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

28–758PS 2006

UNDERSEA RESEARCH AND OCEAN EXPLORATION:

H.R. 3835, THE NATIONAL OCEAN EXPLORATION

PROGRAM ACT OF 2005 AND THE UNDERSEA

RESEARCH PROGRAM ACT OF 2005

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,

AND STANDARDS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 27, 2006

Serial No. 109–58

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

KEN CALVERT, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JIM MATHESON, Utah

JIM COSTA, California

AL GREEN, Texas

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

DORIS MATSUI, California

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

MARK UDALL, Colorado

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JIM MATHESON, Utah

BART GORDON, Tennessee

AMY CARROLL Subcommittee Staff Director

MIKE QUEAR Democratic Professional Staff Member

JEAN FRUCI Democratic Professional Staff Member

OLWEN HUXLEY Professional Staff Member

MARTY SPITZER Professional Staff Member

CHAD ENGLISH Professional Staff Member

DEVIN BRYANT Majority Staff Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

July 27, 2006

Page

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 2

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on Science, U.S.

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11

Statement by Representative David Wu, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on

Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................. 12

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13

Witnesses:

Dr. Richard W. Spinrad, Assistant Administrator, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16

Biography .......................................................................................................... 22

Mr. Andrew N. Shepard, Director, Southeastern U.S. and Gulf of Mexico,

National Undersea Research Center, University of North Carolina-Wilmington

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 24

Biography .......................................................................................................... 28

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

Aquarium Research Institute

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31

Biography .......................................................................................................... 34

Hon. Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 42

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 44

Discussion

Support for H.R. 3835 .......................................................................................... 47

Support for Interagency Coordination ................................................................ 48

Merger of NURP and OE ..................................................................................... 49

Priorities for Ocean Exploration and Research ................................................. 50

Duplication, Cooperation, and the Great Lakes ................................................ 52

Proposed Appropriations in H.R. 3835 ............................................................... 53

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Richard W. Spinrad, Assistant Administrator, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce ........................................................................... 56

Page

IV

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Letter to Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher from J. Val Klump, Director

and Senior Scientist, Great Lakes WATER (Wisconsin Aquatic Technology

& Environmental Research) Institute, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee,

dated November 29, 2005 .................................................................................... 60

Statement of Representative Rob Simmons, Co-Chairman, Congressional Long

Island Sound Caucus; Co-sponsor, H.R. 3835, the National Ocean Exploration Program Act of 2005 and the Undersea Research Program Act of

2005 ....................................................................................................................... 63

Statement of Mr. Robert I. Wicklund, Director, Federal Programs, and Dr.

Daniel G. Baden, Director, Center for Marine Science, University of North

Carolina, Wilmington ........................................................................................... 64

(1)

UNDERSEA RESEARCH AND OCEAN EXPLORATION: H.R. 3835, THE NATIONAL OCEAN

EXPLORATION PROGRAM ACT OF 2005 AND

THE UNDERSEA RESEARCH PROGRAM ACT

OF 2005

THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND

STANDARDS, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in Room

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

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND

STANDARDS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Undersea Research and Ocean Exploration:

H.R. 3835, the National Ocean Exploration

Program Act of 2005 and the Undersea

Research Program Act of 2005

THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2006

2:00 P.M.–4:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose

On July 27, 2006 at 2:00 p.m., the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology,

and Standards of the House Committee on Science will hold a hearing to examine

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Undersea

Research Program (NURP) and Ocean Exploration (OE) Program and to receive

comments on H.R. 3835, the National Ocean Exploration Program Act of 2005 and

the Undersea Research Program Act. On July 1, 2005 the Senate passed S. 39, a

bill largely identical to H.R. 3835 that would also authorize these programs. The

Committee will examine the current programs, including their relationship to one

another, in the context of pending legislation.

The Committee plans to explore these overarching questions:

1. What are the goals and missions of the Undersea Research and Ocean Exploration programs? How do these goals and missions relate to and complement

other U.S. marine research programs?

2. Would a merger or consolidation of the NURP and OE programs still support

the programs’ activities and maintain the programs’ role in national marine

research?

3. Does H.R. 3835 provide sufficient guidance for the scope and direction of

these programs and, if appropriate, for a merger?

Witnesses:

Panel 1

The Honorable Jim Saxton

The Honorable Robert Simmons

Panel 2

Dr. Richard Spinrad, Assistant Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR).

Mr. Andrew Shepard, Director, National Undersea Research Center, University of

North Carolina-Wilmington.

Dr. Marcia McNutt, President and CEO, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute.

Background on H.R. 3835:

H.R. 3835 was introduced by Mr. Saxton on September 20, 2005. The bill would

authorize, for the first time in legislation, two existing programs within NOAA, the

National Ocean Exploration Program (OE), which is the subject of Title I of the bill,

and the NOAA Undersea Research Program (NURP), which is the subject of Title

II (see Appendix II for a section-by-section summary of the bill).

3

1The Caribbean center will merge with the Gulf of Mexico and Southeast Atlantic center later

this year.

The House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans held a hearing on

H.R. 3835 on May 4, 2006. On July 1, 2006, the Senate companion to H.R. 3835,

S.39 (sponsored by Senator Stevens), passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and

was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committee on Resources.

Background on NURP and OE:

NURP, which had its origins in the 1970s, funds applied research in areas such

as ecology and fisheries management that can be of use to policy-makers, and generally focuses on areas that are relatively close to shore. NURP also funds the development of technology for undersea research, and education and outreach programs

(such as the Aquarius underwater habitat, and JASON, which lets schools participate in undersea research).

NURP, housed in NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), operates through six regional centers at University of Connecticut (covering the North

Atlantic and Great Lakes); Rutgers University (covering the Mid-Atlantic); University of North Carolina at Wilmington (covering the Southeastern United States and

Gulf of Mexico); Perry Institute of Marine Science (covering the Caribbean) 1; University of Hawaii (covering Hawaii and the Western Pacific); and University of Alaska at Fairbanks (covering the West Coast and Polar Regions). In addition to those

six centers, the National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology (NIUST),

established in 2002 by Congress, is based at the University of Mississippi and the

University of Southern Mississippi. Each center manages its own operations and

grant program, but research priorities and strategic direction are coordinated

through the National Program Office at NOAA Headquarters.

The six centers use about 74 percent of their funding for competitively awarded

research grants for scientists studying in their region. NURP support often includes

the provision to scientists of equipment developed and owned by the centers, as well

as technical support.

The OE program, also located in OAR, provides grants to researchers for expeditions to discover and document unknown or little know features of the oceans and

Great Lakes. The program is run by NOAA Headquarters and focuses on a smaller

pool of scientists who attempt to discover and record new and novel physical, biological or chemical aspects of the deep ocean far from the continental shelf, often

deeper than 10,000 feet. The program supports development of new technologies and

works with academic and industry partners to adapt commercial and experimental

technologies to deep-water exploration activities. Education and outreach is a high

priority, and OE uses its high-profile expeditions to engage students and the general

public in the exploratory process and raise awareness of marine issues and their impacts on people’s daily lives.

OE and NURP complement Office of Naval Research (ONR) and National Science

Foundation (NSF) support for basic oceanographic research. OE expands the boundaries of the ‘‘known’’ marine environment, which can open up new lines of scientific

inquiry, while NURP supports applied marine research that bridges the gap between basic marine science (funded by ONR and NSF) and the applied science and

information needs of marine policy makers and resource managers.

Issues with NURP and OE:

Congressional Support for NURP

NURP has always received substantial Congressional direction in terms of the location of the regional centers and the allocation of funding for each center. Some

of the regional NURP centers were established by Congressional direction rather

than by a competitive process. This led to a perception among many academic scientists that some NURP centers operate within closed communities whose resources

were not allocated in a transparent, competitive and rigorous way, and whose activities have been unresponsive to NOAA’s science needs and strategic goals.

In the last decade, NOAA has attempted to bring NURP activities more in line

with NOAA priorities and has formalized a centrally-coordinated and transparent

grant program. While research grants are still awarded through the individual centers, there is now a uniform peer review process that is patterned after NSF’s peer

review process and coordinated with NOAA research priorities.

However, a new issue arose in the FY 2006 appropriations process. NURP funding

was cut from approximately $17 million to $9 million and all NURP center funding

was directed to the two centers on the West Coast. NOAA reprogrammed funding

4

to maintain minimal services at the East Coast centers but it is unclear how the

centers will fare in FY 2007.

Measuring Program Success

Some scientists remain concerned about the clarity of NURP’s and OE’s missions

and the metrics used to measure the programs’ success. NURP’s mission is largely

to enable and support marine research by developing and supporting technology and

technical knowledge. Many of the benefits that NURP provides to the marine research community (accrued expertise and regional knowledge, for example) can be

difficult to define or quantify. OE’s mission is to observe and survey little-known

regions of the ocean. However, some scientists have criticized the OE program for

not providing support or guidance for research beyond the initial observation of unexplored areas.

Merger of NURP and OE

In response to appropriations report language in 2004, which directed NOAA to

consider realigning programs in OAR, NOAA has begun the process of merging

NURP and the OE program, although it has not yet provided any details on how

it will accomplish this. However, the current organization of the two programs is

quite different. OE is a highly centralized program, run out of NOAA Headquarters,

that manages and enables large-scale, deep water exploration of oceans around the

world. In contrast, NURP is a regionally organized program that supports detailed

study of marine resources and habitats within 200 miles of U.S. coasts and focuses

its scientific support on operational and strategic priorities in line with NOAA’s

stewardship missions.

Scientists have expressed concern that the structures of the two programs are divergent and that a merger may result in the loss of significant and important benefits of one or both programs. Experts who are concerned with the vitality of the Nation’s ocean exploration programs express concern that OE funding would be directed to operational and mission-oriented efforts rather than the deep water discovery that they see as the most critical. Marine researchers and managers who

interact with the NURP program are concerned that if the merged program became

more centralized the emphasis on regionally-important research would decrease.

Proponents of both programs are concerned that combining the programs will result

in a net decrease in funding for both efforts and an associated decline in the quality

and quantity of marine research.

Administration of the Ocean Exploration Program

In 2003, the National Research Council of the National Academies released a

study of ocean exploration programs that called for a dedicated national ocean exploration program. The report suggested the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) would be the most appropriate place to form the program, rather than

NOAA. (NOPP is a collaboration of 15 federal agencies that is supposed to coordinate all national ocean research.) Concerns over placing the program in NOAA

stemmed from recurring problems in existing programs such as ‘‘slow grant processing and a lack of responsiveness to researchers’’ and NOAA’s focus on internal

NOAA agency topics that do not explicitly include exploration of the marine environment.

In contrast, in September 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, established

by the Oceans Act of 2000, submitted a report entitled ‘‘An Ocean Blueprint for the

21st Century,’’ in which the Commission recommended that NOAA and NSF lead

an expanded national ocean exploration program with collaboration from the U.S.

Geological Survey and the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Research.

Funding History of NURP and OE:

From its inception in 1981 until the mid-1990s appropriations for NURP grew to

approximately $20 million annually, then dropped to below $15 million. Between

1996 and 2005, NURP appropriations remained between $13 million and $18 million. Of that amount, approximately 70–75 percent was directed to NURP centers;

each East Coast center received approximately $1–$1.5 million and each of the two

West Coast centers received approximately $2.5 million. As depicted in the table

below, in FY 2006, NURP funding was cut from approximately $17 million to $9

million and all NURP center funding was directed to the two centers on the West

Coast.

The Office of Ocean Exploration was organized in 2001 with an appropriation of

$4 million. The OE appropriation for 2002 was $14 million, and for 2003 was $15.1

million. FY 2006 funding for OE dropped from $29 million to $14 million.

5

Background on Undersea Research and Ocean Exploration:

The Need for Ocean Exploration and Undersea Research

More than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by oceans. The oceans and

Great Lakes are a source of valuable living and non-living resources, provide enormous benefit to the transportation and recreation industries, impact development

and human health around the country, contain vast quantities of mineral and fossil

fuel deposits, and play a key role in Earth’s climate system. The oceans also influence the economy. NOAA estimates that in 2003 commercial and recreational fishing contributed $43.5 billion to the national GDP. In addition, over 90 percent of

the U.S. population is served by shipping on the oceans and Great Lakes.

Despite the present and future benefits that the oceans and Great Lakes provide,

the world’s oceans remain virtually unexplored and un-described. A few examples

illustrate this:

• NOAA estimates that over 99 percent of the oceans’ floors have yet to be explored, and maps of Earth’s ocean bottoms have a resolution of seven miles.

By comparison the Mars Global Surveyor has photographed the surface of

Mars with a resolution as high as 1.6 feet.

• Pulley Ridge, a 60-mile-long reef off the coast of Florida, hosts a diverse and

thriving ecosystem in water that is shallow enough to dive in, but was unknown until less than a decade ago.

• Discovered only within the last decade, deep-sea corals appear to offer critical

habitat to many marine species including commercially important fish species.

Our incomplete understanding of the marine environment raises concern among

many researchers and policy-makers that resource management and research priorities cannot be set to make the best possible use of research dollars and to most

effectively support policy decisions. For example, because they were unknown, deepsea corals were not being included in research, conservation and management efforts until very recently.

The Federal Role in Undersea Research and Ocean Exploration

One of NOAA’s missions is to understand and predict changes in the oceans and

Great Lakes to enable effective conservation and management of the Nation’s marine resources. Developing the information and knowledge base to meet this mission

requires thorough study of marine environments. However, the study of underwater

environments is not as simple as equivalent studies on land. Aquatic environments

pose significant technical challenges to the use of observing and recording technologies that land-based scientists take for granted, such as satellite observations,

aerial photography, GPS, and simple human observation. To be able to spend time

beneath the surface of lakes and oceans to perform marine research, humans require sophisticated technology such as SCUBA, submersibles, remotely operated and

autonomous underwater vehicles, and in situ observation systems. Each of these

technologies has taken years to develop and, in some cases, years to adapt to research use. These technologies are costly and require significant technical expertise

to reduce the risk to researchers and equipment to acceptable levels. Few researchers have the time and resources to devote to acquiring and mastering these technologies and many marine science programs cannot afford the infrastructure and

support staff needed to sustain such programs. By providing long-term funding and

strategic direction for marine science, NURP and OE have become repositories of

the equipment and expertise that scientists need to pursue underwater exploration

and research. See Appendix II for a more detailed history of the two programs.

6

Witness Questions:

The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in their testimony:

1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of H.R. 3835? In particular:

• Does the bill capitalize on the strengths of the programs, and effectively

address their weaknesses? If not, what changes to the bill would you recommend?

• Does the bill provide appropriate guidance for the scope and direction of

these programs? If not, should the bill language be more or less prescriptive, and how?

• What specific changes to the bill do you recommend to strengthen the legislation?

2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current National Undersea

Research and Ocean Exploration Programs? What steps need to be taken to

ensure the rigor of these programs and to encourage appropriate follow-on

projects to meet their missions? Do you believe that these programs would

be strengthened by a merger? If so, what form should a merger take? If not,

why not?

7

Appendix I

SECTION BY SECTION SUMMARY OF H.R. 3835

Title I—National Ocean Exploration Program

Sec. 101—Short Title

Specifies that this title may be referred to as the ‘‘National Ocean Exploration

Program Act.’’

Sec. 102—Establishment

Directs that the Secretary of Commerce, through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), shall, in consultation with

the National Science Foundation and other appropriate federal agencies, establish

a coordinated national ocean exploration program within NOAA that promotes collaboration with existing programs, including NURP.

Sec. 103—Authorities

The Administrator of NOAA shall: conduct interdisciplinary exploration voyages

or other scientific activities in conjunction with other federal agencies or academic

institutions to survey little known areas of the marine environment, inventory, observe and assess living and non-living marine resources, and report such findings;

give priority attention to deep ocean regions, with a focus on surveying deep water

systems that hold potential for important scientific discoveries; conduct scientific

voyages to locate, define, and document historic archaeological sites; in consultation

with the National Science Foundation, develop a transparent process for peer review

of proposals; enhance the technical capabilities of the United States marine science

community; accept donations of property, data, and equipment for exploring the

oceans or increasing knowledge of the oceans; and establish an ocean exploration

forum to encourage partnerships and promote communications.

Sec. 104—Ocean Exploration Technology and Infrastructure Task Force

In coordination with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the U.S.

Geological Survey, Office of Naval Research, and relevant governmental, non-governmental, academic and other experts, NOAA shall convene an ocean exploration

technology and infrastructure task force to develop and implement a strategy to: facilitate the transfer of new technology to the ocean exploration program; improve

the availability of communications infrastructure to the program; develop an integrated, workable, and comprehensive data management information processing system that will make information on unique and significant features obtained by the

program available for research and management purposes; conduct public outreach

in conjunction with relevant programs of NOAA, NSF and other agencies; and encourage cost-sharing partnerships that will assist in transferring exploration technology and expertise to the program.

Sec. 105—Interagency Financing

NOAA, NSF, and other involved federal agencies are authorized to participate in

interagency financing.

Sec. 106—Application with Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

Specifies that nothing in this title or in Title II shall supersede, or limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

(43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.).

Sec. 107—Authorization of Appropriations

Authorizes appropriations to NOAA to carry out this title. Authorization levels

begin at $30.5 million for FY 2006 and increase by approximately 10 percent each

year to $71.92 million for FY 2015.

Title II—Undersea Research Program

Sec. 201—Short Title

Specifies that this title may be referred to as the ‘‘NOAA Undersea Research Program Act of 2005.’’

Sec. 202—Establishment

Specifies that the Administrator of NOAA shall establish and maintain an undersea research program and shall designate a Director of that program.

8

Sec. 203—Purpose

Specifies that the purpose of the program is to increase scientific knowledge essential for the informed management, use and preservation of oceanic, coastal, and

large lake resources through undersea research, exploration, education, and technology development. Also specifies that the program shall be part of NOAA’s undersea research, education and technology development efforts and shall make available the infrastructure and expertise to service the undersea science needs of the

academic community.

Sec. 204—Program

Specifies that the program shall be conducted through a national headquarters,

a network of regional undersea research centers, and a national technology institute. The Director shall provide overall direction with advice from a Council comprised of the directors of the regional centers and the national technology institute.

Sec. 205—Regional Centers and Technology Institute

Specifies that the regional centers and national technology institute shall provide:

core research and exploration based on national and regional priorities; further advance undersea technology development to support NOAA’s research mission and

programs, including technology associated with seafloor observatories such as LEO–

15 and the Aquarius habitat, remotely operated vehicles, autonomous underwater

vehicles, and new sampling and sensing technologies; undersea science-based education and outreach programs to enrich ocean science education and public awareness of the oceans and Great Lakes; programs for the discovery, study, and development of natural products from ocean and aquatic systems.

Sec. 206—Competitiveness

Specifies that no more than 10 percent of the program budget may be set aside

for discretionary spending on rapid response activities and NOAA-related service

projects. Further specifies that all other external projects supported by the regional

centers shall be managed using an open and competitive process to evaluate scientific merit, relevance to NOAA, regional and national research goals, and technical feasibility.

Sec. 207—Authorization of Appropriations

Authorizes appropriations to NOAA to carry out this title. Authorization levels

begin at $12.5 million for the regional centers and $5 million for the national technology institute for FY 2006, and increase by approximately 10 percent each year

to $29.47 million for the regional centers and $11.79 percent for the national technology institute in FY 2015. Stipulates in each fiscal year that 50 percent of the

funds for the regional centers shall be for West Coast Regional Centers and 50 percent shall be for East Coast Regional Centers.

9

Appendix II

NURP and OE Program History

NOAA has been a center of technical marine expertise since it was established

by executive order in 1970. The Manned Undersea Science and Technology (MUST)

office, established in the early 1970s, supported NOAA SCUBA dive and undersea

habitat operations around the world. The National Research Council examined the

MUST program and related efforts in a 1980 report entitled, ‘‘The OceanLab Concept’’ which proposed a reorganization of MUST into a NOAA Dive Program and a

regional undersea research and technology program designed to better integrate

NOAA with academic and industry dive communities. The report supported the formation of a National Underwater Laboratory System which culminated in the formation of the National Undersea Research Program in 1981. During most of the following 15 years, NURP was a Congressionally-directed program for which the Administration did not request funding. Starting in 1995, NURP became a line item

in NOAA’s budget request. In 1997, NURP underwent ‘‘Reinvention’’ in which the

program was realigned to match NOAA’s strategic mission more closely, and a three

to five year review process was implemented to periodically review each of the

NURP centers.

