U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–840PS 2001

OCEAN EXPLORATION AND COASTAL

AND OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEMS

JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,

AND STANDARDS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 12, 2001

Science Serial No. 107–26

Resources Serial No. 107–47

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

JOE BARTON, Texas

KEN CALVERT, California

NICK SMITH, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

DAVE WELDON, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

GARY G. MILLER, California

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MIKE PENCE, Indiana

FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan

ZOE LOFGREN, California

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

JOE BACA, California

JIM MATHESON, Utah

STEVE ISRAEL, New York

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

NICK SMITH, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan

LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan

ZOE LOFGREN, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

JOE BACA, California

JIM MATHESON, Utah

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

JOHN MIMIKAKIS Subcommittee Staff Director

MIKE QUEAR Democratic Professional Staff Member

BEN WU Professional Staff Member

ERIC WEBSTER Professional Staff Member

CAMERON WILSON Professional Staff Member/Chairman’s Designee

MARY DERR Majority Staff Assistant

MARTY RALSTON Democratic Staff Assistant

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

NICK SMITH, Michigan, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

GARY G. MILLER, California

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina

STEVE ISRAEL, New York

LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JOE BACA, California

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

SHARON HAYS Subcommittee Staff Director

PETER HARSHA Republican Professional Staff Member

JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member

DIANE JONES Professional Staff Member

NATALIE PALMER Staff Assistant

(IV)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

DON YOUNG, Alaska

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

ADAM SMITH, Washington

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts

ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILA, Puerto Rico

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

ALLEN D. FREEMYER, Chief of Staff

LISA PITTMAN, Chief Counsel

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk

JAMES H. ZOIA, Democrat Staff Director

JEFF PETRICH, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member

DON YOUNG, Alaska

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

(V)

C O N T E N T S

JULY 12, 2001

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement of Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment,

Technology, and Standards, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 8

Statement of Wayne Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on Resources, U.S. House of

Representatives .................................................................................................... 9

Statement of Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Democratic

Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 10

Statement of Nick Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research, Committee

on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................ 11

Statement of Robert Underwood, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee

on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on Resources,

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 12

Statement of Representative Curt Weldon, Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards; Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................ 13

Statement of Representative Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, Member, Subcommittee

on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on Resources,

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 15

Panel I:

Scott B. Gudes, Acting Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of Commerce ............................................................................................... 17

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19

Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation ...................................... 29

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30

Rear Admiral Jay M. Cohen, Chief of Naval Research ........................................ 34

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 36

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., President, Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education ........................................................................ 38

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 40

Panel I Discussion ................................................................................................... 43

Panel II:

Marcia K. McNutt, President and CEO, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research

Institute ................................................................................................................ 52

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 54

Robert D. Ballard, President, Institute for Exploration ....................................... 56

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 58

Panel II Discussion .................................................................................................. 59

Page

VI

Panel III:

Robert A. Weller, Senior Scientist and Director, Cooperative Institute for

Climate and Ocean Research, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution ........... 68

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 70

J. Frederick Grassle, Director, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences,

Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey .................................................. 80

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 82

Alfred M. Beeton, Chair, Science Advisory Board, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................................................................................... 87

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 88

Alexander Malahoff, Director, Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, University of Hawaii ....................................................................................................... 90

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 92

Panel III Discussion ................................................................................................ 95

Appendix 1: Panel I Biographies, Financial Disclosures, and Answers to

Post-Hearing Questions

Scott B. Gudes, Acting Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of Commerce ...............................................................................................

Biography .......................................................................................................... 108

Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation ......................................

Biography .......................................................................................................... 110

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 112

Responses by the National Science Foundation to Post-Hearing Questions ................................................................................................................ 113

Rear Admiral Jay M. Cohen, Chief of Naval Research ........................................

Biography .......................................................................................................... 116

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., President, Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education ........................................................................

Biography .......................................................................................................... 118

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 120

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions ............................................................... 121

Appendix 2: Panel II Biographies, Financial Disclosures, and Answers to

Post-Hearing Questions

Marcia K. McNutt, President and CEO, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research

Institute ................................................................................................................

Biography .......................................................................................................... 125

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 128

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions ............................................................... 129

Robert D. Ballard, President, Institute for Exploration .......................................

Biography .......................................................................................................... 131

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 134

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions ............................................................... 135

Appendix 3: Panel III Biographies, Financial Disclosures, and Answers to

Post-Hearing Questions

Robert A. Weller, Senior Scientist and Director, Cooperative Institute for

Climate and Ocean Research, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution ...........

Biography .......................................................................................................... 138

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 139

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions ............................................................... 145

J. Frederick Grassle, Director, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences,

Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey ..................................................

Biography .......................................................................................................... 147

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 149

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions ............................................................... 151

Alfred M. Beeton, Chair, Science Advisory Board, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ...................................................................................

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 154

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions ............................................................... 155

Page

VII

Alexander Malahoff, Director, Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, University of Hawaii .......................................................................................................

Biography .......................................................................................................... 157

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 159

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions ............................................................... 160

Appendix 4: Additional Material for the Record

Submitted Statement of Dr. William J. Merrell, President, H. John Heinz

III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment .................................. 162

International Commitments for Argo Floats, NOAA ............................................ 165

NOAA Research handout on Ocean Exploration ................................................... 168

‘‘Ocean Observatories,’’ Oceanus, Vol. 42, No. 1, Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution, 2000 ................................................................................................... 170

(1)

OCEAN EXPLORATION AND COASTAL AND

OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEMS

JULY 12, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,

AND STANDARDS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

JOINT WITH SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES

CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 1 p.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers

[Chairman of the Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee] presiding.

2

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

Joint Oversight Hearing on:

Ocean Exploration and Coastal and Ocean Observing

Systems

Thursday, July 12, 2001

Witness List

Panel I:

MR. SCOTT B. GUDES

Acting Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of Commerce

DR. RITA R. COLWELL

Director, The National Science Foundation

ADMIRAL JAY M. COHEN

Chief, Office of Naval Research, U.S. Navy

ADMIRAL CONRAD LAUTENBACHER, JR.

President, Consortium for Oceanographic Research & Education

Panel II:

DR. MARCIA K. MCNUTT

President and Chief Executive Officer, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

DR. ROBERT D. BALLARD

President, Institute for Exploration

Panel III:

DR. ROBERT A. WELLER

Director, Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

DR. J. FREDERICK GRASSLE

Director, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University

DR. ALFRED M. BEETON

Senior Science Advisor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

DR. ALEXANDER MALAHOFF

Director, Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, University of Hawaii

3

HEARING CHARTER

Ocean Exploration and Coastal and Ocean Observing

Systems

On Thursday, July 12, 2001, at 1:00 p.m. in 2318 Rayburn House Office Building

the Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, and

the Science Subcommittees on Research, and Environment, Technology and Standards will hold a hearing on ocean exploration, and the development and implementation of coastal and ocean observing systems. The following witnesses are scheduled to testify:

Panel I

Mr. Scott B. Gudes, Acting Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Department

of Commerce

Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director, The National Science Foundation

Rear Admiral Jay M. Cohen Chief, Office of Naval Research, U.S. Navy

Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr., President, Consortium for Oceanographic

Research & Education

Panel II

Dr. Marcia K. McNutt, President and Chief Executive Officer, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

Dr. Robert D. Ballard, President, Institute for Exploration

Panel III

Dr. Robert A. Weller, Director, Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Dr. J. Frederick Grassle, Director, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers

University

Dr. Alfred M. Beeton, Senior Science Advisor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Dr. Alexander Malahoff, Director, Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, University of Hawaii

II. BACKGROUND

This hearing follows up on hearings in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses

on Federal interagency cooperation on ocean research and particularly on the

progress of, and plans for, the implementation of an integrated and sustained-ocean

observing system. The hearing will also examine the need to coordinate the rapidly

proliferating coastal observing systems. Finally, it will review the Report of the

President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration and the implementation of that report’s rec- ommendations.

Until the last decade, technological limitations confined oceanographic research to

discrete observations that were not available in real time, continuously or over long

time periods. These limitations in data acquisition, dissemination and analysis in

turn limited our understanding of the structure and processes of the marine environment. Over the last decade, advances in the technology of in situ and remote

sensors (data acquisition), and data transmission, distribution and analysis has

greatly expanded our ability to monitor ocean and coastal processes in real time,

continuously and over long time periods.

These new capabilities have already lead to enormous advances in. our understanding of the coastal and marine environment. However, these sensors have only

been deployed on relatively small scales, and the systems that are deployed are

have not been coordinated into an integrated system that will optimize our understanding of the oceans. Coordinating and, of course, funding an integrated and sustained coastal and ocean observation system will have many benefits. Such a system

will assist in:

• detecting and forecasting oceanic components of climate variability;

• facilitating safe and efficient marine operations;

• ensuring national security;

• managing living resources for sustainable use;

• preserving healthy and restoring degraded marine ecosystems;

4

• mitigating natural hazards; and

• ensuring public health.

Recognizing the technological revolution that was underway in oceanographic research, and concerned that the fractured structure of Federal ocean oversight and

research programs may be preventing the Federal government from capitalizing on

those technological advances, the House Resources, Science and Armed Services

Committees held a hearing in 1995 on leveraging Federal oceanographic resources.

As a result of the hearing, Congress enacted the National Ocean Partnership Act

(NOPA) in 1996.

NOPA established the National Ocean Partnership Program (NOPP), an interagency coordinating and grant making program lead by the Navy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Science Foundation

(NSF). NOPP is operated under contract with the Consortium for Ocean Research

and Education (CORE), a private group that represents U.S. coastal and ocean research institutions. The interagency coordinating functions are carried out by the

National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC) which is made up of 12 Federal agencies with significant ocean-related responsibilities. NORLC uses the 10

member Ocean Research Advisory Panel (ORAP) to assist in outreach to non-Federal governmental and research entities.

In 1998, as a follow on to the enactment of NOPA, the Subcommittee on Fisheries

Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans held a hearing on a National Research Council

paper, entitled ‘‘Opportunities in Ocean Sciences: Challenges-on the Horizon’’. That

hearing examined recent advances in understanding the ocean through the application of up-to-date technologies, and future oceanographic research needs. The report

concluded that technological advances have greatly expanded the ability of scientists

to observe the depths of the ocean, and to establish real time, or near real time,

long-teen monitoring of ocean phenomena. The most well publicized example of this

is the El Nin ̃ o/Southern Oscillation mooring array that allowed scientists to track

the large 1998 El Nin ̃ o and the subsequent La Nin ̃ a in the equatorial Pacific Ocean.

If these enhanced technological abilities are harnessed properly, they can generate

the data needed to understand the many other annual and decadal trends that

occur in the world’s oceans and atmosphere. Decoding these large-scale, long-lived

events can lead to improved weather and climate forecasts, and improved natural

resources management. According to the National Research Council report:

‘‘Ocean observations have always been the driver of new knowledge and predictive capabilities in the ocean and its basins. Ocean drilling has produced

sediment cores that provide our best long-term records of natural climate fluctuations. Submersible observations (both piloted and robotic) opened our eyes

to hydrothermal vents and the unique life forms that surround them. Our

present ability to forecast and assess El Nin ̃ o variability depends critically on

the coupling of extensive oceanic and atmospheric observations with increasingly accurate computer models. Despite these and many other accomplishments, the oceans remain vastly undersampled in time and space.’’

‘‘With new technologies, new kinds and levels of ocean, ocean/atmosphere, and

ocean/solid earth observations can be made.. . . In the future, data from ocean

sensors, undersea vehicles, and satellites can be combined with highly capable

communications systems and computer models to assess the evolving daily state

of ocean currents, temperature, nutrients, biota, ice, and air-sea fluxes. The

overall system can then display for anyone, on the world wide web, accurate estimates of the present state of the ocean. The information can be put to practical use for such diverse purposes as improved weather prediction, safer offshore operations, better short-term climate forecasts (e.g., El Nin ̃ o), and more

successful management of living resources. The resulting system will be capable

of providing as good an ongoing assessment of the ocean as is currently taken

for granted for the atmosphere and land surfaces.’’

As a result of that hearing, the then Chairs of the Resources Subcommittee on

Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans and Armed Services Subcommittee on

Military Research and Development wrote to the National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC) requesting that the Council prepare a ‘‘plan to achieve a

truly integrated ocean observing system’’. In response to that request, a NORLCappointed Ocean Observation Task Team under the direction of ORAP drafted the

plan. After an interagency review, that report, Toward an Integrated Ocean Observing System, was provided to Congress in April 1999. It was then used to prepare

a December 1999 NORLC report entitled An Integrated Ocean Observing System: A

Strategy for Implementing the First Steps of a U.S. Plan. The two subcommittees

held a hearing on those report in May, 2000.

5

The implementation plan prepared by NORLC describes the process that needs

to take place in order to develop that system of accurate, up-to-date ocean measurements in a way that integrates the needs of all of the ocean agencies. The reports

did not specify the details of agency programs and budgets. It did suggest that an

initial infusion of $30 million was necessary to begin system implementation, and

that the cost could rise to $100 million per year over 3–5 years. No budget requests

of that magnitude have been made. The December report concluded that there are

no technical nor legislative impediments to implementing a National Ocean Observing System and, with proper and realistic investment, a comprehensive national

ocean observing system can be built within ten years. It did, however, identify that

there are two main components currently missing: a framework and the necessary

funding.

The report concluded that the framework necessary to build an integrated ocean

observing system need not be fully determined at the outset, rather it should be dynamic and respond to the needs of the system as it matures. In the beginning, however, the framework should build upon the existing NOPP statutory and management structure. In addition, NOPP should be used to allocate and coordinate funding decisions. NOPP provides a mechanism to augment ongoing activities and immediately start key near-term initiatives in a phased approach to implementation.

Recently NORLC has established Ocean.US, the National Office for Integrated

and Sustained Ocean Observing and Prediction. This office will coordinate the

framework for the integrated system. It is assumed that most of the elements of the

system will be developed and operated by the Federal agencies whose mission those

elements serve, or in the case of the coastal components of the system by local or

regional research institutions. The connections, including data comparability standards will be organized by NORLC through Ocean.US. Currently NOPP funding is

inadequate to address gaps in the system, establish data standards, or coordinate

data storage.

Many potential components of an integrated system exist or are being planned.

The El Nin ̃ o/Southern Oscillation mooring array has already been discussed, but

other ocean observing efforts are also underway. Examples include:

• The VENTS program was established in 1984 in order to better understand

the spreading of the seafloor in the Pacific Ocean. Not only is the geology

being reviewed at these hot spots under the sea but also the unique and only

recently discovered ecology surrounding these vents. In 1996, the VENTS program deployed high-quality acoustic hydrophones which augmented the

Navy’s SOSUS hydrophone arrays, allowing underwater volcanic activity to

be more closely monitored and studied. This understanding will shed light on

the emissions stemming from these underwater eruptions as well as provide

an understanding of the events that surround the spreading of the ocean

floor. Additionally, the organisms found at these hydrothermal vents may

have significant industrial biotech applications. The VENTS website is http:/

/www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/home.html

• NEPTUNE is establishing a fiber optic transmission system to bring data

from sensors that surround the entire Juan de Fuca Plate on Washington, Oregon and British Columbia. NOPP is providing primary funding for this

project. The NEPTUNE website is http://www.neptune.washington.edu/

• In the Mid-Atlantic, the Long-Term Ecosystem Observatory in 15 meters of

water (LEO–15) has been under development for several years with most of

the funding coming from NSF. LEO–15, operated from a field station in

Tuckerton, New Jersey, and incorporates biology, geology, chemistry and

oceanography through the monitoring of the marine environment at a depth

of 15 meters. With the application of in-situ technology and satellite imagery,

a better understanding of current systems and the associated sediment transport can be acquired, which may provide invaluable insights into areas suffering from recurrent hypoxia. Several projects in the Southeastern United

States are now being planned. The LEO–15 website is http://marine.rutgers.edu/cool/

• Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is currently developing the Martha’s

Vineyard Coastal Observatory for Meteorological & Oceanographic Studies.

The Observatory’s website is http://www.whoi.edu/science/AOPE/airsea/observatory.html

• NOAA and other agencies are funding the ARGO buoy program. These drifting profiling buoys provide data about temperature, salinity and current over

large geographic areas, and relatively inexpensive to deploy and operate. The

ARGO website is http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

6

• The Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System (GOMOOS) provides data for the

New England coast. The Navy provides most of the funding for this project.

The GOMOOS website is http://www.gomoos.org/

• NOAA operates tsunami warning buoys as part of the Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, a partnership between NOAA and several state governments.

The Program’s website is http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tsunami-hazard/

index.html

• NOAA operates Physical Real Time Oceanographic Systems (PORTS) that

provide real time tide and current data at several major U.S. ports. The

PORTS website is http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/co-ops.html

It is clear from this sampling of sites that coordination of coverage, and data comparability and storage are important issues that must be addressed.

OCEAN EXPLORATION

On June 12, 2000, President Clinton directed the Secretary of Commerce to convene a panel of experts to formulate a national strategy for ocean exploration. The

Secretary did so, and on October 10, 2000, presented to the President the Report

of the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration. This Report presents specific recommendations to increase the amount of time and funding that is available to carry

out ocean research, actions to create a strategic plan, and highlights the need for

a multidisciplinary exploration program for the U.S.

The Panel found that much of the ocean has not been subjected to scientific review, and that no specific program existed to fund and coordinate ocean exploration

in the United States. The Panel recommended: 1) the mapping of the physical, geological, biological, chemical and archaeological aspects of the ocean; 2) exploring

ocean dynamics and interactions at new scales to better understand the complex

interactions of the ocean; 3) developing new sensors and systems for ocean exploration to regain a U.S. lead in marine technology, and; 4) reaching out to stakeholders and better educate all ages about the oceans through new methods of information dispersal. The Panel recommended a 10 year/$75 million per year program

of dedicated exploration voyages to accomplish these goals.

After the report was delivered, NOAA established an Office of Ocean Exploration

within the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. In fiscal year 2001, $4 million was appropriated to NOAA for ocean exploration. NOAA used this money to leverage existing ocean research initiatives including east coast research on the

ALVIN, and work in the Gulf of Mexico, the Astoria Canyon off the mouth of the

Columbia River, and at the MONITOR excavation site.

For fiscal year 2002, NOAA has requested $14 million for ocean exploration. This

money would be invested in undersea exploration, research and technology in the

deep ocean and areas of special concern. NOAA specifies that the money requested

would support goals fully consistent with the recommendations of the President’s

Panel on Ocean Exploration. The new exploration effort would focus on five areas:

new ocean resources, exploring ocean acoustics, American’s maritime heritage, exploring ocean frontiers, and the census of marine life.

All the projects proposed in Fiscal Year 2001 and 2002 are conducted in partnership with other NOAA and Federal programs as well as academic institutions, and

nongovernmental organizations. Recommendations for partnerships must also include a broader organizational strategy to ensure the needs of all the partners are

met. The Panel suggested the President instruct the White House Science Advisor

and appropriate Cabinet officials to design a management structure so that it is a

recognized uniform process as ocean exploration expands and more interests become

involved.

To encourage development of potential opportunities and new resources, the Panel

recommended U.S. laws be reexamined to provide proper incentives for potential

commercial users of ocean discoveries. Possible actions include: increasing funds to

federal agencies to support early-phase research on discoveries with commercial potential; providing incentives to private industry to encourage the funding of research

and development of discoveries with commercial potential, and; designing mechanisms whereby those who directly profit from the exploitation of marine resources

support research on their environmentally sustainable use.

Finally, the Panel advocated a new national Ocean Exploration Program to permit

exploratory expeditions because the initial phase of oceanographic discovery ended

before the oceans were fully explored and new tools now exist that allow exploration

in dimensions that were unachievable 50 years ago when oceanographic research expeditions were still broad based, and multidisciplinary. An exploration program differs from research that is currently being done in that an exploration expedition has

7

no specific idea or theory it is gathering data to prove or disprove. An expedition

would gather as much interdisciplinary data as possible about a site rather than

just explore a single aspect of the site.

ISSUES

1) What funding did each of the Navy, NOAA and NSF request in Fiscal Year 2002

for ocean and coastal observing systems?

2) What are other countries contributing to the integrated ocean observing system?

Is there an international structure in place to coordinate the contributions of various nations?

3) Will the ocean observing system help sort out natural versus human induced contributions to climate variability? How can additional ocean and coastal observation data and technologies best be integrated with existing meta data and observation technologies used to monitor global climate change?

4) How will data be retrieved from the various platforms to be deployed in the integrated ocean observing system?

5) What ocean and coastal observations can be made by satellites?

6) How will agencies coordinate information exchange so that the same research is

not undertaken multiple times, including military research in areas that might

have national security interests but also biological, chemical, geological or other

area importance also?

7) To what extent can Department of Defense assets and data be utilized for greater civilian use in exploration and monitoring?

8) What new technologies should be developed to enable a more expansive and comprehensive ocean exploration capability?

8

Ocean Exploration and Coastal and Ocean

Observing Systems

Chairman EHLERS. I am pleased to call this meeting to order. We

just did a little re-juggling. The problem is we have a vote on the

floor. We had planned to go and vote immediately and come back,

but now, we discovered that there is going to be a second vote because there is an attempt by one of the parties, which shall remain

unnamed, to delay things today. And so we decided to go with the

opening statements and then we will—whenever we have to leave

for the first vote, we will leave, try to get both votes and come back

as quickly as we can.

I am Vernon Ehlers. I will also be sharing the Chairmanship

with Mr. Gilchrest of Resources Committee and with Mr. Smith of

the Research Committee—the Science Committee. And so I will

begin with a fairly brief opening statement.

I want to thank my friends and colleagues, Chairman Gilchrest

and Chairman Smith for working with me to put together this

Hearing. I will keep my remarks brief, as we have many distinguished witnesses to hear from today. However, I must mention

while it took me seven years before I was able to chair a Hearing

in this room, it has taken Mr. Gilchrest only one month as the

newest member of the Science Committee. That is what we call

rapid advancement. We recognize talent when we see it.

But this is a Hearing that I have wanted to put together for

some time. And I talked to Mr. Gilchrest about it months ago and

said, oceanography and ocean sciences is too badly split. We have

to put it together and this is our first attempt to do that.

Ocean science is clearly a topic that transcends jurisdictional

lines. But that appears to be one of the biggest obstacles to advancing ocean science, whether in exploration or the creation and integration of ocean observing systems. While our subcommittees have

made a commitment to work more closely together, we also need

further cooperation and coordination among the various Federal

agencies and the research community, in general, on ocean science

issues. The problem is not just Congressional Committees, but also

the Federal structure and the research community’s interest.

With limited financial resources dedicated to ocean research, we

must agree on specific priorities to achieve goals. I am particularly

interested in how an integrated National and International ocean

observing system will promote our understanding of climate

change. Oceans are clearly a poorly understood but critical piece of

our efforts to model climate change. Obviously, we must agree on

what data needs to be collected, by whom and how in order to improve our climate modeling efforts.

After reviewing the written testimony, I am concerned about the

seemingly disparate efforts toward this aim. I also want to make

sure that that data and the information collected, analyzed and

stored for all parties to use effectively. This is no simple task.

I hope that our witnesses will help provide some guidance on

where our subcommittees can work together to help the ocean

science community achieve a consensus on where to allocate resources and how to move these issues forward.

9

We will simply proceed down the line. I will next recognize

Chairman Gilchrest for his comments—opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Vernon J. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE VERNON J. EHLERS

I want to thank my friends and colleagues, Chairman Gilchrest and Chairman

Smith for working with me to put together this hearing. I will keep my remarks

brief as we have many distinguished witnesses to hear from today. However, I must

mention that while it took me seven years before I was able to chair a hearing in

this room, it has taken Mr. Gilchrest only one month as the newest member of the

Science Committee.

Ocean science is clearly a topic that transcends jurisdictional lines. But that appears to be one of the biggest obstacles to advancing ocean science, whether in exploration or the creation and integration of ocean observing systems. While our subcommittees have made a commitment to work more closely together, we also need

further cooperation and coordination among the various federal agencies, and the

research community in general, on ocean science issues. With limited financial resources dedicated to ocean research, we must agree on specific priorities to achieve

goals.

I am particularly interested in how an integrated national and international

ocean observing system will promote our understanding of climate change. Oceans

are clearly a poorly understood but critical piece of our efforts to model climate

change. Obviously, we must agree on what data needs to be collected by whom and

how in order to improve our climate modeling efforts.

After reviewing the written testimony, I am concerned about the seemingly disparate efforts towards this aim. I also want to make sure that the data and information is collected, analyzed, and stored for all parties to use effectively. This is no

simple task.

I hope that our witnesses will help provide some guidance on where our subcommittees can work together to help the ocean science community achieve a consensus on where to allocate resources and how to move these issues forward.

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank Mr. Ehlers—Dr. Ehlers, Chairman. I ask

unanimous consent that my full statement be submitted to the

record.

Chairman EHLERS. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. GILCHREST. And basically, welcome all the witnesses here

this afternoon. We look forward to your testimony. We do live on

this infinitesimal blue-and-white speck in the midst of an infinite

hostile environment upon which we have no place to go. So it is important to us, very simply, to take upon ourselves a difficult, complex task of taking care of our home.

I think we have the ability to do it. Richard Leakey said in his

book, Origins, some 25 years ago, that we have the genetic predisposition for cooperation. So that we can include that understanding in the various Federal, State, local, private sectors initiative to understand the cooperative effort that will reveal a great

deal about the heart and blood of the planet. And the co-evolution

of species, along with the wonders and the mysteriousness of our

blue oceans. We will get the job done. And succeeding generations

will be very pleased with that effort. Whether it is sustaining the

fishing industry by sustaining the fisheries in an ecological way, to

understanding the nature of man’s activities in the atmosphere and

the climate. All these things can be done and now is the time to

do it.

I thank Mr. Ehlers. I was here, though, in 1991, Vern. So it has

taken me quite a long time, even though I left the Committee for

a while. But I appreciate the rapid advancement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gilchrest follows:]

10

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WAYNE GILCHREST

Today’s hearing follows up on efforts over the last three Congresses to improve

interagency cooperation in oceanographic research, and on implementing an integrated, sustained ocean observing system. As a result of those hearings,

• Congress created the National Ocean Partnership Program, and,

• the ocean partnership agencies have

• developed a plan for implementing an ocean observing system; and

• created an office called Ocean.US [Ocean-dot-US] to coordinate the Federal ocean observing efforts.

I look forward to hearing today what progress we can look forward to in the near

future on making the planned ocean observation system a reality. In other words:

where’s the money.

This hearing will also look at how to coordinate the work of current and proposed

coastal observing systems. Data from these systems can greatly improve our ability

to monitor and predict significant short and long changes in the coastal environment. Such knowledge can improve natural resources management, and lessen the

damage from storms and other natural phenomena.

However, the data from these systems needs to be consistent and readily available

in order to be useful. Clearly, the Federal government should assume this data comparability and access responsibility. I look forward to hearing how the ocean partnership agencies intend to fill this role.

Finally, this hearing will examine implementation of the Report of the President’s

Panel on Ocean Exploration. It is estimated that we have explored less than 5% of

the ocean. However, since World War II broad-based interdisciplinary oceanographic

research voyages that looked at all aspects of the ocean environment have been replaced by increasingly narrow single purpose research enterprises. This level of

specificity has lead to great leaps forward in the understanding of ocean processes.

However, these narrow efforts have failed to capture the public’s imagination.

This failure may help to explain the extraordinary disparity in funding between

ocean research and space and health research. Unfortunately, with the exception of

a limited, though spirited, response from NOAA, the ocean partnership agencies

have chosen to hide behind their narrowly focused mission needs rather than look

at how to coordinate those needs and create interdisciplinary missions that may

spark public interest and support. I hope we will hear today how such missions can

be created without diverting or wasting limited agency resources.

We have a long afternoon ahead of us, but, given our distinguished witnesses

breadth of experience in and knowledge about ocean exploration and research, it

should be a very interesting day.

Chairman EHLERS. Yes. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. We—the normal process is to recognize the Ranking Members, but the Ranking Members for the

other Subcommittees have not come. But let me just, in the interest of fairness, turn next to the Congresswoman from Texas, Ms.

Eddie Bernice Johnson, for her opening statement.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask for

unanimous consent just to submit my full statement and simply

say——

Chairman EHLERS. Without objection, so ordered.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you.

The oceans encompass seventy percent of our planet’s surface

and are the last frontier on earth to be explored, but we spend

most of our time on 30 percent, which is ground level. And every

now and then, we are reminded of the importance of the oceans

when our weather patterns shift to El Nin ̃ o, when commercial fish

catchers decline, when our beaches are closed due to red tides and

when pollution-related problems threaten the quality of coastal waters. We don’t always give it the kind of attention needed. So I am

very pleased that these Subcommittees are going to bring our efVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Dec 18, 2001 Jkt 073840 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 D:\WORKD\ETS\071201\73840 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
11

forts together to do that. I do think it is an important area. Thank

you very much.

[The prepared statement of Eddie Bernice Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

I want to join my colleagues in welcoming our witnesses to this hearing on ocean

exploration and ocean observing systems.

The oceans encompass 70% of our planet’s surface and are the last frontier on

earth to be explored. Since most of us spend our time on the other 30% of the earth’s

surface, we tend to focus more of our attention and research efforts on it.

Every now and then, we are reminded of the importance of the oceans when

weather patterns shift due to El Nin ̃ o, when commercial fish catches decline, when

our beaches are closed due to red tides, or when pollution-related problems threaten

the quality of coastal waters.

I am pleased that our three subcommittees are focusing their attention on this

important area today. We will review the research opportunities that are now available. In doing so, we need to consider whether effective coordination and collaboration exists among the relevant federal research agencies, and whether the required

resources are available to exploit those research opportunities.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I thank all of you for being with

us this afternoon.

Chairman EHLERS. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

We will recognize Chairman Smith for his opening statement.

Mr. SMITH. Thanks to all the Ranking Members of these committees and, certainly, the Chairmens of these committees. We held

a—just about exactly 12 months ago, we did hold a Hearing on this

subject. We have much still to learn. And, Mr. Chairman, also

without objection, I would ask that my full statement be entered

into the record.

Chairman EHLERS. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. SMITH. As we explore more of the processes that drive the

ocean and are driven by the ocean, it becomes apparent how much

more we have to learn. And so I welcome this opportunity to examine all of these ways and I look forward to the testimony.

National Science, Dr. Colwell, of course, National Science Foundation is one of the keys in the funding of this area. In fact, of the

four major Federal agencies that play a role in ocean sciences, the

NSF, the U.S. Navy, NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, NSF contributes the largest share. About $255 million. It is an important aspect and if there is any area that we need

to pursue aggressively in terms of our knowledge and understanding, it is certainly this area of our earth and planet. And I

yield back, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Nick Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICK SMITH

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Twelve months ago, at a joint hearing of the Subcommittees on Basic Research and Energy and Environment covering some of the

issues we will examine today, I said, ‘‘If our oceans are a window on the life on our

planet—and elsewhere—we have only just parted the curtains.’’ Judging from the

written testimony our witnesses have submitted, the statement is correct and we

have much to learn. As we explore more of the processes that drive the ocean and

are driven by the ocean, it becomes apparent how much more we have to learn. And

so I welcome this opportunity to examine the way in which we manage the federal

role in that exploration effort.

A key part of that effort is enabled by funding from the National Science Foundation. In fact, of the four major federal agencies that play a role in the ocean

sciences—NSF, the U.S. Navy, NOAA, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)—NSF contributes the largest share, about $255 million. And,

12

in light of the recent developments with the VA–HUD appropriation legislation, it

appears that amount is likely to increase. So I am interested in how NSF views that

investment and its role in the overall ocean exploration effort.

I am also very interested in examining how effectively the agencies represented

here today—and all the agencies involved in ocean science—coordinate their research efforts. We must make the best use of the resources available at each agency.

How would future research efforts like the Ocean Observing System or the Oceans

Exploration program be implemented at each agency?

We have much to learn about how our oceans work including how they drive and

shape our climate. In fact, it is clear that predictions about future climates are not

reliable. So I am pleased that we will review our knowledge about oceans today, and

talk about ways to increase it. I want to thank all of our witnesses, and I look forward to the testimony.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank the gentleman for yielding back. And

I next recognize Mr. Underwood, who has probably come from the

area most surrounded by water of any member.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, of course,

oceans are very important to Guam. And I know it is frequently—

the comment is made that I don’t know, I guess some—a majority

of our population lives within 50 miles of the ocean. 100 percent

of my population lives within 4 miles of the ocean, so it is very important. But I have a statement that I will submit for the record.

I would just make one observation. NASA scientists said yesterday that they have found signs of water around a distant star, suggesting that there may be planets outside of our own capable of

supporting life. How spectacular that is that we may have found

water in space with life-sustaining capabilities, yet we don’t really

know all the life which exists in our own oceans.

While this doesn’t prove that we have confused priorities, it certainly suggests that we need an ocean exploration strategy for

planet Earth. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Robert Underwood follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT UNDERWOOD

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some of the finest minds in ocean exploration, observation and research are with us today, which says a lot about the growing importance for Congress to develop a comprehensive ocean exploration and observation

policy.

If there is one thing we can all agree on, it is that not enough is known about

the oceans that cover 70% of the Earth’s surface. This includes the more familiar

waters immediately adjacent to the continental United States, and the lesser known

portions of the EEZ further off-shore in the Western Pacific.

In recent years, a number of thoughtful reports, such as the President’s Panel Report ‘‘Earth’s Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration’’ and ‘‘A National Initiative to Observe the Oceans,’’ prepared by the Consortium for Ocean Research and Education, have been circulated. These reports demonstrate that there

is a legitimate need for a more robust national ocean exploration and observation

program. There should be greater incentives to encourage cooperation across sectors

in order to bring together the strengths of the Federal and non-Federal sectors.

Most importantly, there is a need to establish a long-term Federal commitment to

ocean exploration and to build and deploy a cohesive ocean observing system.

From the Resources Committee perspective, we ought to ask how a focused ocean

exploration program or an integrated observation system would benefit the management of ocean resources, in particular biological resources such as fisheries. Where

or what is the appropriate link from ocean exploration and observation to resources

management?

The plans for ocean observation and exploration that have been brought to my attention focus on the general, large-scale picture. But it remains uncertain how the

actual implementation of these programs would incorporate the expertise of local island communities, particularly researchers and resource managers in the Western

Pacific. Local knowledge and capabilities should be tapped or we are missing someVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Dec 18, 2001 Jkt 073840 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 D:\WORKD\ETS\071201\73840 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
13

thing important in the equation for getting the most out of this investment in technology.

Finally, while we are developing this new program, we must ensure that the benefits of this investment in new technology for ocean exploration and observation is

understood by the common citizen, not just scientists and researchers. For without

broad public support, it will be impossible to sustain any long-term strategy. Thank

you again, Chairmen, for holding this joint hearing and I look forward to the suggestions that our witnesses have worked so hard to produce.

NASA scientists said yesterday that they have found signs of water around a distant star, suggesting that there may be planets outside of our own capable of supporting life. How spectacular is that—we may have found water in space with lifesustaining capabilities, yet we don’t even know what life exists in our oceans! While

this doesn’t prove the U.S. has confused priorities, it certainly suggests that we need

an ocean exploration strategy for the planet Earth.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you for the statement. We have two

minutes and 33 seconds left to make it to the vote. So we stand

in recess.

[Recess.]

Chairman EHLERS. The Hearing will come to order. I had intended to wait for all the other Chairmen to return, but let us

begin. We have with us—joining us, Mr. Weldon, who is an active

member of this Committee. And I believe, also, another—are you

in Resources, as well? Natural. Okay. And who—he was a leader

several years ago and, in fact, when my early years in the Congress. What I am trying to put together is a bill covering ocean research and oceanography, an immense, Herculean effort and Mr.

Weldon is very active, very hard-working and I appreciate his effort

on that. I would give him an opportunity to give an opening statement.

Mr. WELDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I applaud you and

the other Subcommittee chairs for this Hearing. In fact, it was six

years ago that we, in fact, had three full Committees join together,

the Armed Services Committee, of which I have been a member for

17 years, the Science Committee, which I have been a member and

the Natural Resources Committee. We held three Hearings around

the country. One up in Rhode Island, one out in California and one

here in Washington, on the whole issue of oceanographic research.

And what we found during those Hearings was the fact that we

had a disjointed effort that was not coordinated among our Federal

agencies. In fact, at that time, we had nine separate Federal agencies. Each of which had at least a partial function involving ocean

research. And not that I want to distort my good friend, Nick

Smith, but I believe the largest funder of ocean research is actually

the U.S. Navy, if I am not mistaken. And Admiral Cohen, you can

correct me if I am wrong.

So as a result of those Hearings, what we did was we introduced

that National Oceans Partnership Act, which Patrick Kenney and

I co-sponsored. That did become law as a part of our Defense Bill.

And actually was the vehicle to bring together, through dollar allocations, the nine Federal agencies involved in ocean research. Since

the formation of NOPP, we have actually increased that, I believe,

by two additional agencies. Our panelists can discuss that today.

And we have begun to raise the awareness and the coordination of

the need for more ocean cooperation.

As another direct result of that action, we formed the Oceans

Caucus. The Caucus now has four co-chairs, two from each party.

14

I am one of the co-chairs and we now have about 60 Members of

Congress who have agreed to work on an oceans agenda.

We also work very closely with Admiral Watkins, who could not

be here today. He was Admiral Cohen’s predecessor. Well, actually,

the CNO, I should say. Admiral Gaffney was his predecessor. And

working with Admiral Watkins, he, in fact, led the formation of the

consortium for oceanographic research and education. Which for

the first time, brought together all the Nation’s oceanographic research institutions. From Woods Hole to Scripps, to all of those

major universities that have a stake in ocean research.

So I would say, Mr. Chairman, that since the initial effort in

1995, there has been, in fact, significant progress. The focus on

ocean research and the needs of our oceans has significantly improved. We have held several International Hearings and conferences in this country, one involving 200 delegates from 35 nations where Speaker Gingrich and Vice-President Gore, on the

same day, spoke about the need for more proactive effort on the

oceans.

The problem has been two-fold. First of all, we have a Federal

agency system that requires us to try to bring together 11 separate

and disparate agencies. The NOPP Program has begun to provide

that coordination. And it is a beginning, but it is not enough. The

New Oceans Commission, which I hope you all speak to today, in

fact, should take that one step forward. I would be remiss if I

didn’t say I am somewhat concerned that the administration of

which I am a strong supporter, has not moved, in my opinion,

quickly enough to one, appoint the Ocean Commissioners and to

name a Chairperson. In fact, during the questioning today, I will

propose some ideas that I have about that function and that position. And hopefully, convince Admiral Watkins that he should step

to the plate, if he would so desire and lead that effort.

The second problem is the Congress. We have a number of Subcommittees and full Committees that have various parts of jurisdiction on ocean issues. I chaired the Research Committee for National Security, which had a major chunk of that for six years. I

now Chair the Readiness Committee. I have a separate chunk of

those operational dollars. We need to find a way in the Congress

to convince the leadership to allow us to bring together, as you are

doing here, an ongoing legislative agenda focused around an oceans

agenda.

Because the problems of the oceans are real. They are severe.

There are many opportunities for us. You are going to be exploring

one of those today. There are many other opportunities that we

should be using. It is also a way for us to build coalitions with

some of our potential adversaries. In particular, Russia and China.

Where we can, in fact, work together on a common oceans agenda.

So I would applaud these Subcommittee chairs for this Hearing.

I would say as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee

and a senior member of this Committee, I will continue to be an

outspoken voice for further cooperation, so that we, in fact, have a

coordinated oceans agenda hopefully led by the new Oceans Commission with the kind of coordinated support that you are seeing

from these panels. And trying to make sure that legislatively, we

are putting more resources into the oceans.

15

Sylvia Earl, who is probably one of the most renown people on

the oceans in this country, when she was the Chief Scientist for

NOAA, she used to say that we spend more on the development of

the waste removal system for our space launch capability than we

do on studying the oceans. We spend more on studying the oceans

of Mars than we do on studying the oceans of the U.S. That is an

absolutely unacceptable reality. And we have got to change that.

So hopefully, this Hearing will help continue what I think has

been a very positive movement over the last several years to bring

forth the more coordinated and positive and cohesive agenda on the

oceans and how the U.S. can affect, in a positive way, that agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for his comments and

for all his hard work in this issue over the years. And I hope that,

indeed, this is the first step toward creating the agenda that you

are referring to.

It is the policy of the Science Committee that the Chairman and

Ranking Members make opening statements, that all other statements be entered into the record. I exceeded that only for Mr.

Weldon because of his long-standing role in this. And if a member

of the minority wants to make an opening statement to counteract

that, I will be happy to recognize Mr. Faleo for—sorry. John Wayne

Vega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA John Wayne is just fine, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman EHLERS. You actually look like him.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. He’s more handsome.

Chairman EHLERS. You may proceed.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity. And I, too, would like to echo your sentiments and express

my sense of appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for

his leadership and tremendous efforts in raising a higher sense of

consciousness, not only among the members, but certainly in our

National policy about the importance of the ocean.

And probably no two members can appreciate more what the

ocean is about than myself and the gentleman from Guam. Where

every time we have to travel to our home districts, we have nothing

but the ocean. Not only is the Pacific Ocean B of the Earth’s surface, but culturally and historically, our people have always been

part of it and in a very historical and in a very personal way. A

couple of years ago, maybe 10 years ago, I was privileged to sail

on a Polynesian voyaging canoe from Tahiti to Hawaii. Non-instrument navigation without sextants and all of that, Mr. Chairman.

We used the stars, as it was done by my ancestors thousands of

years ago. And we do have a very, very close affinity and association with the ocean.

Unfortunately, it has been my observation, and I think our National policy toward the ocean has always been military and strategic. I think we need to get away from that, even though it is important, as it is. But the fact of the matter is, and I am sure that

this has already been stated. We are able to land a man on the

moon, but we don’t even know what is underneath—in the ocean.

Now, let alone the Marianas Trench and the Tohman Trench, some

of these resources have diminished potential on some of the things

that we need to look into, very, very valuable and important.

16

And I think from this perspective, Mr. Chairman, two—a classic

example, in my opinion, in the years that I have followed the issues

of the oceans, policies of our Nation, we have a National Program

known as a Sea Grant Program with an annual appropriation of

only $60 million a year that is supposed to give some sense of understanding and appreciation of our communities about the ocean

and the viability and the importance of it not only as a resource,

but so many other programs that we can do in association with the

needs of our country. Compare that to the Land Grant Program

that gets well over $1 billion in funding. And I am not putting

down the Land Grant Program, Mr. Chairman, and its importance.

The fact of the matter is that this is an area that—and I am

talking about the oceans and the resources—we—our Nation is far

behind what other Nations in the world are going into, not only in

developing technology, not only in learning from the resources of

the marine environment, the fisheries and so many other things

that we know we must understand a little more in appreciation of

this valuable resource. We are not ahead, in my humble opinion,

as far as if we compare ourselves comparatively to other countries.

I say this, also, with the real sense of concern about the seabed

minerals. The law of the Sea Conference has real, serious implications, especially in the area Mr. Underwood and I represent. I can

cite you an example, Mr. Chairman; the Cooke Islands government.

I know many people who probably never heard of the Cooke Islands. It is a little island with about 30,000 people, but three million square miles of jurisdictional ocean and as equivalent, a value

over $200 billion estimates of the seabed nodules that contain

magnese, cobalt, nickel. These are the kinds of things that I think

that nothing has been done about, as far as our National policy is

concerned, Mr. Chairman. And I hope in your efforts as Chairman

of the Science Subcommittee that relates to this, let us push oceans

a lot better and with greater intensity as we have done in the past.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you for your comments. And we—I am

pleased that the Pacific Islands and the Pacific Oceans are so wellrepresented here. Without objection, all other statement—opening

statements will be entered into the record. And we will proceed

with our panel.

17

PANEL I: SCOTT B. GUDES, DR. RITA R. COLWELL, ADMIRAL

JAY M. COHEN AND ADMIRAL CONRAD LAUTENBACHER, JR.

Chairman EHLERS. We are pleased to have an outstanding panel

here. Mr. Scott Gudes, Acting Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at the Department of Commerce. Dr. Rita Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation. Admiral Cohen, Chief, the

Office of Naval Research at the U.S. Navy. And Admiral

Lautenbacher, who is the President of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education. Sometimes called CORE. When I

was a student at Berkeley in the sixties, there was another CORE

that I became better acquainted with.

It is a pleasure to have you all here and I thank you for taking

the time and we will just simply go down the line. Mr. Gudes?

