[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING NOAA'S CLIMATE SERVICE PROPOSAL
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-27
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-927PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DAVID WU, Oregon
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
SANDY ADAMS, Florida PAUL D. TONKO, New York
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JERRY McNERNEY, California
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
Tennessee TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 15
Mr. Robert Winokur, Deputy Oceanographer, Department of the Navy
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 34
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration..................................... 60
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Letters submitted by Ms. Johnson and Mr. Wu...................... 85
EXAMINING NOAA'S CLIMATE SERVICE PROPOSAL
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2011
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:10
a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon.
Ralph Hall [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Examining NOAA's Climate Service Proposal
wednesday, june 22, 2011
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Wednesday, June 22, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. the House Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology will hold a hearing to review the
Administration's FY 12 budget request proposal to reorganize NOAA to
create a climate service.
Witnesses
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Mr. Robert Winokur, Deputy Oceanographer, Department of
the Navy
Background
The Administration's FY 12 budget request included a proposal for
the creation of a Climate Service at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The stated goal of this new line
office is to bring together NOAA's existing climate capabilities under
a single entity to more efficiently and effectively respond to demands
for climate services. According to NOAA, the Climate Service ``will
provide a single, reliable and authoritative source for climate data,
information, and decision-support services to help individuals,
businesses, communities and governments make smart choices in
anticipation of a climate changed future.''
The proposal would constitute the largest reorganization of NOAA
since its establishment in 1970. NOAA proposes to spend $346 million on
the new Climate Service in FY 12. It intends for this effort to be
budget neutral, paid for through the transfer of transfer assets and
resources from existing line offices (Figure 1). The assets that would
move include:
Three data centers from the National Environmental
Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS)
Two science labs, including the Earth System Research Lab
and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab, and the Climate Program Office
from the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR)
The Climate Prediction Center and management oversight
for the Climate Observing Network from the National Weather Service
(NWS)
The National Ocean Service (NOS), National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), and Program Planning and Integration (PPI) would be untouched
in this reorganization.
The new line office would be subdivided into three offices: the
Office of Climate Research; the Office of Observation, Monitoring and
Prediction; and the Office of Service Development and Delivery. The
management structure that would oversee these three offices would
consist of an Assistant Administrator for Climate Services, a Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Climate Services, and a Climate Senior
Scientist. These new positions would not require Senate confirmation,
which is consistent with the structure of other NOAA line offices.
Table 1 shows the NOAA FY12 budget request and the impact the
creation of the Climate Service has on the three line offices its
assets come from. Most notably, OAR is reduced by 53 percent--by far
the largest reduction from any line office--due to the loss of
approximately $203 million in research funding to the Climate Service.
Climate Service Proposal Timeline
NOAA first announced its intent to create a climate service on
February 8, 2010. This announcement was accompanied by the creation of
six new NOAA Regional Climate Services Director positions at
laboratories across the country. Additionally, Administrator Lubchenco
appointed senior officials Tom Karl and Chet Koblinsky as Climate
Service Transition Director and Deputy Director, respectively. In a
December 2010 interview regarding NOAA's Climate Service activities,
Karl said ``We've moved in . . . we're waiting for the marriage
certificate, but we're acting like we have a Climate Service.'' This
statement, as well as the absence of a formal Climate Service budget
submission to Congress, raised questions regarding NOAA's intended path
for creation of the new office.
Earlier in 2010, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L.
111-117) included language directing NOAA to contract with the National
Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to study the formation of a
climate service at NOAA.
The conferees direct NOAA to enter into a contract with the
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) within 60 days after
the enactment of this Act for a study and analysis of organizational
options for a National Climate Service within NOAA, emphasizing maximum
effectiveness and efficiency. The study should consider how to provide
information at the global, regional, and State levels over varying
timescales; support interaction among the government and various users,
stakeholders, researchers, and information providers of climate
information in both the private and public sectors; develop and
distribute products and information that will support decision making
to better prepare the Nation for climate variability and climate
change; coordinate and align existing programs and resources internal
and external to NOAA to reduce duplications and leverage existing
climate-related resources; and provide estimates on projected funding
levels. The study shall be completed no later than 120 days after the
contract is awarded.
As such, NOAA delayed its formal proposal until the NAPA study was
complete. The scope of the study was defined by four study questions:
(1) Are NOAA's organizational design criteria
appropriate?
(2) Is NOAA's proposal to align core climate programs and
resources into a Climate Science and Service Line Office the
recommended approach?
(3) Are NOAA's current resources sufficient to establish
a Climate Science and Service Line Office that can meet current and
future demands?
(4) What additional business practices should NOAA
consider to enhance climate services beyond NOAA's proposed
organizational changes?
Limited to the scope of the study questions, the NAPA did not
consider the potential impacts of a new Climate Service line office on
non-climate-focused activities or the functionality of other line
offices, such as NOAA's research enterprise housed in OAR. Although
NAPA endorsed NOAA's proposal for the creation of a Climate Service
within the scope of the questions listed above, its report emphasized
that it ``is skeptical that current funding levels (even as augmented
at levels consistent with the President's FY2011 budget request) will
adequately sustain public and private sector expectations for climate
services and research in the years ahead.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Academy of Public Administration. Building Strong for
Tomorrow: NOAA Climate Service. September 13, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 22, 2010, NOAA released a draft Climate Service vision
and strategic framework for public comment. On January 24, 2011, NOAA
released a new version of the Climate Service vision and strategic
framework reflecting input from the public comment period. Finally, on
February 14, 2011, the President's 2012 budget was released, containing
the formal proposal to establish a Climate Service in NOAA.
Table 2 shows the operating plan proposed by NOAA for FY 2011.
Signed into law on April 15, 2011, The Department of Defense and
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10) prohibits
the use of funding to implement, establish or create a NOAA Climate
Service.
Section 1348. None of the funds made available by this division
may be used to implement, establish, or create a NOAA Climate Service
as described in the ``Draft NOAA Climate Service Strategic Vision and
Framework'' published at 75 Federal Register 57739 (September 22, 2010)
and updated on December 20, 2010: Provided, That this limitation shall
expire on September 30, 2011.
Chairman Hall. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Good morning. Welcome to today's hearing entitled
``Examining NOAA's Climate Service Proposal.'' In front of you,
your packets contain the written testimony, biographies and
Truth in Testimony disclosures for today's witnesses. At this
time I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
I want to welcome everyone here for this hearing on
Examining NOAA's Climate Change Proposal, and I would first
like to note my irritation about witness testimony. This
Committee has always been very accommodating and appreciative
of the busy schedules of our witnesses, each of us, the
Republican and Democratic side have always had that
appreciation. That is why we try to give them as much notice as
possible. The Committee invited NOAA more than 3 weeks ago, and
it is truly appalling that this testimony was 26 hours late and
over 27 pages.
This lack of consideration of the Committee Members' time
is not an encouraging sign that there is a willingness on the
part of this witness or of this Administration to work with
this Committee on important issues. I am disappointed that we
have already started on the wrong foot. Dr. Lubchenco came to
my office on November 15, 2010. I asked her several questions
and she said she would seek this Committee's approval before
implementing her proposal.
The purpose of this hearing is to consider the proposal put
forth in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request issued
in February to totally reorganize NOAA and create a new line
office called the Climate Service.
Though NOAA announced its intent to create this line office
in early 2010, this is the first time Congress has had the
opportunity to fully examine the implications of transitioning
$226 million of fundamental research into an operations-focused
climate office.
Over the past 18 months, I have communicated several
concerns about this endeavor to Administrator Lubchenco. My
hesitation can be divided into two categories, the first being
the process by which this new climate change proposal has come
into being. After our budget hearing on March 10th, this
Committee sent a series of questions for the record, some of
which asked about the Climate Service proposal and would have
provided the Committee further information to make today's
hearing more productive. It has been three months since we sent
those questions, and we still have not heard back from NOAA. It
is very difficult for the Committee to conduct proper oversight
of agencies if they are delinquent, or at best, evasive, in
responding to Members' inquiries. Given that the Administration
and the Administrator have claimed that this topic is a high
priority for her, I find it curious that these responses are
taking this long to formulate.
The other part of this proposal that I find troubling is
the actual substance of NOAA's design for a Climate Service.
The foremost concern I have had is regarding the amount of
resources NOAA is planning on moving from the Office of Oceanic
and Atmospheric Research. More than half the resources of
NOAA's research enterprise would be moved into a climate
service. This proposal appears to contradict the notion that
fundamental research must not be driven by operational demands.
In 2004, a research review team produced a report for
NOAA's Science Advisory Board that proposed consolidating
research across NOAA into a more focused and integrated line
office in order to enhance cooperation and collaboration to
promote research investment in innovation. However, instead of
consolidating research activities, NOAA's proposal seeks to
break up its research enterprise and move more than half of it
into an operational service.
The issue before us today is about the major reorganization
of an agency and the impact that such reorganization will have
on the functioning of the agency. I recognize that certain
climate services can provide value. For example, the drought
forecasts issued by the National Integrated Drought Information
System are very useful to farmers, water planners, and other
state and local officials. I have no objection to these types
of products, but I hope and expect they will continue to
provide value as part of NOAA's existing agency structure.
My objection and our objection to this proposal has been
the concern that the focus to create a climate service will
severely harm vital research at NOAA by transferring resources
away from fundamental science to mission-oriented research and
service-driven products. This hearing is only the first step in
the Committee's examination of NOAA's proposed Climate Service.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Ralph M. Hall
I want to welcome everyone here today for this hearing on examining
NOAA's Climate Service proposal.
I would first like to note my irritation about witness testimony.
This Committee has always been very accommodating and appreciative of
the busy schedules of our witnesses. That is why we try to give them as
much time as possible. The Committee invited NOAA more than three weeks
ago. It is truly appalling that this testimony was 26 hours late and is
27 pages.
This lack of consideration of the Committee Member's time is not an
encouraging sign that there is a willingness on the part of this
witness or of this Administration to work with this Committee on
important issues. I am disappointed that we have already started on the
wrong foot. Dr. Lubchenco came to my office on November 15th of 2010. I
asked her several questions and she said she would seek our approval
before implementing her proposal.
The purpose of this hearing is to consider the proposal put forth
in the President's FY 2012 Budget Request issued in February to
reorganize NOAA and create a new line office called the Climate
Service.
Though NOAA announced its intent to create this line office in
early 2010, this is the first time Congress has had the opportunity to
fully examine the implications of transitioning several hundred million
dollars of fundamental research into an operations-focused climate
office. Over the past 18 months, I have communicated several concerns
about this endeavor to the Administrator Lubchenco. My hesitation can
be divided into two categories. The first being the process by which
this new Climate Service proposal has come into being.
After our budget hearing on March 10th, this Committee sent a
series of questions for the record, some of which asked about the
Climate Service proposal and would have provided the Committee further
information to make today's hearing productive. It has been three
months since we sent those questions, and we still have not heard back
from NOAA. It is very difficult for the Committee to conduct proper
oversight of agencies if they are delinquent-- or at best evasive--in
responding to Member inquiries. Given that the Administrator has
claimed that this topic is a high priority for her, I find it curious
that these responses are taking this long to formulate.
The other part of this proposal that I find troubling is the actual
substance of NOAA's design for a Climate Service. The foremost concern
I have had is regarding the amount of resources NOAA is planning on
moving from the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. More than
half the resources of NOAA's research enterprise would be moved into a
climate service. This proposal appears to contradict the notion that
fundamental research must not be driven by operational demands.
In 2004, a Research Review Team produced a report for NOAA's
Science Advisory Board that proposed consolidating research across NOAA
into a more focused and integrated line office in order to enhance
cooperation and collaboration to promote research investment in
innovation. However, instead of consolidating research activities,
NOAA's proposal seeks to break up its research enterprise and move more
than half of it into an operational service.
The issue before us today is about the major reorganization of an
agency and the impact that such reorganization will have on the
functioning of the agency. I recognize that certain climate services
can provide value.
For example, the drought forecasts issued by the National
Integrated Drought Information System, are very useful to farmers,
water planners, and other state and local officials. I have no
objection to these types of products, and I hope and expect they will
continue to provide value as part of NOAA's existing agency structure.
My objection to this proposal has been the concern that the focus
to create a climate service will severely harm vital research at NOAA
by transferring resources away from fundamental science to mission-
oriented research and service-driven products. This hearing is only the
first step in the Committee's examination of NOAA's proposed Climate
Service.
I now recognize Ranking Member Johnson for five minutes for an
opening statement.
Chairman Hall. I now recognize Ranking Member Ms. Johnson
for five minutes for an opening statement, and I yield back my
time.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate you holding this hearing today to discuss the
climate science and services of NOAA and their efforts to
create a Climate Service line office within the agency. We will
also discuss the range of services and products NOAA already
provides for the countless numbers of users, including the U.S.
Navy, who is with us today.
This Committee has heard as much as, if not more than, any
other Committee on the subject of climate change. The
scientific evidence is strong and, in my opinion,
incontrovertible. Unfortunately, despite years of hearings and
support for climate science through both Republican and
Democratic Administrations and Majorities, it is clear that the
Congress has taken a step backwards and allowed fear, doubt,
and ignorance to undo the progress we were beginning to make on
climate science. Instead of denying the existence of climate
change, today we should be asking ourselves what we can do to
help America adapt to the impacts of a changing climate.
These impacts will extend far beyond mere inconvenience.
For anyone that is more concerned about financial costs of
taking action to prevent and adapt to climate change, I ask you
to consider the economic impacts such as prolonged droughts and
heat waves, increased flooding, more intense storms, species
extinction and invasive species, sea level rise, melting polar
icecaps, and mass migration, just to name a few.
From the tornadoes in the South, drought and fires in the
West, and flooding in the Midwest, regardless of their relation
to climate change, we have seen in recent months how even
isolated instances of these phenomena can devastate economies.
That said, why should we not want to give people the tools and
information needed to anticipate what is to come?
Many sectors of our society--farmers, natural resource
managers, coastal resource managers, State and local government
officials, the transportation sector, and water, utility and
energy companies, just to name a few--all benefit from NOAA's
ability to predict the intensity and duration of climate
events. On the national, regional, and local scale, these
services and products will make it easier for decision makers
and managers to prepare and develop plans to respond to the
various weather and climate events.
As the demand for more climate information has grown, so
has the need for our scientists to better understand and
explain the various climate cycles and patterns. This is not a
new need. In fact, in the 107th Congress, this Committee passed
legislation authored by Mr. Hall to expand climate services by
authorizing the National Integrated Drought Information
Service, or NIDIS. It was a commonsense measure, unburdened by
today's political rhetoric on climate change.
I hope that this hearing is not going to be another
discussion about whether NOAA, in some underhanded way, has
already established a Climate Service office without the
consultation and approval of Congress. Dr. Lubchenco has stated
several times, both verbally in this Committee and in letters,
that NOAA has not established nor implemented a Climate Service
line office. To rehash that discussion again today would be a
waste of our time and taxpayers' dollars when we should be
working to determine how NOAA can best serve the public's need
for these services. It really is time to move forward.
This Committee has been discussing the creation of a
Climate Service for the last few years now, and weighing the
pros and cons of the different options for structuring the
program. And there has been no shortage of input. In addition
to the relevant agencies, many stakeholders have testified
before this Committee and written letters, and numerous
articles have been published about the growing need for, and
the key elements of, an organized Climate Service. We must
ensure that the services are aligned in a way that there is
robust interagency coordination, and that the Federal
Government is positioned to support the different regions and
the State, local and tribal governments in their efforts. We
must also make sure we continue to strengthen NOAA's climate
science capabilities while also delivering timely and needed
services. I expect that we will hear a commitment and a plan
from NOAA for how to ensure that both the research and the
services are maintained, and that other crucial missions of the
agency are not compromised.
We may not yet agree on the mechanics, scope or scale of a
program, but I believe we can all see the benefit of providing
the individuals, communities, governments, and businesses in
our districts with the type of reliable long-term climate
information and services that will reduce our vulnerability to
weather and climate events. I would hate to look back and
regard these years we have spent discussing this as a lost
opportunity to do something good for the next generation.
Thank you, Mr. Hall, and before I yield back, I would like
to ask unanimous consent to submit a few letters of support for
this Climate Service. I have letters here. One is a bipartisan
one from two former Under Secretaries of NOAA that preceded our
current Administration, Vice Admiral Lautenbacher from the Bush
Administration and James Baker from the Clinton Administration.
I also have letters from the Southern Regional Climate Center,
the Desert Research Institute and the Midwestern Regional
Climate Center. These groups and others are urging us to
support the reorganization of NOAA's proposal for the creation
of Climate Service.
Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Hall.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Hall. I appreciate you holding this hearing
today to discuss the climate science and services of NOAA and their
efforts to create a Climate Service line office within the agency. We
will also discuss the range of services and products NOAA already
provides for countless numbers of users, including the U.S. Navy, who
is with us today.
This Committee has heard as much as, if not more than, any other
Committee on the subject of climate change. The scientific evidence is
strong and, in my opinion, incontrovertible. Unfortunately, despite
years of hearings and support for climate science through both
Republican and Democratic Administrations and Majorities, it is clear
that Congress has taken a step backwards and allowed fear, doubt, or
ignorance to undo the progress we were beginning to make on climate
change science. Instead of denying the existence of climate change,
today we should be asking ourselves what we can do to help Americans
adapt to the impacts of a changing climate.
These impacts will extend far beyond mere inconvenience. For anyone
that is more concerned about financial costs of taking action to
prevent and adapt to climate change, I ask you to consider the economic
impacts such as prolonged droughts and heat waves, increased flooding,
more intense storms, species extinction and invasive species, sea level
rise, melting polar ice caps, and mass migration, just to name a few.
From the tornadoes in the South, drought and fires in the West, and
flooding in the Midwest, regardless of their relation to climate
change, we have seen in recent months how even isolated instances of
these phenomena can devastate economies. That said, why would we not
want to give people the tools and information needed to anticipate what
is to come?
Many sectors of our society--farmers; natural resource managers;
coastal resource managers; State and local government officials; the
transportation sector; and water, utility, and energy companies, just
to name a few--all benefit from NOAA's ability to predict the intensity
and duration of climatic events. On the national, regional, and local
scale, these services and products will make it easier for decision
makers and managers to prepare and develop plans to respond to the
various weather and climate events.
As the demand for more climate information has grown, so has the
need for our scientists to better understand and explain the various
climate cycles and patterns. This is not a new need. In fact, in the
107th Congress, this Committee passed legislation authored by Mr. Hall
to expand climate services by authorizing the National Integrated
Drought Information Service or NIDIS. It was a common sense measure,
unburdened by today's political rhetoric on climate change.
I hope that this hearing is not going to be another discussion
about whether NOAA, in some underhanded way, has already established a
Climate Service office without the consultation and approval of
Congress. Dr. Lubchenco has stated several times, both verbally in this
Committee and in letters, that NOAA has not established or implemented
a Climate Service line office. To rehash that discussion again today
would be a waste of our time and taxpayer dollars when we should
working to determine how NOAA can best serve the public's need for
these services. It is time to move forward.
This Committee has been discussing the creation of a Climate
Service for a few years now, weighing the pros and cons of the
different options for structuring the program. And there has been no
shortage of input. In addition to the relevant agencies, many
stakeholders have testified before this Committee and written letters,
and numerous articles have been published about the growing need for,
and the key elements of, an organized climate service.
We must ensure that the services are aligned in a way that there is
robust interagency coordination, and that the Federal Government is
positioned to support the different regions and the State, local, and
tribal governments in their efforts. We must also make sure we continue
to strengthen NOAA's climate science capabilities while also delivering
timely and needed services. I expect that we will hear a commitment and
a plan from NOAA for how to ensure that both the research and the
services are maintained, and that other crucial missions of the agency
are not compromised.
We may not yet agree on the mechanics, scope, and scale of a
program, but I believe we can all see the benefit of providing the
individuals, communities, governments, and businesses in our districts
with the type of reliable long-term climate information and services
that will reduce our vulnerability to weather and climate events, I
would hate to look back and regard the years we have spent discussing
this as a lost opportunity to do something good for the next
generation.
Thank you, Chairman Hall.
Chairman Hall. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Without objection, they will be admitted.
[The information can be found in Appendix 2.]
Chairman Hall. The gentlelady from Texas yields back.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time I would like to introduce our witness panel. I
would like to introduce our first of two witnesses, Dr. Jane
Lubchenco. Prior to her service as Administrator at NOAA, Dr.
Lubchenco served as the president of the American Society for
the Advancement of Science, a professor at Harvard and Oregon
State University, and she was also on the Board of Directors
for the National Science Foundation. Dr. Lubchenco was sworn in
on March 20, 2009, and this is the fourth time she has appeared
before this Committee, and I thank you for being here. I
recognize you for five minutes. I will not hold you to five
minutes, just do your best to stay around it.
STATEMENT OF JANE LUBCHENCO,
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you very much, Chairman Hall, Members
of the Committee. It is a pleasure to be here today, and I
greatly appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about the
proposed reorganization that was included in the President's
fiscal year 2012 budget. This proposal would strengthen science
across the agency, increase organizational effectiveness and
create a new line office to allow NOAA to better meet the
growing demand for information and services to help Americans
plan for drought, prepare for floods, and support U.S. national
security priorities around the globe.
The proposed realignment would enable NOAA to continue to
advance our high-quality science and more readily transition
scientific findings into usable services for American farmers,
emergency managers, health care providers, weather-dependent
businesses, Department of Defense, and more.
Before proceeding, I would like to again assure you that
NOAA has not established a Climate Service. We fully understand
that Congressional approval is needed, and I would like to
apologize for the fact that my testimony was delayed in getting
to the Committee, and I reiterate my regret for the manner in
which the conversation between Congress, the Department and
NOAA began.
In February of 2010, we announced our intention to
establish a Climate Service. That announcement did not go well,
and I apologize that we got off on the wrong foot. That
announcement was intended to mark the beginning of a dialogue
with Congress. Mr. Hall, it is my sincerest hope that the time
and effort that we have committed to sharing information with
the Committee and responding to your requests over the last
year have begun to restore the good will that long
characterized the relationship between NOAA and the Science
Committee, and it is my sincere hope that we can continue to
work together going forward to build a stronger science and
service enterprise at NOAA.
Few environmental factors affect our economy, ecosystems,
and livelihoods more than weather and climate. Severe weather
and climate extremes pose risks to human health, safety and
property. Everyone understands the influence of weather on
everyday life. Will it be hot or cold? Do I need an umbrella?
Just as weather affects our daily decisions, so too does long-
term weather or climate. Can farmers in northeastern Minnesota
grow higher-value crops such as soybeans on their farms? How
far from the Mississippi River or the Gulf Coast should houses
be built? Will there be enough water to support the anticipated
growth in Atlanta suburbs 20 years from now? NOAA's information
about climate conditions is essential to smart planning and to
create better prepared and more resilient businesses and
communities.
The public is demanding more data and increasingly complex
products at scales that are relevant to their decisions, and
NOAA is working in concert with our partners to address these
needs. A prime example of this, NOAA and the Western Governors
Association are working toward a memorandum of understanding to
improve the development, coordination, and dissemination of
climate information to support the priorities and resource
management decisions of western states. This MOU will build on
NOAA's longstanding collaboration with the Western Governors
Association on drought services and it explicitly recognizes
the need for engagement among federal agencies and non-federal
partners on this issue.
NOAA's climate services are also supporting the growth of a
new category of economic, scientific and technologic
innovation, entrepreneurs and businesses that specialize in the
provision of tailored climate services and products that
support specific users. This emerging private sector climate
service industry takes information and products generated by
the public sectors, adds value and markets them to businesses,
states and the public. A roughly $1 billion private sector
weather industry has grown up around NOAA's weather services
and it is expected that a similar industry will emerge around
NOAA's climate services.
NOAA is acutely aware that we do not stand alone on
climate. We are key partners in the provision of climate data
and services with other agencies, and we recognize that to meet
America's growing need for timely, relevant, and authoritative
information will require the concerted effort of the entire
public and private climate enterprise.
The idea of creating a Climate Service at NOAA is not new.
The concept first surfaced in the 1970s and took hold in the
Bush Administration when Vice Admiral Lautenbacher recognized
NOAA could not support the Nation's rising demand for NOAA's
climate services within our existing organizational structure
where in our core climate science information and service
activities are distributed across multiple line offices, thus
inhibiting our ability to efficiently target and deploy our
resources and efforts.
To resolve these inefficiencies and to meet the needs of
the public, Administrator Lautenbacher announced his intent to
establish a Climate Service organization in NOAA in 2008. Under
my tenure at NOAA, we built upon the work he began and formally
proposed an internal agency reorganization to consolidate the
management of climate-related programs. This proposal would
consolidate management, capture material efficiencies, and
provide enhanced traceability and transparency across our
climate activities, thus providing an efficient and effective
research to service enterprise at NOAA. Throughout this
process, NOAA has worked with the brightest minds on
institutional planning and administration to design and
implement a proposed reorganization. These principles and
options were informed by recommendations from NOAA's Science
Advisory Board, the Science Advisory Board's Climate Working
Group, and a broad array of other interests including the
National Academy of Public Administration panel that was formed
at the request of Congress. After careful review, and as
detailed in my written testimony, it was determined that the
option that strengthens and maintains our Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research while establishing a separate Climate
Service line office was the best solution. It minimizes
disruption to Weather Service operations. It strengthens
science across the agency and best aligns climate science with
service delivery. Throughout, NOAA's SAB and our Climate
Working Group actively considered the Nation's need for climate
services and NOAA's climate capabilities and shortcomings.
Mr. Hall, we both care deeply about NOAA and about the
science that occurs in NOAA. Science is the foundation of all
that we do, and a cornerstone of this proposal is to strengthen
OAR and NOAA science more broadly to support our mission and
our services. In addition, this proposal would not diminish our
investment in research and it would not move resources away
from non-climate programs in OAR or other NOAA offices or
programs. Similarly, none of NOAA's climate or other research
capabilities is diminished by the proposed reorganization, and
we don't propose any fundamental changes to the balance of
internal versus external funding.
The proposal would open the door for OAR to turn its
attention to incubating solutions to tomorrow's long-term
science challenges, to integrating agency-wide science
portfolio and driving NOAA science and technology innovation.
OAR's ability to conduct long-term world-class research
observation and modeling exemplified most recently in our
contribution to the Deepwater Horizon response makes this line
office instrumental to achieving our long-term vision. OAR
would be positioned to lead crucial research and integrate
collective capabilities across NOAA.
I am grateful that you, Mr. Hall, and the Committee Members
have such a passion for our scientific enterprise. We share
that with you, and we are committed to working closely with you
to strengthen science at NOAA. I believe that our proposal
embraces the highest standards of scientific excellence and
integrity, and last week we released NOAA's draft scientific
integrity policy for public comment. Its purpose is to ensure a
continued culture of scientific excellence and integrity at
NOAA, and it explicitly prohibits science managers from
suppressing or censoring scientific findings.
In summary, then, our proposal would allow NOAA to better
enable Americans to make informed investment choices, build
private sector jobs, grow a climate service-oriented sector of
the economy, and create resilient communities while refocusing
and strengthening NOAA's capacity for high-quality
transformational research across the agency. I know that
strengthening NOAA's science is an issue on which the Committee
shares our strong commitment and we are grateful for your
support. We look forward to working with the Committee to
continue to advance NOAA's mission-focused science enterprise
as we move forward. I believe that this is the right solution
for NOAA and it is a good thing for American taxpayers,
businesses, and for Congress. It does not grow government. It
is not regulatory in nature nor does it cost American taxpayers
any additional money. This is a proposal to do the job that
Congress and the American public have asked NOAA to do but to
do it better. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lubchenco follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JANE LUBCHENCO,
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members ofthe Committee,
before I begin my testimony, I would like to thank you for the
leadership, interest, and support that you have shown the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one of the Nation's
premier Earth science and service agencies. I am honored to be here as
the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere at NOAA to
discuss the proposed reorganization that was included in the
President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget. This proposal would
strengthen science across the agency, increase organizational
efficiencies, and create a new Climate Service Line Office at KOAA--to
allow us to better meet the growing demand for climate information and
services on climatic conditions and long-term forecasts that are vital
to America's businesses and communities. I would like to emphasize
upfront that this reorganization is a proposal, and NOAA has not
created a new Line Office.
