean Exploration and Undersea Research--
together. NOAA has been working on a plan, over the past year or so, to
restructure the two programs and merge them. The legislation you are
considering today provides the building blocks for this new merged
program.
MERGING THE OCEAN EXPLORATION AND UNDERSEA RESEARCH PROGRAMS
NOAA is faced with a great challenge in its role as the Nation's
steward of our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes--underwater ecosystems
that are largely unknown, yet exploited and highly impacted. Continued
failures of traditional assessment and management methods to sustain
resources suggest new approaches are needed, such as ecosystem-based
management. NOAA needs an expanded, integrated program of undersea
exploration, strategic research, and technology development, which will
result in:
new discoveries, resources and promotion of our blue
planet
knowledge and new perspectives needed for Ecosystem-
Based Management
Cutting-edge, innovative technical solutions for
science, engineering, and commercial applications.
Together, these elements provide synergy, capacity and knowledge
needed to meet the great ocean challenge.
We maintain that this synergy must continue to include strong ties
to regional partners who promote:
Closer cooperation with local stakeholders, such as
fishery management councils and water quality agencies
Increased participation in regional ocean science,
management, and education planning activities
Enhanced scientific and operational capacity through
extramural partners in other federal programs, states,
academia, and industry
Involvement of a broader community of scientists,
managers, educators, and students in NOAA's mission
Better outreach through access and proximity to the
public, and
Dedicated support for ecosystem approach to
management through coordinated team of NOAA, academic and
industry partners.
Lastly, at a time when support for the oceans is most threatened,
we need to increase efforts to reveal the importance of this work to
the world and what will be lost to future generations. Ocean education
and literacy breeds public support. These two programs together have
already demonstrated their ability to reach students and public groups
across the globe to convey the need and excitement of ocean exploration
and research. On-going ``K through gray'' activities include:
Virtual ocean programs that bring the sea into
classrooms and living rooms through tele-presence and live
events
Interactive, at-sea learning that enhances ocean
literacy, enriches science education, and promotes
environmental stewardship
Innovative ocean observation programs that promote
development of science and math skills, and problem-solving
approaches to learning, and
Informal science center partnerships that expose
millions of visitors each year to the oceans through exhibits
and hands-on activities.
Mr. Chairman, we endorse this legislation wholeheartedly, with one
recommendation. We believe that the funding levels in the bill for the
undersea research program are too small to accomplish the many tasks it
will be conducting in the future. The costs of developing new
technologies to explore and study the oceans are high and we recommend
a fifty percent increase in the authorizing numbers in Title II of H.R.
3835.
We appreciate your attention to our remarks and the opportunity to
submit testimony on behalf of this most important legislation.
Thank you.