By the late 1990s, NOAA exploration efforts were not an organized part of the

agency’s activities. In June 2000, the President commissioned the Secretary of Commerce to hold a panel on the state of ocean exploration. The final report was presented to the President in October of 2000 and outlined the need for a national

ocean exploration program focused on the goal of discovery. The panel recommended

the undertaking of multidisciplinary expeditions to include physical, geological, biological, chemical and archaeological oceanographic exploration and mapping, exploration of ocean dynamics and interactions, the development of new sensors and technologies to ensure that the United States remain at the forefront of ocean exploration, and an extensive campaign to utilize new methods to improve ocean literacy

and information dissemination to research communities and the public. The report

emphasized the need to revitalize a purely oceanic exploratory program to expand

our general knowledge of the extent and content of marine environments around the

world.

In response, NOAA established the Office of Ocean Exploration within OAR in

2001. OE was directed to study new ocean resources, research ocean acoustics, document American maritime heritage, explore ocean frontiers, and conduct a census of

ocean life. In collaboration with other NOAA programs, academic institutions, and

several non-governmental organizations, this Program has completed over 100 expeditions and has explored a wide variety of unique ecosystems from the deep waters

in the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska’s continental shelf, where more than 4,000 shipwrecks line the ocean bottom.

10

Chairman EHLERS. This hearing will come to order.

Good afternoon. I want to welcome everyone to this hearing on

undersea research and ocean exploration, and I especially want to

thank our witnesses for testifying. We have an excellent panel with

us today to help us discuss how best to organize NOAA’s marine

research efforts.

The bill that we will discuss today authorizes two ocean programs at NOAA, the National Undersea Research Program, or

NURP, and the Ocean Exploration Program, known as OE. These

two programs provide critical tools and information that allow scientists and policy-makers to better understand and manage our nation’s marine resources.

Unfortunately, not everyone appreciates, yet, just how important

the oceans and the Great Lakes are to our daily lives. More than

70 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by oceans, seas, and

the Great Lakes. Together, they are a source of valuable living and

nonliving resources, are critical corridors for transportation and

shipping, and provide some of the most popular recreation and vacation sites in the country.

Large quantities of mineral and fossil fuel wealth exist beneath

the surface of the Earth’s oceans, and novel new compounds with

potential practical applications, are discovered on a regular basis.

We could spend this entire hearing just talking about how important the oceans and Great Lakes are to all of us, but the most

amazing fact about these incredible resources and the reason that

we are here today is how little we know about them, and how much

we have yet to learn.

I know our panel will make this point even more clearly, so I will

give just a few brief illustrations of how much we don’t know, and

by the way, I think it is very important in science to know what

you don’t know, and so that you can ask the right questions.

NOAA estimates that over 95 percent of the world’s oceans and

over 99 percent of the ocean floor have yet to be explored. Today,

maps of Earth’s oceans’ bottoms have a resolution of seven miles.

This means that we can’t even see features the size of the National

Mall. By comparison, the Mars Global Surveyor has photographed

the surface of Mars with a resolution as high as 1.6 feet. Amazingly, we have even been able to locate the Mars Rover, a device

the size of an average office desk.

Pulley Ridge, a 60-mile long reef off the coast of Florida, hosts

a diverse and thriving ecosystem, but was unknown until less than

a decade ago. A good comment I heard over National Public Radio

a few months ago pointed out that well over a thousand people

have now climbed to the top of Mount Everest, several hundred astronauts have gone out into space, but only a few people have

reached the bottom of the ocean to do exploration. One of our closest resources is yet largely unexplored.

Effective management of our marine resources requires a well organized, carefully thought out science program to both fill in the

gaping holes in our knowledge, and give our managers and policymakers the tools and information they need to do their jobs. We are

here today to talk about two critical pieces of that science program.

Ocean exploration helps us define the scope and scale of marine

environments, and gives us proper context within which to ask the

11

best scientific and policy questions. NURP gives scientists the specialized technical support they need to fill the gap between basic

marine science and the more applied science and information needs

of policy-makers and resource managers around the country.

There are two issues that I hope we will be able to address clearly today. The first has to do with clarifying the benefits that NURP

and OE provide to the country. In the increasingly challenging

budget environment, we cannot afford to squander resources on

unfocused or poorly guided programs. I hope to learn from our witnesses whether the bill before us provides an appropriate structure

for the two programs.

The second issue has to do with the proposed merger of the two

programs. We need to be assured that this process has been carefully thought through, and includes adequate input from the broader marine science—pardon me—community. Without careful planning and the support of the community, a merger may do more

harm than good. We need to decide if the bill provides appropriate

guidance and flexibility to this process, so that whatever comes out

in the end will strengthen, not weaken, our nation’s marine science

efforts.

I again want to thank our witnesses for being here today. I certainly look forward to your testimony and to an informative discussion.

I am now pleased to recognize Mr. Wu for his opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VERNON J. EHLERS

Good afternoon! I want to welcome everyone to this hearing on undersea research

and ocean exploration, and I especially want to thank our witnesses for testifying.

We have an excellent panel to help us discuss how best to organize NOAA’s marine

research efforts. The bill that we will discuss today authorizes two oceans programs

at NOAA: The National Undersea Research Program—or NURP—and the Ocean

Exploration Program—known as OE. These two programs provide critical tools and

information that allow scientists and policy-makers to better understand and manage our nation’s marine resources.

Unfortunately, not everyone appreciates—yet—just how important the oceans and

Great Lakes are to our daily lives. More than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface is

covered by oceans, seas, and the Great Lakes. Together they are a source of valuable living and non-living resources, are critical corridors for transportation and

shipping, and provide some of the most popular recreation and vacation sites in the

country. Large quantities of mineral and fossil fuel wealth exist beneath the surface

of the oceans, and novel new compounds with potential practical applications are

discovered on a regular basis. We could spend this entire hearing just talking about

how important the oceans and Great Lakes are to all of us, but the most amazing

fact about these incredible resources—and the reason that we are here today—is

how little we know about them, and how much we have yet to learn. I know our

panel will make this point even more clearly, so I will give just a few brief illustrations of how much we don’t know:

• NOAA estimates that over 95 percent of the world’s oceans and over 99 percent of the ocean floor have yet to be explored.

• Today, maps of Earth’s ocean bottoms have a resolution of seven miles. This

means that we can’t even see features the size of the National Mall. By comparison the Mars Global Surveyor has photographed the surface of Mars with

a resolution as high as 1.6 feet. Amazingly, we have even been able to locate

the Mars Rover, a device the size of an average office desk.

• Pulley Ridge, a 60-mile-long reef off the coast of Florida, hosts a diverse and

thriving ecosystem, but was unknown until less than a decade ago.

Effective management of our marine resources requires a well organized, carefully

thought-out science program to both fill in the gaping holes in our knowledge and

12

give our managers and policy-makers the tools and information they need to do

their jobs. We’re here today to talk about two critical pieces of that science program.

Ocean Exploration helps us define the scope and scale of marine environments and

gives us proper context within which to ask the best scientific and policy questions.

NURP gives scientists the specialized technical support they need to fill the gap between basic marine science and the more applied science and information needs of

policy-makers and resource managers around the country.

There are two issues that I hope we will be able to address clearly today. The

first has to do with clarifying the benefits that NURP and OE provide to the country. In the increasingly challenging budget environment, we cannot afford to squander resources on unfocused or poorly guided programs. I hope to learn from our witnesses whether the bill before us provides an appropriate structure for the two programs.

The second issue has to do with the proposed merger of the two programs. We

need to be assured that this process has been carefully thought through and includes adequate input from the broader marine science community. Without careful

planning and the support of the community, a merger may do more harm than good.

We need to decide if the bill provides appropriate guidance and flexibility to this

process so that whatever comes out in the end will, strengthen—not weaken—our

nation’s marine science efforts.

I again want to thank our witnesses for being here today—I look forward to your

testimony and to an informative discussion.

I will now recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Wu.

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon, ladies

and gentlemen.

Our nation has the fortunate advantage of vast coastal and oceanic resources, including those of the Great Lakes. Over half of our

citizens live in coastal watersheds. Our ocean and coastal resources

are the basis of billions of dollars of economic activities, including

recreation, fisheries, oil and mineral extraction, and transportation.

Healthy oceans are critical to our future. Improved knowledge to

manage ocean and coastal resources in a more sustainable fashion

is essential if we are to continue to derive the full benefit of these

valuable assets now and into the future.

We are coming upon the two year anniversary of the release of

the report by the U.S. Ocean Commission. Sadly, few of its recommendations have moved forward.

The Commission’s report notes the President’s Panel on Ocean

Exploration called for a robust national ocean exploration program

in 2000. The panel’s recommendation was to initiate multidisciplinary expeditions funded at a level of $75 million per year. Their

recommendation led to the establishment of NOAA’s Office of Exploration in 2001, with a budget of $4 million.

The Commission report indicates the small budget of NOAA’s Office of Exploration and its agency-specific focus limit its effectiveness. They recommend that NOAA combine its efforts with those

of the National Science Foundation to link NOAA’s exploration activities to NSF’s strong traditional oceanic research programs.

There is no shortage of enthusiasm for ocean exploration, and

there are still vast, unexplored areas of the ocean, as the Chairman

has noted. However, we are constrained by the budget available to

fund all the expeditions we would like to undertake. H.R. 3835 authorizes additional funding for NOAA’s programs in ocean exploration and undersea research, but without expanding NOAA’s overall budget, I do not see how we will be able to act upon the recommendations of the U.S. Ocean Commission.

The Administration proposed combining NOAA’s Ocean Exploration Program with the National Undersea Research Program.

13

H.R.3835 appears to maintain these programs as separate entities.

I am very interested to hear the opinions of our panel about this—

these differing proposals.

I would like to welcome all of you today and thank you for participating in this hearing. I look forward to hearing your testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DAVID WU

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on ocean exploration and research.

Our nation has the fortunate advantage of vast coastal and oceanic resources.

Over half of our citizens live in coastal watersheds. Our ocean and coastal resources

are the basis of billions of dollars of economic activities including recreation, fisheries, oil and mineral extraction, and transportation. Healthy oceans are critical to

our future. Improved knowledge to manage ocean and coastal resources in a more

sustainable fashion is essential if we are to continue to derive the full benefit of

these valuable assets now and into the future.

We are coming upon the two-year anniversary of the release of the report by the

U.S. Ocean Commission. Unfortunately, few of its recommendations have moved forward.

The Commission’s report notes the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration called

for a robust national ocean exploration program in 2000. The panel’s recommendation was to initiate multidisciplinary expeditions funded at a level of seventy-five

million dollars per year. Their recommendation led to the establishment of NOAA’s

Office of Exploration in 2001 with a budget of four million dollars.

The Commission report indicates the small budget of NOAA’s Office of Exploration and its agency-specific focus, limit its effectiveness. They recommended

NOAA combine its efforts with those of the National Science Foundation to link

NOAA’s exploration activities to NSF’s strong traditional oceanic research programs.

There is no shortage of enthusiasm for ocean exploration and there are still vast

unexplored areas of the ocean. However, we are constrained by the budget available

to fund all the expeditions we would like to undertake. H.R. 3835 authorizes additional funding for NOAA’s programs in ocean exploration and undersea research,

but without expanding NOAA’s overall budget I do not see how we will be able to

act upon the recommendations of the U.S. Ocean Commission.

The Administration proposed combining NOAA’s ocean exploration program with

the National Undersea Research Program (NURP). H.R. 3835 appears to maintain

these programs as separate entities. I am very interested to hear the opinions of

our witnesses this afternoon about this proposal.

I would like to welcome our panel of witnesses today and thank you for participating in the hearing. I look forward to hearing your testimony.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Wu.

If there are Members who wish to submit opening statements,

their statements will be added to the record. Without objection, so

ordered.

Just a word of explanation about procedure. We have two Members of Congress who are going to constitute Panel I, and this

group is to be Panel II. The Honorable Jim Saxton of New Jersey

and the Honorable Robert Simmons of Connecticut. Unfortunately,

they are tied up in another committee meeting and cannot get

away at this time. They will come when they are able to, and I

apologize, but you will summarily be displaced while we take their

testimony. It would not take long, because we normally don’t question fellow Members of Congress, because we have immediate access to them at any time. So, it would be a brief probably 15-

minute interlude, and then we would resume the hearing. If they

don’t show up by the time you are finished, you have nothing to

fear. They may have something to fear, but you won’t.

14

All right. At this time, I would like to introduce our first panel

of witnesses. First, Dr. Richard Spinrad, Assistant Administrator of

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, better known as OAR.

Next, Mr. Andrew Shepard, Director of the National Undersea

Research Center, University of North Carolina, Wilmington. If we

have a lot more global warming, will your entire lab be undersea

as well?

Okay. Next, we have Dr. Marcia McNutt, President and CEO of

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, which is not only an

outstanding research institute, but has the best view of any of

them.

We are pleased to welcome all of you. I assume the witnesses

have been informed that spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each. We have the little black box up there. Green means go,

go, go. Yellow means you don’t have much time left, wrap it up,

and red means you are in trouble. So, you have five minutes each,

and if your testimony is longer than that, it will certainly go into

the record in total, but we will ask you to wrap up as soon as possible after five minutes.

So, we will start hearing the testimony of Dr. Spinrad.

STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD W. SPINRAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Dr. SPINRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today

about undersea research and ocean exploration. I am Dr. Richard

Spinrad, the Assistant Administrator for NOAA’s Office of Oceanic

and Atmospheric Research.

My office is responsible for leading and conducting scientific research, environmental studies, and technology development for

NOAA. Today, I will discuss the programs detailed in H.R. 3835,

an Act to Establish a Coordinated National Exploration and Undersea Research Program in NOAA.

My written testimony addresses NOAA’s technical comments on

the bill. However, I want to emphasize today NOAA’s strong support for the overall intent of H.R. 3835. In keeping with the Administration’s commitment to ocean exploration, as described in the

U.S. Ocean Action Plan, this piece of legislation elevates the importance of science-based ocean exploration and undersea technology

development. The Act recognizes these activities as vital national

missions, and strengthens federal efforts to pursue and support our

understanding of the planet. We must remember that over 70 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by our oceans and remains

vastly unexplored.

Our understanding of the ocean environment will be enhanced by

our creation of a dedicated, integrated national program for exploration and advanced ocean technology development. In 2006,

NOAA began a multiyear process to merge our National Undersea

Research Program, or NURP, with the Office of Ocean Exploration,

into a single Office of Ocean Exploration and Research. NOAA undertook this merger at the behest of Congress and NOAA’s Science

15

Advisory Board to increase the synergies between the two programs, focus on undersea technology, and leverage the program’s

broad expertise in regional partnership networks.

Congress agreed to the merger in 2005, and in a spirit of transparency, we are currently conducting a series of workshops and discussions with our external partners to resolve the details. From my

perspective, the merger is also about preserving research assets,

which include our scientists and infrastructure in NOAA, and in

our regional undersea research centers.

Unfortunately, however, recent Congressional support for the

program has dwindled, as evidenced by the fiscal year 2006 appropriation and the 2007 House mark, which have been substantially

below the President’s request. The fiscal year 2007 President’s

budget request restores funding to our undersea research and

ocean exploration programs at appropriate levels to meet the Nation’s needs. Though NOAA has taken extraordinary steps to protect these assets, in the absence of sufficient funding, the effectiveness and future of the programs are at risk.

So, what is at stake? Let me describe a few capabilities that each

of these programs brings to the table in this merger, and how each

benefits our great Nation. Ocean exploration is an exciting adventure. It immediately captures the imagination. It is also serious,

hardcore science. At its most fundamental, exploration improves

our knowledge of living marine resources, their habitats, and ecosystems. Our knowledge in turn enhances fisheries and ocean stewardship, and benefits marine resource management. The economic

and social benefits of exploration are significant. Wherever the program has looked, valuable new discoveries and information have

been found.

For instance, our explorations have discovered deep sea organisms that have significant potential for new cancer drug treatments, pain inhibitors, and other pharmaceutical uses. Importantly, no other dedicated source of federal funding or logistics exists for pure exploratory-based ocean science. In 2007, we launch

a new voyage of learning and discovery through ocean exploration

when the Okeanos Explorer, a former Navy vessel, is converted to

join the NOAA fleet as the Federal Government’s only dedicated

ocean exploration ship.

For over 25 years, NOAA’s National Undersea Research Program

has served the Nation by supporting research and providing cutting edge advanced technologies. NURP also provides the infrastructure necessary to support undersea operations for both the

academic community and NOAA. The program has also played a

strong role in developing next generation concepts for coastal observing systems.

NURP has also developed a series of autonomous or remotely operated undersea vehicles. These vehicles let us explore parts of the

world never seen before. In fact, in May, one of these vehicles was

used to observe lava actively erupting from an undersea volcano in

the Pacific for the first time. These unique observations will help

us learn more about the contribution of oceanic volcanoes to the

Earth’s climate and their effects on ocean ecosystems.

NURP’s autonomous undersea vehicles and next generation

chemical, physical, and biological sensor development will also help

16

us study critical elements in the marine environment. For example,

deposits of methane hydrates in the Gulf of Mexico, which NURP

helped discover, have potential benefits as an untapped domestic

energy source, but also may contribute to climate change.

NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration and Undersea Research will

have the special technological expertise and equipment to contribute to this research. With the merger of the Office of Ocean Exploration and the National Undersea Research Program, we combine the search for new discoveries with the development of the advanced marine technologies to furthering our exploration of the

oceans. This new ocean exploration and advanced technology development program will present a powerful new capability, and provide a sound foundation for the aggressive ocean exploration and

undersea technology development that our nation needs.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to

your questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Spinrad follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. SPINRAD

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Richard W.

Spinrad, Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce. Thank you for inviting me to discuss H.R. 3835 and the role of the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in ocean exploration and undersea research.

NOAA’s vision is an informed society that uses a comprehensive understanding

of the role of the oceans, coasts, and atmosphere in the global ecosystem to make

the best social and economic decisions. NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict

changes in the Earth’s environment and conserve and manage coastal and marine

resources to meet our nation’s economic, social, and environmental needs. NOAA’s

Office of Ocean Exploration and National Undersea Research Program (NURP) are

contained within the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). In support

of NOAA’s mission, OAR conducts the scientific research, environmental studies,

and technology development needed to improve our operations and broaden our understanding of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. The Office of Ocean Exploration

is devoted exclusively to the critical mission of exploring the still largely unknown

ocean. The ocean exploration program focuses on discovery of new ocean resources

for societal and economic benefits, serves as an effective means to promote ocean

education and ocean literacy, and enables NOAA to become aware of ocean issues

that may become the basis for future NOAA missions. NURP harnesses the academic community to focus on NOAA’s undersea research needs. NURP currently

supports NOAA’s mission by providing undersea scientists inside and outside NOAA

with advanced technologies, such as an underwater laboratory, submersibles and remotely operated vehicles, and the expertise needed to work in the undersea environment.

I am pleased to be here today to discuss H.R. 3835, an act to establish a coordinated national ocean exploration program within NOAA. NOAA supports the intent

of this legislation. Title I of the bill addresses ocean exploration; Title II addresses

NOAA’s complementary program in undersea research. Together, these two programs provide a solid foundation for the aggressive ocean exploration and undersea

technology program for our nation. Today, I will outline our current ocean exploration and undersea research programs, describe our planned merger of these programs, and explain why this legislation is important to NOAA.

In his preface to the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration report in 2000,

former Secretary of Commerce Norman Mineta eloquently stated the importance of

ocean exploration to our nation’s interests and future:

‘‘Our nation’s history, from colonization and westward expansion to the deployment of the Hubble telescope, is testament to the fact that America is a country

of explorers. Our pride as a nation is founded upon our yearning to make new

discoveries and to seek out new knowledge. Exploration of the oceans responds

to a growing national interest in our seas and an acknowledgement of their importance to our environment and quality of life.

17

We are growing in the awareness that the ocean influences our daily lives in

hundreds of ways. From providing fisheries resources or cures for disease, to

unlocking the secrets of long-term climate variations, we are constantly reminded

of the ocean’s importance in sustaining life. Truly, our economic, environmental,

and national security depends on our ability to understand the ocean frontier,

as well as balancing the competing interests of conservation and economics.’’