Summary
NOAA's short-term weather forecasts of conditions on an hourly
basis to about two weeks out are a key component of our mission to
protect American lives and property. Likewise, NOAA's long-range
weather and seasonal forecasts, also known as climate forecasts, inform
advance planning decisions, from weeks to months ahead of time, that
allow for a rapid response to the onset of events such as severe
storms, droughts, and floods.
Although many people think very long term when they hear the word
``climate,'' climate simply picks up where weather leaves off.
``Climate services'' refer to forecasts of conditions any time in the
future beyond two weeks. For more than a century, NOAA has provided
information about the weather, by way of short-term forecasts of less
than two weeks, and about the climate through long-range forecasts from
two weeks to seasons or years out. For example, NOAA's climate
forecasts, including seasonal precipitation and drought outlooks, are
helping firefighters in Texas prepare for and respond to this record
wildfire season. These data and products are not just critical to
Americans when it comes to saving lives and property; NOAA's
information is being used by businesses, industry, and governments to
make smart investments in the economy and infrastructure. For example,
just one of NOAA's information tools is helping the U.S. home building
industry save an estimated $300 million per year in construction costs
alone, by using NOAA's temperature trend information to design cost-
effective building foundations.
Americans also depend on NOAA's climate information to reduce their
risk to natural hazards (such as drought and flooding) and to take
advantage of opportunities to use scarce resources more efficiently
(such as reducing irrigation schedules during periods of above-normal
precipitation). And they are now demanding more data and increasingly
complex products in a timely manner that, in turn, requires advanced
scientific study. Appendix A ofthis testimony provides examples of the
impressive growth in demand for NOAA's climate service, as well as
additional examples of the types of services and data requests NOAA
receives.
NOAA cannot meet the Nation's increased demand for this information
with our current organizational structure. Our core climate science,
information, and service activities are distributed across multiple
line offices and therein inhibit our ability to efficiently target and
deploy our resources and efforts. To address these administrative
inefficiencies, the Department of Commerce and NOAA proposed an
internal agency reorganization to consolidate the management of our
climate-related programs, laboratories, and centers in a new NOAA
Climate Service. Appendix B outlines the extensive criteria used to
evaluate the various options for organizational structure of a climate
service within NOAA, and reviews the analysis of the various options
not selected. This effort was initiated under George W. Bush's
Administration, and it has been highly vetted by a diverse array of
organizational experts, scientists, NOAA's own Science Advisory Board
(SAB), and, at the request of Congress, the National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA).
The Climate Service Line Office at NOAA would be a single point of
contact in NOAA to provide credible, useful, and timely information
products. It would work with the broader climate service enterprise,
including other Federal, State, and local government agencies, the
academic community, and the private sector to provide businesses,
communities, and resource managers with services and information for
decision making. The proposed Climate Service Line Office at NOAA would
improve NOAA's organization, such that the agency can be a more
accessible, transparent, and collaborative partner to achieve the
agency's climate goals and to ensure that all Americans' needs for
climate information are met. In doing so, NOAA's reorganization would
also support economic innovation and entrepreneurship. This includes
supporting development of the private sector climate services industry
emerging around NOAA's climate information, in much the same way that
the roughly $1 billion plus private sector weather industry has grown
up around NOAA's weather data and services. Please see Appendix C for a
description of the many benefits the proposed Climate Service Line
Office at NOAA would provide.
A cornerstone of this reorganization is strengthening the Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) and NOAA science more broadly to
advance our scientific understanding and develop new technology to
support NOAA's mission and services. NOAA's proposal embraces the
highest standards of scientific excellence and integrity. In doing so,
our proposed reorganization would preserve, strengthen, and integrate
the existing solid foundation of science across the agency, advance
innovative and transformational research and development, and incubate
solutions to NOAA's next grand science challenges. I know this is an
issue on which the Committee shares our strong commitment, and we are
grateful for your support. We look forward to working with the
Committee to continue to advance NOAA's mission-focused science
enterprise as we move forward.
The proposed reorganization is good government. It comes at no
additional cost to the American taxpayer, and would sustain NOAA's
scientific research capabilities and focus them on these new
challenges. In short, Americans are demanding more and better products
to help them prepare for severe weather events and other hazards, and
NOAA is proposing to more efficiently use the resources we receive to
advance our science and improve our delivery of services to the public.
Climate, Weather, and Service Products
The Nation has relied on climate information and services for
decades, in the same way we have relied on weather information (like
severe weather forecasts and warnings) and other weather services.
Throughout history, as well as today, people around the country and the
world use climate information to minimize risks and maximize
opportunities across a diversity of sectors. Weather information is
short term, provided in hourly to roughly two-week forecasts. Many
think of climate as far into the future, but in fact, climate picks up
where weather leaves off at about the two-week mark. Climate services,
like weather services but on a longer time scale, generally from two
weeks out to seasons and beyond, are rooted in historical records of
temperature, precipitation, storms, sea level, ice coverage, and
related oceanic and atmospheric processes. Climate services are easily
accessible and provide timely scientific data and information about the
climate that help people make informed decisions in their lives,
businesses, and communities. For decades, NOAA has been at the
forefront of advancing climate science and delivering climate
information products. Specific examples of NOAA's climate products
include:
Seasonal Atlantic and Pacific basin hurricane outlooks,
Seasonal Outlooks (three-month) for precipitation and
temperature,
Seasonal to weekly drought outlooks,
Monthly U.S. and global climate summaries,
Annual State of the Climate reports,
Annual Arctic Report Card updates,
Sea Level Rise predictions,
Climate projections and scenarios about future climate
conditions.
As NOAA's climate science and services continue to mature, we
should be better able to keep people out of harm's way, and enable them
to plan for their communities' future and make smart business
investments.
The Overarching Goals of the Reorganization Proposal
In the President's FY 2012 budget to Congress, the Secretary of
Commerce proposed a budget-neutral reorganization of NOAA to improve
its ability to provide Americans with information and services that
will help them prepare for natural hazards and to make informed
decisions.
The proposal outlines two major objectives essential to achieving
this goal: (1) improve NOAA's ability to efficiently and effectively
respond to the Nation's increasing demands for climate information,
consistent with the Department of Commerce's (DOC) authority under the
National Climate Program Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 2901, et seq.); and (2)
strategically renew and strengthen the agenda of the Office of Oceanic
and Atmospheric Research's (OAR), NOAA's core research organization,
making it a forward-looking charge to--incubate solutions to long-term
science challenges, integrate an agency-wide science portfolio, and
drive science and technology innovation. The reorganization would allow
NOAA to better execute its mission, legislative mandates, and funding
in a more effective, and transparent manner, It would consolidate
NOAA's existing, widely dispersed climate capabilities under a single
Line Office management structure to better organize NOAA to respond to
the Nation's rapidly increasing demand for climate information and
services.
This strategic aligmnent of climate assets will allow NOAA to
improve its ability to provide the reliable and authoritative climate
data, information, and decision-support services that Americans seek
through a centralized, coherent, unified structure that will better
facilitate coordination with other federal, state, local, and tribal
partners. NOAA recognizes that no one federal agency, nor the Federal
Government alone, can meet the Nation's need for climate science and
services. This proposal would improve NOAA's organization such that the
agency can be a more accessible, transparent, and collaborative
partner. NOAA will continue to rely on governmental, academic, and
private sector partnerships to ensure that all Americans' needs for
climate information are met.
We are not requesting an increase in funds to implement this
proposed organizational change. Equally important, the proposal does
not move resources away from non-climate programs in OAR, or other NOAA
offices or programs, to fund the Climate Service Line Office at NOAA.
We are simply proposing to use existing climate-related funds and
assets more effectively. In the same way, none of NOAA's climate or
other research capabilities is diminished by the proposed
reorganization. In fact, the proposal would free OAR to renew its focus
on other innovative long-term research priorities across the agency,
much as it has focused on and matured climate science over the past
four decades, bringing it to the point that it is now ready to be more
closely aligned with services, Furthermore, we do not propose any
fundamental change to the balance of internal versus extramural
funding, pending Congressional appropriation, Much like you would tune
up your car's engine to obtain better performance, we are proposing to
``tune up'' our agency so we can better meet our Congressional mandates
to provide Americans with climate information for smart decision
making.
Scope and Demand for NOAA's Climate Services
Few environmental factors affect our economy, ecosystems, and
livelihoods more than weather and climate. Severe weather and climatic
extremes pose risks to human health, safety and property. Apart from
the extremes, everyone understands the influence of weather on everyday
life. Will it be hot or cold, windy or calm? Do I need an umbrella?
Just as weather affects our daily decisions, so too does climate. Can
farmers in northeastern Minnesota grow soybeans on their farms? How far
from the Mississippi River or the Gulf Coast should houses be built?
Will there be enough water to support the anticipated growth in
Atlanta's suburbs 20 years from now? Information about climate
conditions is essential to smart planning, and to create better
prepared and more resilient businesses and communities. NOAA's climate
capabilities have matured significantly and grown in sophistication
over the past 40 years. Today, more Americans than ever before depend
upon this essential information to make decisions. The public is now
demanding more data and increasingly complex products at scales that
are relevant to them. Detailed accounts of the volume and scope of
requests for NOAA's climate service products are provided in Appendix
A.
Creating Opportunities for the Private Sector
NOAA's climate services are supporting the growth of a new category
of economic, scientific and technology innovation: entrepreneurs and
businesses that specialize in the provision of tailored climate
services and products that support specific users. This emerging
private sector climate service industry utilizes information and
products generated by the public sector, adds value, and markets them
to businesses and the public in much the same way as the existing
private sector weather services industry. For example, private sector
service providers use NOAA's long-term temperature and precipitation
records to develop tailored products to help the energy sector plan for
electricity demand and water availability. An explicit goal of the
proposed Climate Service Line Office at NOAA is sustained engagement
with the private sector to ensure that all of NOAA's climate data and
products are easily accessible and supporting the development of this
emerging market with tremendous growth potential. A roughly billion
dollar private sector weather industry has grown up around NOAA's
weather services, and it is expected that a similar private sector
climate industry will emerge in coordination with NOAA's climate
services.
History of NOAA's Climate Services and Existing Congressional
Authorization
One of NOAA's longest and proudest legacies is that of being a
leader in the field of climate science and service delivery. NOAA
maintains the official U.S. and global climate data record, produces
operational seasonal forecasts that include drought and flood outlooks,
maintains the longest continuous data record of carbon dioxide
measurements, and operates more than 50 percent of global ocean
observation platforms, as well as other environmental sensors that span
the globe. We have Nobel Prize-winning scientists who collaborate with
peers from around the world to advance our knowledge of the planet's
ever-changing climate system using data from observations and models.
In 1978, Congress had the foresight to see that climate information
was important to the Nation, and officially passed the National Climate
Program Act, which stated, ``It is the purpose of the Congress in this
Act to establish a national climate program that will assist the Nation
and the world to understand and respond to natural and man-induced
climate processes and their implications.'' This legislation also
recognized NOAA's role, within the Department of Commerce, as the
leading provider of climate information and services. With this charge
from Congress, NOAA has been actively working to help society
understand, plan for, and respond to climate variability and change.
NOAA is committed to providing a suite of relevant climate science and
services to help governments, businesses, and communities to manage
their risks and take advantage of new opportunities. NOAA's climate
capabilities are focused in core areas:
Climate Observations and Monitoring to describe and
understand the state of the climate system through integrated
observations, monitoring, data stewardship;
Climate Research and Modeling to understand and predict
climate variability and change in time frames ranging from weeks to a
century; and
Climate Information Services to improve society's ability
to plan and respond to climate variability and climate change.
Congress and this Committee have long recognized NOAA's leadership
and capacities in the development and delivery of climate science and
services, The Global Climate Change Research Act, the National Climate
Program Act, the National Weather Service Organic Act, and the National
Integrated Drought Information System Act (NIDIS) not only underpin the
strong federal interagency climate science enterprise that has advanced
the U.S.' and world's understanding of the Earth system, but also
provide NOAA its foundational authorities to advance climate science
and develop and deliver the climate services that serve the Nation.
Over time, as our understanding of the climate system has improved,
NOAA has worked with and alongside its partners to transition NOAA data
into climate services that support a broad range of decision makers.
NOAA's NIDIS program is an excellent example of how our environmental
information services can be critical to local decision makers, farmers,
ranchers, energy producers, resource managers, and emergency
responders. NIDIS demonstrates how our understanding of the climate
system has advanced to the point where we can begin to develop regional
climate services, and it holds repeated endorsements for the value of
its services from a broad range of groups, including the Western
Governors Association.
In its most recent recognition of NOAA's important role in climate
science and services, Congress called for an expert panel ofthe
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to conduct a study of
organizational options for the development of a Climate Service in
NOAA. \1\ The Panel of private and public sector business and
administrative experts concluded that NOAA's assessment of user demand
is accurate, but the business processes that NOAA has employed to meet
this demand, including matrix management, were beneficial but largely
inadequate. Next, they reviewed a broad range of organizational options
specific to optimizing NOAA's ability to develop and deliver climate
services. Ultimately, NAPA concluded that a Climate Service Line Office
at NOAA would be needed for the agency to adequately respond to the
increasing demand for climate information, and provided some valuable
recommendations for its design and implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Congress, House, Conference Committee Report to Accompany
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, 111th Congress, 1st Session,
2009, Report 111-366.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Challenges of NOAA's Current Organization
Today, climate science and service capacities are distributed
across five Line Offices at NOAA, resulting in bureaucratic
inefficiencies, no clear access point to NOAA's climate information for
users, and missed opportunities for synergies between scientific
advances and fast-evolving services. Historically, this was less of a
problem, as service development and delivery was less in demand,
However, growing demand for advanced climate services has highlighted
the limitations of NOAA's current organizational structure. Scientific,
industry, government and public concerns about natural hazards such as
floods and drought are fueling the tremendous growth in the demand for
climate-related information from NOAA. All sectors of society are faced
with the need to better understand and anticipate the impacts of
climate variability and change in order to make more informed decisions
and be competitive at home and abroad.
Existing Structure Is Unable to Keep Pace With Demand
Through our existing network of laboratories. data centers.
programs, and operational assets distributed throughout the agency,
NOAA responds to millions of annual requests for climate information.
However, under our current distributed organizational structure for
climate science and services, the rapidly increasing user demand is
outpacing NOAA's capacity to effectively deliver requested products and
information and exceeding NOAA's ability to meet or be responsive to
future needs.
NOAA stakeholders who want access to our information have expressed
frustration that they do not know who to go to as we have too many
points of entry for climate information. For example, although the
Climate Prediction Center produces the seasonal forecasts, information
on historical climate is kept at the National Climatic Data Centers. It
is reasonable for a stakeholder to include seasonal predictions and
trends in a single request to NOAA, but they currently need to go
through two different Line Offices to get this information. As another
example, coastal managers looking for information on sea level rise
will need to work with the National Oceanographic Data Center in the
National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS)
to find the data, the Climate Program Office in OAR and the regional
climate services director in the National Climatic Data Center for
information on grants and partners, and our labs in OAR, including the
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and the Earth System Research
Laboratory, for the models that help us understand future sea level
trends. The single point of entry that the Climate Service Line Office
at NOAA will provide is obviously needed.
Numerous external studies by NOAA's Science Advisory Board
(SAB),the National Academies, NAPA, and others have reiterated the
Nation's demand for easy-to-find, reliable, and understandable
information and products ahout climate variability and change. A
centralized Climate Service Line Office at NOAA will increase the
agency's ability to anticipate, understand and provide the information
Americans need to meet the challenge of being competitive and resilient
in the climate of the future by incorporating relevant climate
knowledge in their decision making today.
A New Organizational Structure Is Needed
Reorganizing NOAA's existing climate capabilities under a single
Line Office will create a more integrated and efficient organization to
better respond to these critical needs at the national and local level,
and allow the agency to make key contributions in the development and
delivery of climate science and services. Creating one office will
establish a stronger position for NOAA to conduct its climate research,
monitoring and assessment work in a coordinated fashion. It will also
create a visible and easy-to-find single point of entry for people to
access NOAA's science and service assets; enable improved information
sharing and more productive partnerships with federal agencies, local
governments, private industry and other users and stakeholders; and
further increase transparency.
Since NOAA was established in 1970, its broad array of climate
science and services has developed independently within each Line
Office to meet each of their specific user needs and Congressional
mandates. NOAA's existing framework for climate activities was
established before the potential of climate services was fully
recognized, and it is not optimized for efficient or coordinated
climate service delivery. The oversight and management of this network
of labs, centers and programs remains a decentralized.and loosely
organized enterprise. NAPA specifically addressed the issue of current
cross-line coordination efforts in their report. For the past eight
years, NOAA has used a matrix management system to integrate climate
activities across the agency. The NAPA review stated:
The introduction of matrix management and the creation ofthe
Climate Goal Team were thoughtful and significant investments to
respond to demand by improving performance across NOAA's distributed
network of climate activities. Matrix management has helped improve
alignment across a range of activities and organizational stovepipes.
NOAA has maximized the use of matrix management, but the rising
demand for climate services requires NOAA to take additional action.
NAPA concluded:
A major challenge of [NOAA's] Climate Goal Team has ultimately
been its lack of consolidated management control of personnel and
budgets . . . This has limited NOAA's ability to meet strategic climate
objectives, and the agency has cited it as an important reason for why
it proposed creation of a Climate Service.
NOAA has delivered science and services for decades, responds to
thousands of direct requests per week, and serves data to tens of
thousands of users per month via the Internet; however, the reality is
that NOAA must improve our information and service delivery in order to
meet the rapidly increasing public demand in this area. We have every
reason to expect that demand will continue to increase in the future as
people, business, and communities begin to more fully utilize
environmental information, including climate forecasts, in their daily
decision making.
Organizational structures have many virtues, and the major virtue
NOAA will achieve here is accountability. During listening sessions and
engagement activities across the Nation, across sectors, and across
stakeholder groups, climate services is repeatedly raised as the number
one area where people would like more from NOAA. However, despite this
overwhelming demand and business case for our work, there is currently
no position within NOAA that is accountable for the performance of our
climate portfolio, resulting in ad hoc coordination and integration
among dedicated NOAA employees who are willing and eager to step
outside their traditional management boundaries to advance NOAA's
climate science and services. As any business will tell you, however,
this model has its limitations. Strong, focused leadership that is
committed to executing a unified vision is central to any successful
business. This is one of the key conclusions of the NAPA Panel, which
was comprised not of climate scientists, but of business leaders and
administrative experts who recognized this as NOAA's key challenge in
growing our service delivery abilities.
How NOAA Arrived at the Reorganization Proposal
The idea of creating a Climate Service Line Office at NOAA is not
new. The concept first surfaced in the early 1970s, not long after NOAA
was established, and later gained prominence and traction in NOAA
during the George W. Bush Administration. The Bush Administration
turned the Nation's attention towards the need for a Climate Service
entity within the Federal Government, and supported rooting its
foundation within NOAA. Dr. John Marburger, President Bush's Chief
Science Advisor, also supported the establishnlent of a Climate Service
and wrote in a letter to the Honorable Senator Inouye that, ``given its
distinctive observational assets, assessment and prediction capacity,
and service delivery capabilities, the functions of a National Climate
Service clearly require a leadership role for NOAA.'' Ultimately it was
Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.), the
previous Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA
Administrator under President George W. Bush, who first announced the
agency's intent to create a Climate Service organization in NOAA.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher made great advancements in promoting
cross-Line Office integration within NOAA by implementing a matrix
management system. Upon initiating matrix management, the Vice Admiral
wrote in a NOAA memorandum that one of his first and highest priorities
under that system was climate. Throughout the course of the previous
Administration, the Vice Admiral oversaw a level of coordination on
climate that has had an enduring benefit within NOAA and strengthened
NOAA's climate science and services enterprise. However, over time the
Bush Administration leadership recognized that matrix management alone
was insufficient to ensure NOAA was positioned to support the Nation's
climate service needs. Thus, in 2008, Administrator Lautenbacher
announced his intent to establish a Climate Service Line Office in
NOAA.
In addition, from 2008 to 2009, the NOAA SAB and its Climate
Working Group (CWG) undertook an effort to compare and contrast
specific options for the development of a National Climate Service--a
broad enterprise of agencies, including NOAA, and organizations
comprised of users, researchers and information providers. This effort
resulted in the June 5, 2009, SAB report entitled Options for
Developing a National Climate Service. The SAB's report concluded that
each option had significant strengths and weaknesses and that no option
was viewed as an ideal option for a National Climate Service. The
report did not make specific recommendations as to how NOAA should
reorganize its own internal climate capabilities. Among its findings,
however, the SAB clearly stated, ``The current NOAA organization is not
well-suited to the development of a unified climate services function.
Greater connectivity between weather and climate functions and between
research, operations and users is required.'' Later, NAPA endorsed both
this and the previous Administration's conclusions and decision to
establish a climate service organization in NOAA. As noted above, NAPA
agreed that the previous Administration made significant progress
towards integrating NOAA's climate assets through matrix management.
Ultimately, however, NAPA supported the assessment of both the previous
and current administrations: matrix management alone is not sufficient
to strategically align NOAA's assets towards our climate service
objectives.
Upon arriving at NOAA, I had the opportunity to continue to build
on the large body of information and analysis that had been done on the
issue of a climate service organization in NOAA. Ever since the
previous Administration's decision to establish a Climate Service
organization, NOAA and external groups have been engaged in efforts to
further develop the specific design and implementation considerations
for a Climate Service. NOAA has both been working internally to further
scope out the concept, as weIl as externally to gather input from its
partners, including federal, state and local agencies, Congress,
business and industry, the academic community, and non-governmental
organizations. NOAA has held dozens of roundtables with our partners
and constituents to discuss their needs for climate services. In
addition, at Congress' request, NOAA commissioned NAPA to conduct the
aforementioned study of organizational options for delivering climate
services, which included its own extensive stakeholder and partner
engagement process. Only after serious considerations and
deliberations, a specific proposal was developed that outlined the NOAA
programs that should be included in the Climate Service Line Office at
NOAA.
Options Considered
There has been significant analysis and discussion both internal to
NOAA and among external groups about the best organizational structure
for a climate service in NOAA. The breadth of expertise and interests
represented and the time that was afforded for these discussions was
tremendously beneficial to the formulation of NOAA's proposed
reorganization. DOC and NOAA have taken such discussions and the ideas
they have generated very seriously. In response, NOAA has worked with
some of the brightest minds on institutional planning and
administration, service delivery, stakeholder involvement, and climate
science to develop, evaluate and integrate the many ideas that have
arisen from these discussions into the proposed reorganization
contained in the President's FY 2012 Budget Request.
Under Vice Admiral Lautenbacher's leadership, NOAA worked with
private sector management experts for two years to study NOAA's
structure for climate activities. In addition, NOAA's internal
management developed numerous strategy documents that have been the
foundation of the work that has followed under my tenure. Prior to
developing a suite of options to consider, NOAA set out several design
principles for all reorganization options that would be considered.
These principles, and the subsequent options evaluated were informed by
the recommendations received from our SAB and a variety of other
internal and external sources of input and advice. The specific
principles NOAA set out to guide its development of options included
the following:
Although various programs and activities would be
consolidated, renamed, and managed collectively, any reorganization
could not initiate or create new programs or activities not provided
for in NOAA's existing authorizations and appropriations;
All realigned activities in the current year would
continue to be funded at Congressionally directed levels;
The reorganization would not increase or decrease the
NOAA Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) or billet allocation, or require any
relocation of employees;
The reorganization would not require any physical
relocation of programs or labs, or require any new facilities to
accommodate this reorganization;
Result in a zero sum realignment of funds within the
current NOAA budget; and
Not increase the size of NOAA overhead.
Adhering to these principles, NOAA subsequently developed and
analyzed four potential organizational structures to reorganize
existing NOAA climate assets against a set of design criteria. All
options considered were budget neutral, none grew the size of
headquarters, and all had no impact on funding for NOAA's science
portfolio. These options included: (a) consolidating major climate
science and service assets in the National Weather Service, (b)
consolidating major climate science and service assets in a new Climate
Service Line Office and eliminating OAR by moving its research into
relevant Line Offices, (c) consolidating major climate science and
service assets in OAR, and (d) maintaining OAR and consolidating major
climate science and service assets in a new Climate Service Line
Office. More information on the design criteria and analysis of options
that were not selected can be found in Appendix B.
NOAA's Proposal
After careful review against the design criteria outlined in
Appendix B, and consideration of all input received, including from the
SAB, NAPA, and a breadth of internal and external experts, NOAA
determined that the option that strengthens and maintains OAR while
establishing a separate Climate Service Line Office was paramount. The
proposal is equally focused on and committed to strengthening and
integrating NOAA's science enterprise and advancing the vision of OAR.
The establishment of a separate Climate Service Line Office and
maintenance of OAR, as a research-focused Line Office had numerous
benefits as compared to the other options. OAR will continue to serve
as NOAA's centralized research Line Office, serving all of NOAA by
supporting and producing preeminent research and technology innovation
that advances NOAA's mission. Because high-quality climate science is
at the core of climate services, housing both climate science and
services under one organizational structure will allow NOAA to better
transition climate research findings into usable information and
services that help businesses and communities make more informed
economic decisions and safeguard lives and property. Since climate
services are rapidly evolving, it is beneficial that the climate
science and service development go hand in hand in order to develop
products and services that can evolve and be initiated rapidly when
needed in response to scientific information as it emerges. The
continuous advancements in climate science demand a close proximity to
the service, not only so that those advancements can constantly improve
products (science push), but also so that the users can be asking new
questions of the science (user pull). More information on the
efficiencies that would be gained through this proposal, and the
benefits that would be produced can be found in Appendix C.
Under NOAA's proposal, the building blocks of the proposed Climate
Service Line Office would be drawn from three existing NOAA Line
Offices:
From OAR: The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, the
Climate Program Office, and from the Earth System Research Laboratory--
the Chemical Sciences Division, the Global Monitoring Division, the
Physical Sciences Division;
From NESDIS: The three data centers--the National
Climatic Data Center (NCDC),the National Oceanographic Data Center and
the National Geophysical Data Center; and
From NWS: The Climate Prediction Center, and management
responsibilities for climate observing networks including the Tropical
Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) array and the modernization of the Historical
Climate Network (HCN-m).
There will not be any programmatic changes to the National Ocean
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, or the Office of Marine
and Aviation Operations. It is important to point out that NOAA is
aware that we must do more than simply reorganize our assets. For
example, the nation is looking to NOAA for linkages between weather and
climate, coasts and climate, and living marine resources and climate.
This will require close working relationships between the new climate
office and our other Line Offices, and although the Climate Service
Line Office would take a leadership role, meeting these challenges
effectively is a NOAA-wide endeavor.
The proposed Climate Service Line Office structure reflects NOAA's
response to the needs of numerous demands for climate services, so that
the agency can: (1) promote integration of NOAA's climate science and
service assets; (2) heighten the accessibility and visibility of NOAA's
climate services for our partners and users; and (3) allow NOAA to more
efficiently address user and partner needs compared to our current
distributed structure. To make this new organization successful, it
will encompass a core set of longstanding NOAA capabilities with proven
success, including climate observations, research, modeling,
predictions and projections, assessments, and service delivery
infrastructure. NOAA envisions the proposed Climate Service Line Office
providing a single point of entry for people to access NOAA's
information assets, and enabling improved information sharing and more
productive partnerships with a broader enterprise that includes:
federal agencies, local governments, private industry, other users, and
stakeholders. To help realize this broader enterprise, NOAA is co-
chairing (along with U.S. Geological Survey and the Office of Science
and Technology Policy) a Roundtable on Climate Information and Services
under the auspices of the National Science and Technology Council.