STATEMENT OF SCOTT B. GUDES, ACTING UNDERSECRETARY

FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. GUDES. Good afternoon, Chairman Ehlers, Chairman

Gilchrest, Members of the Subcommittee and Staff. On behalf of

Secretary Don Evans and the men and women who make up

NOAA, it is my pleasure to represent all of them here today to talk

about a few issues that are at the core of NOAA’s mission. We are

talking about a different core: ocean exploration, ocean observations and coastal observations. And I should note, as I was listening to the opening statements, there are a number of other issues

in the oceans that are of great interest to us, from Sea Grant, the

marine sanctuaries that we talked about. But I was asked to talk

about these three areas. And that is what my testimony will

revolve around.

The President’s budget includes some $170 million for these programs in fiscal year 2002 to conduct NOAA activities in these

areas. And I want to thank the Resources and Science Committees

for your strong support for them. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to

note at the outset that my own view is that these are interrelated

subjects. That they are really all about understanding the oceans.

So let me turn first to ocean exploration and our role at NOAA.

Ocean exploration is an area that NOAA takes very seriously

and I believe it is an area, frankly, where we really haven’t stepped

up to the plate of what the original mandate was for NOAA when

we were created in 1970 by the Stratton Commission recommendations. It is an area of personal interest to me. In fact, this Monday,

a few days ago, I was over at the Monitor Marine Sanctuary in

North Carolina, watching the joint Navy/NOAA effort to recover

elements of that wreck. Most people know the ironclad from 1862.

It was the first National Marine Sanctuary in our system. And it

is really a great example of joint agency efforts on the oceans. Literally, after this hearing, I am going to be flying off to Oregon to

be in Newport tomorrow morning to welcome back an effort by Oregon State University and other researchers in NOAA. It is an exploration mission of the Astoria Canyon, which really continues the

legacy of Lewis and Clark, if you will.

Last year, at Secretary Mineta’s request, a blue ribbon panel of

marine scientists and explorers was convened by the previous adVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Dec 18, 2001 Jkt 073840 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 D:\WORKD\ETS\071201\73840 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
18

ministration to review this Nation’s efforts in ocean exploration.

The panel was chaired by Dr. Marsha McNutt and included a number of prominent experts in the oceans, Dr. Bob Ballard. Both of

those people are testifying on a later panel. It recommended the

United States undertake a National program of ocean exploration

and discovery, of which discovery and spirit are the real cornerstones. And we have set up an office of ocean exploration headed

by Captain Craig McLean, who is here and Dr. Steve Hammond,

our Chief Scientist, is here, as well, today.

On the slide before you are a few of those examples. That is

Astoria Canyon and the Monitor. But also, is a picture—an image

of a squid that was discovered in a joint NOAA, Texas A&M, University of North Carolina-Wilmington mission with Woods Hole’s

ALVIN Submersible in the Gulf of Mexico last year. Which makes

the point of just how many species we really haven’t discovered

that we know are out there. This is just from a year ago.

Next slide, please. I have made the point to both of your Committees before, that for NOAA, the O in NOAA is not only the

oceans—the saltwater around the United States—but it also includes the Great Lakes. That goes back to the very origins of our

Agency. And NOAA and Dr. Bob Ballard jointly conducted an

acoustic mapping and survey of shipwrecks and geological phenomena in our Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary in Lake

Huron, Michigan. That is our newest marine sanctuary. My slide

shows an image of the Montana, which sank in 1914. And, finally,

about ocean exploration, I will just point out that we have set out

the program so that 10 percent of any dollars that are appropriated

by the Congress for this Program will go to education and outreach.

Because that is a big part of what our NOAA Ocean Exploration

Program is about.

Next slide, please. Turning to ocean observations. I want to make

the point that we really don’t have the same amount of measurements in systems in the oceans that we do on land. And I asked

our satellite service yesterday to give me a recent image. I think

that is from two days ago. I don’t know if all the members can see

that, but red are the land-based observations of the atmosphere.

And in blue are the observations in the oceans just a few days ago.

And it—it is not perfect as an image, but it does sort of represent

this point that we have a lot more measurements on a daily basis

on land than we do in the oceans. And that is part of what ocean

observations and, frankly, coastal observations are about. It also

points out another point that for NOAA, we are the Civil Operational Remote Sensing Agency.

We operate two types of satellite systems. And, in fact, ocean remote sensing is part of what we are about. And, in fact, it is also

atmospheric measurements. Over the Southern oceans, it is our

polar satellites, actually, that are the main source of data that we

get for weather and climate around the world. Our polar satellites

provide sea surface temperatures—there is an image for you

there—on a daily basis. And the National Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite System, which I have talked about before with

both of the Committees, which is a partnership between the Department of Defense, NOAA and NASA, will really, also be an

ocean satellite. And that will provide sea surface temperatures,

19

ocean colors, scatterometry, if you will, surface winds and altimetry.

The next slide shows two observation programs that are important to NOAA. First, the TOGA TAO or atlas buoys that we maintain across the equatorial Pacific. This is how we are able to monitor and predict El Nin ̃ o, La Nin ̃ a and other ocean temperature

changes. And on the upper right are the ARGO floats, which dive

down to 2,000 meters, drift and surface while taking salinity, temperature and current measurements and then broadcast these data

to satellites. The ARGO float then dives back down and drifts

again for 10 days. I should note, again, this is an example of partnership. The ARGO floats’ research and development was done at

Scripps in California, with funding by the National Science Foundation. ARGO, if you will, is a radiosonde system or weather balloon system for the world’s oceans. Our budget proposes about $8

million, which will get us up to 275 floats per year to get to this

3,000 worldwide system. And NOAA puts this funding out through

the National Ocean Partnership Program or NOPP, along with the

Navy, NSF and other agencies.

And to go back to the comments, I think, that were made by Congressman Weldon and others, NOPP is an excellent mechanism to

bring all the agencies together. And I think that CORE does a

super job in supporting this.

Let me just go to the last slide. I see that I am on the red light.

I think this always happens when I get a chance to testify about

the oceans, which I care about. It is about port systems—Chesapeake Bay. Let me just get to the final system on tsunamis. Just

one thing we don’t think about that much; our tsunami warning

devices. These are if—I am not sure if they are coastal or ocean,

frankly. They are out in the deep ocean, but they are about doing

coastal hazards for communities. These were developed by the Pacific Marine Environment Lab. And they actually measure very

minute changes in ocean pressure that enable us to tell whether

or not earthquake generated waves or tsunamis are coming across

so we can get warnings out.

About two weeks ago, I took part in the first Tsunami readiness

program in Ocean Shores, Washington. I know there are members

here from the Pacific. This is a big issue we don’t talk a lot about

on the East Coast. But it is a very big issue about coastal hazards

and about using these observational systems to really protect life

and safety.

There are a number of other issues I would like to talk about.

But let me just thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Chairman of the— and all the members of the Subcommittee for giving us this opportunity today. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Scott B. Gudes follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT B. GUDES

Good afternoon, Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman Ehlers, and Chairman Smith,

members of the subcommittees and staff. My name is Scott Gudes, and I am the

Acting Administrator and Deputy Under Secretary of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It is my great pleasure to be here this afternoon

to testify on three important topics that are at the core of NOAA’s mission-ocean

exploration, coastal observations and ocean observations. NOAA believes that these

three topics are components of one mission—to understand the complex dynamics—

physical, biological and geochemical—that shape the world’s oceans and Great

20

Lakes. History shows us that voyages of discovery-like Charles Darwin’s expedition

on the HMS BEAGLE, are often followed by longer term observation and monitoring

efforts. I expect that our initial exploration efforts will also be followed by the implementation of ocean and coastal observing systems which will routinely collect, record

and transmit data on the state of our fragile ocean and coastal regions. Conversely,

I expect that our coastal and ocean observing systems will uncover secrets or anomalies that are beyond our ability to decipher and must be investigated further by

targeted voyages of exploration.

Ocean Exploration

Thirty-one years ago, the Stratton Commission proposed the creation of an agency

that we know today as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In

their final set of recommendations, the Stratton Commission included an entire

chapter that indicated that this new ocean agency should develop U.S. leadership

in ocean exploration. Over the last three decades, NOAH has successfully pursued

a course of ocean management, ocean resource protection, and of primarily management-focused ocean research and monitoring. Much of our resources are consistently

directed toward specific resource crises, and narrow scientific investigations. As a

result, we know a lot about a few things, such as specific fish stocks and coastal

water quality, but we actually know very little of our total oceans. Ocean science

experts tell us that we have seen only five percent of the world’s ocean, and that

the U.S. lags behind Japan, France, and Russia in our technical ability to explore

and study it in at least one dimension, sending scientists into the sea. The challenge

of fulfilling the original Stratton Commission vision, of a NASA-like exploration of

the sea component, remains to be filled. The President has requested $14 million

for NOAA’s ocean exploration activities in FY 2002 and these funds would provide

NOAA with a solid start on fulfilling the Stratton Commission’s original vision of

exploring the seas.

In FY 2000, the President convened a panel that included some of the Nation’s

best ocean scientists, explorers, and educators. The panel, convened as a subset of

the NOAH Science Advisory Board, was ably led by Dr. Marcia McNutt of the Monterey Bay Research Aquarium Institute and included Dr. Robert D. Ballard. The

Panel’s report, ‘‘Discovering Earth’s Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration,’’ recommended a new era of exploration which could become as remarkable and ambitious a chapter in the history of human exploration of our planet as

were the achievements of Balboa, Columbus, or Lewis and Clark. While stressing

the importance of partnerships, the panel recommended that a single lead agency

be responsible for the program and its budget. NOAH, with over thirty years of experience in ocean science, management, and stewardship, has already stepped into

a leadership role by requesting and receiving funding specifically to establish a program of ocean exploration and has established the NOAH Office of Ocean Exploration. I believe that NOAH has a significant leadership role to play in ocean exploration and in implementing the President’s Panel Report recommendations.

The American public seems to agree that we need to focus more effort on exploring the oceans. In 1996, the Mellman Group conducted a nationwide survey to better understand the public’s view of ocean policy issues. The results of that survey

indicated that more than 80 percent of Americans believe our oceans are threatened

by human activity, and 85 percent agree with the statement that the ‘‘federal government needs to do more to help protect the oceans.’’ Seventy-five percent believe

ocean exploration is more important than space exploration. With a $4 million appropriation in FY 2001, Congress endorsed the need for such a program; NOAA created a dedicated program, the Office of Ocean Exploration. The Administration has

reaffirmed the requirement and requested $14 million in the FY 2002 President’s

budget. I am hopeful that as this budget makes its way through the Congress that

the full amount is enacted. Clearly, most of us agree on the need to explore and

understand this most important component of our planet and on the enormous impact it may have on all aspects of our daily lives.

The U.S. Panel on Ocean Exploration

First, and foremost, NOAH is the Nation’s ocean and atmospheric agency and was

created for that specific purpose. We have been given the responsibility for the focused study of the oceans and atmosphere and for the application of these findings

to fulfill our stewardship role. As such, we are responsible in a clear and direct

chain of command to the Cabinet level of the Executive Branch, the Secretary of

Commerce, and enjoy the benefit of constructive guidance from multiple Congressional oversight committees. Our agency focus is to generate sound scientific knowledge and apply it to ocean and atmospheric issues. In this regard, we fill the approVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Dec 18, 2001 Jkt 073840 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 D:\WORKD\ETS\071201\73840 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
21

priate role defined by the Panel as a focused lead ocean agency and accountable for

results.

We are not alone in the ocean community, and we certainly do not work alone.

Other agencies, such as the Navy and the National Science Foundation, are responsible for much larger subject matter areas and, perhaps, more challenging missions.

The Navy goes to sea to understand that component of ocean science that will benefit our national security and keep our Nation safe. The National Science Foundation conducts scientific investigations in all environments, including the ocean, to

promote the progress of science, generating valuable knowledge wherever it is

found. Partnership institutions, such as the National Oceanographic Partnership

Program (NOPP), serve valuable coordinating and implementation roles for such

multilateral projects as the Argo Project, in further technology development, and in

the coordinated handling and processing of oceanographic data. We look forward to

addressing the data management and availability issues raised by the Panel

through the National Oceanographic Partnership Program. We are also working

through the National Oceanographic Partnership Program to achieve an ocean observation system. The role NOAA can fill in a national ocean exploration strategy

is one of leadership. We responded to the challenge of the President’s Panel by instituting a national program, embracing multiple partners of many disciplines, and

creating the NOAH Office of Ocean Exploration.

NOAA’s Response to the Report of the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration

The NOAA Ocean Exploration program identifies unknown areas of the ocean and

seeks to reduce this information deficit. Specifically, the program targets the oceans

in areas or subject matter that is missed or bypassed by our current managementfocused science and subject matter driven research programs. The science activity

in NOAA today, and largely throughout our thirty-year history, has been targeted

to answer specific and necessary questions to support climate prediction, fisheries

management, resource recovery, safe navigation, and environmental monitoring.

NOAA’s Ocean Exploration program takes a broader approach to scientific inquiry

and subject matter, as the President’s Panel suggested. We conduct multidisciplinary scientific expeditions to characterize ocean areas with modern technologies,

employ sound scientific methodologies, and convey these results in an exciting and

informative manner to the science community and the general public. The knowledge gained through exploration will extend our ability to conduct more focused research on a wider array of subjects and better perform our overall mission of ocean

stewardship.

This year, FY 2001, we are engaged in a number of multidisciplinary expeditions

in the manner suggested by the Panel Report. We are examining benthic communities along the east coast with the submersible Alvin. We are teaming up with the

National Geographic Society to document the marine sanctuaries from Belize,

through the Gulf of Mexico, to Cape Hatteras. At Cape Hatteras, with the U.S.

Navy, we are rescuing the steam engine and turret of the famed Civil War ironclad,

the USS Monitor, now a National Marine Sanctuary. And we are engaging some of

the best technology in what I would describe as a definitional exploration cruise, in

the Astoria Canyon. This is the basin into which the Columbia River flows, and

where Lewis and Clark ended their amazing journey of discovery. We begin ours

there. Using a commercial survey ship with multibeam and high frequency side-scan

sonar, we have mapped the bottom at a new scale of resolution. The cruise will be

completed tomorrow with the arrival in port of the NOAA Ship Ronald H. Brown,

which has carried NOAH and university scientists with expertise in biology, geology,

and geophysics, and the Canadian Remotely Operated Vehicle, ROPOS, which will

have visually explored the canyon areas identified in the sonar surveys. The combination of these tools and combined disciplines will enable a more complete understanding of this dynamic part of the ocean that, although close to shore, is scarcely

explored. We have several other projects underway, but I would prefer to return and

report on their completion at an appropriate time and turn now to our implementation of the President’s Panel Report.

Principal Objectives of the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration

The President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration provided four principal objectives for

a national strategy to achieve an invigorated ocean exploration program. These

were: to map the physical, geological, biological, chemical, and archaeological aspects of the oceans; to explore ocean dynamics and interactions; to develop new sensors and systems for ocean exploration and regain U.S. leadership in marine technology; and to reach out in new ways to stakeholders.

Mapping: The Panel’s recommendation to map the oceans is squarely within

NOAA’s domain, at least so far as the Nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is

22

concerned. NOAA’s precursor agency, the Coast Survey, was responsible for charting

the Nation’s marine waters, and NOAA continues this mission today. The United

States has the largest EEZ of any nation in the world, over three million square

nautical miles, but only five percent of the U.S. EEZ is mapped. As such, we agree

with the Panel report’s suggestion that NOAA increase its efforts to chart and map

the Nation’s EEZ.

Exploring ocean dynamics: The Panel identified the need to explore ocean dynamics and interactions at new scales. Our sampling methodologies, regularly applied

throughout our decades-long data streams, do not fully sample the biota of the

ocean. We use techniques that have only slightly advanced in the previous hundred

years. While incremental progress in acoustic surveys continues, an invigorated

ocean exploration initiative would allow the United States to become a leader in the

use of this promising technology. NOAA is working with multiple institutions and

agencies to explore the dynamics of submarine regions, such as deep sea hydrothermal vents, through partnerships with universities and the National Science

Foundation. The President has requested funding that would allow NOAA to work

collaboratively with the larger scientific community.

New technologies: The Panel identified the need to develop new sensors, technologies, and platforms. The merit of this recommendation is apparent. We clearly

need new and improved technologies, devices, and craft to take our exploration of

the oceans to a point not only beyond where we are today, but to a position of regained international leadership, a position we have lost. NOAA is working to advance undersea technologies through Ocean Exploration, the National Sea Grant

Program, and the National Undersea Research Program (NURP). We look forward

to working with academia, industry and the National Oceanographic Partnership

Program to develop the new ocean sensors and technologies that the Panel recommended.

Education and outreach: The Panel recommended that ocean exploration reach

out in new ways to stakeholders. Our own website, oceanexplorer.noaa.gov, has already proven a great success with thousands of students of all ages around the

world tuning in, even though most schools have not even been in session since it

launched on June 1 of this year. NOAA is allocating ten percent of our Ocean Exploration budget to education and outreach. I consider the education and outreach component of the ocean exploration program to be essential to the success of this initiative.

New Approaches and the Future of Ocean Exploration

The President’s Panel also stressed the importance of partnerships for pooling

limited resources and multiplying the accomplishments achieved from ocean exploration activities. We have engaged the university community, private industry, and

other government agencies and services. In fact, less than half of NOAA’s $4 million

appropriation in FY 2001 for ocean exploration activities remained ‘‘in-house’’; the

remainder passed through the agency to the private sector, academia, or other agencies. We have chartered or engaged nine vessels belonging to the private sector or

other agencies for our Ocean Exploration missions this summer. Those vessels

ranged from University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS)

sources, such as the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, the Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and Monterey Bay

Aquarium Research Institute, to commercial fishing vessels, private survey ships,

and a commercial diving barge. We also gained support and participation from an

EPA ship and two Navy salvage ships. This demonstrates NOAA’s desire to work

cross-agency, collegially, and through meaningful partnerships.

The President’s Panel recommended several opportunities and implementation

strategies, and I have detailed how NOAA is responding to these challenges. But

NOAA is also embarking on exploration activities that will be based on the needs

defined, in part, by the larger scientific community. Beginning in the fall of 2001,

we will conduct a series of at least 6 regional planning workshops in the northeast,

southeast, Gulf coast, west coast, Alaska, and Hawaii. Through this geographic distribution, we will learn from an integrated body of participants from academia, industry, and other government agencies about local and regional informational needs.

We will identify those needs and knowledge deficits, prioritize them, and thereby

generate a strategic plan and implementation agenda of exploring our oceans and

the oceans of the world. The value of these workshops will be to represent the collective wisdom and experience of the combined scientific and technical communities

and not those singularly in NOAA. I am confident that the product will be a well

supported agenda of exploration.

In FY 2002, we will continue to take projects to sea and, hopefully, at a level supported by the funds requested in the President’s budget. Much of this effort will be

23

proposal driven and result from the peer review of proposals submitted by scientists

and explorers from government, industry, and academia. The emphasis of this research and discovery-based science will be in five thematic areas: (1) New Ocean Resources—in which we seek to discover living and nonliving resources that may have

a significant beneficial potential, such as gas hydrates or bioprospecting; (2) Exploring Ocean Acoustics—to expand the network of hydrophones monitoring marine

sound of natural and human origin, thereby determining the effects of noise on marine animals, developing new methods of counting and identifying whales, and accomplishing the early detection of underwater seismic activity; (3) America’s Maritime Heritage—in which we will survey, locate, and inventory shipwrecks and archaeological sites of historic interest, plus compile a National Shipwreck Inventory

from which we can make informed management decisions; (4) Exploring Ocean

Frontiers—for which we will employ modern technology to survey, characterize, and

define diverse marine environments and the processes therein, particularly in areas

not well known or understood; and (5) Census of Marine Life—in which we will join

global academic and government institutions in collecting data on the distribution

and abundance of marine organisms and improve our assessment capabilities.

NOAH led the effort to support and staff the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration. NOAA is the dedicated ocean agency of the Nation and is currently the only

Federal agency administering and requesting specific funds for an ocean exploration

program. We understand mapping. We have been doing it since 1807. We understand partnership. More than half of our appropriation for ocean exploration is

being spent outside of NOAH, and our projects sail on ships other than NOAA vessels. We understand and support ocean education and outreach through such partners as the Jason Foundation, the National Geographic Society, and such esteemed

ocean leaders as Dr. Robert Ballard, Dr. Sylvia Earle, and Jean Michel Cousteau.

NOAH has a role in implementing the President’s Panel Report on Ocean Exploration. That role is one of leadership, as the ocean agency, and as the ocean exploration program. It is one we will not do alone. It is one we cannot do alone. For

us to regain the leadership position in the world community of ocean science, we

must continue to work with the other Federal agencies, academic institutions, and

private-sector industries. Working together, our national ocean exploration efforts

will yield even greater results.

President Bush recently announced his intention to appoint 16 distinguished individuals to serve on the Commission on Ocean Policy. The Oceans Act of 2000 tasks

this Commission to develop a report over the next 18 months to address a very

broad range of oceans policy issues. These include existing and planned activities

of State and Federal entities, facilities associated with private and public activities,

and ocean and coastal resources. We look forward to following the efforts of the

Commission and to working with other agencies to develop the National Ocean Policy required by the Act once the Commission completes its report.

Coastal Observations

I would now like to address the Subcommittee’s request for information on developing and implementing a system of compatible coastal observatories. Throughout

history people have had many reasons to settle by our coasts, and they have long

recognized that the oceans critically affect human endeavors. Cargo, fishing, and

military ships have always been affected by winds, waves, ice, ocean currents, as

well as hurricanes and typhoons. Primitive observing systems were initiated centuries ago to measure and try to predict these phenomena.

As uses of the ocean and coastal waters increase, evidence of widespread impacts

of these activities on land, the oceans, and the atmosphere is steadily mounting.

These interrelated earth systems have been strongly affected by the direct and indirect consequences of human population growth, industrialization, and demand for

natural resources. It is increasingly evident that changes in the environment need

to be monitored, that effective action must be taken to mitigate damage based on

these measurements, and that future changes to the environment must be anticipated.

A sustained coastal ocean observation program to detect, track, and predict

changes in physical and biological systems and their effects is needed to measure

not only the impacts of humans on the ocean, but also the impact of the ocean on

human endeavors. The oceans are currently monitored far less effectively and completely than terrestrial systems; yet humans depend strongly on the sea as a source

of food and for transportation and trade, among many other uses. Such a program

would build upon integrated existing monitoring efforts by both government and

academia.

NOAA’s mission is to describe and predict changes in the Earth’s environment

and conserve and wisely manage the Nation’s coastal and marine resources. An inteVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Dec 18, 2001 Jkt 073840 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 D:\WORKD\ETS\071201\73840 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
24

grated coastal observing system is needed to monitor the ‘‘state’’ of the coastal ocean

in order to understand and ultimately predict how the coastal ocean responds to

weather, climate, and human activities. Just as continuous measurements of weather and climatic conditions are maintained on land, similar sustained measurements

of the coastal ocean are required to monitor change and to assist in understanding

and predicting its impacts.

It must be noted that there are already many U.S. coastal observing systems and

monitoring programs in place that serve the needs of many users. It is equally important to state that these observing elements are not yet integrated and do not constitute a complete system. The systems provide data that help mitigate losses to life

and property, enhance profits to industry, ensure national security, and provide information to mitigate anthropogenic changes to the environment. They are not, however, as cost effective or as useful as they could be, even at present levels of funding.

These elements do not serve the complete needs of users. The Congress recognized

these gaps and, in 1992, passed the National Coastal Monitoring Act calling for ‘‘a

comprehensive national program for monitoring of the Nation’s coastal ecosystems.’’

However, lack of funding has limited progress. Today, growing needs add urgency,

and advancing technologies make major improvements possible. An integrated

coastal ocean observing system would serve better a much wider array of users.

There are many indications that coastal environments are experiencing rapid

changes as a consequence of human activities. These include habitat loss and modification (e.g., wetlands, coral reefs, oyster reefs), coastal erosion, excessive accumulations of algal biomass, oxygen depletion, harmful algal events, fish kills, shellfish

bed closures, declines in fish stocks, the growth of exotic species, chemical contamination, and the loss of biodiversity. These changes are making the coastal zone more

susceptible to natural hazards, more costly to live and recreate in, and of less value

to the national economy.

In the absence of scientific understanding of coastal ecosystems and how they

change in response to human activities and natural variability, the formulation and

implementation of environmental policies has become, and likely will be increasingly, controversial. Substantial advances in the predictive understanding of environmental changes in coastal ecosystems and their effects on people cannot be

achieved in the absence of long-term and large-scale observations.

Nowhere do the missions of so many Federal and state agencies overlap as in the

coastal zone, and this region is the subject of more monitoring and research activity

than any other place on Earth. Yet we still do not have a predictive understanding

how people are changing the environment and how these changes are affecting people (e.g., wetland loss and coastal flooding, hog manure and Pfiesteria).

Clearly, we must make more effective use of the combined resources/assets of Federal and state agencies (environmental monitoring for the purposes of research and

management, fisheries stock assessment, habitat surveys, etc.), the private sector,

and academia to get a clearer picture of the dimensions of change and make more

timely and meaningful forecasts of changes and their impact.

The first step is to coordinate and integrate existing efforts to collect, manage and

analyze data to minimize redundancy, maximize access to diverse data, and produce

timely analyses that are useful to a broader spectrum of users. The second step is

to enhance and supplement the observing to achieve a more comprehensive and useful view of changes and their impact.

Benefits of an Integrated Coastal Ocean Observing System

An effective, efficient, and useful coastal ocean observing system would:

• facilitate safe and efficient marine operations, ensure national security, support managing living resources, preserve healthy marine ecosystems, mitigate

natural hazards, and protect public health;

• build upon existing coastal and ocean monitoring and be responsive to the

needs of those who depend on the Nation’s coastal waters for work, security,

research, and recreation;

• provide sustained, continuous, long-term, reliable, and, as appropriate, realtime observations and analysis of ocean events and phenomena;

• provide a common set of parameters deemed to be in the national interest,

using uniform methods and protocols, with augmentation as desired by regional and local concerns;

• provide a consistent national framework for regional efforts yet allow for flexible design at all levels; and

• engage and support a wide range of participants from Federal, state, and

local governments; academia; and the private sector.

25

Future Plans and Needs of an Integrated Coastal Ocean Observing System

The first step in establishing a comprehensive coastal ocean observing system is

to integrate existing data and networks and provide access to this data. Working

through NOPP and the OCEAN.US Office, NOAA could coordinate with components

offered by other Federal Agencies to provide the backbone of an integrated coastal

ocean observing system. This effort could be initiated with coastal elements of existing national networks and could support additional National needs and/or needs

identified through the regional efforts.

NOAA currently operates several relevant monitoring and observing systems that

would contribute to this backbone for coastal ocean observing system. These include:

National Water Level Observation Network (NWLON), which includes approximately 175 continuously operating water level measurement systems, providing

basic water level data for all coastal and Great Lakes states.

Physical Oceanographic Real-Time Systems (PORTS) operating at five extremely busy harbor entrances, provide measurements from water levels, currents, meteorological data, and water temperature in real time.

National Data Buoy Network provides real-time data on the sea state and meteorological conditions at buoys in the Great Lakes and coastal ocean, and the 60

shore-based Coastal-Marine Automated Network (C–MAN) stations provide

similar information to NOAH, state, and private weather forecasters.

National Status and Trends Program measures the status and changes in levels

and effects of toxic contaminants at about 280 locations in the U.S. Coastal and

Great Lakes ecosystems. In addition, temporal trends are being monitored

through the Mussel Watch project that analyzes mussels and oysters collected

annually at about 200 of those sites.

National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) System-Wide Monitoring

Program (SWMP) monitors physical, chemical, and biological parameters at

each of the 27 Reserves, covering over one million acres of estuarine waters and

lands. The President’s Request for a $1.7 million increase for NERRS operational grants will help expand the SWMP by increasing spatial coverage of

water quality stations, and by monitoring additional biological indicators.

Harmful Algal Boom monitoring program works in conjunction with states and

other Federal agencies to monitor levels of toxic algae, including Pfiesteria, and

related water quality properties to determine the threat posed to human health

and the ecosystem by this organism.

Tsunami Warning System (TWS) in the Pacific, comprised of 26 participating

international Member States, monitors seismological and tidal stations throughout the Pacific Basin, providing real-time information needed for the early detection of tsunamis and for assessing and forecasting the threat to coastal communities.

Land-cover and Habitat mapping. The Coastal Change Analysis Program (C–

CAP), Effects of Fishing on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), and Seafloor EFH

Characterizations programs provide routine observations on the habitats of

managed species.

Long-term ecosystem data collection programs, including the California Cooperative Fisheries Investigation (CalCoFI), the Marine Monitoring and Assessment

Program (MARMAP) in the Northwest Atlantic, SEAMAP in the Southeast

U.S., and the Fisheries Oceanography and GLOBEC programs in the Pacific

Northwest, Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Gulf of Maine provide essential information on abundance and distribution of marine fish and invertebrates, and

environmental changes which affect them.

Coast Watch provides near real-time access to high-resolution satellite remote

sensing data from NOAH and other platforms, including sea surface temperature and ocean color.

The second step of a strong integrated National coastal ocean observation program would be support for a federation of regional observing systems that could provide additional full national coverage at higher-resolution, tuned to regional issues.

These regional systems would collect and exchange data on a free and open basis

and according to national standards and protocols. These regional enterprises composed of consortia of state, academic, private, and Federal partners would be most

effective in understanding and responding to the needs of the regional users. Working with NOAA’s national data centers, these regional efforts would also ensure that

their observations are made available for long-term stewardship.

26

The third, equally important step is a strong Data Management and Data Sharing

effort. This would include working with all of the relevant data stakeholders to develop standards and protocols for storing, sharing, and accessing coastal data. This

should include protocols for the transfer of data among regional and national backbone systems, the user community, and a national repository; as well as the documentation of data type and quality via approved metadata standards. A key component of the data management program should be a coastal data portal through

which users from all sectors should find, view, access, integrate, and share data

from national, regional, state, and academic sources regardless of original formats.

NOAA’s National Environmental Satellites, Data, and Information Service and National Ocean Service stand ready to provide its extensive expertise and experience

in data management, sharing, and archiving to all of its partners in this effort.

These enhanced coastal observation systems would serve as the basis for two programs. The first is a concept we are working with our partners to develop an ecological forecasting capability to parallel our weather and climate forecasting service.

Ecological forecasts predict the effects of biological, chemical, physical, and humaninduced changes on ecosystems and the components. Being able to forecast, for example, harmful algal bloom outbreaks, the impacts of decisions on coastal hypoxia

(dead zones), the impacts of water use on oysters and other estuarine species, the

impacts of changes in the distribution of precipitation and temperature on coastal

habitats all depend on a robust and sustained observation system. Data from this

system are required to both drive the forecasting process and test the forecasts

against the real world.

The second is an initiative called Coastal Storms, for which we are asking $3 million in the President’s FY 2002 Budget to do a pilot project in Florida. Coastal

Storms proposes to build on and enhance existing coastal observation systems such

as our National Water Level Observation Network and Physical Oceanographic Real

Time System, to help dramatically reduce the loss of property and life in regions

vulnerable to natural disasters. Recent estimates for disaster losses are between $10

and $50 billion per year, with an average cost of $50 million an event. Over 70%

of disaster losses occur in coastal states or territories and much of this damage occurs in inland areas adjacent to the coast resulting in costly impacts throughout

coastal watersheds. Coastal Storms will enable NOAH to provide an integrated suite

of capabilities that capitalize on our coastal observations to predict and reduce the

watershed impacts of coastal storms.

Partnerships

NOAA is committed to working with other agencies, academia, and the private

sector in arrangements such as the National Oceanographic Partnership Program

(NOPP) to make this coastal observing system a reality. NOAH worked hard with

other agencies to facilitate the implementation of the NOPP Observation Office,

OCEAN.US, for the coordination of these efforts. A strong partnership would allow

each organization to execute its own research and/or operational-driven mission

while deriving maximum benefit from interagency coordination.

Ocean Observations

Now I’d like to turn to a different category of ocean activities, in particular the

essential observations necessary for understanding and predicting the ocean’s role

in climate. Last month, the President announced a new Climate Change Initiative,

dedicated to reducing uncertainties in climate change knowledge and identifying priority areas where research can make a difference. Clearly, our observations of the

ocean will be a major factor in clarifying the future course of climate change.

An important difference between ocean observations for climate and those for exploration is the sustained nature of the data collection. A useful analog is the system we use to observe the weather. We could not expect to predict the weather

based on an occasional weather balloon or an intermittent Doppler radar image. It

is necessary to keep the system going to see change on the horizon. Similarly, an

ocean observing system must be sustained to see a developing El Nin ̃ o or longerterm changes in ocean circulation that will influence the evolution of climate.

We have known for some time that we must observe the ocean to predict the

course of climate, and NOAA has a strong track record in this endeavor. In 1997–

98, the strong E1 Nin ̃ o and its effects on the U.S. and the world were anticipated

well in advance. By contrast, an El Nin ̃ o of similar strength in 1982–83 was largely

a surprise to the world. The difference in predictive skill was largely the result of

an ocean observing system deployed in the tropical Pacific, together with the understanding and computer model development that was the result of decades of research. This provides the basis for our ocean observing system of today.

27

The Present System

Presently NOAA’s major ocean observation system, centered on the tropics and

designed to enhance climate prediction on seasonal to interannual time-scales, is the

El Nin ̃ o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Observing System. The ENSO Observing System has four elements. It consists of approximately 70 fixed buoys in the tropical

Pacific that provide surface atmospheric and ocean mixed-layer observations, several

hundred drifting buoys in all of the major ocean basins, a Volunteer Observing Ship

(VOS) program of about 40 commercial ships, and a network of tide gauges. NOAH

recently expanded the fixed buoy system to the tropical Atlantic sector, and has

maintained a monitoring system for the Florida Current for many years. The resulting data are used to initialize climate models, verify model results, and monitor the

changes in the upper ocean. Complementing this system are NOAA’s environmental

satellite systems, which provide regional and basin-wide observations of sea surface

temperature and estimates of rainfall.

There is also an emerging observational system—called the Argo Array—that, in

combination with satellite remote sensing, will provide the backbone of sustained

global ocean observations needed to improve climate forecast skill. Argo will consist

of three thousand autonomous instruments that can change their buoyancy to rise

or sink in the ocean. Argo builds on the observations, extending their spatial and

temporal coverage, depth range and accuracy, and enhancing them through addition

of other measurements. For the first time, the physical state of the upper ocean will

be systematically measured in near real-time and used in models.

Here’s how Argo works. The instruments cycle to depths up to 2000 meters every

ten days, travel submerged for a specified period, then surface and relay data to satellites about the ocean temperature, salinity, and currents. Each instrument has a

four to five-year lifetime. With a design based on experience from the present observing system and on estimated requirements for climate and high-resolution ocean

models, Argo will provide 100,000 temperature and salinity profiles and reference

velocity measurements per year from the 3000 floats distributed over the global

oceans. All Argo data will be publicly available in near real-time and in scientifically

quality-controlled form within a few months. Essentially, the Argo array will be the

ocean analog of the radiosonde—or weather balloon—system; it will initiate the oceanic equivalent of today’s operational observing system for the global atmosphere.

Objectives of Argo fall into several categories. Argo will provide a quantitative description of the evolving state of the upper ocean and the patterns of ocean climate

variability, including heat and freshwater storage and transport. The data will enhance the value of NASA’s Jason altimeter through measurement of subsurface

vertical structure and reference velocity, with sufficient coverage and resolution for

interpretation of altimetric sea-surface height variability. Argo data will be used for

initialization of ocean and coupled forecast models, data assimilation, and dynamical

model testing. A primary focus of Argo is seasonal-to-decadal climate variability and

predictability, but a wide range of applications for high-quality global ocean analyses is anticipated. The Argo program will be coordinated through the National

Ocean Partnership Program described earlier.

The current proposal before Congress includes a requested funding increase of

$3,190,000 for the Argo system as part of the Climate Observations and Service

budget. These new funds will allow NOAH to reach an annual deployment rate of

about 275 floats. With an annual expected loss rate of 10 percent, this level of funding will bring the U.S. to the 1000 float target that is the U.S. contribution to the

international goal of 3000 floats by FY 2005. Other nations will contribute the majority of the system.

In addition to Argo, the other components of the sustained ocean observing system

being requested in NOAA’s $7.3 million initiative include the following:

Ocean Reference Stations: NOAH plans to implement a global network of ocean

reference station moorings, expanding from the present three pilot stations to

a permanent network of 16. These fixed buoys provide the long-term record of

ocean climate, often at sites with long historical records.

Volunteer Observing Ships: Ships of opportunity provide global atmospheric and

oceanic data that is the foundation for understanding long-term changes in marine climate. The data are also essential input for climate and weather forecast

models. VOS need improved monitoring capabilities, better observer training,

and improved data quality in order to reduce both systematic and random errors. NOAH wants to expand operations from 17 to 22 shipping lines over the

next five years.

Ocean Carbon: Cross-ocean sections measuring dissolved ocean carbon were

taken during the World Ocean Circulation Experiment of the last decade. It is

critical for our understanding of the global carbon cycle to ensure that the longVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Dec 18, 2001 Jkt 073840 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 D:\WORKD\ETS\071201\73840 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
28

line measurements of ocean carbon are maintained so that we can see any

changes in carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans.

Arctic Ocean Fluxes: Over the past 20 or more years, significant changes have

been noted in the Arctic, such as thawing of permafrost, earlier break-up of ice

on rivers, and thinning of the ice cover on the Arctic Ocean. Recent studies conclude that changes seen in the extent of the Arctic ice are unlikely to have been

caused by natural variability. In partnership with other Federal agencies,

NOAA proposes to begin a long-term effort to quantify the flux of ‘‘fresh’’ water

from the Arctic to the North Atlantic. An international team has identified five

key mooring sites suitable for a program of long-term observations.

Data Management: A robust system for managing data is essential to the vision

of a sustained ocean observing system. The value of the observations does not

end with their initial use in detecting and forecasting present conditions. The

data must be retained and made available for retrospective analyses to understand climate change, and for managing observing system operations and improvements.

Data Assimilation: To make use of these observations, an enhanced program of

assimilating the data into ocean models is required as well. This is similar to

the process used in weather prediction models, where observations are used to

give the best possible description of the atmosphere before running the prediction.

Future Plans and Needs: An Integrated, Sustained Ocean Observing System

The ocean system as envisioned internationally and by NOAH will include platforms and sensors (both remote and in-situ), data management, and assimilation

and analyses. This end-to-end ocean system will provide the critical data and products needed for forecasts, research, and assessments. The ocean system will be effective only through continuing interaction with other national and international communities. To fulfill its responsibilities for providing climate services, NOAH will lead

the U.S. effort to enhance its present components, establish new components, and

maintain the global operational ocean observing system necessary to deliver needed

forecasting and assessment services to the Nation and the world.

The present international observing-effort is about 25% of what will be needed

over the long term. An international plan for a comprehensive global ocean observing system was drafted by over 300 scientists from 26 nations in October, 1999.

When completed, the composite ocean system, including the satellites, will deliver

continuous, long term, climate quality, global data sets and a suite of routine ocean

products:

• For the global ocean, four-times-daily distributions of sea surface pressure,

sea surface wind, and marine weather and sea state conditions.

• For the global tropics, daily distributions of precipitation, sea surface temperature, and air-sea fluxes.

• For the global ocean, weekly distributions of upper ocean temperature and salinity, sea surface temperature, and sea level.

• For the global ocean, an ocean carbon inventory once every ten years and seasonal (four-times-yearly) analyses of the variability of ocean-atmosphere carbon exchange.

• At fixed climate reference stations, documented long tern trends in sea level

change and ocean/atmosphere variability.

These observing system deliverables comprise the essential raw data from the

ocean that will be needed by the climate forecasters and researchers to help deliver

assessments and predictions of climate, on time scales of seasonal to decadal and

longer. In addition to completion of the Argo array, a system to deliver these products would require completion of the global drifting buoy network, establishment of

an enhanced array of tide gauges for documenting sea level change, completion of

ocean reference station moorings described above, and occupation of new volunteer

observing ship lines. Completion of the U.S. array of coastal moorings, described in

the previous section, will also be a critical part of the ocean observing system for

climate. From the satellite perspective, continuous altimeter and scatterometer

measurements will be needed for determination of global sea level and surface

winds, respectively. Finally, the system-wide infrastructure requirements, including

research vessels, data systems, and modeling capabilities, will need to be in place

to support this system.

29

All Three Efforts Are Important

On a summer day, our eyes and ears can sense an approaching thunderstorm.

Our senses are extended by radar and satellites to detect advancing storm systems.

Our senses are being extended yet again to anticipate changing states affecting

coasts and oceans, our environment, and our climate. To truly understand the consequences of our actions on the environment and the environment’s impact on us,

data obtained through ocean exploration, coastal observations, and ocean observations will be critical.

‘‘Coastal observations’’ include observations in the Nation’s ports, bays, estuaries,

Great Lakes, the waters of the EEZ, and adjacent land cover. Some of the properties

measured in coastal zones, such as temperature and currents, are the same as those

measured in the larger, basin-scale ocean observation systems. However, the users

and applications of those data can be quite different. For those properties that are

similar, there should be a consistent plan for deployment in the coastal and open

ocean systems so that coastal observations represent a nested hierarchy of observations collected at higher resolution than those from the open ocean.

As I mentioned earlier, NOAA is prepared to begin coordinating existing coastal

observing data and networks working through NOPP and the OCEAN.US Office to

provide the backbone of an integrated coastal ocean observing system.

Ocean exploration includes the examination of the temporal components of the

sea, and that includes the long-term monitoring of ocean characteristics, and an integrated ocean observation system. NOAH is engaged in multiple ocean observation

programs already, and recognizes that an integrated ocean observation system is

worthy of its own identity and will hold merit to future aspects of scientific inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Secretary Don Evans and the 12,500 men and women

who make up NOAA, thank you for this opportunity to address how NOAH can contribute to expanding the frontiers of human knowledge. As I’ve stated, ocean exploration, ocean observations and coastal observations are at the core of NOAA’s mission and we look forward to working with the Subcommittees on charting the future

course of these important endeavors.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you for the testimony. Dr. Colwell?

STATEMENT OF RITA R. COLWELL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. COLWELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I

appreciate the opportunity to testify today on ocean exploration

and ocean observations because these are areas of really great interest to the National Science Foundation, as well as our fellow

agencies, as you will hear today, and to the academic community

and the private sector, also. And it is a pleasure to be here with

Admiral Cohen and with Admiral Lautenbacher and Mr. Gudes.

NSF has a very proud history of supporting basic research and

education in the ocean sciences. This includes the tools that are

necessary to access the oceans from the surface to below the sea

floor. Even though NSF accounts for less than about four percent

of the total Federal R&D budget, the Foundation does provide

about 70 percent of Federal funding to academic institutions for

oceans research. The Foundation has a broad, encompassing role

that advances the frontiers of discovery and seeks to engage the

public. And to illustrate this, I would like to take us on a very brief

journey to the depths of the sea floor.

The footage that we would like to show you was taken from the

submersible ALVIN two miles below sea level. NSF has supported

ALVIN since the 1970’s, along with NOAA and ONR. And we also

helped to support this filming. The deep sea vent called nine Degrees North is located in the Pacific Ocean South of Mexico. These

scenes will be released next year in the film, Volcanoes of the

Abyss. And this IMAX feature will bring the astonishing life of this

environment to millions of people throughout the world. These

30

unique features are called black smokers. They are mineralized

chimneys that tower above the communities of life at the hydrothermal vents. The mouths of the vents spew forth boiling water

full of chemicals. And these conditions are toxic to most life forms,

yet, the list of known species inhabiting the vents now is greater

than 300.

Understanding these remarkable ecosystems can help us explain

the origins of life and open up new avenues of research in biotechnology. Now, that amazing footage embodies both the NSF’s research and education activities. And these efforts are right in line

with the recent recommendations from the Panel on Ocean Exploration. The panel opens their report by stating that over 95 percent

of the oceans remain unknown and unexplored. NSF is dedicated

to reaching into this untapped realm. And one way we are doing

this is through the support of ocean observations.

Last January, one of these projects, the Hawaii Ocean Times Series, made headlines with the discovery of a new group of microorganisms in the Northern Pacific Oceans. Now, these microorganisms, we call them Archaea, we microbiologists, were previously

thought to exist only in extreme conditions, such as volcanic vents

or in the hot springs like at Yellowstone. Now, they appear to comprise a very large percentage of the biomass, the living things in

the open ocean. And marine scientists have yet to determine how

these Archaea absorb nutrients. How do they multiply? What role

do they play in the ocean ecosystem? There are so many of them,

they must play some role.