Historical Perspective

In 2007, NOAA will celebrate 200 years of history of science and exploration, service, and stewardship of our nation’s oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. National interest in establishing a comprehensive ocean exploration program stretches back over

40 years, when, in the late 1960’s, the Stratton Commission initiated the International Decade of Ocean Exploration. The resulting programs dramatically enhanced understanding of the global climate system, geochemical cycling, ocean circulation, plate geodynamics, and life in extreme environments. In 1971, NOAA established the Manned Undersea Science and Technology (MUST) program, which pioneered exploration from undersea habitats. MUST was transitioned in 1980 from

a primarily headquarters program to the extramural NURP. Since then, NURP has

continued to provide the scientific community with the undersea tools to conduct exploration and cutting edge research.

In 1983, an interagency effort to comprehensively map the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) was initiated. Our EEZ is the largest in the world spanning over

12,300 miles of coastline and contains 3.4 million square nautical miles of ocean—

larger than the combined land mass of all 50 states. While the surface of the ocean

has been studied via remote sensing for basic physical and biogeochemical properties, today less than 10 percent of the U.S. EEZ has been mapped with current

multi-beam technology. Less than five percent of the EEZ has been mapped at a

resolution required for accurately defining habitat. In addition to our nation’s EEZ,

approximately 95 percent of the world’s oceans have not been visited or studied in

situ. This includes the major features such as the 31,000 miles of mid-ocean ridge

crest, 6,200 miles of deep sea trenches, over 30,000 sea mounts and the water-column of the ocean—which together are home to 99 percent of the Earth’s living organisms. Because the scope of what remains unknown below the surface is enormous,

we will continue to carefully prioritize the work we undertake.

Increasing national interest in ocean exploration, in large part stimulated by

NURP-sponsored activity, culminated in 2000, when a Presidential Panel on Ocean

Exploration convened by the Department of Commerce called for a robust national

ocean exploration program propelled by the spirit of discovery. The panel proposed

a strategy of interdisciplinary expeditions, new partnerships, and integrated federal

programs to characterize the vast array of biological, physical, and chemical environments of the oceans and foster the development of technology. The panel’s recommendations led to the establishment of the Office of Ocean Exploration within

NOAA in 2001.

In 2003, a National Research Council report expressed support for a comprehensive national ocean exploration program strongly linked to traditional research, with

broad international partnerships, and a commitment to educational opportunities.

This report was followed in 2004, by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommendation to establish an expanded ocean exploration program. In response to

the report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the Administration developed

the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. Ocean exploration will be addressed in the context of

the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy, which was called

for as part of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. The National Science and Technology

Council Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) is currently

developing this interagency planning document and implementation strategy on priorities for ocean science technology for the next five to 10 years. As one of the Cochairs of the JSOST (along with the National Science Foundation and the Office of

Science and Technology Policy) I am closely involved in this work, and can report

that we continue to make progress. On April 4, 2006, we released our Ocean Priorities Framework for developing the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy; the detailed plan is due at the end of this calendar year.

The Office of Ocean Exploration

The recent sustained national interest in ocean exploration has resulted in an exciting, successful ocean exploration program within NOAA. The mission of this program is to conduct interdisciplinary ocean exploration expeditions and projects that

provide scientific information as well as technical and educational leadership that

contributes to NOAA’s evolving environmental and economic missions. The program

pursues this mission by focusing on four key goals:

18

Explore unknown and poorly known areas of the ocean: Exploration science

expands our understanding of what resources and processes are in the oceans. The

wealth of living and non-living resources yet to be discovered holds vast untapped

economic potential and offers new opportunities for medical science. For example,

microbial organisms that thrive in deep-sea environments produce novel enzymes

and other compounds as a consequence of living in extremes of temperature and

chemistry which have significant potential for creating bioproducts for use in pharmaceutical and industrial applications. Recent screenings show that these marine

samples are 20 times more active than their terrestrial counterparts.

Ocean Mapping: Less than 10 percent of the U.S. EEZ has been mapped with current technology, and many resources, habitats, and features remain undiscovered.

Our ability to manage ecosystems is dependent upon our ability to define the area

these ecosystems cover. In conjunction with other NOAA mapping efforts, ocean exploration routinely maps ocean areas during expeditions to discover and record the

physical, biological, geological, archaeological, and chemical nature of the oceans.

This information is critical for both expanding our understanding of the U.S. EEZ,

and supporting future establishment of the U.S. continental shelf, where potential

resources such as mineral deposits, valued at $1.3 trillion, are estimated to exist.

New Technology: The Office of Ocean Exploration invests in new technologies to

increase the pace, efficiency and scope of ocean discovery and to enhance the technical capability of the United States by promoting the development of improved

oceanographic research, communication, navigation, and data collection systems, as

well as underwater platforms and sensors. The program coordinates new technology

needs and investments with other NOAA programs, other federal agencies, and

through the National Oceanographic Partnership Program. The program also invests in projects that test and evaluate new and emerging technologies under live

conditions. A merger of NOAA’s ocean exploration program and undersea research

program, which I will discuss later, will enhance NOAA’s ability to support emerging technology in these areas.

Education and Outreach: The President’s Ocean Action Plan calls for promoting

lifelong ocean education as essential for fostering a strong economy, promoting

healthy ecosystems and preparing a competitive workforce with the scientific understanding needed to balance the sustainable use and conservation of our natural resources. The ocean exploration program is a leader in this effort dedicating 10 percent of its budget to education and outreach to improve ocean literacy in the United

States and to stimulate interest in ocean science. The program is uniquely positioned to use interdisciplinary expeditions as a catalyst to bring the excitement of

ocean exploration to teachers and school children. The program’s web site

(www.oceanexplorer.noaa.gov) is rated in the top five worldwide in its category, by

a major international science education authority. This web site, which includes

teaching materials for educators, daily logs of expeditions, immediate reports of the

discoveries, and live images of the seafloor, was visited by more than four million

people last year. These efforts are inspiring a whole new generation to explore and

work in the oceans which will help ensure that in the future the United States will

have a competitive edge in the oceans and remain a global leader in ocean science

and technology.

In less than five years, the Office of Ocean Exploration has been able to successfully leverage federal funding, equipment, and expertise to assemble interdisciplinary teams of scientist-explorers in support of more than 100 ocean expeditions and

projects to unknown and poorly known areas of the ocean. These ocean expeditions

have discovered many new marine ecosystems (including fish and coral habitats);

new species of micro and macro-organisms; and chemical and geological processes

that impact the oceans such as large quantities of carbon dioxide produced by underwater volcanoes. These expeditions have also mapped thousands of square miles

of ocean floor that had never been mapped before, where they discovered new land

forms, including large submarine volcanoes, sea mounts, and extensive areas of deep

water coral reef and sponge habitats.

NOAA’s partnerships with other federal agencies, academia, industry, ocean institutions and scientists from U.S. and international organizations are a vital component of NOAA’s ocean exploration program. Together with our partners, NOAA increases our national understanding of ocean systems and processes by undertaking

six to 10 major voyages of discovery per year and funding up to 25 additional missions and exploration-related projects per year. All expeditions are selected through

a rigorous peer-reviewed process. The program spends approximately 70 percent of

its funds outside of NOAA on science that benefits the Nation’s understanding of

the oceans and ecosystems.

19

Programs across NOAA benefit from new sources and scales of information generated by the Office of Ocean Exploration. These benefits include greater knowledge

of living marine resources, their habitats, and ecosystems which enhance fisheries

and ocean stewardship and comprehensive site surveys and inventories that inform

management of NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuaries. The program’s characterization of the EEZ improves the management of habitat and marine resources, and by

providing inventories of our nation’s submerged cultural and historical resources,

the Office of Ocean Exploration aids in the preservation of this heritage. The Office

of Ocean Exploration also provides important governance and scientific investigation

in support of the international Census of Marine Life, which is helping to identify

important breeding areas and inform strategies for sustainable management.

The Office of Ocean Exploration’s efforts are, in turn, supported by other programs within NOAA including the National Oceanographic Data Center, which provides vital data access, archive, and assessment support. NOAA has also assembled

a team of data and information experts from its National Geophysical Data Center,

the National Coastal Data Development Center, NURP, and the NOAA Library to

ensure the broadest public access and use of the results from its ocean expeditions.

This team has developed procedures for ensuring archival and public access to the

variety of the data products generated on these expeditions including underwater

video, which has become an important new source for quantitative data about the

ocean environment, as well as for stimulating public interest and life-long learning.

We will see more opportunity for learning and discovery through ocean exploration when a new vessel dedicated to ocean exploration joins the NOAA fleet. After

conversion, a former Navy vessel will be commissioned and named NOAA vessel

Okeanos Explorer. The vessel will be available in 2008 to serve the Nation as a premier ocean research platform to conduct critical deep-sea missions including ocean

floor mapping and biological and chemical oceanographic research. The vessel will

also be equipped for ‘‘telepresence,’’ a satellite-based communications technology

that allows shore-side scientists, teachers, and students to connect in near real-time

with scientists at sea and to view images from the ocean and seafloor using highspeed Internet. The near real-time data and images are transmitted to science command centers ashore where teams of scientists augment the work of scientists and

explorers at sea. By bringing multiple high-quality video streams and sensor data

from the remote seafloor to scientists, teachers, and students on shore, the potential

exists to revolutionize oceanographic research and ocean education. ‘‘Telepresence’’

technology was successfully pioneered on a NOAA-sponsored expedition to the deepsea hydrothermal vent field known as the ‘‘Lost City’’ on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in

July 2005.

The goals and missions of the current Ocean Exploration and Undersea Research

Programs not only complement existing programs at NOAA, they also form the basis

for growing partnerships with the National Science Foundation, and other federal

agencies. For example, NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration has initiated a pilot

partnership with the National Science Foundation that has recently resulted in a

highly successful, jointly funded exploration expedition to the Galapagos Ridge. This

is a model for future, jointly funded cruises that support both OE’s and NSF’s interests in exploring unknown areas of the ocean.

NOAA’s ocean exploration program is a national program that provides the opportunity of discovery to our partners in academia, federal and State agencies, and industry. No other federal dedicated source of funding or logistics exists for discoverybased ocean science. The economic and social benefits of discovery are significant

and the promise of future discovery is clear; wherever the program has looked, new

discoveries and information have been found.

The National Undersea Research Program

NURP has served NOAA and the Nation for over 25 years as an underwater research and technology program. NURP places scientists underwater using advanced

technologies, either directly or remotely, and focuses its considerable expertise and

connections to the academic community on NOAA’s undersea research agenda. In

recent years, the program has functioned through a network of six regional centers

and an institute, hosted primarily by universities. Two centers are located on the

West Coast in Hawaii and Alaska, and four are located on the East Coast in North

Carolina, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Florida.

NURP has a proven record of providing the advanced technologies and infrastructure necessary to support undersea research and exploration operations for both the

academic community and NOAA. Through regional competitive processes, the program sponsors cutting edge undersea research, which is applicable to NOAA’s stewardship and management missions. The program also fosters innovative uses of existing technologies to meet undersea exploration and research challenges. Through

20

ownership or leasing, NURP has provided undersea systems that work from the

coast to the deep sea. For example:

• NURP owns and operates the Aquarius, the world’s only underwater science

laboratory, located in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

Aquanauts live on and study sensitive coral reef ecosystems threatened by

natural and human-caused impacts and are able to perform studies not possible through traditional diving techniques.

• NURP operates undersea remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and autonomous

undersea vehicles (AUVs) that increase the access of researchers to the depth

and breadth of the oceans.

• NURP owns and operates the Pisces IV and V, human occupied submersibles

that enable scientists to explore the deep ocean-depths down to 6,000 feet. In

partnership with the Office of Ocean Exploration in the summer of 2005, the

Pisces submersibles completed a historic expedition to the South Pacific

where scientists examined more than 20 previously unexplored sub-sea volcanic ecosystems. The program also provides scientists with access to research

submarines including the Alvin, Johnson Sea-Link, and Delta submersibles.

• NURP, as the lead office for fulfilling NOAA’s statutory responsibility to improve the safety and performance of civilian divers, has supported advanced

diving techniques, which enable researchers to explore and characterize little

known habitats such as deep corals.

• NURP supports pioneering uses of technologies such as multi-beam sonar, advanced cameras, and sea bed observing instrumentation to address emerging

ocean exploration and undersea ocean observing, sampling, monitoring and

modeling issues for the National Ocean Service and the National Marine

Fisheries Service within NOAA.

NOAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) share the

mission of exploration in remote and hostile ocean and space environments, respectively. Humans working both in space and under the ocean face similar challenges

of lack of oxygen, weightlessness, extreme pressure differentials, and remote,

cramped living quarters. Currently, the National Undersea Research Program and

NASA conduct a uniquely successful partnership in which astronauts train and simulate Moon exploration at the Aquarius undersea laboratory. In addition to the

operational benefits, this partnership provides a springboard for increased

leveraging of exploration technology development between NOAA and NASA.

In FY 2006, Congress appropriated funds for NURP at a level significantly below

the President’s budget request. This reduction eliminated support for the four East

Coast centers, and reduced funding at the West Coast and Polar Regions Center at

the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, by one half. NOAA redirected a small amount

of funds internally to enable NURP to maintain essential personnel and equipment

at the four centers during restructuring efforts. NURP, as supported by the Administration’s FY 2007 request, will include both an East and West Coast capability.

Further details of the restructuring are currently under discussion in consonance

with the merger of the program with NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration.

Office of Ocean Exploration and NURP Merger

In FY 2007, NOAA will further address the need for ocean technology development by refocusing the priorities, direction, and partnerships of its National Undersea Research Program and merging it with the Office of Ocean Exploration (OE)

(the Appropriations Committees concurred with this reorganization in 2005). Both

NURP and OE strive to meet NOAA, national, and international needs for innovative undersea exploration and research. The merger of the two programs will help

meet these needs and also effectively address NOAA’s undersea technology requirements. Merging the two programs will more efficiently utilize our resources to focus

on exploration and undersea technology challenges; expand the excitement of ocean

exploration with a regional network of partnerships; and take advantage of efficiencies of time, personnel, and funding between both programs. The merged program will also allow NOAA to capitalize on the synergy between these programs to

achieve the goal of expanding exploration into focused research, and then to finding

operational or commercial applications for our discoveries. Together, these programs

will provide a more robust program of ocean discovery.

This merger is also an opportunity for NOAA to increase its emphasis and effectiveness in utilizing and developing advanced undersea technology. Despite recent

technological advances, the current pace of discovery and acquisition of new knowledge is slow and is limited by the present requirement of having to conduct nearly

all ocean exploration from surface ships. Ships support a variety of advanced techVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:34 Nov 30, 2006 Jkt 028758 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS06\072706\28758 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
21

nologies for accessing the underwater environment, but information collection is limited to observations from humans in submersibles or remote observations from cameras carried by robots tethered to the ship. An increased focus on ocean technologies

would complement ship-based explorations by advancing the development and use

of new underwater exploration assets and sensors, especially including autonomous

underwater vehicles and remote sensing. Autonomous robots with their expanded

sensing capabilities could significantly increase the pace of exploration, discovery,

and generation of new knowledge. Such technological advancements would benefit

the entire marine science community by developing improved systems for oceanographic research, communication, navigation, and data collection.

The OE and NURP programs currently collaborate in a number of areas including

expedition planning and execution, and data management. The full details of the

merger are currently under discussion and will depend upon several factors including input from the regional undersea research centers and the extramural community, and program funding levels.

Support of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan

NOAA is lead or co-lead for roughly half of the assigned items from the President’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan, and has made significant strides on several actions.

The Office of Ocean Exploration and NURP provide unique capabilities to gather,

synthesize, and apply information collected during expeditions of discovery to directly address many of the challenges described in the U.S. Commission on Ocean

Policy report and the President’s Ocean Action Plan. The Office of Ocean Exploration and NURP are supporting several of NOAA’s Ocean Action Plan actions

through activities including: conversion of the ship Okeanos Explorer for dedicated

ocean exploration, providing advanced undersea technologies to support and integrate with the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), participating in the

Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology development of an Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy, participating in Integrated

Coastal and Ocean Mapping activities, and conducting and participating in a range

of educational activities. In addition, NURP and OE support exploration and research projects which further conservation of deep corals, including deep corals

within the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. An OEsponsored expedition recently discovered extensive deep-water corals in the Olympic

Coast National Marine Sanctuary. In direct response to the Ocean Action Plan recommendation to ‘‘Research, Survey, and Protect Deep-Sea Coral Communities,’’ the

Office of Ocean Exploration supported four expeditions with international partners

in FY 2005 and is conducting additional activities in FY 2006 and FY 2007.

NOAA’s Views on H.R. 3835

NOAA supports the intent of H.R. 3835 to establish a coordinated national ocean

exploration program by building on the current capability within NOAA. This legislation would elevate the importance of science-based ocean exploration, and undersea technology development as a vital national activity and strengthen federal efforts to pursue and support it. H.R. 3835 recognizes the critical components of

NOAA’s current ocean exploration activities, including the development of new undersea technologies, outreach, and education. As part of its responsibilities NOAA

supports the authorization of interdisciplinary exploration to expand our knowledge

of the ocean’s living and non-living resources.

H.R. 3835 advances undersea technology development and furthers support for

undersea research and exploration by mandating that the program ‘‘make available

the infrastructure and expertise to service the undersea science needs of the academic community.’’ The legislation supports two of the most successful and unique

aspects of NURP: (1) harnessing the Nation’s extramural, academic expertise to provide solutions to NOAA’s undersea challenges, and (2) conducting an open, competitive process for allocation of resources. It also supports the important program areas

of undersea science-based education and outreach programs to enrich ocean science

education and public awareness, and the discovery, study, and development of natural products from ocean and aquatic systems. The bill also provides a sufficient

framework and guidance for ensuring that data generated by the programs will be

made available to a broad spectrum of users, in essence supporting the approach

that has already been developed within NOAA.

We do recommend that the following changes to the bill be considered. While

NOAA agrees with the goal of Section 104, to promote coordination, such a statutory

requirement is unnecessary and would duplicate existing efforts. NOAA currently

coordinates with other federal agencies on ocean exploration activities and plans for

the future. In addition, the coordination among federal agencies mentioned in the

bill will increase under the auspices of the new National Science and Technology

22

Council’s Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology. The functions of

the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology include identifying national ocean science and technology priorities and facilitating the coordination of

interdisciplinary ocean research, ocean technology, and infrastructure development.

Section 107 authorizes appropriations to carry out the National Ocean Explo- ration Program described above in increasing amounts from $30,500,000 in fiscal

year 2006 to $71,917,000 in fiscal year 2015, including $33,550,000 for fiscal year

2007. The Administration requests that the authorization levels in the bill be consistent with the President’s FY 2007 Budget Request, which provides $15,128,000

for the Ocean Exploration Program.

In light of the NURP restructuring effort, the language of H.R. 3835 remains pertinent with few changes. The purpose of NURP remains consistent with Title II of

the Act, to ‘‘increase scientific knowledge essential for the informed management,

use and preservation of oceanic, coastal and large lake resources through undersea

research, exploration, education and technology development.’’ However, NOAA requests that particular named equipment not be enacted into law so that the program can best maintain the flexibility required to meet rapidly changing technological developments and needs.

Section 207 authorizes appropriations to carry out the Undersea Research Pro- gram described above in increasing amounts from $12,500,000 in fiscal year 2006

to $29,474,000 in fiscal year 2015, including $13,750,000 in fiscal year 2007. The

Administration requests that the authorization levels in the bill be consistent with

the President’s FY 2007 Budget Request, which provides $9,152,000 for NURP in

FY 2007. In addition, the bill includes authorization language and authorization for

appropriations for the National Technology Institute. The Administration requests

this language be removed to remain consistent with the President’s Budget, which

does not provide funding for the National Technology Institute.

NOAA also notes that in Section 207, all funding is directed to regional centers

leaving no funding for administration of the program. Program administration

should be provided, with a cap of 10 percent of appropriated amounts. NOAA supports an undersea research program that is national in scope. The Administration

requests in the authorization of funding that no specific percentage of funding be

authorized to either the West Coast or East Coast Regional Centers. This change

would allow NOAA the flexibility to address research and technology needs from a

national perspective covering our interests in the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico,

and Great Lakes.