NOAA's proposed reorganization also maintains the highest standards
of scientific integrity for all NOAA science and seeks to strengthen
and integrate science across the agency. Through the reorganization
NOAA is seizing the opportunity to refocus OAR's efforts to incubate
solutions to tomorrow's long-term science challenges, to integrate an
agency-wide science portfolio, and to drive NOAA science and technology
innovation. For example, OAR provides: the next-generation weather
prediction and forecast tools, including the Multi-function Phased
Array Radar (MP AR) that provides a data refresh every 43 seconds
versus traditional radar refresh rates of every three minutes; new
research platforms such as the dedicated Okeanos Explorer that help us
better understand what is happening under the ocean; and an Earth
System Prediction Capability that is a NOAA-wide planning effort to
identify future needs for environmental predictions. Realigning OAR and
strengthening science across the agency is a core component of the
proposed reorganization.
To further ensure that NOAA's commitment to continuing to develop
leading-edge climate science is strengthened, a climate senior
scientist position is included in the reorganization proposal. This
position would ensure sound business practices wherein climate science
informs, but does not prescribe, decision making, and decision making
informs climate science but does not prescribe research priorities.
Additionally, this position will be key to ensuring the highest
standards of data quality are employed for climate science and
services.
In contrast to the NWS model, where science and service (or
operations) are housed in separate Line Offices, NOAA does not envision
a service delivery component for the Climate Service Line Office that
is remotely near the scale of the NWS with its 122 local forecast
offices and other regional infrastructure. In fact, the research and
science component of the proposed Climate Service Line Office is
expected to continue to be much larger than its services component,
where NOAA intends to employ approaches leveraging outside assets.
Within NOAA, we will continue leveraging the service delivery
infrastructure of the NWS and other partners like the Regional
Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISAs), Regional Climate Centers.
State climatologists, Sea Grant extension, Coastal Services Centers,
National Marine Sanctuaries, and other parts of NOAA. Given the growing
demands for climate information from business, we are working with
private sector companies that are providing climate information today
or are interested in developing this line of business. The latter
approach is much akin to the relationship between the National Weather
Service and the vibrant private weather community that exists today.
Specific Endorsements of a Climate Service Line Office
The unanimous conclusion of internal and external scientists and
decision makers was that establishing a single management structure for
the agency's core climate capabilities is required if the agency is to
rise to meet the Nation's growing need for increasingly sophisticated
information. One of the key sources of input from among NOAA's external
advisers that led NOAA to this option were the recommendations of the
NAPA expert panel that concluded, ``The Panel strongly supports the
creation of a NOAA Climate Service to be established as a Line Office
in NOAA.''
More recently, the SAB CWG winter 2011 report further reinforced
NOAA's proposal for a dedicated Climate Service Line Office, stating:
The lack of action in several areas highlighted in the previous
reviews speaks loudly to the need for a new line organization for
climate services. These responses clearly illustrated the considerable
inertia that exists within the present system and the difficulty in
moving from a matrix-managed program to a line organization. Let there
be no mistake: there is a tremendous amount of world-class climate
research being performed within the agency. Yet, transitioning such
high-quality research into a service-oriented and operational setting
is quite another matter. There are some fairly major systemic
challenges that need to be confronted going from a loose federation of
somewhat independent NOAA organizations to a functioning climate
service. Short of a Climate Service line organization with budgetary
authority, the CWG believes it will prove very difficult to effect
change if NOAA's approach to climate services continues in a matrix
structure or manner. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NOAA Science Advisory Board Climate Working Group. 2011 Winter
Report.
NOAA's reorganization proposal closely aligns with NAPA's final
recommendations, such as the inclusion of the NWS's Climate Prediction
Center, and recognizes the importance of having a temporary leadership
position for change management in the new organization. It is clear
that to meet the Nation's growing need for increasingly sophisticated
information about our changing climate and potential impacts to various
sectors, internal and external experts and decision makers have
agreed--NOAA must establish a single management structure to more
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
efficiently utilize and synergize the agency's core capabilities.
Strengthening NOAA Science and Renewing OAR
At its core, NOAA is a science agency and science underpins all
that NOAA does. NOAA is committed to using the best possible science to
inform our delivery of services, formulation of policies, and execution
of management responsibilities. We are developing policies and
practices that will promote scientific excellence inside and outside
the agency, and enable scientists within NOAA to thrive as they make
the discoveries and pursue the research necessary to inform our
services and our stewardship responsibilities. NOAA has been working to
develop a scientific integrity policy that would ensure a continued
culture of transparency, integrity, and ethical behavior in NOAA.
Additionally, NOAA is working to support recruitment and retention of
scientists through development of a more robust science career track
and expansion of senior science positions. NOAA's proposed
reorganization adheres to this commitment to scientific excellence and
embraces the highest standards of scientific integrity. We appreciate
and share in the Committee's strong interest in ensuring that NOAA's
science enterprise continues to advance our understanding of the Earth
system such that we can provide Americans with the best possible
information to aid their decision making.
Strengthen Science Within OAR and Across the Agency
In addition to establishing the Climate Service Line Office, the
reorganization proposal is equally focused on and committed to
strengthening and integrating NOAA's science enterprise and advancing
the vision of OAR. The proposed reorganization does not diminish or
eliminate any of NOAA's research or science activities, including OAR.
OAR will continue to serve as NOAA's centralized research Line Office,
serving all of NOAA by supporting and producing preeminent research and
technology innovation that advances NOAA's mission. OAR will innovate
(make new discoveries and find new technology applications), incubate
(conduct long-term research and develop technology to make new
discoveries that are useful to NOAA's operations), and integrate
(strengthen research and technology across NOAA and with partners).
Throughout the process of developing the proposal, NOAA carefully
reviewed the role and structure of OAR, and it is our firm view that
OAR is uniquely important in providing a dedicated science and research
enterprise within NOAA and should be maintained as NOAA's core capacity
to provide long-term atmospheric and oceanic research, science
integration, and technology innovation. The experience of Deepwater
Horizon highlighted the value of NOAA science to support decision
making and the delivery of trusted and accurate information. During the
crisis, OAR was able to take advantage of a deployed research asset
that was already being used for research purposes--the P-3 aircraft--to
estimate oil leak rates from the air. That flexibility and ingenuity
are what enables a strong research enterprise that is responsive to
real-time and long-term future needs. NOAA will look to OAR to play an
expanded role as the integrator of science and technology across NOAA
and provide research that supports NOAA's Next Generation Strategic
Plan, and OAR will continue to foster and grow collaborations with both
the interal and external scientific community. While the Climate
Service Line Office will strengthen climate science and deliver climate
services, OAR will continue to grow as an incubator of long-term and
innovative research and integrate science across all of NOAA.
Renewing OAR's research agenda is part and parcel with the proposal
to create a Climate Service Line Office. Our motivation is that just as
OAR has served to incubate and advance climate science over the last
four decades to a state where it can more readily inform climate
services, the proposed reorganization will renew OAR's focus as an
innovator and incubator of new grand challenges in oceanic and
atmospheric science, technologies, and applications. In the proposed
reorganization, OAR's portfolio would rise to meet science challenges
including:
Coordinating and managing emerging and transformational
research portfolios including ocean acidification; innovative
development of improved meteorological, oceanic and atmospheric
observing technologies; modeling and forecasting to expand the use of
renewable energy sources; unmanned air and underwater observing
systems; high-performance computing; and weather ``warn-on-forecast''
programs to increase lead time and accuracy for hazardous weather.
Emphasizing areas that are important challenges and
opportunities for NOAA, such as fostering integrated ecosystem science
beyond its current scope to include new tools for sustainable community
planning, novel ways to observe the world around us, new ways to
conduct fishery assessments, and innovative aquaculture and feed
technologies.
Moving NOAA toward a fully integrated approach to
environmental modeling that spans the full domain of physical,
chemical, and biological systems.
That said, strengthening science and fostering a culture of
innovation across the agency remains a critical priority for NOAA. OAR
performs a critical set of functions for NOAA's research enterprise as
NOAA's central research Line Office, serving all of NOAA by supporting
and producing long-term and transformational research and technology
innovation that advances NOAA's mission. In its report, NAPA echoed
this important role and the need to sustain OAR as a Line Office, as we
work to stand up a Climate Service Line Office that necessarily
includes climate science and service, ``all parts of NOAA benefit from
OAR's work to incubate fundamentally new approaches to mission-centered
science, a capability best sustained by maintaining a nimble,
freestanding OAR Line Office.''
Under the proposed reorganization, OAR would, in cooperation with
other Line Offices, including a Climate Service Line Office when
approved, guide the analysis and direction of NOAA's agency-wide
research portfolio. This responsibility includes: identifying NOAA's
science challenges and gaps; recommending novel research portfolio
management approaches; integrating science across NOAA's Line Offices
to gain a comprehensive understanding of the Earth system. To this end,
the OAR Assistant Administrator would serve as vice chair of the NOAA
Research Council. Further, as leader of the central research Line
Office, OAR's Assistant Administrator will be designated as the Senior
Advisor to the NOAA Chief Scientist and responsible for providing him
or her with science program analysis and policy support.
NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy
I am excited to share today progress on what I consider the
cornerstone for strengthening NOAA's scientific foundation. Last week
we published NOAA's draft scientific integrity policy for public
comment. Transparency is a key principle in this policy, and in keeping
with this principle, we are seeking comments from the public for 60
days. This policy reflects the commitment I made when I first came to
NOAA to strengthen science, ensure it is not misused or undermined, and
base decisions on good science. By being honest and open about our
science, we build understanding and trust. This policy is about
fostering an environment where science is encouraged, nurtured,
respected, rewarded, and protected. It applies to all NOAA employees,
political and career, and addresses applicable policy for grantees and
contractors. The policy establishes principles for scientific integrity
and codes of conduct for scientists and science managers, including
explicitly prohibiting science managers from suppressing or censoring
scientific findings. As part of institutionalizing this policy, we are
developing a scientific integrity common Web site with additional
resources, training opportunities, and FAQ for our staff. Our process
has been deliberative and inclusive, and we look forward to feedback
from the public on the draft policy we have developed. Over the next
several months we will work to revise the policy in response to
comments, and work with our staff and the Department to finalize and
implement a policy that will ensure a continuing culture of scientific
excellence at NOAA, and promote a culture of transparency, integrity,
and ethical behavior. We look forward to having a Chief Scientist in
place to help us compete and implement this policy expeditiously.
Increasing Budget Transparency
As part of the development of the proposed reorganization, NOAA
considered the overall goal for increasing budget transparency across
the agency. The proposed reorganization constitutes a consolidation and
technical transfer of climate programs into a new Line Office that can
better link climate science with decision support and other services
being requested by the public. It does not eliminate or otherwise
diminish any of NOAA's science mission, and NOAA's overall funding for
cutting edge-research--whether climate or other critically important
areas like oceans and weather--is not proposed to be reduced.
The structure of the proposed Climate Service Line Office and OAR
budgets provides considerable transparency into the funding levels for
the underlying programs, there better enabling Congress and the public
to ensure that climate or other NOAA science is not diminished. The
funding associated with the labs and programs that are proposed to be
transferred from OAR to the Climate Service Line Office will be
maintained and in some instances, such as ocean acidification and
weather radar research, the FY 2012 Budget proposes targeted new
investments in OAR for cutting-edge science.
Conclusion
We have not yet created a Climate Service Line Office, but believe
doing so would be the best thing for NOAA and the Nation in order to
provide the services American businesses and communities need to
compete and respond to changing environmental and economic landscapes.
The proposal to bring climate science and services together under one
Line Office is fundamentally sound and provides a tremendous
opportunity to integrate science and service delivery without
detracting from a commitment to pursue, fund, and sustain basic
research and science across the agency. NOAA's proposal has been highly
vetted within the agency by our scientists, managers, and SAB, across
the Federal Government, and from numerous external groups and
individuals representing the brightest minds and thought leaders on
climate science, service and organizational development. The proposal
reflects the same basic organizational structure recommended by NAPA,
and was submitted to Congress for approval as part of NOAA's FY 2012
Budget Request.
The proposed Climate Service Line Office would provide NOAA with
the most efficient and effective structure to engage the American
public and deliver timely and trusted information to a diversity of
sectors and communities to make informed decisions to prepare for and
become more resilient to environmental hazards. Climate information
users recognize that climate variability and change bring not only new
challenges to managing business, industry and the environment, but also
new opportunities for innovation, adaptation and commerce. They want
trusted and timely information so they can make informed decisions that
minimize their own exposure to climate impacts while maximizing their
future opportunities.
NOAA's deep regard for our responsibilities as sound stewards of
taxpayer dollars is reflected in this reorganization proposal where we
outlined our strategy to deliver sound products to our users while
maximizing organizational efficiency, creating jobs and stimulating
economic growth, These are chief priorities for NOAA and the entire
Federal Government. In addition, the Climate Service Line Office will
create a place where new markets for private sector service providers
can grow. These businesses can take information and products generated
by the government and convey them to the public, using a model similar
to those that provide weather products.
This proposal is a good thing for the American taxpayer, for
Congress, and for NOAA. I believe it is the right solution for NOAA to
better meet the Nation's current and future climate service demand. In
summary, the proposed reorganization will allow NOAA to better enable
Americans to make informed investment choices, build private sector
jobs, grow a climate service-oriented sector of the economy, and create
resilient communities while refocusing and strengthening NOAA's
capacity for high-quality, transformational research across the agency.
This proposal does not grow government, it is not regulatory in nature,
nor does it cost the American taxpayer any additional money, This is a
proposal to do the job that Congress and the American public have asked
us to do--only better.
Appendix A: Scope and Demand for NOAA's Climate Services
The increasing demand for NOAA's climate data and service products
is real and it is happening now. The following statistics demonstrate
the tremendous increase in public user demand from requests through a
number of NOAA's user interfaces, such as our data centers and climate
Web portal.
From FY 2009 to 2010, NOAA saw an 11 percent increase in
direct requests for climate-related data and information services
(including individual requests via phone calls, emails, and other
direct correspondence)--from 26,000 to 29,000 individual requests.
NOAA's data centers provided 86% more climate related
data products in FY 2010 compared to FY 2009--from 806 terabytes to
1,500 terabytes (or 1.5 petabytes). To put this in context, a Kindle or
other electronic book download averages about 800,000 bytes. In 2010,
NOAA served up a total of at least 1.9 billion Kindle books worth of
climate data, roughly 867 million more Kindle book equivalents than in
2009.
In 2010, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center's (NCDC)
Comprehensive Large Array Data Stewardship System site served over five
times as much climate related data as in calendar year 2009--from 43
terabytes to 253 terabytes.
From FY 2009 to FY 2010, NOAA had a 57% increase in
climate-related data and information Web site hits--from 906 million to
1.4 billion hits in addition to hits to the NOAA Climate Portal that
launched in February 2010 and currently hosts over 27,000 visitors
every month.
Within this increasing demand are requests from a breadth of
economic and industrial sectors, including government, private sector,
and non-government users. Demand starts at the most basic and
familiar--your local TV weather forecaster relating the daily
temperature and precipitation to an ``average'' for the day, to the
strategic--forecasting climate conditions around the world to inform
national security priorities. Below are specific examples of the types
of services and data requests that have been received by NOAA.
Farmers require seasonal temperature, precipitation, and
frost-freeze data to determine what types of crops will grow well and
when they should be planted.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture uses NOAA's climate
information to develop regional, national and global crop outlooks that
provide the agricultural industry information about short- and long-
term conditions that may impact crop production. NOAA's data are used
to develop Plant Hardiness Zones which you can see on the tags of
virtually all plants and trees you buy to ensure they will thrive in
the climate conditions in which you live. As these zones change, NOAA's
climate data provide the basis to ensure accurate depiction of the
Plant Hardiness Zones.
Local communities and emergency management offices use
NOAA's sea level and storm frequency information to help them prepare
for and become more resilient to short-term storm events, such as
hurricanes and longer-term phenomena, such as sea level rise.
Municipalities accessed NOAA's U.S. Snowfall Climatology
information, which includes historical information about the severity
of extreme snowfall events and return period probability, to develop
annual snowfall removal budgets resulting in cost savings.
Home builders follow guidelines that use NOAA data to
determine the type of foundation and the optimal thermal
characteristics of buildings for insulation purposes. This information
is said to save roughly $330M in annual building construction costs and
annual energy cost savings of 586,000 megawatt hours (the annual energy
savings equivalent to almost nine million gallons of gasoline) from
using just one of NOAA's climate tools. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Economic Value for the Nation, NOAA Satellites and information,
September 2001.
Ice thickness and freezing rain data are used for
engineering design consideration in the construction of certain
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
structures that are subject to outdoor weather.
NOAA's maximum precipitation predictions have been used
to develop new standards for dam design that are now used to improve
dam safety and reliability.
NOAA's climate forecasts, from seasonal precipitation and
drought outlooks to weekly on-the-ground assessments of the U.S.
Drought Monitor, are helping firefighters in Texas to prepare for and
respond to a record wildfire season.
NOAA works closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and water resource managers to provide longer-term drought and flooding
outlooks and river forecasts, which are critical to effectively manage
water levels in rivers important for transportation, such as the
Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio rivers.
Insurance companies use NOAA data (e.g., the ``normal''
temperature, precipitation, mean height above sea level, and storm
frequency) to calculate insurance premiums.
Public health departments use NOAA data to inform air
quality and UV forecasts.
Coastal managers use NOAA's sea level data in efforts to
restore wetlands for fish, shellfish, and bird habitat.
Salmon fishery managers use information about
temperature, precipitation, and snowpack to plan for and manage fish
hatchery operations and in-stream habitat restoration efforts.
Counties use NOAA information, such as trends in
precipitation, to make long-term investments in storm-water management
and storage capacity.
Public service and utility conunissions around the
country download NOAA's Climate Normals, which include spatial and
temporal averages of climatological variables (e.g., temperature and
precipitation) that describe base climatic conditions. Utilities
subsequently use this information in formal processes to determine the
rates that utilities charge.
APPENDIX B: Review Criteria and Options Not Selected for NOAA's
Proposal
NOAA evaluated its four organizational options against the
following design criteria:
Strengthen science in the agency.
Strengthen and enhance the visibility, quality and
relevance of science that supports NOAA's Mission and long-term
strategy.
Integrate climate science within the Climate Service Line
Office and across NOAA to address cross-disciplinary areas such as
climate and coastal, and climate and ecosystems.
Minimize disruptions and promote efficiency.
Promote efficient implementation and operation.
Minimize organizational complexity.
Utilize existing programs to the greatest extent
possible.
Establish climate leadership.
Create a single line of accountability and responsibility
for performance.
Create a senior advocate for climate policy, strategy and
budget within NOAA.
Enhance program coordination.
Develop effective mechanisms that leverage program
execution from across the agency and with our partners.
Promote user engagement on climate.
Create clear points of access for users.
Facilitate and improve stakeholder engagement.
Integrate user input into service development.
The following options were reviewed by NOAA but not selected:
Option A. Consolidate Major Climate Science and Service Assets in
NWS.
Relevant climate activities from across the agency would
be removed from their current Line Office and consolidated in the NWS
Line Office.
The NWS Line Office would be renamed the National Weather
and Climate Service Line Office.
Climate science, services, and data stewardship would be
added to NWS.
Analysis: The dedicated people of NOAA's NWS excel at the 24-hours-
a-day, seven-days-a-week, on-time and on-demand operational aspects of
delivering weather services that the Nation relies on to protect life
and property. NOAA must ensure that the business practices and
management structures that have made the NWS successful are not
compromised. Preserving the business structure that is needed for
weather service delivery, which entails providing products in a short
time frame (from minutes to days), could inhibit the development and
growth of climate service delivery, which occurs on a longer time
scale. In addition to the well-recognized concerns of ``research versus
operations,'' our decision not to risk compromising the critical
operations of the NWS was rooted in the fundamental nature of weather
service operations, versus climate service operations. Weather and
climate services are related, but they have fundamental differences.
Climate services are relevant to longer time scale decisions, such as
where and how to build critical infrastructure, or whether water
conservation measures need to be taken now to mitigate the upcoming
drought season. Although climate assets would be consolidated, the
management of a National Weather Service and Climate Service Line
Office would have to focus on an overly broad array of national
priorities, ranging from immediate needs, such as this year's flooding
in the Midwest and the outbreak of tornadoes, to working with other
agencies to chart the course of the Nation's long-term climate science
strategy. In addition, the option was not characterized as having a
highly positive impact on strengthening climate science. Finally, in
evaluating the impact of this option on promoting user engagement, NOAA
found that while this structure would allow the leveraging of the NWS'
connections to the user community that adding the full scope of an
emerging and evolving climate engagement effort may detract from
critical weather engagement functions.
Option B. Eliminate OAR and Consolidate Major Climate Science and
Service Assets in a New Climate Service Line Office.
OAR is eliminated and a Climate Service Line Office is
created.
OAR labs, programs, and activities relevant to climate
would be housed in the Climate Service Line Office.
OAR programs and activities not relevant to climate would
be moved from OAR into other relevant Line Offices, aligning science
with operations across the agency.
The only Line Office dedicated to innovative, long-term
research would be eliminated.
Analysis: The value of having a central research function that
supports long-term research and innovation, and integrates science for
all of NOAA's key mission areas is critical for NOAA's success.
Aligning all of our research assets with their operational counterparts
would likely result in positive outcomes in some instances (e.g.,
further aligning ecosystem research that supports fisheries management
within the National Marine Fisheries Service) but not in others (e.g.,
moving weather research to within NWS). This option would also be
contrary to the criteria for strengthening science within the agency.
It would narrow the vision and scope of NOAA's research (e.g.,
ecosystem research would have more difficulty expanding beyond
fisheries if all of it were located in the National Marine Fisheries
Service). Having an entity within NOAA that is looking over the horizon
and at NOAA's next-generation science needs is critical. This option
also created significant organizational disruption to all other Line
Offices that would be acquiring new assets.
Option C. Consolidate Major Climate Science and Service Assets in
OAR.
Centers, programs, and other climate-relevant activities
would be moved from their current Line Offices into OAR.
OAR would be renamed the NOAA Climate Service and Earth
Systems Science.
Services and data stewardship would be added to NOAA's
centralized research capacity.
Analysis: Including all of NOAA's climate capabilities in the same
Line Office as NOAA's non-climate research was viewed as creating a
single entity within NOAA with too broad and diverse a mission. This
option was anticipated to: (1) compromise the ability of OAR to focus
on next-generation science for all of NOAA by putting a service
delivery function into their mission, and (2) prevent climate services
from being fully developed due to competing mission requirements. Such
a Line Office would have multiple competing interests under a single
management structure, which only continues NOAA's current
organizational challenges associated with its climate portfolio. These
competing organizational demands were also viewed to detract from
NOAA's ability to have a Line Office dedicated to strengthening NOAA
science across the agency, and similarly create too diverse an office
mission to focus on climate program coordination and user engagement.
APPENDIX C: The Proposed Structure Will Increase Efficiency and Produce
Benefits
The proposed Climate Service Line Office would consolidate
management of a number of NOAA's climate science, research and
observation centers along with NOAA's data and service delivery
infrastructure. This arrangement would provide an efficient and
effective climate research to service enterprise under a central
management authority to further the goal of having a single,
authoritative source of climate information. I strongly believe that
this proposed reorganization is the right solution.
Organizational Efficiencies
By consolidating NOAA's climate activities in one Line Office, we
will be able to realize organizational efficiencies that will translate
into a more effective response to the Nation's increasing demands for
climate information, including a single point of access to NOAA's
climate data and tools and supporting the growth of the emerging
private sector climate services industry. These organizational
efficiencies include:
Reduce Multiple Administrative Requirements and Better Transition
Science into Usable Services
In proposing to house NOAA's existing climate research capacities
in the proposed Climate Service Line Office, a structure strongly
endorsed by NAPA, NOAA will both be able to continue to advance its
high-quality climate science and more readily transition scientific
findings into usable services. The proximity of science and service
capabilities will provide more streamlined and efficient interaction
between these components and allow climate science and service
development to go hand in hand to develop products and services that
can evolve in response to scientific information as it emerges. The
consolidation of management for both science and service under one
organization will reduce multiple planning, coordination, evaluation,
and reporting burdens that are currently required as a result of the
distribution of climate capabilities in multiple Line Offices. By
reducing these inefficiencies, greater effectiveness can be achieved in
executing NOAA's funding for science and service development and
delivery.
Capture Material Efficiencies
Some activities not entirely dedicated to climate are included in
the proposed Climate Service Line Office in order to realize
significant material efficiencies. For example, both the National
Oceanographic Data Center and the National Geophysical Data Center are
proposed to reside in the Climate Service Line Office as complements to
the National Climate Data Center. NOAA has been working to consolidate
our data center functions across the agency by putting NCDC, NODC, and
NGDC in the same Line Office. Although the scope of their work supports
a variety of mission areas, the common foundational infrastructure on
which data centers are built is uniform and should be kept together.
NOAA will continue to consolidate these functions to grow material
efficiencies by moving all three data centers into the Climate Service
Line Office.
Improved Science and Service
The proposed Climate Service Line Office will provide a reliable
and authoritative source for climate data, information, and decision-
support services to help individuals, businesses, communities and
governments make informed choices to help prepare for and anticipate
the effects of a changing climate. It will make our information more
visible, accessible and useful to our many partners and users, allow us
to more efficiently and effectively steer and coordinate our existing
world-class science and information products, and improve our capacity
to leverage the other assets--both within NOAA and externally--through
a unified set of priorities and a single management structure. The
proposed Climate Service Line Office will:
Develop a sustained capacity to provide regional and
sectoral climate vulnerability and risk assessments to meet NOAA's
requirements under the U.S. Global Change Research Act;
Clearly establish a regional focus coordinating and
providing climate services--deliver locally relevant climate
information that will help existing businesses and local communities
maximize opportunities and minimize their exposure to risks in a
changing environment to safeguard lives, property, and ecomonic
investments;
Better align climate observing and modeling assets with
strategic needs;
Improve integration and coordination of climate
communications and outreach efforts throughout the agency;
Create a visible and easy-to-find, one-stop trusted
source for information from the public, the private sector, and other
government agencies to access NOAA's climate science and service
assets; and
Enable improved information sharing and more productive
partnerships with federal agencies, local governments, private
industry, and other users and stakeholders.
Establish an improved budget structure that provides
considerable transparency into the funding levels for the underlying
climate programs, thereby allowing Congress and the public to ensure
climate science is not diminished.
Strong Internal and External Partnerships
No one agency or community can provide all of the climate services
that the Nation needs, and the Climate Service Line Office requires an
organizational framework that fosters sustained dialogue with diverse
scientific and service communities. These communities include DOC;
other parts of NOAA; federal, tribal, state, and local agencies;
academic partners; private industry, non-governmental organizations,
and the international community. The Climate Service Line Office will
work with each sector, ensuring that emerging scientific findings are
transformed into high-quality products responsive to user needs.
Science and Service Synergies Through a National Climate Service
Enterprise \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The ``National Climate Service Enterprise'' is used as
shorthand in reference to the emerging interagency and private-sector
investment in climate services.
In general, climate science and services are still in their infancy
compared to, for example, weather science and services. The Climate
Service Line Office will evolve iteratively, incorporating vigorous
research investigations and discovery, and considering new processes,
user requirements, and feedback. Weather services are driven by the
necessarily fast information transmission and the sheer quantity of
forecasts, watches, and warnings. Integrating emerging science into
these demanding mission-critical operations requires a deliberate
approach. Because climate services will often have a longer time
horizon, new and emerging science can be more readily used in climate
services.
An effective Climate Service Line Office will adopt an approach of
``co-production of knowledge'' with decision makers. \5\ The intent of
``co-production'' is climate science that informs, but does not
prescribe, decision making. Similarly, decision making should inform
climate science, but not prescribe research priorities. The Climate
Service Line Office must balance this ``user pull and science push.''
Rapidly growing demand for climate services will challenge the Climate
Service Line Office to expand its products and research information to
address user needs, It is also important to recognize that science can
anticipate the emergence of new risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ostrom, E., 1999: Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction,
synergy, and development. In: Polycentric governance and development:
Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis
[McGinnis, M.D. (ed.)]. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI,
346-374.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expanded Engagement Through Assessment Services
Climate Science Assessments comprehensively summarize the knowledge
gathered from many studies and disciplines into authoritative overviews
of climate variability, change, and impacts. Science assessments
characterize uncertainties based on documented information and identify
gaps in understanding to help prioritize future research and service
development. Because the assessment process exemplifies the synergy
between science and service, the Climate Service Line Office will use
assessments to inform policy advisors, community planners, and decision
makers, as well as its own research agenda. The Climate Service Line
Office will only participate in Climate Science Assessments that have
standards in place which meet or exceed those of Information Quality
Act. The Climate Service Line Office wi11 focus on two types of Climate
Science Assessments: (l) national and international assessments, and
(2) problem-focused assessments. A third type of assessment--
stakeholder needs assessments--will help ensure that the climate
science and services are brought to bear on relevant issues. Together,
these three types of assessments serve as powerful tools to guide the
design of high-quality regional service products, and will frame
dialogues among climate scientists and service providers and regional
users.