NSF is working with the academic community and with the Federal agencies, my fellow agencies, to provide a new infrastructure

to gain access to the oceans—on the coast and in the open sea. And

this network of ocean observatories will facilitate the collection of

time series data, and the time series data will help us to understand the basic biology, the basic chemistry, geology and physics of

our oceans.

Now, this network will also help us fill in these gaps, that you

have eloquently spoken about, in our knowledge of the Earth’s climate system.

So, in closing, let me say again that this is a time of unparalleled

opportunity to advance research and exploration in oceanography.

As the new observation systems are put in place, we are going to

learn a lot more about the changes that are occurring across our

planet. And if we make the right investments, the coming decades

in ocean research, exploration and education will be truly extraordinary. NSF looks forward to working toward this goal with our

many partners across the government, in academia, and in other

nations. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity

to share the exciting work being supported by and the work we

plan to do at the National Science Foundation. And I will be very

pleased to respond to any questions that you and the Committee

may raise.

[The prepared statement of Rita R. Colwell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. RITA R. COLWELL

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify

today on ocean exploration and ocean observations, activities in which the National

Science Foundation plays an important role. These are areas in which many agenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Dec 18, 2001 Jkt 073840 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 D:\WORKD\ETS\071201\73840 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
31

cies, as well as the academic community and private sector, have a substantial interest and it is a pleasure to be here with Admiral Lautenbacher, Admiral Cohen,

and Mr. Gudes.

For generations, the search for knowledge and understanding of the oceans has

captivated the human imagination. It will continue to do so for generations to come.

But it is quite clear that our generation has a tremendous opportunity, and a keen

responsibility, to fuel discovery in this realm. Technological and computational advances, as well as fundamental breakthroughs in understanding, are transforming

the ocean sciences. At the same time, we are becoming increasingly aware of the

economic, public health, and environmental significance of our oceans. Ocean exploration and the potential implementation of an integrated ocean observing system

are two areas that can advance discovery.

EXPLORATION

NSF funds basic research and education in ocean sciences, and the facilities and

instruments necessary to gain access to the oceans, from the surface to deep in the

seafloor and from pole to pole. Exploration is a fundamental component of basic research. It is where science begins—with general ideas or broad hypotheses that seek

to characterize new areas and processes in the ocean. The resulting knowledge provides a framework for further inquiry through subsequent, more specific investigations.

Last fall, the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration, convened by the previous

administration and chaired by Dr. Marcia McNutt, produced a report highlighting

the fact that oceans remain largely unexplored and calling for establishment of an

ocean exploration program. The report identifies many areas offering high potential

for scientific advances. NSF is currently active in and seeks to expand activities associated with relatively unexplored areas and aspects of the oceans, incorporating

both educational and data management and dissemination components, as well as

technology development.

Let me highlight a few of the areas in which we see NSF playing an important

role.

Relatively Unexplored Regions

• The deep biosphere (including the subsurface biosphere) found along seafloor

volcanic ridges still remains a mystery. We are continuing to discover new hydrothermal vent locations, with their associated and remarkable ecosystems

that may help to explain the origins of life on earth and open new avenues

of research in biotechnology. These seafloor volcanic ridges and vents also

help us develop an understanding of plate tectonics and how the earth itself

was formed.

A particularly compelling example of the kind of exploration activity the

Panel has described is a recently completed expedition to the Indian Ocean.

NSF funded an interdisciplinary team of 34 scientists, technicians and engineers to explore a newly discovered vent field by collecting biological samples

and samples of vent and smoker fluid and plumes, rocks and sediment samples from the seafloor, and by precisely mapping the area. The research

project is fully integrated with an educational component entitled ‘‘Dive and

Discover’’, co-funded with Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Ohio’s

Center of Science and Industry, with live webcasts (through NASA), interactive opportunities between students and scientists, and companion materials that assist teachers in explaining the science and technology behind the

cruise and in providing classroom activities. The ‘‘Dive and Discover’’ web site

has been nominated for the ‘‘Webby Award’’ for its educational and scientific

content.

The ALVIN research submarine, in which I’ve had the privilege of diving, has

been an extraordinary tool for reaching the deep ocean over the past thirty

years. A design study for an ALVIN replacement with even greater capabilities will start this summer.

• As noted by the Panel, both the Arctic and many areas of the Southern Ocean

offer tremendous opportunities for exploration.

Æ The Arctic is data-poor. It is difficult to reach much of the region, especially in the winter. NSF is presently developing robotic aerosondes,

small pilotless planes, to sample the marine atmosphere and monitor sea

ice. These planes can fly in hazardous conditions and over an extremely

wide range—assets for obtaining measurements where manned missions

would be costly and dangerous.

32

We have also established an environmental observatory at the North

Pole. This year we carried out a hydrographic survey from the North Pole

toward Alaska. Automated instruments at the station transmit data by

satellite from the ice surface and from instruments anchored to the sea

floor.

In cooperation with the Office of Naval Research and the Navy, we used

Naval submarines to explore the Arctic Ocean from below and to chart

the seafloor as part of our Scientific Ice Expeditions (SCICEX). We are

now moving to a new way of exploring under the sea ice using Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs). They are designed to make long duration (11 day) forays under ice-covered oceans, and can transmit their

position and data while underway using mini-torpedoes that heat their

way through the ice and report by satellite.

Æ The Southern Ocean—the southernmost reaches of the global oceans—is

uniquely placed to contribute to understanding of many global environmental issues. In recent years it has been the site for regional global research programs, and more efforts are planned to understand the dynamics of Antarctic ocean circulation processes, the global dispersion of Antarctic water masses, and the region’s contribution to the carbon cycle.

The cold temperatures, long periods of darkness, and episodes of high UV

radiation place extreme stresses on biological systems in the Arctic and

Southern Oceans. Scientists are discovering species of fish that have

evolved specific genetic adaptations that enable them to live in freezing

waters.

Exploring in Time

The Panel emphasized the need to explore ocean dynamics and interactions, often

referred to as ‘‘exploring in time.’’ Many of the most revealing discoveries today are

coming from measurements made at the same location but over sustained time periods. NSF is vitally active in this area.

The availability of long time-series data that extend over several decades is recognized as a key element to understanding the role of the oceans in modulating the

behavior of the earth system. For several years, we have supported time-series

projects near Hawaii and Bermuda to enable understanding of processes that cannot

be captured by snapshot visits. The data collected cuts across disciplines and sets

the stage for further scientific inquiry.

We have also invested in technology development and emplacement of prototype

seafloor observatories off of the New Jersey coast and Hawaii. Consistent with numerous recent reports, including one by the National Academy of Sciences highlighting both interdisciplinary research and educational benefits, NSF is planning

for an enhanced investment in seafloor observatories. I will discuss this further in

the context of the proposed Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS).

Ocean Drilling Program

I would be remiss to discuss ocean exploration without mention of the Ocean

Drilling Program, a longstanding program dedicated to ocean exploration and basic

research which advances many areas highlighted by the Panel. The program is an

international partnership involving over 20 nations with NSF providing about $50

million annually to support U.S. academic community involvement. It explores aspects of Earth’s history, structure and processes by taking core samples of the

Earth’s crust from all of the world’s oceans.

NSF has been working with its international partners to develop the Integrated

Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), the future phase of scientific drilling. The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program envisions an expansion of exploration beneath the

oceans, made possible by increasing drilling capability, from the single-ship operation currently in use, to a multiple-drilling platform operation of the future. The

new drilling, sampling and observing capabilities would allow scientists to conduct

experiments and collect samples in environments and at depths never before attempted. The IODP would recover cores from the subseafloor ocean and from as yet

poorly sampled environments, such as the Arctic Ocean basin. The results assist efforts to ‘‘explore in time’’ by studying sediments which record historical changes in

the Earth’s environment.

Technology Development

Research in technology development and subsequent capital investments in such

technologies is critical to exploration as well as other areas of basic research. I have

already mentioned many of these technologies, such as aerosondes, AUVs, through

ice communications, submersibles, and seafloor observatories, in the context of the

33

science they support. Development of these important tools must proceed hand-inhand with the development of scientific questions requiring their use.

One such technology development effort resulted in the Autonomous Benthic Explorer or ‘‘ABE.’’ The concept of a roving robot that could remain on station in the

deep sea for up to a year was developed in discussions between engineers and scientists studying hydrothermal systems. ABE is capable of performing detailed survey work with video cameras, sonar, and other sensors at pre-programmed areas

and time periods. Between surveys, ABE remains parked on the seafloor awaiting

the next pre-programmed survey, or a direct command to start a new survey. By

being able to remain on the seafloor in an unattended mode over long time periods,

ABE allows us to study seafloor processes on space and time scales that we are unable to by using surface ships and manned submersibles alone.

While the kinds of technology I’ve just described are fundamental to exploration

activities, their importance is by no means exclusive to them. In the remainder of

my testimony I will discuss the proposed Integrated Ocean Observing System, including coastal observatories, which would profoundly influence the conduct of basic

research, exploration, and, for our sister agencies, operational activities.

COASTAL OBSERVATORIES AND

INTEGRATED OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM

In establishing the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) in 1997,

the Congress found that ‘‘understanding of the oceans through basic and applied research is essential for using the oceans wisely and protecting their limited resources. Therefore the United States should maintain its world leadership in oceanography as one key to its competitive future.’’

A major focus of NOPP has been the development and implementation of a comprehensive, integrated national ocean observing system. NSF-supported researchers

would contribute to, and would benefit from, an ocean observing system in fundamental ways.

Design and Development

Effective and efficient oceanographic observation systems cannot be designed

without some knowledge of the active processes that they are intended to study.

Only with an understanding of the underlying processes can we make good decisions

about what measurements will best characterize changes in the ocean, and, most

importantly, how many measurements are required, and where they should be located. NSF-supported researchers contribute to an understanding of these processes

and the intimate links that exist between the chemical, physical and biological variables.

Observational Activities in the Coastal and Open Ocean

In addition to the valuable operational uses of data that would be made available

through a national Integrated Oceans Observing System (IOOS), access to long

time-series data is imperative for basic research. The need is outlined in a variety

of reports, the most recent of which is ‘‘Ocean Sciences at the New Millennium’’ published in April 2001. The report, developed by a committee of distinguished scientists with extensive community input, states that ‘‘the lack of extensive, more-orless continuous time-series measurements in the oceans is probably one of the most

serious impediments to understanding of long-term trends and cyclic changes in the

oceans and in global climate, as well as episodic events such as major earthquakes,

volcanic eruptions or submarine landslides. We recommend strong support for the development, deployment and maintenance of long-term observing systems.’’

As part of its ongoing activities in both the coastal and open oceans, NSF’s Division of Ocean Sciences has been working with the academic community to develop

an Ocean Observatories Initiative. The effort would provide basic infrastructure for

a new way of gaining access to the oceans, by starting to build a network of ocean

observatories that would facilitate the collection of long time-series data streams

needed to understand the dynamics of biological, chemical, geological and physical

processes. Just as NSF supports the academic research vessel fleet for the spatial

exploration of our oceans, the system of observatories provided for by the Ocean Observatories Initiative would facilitate the ’temporal’ exploration of our oceans. The

effort envisions implementation of a set of seafloor junction boxes connected to a series of cables running along the seafloor to individual instruments or instrument

clusters. The junction box, with undersea connectors, provides a source of power to

the instruments, and a means of transmitting two-way communications to and from

the instruments. A data/operations center would be established that would function

within the framework of the proposed Integrated Ocean Observing System and

34

would be responsible for insuring unified data handling and dissemination procedures using the most advanced information and communications technologies.

The location and types of observatories to be established would be determined

through a competitive peer review process. This new ability to continuously receive

and record ocean data and to communicate with scientific instruments on the

seafloor would greatly advance our knowledge and predictive capabilities in ocean

science.

Data Collection, Management, Access, and Analysis

Advances in instant communication, vast databases, computational power, and extensive analytical capability contribute to making IOOS possible. One of the key aspects of IOOS would be a network for the system that links together various components (e.g., observatories, data archives, modeling groups) to form a distributed

‘‘hub-node’’ system that is centrally coordinated.

NSF is providing support, along with its NOPP partners, for a consortium of private, academic, state, federal and international partners to plan and implement a

network based system for the integration of regional, national and international

oceanographic data.

In addition, NSF and the Office of Naval Research have tasked an Ocean Information Technology Infrastructure Steering Committee to develop a flexible and comprehensive implementation plan for a distributed information technology infrastructure that can be readily integrated with the ‘‘hub/node’’ enterprise.

Support for Management Structure

With its agency partners, NSF is currently supporting the recently established

OCEAN.US office to coordinate implementation of the proposed IOOS.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

We are in a time of rich opportunity for research and exploration in oceanography.

The advances that have been made are impressive. As new observation systems are

implemented we will learn more about the changes that are occurring on our planet

on time scales of days, years, decades and centuries. With the right investments the

coming decades in ocean research and exploration will be truly extraordinary. NSF

looks forward to working with other agencies, institutions, and nations to see that

this happens.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share with you and the

members of your committee the exciting work being supported and planned by NSF.

I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you might have.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much for your thoughtful

comments on a very deep subject. Admiral Cohen?

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL JAY M. COHEN, CHIEF OF

NAVAL RESEARCH

Admiral COHEN. Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman Ehlers, Chairman Smith and members of the Subcommittees and Staff, on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Gordon England, Chief of

Naval Operations, Admiral Vern Clark, and the Commandant of

the Marine Corps, General Jim Jones, we want to thank you for

giving the Department of the Navy an opportunity to discuss the

national importance of ocean exploration and our efforts to develop

and implement an integrated and sustained national ocean observing system. I am, like my fellow panelists here, honored to share

this desk with them and to be amongst true friends.

I have submitted written comments, Mr. Chairman. I thought I

might just share with you a few verbal thoughts. Several of us, at

noon, were at the Naval Observatory on Massachusetts Avenue

where we recognized the contributions of Admiral Watkins as the

Oceanographer of the Navy dedicated a conference room at the

Naval Observatory to Admiral Watkins. Admiral Watkins, of

course, with his great respect and deference to the Congress, looked

35

at the three of us and said that our time would be better spent preparing our testimony. And I hope we were able to do both well.

But I thought I would share with you from the pamphlet, on the

back, a little summary, which I think is apropos. It says, ‘‘Why are

we so concerned with the nature and condition of the ocean everywhere, everyday?’’ Because the ocean covers over 70 percent of the

Earth’s surface. It is changing all the time. And it happens to be

the Navy’s operating environment. To keep the U.S. Fleet safe, to

get it where it needs to be for any given global crisis, to get our

weapons on the right targets and all our systems and sensors operating to their best tactical advantage, the Navy must continually

collect data from all the world’s oceans.

I don’t know who wrote it, but I think they said it very well. I

can tell you, being the Chief of Naval Research, it is a fulfillment

of a lifelong dream for me to support meaningful ocean research in

support of our sailors and Marines who sail the seven seas everyday, often in harm’s way in support of our great Nation.

So why did this New York City boy join the Navy at age 17?

Well, simply said, I joined the Navy to see the world. The advertising really does work. And I have seen the world. I have spent

my life, both under and at sea. And why at age 23 would I return

to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution to study oceanography and become an

oceanographer? Well, because in 1970, in my opinion, the oceans,

as has been addressed here, were the last great frontier. Thirty

years later, they remain the last great frontier. And that is really

what we are here to discuss today.

Now, given the Navy’s budget, I don’t have the graphics. And I

know I am not making Dr. Ballard proud with this humble attempt. But it occurred to me that it is difficult to get members and

staff and the public to Naval research. And so I feel an obligation

to bring Naval research to them. And what I have right here is a

little poster board. And we can pass it around. But at the top, it

is what Admiral Clark refers to as my flagship. It is a surplus

shark patrol craft from the Naval Academy. Because we have

downsized a little. We have painted on the side, ‘‘powered by Naval

research.’’ And you see that Fleet Week in New York last month

where we had English and Spanish placards. We had three dozen

technology and science kiosks. And the middle picture shows the

faces of the young people who visited that ship during Fleet Week.

And you can see the awe that they hold that research in. It was

really heartwarming.

And based on that, we have brought that YP here on the Potomac. Many of the staff members have had a chance to ride it. We

invite you too. We are going to bring it to Baltimore. We are going

to take it down to Norfolk so that the good taxpayers understand

the kind of research that we are doing in the Navy and Marine

Corps in the oceans. And we have not forgotten the Pacific or the

West Coast. This lower left-hand version, it is my Nascar version

of a Swath Ship, which is an interesting hull form. High speed,

very stable. It was built in Pacific Marine in Hawaii. And we have

painted it up and we are going on a West Coast tour, starting in

Alaska, working down to San Diego for each of the Fleet Weeks.

And to inspire the young people, we are going to have adjacent kiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Dec 18, 2001 Jkt 073840 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 D:\WORKD\ETS\071201\73840 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
36

osks, which Dr. Ballard is providing to inspire them as to what the

Navy is doing and what ocean research is all about.

So I thank you very much for this opportunity. I look forward to

your questions.

[The prepared statement of Rear Admiral Jay M. Cohen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL JAY M. COHEN

Ocean Exploration and Observation—A Navy Perspective

Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman Ehlers, Chairman Smith, members of the subcommittees, and staff, on behalf of Secretary England, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vern Clark, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Jim

Jones, thank you for giving the Department of the Navy this opportunity to discuss

the national importance of ocean exploration and our efforts to develop and implement an integrated and sustained national ocean observing system.

Since its inception, the U.S. Navy has been in the business of exploring the

world’s oceans. One naval pioneer was Lieutenant Charles Wilkes, first head of the

Depot of Charts and Instruments—the precursor to the Naval Observatory—who

charted almost 300 islands in the Pacific, explored Antarctica and circumnavigated

the globe in the 1800’s. Another innovator was Lieutenant Matthew Fontaine

Maury, the ‘‘Father of Oceanography,’’ who compiled charts of ocean currents,

winds, weather patterns, and bathymetry (depth measurements of large bodies of

water), creating links between ocean science and national and commercial interests.

Today, we are building on this same foundation of ocean knowledge with ocean

surveying conducted by the Oceanographer of the Navy and ocean research supported by the Office of Naval Research, which I oversee. This information base is

vital to naval forces because our domain of ocean interest spans the globe, and we

cannot afford to be surprised by ocean phenomena that impact our operations. Because the Navy and Marine Corps are on a continual quest to discover new phenomena and illuminate the ocean’s mysteries, I am pursuing the recommendation

from the President’s Panel for Ocean Exploration to extend our definition of ocean

exploration into the time domain. That is the ability to continuously monitor and

measure the coastal and deep oceans, permitting the investigation of the ocean in

a comprehensive fashion that cannot be achieved by isolated observations, cruises,

or visits. We are making progress towards establishing a national capability for sustained and integrated ocean observations and predictions.

A year ago, my predecessor, Vice Admiral Paul Gaffney II, came before you to

stress the need for an integrated ocean observing system. The National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) through its Ocean Research Advisory Panel,

proposed a strategy for giving users such as operators, managers, teachers, industry

engineers, researchers, and the general public, broad and easy access to ocean data,

tools, knowledge and products.

Last year you were told such an integrated and sustained ocean observing and

prediction system could be assembled through a relatively simple web-based federation managed by an interagency joint program office. Today, we have the Ocean.US

program office in place, which has been established, funded, and staffed by a number of NOPP agencies.

Chartered by an interagency Memorandum of Agreement on October 25, 2000 to

establish a national sustained ocean observing system over the next decade,

Ocean.US is dedicated to:

• Detecting and forecasting oceanic components of climate variability;

• Facilitating safe and efficient marine operations;

• Ensuring our national security;

• Managing marine resources for sustainable use;

• Preserving and restoring healthy marine ecosystems;

• Mitigating natural hazards; and

• Ensuring the public health.

Ocean.US is designed to improve access to already existing agency ocean observing and predicting activities while filling in gaps so that the end sum will be greater

than a simple compilation of the parts, creating a fully integrated system. As this

integrated system develops, a number of powerful synergies need to happen.

37

Fully integrated ocean observing systems bring together communities using spaceborne, remotely-sensed data with those making direct ocean measurements and also

foster collaboration between operational observational efforts and long-term research programs such as ocean observatories. Ocean observing partnerships need to

be further developed amongst the federal, state, and local governments as well as

with the private and academic organizations and Non-Governmental Organizations

(NGOs). We must continue to build bridges between oceanographers and meteorologists while also facilitating meaningful cooperation between ocean physicists, biologists, chemists, geologists, and others who will be able through this integrated ocean

observing system, to collaborate in addressing pressing problems. Indeed, the test

of our success will be whether we can deliver these tools to the people who use

them—those who actually do the work we all depend upon to address these problems.

Ocean.US will be in the unique position of being able to get information currently

held by individual federal agencies, state and local governments, private industry,

academia, NGOs and other nations into the heads of the people who can put the

information to work. This centralized effort will reduce unnecessary duplication of

data-gathering efforts while also fostering cooperative research projects. Our goal in

accomplishing this task remains, as we stated last year, to have the initial framework in place in the next year and a half, with the system fully functioning by 2010.

The interagency collaboration and cooperation facilitated by NOPP allowed us to

move forward quickly and decisively in establishing Ocean.US. In just the last four

years with an investment of $57 million, NOPP has supported 54 separate ocean

science research and education projects. The NOPP investment portfolio is based on

the seven societal needs identified by Dr. Worth Nowlin of Texas A&M University

and Dr. Tom Malone of the University of Maryland in the report ‘‘Towards a U.S.

Plan for an Integrated, Sustained Ocean Observing System.’’ These are the same societal needs I mentioned earlier that Ocean.US is addressing.

In 2000, NOPP invested $15 million towards an Integrated Ocean Observing and

Prediction System; the Ocean Biogeographical Information System; Regional and

Special Ocean Observing Initiatives; and the renewal of Education and Outreach

projects funded since NOPP’s inception. This year, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

teamed with NOPP to fund eight projects under the Ocean Biogeographical Information System endeavor, marking the first-time collaboration for the Partnership Program with a private entity. NOPP’s research solicitation is again this year mirroring

the Partnership Program’s focus towards an integrated and sustained ocean observing and prediction system. There are proposals addressing satellite-derived ocean

surface winds, improvements to the sensing suite of profiling ocean floats, the exploration of robust telemetry technologies for ocean sensors, and the planning and implementation of data assimilation and modeling nodes in a ‘‘commons’’ for the oceanographic community.

I am gratified to note the interagency cooperation in this joint effort to establish

an integrated ocean observing system. Organizations signing the Memorandum of

Agreement establishing Ocean.US are the Navy, the National Science Foundation,

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Minerals Management

Service, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the U.S. Geological

Survey, the Department of Energy, and the Coast Guard. We need the synergy of

this interagency collaboration and cooperation, which is the true strength of NOPP

and is indicative of the powerful role the oceans play in our national life.

Within the Navy and Marine Corps., both the research and operational sides of

our Department are fully committed towards this endeavor. The Office of Naval Research is now funding and will continue to fund the scientific and developmental

aspects of this system and will remain an active participant in the NOPP process

and Ocean.US. On the operational oceanography side, the Oceanographer of the

Navy, Rear Admiral Dick West, is equally supportive of NOPP and Ocean.US and

has provided resources to the office and a senior naval officer to serve as the first

director of Ocean.US. Additionally, the Oceanographer has firmly articulated the

need for an integrated ocean observing system in a formal document, ‘‘The Importance of Ocean Observations to Naval Operations’’ that he promulgated in 1999.

We continue to take steps to further ease the accessibility of the Navy’s oceanographic data holdings, some of the most robust in the world, as well as make available our real-time ocean observations to the national community. For example, the

Navy provides real-time, satellite-derived, sea surface temperature and satellite altimetry sea surface height information to the nation from the Naval Oceanographic

Office. Further, much of that office’s oceanographic data is available to the public

through its ‘‘White Front Door’’ effort designed to speed the delivery of appropriate

Navy oceanographic data to general users.

38

The Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE) is a similar effort

sponsored by both the Oceanographer of the Navy and the Office of Naval Research

at the Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center in Monterey, Ca.

GODAE is designed to assimilate vast amounts of ocean information into powerful

numerical models to serve many national needs. The Navy expends effort in such

experiments because it needs to accurately characterize the oceanic environment in

which we operate and relies on observations in the open ocean and coastal zones

for all Naval and joint warfare missions.

High quality ocean observations, taken more often and in more locations around

the world, will yield improvements in mission planning as well as safety and effectiveness of operations, enabling Naval forces to make more informed and higher confidence decisions. Knowledge of the ocean is power, and our Navy and Marine Corps

must possess that knowledge if we are to remain dominant in our control of the

seas.

The Navy fully and absolutely endorses and supports the development and maintenance of an integrated, sustained ocean observing and predicting system for the

country. We are providing resources, information, and personnel. We are convinced

that the interagency NOPP model shows how an effective, multi-agency partnership

effort can contribute to the creation of an integrated and sustained ocean observing

system.

In closing, I would again like to thank the Members for their support, and for inviting me here today to talk about these very important topics.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much. And I just want to tell

you that you still have better graphics than we have in the Congress. We only have black and white Xerox machines. Admiral

Lautenbacher.

STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER,

JR., PRESIDENT, CONSORTIUM FOR OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Thank you, sir. Chairman Ehlers,

Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman Smith, Mr. Weldon, Mr. Underwood, other distinguished members of our Committees today and

the staff members, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you.

We, in the CORE organization appreciate the hard work that

went into bringing this Hearing together and to bring all of the

folks together to provide a good background on the need for ocean

science and ocean exploration and ocean observing. The—I have no

graphics at all, so we—you don’t have to worry about that.

I just want to make three points so that there is time to hear

from the distinguished scientists that we have right here. I have,

of course, the honor and the pleasure of representing CORE, which

is a consortium of 64 premier oceanographic institutions of our

great Nation. It represents a wealth of scientific knowledge and a

storehouse of just about everything that is good for our country.

And I also want to note that the agencies that I am with today

have a number of great scientists, too. And when you go out there

and look at what is happening, you will see these folks working together. It is a community that is interested in doing the right thing

for the country and building the best science that you can build the

best public policy and they work together well. And I am proud of

that.

The three points I want to make, first of all, the Hearing today

is about ocean exploration and about ocean observing. And there

have been a number of comments about which is the best approach.

Which deserves the best support. How should we get this together.

We, from—in the CORE organization view them as two ways to get

39

at the same answer. So we believe they are both important and we

need to emphasize the values that we get from each of these attacks to the problem.

The second issue is that the timing is right. We have the technology available and we have the need to do this. And the third

point that—and I will embellish in a few minutes on this. Is that

we have the mechanism and it is time to take the leadership and

go and do these things. And this is just some additions to what

Congressman Weldon has also so eloquently stated about the

Oceanographic Partnership Act.

But let me go back to the needs or go back to the exploration and

observation piece of this. Really, there are two ways to get at the

same thing. I like to look at this as the two bookends that you

would put up on a shelf. And that shelf right now is mostly empty.

We need to write the volumes in the middle. And that is going to

come from both ends. We are going to do it by exploration and we

are going to do it by observing. We are still, today, as you will hear

from our good scientific folks that are waiting for the next panel,

of the many discoveries that are being made out there on the exploration front. You will also hear from folks who understand the need

for observations, who realize that we have gotten to the stage

where we have to get sustained time series data from around the

globe and from around our coastal areas in order to answer the difficult questions in such things as management and the environment. Now, so both of these things are needed and we need to

write those volumes in the middle. We need everyone’s support.

Now, the timing is right. The technology is such today that we

are doing some incredible things. Certainly, the tape that Dr.

Colwell showed is an indicator, as well as some of the projects that

Scott Gudes mentioned. We have technology today in the information world, in computing processing, in moving data and information management that has been unheard of. And it is growing everyday. We have AUVs, Underwater Autonomous Vehicles that can

do things people never dreamed of before. So the technology is

being developed that can do some of the things that were only

dreamed about several years ago.

We also have the need at this point. So the timing is right. If you

look at the issues on the climate, you look at determining what the

economic health of this country will be in the future if we do not

do the things today to uncover and find the right—the science that

is out there waiting to be discovered and built upon and the knowledge that is needed to produce good public policy. The need is

there. And the need is there for the United States to take the leadership.

That brings me to the third point. The mechanism of the Oceanographic Partnership Act that was so thoughtfully worked out here

in this building, signed by Members of Congress, signed by the

President, enacted, has been put in place, is now in the fourth year

of operation. And as—things work slowly in the government. So

after three years, this may be a glacial pace, but in government,

this is a rapid time frame. If you look at the way that is operating

today, it has become inculturated into our system. It is a way in

which all of our agencies work together, along with our private

foundations and academic institutions.

40

So I encourage that whatever we do, we look at this superagency

mechanism to support and to finance the proper level of exploration

and observations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Vice Admiral Conrad C.

Lautenbacher, Jr. follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, JR.

Good afternoon, Chairman Ehlers, Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman Smith, Committee members and staff. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on

ocean exploration and on development and implementation of a coastal and ocean

observing system. I am Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., new President

of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE). Many of you

knew my predecessor, now CORE President Emeritus, Admiral James D. Watkins.

CORE is the Washington, DC-based association of U.S. oceanographic research institutions, universities, laboratories and aquaria. Our 64 members represent the nucleus of this Nation’s ocean research and education.

This hearing is extremely timely because today we are truly at a crossroads in

the ocean sciences. Exciting new technologies for exploration and observations provide an intersection with real world challenges such as climate prediction, fishery

management, maritime safety, and energy needs. CORE’s position is that we must

use available new technologies to answer key questions and make progress down a

path towards constructively addressing these challenges. Our member institutions

believe that ocean exploration and ocean observations are complementary activities

that together move us forward. Thus both need to be supported.

Today I would ask you to consider three key questions. The first is—what are the

physical, chemical, biological, and geological components and processes that make

up the oceans? This may sound simplistic, yet today we know more about other

planets than we do about the ocean depths. Only about 5% of the world’s oceans have been mapped and our knowledge of their living inhabitants is similarly rudimentary. Nor do we understand many of the complex interactions among the biota

and the physical environment. We have a severe knowledge gap that needs to be

closed for a number of reasons.

We know that there are marine animals and plants with the potential to enhance

human health and provide new products, but until such useful organisms are identified, we derive no benefit. As examples, the pharmaceutical industry has developed

several drugs from ocean sponges, doctors use horseshoe crabs for surgical sutures

and dressing wounds, and researchers study sharks for clues to a cure for cancer.

These preliminary findings demonstrate the opportunities awaiting those willing to

look into the oceans. I recognize that ocean exploration may be more costly than terrestrial exploration, but can assure you it is not as expensive as exploring space and

we may derive more immediate benefits.

We also know the ocean contains abundant deposits of methane hydrate that have

substantial energy potential. However, we need to better understand the chemical

and physical properties of hydrate deposits in order to discern their possible role in

meeting our Nation’s energy needs. I thank all of you for your support and passage

of the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 in the 106th Congress (P.L. 106–193). This was a good first step that should prove very beneficial

now and in the years to come for evaluating investments in our ocean and energy

future.

One impetus for the current interest in ocean exploration was the 1998 Oceans

Conference held in Monterey, California. As a result of that meeting, the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was tasked to conduct an assessment and develop an action plan on ocean exploration. NOAA, with the aid of academic and agency partners, produced ‘‘Discovering Earth’s Final Frontier: A U.S.

Strategy for Ocean Exploration.’’ The plan calls for a $75 million investment over

10 years with funding to be divided equally among NOAA, the National Science

Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Navy. Equally important, the report places a new

emphasis on educational partnerships, recognizes the need to involve students of all

ages, and sets as a goal ‘‘to improve the scientific literacy of America’s schoolchildren and to realize the full potential of a citizenry aware of and informed about

ocean issues.’’

In fiscal year (FY) 2002, the Bush Administration requested $14 million in the

NOAA budget for its role in implementing that plan. It is our understanding that

the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and State proposes

to include $6 million for this initiative for FY 2002. CORE believes these are positive developments that should be supported by the full Congress.

41

Other Federal agencies also have recognized and are supporting programs of

ocean discovery and scientific exploration. NSF has already taken major steps to develop ocean science programs that balance regional, national and global information

needs. Among the most successful are the Global Ocean Ecosystems Dynamics

(GLOBEC) program, the U.S. contribution to the Program on Climate Variability

and Predictability (CLIVAR), the Ocean Drilling Program, and the Joint Global

Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS). Working with the Navy and the University-National

Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS), NSF has long recognized and supported the need to invest in a research infrastructure for exploring the oceans, including the academic research fleet. CORE members support these ongoing activities and have enthusiastically endorsed the agency’s proposal to fund ocean and

seafloor observatories as a major research equipment project.

Bridging the technological gap between ocean exploration goals and capabilities

is the Office of Naval Research (ONR). The Navy and ONR have pioneered efforts

to develop deep submergence vessels like Alvin and autonomous underwater vehicles like REMUS and the University of Washington’s ocean gliders. Another longterm supporter of the academic fleet, the Navy has spent more than $25 million

over the past five years to support ocean surveys by the UNOLS vessels. In addition, they are working on an innovative design for the newest UNOLS member, a

twin-hulled SWATH vessel that will be operated by the University of Hawaii. The

oceanographic community has come to rely on the Navy for leadership in diverse

areas ranging from acoustic research and sensor development to exploration of such

inhospitable environments as the Arctic Ocean. As the Ocean Exploration panel report suggests, NOAA, NSF and ONR together offer unique capabilities for exploring

the Earth’s marine frontier.

The second key question focuses on one of the most serious scientific issues confronting us today—what is the role of the oceans in climate? If we think of ocean

exploration as providing ‘snapshots’ of the ocean at its frontiers, understanding the

oceans’ role in climate requires full-length ‘‘videos’’ across 70% of the Earth’s surface. In order to achieve the long time series and observational coverage that is

needed, scientists agree that an integrated and sustained ocean and coastal observing system is essential. In addition to providing vital climate information, the system also would supply ocean information for such diverse users as weathermen,

fishermen, coastal managers, shipping companies, boaters, the Navy and Coast

Guard, and the offshore oil industry.

One of the great ironies of climate research is that for years we dealt with the

ocean and atmosphere as two distinct systems. New insights and advanced computer capabilities now allow us to examine the ocean and atmosphere as a single,

coupled system. No climate issue has made the need for this approach more apparent than efforts to understand and predict El Nin ̃ o events. Today, farmers, water

managers in the Great Lakes, Pacific salmon fishermen, and home heating suppliers

in the northeast all rely on accurate predictions of an El Nin ̃ o or La Nin ̃ a. The economic ramifications of a correct forecast are staggering.

If the oceans have a profound effect on seasonal climate events, we know that

they must also play an important role in the longer climate outlook and significantly

influence atmospheric warming. However, our current understanding is limited, in

large part because we simply do not have the same observational capabilities in the

oceans that we have on land.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) currently runs the World Weather

Watch. The WMO collects data from member-operated observation systems and provides this as a service to participants in the program. The WMO program includes

information from four polar-orbiting and five geostationary satellites, about 10,000

land observations, 7,000 ship stations and 300 moored and drifting buoys carrying

automatic weather sensors. The fact that we have twice as many land-based as marine observations highlights the data problem. Now you may say, ‘‘Wait a minute,

there are 7,000 ship stations—that’s a lot of ocean data points’’ but the problem is

that the ship observations come from well worn ship tracks rather than an evenly

distributed spatial net across the ocean. The simple fact is that even at the sea surface large areas of the ocean are never sampled.

One of the first steps to remedy this data gap and implement an ocean observing

system is the Argo Program. Argo, of course, is a global array of profiling floats that

measure the ocean’s upper layer in real time. Argo buoys are about 3 feet long and

descend into the ocean depths taking key measurements down to 2,000 meters

where they loiter for 10 days and then pop back up to the surface and relay their

data to a satellite. When the program is fully implemented, the United States and

its international partners will maintain a network of nearly 3,000 Argo buoys and

greatly enhance basic knowledge of our oceans.

42

The Argo system was developed under the National Oceanographic Partnership

Program through the collaboration of NOAA, Navy and NSF, and currently is being

funded through NOAA. For FY 2002, the NOAA budget request included funding

of almost $8 million for the program and I understand that the House Appropriations Subcommittee mark three weeks ago provided full funding. I know that Chairmen Ehlers and Gilchrest wrote letters supporting funds for this program and I

want to take this opportunity to thank you personally for your efforts.

Last month, the Bush Administration announced that U.S. policy on climate

change would be shaped by the best science and pledged to work aggressively to improve our scientific understanding. The Secretary of Commerce, working with other

agencies, was asked to conduct a review to set priorities for additional investments

in climate change research. Responding to these Administration objectives, CORE

proposes that highest priority be given to funding for an integrated ocean and coastal observing system.

While there are many contentious aspects of the climate issue, one area where

there is little disagreement is on the central role of the oceans in storing carbon

dioxide (CO2) and heat. We know the oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the

atmosphere and the upper few hundred feet of the ocean stores 1,000 times more

of the sun’s heat than the atmosphere. This relates to climate change in a very direct way because if we want to slow or reverse greenhouse warming, the oceans may

respond very slowly to our efforts. The scientific problem is we currently don’t know

how sluggish the ocean response is, and we will need better data in order to improve

our estimates.

We also need to better define how the oceans sequester CO2, and how the oceans

store energy to understand the ocean’s role in the total climate picture. We know

CO2 is stored in the ocean but we do not understand the processes in detail and

it will be critical for us to get the science right on this very important issue. These

examples illustrate why it is essential that we secure the initial funding this year

to begin implementation of an integrated ocean and coastal observing system for the

United States.

You may recall that in the late 1980’s this country embarked upon a $4.5 billion

modernization effort for the National Weather Service. A key component of that

modernization was better observational systems integrated by a common software

platform. Over the next decade, the Weather Service improved its predictive capability because it improved its observational capability. This national investment in

improved observing systems paid off both economically and in enhanced public safety. Similarly, an integrated ocean observing system could give us more accurate predictions of seasonal and interannual climate events. It also would greatly advance

and enhance our understanding of longer-range climate issues. Fundamental knowledge of our climate system processes so vital for the development of sound policy

options would be available on demand to members of Congress.

There is wide consensus in the oceanographic community on the need to fill our

climate knowledge gaps and that those gaps can only be bridged with an ocean and

coastal observation system. That leads me to my final question.

The third key question is—what is the most cost-effective method for implementing an ocean and coastal observing system, as well as an ocean exploration program? Many of the elements of an ocean and coastal observing system currently

exist, funded by numerous entities and for a variety of purposes. The need for ocean

and coastal observations is similar to the need for weather information—they promote public well-being. Unlike the weather system, however, ocean and coastal observations are funded, managed, and used by different agencies, organizations, and

institutions and for a variety of purposes. Thus, a major challenge is to integrate

diverse observational systems and data sets to maximize their usefulness and minimize costs. The goal must be to develop a national system that responds to local

and regional needs.

In 1997, Congress approved, and the President signed P.L. 104–201 establishing

the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP). NOPP grew from the

need to better understand the ocean and coasts and their role in national security,

economic growth and quality of life. It provides an effective approach for addressing

national needs, such as an ocean observing system, that do not fall under the purview of a single agency. A key provision of the NOPP legislation was the establishment of the National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC) that brings together the heads of the Federal ocean agencies to form partnerships and work cooperatively toward common goals. Together the members of the NORLC can identify

strengths and weaknesses in Federal ocean research programs and plan where future investments in the ocean sciences should be made.

Members of the NORLC recognize that collaboration is necessary to advance our

understanding of the world’s oceans and meet Federal mission requirements. Their

43

representatives meet monthly to discuss NOPP funding priorities and levels, and

work collectively to address critical ocean science needs. In this way, the NORLC

can focus and direct Federal oceanographic research dollars.

At present, only a small fraction of the national ocean sciences budget or less than

$16 million annually is allocated using the NOPP process. Of that annual total, the

U.S. Navy provides $10 million, NSF provides slightly under $5 million, and NOAA

provides a little less than $1 million. Furthermore, the partnership process has used

federal funding to leverage investments by private, state, and local government

agencies so that the total funding for the program is increased by a factor of two.

While federal government investments to date have been relatively modest, the

NOPP process is developing a record of achievement demonstrating that it is costeffective and does work.

To date, several of these NOPP achievements foster and support implementation

of an integrated ocean and coastal observing system. Dr. Fred Grassle will discuss

one notable example, the Rutgers University Long-term Ecosystem Observatory

(LEO–15), in his testimony later this morning. While the list of other related NOPP

projects is extensive, I would like to mention a few examples, including:

• The design of the NEPTUNE project to establish a linked array of undersea

observatories on the Juan de Fuca plate in the northeastern Pacific Ocean.

• The development of a Virtual Ocean Data Hub (VODHub) that builds on rapidly growing distributed oceanographic data systems to implement a networkbased system and provide seamless access to ocean information.

• The modeling of the coastal upwelling ecosystem within the Monterey Bay

National Marine Sanctuary to guide management and direct future observational efforts within the sanctuary.

• The South Atlantic Bight Synoptic Offshore Observational Network

(SABSOON) that uses Navy ‘‘Top Gun’’ training facilities as a platform for

an ocean observing system.

• The BRIDGE: Ocean Sciences Education Teacher Resource Center that offers

teachers an on-line, easy-to-navigate collection of resources for ocean science

education.

As the projects listed above indicate, the NOPP process has been used to develop

successful approaches to both ocean exploration and ocean observing systems. In addition, the Ocean.US office has been tasked under a NOPP memorandum of agreement to being the process of designing and implementing a national system. Thus,

I would propose that NOPP is the right mechanism to coordinate a coastal and

ocean observation system as well as an ocean exploration program. I hope that you

can join CORE in supporting these ocean endeavors and in using the NOPP process

for their implementation.

An old adage claims that what you don’t know can’t hurt you, but I would argue

quite the contrary in this situation. Exploration and observation are hallmarks of

scientific endeavor, and both by discovery and by observing nature over time we are

better able to understand and to model critical ocean and atmospheric processes. At

present, our knowledge of the oceans is insufficient and hinders efforts to monitor

the coupled climate system. However, we stand at a unique moment in history

where we can now probe the depths of the oceans with new technologies and get

the information we need to better understand our ocean planet. Moreover, the National Oceanographic Partnership Program offers us a mechanism for using Federal

resources to achieve that goal.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to working with you

on these issues and would be happy to answer any questions.

PANEL I DISCUSSION

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you for your testimony. While I was

sitting here listening to the testimony, I scribbled a short note to

Mr. Weldon suggesting a mechanism by which we could coordinate

our Congressional Committees to work better. He sent an even

shorter note back saying, good idea, we will pursue it. So let us

hope we can develop something that will work. We have now

reached the time to ask questions of the panel. And I would first

of all, like to recognize Mr. Gilchrest for the opportunity to question.

44

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn’t quite ready,

but I will go with what I have. Admiral Lautenbacher, you made

a comment about bookends that need to be filled in and have some

sense that the bookends—that the framework that we are looking

for for this whole integrated process and that if so, what are— what, in fact, are the bookworms—bookends, if that is the framework for the integrated process. Then how were you going to fill

that in? And what do you estimate the cost of that to be and how

long will that occur?

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Chairman Gilchrest, let me clarify. I

was talking about the bookends being the approaches to fill in the

knowledge. The subject of today’s Hearing has been the need for

ocean exploration and the need for ocean observing. So we could

get caught up in semantics as to whether the right way to go about

discovering and developing science in the ocean should be done

from the exploration path or from an observation path. What I was

saying is that we need both of these. Our organizations contribute

to both of these, as well as the Science. . .

Mr. GILCHREST. The bookends are exploration and observation.

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Absolutely. You have got to have both

of these. We are still at a point in the ocean, we know more about

the dark side of the moon than we do about the bottom of the

ocean. There are discoveries being made everyday. So that the exploration theme, the way of going about exploring—obviously, it

needs to be done with some thought and done at a level where it

is efficient—— Mr. GILCHREST. I think we should agree that exploration is on

one end, observation is on the other end. I guess my question was,

how do we—is there some sense right now as to integrating the

various agencies, departments, military, private sector scientists on

how to prioritize the exploration and the observations and then

how to integrate that information with the various agencies and

the technologies? And when I say prioritize, I guess I am—leave

this open to the other panel—if—and I think it is important for us

to view the oceans in such a way that we don’t take away the various diversity of the talent among the different agencies or private

universities, but in some way, we enhance their ingenuity, I think,

by the exchange of information. When you do that, you are going

to hopefully have some sense of prioritizing the nature of the exploration and prioritizing the nature of the observation. What is going

to be observed? What are we out there looking for? And, certainly,

there will be crossovers in between. But is there a sense, Admiral,

about how, once we have framed exploration and observation, to fill

that integration of information?