Conclusion

NOAA supports elevating the importance of ocean exploration based on sound scientific research as a vital national activity and endorses the strengthening of federal

efforts to pursue and support it. H.R. 3835 recognizes the critical components of

NOAA’s current ocean exploration activities, including the development of new undersea technologies, and outreach and education programs. We are encouraged that

the House of Representatives is considering this legislation to promote the importance of ocean exploration, and maintain and strengthen our ability to generate new

ocean knowledge. The U.S.’s strength and leadership in the oceans depends on our

nation’s ability to generate and harness the latest in scientific and technological developments and to apply these developments to real world applications such as the

management of our coastal and marine resources. A national ocean exploration and

undersea technology development program is vital to sustaining the scientific advancement and innovation needed to maintain our nation’s competitive edge in

ocean science and technology, as well as to continue to meet the new emerging

needs of NOAA’s mission.

BIOGRAPHY FOR RICHARD W. SPINRAD

Dr. Spinrad is the Assistant Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

(OAR). He is a native of New York City, and a graduate of the Johns Hopkins University (B.A.), Dr. Spinrad has broad experience in marine science, technology, operations and policy. During his career he has worked in a wide range of positions in

government, academia, industry and nongovernmental organizations. Spinrad

earned an M.S. in physical oceanography and a Ph.D. in marine geology from Oregon State University. As a research scientist at Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean

Sciences he developed and published concepts critical to our understanding of the

relationship between water clarity and marine biological productivity. Spinrad

served as President of Sea Tech, Incorporated during that company’s development

of several now-standard oceanographic sensors. He went on to manage oceanoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:34 Nov 30, 2006 Jkt 028758 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS06\072706\28758 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
23

graphic research at the Office of Naval Research (including serving as the Navy’s

first manager of its ocean optics program), eventually becoming the Division Director for all of the Navy’s basic and applied research in ocean, atmosphere and space

modeling and prediction. In 1994 Dr. Spinrad became the Executive Director of the

Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE) where he led the

development of the National Ocean Sciences Bowl for High School Students, and he

co-authored, with Admiral James D. Watkins, ‘‘Oceans 2000: Bridging the Millennia,’’ which served as the guiding document for the establishment of the National

Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP). In 1999 Spinrad became the Technical

Director to the Oceanographer of the Navy. In this position he provided leadership

and guidance for the development of the U.S. Navy’s oceanographic and meteorological operational support to Naval forces. Currently, Spinrad serves as the United

States permanent representative to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, and co-chairs the White House Joint Subcommittee on Ocean

Science and Technology.

Rick Spinrad is the President-Elect of The Oceanography Society, and served as

Editor-in-Chief of Oceanography magazine; he has served on numerous professional committees of organizations including the National Academy of Sciences and

the American Meteorological Society. Spinrad also served on the faculties of the U.S.

Naval Academy and George Mason University. He has spent over 300 days at sea

conducting research, and has published more than 50 scientific articles. Spinrad is

the editor of a textbook on ocean optics and several special issues of marine science

journals.

In 2003 Spinrad was awarded the Department of Navy Distinguished Civilian

Service Award, the highest civilian award that can be given by the Navy Department, and he has received a Presidential Rank Award. Dr. Spinrad lives in Falls

Church, Virginia with his wife Alanna and two beagles.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much. Mr. Shepard.

STATEMENT OF MR. ANDREW N. SHEPARD, DIRECTOR, SOUTHEASTERN U.S. AND GULF OF MEXICO, NATIONAL UNDERSEA

RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA–

WILMINGTON

Mr. SHEPARD. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,

thank you for the opportunity to address H.R. 3835. I have been

working for NOAA for 28 years, the last 22 for the NOAA Undersea Research Program. In that time, the program has evolved to

better serve the Nation, and now, we are on the verge of another

major step in this evolution.

My written testimony provides some history of this change and

accomplishments. Over the past two decades, the Undersea Research Program has supported more scientific diving than any

other single federal program in the country, matching the number

of dives performed by all the rest of NOAA combined per year. The

program has stressed innovation, discovery, and capacity building,

aiding NOAA in areas it needed our specialized help, such as ecosystems science and development of ocean observatories.

For two years, in 1999 and 2000, I commuted from my home in

North Carolina to NOAA headquarters in Maryland. My major task

was working with Barbara Moore, the NURP Director, the regional

NURP centers, and others in NOAA to devise a new ocean exploration program. In 2001, with the guidance from the Presidential

Panel coordinated by Ms. Moore, the Ocean Exploration Program

was born.

We in NURP are gratified to see the Ocean Exploration Program

mature and engage the world in the excitement of ocean frontiers.

Their risky, discovery-driven science, wherein the investigator does

not entirely know what they will find at the frontier, involves the

24

kind of uncertainty that often counts against exploratory work and

NSF-style peer review processes, unless specifically encouraged.

Now, it is time to recognize the need for a coordinated full spectrum of undersea science applications, from the high risk and high

reward expeditions and technology developments to how these discoveries benefit NOAA’s mission. Authorization for NURP and OE

together is a critical first step.

Does the bill capitalize on the strengths of the programs and address weaknesses? The bill addresses the major weakness of the

programs, and that is funding, both underfunding and instability

of funding. We strive to support the top scientists and technologists

in the Nation conducting relevant, high quality science, using advanced technologies. Trying to accomplish this goal on a year-toyear uncertain funding cycle has been a major weakness. This is

now how most federal programs that sponsor ocean science and

technology support their grant projects. Stable funding will allow

our science and technology developments to mature to useful results, and attract the very best experts.

Does the bill provide appropriate guidance for scope and direction? We are pleased with the bill’s guidance, which recognizes, retains, and builds on the existing strengths of the programs. Scientific research, for example, is recognized as a critical component

of the continuum from exploration to management needs, and a

driver for technology developments. The regional centers and their

local partners complement the global endeavors of ocean exploration by connecting discoveries to research and management done

at regional ecosystem scales, the heart of NOAA’s mission.

What steps are needed to ensure the rigor of these programs, and

will the programs be strengthened by the merger? Programmatic

rigor will be sustained through stable funding and business practices, such as credible peer review and outside, unbiased advisory

panels, as prescribed in the bill. As Chair and spokesperson for the

NURP Council Center Directors, we endorse the merger and its

benefits for a stronger, more relevant national program.

How should this merger be accomplished? At the request of

NOAA management, NURP and OE are now actively engaged in

planning for a new merged program. The bill lays the groundwork

for this planning. We especially look forward to the hiring of the

merged program’s director. This position is an opportunity to mold

the merged program into a fully integrated team.

In closing, as stated by the President in 1970, in his address to

Congress regarding NOAA’s birth, and still relevant today: ‘‘We

face a compelling need for exploration and development leading to

the intelligent use of our marine resources.’’ Meeting this challenge

through authorization of these programs is long overdue.

Thank you for this opportunity to address you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shepard follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDREW N. SHEPARD

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you

concerning H.R. 3835 entitled the ‘‘National Exploration Program Act’’ in Title I,

and the ‘‘NOAA Undersea Research Program Act of 2005’’ in Title II. I am grateful

to the Committee for your recognition of the importance and need for enhanced support and integration of ocean exploration and undersea research. I have been working for NOAA since 1978, the last 22 years with the NOAA Undersea Research ProVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:34 Nov 30, 2006 Jkt 028758 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS06\072706\28758 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
25

gram. In that time, I have seen the program go through many evolutions to better

serve the Nation—we are on the verge of another such evolution.

Why do we need specialized undersea research programs?

This a two part question: 1) why do we need to dive; and 2) why are dedicated

programs needed? Mysteriously to me, we often must justify why we endure risk

and spend time and money going underwater to study oceans. No one doubts the

need to study forest ecology or demographics of a city by entering them! Oceanography has traditionally relied on surface ships, and in recent decades, remote sensing, largely as these approaches are traditional or accessible. We are entering a new

age for ocean science: ecology is not a fringe discipline, but the core of the ‘‘ecosystem approach to management;’’ an electronic age when data and information can

flow at unprecedented rates using robotics and sensors for a vast array of new ocean

applications. The Undersea Research Program’s technology developments and operations have changed the face of ocean science; the Long-term Ecological Observatory

(LEO15) off New Jersey is a prototype coastal ocean observing system that early

recognized the importance of quality dive support. Nitrox scuba diving is now supported by most dive shops and academic dive lockers in the country, spurred primarily by NURP development activities.

Why do we need dedicated programs? Simply stated, NOAA needs specialized undersea research programs as diving can be risky and complex. Most marine science

programs cannot afford to sustain the technologies and expertise required to keep

up evolving advanced diving techniques and technologies, which include robots, submarines, advanced scuba, and variety of related sampling tools.

Why have regional presences?

The practice of regionally located ‘‘centers of expertise’’ is common in many national programs, for example, Department of Energy’s National Labs or National Institute of Health Centers of Excellence. Their proven success lies partly in economy

of scale and common access to pools of specialized resources. NURP provides such

specialized undersea assets on over 11,000 scientific dives per year, involving over

200 separate partnering institutes, including 27 U.S. states (Attachment). This

mostly regional community functions as a vital research capacity needed to address

many of NOAA’s ocean science and management priorities. The concept of peer review-driven, regionally customized components of a national program encourages

quality, relevance, productivity, and cost-effectiveness. The NURP refereed publication rate mirrors academia as a whole, which is ten times higher than government

as a whole, at about 10 percent of the cost per publication, in part due to the invaluable contributions of teams of scientists, technologists, and students.

Regional presence enhances public outreach and extension. We actively participate

in region-based management activities, such as the fishery management councils,

state coastal management forums, and sanctuary and reserve advisory boards. It is

not just a matter of saving money on travel; we offer local knowledge and expertise

that is hard to sustain through a single national program. We want to sustain highquality useful science, but we also need to make it available to managers and the

people who live on the coasts.

Why are NURP, OE and NSF all supporting undersea science?

It is instructive to consider how these programs arose and their missions. NSF

was established in 1950 as ‘‘the Federal Government’s only agency dedicated to the

support of education and fundamental research in all scientific and engineering disciplines. Its mission is ‘‘to ensure that the United States maintains leadership in

scientific discovery and the development of new technologies’’ (http://www.nsf.gov/

about/history/). By 1954, studies ranging from use of high speed computing for

oceanography and deep sea bottom cores began. Since inception but especially in recent decades, NSF’s peer review process heavily favors hypothesis-driven, fundamental research. While this culture meets the NSF mission, it does not necessarily

encourage exploratory endeavors or applied research.

NOAA was established in 1970, pursuant to the Stratton Commission, essentially

by combining the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey (formed in 1807), the

Weather Bureau (formed in 1870), and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (formed

in 1871) (http://www.history.noaa.gov/noaa.html). As stated by President Nixon in

his address to Congress that accompanied the related Reorganization Plan (Number

4 of 1970), ‘‘We face a compelling need for exploration and development leading to

the intelligent use of our marine resources. We must understand the nature of these

resources, and assure their development without either contaminating the marine

environment or upsetting its balance.’’

The first undersea science and technology program in NOAA, the Manned Undersea Science and Technology program, soon followed in 1971. In 1980, the National

26

Research Council endorsed the need for such a program in NOAA, but expanded it

to become the NURP model with regional centers of expertise. For its first 20 years,

NURP research spanned the spectrum of undersea science from deep exploration to

shallow applied science, such as coral reef studies. However, as funding was cut

drastically in 1996, more expensive exploration and new technology developments

were compromised to sustain the applied scientific dive programs most needed by

NOAA.

In 2000, with a mandate from a Presidential Executive Order, a special panel led

by the NURP Director, Ms. Barbara Moore, produced a report, ‘‘Discovering Earth’s

Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration’’ (http://explore.noaa.gov/

about/pres¥panel¥report.pdf) that led to creation of the NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration (OE).

NURP endorsed this new program and initially expected that it would be integrated with the existing NURP program. I believe that NOAA decided to keep the

programs separate for a few reasons. At least initially, NOAA management wanted

to control the types of projects supported, as opposed to allowing open peer-review

to dictate the program direction. NOAA management was also concerned that the

exploration-based objectives remain distinct from NURP’s strategic (mission-related)

research focus.

Should NURP and OE be merged?

Times have changed and now NURP and OE should be authorized and

merged. HR 3835, as presented in Title I and Title II, lays out the focus and

strengths of each program, and provides a foundation upon which NOAA can build

a new, coordinated program. OE has established a solid community of users, reputation, and need for exploration science, and operates in global waters. The program

encourages quests and queries that might not survive an NSF peer review competition, but often are led by NSF-sponsored investigators seeking to venture into poorly

understood science and regions. However, as a NOAA program, it cannot afford to

end its investigations by only asking questions. NURP’s regional Centers conduct

research and technology development to support NOAA’s mission, particularly in the

area of ecosystem-based management. The Centers have relationships at the regional level, with NOAA field offices, academic institutions, managers, and other

State- and regional-level entities. The Centers also have expertise in undersea technologies needed in their regions, and in some cases provide those technologies themselves. A closer working partnership between OE and NURP will allow the regional

programs to follow up on the OE explorations with more focused research that will

serve NOAA’s mandate to both understand and manage ocean resources.

Closing Remarks:

In closing, this authorization is long overdue. The Bill addresses the major weakness of the programs—under-funding and instability of funding. We seek to support

cutting edge science projects using advanced technologies, wielded by the top scientists and technologists in the Nation. Trying to accomplish this goal on a yearto-year uncertain funding cycle has been our major weakness. This is not how NIH,

ONR, NSF or NASA, for example, support their research grant projects. With stable

funding we can allow the science and technology development projects to mature to

useful results, and attract the very best experts.

Previous attempts to authorize have been thwarted by political concerns more

than need for the programs. H.R. 3835 lays the groundwork for a credible, long-lasting, and flexible national program of science, technology development, and ocean literacy. With your help and guidance, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, we

can clear the final hurdles to authorizing these important national programs.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Committee’s deliberations.

27

28

BIOGRAPHY FOR ANDREW N. SHEPARD

CAREER GOAL AND RESEARCH INTERESTS

Utilize technical, academic and research background to conduct scientific undersea research, and generate funds for marine research and education. Areas of scientific interest and expertise include: benthic ecology of off-shore reef ecosystems,

fishing gear technology; impacts of fishing gear on seafloor habitats; applications of

Information Technology for organizing and presenting research results.

EXPERIENCE HIGHLIGHTS

Director, NURC at UNCW (1988–Present). Previous positions as Center Science

Director (1988–1999), Center Associate Director (2000–2004). Program objectives:

provide advanced undersea research systems to regional scientists for investigations

in support of NOAA’s mission—health of ocean resources and environments. Primarily responsible for: 1) administration, 2) program development and 3) oceanographic research: Supervisor: Dr. Dan Baden Director, UNCW Center for Marine

Science (910–962–2308, baden@uncw.edu).

Other relevant positions related to career goal:

• Program Development Coordinator—Coastal Ocean Monitoring and Research

Program (2001–2002): Ocean observing system and research program off

North and South Carolina coasts. Responsibilities included development of

data management system, development of co-funding opportunities, creation

of program progress reports.

• Program Officer—National Undersea Research Program (1999–2001): Headquarters for National Undersea Research Centers; 18-month contract, on

leave of absence from UNCW; responsibilities included grants and contracts

management, development of NURP management information system and

web site, development of future funding initiatives, and strategic planning.

• Deputy Science Director—NURP regional center for New England and the

Great Lakes (1984–1988): Responsibilities included direction of Center’s Fishing Gear Evaluation Program, administrative and technical support (computers and LAN management), center progress reports; diving support (e.g.,

ROV pilot, scuba) for field center research projects.

• NOAA Commissioned Officer, Lieutenant (Navy rank) (1978–1984): Assignments included: Manned Undersea Research and Technology Program, Woods

Hole, MA; Field Operations Officer, NOAA ship Mt. Mitchell overseeing hydrographic (bathymetric charting) and oceanographic research missions.

29

EDUCATION

1975–1977: University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA; Master of Science Degree

in Marine Science

1971–1975: Bates College, Lewiston, ME; Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology

SPECIALIZED TRAINING, CERTIFICATIONS AND SKILLS

• Navigation: Visual, Celestial, Electronic (SatNav, Loran, GPS)

• Surveying: Triangulation, Geodesy, Horizontal Leveling

• Diving: Surface Supplied, divemaster, decompression, saturation, mixed gas

technical (to 70 meters), Nitrox, dry suit; submersible pilot (DeepWorker

2000); ROV pilot (DOE Phantoms, Benthos Minirover), Diver Medical Technician (EMT plus Recompression Chamber Operation, Diving Medicine, and Accident Management, Oxygen Administration)

• Statistics: ANOVA, COANOVA, Non-parametrics, Graphical Interpretation;

SAS, SPSS, Minitab

• Computers: C++ Programming, HTML/Active Server Pages/Web Page creation, Relational Database Management, Geographic Information System

(ArcView 3.3)

CURRENT ORGANIZATIONS & COMMITTEES

• Governor appointee, Advisory Council, North Carolina Museum of Natural

Science (2004–present)

• Co-Chair, Executive Board of Advisors, NSF Center for Ocean Science Education Excellence-Southeast Region COSEE–SE (2002–present)

• South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Coral Advisory Panel (2005–

present)

• NOAA Deep Sea Coral Planning Team (2002–present)

• Dive Safety Control Board, UNCW

RECENT PUBLICATIONS

Shepard, A.N. and A.J. McCurdy. 2003. The Link Project: Partnerships to Promote

Sea and Space Exploration and Technology Development. Sea Technology

44(7):47–52.

Koenig, C.C., A.N. Shepard, J.K. Reed, F.C. Coleman, S.D. Brooke, J. Brusher, and

K.M. Scanlon. 2005. Habitat and fish populations in the deep-sea Oculina coral

Ecosystem of the western Atlantic. American Fisheries Society Symposium

41:795–805.

Reed, J.K., A. Shepard, C. Koenig, K. Scanlon, and G. Gilmore. 2005. Mapping,

habitat characterization, and fish surveys of the deep-water Oculina coral reef

Marine Protected Area: a review of historical and current research. Proceedings

of Second International Symposium on Deep Sea Corals, Sept. 9–12, 2003, Erlangen, Germany. Springer-Verlag.

Harter, S. and A.N. Shepard. In press. Deep sea coral ecosystem monitoring: case

study of the Oculina Bank marine reserve. Bull. Mar. Sci.

Reed, J.K., C.C. Koenig, and A.N. Shepard. In press. Effects of Bottom Trawling on

a Deep-Water Oculina Coral Ecosystem. Bull. Mar. Sci.

Chairman EHLERS. And Dr. McNutt.

STATEMENT OF DR. MARCIA K. MCNUTT, PRESIDENT AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Dr. MCNUTT. Good afternoon, Chairman Ehlers and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am Marcia McNutt, Director of MBARI, a small, private, nonprofit research institute that

was founded and funded by David Packard to be a technology incubator for the ocean research community.

I also chaired the 32-member President’s Panel, which in just 60

days, convened, deliberated, and completed a succinct report laying

30

out the motivation, objectives, priorities, and essential elements of

a comprehensive national program in ocean exploration. This report led to the establishment of NOAA’s OE program, and continues to guide it to this day.

Let me briefly explain the importance of NOAA’s OE program to

the Nation, and also to NOAA. With a healthy and vigorous ocean

exploration program, the Nation benefits from policy-makers, such

as yourselves, and citizens so inspired by the wonders and mysteries of the ocean that they insist on the acquisition and application of state of the art knowledge and understanding of the ocean

that enriches us both economically and spiritually.

Ocean exploration supports NOAA’s mission by making new and

unexpected discoveries that overthrow reigning paradigms, leading

to new management strategies that actually work. Ocean exploration is distinguished from research by the fact that exploration

leads to questions, research leads to answers. Often, novel discoveries are made accidentally in the process of performing hypothesis-driven research, but with a purposeful exploration program,

those discoveries are more likely to be appreciate for what they are

documented, and followed-up.

For example, one of the greatest surprises in oceanography in the

20th century was the discovery of the hot-vent communities, the

deep sea oases that thrive in seawater geothermally heated to several hundred degrees centigrade. This entire new ecosystem led to

huge new possibilities for how life might be sustained elsewhere in

the universe. This discovery led to new questions. What is their energy source? How do proteins fold at such high temperatures? We

would not even know enough to have asked these questions had

this discovery not been made, and in fact, it almost wasn’t.

The shipboard party involved was entirely geologists and geophysicists. There wasn’t a single biologist on board that ship to witness what was to become the most important discovery made in

marine biology ever. The shipboard party lacked such basic biological supplies that the geophysicists had to sacrifice all of their vodka

to preserve the novel specimens they collected.