Enhanced Traceability, Credibility, and Transparency
Through strength in research, tbe Climate Service Line Office will
aim to grow the body of scientific knowledge about climate variability
and change, including the determination and quantification of
uncertainties and confidence intervals. Because the Climate Service
Line Office will use and tailor new science to address applications and
user needs, the Climate Service Line Office will ensure its data,
information, and services meet the highest standards of scientific
excellence. This mandates careful quality assurance, including:
Rigorous and internationally recognized procedures for
calibration and validation of observation and monitoring systems;
Transparent peer-review procedures for articles,
documents, and assessment reports;
Quantification and accurate communication of uncertainty
in model outputs;
Accessible metadata documenting the quality of data
products and services.
Creating a Culture for Success in the Climate Service Line Office
To create a new culture of shared learning that values the co-
production of knowledge, advances scientific understanding of climate,
and delivers relevant, usable services, the Climate Service Line Office
will need to adopt business practices that:
Promote ongoing and sustained engagement with policy
advisors, community planners, and decision makers;
Provide for the rapid infusion of research findings into
products and services;
Nurture the growth of science and service within a single
organization as complementary rather than competing actuvities;
Balance what users want and what is justifiable
scientifically;
Recognize science and research as valuable services in
their own rights;
Value communication and education as both a contribution
to services and to research;
Link research to decision making as an alternative to the
more traditional research-to-operations paradigm;
Incorporate a fast-track review process for information
products to meet the time-dependent information needs of decision
makers;
Leverage innovative tools to enhance communication and
collaboration with stakeholders.
Chairman Hall. Thank you, Dr. Lubchenco. I certainly accept
your apology and hope you will have that same attitude toward
answering the requests that we have sent to you. We appreciate
you doing that.
Our second witness is Mr. Robert Winokur, Deputy and
Technical Director, Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy,
Chief of Naval Operations. He has been in this position since
December 2003 and previously occupied the position from 1985 to
1993. From 1993 to 1999, Mr. Winokur served as the Assistant
Administrator for Satellite and Information Services at NOAA.
Thank you, sir, for appearing before the committee today. I ask
you to stay as close to the five minutes as you can. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT WINOKUR,
DEPUTY OCEANOGRAPHER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Mr. Winokur. Thank you, Chairman Hall, Members of the
Committee, Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you for the opportunity to
discuss with you the Navy's interest in climatological data and
information. As introduced, I am the Deputy Oceanographer of
the Navy. The Oceanographer is also the Director of Navy's Task
Force Climate Change. Today I am speaking about the Navy's
needs for actionable climate information, how we have used
climatology in the past, and how we would use projections in
the future.
The Navy has used climatological information for over 150
years based initially on the groundbreaking work of Commander
Matthew Fountaine Maury in the mid-19th century. The Navy
Hydrographic Office continued Maury's work, providing
climatological data until 1951 when the National Climatic Data
Center in Asheville, North Carolina, became the authoritative
source for federal climatological data.
Since operations at sea are very susceptible to
environmental conditions, a better sense of what might be
experienced allows mission planners to make critical decisions
that help ensure safety and efficiency. Climatological data
provides essential information for planning exercises, near-
shore flight operations, ammunition transfers during pre- and
post-deployment, and search and rescue operations. Likewise,
climatological models of the upper atmosphere coupled with our
forecast models allow us to route long-distance flights to
maximize fuel efficiency. For our short facilities, climatology
allows us to more efficiently plan for heating and cooling
costs.
Increasing evidence, however, suggests that historical
records will be inadequate for describing conditions of the
future. While we know the climate is changing, we also know
that specific details are uncertain. What we do know is that
changes are magnified in the Arctic, which could impact naval
missions later this decade. Broader trends in global climate
indicators point to even more changes in mission requirements
in the next few years. In fact, both the National Maritime
Strategy, a cooperative strategy for the 21st century sea
power, and the Quadrennial Defense Review highlight climate
change as a significant factor to be considered when
anticipating naval requirements of the 21st century.
Part of the military mission is to anticipate threats and
changes to national security. Climate change and its
interaction with and impacts on demographics, technology,
globalization and resource allocation and management will be
some of the drivers of security in this century. It is in this
spirit that the Navy has identified its needs for improving
understanding of a changing global environment.
The Navy's role and responsibility regarding climate
services would be as a customer using the information for
technical, operational, and strategic planning and execution,
and to provide feedback to those organizations that provide the
services so that they may continue to improve them. The Navy
believes that an organizational focus for providing reliable
and authoritative climate data information and related products
would be beneficial from a perspective of a climate services
user. The Navy desires access to readily available, reliable,
and consistent data and information in an easily available and
preferably consolidated location to move us away from the
current disparate method of locating and obtaining climate
information such as standard climatology, Arctic sea ice,
historical trends and future trends or current observations.
It is outside the Navy's purview to comment on the
specifics of how best to provide climate data and services and
how the collection of dissemination of climate services should
be carried out. However, the Navy does acknowledge initiatives
that result in increased effectiveness and efficiency and
appreciates the potential benefits of a consolidated
organizational construct.
The Navy recognizes the need to better understand the
processes that are affecting the Earth's climate, predict how
the climate will change in the future, and anticipate the
security risks that may arise. The Navy is focused on readiness
and adaptation while reducing the risk to vulnerable facilities
and training our forces to be prepared for any future missions
operating environments that much of the Navy has not regularly
seen.
The Navy is focused on understanding the many uncertainties
and challenges that climate change may have in the future on
our facilities and operations. Climate change may add
additional stresses to vulnerable and unstable regions. In
addition of significance, our coastal infrastructure will be
affected by changes in sea level by the impact of severe storm
events. Credible and authoritative climatological data and
predictions are necessary for us to conduct studies and
assessments which are essential to inform Navy needs and future
investments.
In this regard, the Navy has developed and is implementing
two roadmaps, one for the Arctic region specifically and one
focused on global climate change. These roadmaps outline the
navy's approach to observing, predicting, and adapting to
climate change with a list of actions for the next few years so
as to better understand the potential impacts of and actions
related to a changing climate on naval operations and
investments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering any
questions that you or the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Winokur follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT WINOKUR,
DEPUTY OCEANOGRAPHER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
I. Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee and distinguished
colleagues, I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you
today the Navy's interests for climatological data and information. My
name is Robert Winokur and I am the Deputy Oceanographer of the Navy.
The Oceanographer also holds the titles Director of Navy's Task Force
Climate Change and Naval Deputy to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). Today I am speaking about the Navy's needs for
actionable climate information, how we have used climatology in the
past, and how we would use projections in the future.
II. Background
Strategic planners have long used climatological records to provide
guidance on weather and sea conditions at a particular place and time
of year. Climatological records are based on long-term trends
identified in recorded meteorological and oceanographic observations,
providing a range of potential and probable conditions that could be
encountered.
Since operations at sea are very susceptible to environmental
conditions, a better sense of what might be experienced allows mission
planners to make critical decisions that help ensure greater safety and
efficiency. With proper knowledge, they can avoid planning exercises at
times and in locations where high winds and seas, extreme temperatures,
fog and haze, and frequent storms may make conditions unsafe for
specific types of operations. Knowledge of probable wind conditions can
help identify optimal windows of opportunity for near-shore flight
operations. Climatology is an important component of conducting at-sea
search and rescue operations and determining the best location to
conduct ammunition transfers for surface ships beginning or completing
extended deployments. By understanding probable sea conditions, we can
route ships to minimize fuel usage. Likewise, climatological models of
the upper atmosphere allow us to route long-distance flights to
maximize fuel efficiency. For our shore facilities, climatology allows
us to more efficiently plan for heating and cooling costs.
The Navy has used climatological information for over 150 years,
based initially on the groundbreaking work of Commander Matthew
Fountaine Maury in the mid-19th century. The Naval Hydrographic Office
continued Maury's work, providing the Navy with climatological data
until 1951, when the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North
Carolina, became the authoritative source for federal climatological
data.
Increasing evidence, however, suggests that historical records will
be inadequate for describing conditions of the future. While we know
the climate is changing, we also know the specific details are
uncertain. What we do know is that changes are magnified in the Arctic,
and that will impact naval missions later this decade. The broader
trends in global climate indicators point to even more changes in
mission requirements in the next few decades. In fact, both A
Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Sea Power, the National Maritime
Strategy, and the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) highlight climate
change as a significant factor to be considered when anticipating naval
requirements of the 21st century.
The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) identifies climate change
as an issue that will play a significant role in shaping the future
security environment, and directs the Department of Defense to take
specific actions to reduce the risks associated with climate change,
while also identifying climate change and energy security as
``inextricably linked.'' In addition, climate change is addressed in
the 2010 National Security Strategy, which states that the issue is a
key challenge requiring broad global cooperation.
The QDR discusses how climate change will affect the Department of
Defense (DoD) in two broad ways: first, by shaping the operating
environment, roles, and missions that we undertake; and second,
describing the need for DoD to adjust to the impacts of climate change
on our facilities and military capabilities by constructing a strategic
approach that considers the influence of climate change.
Taking into account Federal and DoD guidance, the Navy recognizes
the need to adapt to climate change and is closely examining the
impacts that climate change will have on its military missions and
infrastructure and the information needs required to understand these
impacts. In May 2009, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Roughead,
created a task force to provide scientifically grounded assessments and
recommendations for future naval operations. Task Force Climate Change
includes representatives from various naval staff and program offices
and the operational fleet, with the close collaboration of the U.S.
Coast Guard and NOAA.
Within the two last years the Navy promulgated two roadmaps
concentrated on the Arctic and global climate change. The roadmaps
guide Navy's strategy, future investment, action, and public discussion
on the Arctic and global climate change. The Navy Arctic Strategic
Objectives, released in May 2010, specify the objectives required to
ensure the Arctic remains a region where U.S. national and maritime
interests are safeguarded and the homeland is protected.
Through Task Force Climate Change, the Navy is assessing the timing
and magnitude of climate change impacts on mission requirements, force
structure, and infrastructure. To ensure readiness throughout the 21st
century, the Navy has a need for actionable and operationally relevant
climate information that improves its understanding of environmental
change in order to both inform future investments and broaden
cooperative partnerships, while adapting to fundamental changes.
III. Current Needs
The Arctic is one example of a critical area where the Navy has a
need for accurate climate services. As stated by the Navy's Arctic
Strategic Objectives, increasingly rapid environmental changes in the
Arctic will make it more challenging to promote the end goal of a
``safe, stable, and secure Arctic region.'' September 2007 was a record
low in sea ice extent and the declining trend has continued--September
2010 was the third lowest sea ice extent on record, and the overall
trend has shown an 11.2 percent decline per decade in seasonal ice
coverage since satellites were first used to measure the Arctic ice in
1979. Perhaps more significantly, estimates from the University of
Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory show that the volume of sea ice
(as indicated by ice thickness) continues to decrease dramatically.
September ice volume was at a record low in 2010--78 percent below its
1979 maximum and 70 percent below the mean for the 1979-2009 period.
Regardless of changes to sea ice, the Arctic will remain ice-covered in
the winter through this century and remains a very difficult operating
environment.
The changing Arctic has national security implications for the
Navy. The QDR identifies the Arctic as the region where the influence
of climate change is most evident in shaping the operating environment
and directs DoD to work with the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland
Security to address gaps in Arctic communications, domain regional
awareness, search and rescue, and environmental observation and
forecasting capabilities. The Navy's Maritime Strategy identifies that
new shipping routes have the possibility to reshape the global
transportation system. For example, the Bering Strait has the potential
to increase in strategic significance over the next few decades as the
ice melts, the shipping season lengthens, and companies begin to ship
goods over the Pole rather than through the Panama Canal.
While the Arctic is a bellwether for global climate change, there
are other impacts of global climate change that may impact peace-
keeping, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief missions.
Availability of freshwater will change with the redistribution of
precipitation patterns and saltwater intrusion resulting from sea level
rise. Alterations in freshwater systems will present challenges for
flood management, drought preparedness, agriculture, and water supply.
Understanding how and when precipitation patterns will shift, or the
frequency of future floods and droughts, will help the Navy anticipate
future threats to security, enabling it to establish mechanisms ahead
of time to prevent future conflict that could be caused or exacerbated
by environmental changes. The 2011 National Research Council Report
requested by the Chief of Naval Operations, National Security
Implications of Climate Change for U.S. Naval Forces, recognizes these
potential mission impacts and recommends Navy action to address them in
six priority areas, including preparing for an increase in humanitarian
assistance and disaster relief and Arctic operations, addressing
emerging technical requirements, and supporting research and
development.
The National Research Council report also finds that ``U.S. Navy,
Coastal Guard, and Marine Corps coastal installations around the globe
will become increasingly susceptible to projected climate change.'' The
Navy's operational readiness hinges on continued access to land, air,
and sea training and test spaces. Coastal infrastructure is
particularly vulnerable because it will be affected by changes in
global and regional sea level coupled with a potential increase in
storm surge and/or severe storm events, and regional water resource or
infrastructure challenges. Bases such as Guam and Diego Garcia provide
a strategic advantage to the Navy in terms of location and logistics
support. In order to limit the negative effects of climate change on
sea level rise, the Navy requires access to climatological information
on rates of global sea level rise and local coastal processes that will
allow adaptation efforts and planning of new coastal facilities to be
initiated at the right time and cost, especially for installations
identified as high risk.
Currently the Navy is conducting a Capabilities Based Assessment
(CBA) for the Arctic to identify capabilities required for future
operations in the region and possible capability gaps, shortfalls, and
redundancies. Assessments such as these will inform Navy strategy,
policy, and plans to guide future investments. Furthermore, the Office
of Naval Research is making investments in its FY 12 budget to improve
the Navy's capability to persistently monitor and accurately predict
critical Arctic environmental changes and increase understanding of
climate variability.
The Navy is actively leveraging interagency, international, and
academic partnerships to ensure it has access to the best science and
information and to avoid duplication of efforts. These partnerships
have the added benefit of conserving resources in this fiscally
constrained environment. We are participating, in coordination with
appropriate DoD offices, in interagency efforts being conducted to
improve coordination of climate services, including the National
Science and Technology Council's Roundtable on Climate Information and
Services, co-chaired by the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S.
Geological Survey; the National Ocean Policy's strategic action plans,
particularly the plan that focuses on the Arctic Ocean; and the U.S.
Global Change Research Program's National Climate Assessment, which in
part are coordinating agency climate science needs and adaptation
efforts across the Federal Government.
Finally, the Navy is jointly planning an effort with the Air Force,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other agencies
to advance U.S. environmental prediction capability to mitigate the
impact of the severe weather and answer operational requirements facing
our nation. This capability will combine the forecasting skills of the
Navy's and the National Weather Service's global numerical weather,
ocean, and ice models to provide a better Earth Systems Prediction
Capability in the next 10 years.
IV. Conclusion
Part of the military mission is to anticipate threats and changes
to national security. Climate change, and its interaction with and
impacts on demographics, technology, globalization, and resource
allocation and management, will be one of the drivers of security in
this century. It is in this spirit that the Navy has identified its
needs for improved understanding of a changing global environment.
The Navy's role and responsibility regarding climate services would
be as a customer; using the information for tactical, operational, and
strategic planning and execution; and to provide feedback to those
organizations that provide the services so that they might continue to
improve them. It is outside the Navy's purview to comment on what
agency should provide climate services to the Federal Government, how
they should carry out the collection and dissemination of climate
services, and what level of funding is necessary to carry out this
effort.
The Navy recognizes the need to better understand the processes
that are affecting the Earth's climate, predict how the climate will
change in the future, and anticipate the security risks that may arise.
The Navy is focused on readiness and adaptation, while reducing the
risk to vulnerable facilities, training our forces to be prepared for
any future missions operating in environments that much of the Navy has
not regularly seen.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering any questions
the Committee may have.
Chairman Hall. I thank you, sir, and I thank you both for
your testimony.
I don't have to remind the Members here that we are
relegated to five minutes, and I will try to set the pattern by
being within five minutes. At this time I recognize myself for
questions for five minutes.
Dr. Lubchenco, in testimony before the appropriators
earlier this year, you argued that the entire Climate Service
proposal by the Administration was really just an optical
change that wouldn't impact daily operations. Specifically you
said, and I quote: ``This is a matter of appearances. The
reality is no change to the dollars that are going to the
science or to the dollars that are going out the door. We are
not funding less science. We are not funding different science.
We are not changing anything other than the fact that the
climate scientists that were in oceanic and atmospheric
research are now in the Climate Service. Other science remains
there and will continue to thrive.'' Is this really just a
matter of appearances, that you won't change the science, you
won't change the money you fund or how you fund it? Why is it
such a big deal to have such a hard time to answer the
questions we sent to you and to be 26 days late in answering
questions for this Committee? Do you have a good answer for
that?
Dr. Lubchenco. Mr. Chairman, we have had multiple exchanges
of letters and meetings and calls. I have instructed my staff
to be as responsive and transparent with the Committee as
possible. I know that in response to your requests, we have
delivered two sets of documents totaling over 6,000 pages.
There is an extensive record within NOAA, and we have been
working very, very diligently and hard to provide you and your
colleagues and your staff with all of the information that you
are requesting.
Chairman Hall. I thank you for that. You can solve that by
answering the questions we have sent you. I hope you are going
to do that.
Mr. Winokur, the title of this hearing is ``Examining
NOAA's Climate Proposal,'' yet you conclude your written
testimony by saying--and you are here at the request of the
minority, right?
Mr. Winokur. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hall. All right. You said, ``It is outside the
Navy's purview to comment on what agencies should provide
climate services to the Federal Government, how they should
carry out the collection and dissemination of climate services
and what level of funding is necessary to carry out this
effort.'' Just so we are clear, your testimony is that the Navy
has no position on NOAA's proposed Climate Service. Is that
right?
Mr. Winokur. Correct, Mr. Chairman. Our position is that is
an internal decision for NOAA to decide how best to organize.
From the Navy, we require credible and authoritative data in a
timely fashion so it would facilitate our requests if there was
a coordinated and focused approach to answering Navy needs for
data.
Chairman Hall. As you sit there today, then, and I thank
you for your service to the Navy and to the country, would it
be fair to say that it sounds as though the Navy doesn't
actually need a Climate Service? Is that what you are telling
us?
Mr. Winokur. No, I think what I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is
that the Navy needs climate data, and if Climate Service is in
fact the best way to provide it to us, then certainly we leave
that to NOAA on how best to organize, but we do need a focused
approach. The current situation of obtaining data from
disparate sources makes it a little more complicated for the
Navy to get what it needs, so we would certainly support
efficiencies within any agency, and if this is the best way for
NOAA to provide it, we would support it, but we are not taking
an official position on how NOAA should best organize.
Chairman Hall. I appreciate that, and I think my time is
about up.
The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wu, is recognized for five
minutes. Ms. Johnson had a vote in another committee. She will
return shortly. Mr. Wu, I recognize you for five minutes.
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hall. I stayed within four minutes and 59 seconds.
Mr. Wu. I have restarted my clock. Before I start my five
minutes, Mr. Chairman, we have one additional letter of support
from 23 climate- and weather-related private sector entities,
and Mr. Chairman, I would like to add this letter to the
previous letters that Ms. Johnson submitted for the record, and
I do note that the majority staff has received a copy of this
letter.
Chairman Hall. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information can be found in Appendix 2.]
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much.
Chairman Hall. You can continue now. You have four minutes
and 49 seconds left.
Mr. Wu. Very good.
I want to start by noting that NOAA does not have an
organic act. This Congress has failed to pass one, even though
NOAA was created in 1970 and it has existed for either 40 or 41
years. It was created by then-President Nixon, not by Executive
Order but I believe by an Executive Reorganization Proposal.
And the failure to pass an organic act, I think, leaves it to
the executive branch and NOAA not to reorganize without input
from Congress but to substantially take initiative in its
reorganization while consulting Congress when appropriate, and
this Committee and Congress have made strenuous efforts to pass
an organic act but we have failed to do so. This Committee has
passed an organic act through this Committee several times. It
had made it through other Committees and not made it through
the full House of Representatives, and I want to just lay that
down. It, I think, explains some of NOAA's actions in
reorganizing itself because it has to take additional actions
in doing so in the absence of an organic act.
Administrator Lubchenco, I would like to return for a
moment. You did address this in your testimony, but I would
like to return for a moment to the difference between climate
and weather because it is so important. Maybe Members of the
Committee understand part of that. Maybe the staff understands
that fully. But perhaps members of the general public do not
fully understand the difference between climate and weather and
the functions of the Weather Service and any future Climate
Service, and I want to give you further opportunity to explain
the difference.
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you very much, Congressman, and thank
for your support of NOAA and recognition of the importance of
having an organic act but also the importance of our continuing
to reorganize to be better and better and to deliver what
Congress and the American people expect.
To your question, weather happens over hours to days. Our
weather models that provide some of the best weather forecasts
in the world provide each and every American with information
about weather but also warnings, and this is in the time frame
that is generally less than two weeks. Anything longer than
that is what we define as climate. Climate is future weather
more than two weeks out and so this focuses on weeks to months
to years and beyond, and much of the climate services of which
we are speaking and that we currently provide under existing
authorizations but want to do a more effective job of providing
has to do with information about pending droughts, pending
floods, pending severe storm conditions, things that more than
two weeks out. We utilize observations and modeling and
understanding of past weather and climate information to
anticipate what is likely down the road. And so, for example,
when last fall NOAA warned the communities in the upper Midwest
that the spring was likely to be a very significant flooding
year, that is an example of a climate service. That kind of
information is extraordinarily useful for planning purposes--
how many sandbags do we need to buy, what kind of information
do we need to provide to our communities, how can we begin to
think about and be prepared. The same is true for firefighters
battling fires in Texas. Having information beginning last
winter that this was going to be a very, very dry and warm
spring enabled planning to begin. That kind of climate service
information we currently provide but we don't do so in a way
that is as effective or as efficient as we believe it could be,
hence the proposal for this reorganization.
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Administrator Lubchenco, for
that very interesting example of the difference between
tornadoes tomorrow and floods next year. Thank you.
Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman
from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
would like to ask Dr. Lubchenco, do you believe that you are
obligated to--that your actions are obligated to be within the
parameters that are set by law by the Congress?
Dr. Lubchenco. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And what is your interpretation of the
last Department of Defense continuing appropriations act of
2012 when a reading of it from our side suggests that you are
prohibited from using funds to implement, establish or create a
NOAA Climate Service? Is that your interpretation as well?
Dr. Lubchenco. Yes, Congressman. We were instructed very
explicitly not to implement or create a Climate Service, and we
have not done so.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Now, you have a director that--well,
what is the title for Mr. Tom Karl's position in your
operation?
Dr. Lubchenco. Mr. Karl is the Director of the National
Climatic Data Center. He also serves as the Transitional
Director for the NOAA Climate Service, the proposed NOAA
Climate Service.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Is Climate Service Transition Director
part of his title?
Dr. Lubchenco. Yes, it is.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Thus, you think that when
Congress says you are--no funding shall be used to implement
Climate Service, that you are within the guidelines from
Congress in establishing a Climate Service transitional
director. Isn't that implementing a Climate Service for NOAA on
its face?
Dr. Lubchenco. No, Congressman, it is not. I believe that
it is being smart and----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Smart is not necessarily considered law.
Dr. Lubchenco. I understand. I will change my wording. I
believe that prior to implementing any potential change,
whether that change comes about or not, requires good planning
and good execution if the proposal is approved, and in this
case, we set--the kind of proposal that is before Congress now
is a very substantial one and moves--does a reorganization that
requires extensive amount of planning and begun under Vice
Admiral Lautenbacher, we began to think about what would a new
line office look like, how should it be structured, and Mr.
Karl was----
Mr. Rohrabacher. But once you go beyond that and you
actually hire someone, for example, have you not also hired six
new NOAA regional Climate Service director positions in this
last year? So not only do you have one man seated just in case
you are able to follow through with this in another law, you
have also put on six new regional directors as well.
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, the six regional Climate
Service climate directors, Climate Service directors, were
hired using existing funds and are part of our ongoing
commitment to provide climate services for which we have
explicit authorization from Congress and to enable regional
managers, regional planners, regional businesses to have the
kind of long-term weather and climate information that they
need. That is part of our existing authority.
Mr. Rohrabacher. When you say existing funds, then you say
the appropriations bill that we just--the continuing resolution
which prohibits the use of funding, that your use of existing
funds is not restricted by that prohibition by Congress?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, those regional directors were
hired prior to the continuing resolution and they are
consistent with what we normally do to provide climate services
under existing authorizations.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So a continuing use of funds for people to
provide salary for people who legislation has suggested you are
prohibited from using funds to implement a Climate Service but
continuing use of funds is not restricted in your analysis by
this law?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, those regional directors are
not part of our proposed reorganization.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But they are part of your budget.
Dr. Lubchenco. Of course they are part of our budget.
Everybody on the payroll is part of our budget but they are not
part of this proposed reorganization, which we have not
implemented----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, it doesn't say here as part of your
reorganization. It says prohibits use of your funds that
Congress provides you. It doesn't say you are prohibited unless
it has something to do with your reorganization.
Ms. Lubchenco. I believe that the language prohibits us
from implementing or creating a Climate Service, and we have
not done that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. It would appear to me, one last note, Mr.
Chairman, is a quote from this new Transitional Director, Tom
Karl, when asked about whether or not they were establishing
the Climate Service, he said, ``We have moved in. We are
waiting for the marriage certificate but we are acting like we
have a Climate Service.'' So I am not going to ask you anything
about living in climate sin without the marriage certificate,
but it seems to me that something is going on here that you do
not have authority to do with your budget, and I think we need
to further look at this very closely, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
very much.
Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back his time.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
McNerney, for five minutes.
Mr. Wu. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield my position to
Mr. Miller because I need to step away for some votes, and I
also want to note for the gentleman from California that the
six hires and Mr. Karl, that they were put in place before Mr.
Hall's amendment and before the appropriations bill was passed
last year. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hall. I recognized Mr. McNerney, and if Mr.
McNerney wants to yield his time to Mr. Miller, certainly he
would be welcome to do that.
Mr. Wu. I apologize.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Lubchenco, one of the objections that I seem to be
hearing from the majority party is a lack of cooperation or
planning with the agency between the agency and the Committee
here. Would you consider your agency as being cooperative or
uncooperative, and if you consider it cooperative, could you
give some specific examples of meetings or actions that took
place in an effort to cooperate in terms of developing the
plan?
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you, Congressman. I believe we have
been very responsive, very cooperative. I fully admit and have
apologized for the fact that I think we got off on the wrong
foot when we did the initial announcement, and I think that was
a serious mistake. We have consistently been in dialogue with
the Committee. Our staff has been communicating quite
frequently. I have briefed this Committee about our proposed
reorganization. I have met with the Chairman a number of times,
and in fact, this dialogue began with this very Committee quite
a while ago as we were considering this proposal. So we have
had, I believe, very extensive interactions and communications.
This Committee and Congress, for example, requested when we
first proposed this reorganization in February of 2010,
Congress directed us to engage the National Academy of Public
Administration to review our plans and to provide this
Committee and Congress with an evaluation of the proposal that
we had. So that is a specific example of some of the
interaction and dialogue that we have had following the
original proposal. That study was very extensive, very
exhaustive. They delivered a report last September which has
strongly endorsed the proposal that we have provided. It also
made a very strong case for the need for a Climate Service to
provide much more effective and efficient delivery, one point
easily identified and that committee report has been very
helpful in informing and modifying our proposal as we move
forward.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Winokur, in your experience, how would you revamp
NOAA's effect--never mind. How can the proposed Climate Service
benefit the Navy and our national security?