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. I think there is. And I would offer the

National Ocean Research Leadership Council, which was created

by the National Oceanographic Partnership Act. That is what I call

a superagency-level body. It is essentially the National Security

Council of oceans. It includes, you know, Cabinet-level departments

and agency heads working together. This Act created this superagency mechanism three years ago or four years ago. It is in the

fourth year of work. There is a working group set up where each

of the agencies talk together. It created partnerships not only with

the—among the agencies, it created them with our institutions

45

with local and regional authorities and industry, as well. Now, we

haven’t explored as much of the industry and regional as we ought

to. And that, you know, is kind of the next step. But that mechanism is there. Now, in terms of filling out the priorities, what I

would suggest is that this council has created something called

ocean.us, which is essentially an integrated program office. If I

were in the Pentagon, I would tell you this is the equivalent of a

joint program office.

Mr. GILCHREST. What is the status of—because my time is limited.

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yeah.

Mr. GILCHREST. I have a question to Dr. Colwell. But I would

like to maybe in the next go around, I would like to find out what

the status of ocean.us, whatever that is, is.

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. This man can answer the question.

Mr. GILCHREST. Are there people employed there now?

Admiral LAUTENBACHER. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Are they working?

Admiral COHEN. I am pleased to tell you I was there yesterday.

Mr. GILCHREST. Okay.

Admiral COHEN. You are looking at the employee right behind—

we are hiring. We have the spaces. We are moving the furniture

in. I would tell you in a matter of months——

Mr. GILCHREST. I see.

Admiral COHEN [continuing]. It will be full up in operation. This

is going to be a success story.

Mr. GILCHREST. I am going to try to get one question in before

the red light. Dr. Colwell, when microbiology, I guess, do you see

that there has been a lot of discussion about the change of—and

the potential damage to ecosystems if there is global warming over

the next 50 or 100 years? Will that same impact in climate change

happen in the same timeframe or over a longer period of time in

the oceans?

Dr. COLWELL. We are already observing that in places like Antarctica, the increased ultraviolet light is causing a change in the

community structure; that is, the kinds of species of bacteria that

you see there and other microorganisms that are chlorophyll-bearing that are involved in the whole photosynthetic cycle. So the answer is yes, there will be changes. And there will be geographic

changes that we can already measure. And interestingly, there

probably will be public health effects that we didn’t expect. For example, in my own research, we have been able to show that just

an elevation in sea surface temperature of a fraction of a degree

or so in a place like the Bay of Bengal can affect the organisms

that cause the disease cholera. So that the epidemics are directly

related to the sea surface temperature. Now, that is a serendipitous finding, but it is a very exciting one because it suggests very

strongly—does more than suggest—it demonstrates that we are

fragile beings and that we are all interconnected as living beings

on this planet. And we can’t eradicate or eliminate or shift without

changes in our own hill. I could go on, but the answer to your question is that, yes, there are profound changes that we are only just

beginning to determine because we now have the tools of molecular

46

biology that allow us to actually measure, at the DNA level,

changes that are occurring.

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, I would ask for unanimous consent that

you go on for about another hour. I might hear an objection. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman’s time is expired. Next, we

turn to Mr. Faleomavaega. Sorry. For—— Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. It is all right, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman EHLERS. For your five minutes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Just to follow-up on Chairman Gilchrest’s

statement, Dr. Colwell. You know, we have some members, a dear

friend who serves not only as a leader of the Science Committee,

but we served together in the International Relations Committee.

And he considers global warming as global baloney. And I wanted

to ask you, based on our scientific—from our scientists, are we really serious about this issue? Because there seems to be a strong difference of opinion on the—among the scientists about—there—is

there really a serious problem of global warming? Because we are

getting different feedbacks. And I wanted to say that I happen to

disagree with my good friend, who makes these descriptions. A

member of the Congress considers global warming as global baloney. Can you respond to this?

Dr. COLWELL. I would say that the evidence for an increase in

temperature is quite genuine. It has been reproducibly demonstrated in the increase in CO2. The question is, over a very long

period of time, is this a natural series of events or is this, in fact,

an induced event? I think the data are beginning to be fairly dramatic. And I do agree with the President’s position that we do have

gaps in our knowledge and fundamental research is badly needed.

And I think with my colleagues here, we understand that there is

a lot of work we need to do, especially in the study of ocean atmosphere interactions. Very important. But we need to include the biological component. That has not been present in many of the studies that have been done, especially the earlier studies 10, 20 years

ago. It is now time to incorporate the biological component.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I won’t get into the Kyoto Protocols and the

differences of opinion we have on that issue. But just—I just wanted to get a sense from our own American scientific community if

there is support from our scientists of our country that there

should be some serious concern about global warming. That is my

concern here.

Dr. COLWELL. There really needs to be——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. There is consensus.

Dr. COLWELL. There is need for research.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay.

Dr. COLWELL. No question. I think the consensus on that is pretty strong.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. As I heard earlier from my good

friend Curt Weldon about the need for consolidation of so many different Federal agencies involved in research and all of this dealing

with the oceans, if I were to shuffle these four basic categories together for the members of the panel, strategic, economic, environmental, scientific, how would we place a sense of priority in terms

of what our current National policy in that order of those four basic

47

areas? Could any member of the panel respond to this? Because

in—let me tell you my sense of opinion. I think our number one

policy is military strategic. It is not any of the others. But I may

be wrong. Could you correct me on this?

Dr. COLWELL. I won’t correct you, but I certainly would like to

offer a beginning discussion and ask my colleagues to join in. And

I would say that what we are finding is that it continues to be military, but in a very different way. It is an economic competition and

it is a—an environmental security that is necessary. For example,

if there is devastation to wheat crops or let us say to our fisheries,

which is a very important source of protein for the public—— Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But collate—I know, but I just wanted to

ask in terms of—I know where you are coming from.

Dr. COLWELL. Yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Because I could just simply say, why do we have to import $9 billion worth of fish? Why can’t we not domestically produce the fish for our own consumption? Why do we have

to import from the—why do we have to buy fish from foreign countries? Because that indicates that we are not up to par in providing

fish for domestic consumption in terms of our own National needs.

So I just want to get a sense of number from the members of the

panel, what do you consider to be the number one priority among

those four categories?

Mr. GUDES. Am I the fish person?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Whatever you want to call it. Whatever—I

am sorry. My time is. . .

Mr. GUDES. Do—I mean, let me just. . .

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Our current national policy, in your best

opinion, how do you place these four basic areas that I think are

basic as far as where our resources are going into, how we are

going about and doing these things? Because it does relate to exploration and observation. Doesn’t it?

Mr. GUDES. Sure. I think it is legs of a stool, as you have in other

areas. That—I mean, obviously, there is a National security issue,

which we have talked about before here, where the oceans relate

to that. Obviously, there is an environmental issue.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Oh, I know. I know. I know.

Mr. GUDES. Are you saying—I—I can’t—I’m sorry. Go ahead.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am saying that we cannot all put the four

of them equally on the same stool. That is my—I just wanted to

get a sense, where are we really making the most emphasis in

terms of our resources or—— Mr. GUDES. Well, I suppose that is it maybe—this is one of the

areas where maybe it is a little different and the different agencies

that are a part of all these issues. In the case of the Navy, I would

assume it is first on the strategic. In the case of NOAA, I would

assume that it is first and foremost on environmental. And fisheries, which you mentioned, is definitely one of the areas that we

have a mission that we deal with.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am sorry, Mister—yeah.

Mr. GUDES. I think it all—I don’t think it is that easy to distinguish between them.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.

I will wait for the second round.

48

1See document entitled ‘‘International Commitments for Argo Floats’’ in Appendix 4.

Chairman EHLERS. I thank the gentleman from Samoa. Next

yield to myself 5 minutes. I—following up on the question of the

previous questioner about the climate change issue. Mr. Gudes,

first of all, I know you are putting some more solar polar satellites

in orbit soon. And I know much of that is to try to measure properties of the ocean. Will you be able to get data accurately enough

to really assist you in climate change models or are we really going

to have to go out there and disburse these clever little devices all

over the ocean, which will bob up periodically and give reports on

temperature and other conditions?

Mr. GUDES. I think that it is an integrated system. My only point

before was that it includes space-based systems. And some of the

other panels I sat on with this Committee—Mr. Goldin was here

and talked about several systems. But definitely, they play a role

in it. But I think that most of the climate experts would say, no,

you have to have in situ measurements. You have to have these

long-term measurements. And it is about understanding the

oceans. I think it is one of the key areas. The oceans are the driver

of the world climate system. And definitely to get the kind of measurements one needs to really understand what is happening in the

world climate system, you need those sort of ocean measurements.

ARGO is one way to do that, in a broader sense. The TOGA TAO

atlas buoys I talked about are another one. The only other point

I was going to make as I rushed through my presentation earlier,

Mr. Chairman, is that this is sort of a dual use issue, if you will.

Clearly, ARGO floats are probably first and foremost about climate.

But they are also about understanding the oceans and about understanding the currents and really unlocking some of the secrets of

the oceans at the same time. I know that some of these answers

come across similarly that these things are interrelated, but it is

an interrelated system. And I—but I definitely do think the answer

to your question is you definitely do need ground-based systems.

Chairman EHLERS. Now, the satellites are going to be about 6c

billion. How much will the ARGO system cost?

Mr. GUDES. The ARGO system, I don’t have the total out. It is

$7.9 million in our budget this year to get up—per year to get up

to a U.S. contribution toward a 3,000 float system. I think about

a thousand, basically, are United States floats. Most of which

would be contributed by NOAA, but not solely NOAA. And I have

some papers here, which I can provide for the record on other countries.1 But the idea is to get to a 3,000 system. And that would

probably get us about where we need to be. So about $8 million a

year. And these floats last, I believe, for about five years. So there

is a replacement to them. It is not as though you put them out one

time. It is not as though you put them out one time, just like you

don’t put out any system one time. But there will be a replacement

and 275—I think that is about where we need to be.

Chairman EHLERS. Okay. Thank you. On the ocean exploration

program, I—Dr. Colwell and Admiral Cohen, are you both intending to put in appropriate amounts of money into that program for

the next year?

49

Dr. COLWELL. We plan to do so. It is a very, very important program. Having continuous measurements as opposed to sort of snap

shot measurements gives us a much better understanding. I defer

to Admiral Cohen for further comment.

Admiral COHEN. Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes. The oceans

are where we operate. As I think many of you are aware, the Office

of Naval Research invests about $400 million a year in category 6.1

basic discovery and invention. Of that amount, approximately $100

million goes into ocean studies. Of that amount, about half goes

into acoustics. Now, acoustics is unique to the Navy because it is

not only a censorious part of our weapons systems, it is integrated,

et cetera. And it may not have other commercial or scientific spinoffs, except when you retrieve that data and are looking for things

that you may not have looked at in the past. So we feel we are

strongly committed in the tens of millions of dollars to this area.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. And I am sure NOAA is also fully

involved in that. I yield back the remainder of my time. I will next

recognize the gentleman from California.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that some

science is necessary in making any decision. I mean MTBE in California is a great example. It sounded good. But we found once it

mixed with water, you couldn’t remove it from the water. And now,

we have polluted water in California we are trying to figure out

how to clean up. And all of you had testified about the inadequacy

of observation in the oceans as it relates to climate. In fact, just

as complicated powers of problems involving models, it seems that

we have learned today from all of your testimony that ocean observation is a problem, as well. And, first—and this is for all of the

panelists. Do you believe that the models used in the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, IPCC, assessments adequately incorporate the role of oceans in climate? Why or why not in your answer.

Mr. GUDES. The models do integrate the ocean. They—definitely

we could do—we could get more measurements and integrate and

develop better models. One of the efforts that we are always involved in, Congressman, is actually improving these models. A big

issue is actually the supercomputing power to run these models.

And NOAA, through our Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab, is one

of the key areas. In fact, had one of the key models that is used

by the climate community. Dr. Colwell and I were just at a Hearing

in Alaska, actually, where we looked—before the Senate Appropriations Committee—where we looked at several models that the

IPCC uses, as well as the general climate community.

Mr. MILLER. But all of you have testified about the inadequacy

of observation of the oceans. If you have not adequately addressed

the issue of oceans and how that does impact it, how could you feel

that it is adequate in coming up with a reasonable answer?

Mr. GUDES. I think that it is an issue of continually getting better measurements. Just as it is, actually, in the atmospheric

sciences. But the National Academy of Sciences Report, which just

was done recently, actually supported the IPCC modeling that was

done.

Mr. MILLER. And you think there is an adequate understanding

of oceans as it applies to climate?

50

Mr. GUDES. I think there is a good understanding. And as I said

before, we need to do better. I think that a great example is actually the TAO Array across the Pacific. This, back in the early ’70s

or so, this was a forecast by our scientists that the equatorial Pacific temperatures affected weather in your State. Now, in the latest El Nin ̃ o that we experienced, we came up with a forecast ahead

of time that was largely made possible through those buoys and

through those measurements. It is definitely just like with weather

forecasting, Congressman. It is definitely an issue where you can

get better and better. Better, in terms of models. Better, in terms

of the observations. And better, in terms of the integrating, getting

that data into the models, simulating into the model in the way

that the model improves.

Mr. MILLER. Well, I don’t disagree with that. But you could apply

that to water quality in the same question. You could say, how

pure is pure? Are the water quality standards today, are they adequate to provide safe drinking water? And my question would be,

is our understanding of the oceans adequate in order to use that

portion in the equation of climate?

Mr. GUDES. Right. It is not—it is obviously not just about understanding the oceans. It is about a lot of other measurements that

we have taken. Our understanding of the oceans is good in terms

of the interaction and coupling with the climate model, but it could

definitely be better. And it is definitely, as I said, an issue of

where—getting better information, getting better measurements,

getting better measurements within the whole water column on a

regular basis. Sometimes, it is—as I pointed a lot of times, these

climate measurements are not dynamic. They are these long-term

data sets by getting them everyday, it is—again, it is not just the

oceans, Congressman. If you will, cooperative observers and improving—one of the things that we do in NOAA is about improving

the quantum measurements on land. I know I showed you an

image earlier of a lot of red dots across the land surface. But definitely, those measurements can be improved, as well. It is one of

the things that we are working on all the time. Getting those same

measurements, temperature—exact temperature measurements

and getting them on a regular basis and then getting those into the

models is all about putting together this puzzle and about understanding the whole earth dynamic that is driving our climate system.

Mr. MILLER. And recently President Bush made a decision not to

support the Kyoto Protocol. And he did that—he made the decision

based on what he perceived to be inadequate understandings of the

global warming issues and the environment and such. I saw some

other heads when you were answering—kind of yessing a question,

kind of going no. So Admiral Cohen, I believe you had a comment.

You might have a different opinion.

Admiral COHEN. I think you have to frame this—and I do like

your analogy, how pure is pure? From the warfighter’s point of

view, we have to worry about how good a prediction capability do

we have for an area and for what length of time in advance of the

needed information. And so for small areas and for near term, we

are doing okay. If we would like to be able to predict the length

of time it takes to get across an ocean using current and ship

51

speeds for an amphibious landing that would occur upon arrival,

we are not doing well. I like the competition that we have with

NOAA models and the Navy Meteorology Command models, which

are complementary, tend to leap frog each other. And, in fact,

NOAA came to Navy during Hurricane George, which did so much

damage to our East Coast because of the flooding issues, because

for that environment, the Navy Meteorology model was better suited than the NOAA model at that point of time. And I understand

subsequently, they have integrated that. So it is a continuum that

moves on. It is not a black or white kind of issue. And I know you

are sensitive to that, based on the question.

Mr. MILLER. Well, thank you for your patience, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your answers.

Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. We would

like to move on to the next panel, but Chairman Gilchrest has

asked for two quick questions of this panel before we move on.

Mr. GILCHREST. Given the sensitivity of the time, Mr. Chairman,

I had a couple more questions, but I think I can contact the witnesses myself outside the Hearing. I do want to say, Mr. Gudes and

I were planting marsh grass a few weeks ago on the Chesapeake

Bay improving that estuary for habitat for the entire ecosystem of

the oceans of the world. And I want to thank him for that. Mr.

Gudes.

Chairman EHLERS. My question is how do you mow it after

you——

Mr. GILCHREST. With Canada Geese and Tundra Swans.

Chairman EHLERS. I want to thank the panel very much for their

appearance and their testimony and their comments. This will be

extremely helpful to us.

Dr. COLWELL. Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me just very

briefly. I wanted to acknowledge Congressman Smith and Congressman Eddie Bernice Johnson for two superb articles in today’s

Capitol Hill. Thank you very much.

Chairman EHLERS. All right. Fine. Thank you. We are pleased to

call up the next panel.

52

PANEL II: DR. MARCIA MCNUTT AND DR. ROBERT BALLARD

Chairman EHLERS. Panel II, Dr. Marcia McNutt and Dr. Robert

Ballard. And I ask Chairman Gilchrest to take the Chair at this

point.

Chairman GILCHREST. Our next panel is Dr. Marcia McNutt,

President and Chief Executive Officer of Monterey Bay Aquarium

Research Institute. Welcome. And Dr. Robert Ballard, President,

Institute for Exploration. Dr. Ballard, thank you for coming today.

We look forward to your testimony. Dr. McNutt, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF MARCIA K. MCNUTT, PRESIDENT AND CEO,

MONTEREY AQUARIUM RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Dr. MCNUTT. I’m glad to be here to speak today about a topic

that I care about most passionately. That is ocean exploration.

I am speaking to you today not only as the President and CEO

of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, but also as the

President of the American Geophysical Union and as the Chair of

the Ocean Research Advisory Panel for the National Ocean Partnership Program.

Since time is limited, I just want to cut right to the important

issues regarding ocean exploration. First of all, why does the U.S.

need a program in ocean exploration? I am very heartened by the

comments that have been made so far today by the distinguished

Members of Congress. Clearly, you get it. The ocean is essential to

life on earth. The ocean is the earth’s largest living space. It contains most of it’s biomass. 80 percent of all phyla are represented

only in the ocean. And most photosynthesis occurs there. The ocean

moderates our climate, it keeps earth habitable and it processes

our waste. It provides an inexpensive source of protein to feed our

population. Yet 95 percent of the ocean is unknown and unexplored.

To be sure, much has been learned about the oceans through research programs funded by our Federal agencies. But research is

distinct from exploration. Exploration leads to the questions. Research leads to the answers. Everyday, Congress and other legislative bodies are asked to make policy decisions concerning the ocean

based on the best scientific answers to those posed questions. But

what if we don’t know enough to ask the right questions?

For example, right now, we are considering direct sequestration

of carbon dioxide into the ocean below three kilometers depth to

mitigate global warming. But how can we assess the biological impact of ocean sequestration when we know practically nothing

about what lives at those depths? Everyday when the submersibles

of my institution go out to those depths, we find new creatures that

have never been seen before. As another example, observatories

that were installed by my institution at Monterey Bay saw that

during the decade of the ’90s, for a mere one degree increase—one

degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature, the productivity of the

ocean plunged 25 percent. That extreme effect was not predicted by

any of the sophisticated computer models and it was because they

did not have the resolution and had not explored—we had not explored the ocean sufficiently in the time domain to ask the right

53

questions of those models. In order to know those questions to ask,

the U.S. needs a program in ocean exploration.

So what is ocean exploration? It is the systematic observation of

all facets of the ocean in the three dimensions of space and in the

fourth dimension of time. Ocean exploration leads to great but

largely unpredictable rewards. Cures for diseases, untapped mineral energy and biological resources, insight as to how the ocean

system functions, geological and biological vistas of unsurpassed

beauty. Appreciation for our maritime past. Ocean exploration captures the attention of the public and provides engaging content for

improving math and science literacy.

When should we begin a program in ocean exploration? Well,

probably 20 years ago. But better late than never. Right now, even

Ireland is better off than the U.S. in terms of its ocean exploration

program. Japan, France and Russia all have ocean exploration

tools that are decades newer than what is currently available for

the U.S. research community. I personally can’t understand why a

country that has won World Wars, walked on the moon, and increased the standard of living for its citizens through superior technology could allow itself to sink to second-tier status when it comes

to something as important as the oceans. To own the technology is

to own the oceans.

So who should be involved in ocean exploration? Well, it should

involve all stakeholders: Federal laboratories, businesses, universities, educators, conservation, students, all of the relevant Federal

agencies. Each brings an important element to the table. The efforts of all of these groups will need to be well-coordinated through

some effective management structure, including coordination of

Federal funding. The Ocean Exploration Panel felt that NOPP was

a perfect mechanism for doing this. But what the agencies need to

hear from the White House and what they need to hear from Congress is that they will cooperate through NOPP and that they will

route their funding for ocean exploration and ocean observation

through this mechanism.

The fruits of exploration should be equally available to all stakeholders so that policy decisions can be well-informed from all viewpoints.

So, how should we explore the oceans? The program will be most

effective and systematic with built-in mechanisms for educational

outreach and information dissemination. The Ocean Exploration

Panel felt that we should center the program around a signature

mission, a poleward circumnavigation of the entire planet, concentrating in areas under U.S. jurisdiction. In each region, the exploration would begin with reconnaissance mapping of the sea floor

and water column. Next space would involve detailed exploration

by the state of the art flagship equipped with new generation submersible technology and high bandwidth satellite communication to

bring the real-time discoveries to aquaria, schools, homes and offices.

My institution does that right now, everyday in the Monterey

Bay Aquarium. There is no reason why we can’t do that nationwide. The flagship would also be set up to archive samples and distribute validated data to data repositories and over the Internet. In

the wake of the flagship’s observations, ocean observatories would

54

be installed in key locations to continue that exploration into the

time domain.

In summary, I hope that Congress will support ocean exploration

because the ocean is a mysterious living universe critically important to the functioning of the planet. But even if you support ocean

exploration only because of its potential to increase National

wealth, encourage ocean conservation, improve public health, regain U.S. technological superiority and promote science literacy for

the public, aren’t those reasons good enough? Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Marcia K. McNutt follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARCIA K. MCNUTT

Thank you, Chairmen Gilchrest, Ehlers, and Smith, for this opportunity to speak

to you about a topic that I care about most passionately, Ocean Exploration.

Since time is limited, I will cut right to the important issues regarding ocean exploration: Why, What, Where, When, Who, How, and How Much.

Why does the U.S. need a program in ocean exploration?

It is very simple. The ocean is essential to life on Earth. The ocean is Earth’s largest living space and contains most of its biomass. Eighty percent of all known phyla

are found only in the ocean, and most photosynthesis occurs there. The ocean moderates our climate to keep Earth habitable, and it processes our wastes. The ocean

provides an inexpensive source of protein to feed the global population. Yet 95% of

the ocean is unknown and unexplored. How could that have happened? During the

great era of exploration from the 15th through the 18th centuries, the target was

unknown lands: the New World, the Dark Continent, Terra Incognita. Many of the

explorers of that era were indeed superb mariners—Columbus, Magellan, Drake,

Cook—but the ocean itself was not the target of their journeys. It was merely a barrier that needed to be crossed in order to claim new lands and discover new riches.

The technology did not even exist at that time to explore the ocean itself. By the

time we developed the platforms and instruments that could explore the ocean and

its depths, exploration had gone out of favor as most of the land surface had already

been catalogued, and the vast resources of the oceans were unappreciated. To be

sure, much has been learned about the oceans through research programs supported

by Federal agencies, primarily NSF, the Navy, and NOAA. But research is distinct

from exploration. Exploration leads to questions. Research finds answers. Every day

Congress and other legislative bodies are asked to make policy decisions concerning

the oceans, based on the best scientific answers to those posed questions. But what

if we don’t know enough to ask the right questions? For example, some are now proposing direct sequestration of carbon dioxide in the ocean, below 3 km depth, as a

way to circumvent the atmospheric release that leads to global warming. But how

can we assess the biological impact of ocean sequestration when we don’t know all

of the creatures that live in those regions, much less the role they play in the overall health of the ocean ecosystem? As another example, my institution’s ocean observatories documented a 25% drop in ocean productivity in Monterey Bay in the

decade of the 1990’s caused by a 1 degree Fahrenheit rise in ocean surface temperature. This extreme effect was not predicted by the sophisticated computer models

because we have not explored the ocean sufficiently in the time domain to ask the

right questions of the models. In order to know the right questions to even ask, the

U.S. needs a program in ocean exploration.

What is Ocean Exploration?

Ocean exploration is the systematic observation of all facets of the ocean (biological, physical, chemical, geological, archaeological, etc.) in all three dimensions of

space and the fourth dimension of time. Ocean exploration leaves a legacy of carefully documented information for posterity, to address questions we do not know

enough to even pose at the time that the data are collected. Ocean exploration

pushes the envelope for technology as we attempt to gain access to Earth’s most

challenging environments. Ocean exploration leads to great, but largely unpredictable, rewards: cures for diseases from novel biological compounds, untapped mineral, energy, and biological resources, insight as to how the ocean system functions,

geological and biological vistas of unsurpassed beauty, appreciation for mankind’s

maritime past. Ocean exploration captures the attention of the public and provides

engaging content for improving math and science literacy.

55

Where should we explore?

The highest priority for U.S. ocean exploration should be the underwater territories under our jurisdiction. As stewards of these areas, we have a moral obligation

to concentrate our efforts there. It is also in these areas that we are most likely

to protect and profit from new discovers. The second priority is the Arctic Ocean,

largely unexplored and yet the sentinel for global climate change. Other priorities

are the vast Southern Ocean and inland seas, where a significant portion of our cultural heritage awaits discovery.

When should exploration begin?

Probably twenty years ago. But better late than never. A number of other nations

have already begun programs to explore their territorial waters. Even Ireland has

an ambitious program to map its entire (and large) Exclusive Economic Zone, and

is already reaping rewards in terms of new discoveries from its efforts. A number

of other nations (Japan, France, Russia) have invested in technology for ocean exploration that is decades newer than what is currently available to the U.S. research

community. I don’t understand that why a country that has won world wars, walked

on the Moon, and increased the standard of living of its citizens through superior

technology could allow itself to sink to second tier status when it comes to something as important as the oceans. To own the technology is to own the oceans.

Who should be involved?

Expeditions should be led by explorers, with broad interdisciplinary backgrounds,

who understand the importance of observing everything, regardless of whether it relates to a specific area of their own interest. Ocean exploration should involve all

stakeholders: public, private and non-profit. Business interests, universities, federal

laboratories, educators, conservationists, students. NOAA, NSF, Navy, NASA,

USGS, MMS, EPA, DOE. Each brings an important element to the table. The efforts

of all of these groups will need to be well coordinated through some effective management structure, that includes the coordination of Federal funding. The fruits of

exploration should be equally available to all stakeholders so that policy decisions

can be well informed from all viewpoints. International collaborations will be essential in territorial waters of other nations and desirable in international waters as

well.

How should we explore the oceans?

The program will be most effective if it is systematic, with built-in programs for

educational outreach and information dissemination. A plan that appealed greatly

to the Ocean Exploration Panel was to center the program around a signature mission: a poleward circumnavigation of the globe. The mission would begin in Maine,

continue down the U.S. eastern seaboard, into the Gulf of Mexico, to the Equatorial

and South Atlantic, around Antarctica, back up through the Indian Ocean to the

western Pacific, across to Hawaii and California, northward along the Pacific Coast

to Alaska, and culminating with a mission under the Arctic ice cap. In each region,

the exploration would begin with reconnaissance mapping of the seafloor and water

column. The next phase would involve detailed exploration by a state-of-the-art flagship equipped with new-generation submersible technology and high-bandwidth,

satellite communication to bring the real-time discoveries to aquaria, schools,

homes, and offices. The flagship would also be set up to archive samples and distribute validated data to data repositories and from there, over the Internet. In the

wake of the flagship’s detailed observations, ocean observatories would be installed

in key locations to continue the exploration into the time domain.

How much should the U.S. invest in ocean exploration?

The Ocean Exploration Panel recommended $75M/per year for an initial period

of ten years, exclusive of capital costs. This is clearly a small investment compared

with the value of the ocean to the U.S. economy. We decided on this number based

on several arguments. Given that the discoveries from ocean exploration will lead

to questions and specific hypotheses that will need to be followed up by research

programs, an Ocean Exploration Program that is approximately 10% of the size of

the total federal ocean research portfolio is reasonable. Alternatively, a bottom-up

calculation for the necessary components of the program: (signature mission, auxiliary explorations, technology development, the education and public outreach, the

technology transfer) leads to a similar dollar estimate. Our assumption was that

contributions towards ocean exploration from state and private sources and in-kind

support from existing government-funded efforts would make the total investment

in ocean exploration several times the nominal $75M recommended.

56

Summary

I hope that Congress will support ocean exploration because the ocean is a mysterious living universe critically important to the functioning of the planet. But even

if you support ocean exploration only because of its potential to increase national

wealth, encourage ocean conservation, improve public health, regain U.S. technological superiority, and promote science literacy for the public, aren’t these reasons

good enough?

The full text of the panel report is available at:

http://oceanpanel.nos.noaa.gov/

Chairman GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. McNutt. Dr. Ballard.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. BALLARD, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE

FOR EXPLORATION

Dr. BALLARD. I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking

Members of the Resources and Science Committees for convening

this Hearing today and most importantly, for convening that jointly.

Many people perceive Resources and Science as separate categories, yet in my field, at least, in ocean exploration, they are

closely related. It is appropriate to hold this joint Hearing as we

begin to define our policy for ocean exploration so that we can move

forward into the new millennium with a blueprint for the future.

For years now, we have referred to space as the last frontier. The

words of Star Trek. We must go where no one has gone before. I

strongly believe that America must maintain its lead in space exploration, but it is by no means the last frontier. Ironically, we

have better maps of Mars on the side we can never see, than we

have of Earth, itself. Most people don’t realize that when Neil Armstrong took that giant leap for mankind on the surface of the moon,

it occurred before earthbound explorers using deep diving

submersibles entered the largest mountain ranges on our home

planet.

Today, we have only explored a fraction of the world’s oceans

that cover more than 71 percent of the earth. This is particularly

true in the Southern hemisphere where the oceans occupy 81 percent of the surface area of the planet.

Going back in time, I find it—as I have somewhat become a historian over recent years, to look at exploration in the 18th and 19th

century. In the 18th and 19th century, England commonly had

more survey ships in the Southern hemisphere of Earth than

America now has exploring there in the 20th century.

There is virtually really no major ocean exploration program

within our country. You might ask why explore? Because exploration has always preceded exploitation of the natural resources of

our planet. Before we discovered the vast oil and gas and coal deposits of the West, before we had Yellowstone National Park, before

there was an Anaconda Copper Mine, there was a Lewis and Clark

expedition. The vast majority of our planet has never had a Lewis

and Clark expedition pass through its unchartered wilderness.

I am also convinced that there is more history to be found in the

deep sea than all the museums of the world combined. Yet we are

only now beginning to look for that history.

I can’t think of a better Nation to lead the world in a new wave

of ocean exploration than our Nation. A Nation founded and explored by pioneers. I also would like to make an aside. When I was

57

watching Dr. Colwell’s videotape of the hydrothermal vents, I had

to smile. Because I was co-chief scientist of the expedition that

made that discovery in 1977. And we were not looking for what we

found. We were looking for something else. And fundamental exploration is commonly when you are looking for something and you

find something else. And, certainly, that discovery points that out.

But future explorers of Earth need to develop the technology necessary to explore the vast and remote regions that lie beneath the

sea. We need a new generation of exploratory vehicles that we call

AUVs, autonomous vehicles capable of accelerating our rate of exploration.

But I would also like to take the discussion a little bit further

afield than what Marcia said so far and what I have said so far.

Because while our exploration is underway, it—we really need to

begin looking at how we can better farm the sea.

The use of the sea is still primitive, just as the farmers and

ranchers came to America to plant their crops and tend their

herds, significantly increasing the productivity of the Great Plains

and eventually feeding the world, we need to stop being the

hunter—gatherers of the sea and start to become their shepherds.

To do that, we need to develop technology that—in the future for

future farmers and future ranchers of the sea that will follow exploration.

Besides exploring, exploiting, farming and hurting the sea, we

also need to protect it’s natural beauty and cultural heritage for

the enjoyment of countless generations to come. Just as we have

set aside wildernesses and national parks and preserves on land,

we need to do the same in the sea.

The National Marine Sanctuary is a beginning of that concept.

But it is just a beginning. These newly created sanctuaries need to

be expanded. And the creatures and human history within their

boundaries better protected. But before the marine sanctuaries can

gain the necessary public support to ensure their long-term protection, the public needs to be able to visit them, just as we visit Yellowstone Park and the Grand Canyon today. Working with NOAA,

our team is—at the Institute has just made a systematic survey of

the latest marine sanctuary in Thunder Bay, Michigan. There, in

addition to shipwrecks, which we were mapping and discovering,

we also found evidence of geological features that suggest possible

Indian habitation before that area went under water.

Later this year, again, working with NOAA, we will be working

in Monterey Bay at the Marine Sanctuary using the latest in telepresence technology. People visiting our facility in Connecticut will

be able to do live tours in the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary,

home of the beautiful sea otters and sea lions, all the way across

the United States, building a constituency and support for the public.

I know my time is short and I wanted to submit the rest of my

testimony, which has been submitted to you for the record. So I

will see the red light is on and I will stop. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Robert D. Ballard follows:]

58

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. BALLARD

I want to thank the Chairmen and ranking members of the Resources and Science

Committees for convening this hearing today and I’d like to commend you for doing

this as a joint effort.

Many people perceive Resources and Science as separate categories, yet in my

field, at least—ocean exploration—they are very closely related. It is appropriate to

hold this as a joint hearing, as we begin to refine our policy for ocean exploration

so we move forward into the new millennium with a blueprint for the future.

For years now, we have referred to space as the last frontier and in the words

of Star Trek, felt we must ‘‘go where no one has gone before’’. I strongly believe

America must maintain its lead in space exploration but it is by no means the ‘‘last

frontier’’.

Ironically, we now have better maps of the far side of the moon that has never

faced Earth than we do of Earth itself. We have better maps of Mars and Venus

than of Earth.

Most people do not know that Neil Armstrong TOOK that ‘‘giant leap for mankind’’ on the surface of the moon BEFORE earthbound explorers using tiny deep

diving submersibles entered the largest mountain range on our own home planet.

We had to wait until 1973 for that, four year after Armstrong’s ‘‘giant leap’’.

Today we have explored only a fraction of the world’s oceans, which cover more

than 71% of the Earth. This is particularly true in the Southern Hemisphere, where

the oceans occupy 81% of the planet’s surface area.

Going back in time, you will find that, during the 18th and 19th centuries, England commonly had more survey ships in the Southern Hemisphere of Earth than

America had in the 20th century.

Why explore? Because exploration has always preceded exploitation of the natural

resources of our planet. Before we discovered the vast oil, gas, and coal deposits of

the west, before there was Yellowstone National Park, before there was an Anaconda Copper Mine, there was a Lewis and Clark Expedition. The vast majority of

our planet has never had a Lewis and Clark Expedition pass through its uncharted

wilderness.

What better Nation to lead the world in a new wave of exploration than our nation, a nation founded and explored by pioneers?

But future explorers of Earth need to develop the technology necessary to explore

the vast and remote regions that lie beneath the sea. We need a new class of exploratory vehicles known as AUVs: autonomous undersea vehicles that can accelerate

our rate of exploration.

And while this exploration is underway, we need to begin developing how we can

better farm the sea. Our use of the sea is still primitive. Just as the farmers and

ranchers came to America to plant their crops and tend their herds, significantly

increasing the productivity of the Great Plains and eventually feeding the world, we

need to stop being hunters and gatherers of the sea and become their shepherds.

To do that, we need to develop the technology future farmers and ranchers of the

sea will need.

Besides exploring, exploiting, farming, and herding the sea, we also need to protect its natural beauty and cultural history for the enjoyment of countless generations to come. Just as we have set aside wildernesses and national parks and preserves on land, we need to do the same in the sea.

The National Marine Sanctuaries are a new concept that begins that task. These

newly created Sanctuaries need to be expanded and the creatures and human history within their boundaries better protected. But before these Marine Sanctuaries

can gain the necessary public support to insure their long-term protection, the public needs to be able to visit them just as they visit Yosemite or the Grand Canyon.

Working with NOAA, my team from the Institute for Exploration just recently made

the first systematic exploration of our newest Marine Sanctuary in Thunder Bay,

Michigan. There, in addition to the shipwrecks that have already been identified,

we found more highly preserved ones in pristine condition.

Later this year, again working with NOAA, we will conduct the first guided tours

of the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary using the latest in telepresence technology.

People visiting our facility in Mystic, CT will be able to participate in ‘‘live’’ guided

tours of the wonderful kelp forests of Monterey Bay, home to sea otters and California sea lions.

The technology to do all this is brand new, cutting edge and very exciting. Developed in cooperation with NOAA, it was field-tested in the Black Sea last summer

and is slated to go to Antarctica in the coming spring. In addition to the exploratory

technology, we have to develop the technology that will be needed to live in the sea.

I am not talking about living underwater in habitats but living on the surface of

59

the sea. At this very moment NASA’s International Space station is orbiting Earth

and inside that space station scientists are attempting to grow plants in the simulated soil of Mars. Isn’t it ironic that we are preparing for the eventual colonization

of Mars, the Moon, and outer space but are not exploring how we might someday

colonize the sea?

Years ago, the Office of Naval Research sponsored the development of the FLIP.

A large human occupied buoy that is towed to sea and flipped vertically into position, FLIP makes it possible for a team of scientists to live for long periods of time

at sea, able to survive the roughest of seas in relative comfort. The oil industry has

utilized this concept to build large offshore oil and gas platforms. Now we need to

do the same with an eye toward families living at sea like the pioneering families

that settled the west. We need to conduct research that would enable these families

to grow their own food as well as develop their own aquaculture.

To conclude, I truly believe that the next generation of explorers who are presently in elementary school will explore more of earth than all previous generations

combined. But it is our job to insure this prediction comes true. First and foremost,

we need to motivate and inspire the coming generation to be explorers. That is why

I created the JASON Foundation for Education more than 12 years ago. When this

effort first began, the dominant child in this program was a white boy.

But I am proud to say that during the short history of the JASON Project that

demographic make-up has changed dramatically. Today, we have more than 1 million children in America participating in the JASON Project and their demographics

reflect America’s population diversity and in fact, the majority of participants are

young women.

I want to thank you again for holding this joint meeting and asking me to give

this short presentation. This concludes my formal statement.

PANEL II DISCUSSION

Chairman GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Dr. Ballard. Dr.

Ehlers?

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few quick questions.

Dr. Ballard, first of all, I am curious, where does your money come

from? And I mean the Institute’s, not yours, personally.

Dr. BALLARD. Well, fortunately, we are fortunate as Monterey

Bay, in fact, Dr. McNutt and I have just written a joint paper together in the Journal of Marine Technology about how our institutions are rather unique to traditional oceanographic—in many

cases, the vast majority of my funds come from the public visiting

our facilities. We have received Federal funding. We have received

support from the Office of Naval Research, from Admiral Cohen

and his group behind me for the development of technology. We received support from NOAA for the use of that technology and exploration, but my salary and all of my staff’s, quite honestly, come

from people visiting our facility.

Mr. EHLERS. And Dr. McNutt, same question for you.

Dr. MCNUTT. Yes. I find it—and, of course, you have picked up

immediately on this quite important distinction that the two institutions that are probably doing ocean exploration in its pure form

right now are both privately funded. We receive small amounts of

Federal grants. But basically, the mission, the technology we have

developed has all been done under the auspices of the David and

Lucille Packard Foundation.

Dr. BALLARD. And I would like to add just that exploration is

only recently begun to join—enter the vocabulary of oceanographers. Through most of my career, you did science, you did research. You did not do exploration. And it has only been fairly recently that one can actually find a place to submit a proposal to

as an explorer.

60

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. I have used the—an immense amount

of Hewlett-Packard equipment during my lifetime. I am pleased

that some of that went to support your Institute. What new technologies should we develop or work on as a nation to enable more

expansive and comprehensive ocean—— Dr. MCNUTT. Actually, it is an important issue. My own sense is

that in the physical sciences area, the technology is far more mature and available off-the-shelf for measuring things like the temperature of the ocean, measuring currents, measuring its interaction with the atmosphere.

I believe that in the chemical and in the biological realms that

is where the sensor technology is very much less advanced. But

with the marvelous new tech—new tools—the new tools that are

coming down the line thanks to the biotechnology revolution and

also through MEMS technology, micro electrical mechanical devices, there are now possibilities to explore the ocean in the biological and the chemical realm that were never available before.

And as Dr. Ballard already mentioned, the importance of cost effective platforms for delivering those tools to the ocean is extremely

important. We have relied on tools such as ALVIN for nearly 50

years now as a primary tool for exploring the ocean. But it is simply too expensive to use in some mass quantity. And we need autonomous underwater vehicles and remotely operated vehicles to

provide more affordable access to the oceans.

Dr. BALLARD. In Dr. McNutt’s testimony she talked about having

an exploratory research vessel. I mean, the problem is I think what

is the recipe for chicken soup. First you get the chicken, and we

do not even have the chicken. We do not have a ship that is dedicated to ocean exploration. And certainly not in the Southern

Hemisphere. I mean, you just have to realize how much of the

Southern Hemisphere is unexplored, the vast majority of it. And

we really need a ship platform. And then from that platform vehicle systems that will greatly accelerate our rate of exploration,

which is very slow right now.

Mr. EHLERS. I will resist the temptation to ask you where chicken of the sea comes in.

Dr. BALLARD. It’s a tuna.

Mr. EHLERS. I know, I know. I am struck by some of the things

that you have said. And it reminds me when I as a youth religiously read National Geographic about their tremendous underwater explorations with very primitive vessels. And I found that

really intriguing.

I wonder if what we do not need is another Jacques Cousteau to

stimulate public interest.

Dr. BALLARD. It was not bad.

Mr. EHLERS. Pardon?

Dr. BALLARD. It was not bad. He did a pretty good job.

Dr. MCNUTT. He is the reason I am an oceanographer.

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah. And just—we have to stimulate more public

interest in this issue. And the whole idea of exploring the ocean,

which is what we did for a number of years. And now we have just

gotten into the measurement and research phase.

Dr. BALLARD. We do have a JASON Project which has 1.3 million

children in it right now.

61

Mr. EHLERS. I am well aware of that.

Dr. BALLARD. And it has been stimulating a lot of them.

Mr. EHLERS. And presumably, some of them will be Members of

Congress at some point.

Dr. BALLARD. Or President.

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. I see my time has expired. I yield back.

Chairman GILCHREST. Mr. Underwood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for

your testimonies. I was struck too by some of the comments, especially made by Dr. McNutt. If you would care to elaborate on some

of your comparisons to what our country does in terms of oceanographic research versus some internationally. You seem to indicate

that perhaps we are not giving it as much effort and attention as

some other countries in a proportionate way.

Dr. MCNUTT. Yes. Compared to our GNP there are a number of

countries, New Zealand, Ireland, France, Japan, that invest more

in the ocean than we do. And given the very large amount of territorial waters under our jurisdiction it simply does not make sense.

My sense is that one reason why the U.S. oceanographic community has managed to maintain a premiere position is not because

per capita our funding is the best, or because our tools are the latest generation, but simply we have a very, very well educated, very

creative work force that is drawn globally from all over the planet

that is conducting ocean research here. And we have a good system

for identifying the best people and getting them funded.

It is not because we pay them the most. It is certainly not because we give them the best tools. We have a good system. And if

we could build upon what are those strengths, by giving them the

A-Team in terms of facilities and in terms of funding, the bottom

of the ocean is the limit. The sky is the limit——

Mr. UNDERWOOD. The—what is the—what is the nexus then between the research institute and the universities, and what do you

think is an appropriate relationship, I suppose, between the research institutes, the universities and government support of that?

And do you—do you see that there are models in other fields of endeavor which would be conducive to the kind of enterprise we

want——

Dr. BALLARD. Clearly, space exploration I think does——

Mr. UNDERWOOD. So is it——

Dr. BALLARD. Well, fine. But I think they do encourage exploration more.

Dr. MCNUTT. Yes.

Dr. BALLARD. I think there is——

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, how did that come to be, in your estimation? And——

Dr. BALLARD. Perhaps just the shear vastness of the problem. I

think too that the unknown.

Dr. MCNUTT. Well, I think too we cannot downplay the fact that

solving this problem was much easier in space because we had one

government agency with the mandate for space that was created.

NASA. It is easy—NASA has a very large external program that

supports both technology and science and exploration in the university community, as well as, its NASA centers. They work well toVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:56 Dec 18, 2001 Jkt 073840 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 D:\WORKD\ETS\071201\73840 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
62

gether. In the oceans the jurisdiction is much more diffuse. And it

has been much harder to build a system like that.

I think from the standpoint, speaking as someone outside of the

government, I think there is a great amount of good will out in the

academic community and the research center community to all

work together to these great aims. But when we look at where in

the Federal Government do we plug in, we find that it is a much

more diffuse system. And there is not sort of sole leadership there,

we know where to go in order to all work together and to make this

gel the way it has for the space community.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, and you were a member of the President’s panel, are you not?