Such discoveries don’t need to be rare, accidental, or potentially

unappreciated, with a strong, vigorous, and systematic ocean exploration program. This graphic that is up here shows how NOAA’s

OE program might ideally relate to the broader ocean research

agenda and to the NURP program.

New discoveries are made by either looking in new places, the

left side of the upper box, or by deploying new tools, the right side

of the box, which see the ocean in new dimensions. Now, the

strength of a federal organization like NOAA undertaking this program is that they can be systematic about going to new places, the

left side of the box. NOAA’s weakness in this undertaking is the

right side of the box. They are not known for their prowess in technology development. That is a strength of H.R. 3835, in that it creates this interagency taskforce, which brings in ONR, NASA, and

other agencies, which can help contribute new technology to ocean

exploration.

The discoveries lead to new questions, the white arrow going

down, and some of these questions will be relevant to NOAA’s mission. Others will be relevant to the missions of other agencies.

31

Again, the interagency taskforce in H.R. 3835 will facilitate the

sharing of discoveries with other parties that are more likely to follow up on them. The National Science Foundation should be added

explicitly to that taskforce, as it is mostly likely that NSF will support the early research resulting from exploration discoveries, until

such time as their relevance to other agency missions or commercial organizations is clear.

For those discoveries deemed relevant to NOAA’s mission, the

NURP program can serve as something of a halfway house, serving

as a bridge between OE’s discoveries and the eventual incorporation and application of that knowledge and understanding within

NOAA’s line agencies.

Currently, I see two challenges to NOAA’s OE program, and the

first isn’t money. The first is that ocean exploration is not part of

NOAA’s mission. Exploration is part of NASA’s mission. NASA is

our space agency. Why isn’t it part of NOAA’s mission, if NOAA

is our oceans agency? I would like to see, under section 103, that

the NOAA Administrator be advised to add exploration to NOAA’s

mission.

I do see that this bill goes in the right direction, in terms of

bringing critical funding to OE’s budget, but just in comparison, my

own institution spends $30 million a year exploring Monterey Bay.

It is a big ocean out there, and we need more money for ocean exploration.

I would also like to comment on the potential merger. Strengths

of the merger would be in facilitating the transfer of ocean exploration discoveries to followup within NOAA through the NURP program, but I also see challenges. An ideal OE program undertakes

multi-disciplinary voyages of discovery for the benefit of all ocean

sciences. NURP is intended to be more targeted to serve NOAA’s

line agencies in their basic science needs.

OE’s explorers will not necessarily be the same people who benefit from the discoveries, whereas NURP investigators fully expect

to be the ones who reap the scientific rewards. OE must be systematic in its program, whereas NURP has traditionally supported a

portfolio of disconnected projects. OE will be most successful if it

has strong central management to ensure common standards, professional data management, and extensive research, whereas

NURP has employed a very distributed management system.

I think that this merger could be successful, but in the arrangement that I show here, where NURP acts to follow up on OE discoveries, and that also benefits OE by allowing OE to shed the burden of capitalizing on its discoveries deemed relevant to NOAA’s

line agencies, such that OE can remain true to its focus on pure

exploration for the benefit of all ocean sciences.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. I hope my views are

of some help. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. McNutt follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARCIA K. MCNUTT

Good afternoon, Chairman Ehlers, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards. I am Marcia McNutt, director of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) in California.

MBARI is a small, private, non-profit research laboratory founded by David Packard

to serve as a technology incubator for the ocean research community. I am pleased

32

to be here today to provide my views on two of the National Ocean and Atmospheric

Administration’s (NOAA’s) programs, Ocean Exploration (OE) and the National Undersea Research Program (NURP), and more specifically on pending legislation H.R.

3835.

First, allow me to preface my remarks with the statement that I have nothing

to gain personally from this legislation. My own research is not now and never has

been funded by NOAA, and only an insignificant amount of my institution’s entire

budget is derived from NOAA programs. My motivation in addressing you today is

simply to do what is right for the Nation and for the oceans.

Next, I will explain my involvement with the Ocean Exploration and NURP programs. I chaired the 32-member President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration which, in

just 60 days, convened, deliberated, and completed a succinct report laying out the

motivation, objectives, priorities, and essential elements of a comprehensive national

program. This report led to the establishment of the NOAA exploration program and

continues to guide it to this day. In addition, my institution has had a long-standing

agreement with the West Coast office of NURP whereby NURP-funded investigators

get access to my institution’s unique ships and remotely operated vehicles for undersea research, neither of which are ordinarily available to outside users. This arrangement not only provides access to state-of-the-art capabilities for academic and

NOAA researchers, but also provides greater external visibility and demand for

MBARI’s technology and marine assets. The NURP program, while having hardly

any impact on MBARI’s budget, is an important factor in our technology transfer

strategy.

Let me briefly explain the importance of NOAA’s Ocean Exploration program to

the Nation and to NOAA. With a healthy and vigorous Ocean Exploration program,

the Nation benefits from policy makers, such as yourselves, and citizens so inspired

by the wonders and mysteries of the ocean that they insist on the acquisition and

application of state of the art knowledge and understanding of the oceans for informed ocean management. Ocean Exploration supports NOAA’s mission by exploring the ocean in all dimensions to make new and unexpected discoveries that overthrow reigning paradigms.

Ocean exploration is distinguished from research by the fact that exploration

leads to questions, while research leads to answers. When one undertakes exploration, it is without any preconceived notion of what one might find or who might

benefit from the discoveries. Research, on the other hand, is undertaken to test a

certain hypothesis, with the clear understanding of the benefits of either supporting

or refuting the hypothesis under consideration. Often novel discoveries are made accidentally in the process of performing hypothesis-driven research, but with a purposeful exploration program, those discoveries are more likely to be appreciated for

what they are, properly documented, and followed-up.

Here is a concrete example. One of the greatest surprises in oceanography in the

20th century was the discovery of the hot-vent communities, deep-sea oases that

thrive in sea water geothermally heated to several hundred degrees centigrade.

These animals form an entire ecosystem completely independent of the sun’s energy,

and their existence opens up huge new possibilities for how life might be sustained

elsewhere in the universe. This discovery led to a host of new research questions.

What is the energy source for this new style of community? How do proteins fold

at such high temperatures? By what reproductive strategy do deep-sea vent organisms manage to find and colonize new, isolated vent systems as the old ones die?

These are important questions, but ones that we would not know enough to even

ask had the discovery not happened. And it almost didn’t. The shipboard party involved was entirely geologists and geophysicists. There wasn’t a single biologist on

board to appreciate the significance of what was to become the most important discovery in marine biology. Ever. Lacking basic biological supplies, the geophysicists

had to sacrifice all of their vodka to preserve the novel specimens they collected.

Such discoveries don’t need to be rare, accidental, or potentially unappreciated

with a strong, vigorous, and systematic ocean exploration program. I created a

graphic (Figure 1) to show how NOAA’s OE program might ideally relate to the

broader ocean research agenda and to the NURP program.

33

The upper box is meant to represent NOAA’s Ocean Exploration program. New

discoveries are made by exploring new places, and/or by deploying new tools which

‘‘see’’ the ocean in new dimensions. With roughly 95 percent of the ocean still unexplored, and new tools that image the physics, chemistry, biology, and geology of the

ocean at all scales being developed constantly, the opportunities for discovery are

virtually limitless. The greatest strength of having a federal organization such as

NOAA leading this effort is the fact that it can undertake a systematic, multi-disciplinary exploration of the ocean. However, if I had to identify NOAA’s weakness

in terms of being the lead agency for this effort, it is the fact that NOAA is not

widely known for its prowess in developing new technology. For this reason, I support the provision in H.R. 3835 that establishes an interagency task force which includes NASA and ONR to facilitate the transfer of new exploration technology to

the program.

Those discoveries lead to new research questions. In the case of a NOAA Ocean

Exploration program, some of the research questions will be quite relevant to

NOAA’s mission, while others will need to be pursued by other agencies, such as

the National Science Foundation, Navy, or the National Institutes of Health. Again,

the interagency task force established in H.R. 3835 will facilitate the sharing of discoveries with other parties who would be more likely to follow them up. Definitely

the National Science Foundation should be added explicitly to this list, as it is most

likely that NSF will support the early research resulting from exploration discoveries until such time as their relevance to other agency missions or commercial organizations is clear.

For those discoveries that are deemed relevant to NOAA’s mission, the NURP program provides an excellent mechanism for research follow-up. The NURP program

is peer reviewed, so that only the most exciting hypotheses proposed by the top researchers are pursued, and it provides access to the necessary deep-sea assets, such

34

as manned submarine, remotely operated vehicles, and autonomous underwater vehicles. The NURP program can be considered something of a half-way house, serving as a bridge between OE’s discoveries and eventual incorporation and application

of the scientific knowledge and understanding within NOAA’s line agencies.

NOAA’s OE program is the only ocean exploration, sensu stricto, accomplished

with federal funds. The only other organizations that undertake ocean exploration

for the sake of unfettered discovery are my own institution, using funds we receive

from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and Bob Ballard’s Institute for Exploration. The NOAA OE program, thanks to some inspired and dedicated leadership within NOAA, is trying to build a first-class program. But they face two challenges. One is that, to date, exploration is not specifically in NOAA’s mission statement. Exploration is part of NASA’s mission, and NASA is the Nation’s space agency. Why shouldn’t exploration be part of NOAA’s mission, if NOAA is our oceans

agency? It certainly isn’t because we have already found everything that needs to

be discovered! In the most recently released NOAA Strategic Plan, the words ‘‘ocean

exploration’’ did not appear even once. I believe it would very much help the situation if under Section 103 in H.R. 3835, the NOAA Administrator was advised to add

exploration to NOAA’s mission. A second problem is the lack of sufficient funding

for the program. The amount of funds appropriate for OE is equivalent to the roundoff error in NASA’s budget. My own institution spends about $30 M/year, twice OE’s

budget, exploring just Monterey Bay. It is a big ocean out there, and H.R. 3835 does

a credible job at ramping up the OE budget authorization.

I was also asked to specifically comment on a potential merger of OE and NURP.

Strengths of a merger would be in facilitating the transfer of exploration discoveries

to research follow-up, as diagramed in Figure 1 above, and in turn making deep sea

assets available to the Ocean Exploration program through mechanisms already in

place with NURP. However, I also see many challenges. An ideal OE program undertakes multi-disciplinary voyages of discovery for the benefit of all of ocean

sciences. NURP is intended to be more targeted in the projects it undertakes so as

to serve the needs of NOAA’s line agencies for basic scientific understanding. OE’s

‘‘explorers’’ will not necessarily be the same people who will benefit from the discoveries. NURP investigators fully expect to be the ones who reap the scientific rewards

from their efforts. OE must be systematic in its program in order to make any

progress, whereas NURP has traditionally supported a portfolio of disconnected

projects. OE will be most successful if there is strong central management to ensure

common standards, professional data management, and extensive outreach, whereas

NURP has employed a very distributed management system. If OE is managed like

NURP or as a component of NURP, it would be a disaster. However, I believe that

a relationship as I identified above in Figure 1 could be successful: NURP acting

to follow up with OE discoveries. In that arrangement, OE sheds the burden of capitalizing on its discoveries deemed relevant to the missions of NOAA’s line agencies,

and can remain true to its focus on pure exploration for the benefit of all ocean

sciences.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment, and I hope my views are of some help

in your deliberations.

BIOGRAPHY FOR MARCIA K. MCNUTT

2/19/52 Born, Minneapolis, Minnesota

6/70 Graduated from high school, Northrop Collegiate School, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

5/73 B.A. in Physics from Colorado College, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

1/78 Ph.D. in Earth Sciences from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla,

California. Dissertation title: Continental and Oceanic Isostasy.

Awards and Fellowships

1970—Class valedictorian, recipient of awards for mathematics, science and French.

1970–1971—National Merit Scholarship

1973—Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude

1973–1976—National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship

1977–1978—University of California Dissertation Fellowship

1984, 1993—Journal of Geophysical Research Editor’s Citation for Excellence in Refereeing

1985—Graduate Student Council Award for Teaching

35

1985–1986—Mary Ingraham Bunting Fellow, Radcliffe College

1988—Macelwane Award, American Geophysical Union

1988—Fellowship, American Geophysical Union

1988—Doctor of Science, honoris causa, Colorado College

1989–1990—NSF Visiting Professorship for Women, Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University

1991–1997—Griswold Professor of Geophysics

1993—Outstanding Alumni Award, The Blake Schools, Minneapolis

1995—Capital Science Lecturer, Carnegie Institution

1996–1997—Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholar

1996—MIT School of Science Graduate Teaching Prize

1998—Fellowship, Geological Society of America

1997—Science and Technology Fellow, CSU Monterey Bay

1998—Fellowship, American Association for the Advancement of Science

1999—Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

1998—Sanctuary Reflections Award, Special Recognition Category, Monterey Bay

National Marine Sanctuary

2002—Elected member American Philosophical Society

2003—ARCS Scientist of the Year

2004—National Associate, National Academy of Science

2004—Alumna of the Year, University of California, San Diego

2004—Doctor of Science, honoris causa, University of Minnesota

2005—Elected member, National Academy of Sciences

Post-graduate Employment

1/78–6/78—Postdoctoral Research Associate, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

6/78–7/79—Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

6/79–6/82—Geophysicist, Branch of Tectonophysics, Office of Earthquake Studies,

U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California.

7/82–7/86—Assistant Professor of Geophysics, Department of Earth, Atmospheric,

and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

7/86—Associate Professor of Geophysics, EAPS, MIT.

7/89–3/98—Professor of Geophysics, EAPS, MIT.

7/93–7/95—Associate Director, MIT SeaGrant College Program.

7/95–8/97—Director, MIT/WHOI Joint Program in Oceanography and Applied Ocean

Science and Engineering.

9/97–present—President/CEO Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute.

6/98–present—Professor, Department of Earth Science, UC–Santa Cruz (on leave).

10/98–present—Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University.

Special Training

8/74—Completed U.S. Navy UDT and Seal Team training course in underwater

demolition and explosives handling. Also, NAUI certified SCUBA diver and Red

Cross Water Safety Instructor.

Sea Experience

Participant on 14 oceanographic expeditions on ships from Scripps, Woods Hole, Oregon State University, and Columbia University.

Co-chief scientist on Crossgrain 2 marine geophysical expedition to the Marquesas

Islands, April 1987.

Co-chief scientist on the R/V Maurice Ewing EW9103 multi-channel seismic expedition to French Polynesia, May, 1991.

Chief scientist on the R/V Maurice Ewing EW9106 marine geophysical survey of the

Marquesas Fracture Zone, September-October, 1991.

Chief scientist on the R/V Maurice Ewing EW9204 ocean bottom seismometer experiment in the Marquesas Islands, May, 1992.

36

Co-chief scientist on BARGE, a multi-channel seismic survey on Lake Mead of the

Colorado Plateau—Basin and Range breakaway zone, March, 1994.

Chief scientist on R/V Maurice Ewing EW9602, multi-channel seismic survey of the

Austral Islands, March-May, 1996.

Chief scientist on R/V Roger Revelle expedition to measure hydrothermal heat flux

in the Hawaiian Islands, August-September, 1997.

Professional Societies

American Geophysical Union (Fellow)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (Fellow)

Geological Society of America (Fellow)

Other Activities

Past

Journal of Geophysical Research Associate Editor, 1980–1983

Journal of Geophysical Research guest editor, 1983

Pure and Applied Geophysics, editorial board, 1987–1988

Member, IUGG special studies group on density and stress differences within the

Earth, 1980–1983

Member, IUGG special studies group on geodynamics of mountain belts, 1983–1987

Member, NSF panel for graduate fellowships in Earth Sciences, 1985, 1986, 1987

(Chairman 1988, 1989, 1990)

NSF Ocean Sciences, Panelist, 1986–1988, 1990

NSF Science and Technology Centers Panelist, 1989

Member NASA science steering group for the Geopotential Research Mission 1978–

1988.

Chairman, Science Working Group, NASA Gradiometer Study Team, 1987

Panel Co-Chairman, NASA Coolfont Workshop, 1989

Member, Committee on Geodesy, National Research Council, 1982–1984

Member, Geodynamics Committee, National Research Council, 1984–1987

Member, Earth Science Committee, National Research Council, 1987–1989

Member, AGU Tectonophysics nominating committee, 1983, 1985

Member, AGU Budget and Finance Committee, 1986–1988

Chairman, AGU Journals Board, 1988–1990

Chairman, Tectonophysics Fellows Committee, AGU, 1990, 1992

Chairman, AGU Publications Committee, 1990–1992

Member, Tectonics editor search committee, 1983

Member, Lithosphere Panel, Ocean Drilling Program, 1986–1988

Member, National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Advisory Committee,

1991

Chairman, AGU Publications Committee, 1990–1992

Chairman, Joint Committee for Marine Geology and Geophysics, MIT/WHOI Joint

Program, 1984–1988, 1991–1995

President, special study group ‘‘Transmission of Stress and Geodynamic Implication,’’ International Association of Geodesy, 1987–1991

Tectonophysics editorial board, 1982–1991

Member, Atolls and Guyots Detailed Planning Group, Ocean Drilling Program, 1991

Member, Performance Evaluation Committee, Ocean Drilling Program, 1991

Member, Organizing Committee for the Frontiers of Science Symposium, National

Academy of Sciences, 1991–1992, 1994

Chairman, Visiting Committee, Geological Sciences Department, U of Arizona, 1992

Member, Advisory Committee for Earth Sciences, National Science Foundation,

1990–1993

Member, NASA Earth Science and Applications Division Advisory Subcommittee,

1990–1993

Member, Advisory Structure Review Committee, Ocean Drilling Program, 1992–

1993

37

Chairman, Organizing Committee for the Frontiers of Science Symposium, National

Academy of Sciences, 1993

Chairman, Visiting Committee, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 1993

SEI (Study of the Earth’s Interior) Committee, American Geophysical Union, 1992–

1994

Audit and Legal Affaris Committee, American Geophysical Union, 1992–1994

Nominating Committee, American Geophysical Union, 1992–1994

Member, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, National Research Council, 1994

Member, Committee on Geophysical and Environmental Data, National Research

Council, 1994

Member, National Academy of Sciences Television Advisory Committee, 1994

Member, Committee to Study the Criteria for Federal Support for Research and Development (Press Committee), 1995

President, Tectonophysics section, American Geophysical Union, 1992–1994

Chair, Audit and Legal Affaris Committee, American Geophysical Union, 1994–1996

Member, Organizing Committee for the German-American Frontiers of Science Symposium, 1995, 1996

Chair, External Review Committee, Department of Geological Sciences, UC Santa

Barbara, 1997

Member, External Review Committee, Department of Geology and Geophysics, U of

Minnesota, 1997

Member, Lincoln Lab Advisory Board, 1994–1997

Member, National Medal of Science Committee, 1995–1997

Member, New England Aquarium Advisory Board, 1995–1997

Co-Chair, NSF-OCE Workshop on the Future of Marine Geosciences, 1995–1998

Vice-Chair, Advisory Committee for Geosciences, National Science Foundation,

1996–1998

Chair, Macelwane Award Committee, American Geophysical Union, 1996–1998

Co-Chair, Chinese-American Frontiers of Science Symposium, August, 1998

Member, Government-University-Industry-Research-Roundtable committee on

Stress in Universities, 1995–1998

Member, NRC committee on the Science of Earthquakes, 1996–1999

Member, NRC Committee on 50 Years of Ocean Sciences at NSF, 1998

Member, ODP Executive Committee for Drilling Opportunities in the 21st Century,

1998–1999

Member, German-American Academic Council, 1994–1999

Member, Ocean Research Advisory Panel, National Ocean Partnership Program,

2000–2001

Member, Ocean Science Synthesis Committee, NSF, 1998–2001

Chair, NOAA Exploration Panel, 2000–2001

President, American Geophysical Union, 2000–2002

Member, Exploration of the Seas Committee, National Research Council, 2001–2004

Member, Review Committee for the Division on Earth and Life Sciences, National

Academy of Sciences, 2003–2004

Member, Jackson School Vision Committee, University of Texas at Austin, 2003–

2004

Past President, American Geophysical Union, 2002–2004

Member, Visiting Committee, Department of Ocean Engineering, MIT, 1999–2004

Chair, Ocean Research Advisory Panel, National Ocean Partnership Program, 2001–

2005

Present

Member, Visiting Committee, Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT, 2005–

present

Whale Conservation Fund Advisory Council, 2004–present

Member, Visiting Committee, School of Earth Sciences, Stanford University, 1999–

present

38

Chair, Visiting Committee, Department of Earth and Planetary Science, Harvard

University, 2002–present

Member, External Review Committee for Marine Science Institute, University of

California at Santa Barbara, 2006

Member, Advisory Board, Winchell School of Earth Sciences, University of Minnesota, 2005–present