Mr. Winokur. From a Navy perspective, we would like frankly
a simple and easy entry point into the organization so that,
for example, if we were dealing with disparate parts of NOAA,
it facilitates our interaction with NOAA if we can go through a
single organizational component or in the context of data, if
you will allow me to put it this way, through a single data
portal. So rather than for the Navy to go to one part or NOAA
or another part of NOAA or frankly to another part of the
Federal Government, it would facilitate our needs for data if
we could ease the entry point and work through a single
coherent organization. Overall, as I said in my testimony, we
do need credible, authoritative information in a timely manner
so that we can use that for future planning.
Mr. McNerney. And do you think this has an impact on
national security?
Mr. Winokur. I think it would facilitate our ability to
obtain data that we need for national security.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, would you consider letting me
add one quick thing to that?
Mr. McNerney. Yes.
Dr. Lubchenco. I believe that another way that the
reorganization will help not only the Navy but Department of
Defense and others in addition to what Mr. Winokur has said is
that housing science and services together in a single line
office allows faster transfer of new knowledge into delivery of
services. So above and beyond the one point easily identified
source, the services that are available are delivered more
rapidly and are more current.
Mr. McNerney. Would that allow collaboration among non-
agency scientists on the issues that were being considered and
discussed and presented?
Dr. Lubchenco. Absolutely. We currently collaborate
extensively not only with other agencies but with academia,
with the private sector, and that collaboration is only
enhanced when you can identify one place to go instead of five
or six across the agency.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have expired my time.
Chairman Hall. I thank the gentleman and recognize the
gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun, for five minutes.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Lubchenco, NOAA's National Weather Service already has
the Climate Prediction Center, which has the stated goal of
being ``the world's best, most trusted climate service center
using partnerships to develop cutting-edge climate products.''
Its stated mission is to ``deliver climate prediction,
monitoring and assessment products for time scales from weeks
to years to the Nation and the global community for the
protection of life and property and the enhancement of the
economy.'' On its Web site, CPC states that its ``products are
operational predictions of climate variability, real-time
monitoring of climate and the required databases and
assessments of origins of major climate anomalies. The products
cover time scales from weeks to seasons, extending into the
future as far as technically feasible and cover the land, ocean
and atmosphere, extending into the stratosphere.''
The proposed NOAA Climate Service would gut research in
modeling from the Office of Atmospheric Research, OAR, and data
centers from NCDS. It basically politicizes the issue and
minimizes the other core missions of the agency, all in an
attempt to increase coordination. On top of that, its stated
goal is to ``bridge the gap between climate science and
decision making.'' That sounds a lot like a propaganda office
to me.
Since the National Weather Service, a trusted source of
impartial information, already has an office executing this
task and the Office of Atmospheric Research is conducting
climate research, what is the goal of the National Climate
Service other than policy advocacy?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, the Climate Prediction Center
and the Weather Service, the great science that we have in the
Office of Atmospheric Research, other units like the National
Climatic Data Center that are in the satellite division are all
existing strong pieces that we have that provide either climate
science or climate services. The challenge is that they are
located in disparate parts of NOAA. They do not have a--we have
to connect them through our matrix management structure, and
others from the outside don't necessarily know where to go to
get easy information. Our proposal----
Mr. Broun. Well, pardon me, because I have just a limited
amount of time. The Navy has complained that they don't have
one source to contact you. It seems the CPC does all the goals
that you are expecting NOAA's new Climate Service that I think
you are already instituting against the law actually, but why
not just support and reinforce the work of CPC or data centers
which already have trusted reputations rather than standing up
a politically charged office? This seems to be an unneeded
distraction that has nothing to do with science or providing
the public with better information. If it is better to gut
climate research out of OAR and put it in a separate line
office, why aren't you suggesting that for other line offices
and why do we need OAR if we are just going to align research
with each line office? Do you also suggest that we eliminate
OAR?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, the Climate Prediction Center
is only one part of our climate sciences and services, and it
alone cannot do all that we need to have done. We are having
increasing requests for information about climate, long-term
weather and climate, and we believe that providing this
information to the diversity of users is best done by having a
single identifiable place that is much greater than what just
the Climate Prediction Center does. This is a proposal to be
responsive to our existing mandates from Congress as well as
more responsive to the American people in providing the
information that they need and that we believe will be very,
very helpful.
Mr. Broun. Well, I think the CPC is already doing what you
are suggesting. I think you are breaking the law, frankly,
because you are standing up a service that Congress has told
you not to do along with the questions that Mr. Rohrabacher
gave you. I think you are standing this up against Congress's
direct instructions to you in the law. CPC could do exactly
what you are doing. The Navy could contact CPC if you just do
your job and let the Climate Prediction Service do what it
could do. This just seems like a politically motivated advocacy
office that this Administration is trying to stand up. Even
though these people were already hired prior to that bill being
passed, it doesn't mean that we need to continue funding them.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Harris. [Presiding] Thank you very much.
The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wilson, is recognized for
five minutes. Not here? Ms. Sewell is recognized for five
minutes.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Administrator, I know that those were pretty harsh
allegations that were just made against NOAA, and I was
wondering if you would like to respond to the last question.
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you, Congresswoman. We believe that we
are doing exactly what Congress instructed us to do. We have
existing authorization dating back to 1978 through three
different pieces of legislation that Congress has passed that
require us to provide climate science and climate services.
That is exactly what we have been doing and are continuing to
do. We have not and will not implement or create the proposed
Climate Service until we have permission from Congress to do
so.
Ms. Sewell. Well, I know that one of the things that we are
all concerned about is that the goal if we are to create a
Climate Service, a proposed Climate Service to NOAA, is that we
want to make sure that your basic mission is not impeded in any
way.
I hail from Alabama, and we have had some pretty harsh
tornadoes that have affected my district and my State, and I
just want to know what assurances you can give us that your
forecasts, your climate forecast operations and your
environmental satellite program will not be in any way
negatively impacted by any proposed Climate Service.
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you, Congresswoman. When we first set
out to consider possible different options for reorganization,
we had a number of criteria in mind. One of them was to not in
any way, shape, or form undermine the very good work of any of
the other important parts of NOAA. We also wanted to have a
reorganization that was budget-neutral, did not cost any
additional resources and that would provide the most effective
and efficient climate services to the American people. The very
careful, thoughtful way that we have gone about thinking about
reorganization, the extensive consultation we have done with
our Science Advisory Board, with the National Academy of Public
Administration and others has resulted in the proposal that is
before Congress, and we believe that the proposal will not only
provide--satisfy the growing and increasing demand for climate
services, long-term weather information, climate services but
also strengthen science within NOAA. That is one of my highest
priorities and we believe that this renewal of the Office of
Atmospheric and Oceanic Research is--this is a great
opportunity to renew research focus in OAR and to do so in a
way that incubates long-term research and integrates science
across NOAA. So we believe this is a win-win for the American
public and is completely consistent with what we have been
directed to do by Congress.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you. How do you feel that NOAA's weather
and climate forecasts are helping people like the folks in my
district prepare for these catastrophic events, weather events
that we have been experiencing? Can you just give me--address
NOAA's efforts to help prepare communities like mine?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congresswoman, I had the opportunity to
visit Tuscaloosa in your district just a few days after the
disastrous tornado that was there, and I saw firsthand how
horrid much of the damage was and how many people's lives were
disrupted, and despite the fact that there were a large number
of people that were killed by that tornado, I think it is quite
likely there would have been many, many more had we not had the
multiple days worth of warnings from the National Weather
Service that enabled people to get out of harm's way, to be
prepared, that alerted the emergency responders that this is
serious, the fact that we issued warnings five days in advance,
thanks to the information from our polar orbiting weather
satellites, and then two-day warnings, one-day warnings, day-of
warnings. That is a prime example of what our Weather Service
does so exceptionally well, and we consistently try to get
better and better at those kinds of short-term weather alerts
and warnings. By the same token, information that is months out
that says floods are likely, droughts are likely, wildfires are
likely will also enhance communities' ability to be prepared.
It also creates a new opportunity for the private sector.
We have seen the emergence of a billion-dollar private sector
weather enterprise. The Weather Channel, Accu-Weather are some
familiar examples. We fully anticipate that as we achieve the
ability to do these longer-term weather forecasts and climate
forecasts, we will have a comparable demand from the private
sector for information where they can take publicly provided
information, add value and grow a whole new industry around
climate services. So we see multiple potential benefits in
this.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you very much.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
Now, Mrs. Adams from Florida is recognized for five
minutes.
Mrs. Adams. Thank you.
Dr. Lubchenco, you and I have had our differences on the
fishing issue and everything else, and I was just listening to
the discussion about restoring good will with this Committee.
Do you consider 26 days late timeliness in response?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congresswoman, I am not sure what you are
speaking of with respect to----
Mrs. Adams. As the chairman said, he was waiting 26 days it
took to get the answers----
Dr. Lubchenco. We have been providing information to the
Committee on a rolling basis.
Mrs. Adams. But apparently there are some answers to
questions that have been asked that they are still waiting for?
Dr. Lubchenco. There are still questions outstanding in
part because the scope--well, I am sorry, 26 hours. I know what
you are speaking of now. The chairman in his opening remarks
said that my testimony to the Committee for this hearing was 26
hours late, and that is true, and it is highly unfortunate. It
is something for which I apologize, and it is what it is. I
can't ignore that that was----
Mrs. Adams. And we are still waiting for some answers to
some questions that the Committee has asked, correct?
Dr. Lubchenco. So the Committee has----
Mrs. Adams. Just yes or no. I have a short period of time.
Dr. Lubchenco. There are additional questions to be
answered.
Mrs. Adams. You mentioned in your opening statement the
climate science office was needed to offer services like those
used during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Was NOAA unable to
offer the services that were needed to assist in this incident?
Dr. Lubchenco. NOAA provided a wealth of information in
direct support in response----
Mrs. Adams. Was that a yes or no?
Dr. Lubchenco. [continuing]. And if we had the Climate
Service----
Mrs. Adams. Ms. Lubchenco, I have a short amount of time.
Yes or no.
Dr. Lubchenco. [continuing]. We could have done even more.
Mrs. Adams. So was it a yes? Were you able to provide?
Dr. Lubchenco. We provided a lot. We could have done better
had we had this.
Mrs. Adams. So that is your reasoning and rationale for the
need for this new service?
Dr. Lubchenco. Among many others.
Mrs. Adams. You know, I am looking at research, a 2004
research review team report to the NOAA Science Advisory Board
on research organization and management within the agency
included the following recommendation. There should be a single
authority for OAR laboratory programs to join institutes to
help establish partnerships with other agencies and
universities and that the wholesale dissolution of OAR and
distribution of its resources and talent to the other lines
would splinter rather than more tightly connect the science and
research enterprise. In developing your Climate Service
proposal, did you consider these expert suggestions to
consolidate NOAA research programs and warnings against the
splintering of OAR resources and talent? If not, why, and if
so, why were the recommendations dismissed?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congresswoman, that report in 2004 did in
fact advise our thinking. A later report in 2011 and others
from the same Science Advisory Board endorsed the proposal that
we have brought before Congress today. Their thinking evolved
as did ours.
Mrs. Adams. In your written testimony, you have laid out
the reasons for the reorganization of 53 percent of your
agency's assets into a single line office. What I found most
interesting was the language you used to describe this change.
You used the term ``climate variability'' eight times to
describe the research activities of the new office line. Is
this change meant to reorient NOAA towards having the majority
of its budget for climate change research without actually
saying that?
Dr. Lubchenco. I am not sure what you are asking,
Congresswoman.
Mrs. Adams. Is this change meant to reorient NOAA towards
having the majority of its budget for climate change research
without actually saying that?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congresswoman, anything longer than two
weeks out is in the category that we call climate variability
and climate change. The climate system has natural fluctuations
that is climate variability.
Mrs. Adams. Is the movement of so much of your research
assets into this new office being done for the purpose of
creating an office which advocates a specific model or climate
change rather than producing data to inform researchers?
Dr. Lubchenco. There is no advocacy in what we are
proposing or intending. We are providing information to enable
others to make informed decisions.
Mrs. Adams. And is your agency so bureaucratic that you
need to move 53 percent of your assets into one place just to
have a single source of data?
Dr. Lubchenco. Having--it is good government to reorganize
periodically and to become more efficient and effective, which
is exactly what we are doing.
Mrs. Adams. Mr. Winokur, I have about 10 seconds. I just
want to confirm, does the Navy have a single entry point for
data from NOAA now? Is your testimony that you don't have a
single entry data point to NOAA?
Mr. Winokur. That is correct, Congresswoman. We go to
different parts of NOAA depending on the type of information
that we require.
Mrs. Adams. Do you receive that information that you are
asking in a timely manner?
Mr. Winokur. Ultimately, we receive it, yes, but we go----
Mrs. Adams. Is it in a timely manner?
Mr. Winokur. Generally, yes.
Mrs. Adams. Thank you.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
It is my pleasure to recognize Ms. Johnson, the Ranking
Member, for five minutes.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and let me
say, Dr. Lubchenco, I am limited to five minutes, your
responses are not, so I am going to ask three questions up
front.
This spring, the United States has experienced an
unprecedented number of extreme weather and climate events
including drought, floods, fires, and tornadoes, and it does
not seem these storms are stopping. In fact, we are seeing
extreme events in places we have never seen them before.
Instead of stopping NOAA's efforts to find a better way of
providing this country with information, we should be ensuring
that NOAA is providing these services in the most efficient way
possible. What impact would this proposed Climate Service have
on the creation of jobs, stability of food prices, and the
growth of the economy? And how will the proposed Climate
Service help better prepare us for such climate extremes in the
future? And then the third question is, you mentioned that NOAA
already has the authority to conduct climate science and
deliver climate services. In fact, NOAA already does both. But
if this proposed reorganization is not approved by Congress,
what would be the impact of this decision on the public and the
American businesses?
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you, Ranking Member. I think that the
extreme events to which you allude really underscore the
importance of having an effective and efficient ability to
provide long-term weather and climate information to people.
Currently, firefighters around the country use NOAA's climate
forecasts from seasonal precipitation and drought outlooks to
weekly on-the-ground drought monitoring information assessments
to help them prepare for wildfires. Farmers require seasonal
temperature, precipitation, and frost freeze data to determine
what kind of crops to grow. The U.S. homebuilding industry
estimates it saved over $300 million per year in construction
costs by using the information that NOAA provides. Local
community and emergency management offices use our sea-level
data, for example, and storm frequency information to help them
prepare, insurance companies, public health departments, power
utilities and others. These are all examples of current users
of our climate data and information, and we believe that this
reorganization will enable us to provide this information in a
more timely manner and more effective.
I have mentioned that we believe there is a huge potential
to grow a new private sector enterprise around climate
services. That is most definitely a jobs issue. As you
appreciate that the current private weather enterprise totals a
billion dollars, I think there is huge potential.
And finally, you posed the very important question of what
would happen if we did not receive permission from Congress to
implement this reorganization. Currently, our climate service
and science is distributed across five different line offices.
If it is limited to the current organization, we would continue
to have bureaucratic inefficiencies, no clear access point,
missed opportunities for synergies between scientific advances
and fast-evolving services, and we would not be in a position
to help catalyze this emerging private sector enterprise. So it
would be business as usual, which is not in the best interest
of the American public, I believe.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I am within my five
minutes. As a matter of fact, I am going to yield back a few
seconds.
Mr. Harris. I thank you very much. I recognize myself for
five minutes. Thank you, Dr. Lubchenco, for appearing before
the Committee again, and Mr. Winokur.
Dr. Lubchenco, does NOAA right now have a prediction for
sea-level change in the next 50 or 100 years?
Dr. Lubchenco. Yes, Congressman, it does.
Mr. Harris. And what is it?
Dr. Lubchenco. Well, it varies by region.
Mr. Harris. Let us do my district, the 1st Congressional
district of Maryland, Chesapeake Bay.
Dr. Lubchenco. I don't have those numbers at my fingertips,
Congressman, but I would be happy to get them to you.
Mr. Harris. So you have possession. Good. Well, I hope it
kind of agrees with what is published on the NOAA Climate
Service's Web site. I take it that the NOAA Climate Service's
Web site is what you referred to as the NOAA climate portal in
your testimony?
Dr. Lubchenco. The NOAA climate portal, yes.
Mr. Harris. Okay. And you do have an increased number of
hits. Now, I share the concern of my fellow physician from
Georgia here, Dr. Broun, that, you know, our hesitation is that
the Climate Services could become a little propaganda source
instead of a science source. And I am going to ask for it to be
entered into the record. In the Climate Watch magazine on the
NOAA Climate Service, now, I didn't know you published a
magazine because normally when you think of science, you don't
think of magazines, but I guess NOAA is a little different in
that thinking, and it republishes an article I believe from
Chesapeake Quarterly. Now, Chesapeake Quarterly, as far as I
know, is not a peer-reviewed scientific publication, is it?
Dr. Lubchenco. I am not familiar with it, Congressman.
Mr. Harris. Okay. Well, if you could get that information
to me, I am pretty sure it is not. If you go through the
article published it says on March 10, 2011, this year, it is
called ``Before the Next Flood'' and it deals with sea-level
change or water rising in the Chesapeake Bay area, and it does
it in a fairly sensational way. Because, for instance, it shows
a picture of a four-foot sea-level rise and then on top of that
a six-foot rise from a storm like Isabel. Now, does that imply
that NOAA believes there is going to be a four-foot sea-level
rise in the Chesapeake Bay?
Dr. Lubchenco. I do not know what our estimates are,
Congressman.
Mr. Harris. Well, why would you put something on your Web
site that has a picture of a four-foot sea-level rise with no
designation of the time? I mean, this doesn't say, you know,
potential within 100 years. It actually quotes IPCC as the
source for the sea-level rise, not a NOAA study, and it says a
three-foot rise over 100 years with no range. I believe the
IPCC report had a range, didn't it, of projected sea-level
rise?
Dr. Lubchenco. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Harris. Is that the way normally you would present
something scientifically? Like you would suggest, you would
footnote it and you would perhaps put other data in? I mean, is
this science? Is what NOAA has on its Climates Service's Web
site science? That is what I would like to know.
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, I am not familiar with that
article. I would be happy to look at it and comment on it.
Typically, we would present a range of information, and I am
guessing that having concrete visuals enables people to
translate a particular rate of change into something that is
actually----
Mr. Harris. Doctor, that is exactly right, but there is no
rate. It just says four foot. It doesn't say four-foot rise
projected by the IPCC to be at the 95th percentile chance of
probability in the year 2020 or 2120. It just has a picture of
a four-foot rise.
Now, Dr. Lubchenco, you are also aware that on the eastern
shore of Maryland, that there are two factors. One is that the
eastern shore is sinking.
Dr. Lubchenco. Correct.
Mr. Harris. And that the sea level may be rising and
probably is rising. I read this article, and it doesn't talk
about--I mean, it, you know, just occasionally mentions it but
it talks about sea level but it doesn't talk about the land
sinking around it and how different that might be and the
implications might be different. And then it talks about the
fact that they can't get a local zoning code change since
Hurricane Isabel 10 years ago when the sea-level rise was six
feet. Now, how does this part of NOAA's scientific contribution
to our understanding of climate change when you are talking
about getting a local zoning change in response to a hurricane?
I don't get it. There is a disconnect. Is this where we are
going to concentrate what ultimately will be billions of
dollars of our money is to publish an online magazine?
Now, as part of the justification for your center, you
actually say that you had a 57 percent increase in climate-
related data and information Web site hits. I assume that
includes hits on this magazine article. You don't really want
us to set up a new service at NOAA to publish a magazine
article taken from another magazine where you are merely
republishing it from Chesapeake Quarterly which I will profer,
and I am sure your staff will determine, is not a scientific
peer-reviewed journal. Do you really want us to do that? You
are asking Congress when we have got to borrow 41 cents out of
every dollar including a significant amount of that from the
Chinese to set up a Climate Service for you to publish this?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, I haven't seen that article so
I can't really comment.
Mr. Harris. Well, I am going to ask you to comment on it in
the questions that will be coming from the Committee after this
because this is absolutely atrocious. This exactly exemplifies
what the gentleman from Georgia was talking about.
With that, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much,
Administrator Lubchenco.
Just to follow up on that for a second, would you like to
take a moment and speak briefly, because I have a bunch of
questions, but speak to the resource that NOAA represents and
the fact that you are having increasing use of the Web site for
scientific data from the audiences that you serve and why that
is a benefit to those audiences?
Dr. Lubchenco. Thanks, Congressman. We do--we are receiving
increased, just overwhelming number of increases for
information in general but data in particular, and we have
quantified that. Between 2009 and 2010, we saw an 11 percent
increase in direct requests for data and information, and our
data centers provided 86 percent more climate-related data in
2010 than 2009, and these requests are coming primarily from a
wide variety of users from firefighters, from farmers, from
electricity providers, from home insurers, from other agencies,
the Department of Health, USDA, the Army Corps of Engineers,
and coastal managers. They are all looking for the kind of data
that we have on temperature, on precipitation, on water
resources, on sea-level rise, and because we are getting more
and more increases in these requests, we believe we have a
responsibility to be responsive, which has in large part
prompted our asking ourselves how can we be more efficient, how
can we do more with less, how can we be stewards of taxpayer
dollars in a way that is responsive to these increasing
requests.
Mr. Sarbanes. I appreciate that. Let me just make a few
comments.
First of all, I want to thank NOAA. I think it is a
terrific organization.
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you.
Mr. Sarbanes. I think that the research you are doing
frankly serves as a foundation for so many important policy
decisions that we need to make here and that the country needs
to make going forward. So it is a critical function that NOAA
serves, and it does so in a very, very professional way. All of
the people that I have had the opportunity to deal with at NOAA
reflect, I think, a cultured professionalism and dedication to
science and facts and data and evidence that really makes the
reputation of that agency I think a premier one, in particular
with respect to the work that you do in the Chesapeake Bay,
providing critical information for us so that we can make these
tough decisions going forward.
You said it a number of times but I want to reiterate that
all you are trying to do with this proposal that you have made
is to do your job better. We have people parading around the
halls of the Capitol every day talking about how government has
to operate more efficiently, has to find ways to save, to
reduce duplication, to spend the taxpayers' money wisely. Here
is an agency, NOAA, that is hearing that and taking it to heart
and trying to implement many ideas that can achieve that, and
proposing other ideas such as this one with the Climate Service
that represents efficiency. I thought you answered very well
the questions regarding having a transition director with
respect to Climate Service. If you had come up here and
proposed to have a new Climate Service, the next question would
be, well, what is that going to look like, and if you hadn't
had somebody in charge of looking into and planning, you
wouldn't be able to answer those questions. Any responsible
proposal is going to have to do a certain amount of research to
come forward and say this is what this would look like, and the
efficiencies that you are proposing I think make a lot of
sense, so I congratulate the agency on that. I also appreciate
your very thoughtful responses to the questions and I apologize
that in some instances you were cut off while you were trying
to respond.
And so I want to thank you for your testimony. I find it
very compelling, the need for this. It started way before you,
so others on both sides of the aisle have recognized the
importance of doing this, and I hope that we can move forward
and create this opportunity.
And I want to thank you, Mr. Winokur, as well for your
testimony. You said at one point that you recognize the
benefits of a consolidated organizational construct. I regard
that as an endorsement, even though you are not offering up an
official position of the Navy, an endorsement of the proposal
that has been set forth by Dr. Lubchenco and NOAA.
So I hope we can move forward with this, and I thank you
all for your testimony and I yield back.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Sarbanes.
I recognize Mr. Quayle for five minutes.
Mr. Quayle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Lubchenco, you have emphasized that the Climate Service
is needed to more closely align climate science information
with delivery of services to the public and that your proposed
structure will make communication of this information more
productive and more effective. Do you see any tradeoffs or
potential downsides to this proposal or is it just win-win?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, we spent a lot of time thinking
long and hard about this and did extensive consulting with
others to better understand what the tradeoffs might be, and we
believe that the proposal that is before Congress enables us to
be more efficient with the dollars that we have, to respond to
the increasing demands for information about long-term weather
and climate, to support a growing private sector enterprise and
essentially be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. We believe
that we can increase the strength of science within NOAA with
this proposal. It does not in any way diminish the caliber or
the quantity of science that is being done. It will afford us
an opportunity to better directly connect the science and
services within a climate single unit, and at the same time
strengthen science elsewhere in the organization by enabling
the Office of Atmospheric and Oceanic Research to be an
incubator of long-term science and integrate science across the
agency. So we think this is a win-win.
Mr. Quayle. I am just curious, what about non-climate
research that you are proposing to transfer into the Climate
Service? Isn't there really a risk that basic research to
understand the atmosphere or applied research to improve
weather prediction will be impacted negatively if subsumed into
an organization whose mission is solely focused on climate?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, that is a legitimate concern,
and I think we have a number of examples within NOAA where we
have superb, outstanding science that coexists with a service-
providing entity. We do that in our fisheries line office, for
example. We do it in ocean service line office. And by analogy,
we believe that we can have really strong science and have the
science connected to services within this proposed Climate
Service line office.
Mr. Quayle. Okay. Now, you are proposing to move the
research physical science division in Boulder to the Climate
Service. Is that correct?
Dr. Lubchenco. We are not proposing to move any people or
any labs to any new physical entity. We are putting them under
a new management structure if this is approved.
Mr. Quayle. Okay. And so is that the same for the OAR's
chemical science division?
Dr. Lubchenco. That is correct.
Mr. Quayle. So I have understood that about 98 percent of
the current physical science division's work is weather
research and water science. Is that right?
Dr. Lubchenco. I don't know the exact number. That is
approximately correct.
Mr. Quayle. And about one-third of the chemical science
division involves air quality, weather, water, coasts,
estuaries and oceans research in science. So when you are
saying you are not proposing to move resources away from non-
climate activities, I don't understand how that really squares
with that.
Dr. Lubchenco. The design principles that we utilized when
we started to have this conversation included wanting to have
the most efficient and effective delivery of climate service
information, to protect the integrity of science and to not
disrupt and break apart any existing laboratories. The
laboratories, the programs that we are proposing to move into
the climate science, I mean the Climate Service line office do
include pieces that do both climate and other kind of science
and it is important that they stay together, and that is the
proposal. There is a lot of need for integration across all of
NOAA because physical sciences or chemical sciences that might
relate to climate also would relate to weather. That is just
the nature of that science, and so in moving them, this will
not diminish--it won't change what they do. It won't undermine
their ability to do that well. It will enhance the connection
of climate science to climate services.
Mr. Quayle. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
I recognize the Ranking Member of the Energy and
Environment Subcommittee, Mr. Miller, for five minutes.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Lubchenco, I apologize if I slip up and call you
Admiral. I am used to calling the----
Dr. Lubchenco. I would take that as a compliment, sir.
Mr. Miller. [continuing]. Head of NOAA Admiral. You have
been accused of breaking the law in giving an existing employee
a new title that included the word ``climate'' and adding new
employees, six new employees that had ``climate'' in their
titles. When did you add those positions or change that title?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, those were done before the
Continuing Resolution.
Mr. Miller. Six months ago, nine months ago? I mean, last
year?
Dr. Lubchenco. Last year.
Mr. Miller. Okay. And then you said before the Continuing
Resolution, the Hall amendment that supposedly says that those
two employment actions ran afoul of was how long ago?
Dr. Lubchenco. A number of months ago.
Mr. Miller. But well after you renamed those positions and
added employees?
Dr. Lubchenco. That is correct.
Mr. Miller. Did you have authority--did you think you had
authority to add those positions with ``climate'' in their
title and change an existing employee's title to add
``climate'' when you did that?
Dr. Lubchenco. We absolutely did, Congressman. We have
three Acts passed by Congress that direct us to do climate-
related science and delivery of services. The National Climate
Act of 1978, the Global Change Research Act, and the National
Integrated Drought Information System Act are existing
authorizations under which we operate, under which we have
people who do climate service provision and do climate science,
and we are operating under those authorities.