Dr. MCNUTT. Right.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. And what—how was that issue addressed?

Dr. MCNUTT. The President’s panel recommended that NOPP

was probably the best mechanism we had right now for trying to

get that to come together. In other words, the National Ocean Partnership Program which has representatives on the Leadership

Committee from Navy, NOAA, NSF, NASA, USGS, that that is one

place where they come together and try to coordinate. It still does

not have quite the central management, if it were simply one agency. But it is certainly the closest we have yet come in my 30 years

of being an oceanographer to something that works to coordinate

ocean research.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Okay. Dr. Ballard, I know you want to address

that as well. But could you also address then in the context in your

answer about how perhaps better we could utilize the Navy or Department of Defense assets?

Dr. BALLARD. Well, we have. I mean, the Navy has—certainly the

Office of Naval Research in particular has always been a pioneer

in the development of ocean exploration technology. It was the

Navy that first developed manned vehicle systems, first encouraged

the use of the Bathyscaph 3S. Later the Bat—developed the ALVIN

vehicle system. ONR has been a pioneer in ocean exploration technology development. It is the use of that technology in exploratory

manners.

You have to understand that exploration is a risky business. And

scientists are—tend to be very cautious about taking great risks.

You cannot come up short too many times and maintain your career. And I think scientists tend to be very cautious. And I think

the agencies tend to—to somewhat encourage that cautiousness,

which is part of the scientific process.

It is not the process exploration. Exploration is very risky. And

that is there is no place for explorers, like myself, to go. I mean,

I have to go to the National Geographic Society to do what I would

do really risky exploration. Or do things and then beg forgiveness

from the Navy later on. I have done that a number of times. Do

not ask permission, beg forgiveness. And I have done that numerous times. Of course, the Office of Naval Research has a wonderful

philosophy about that kind of thing.

Dr. MCNUTT. Forgiveness——

Dr. BALLARD. Yes. And he is sitting right behind me.

Chairman GILCHREST. Thank you. Mr. Faleomavaega.

63

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I certainly

want to compliment Dr. McNutt and Dr. Ballard for their fine testimonies. I was struck by your statement, Dr. McNutt about the fact

that several other nations of the world are far more advanced than

us. And that is the very point that I was trying to get to in my

earlier line of questions. As the saying goes, if you want to know

what our national priorities are look at the budget. And I—that is

where I raise the curiosity about those four areas that I was trying

to seek or solicit the best opinions of our previous panel in terms

of where are we really putting emphasis in terms of our national

priorities. And the bottom line is how does it compare to those

areas.

I—and to compliment, also Dr. Ballard mentioned, in my recent

discussions with the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, he has

had to contract a Norwegian commercial oceanographic exploratory

company to do the research for the Cook Islands to find out how

many seabed minerals are out there in the three million square

miles of ocean that is part of the jurisdiction of this little island

nation. Small in numbers, but three million square miles. And to

my surprise there was no American company. And that really

shocked me. And I thought, man, I thought we had the best scientific situation as far as going into this kind of a situation.

Seabed minerals is a risky business, I am sure. Dr. Ballard is

very familiar with the issue involved here. But when I hear the

Prime Minister telling me that estimates at least, at least, well

over $200 billion worth that could be harvested from the ocean of

this little island nation, can you imagine what it is like in the rest

of the other regions of the Pacific Ocean. And as well as the Atlantic, I suppose.

So that is where my concern comes in. I honestly believe, and in

my opinion, and I have known Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gilchrest, we

are not advanced in our agriculture development. We are a nation

of importers of fish, which really baffles my mind. Why we—why

looking at other nations where they really are far more advanced

even in their fisheries programs.

You mentioned earlier about the situation that we find ourselves

in the Pacific. I do not know, is there any difference between research and exploration?

Dr. BALLARD. You bet.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. So the research of the pencil pushers,

right. There are other ones out there looking at the dangers of——

Dr. BALLARD. No, not at all. I think that exploration is fundamental exploration. I would not think that you would characterize

the Lewis and Clark Expedition as a scientific expedition. It was

funded out of the pocket of the White House.

Dr. MCNUTT. Yeah, if I could add. Typically, what happens in

order to conduct research, someone has a hypothesis. And they go

out and they gather data that is pertinent to that hypothesis. They

do not gather data that is not pertinent to the hypothesis, even

though it might have been more important to gather. And that

data is then used by that researcher to address that narrow aim.

The data is not necessarily widely sent out to anyone to answer

questions that were not—that did not occur to the researcher at the

time that the study was conducted.

64

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think both of you had also made comment

earlier about not only do we need to explore the ocean, but we also

need to maintain it. No other region of the world where the people

living in this region of the Pacific, and I can say that our own country detonated 66 nuclear explosions, hydrogen bombs and atomic

bombs. The Bravo test that took place in 1954 was 1,000 times

more powerful. The nuclear detonation in 1954 was 1,000 times

more powerful than the nuclear bomb that we put on Nagasaki and

Hiroshima.

The French Government, many Americans do not know this, exploded over 218 nuclear bombs——

Dr. MCNUTT. Mihara.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA [continuing]. In the South Pacific. And right

now this little island of Mihara is called a Swiss cheese because

they have had to go down 2,000 feet in exploding supposedly that

is supposed to contain it. And now they find out that there are fissures, there are cracks. And I would like to see some day that

maybe we will find a nuclear fissure and send it to President

Chirac and see what kind of a job he has done in caring for the

ocean and the problems that we face. And I say this with tremendous sensitivity. Because we live there. And I would like to think

that there is a sensitivity that we do care for the environment, especially in this area of the ocean.

I just want—I am not going to get into anymore hypotheticals

and my good friend, Admiral Cohen, there. I am absolutely certain

that the U.S. Navy Department has got more information on exploration and observation that they would care to share with us that

I just wish that maybe they could declassify it so in that way the

scientific community can benefit, we can make more sense economically to compete with other nations when it comes to fisheries and

the amount of things that we need to do in this area. And perhaps,

Mr. Chairman, we can hold an oversight area where the Navy Department alone and maybe help us in that.

Because I honestly believe that it is true that these four basic

areas are interaction and you cannot separate one from the other.

But I believe that the—I should not say monster, but the good person out there with all the money and the scientific resources to do

this is our—none other than the friendly U.S. Navy. And maybe

they could help us a little more with the rest of our scientific community to come up to par with all the information so that we could

be more economically viable in getting into the resources of the

ocean.

One quick comment, Mr. Chairman, there are 14,000 varieties of

algae. We have only been able to discover there is only about 1,000.

And one algae product right now that is now being used by one

company is for a tremendous cure for a lot of the—certain diseases.

This is something that we have not even touched on.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, my time is up.

Chairman GILCHREST. All right, Mr. Faleomavaega, we appreciate your question. I think these people that are coming to testify

before us today are encouraging us to do a lot more than we are

doing of the things you are suggesting. So it is really our responsibility to appropriate the sufficient funds.

65

We also have a hearing scheduled with the Navy to deal with

some of the things that you suggested about their research. Specifically, with sonar and marine mammals. But we certainly can add

to that some of the hot-spots globally that they may be aware of.

And we might find it pretty interesting.

They have rung for a vote. I think I may be the last person to

ask questions before the vote. What we will do when I am done

with my questions, unless there are any follow-up questions, we

will recess. I believe there is just one vote. And we will back for

the third panel.

Dr. McNutt, you talked about a signature mission with a flagship. Is there a ship presently in the U.S., without building one,

that you could recommend do that?

Dr. MCNUTT. I am sure there is. I do not believe that it would

be necessary to create a new ship. I think that it would be necessary, however, to refit substantially any existing ship. I think

some of the larger class ships in the Naval Fleet could be adequate.

I am sure that Navy or NOAA probably have adequate ships.

The important thing would be it must be a ship that is equipped

for public outreach. And it has to be equipped, I believe, with the

latest in submersible technology. Because what the public is going

to want to see is not a chart recorder. They are going to want to

actually be part of the exploration. They are going to want to see

the high definition television cameras on the sea floor, see experiments going on, see marine creatures being observed in their environment. They are going to want to feel that they are part of that,

not just see instruments writing down numbers.

It will also be important that that ship be ice-strengthened to go

to polar seas. And it is going to be important that the ship be

equipped with the latest in navigation and telecommunications

equipment. So I believe that we could find in the current fleet——

Chairman GILCHREST. Have you discussed this at all, this particular concept signature mission with let us say, National Science

Foundation or NOAA or the Navy or Dr. Ballard?

Dr. MCNUTT. Yeah. It has certainly been discussed with——

Dr. BALLARD. I was on the same commission.

Dr. MCNUTT. Yes, yes.

Chairman GILCHREST. I see.

Dr. BALLARD. I was part of that recommendation. And I would

add that remember when we found hydrothermal vents we had

no—we did not have the right scientists aboard. We had no biologists. And we had to wait 2 years before we could get the experts

who knew something about this discovery back to that spot.

That is why we need not only public outreach for telecommunications so that the young explorers of tomorrow can participate in

these expeditions, also the necessary telecommunications technology, the network scientists when you are out exploring and you

are making discoveries, you are more than likely do not have all

the experts aboard. And you need to be able to network them in.

So the use of telecommunication technology is critical. It would certainly be nice if we could get oceanographic ships that could go

faster than 15 miles an hour.

66

Chairman GILCHREST. Is this a concept that can be—you mentioned NOPP a number of times, National Ocean Partnership Program. Is this a concept that can work through NOPP?

Dr. MCNUTT. I believe it is. But you have to understand that this

would be a great expansion of NOPP. Because NOPP is an actually

pretty small pot of money that they are dealing with now. I think

to do this right—— Chairman GILCHREST. When I say NOPP though, I mean, the— we could do our best to come up with the funding. And I certainly

think this concept is one of those things that we can pursue to sort

of enhance exploration research. But to push the public momentum

toward this kind of thing.

Dr. MCNUTT. I think NOPP can do it. With my experience in

being involved with NOPP, I have been impressed at the way that

they have been able to do things that are larger than an individual

agency’s purview.

Chairman GILCHREST. As a first step though, you know the Ad- ministration recommended a budget of I think it was $14 million

for ocean exploration. And I think the House to this point has put

up $6. I think as a beginning it would be nice to...

Dr. BALLARD. Keep to $14.

Chairman GILCHREST. Absolutely.

Dr. BALLARD. I think the Senate may be with you on that.

Chairman GILCHREST. Well, maybe we can work that out in conference.

Last question, Dr. Ballard, you mentioned an idea of shepherds

of the sea where we used to—we went into the frontier of various

areas of the planet and began to harness the energy there and then

began to produce food. We know a lot more now about soil in its

complexity than we did just 20 years ago. And the nature of good

bacteria, bad bacteria, nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus—— Dr. BALLARD. Right.

Chairman GILCHREST [continuing]. And those kinds of things.

And their impact on the local ecosystem and the watershed. If we

pursue, and I am sure it will be pursued, this idea of shepherds

of the sea I would assume then we would have to know a great

deal more about the complexities of that marine ecosystem.

Dr. BALLARD. Absolutely.

Chairman GILCHREST. Set aside refuges on the land, marine protected areas in the sea. So do you see—— Dr. BALLARD. Yeah. I have been frustrated over the years. I have

been in the field for 4 decades. And without taking a global approach to managing the oceans. I mean, certainly there are resources in the ocean. But there are certainly beautiful places that

need to be preserved. I see it no different than I look at the United

States. I have national parks. I have areas where farmers farm. I

have places where the military operate. You know, there are so

many ways that one can look at it in a much more sophisticated

way. We are still very primitive.

Dr. MCNUTT. We are still open range.

Dr. BALLARD. We are no different than hunter gatherers of thousands of years ago of going out and hunting buffalo. We are out

there hunting buffalo right now. We are blowing the buffalo all the

way. And we are basically replicating what we did to the—in the

67

early history of our country. We should not do that. We should

really be taking a sophisticated look at management. When I say

shepherds, I mean that. I mean shepherding the ocean for both— everything that we are talking about. Exportation, exploration, living.

Is it not amazing that right now you have a space station going

over our head. And in that space station they have soil simulating

Mars. And they are trying to grow plants. Because NASA has the

mission to talk about colonization of Mars, the Moon and outer

space. And nowhere in this country are we talking about the colonization of the oceans. I just find that mind-blowing.

Chairman GILCHREST. I am going to have to go for a vote. And

I do appreciate, as we all do, your time, your chosen careers, and

your testimony here this afternoon. Dr. Ballard, Dr. McNutt, thank

you very much.

Dr. BALLARD. Thank you.

Chairman GILCHREST. We will recess for about 15 minutes.

[Recess]

(68)

PANEL III: DR. ROBERT A. WELLER, DR. J. FREDERICK

GRASSLE, DR. ALFRED M. BEETON, DR. ALEXANDER

MALAHOFF.

Chairman GILCHREST. The Subcommittee will come to order. I

apologize for the interruption. We may have another one. Because

we might have another vote within 10 minutes or within 45 minutes, so I thought it was best to come back and get started again.

But thank you very much for your patience and your endurance

through all of this.

The third panel is Dr. Robert Weller, Director of Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Welcome, Dr. Weller.

Dr. J. Frederick Grassle, Director of Institute of Marine and

Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University. Welcome.

Dr. Alfred Beeton, Senior Science Advisor, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration. Welcome, sir. I am a little tongue-tied

today.

And Dr. Alexander Malahoff, Director, Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, University of Hawaii. Gentlemen, thank you

very much for coming.

Dr. Weller, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. WELLER, SENIOR SCIENTIST AND

DIRECTOR, COOPERATIVE INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE AND

OCEAN RESEARCH, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION

Dr. WELLER. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am, as

you said, Mr. Chairman, Director of the Cooperative Institute for

Climate and Ocean Research. I am also a blue water oceanographer

and I spend about 1 to 2 months a year at sea.

In April 1997 I sailed from Peru to deploy three moorings in the

eastern tropical Pacific. One north of the equator, one at the equator and one south of the equator. When we got to the equator we

found strange surface currents, strong currents to the east, not

what we expected. A message to colleagues at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Lab provided the answer.

What had happened is that earlier that year in February and

March 1997 strong wind events in the western tropical Pacific had

excited an oceanic disturbance that was moving its way across the

equator. We had intercepted that disturbance. This disturbance it

turned out was signaling the onset of the 1997 El Nin ̃ o which became one of the strongest on record. As you know, during El Nin ̃ o

the presence of anomalously warm water in the eastern tropical

Pacific leads to dramatic changes in weather and climate around

the world.

69

After a strong El Nin ̃ o in 1982 to 1983, NOAA, the National

Science Foundation and international partners, had moved forward

and begun to deploy an array of 70 moorings to measure surface

winds and upper ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific. It was

data from this array that provided us the alert on the ship. It was

data from this array that provided the early warnings of the 1997

El Nin ̃ o and allowed people around the world to prepare.

In 1999 it was estimated that the value to consumers and producers of these early warnings, for just the U.S. and just the agriculture sector, had been $300 million. For all sectors, the estimate

of the value was $1 billion a year. This is a huge payoff when you

weigh it against what the U.S. puts into the El Nin ̃ o observing sys- tem annually, $12 million.

There is potential to reap even greater benefits. The ocean stores

1,000 times more heat than the atmosphere. It plays a key role in

weather and climate variability on time scales from days to years

to decades, out to centuries. It is the climate time scale that we are

concerned about.

To bring up a figure, the challenge to moving forward on an

ocean observing system is the fact that the world’s oceans are

interconnected. Water moves from the surface to the bottom and

back to the surface along pathways that are global. In the higher

latitudes, as you can see in the—on the right-hand side of the

North Pacific and the left-hand side in the North Atlantic, ocean

water is cooled. It becomes dense, it sinks. It sinks into the interior. It flows through the interior of the world’s oceans, eventually

returning at and near the equator where it is warmed before it returns poleward.

This interconnectivity means that change at high latitude today

in the North Pacific can in several years shows up at the equator

in the Pacific and changes the character of El Nin ̃ o. It also means

that change today at high latitudes in the North Atlantic will eventually find its way throughout the whole globe, all the world’s

oceans. Change at the high latitude in the North Atlantic might in

fact disrupt the whole global circulation pattern that you see in

this picture.

Now this challenge is one that we are ready to take on. We know

what we need to do. We have the tools. The U.S. has been leading

in oceanographic research for decades. The National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have provided the tools, the necessary

foundations of instrument development, and basic research.

What is the plan? We will deploy drifting buoys, both on the surface and the ARGO profiling floats. These will give us broad special

coverage. We will install moorings. These moorings will collect

times series that are required to quantify air to sea exchanges of

heat, fresh water, and greenhouse gasses, like CO2. And to measure the transports of those properties within the ocean. These

moorings will collect data from the sea surface down to the sea bottom.

We will make measurements repeatedly from merchant ships of

both surface meteorology and ocean variability. Every five to ten

years we will use research ships to collect samples over the full

depth of the ocean during cruises that cross the basins and look at

70

how man-made chemicals such as freons and CO2 are slowly penetrating.

In summary my points are these, first, there is a huge economic

benefit. Two, we must go forward globally. The oceans are interconnected. Three, we have the tools, we just need to do it.

I would like to close with a brief, very brief, video and show you

some pictures of some of these elements. What you will see at first

is my research group from Woods Hole Oceanographic working in

the tropical Pacific deploying moorings. That is a surface buoy

going over. That is what carried the meteorological instrumentation. Underneath we are attaching oceanographic instrumentation.

We are going to anchor this in 4,000 meters of water. All along

that mooring line we are putting instruments to measure temperature, salinity, currents. At the bottom we have hollow, glass

spheres inside these hard hats as emergency buoyancy. There is an

acoustic release. That is the anchor going over.

We will now steam away from that mooring and leave it for a

year. A year later we return to that mooring, recover it. Come

alongside, grapple that mooring, recover it, get the data out of the

instruments and replace it with the new mooring to keep taking

the time series.

We heard earlier about the ARGO floats. That is an ARGO float

going over. A simple thing to do, we can deploy from research ships

and commercial ships. Sinking down to 1,500 meters or 2,000 meters and coming to the surface telemeter.

Some of the other elements. These are the tracks of existing merchant ships. We need to make use of these tracks and make use

of those ships.

These are the locations where we would deploy moorings around

the world. Within the red box is the TAO Array, the only place we

have instrumented so far. We need to do the rest of these sites.

These are the lines of those research cruises every 5 to 10 years

to sample the full depth of the ocean circulation.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Robert A. Weller follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. WELLER

The Benefits and Problems Facing the Development of an

Integrated Ocean Observing System

Good afternoon Mr. Chairmen and members of the Subcommittees. Thank you for

the opportunity to testify. I am Robert Weller, a sea-going research oceanographer

at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and also the Director of the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research at the Woods Hole at Oceanographic

Institution. In my testimony, I will focus on the open or blue water ocean, as you

will hear other testimony on the coastal ocean.

There has been growing need for us to understand climate variability both to assess its impact on society and to guide policy decisions. This need provides a good

starting point for a discussion of ocean observing systems. To understand climate

variability and change in the earth system, which includes the atmosphere, the

land, and the ocean, we need to make the observations necessary to track the energy balance among the components and the energy storage in each component.

Critical to climate science are observations that explain the heating of the earth by

shortwave radiation from the sun, the balance of that energy accumulation by

longwave and reflected shortwave radiation returning to space, the impact of clouds,

aerosols, and gases on the passage of longwave and shortwave through the atmosphere, and the partitioning of where energy accumulates (Fig. 1). Equally important,

71

observations are needed to track the redistribution of freshwater and the energy associated with changes in phase of water. For this reason, it is essential to field,

maintain, and sustain the land stations, sounding balloons, aircraft, and satellites

needed to collect these observations (Fig. 2). Because of their importance to weather

prediction, these atmospheric and terrestrial networks already exist and should be

sustained and improved.

However, for the ocean, there is no comparable heritage of sustained observations

and no operational global ocean observing system, either for understanding the

ocean’s role in climate or for support of fisheries, marine transportation, defense or

other purposes. An integrated global ocean observing system is needed. Consider the

72

need from the point of view of climate. The ocean, which covers 70% of the earth,

can store 1100 times more heat than the atmosphere due to the larger heat capacity

and density of water. The upper 2.5 m of the ocean, when warmed 1°C, thus stores

an amount of heat that would raise the entire column of air above it 1°C as well.

As a consequence, an anomalously warm region of the ocean has the potential of

releasing considerable energy to the atmosphere above. That heat release can alter

the weather on short time scales and, if it persists, can alter climate.

The ocean has unique attributes, but these problems have been considered and

a well thought out plan for the integrated ocean observing system exists. Because

they dictate how to construct an integrated ocean observing system (one that is comprehensive and complete), these attributes are reviewed briefly here. Unlike the

land, the ocean is not opaque to shortwave radiation and is mobile. Sunlight heats

the upper ocean, and the strong solar insolation in the tropics leads to warm ocean

temperatures there. There is thus often a warm surface layer that extends down to

50 to 100 m. This layer is in direct contact with the atmosphere and isolates the

bulk of the ocean from direct contact with the atmosphere. Surface currents, such

as the Gulf Stream, carry warm water from the tropics poleward (Fig. 3). In locations of heavy rain this surface layer is also made more buoyant by the additional

freshwater. In the western equatorial Pacific, rain and solar heating combine to

make a warm pool of surface water. During El Nin ̃ o that warm water is found instead in the eastern tropical Pacific, and the anomalous location of such warm water

is associated with the major climate and weather impacts of ENSO. In locations outside the tropics, however, our lack of observations of air-sea exchanges and ocean

pathways leaves us unable to be definitive about the mechanisms by which the

oceans and atmosphere influence each other, though patterns of variability, such as

the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) are

evident.

The circulation in the ocean is not limited to the surface layer. When surface

water becomes denser when cooled by the heat loss to the atmosphere and when

salt is left behind during evaporation, it can sink into the interior of the ocean (Fig.

4). Convergent, wind-driven flow in the surface layer can also force water into the

interior. Horizontal flow in the ocean’s interior, like that in the atmosphere, is due

73

to horizontal pressure gradients resulting from spatial differences in the density of

seawater. The action of the surface winds, heat and freshwater fluxes and subsequent flows in the interior of the oceans yield a fully three-dimensional flow. Particularly dense water is formed in the northern North Atlantic and along the coast

of Antarctica. A much-simplified schematic of the ocean’s circulation shows these

water masses sinking and flowing at depth through the global ocean, rising again

to the surface where they are warmed by contact with the atmosphere in the tropics

and subtropics the deep ocean over the globe (Fig. 5). Note that a warmer globe

could lead to melting of the polar ice caps and that the resulting freshness of the

surface water at high latitudes could reduce the formation of dense water in the

North Atlantic and in the Southern Ocean, thus altering the present large-scale

three-dimensional flow of the world’s oceans.

74

Changes in air-sea exchanges and in surface currents alter the pattern of sources

and sinks for heat, freshwater, and other constituents at the base of the atmosphere

and thus impact climate. The three-dimensional circulation in the ocean fully engages the very large reservoirs of the interior of ocean, over a wide range of time

scales reaching to longer than decadal, in the climate system. An ocean observing

system must thus observe the air-sea exchanges, the ocean pathways for transport,

which lie along the boundaries of the basins as well as at the surface and in the

interior, where heat, freshwater, and other properties are stored, and how the pattern of storage is evolving. This is a challenge. Changes in interior temperature and

salinity will result in changes in the density-driven flow, which, in turn, may further redistribute these properties. Thus, attribution of change in temperature at a

site must consider not only the possibility that additional heat is accumulating or

being lost but also that changes in the three-dimensional flow has brought water

of a different temperature and salinity to the site.

Measuring the air-sea exchange of heat, freshwater, momentum, CO2, and other

constituents important to climate and weather is a central goal of an ocean observing system. Numerical models and existing climatologies have large errors in the

air-sea fluxes they provide, and these errors are an impediment to gauging the

ocean’s role in climate; and the accuracy of weather predictions at sea is limited by

the lack of data from the oceans. The installation of a number (5 to 10 per ocean

basin) of surface buoys is recommended to provide, at key locations, accurate time

series of the surface meteorology and air-sea exchanges. These buoys would be

equipped to measure surface wind, relative humidity, air temperature, sea surface

temperature, barometric pressure, incoming shortwave radiation, incoming

longwave radiation, and rain (Fig. 6). Sampling as fast as once per minute, these

buoys are essential as the first step in an effort to obtain the air-sea fluxes over

75

the basins needed to quantify the ocean’s role as a source and sink in the climate

system, to serve as the variable and energetic forcing on the bottom of 70% of the

atmosphere (and thus a major role in weather), and to be used to understand ocean

response to change in surface forcing. The choice of the locations for these sites is

guided by the need to observe air-sea exchange in characteristic meteorological provinces over the ocean, such as in equatorial convection, under the stratocumulus

clouds found west of California and of Peru and Chile, and in the trade wind belts,

and to observe air-sea exchanges in regions of strong coupling between the ocean

and atmosphere.

The buoys will serve as references sites or anchors in the work of making the

maps of air-sea exchanges that are needed. The spatial distribution of the air-sea

exchanges around the reference sites would be obtained, in the locations that merchant ships are available, by equipping those Volunteer Observing Ships (VOS) with

similar instrumentation (Fig. 7). The observations from the surface reference sites

76

and VOS would be used to calibrate and drive improvements to atmospheric models

and satellite remote sensing that would provide additional information about the

surface meteorology and air-sea fluxes and allow production of global maps of air

sea exchanges.

Observing the pathways for transport on the surface and in the interior of the

ocean and the evolution of the property distribution within the ocean is also a central goal and requires broad spatial coverage of the fields, high spatial and temporal

resolution to resolve pathways, and moorings. Broad coverage of the basins is to be

accomplished by on an ongoing basis by a combination of the VOS, free-drifting instruments, and satellites. The VOS will drop expendable temperature probes (XBTS

or expendable bathythermographs). The VOS can drop XBTS frequently enough to

obtain the close spatial sampling needed to resolve the transport in boundary currents and the transport associated with ocean eddies. New, free-drifting ARGO

floats that change their buoyancy and obtain vertical profiles every 10 days will be

deployed globally with 100 km spacing to observe temperature and salinity in the

upper 1500 to 2000 m (Fig. 8). Together with satellite observations of sea surface

height and surface wind, the ARGO floats will allow the broad scale evolution of

the upper 1500 m of the ocean to be tracked. Surface drifters will be deployed for

calibrating remotely-sensed sea surface temperatures, and land-based tide gauges

are needed to calibrate satellite altimetry.

77

Moorings, both with surface meteorological buoys and with no surface buoy (Fig.

9), will be used in key locations to quantify flow along pathways between the surface

and the interior and between the warm tropics and the cooler extratropical regions.

At sites where surface waters are cooled and sink and where convergent flow forces

surface water into the interior, the air-sea fluxes will be quantified and the progression of water from the surface into the ocean interior will be observed. At sites

where strong, narrow currents carry large volumes of water, arrays of moorings will

measure the volume, heat, and salinity of these currents (Fig.10).

78

The time series collected by moorings or by frequent visitation by a ship will provide a key record of change from the surface of the ocean down to the bottom. At

present, very few such observing sites exist in the ocean; and our record of change

in the oceanic interior is sparse. In conjunction with plans to occupy a number of

surface flux reference sites, the integrated ocean observing network would have time

series sites at key locations to quantify transports and observe change.

The progression of water from the surface into the interior and to the ocean bottom is slow, estimated to take up to 100 years in some locations. Along the way,

mixing processes modify the water mass, so tracking the slow overturning of the

global ocean requires additional observations. Releases into the atmosphere of

chemicals, such as of tritium, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and CO2, that enter into

the ocean provide tracers that can be used to track the passage of chemicals through

the ocean. Careful sampling, by lowering instruments from ships and obtaining

water samples at depths through the water column, should be made along select

79

north-south and east-west sections across the ocean basins. These sections (Fig. 11)

would be occupied only every 5 to 10 years, and are essential to describing the slow

overturning circulation of the ocean as well as change in the temperature and salinity of the deep ocean, at depths below where the ARGO profiling floats will sample.

We now have few records of oceanic variability at depth. The repeat sections will

build that record; and, at the same time, they will validate numerical models of the

deep ocean circulation that may be used in coupled ocean-atmosphere models to investigate climate change and ocean variability.

While the focus of much of this discussion has been on physical observations, such

as temperature and salinity, the required ocean observing network should make biological, chemical, and geological observations concurrently with physical observations. In the ocean, variability is often linked. For example, greater phytoplankton

concentration in the upper ocean increases the absorption of sunlight and thus the

heating of the water near the surface. Some platforms, such as moorings and ships,

are now well equipped to carry out such multidisciplinary sampling. In addition to

knowing how and where heat and freshwater are transported, the ocean observing

system will provide the basis for understanding transport of nutrients, pollutants

and harmful species (toxic algae, for example) and the observations needed to better

predict surface waves and marine weather that impact transportation, recreation,

and safety.

In contrast to the land and atmosphere, the ocean is sparsely observed. It is, however, a major part of the climate system, particularly so because of its large reservoirs and ability to move properties active in climate dynamics, such as heat,

around over a wide range of time scales. An integrated ocean observing system for

climate can be developed; such a system has been outlined above.

The ocean is where some of us work and many of us play. It is close to many

of our homes and provides food and energy. An integrated ocean observing system

will not only address climate issues; it will also provide benefits that address other

societal needs, particularly if the data is available in near-real time. Knowledge of

sea level change and of ocean currents, surface waves, temperatures, salinities,

plant and animal populations, distribution and storage of greenhouse gases is important to weather prediction, the development of sound environmental policies and

management strategies, to safety, to security, and to economic well being.

We do not have an integrated ocean observing system. Very few sustained ocean

observations are now made. The plans and methods for an integrated observing system for the ocean have been developed. One region, the tropical Pacific Ocean, has

been instrumented; and the return on the investment has been clear due to our increased ability to forecast El Nin ̃ o and provide advanced warning of its impact on

80

weather. In partnership with other nations, the United States should commit to

completing a global ocean observing system.

The major problem facing the development of an integrated ocean observing has

the lack to date of a national commitment to do so. This has resulted in the lack

of key resources. These missing resources include: funding, technology, and infrastructure.

In most cases, observational priorities are agreed upon, the technology has been

developed to collect the required observations, and the plan for implementing the

system has been drafted. However, sustained funding has not been available. A few

elements are in place, including the ENSO observing system in the tropical Pacific

Ocean and the initial deployments of the Argo floats. There is no apparent source

of support for the balance of a sustained, integrated ocean observing system.

In some cases, enabling technology is needed. A pressing need is increased capacity for passing data collected at sea from ships, buoys, and floats back to land. Technical advances have improved our ability to bring data to the sea surface from the

ocean’s interior. However, there is limited satellite capacity then available for relaying that ocean data back to the centers on land that would prepare the predictions,

maps, and other products we need. This lack will limit the amount of ocean data

we can acquire in near-real time. It will also prevent us from developing of an ocean

observing system that resembles our present atmospheric and terrestrial systems in

their ability to provide immediate coverage. Development of longer-lived and more

capable observing instruments is needed to maximize the effectiveness and value of

the ocean observing system.

Finally, the lack of a national commitment to sustained ocean observations has

left us with have no infrastructure to support and guide such an development and

maintenance of an ocean observing system. No agency has taken the lead. No person within the government is identified as a point of contact for other nations to

interact with while agreeing on international commitments of support and responsibility for sectors of the ocean and contributions to the different observing elements.

Progress to date has been made using the research infrastructure (funds, people,

ships, labs). An integrated ocean observing system will require an investment in instrumentation and hardware, support for ships to deploy and service the system,

people to quality control and process the data, communications systems to pass the

data along, and the means to use the data to prepare products of use to society.

This requires a commitment within the government.

In closing, thank you for allowing me to submit this testimony. The climate example was developed at length to demonstrate the readiness of the plans and methods

to implement an integrated ocean observing system. Such an open ocean system

links to the coastal observing systems, where it provides for them the knowledge

that links those coastal regions to the open ocean and where the coastal observing

systems provide key knowledge of coastal sinks and sources of carbon, freshwater,

pollutants, marine life, and other quantities. The open ocean system described above

is also linked to a system of operational satellites for oceanography, whose measurements would include sea surface temperature and winds, sea level from altimetry,

and ocean color. I would be glad to answer questions and provide further explanation.

Chairman GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Weller. Dr. Grassle.

STATEMENT OF J. FREDERICK GRASSLE, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF MARINE AND COASTAL SCIENCES, RUTGERS—THE

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY

Dr. GRASSLE. I am Fred Grassle, Director of the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University. I thank each of

the chairs for this opportunity to provide remarks on the proposed

Integrated Coastal Ocean Observing System and Ocean Observatories Initiative, and the development of the Ocean Exploration

Program.

My remarks focus on a need for a national network of linked and

coordinated ocean observing systems and observatories and recommendations on how such a network should be established. I also

support the emerging Ocean Exploration and Census of Marine

Life Programs, and make suggestions for advancing these programs. I have been involved in the development of one of the

81

world’s first undersea observatories—and there are a couple graphics that illustrate the LEO–15 Observatory—participated in national efforts to construct a network of ocean observatories, serve

as Principal Investigator for the inaugural expedition of the Ocean

Exploration Program, and chair of the Steering Committee for the

Census of Marine Life.

There are many urgent reasons for developing an integrated national network of coastal ocean observing systems. More than half

of all Americans live within the coastal zone, and the ocean is our

common source of enjoyment, and our responsibility. Fish stocks

are being depleted and some fish habitat is being damaged. The

seabed is used for oil and gas production, sand and gravel mining,

and telecommunications cables. Periods of oxygen depletion are

common, and the numbers and types of harmful algal blooms have

increased. High levels of contaminants in coastal sediments affect

bottom life and cause our ports and harbors to find means to dispose of dredged material. More than 95 percent of the nation’s foreign trade moves by sea. Continuous observations are needed to ensure safe, efficient operations of the nation’s congested ports.

Rutgers’ Long-Term Ecosystem Observatory, LEO–15, off the

coast of New Jersey, has maintained continuous measurements in

the near-shore zone publicly available over the Internet for over

four years. These measurements are now extended to include images of sea surface currents in the New York Bight to the edge of

the continental shelf. This Sunday, scientists at Rutgers University

will assimilate observations into models to produce a 3-day forecast

of ocean circulation for the entire coastal shelf region from Long Island to below Delaware Bay. Reports of coastal conditions are already being carried, along with the weather, by local news stations.

Through the National Ocean Partnership Program, NOPP, and direct support from NOAA, the NSF, ONR and NASA, the Rutgers

LEO system and similar systems developing in every region of the

country are ready to coalesce into a sustained, integrated, nationwide system. A sustained network of linked and coordinated regional ocean observing systems will provide a new way of looking

at, working in, and understanding the ocean.

The extension of the LEO–15 observatory to the entire New Jersey continental shelf can serve as a model for constructing a national network of observing systems and observatories. Long-range,

high-frequency radar systems should be placed along the entire

coast to continuously map surface current flows for the coastal

ocean. A combination of surface current information, satellite observations, subsurface measurements from buoys and autonomous

gliders should be available in near real time for assimilation into

model forecasts. This modeling and measurement system is needed

to support the growing community of users of ocean information.

Embedded in this continuous coverage, intensive observatory facilities operated by scientists from all disciplines are needed to conduct long-term experiments, sustain long time series observations,

and test new ideas. These sites will be the proving grounds for the

development and validation of new technology for use by the observing system network: samples, sensors, robotic controls, data

processing systems, and autonomous underwater vehicles. The National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research have

82

played major roles in the development of the LEO observatory, and

should continue to play the leading role in the development of intensive observatory technologies, including the deep-sea and deepearth observatories linked to shore by underwater cables and new

broad bandwidth communications. In my own area of research, the

Census of Marine Life program provides many examples of the potential for new discoveries in the ocean.

With regard to administration of the national ocean observing

and observatory system, I recommend that the National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC) and National Oceanographic

Partnership Program (NOPP) be responsible for coordinating system activities, and approving standards and protocols for administering the system. This recommendation is in accord with previous reports to Congress and the Administration. Last May the

NORLC approved the NOPP Interagency Ocean Observation Office,

‘‘Ocean.US,’’ that you have already heard about, with a charter to

develop national capability for integrating and sustaining ocean observations and predictions. To provide technical assistance in the

management, archiving and analysis of data, NOAA’s National

Ocean Service has a strong track record in linking science to management. New approaches to bridging the gap between data providers and data users are being developed at NOS’ Coastal Services

Center, NASA’s Earth Science Applications Center, and the NOPPsponsored Ocean Biogeographic Information System, a component

of the Census of Marine Life Program.

I was a member of the panel that provided the report on Ocean

Exploration. I strongly support the goals outlined in that report.

And my colleagues, Marcia McNutt and Bob Ballard, have spoken

about this in more detail. Incidentally, the second expedition to hydrothermal vents that included the biologists I was co-chief scientist in charge of the biologists.

In closing I would like to thank Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman

Ehlers, Chairman Smith, and members of the Committees, for the

opportunity to comment on ocean observing systems, observatories,

and ocean exploration. These are good ideas that merit strong consideration for authorizing legislation. I will be pleased to respond

to any questions the Committee may have. Thank you.

Chairman GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Grassle. Congressman

Saxton asked me to say hi.

Dr. GRASSLE. Well, yes. I was hoping I could recognize him here

today. He has certainly been a wonderful supporter of marine

science.

[The prepared statement of J. Frederick Grassle follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. FREDERICK GRASSLE

Summary of Comments

Development of Coastal and Ocean Observing Systems and Observatories

More than half of all Americans live within the coastal zone and the ocean is a

common source of enjoyment and our responsibility. Fish stocks are being depleted

and, in some areas, fishing gear damages bottom habitats. Uses of the seabed for

oil and gas production, sand and gravel mining, and telecommunication cables are

increasing. Periods of oxygen depletion are common, and the number and types of

harmful algal blooms have increased. High levels of contaminants in coastal sediments affect bottom life, and cause our ports and harbors to find means to dispose

83

of dredged material. More than 95% of the Nation’s foreign trade moves by sea. Continuous observations are needed to ensure safe, efficient operations of the Nation’s congested ports. A sustained, nationwide network of linked and coordinated regional

ocean observing systems and observatories is needed to improve weather and ocean

forecasting, predict effects of climate change on coastal populations, improve safety

and efficiency of marine operations, improve public understanding of processes affecting coastal habitats and their living marine resources, provide more effective

evaluations of the efficacy of environmental policies for coastal ecosystems, and foster science-based management of coastal ecosystems and their natural resources. A

nationwide network of regional coastal ocean observing systems should measure

common parameters using uniform methods and protocols; respond to the information needs of diverse user groups that depend on the coastal ocean for work, security, recreation, and research; be cost-effective and capitalize on existing infrastructure; provide continuous, long-term, and real-time observations and predictions of

ocean phenomena in a timely and integrated way; and sustained basis, and provide

a source of data and information to increase public awareness of the status and importance of the Nation’s coastal oceans.

Ocean Exploration

To advance the Ocean Exploration Program, NOAA has created the Office of

Ocean Exploration. In some respects, this duplicates activities of an existing program renowned for its exploratory achievements and hallmark record of safety in

undersea operations—the National Undersea Research Program (NURP). NURP has

developed rigorous procedures for peer review and undersea operations, and has

well-established mechanisms for communicating with the ocean science community.

It is important for NOAA to ensure that NURP be closely involved with the administration of the Ocean Exploration Program. Such integration will ensure safe field

operations, foster exploration programs that advance quantitative science investigations, avoid duplication of effort, and reduce costs.

Introduction

Good afternoon. My name is Fred Grassle and I am the Director of the Institute

of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University. I would like to thank each

of the chairs for the opportunity to provide remarks on the establishment of an Integrated Coastal Ocean Observing System, an Ocean Observatories Initiative, and the

development of an Ocean Exploration Program. I would also like to recognize two

New Jersey legislators who have been effective supporters of coastal and ocean research, Representative James Saxton the former Chair of the House Subcommittee

on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, and Representative Frank Pallone

who serves on the same committee. Their continuing strong support has ensured

that robust science programs are in place to support informed management of our

coastal and ocean resources.

My remarks focus on the need for a national network of linked and coordinated

ocean observing systems and observatories and recommendations on how such a network should be established. I will also comment on the emerging Ocean Exploration

and Census Of Marine Life Programs, and make suggestions for advancing these

programs. The basis of my remarks stems from my involvement in development of

one of the world’s first undersea observatories, participation in national efforts to

construct a network of ocean observatories, and my roles as Principal Investigator

for the inaugural expedition of the Ocean Exploration Program and Chair of the

Steering Committee for the Census of Marine Life.

Rationale for a National Network of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems

More than half of all Americans live within the coastal zone, i.e., within 50 miles

of ocean. The ocean is our common source of enjoyment and common responsibility.

Fish stocks, once thought to be inexhaustible, are being depleted and, in some areas,

fishing gear damages bottom habitats. Uses of the seabed for oil and gas production,

sand and gravel mining, and telecommunications cables are increasing. Periods of

oxygen depletion are common, and the number and types of harmful algal blooms

have increased during the last 25 years. High levels of contaminants are found in

coastal sediments, affecting bottom life, and causing our ports and harbors to seek

expensive means of disposal of dredged material. More than 95% of the Nation’s foreign trade moves by sea. Continuous observations are needed to ensure safe and efficient operations of the Nation’s congested ports.

A sustained, nationwide network of linked and coordinated regional ocean observing systems is needed to:

• improve weather and ocean forecasting in coastal regions

• predict effects of climate change on coastal populations

84

• improve safety and efficiency of marine operations, including search and rescue, swimming, boating, fishing, transportation, and naval warfare

• improve public awareness and scientific understanding of processes affecting

coastal habitats and their living marine resources

• provide more effective means for monitoring and evaluating the efficacy of environmental policies for coastal ecosystems

• foster science-based management of coastal marine ecosystems and their natural resources

Scientists, managers, and the public are often not well-equipped to make decisions

about marine ecosystems, especially in environments where visibility is poor and a

common sense approach literally depends on access to the latest methods for sampling and sensing the marine environment. Marine environmental issues would be

less complex and easier to solve if the marine information base on ecosystems, habitats, and patterns of change were as readily available as for terrestrial environments. The ability to address complex issues and find solutions suffers from the

compartmentalization of marine science disciplines and methodologies, and a lack

of integration with the disciplines of resource economics and environmental management. Many marine issues, such as fisheries management, the siting of reserves,

protection and restoration of habitats, human health (hazardous spill response,

harmful algal blooms), safety (vessel traffic control, search and rescue, storm surge

prediction), and waste disposal, require resolution through more accurate, comprehensive, and timely information.

All aspects of ocean ecosystems are presently under-sampled. Decisions are made

about sampling designs for research and monitoring without an adequate spatial or

temporal context. Technological advances in observation, modeling, and data assimilative methodologies enable us to enter a new era in oceanography, that of the wellsampled ocean. New remote sensing and autonomous systems now allow us to sample the ocean at time and space scales never before achieved, and parallel computing algorithms can generate forecasts of the ocean in real time. Data assimilation schemes allow us to constrain the model forecasts with observations, thereby

increasing their utility in practical applications. Researchers at LEO–15, the undersea observatory located off the coast of New Jersey, have led the nation in the development of these coastal ocean observation and modeling systems.

At LEO–15 it has been possible to make many continuous measurements throughout the year for four years, but the intense sampling effort needed to achieve a wellsampled ocean can now only be achieved through intensive bursts of activity in a

30 km by 30 km research area in which real-time ocean currents are observed from

shore via an existing medium-range high-frequency radar (CODAR). Regional-scale,

ocean surface current data acquired through a long-range (200 km), high-frequency

radar system would provide one of the most important data sets needed to improve

vessel traffic safety and management of harbor activities.

Rutgers’ Long-term Ecosystem Observatory (LEO–15) off the coast of New Jersey

has made continuous measurements in the near-shore zone publicly available in

near real time through the Internet. For the first time, these measurements have

been extended to include images of sea surface currents in the New York Bight to

the edge of the continental shelf. By Sunday, July 15, scientists at Rutgers University will produce a 3-day forecast of ocean circulation for the entire shelf region from

Long Island to below Delaware Bay. Reports of these coastal conditions are being

carried, along with the weather, by local news stations. Through the National Ocean

Partnership Program (NOPP) and other federal and state sources of support, the

Rutgers LEO system and similar systems developing in every region of the country

are ready to coalesce into a sustained, integrated, nationwide system. A sustained

network of linked and coordinated regional ocean observing systems will provide a

new way of looking at, working in, and understanding the ocean.