Member, Board of Directors, Monterey Bay Aquarium, 1998–present

Member, Schlumberger Technical Advisory Committee, 2000–present

Member, Editorial Advisory Committee, Science magazine, 2001–present

Chair, Monterey Bay Crescent Ocean Research Consortium, 2000–2006

Chair-elect, Board of Directors, Joint Oceanographic Institutions

Member, Ocean Council, joint task force for Joint Oceanographic Institutions and

the Consortium for Ocean Research and Education

Member, Class membership committee, National Academy of Sciences

Reviewer for JGR, GJRAS, Tectonophysics, Nature, Tectonics, Journal of Geophysics, EPSL, PEPI, GRL, RGSP, PAGEOPH, NSF, NASA, LPRI, NERC

Invited Lectures

Caltech (1978, 1980, 1997), U. of Minnesota (1978, 1996, 125th Anniversary Lecturer, 1999, IT Distinguished Woman Lecturer, 2003, 2005), Harvard (1978, 1984),

U.C. Santa Barbara (1978, 1981), Cornell University (1978, 1983), U. of Michigan

(1979, 1989, 1994), Dalhousie (1979), Lamont-Doherty (1980, 1985, 1986, 1989,

1995; 50th Anniversary Lecture 1999), Stanford (1980, 1984, 1998, 2003), Sandia

Labs (1981), MIT (1981; Wallace Lecture: 1998, 2005), Woods Hole (1981, 1985,

1987, 1989), UC Berkeley (1982; 1989; 1995; 1998), UCLA (1982, 1989), Society of

Engineering Science (1982), Washington University at St. Louis (1982), Brown

(1983, 1989, 1994), Yale (1983, 1985, 1995), Scripps Institution of Oceanography

(80th Anniversary Lecturer: 1983; 1995, 2002), 27th International Geological Congress, Moscow (1984), Institute of Physics of the Earth, Moscow (1984, 1987), U. of

Wyoming (1985, Dedication of Geosciences Building: 1998), Colorado College (1985,

1988, 2003), SUNY Stony Brook (1985), IUGG Workshop in Zurich (1985), U. Lowell

(1986), University of Rhode Island (1986, 1994), Radcliffe Summer Science Program

(1986, 1987), WHOI College Teachers Workshop (1987), Geological Society of Washington (1988, 2005), IGPP Los Alamos (1989), IPG, Paris (1989, 1996), Institute of

Computational Geophysics, Moscow (1989), Institute of Petroleum Research, Tel

Aviv (1989), York University (1990), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

(1990), Northwestern (1990), Penn State (1990), University of New Mexico (1991),

University of Texas at Austin (1991), Boston University (1992), Duke University

(1992), UMass, Amherst (1992, 1996), U of Washington (1993), Princeton University

(1993), National Academy of Sciences (1994), Keystone Scientist to Scientist

Colloquium (1994), Berlin Symposium on Issues Facing the German-American Academic Council (1994), U of Toronto (1994; J. Tuzo Wilson Lecture, 2004), MacMaster

University (1994), University of Maine (1995), Workshop on Science Education, University of Iowa (1995, 1996), Amherst College (1996), Smith College (1996), University of Brest, France (1996), Western Maryland College (1996), Hiram College

(1997), Carnegie-Mellon University (1997), St. Lawrence University (1997), Birmingham-Southern College (1997), University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee (1997),

Ripon College (1997), College of St. Catherine (1997), University of Hawaii (1998),

UC Santa Cruz (1998), Augsburg College (Sverdrup Lectures: 1998), Arizona State

Univeristy (1998), AAAS (1998, 1999), Library of Congress (1999), U.S. Geological

Survey (2000), Purdue University (Crough Lecture, 2000), White House Millenium

Matinee (2000), Trinity University (2000), University of Utah (2001), ACM1 Computer Conference (Keynote Speaker, 2001), Revelle Lecture (NAS, 2001), American

Academy of Arts and Sciences (2001), Oceans 2001 (Keynote lecture, 2001), University of South Carolina (Convocation Speaker, 2002), Ocean’s Symposium, Anchorage,

AL (2002); JAMESTEC 30th Anniversary Symposium (2002), Oregon State University (Condon Lecture: 2002, 2005), University of California, San Diego (2002), Illinois Math and Science Academy (2003), ARCS Foundation (2003), Women in Science

and Engineering, UCSD (2003), Nuclear and Space Radiation Effects keynote speaker (2003), Division of Planetary Sciences, American Astronomical Society plenary

speaker (2003), Barrow Arctic Science Consortium public lecture (2003), PortugueseAmerican Foundation Annual Lecture in Marine Sciences, Lisbon (2004), 9th Circuit

Court Judicial Conference (2004); Marin County Women Lawyers (2004), MIT–ME

dept (2005), Santa Fe Institute (2005), Naval Postgraduate School (2005), PopTech

(2005), Space Mission Challenges (2006).

39

PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS

1. McNutt, M.K. and R.L. Parker, Isostasy in Australia and the evolution of the

compensation mechanism, Science 199, 773–775, 1978.

2. McNutt, M.K. and H.W. Menard, Lithospheric flexure and uplifted atolls, J.

Geophys. Res. 83, 1206–1212, 1978.

3. Shih, J.S.F., T. Atwater, and M.K. McNutt, A near-bottom geophysical traverse

of the Reykjanes Ridge, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 39, 75–83, 1978.

4. McNutt, M.K., Continental and Oceanic Isostasy, Ph.D. thesis, University of

California, San Diego, California, 1978.

5. McNutt, M.K. and H.W. Menard, Reply to comments on ‘Lithospheric flexure

and uplifted atolls’ by R.D. Jarrard and D.L. Turner, J. Geophys. Res. 84, 5695–

5697, 1979.

6. McNutt, M.K., Compensation of oceanic topography: An application of the response function technique to the Surveyor area, J. Geophys. Res. 84, 7589–7598,

1979.

7. McNutt, M.K. and H.W. Menard, Reply to comments on ‘Lithospheric flexure

and uplifted atolls’ by H.T. Stearns, J. Geophys. Res. 84, 7698, 1979.

8. Parker, R.L. and M.K. McNutt, Statistics for the one-norm misfit measure, J.

Geophys. Res. 85, 4429–4430, 1980.

9. McNutt, M.K., Implications of regional gravity for state of stress in the Earth’s

crust and upper mantle, J. Geophys. Res. 85, 6377–6397, 1980.

10. McNutt, M.K. and Thomas Heaton, An evaluation of the seismic window theory

for earthquake prediction, California Geology 34, 12–16, 1981.

11. McNutt, M.K. and Rodey Batiza, Paleomagnetism of Northern Cocos seamounts:

Constraints on absolute plate motion, Geology 9, 148–154, 1981.

12. Rundle, John and M.K. McNutt, Southern California uplift: Is it or isn’t it?

EOS, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union 62, 97–98, 1981 (refereed journal article).

13. Chase, C.G. and M.K. McNutt, The geoid: effect of compensated topography and

uncompensated trenches, Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, 29–32, 1982.

14. McNutt, M.K. and H.W. Menard, Constraints on yield strength in the oceanic

lithosphere derived from observations of flexure, Geophys. J. Roy. Astr. Soc. 71,

363–395, 1982.

15. Menard, H.W. and M.K. McNutt, Evidence for and consequences of thermal rejuvenation of the lithosphere, J. Geophys. Res. 87, 8570–8580, 1982.

16. Dixon, T.H., M. Naraghi, M.K. McNutt and S.M. Smith, Bathymetric prediction

from SEASAT altimeter data, J. Geophys. Res. 88, 1563–1571, 1983.

17. McNutt, M.K., Influence of plate subduction on isostatic compensation in northern California, Tectonics 2, 399–415, 1983.

18. McNutt, M.K., Reply to comments on ‘‘Nasal surgery and airflow,’’ Plastic and

Reconstructive Surgery 73, 700–701, 1984.

19. McNutt, M.K., Lithospheric flexure and thermal anomalies, J. Geophys. Res. 89,

11, 180–11, 194, 1984.

20. Committee on Geodesy, Geodesy: A Look to the Future, National Academy Press,

Washington, D.C., 1985.

21. McNutt, M.K., Nonuniform magnetization of seamounts: a least-squares approach, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 3686–3700, 1986.

22. Sheffels, B. and M.K. McNutt, The role of subsurface loads and regional compensation in the isostatic balance of the Transverse Ranges, California: Evidence for intracontinental subduction, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 6419–6431, 1986.

23. McNutt, M.K. and L. Shure, Estimating the compensation depth of the Hawaiian swell with linear filters, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 13915–13923, 1986.

24. Fischer, K., M.K. McNutt, and L. Shure, Thermal and mechanical constraints

on the lithosphere beneath the Marquesas swell, Nature 322, 733–736, 1986.

25. McNutt, M.K. and L. Royden, Extremal bounds on geotherms in eroding mountain belts from metamorphic pressure-temperature conditions, Geophys. J. Roy.

Astr. Soc. 88, 81–95, 1987.

26. Kogan, M.G. and M.K. McNutt, Isostasy in the USSR I: Admittance data, in The

Composition, Structure, and Dynamics of the Lithosphere-Asthenosphere System,

K. Fuchs and C. Froidevaux, eds., Geodynamics Series, AGU, vol. 16, 1987.

27. McNutt, M.K. and M.G. Kogan, Isostasy in the USSR II: Interpretation of admittance data, in The Composition, Structure, and Dynamics of the LithosphereVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:34 Nov 30, 2006 Jkt 028758 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS06\072706\28758 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
40

Asthenosphere System, K. Fuchs and C. Froidevaux, eds., Geodynamics Series,

AGU, vol. 16, 1987.

28. McNutt, M.K., Lithospheric stress and deformation, Rev. Geophys. 25, 1245–

1253, 1987.

29. McNutt, M.K. and K.M. Fisher, The South Pacific superswell, in Seamounts, Islands, and Atolls, B. Keating, P. Fryer, R. Batiza, and G.W. Boehlert, eds., Geophysical Monograph #43, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., 1987.

30. McNutt, M.K., Temperature beneath midplate swells: the inverse problem, in

Seamounts, Islands, and Atolls, B. Keating, P. Fryer, R. Batiza, and G.W. Boehlert, eds., Geophysical Monograph #43, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., 1987.

31. McNutt, M.K., Thermal and mechanical properties of the Cape Verde Rise, J.

Geophys. Res. 93, 2784–2794, 1988.

32. McNutt, M.K., M. Diament, and M.G. Kogan, Variations in elastic plate thickness at continental thrust belts, J. Geophys. Res. 93, 8825–8838, 1988.

33. McNutt, M.K., If only we had better gravity data. . ., Special Report of the

Committee on Geodesy, National Research Council, May, 1988.

34. Kruse, Sarah, and M. McNutt, Compensation of Paleozoic orogens: a comparison

of the Urals to the Appalachians, Tectonophysics 154, 1–17, 1988.

35. McNutt, M.K., Isostasy, in Encyclopedia of Structural Geology and Plate Tectonics, C. Seyfert, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1988.

36. McNutt, M., K. Fischer, S. Kruse, and J. Natland, The origin of the Marquesas

Fracture Zone Ridge and its implications for the nature of hot spots, Earth

Planet. Sci. Lett. 91, 381–393, 1989.

37. Sheehan, Anne, and M. McNutt, Constraints on the thermal structure of the

Bermuda Rise from geoid height and depth anomalies, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.

93, 377–391, 1989.

38. Filmer, Paul, and M. McNutt, Geoid anomalies over the Canary islands group,

Marine Geophys. Res. 11, 77–87, 1989.

39. McNutt, M.K., Gravity and Isostasy, Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics,

D.E. James, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1989.

40. McNutt, M.K. and A.V. Judge, The superswell and mantle dynamics beneath

the South Pacific, Science 248, 969–975, 1990.

41. McNutt, M.K., Deep causes of hot spots, Nature 346, 701–702, 1990.

42. McNutt, M.K., E.W. Winterer, W. Sager, J. Natland, and G. Ito, The Darwin

Rise: A Cretaceous superswell? Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 1101–1104, 1990.

43. Ruppel, Carolyn, and M. McNutt, Regional compensation of the Greater

Caucasus Mountains based on an analysis of Bouguer gravity data, Earth Planet. Sci. Letts. 98, 360–379, 1990.

44. Wolfe, Cecily and M.K. McNutt, Compensation of Cretaceous seamounts of the

Darwin Rise, northwest Pacific Ocean, J. Geophys. Res. 96, 2363–2374, 1991.

45. Kruse, Sarah, M.K. McNutt, J. Phipps-Morgan, L. Royden, and B. Wernicke,

Lithospheric extension near Lake Mead, Nevada: a model for ductile flow in the

lower crust, J. Geophys. Res. 96, 4435–4456, 1991.

46. Judge, Anne, and M.K. McNutt, The relationship between plate dip and elastic

plate thickness: A study of the Peru-Chile Trench, J. Geophys. Res. 96, 16, 625–

16, 639, 1991.

47. McNutt, M.K., Lithospheric Plates, Encyclopedia of Earth System Science, W.A.

Nierenberg, Ed., Academic Press, San Diego, Ca, 1991.

48. Christeson, Gail C. and M.K. McNutt, Geophysical constraints on the state of

stress along the Marquesas Fracture Zone, J. Geophys. Res. 97, 4425–4438,

1992.

49. Bonneville, A. and M.K. McNutt, Shear strength of the great Pacific fracture

zones as derived from shipboard bathymetry and gravity, Geophys. Res. Letts.

19, 2023–2026, 1992.

50. Kogan, M.G. and M.K. McNutt, Gravity field over northern Eurasia and variations in the strength of the upper mantle, Science 259, 473–479, 1993.

51. Ruppel, Carolyn, M.G. Kogan, and M.K. McNutt, Implications of new gravity

data for Baikal Rift zone structure, Geophys. Res. Letts 20, 1635–1638, 1993.

52. Winterer, E.L., J.H. Natland, R. Van Waasbergen, R.A. Duncan, M.K. McNutt,

C.J. Wolfe, I. Premoli-Silva, W.W. Sager, and W.V. Sliter, Cretaceous guyots in

the northwest Pacific: An overview of their geology and geophysics, in Mesozoic

41

Pacific: Geology, Tectonics, and Volcanism, Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 77, edited by M. Pringle, pp. 307–334, AGU, Washington, D.C., 1993.

53. Filmer, Paul E., M.K. McNutt, and Cecily J. Wolfe, Elastic thickness of the

lithosphere in the Marquesas Islands and Society Islands, J. Geophys. Res. 98,

19, 565–19, 578, 1993.

54. Wolfe, Cecily J., Marcia K. McNutt, and Robert S. Detrick, The Marquesas

archipelagic apron: Seismic stratigraphy and implications for volcano growth,

mass wasting, and crustal underplating, J. Geophys. Res. 99, 13, 591–13, 608,

1994.

55. Waschbusch, Paula J. and Marcia K. McNutt, Yellowstone: A continental

midplate (hot spot) swell, Geophys. Res. Letts. 21, 1703–1706, 1994.

56. Filmer, P. E., M.K. McNutt, H. Webb, and D. Dixon, Volcanism and archipelagic

aprons in the Marquesas and Hawaiian Islands, Marine Geophys. Res. 16, 385–

406, 1994.

57. Makedonskii, E.L., G. Balmino, V. Galazin, M.G. Kogan, and M.K. McNutt,

Gravity field over the former Soviet Union mapped, EOS, Trans. Amer.

Geophys. Union 75, 463–464, 1994.

58. Jin, Yu, Marcia McNutt, and Yongshen Zhou, Evidence from gravity and topography for folding of Tibet, Nature 371, 669–674, 1994.

59. Kuykendall, Martha, Sarah Kruse, and Marcia McNutt, The effects of changes

in plate motions on the shape of the Marquesas Fracture Zone, Geophys. Res.

Letts. 21, 2845–2848, 1994.

60. Caress, D.W., M.K. McNutt, R.S. Detrick, and J.C. Mutter, Seismic imaging of

hotspot-related crustal underplating beneath the Marquesas Islands, Nature

373, 600–603, 1995.

61. Ito, G., M.K. McNutt, and R.L. Gibson, Crustal structure of the Tuamotu Plateau, 15 S and implications for its origin, J. Geophys. Res. 100, 8097–8114,

1995.

62. McNutt, M.K., Marine geodynamics: depth-age revisited, Rev. Geophys., U.S.

National Report Supplement, 413–418, 1995.

63. Jordahl, Kelsey, Marcia McNutt, Helen Webb, Sarah Kruse, and Martha

Kuykendall, Why there are no earthquakes on the Marquesas Fracture Zone,

J. Geophys. Res. 100, 24, 431–24, 447, 1995.

64. McNutt, Marcia K. and Leigh H. Royden, The building of Tibet, The Explorers’

Journal 73, 10–17, 1995.

65. Haggerty, J., I. Premoli Silva, F. Rack, and M.K. McNutt (Eds.), Proceedings of

the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, 144, College Station, Texas,

1995.

66. Jin, Yu, Marcia McNutt, and Yongshen Zhou, Mapping the descent of Indian

and Eurasian plates beneath the Tibetan plateau from gravity anomalies, J.

Geophys. Res. 101, 11275–11290, 1996.

67. McNutt, M.K., L. Sichoix, and A. Bonneville, Modal depths from shipboard bathymetry: There IS a South Pacific Superswell, Geophys. Res. Letts. 23, 3397–

3400, 1996.

68. McNutt, M.K. and A. Bonneville, Mapping the seafloor from space, Endeavour

20, 157–161, 1996.

69. McNutt, M.K., D. Caress, J. Reynolds, and K. Jordahl, Failure of plume theory

to explain multiple episodes of stress-triggered volcanism in the Austral Islands,

Nature 389, 479–482, 1997.

70. McNutt, M.K., Superswells, Rev. Geophys. 36, 211–244, 1998.

71. Jordahl, K.A., M.K. McNutt, and H. Zorn, Pacific-Farallon relative motion 42–

59 determined from magnetic and tectonic data from the southern Austral Islands, Geophys. Res. Letts. 25, 2869–2872, 1998.

72. Sichoix, L.A. Bonneville, and M. McNutt, Analysis of modal depths and re-examination of the swells and the Superswell in the South Pacific, J. Geophys.

Res. 103, 27, 123–27, 133, 1998.

73. McNutt, M.K., Achievements in marine geology and geophysics, in Fifty Years

of Ocean Discovery, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 51–64,

1999.

74. McNutt, M.K., The future of marine geology and geophysics: a summary, in

Fifty Years of Ocean Discovery, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp.

172-183, 1999.

42

75. Kogan, M.G. and M.K. McNutt, Viscosity of the upper mantle: continent versus

ocean differences, in revision for J. Geophys. Res., 1999.

76. McNutt, M.K., Earth and Environmental Science, in Frontiers of the Mind of the

Twenty-first Century, Library of Congress, 1999.

77. McNutt, M.K. and Alain Bonneville, Chemical origin for the Marquesas swell,

Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems, 19999GC000028, 2000.

78. Brady, R., B. Wernicke, M. McNutt, J. Mutter, and G. Correa, Results of the

Basin and Range Geoscientific Experiments (BARGE): A marine-style seismic

reflection survey across the eastern boundary of the central Basin and Range

Province, Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems 1, 2000.

79. Harris, R.N., R.P. Von Herzen, M.K. McNutt, Grant Garven, and Kelsey

Jordahl, Submarine hydrogeology of the Hawaiian archipelagic apron, Part 1,

Heat flow patterns north of Oahu and Maro Reef, J. Geophys. Res. 105, 21, 371–

21, 385, 2000.

80. Harris, R.N., Grant Garven, Jennifer Georgen, M.K. McNutt, and R.P. Von

Herzen, Submarine hydrogeology of the Hawaiian archipelagic apron, Part 1,

Numerical simulations of flow, J. Geophys. Res. 105, 21, 353–21, 369, 2000.

81. McNutt, M.K. and R.D. Ballard, Two case studies of collaborations between

aquariums and research institutions in exploration and education, Mar. Tech.

Soc. J. 35, 76–85, 2001.