Mr. Miller. Okay. Obviously climate and weather aren't
exactly the same but they are not unrelated, either. A forecast
of the ocean levels in 50 years is climate, and whether it is
going to rain tomorrow and what the temperature is going to be
tomorrow is weather, but where is the demarcation? You said
earlier about two weeks. Is that correct?
Dr. Lubchenco. That is correct. Our weather models allow us
to make reasonable forecasts out to about 10 days, and so--and
then the climate--so we define weather as anything less than
two weeks, roughly.
Mr. Miller. Okay, and climate----
Dr. Lubchenco. And climate is longer than that.
Mr. Miller. Okay. You said earlier that there was an
increasing demand in the private sector for climate services. I
think Mr. Sarbanes' questions got at that some but could you
tell us what kind of requests you are getting and what kind of
products or services do you think NOAA can provide with your
climate forecasting abilities that to the private sector would
be useful, would find useful?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, let me answer with an example.
I met about a year ago with the Western Governors Association,
who were having--the focus of their meeting was on water and
drought, which is a major issue in the West, and they have been
very pleased with our National Drought Information Services
that we created in response to a request from them. That is an
example of a climate service that we currently provide, and
that like a number of other services I believe are increasingly
important to a wide variety of managers and users of data.
Now, the private sector is already marshaling, preparing to
respond to the increasing demand, and many of the Governors
were telling me of the private companies that they have
contracted with to give them better information about the
likelihood of water in different parts of their State, water
resources, what is the likelihood of drought. Those companies
take the information that we currently provide and tailor it to
a specific place or user. We believe that we can be even more
helpful to them by this reorganization that enables them to
more easily find the information they need and to create
additional services in response to their demand, much like what
we do with the Weather Service. We would provide basic core
information and then the private sector can take that, add
value, tailor it, repackage it, put whatever bells and whistles
they want on it.
Mr. Miller. You gave a statistic that the homebuilders had
given for how much they thought your services had saved them.
How much--what was that statistic again?
Dr. Lubchenco. The U.S. homebuilding industry tells us that
they believe they have saved over $300 million per year in
construction costs alone by using just one of NOAA's climate
tools that relates to freezing and frost depths. So in building
homes in a way that is specific to a place instead of more than
is needed, they can save a huge amount of money.
Mr. Miller. And that is just residential construction, not
all construction?
Dr. Lubchenco. That is correct.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, for
five minutes.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for being here. Sorry, I have a couple
different committees going on at once, so sorry to be coming in
a little bit late, but good to be here and appreciate you being
here as well.
A couple questions. NOAA's Next Generation Strategic plan
that was issued back in December of 2010 stated that one of the
main objectives for achieving a long-term goal for climate
adaptation and mitigation is improved scientific understanding
of the changing climate system and its impacts. Specifically,
it states international, national, state and local efforts to
limit greenhouse gases require reliable information to support
emissions verifications as do efforts to track climate changes
and mitigate impacts. The statement raises several red flags, I
think, since it seems to be stating that NOAA will be
conducting research to support the implementation of greenhouse
gas emission reduction policies. H.R. 1 made the position of
the House of Representatives very clear on greenhouse gas
reduction policies. Therefore, it really must be concluded that
this objective is a political one and not science-based.
Furthermore, the United States is not a party to the Kyoto
Protocol, the only international agreement aimed at reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. For many people, the stated goal is
the heart of the concern about NOAA's proposal that this
service will be driven by a political agenda and not scientific
research needs. Question--sorry for the long preface here, but
what guarantees can you give to this Committee that the Climate
Service will not be used to promote such policies that have not
been passed by Congress nor signed into law by the President?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, thanks for that question. Our
proposed reorganization has nothing to do with cap and trade.
It is not regulatory. It is not advocacy. Our mission is to
provide scientific information and to translate that
information into usable data, usable products like weather
outlooks, like hurricane forecasts, like drought outlooks, to
take that information and provide it to the American public, to
the private sector, to state and local managers so that they in
turn can use that information to make the best decisions. We
don't advocate, we provide information.
Mr. Hultgren. How do we make sure that that continues, that
it doesn't shift? It sounds like from the statements that we
have heard that there is some shift going more toward the
political side and less towards science-based and what
guarantees are in place to make sure that that--as you state,
the intention is to be all science-based, no political agenda.
What guarantees are there? What precautionary steps are being
taken to make sure that that actually occurs?
Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, one of the benefits of the
proposed reorganization is that it has greater transparency in
terms of how taxpayer dollars are spent. You can look at our
budgets and see exactly where the money goes, and I believe
that that is one of the kinds of checks and balances that is
appropriate. I reiterate that we are providing information so
that others can make decisions.
Mr. Hultgren. Switching gears a little bit here, Dr.
Lubchenco. You have repeatedly emphasized that the Climate
Service proposal would strengthen science within NOAA and that
the proposed focus on climate services will not detract from
the quality or focus of science that NOAA conducts. With that
in mind, help me understand the process through which Climate
Service budget and planning is developed. What line office
within NOAA has led this effort? And then just wondering too,
is the Office of Atmospheric Research, which is responsible for
delivering the science foundation that NOAA depends on, are
they involved in this, delivering this? If you can just help me
understand the structure.
Dr. Lubchenco. Sure, Congressman. We currently have science
in multiple line offices within NOAA, and this proposal to do a
reorganization and create a new Climate Service line office
benefited from extensive input from all parts of NOAA as well
as extensive consultation outside. It was an idea that was
initially proposed in the late 1990s and that my predecessor,
Admiral Lautenbacher, and the Bush Administration said this is
an idea we should pursue, a line office for climate services.
When I came on board, I thought that was exactly what we
needed, and we have proceeded in a very deliberate and
consultative fashion to work through the different options and
give the proposal to Congress that we are bringing.
Mr. Hultgren. What line office within NOAA has led the
effort?
Dr. Lubchenco. No single line office. It has been an all-
NOAA effort. The OAR that is our lead for science has been an
active participant, so too have the other line offices--the
Weather Service, fisheries, ocean services, our satellite
division. Each of those has participated very actively in this
proposal.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you. I see my time is up. I yield back.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
The gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Fudge, is recognized for five
minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
both of you for being here.
I am going to ask you a question that absolutely has no
politics to it at all, because flooding affects Republicans and
Democrats. I am aware that NOAA provides long-term seasonal
outlooks that help communities and businesses prepare for
flooding. This is an activity that is especially relevant to
Ohio. Could you please describe for me the types of long-term
forecasts that NOAA provides that help Ohioans prepare for
flooding and other Midwestern areas that have experienced this
spring? Everybody's house floods in our area. I don't care what
side of the aisle they are on.
Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you, Congresswoman. One of the
services that we currently provide is our outlooks about
droughts and floods, various things having to do with water,
and as early as last fall, NOAA alerted the states in the upper
Midwest and mid-Midwest that in fact conditions were likely to
have very significant flooding this spring, and then in I
believe late, I think it was December, but I can check on that,
we issued--actually, I think I might have this here. No, I
don't want to look for it. We issued a warning saying
essentially that because of the amount of snow pack that was
present and because of the conditions that were developing
having to do with La Nina, with other atmospheric changes, that
it was highly likely we would get very, very significant
flooding in the Mississippi River drainage basin and then later
we added the Missouri River as well, and that is exactly what
we have seen this year, and these outlooks that said, I think
it was from Montana to Wisconsin and from the Canadian border
down to St. Louis, originally that was the outlook said we will
have very significant flooding this year, get ready, and that
is exactly what has transpired. I believe that that outlook and
those warnings have been very useful in helping communities be
prepared, for helping state managers marshal their resources,
and we have indeed seen extraordinary flooding this year in
both the Mississippi as well as the Missouri River, and it has
caused an inordinate amount of damage, but the damage would
likely have been much worse had we not had these kinds of
outlooks.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much. Do you consider this a
climate service?
Dr. Lubchenco. Yes, Congresswoman.
Ms. Fudge. I just wanted to be clear because----
Dr. Lubchenco. Yes. Thank you for that clarification.
Ms. Fudge. Because some people I think don't understand
what a climate service is, so I thank you. And with the minute
or so I have left, is there something that you would like to
share with us that maybe you did not get an opportunity to
answer? Certainly, I am no scientist so I have learned a great
deal today about the difference between what my Republican
colleagues believe is science and what is not science. So if
you could just give me some closing comments, I would
appreciate it very much.
Dr. Lubchenco. Congresswoman, I think I would start with
the clarification you requested and simply emphasize that
climate service is really shorthand for long-term weather and
climate information, and that that information is vitally
important to saving lives and property but also to stimulating
businesses, to helping businesses plan and save money. Our
intention in doing this reorganization is to provide what we
are being asked increasingly to provide but to do so in a way
that is consistent with our Congressional mandates and with the
needs of the American people, and to do so in a way that is
being a good steward of American taxpayer dollars, to do so as
efficiently and effectively and as collaboratively as we can.
This proposal is good government, and I am immensely proud
of what NOAA does each and every day, the 13,000 employees of
NOAA, in providing the amazing weather forecasts, the climate
services, drought outlooks, fire, hurricane outlooks, flooding,
and wildfire. All of that kind of information we understand is
important and we want to do an even better job of providing it.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, and as the noon hour is
approaching, I do want to thank both witnesses for taking your
time and for sitting with us for the last two hours.
The Members of the Committee may have additional questions
for any of you. I encourage any of the Members who have
additional questions to please submit them and we will ask you
to respond to them in writing. The record will remain open for
two weeks for additional comments from Members.
I would like to get a commitment, though, Dr. Lubchenco,
for you to try to get the questions back, both the leftover
ones from the March 10th hearing as well as today's as soon as
feasible because we do want to complete the record and we do
need to move on into the appropriations process at some point,
and I do want to thank NOAA for a job well done and the
Department of the Navy for a job well done.
Thank you very much, and the witnesses are excused and the
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Jane Lubchenco,
Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere
and NOAA Administrator,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce,
Washington, DC
Questions submitted by Chairman Ralph M. Hall
Q1. In the 2004 Research Review Team report to the NOAA Science
Advisory Board, it was noted that ``for all science-based operational
agencies or companies reviewed, there were organizational and
operational mechanisms that provided for funding stability for a
research program with a longer-term focus. With the development of a
NOAA research plan and data obtained during this research review, NOAA
OAR can quickly implement changes necessary to manage a successful
research program for NOAA.'' [page 28]
Q1a. Given the current fiscal environment, and the concerns laid out
in the NAPA report about the long-term budgetary feasibility of
creating a new Climate Service line office, why should NOAA risk
research funding stability and sacrifice expediency in an effort to
create a separate Climate Service line office?
A1a. In their report, the National Academy of Public Administration
panel states:
The Panel is skeptical that current funding levels (even as
augmented at levels consistent with the President's FY 2011 budget
request) will adequately sustain public and private sector expectations
for climate services and research in the years ahead. It would be
impossible for this Panel to propose a precise budget for this new
Climate Service based on the limited information available to us, and
choices still to be made by NOAA. Nonetheless, by its design and
because of growing needs, the NOAA Climate Service can reasonably be
expected to take on a great deal more than its current workload in the
years ahead. It will have to prioritize its new research and service
deliverables with tenacious discipline.
NAPA then goes on to state, ``This budget challenge, we wish to
make clear, would be a poor reason to oppose creation of the new NOAA
line office.''
The proposal to create a Climate Service line Office is budget
neutral and would maintain, strategically realign, and make targeted
investments in the NOAA research enterprise, including but not limited
to climate research. The proposed reorganization would not eliminate or
reduce any of NOAA's research activities.
The demand for climate services is increasing and will outstrip
current private and public capacity to respond. To better anticipate,
develop, and deliver the science and services to address this growing
need, it will be necessary for academic institutions, government
agencies, the private sector, and others to work together in a
coordinated and concerted manner, and to prioritize efforts.
NOAA's proposal to create a Climate Service Line Office would not
only allow the agency to more efficiently and effectively participate
in the broader enterprise; it would also provide more streamlined and
reliable access to NOAA's authoritative climate data and information
and therein allow partners to maximize their contributions to the
enterprise. The proposed Climate Service Line Office structure reflects
NOAA's response to the needs of numerous demands for climate services,
so that the agency can: (1) promote integration of NOAA's climate
science and service assets; (2) heighten the accessibility and
visibility of NOAA's climate services for our partners and users; and
(3) allow NOAA to more efficiently address user and partner needs
compared to our current distributed structure.
In the same way, NOAA recognizes the need to prioritize climate
service activities in light of the tremendous existing and anticipated
demand. To this end, based on recommendations from NAPA and the NOAA
Science Advisory Board Climate Working Group, NOAA undertook an
internal and public process to draft the Vision and Strategic
Framework. This document outlines and prioritizes both foundational
science and information services that NOAA would continue to provide to
partners and users to support their development of tailored products
and services, as well as four key societal challenges--coasts, marine
ecosystems, extreme events, and water--where NOAA would focus
advancements across the spectrum of climate science and services.
1b. Furthermore, what reasoning exists, given these risks, for NOAA to
move forward without having conducted an extensive assessment of the
impact on the rest of the activities,organizational structure, and
synergy of NOAA's other line offices, including what would remain of
OAR?
A1b. The idea of creating a Climate Service Line Office at NOAA is not
new. The concept first surfaced in the early 1970s, not long after NOAA
was established, and later gained prominence and traction in NOAA
during the George W. Bush Administration. NOAA's reorganization
proposal benefited from several years of extensive analysis by internal
and external groups. As a result, the proposal carefully considered and
minimized impacts to NOAA's organizational synergy, and in fact seizes
on the opportunity to strategically renew and realign NOAA's research
portfolio to strengthen science and innovation across the agency. This
proposal would help prioritize and stabilize funding for NOAA's entire
research portfolio.
Q2. As you noted in your testimony, last September the National
Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) released a report making
suggestions for the creation of a NOAA Climate Service. While it was
strongly supportive of the creation of a Climate Service, it was
skeptical that NOAA could reorganize internally in a budget neutral way
without diverting resources from other NOAA functions.
Q2a. Please explain why you believe NAPA's conclusion with respect to
budget neutral creation of a climate Service is wrong.
A2a. NAPA rightly identifies the dramatically increasing public
expectation for climate science and services are greater than can be
addressed at current levels of resources. This increasing public demand
and the consequent need for greater effort, however, will continue
independent of whether NOAA establishes a Climate Service Line Office.
NOAA, NAPA, and a broad consensus of external partners and
organizations believe strongly that for NOAA to most efficiently and
effectively deploy its climate capabilities at any level of funding,
the agency's climate-related capabilities are best consolidated under a
singular management structure. In this way NAPA clearly states, ``This
budget challenge, we wish to make clear, would be a poor reason to
oppose creation ofthe new NOAA line office.''
Addressing the public's demand for climate information is a job
that requires all hands on deck--no one agency or organization alone
can meet the increasing need. NOAA fully recognizes that responding to
the increasing demand for climate services poses a capacity challenge
to the existing climate services enterprise, which includes academic
institutions, government agencies, the private sector, and other
organizations. In order to better anticipate, develop, and deliver the
science and services to address this growing need, it would be
necessary for the entire enterprise, not just NOAA, to work together in
a coordinated and concerted manner.
To that end, NOAA's proposal to create a Climate Service Line
Office would not only allow the agency to more efficiently and
effectively participate and partner in the broader enterprise; it would
also provide more streamlined and reliable access to NOAA's
authoritative climate data and information and therein allow our
partners in the enterprise to maximize their contributions and
innovation potential.
2b. How will NOAA be able to provide the same services and still pay
for a transition? Doesn't the manpower needed for this reorganization
cost money?
A2b. One of NOAA's key design principles for evaluating reorganization
options to create a Climate Service Line Office was that it must be
budget neutral and not require any additional funds beyond our current
appropriations to execute. The elements of this ``budget-neutral''
character of our proposal include the following:
The proposal does not grow the size of our administrative
functions or overhead.
In order to minimize transition costs, no existing
programs, labs, or centers would have to be relocated, and no employees
would be required to move from their current locations.
The proposal maintained material efficiencies, like
keeping NOAA's data centers together, in order to keep those shared
capabilities and infrastructure intact.
NOAA's proposal seeks to minimize unnecessary disruptions at every
step of the proposed transition process, for example, by keeping our
labs intact and only moving programs that are principally climate-
focused. Equally, if not of greater importance are the potential cost
savings to the American people and businesses that need to access
NOAA's climate information. Currently,there is no single point of entry
for the public to access NOAA's climate science and services. NOAA's
proposal would create that front door, a feature our stakeholders are
asking for, and in doing so significantly cut down on their transaction
costs for accessing our information and doing business with NOAA. We
believe that any short-term transition costs would be far outweighed in
the longer term by more efficient and effective operations as we
develop and deliver climate services under a single management
structure.
Q3. In your testimony, you state that the NAPA study concluded that
NOAA's current organizational structure was inadequate to meet current
demand. NAPA came to this conclusion from the narrow point of view of
how to improve climate services at NOAA. However, NAPA's endorsementof
your proposal did not consider the effect that the creation of the
Climate Service would have on the rest of the line offices.
Q3a. Has NOAA conducted an internal analysis or contracted with an
independent review team to assess the impact this reorganization will
have on the rest of the Agency?
A3a. There has been significant analysis and discussion both internal
to NOAA and among external groups about the best organizational
structure for a climate service in NOAA. The breadth of expertise and
interests represented and the time that was afforded for these
discussions over several years was tremendously beneficial to the
formulation of NOAA's proposed reorganization. The Department of
Commerce and NOAA have taken such discussion and the ideas they have
generated very seriously. In response, NOAA has worked with some of the
brightest minds on institutional planning and administration, service
delivery, stakeholder involvement, and climate science to develop,
evaluate and integrate the many ideas that have arisen from these
discussions into the proposed reorganization contained in the
President's FY 2012 budget proposal.
NOAA's proposal to create a Climate Service took great care to
consider and reflect recommendations from numerous prominent studies
and external groups, including the NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB)
and more recently the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
study that was requested by the Commerce, Justice and Science
Subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, to
provide recommendations for how NOAA should be better organized to
deliver reliable and timely information on climate to a variety of
stakeholders. In addition to their recommendations about the
organizational structure for climate service in NOAA, NAPA evaluated
impacts to other parts of NOAA from potential reorganization options.
For example, in evaluating the impacts of consolidating climate science
and services in the National Weather Service, NAPA concluded, ``that a
forced marriage of weather and climate missions would serve neither
well.'' Similarly, in evaluating impacts of consolidating all climate
science and services under OAR, NAPA concluded that, ``Compelling and
thoroughly reasonable demands to strengthen climate research and
services would, in this case, over time likely dilute and diminish
OAR's unique abilities to support multiple NOAA line offices, including
a NOAA Climate Service.'' NAPA further asserted that, ``all parts of
NOAA benefit from OAR's work to incubate fundamentally new approaches
to mission-centered science, a capability best sustained by maintaining
a nimble, freestanding OAR line office.''
Prior to NAPA's more recent analysis, from 2008 to 2009 the NOAA
SAB and its Climate Working Group (CWG) undertook an effort to compare
and contrast specific options for the development of a National Climate
Service--a broad enterprise of agencies, including NOAA, and
organizations comprised of users, researchers and information
providers. The CWG established four Tiger Teams and a Coordinating
Committee to evaluate the pros and cons of each option. This effort
resulted in the June 5, 2009, SAB report entitled Options for
Developing a National Climate Service.
More recently, the SAB CWG winter 2011 report further reinforced
NOAA's proposal for dedicated Climate Service Line Office, stating:
The lack of action in several areas highlighted in the previous
reviews speaks loudly to the need for a new line organization for
climate services. These responses clearly illustrated the considerable
inertia that exists within the present system and the difficulty in
moving from a matrix managed program to a line organization. Let there
be no mistake: there is a tremendous amount of world-class climate
research being performed within the agency. Yet, transitioning such
high-quality research into a service-oriented and operational setting
is quite another matter. There are some fairly major systemic
challenges that need to be confronted going from a loose federation of
somewhat independent NOAA organizations to a functioning climate
service. Short of a Climate Service line organization with budgetary
authority, the CWG believes it will prove very difficult to effect
change if NOAA's approach to climate services continues in a matrix
structure or manner. (SAB CWG Winter 2011 Report)
Finally, NOAA has conducted extensive internal analyses as it
developed its reorganization proposal. NOAA has taken great care to
consider the reorganization proposal's impacts and opportunities to the
agency. The proposal was designed taking careful account of this
analysis to not only minimize disruption and impacts across the agency,
but also to ensure the continuation of agency-wide synergies and
further seize on opportunities to make critical agency-wide
advancements to strengthen our science portfolio.
At the broadest level of analysis, NOAA brought together its expert
scientists and managers from each of its Line Offices across the agency
to develop a vision, goals, and principles for a climate service. NOAA
has provided the Committee with numerous examples of these analyses,
which started as early as January 1974, in a document produced by the
Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research
entitled Federal Plan for Natianal Climatic Services. Others which have
been provided include:
Draft Strategic Plan for a National Climate Service,
(2008). Draft Strategic Plan by NOAA's Climate Service Development
Team.
Solomon, S, R. Dole, R. Feely, I. Held, W. Higgins, J.
Payne, E. Shea, U. Varanasi, M. Westley (2009) A Vision for Climate
Services in NOAA. Perspectives from a panel of NOAA research
scientists.
At a more detailed level of analysis, scientists and managers from
across the agency have diligently worked to develop and analyze options
for a climate service in NOAA with appropriate consideration of impacts
to the entire agency. First, prior to developing a suite of
reorganization options to consider, NOAA set out several design
principles for all reorganization options that would be considered.
These principles, and the subsequent options evaluated, were informed
by the recommendations received from our SAB and a variety of other
internal and external sources of input and advice. The specific
principles NOAA set out to guide its development of options included
the following:
Although various programs and activities would be
consolidated, renamed, and managed collectively, any reorganization
could not initiate or create new programs or activities not provided
for in NOAA's existing authorizations and appropriations;
All realigned activities in the current year would
continue to be funded at Congressionally directed levels;
The reorganization would not increase or decrease the
NOAA Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) or billet allocation, or require any
relocation of employees;
The reorganization would not require any physical
relocation of programs or labs, or require any new facilities to
accommodate this reorganization;
Result in a zero sum realignment of funds within the
current NOAA budget; and
Not increase the size of NOAA overhead.
Adhering to these principles, NOAA subsequently developed and
analyzed four potential organizational structures to reorganize
existing NOAA climate assets against a set of design criteria. All
options considered were budget neutral, none grew the size of
headquarters, and all had no impact on funding for NOAA's science
portfolio. These options included: (a) consolidating major climate
science and service assets in the National Weather Service, (b)
consolidating major climate science and service assets in new Climate
Service Line Office and eliminating OAR by moving its research into
relevant Line Offices, (c) consolidating major climate science and
service assets in OAR, and (d) maintaining OAR and consolidating major
climate science and service assets in a new Climate Service Line
Office.
NOAA evaluated its four organizational options against the design
criteria listed below. Of the five criteria employed, three focused
explicitly on broader agency impacts and opportunities (i.e., #1, #2,
and #4 below).
Design Criteria
1. Strengthen science in the agency.
Strengthen and enhance the visibility, quality, and
relevance of science that supports NOAA's Mission and long-term
strategy;
Integrate climate science within the Climate Service Line
Office and across NOAA to address cross-disciplinary areas such as
climate and coastal, and climate and ecosystems.
2. Minimize disruptions and promote efficiency.
Promote efficient implementation and operation;
Minimize organizational complexity;
Utilize existing programs to the greatest extent
possible.
3. Establish climate leadership.
Create a single line of accountability and responsibility
for performance;
Create a senior advocate for climate policy, strategy,
and budget within NOAA.
4. Enhance program coordination.
Develop effective mechanisms that leverage program
execution from across the agency and with our partners.
5. Promote user engagement on climate.
Create clear points of access for users;
Facilitate and improve stakeholder engagement;
Integrate user input into service development.
Q3b. NOAA has other complex projects, such as environmental satellite
programs, that regularly go through independent reviews and
assessments. Would you be willing to subject your proposal to such an
independent and objective assessment?
A3b. From the beginning, NOAA developed its proposal in an open and
transparent manner.The proposal to create a Climate Service Line Office
in NOAA underwent several independent reviews and assessments. If
Congress approves a Climate Service Line Office within NOAA, the agency
would look to the CWG and other groups to provide independent and
objective reviews of our progress and effectiveness in transitioning to
and implementing the new office. Most notably, NOAA commissioned a
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) study, as requested by
the Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittees of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees, to provide recommendations for how NOAA
should be better organized to deliver reliable and timely information
on climate to a variety of stakeholders. These and others are detailed
above in part A of this question.
Previously, in 2008, NOAA contracted with Accenture, a global
management consulting,technology services and outsourcing company, to
study organizational options for improving the agency's climate service
delivery. NOAA provided a copy of Accenture's report to the Committee
on May 6, 2011.
In addition, NOAA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) Climate Working
Group (CWG) conducts ongoing reviews of NOAA's climate activities. NOAA
continues to support the CWG and other groups' independent and
objective reviews of our climate programs. NOAA has provided the
Science Committee with copies ofthe CWG's recent reports. Most
recently, the SAB CWG winter 2011 report further reinforced NOAA's
proposal for a dedicated Climate Service Line Office, stating:
The lack of action in several areas highlighted in the previous
reviews speaks loudly to the need for a new line organization for
climate services. These responses clearly illustrated the considerable
inertia that exists within the present system and the difficulty in
moving from a matrix managed program to a line organization. Let there
be no mistake: there is a tremendous amount of world-class climate
research being performed within the agency. Yet, transitioning such
high quality research into a service-oriented and operational setting
is quite another matter. There are some fairly major systemic
challenges that need to be confronted going from a loose federation of
somewhat independent NOAA organizations to a functioning climate
service. Short of a Climate Service line organization with budgetary
authority, the CWG believes it will prove very difficult to effect
change if NOAA's approach to climate services continues in a matrix
structure or manner. (SAB CWG Winter 2011 Report)
Q4. In January 2008, National Weather Service Director Jack Hayes
issued a directive that stated: ``Provision of climate services, in
particular the monitoring of variations in climate and climate
forecasting, is essential to mitigate the loss of life and property and
to enhance the national economy. The NWS [National Weather Service] is
the federal agency charged with delivering these services to the U.S.,
its territories, and, as appropriate, its interests abroad.'' As part
of this charge, the National Weather Service maintains the Climate
Prediction Center in Camp Springs, Maryland, supports ``Climate
Services Programs'' at each NWS regional office, issues climate
products on a daily basis from the more than 120 Weather Forecast
Offices, and oversees these efforts from the Climate Services Division
at the NWS Headquarters. NOAA's Science Advisory Board, in making
recommendations on the development of a National Climate Service in
February 2009, suggested that including the Climate Service as part of
the NWS would be the ``option simplest to implement'' from ``every
practical standpoint.'' The Report also supported ``[g]reater
connectivity between weather and climate functions.''
Q4a. If the National Weather Service is currently handling much of the
climate services portfolio now, why is a separate line office
necessary? Will the 1,000 National Weather Service employees that
currently perform Climate Service work as a fundamental function of
their jobs be transferred to the new line office?
A4a. This question illustrates the reasons for NOAA's proposal to
reorganize its existing assets to form a Climate Service Line Office.
NOAA's climate science and services have developed organically and
independently in multiple forms and functions throughout five of our
six line offices. As a result, significant effort must be expended on
coordination to meet our climate goals. For example, the climate
products produced by NWS are funded, in part, by another line office in
order to leverage the expertise at NWS. Similar examples are also found
in NESDIS and OAR. By bringing together NOAA's dispersed climate assets
under one umbrella of a line office, the agency would be more efficient
and effective with taxpayer dollars.
NOAA's weather services are provided on a time scale of hours to 10
days out, whereas climate services are provided from two weeks out to
months, seasons, years, decades and beyond. Currently, the National
Weather Service's Climate Prediction Center, which has been identified
to move into the proposed Climate Service Line Office, provides climate
forecasts and predictions for precipitation, temperature, hurricanes,
and extreme weather on the order of weeks to seasonal outlooks. Also,
NWS currently supports a fraction of the climate services that are
encompassed throughout NOAA. Other climate services components not in
the NWS include research, observations, modeling, data collection and
storage, and services. The Climate Prediction Center is a nexus between
the weather and climate communities at NOAA and beyond. By proposing to
move the Climate Prediction Center to the proposed Climate Service Line
Office, a move endorsed by National Weather Service Employees
Organization (NWSEO), NOAA would leverage this capacity to the
betterment of both the weather and climate communities within NOAA.