The extension of the LEO–15 observatory to the entire New Jersey continental

shelf can serve as a useful model for constructing a national network of observing

systems in two ways. First, we should establish a series of shore stations equipped

with new, long-range, high-frequency radar systems to continuously map surface

current flows for the coastal ocean. Common standards and protocols have already

been worked out by users of this equipment. Data should be made available in realtime on the World Wide Web, and when assimilated into existing hydrodynamic

models, can be used to forecast the three-dimensional circulation on the continental

shelf. A combination of satellite observations of sea surface temperature, surface

roughness, primary productivity (at 30 m resolution when a new Navy-sponsored,

hyperspectral ocean color satellite is launched), and high-resolution bathymetry and

side-scan sonar will provide an enhanced context for ocean sampling. The proposed

modeling and measurement system will provide regional perspectives for policy,

85

planning, and economic analysis, and it is the rationale for development of a national network of high-frequency radars, buoys, bottom observatories, and autonomous glider vehicles. Regional-scale, real-time data will further aid search and rescue efforts by using CODAR surface currents to predict locations of vessels in distress, and inform cleanup efforts with trajectories of spills of hazardous material.

Secondly, intensive observatory facilities involving all scientific disciplines are

needed where long-term experiments and sustained time series observations can be

conducted and new ideas tested. New and substantial infrastructure is needed to enable exciting scientific discoveries such as those envisioned by the Census of Marine

Life program. These sites will be the proving grounds for development and validation of new technology for use by the observing system network: samplers, sensors,

robotic controls, data processing systems, and autonomous underwater vehicles. Scientific validation is required before information generated from new technology will

be accepted by the general public. The National Science Foundation has played a

major role in the development of the LEO observatory and should continue to play

the leading role in the development of intensive observatory technologies, including

deep-sea and deep-earth observatories linked to shore by underwater cables.

A nationwide network of regional coastal ocean observing systems should:

• measure a common set of parameters using uniform methods and protocols,

which can be regionally and locally enhanced

• be based on sound science

• respond to the information needs of diverse user groups that depend on the

coastal ocean for work, security, recreation, and research (e.g., facilitate safe

and efficient marine operations, ensure national security, support management of living resources and marine ecosystems, ensure a sustainable food

supply, mitigate natural hazards, and ensure public health)

• be cost-effective and capitalize on existing infrastructure (e.g., autonomous

undersea vehicles, gliders, cabled observatories, satellite remote sensing,

CODAR technology)

• provide continuous, long-term, and real-time observations and predictions of

ocean events and phenomena on a timely, integrated, and sustained basis

• provide a source of data and information that increases public awareness of

the status and importance of the Nation’s coastal oceans

Consideration must be given to the administration of the national coastal ocean

observing system and what body will be responsible for establishing standards and

protocols to govern the system. Given that a variety of federal agencies will be involved in the observing network, I recommend that the National Ocean Research

Leadership Council (NORLC), the organization created to implement the National

Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP), be responsible for coordinating system

activities, and approving standards and protocols for administering the system. This

recommendation is in accord with the plans for implementation in ‘‘Toward a U.S.

Plan for an Integrated, Sustained Ocean Observing System’’ submitted to Congress

on 20 April, 1999, in response to a request from Representatives James Saxton and

Curt Weldon, and with the subsequent NORLC Report ‘‘An Integrated Ocean Observing System: A Strategy for Implementing The First Steps of a U.S. Plan’’ completed December 24, 1999. On May 22, 2000 the NORLC approved the NOPP Interagency Ocean Observation Office, ‘‘Ocean.US,’’ with a charter to develop a national

capability for integrating and sustaining ocean observations and predictions.

Coastal ocean observing systems should be organized regionally. The Committee

might consider establishing a federation of seven regional observing systems: Northeast, Southeast, Gulf of Mexico, West Coast, Hawaii, Alaska, and the Great Lakes.

Representatives from each of these regions, drawn from academic and research institutions, and state and local governments could serve as an advisory council for

the NORLC.

A single entity should be charged with providing technical assistance to the regional systems in the management, archiving, and analysis of data. One candidate

is NOAA’s National Ocean Service (NOS) which has a strong track record in linking

science to management products and services. New approaches are developing to

bridge the gap between data providers and data users at NOS’ Coastal Services

Center, NASA’s Earth Science Applications Center, and in the NOPP-sponsored

Ocean Biogeographic Information System, a component of the Census of Marine Life

Program.

Ocean Exploration

As Committee members are aware, $4 million was appropriated in FY 2001 to initiate an Ocean Exploration Program at NOAA. This appropriation was provided to

86

implement recommendations from the report on ‘‘Discovering the Earth’s Final

Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration,’’ produced by a national panel convened by a Presidential Executive Order. I had the privilege of serving on this panel

and am thoroughly familiar with the rationale for the report recommendations. Four

challenges were highlighted as the most significant gaps in our knowledge of the

oceans including: 1) mapping at new scales, 2) exploring ocean dynamics and interactions at new scales, 3) developing new technologies, and 4) reaching out in new

ways to stakeholders. The report set forth a variety of exploration priorities including: Voyages of Discovery, Tools for Probing the Ocean, Data Management and Dissemination, Education and Outreach, and Capital Investment.

With the FY 2001 support, NOAA has organized expeditions to identify new species that may hold potential economic benefits, evaluate potential new energy or

food resources, explore submerged cultural resources, and evaluate the effect of

sound on marine resources and ecosystems. In September, I will help lead one of

these expeditions known as Deep East. Deep East will feature mapping of deep sea

corals in the offshore canyons and seamounts off Georges Bank, seafloor processes

in the Hudson River Canyon, and biological and geochemical interactions at the

Blake Ridge off Georgia. I will serve as the principal investigator for Leg 2, which

is associated with the Hudson River Canyon.

Hudson Canyon extends over 400 nautical miles seaward from the New York-New

Jersey Harbor across the continental margin to the deep North Atlantic ocean basin.

Although it is the largest submarine canyon on the Atlantic continental margin of

North America, and lies directly offshore of America’s largest metropolitan area,

Hudson Canyon remains to be explored with integrated high-resolution mapping

and direct observations and sampling.

Submarine canyons are conduits for the transport of sediments including pollutants between land and sea, a process complicated by the interaction of down-slope

movement and cross-slope flow of deep ocean currents. Low-resolution side-scan

sonar (GLORIA), and medium-to high-resolution seismic reflection, echo sounding,

and magnetic profiles (USGS, 1991), reveal that Hudson Canyon is susceptible to

mass transport of materials down-canyon, and may thus concentrate pollutants and

other materials in the canyon axis and on the continental rise. Evidence for high

species abundance comes from surveys supported by the Minerals Management

Service (MMS) involving quantitative analysis of box cores recovered from sediments of the continental slope and upper rise between water depths of 1,500 m and

2,500 m at 10 stations off New Jersey and Delaware. The survey also revealed remarkable biodiversity at these depths. Studies on the Hatteras slope similarly suggest that sediments of the middle to lower slope are the recipients of down-canyon

transport.

A series of drill holes on the outer continental shelf, slope, and rise off New Jersey

by the Deep Sea Drilling Program (Legs 11, 93, and 95) and the Ocean Drilling Program (Legs 150 and 174) established the sequence and ages of sedimentary strata,

and revealed a massive bed of methane gas hydrates extending beneath the Hudson

Canyon region. The presence of methane gas hydrates beneath this region opens

new avenues for discoveries of processes involving the role of fluid pressure (confined gas and water) beneath the seafloor, which relate to geologic hazards (slumps

and tsunamis) and climate change (methane release); the probable occurrence of

chemosynthetic organisms (macrofauna and microbes) at cold seeps that relate to

biodiversity and to sources of new pharmaceutical and industrial products; and to

methane itself as an energy resource.

Relationship of Ocean Exploration to the National Undersea Research

Program

To advance the Ocean Exploration Program, NOAA has created a new office, the

Office of Ocean Exploration. In some respects, this action duplicates activities conducted by an existing program that is renowned for its exploratory achievements

and hallmark record of safety with the conduct of undersea operations—the National Undersea Research Program (NURP).

NURP is organized on a regional basis with six centers serving undersea science

needs in the Northeast and Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic Bight, Southeast Atlantic and

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, West Coast and Alaska, and Hawaii. NURP has developed rigorous procedures with respect to peer review and undersea operations, and

has well-established mechanisms for communicating with the ocean science community. Existing regional infrastructure at the six NURP Centers provides local links

to the science community, knowledge of advanced undersea sampling and sensing

platforms, and experience with the conduct of undersea operations. I believe that

it is important for NOAA to ensure that NURP be closely involved with the administration of the Ocean Exploration Program. Such integration can ensure safe field opVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:50 Dec 18, 2001 Jkt 073840 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 D:\WORKD\ETS\071201\73840A SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
87

erations, foster a process wherein exploration programs can advance quantitative

science investigations, avoid duplication of effort, and reduce costs.

Summary

In closing, I would like to thank Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman Ehlers, Chairman

Smith, and members of the Committees for the opportunity to comment on ocean

observing systems, observatories, and ocean exploration. These are good ideas that

merit strong consideration for authorizing legislation. I will be pleased to respond

to any questions that the Committees may have at this time. Thank you.

Contact Information:

J. Frederick Grassle, Director, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers—

The State University of New Jersey, 71 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901–8521; 732–932–6555, ext. 509; 732–932–8578, Fax;

grassle@imcs.rutgers.edu

Chairman GILCHREST. Yes, sir. Thank you. Dr. Beeton.

STATEMENT OF ALFRED M. BEETON, CHAIR, SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Dr. BEETON. Good afternoon. I am Al Beeton, Chair of the

Science Advisory Board of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. And I appreciate the invitation of the Chairman to

testify on ocean exploration and development and implementation

of coastal and ocean observing systems, especially as they apply to

the Great Lakes.

My research on the Great Lake started in 1955 and continues

today. I have served in various ways for the International Joint

Commission, the Great Lakes Commission, and Great Lakes Fishery Commission. I was Director of the Great Lakes and Marine

Water Center, and the Sea Grant Program and the University of

Michigan. I was Associate Director of the Great Lakes Studies Program at the University of Wisconsin, and Director of the Great

Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory of NOAA in Ann Arbor.

The Science Advisory Board is the only Federal committee whose

responsibility is to advise the Undersecretary of Commerce for

oceans and atmosphere on long and short-term strategies for research, education, and application of science to resource management. The panel on ocean exploration was a subset of the Science

Advisory Board. And the panel produced the report ‘‘Discovering

Earth’s Final Frontier: The Strategy for Ocean Exploration,’’ which

recommended the establishment of a program on ocean exploration.

And as a consequence, NOAA followed up and established the Office of Ocean Exploration.

The coastal and ocean observations are certainly essential for

predicting events that affect commerce as well as life. Water level

changes, floods, storms, and harmful algal blooms are a few of the

disasters that may be predicted to minimize financial and personal

loss. Including and emphasizing the Great Lakes in legislation

dealing with ocean exploration and coastal and ocean observing

systems will benefit the nation as well as the region.

Ocean exploration activity will enhance the efforts to inventory

and document the resources of the recently established Thunder

Bay Marine Sanctuary in Lake Huron, as well as resources of Old

Woman Creek Estuarine Research Reserve on Lake Erie. The

aquatic resources of the Isle Royal National Park and other Federal

88

recreational resources in the Great Lakes will benefit from this effort.

Ocean exploration activity should also provide for geophysical

surveys to provide data to facilities for preparation of modern, updated bathymetric charts for navigation, underwater structures,

fisheries, and recreation. The most recent survey of the Great

Lakes was done in the 1970’s and they did not include many areas

of the lakes. People making charts had to use many data from the

1930’s, and in some instances data from the 1800’s. Certainly, it

will be wise to have new and useful data for new charts.

We know a great deal about the Great Lakes, but much if not

most, of our knowledge comes from sporadic surveys, individual observations, short-term studies, and some monitoring at water intakes. We need long-term monitoring to provide the kinds of data

essential for detecting subtle changes in the Great Lake ecosystems. Such monitoring should be part of a Great Lakes coastal

observatory system which would provide a coherent assessment of

long-term data as well as detect shorter-term impacts. Monitoring

of coastal water quality is essential to public health.

Recent advances in technology have made it possible to develop

and implement sophisticated coastal ocean observing systems and

state-of-the-art ocean exploration techniques and instrumentation.

New sensors are being developed which will allow acquisition of

data rapidly and accurately. In addition, we have new and better

ways to manage data, transmit data, assess, and use data. Consequently, this is an appropriate time to move ahead on ocean exploration and observing systems.

And I thank you for the invitation to speak here today. And I

will pleased to answer questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Alfred M. Beeton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALFRED M. BEETON

Good afternoon, Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman Ehlers, and Chairman Smith,

members of the subcommittees and staff. My name is Al Beeton, and I am the Chair

of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I would like to begin by thanking the Chairmen for inviting

me to testify on the three important issues of ocean exploration, and the development and implementation of coastal and ocean observing systems, especially as they

pertain to the Great Lakes.

I have many years of experience in dealing with many issues affecting the St.

Lawrence Great Lakes. My research on the lakes commenced in 1955 and continues

to the present. For years I served in various ways for the International Joint Commission, the Great Lakes Commission, and the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission.

I was Director of the Great Lakes and Marine Waters Center and Michigan Sea

Grant, University of Michigan; Associate Director of the Center for Great Lakes

Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and Director of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory of NOAA.

The Science Advisory Board was established by a Decision Memorandum on September 25, 1997. It is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to

advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on long- and

short-range strategies for research, education and the application of science to resource management. The Board is composed of 15 eminent scientists, engineers, resource managers and educators that provide their expertise to ensure that NOAA

science programs are of the highest quality and to provide advice and support to

resource management. The latest Science Advisory Board meeting occurred two

weeks ago in Santa Cruz, California, where the Board advised NOAA on fisheries

science issues ranging from scientific quality of data acquisition to managing science

in a regulatory environment, as well as on climate monitoring strategies.

89

Ocean Exploration:

The President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration was a subset of the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration’s Science Advisory Board which included six member of the Board. The Panel produced the report ‘‘Discovering Earth’s Final Frontier:

A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration,’’ recommending the establishment of a program of ocean exploration, from which the NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration was

created. The Panel determined four key objectives for a national strategy in tackling

ocean exploration: to map the physical, geological, biological, chemical and archaeological aspects of the ocean; to explore ocean dynamics to increase understanding

of the ocean’s complex interactions; to develop new sensors and systems for ocean

exploration, and to communicate the new-gained knowledge effectively to stakeholders and the community.

Ocean Exploration in the United States began as early as 1807 when Thomas Jefferson authorized the Survey of the Coast, but despite of this, the ocean as well as

the Great Lakes are understudied. Much benefit can be attained by furthering

knowledge on ocean life, physics and chemistry, and better knowledge is translated

into better advising by the Science Advisory Board. Concerning the Great Lakes

specifically, the region would benefit greatly by updating bottom topography, as the

area is vital to the country’s shipping industry. The Great Lakes are also a very

important region for maritime history and archaeology. An example is the Thunder

Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve in Lake Huron, where

more than a hundred ships are suspected to have sunk there, but only 40 locations

are presently known. Recently an expedition led by Dr. Robert Ballard in partnership with NOAA and the State of Michigan surveyed the area using a new sidescan sonar and sub-bottom profiling technology called ECHO, and found 50–70 targets, where 10–15 are verified shipwrecks, 3 of them previously unknown. I would

like to add that despite the great public and scientific support behind the ocean exploration effort, the House mark failed to reflect this.

Coastal and Ocean Observations:

Coastal and Ocean observations are paramount for predicting events that affect

commerce as well as human lives. Water-level change, floods, storms, and harmful

algal blooms are a few of the disasters that may be predicted in the future to minimize financial and personal losses. Presently there are several independent coastal

and ocean observing programs in the U.S.; the Harmful Algal Bloom monitoring program, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, the National Water Level

Observation Network (NWLON); and the National Status and Trends Program, to

name a few. Because of the fluid nature of the atmosphere, lakes, and oceans they

do not abide by geographical or political boundaries. Consequently, efforts in this

area must be integrated regionally, nationally, as well as internationally, and the

data collected made freely available to the greatest extent possible. A good example

is the Integrated Global Observing Strategy Partnership (IGOS), an international

partnership for co-operation in Earth observations established in 1998 by a number

of international agencies concerned with environmental issues. The Ocean Theme is

led by the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), charged with considering the

full range of current and planned observations and identifying potential gaps in future observations that might compromise ocean observational records. Institutional

structures are being developed to manage the total data flow, the production, distribution and quality assessment of relevant data products, and to work with endusers to ensure that the evolving system is responsive to their needs.

The Great Lakes:

Fresh water is a precious finite resource and about 68% of the fresh liquid surface

water is contained in 189 large lakes of the world. About 18–20% of this water is

in the Great Lakes. Consequently, about 40 million U.S. and Canadian citizens use

the lakes for drinking water and many industries and other business have located

in the region because of this plentiful supply. The lakes are a major source of irrigation water, as well as for use of power generation, shipping, fisheries, recreation,

and waste disposal. Despite the importance of this resource, relatively little attention has been given nationally and regionally, and funding to deal with serious problems have been limited.

Including and emphasizing the Great Lakes in legislation dealing with ocean exploration, and coastal and ocean observing systems will benefit the nation as well

as the region. Ocean exploration activity will enhance the efforts to inventory and

document the resources of the recently established Thunder Bay Marine Sanctuary

in Lake Huron as well as resources of the Old Woman Creek Estuarine Research

Reserve in Lake Erie. Aquatic resources of the Isle Royal National Park and other

federal recreational resources would also benefit from this effort.

90

Ocean exploration activity should also provide for geophysical surveys to provide

data to facilitate preparation of modern updated bathymetric charts for navigation,

underwater structures, fisheries, and recreation. Most of the soundings now being

used to provide detailed bathymetric charts are old. The most recent surveys were

done in the early 1970’s and they did not include all areas of the lakes. People making these charts had to use many data from the 1930’s and in some instances data

from the 1800’s! Certainly it would be wise to have new information to prepare updated charts, especially in view of the very low water levels now being observed and

the possibility of much lower levels as a consequence of climate change.

We know a great deal about the Great Lakes, but much if not most, of our knowledge comes from sporadic surveys, individual observations, short-term studies, and

some monitoring at water intakes. We need long-term monitoring to provide the

kinds of data essential to detecting subtle changes in the Great Lakes ecosystem

in order to support suitable management of the resources. Such monitoring should

be part of a Great Lakes coastal observatory system which would provide a coherent

assessment of long term data as well as detect shorter term impacts. Data are needed on trends in water levels that affect property owners, shipping, and fish and

wildlife, and the relationship of these trends to climate changes. Monitoring of

coastal water quality is essential for public health reasons. For example a recent

editorial in the Ann Arbor News stated that more than 100 beaches in Michigan

are not regularly tested for bacteria concentrations. Only 12 of 41 counties regularly

monitor for E. Coli. Long-term data are needed on fish populations, fish food organisms, ice cover and climate.

A number of studies have emphasized the need for regional coastal observing systems in addition to the need observed in the Great Lakes region; the National

Ocean Partnership Program; NOAA Strategic Plan; and the U.S. Coastal-Global

Ocean Observing System (C–GOOS). A Great Lakes Coastal Observing System has

been identified as important to the region by the International Association for Great

Lakes Research and the International Joint Commission’s Council of the Great

Lakes Research Managers. Such an observing system will be valuable to federal

agencies, for example; EPA, USGS, NOAA, as well as State agencies, academic institutions, counties, cities and towns.

Recent advances now make it possible to develop and implement sophisticated

coastal ocean observing systems and state-of-the-art ocean exploration techniques

and instrumentation. New sensors are being developed which will allow acquisition

of data rapidly and accurately. Acquisition of data which were very difficult to obtain using older time-consuming methods. In addition we have new and better ways

to manage data, transmit data, and assess and use data. New technology, such as

bio-monitoring systems using bioluminescent bacteria on light sensing computer

microchips to detect low levels of toxic material or harmful algal blooms, are being

developed. Funding for ocean exploration and coastal ocean observing systems

should be used, in part, to enhance capability.

Real-time data acquisition coupled with underwater image links connected to onshore viewing sites have a great potential to enhance public awareness and education. A coastal observing system placed at a marine sanctuary could enable visitors to observe underwater activity in a marine sanctuary and make the resources

of the sanctuary a meaningful experience to a wider group of users.

I would like to thank you for the invitation to speak here today, and I will be

glad to answer any questions you may have.

Chairman GILCHREST. Dr. Malahoff.

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER MALAHOFF, DIRECTOR, HAWAII

UNDERSEA RESEARCH LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII

Dr. MALAHOFF. I am Alexander Malahoff, Professor of Oceanography, director of the Hawaii Undersea Research Lab, and director

of the Marine Bioproducts Engineering Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Ladies and gentlemen, the United States of America is surrounded by the oceans. Our country has the world’s largest exclusive economic zone. We have the largest Navy, the largest research

fleet, and yet, the smallest merchant marine. The oceans are an essential resource to us in our fisheries, oil, and coastal resources.

This vast environment of the ocean is also our frontline against any

adversary. The oceans are the source of weather and climate. The

91

oceans are the habitats for a spectacular spectrum of life ranging

in size and complexity from microorganisms to whales. The oceans

are the home for the coral reefs, soft corals, and other complex organisms inhabiting the ocean floor. Submarine volcanoes and midocean ridges form the habitats for exotic life assemblages around

the hydrothermal vents which are homes for microorganisms

known as extremophiles.

The oceans will continue to provide us with food and energy and

with the resources for a range of entirely new industries. These

will be specializing in marine byproducts, pharmaceuticals, and

nutracueticals and other derived from exotic micro-organisms, such

as extremophiles living around hydrothermal vents. We are a great

and resourceful nation. Our future rests upon our competitive advantage in the world. It is based upon our out-of-the-box thinking.

These challenges in our ocean exploration program open up wide

avenues for the advancement of all sectors of our society with interest and investment in the oceans. First of all, it invigorates the vision of a new presence for America and our society in the oceans.

Secondly, the program offers an opportunity for a different presence in the oceans for America. With new tools, new systems, new

observatories, new vehicles such as submersibles, and new sensors

applied to these programs, new industries will flourish and a new

ocean system industrial niche will develop. Our paucity in the

international maritime transportation industry will be balanced by

our leadership in the ocean exploration industry.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has taken

an effective lead by creating the Office of Ocean Exploration. This

has been a bold move toward this new interdisciplinary, inter-cultural, and inter-agency arena. This is a fresh start and will be a

catalyst that will enable our nation to take a lead in the holistic

understanding of the world’s oceans.

This broad thinking will lead to a revival of global expeditions

with airplanes, ships, submersibles, satellites, robotic miniaturized

underwater vehicles, autonomous observatories, and in situ labs.

Ladies and gentlemen, America must take the bold, necessary

step to regain the U.S. lead on all fronts of maritime technology.

The challenge of this new Ocean Exploration is monumental. In

our own Hawaiian Island chain, stretching for over 1,200 miles, a

home for most of America’s tropical coral mass, very little is known

about the nature of life of the ocean floor.

How do we begin this task in Hawaii? Much of our work to date

has been accomplished in Hawaii through the use of submersibles

operated by the Hawaii Undersea Research Lab, one of the six centers of NOAA’s National Undersea Research Program. We have

been able to do that through the use of submersibles and water

labs and our own mother ship in Hawaii.

NURP has made a significant difference toward understanding

the oceans and its resources. The undersea research had laid the

foundations for the United States to fully explore the undersea environment. NURP has set an example in working through partnerships. For instance, in Hawaii we established a coastal zone and

fisheries workshop. We took all of the interested parties from

around the Pacific, including of course, all of the U.S. flag islands,

and we started looking at broad problems, such as coral reefs,

92

coastal habitats, water quality, coastal hazards and their mitigation, and fisheries. And for instance in the area of fisheries, HURL

helped to understand the need for fisheries managers to look at

threatened stock.

I believe that these grassroots partnerships are the key to our

new out-of-the-box approach to exploration. In order to jump-start

our new wave of ocean exploration and take a global lead, we must

immediately expand our present capabilities, especially manned

submersibles and ROVs and AUVs and ocean floor observatories.

With these new metallurgy and new propulsion, and greater sensor

capability will recapture our lead in the oceans and the world.

Core programs such as NOAA’s NURP are essential to the accomplishment of the objectives of ocean exploration. And put in

with our programs and the Defense Department, the National

Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, those

need to be supported. This way ocean exploration will be a cornucopia for a new wave of American knowledge and industry.

And as we say in Hawaii, mahala nue loa. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Alexander Malahoff follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER MALAHOFF

Good afternoon Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman Ehlers, Chairman Smith, members of Congress. Members of the subcommittees and staff, ladies and gentleman,

Aloha.

I am Alexander Malahoff, Professor of Oceanography, director of the Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory and director of the Marine Bioproducts Engineering

Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii.

* * * * * * * * * * *

The United States of America is surrounded by the oceans. Our country has the

world’s largest exclusive economic zone. We have the largest Navy, the largest research fleet, and yet, the smallest merchant marine. The oceans are an essential

resource to us in our fisheries, oil resources and coastal resources. Yet, this vast environment of the oceans is also our frontline defense against any adversary. Today,

the oceans are much more to us than the traditional area of interest that I have

just described. The oceans are the source of our weather and climate. The oceans

are the habitats for a spectacular spectrum of life ranging in size and complexity

from microorganisms to whales. The oceans are the homes for coral reefs, soft corals, and other complex sessile organisms inhabiting the ocean floor. Submarine volcanoes and mid-ocean ridges form the habitats for exotic life assemblages around

hydrothermal vents and homes for microorganisms known as extremophiles. These

environments on the ocean floor or lying just below the sea-surface represent sites

where life began and then grew into the complex diverse system we know of today.

This is a complex interlocking system of life, ranging from the ocean floor and the

water above, to the atmosphere above that.

The oceans will continue providing us with food and energy and with the resources for a range of entirely new industries, specializing in marine bioproducts,

pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals derived from exotic micro-organisms, such as

extremophiles living around hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor. We are a great

and resourceful nation and our future rests upon our competitive advantage in the

world based upon our out-of-the-box thinking.

In order to have a meaningful knowledge of this complex system and its potential

role in the future well being of the United States and its people, a meaningful plan

that has a global perspective of this earth system needed to be put in place. The

plan would include a full survey and assessment of the ocean life systems, the effect

of ocean chemistry and climate on these systems, and the vast array of habitats on

the ocean floor, all viewed from an integrated perspective.

The plan designed to achieve our meaningful knowledge of the oceans came to us

in the form of the report issued under the direction of the President entitled, ‘‘Discovering the Earth’s Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration’’. The

recommendations stemming from the report focus around ocean exploration—exploVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:50 Dec 18, 2001 Jkt 073840 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 D:\WORKD\ETS\071201\73840A SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
93

ration with clearly identified goals, objectives and potential benefits. This is an exciting interdisciplinary, inter-cultural, inter-agency program. It lays the groundwork

for understanding the whole diverse ocean system and our intimate relationship to

this system. In this program, we will look at this system from human habitation

on the coasts and islands of the oceans to the hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor.

In order to accomplish this, we must systematically map the complete environment.

We must establish multi-sensor observatories that will read all environmental data

from the coastline to the deep ocean floor. This includes the biology, geology, physical oceanography, and water chemistry of the oceans. We must understand the role,

history and impact of humans upon the ocean from pollution to historic wrecks and

structures on the ocean floor. We must make this information readily available to

educators and environmental, political, industrial and research leaders, so that effective plans for new aquaculture, new ocean industries, and new ocean conservation initiatives can be laid.

These challenges in our Ocean Exploration Program open up wide, avenues for

advancement to all sectors of our society with interest and investment in the oceans.

First of all, it invigorates the vision of a new presence for the American society in

the oceans. Secondly, the program offers an opportunity for a different presence in

the oceans for America. With new tools, systems, observatories, vehicles, and sensors applied to these programs, new industries will flourish and a new ocean systems industrial niche will develop. Our paucity in the international maritime transportation industry will be balanced by our leadership in the ocean exploration industry. The exciting aspect of the Ocean Exploration Initiative will be the challenge of

partnerships that would envelope the diverse interests described.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has taken an effective lead

by creating the Office of Ocean Exploration. This has been a bold move towards this

new interdisciplinary, inter-cultural and inter-agency arena. This is a fresh start

and a catalyst that will enable our nation to take a lead in the wholistic understanding of our oceans. This is a critical step for our nation to take and everyone

should be behind it.

It is and exciting step because it challenges us to think along a broad intellectual

front, yet focus on frontier problems. These could be the survival of coral reefs, or

the range in the diversity of microorganisms, or the challenge of open ocean pelagic

fishery aquaculture, or the extraction of new pharmaceuticals from organisms living

in the hydrothermal vents, or the impact of human presence on our coastlines. This

broad thinking will lead to a revival of global expeditions with airplanes, ships,

submersibles, satellites, robotic miniaturized underwater vehicles, autonomous observatories, and in situ robotic laboratories. This U.S.-led Ocean Exploration Program will also attract international partners with a dazzling array of ocean observational systems spanning the globe.

Ladies and gentlemen, America must take the bold, necessary step to regain the

U.S. lead on all fronts of maritime technology. The challenge of this new Ocean Exploration is monumental. In our own Hawaiian Island chain, stretching the length

of over 1,200 miles, a home for most of America’s tropical coral mass, very little is

known about the nature and life of the ocean floor north of the inhabited windward

islands. The Hawaiian Islands are strategically located in the middle of the Pacific

Ocean, a physical and cultural presence of the United States in the middle of the

world’s largest ocean.

How do we begin this task in our Hawaii? Much of the work to date has been

accomplished in Hawaii through the use of submersibles operated by the Hawaii

Undersea Research Laboratory, one of six Centers of NOAA’s National Undersea Research Program (NURP). NURP is a is a comprehensive underwater research program that places scientists underwater, directly through the use of submersibles,

underwater laboratories, and wet diving, or indirectly by using remotely operated

vehicles (ROVs), autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), and observatories.

NURP is primarily a grant program with most of its funding going to the research

community, primarily academia. In this program, research quality is ensured by

competitive and high standards of peer review. Highest priority is given to proposals

for studies in the large lakes, territorial seas, and adjacent waters of the United

States. Responsibility for soliciting and supporting the research is assigned to regional Centers: North Atlantic and Great Lakes; Mid-Atlantic; Southeastern U.S.

and Gulf of Mexico; Caribbean; West Coast and Polar; and Hawaii and Western Pacific.

The National Undersea Research Program is one that has made a significant difference towards understanding of the oceans and its resources. The undersea research has laid the foundation for the United States to fully explore of the undersea

environment. NURP sets an example in working through partnerships. For instance, the Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory conducted a workshop of our conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:50 Dec 18, 2001 Jkt 073840 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 D:\WORKD\ETS\071201\73840A SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
94

stituents and Pacific partners in 1997. The Hawaii and American Flag Pacific Islands Coastal Zone and Fisheries Workshop was a resounding success because it effectively addressed the key concerns of the this large region related to: 1) coral

reefs, coastal habitats and water quality, 2) coastal hazards and mitigation, and 3)

fisheries. In the area of fisheries, for example, it helped HURL to understand the

needs of fisheries managers (e.g., NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service) and

it aided in the development of partnerships and the leveraging of funding sources

to solve such problems as:

• Examine of the effectiveness of ‘no-take’ marine protected areas.

• Evaluate the extent and status of exploited fish resources and the discovery

of new resources.

• Understand the functional role of habitat in survivorship, growth, and reproduction of managed marine species.

• Quantify rates of recovery for habitats impacted by chronic and pulsed fishing

activities.

• Map and characterize the habitat and biological integrity of benthic communities and reefs at selected continental shelf sites (e.g., marine protected

areas) that are inaccessible to usual diving techniques (deeper than 50 meters).

Because of the infrastructure and presence of unique equipment, such as the 220-

foot mothership, the R/V Ka’imikai-o-Kanaloa and the 6,800-foot depth capable Pisces IV and Pisces V and ROVs at the Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, discoveries of unique and diverse populations of extremophiles in hydrothermal vents of

the pit craters of the submarine volcano, Loihi, were made possible. The

extremophiles discovered barely 20 years ago in vents and seeps surrounded by mineral deposits and unique life that exists without sunlight and oxygen, have revolutionized modern scientific theory about the origin and sustenance of life on Earth.

Extremophiles are known for their ability to flourish in the world’s most harsh environments. These are the organisms whose unique biology holds great potential in

biomedical and commercial applications.

We will need a larger number of ROVs, with better sensor capability, that are

suited for a variety of tasks, from the small ones that can explore smaller crevices

to large ones that better equipped to do larger tasks and that have the payload capacity to return a variety of samples to the scientists operating from the surface.

However, as with the exploration of the farther reaches of space, a greater dependence will begin to be put on AUVs and fixed seafloor observatories. AUVs need to

become more reliable, capable of doing a variety of tasks, and capable of larger

range. Fixed, or multi-deployable, seafloor observatories of the Aquarius and LEO– 15 type also need to be expanded in capability and number to examine, in situ, the

processes of such phenomena as deep-sea processes. Such processes include the volcanic evolution of new islands, e.g., Loihi in the Hawaiian-chain, or the dynamics

of spreading ridges. These result in the injection of mass and energy into the ocean,

and the evolution of new species and resources.

There is an immediate need for an expansion of our present capabilities—manned

submersibles, ROVs, AUVs, and seafloor observatories. The key to this expansion

will be the development of a new generation of submersibles, such as those capable

of going efficiently and safely to the depths of the ocean. No new deep ocean

submersibles have been built in the United States during the past 30 years. With

new metallurgy, new propulsion and greater sensor capability, the development of

better and smaller electrical, acoustical, and optical sensors, and a new generation

of deep ocean exploration vehicles should be developed by the United States. Twenty

million dollars per vehicle would provide the U.S. with leadership in this field.

The new Ocean Exploration Initiative is an exciting and challenging program for

the United States. It will build new industries, educate the citizenry, preserve the

environment and open new collaborative partnerships.

In the technology arena, partnerships between academia, the U.S. Navy, NASA,

NOAA, EPA and industry will be forged. A new ocean knowledge base will be established, providing critical ocean information to the U.S. government for defense, resource management, environmental protection and policy and law. The ocean knowledge base will also provide information to coastal developers, states and municipalities, fisheries, oil and ocean mineral industries, and provide the knowledge base for

oceanographers and educators.

It is essential that this new venture be fully supported by Congress, that the

fledgling Office of Ocean Exploration be fully funded, and that a fleet of new age

submersibles be constructed for the exploration of the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic

oceans, and the Gulf of Mexico.

95

Core programs essential to accomplishing the objectives of Ocean Exploration,

such as NOAA’s NURP should be fully funded and ocean exploration programs in

the Defense Department, the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency be supported. States bordering and surrounded by the oceans should

be encouraged to join the partnership and U.S. industry should be encourages by

government to take a lead in the development and manufacture of instruments, vehicles, systems, observatories, data processing and information technology. This

way, Ocean Exploration will be a cornucopia for a new wave of American knowledge

and industry.

PANEL III DISCUSSION

Chairman GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Malahoff. I do not speak

any Hawaiian so I can say aloha when you leave. Thank you very

much, gentlemen. Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few questions. First

of all, Dr. Beeton, I just wanted to express my appreciation to you

for the great work you did in Michigan for so many years on the

Great Lakes system, which I think is a very important aquatic system. And you served well and long and we really appreciate the

work.

Dr. BEETON. Thank you. I——

Chairman GILCHREST. Would the gentleman yield just for a quick

comment. Dr. Beeton came to my office when I was first elected to

Congress to start helping me understand NOAA. So, Dr. Beeton,

good to see you and thank you for all of the work that you do.

Dr. BEETON. Thank you.

Mr. EHLERS. I think you educated a lot of Members of Congress.

I have a question. In your testimony you mentioned the Great

Lakes could benefit from a NOAA exploration initiative to help

chart and map the lakes. I am just in a sense asking an administrative question. Would it not work better for that to happen

through NOAA’s national ocean service which is responsible for

charting and mapping coastal areas or——

Dr. BEETON. Well, the way I look at it, the ocean exploration activity is something that should—NOAA should be key player in.

And the—NOS, National Ocean Service, that has charting capability and so on will be part of that. So I——

Mr. EHLERS. So you are assuming they would both work

together——

Dr. BEETON. Yes.

Mr. EHLERS. Okay.

Dr. BEETON. So I think that is where the activity should be.

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. Dr. Weller, I am a physicist and I do not understand the ocean current chart you displayed. I have seen it before. What mechanism is there that keeps it going more or less uniformly in the same place? What behavior in a liquid with the current that is in between would make it so stable, relatively stable?

Dr. WELLER. Well, it is the distribution of the density. And the

density is set by temperature and salinity. In the high North Atlantic we have a unique condition in which we expose the sea

water there to extreme, strong cooling. And the sea water starts

out fairly salty normally. So as it cools, it gets more dense and it

sinks. Now as the water moves down through the interior of the

ocean, mixing rates are slow and the flow is driven by the pressure

gradient set up by the spatial differences in density. And those are

96

fairly stable. Those evolve, you know, down away from the surface

of the ocean where the atmosphere mixes it. Things evolve slowly.

So down even 1,000 feet, change year to year is very slow. And that

penetration, and we can track it by looking at freons and things,

that takes many years for that water to move down.

But the key is that it starts with that getting denser. And the

key is that the atmosphere creates these spatial differences in density and drives the flow.

Mr. EHLERS. I understand that. But what I do not understand is

how you—it goes down, curls, circulates all up into the Pacific,

turns around and comes back. That is a rather intricate pattern of

motion. Obviously, there are forces changing direction of the motion—movement of the currents.

Dr. WELLER. Well, you know, it would be—if in your bathtub,

say, at home you took two immiscible fluids, you know, a blue one

and clear one, different densities. Now let us find the fluid that is

at a density in-between those two.

Mr. EHLERS. Which is a lava vent.

Dr. WELLER. Right. And so down by the drain of your bathtub

you pour that fluid in. It will sink initially to the density, you

know, in-between—— Mr. EHLERS. I am not worried about the sinking—— Dr. WELLER [continuing]. Spread out.

Mr. EHLERS [continuing]. Working—I am worried about working

all the way across.

Dr. WELLER. Sure. Once it sinks, you know, it has more fluid

coming behind it, there is a pressure head, it will then spread out

at its normal density. The ocean is stratified from top to bottom

with light to heavy. So water sinks to where it finds its own density and then it can’t move up or down because it will move against

density. It moves sideways.

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah. Why does it not go out in all directions rather

than circulating—— Dr. WELLER. Well, then the physics of the earth’s rotation come

into effect.

Mr. EHLERS. So is it a Coriolis force?

Dr. WELLER. It is. It is Coriolis. It is what as an oceanographer

we call geostrophic. It is a balance between the density created

pressure gradient and the Coriolis Force due to the earth’s rotation.

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. Still hard for me to understand how it

would—you know, I am used to dealing with one or two particle

systems. It is hard for me to understand how that flow is so uniform. Okay. Another question, Dr. Weller. It was one I asked earlier of Mr. Gudes. And that was the role of polar orbiting satellites

program in ocean observation. And was that—was the decision to

go ahead with this made in cooperation with the various members

of the research community interested in this? And is it an optimum

program, is it going to provide you the data that you need and

want for your work?

Dr. WELLER. You know, it is a landmark decision. NASA flies research satellites. They have proven that they can be a great value

to oceanography. We do not yet have an operational oceanographic

satellite program. This marks the transition. To be honest, not all

97

oceanographers believe that the optimum sensors have been chosen. But this is moving forward. Operationalizing satellite observations for oceanography. It is forward progress. We need to maintain

a dialogue now to optimize it.

Mr. EHLERS. I see. And do you see it meshing well with the

ARGO program?

Dr. WELLER. Oh, it fits extremely well with the ARGO program.

One of the key measurements is altimetry which is measuring the

height of the ocean as the density of the temperature and salinity

patterns vary and the height of the ocean varies. ARGO gives you

the information about temperature and salinity, its profiles. Take

it together with this height measurement, and you can infer this

geostrophic flow that we were just talking about. So satellites plus

ARGO, you get the global circulation.

Mr. EHLERS. And just another quick one. I am not sure if you are

the one who mentioned about putting measuring instruments on

ships?

Dr. WELLER. Yes.

Mr. EHLERS. Are we doing any of that now and is there any reason we cannot do it on all ships?

Dr. WELLER. We are just—we have a standard program under

the weather service with a too small investment. Very simple instrumentation. NOAA Office of Global Programs has pilot projects

in the Atlantic and the Pacific to test the value of improved meteorological measurements. Other countries are doing it. We are

proving the value. We should move forward. And since those ships

are routinely out there for their own purpose, we should instrument them.

Mr. EHLERS. And is there any possibility of trying to fill in the

gaps by contracting with commercial airliners to simply have a device on them that would drop meteorological instruments every

hundred miles as they are flying across the ocean? We have a vast

network of air traffic, too. That could be—— Dr. WELLER. That—it is probably going to be difficult to work out

the airplanes dropping. But there is a plan from one of the NOAA

research labs to have globally orbiting balloons. You know, several

people have tried——

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah.

Dr. WELLER [continuing]. To fly around the world in these balloons. The plan is to have large balloons that circumnavigate. And

they drop ocean probes as they pass over the oceans.

Mr. EHLERS. All right. I yield back.

Chairman GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Barcia.

Mr. BARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, like my colleagues

from Michigan, want to thank Dr. Beeton for his fine work in Ann

Arbor, Michigan. Not only in terms of the research you have done

as it relates to the Great Lakes Basin, but of course your expertise

in the issues effecting our ocean systems throughout the world.

Dr. Beeton, I just have one question for you. And I would just

like to say that I am interested in learning more about your proposal for a Great Lakes Coastal Observatory System. You recommend including and emphasizing the Great Lakes in legislation

dealing with ocean exploration and ocean observing systems. Could

you gives some examples of what is needed? Also, could you give

98

some benefits to the region and the nation from a Great Lakes

Coastal Observatory System? And finally, how would you structure

such a system and how much funding do you think would be required to support it? I know it is a lot of questions but if you

could—in a general—— Dr. BEETON. Well, fortunately, just recently I was in Ann Arbor

talking to the people at the Great Lakes Environmental Research

Laboratory. And they have been thinking about a system that

could be actually a mobile observing system that could be put in

place, for example, in the Thunder Bay Marine Sanctuary. That not

only would provide observations insight to the sonar and TV camera networks and so on. So it would provide—and other kinds of

sensors, biological and chemical that would provide data to people

in universities. But also to Federal agencies like EPA, NOAA, U.S.

Geological Survey and so on. But it would have a link to the shore

so that visitors to the marine sanctuary could actually then see

something of the marine sanctuary.

I mean, the marine sanctuaries are great but for a lot of people

that might want to come and visit, what are they going to see. The

shore and some water. And so if we have an underwater observation system that would greatly enhance their learning and the outreach activity to educate them. And so this is one of the things that

has been proposed. In fact, this proposal ought just been sent forward to NOAA headquarters as a possible thing to be funded.

So those are some of the things that we are thinking about.

Mr. BARCIA. Any idea what the cost involved might be, a ballpark figure?

Dr. BEETON. No. Because I think this is really at the concept

stage. And, you know, I think it might be inappropriate to try to

put some kind of a figure on it until people really sat down and

looked at it and got some hard data.

Mr. BARCIA. Thank you.

Chairman GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Barcia. Mr. Abercrombie.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I regret

that I could not get here earlier. But I want to commend you for

just working on this joint hearing.

I want to in particular, I think you know, welcome Dr. Malahoff

who is a good and dear friend. And I want to say a valued colleague in the sense of our interest in what I call innerspace. We

have devoted a good portion of the national budget, Mr. Chairman,

for some period of time now to outer space. And we have not managed to put the same kind of emphasis, in my judgment, on inner

space on our own planet. Inner space taking up, if I—if Dr.

Malahoff’s instructions to me are correct, about d of the surface of

the planet.

Now in that regard, if I could be granted an opportunity to ask

Dr. Malahoff about his testimony, and some of this may have been

covered. But I hope I can provide some emphasis. If you look at

page four of your testimony, Dr. Malahoff, you talk about—in the

second paragraph about the immediate need for expansion of our

present capabilities. Manned submersibles, ROVs, AUVs and sea

floor observatories. And there is a picture over here of the LEO–

15, that kind of thing. There is a whole spectrum operating here.

You indicate as well, and I am reading this just in case you were

99

2See ‘‘Oceanus’’ in Appendix 4.

not able to read all of it during the portion of your testimony. No

new deep ocean submersibles have been built in the United States

for the past 30 years. And then you go on to recount new metallurgy, new propulsion, greater sensor capability has allowed for the

development of better and smaller electrical acoustical and optical

sensors. And a new generation of deep ocean vehicles should be developed.