82. McNutt, M.K., Engineering the ocean, in The Invisible Future: The Seamless Integration of Technology in Everyday Life, P. Deming, ed., p. 27–42, McGraw-Hill,

2001.

83. McNutt, M.K., Heat flow variations over Hawaiian swell controlled by near-surface processes, not plume properties, in Hawaiian Volcanoes: Deep Underwater

Perspectives, E. Takahashi, ed., AGU Monograph 128, Washington, D.C., 2002.

84. McNutt, M.K., Ocean exploration, Oceanography 15, 112–121, 2002.

85. Jiang, Xiaodian, Yu Jin, and M.K. McNutt, Lithospheric deformation beneath

the Altyn Tagh and West Kunlun faults from recent gravity surveys, J.

Geophys. Res. 109, B05406, doi:10.1029/2003JB002444, 2004.

86. Jordahl, Kelsey, D. Caress, M. McNutt, and A. Bonneville, Seafloor topography

and morphology of the Superswell region, The Pacific Ocean Hot Spots, R.

Hekinian, P. Stoffers, and J.-L. Cheminee, Eds., Springer-Verlag, pp. 9–28,

2004.

87. Jordahl, Kelsey, M. McNutt, and D. Caress, Multiple episodes of volcanism in

the Southern Austal Islands: Flexural constraints from bathymetry, seismic reflection, and gravity data, J. Geophys. Res. 109, B06103, doi:10.1029/

2003JB002885, 2004.

88. Harris, Robert and M.K. McNutt, Heat Flow on Hot Spot Swells: Evidence for

Fluid Flow, accepted, J. Geophys. Res., 2006.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much, and thank you to all

the witnesses. As I announced earlier, we would stop the proceedings as soon as the sponsor of the bill arrived, and Congressman Saxton is here. Mr. Spinrad, would you be kind enough to just

step aside for a moment, and Mr. Saxton, you can take that seat.

Mr. Saxton is the author and principal sponsor of H.R. 3835,

which is the subject of the hearing today. He has a number of eminent cosponsors as well, and we are very pleased to welcome you,

Jim. I have explained that you had scheduling problems, so we will

fit you in whenever you get here, and we will not bother you with

questions, because we can always question you later.

But we would appreciate your testimony on this issue. Thank

you for being here. I think your mike is not on.

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. SAXTON. Okay, thank you. Chairman Ehlers, thank you very

much, and Ranking Member Wu, and Members of the Committee.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify, and particuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:34 Nov 30, 2006 Jkt 028758 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ETS06\072706\28758 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
43

larly, thank you for your consideration of the National Ocean Undersea Research Program, and for considering this bill today.

Our dependence on healthy marine ecosystems continue to grow.

Mr. Gilchrest and I work on these issues almost all day every day,

and so, we are very eager to have this bill enacted into law. Ocean

exploration and undersea research remain a relatively minor component of the U.S. ocean science, and is a missing link in our national strategy to better understand the Earth’s environment.

When I walked into the room, I saw the Tennyson quote on the

wall, which I find quite fascinating, and fits right into today’s hearing: ‘‘For I dipped into the future, far as human eyes could see;

Saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be.’’

These programs are intended to give us that vision beneath the

Earth’s—beneath the ocean’s surface, and therefore, become an extremely important component in our understanding of earth

sciences.

Consequently, the report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

recommended the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation should lead an expanded

National Ocean Exploration Program. I am proud to be the sponsor

of the National Ocean Exploration Program Act to promote implementation of the Commission’s recommendation.

The bill authorizes two important ocean programs, the Ocean Exploration Program and the National Undersea Research Program.

The National Ocean Exploration Program Act would create better

coordinated—better coordination between NOAA and the National

Science Foundation. Among the purposes of the Act are to expand

ocean exploration, to discover the new marine substances, which

would potentially have therapeutic benefits; and to study unique

marine ecosystems, organisms, and the geology of the world’s

oceans. As the federal agency responsible for managing living marine and coastal resources, NOAA requires a presence beneath the

sea and Great Lakes to better understand the systems under its

management. The Undersea Research Program provides NOAA

with the unique ability to access the undersea environment, either

directly, with submersibles and technical diving, or virtually, by

using robots and seafloor observatories.

Both of these programs authorized by the legislation are core to

the mission of NOAA. This past year, several weather events, hazardous material spills, the increasing occurrence of harmful red

tide events, and the continued decline of the coastal resources and

habitats demonstrated the need for timely, accurate environmental

information that can inform decision-making to reduce loss of life,

property, and coastal infrastructure, and to improve management

of marine and coastal resources. A primary focus of NOAA’s Undersea Research Program is to help provide the information to meet

these very needs.

As Members of this committee will recall, I have a long history

of Undersea Research Program interest, which was established by

NOAA shortly before I came to Congress. As a matter of fact, with

the Mid-Atlantic Bight Undersea Research Center, which is based

in my district, I am very familiar with the work conducted through

this regional center.

44

As an example, in mid-1996, the Mid-Atlantic Bight Center established the world’s first long-term ecosystem observatory, commonly referred to, Mr. Chairman, as Leo XV. Situated on the continental shelf off New Jersey, Leo XV provides a real-time interface

with advanced samplers and sensors, enabling investigators to plug

in instruments, conduct and modify experiments remotely, and access data via the Internet. This has been a very interesting part

of the 3rd District of new Jersey.

Critical research on the fate and effects of deep sea waste disposal that redefine our national waste management strategy; a few

more examples include: development of new samplers and sensors

for ocean observing systems, via the Leo XV underwater observatory; novel applications of autonomous undersea vehicles, and

emerging acoustic technologies to track and monitor fish, their migration, and habitat use; major studies on the effects of trawling

on the bottom continues to have informed fisheries’ managements’

efforts; development of the REMUS autonomous undersea vehicle

that enables investigators to conduct detailed transects of the

coastal ocean processes and features; and finally, the creation of acclaimed education and outreach programs that capitalize on realtime data systems to enrich science education, teaching of basic

skills, and enhancement of ocean literacy among the young people

of our country.

H.R. 3835 is co-sponsored by our colleagues who host regional

NURP centers in their districts, as well as others who recognize

the strengths and benefits of the program, a regionally based structure that leverages the Nation’s best talent to address NOAA’s undersea research and technology requirements, mechanisms to

transfer science-based information to the management, education,

and science communities, and an unparalleled record of safe field

operations in the ocean.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I have a longer

statement I would like to submit for the record, but this is, in effect, a summary of my feelings on this matter, and I thank you

once again for giving me the opportunity to come here and say

these things.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JIM SAXTON

Talking Points on H.R. 3835

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of H.R. 3835, which will authorize the Ocean Exploration and NOAA Undersea Research Programs.

Although our dependence on healthy marine ecosystems continues to grow, ocean

exploration and undersea research remain a relatively minor component of U.S.

ocean science and is a missing link in our national strategy to better understand

the Earth’s environment.

Consequently, the report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science

Foundation should lead an expanded national ocean exploration program. I am

proud to be the sponsor of the National Ocean Exploration Program Act to promote

implementation of the Commission’s recommendation.

This bill authorizes two important ocean programs—the Ocean Exploration Program and the National Undersea Research Program.

The National Ocean Exploration Program Act will create better coordination between NOAA and the National Science Foundation. Among the purposes of the Act

are to expand ocean exploration to discover new marine substances that potentially

45

have therapeutic benefits; to study unique marine ecosystems, organisms and the

geology of the world’s oceans.

As the federal agency responsible for managing living marine and coastal resources, NOAA requires a presence beneath the sea and Great Lakes to better understand the systems under its management. The Undersea Research Program provides NOAA with the unique ability to access the undersea environment either directly with submersibles and technical diving, or virtually using robots and seafloor

observatories. Both of the programs authorized by this legislation are core to the

mission of NOAA.

This past year, severe weather events, hazardous material spills, the increasing

occurrence of harmful red tide events, and the continued decline of coastal resources

and habitats demonstrated the need for timely, accurate environmental information

that can inform decision-making to reduce loss of life, property and coastal infrastructure, and to improve management of marine and coastal resources. A primary

focus of NOAA’s Undersea Research Program is to help provide the information to

meet these needs.

As Members of this committee will recall, I have a long history with Undersea

Research Program, which was established by NOAA shortly before I came to Congress. With the Mid-Atlantic Bight Undersea Research Center based in my district,

I am very familiar with the work conducted through this regional center. A few examples include:

• In 1996, the Mid-Atlantic Bight Center established the world’s first Longterm Ecosystem Observatory, commonly referred to as LEO–15. Situated on

the continental shelf off New Jersey, LEO–15 provides a real-time interface

with advanced samplers and sensors enabling investigators to plug in instruments, conduct and modify experiments remotely, and access data via the

Internet.

• Critical research on the fate and effects of deep sea waste disposal that redefined our national waste management strategy.

• Development of new samplers and sensors for ocean observing systems via

the LEO-15 underwater observatory, novel applications of autonomous undersea vehicles, and emerging acoustic technologies to track and monitor fish behavior, migration, and habitat use.

• Major studies on the effects of trawling on bottom communities that have informed fisheries management efforts.

• Development of the REMUS autonomous undersea vehicle that enables investigators to conduct detailed transects of coastal ocean processes and features,

and

• Creation of acclaimed education and outreach programs that capitalize on

real-time data streams to enrich science education, teaching of basic skills,

and enhancement of ocean literacy among our youth.

H.R. 3835 is co-sponsored by our colleagues who host regional NURP centers in

their districts, as well as others who also recognize the strengths and benefits of

the program:

• A regionally-based structure that leverages the Nation’s best talent to address

NOAA’s undersea research and technology requirements,

• Mechanisms to transfer science-based information to the management, education and science communities, and

• An unparalleled record of safe field operations in the ocean.

Mr. Chairman, I have a longer statement I would like to submit for the record

that elaborates on each of these key elements—elements that I am hopeful will be

preserved in H.R. 3835, as well as in the ongoing merger of the Ocean Exploration

and Undersea Research Programs in NOAA.

Thank you again for holding this hearing today and for the opportunity to testify.

I look forward to working with the Committee to move the bill forward.

Addendum to Mr. Saxton’s oral testimony:

1) Regional Structure

NOAA has a long history of partnering with academic institutions to leverage regional benefits on behalf of agency science, management and education programs.

This is evident in programs such as Sea Grant and the National Estuarine Research

Reserve System. The benefits of the NURP partnership with university-based regional Centers are many:

• Access to a broad talent pool of researchers, engineers and educators

46

• Ready access to regional and local management agencies

• Enhanced ability to leverage partnerships and resources

• Efficient mechanism to disseminate information to stakeholders at regional

and local levels

• Regional-scale programs are required to enable ecosystem approaches to management

• Development and experienced, safe operation of advanced undersea technology.

With respect to the last point, I want to point out that despite a relatively modest

budget, the NURP program has contributed greatly to development of advanced undersea technology. Most notable for me is the establishment of LEO–15, an undersea observatory that serves as the model for the Nation’s emerging ocean observing

system. This platform was recently renovated with the latest software and hardware

to enable it to continue to serve as a testbed for development of samplers and sensors. In addition, NURP has developed a broad suite of samplers and sensors for

undersea vehicles. Support for this and other technology development should continue to be provided by NOAA and is recognized as a distinct part of this bill under

authorization of appropriations.

I’m aware that, due to funding constraints, efforts are underway to consolidate

the four existing regional centers on the east coast. This is an effort that I’ve been

tracking closely. I want to ensure that the benefits provided by the regional construct are not lost in this consolidation, or in the merger process. Ideally, there

should be at least two centers on the east coast with one of these centers serving

the needs of the northeast. I’m well aware, and my colleague from Connecticut is

well aware that the respective center directors for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast

regions have been working on a joint or consolidated center to serve the Mid-Atlantic, New England and Great Lakes regions. I believe that H.R. 3835 codifies the regional NURP structure, and I urge NOAA to ensure that a northeast regional presence be maintained to capitalize on the expertise resident in the existing Mid-Atlantic and Northeast Undersea Centers.

2) Transfer of Science-Based Information

In collaboration with partners leveraged via the regional centers, NURP has excelled in the delivery of science-based information to user groups such as fishery

managers, coastal managers, educators, students and the general public. This has

been accomplished largely with external sources of funding and is a good example

of a benefit of the regional center construct. For example, the NURP Centers on the

east coast worked with the Office of Ocean Exploration to produce the at-sea education program for the Deep East expedition in 2001, an expedition that featured

submersible dives to unexplored parts of the Hudson Submarine Canyon. In addition, the Mid-Atlantic Center works in partnership with the Mid-Atlantic center for

Ocean Sciences education Excellence to deliver real world science to students

throughout the region, an effort that is now being expanded throughout the country.

The NURP Centers possess strong capabilities in education and outreach, an element that is recognized in H.R. 3835 and must be preserved in the merger between

OE and NURP.

3) Safety

For more than 30 years, the NURP program has conducted undersea research activities without mishap. This is a tribute to the knowledge, expertise and capabilities of the science and operations staff at the regional centers. This is yet another

example of the benefit of the existing regional centers. If this capability were lost,

either through consolidation or the merger, it would be extremely difficult to reestablish. As I noted earlier, great care must be taken to ensure that strengths of the

NURP program be codified in H.R. 3835 and maintained in the merger process. Center personnel and infrastructure represent key strengths that must be preserved in

the regions.

Merging NURP and OE

NOAA has begun a process to merge NURP and OE. This process is expected to

take about 12 to 18 months. During this time, I will ask NOAA to provide regular

progress reports to the House Fisheries and Oceans Subcommittee. In addition, I

strongly urge NOAA to continue active engagement of the NURP Center directors

in the merger process. The merger should preserve the strengths of the NURP program as I outlined earlier. In addition, the merger should provide a clear role for

the NURP Center Directors in the leadership, direction, and decision-making of the

NURP/OE program.

47

Recommendations:

1) In an effort to remain as similar as possible to the other chamber’s bill, H.R.

3835 retained the same title as S. 39—to establish a coordinated national

ocean exploration program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I now recommend changing the short title to recognize the importance of the NOAA Undersea Research Program.

2) Instruct NOAA to preserve the regional center structure and its associated

benefits in the merger between NURP and OE.

3) Ensure that the NURP regional centers are adequately represented in the

leadership and decision-making of the merged NURP/OE program.

4) At the Fisheries and Oceans Subcommittee hearing on the bill in the Resources Committee, it became apparent that there were questions regarding

how the two programs, NURP and OE, would be merged and coordinated.

This largely stems from the fact that the bill establishes similar authorities

for both ocean exploration and undersea research. For example, both programs are authorized to develop technology, administer proposal-driven programs, and conduct education and outreach activities. A mechanism to ensure coordination of effort among these programs is recommended.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much, and without objection,

your longer statement will be entered into the record, as well as

a copy of the letter we have received from, it was addressed to Vice

Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, from J. Val Klump of the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

So, thank you very much for being here, Mr. Saxton. And I do

want to mention, I am sure you are aware that I have been working for six years on the NOAA Organic Act. We are finally making

considerable progress. It passed this committee long ago. I hope to

get it passed into law before the end of the year, and I hope it will

mesh well with your bill.

Thank you very much.

DISCUSSION

Thank you for the quick switch back and forth, and we will get

into the questions. I did want to mention Dr. McNutt, your point

about exploration not being explicitly part of NOAA’s mission. As

part of the NOAA Organic Act, which I just mentioned, we have

put it in the bill, as one of their duties is ‘‘conducting and supporting research and development of technology for exploration of

the oceans.’’ That is probably not as direct and clear as you would

like, but we may be able to clear that up, as it goes through the

process, but I think your point is very well taken. That should be

clearly stated as part of NOAA’s mission.

SUPPORT FOR H.R. 3835

At this time, we open up our first round of questions. The Chair

recognizes himself for five minutes, and first of all, Mr. Shepard,

I just wanted to check with you on one point. We just heard from

Mr. Saxton about the H.R. 3835, National Ocean Exploration Program Act of 2005, and the Undersea Research Program Act of 2005.

Dr. McNutt, you have already stated your support of that.

If you are familiar with the bills, Mr. Shepard, are you in support of them as well?

Mr. SHEPARD. Yes.

48

SUPPORT FOR INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. I appreciate your support for

that. The—Dr. McNutt, do you explicitly endorse the idea of interagency coordination, as provided in the bill? Dr. Spinrad, do you

explicitly oppose it?

Can you each comment on the other’s position, as fairly and temperately as you can. Mr. Shepard, we will ask you for your

thoughts too, as well.

So, Dr. Spinrad, first.

Dr. SPINRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to clarify. There

is absolutely no objection to interagency coordination. In fact, we

support it strongly, and if I may point out, one of the positions I

hold is, as Co-chair of the White House Joint Subcommittee on

Ocean Science and Technology, with my colleague from the National Science Foundation, Dr. Margaret Leinen, and in fact, that

is precisely the reason why we feel we have a structure in place,

in fact, codified in the Administration’s U.S. Ocean Action Plan,

through the Committee on Ocean Policy and its subordinate committees, to accommodate the kind of interagency activity we talked

about here, that being the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science

and Technology.

I would that, in fact, through that structure, we bring in a much

more diverse and vast collection of agencies than we might otherwise, and in fact, in complete support of the comment made by Dr.

McNutt, we would have NSF as a co-chair of that by definition,

using an existing structure. That body, in fact, right now is tasked

with putting out the first ever statement of our national ocean research priorities, which will be delivered 31 December, and in

there, will be specific identification of ocean exploration.

So, I think we are well on the way to using that particular structure, and that is the basis of our comment with respect to that

technical feature of the bill.

Chairman EHLERS. Well, thank you, and we will look into that

in more depth, because if we take up the Saxton bill, and there

may not be time this year, but we could take a good look at what

you are doing now, look at what he proposes, maybe we can come

up with a very good plan to handle that.

Dr. SPINRAD. Thank you.

Chairman EHLERS. Mr. Shepard, do you have any comment on

that issue?

Mr. SHEPARD. Yes, thank you.

As I pointed out in the testimony, first of all, we are strongly in

support of the advisory boards. The taskforce, we are uncertain of

the nature of the taskforce, but in an advisory capacity, fully support that.

We understand that our activities need to be merged with the

other federal agencies that are doing work in the oceans, and we

want to make sure that whatever we do complements both ocean

exploration and the other federal agencies. So, we don’t have any

objections to working—we also would suggest that we would like to

see a NOAA, a strong NOAA advisory component as well, of the

various line offices in NOAA.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much.

49

Another question for—did you want to add some further comments, Dr. McNutt?

Dr. MCNUTT. Just to state one.

I understand what Dr. Spinrad means about these other mechanisms in place for interagency coordination, and I think those

would be fine, if ocean exploration were a top priority for any of

those groups meeting around the table.

Unfortunately, I am afraid right now it is not a top priority, and

therefore, I like this provision in H.R. 3835, because it instructs

them specifically to make sure, in meeting in those—it could be in

those same fora, that ocean exploration is part of the discussion.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you for clarifying that.

MERGER OF NURP AND OE

I appreciate that. Mr. Shepard and Dr. McNutt, the Committee,

this committee has many options, as it considered H.R. 3835, in

light of NOAA’s planned merger of NURP and OE. So, we could,

for example, add language to allow or prohibit the merger, or add

additional requirements about the merger process.

Is your suggestion that we include something along this line in

the bill, or do you have any other suggestions? And this time, I will

start from the other end, Dr. McNutt.

Dr. MCNUTT. Well, I think my view of this is that the less prescriptive that this bill is on it, perhaps the better. I think that

there are a lot of nuances as to how this merger comes together,

and frankly, I think the success of it may actually boil down to who

is chosen to lead the charge within NOAA, and therefore, I could

imagine ways that it could be prescribed in the language that

might be harmful or supportive, and perhaps, it is best to be nonprescriptive.

Chairman EHLERS. Mr. Shepard, any comment?

Mr. SHEPARD. Yes, thank you. As we pointed out, again, in the

testimony, we are very comfortable with the wording as it is in the

bill, because what it does is it takes the strengths of these two programs, and lays them out. And NOAA is working hard now to, and

the two programs involved are working hard to come up with a

plan that can then be vetted with our partners. So, I think there

is action already on the way, and we should give it time to work.