To answer your second question, the only NWS staff that would be
moved into the proposed Climate Service Line Office would be the
Climate Prediction Center employees and contractors, which currently
number approximately 50 FTEs and 25 contractors. Other staff in the NWS
that work on climate activities, such as NWS staff in local weather
forecast offices that serve as climate focal points for the public,
would remain in the NWS and closely coordinate with the proposed
Climate Service Line Office. This relationship would allow for
leveraging of existing on-the-ground NOAA capabilities, serve as a
nexus between NOAA's suite of weather and climate services, and provide
the public with seamless access to weather and climate information.
Q5. The Weather Service is often cited as a model for the Climate
Service. However, most of the research and science that informs and
helps develop Weather Service products is housed separately within
NOAA's research office. Presumably, this model of distinct research and
weather service activities is working, or NOAA would be trying to
change it.
Q5a. If so, then, why won't the same model work for the Climate
Service?
Q5b. What is your reasoning for proposing that research associated
with climate services be treated differently than research associated
with weather services?
A5a-5b. The dedicated people of NOAA's NWS excel at the 24-hours-a-
day, seven-days-a-week, on-time and on-demand operational aspects of
delivering accurate weather services that the Nation relies on to
protect life and property. In the Weather Service, where the beat of
operations is on the order of minutes to hours to days, the strongest
organizational structure is to separate long-term weather research from
operations because of the long time frame of weather research
investments (5 to 10 to 15 years) and the large operational
infrastructure and subsequent resource requirements of the Weather
Service's 122 forecast offices that require constant attention and
funding streams.
In contrast to the NWS model, where science and service (or
operations) are housed in separate line offices, NOAA would not
envision a service delivery component for the proposed Climate Service
Line Office at the scale of the NWS with its 122 local forecast offices
and other regional infrastructure. The research and science component
of the proposed Climate Service Line Office would continue to be much
larger than its services component, where NOAA intends to employ an
approach that leverages assets outside the proposed Climate Service.
Within NOAA, we would continue leveraging the service delivery
infrastructure of the NWS and other partners like the Regional
Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISAs), Regional Climate Centers,
State climatologists, Sea Grant extension, Coastal Services Centers,
National Marine Sanctuaries, and other parts of NOAA. Given the growing
demands for climate information from business, we are working with
private sector companies that are providing climate information today
or are interested in developing this line of business. This latter
approach is much akin to the relationship between the National Weather
Service and the vibrant private weather community that exists today.
Furthermore, climate services do not have the same beat of
operations as weather services. Climate services are relevant to longer
time scale decisions, such as where and how to build critical
infrastructure, or whether water conservation measures need to be taken
now to mitigate the upcoming drought season. Because climate services
are rapidly evolving, it is beneficial for climate science and service
development to go hand in hand in order to develop products and
services that can evolve together and be initiated rapidly when needed
in response to scientific information as it emerges. Services benefit
from the close proximity to continuous advancements in climate science,
not only because advancements can constantly improve products (science
push), but also because users can be asking new questions of the
science (user pull). Because high-quality climate science is at the
core of climate services, housing both climate science and services
under one organizational structure would allow NOAA to better
transition climate research findings into usable information and
services that help businesses and communities make more informed
economic decisions and safeguard lives and property.
Q6. Recognizing that budget realities demand policymakers prioritize
and make difficult choices, which is a higher priority for NOAA:
enhancing short-term weather prediction to save lives and property from
deadly storms such as tornadoes, or improving long-term predictions of
climate to enhance planning and decision making by business and
governments?
A6. NOAA provides science, stewardship, and service to the Nation.
NOAA's weather forecasts, from minutes out to two weeks, are critical
to protecting lives and property from extreme events. NOAA's forecasts
of two weeks and beyond, also known as climate forecasts, are critical
to making the advanced planning decisions from weeks to months ahead of
time that allow for a prepared response to such events such as the
ongoing drought in Texas. Additionally, NOAA's climate information also
supports informed decision making for national security as well as
economic growth and resiliency in both the short and long term.
NOAA's FY 2012 President's Budget request is the result of a
rigorous review and prioritization ofthe agency's programs and
activities necessary to meet NOAA's responsibilities to the Nation.
Low-priority programs or activities have already been curtailed or
eliminated, core functions and services are sustained, and targeted
increases are requested for only the most critical programs, projects,
or activities necessary to meet the growing demand for NOAA's services.
Both NOAA's weather and climate missions to the Nation will continue to
be a priority for the agency.
Q7. If you move activities such as the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab
in Princeton, whose scientists work collectively and individually on
the multidisciplinary aspects of weather, environmental, as well as
climate modeling, to an exclusive climate service, how do you prevent
the scientists from ``stovepiping'' their efforts, ignoring or dropping
their other diminished modeling pursuits, and losing the current
synergy and collaboration?
A7. NOAA's research labs, including the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Laboratory (GFDL), are at the forefront of our scientific understanding
about the Earth System. Today, GFDL's research is primarily focused on
diverse aspects of climate modeling, including modeling the
interactions between climate and ecosystems and climate and oceans.
Although the lab is principally focused on climate research and
modeling, GFDL's interdisciplinary efforts and collaborations are
translating their climate expertise to NOAA's other mission areas. For
example, GFDL has been applying their work to help answer questions
ranging from the linkages between climate and extreme weather, seasonal
predictions and projections, and fisheries. These interdisciplinary
collaborations are critical to NOAA's mission and would continue under
the proposed Climate Service if approved.
In order to minimize disruption to NOAA's mission responsibilities
and employees, maintain current synergies (such as those GFDL is
engaged in), and leverage material efficiencies, the labs, centers and
programs that have been identified to move to the Climate Service would
be transferred as intact units. NOAA recognizes that while the majority
of the research conducted within the proposed Climate Service would be
climate focused, there are other important research capabilities that
are proposed to move and must be preserved. Similarly, not all of
NOAA's climate research would occur within the proposed Climate
Service. Partnerships across all these parts of the agency, as well as
with a variety of external partners, would be a key to success on such
issues. NOAA recognizes that cross-line integration and coordination on
research issues would continue to be essential, as they are today.
The missions of existing OAR programs that are proposed for
transfer to the Climate Service in the reorganization would not change.
Existing research, modeling, monitoring, and observational programs,
including their internal vs. extramural funding distributions, are also
envisioned to continue under the proposed Climate Service, with
sustenance of the scientific rigor. That said, while the core missions
ofthese programs would not change, minor strategic redirections of
funding would continue to occur each year as a result of careful
program reviews in the context of NOAA's Next Generation Strategic Plan
and NOAA leadership approval in order to ensure the agency's portfolio
of programs most efficiently and effectively meets the Nation's
evolving needs.
NOAA is also using the proposed reorganization as an opportunity to
strategically realign its existing core research line office, the
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), to strengthen the
agency's overall science enterprise. To this end, OAR would have a key
role in ensuring cross line office synergies are maintained and
cultivated, promoting multi-disciplinary collaborations internal and
external to NOAA. Further, as leader of the central research Line
Office, the OAR assistant administrator would become the senior advisor
to the NOAA Chief Scientist and would serve as vice-chair of the NOAA
Research Council.
Q8. The Committee's understanding is that about 80% of the current
Physical Science Division's work is weather research and water science,
and that about one-third of the Chemical Science Division involves air
quality, weather, water, coasts, estuaries, and oceans research and
science. When you say you are not proposing to move resources away from
non-climate activities, how does that square with the facts?
A8. The proposed transfer would not result in deviations from the core
missions or activities of these programs. The proposed reorganization
does not eliminate or reduce any of NOAA's research and weather
activities (including National Weather Service's budget). In fact,
NOAA's FY 2012 proposal maintains NOAA's research funding levels. As
proposed, NOAA would transfer the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Laboratory, the Climate Program Office, and three divisions of the
Earth System Research Laboratory--Chemical Sciences Division, Physical
Sciences Division, and Global Monitoring Division--to the proposed
Climate Service.
The difference between weather and climate is our Earth's
environmental changes (e.g., the atmospheric conditions) in a short
time (days as weather) versus in long time (weeks, months, years and
longer, as climate). NOAA's weather-related activities are captured in
NOAA's National Weather Service, while the activities of the Physical
and Chemical Science Divisions (from the questions) have more profound
impact on the understanding and prediction of our Earth's climate
system (including the atmosphere, water, ecosystem, etc).
The Physical Sciences Division (PSD) was created during the
formation of the Earth System Research Laboratory in 2005 to address
time scales from weather (less than two weeks) to those normally
associated with climate variability (seasonal- to-interannual time
scales). PSD maintains a significant focus on water resources (too
much/too little), supporting NOAA programs such as the
Hydrometeorological Testbed (HMT) and the National Integrated Drought
Information System (NIDIS). While 80% of the current PSD work may be
weather research and water science, it is closely integrated with
short-term c1imate research and serves a broad range of applications.
For example, PSD is preeminent in the science of air-sea interaction,
which has led to improvements in both weather and climate models.
Because PSD research cuts across time scales, it is quite effective in
diagnosing the origins of extreme events such as droughts, floods, and
heat waves so as to improve their prediction and to inform adaptation.
Approximately one-third of the Chemical Sciences Oivision (CSO)
work involves air quality, weather, water, coasts, estuaries, and
oceans research. However, the CSO work that could be termed
``nonclimate'' is very closely tied to understanding impacts of climate
change and variability, and it also contributes to climate research as
well. In addition, the tools used for air quality research are very
closely aligned with climate research. The CSO work on weather is
mostly related to boundary layer meteorology that is fundamental to
assessing climate impacts, wind energy, and evaluation of emissions
essential for climate studies.
Q9. In your testimony, you state that you look forward to working with
this Committee to continue to advance NOAA's mission-focused science
enterprise. Do you see NOAA as an operational agency supported by
science, or do you see NOAA as a science agency with operational and
regulatory functions?
A9. NOAA has a three-part mission--science, service and stewardship.
NOAA works to understand and predict changes in climate, weather,
oceans, and coasts; to share that knowledge and information with
others; and to conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and
resources. Science provides the foundation and future promise of the
service and stewardship elements of NOAA's mission.
Q10. NOAA's Next Generation Strategic Plan issued in December 2010
outlined four primary goals for the future. The first long-term goal is
climate adaptation and mitigation. Within that goal, the first
objective is to improve scientific understanding of the changing
climate and its impacts. ``Research on the connections between weather
and climate, for instance, is necessary to understand how a changing
climate may affect precipitation patterns and severe weather events,
including hurricanes. On decadal-to-centennial time scales, research is
needed to understand feedback between atmospheric greenhouse gases and
the rate of global-to-regional climate impacts, such as changes in sea
level, heat waves, droughts, and air and water quality. Research is
required to understand how changes in the global ocean circulation
affect the climate system and their subsequent impacts on coastal
regions, including sea level rise, ocean acidification, and living
marine resources.''
Q10a. These research needs describe areas of fundamental climate
science. If, as the National Academy of Sciences said in a 2001 report,
research supporting a climate service should be mission-oriented, where
will NOAA conduct the basic research needed to answer these questions?
Q10b. Aren't the assets you are proposing to move out of the Oceanic
and Atmospheric Research office the same ones that conduct this
underlying research? If so, why would you move such assets into an
organization that requires operationally directed research?
A10a-10b. Science at NOAA is the systematic study of the structure and
behavior of the ocean, atmosphere, and related ecosystems; integration
of research and analysis; observations and monitoring; and
environmental modeling. NOAA science includes discoveries and ever-new
understanding of the oceans and atmosphere, and the application of this
understanding to such issues as the causes and consequences of climate
change, the physical dynamics of high-impact weather events, the
dynamics of complex ecosystems and biodiversity, and the ability to
model and predict the future states of these systems. Science provides
the foundation and future promise of the service and stewardship
elements of NOAA's mission. All NOAA science relates to NOAA's mission,
and is therefore mission-oriented.
The proposed Climate Service would include basic physical science
research as well as adaptation and other applied climate research. As
proposed in the PB FY 12, OAR would transfer the Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory, the Climate Program Office, and three divisions of
the Earth System Research Laboratory--Chemical Sciences Division,
Physical Sciences Division, and Global Monitoring Division--to the
proposed Climate Service. The proposed transfer would not result in
deviations from the core missions or activities of these programs.
Creating a single Line Office would establish a stronger position
for NOAA to strategically guide its climate research, monitoring, and
assessment work in a coordinated fashion. Climate services are rapidly
evolving; therefore, it is beneficial that climate science and service
development go hand in hand to develop products and services that can
evolve together and be initiated rapidly when needed in response to
scientific information as it emerges. Services benefit from the close
proximity to continuous advancements in climate science, not because
advancements can constantly improve products (science push), but also
because users can be asking new questions of the science (user pull).
Because high-quality climate science is at the core of climate
services, housing both climate science and services under one
organizational structure would allow NOAA to better transition climate
research findings into usable information and services that help
businesses and communities make more informed economic decisions and
safeguard lives and property. It also would enable improved information
sharing and more productive partnerships. with federal agencies, local
governments, private industry, and other users and stakeholders.
As mentioned above, this reorganization proposal would maintain the
highest standards of scientific integrity for all NOAA science. In
doing so, the proposal would preserve OAR as NOAA's core research and
innovation hub, a key NAPA recommendation, and would seize on the
opportunity to strengthen science across NOAA by strategically renewing
OAR's forward-looking research agenda. In proposing to house much of
OAR's climate research in the proposed Climate Service Line Office,
NOAA would both be able to better transition its high-quality climate
science into usable services and seize upon the opportunity to refocus
OAR's efforts to incubate solutions to tomorrow's long-term science
challenges, integrate an agency-wide science portfolio, and drive NOAA
science and technology innovation.
Q11. Keeping in mind the accuracy problems encountered by the National
Weather Service, what assurances can you provide regarding the accuracy
of and uncertainties associated with projects issued by a NOAA Climate
Service, which will presumably forecast climate and weather patterns
weeks and months out in the future, and on regional scales?
A11. NOAA has instituted a major initiative to strengthen science
across the agency. As laid out in the draft Vision and Strategic
Framework document, through strength in research, the Climate Service
would aim to grow the body of scientific knowledge about climate
variability and change, including the determination and quantification
of uncertainties and confidence intervals. The Climate Service would
ensure its data, information, and services meet the highest standards
of scientific excellence. This mandates careful quality assurance,
including:
Rigorous and internationally recognized procedures for
calibration and validation of observation and monitoring systems;
Transparent peer-review procedures for articles,
documents, and assessment reports;
Quantification and accurate communication of uncertainty
in model outputs; and
Accessible metadata documenting the quality of data
products and services.
The Climate Service would identify--and make public--the teams
responsible for the quality assurance of particular products, to ensure
that its services are trustworthy, relevant, well described, and easily
accessible.
The National Weather Service continually improves its forecasting
accuracy and abilities through investments in new technology and a
skilled workforce. This improvement is tracked with performance
measures that show outcome-based results. For example:
Since 1990, NHC's Official Annual Average track forecasts
(based on track error) have improved by about 60%. Current five-day
error is as large as the three-day error was just 10 years ago. In
other words, today's five-day forecast is as good as 2000's three-day
forecast. As Craig Fugate, Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, said recently, ``if this year was just 10 years ago,
they would have had to evacuate Florida's coast for Hurricane Irene''
(evacuations were ordered for NC and northward).
Tornado warning lead time has increased from less than
five minutes in the early 90s to over 14 minutes today. Tornado warning
accuracy has increased from 40 percent to 75 percent over the same
time. Flash flood warning lead time increased from about 14 minutes to
over 90 minutes over the past 20 years.
Climate outlooks, predictions and projections would be held to the
same rigorous scientific standards and results monitored with
performance measures.
Q12. A primary justification you have cited to argue for creation of
the Climate Service is that NOAA has been ``inundated'' with requests
for climate information from businesses as well as State and local
governments.
Q12a. Approximately how many such requests have you received? With
respect to forecasts, approximately what percentage of these requests
are longer-term in nature, i.e,. beyond one year?
A12a. Americans who depend upon NOAA's climate information to make
decisions for their family, business, and community balance sheets are
now demanding more data, increasingly complex products, and advanced
scientific study. A more efficient and effective organizational
structure, such as the proposal that the President included in his FY
12 budget proposal to Congress, would better enable NOAA to meet these
demands. At this time, with so many requests coming into the agency
through multiple venues, NOAA can only track the aggregate number of
requests and does not have the capacity to inventory individual
requests.
However, the following aggregate statistics demonstrate the
tremendous increase in demand from such sectors as business, insurance/
reinsurance, finance, energy, transportation, water management,
agriculture, national security, and resource management via incoming
requests through a number of NOAA's user interfaces.
(1) Direct requests from users for climate-related data and
information services: From fiscal year 2009 to 2010, NOAA saw an
increase of 11 percent in direct requests (includes individual requests
via phone calls, emails, and other direct correspondence) from 26,000
to 29,000 individual requests.
(2) Climate-related data provided from data centers: In FY 2010
NOAA provided 86% more climate-related data from data centers as
compared with data provided in FY 2009--from 806 terabytes to 1,500
terabytes (or 1.5 petabytes). This stems both from an increased
quantity of data available and a greater number of user requests. To
put this in context, a Kindle or other electronic book download
averages about 800,000 bytes. Using this as a comparison, NOAA provided
a total of at least 1.9 billion Kindle books worth of climate data,
roughly 867 million more Kindle book equivalents than in 2009.
(3) In calendar year 2010, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
(NCDC) Comprehensive Large Array data Stewardship System site served
over five times as much climate-related data as in calendar year 2009--
from 43 terabytes to 253 terabytes.
(4) From FY 2009 to FY 2010, Web hits for NOAA climate services
experienced a 57% increase in climate-related data and information Web
site hits--from 906 million to 1.4 billion hits. This does not include
hits to our new Climate Portal that launched in February 2010 and
currently hosts over 27,000 visitors every month. Because of the huge
numbers involved, it would not be practical to provide documentation of
each request. We can, however, provide statistics as to the origin of
the requests related to the domain name of the user request. Our
statistics indicate the following approximate distribution over the
past two years.
.com ---- 15%
.edu ----- 9%
.gov ---- 12%
.mil ----- 1%
.net ---- 24%
.us ------ 7%
Foreign - 13%
Unresolved 19%
Such demands come in from multiple interfaces across multiple Line
Offices within NOAA, and we do not track them in a comprehensive
manner. Housing NOAA's climate activities in one line office could
allow us to more effectively track and analyze the nature of these
requests.
For example, while NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
cannot currently maintain an inventory of specific requests, NCDC does
maintain a program of user engagement and services in 12 key economic
sectors including: agriculture, civil infrastructure, coastal hazards,
energy, health, insurance, litigation, marine and coastal ecosystems,
national security, tourism,transportation and water resources.
A recent analysis by staff of NCDC and the Cooperative Institute
for Climate and Satellites (CICS) used statistics collected by one of
NCDC's primary partners, the Regional Climate Centers (RCC) and an
analysis of orders from NCDC's Climate Data Online service to get a
snapshot of the sectoral breakdown of key customers for RCC services
and, by proxy, NCDC, as shown in the following graph. This analysis
indicated that businesses and consultants account for more than 20% of
customer orders with a customer group breakdown.
Within this increasing demand are requests from a breadth of
economic and industry sectors,including both governmental, private
sector, and non-governmental stakeholders. Specific examples of these
types of requests that were received include:
An agricultural expert in Wilkes County, NC, requested
daily high and low temperatures for the 2010 growing season from April
1, 2010, thru October 31, 2010, to calculate the growing degree days or
temperature above 50+ F in the Wilkes County area. He is researching
growing degree days and length of growing season for a possible
vineyard in the Yadkin Valley, American Vitacultural Area.
Firefighters in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona used
seasonal, weekly and daily temperature forecasts to help prepare for
and respond to this record wildfire season.
Emergency managers along the Mississippi, Missouri, and
Red River basins used seasonal snowpack, precipitation, and river
forecasts to help prepare communities for the onset of flooding months
before it began.
Public Service/Utility Commissions around the country
downloaded NOAA's Climate Normals, which include spatial and temporal
averages of climatological variables (e.g.,temperature, precipitation,
etc.) that describe base climatic conditions. Utilities subsequently
use this information in formal processes to determine the rate that
each utility is allowed to charge its customers.
Municipalities around the country accessed NOAA's U.S.
Snowfall Climatology information, which includes historical information
about the severity of extreme snowfall events and return period
probability. This information is used to develop annual municipal
snowfall removal budgets and results in efficient planning and cost
savings.
Q12b. Although you include an appendix in your testimony that claims
to list these requests, it does not give us a full scope of the
requests you claim NOAA has been getting. Will you compile a complete
list of these requests and provide it to the Committee?
A12b. The appendix in Dr. Lubchenco's testimony before the House
Science, Space, and Technology Committee provided a summary list that
is representative of requests the agency receives for climate
information. At this time, due to the limitations of our staff, budget
and organizational structure, we are not able to quickly provide a
complete and comprehensive list of all requests received across NOAA's
broadly distributed access points for climate information and services.
When NOAA has this capacity, we would be pleased to share this
information with the public and the Committee. The answer for 12a
represents the best overall characterization of requests that our
tracking systems are able to reasonably provide at this time.
Q13. How much money had NOAA already spent on transition activities
prior to the April 15th Appropriations Act that prohibited the use of
funds for such activities?
Q13a. Which line office did those funds come from?
Q13b. What functions did NOAA forgo in order to find the funding for
these transition activities?
Q13c. Please provide the Committee with a dollar amount spent on
transition activities in FY 11 up through April 15th, and specify
exactly what the funding was used for.
A13a-13c. The 2011 Full-Year Continuing Resolution Appropriations Act
(the Act), Sec. 1348, states ``None of the funds made available by this
division may be used to implement, establish, or create a NOAA Climate
Service as described in the `Draft NOAA Climate Service Strategic
Vision and Framework' published at 75 Federal Register 57739 (September
22, 2010) and updated on December 20, 2010: Provided, That this
limitation shall expire on September 30, 2011.'' NOAA has not used any
funds to implement, establish, or create a NOAA Climate Service, as
prohibited by the Act.
The Act does not apply retroactively; therefore, to the extent the
Committee suggests that the Act prohibited the use of funds for
activities undertaken prior to the date of enactment of the Act, we
respectfully disagree.
Q14. In a December 2010 interview regarding the NOAA Climate Service
(NCS) activities, Tom Karl, Director of NOAA's National Climatic Data
Center and transitional director of NCS, said, ``We're moved in . . .
we're waiting for the marriage certificate, but we're acting like we
have a Climate Service.'' This appears to contradict your testimony
that NOAA is not currently implementing a Climate Service program. Can
you explain the discrepancy?
A14. The quote above was an unfortunate misstatement and did not
accurately characterize the realities of our planning efforts to submit
a formal proposal to Congress. I want to assure you that NOAA has not
implemented, established, or created a NOAA Climate Service as
prohibited by the 2011 Full-Year Continuing Resolution Appropriations
Act.
Q15. Public Law 112-10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, prohibits the use of funding to
implement, establish or create a NOAA Climate Service. This limitation
expires September 30 of this year.
Q15a. Knowing of this Committee's reluctance over your agency's
advancement of an NCS without appropriate congressional oversight in
advance, will you continue to abide by this restriction in the absence
of Congress explicitly approving formulation of a Climate Service as
part ofthe FY 12 budget process?
A15a. The 2011 Full-Year Continuing Resolution Appropriations Act (the
Act), Sec. 1348, states ``None of the funds made available by this
division may be used to implement, establish, or create a NOAA Climate
Service as described in the `Draft NOAA Climate Service Strategic
Vision and Framework' published at 75 Federal Register 57739 (September
22, 2010) and updated on December 20, 2010: Provided, That this
limitation shall expire on September 30, 2011.'' NOAA has not used, and
would not use, any FY 2011 funds to implement, establish, or create a
NOAA Climate Service as prohibited by the Act.
NOAA has submitted its reorganization proposal to Congress as part
of the President's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request.
Q15b. Are all NOAA line offices organizations, programs, projects and
activities being conducted as currently authorized and appropriated by
Congress?
A15b. We interpret your question as relating to NOAA's climate
mission. NOAA carries out its climate mission consistent with existing
authority, including the National Weather Service Organic Act, 15 USC
Sec. 313, the National Climate Program Act, 15 USC Sec. Sec. 2901-
2908, and the Global Change Research Act, 15 USC Sec. Sec. 2931-2961,
among other relevant statutes.
Following the passage of the 2011 Full-Year Continuing Resolution
Appropriations Act (the Act), section 1348, NOAA managers were promptly
informed of the prohibition contained in the Act and reminded to
continue to refrain from taking any program, administrative, or
personnel actions to implement, establish, or create a Climate Service
Line Office.
Q15c. Do all NOAA line office organizations, programs, and operations
exist today as constituted on January 1, 2010?
A15c. NOAA's current organizational structure is outlined in the
following two Department of Commerce Department Organization Orders,
which were provided to the Committee on May 6, 2011:
January 7, 2011: Department of Commerce Department
Organization Order: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
00025-5 (prescribes the organization, management structure, and
assignment of functions down to the Staff Office level and to the first
level beneath each Assistant Administrator).
March 14, 2011: Department of Commerce Department
Organization Order: Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere and Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. 000 10-15 (prescribes the scope of authority and
functions of the position of Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere and Administrator of NOAA).
NOAA's line office and program operations continue to be governed
by and in compliance with the NOAA Business Operations Manual dated
February 2011, which describes how NOAA works within the structure
established by the DOOs.
If the Committee would like the versions of 000 25-5, 000 10-15 and
the Business Operations Manual that were effective on January 1, 2010,
we would be pleased to provide them.
Q15d. Has NOAA been planning, transitioning, and/or reorganizing for
the future creation of a Climate Service? Has a Climate Service
transition infrastructure been put in place?
A15d. In order to develop the Climate Service Line Office
reorganization proposal outlined in the President's Fiscal Year 2012
Budget Request, NOAA's expert scientists and managers from across the
agency were engaged in normal planning and budget formulation
activities until the time that the proposal was delivered to Congress
as part of the President's FY 2012 budget. Since that time NOAA has
continued to engage in budget formulation as part of the normal agency
budget process. NOAA has not used any funds to create, establish, or
implement a Climate Service as described in the ``Draft NOAA Climate
Service Strategic Vision and Framework'' published at 75 Federal
Register 57739 (September 22, 2010) and updated on December 20, 2010,
as prohibited by the 2011 Full-Year Continuing Resolution
Appropriations Act, Sec. 1348.
Q15e. Has an interim NOAA Climate Service staff been formed with
policy and operational control of climate science and service programs,
projects, and activities throughout NOAA?
A15e. NOAA's organization and decision-making processes, including
management functions and organizational and strategic structures for
all of NOAA's programs, are outlined in the NOAA Business Operations
Manual, dated February 2011, which was submitted to the Committee on
May 6, 2011. NOAA's climate science and service programs continue to be
governed by and in compliance with that NOAA Business Operations
Manual.
Q15f. Is Tom Karl the NOAA Climate Service Transition Director?
A15f. Since 1998, Tom Karl's official position has been Director of
the National Climatic Data Center. In addition, Tom Karl was assigned
the additional title of NOAA Climate Service Transition Director in
March 2010. His duties were set forth in a memo dated March 5, 2010,
which was provided to the Committee on May 6, 2011. Those duties are
consistent with, and not prohibited by, the 2011 Full-Year Continuing
Resolution Appropriations Act, section 1348.
Q15g. Is there a Climate Service Executive Board in NOAA? If so, what
is the purpose of the Board, and what responsibility and functions does
it carry out?