My question to you is, in relation then to the last sentence of that paragraph, $20 million per vehicle would provide the U.S.

with leadership in this field. Is that $20 million a figure that is

drawn from some hard research with respect to specifications, et

cetera? And $20 million, does that mean ROVs, AUVs, sea floor

laboratories? Just exactly what does the $20 million refer to and

how hard is the data that comes up with that figure?

Dr. MALAHOFF. Yes, sir, Congressman. It is submersibles. It is

based upon the cost of building the Mire’s that are now in Russian

hands. And it is based upon my current estimate of building similar submersibles here in the United States.

And I envision perhaps five of these vehicles being distributed

throughout the areas of interest in the United States. Including, of

course, one based in Hawaii so we could cover the central and tropical Pacific Ocean.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Dr. Weller has provided, and I expect that

you must have before you, have you seen this particular

publication—— Dr. MALAHOFF. Yes.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE [continuing]. I expect entered in the record. Is

it not, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman GILCHREST. We will enter it into the record right now.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If you will. It is Volume 42, number 1.

Chairman GILCHREST. Without objection, so ordered.2

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. The reason I bring it up is that,

and maybe I can ask Dr. Weller to comment, the picture on the

front is a rendering. This is obviously not a photograph. Is that

right, Dr. Weller?

Dr. WELLER. That is correct.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And it is a rendering because this vehicle has

not been built yet?

Dr. WELLER. That is correct.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And it—I have it here at either the ABE2 or

the ABE2.

Dr. WELLER. Early versions of ABE, an autonomous vehicle, have

been built.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. When you say they have been built, are

they presently able to be utilized or are they models?

Dr. WELLER. No. They have started to do scientific research.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And how would this vehicle relate to what Dr.

Malahoff has in his testimony? What would be the relationship in

his testimony about the immediate need for these new ocean

submersibles, ROVs, AUVs, sea floor laboratory—observatories?

Dr. WELLER. One of the things that is difficult for oceanographers to do is to do the equivalent of a mapping mission, say,

100

from a plane. How do you go down and get a—essentially, a snap

shot, synoptic picture of features or processes. It would be very difficult to do. If we took a ship out and we dropped, say, core

profilers or instruments at spots. And moving the ship as we heard

earlier, they move very slowly. But if you could go out with the

ship and lower a vehicle like that and send it on its mission to fly

a radiator pattern, it could accomplish those sort of mapping missions very effectively.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would that not be useful for the security interest of this nation as well?

Dr. WELLER. Well, in my judgment, mapping things like routes

along which submarines transit would be very valuable.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So would it not be a useful procedure for us

to meld in this instance Department of Defense research capabilities and funding, and the scientific side of it, a kind of dual technology, if you will, or a dual purpose technology?

Dr. WELLER. I agree completely. A lot of the observational tools

we are talking about have many applications. Mapping features on

the bottom for geological studies is not that much different than

trying to find and detect buried mines on the bottom.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would there be in your—or any of the members of the panel, are there now presently institutional repositories

in the Department of Defense with which you could usefully connect?

Dr. GRASSLE. Yes. As Bob Ballard mentioned, a lot of the new

technology has come from the Navy. I might mention though specifically with regard to ABE, the—that came out of a group that—

the group that first discovered hydrothermal vents. And thinking

about how we were going to explore the mid-ocean ridge system.

And the concern was that it is 40,000 miles long. And we needed

to explore it on a number of different scales.

And the idea for ABE was that we could not afford to be there

with a ship and a submarine to go and look more than a few sites

along the ridge on any one trip. And so the idea was to have an

autonomous vehicle go out and go back and forth continuously and

mobile one, as Bob refers to it, and get a continuous coverage that

is not only the geological features but the—but the life on the sea

floor.

And there is another such vehicle which also was developed at

Woods Holes called REMUS, which you will see in the LEO picture. It was actually developed as a coastal vehicle, REMUS. But

it is being used by the Navy to have continuous coverage of a kilometer square in shallow water. And it is now being adapted for

deep sea use with Navy support.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence

in the questions. Would it be useful, or I would like to suggest in

conclusion that perhaps under auspices of even the joint committee

to include—joint committee auspices rather, to include perhaps the

Armed Services Committee.

Chairman GILCHREST. We were—we attempted to do that for this

hearing. But scheduling did not——

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The schedule——

Chairman GILCHREST [continuing]. Future hearings.

101

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, whether hearings or not, I certainly

hope that perhaps we could work together to try and see if we

could not come up with a proposal for the scientific community,

particularly the under—Dr. Beeton’s—or perhaps with Dr. Beeton’s

assistance to empower the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to work with the Department of Defense and other appropriate research entities in academia to come up with a comprehensive proposal for undersea research, or what I would—again,

I am going to prefer to call inner space research. That would involve the various resources of the United States Government to

back up the academic side that is obviously well represented and

incredibly professional and prepared right now. Do we have a proposal?

Chairman GILCHREST. I think one of the purposes of this hearing

today, we had Admiral Cohen from the Navy here earlier along

with Curt Weldon. Is to—and that is an excellent idea. And that

is what we are pursuing.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Wonderful. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I am sure under your vigorous leadership we will be able to

accomplish that.

Chairman GILCHREST. And Mr. Ehlers and yours.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes, of course.

Chairman GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Abercrombie. We will finish up with just—I have just a few questions for the panel.

I would like to go back to an earlier question Dr. Ehlers raised

about ocean currents, Dr. Weller. I found your explanation fascinating. This living organism seems to sustain itself by a pretty

complex, interesting mechanical structure, I guess if you take the

parts apart. What would you say it would take for the ocean currents to stop or change or be reversed? Would it be a traumatic

event, would it be a slow cyclical event, period of cyclical changes,

would it be global warming. What would it take? Or have the ocean

currents been different in the past and, therefore, the climate been

different?

Dr. WELLER. In the paleo-oceanographic record looking at, say,

pollen or tree rings and things coral, we do know that in the past

the ocean circulation, that conveyor belt picture that I showed, has

stopped. That is what we call the shutdown of the thermal-haline

circulation. The sort of change you can expect is—can be a rapid

change. The temperature in Western Europe could change 20 degrees Fahrenheit in ten years. In fact—— Chairman GILCHREST. Colder or warmer?

Dr. WELLER. Colder. Europe, because of this poleward heat

transport of heat in the North Atlantic is anomalously warm for

the latitudes it is at, so in ten years it could be much cooler.

Chairman GILCHREST. Would the equatorial regions be a lot

warmer then?

Dr. WELLER. They would—yes. There would be a rebalancing.

And in fact, as you worry about global warming I hope you would

consider that we have now started on an oceanographic experiment. We are heating the earth’s surface. We are heating the

ocean. We are melting the ice caps. We are doing two things at the

poles that will shut down that sinking process. We are letting loose

very light fresh water at the poles.

102

Chairman GILCHREST. You say it has been that way in the past?

Dr. WELLER. It has, yes.

Chairman GILCHREST. The current has shut—— Dr. WELLER. Yes.

Chairman GILCHREST. What would cause it to shut down, a shift

in climate?

Dr. WELLER. A shift in climate, yes.

Chairman GILCHREST. I guess in the past that shift in climate

has been a natural shift that occurred over a longer period of time

than the potential change we are seeing now?

Dr. WELLER. No. In the paleo-climate record there are times

when the climate has changed almost as rapidly. If you go back

and you recreate the temperatures, say, in the Atlantic Ocean, say,

in the Younger Dryas—there were times when temperature

changed within a decade, say, ten degrees. The changes—— Chairman GILCHREST. Now that change in temperature occurred

within ten years rapidly.

Dr. WELLER. Yes.

Chairman GILCHREST. But the reason that the ocean currents

stopped, was that just as rapid or was that a slow process?

Dr. WELLER. It is a slow process in the sense that I showed you

the conveyor belt and the water moves down slowly. But what you

could have, say, you could have a series of years where the winters

in the North Atlantic are milder. It is not cold, ice is melting. Each

winter for a succession of winters, perhaps five winters, you have

successively each winter pushed down into that intermediate layer

less of that water. And that—— Chairman GILCHREST. So the ocean, the current, the flow actually stops?

Dr. WELLER. Yes.

Chairman GILCHREST. So does that mean that the ocean bottom

current stops? Does that mean the Gulf Stream, for example, would

not be moving?

Dr. WELLER. You know, we can go to models to answer your

question. And then you have to ask if—how faithful the models are.

I mean, the simple answer to your question is yes. If we change

that temperature and salinity distribution at the source, we then

change all the currents that depend upon the dynamics of being

driven by density differences.

Chairman GILCHREST. Is there some idea about what that temperature would have to be in order for that to happen? Some of the

predictions by the IPCC are as much as four or five degrees, six

degrees or more Fahrenheit over the course of a century? Would

that be enough to cause this current to stop? And then I guess if

it stops the Northern Hemisphere gets colder, the equatorial regions get warmer?

Dr. WELLER. There is the potential that the pathway we have

embarked upon as indicated by the IPCC can cause this. The

United Kingdom just put 20 million pounds into research and observations to study the possibility that there will be an abrupt

shutdown of the circulation.

Chairman GILCHREST. Mr. Ehlers?

Mr. EHLERS. If the gentleman would yield. But is not there a

positive feedback loop if it gets colder in the Northern Hemisphere

103

then once again the water will start sinking and become more

dense and start this all over again?

Dr. WELLER. You are right.

Chairman GILCHREST. How fast does that happen?

Mr. EHLERS. So you could get an oscillatory—— Dr. WELLER. You could get an oscillatory behavior. The remarkable thing is that the past 10,000 years of climate have been very

stable. I think of concern is can we push it out of being stable and

enter one of these oscillatory patterns.

Chairman GILCHREST. But if it oscillates, what is the time frame

for that? We move into a period where the ocean stops, the current.

Dr. WELLER. Right.

Chairman GILCHREST. Then like Vern said, it gets real cold in

the Northern Hemisphere. And then that could start it back again.

You said the change in climate could happen within 10 years. Does

reversing that happen within 10 years?

Dr. WELLER. I can’t answer that. You know, what I should do is

I should look at the papers that use the paleo-oceanographic record

to recreate sea surface temperatures. And I should send you a figure, say, that contrasts many thousands of years of temperature,

Bermuda versus Greenland, and write you a little note about the

answer.

Chairman GILCHREST. Thank you. I guess that was not part of

the description of what we wanted you to testify on when you

came. Just briefly, I know it has been a long day for everybody.

But, Dr. Grassle, can you comment on the mid-Atlantic Long-Term

Ecosystem Observatory Program you are now involved in just 15

meters of water? Is that just along the New Jersey coast?

Dr. GRASSLE. Yes.

Chairman GILCHREST. Does that extend beyond New Jersey?

Dr. GRASSLE. I do not know whether you can see the two graphics, but the one is for the middle part of the Jersey coast, which

is a 30x30-kilometer area served by bottom cables buried in the

sediments that provide profiling systems to get the vertical measurements, salinity, temperature, depth, chlorophyll, light, backscatter of particles. Also, we have autonomous vehicles that go out

and make measurements. The REMUS vehicle I referred to before.

But the new instruments that we are using more frequently are

the gliders, which are like ARGO floats but they can be redirected

by radio.

Chairman GILCHREST. Is part of the reason you are doing this

type of observation to see the impact on the ocean of coastal activity?

Dr. GRASSLE. Yes. But it is to understand the relationships

among organisms in the ocean to calibrate satellite information on

chlorophyll and other pigments. And for the coastal ocean so that

we will get that information from the coastal environment all

around the country.

Chairman GILCHREST. Do you know of anybody else that is doing

something similar to that?

Dr. GRASSLE. There is nothing quite this intensive. But there are

similar efforts in a number of places. The State of Maine has embarked on a system like that. I think Al mentioned that there is

interest in that sort of system in the Great Lakes. There is work

104

with high-frequency radar, long-range high-frequency radar which

is very important. And we are the first to have continuous measurements on that, but there are also systems at Oregon State and

at the Navy Post-Graduate School——

Chairman GILCHREST. Is the data collected from those systems

compatible?

Dr. GRASSLE. Yes. We have made an effort to go around and talk

with one another and come up with uniform standards and protocols because that is so important for developing the National Ocean

Observing System.

Chairman GILCHREST. In the areas where these—where you

placed these monitors or where they are being studied, how did you

choose other than 15 meters the places to collect the data?

Dr. GRASSLE. We started because we had a laboratory that was

situated in an inlet.

Chairman GILCHREST. Oh.

Dr. GRASSLE. It is a Coast Guard lifeboat station. And when the

Institute of Marine Coastal Sciences was started we wanted to

make long-term measurements in our coastal region. And these

need to be interdisciplinary measurements involving all the scientists, and the starting point is to get the circulation in the coastal ocean through time.

And we find, for instance, the primary productivity, the shape of

it in the ocean varies. But there are discrete bodies of primary productivity that had not been seen before. There are coastal jets of

water which are chock-full of chlorophyll. There is a circulation

driven by small-scale upwelling that also are places where there

are hot spots of primary production.

These features were known before we had an observing system

that was continuous in time and this fine scale spacially.

Chairman GILCHREST. Sounds fascinating. Mr. Abercrombie, any

other questions? Mr. Ehlers? For the sake of time——

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I probably—a

question to both chairmen. I realize what you said was difficult to

put something together logistically with Armed Services. But might

we—might I inquire as to what your intentions are with respect to

perhaps coming up with a recommendation on these areas in the

time frame? Maybe we could do some kind of study to put this together even in this budget, if it is possible. I would certainly be—

volunteer to work with you to try and accomplish that task. I guess

that is what I am trying to put forward.

Mr. EHLERS. Well, let me just repeat something I said earlier in

the meeting. Through hearing Congressman Weldon’s testimony, I

sent him a short note suggesting a way in which we could engage

in this activity in this Congress. And he sent back a shorter saying,

good idea. Let us work on it. So we will talk to you about that

and——

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I have great admiration for Congressman

Weldon’s commitment in this area. And I would certainly try to

work with him and with you to accomplish that.

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah. It is both his energy and his intensity in

working on it is very good. So we will try and see what we can do.

105

Chairman GILCHREST. But we were hoping an increase in the

military budget, about 80 percent of it would go to ocean

research—— Mr. EHLERS. Yes.

Chairman GILCHREST [continuing]. And exploration.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am for that.

Chairman GILCHREST. We are going to make that recommendation. We will keep the record open for members to submit followup questions to any of the witnesses for, I guess, a period of as long

as we want, I supposed. But we could do it for five days. But I

want to thank the witnesses again for your testimony. It has been

very helpful. The topic is fascinating. And we hope to continue this

dialogue for some time to come. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(107)

Appendix 1:

PANEL I BIOGRAPHIES, FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, AND ANSWERS TO

POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

108

109

110

111

112

113

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by the National Science Foundation

1. Great promise has been demonstrated in living marine resources for pharmaceuticals, but the track record of human exploitation shows it has not been done

in the most sensitive or sustainable manner. What are the risks of exploring for

marine resources without a framework to guide actions?

As a science agency, NSF’s involvement in identifying living marine resources is

done within a research context. The kind of exploration and research activities supported by NSF are unlikely to threaten a species or ecosystem. On the contrary,

these activities promote understanding of them and better enable conservation. Activities that may occur subsequent to exploration, such as exploitation for commercial purposes, clearly could produce adverse impacts if not done in a sustainable

manner. Agencies with resource management responsibilities can better speak to

the ‘‘exploitation’’ issue.

2. How successful has the NOPP been?

The National Ocean Partnership Program (NOPP), enacted in 1997, has been successful in a variety of areas. Primarily, it fosters the exchange of information and

facilitates cooperation between key players in ocean research and education on an

ongoing basis, and helps to identify areas of mutual interest and to create common

solutions. In addition to encompassing relevant federal agencies with ocean responsibilities, NOPP activities include members of the academic community, industry,

and other members of the ocean science community.

In its first few years, NOPP funding has enabled significant headway in technology development (ocean environmental sensors and their platforms). Under the

auspices of NOPP, agencies and the ocean community have laid out plans for a U.S.

ocean observation system and established a coordination office (OCEAN.US). Also,

funding was provided for a data assimilation and modeling consortia to enable societally relevant modeling of key oceanographic parameters. NOPP activities have

provided an excellent start for expanded interagency coordination and collaboration;

NOPP is developing a virtual ocean data system that will encourage uniform data

handling and dissemination, a vital activity requiring participation by multiple partners. In the area of education, NOPP partners have seen tremendous success with

its support of the National Ocean Sciences Bowl competition for high schools, and

with other community-based K–12 educational activities.

3. What would be the role of the UNOLS fleet in this new program for exploration

and observation?

Well-equipped and capable research vessels will be needed in any effort to explore

and observe the oceans. The research vessel fleet, which offers some of the most advanced capabilities presently available, will continue to enable the exploration of our

oceans. In addition to the vessels themselves, UNOLS ships are able to deploy Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs), Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) and

the ALVIN, one of the foremost manned submersible in the world and the U.S.

workhorse for exploring the deep ocean floor and hydrothermal vent systems.

A planned new system of seafloor observatories and sensor packages attached to

mobile floats and gliders moving through the ocean waters would greatly facilitate

the exploration of our oceans. The UNOLS fleet has a key and long-term role to play

in servicing these autonomous systems. With the ALVIN and many of the research

vessels approaching the end of their design lifetimes, the Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee of NOPP is preparing a long-term plan for fleet renewal.

4. You highlight the relatively long-running Ocean Drilling Program, which provided extensive information on sedimentary strata and the earth’s crust. In light

of other priorities mentioned by the President’s Ocean Exploration Panel and the

other witnesses today, should this program be maintained, or the resources applied to other priorities? Could we find out just as much about the earth’s crust

from the private sector through cooperative agreements or other means?

The fundamental operations of the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) should be

maintained. Scientific ocean drilling continues to provide the sole means for sampling the 70% of the Earth that lies beneath the ocean. Research efforts include:

• Integrated studies of global geochemical cycling, from creation of new ocean

crust at mid-ocean ridges to consumption back into the mantle. A new emphasis in future years will be to penetrate the seismic zone beneath island arcs

to study the processes responsible for large, destructive earthquakes.

114

• Acquiring a global array of drill holes to examine the evolution of the global

environment, particularly changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation and

chemistry that have controlled biologic evolution and global climate change.

• The deployment of new instrumentation in boreholes to quantify the magnitude and role of fluid circulation through sediments and crust, measure its

impact on the extent of the deep biosphere, and determine its roles in the formation of gas hydrates and hydrocarbons.

A future phase of scientific drilling, the proposed Scientific Ocean Drilling Program (SODP), envisions an expansion of exploration beneath the oceans made possible by increasing drilling capability, from the single-ship operation currently in

use to a multiple-drilling platform operation of the future. The new drilling, sampling and observing capabilities would allow scientists to conduct experiments and

collect samples in environments and at depths never before attempted.

The fundamental research and exploration questions examined by scientific ocean

drilling are much broader in scope than those addressed by offshore drilling for the

private sector oil, gas and mineral industries. The focus of these industries is on

specific sites where economic returns can be obtained rather than scientific advancement. The ODP and IODP scientific, technical, planning and management groups

actively include industrial liaison members to ensure industry interests and capabilities are included in program operations.

5. Should there be a specific capitalized program to develop new technologies for

ocean exploration and observation, providing incentives and seed money to encourage the public and private sector to get involved in development? Such a program

would be similar to the Hybrid Automobile Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce.

Continued and enhanced investments are required to implement the technologies

needed for cutting-edge ocean exploration and observation activities. A variety of

models exist that would encourage private sector involvement in technology development efforts. At NSF, we have extensive experience with preparing program announcements or requests for proposals that announce basic requirements and encourage private sector participation.

NSF has not been significantly involved with either the Hybrid Automobile Partnership or the Advanced Technology Program. However, in the Hybrid Automobile

Partnership, the requirements of the desired product are known at the outset. In

an ocean observing system, technology development and the conduct of research

must go hand-in-hand. History shows that activities carried out at the frontiers of

knowledge evolve in unexpected ways. Development of the technology exclusively at

the start of an activity almost guarantees the construction of instrumental dinosaurs. Technology development must proceed in parallel with the activity and be

driven by the continuously changing needs of the activity.

6. The observation system you all talk about is primarily for the physical environment. What are the practical applications of applying this new stream of data to

the management of biological species? How would this information ultimately support the management of resources through an understanding of such things as

primary productivity, fish stocks and marine pollution?

The observation system discussed would gather data on physical, chemical, geological and biological characteristics of ocean and coastal waters. While physical sensors are currently more advanced than their chemical and biological counterparts,

NSF and NOPP are funding numerous efforts to develop appropriate chemical and

biological sensors for the future observation system. This extended suite of sensing

capabilities will provide a comprehensive and interdisciplinary view of dynamic

processes occurring in the ocean to better support sustainable management of resources. NSF strongly endorses the concept that all the characteristics of the ocean

must be studied and evaluated simultaneously to eventually predict biological production, including fish stock variability.

7. The Western Pacific is a huge area. What are the critical monitoring projects or

observations that should occur in the Western Pacific, particularly with the importance climate change and sea level rise has to the region?

Enhanced regional measurements, such as those in the Western Pacific, are important but must be done in the context of global measurements. Key monitoring

projects or observations important to the understanding of climate change and sea

level rise in the region include:

115

• a repeat global hydrographic survey following up on the one initiated under

WOCE (World Ocean Circulation Experiment) and JGOFS (Joint Global

Ocean Flux Study) to tie down the multi-decade trend;

• maintenance of the ENSO (El Nin ̃ o Southern Oscillation) observing system

including NOAA’s tide gauge network, the TAO (Tropical Atmosphere Ocean)

array, and surface drifters;

• continuation of high precision altimetry measurements conducted by NASA as

well as GRACE (NASA’s Gravity mission), which is critical to determining absolute sea surface height; and

• distribution of profiling floats (e.g., ARGO) and high resolution XBT (Expendable Bathythermograph) lines to provide measurements of temperature and

salinity structure in the upper kilometer.

A global data assimilation system is necessary to capitalize on the data produced

by increased observations. Estimating Circulation and Climate of the Ocean

(ECCO), a NOPP-funded project supported by ONR, NSF, and NASA, assimilates

data on ocean circulation and climate on global and basin scales. In addition, NSF,

under the Information Technology Research priority area, is supporting a project to

develop a modular ocean data assimilation system with application in coastal and

tidal models.

116

117

118

119

120

121

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses to Questions from the Honorable Robert Underwood

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, U.S. Navy, (Retired); President, Consortium

for Oceanographic Research

1. What would be the role of the UNOLS fleet in this new program for exploration

and observation?

The UNOLS fleet will have a key role in the implementation of any ocean exploration or ocean observation program. The UNOLS fleet has excellent capacity and

capability to support such endeavors. If an observation system is funded, UNOLS

ships will be involved in deploying and maintaining system assets, as well as supporting expanded research efforts tied to the new system. UNOLS currently is working on a recapitalization plan because several mid-sized vessels are reaching the end

of their planned service lives. The Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee

(FOFC), a subcommittee of the National Ocean Research Leadership Council

(NORLC), is in the process of finalizing this plan and CORE members have provided

information and comments. The plan (which is now in draft form) will include an

assessment and analysis of UNOLS vessel support for current operational observation systems and discuss how UNOLS could support a larger, integrated coastal and

ocean observing system.

2. What Federal assets are available through the Department of Defense to support

ocean observation and exploration? Sharing what has been done with the military

and civilian satellite program and the opening of access to SOSUS array data,

are there any other areas where science might benefit from former and current defensive technologies to achieve cost savings in building a civilian ocean observing

capability?

Examples of Department of Defense (DOD) assets that could contribute to ocean

observation and exploration include the following:

• Underwater SOSUS arrays can be used for some observational purposes and

over the horizon radar has been used to look at sea surface currents off the

coast of Maine. While such systems provide useful information, they are expensive assets that will require sustained investments.

• In the past, DOD submarines were used for Arctic research because they are

capable of surfacing under the Arctic icepack, however, the last of these have

been taken out of service.

• Navy survey vessels currently contribute unclassified data to NOAA for

weather and hurricane prediction and that data can be used to complement

data collected by an integrated coastal and ocean observing system. In general, data collected by the Navy for both atmospheric and ocean forecasting

is being made available to a wide range of federal and private sector users.

• Supercomputer facilities, such as the Navy’s Fleet Numerical Meteorology and

Oceanography Center, host sophisticated operational coupled air-sea models

and could provide a key framework for assimilation of information from an

ocean observing system.

• The Office of Naval Research (ONR), through the National Oceanographic

Partnership Program (NOPP), has provided funding for pilot observing systems and development of technology for systems such as Argo and autonomous underwater vehicles.

3. You mention the wide variety of benefits we might get from the oceans based on

exploration and observation. How do you foresee moving the information gathered

and analyzed to actual utilization?

The NORLC established OCEAN.US in May of 2000 to serve as the integrator of

ocean data. OCEAN.US is charged with the integration of long-term, routine, consistent observing systems for research and operations in the following areas:

• Detecting and Forecasting Oceanic Components of Climate Variability

• Facilitating Safe and Efficient Marine Operations

• Ensuring National Security

• Managing Marine Resources

• Preserving and Restoring Healthy Marine Ecosystems

• Mitigating Natural Hazards

• Ensuring Public Health

122

OCEAN.US currently is working to define the architecture for an integrated ocean

observing system and the NOPP agencies are working on developing a virtual data

hub so that observations can be cataloged and dispersed to agencies and organizations that need the information in real time. With proper funding and support, the

initial systems architecture will be completed in the coming year. We envision the

operational control of the observing system will require some form of virtual operations center joining all of the current agency operational authorities in a combined

data net with a small central coordinating office.

4. How successful do you feel NOPP has been?

NOPP has an outstanding record of achievement for a program that is barely four years old. NOPP efforts have resulted in $57 million being invested in national priority areas in the ocean sciences. This research investment is based upon the pooled

NOPP expertise and provides a ‘super-agency’ capability to integrate agencies to ensure funding for the most pressing research in the most coordinated and efficient

manner. ONR currently provides the largest annual NOPP contribution, followed by

the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA). NOPP issues an annual report to Congress detailing program activities.

The latest report for FY 2001 is located on the CORE website at: http://

www.COREocean.org/NOPP01report.html. CORE provides administrative support

for NOPP.

5. Please explain OCEAN.US.

OCEAN.US is essentially a joint program office under the direction of the

NORLC. It will integrate requirements and serve as system architect for a national

ocean and coastal observing system. OCEAN.US is supervised by a subcommittee

of the NORLC and is charged with overseeing the implementation of long-term, routine, consistent observing systems for research and operations in the areas listed

above. The office’s primary goal is to develop the initial framework for an integrated

system that is efficient and cost-effective and includes common data standards and

protocols for all users. The strong interagency commitment to its success is demonstrated by the interagency Memorandum of Agreement signed by the following

eight agencies: NOAA, ONR, Oceanographer of the Navy, NSF, NASA, Minerals

Management Service, United States Geological Survey, Department of Energy, and

United States Coast Guard.

6. Should there be a specific capitalized program to develop new technologies for

ocean exploration and observation, providing incentives and seed money to encourage the public and private sector to get involved in development? Such a program

would be similar to the Hybrid Automobile Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce.

There is a fairly robust market for small firms to make specialized equipment for

ocean exploration and observation, however, most instruments for such activities are

currently built in university and federal labs and these companies are ‘spin-offs’

from these institutions. Large-scale deployment of an observing system should lure

private sector capital into the ocean technology market and result in private sector

competition to build the instruments needed for a large-scale observing system. As

an example, Japan is currently the world leader in the deployment of such systems

and most of the state-of-the-art instrumentation for ocean observing systems is

being developed by Japanese companies as a result of the Japanese government

making an ocean observing system a national policy priority.

NOPP provides one successful federal process to encourage development of technologies for both ocean exploration and observation. For example, the current ARGO

buoy program is the result of a NOPP demonstration grant. However, the oceanographic community has expressed two concerns with the NOPP process. First, the

federal investment in NOPP must be increased substantially in order to ensure adequate progress in the areas of technology development, testing pilot observing systems, and data management. Second, the NOPP program must be broadened to provide for the transition of successful pilot programs and experimental technologies

into operational applications.

7. The observation system you talk about is primarily for the physical environment.

What are the practical applications of applying this new stream of data to the

management of biological species? How would this information ultimately support

the management of resources through an understanding of such things as primary

productivity, fish stocks, and marine pollution?

Sea surface and ocean water column temperatures as well as physical chemistry

have profound effects on fish stocks and primary productivity so there is an immeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:50 Dec 18, 2001 Jkt 073840 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 D:\WORKD\ETS\071201\73840A SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
123

diate benefit from the improved understanding of the oceans physical processes. El

Nin ̃ o and La Nin ̃ a events have demonstrated that physical changes in the ocean climate (in the case of an El Nin ̃ o, the warming of the eastern equatorial waters) result in some fish stocks such as anchovies disappearing as well as smaller salmon

populations in the Pacific Northwest. We are just starting to recognize that changes

and shifts in regional climate regimes can have profound effects on fisheries management issues and in the future we will need to incorporate climate events into

fisheries management decisions. Thus, an ocean observing system that can assess

and identify subtle changes in climate can be a useful tool in the management of

biological data.

It also is important to recognize that an ocean observation system is a platform

that can be used to deploy many different advanced biological sensors as they become available. Just as the Department of Defense has many weapons platforms

that can deploy different weapons for different missions, so too can an ocean observing system deploy different sensors to examine and address more regionally specific

issues with regards to biological species. Sensors that are aimed specifically at productivity issues can be deployed in regions of the system where productivity is a

key issue and similarly, sensors that applicability to specific fish stocks can be located where they are most needed. A similar argument applies to monitoring and

managing the effects of marine pollution.

8. The Western Pacific is a huge area. What are the critical monitoring projects or

observations that should occur in the Western Pacific, particularly with the importance climate change and sea level rise has to the region?

As a former commander of the 3rd Fleet with responsibility for the defense of the

Pacific sea approaches to the United States, I understand and appreciate this question more than most. Observational priorities must be established with international partners and clearly the Tropical Ocean-Global Atmosphere Tropical Ocean

Atmosphere (TOGA–TAO) array is an example of scientists from many nations

working together to address critical observational gaps. While the TOGA–TAO array

has been an enormous success in helping to predict El Nin ̃ o events, we must recognize that there are vast areas of the Western Pacific that are never sampled in situ.

Satellites can aid significantly in improving our understanding of the Western Pacific by making observations over a wider area, however they are severely limited

in their ability to ‘peer’ into the ocean. It is for this reason that an in situ ocean

observing system is crucial for the Western Pacific. Such a system is absolutely essential to determine the heat content and physical circulation, as well as the chemical and biologic processes of the ocean. Additionally, satellite ocean surface data requires in situ monitoring sites for calibration.

Clearly, we should remain committed to maintaining and expanding the TOGA–

TAO array, as well as extending our monitoring to both northern and southern midlatitudes. Such deployment would allow us to broaden our understanding beyond El

Nin ̃ o and study other decadal ocean cycles that determine both our short-term and

long-term climates. We should also consider seriously the deployment of observing

systems into the Arctic and Antarctic regions of the Western Pacific as these regions

are the ‘tripwires’ for the most sensitive climatic changes. Many believe that

changes in climate will most likely be apparent first in the more sensitive regions

of the world. The logical priority in deploying an ocean observing capability would

be first to populate those areas that can readily determine the precursors to changes

in climate.

(124)

Appendix 2:

PANEL II BIOGRAPHIES, FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, AND ANSWERS TO

POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

125

BIOGRAPHY FOR MARCIA K. MCNUTT

President, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, 7700 Sandholdt Road, Moss

Landing, CA 95039–0628; (831) 775–1814 (office); (831) 775–1647 (fax);

mcnutt@mbari.org

Biographical Information

2/19/52 Born, Minneapolis, Minnesota

6/70 Graduated from high school, Northrop Collegiate School,

Minneapolis, Minnesota.

5/73 B.A. in Physics from Colorado College, Colorado Springs,

Colorado.

1/78 Ph.D. in Earth Sciences from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California. Dissertation title: Continental and Oceanic Isostasy.

Awards and

Fellowships

1970 Class valedictorian, recipient of awards for mathematics,

science and French.

1970–1971 National Merit Scholarship

1973 Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude

1973–1976 National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship

1977–1978 University of California Dissertation Fellowship

1984, 1993 Journal of Geophysical Research Editor’s Citation for Excellence in Refereeing

1985 Graduate Student Council Award for Teaching

1985–1986 Mary Ingraham Bunting Fellow, Radcliffe College

1988 Macelwane Award, American Geophysical Union

1988 Fellowship, American Geophysical Union

1988 Doctor of Science, honoris causa, Colorado College

1989–1990 NSF Visiting Professorship for Women, Lamont-Doherty

Geological Observatory of Columbia University

1991– Griswold Professor of Geophysics

1993 Outstanding Alumni Award, The Blake Schools, Minneapolis

1995 Capital Science Lecturer, Carnegie Institution

1996–7 Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholar

1996 MIT School of Science Graduate Teaching Prize

1998 Fellowship, Geological Society of America

1998 Fellowship, American Association for the Advancement of

Science

1999 Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

1999 Sanctuary Reflections Award, Special Recognition Category, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

Post-graduate

Employment

1/78–6/78 Postdoctoral Research Associate, Scripps Institution of

Oceanography

6/78–7/79 Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

6/79–6/82 Geophysicist, Branch of Tectonophysics, Office of Earthquake Studies, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California

7/82–7/86 Assistant Professor of Geophysics, Department of Earth,

Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

7/86 Associate Professor of Geophysics, EAPS, MIT

126

Biographical Information—Continued

7/89–3/98 Professor of Geophysics, EAPS, MIT

7/93–7/95 Associate Director, MIT SeaGrant College Program

7/95–8/97 Director, MIT/WHOI Joint Program in Oceanography and

Applied Ocean Science and Engineering

9/97 President/CEO Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

6/98 Professor, Department of Earth Science, UC Santa Cruz

(on leave)

10/98 Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University

Special Training

8/74 Completed U.S. Navy UDT and Seal Team training course

in underwater demolition and explosives handling. Also,

NAUI certified SCUBA diver and Red Cross Water Safety

Instructor.

Sea Experience

Participant on 14 oceanographic expeditions on ships from Scripps, Woods Hole, Oregon State University, and Columbia University.

Co-chief scientist on Crossgrain 2 marine geophysical expedition to the Marquesas

Islands, April 1987.

Co-chief scientist on the R/V Ewing EW9103 multichannel seismic expedition to

French Polynesia, May, 1991

Chief scientist on the R/V Ewing EW9106 marine geophysical survey of the Marquesas Fracture Zone, September-October, 1991

Chief scientist on the R/V Ewing EW9204 ocean bottom seismometer experiment

in the Marquesas Islands, May, 1992

Co-chief scientist on BARGE, a multichannel seismic survey on Lake Mead of the

Colorado Plateau—Basin and Range breakaway zone, March, 1994

Chief scientist on EW9602, multichannel seismic survey of the Austral Islands,

March-May, 1996

Chief scientist on R/V Roger Revelle expedition to measure hydrothermal heat flux

in the Hawaiian Islands, August-September, 1997

Professional Societies

American Geophysical Union (Fellow)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (Fellow)

Geological Society of America (Fellow)

Relevant Activities

Member, NSF panel for graduate fellowships in Earth Sciences, 1985, 1986, 1987

(Chairman 1988, 1989, 1990)

NSF Ocean Sciences, Panelist, 1986–1988, 1990

NSF Science and Technology Centers Panelist 1989

Member, Lithosphere Panel, Ocean Drilling Program, 1986–1988

Chairman, Joint Committee for Marine Geology and Geophysics, MIT/WHOI Joint

Program, 1984–1988, 1991–1995

Member, Atolls and Guyots Detailed Planning Group, Ocean Drilling Program, 1991

Member, Performance Evaluation Committee, Ocean Drilling Program, 1991

Member, Organizing Committee for the Frontiers of Science Symposium, National

Academy of Sciences, 1991–2, 1994

Member, Advisory Committee for Earth Sciences, National Science Foundation,

1990–1993

Member, NASA Earth Science and Applications Division Advisory Subcommittee,

1990–1993

Member, Advisory Structure Review Committee, Ocean Drilling Program, 1992–

1993

Chairman, Organizing Committee for the Frontiers of Science Symposium, National

Academy of Sciences, 1993

Chairman, Visiting Committee, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 1993

Member, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, National Research Council, 1994

Member, Committee on Geophysical and Environmental Data, National Research

Council, 1994

127

Member, National Academy of Sciences Television Advisory Committee, 1994

Member, Committee to Study the Criteria for Federal Support for Research and Development (Press Committee), 1995

Member, Organizing Committee for the German-American Frontiers of Science Symposium, 1995, 1996

Member, National Medal of Science Committee, 1995–1997

Member, New England Aquarium Advisory Board, 1995–1997

Co-Chair, NSF-OCE Workshop on the Future of Marine Geosciences, 1995–1998

Vice-Chair, Advisory Committee for Geosciences, National Science Foundation 1996–

1998

Co-Chair, Chinese-American Frontiers of Science Symposium, August, 1998

Member, Government-University-Industry-Research-Roundtable Committee on

Stress in Universities, 1995–1998

Member, NRC Committee on 50 Years of Ocean Sciences at NSF, 1998

Member, ODP Executive Committee for Drilling Opportunities in the 21st Century,

1998–9

Member, German-American Academic Council, 1994–1999

President, American Geophysical Union 2000–2002

Member, Ocean Science Synthesis Committee, NSF 1998-present

Member, Board of Directors, Monterey Bay Aquarium, 1998-present

Member, Schlumberger Technical Advisory Committee, 2000-present

Chair, Ocean Research Advisory Panel, National Ocean Partnership Program, 2001-

present

Chair, President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration, 2000-present

Chair, Monterey Bay Crescent Ocean Research Consortium, 2000-present

Author of more than 80 peer reviewed publications in Ocean and Earth Sciences

128

129

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Response to Questions from the Honorable Robert Underwood with Regard to the

Hearing on Ocean Exploration and Observations

Submitted by Marcia McNutt, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

1. In light of pressing scientific question such as climate change, ocean interactions,

ocean circulation and heat exchange, why hasn’t the National Science Foundation

or the university community devoted more of its own resources to doing work on

their own? Why is the U.S. in general lagging behind devoting resources to answering these questions?

I think it is best if the Director of NSF responds to the question of why NSF is

not investing more in this area. I will only point out that the National Science

Board has ranked Ocean Observing Systems for understanding ocean health and climate very highly for its Major Research Equipment fund, but that the fund has

been cut by the White House and Congress in the past few fiscal years.

The university community, in my opinion, is doing what it can to address the

pressing issues concerning climate, but universities have few sources of revenue to

fund this work other than the federal government. Such initiatives are consistently

highly rated for university and state matching funds whenever federal funds are

available, showing the high regard for the relevancy of such work within the university systems.

During the years that I was on the faculty at MIT, I came to understand the university budgeting process quite well. Basically, universities have 3 main sources of

income: tuition, gifts, and sponsored research. MIT, probably like most other universities, runs its research programs on a ‘‘cost minus’’ basis. By the time the university adds up all of the costs it incurs in order to be a research university as opposed

to merely a teaching institution, it loses money on its grants and contracts. That

money lost must come from gifts and endowment income. Each dollar taken from

such funds to further subsidize the research means one dollar less to provide scholarship assistance for students. MIT practices ‘‘need blind’’ admissions. If a student

meets the admission criteria, MIT ensures that student that he or she will be offered a financial assistance package that will allow that student to attend MIT regardless of family finances. Further subsidy of research, such as a major university

investment in oceans and climate, would jeopardize MIT’s need blind admissions.

MIT is the place where a smart kid from the barrio can still go to get a first class

education no matter who her daddy is or the size of the family bank account one

of the most pure meritocracies. We should keep it that way.

Certainly this is not to say that MIT would be better off without a research program. The dollars and cents analysis fails to recognize that MIT would not be MIT

if it were not a world-class research university, thanks to government funding. But

nevertheless I hope I have made the point that there are not extra pots of money

being wasted on useless enterprises that could better be devoted to the oceans.

2. Should there be a specific capitalized program to develop new technologies for

ocean exploration and observation, providing incentives and seed money to encourage the public and private sector to get involved in development? Such a program

would be similar to the Hybrid Automobile Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce.

My own view is that a capital program to develop new technologies for ocean exploration and observation is best undertaken hand-in-hand with the scientific research programs that will use those tools. I see no other way to ensure that the

technology actually meets the needs for measuring, sampling, and experimenting in

the ocean. Allow me to provide an example.

When I was on the faculty at MIT, most of ocean science was undertaken in the

Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences within the School of

Science. Most of the development of new ocean technology took place within the Department of Ocean Engineering within the School of Engineering. The natural barriers that arise between departments and schools at any large institution made it

very difficult for those two groups of researchers to work together. Often they didn’t

even know each other. The problem was confounded by the fact that NSF funds research and instrumentation programs separately under different program managers.

The MIT scientists continued to solve the problems they COULD solve, rather than

the problems they SHOULD solve, because they used whatever technology they already had. On the other hand, the engineers built nifty new devices to deploy in

the ocean that caused the scientists to scratch their heads and say, ‘‘That is cute,

but what is it good for?’’

Since arriving at MBARI, I have been impressed by how much more progress can

be made with less effort when all barriers (organizational and financial) to collaboVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:56 Dec 19, 2001 Jkt 073840 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 D:\WORKD\ETS\071201\73840D SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
130

ration are removed. Here the scientists discuss with the engineers an entire suite

of worthwhile problems that cannot currently be addressed due to lack of appropriate technology. The engineers then help them select which ones are most ripe for

a great leap forward because the necessary technology is just now on the horizon.

Often this is technology that has matured on account of great investment by other

sectors (defense, biomedical, communications, information technology), but the other

drivers will not put in the extra 5% needed to adapt the technology to work autonomously underwater. So MBARI fills that niche, reaping great rewards for the ocean

science community from modest investment.

To set up a separate government program for ocean technology development divorced from the research programs (such as Ocean Exploration or Ocean Observing

Systems) would be a step in the wrong direction, in my view. I am greatly in favor

of providing incentives, but they should be done within the context of a long-term

and forward-thinking research and development program.

3. The observation system you all talk about is primarily for the physical environment. What are the practical applications of applying this new stream of data to

the management of biological species? How would this information ultimately support the management of resources through an understanding of such things as

primary productivity, fish stocks and marine pollution?

I don’t believe that I spoke about an observing system for the physical environment, but certainly other presenters did. The Ocean Exploration panel report

stresses the importance of characterizing the ocean in all disciplines: biological,

chemical, geological, as well as physical. In the questioning after my presentation,

I made the point that the current emphasis needs to be on the development of in

situ biological and chemical sensors for the ocean. Thanks largely to substantial investment by the Navy, an organization with a very special need to understand the

ocean’s physical environment, physical and geophysical sensors for the ocean are relatively mature and commercially available at reasonable cost. The same cannot be

said for biological and chemical sensors. In my personal view, the current generation

of plans for ocean observing systems are incomplete in that they are not sufficiently

investing in the development of chemical and biological sensors that can operate unattended on autonomous platforms for long periods of time. My own institution,

MBARI, is currently investing heavily in chemical sensors that work at low power

and require no expendable reagents to detect chemical species of interest. We have

also developed a device (the ESP, or Environmental Sample Processor) that can

identify micro-organisms in the ocean in situ, autonomously, using their genetic

code, and beam the results back to shore labs. Both of these devices currently work

on moorings and are quite adaptable to use on autonomous underwater vehicles.

We have already successfully used the ESP to predict the occurrence of the red

tide and other harmful algal blooms by detecting the first onset of growth of toxic

marine organisms in the ocean before they make their way up the food chain to poison shellfish, marine mammals, and humans. It is our belief that the current standards for what organisms are being monitored is grossly inadequate. A far larger

number of micro-organisms harmful to human health are present in the environment, but prior to the development of the MBARI ESP there was no way to determine what organisms are actually making people sick. The potential for tools such

as this to improve public health, track pollution, and better understand the marine

food web is enormous. Clearly much more investment in these sorts of devices is

needed.

131

132

133

134

135

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Questions submitted by the Honorable Robert Underwood, Subcommittee on Re- sources

Responses submitted by Robert D. Ballard, President, Institute for Exploration

1. What Federal assets are available through the Department of Defense to support

ocean observation and exploration? Sharing what has been done with the military

and civilian satellite program and the opening of access to SOSUS array data,

are there other areas where science might benefit from former and current defensive technologies to achieve cost savings in building a civilian ocean observing capability?