A15g. There is no Climate Service Executive Board in NOAA. NOAA does
maintain a Climate Strategic Planning Board that coordinates across
NOAA line offices on budget planning and evaluation for NOAA's climate
goal under NOAA's formal matrix management structure--the Strategy
Execution and Evaluation process. In addition, over approximately the
past 10 years, groups of NOAA lab and center directors, and other
officials from across NOAA, have communicated, collaborated, and met in
person in order to improve upon the development and delivery of NOAA's
existing array of climate science and services products, as well as to
develop the proposal for a Climate Service Line Office. These groups
have used various titles to refer to themselves, including ``NCS
Executive Team,'' ``Transition Corporate Board,'' and ``Executive
Board.'' Management responsibility for NOAA activities is set forth in
the DOOs and the Business Operations Manual described in Question 15c,
above.
Q15h. Is NOAA in the process of creating or implementing a new line
office?
A15h. NOAA submitted a proposal in the President's Fiscal Year 2012
Budget Request to create a Climate Service Line Office. NOAA has not
created, established, or implemented a Climate Service Line Office, as
prohibited by the 2011 Full-Year Continuing Resolution Appropriations
Act, Sec. 1348.
Q15i. Is NOAA in compliance with the law in the current Continuing
Resolution statutory language prohibiting implementation, including any
and all planning, transitioning, and reorganizing,for a new Climate
Service line office? If so, does NOAA disagree that Climate Service-
related planning, transitioning, and reorganizing constitute
implementation that is currently prohibited by law?
A15i. Section 1348 of the 2011 Full-Year Continuing Resolution
Appropriations Act prohibits use of FY 2011 funds to ``implement,
establish, or create a NOAA Climate Service as described in the `Draft
NOAA Climate Service Strategic Vision and Framework' published at 75
Federal Register 57739 (September 22, 2010) and updated on December 20,
2010.'' NOAA is in compliance with this law.
Q16. Who currently plans, develops, formulates, and proposes NOAA's
pre-decisional climate science and research budget and program
priorities? Is it OAR? Or is that undertaken elsewhere?
A16. No single individual, entity, or position within NOAA has sole
responsibility for NOAA's entire climate science and research budget
and program priorities. NOAA has climate science and research interests
distributed across the agency. Although most of our climate science and
research assets are primarily located in OAR, NWS, and NESDIS, there
are activities being carried out in NOS and NMFS (e.g., ocean
acidification, and socioeconomic research) that require consideration
and coordination in order for NOAA to develop an effective and
comprehensive climate research portfolio. Priorities and funding for
climate science and services are ultimately driven by NOAA's goal to
maintain the highest quality climate science while being responsive to
user needs, such as making scientific data and information about
climate easily accessible in order to help people make informed
decisions in their lives, businesses, and communities.
NOAA uses a strategy implementation process that builds off the
Administration, Department, and Agency priorities. The process
emphasizes results-based budgeting and evaluation. Planning,
development and formulation of climate science and research priorities
require a collaborative effort across line offices (OAR, NESDIS, and
NWS) and staff offices that house climate-related programs, as well as
with the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Office of Program Planning and
Integration (PPI), and NOAA Headquarters. By using fiscal guidance and
consistent performance measures across each step of the process,
improved communication is enabled among all participants. The proposed
Climate Service line office, if approved by the Congress, would help to
streamline the process and makes it more efficient.
Q17. Does each NOAA line office control budget policy development for
activities funded within their respective office? If not, please detail
and explain any instances in which budget policy for individua/line
offices related to the FY 11, FY 12, and FY 13 budget years is led or
controlled outside of that line office.
A17. Please refer to the previous answer--each NOAA line office, in
collaboration with the NOAA CFO, PPI, NOAA Headquarters, and the
Department of Commerce, works to develop and implement budget policy
for activities funded within their respective line office. Please see
NOAA's Business Operations Manual and NOAA's Next Generation Strategic
Plan for further information.
Q18. Have you enlisted the NOAA General Counsel to help compile,
review, and fully and legally comply with my explicit, targeted inquiry
made on March 15 for transition plans, directives, and assignments,
including emails, regarding the Climate Service? If so, who and when?
If not, why not?
A18. As with other significant Congressional document requests, the
NOAA General Counsel's office, along with other offices within the
Department of Commerce and NOAA, are assisting with the ongoing
response to the Committee's March 15 document request.
Q19. Since the announcement of the NOAA Climate Service proposal in
February 2010, have off-site trips, travel, conferences, workshops and/
or retreats been used to make transition and reorganization decisions
and do Climate Service planning, development, strategy, vision, and
implementation?
Q19a. How many out-of-town meetings have there been, and how many NOAA
employees have traveled and attended these gatherings? How much has all
this travel cost?
Q19b. Please submit a listing of all the trips, conferences,
workshops, retreats and other sessions, their itineraries, who
attended, and how much each cost NOAA.
A19a-19b. NOAA's broad suite of climate research, information and
services staff and capabilities is distributed throughout the United
States in numerous labs and centers. In order to ensure NOAA's climate
vision, strategy, and priorities reflect the breadth of its expertise,
it continues to be critically important for the agency's key climate
scientists and managers to be brought together in person from time to
time. Particularly, as NOAA developed its reorganization proposal and
the draft Vision and Strategic Framework, it was more critical than
ever that NOAA hear from scientists and managers across the agency to
ensure that these developments benefit from their insights, expertise,
and experience.
Since NOAA's announcement in February 2010 of the intent to create
a Climate Service in NOAA, there have been a total of five meetings
outside the Washington, DC, metro area focused on developing NOAA's
reorganization proposal, which is contained in our fiscal year (FY)
2012 Budget Request currently before Congress for approval, and writing
the draft Vision and Strategic Framework document.The majority ofthese
meetings have been held in locations where NOAA has facilities (one in
Boulder, CO, and two in Asheville, NC), and the others were held in a
central location (Chicago, IL) relative to the NOAA scientists and
managers who participated.
A total of approximately 81 NOAA employees have traveled to one or
more these five meetings. The number of employees who traveled to each
meeting is listed below.
65 travelers to Boulder, CO;
12 travelers to Asheville, NC;
13 travelers to Chicago, IL;
23 travelers to Chicago, IL;
23 travelers to Asheville, NC.
Total travel costs (e.g., airfare, lodging, per diem, ground
transportation, and miscellaneous) for these meetings were
approximately $117,517.61, for an on average cost of $864/person/trip.
Meetings listed below were attended by climate scientists, subject
matter experts, lab and center directors, headquarters staff, and
administrative staff, including representatives across all NOAA Line
Offices.
Boulder, CO. Travel cost: $ 61,979.60; no facilities
cost.
Asheville, NC. Travel cost: $ 12,433.93; no facilities
cost.
Chicago, IL. Travel cost: $ 17,542.00; facilities cost:
$16,486.32 (for both Chicago meetings).
Chicago, IL. Travel cost: $ 29,784.55; facilities cost
included in item 3.
Asheville, NC. Travel cost: $ 12,263.85; no facilities
cost.
Q20. A recent study looking to cut waste and duplication in the
Federal Government through reorganizations suggested moving NOAA out of
the Department of Commerce, or perhaps splitting it up between the U.S.
Department of the Interior and NASA.
Q20a. What impact would either of these actions have on plans for an
NCS?
Q20b. From Congress' perspective, such actions appear to send a signal
that the Administration may not believe in the need for an NCS--do you
agree?
A20a-20b. NOAA is not clear to which study this question refers. At
this time, the only official reorganization proposal endorsed by the
Administration is included in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget
that was submitted to the Congress in February, 2011--the proposal for
the NOAA Climate Service Line Office. This good government proposal
would allow NOAA to most efficiently and effectively provide climate
information to fuel the American economy, create jobs, and support
resilient communities.
Questions submitted by Representative Andy Harris
Q1. In the hearing you said that NOAA had predictions for sea-level
change in the next 50 and 100 years for my district. Can you please
provide these predictions and include the range of uncertainty
associated with these predictions?
A1. NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS) provides baseline assessments
of sea level trends from historical and present-day water level
observations at more than 128 long-term water level stations using a
minimum span of 30 years of observations at each location. Those data
are compiled into sea level trends, as in the example below for
Cambridge, Maryland (trends for other locations are available at http:/
/www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends). These baselines are important
because the local rates of sea level rise relative to the land are
highly variable depending on the amount of vertical land motion along
the coast. When assessing the potential amount of sea level rise for a
given long-term water level station, the observed trends in relative
mean sea level published by NOAA can be used as ``baseline''
information by extending the observed trend into the future. This makes
no assumptions and uses no input about future changes in the rates of
sea level rise due to climate change; the trends are based on what is
actually observed today. For the mid-Chesapeake Bay on the eastern
shore of Maryland, the relative sea level trend at the NOAA Cambridge
tide station can be used as this observed baseline; the current
relative mean sea level trend at Cambridge, MD, is approximately
3.48mm/yr 0.39. Projecting this observed rate forward from
2010, the sea level would rise relative to the land at Cambridge by 174
mm 19.5 (0.57 ft. 0.06) by 2060 and by 348 mm
34.8 (1.14 ft. para. 0.11) by 2110. These projected rates
are based entirely on actual sea level trends observed over the last 30
years in Cambridge, Maryland, and they do not factor in projected
global sea level rise estimates from the IPCC.
The plot shows the monthly mean sea level without the regular
seasonal fluctuations due to coastal ocean temperatures, salinities,
winds, atmospheric pressures, and ocean currents. The plotted values
are relative to the most recent Mean Sea level datum established by CO-
OPS. The long-term linear trend is also shown, including its 95%
confidence interval. The mean sea level trend is 3.48 0.39
mm/yr, based on monthly mean sea level data from 1943 to 2006. This
equates to a change of 0.57 feet 0.06 over 50 years or
1.14 feet 0.11 over 100 years, but does not factor in
projected effects of climate change on sea levels.
NOAA climate models run by the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Laboratory have contributed to assessments of projections of global sea
level change. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
used such models and low, medium, and high emission scenarios to
project a rise in the world's oceans from a range of approximately
seven to 15 inches (0.58 to 1.25 feet) for scenario B1 (low emissions
scenario) to a range of 10 to 23 inches (0.83 to 1.92 feet) for
scenario A1F1 (high emissions scenario) when comparing the period 2090-
2099 to 1980-1999. \1\ As for uncertainties, the global sea level
change estimates only take into account the contributions of thermal
expansion of the oceans and changes in land ice. They do not include
some aspects of ice sheet dynamics (for example, the possibility of
accelerated melting in Greenland or West Antarctica) because these were
too poorly known at the time of the 2007 assessment to be included with
any scientific confidence. The contributions to future sea level by ice
sheet dynamics and ocean-ice interactions, as well as the regional
distribution of sea level change due to changes in oceanic and
atmospheric circulation, are topics of current active research in NOAA
and in the broader scientific community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Table SPM.3 in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) 2007: Summary for Policymakers.In: Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change,
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global climate models cannot, at this time, provide sea level
projections to the scale of one Congressional district; however,
efforts to increase the spatial resolution of global climate models are
currently underway at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, and
downscaling these global predictions through coastal models with local
fidelity is a current area of research at NOAA. In the meantime, NOAA
is providing state and local communities with tools and expertise to
begin identifying vulnerability to sea level change and other
inundation threats and to visualize a variety of sea level scenarios.
With support from NOAA through the Coastal Zone Management Act, the
State of Maryland is creating a foundation to map, plan, and adapt to
sea level rise, Over the past 10 years, Maryland has collected high-
resolution elevation data to inform models and predictions for flooding
and inundation. In addition, NOAA's National Ocean Service recently
completed a report (2010-01) titled ``Technical Considerations for Use
of Geospatial Data in Sea Level Change Mapping and Assessment,'' which
provides technical guidance to agencies, practitioners, and coastal
decision makers on how to understand, collect, and apply geospatial
data for sea level change assessments and mapping products.
Another resource is the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)
Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1, ``Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-
Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region.'' This report assesses
the effects of sea level rise on coastal environments and presents key
challenges to be addressed. The assessment highlights global and local
sea level rise projects, as well as a case study that describes how
Maryland is dealing with this issue. This report was co-authored by
EPA, NOAA, and USGS.
In addition to sea level rise, the Chesapeake Bay is subject to
storm surges, as was experienced during Hurricane Isabel in September
18-19, 2003. Storm surges of 3-5 ft above normal tide levels were
observed over the central portions of the Chesapeake Bay, 5-6 ft over
the southern portion of the Bay in the vicinity of Hampton Roads,
Virginia, and 6-8 ft above normal levels were observed in the upper
reaches of the Chesapeake Bay near Annapolis and Baltimore, Maryland,
and in most of the main stem rivers draining into the Chesapeake Bay.
Even higher surges occurred at the heads of the rivers, with values of
8.5 ft above normal levels at the Richmond City locks along the James
River in Virginia and nearly 8 ft along the Potomac River in
Washington, DC. Water levels exceeded previous record levels
established in the Chesapeake-Potomac Hurricane of 1933 in Washington,
DC, Baltimore, and Annapolis (see http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
2003isabel.shtml).
Q2. The article on the NOAA Climate Portal we discussed at the hearing
comes from Chesapeake Quarterly. Is Chesapeake Quarterly a peer-
reviewed scientific publication?
A2. Although Chesapeake Quarterly is not a peer-reviewed publication,
it is a high-quality, award-winning publication of Maryland Sea Grant,
an entity that is administered by the University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science. Chesapeake Quarterly is published for a lay
audience and includes articles that explore scientific, environmental,
and cultural issues relevant to the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.
The articles are developed by experienced writers following an
editorial process that provides quality control. The articles draw on
peer-reviewed literature and on other sources of information such as
interviews. Articles are reviewed editorially with source citations
noted.
Q3. Does NOAA pay a subscription fee to publish articles on the NOAA
Climate Portal from publications such as Chesapeake Quarterly?
Q3a. If so, how many publications does NOAA currently pay a
subscription fee to?
Q3b. Please provide a list of all such publications NOAA pays a
subscription fee to publish articles on the NOAA Climate Portal.
A3a-3b. NOAA does not pay a subscription fee to Chesapeake Quarterly
to republish selected articles on the NOAA Climate Portal Prototype;
nor does NOAA pay a subscription fee to any other source of articles
published on the Portal.
Q4. Is the purpose of the NOAA Climate Portal to provide information
to the public from all sources,including advocacy or "gray" literature?
Q4a. How will users of the Web site be able to distinguish between
information from advocacy organizations and information from peer-
reviewed scientific publications?
Q4b. How does NOAA's publication of nonpeer-reviewed data or advocacy
information comply with its responsibilities under the Data Quality Act
to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity
of information (including statistical information) disseminated by
federal agencies?
A4a-4b. The NOAA Climate Portal is a prototype created for the purpose
of evaluating an approach to providing a wide range of objective data
and information that is based on primary climate science sources,
including the peer-reviewed climate science literature, climate science
data, and interviews with subject matter experts. The information
presented, whether peer reviewed or nonpeer-reviewed, is of known
quality or from sources acceptable to the relevant scientific and
technical communities and is labeled so that readers can distinguish
the source. NOAA will take steps to ensure that it more clearly
distinguishes between the types of content appearing in the Portal's
different sections, each of which has its own audience and focus.
The technically qualified managers and editors of the NOAA Climate
Portal Prototype review products before publication and set publication
priorities based upon one or more of the following: (i) significant new
science results, upon publication in peer-reviewed journals; (ii)
relevant case studies in which NOAA climate science and/or services
(such as decision support tools) are used in decision-making contexts
for societal benefit; (iii) information to address commonly asked
questions and/or misconceptions about climate; and (iv) information to
help explain and contextualize climate-related current events and their
societal relevance.
NOAA is committed to scientific rigor and quality on the Portal. To
date, the Chesapeake Quarterly article discussed in Question 2, above,
is the only journal article from a non-NOAA source that has been
published. NOAA will take steps to ensure that its rigorous pre-
publication reviews of products posted on the Portal formally document
the agency's compliance with the Data Quality Act.
Q5. Does the NOAA Climate Portal include the range of uncertainties
related to the information it provides? If so, are these uncertainties
communicated in a way that average users can understand them? If not,
why not?
A5. Describing ranges of uncertainty is an important component of
communicating climate science and our understanding of the impacts of
climate variability and change. NOAA has a strong record of success in
communicating uncertainties around its weather forecasts and warnings,
and is committed to the same when communicating climate research to the
public and translating climate science into usable information for
decision makers. NOAA is committed to being a neutral broker of weather
and climate science and services. In the NOAA Climate Portal Prototype,
NOAA is continuing its work to better communicate uncertainty.
The Portal Prototype includes both peer-reviewed technical articles
that present uncertainty, as well as discussions and presentations of
the concepts of scientific uncertainty for lay audiences through such
vehicles as articles in the Climate Watch Magazine. For example,
scientific uncertainties are addressed in the authoritative, peer-
reviewed literature and climate assessment reports, which are linked to
in the Portal's ``Understanding Climate'' section. Separately, in a
Climate Watch Magazine article, describing how scientists and planners
accommodate the uncertainty of model projections of future climate was
one of the main themes of a story NOAA published about the Boulder,
Colorado's, water supply. As explained in that story, model projections
of future precipitation vary widely--some predicting wetter futures,
some predicting drier futures, and NOAA detailed how scientists studied
the implications for the city's water supply in each of these possible
outcomes; page three of the article is devoted to explaining the
diverging projections and their significance for assessing Boulder's
water supply (see www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article/2011/39522/3).
NOAA also provides Portal Prototype users with references to
authoritative reports and peer-reviewed literature for readers who want
that level of complexity. Permanent links and references to peer-
reviewed, authoritative sources are also provided in the Understanding
Climate section of the Portal Prototype. As NOAA continues to develop
the Climate Portal during this prototype phase, we are committed to
continuing to improve the scientific rigor of the information
presented, including information about uncertainty, through our own
evaluation and valuable feedback from a diversity of external users.
Q6. If the intent of the NOAA Climate Portal is to be a ``one-stop-
shop'' for climate information, why has no other agency posted
information on your Web site?
A6. The intent of the Climate Portal Prototype is to be a ``one-stop-
shop'' for NOAA's climate information. Based upon the success of
prototype and user feedback--and if there is sufficient interest from
other agencies with a commensurate level of contribution and support
from them--the Portal's scope could be scaled up to serve as a one-stop
for climate information and services for all of the Federal Government.
However, the NOAA Climate Portal has published data and information
from other agencies. Specifically, we have published other agencies'
data in the:
Global Climate Dashboard;
Understanding Climate section, which includes links to
authoritative assessment reports published by the USGCRP, the IPCC, the
National Academy of Sciences, and the World Meteorological
Organization;
Education section, which includes links to educational
information produced by many agencies;and
ClimateWatch Magazine, which features quite a few
articles with images and information from other agencies.
NOAA is still in a prototype phase of development, as stamped on
the Portal's banner, and as explained in the ``About this site'' page
at http://www.climate.gov/about.html. NOAA made the NOAA Climate Portal
Prototype available to allow the public to interact with it and provide
the agency feedback as to whether it meets their needs for climate data
and information. Questions and comments from the public are actively
solicited on the ``Frequently Asked Questions'' page at http://
www.climate.gov/faq.html. NOAA has been gathering lessons learned from
this evaluation period to help the agency identify ways of refining and
improving the prototype.
Questions submitted by Representative Paul C. Broun
Q1. What role do NOAA scientists play in the IPCC assessments and in
IPCC policy deliberations, such as the IPCC 33rd Session held in Abu
Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, May 10-13, 2011? Specifically,how many
NOAA employees attended this session? How many NOAA employees attended
the previous session?
A1. NOAA scientists have contributed to the IPCC assessments in
various roles from coordinating lead authors, lead authors,
contributing authors and review editors to overall reviewers. In the
last assessment report, released in 2007, a NOAA scientist served as
co-chair of a Working Group responsible for producing an entire volume
of the report. NOAA scientists and NOAA-supported university partners
also indirectly contribute data, model runs, and other research to the
IPCC Assessments, as these are often cited in the reports.
NOAA has also participated in the intergovernmental aspects of the
IPCC as part of the U.S. delegation to IPCC plenary meetings. NOAA sent
one representative to the Abu Dhabi meeting and one to the session
prior to that in Busan, Korea.
Q2. In last year's InterAcademy Council review of IPCC, the Council
recommended that that IPCC ``should develop and adopt a rigorous
conflict of interest policy that applies to all individuals directly
involved in preparation of IPCC reports, including senior IPCC
leadership (IPCC Chair and Vice Chairs), authors with responsibilities
for report content (i.d., WG Co-Chairs, coordinating lead authors
(CLAs), and lead authors (LAs), Review Editors (Res), and technical
staff directly involved in report preparation (e.g., staff of the TSUs
and the IPCC Secretariat).'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ InterAcademy Council, ``Climate change assessments, Review of
the processes and procedures for the IPCC,'' October 2010, p.53 (http:/
/reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Climate Change Assessments,
Review of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q2a. Do you support that recommendation, and if not, why not?
A8. NOAA supports this recommendation, which the United States
endorsed in its 32nd Plenary.
Q3. At the May IPCC Abu Dhabi meeting, the IPCC delayed adopting a
conflict of interest policy as recommended by last year's InterAcademy
Council review until at least early 2012. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ IPCC 33rd Session, 10-13 May 2011, Abu Dhabi,``Decisions Taken
With Respect to the Review of IPCC Processes and Procedures Conflict of
Interest Policy.''.
Q3a. Given that work on the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (ARS) is
well underway, isn't it imperative for the IPCC to adopt a rigorous
conflict of interest policy as soon as possible to help ensure the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
integrity of the ARS process?
Q3b. Do you agree, and if so, will you urge Dr. Holdren and Secretary
of State Clinton to strongly support this position at the next IPCC
meeting tentatively scheduled in January 2012?
A3a-3b. The United States supported the InterAcademy Council
recommendation for a conflict of interest policy, and the State
Department and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy were
very actively involved in developing the new draft policy for the IPCC
plenary. At the 33rd session of IPCC, the plenary approved a conflict
of interest policy that is consistent with the lAC recommendation, and
that draws heavily from the policy of the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences (NAS).
We expect that the 34th IPCC plenary, currently scheduled for
November 2011, will agree on the process by which the policy will be
implemented. This will make the IPCC one of the few science assessment
processes in the world to have a formal conflict of interest policy.
Recognizing the need to identify and address any conflicts of interest
as soon as possible, each of the Working Groups has applied interim
conflict of interest procedures to authors and editors involved in the
development ofthe Fifth Assessment Reports.
Questions submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. NOAA hired six Regional Climate Service Directors (RCSDs). How do
these RCSDs fit into NOAA's existing activities and mission on climate
science and services? When were they hired? And what would their
role(s) be in the proposed reorganization?
A1. In February 2010, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
issued a vacancy announcement for six Regional Climate Services
Director positions to enhance NOAA's capability to more effectively
meet the fast-accelerating demand for climate-related information.
Following a Nation-wide, competitive recruitment process, the
appointment of the six Regional Climate Services Directors (RCSDs) was
announced in September 2010. The six RCSDs are co-located with NOAA's
six National Weather Service (NWS) regional headquarters offices. This
co-location underscores significant weather-climate linkages and
recognizes the role that existing NWS regional and local service
infrastructure will play in the future of NOAA's weather and climate
services. The directors are building upon a broad range of climate
products and services in NCDC and across NOAA and leveraging the
expertise of widely diverse partners to better assess, refine, and
deliver climate science and information to address specific regional
needs. In this context, the regional climate services directors are
working with NOAA's many partners to identify new and emerging regional
climate issues and help NOAA develop products and services to address
those issues. Some specific examples include:
On July 7, 2011, the Southern Regional Climate Services
Director hosted a South-Central U.S. Drought Impacts Assessment
Workshop in Austin, TX. Over 40 federal, state, local, and private
sector organizations were represented at the event, which highlighted
the current drought status, short- and long-term climate outlooks, a
range of environmental and socioeconomic impacts observed thus far, and
state-level planning and response activities. Outcomes from the
workshop include an updated regional drought outlook and specific pilot
project opportunities with the Texas Forest Service and Lower Colorado
River Authority.
On June 30, 2011, the Western Region Climate Services
Director served as the moderator for a climate business sector
roundtable during the Western Governors' Association (WGA) annual
meeting in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. The roundtable followed the signing of
a Memorandum of Understanding between NOAA and WGA to improve the
development and delivery of climate science and services to Western
states. Private sector attendees--from BNSF Railways to IBM to
PepsiCo--discussed two primary issues: (1) how weather and climate
affect their business operations; and (2) which climate services would
be most useful for NOAA to provide.
On March 8th, 2011, the Central Region Climate Services
Director held a workshop to begin developing and coordinating a
Missouri Basin Climate Collaboration that involved 12 different federal
agencies from across the basin. The meeting was held with agreement of
15 federal executives comprising the Missouri River Basin Interagency
Roundtable (MRBIR). Participants included multiple NOAA offices; the
High Plains Regional Climate Center; the Western Water Assessment RISA;
the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS); National
Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC); the President of the American
Association of State Climatologists (AASC); and representatives of
universities, state, and local government agencies and tribal
interests. Results from the meeting included improved communication to
reduce redundancies and better collaboration on projects of mutual
interest and national and regional priorities.
On June 15th, 2011, Regional Climate Services Director
for the Central Region and core partners met with the City of Chicago
to explore how NOAA climate data and information could aid the ongoing
development and implementation of their Climate Action Plan.
Participants included the City of Chicago, Midwestern Regional Climate
Center, Illinois State Climatologist, Sea Grant representatives from
Illinois/Indiana, ICLEI, and the National Weather Service Chicago
office. The City approached NOAA for assistance with this plan, the
first of its kind for the Chicago metro area aimed at protecting the
lives, environment, and property of the area.
On September 21-22, 2011, NOAA's Central Region Climate
Services Director will host several members of the Oglala Sioux Nation
to discuss how NOAA climate data and information may be of use in
planning the Thunder Valley community on the Pine Ridge reservation.
The project is a product of a HUD/EPA grant to plan sustainable
communities. The tribal members will meet with NOAA representatives,
the High Plains Regional Climate Center, and representatives from other
federal agencies.
NOAA's Eastern Regional Climate Services Director, in
partnership with the Regional Climate Center at Cornell University,
convened a two-day workshop August 3-4, 2011, in Ithaca, NY, that
focused on inland climate impacts and information needs. The workshop
focused attention to the inland areas of the region, with discussions
on climate impacts on agriculture, birds, water resource management,
forestry, migratory fishes, and infrastructure. The meeting brought
together over 50 representatives from all 16 states in the region as
well as federal partners from the Geological Survey, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, Federal Highways, Forest Service, Fisheries Service,
and Weather Service, as well as many of our academic partners at
Cornell.
NOAA's Regional Climate Services Director forthe Eastern
Region is a founding member of two interagency federal partnerships in
the region that focus on climate adaptation and mitigation: the New
England Federal Partners (originating first in 2002, and more formally
organizing in 2006) as well as the newly formed NY/NJ Federal
Partnership for climate, meeting for the first time on July 26, 2011.
These federal partnerships bring together over 15 different federal
agencies with quarterly face-to-face meetings founded on the principles
of communication, coordination, and collaboration on major drivers in
the natural sciences, specifically climate, coastal, and marine spatial
planning, and tribal engagement topics. These federal partnerships,and
others forming in subregions within the East, will serve as the primary
collaborative for the national climate assessment and ongoing regional
climate adaptation hubs for future work together.
The directors are collaborating with regional partners from other
federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments, universities,
the private sector, and non-governmental organizations. In addition to
establishing broad dialogue on regional climate issues, the regional
climate services directors are working to strategically integrate the
work of various NOAA-funded partners already engaged in climate science
and services at the regional level, including the Regional Integrated
Sciences and Assessment (RISA) programs, Regional Climate Centers,
state climatologists, and many partners across the private and
government sector. Integrating the work of these components in a way
that significantly leverages their distinct assets will yield increased
value to users and support more efficient, cost-effective delivery.
Under the proposed reorganization, the RCSDs would continue to serve as
the representatives of NOAA's climate services, providing assistance in
the development, delivery, and evaluation of NOAA products and services
in regions and ensuring that regional climate information needs and
priorities are conveyed back to the NOAA Climate Service leadership to
support the evolution of climate science and services to meet the needs
of decision makers.
Appendix 2
----------
Additional Material for the Record