As far as I am concerned, the greatest contribution the U.S. Navy could make to

ocean exploration—or any ocean observatory program—would be for them to declassify their multi-narrow beam bathymetric data base. One can defend to some degree

their reluctance to declassify some of their data base that was collected near U.S.

harbors, but there is no reason whatsoever to protect data collected in deep water.

There is no military threat to the U.S. in deep water, particularly far from home.

The U.S. Navy also has modified various nuclear submarines that might be highly

useful to ocean exploration as well as the unmanned vehicles deployed by those submarines.

2. You discuss ocean farming and ocean colonization as the future of the ocean. But

considering the lack of information we currently possess about the oceans, how far

in the future do you foresee these events occurring?

The fact that we lack information regarding ocean farming and eventual colonization is the point I wanted to make. We are doing nothing in these two areas of potential ocean utilization. I would like to see at least some amount of funding directed toward these areas. In particular, I would like to see a research program

built around using the FLIP ship from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as

a proto-type for living at sea for long periods of time. Clearly, without a Federal

research program in open ocean farming or what is needed to colonize the open sea,

their futures are very far away but need not be.

3. As the Explorer-In-Residence at the National Geographic, I’m sure you are familiar with the Sustainable Seas Expeditions. Could you please describe for us what

tangible research has been accomplished as part of these expeditions? Should

ocean exploration in general be focused on the U.S. EEZ initially, or a broader

approach taken from the beginning?

Although I am an Explorer-in-Residence for the National Geographic Society, I am

not familiar with the science program associated with the Sustainable Seas Program. If I were asked to evaluate its scientific accomplishments, I would seek a list

of papers published in refereed journals resulting from data collected during that

program since that is the traditional measure of the science being done. The exploration of America’s EEZ clearly needs to be done. This is especially so in the western Pacific where the geology of those territories is extremely complex resulting in

a highly varied world which may contain many new discoveries. I do, however, believe that the greatest potential for discovery is in the southern hemisphere and

polar regions simply because they are so vast and unexplored.

4. Should there be a specific capitalized program to develop new technologies for

ocean exploration and observation, providing incentives and seed money to encourage the public and private sector to get involved in development? Such a program

would be similar to the Hybrid Automobile Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce.

I agree! We need to support the development of AUVs (autonomous underwater

vehicles) that can traverse long stretches of the seafloor—on the order of hundreds

of kilometers—before needing to return to the surface for new power packages.

5. The observation system you all talk about is primarily for the physical environment. What are the practical applications of applying this new stream of data to

the management of biological species? How would this information ultimately support the management of resources through an understanding of such things as

primary productivity, fish stocks and marine pollution?

Clearly, the major costs of any ocean observation system is the physical installation of a large network or array of cables and instrumentation nodes within that

network. I think it is critical that as those arrays are being designed, every effort

be made to maximize their utilization for the very reasons you mention. If one uses

the past as a way of predicting the future, however, you need to know that the bioVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:56 Dec 19, 2001 Jkt 073840 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 D:\WORKD\ETS\071201\73840D SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
136

logical community has seldom been the pioneer in the development of advanced

technologies. It has always been the geological/geophysical, physical, and engineering communities to be the leaders in the development of advanced ocean technologies with the biological communities then taking advantage of these technologists once developed and then modifying them for their particular research uses.

I hope these answers are helpful. If you need further clarification I would be delighted to elaborate.

(137)

Appendix 3:

PANEL III BIOGRAPHIES, FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, AND ANSWERS TO

POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

138

139

Disclosure Requirement

Required by House Rule XL, clause 2(g) and Rules of the Committee on Resources

A. This part to be completed by all witnesses:

1. Name: Robert A. Weller

2. Business Address: Clark 204a, MS 29, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,

Woods Hole, MA 02543

3. Business Phone Number: (508) 289–2508

4. Organization you are representing: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

5. Any training or educational certificates, diplomas, degrees or educational experiences which add to your qualifications to testify on or knowledge of the subject

matter of the hearing: B.A., 1972, magna cum laude, Harvard University (Engineering and applied physics); Ph.D., 1978, Scripps Institution of Oceanography,

University of California, San Diego (Oceanography).

6. Any professional licenses, certifications, or affiliations held which are relevant

to your qualifications to testify on or knowledge of the subject of the hearing:

PATENT: U.S. Patent No. 4,152,934, ‘‘Vector Measuring Current Meter’’ (with

R. Davis, assigned to the Secretary of the Navy). AWARDS: James B.

Macelwane Award, 1986, American Geophysical Union; Fellow, American Geophysical Union, 1986; NASA Certificate of Recognition, 1991; Henry B. Bigelow

Chair for Excellence in Oceanography, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,

1993–1997; Secretary of the Navy Chair in Oceanography, 1998–. MEMBERSHIPS: American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Oceanography Society,

U.S. Naval Institute.

7. Any employment, occupation, ownership in a firm or business, or work-related

experiences which relate to your qualifications to testify on or knowledge of the

subject matter of the hearing:

Employment:

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Research Assistant, 1972–1978;

Postgraduate Research Oceanographer, 1978–1979

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Postdoctoral Scholar, 1979–1980;

Postdoctoral Investigator, 1980;

Assistant Scientist, 1980–1984;

Associate Scientist, 1984–1994;

Associate Scientist with Tenure, 1988

Senior Scientist, 1994

Director, Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research, 1998

Sea duty (research cruises):

U.S.C.G. Evergreen, Site D, February 1972;

R.V. Thomas Washington, Kuroshio Current survey, off Japan, August 1973;

R.V. Thomas Washington, NORPAX (North Pacific Experiment) Pole Experiment, January-February 1974;

R.V. Alexander Agassiz-7603, TWATE III, current meter test, February-March

1976;

R.P. FLIP (FLoating Instrument Platform), thesis experiment, January 1977;

R.P. FLIP, upper ocean response study, North Pacific, May 1980;

R.V. Oceanus-85, Long Term Upper Ocean Study (LOTUS), North Atlantic, August 1980;

R.V. Knorr-85, Gulf Stream Extension and LOTUS, November 1980;

R.V. Knorr-87, LOTUS, February 1981, Chief Scientist;

R.V. Oceanus-103, LOTUS, September 1981, Chief Scientist;

R.V. Oceanus-119, LOTUS, May 1982;

R.P. FLIP, upper ocean studies, North Pacific, December 1982, Chief Scientist;

R.P. FLIP, upper ocean studies, North Pacific, May 1983, Co-Chief Scientist;

R.P. FLIP, October-November 1983, 35-day Mixed Layer Dynamics Experiment

(MILDEX), North Pacific, Co-Chief Scientist;

R.V. Oceanus-145, LOTUS, North Atlantic, January 1984;

R.V. Oceanus, LOTUS, North Atlantic, May 1984;

140

R.V. Knorr-119, FASINEX (Frontal Air-Sea Interaction Experiment), co-Chief

Scientist, North Atlantic, mooring deployment, January-February 1986;

R.V. Oceanus-175, FASINEX, Chief Scientist, February-March 1986;

R.V. Knorr-123, FASINEX, Chief Scientist, mooring recovery, June 1986;

R.V. Endeavor, Buoy Farm, North Atlantic, test buoy deployment, January

1989;

R.P. FLIP, surface wave and mixed layer study (SWAPP) trial cruise, North Pacific, July-August 1989;

R.P. FLIP, SWAPP (Surface Wave Processes Program), Co-Chief Scientist, February-March 1990;

R.V. Oceanus-240, leg 3, Subduction mooring deployment, North Atlantic, Chief

Scientist, June-July, 1991;

R.V. Oceanus-250, Subduction experiment, North Atlantic, Chief Scientist, January-February, 1992;

R.V. Wecoma, Chief Scientist, TOGA COARE mooring recovery cruise in the

western equatorial Pacific, March 1993;

R.V. Thomas Thompson-TN040, mooring deployment cruise in Arabian Sea, October 1994;

R.V. Endeavor-260, Chief Scientist, mooring deployment cruise on Georges

Bank, January, 1995;

R.V. Thomas Thompson-TN046, Arabian Sea, Chief Scientist; mooring recovery

and deployment cruise in Arabian Sea, April 1995;

R.V. Thomas Thompson-TN052, mooring recovery cruise in Arabian Sea, October 1995;

R.V. Roger Revelle, Chief Scientist, Lima, Peru to San Diego, mooring deployments in equatorial eastern Pacific, April 1997;

R.V. Thomas Thompson, Chief Scientist, eastern Pacific mooring recovery and

deployment cruise, eastern equatorial Pacific, November-December 1997;

R.V. Argo Maine, Massachusetts Bay, mooring recovery cruise, Sept. 1998;

R.V. Gyre, Gulf of Mexico, U.S. Navy mine counter-measures field experiment,

GOMEX99, Gulf of Mexico, September 1999;

R.V. Melville, Cook 02, Chief Scientist, mooring deployment in South American

stratus cloud deck west of northern Chile, September-October 2000.

Service:

American Geophysical Union

President-elect Ocean Sciences Section, 1998–2000;

President Ocean Sciences Section, 2000–

National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences

Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, Committee Toward A

National Collaboratory, 1991–1993;

GOALS (Global Ocean Atmosphere Land System) Panel, 1995–1997;

GEWEX (Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment) Panel, 1995–1997;

Panel on the Global Ocean Observing System, 1996–1997;

TOGA Panel on Near-Term Development of Operational Ocean Observations, 1991–1993;

Committee on Radio Frequencies, 1990–1996;

Guidance Group for formation of a Committee to consider ‘On Being A

Scholar in a Digital Age’, 1998–;

Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, 1999–.

International science panels

CCCO–JSC Ocean Observing System Development Panel (OOSDP), 1990–

1995;

JSTC/WCRP Ocean Observations for Climate Panel, 1995–present;

International CLIVAR (Climate Variability Program) Scientific Steering

Group, 1999–;

Chair, CLIVAR Pacific Implementation Workshop Organizing Committee,

1999–;

WOCE International Indian Ocean Special Studies working group, 1991–

1992;

TOGA (Tropical Ocean-Global Atmosphere) Program

TOGA Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment (COARE)

Science Working Group, 1990–1994;

TOGA COARE International Scientific Oversight Team, 1992–1993;

VEPIC (VAMOS (Variability of the American Monsoon System)—EPIC

(Eastern Pacific Investigation of Climate) Science steering group),

1999–;

141

IOC (International Oceanographic Commission) Data Exchange Policy

Group, 2000–;

GOOS Capacity Building Panel, 2000–.

National science panels

W.O.C.E. (World Ocean Circulation Experiment)

Working Group on the Surface Layer;

Working Group on Technology Development;

Process Studies Implementation Panel (chairman);

Working Group for In-Situ Measurements for Fluxes;

Organizing Committee for the Workshop on Atmospheric Forcing of

Ocean Circulation (January, 1988; sponsored by Institute for

Naval Oceanography, W.O.C.E., and T.O.G.A.);

U.S. CLIVAR (Climate Variability)

Scientific Steering Committee, 1998–;

Co-Chair, Pacific Implementation Group, 1998–.

American Meteorological Society

Program Committee, Seventh Conference on Ocean-Atmosphere Interaction,

1988;

Associate Editor, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 1993– 1998.

U.S. Navy, Office of Naval Research

Coordinator for the Frontal Air-Sea Interaction Experiment (FASINEX),

1984–1988;

Coordinator for the Surface Wave Processes Program (SWAPP), 1989–1995;

Executive Committee for Marine Luminescence in the Mixed Layer

(MLML), 1988–1991;

Executive Committee for Subduction program, 1990–1995;

Planning Committee for the Atlantic Stratocumulus Transition Experiment

(ASTER), 1990–1992;

Secretary of the Navy Chair in Oceanography, 1998–;

Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Technology Area Review and Assessment (TARA) panel for Battlespace Environments, 1998–;

Chair, ONR Code 32/Battlespace Environments Board of Visitors, 2000;

WHOI-Surface Warfare Development Group Workshop, 2000;

Co-coordinator (with Jim Edson) ONR CBLAST–LOW, (Coupled Boundary

Layer Air-Sea Interaction—Low wind), 2000–.

National Science Foundation

National Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Technology Division Review Panel, 1993–1996;

HIAPER Review Panel, 1998.

NOAA

Chairman, science team and later science advisory group for the Surface

and Upper Ocean Observations Project of the NOAA Climate and Global Change Program, 1990–1994;

NOAA NODC/Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Sea Surface Temperature

Working Group, 1991–1992;

Science Working Group, Pan American Climate Studies (PACS), 1997–2000;

Chair, EPIC (Eastern Pacific Investigation of Climate) Science Steering

Group, 1997–present;

Director, WHOI–NOAA Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research (CICOR), 1998–present;

NOAA Climate Council, 1999–present;

NOAA Climate Observing Systems Council, 1999–present;

NEOOS (Northeast Ocean Observing System) Steering Group, 1999–2000.

Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Educatlon (CORE)

Ocean Observatories Steering Committee, 2000–;

ORAP subcommittee to review the Integrated Ocean Observing Plan, 2000.

Other

NASA Working Group on Science Requirements for Low Frequency Passive

Microwave Observations of the Earth, 1990–1991;

GOMOOS (Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System), CEO Search Committee, 2000;

Encyclopedia of Oceanography, Editorial Advisory Board;

142

SEAFLUX Organizing Committee, a project to look at producing turbulent

air-sea fluxes from satellite data, 1998–.

Publications:

75 papers in reviewed journals

43 non-refereed publications, technical reports, chapters

8. Any offices, elected positions, or representational capacity held in the organization

on whose behalf you are testifying:

Director, WHOI–NOAA Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research

(CICOR), 1998–;

Partnership for Ocean Global Observations (POGO), WHOI representative,

1999–;

WHOI Physical Oceanographic Observing Laboratory (POOL) steering committee, 1999–.

B. To be completed by nongovernmental witnesses only:

1. Any federal grants or contracts (including subgrants or subcontracts) which you

have received since October 1, 1998 from the agencies funding ocean exploration

and/or observing systems, including the source and amount and amount or each

grant or contract:

Federal Grants or Contracts for Robert A. Weller

Number of Awarded Records Found for PI: 23

WHOI Proposal

# Title Agency Project Dates PIs/Co-PIs AnticipatedTotal Award

PO01090.01 Vector Measuring Current Meter (VMCM) Upgrade ReplacementNSF 01-Oct-1996–

30-Sep-1999

Weller,

Hosom,

Trask

$156,040

PO01508.01 An Innovative Platform

for Upper Ocean Research

ONR 01-Jan-1997–

31-Dec-2000

Weller,

Trask

$648,297

PO01514.01 Mixed Layer Response

to Monsoonal Surface

Forcing in the Arabian

Sea

ONR 01-Jan-1997–

31-Dec-1999

Weller,

Trask

$497,499

PO01609.00 Observations of AirSea Fluxes and the

Surface of the Ocean

U. Calif.,

Scripps

01-Jan-1997–

31-Dec-1998

Weller $69,667

PO01615.00 Observations of AirSea Fluxes and the

Surface of the Ocean

U. Calif.,

Scripps

01-Jan-1997–

31-Dec-1998

Weller $89,190

PO02025.00 Ocean Buoy Shortwave

Dataset: Programmer

Support and Maintenance

State Univ.

NY

30-Sep-1998–

31-May-1999

Weller $7,716

PO02030.01 Observations of AirSea Fluxes and the

Surface of the Ocean

U. Calif.,

Scripps

01-Jan-1998–

31-Dec-2001

Weller $293,046

PO02515.00 Improved VOS Measurements as Part of

GCOS/GOOS (CILER)

Univ. of

Michigan

01-Aug-1998–

30-Jun-2002

Weller,

Hosom

$375,000

143

Federal Grants or Contracts for Robert A. Weller—Continued

Number of Awarded Records Found for PI: 23

WHOI Proposal

# Title Agency Project Dates PIs/Co-PIs AnticipatedTotal Award

PO10206.01 Air-Sea Interaction in

the Eastern Tropical

Pacific ITCZ/Cold

Tongue Complex

NOAA 01-Sep-1999–

31-Aug-2001

Weller,

Anderson

$150,106

PO10206.02 Air-Sea Interaction in

the Eastern Tropical

Pacific ITCZ/Cold

Tongue Complex

NOAA

CICOR

01-Sep-2000–

30-Jun-2001

Weller,

Anderson

$146,994

PO10236.01 Long-Term Evolution

and Coupling of the

Boundary Layers in the

Stratus Deck Regions

of the Eastern Pacific

NOAA 01-Sep-1999–

31-Aug-2001

Weller,

Anderson

$650,508

PO10236.02 The Long-Term Evolution and Coupling of

the Boundary Layers in

the Stratus Deck Regions of the Eastern

Pacific

NOAA

CICOR

01-Sep-2000–

30-Jun-2002

Weller,

Anderson

$733,500

PO10338.01 Establishment of Prototype NOAA Regional

GOOS Centers for the

United States

NOAA

CICOR

01-Apr-1999–

30-Jun-2002

Weller $33,000

PO10692.00 IMET Flux Instrument

Suite Upgrade

NOAA

CICOR

01-Sep-2000–

30-Jun-2002

Weller,

Hosom

$50,000

PO10842.00 UNESCO/IOC: Time Series Working Group

Meeting

UNESCO

IOC

30-Apr-2001–

15-Aug-2001

Weller $11,000

OE10606.01 The Coupled Boundary

Layers, Air-Sea Transfer Experiment in Low

to Moderate Winds

(CBLAST–LOW)

ONR 01-Oct-2000–

31-Dec-2004

Edson et

al.

$3,845,054

PO10501.00 Developing Gridded

Surface Flux Fields

through Synthesizing

Data from in situ

Measurements, Satellite Remote Sensing,

and Numerical Weather

Prediction Models—A

Pilot Study in the Atlantic Ocean

NOAA 01-Aug-2000–

31-Jul-2003

Yu, Weller $624,104

2. Any federal grants or contracts (including subgrants or subcontracts) which were

received since October 1, 1998, from the agencies funding ocean exploration and/

144

or observing systems, by the organization(s) which you represent at this hearing,

including the source and amount or each grant or contract:

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is a private, not-for-profit research institution whose scientists are funded largely by the federal government, including

grants or contracts from the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The federal

funding is approximately $75M per year.

3. Any other information you wish to convey which might aid the members of the

Committee to better understand the context of your testimony:

The witness is an oceanographer interested in ocean dynamics, the physics of atmosphere-ocean coupling, and the role of the ocean in climate variability. He has

been involved in the development of the instrumentation and technology that now

makes it possible to deploy surface moorings in the open ocean to collect observations of surface meteorology and oceanographic variability. These observations are

essential to the determination of how much heat, freshwater, and other properties

are exchanged between the ocean and the atmosphere, how the ocean responds to

the surface winds and the heat exchange with the atmosphere, and how the atmosphere in turn responds to the ocean.

145

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Questions submitted by the Honorable Robert Underwood, Subcommittee on Resources

Answers submitted by Robert A. Weller, Director, Cooperative Institute for Climate

and Ocean Research, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

1. What would be the absolute priorities in a world of limited resources to be able

to put in place a real-time observation system?

In order of priority, with highest priority number 1:

1) A global array of surface moorings observing and reporting a) surface meteorology and atmosphere-ocean exchanges of heat, freshwater, and momentum; b) physical properties (temperature, salinity, and ocean currents)

through the water column from surface to bottom, and c) key biological,

chemical, and geological observables (nutrients, chlorophyll, carbon dioxide,

seismic information, for example).

2) The global deployment of the ARGO profiling floats, which would collect temperature and salinity profiles from the surface to 2000 meter depth, every

10 days, at a spacing of roughly 300 km.

3) Upgraded instrumentation on the Volunteer Observing Ship fleet (merchant

ships that routinely repeat the same tracks across the ocean basins), to

measure surface meteorology and atmosphere-ocean exchanges of heat, freshwater, and momentum and to make observations at the sea surface and in

the upper ocean of physical (temperature, salinity, currents), chemical (carbon dioxide), and biological (chlorophyll, nutrients) properties.

2. Aside from the initial outlays for equipment, how would the equipment be maintained in perpetuity, who would pay for this responsibility, and who would maintain it?

The global ocean observing system will be an international partnership, like the

global system for observing and reporting weather. The different nations would

have, by agreement, different contributions and the responsibility for supporting

and maintaining them.

This points to the allocation in the U.S. of federal funding for operational ocean

measurements that would be realistic in coping with inflation and to the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. That infrastructure would include: a) a lead

agency or entity that would be the U.S. point of contact for other nations, that could

negotiate and monitor international agreements on responsibilities for elements of

the ocean observing system, and that would focus and coordinate funding of the U.S.

contributions, b) the people and ships needed to deploy and maintain the U.S. contributions, c) the people and hardware needed for the transmission, collection, and

processing of data, and d) the ability to engage in capacity building and technology

exchange to help other nations and thus ensure that quality and uniformity of the

observing system. The maintenance would be done be a partnership of government,

academic, and private laboratories. These labs now have the capability to work globally and the experience and knowledge to go forward. Additional ship time and people would be needed.

3. Should there be a specific capitalized program to develop new technologies for

ocean exploration and observation, providing incentives and seed money to encourage the public and private sector to get involved in development? Such a program

would be similar to the Hybrid Automobile Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce.

Yes. Ocean observation and exploration, exclusive of satellite remote sensing, is

at present a small enterprise in the U.S. and the resulting lack of incentives, foci,

and opportunities limit participation and in turn our ability to conduct both.

For example, there is a lack of capacity for relaying in real-time data from the

ocean’s surface back to laboratories in the U.S. It was hoped that the new generation of telecommunications systems using low earth orbiting satellites (such as Iridium) would solve this problem. However, present market forces are not driving the

private sector to provide upgraded communication over the global ocean. As a result

we lack capacity to relay ocean data in real time.

A key requirement for such a program will be the ability to sustain support over

a number if years. The cycle for testing new technologies that would address longterm ocean observations and exploration is one that takes many years. Not all new

hardware deployed in the ocean is recovered, and a number of field trials are reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:56 Dec 19, 2001 Jkt 073840 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 D:\WORKD\ETS\071201\73840D SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
146

quired to confirm success. It is not uncommon for new ocean instrumentation to

take 10 years to reach operational status.

4. The observation system you all talk about is primarily for the physical environment. What are the practical applications of applying this new information to the

management of biological species? How would this information ultimately support

the management of resources through the understanding of such things as primary productivity, fish stocks and marine pollution?

Observing and understanding the physical environment (temperature, salinity,

currents) provides an essential foundation. Population variability can be driven by

a number of causes, one of which is change in the environment. Environmental

change has several year (El Nin ̃ o), decadal (Pacific Decadal Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation), and longer periods of variability and may alone drive change in species’ populations and distributions of populations among different year classes. The

impact of fishing pressure cannot be understood unless the variability driven by

change in the environment is also understood. Management of the pollock fishery

in the northeast Pacific is now done making use of observations of the physical environment. In the northwest Atlantic Ocean, there is decadal variability in the flow

patterns of water down along Canada into the Gulf of Maine and to Georges Bank.

This must be observed and understood as an integral part of developing an understanding and management plan for the fish populations there.

Nutrients and pollutants are distributed both horizontally, into different parts of

the ocean, and vertically, through the water column, by physical processes (currents,

mixing). Understanding of these processes is needed for developing understanding

of the biological, chemical and geological variability in the oceans. Currents, for example, carry spilled oil, the algae in toxic algal blooms, and larvae. The exchange

of nutrients between the buoyant surface layer of the ocean, where nutrients are

often depleted, and the nutrient-rich water below is understood only if the physical

processes of mixing are taken into account. Currents and waves are needed by the

oil and shipping industries, who are working to place drilling platforms in deeper

water and to improve the cost-effectiveness and safety of marine transportation.

147

148

149

150

151

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Questions submitted by the Honorable Robert Underwood, Committee on Resources

Responses by J. Frederick Grassle, Director, Institute of Marine and Coastal

Sciences, Rutgers University

1. The Physical Ocean Real-Time System (PORTS), run by NOAA, has a similar

purpose to that of the innovative LEO–15 System you described. Is it envisioned

that additional LEO–15 installations would link with existing and future PORTS

installations? How do the two systems currently interact? Should they be integrated as they expand? What about cost savings through integration?

Establishment of observing systems must be integrated with existing marine observation systems such as PORTS. Presently, PORTS installations are centered at

a number of ports throughout the country where they primarily support navigation

needs of ships entering and departing harbors. In the NY/NJ Harbor for example,

PORTS consists of five sites, a current meter at Bergen Point and four sites with

tide gauges (two of these have salinity and temperature sensors as well). Three sites

provide weather information. The addition of information from an observatory like

LEO would complement and make more useful the data collected and disseminated

through PORTS. For example, we have proposed providing real time surface current

information from high frequency radar (CODAR) units and subsurface salinity and

temperature data. These additional data will allow us to forecast the three-dimensional circulation for the entire New York Bight. Currently, the PORTS system and

LEO–15 do not interact. However, Rutgers University has advanced a proposal to

establish a NY/NJ Harbor Observing System that would certainly capitalize on and

incorporate PORTS data. Current efforts to install a CODAR system in the NY/NJ

Harbor will be integrated with PORTS and jointly made available to the public over

the Internet.

As observing systems evolve regionally throughout the nation, they should integrate PORTS systems. Integration of existing data collection systems such as

PORTS, satellite-based imaging capabilities, aircraft, autonomous undersea vehicles,

and shore-based remote sensing systems should be included. With government, the

academic community, and industry working together, the operational capabilities of

these observing systems will develop at minimal cost, providing more efficient use

of coastal waters and major savings to port and shipping interests.

2. Please expand on your comments on how the Ocean Exploration Program and Office of Ocean Exploration are duplicative of the NURP, and provide examples.

Research supported by NURP is broad-based, high-quality, peer-reviewed science

that responds to the mission needs of NOAA. Frequently however, NURP research

leads to discoveries that fall into the exploration category. Regardless of whether a

NURP project is classified as exploration or research, a common set of procedures

has been used to evaluate the scientific integrity of the proposed work, ensure the

safety of the mission, and to select the most appropriate sampling and sensing tools

and platforms. One recent example is the Deep East exploration cruise developed

by three NURP Centers on the east coast (Rutgers U., U. Connecticut, U. North

Carolina–Wilmington). These centers relied on the existing rigors of their peer review procedures and cruise planning expertise to assemble the inaugural ocean exploration mission on the east coast. The cruise was efficiently organized by experienced ocean explorers, benefits from existing science and operations expertise, and

relies on regional and local mechanisms to interact with educators, the science community, and the undersea technology community. The Ocean Exploration program

should capitalize on this proven experience in conducting safe, efficient, high-quality

programs rather than recreate the capabilities available through the NURP program. NOAA should ensure that NURP provides a major part of the science and

operational support services required by the Ocean Exploration program.

3. You highlight the relatively long-running Ocean Drilling Program, which provided extensive information on sedimentary strata and the earth’s crust. In light

of other priorities mentioned by the President’s Ocean Exploration Panel and other

witnesses today, should this program be maintained, or the resources applied to

other priorities? Could we find out just as much about the earth’s crust from the

private sector through cooperative agreements or other means?

The Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) has been a leader in ocean exploration since

it began in 1985 and cost sharing by the international partners makes it an exceptional bargain for the United States.

Scientific ocean drilling has produced data relevant to understanding many important issues affecting society today, including climate change, energy resources,

152

metal exploration, and geologic hazards, such as volcanoes and earthquakes. The

1998 National Research Council paper, Opportunities in Ocean Sciences: Challenges

on the Horizon states, ‘‘Ocean drilling has produced sediment cores that provide our

best long-term records of natural climate fluctuations.’’ Through these cores, scientists have gained new understanding of the range of climatic conditions that have

occurred on our planet, discovered that the Earth undergoes very rapid climate

changes, and documented evidence of climate extremes. The program discovered

how massive sulfide ore deposits rich in iron, copper, and zinc form, which has

changed the exploration strategy of mineral resource companies. ODP has revolutionized our understanding of geologic hazards, such as tsunamis and great earthquakes in subduction zones. ODP has documented living organisms as deep as 3000

feet below the sea floor—illustrating that the deep subsurface biosphere plays a fundamental role in life on Earth.

ODP has been a leader in developing ocean observing systems. The program has

established several permanent subseafloor observatories containing seismometers

that will provide tsunami warnings, monitor earthquake activity, and verify underground nuclear testing. Through these observatories, we have begun to understand

how water circulation through ocean crust affects systems as diverse as ocean chemistry, atmospheric composition, metallic ore deposits, and earthquakes. Simply put,

without an Ocean Drilling Program, there can be no comprehensive ocean observing

system.

Deep water oil and gas is a bright frontier for conventional energy supplies. Because ODP has a wealth of experience in drilling in several thousand meters of

water, the program has also developed tools and technology that have paved the

way for technology and knowledge transfer to industry for deep water oil and gas

exploration. Current exploration by industry heavily uses knowledge and experience

developed and transferred by ODP over the last twenty years. ODP has also contributed to the discovery of methane hydrates, a potentially huge energy source buried

within ocean sediments. Future ODP research is scheduled to better evaluate the

future economic potential of gas hydrates.

Furthermore, ODP is perhaps the most successful example of an international

science partnership. The contributions of more than 20 nations are combined to fund

this program. In addition, the program works in partnership with the private sector

in many areas of research and technology development. By leading the international

efforts of the Ocean Drilling Program, the United States has been at the forefront

of the oceanic discoveries. The United States has contributed 60% of the funding

over the life of the program, yet it has benefited greatly from 100% of the program’s research and educational efforts.

The active drilling phase of the Ocean Drilling Program will draw to a close in

September 2003, but a great deal of work has been expended in developing a successor program, the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP). IODP will bring together the resources of many countries to fund new ships and new technology to

greatly extend the reach of the program and the value to U.S. taxpayers. Japan will

be a partner with the U.S. and will provide a state-of-the-art riser drilling vessel

at a cost of nearly a half a billion U.S. dollars. Through its anticipated contribution

of no more than 40% of the total costs of this new international program, the United

States stands to benefit handsomely. Research on climate and environmental

changes on the Earth, the deep biosphere, mineral and energy resources, geologic

hazards and the installation of new and more capable ocean observatories will yield

information highly relevant to the Nation’s national policies and international relations.

So in summary, the answer to your first question, ‘‘In light of other priorities mentioned by the President’s Ocean Exploration Panel and the other witnesses today,

should this program be maintained, or the resources applied to other priorities?,’’ the

ODP and its successor, the IODP, are essential to the goals of mapping the ocean

floor, exploring ocean dynamics, developing sensor and other technologies, and providing educational opportunities such as those outlined by the President’s Panel for

Ocean Exploration. The ODP has a history of demonstrated success in these areas

and the new technology used in IODP will continue to contribute exciting new discoveries.

In response to your second question, ‘‘Could we find out just as much about the

earth’s crust from the private sector through cooperative agreements or other

means?,’’ I believe the answer is a resounding no. ODP has demonstrated through

its many successes the benefits of a close cooperation among international partners,

both public and private. This collaboration has proven to be a winning combination

from all aspects—societally relevant research, education, technology development

and transfer, and cost efficiency, all guided by a comprehensive international peerreview advisory system. It seems inconceivable to me that private concerns alone

153

could organize and execute such a far-reaching and complicated program with anything approaching the cost efficiency and research excellence of ODP.

ODP is a superb example of international cooperation that has led to very significant discoveries of relevance to policy makers around the globe. The Integrated

Ocean Drilling Program, for which funding is needed to begin in FY 2004, is of highest priority for continuing this research, and I hope scientific ocean drilling will receive full support from the Congress.

4. Should there be a specific capitalized program to develop new technologies for

ocean exploration and observation, providing incentives and seed money to encourage the public and private sector to get involved in development? Such a program

would be similar to the Hybrid Automobile Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce.

The major impediment to ocean exploration is the lack of suitable undersea systems to provide regular access to the deep ocean. Existing assets (DSV ALVIN and

the ROV JASON) are oversubscribed, and are best suited for small-scale, high-resolution sampling and sensing missions. Incentives to develop new exploration tools

including ocean observatory systems can benefit from public-private partnerships

where scientific demand for specific sampling, sensing, and exploration capabilities

can be addressed by private sector capabilities. Incentives and seed money, like that

available through the two programs noted above plus the Small Business Innovation

and Research Program provide a means to foster this partnership. The SBIR program in particular has been successful in stimulating development of undersea samplers that have improved the capabilities of the DSV ALVIN. More funding for

ocean technology via the SBIR infrastructure would greatly enhance development of

new ocean exploration and observation technology.

The National Ocean Partnership Program has played an effective role in developing public and private sector partnerships for ocean exploration and observation

through a peer review process that encourages creative partnerships among universities, government, and the private sector. I strongly recommend that an integrated

ocean and coastal observing system be funded as part of the National Ocean Partnership Program under the auspices of the National Ocean Leadership Council (section 7902(a) of title 10 United States Code). Economic incentives to promote private

partnerships with academically-based observing systems will assist technology development and lead to new markets for value-added data products and services.

5. The observation system you all talk about is primarily for the physical environment. What are the practical applications of applying this new stream of data to

the management of biological species? How would this information ultimately support the management of resources through an understanding of such things as

primary productivity, fish stocks and marine pollution?

The physical measuring system allows prediction of patterns of ocean currents,

sediment movements, river plumes, and passive dispersal of most marine organisms. Physical processes do affect the distribution, abundance, and health of biological resources. Thus, it is important to understand how changes in these processes govern the distribution and dynamics of biological species. The Census of Marine Life (CoML) program with support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and

federal agencies through the National Ocean Partnership Program has developed

several pilot projects to demonstrate new technologies that are deployed with regard

to the physical predictions provided by ocean observing systems. These technologies

and new approaches to biological sampling of the ocean will be integrated into future observing systems and used to predict fluctuations in fish stocks, changes in

the distribution patterns of economically important fish and shellfish, toxic algal

blooms, and changes in essential fish habitat.

The measurement and prediction capabilities of both the LEO–15 observatory and

the proposed network of regional ocean observing systems are designed to address

issues concerning a broad range of user needs including management of biological

resources. For example, ocean color imagery provides a suite of derived products including plant biomass, colored dissolved organic matter, sediments, primary productivity and, potentially, phytoplankton community classification. Emerging acoustic

imaging and tagging methods are expected to be incorporated in observing systems

to understand the population dynamics of species throughout their range, especially

coastal migratory species. Real-time measurements, data assimilation, and physical

modeling used to understand the distribution of organisms are the same measurements needed to: enhance the safety and efficiency of marine transportation, measure movements of contaminated sediments in storms, improve weather forecasts,

and encourage greater public safety and enjoyment of the ocean.

154

155

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Questions submitted by the Honorable Robert Underwood, Subcommittee on Resources

Responses by Alfred M. Beeton, Senior Science Advisor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

1. You mention the current Global Ocean Observing System and their system for collecting and managing data. How would you foresee data being collected and managed in the U.S.? Should this be included as part of NOAA?

The Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) is an umbrella term for many complementary activities planned and underway by governments all over the world. At

the same time, within the U.S. the proposed integrated ocean observing system (or

‘‘Ocean.US’’), which is the U.S. contribution to GOOS, is the combined effort of a

number of Federal agencies. An Ocean.US Office has been established as a focal

point for these agency activities. Because of the disparate nature and purposes of

these activities, it is not practical to propose centralized management. But an

Ocean.US Office can bring an enormous added value by effectively coordinating

these efforts.

Enclosed is a copy of a report titled ‘‘Toward A U.S. Plan for an Integrated, Sustained Ocean Observing System’’, prepared in 1999 in response to a request from

the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans. The report presents excellent recommendations for both coastal ocean and open ocean observations.

2. Please explain the Office for Ocean Exploration that has been established within

NOAA. How do you foresee its role in future ocean exploration? How will it cooperate with other ocean exploration and observation also being undertaken?

On June 12, 2000, President William J. Clinton requested that the Secretary of

Commerce convene a panel of leading scientists, explorers, and educators to develop

a national strategy for ocean exploration. As a result, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was designated to be the leading federal agency

for the initiative because of its role as the major agency for ocean observations. The

Office for Ocean Exploration was created to be in charge of the program in collaboration with marine research institutions, universities and other relevant Federal

agencies. Its role in the future of ocean exploration will be to identify resources

available, facilitate partnerships, the dissemination of information and the development of new technologies. Cooperation with current exploration and observation initiatives is an intrinsic part of the effort to capitalize on joint opportunities with

other compatible government missions and industry, as well as to avoid duplication

of efforts.

3. Should there be a specific capitalized program to develop new technologies for

ocean exploration and observation, providing incentives and seed money to encourage the public and private sector to get involved in development? Such a program

would be similar to the Hybrid Automobile Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce.

Recent advances in technologies for ocean exploration and observation now make

it possible to develop systems that will routinely monitor the chemical and biological

components of the ocean and coastal ecosystems. Recent advances made with sensors for monitoring the occurrence of harmful algae, as well as other organisms, are

very encouraging and have enormous potential, but much more needs to be done.

Only a few years ago monitoring and assessment of organisms relied on methods

in use for almost a hundred years. A specific capitalized program will be very useful

to enhance and stimulate development of new technologies. I suggest that the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council be asked to establish a Committee to advise on the present state of such technology and what the opportunities

are for enhancement and more rapid development of new technologies.

4. The observation system that you all talk about is primarily for the physical environment. What are the practical applications of applying this new stream of data

to the management of biological species? How would this information ultimately

support the management of resources through an understanding of such things as

primary productivity, fish stocks and marine pollution?

There are indeed important practical applications for living marine resource management. The observing system will collect data on chemical and biological variables

in addition to physical parameters. Because of the complexity of the chemistry and

biology issues, these components of the system are not yet fully developed. More

156

work is needed. However, GOOS is intended to provide operationally useful information on changes in the state of living resources and their ecosystems to be able to

assess present stocks and predict their future states, as well as their vulnerability

to changes in climate, fishing pressure, pollution, and the incidence of harmful algal

blooms. New technologies are also being evaluated for more cost-effective sampling,

such as remote sensing techniques (using ocean color, for example) and new sensors

on in situ instruments.

157

158

159

160

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Questions submitted by the Honorable Robert Underwood, Committee on Resources

Responses by Dr. Alexander Malahoff, Director, Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, University of Hawaii

1. What is the University of Hawaii NURP Project doing in the Western Pacific at

the moment? What has it done in the past and plan to do in the future?

Currently, NURP/NURC–H&P) is working on projects dealing with fisheries, corals and other living organisms at depths below 300 feet on the Hawaiian Island

chain from Midway to the Big Island of Hawaii. Future work is also planned for

Guam, the Northern Marianas and Samoa.

2. How do you anticipate NOAA’s National Undersea Research Program cooperating

with the National Ocean Exploration Initiative?

NURP has the expertise and facilities for deep submergence, such as the Pisces

IV and Pisces V submersibles and mothership, based in Hawaii. It is this expertise

and the vehicles that will be made available to the National Ocean Exploration Initiative.

3. Should there be a specific capitalized program to develop new technologies for

ocean exploration and observation, providing incentives and seed money to encourage the public and private sector to get involved in development?

Such a program would be similar to the Hybrid Automobile Partnership and the

Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce. A new generation

of deep diving submersibles has to be built in order to allow the full exploration of

the ocean floor. None have been built during the past 25 years. Specialized remotely-operated vehicles, specifically designed for deep ocean exploration need to be

designed and built. New sensors and remote observatories would fill in the gaps between submersible and ROV traverses. This is an excellent technology field for partnerships between universities, government and the public ocean engineering and

technology sectors.

4. The observation system you all talk about is primarily for the physical environment. What are the practical applications of applying this new stream of data to

the management of biological species? How would this information ultimately support the management of resources through an understanding of such things as

primary productivity, fish stocks and marine pollution?

A prime objective in ocean exploration is to study the animals, especially fishes

in their natural environment. The many stages in the lives of these animals occupy

different niches. The systems, such as submersible, ROVs, observatories and bottom

stations utilizing exotic technology in order to work at the great ocean depths are

the prime vehicles for observing the behavior of fish species. The thorough understanding of the complete life cycles of fish and other animals will enable us to conserve, restock and culture valuable species. The special sensors on deep submergence vehicles are designed to monitor the chemistry of the water and any humanderived pollutions.

Alexander Malahoff, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Oceanography

Director, Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory

(HURL/NURC–H&WP)

NOAA’s National Undersea Research Center for Hawaii & the Pacific

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/HURL/

University of Hawaii at Manoa

School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology

(SOEST)

1000 Pope Road, MSB 319

Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 (USA)

Tel: (808) 956–6802

Fax: (808) 956–2136

E-mail: malahoff@soest.hawaii.edu

(161)

Appendix 4:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

162

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. MERRELL

Good afternoon, Chairman Gilchrest, Chairman Ehlers, Chairman Smith and

members of the subcommittees. I am William Merrell, President of The H. John

Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. While serving as

president of The Heinz Center, I am on leave of absence from the Texas A&M University, where I serve as Professor of Oceanography and Marine Sciences. I understand that the members of the subcommittees are interested in the recommendations of the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration, and what actions should be

taken to implement those recommendations. My testimony will include brief comments on the work of the Panel on Ocean Exploration, of which I was a member.

I will then focus specifically on a Heinz Center effort to involve the four sectors,

i.e., government at all levels, academia, industry, and environmental organizations,

in the creation of an Ocean Exploration Forum, one of the recommendations in the

Panel’s report.

The United States needs to support an Ocean Exploration Program to expand our

present body of knowledge of the oceans, upon which we currently base our governance, management, commercial, and scientific decisions. Tremendous gains have

been made in other sciences and outstanding technological advances have occurred

over the last 50 years, yet our knowledge about the oceans has not kept abreast of

our capabilities or our needs. As the Panel’s report notes, the oceanographic research of the past was conducted as exploratory missions with interdisciplinary

teams. Today, oceanographic research is more narrowly focused and hypothesis driven. In these times of increasing competitive uses and increasing pressures on our

resources, a return to exploration to complement the ongoing hypothesis based research is necessary if we are to ensure a sustainable future. Through a program of

ocean exploration, we will better understand the evolution of the earth, the distribution of living and nonliving resources and the magnitude of new and exotic life

forms. We can use that improved knowledge to effectively manage, develop and conserve our oceans.

The President’s panel, composed of leading experts in ocean science, policy, commerce and education, produced a report, entitled Discovering Earth’s Final Frontier:

A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration, which outlines an Ocean Exploration Program. The panel’s recommendations, key objectives, and priorities identified to guide

such a program are:

1. Mapping the physical, geological, biological, chemical, and archaeological aspects of the ocean, such that the U.S. knowledge base is capable of supporting the large demand for this information from policy makers, regulators,

commercial ventures, researchers and educators;

2. Exploring ocean dynamics and interactions at new scales, such that our understanding of the complex interactions in the living ocean supports our need

for stewardship of this vital component of the planet’s life support system;

3. Developing new sensors and systems for ocean exploration, so as to regain

U.S. leadership in marine technology; and

4. Reaching out in new ways to stakeholders, to improve the literacy of learners

of all ages with respect to ocean issues.

To meet objective four, the panel proposed the establishment of ‘‘an Ocean Exploration Forum to encourage partnerships and promote communication among commercial, academic, private, nongovernmental organizations and government stakeholders’’ as one of its recommendations for the management structure. To this end,

The Heinz Center will form a small ad hoc Forum advisory group, with selected

members of the Ocean Exploration Panel, to convene two regional workshops to consider and receive input on the establishment of such a forum. Leaders from industry, government, academia, and environmental organizations will participate in the

workshops. Participants will consider the following issues: how the Forum should

be constituted; what issues should be considered; whether the Forum should be established in partnership or as a joint activity with an outside organization or within

the government; whether the Forum should provide special briefings on an informal

basis or hold a large semiannual meeting; and what mechanisms would help the

Forum ‘‘encourage partnerships and promote communication.’’

The Heinz Center agreed to undertake such an endeavor, because it meets our

mission of fostering collaboration among industry, environmental organizations, academia, and government and the opportunity such a forum could provide to understanding the advances in ocean sciences and in new technologies and observing systems. Moreover, the findings and recommendations of The Heinz Center’s projects

and programs are widely disseminated to public and private sector decision-makers,

163

the scientific community, and the public, which is in keeping with objective four

mentioned above. This expertise in multi-sector collaboration and information dissemination is essential in developing a viable Ocean Exploration Forum.

By supporting the Ocean Exploration Program we will increase our understanding

of ocean processes, an important step in maintaining an ocean science and technology enterprise that can meet the challenges of the coming decades. The interest

within your subcommittees in this issue and your deliberations here today reaffirm

my belief that we as a nation are prepared to realize the full potential of the oceans

and to explore the 95 percent of the oceans still unexplored.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute to your deliberations on

the important issue of ocean exploration and to explain The Heinz Center’s efforts

to implement one of the Panel’s recommendations.

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205