Thank you.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. My time is expired. I am pleased

next to recognize an eminent Member of this committee, who is extremely interested in these issues, Mr. Gilchrest from Maryland.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I like the idea that—I think one of the issues that brought NASA

to the forefront of the consciousness of Americans, besides Sputnik,

was that they were going to explore, to go where no man has gone

before, that was an intriguing natural inherited quality of most

human beings. If they can’t get out there and explore themselves,

they want somebody else to do it. So, I think if we use that as a

provision in NOAA, in a few years, it would be nice if we could

bring NOAA up to the same level of funding as NASA, which I

think should be a priority of this committee and the other committees in Congress.

50

I guess the issue, and you have clarified it quite well, merge or

not to merge. The issue is, though, coordination, unimpeded exchanges of information, so that people can collaborate with that information, become more competent, and work together, in that

sense, to begin to understand, at this stage in our nation’s history

and world history, what are the priorities, as far as the Earth and

the oceans are concerned.

PRIORITIES FOR OCEAN EXPLORATION AND RESEARCH

So, the question that I would have is how do you set priorities

for the various programs, whether it is research or exploration?

Number two, is ocean chemistry, in light of CO2 sink for the ocean,

one of your priorities? And the consequences over the next few decades of that to ocean life.

Do you have as a priority, as a result of the thermohaline system

with global warming, understanding, new understanding of ocean

circulation, the conveyor belt phenomenon in the North Atlantic?

And then one thing that Mr. Saxton raised was what is the understanding, or the nexus between global warming, hurricanes, sea

surface temperature, and the consequences, pretty direct, to coastal

communities?

So, I guess if you got all of that, I am not sure if I could remember all that myself, but just a brief comment from each person

would be appreciated.

Dr. MCNUTT. Okay. I will start by making a stab at this. First

of all, the last question first, connection between hurricanes, global

warming, et cetera. From what we know now of the genesis of hurricanes, they live off an energy transfer from the thermocline up

into the atmosphere, and to the extent that we are increasing the

strength of that, there is a definite concern about increasing frequency, and in fact, there has been some new studies published in

Science magazine that shows that even the historical record is

starting to show the increased pace of destructive hurricanes.

In terms of whether chemistry is involved in ocean exploration,

exactly. In the President’s Panel report, where we lay out the priorities of the program, mapping the ocean in all of its dimensions is

a very high priority. The beauty of exploration is if you do it in a

systematic way, that mapping can be multidimensional, such that

at the same time you are looking at the thermohaline circulation,

you are also looking at the changing chemistry of the ocean, and

you are also looking at the changing biology. And when we talk

about mapping, it is four dimensional. We have to map in time too,

and there is the beautiful connection to the National Science Foundation’s Ocean Observing Program, and to NOAA’s IOOS, the Integrated Ocean Observing System.

And so all of these programs need to be brought together, and

that is why, in my diagram, I tried to show the importance of this

interagency cooperation and collaboration. When you talk about the

fact that NASA has definitely captured the imagination of the public, and wouldn’t we like to have NOAA on that same pedestal, I

think to too many Americans, NOAA is viewed as a bunch of lawyers who deal with lawsuits when their data is used incorrectly

and fisheries collapse. Wouldn’t we love it if NOAA was viewed as

explorers who are adding to our basic understanding of this planet?

51

Just in, rewriting, Mr. Saxton brought up Tennyson’s. I think

that should be changed to: ‘‘I dipped into the ocean further than

human eyes could see. Saw the vision of this water world, and all

the wonder that would be.’’

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Spinrad, do you have a comment?

Dr. SPINRAD. First, Mr. Gilchrest, let me take this opportunity,

and thank you for your strong support for these activities. This, as

your set of questions indicates, is an extraordinarily diverse, and

also, extraordinarily exciting portfolio of opportunities.

I would like to address my comments to your focus on

prioritization, how do we move towards priorities? As a mission

agency, NOAA has specific mission goals, in climate, in ecosystems,

in weather, in commerce and transportation. So, the initial answer

to your question, as we look at our priorities within those mission

goals, and then, working, this is where that interagency collaboration is critical, we have to work with the Office of Naval Research,

who has a national security mission. We have to work with NIH,

who has a health mission, all the way down the line. We have to

work with Energy.

All of these issues, the research associated with them will be

driven by the particular questions we need to answer, and the fascinating part about some of what you are hearing among this panel

is that one of the best ways to identify those questions is through

exploration and discovery, especially in an environment where we

have such a great unknown, whether it is 95 percent or 70 percent,

we have a large percentage of unknown with regard to processes,

parameters, features, and the oceans.

So, my perspective on us is that the value of the ocean exploration program is it helps us define those particular questions

which we can take into a multi-mission, that is to say interagency

venue, and determine who has got what responsibility for addressing these particular questions in climate, in human health, in natural hazards.

The other point I will make, and your questions with respect to

CO2, ocean acidification climate, those questions beg the vibrant

nature of the collaboration between mission agency scientists, that

is to say, our own scientists at our laboratories at NOAA, and at

the Naval Research Lab and other labs, with the academic research

community, which is why the kinds of capabilities that the NURP

program brings to the table, in terms of established academic, Federal Government relationships, are so critical to addressing the

kinds of questions which would be defined through exploration addressing agency missions.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Shepard, do you wish to add anything?

Mr. SHEPARD. Yes, thank you. I just want to segue directly from

the last thing Rick said. I think that is right on the mark, in that

what we are saying, the strength of this bill is, is the question between ocean exploration and the regional presence that the NURP

centers bring, all the issues that you mentioned now have a direct

impact on coastal oceans and the coastal communities.

Coral reefs, hurricanes, the impacts on coastal communities as

far as shoreline erosion, sea level rise, those are all things that the

regional coastal ocean observing system is connected to, and attempting to build the system that we need to detect these things

52

and understand their impact. These regional ocean—regional undersea research centers are actively engaged at the regional level,

with the regional associations. They are called that for a reason.

They are set up that way for a reason, and having the regional

presence gives you a direct conduit from ocean exploration directly

into the management community. So, I think we really can add

quite a bit to this partnership. Thank you.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you all. The gentleman’s time expired.

Next, I am pleased——

Mr. GILCHREST. If the Chairman will indulge for nine and a half

seconds.

Chairman EHLERS. One, two, three.

Mr. GILCHREST. The—at the expense of sounding too philosophical, bringing in another quote from Norman Cousins, editor of

the Saturday Review some decades ago, which in essence is, I

think, the mission of NOAA. Norman Cousins said: ‘‘Knowledge is

the solvent for danger.’’

And there is potential problems out there, but it is the collaboration of that information, and then, the dissemination of that knowledge to us, the policy-makers, that can resolve some of those future

problems.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman EHLERS. I am pleased to recognize Dr. Schwarz for

five minutes.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a fellow Michigander, I am going to—I am just going to throw a couple of things

out here, numbers of them.

DUPLICATION, COOPERATION, AND THE GREAT LAKES

Mr. Spinrad, you dealt with, as I wrote my questions down, Mr.

Gilchrest asked his, and you covered some of mine, so, I am going

to probably ask you to free associate with some of these again, if

you don’t mind.

For all three of you, are there any good private analogues to

NURP and OE, and are we doing anything that is duplicative here

that doesn’t need to be duplicative, or is duplicativeness a good

thing in this sense? Cooperation with the U.S. Navy, which you

mentioned the Navy Research Labs. Are there others, areas where

the Navy and yourselves can and should cooperate?

Strategic missions, which would have the Navy involved, or other

strategic missions that the new combined agency or office might

deal with, and with whom would you cooperate, if there were some

strategic mission that you were involved in, or strategic information you were tasked to assemble?

And finally, tell me how you feel that the new agency would deal

with issues having to do with the Great Lakes?

Dr. SPINRAD. I would be glad to walk through each of those, sir.

Let me start by saying, and I am going to interpret your question

with respect to the private analogues to mean the private corporate

sector, because clearly, there are private research sectors——

Mr. SCHWARZ. 501(c)(3)s, universities, and flat out private.

Dr. SPINRAD. Okay. The—in terms of the specificity we are talking about with the NURP and the OE program, I am not aware of

specific analogues, and in fact, I would argue that one of the goals

53

here, speaking as a representative of the Department of Commerce,

one of our objectives, of course, is to stimulate competition, stimulate new economic sectors, and I firmly believe that with the kinds

of activities we are talking about, for example, I could look you in

the eye and say that we will spur the development of new technologies for underwater vehicles, for sensors, that sort of thing, and

I think that is where the strength of the private sector intersection

is with this activity.

One of my favorite subjects, you raised cooperation with Navy.

Most of my career in Washington was with the Navy, with the Office of Naval Research, and with the Oceanographer of the Navy.

I feel comfortable in saying that we have got very good connections

with both the operational and research sides of the Navy. Your specific question about where those intersections might be, I would

identify four areas. One is in technology development. Navy has

strong activities with respect to development of sensors and platforms and systems. Another is in mapping, and in fact, one of the

things we are looking at is an integrated ocean and coastal mapping capability, where basically, everything we are doing in our OE

and NURP programs is coordinated with Navy’s hydrographic survey capabilities. Data management. Navy has extraordinary capabilities down in Mississippi for archiving and managing data. And

then, observations. Dr. McNutt alluded to the Integrated Ocean

Observing System. We look forward to working with Navy on that,

and many of the concepts embedded in OE and NURP would be

part of the IOOS’ development.

With regard to whom we would work with in the Navy, it is

three sectors. It is the research sector, through the Office of Naval

Research. It is the policy sector, through the Oceanographer of the

Navy, and it is the fleet, so all three of those would be groups we

would work with.

And very succinctly, everything we have talked about here is intimately connected with NOAA mission objectives in the Great

Lakes, whether it is sanctuaries, whether it is transportation,

whether it is invasives. All of those issues are central to what we

are talking about in ocean exploration and NURP, and I would

foresee using the existing Great Lakes resources of the Sea Grant

institutions, as well as our own Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab being central to activities.

Mr. SCHWARZ. And let us put invasives in italics.

Dr. SPINRAD. Understood.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman yields back.

We have a series of votes called. It will probably take a half-hour

or more, and I don’t want to detain you that long. So, I have just

one quick question, and the remainder of questions that we wish

answers to, we will simply put in the mail to you rather than keep

you here an extra hour.

PROPOSED APPROPRIATIONS IN H.R. 3835

The quick question is the bill that is under discussion, H.R. 3835,

and this is just for Mr. Shepard and Dr. McNutt, because I think

I know what Dr. Spinrad’s question would be. The authorization

numbers in there, in other words, the amount of money authorized,

54

which is a maximum that could be appropriated. Do you believe

they are appropriate in the two bills? Mr. Shepard, is that enough

money?

Mr. SHEPARD. Yes. We have thought about it a long time. We understand the realities that face the Federal Government at this

time, and we think those numbers will allow us growth.

Chairman EHLERS. Okay. Dr. McNutt.

Dr. MCNUTT. For ocean exploration, given the realities of the

other demands on the federal budget, I think these are very appropriate numbers, and if appropriated to those levels, would lead to

a very vigorous and successful program.

Chairman EHLERS. Okay. And then one other quick question. Do

you think the funding in the bill for the NURP centers should be

split between the East and West Coast centers, or provided in one

large pot, as recommended by Dr. Spinrad, so that NOAA would

decide how to split it? Mr. Shepard.

Mr. SHEPARD. I have a conflict of interest. I am on the East

Coast. I think I had better stay out of it.

Chairman EHLERS. You both have a conflict of interest. Dr.

McNutt, are you going to bite the bullet, or——

Dr. MCNUTT. I will declare the same conflict.

Chairman EHLERS. All right. Thank you for your help on that

one.

So, thank you all very, very much for being here. It has been

most helpful to me. I have a great love for NOAA. I have a great

love for the research they do. I would certainly love to see it expanded. That, of course, is from the perspective of a scientist and

someone on the Science Committee. But I certainly hope we can get

the NOAA Organic Act passed, which would help everyone in the

field, and we can perhaps incorporate the important elements of

this in that, or take this part up early next year and deal with it.

So thank you very, very much for being here. You have been

most helpful to us, and I deeply appreciate it.

If there is no objection, the record will remain open for additional

statements from the Members, and for answers to any followup

questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses. Without objection, so ordered.

The hearing is now adjourned. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(55)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

56

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Richard W. Spinrad, Assistant Administrator, Office of Oceanic and

Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce

Questions submitted by Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. With regard to the process of the proposed merger of OE and NURP, the merger

has been planned since 2005, but there is still no clear picture of how NOAA

will plan and conduct the merger. You also mentioned that you want the merger

process to be inclusive. Can you please explain in detail (1) how you expect the

planning process to unfold, and (2) how you plan to solicit and incorporate extramural input? For example, will you use informal meetings, Federal Register

notices, or other means to reach out to the community, and will extramural

input be included as you define the ‘‘essential functions’’ of the merged program?

A1. The details of an Office of Ocean Exploration (OE) and National Undersea Research Program (NURP) merger are being finalized in an integrative process that

involves a core team comprised of the leadership of the existing OE and NURP programs, including the extramural directors of the regional NURP centers, and six

program teams. The program teams are each focused on one of six functional

areas—science, data management, technology development, education & outreach,

administration, and operations. The program teams are comprised of OE and NURP

staff, and personnel from the regional NURP centers. The regional center participants are encouraged to bring input from their external research partners to the

process. The program teams are compiling recommendations as to the scope, procedures, and structure of their functional area. These recommendations will be used

by the core leadership team to draft business and strategic plans, as well as an abstract which describes the essential function and anticipated structure of the new

program, by early 2008. NOAA will solicit recommendations from the core and program teams on procedures to further engage the external community.

NOAA values the involvement of the external research community in discussions

of the merger. Accordingly, NOAA held meetings in March 2005 and June 2006 involving external partners to characterize the merged program structure, short-term

goals and long-term areas for potential collaborations. One of the outcomes from

these meetings was the creation of the six program teams described earlier whose

recommendation will form the basis for the draft business and strategic plans.

Once internal planning has matured, external review will be sought from the

broader undersea research and ocean exploration community and will be incorporated, as appropriate, into the final business and strategic plans. The mechanism

for soliciting this review will be determined by NOAA before the abstract is presented to the external community and may include expansion of the purview of

NOAA’s external Science Advisory Board Ocean Exploration Advisory Working

Group to include the new merged enterprise. External review may also include collaboration with the Consortium for Ocean Research and Education or other preeminent professional societies such as the American Geophysical Union, the Oceanographic Society, and the Marine Technology Society.

Q2. With regard to the substantive outcome of the proposed merger of OE and

NURP, prominent members of the OE community continue to express concern

about possible downsides of a merger, particularly from the perspective of OE

missions. For example, exploration advocates worry that resources will be directed away from pure exploration into mission-oriented survey work, diluting

the goals of the program. Are you aware of these concerns? If so, how do you

plan to address them?

A2. NOAA has been made aware of these concerns both during the hearing, by Dr.

Marcia McNutt, and during its Ocean Exploration Advisory Working Group meeting

in April 2006. The Ocean Exploration Advisory Working Group is comprised of 11

members of the extramural community and is a standing committee of the NOAA

Science Advisory Board. NOAA will give concerns of the Ocean Exploration Advisory

Working Group and the ocean exploration community full consideration as the

merger progresses.

Maintaining a robust ocean exploration program is important to NOAA. The

merging of the Office of Ocean Exploration and the National Undersea Research

Program will allow NOAA to bring additional nationwide capabilities to bear on

ocean exploration. The scientific discoveries from ocean exploration expeditions as

well as the technical and educational leadership demonstrated during these expediVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:34 Nov 30, 2006 Jkt 028758 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ETS06\072706\28758 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
57

tions are critical to NOAA being able to meet its evolving environmental and economic missions. Involvement of NURP’s expertise, capabilities and regional presence

in NOAA’s ocean exploration enterprise will strengthen the ability of the ocean exploration program to bring the results of discoveries to bear on NOAA’s ecosystem

and environmental prediction challenges.

(59)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

60

61

62

63

STATEMENT OF U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROB SIMMONS (CT–2)

CO-CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL LONG ISLAND SOUND CAUCUS

CO-SPONSOR, H.R. 3835, THE Ocean Exploration and Undersea Research Act

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to appear before your Committee on

legislation important to me and to my district.

As a co-sponsor of the bill, I would like to add my support for passage of H.R.

3835 that would formally incorporate the relatively young Office of Ocean Exploration and long-running Undersea Research Program within the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

As you may know, the University of Connecticut, located in my district, is host

to the National Undersea Research Center for the North Atlantic and Great Lakes.

For the past 20 years, the regional NURC center at UConn has been at the forefront

of supporting research to meet NOAA’s needs, developing and applying new technologies, and supporting innovative hands-on teacher professional development programs.

The National Undersea Research Program already promotes working side by side

with NOAA programs such as the National Marine Fisheries Service. Together they

have provided support for research—directly aiding the New England Fishery Management Council in developing management actions to conserve deep water coral

habitats on Georges Bank and better defining the role that seafloor habitats play

in the survival and production of juvenile lobsters.

Before coming to Congress, I served in the Connecticut General Assembly where

I worked to provide $40 million in state investment in marine sciences. Much of this

investment—including a 137,000 square foot marine science building, a state-of-theart 77’’ coastal research vessel, dock facility and infrastructure—directly allows the

NOAA programs, NURC and Sea Grant to better meet NOAA’s mission. By supporting regional centers, H.R. 3835 will continue to promote such fruitful partnerships.

As you know, my district borders the Long Island Sound, a unique estuary with

economic and ecological importance to the region and to the Nation. The Sound contributes approximately $6 billion annually to the regional economy and is a cherished resource for the 28 million people living within 50 miles of its shores. The

Sound is heavily used for recreation and for commerce by residents of Connecticut

and New York as well as numerous visitors each year. This treasure, along with

all of our waters, deserves our utmost support.

H.R. 3835 provides the building blocks upon which NOAA can build a coordinated

ocean exploration and research program, ideally one with sustained funding levels.

Our nation must maintain all the tools to study the complex ecosystems that lie beneath our oceans and Great Lakes. By authorizing H.R. 3835, we ensure that our

nation maintains the capacity to explore, understand and promote the Earth’s waters.

I am pleased that you will have the opportunity today to hear from so many individuals that have committed their lives to working on and studying our waters.

Again, I thank you and the witness panels for your time and consideration of H.R.

3835.

64

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT I. WICKLUND,

DIRECTOR—FEDERAL PROGRAMS, UNCW

AND

DR. DANIEL G. BADEN,

DIRECTOR—CENTER FOR MARINE SCIENCE, UNCW

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we are pleased to submit this

statement in the discussion of H.R. 3835 entitled the ‘‘National Ocean Exploration

Program Act’’ in Title I, and the ‘‘NOAA Undersea Research Program Act of 2005’’

in Title II. We first want to commend the Committee for recognizing the importance

of ocean exploration and undersea research to this nation. The National Ocean Exploration Program contained in Title I and the Undersea Research Program contained in Title II of the bill complement each other in many ways and they belong

together in this legislation.

We never expected to be submitting testimony to this august body in 2006 for the

passage of legislation that would give authorization to programs dedicated to the

understanding of the undersea environment. Three decades ago the Senate, with a

keen interest in how the Nation could benefit from underwater exploration and research, introduced S. 2285 the ‘‘Manned Undersea Science and Technology Act.’’

Much of this old bill is similar to the legislation that we are considering here today,

and other bills and drafted amendments have been attempted on both sides of the

aisle since 1977. After almost thirty years, we are still trying to pass a bill to legitimize the need and enhance our ability to understand the environment that covers

most of the planet. Our hope is that through this legislation Congress has finally

come to recognize the enormous importance of providing the means to explore and

study the oceans in every way possible.

Having said that, and after much effort by this and the Resources Committee to

move this bill, we want to add that we and our colleagues are dismayed by the recent actions of the House Appropriations Committee to virtually gut FY 2007 ocean

funding for NOAA. Over a half billion dollars was cut from last year’s funding level,

almost all coming from the ocean side of the Agency. The programs that your legislation addresses in this hearing are also part of that cut. The Appropriations Committee provided only $16 million dollars for the two programs combined. This is less

than half of funds that would be authorized in H.R. 3835. There is a disconnect here

that makes little sense. We collectively recognize the importance of the oceans and

their resources to the Nation’s strategic and economic base in terms of climate, fisheries, transportation, human safety and health, tourism and general well being. We

also recognize, as did the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, that the oceans are

under siege. Coral reefs are dying off at record levels, killed by disease, rising temperatures, or crushed by destructive fishing practices. Fish population decline and

habitat destruction are rampant. Coastal water quality is degrading. Coastal hazards to human life and property is on the increase due to hurricanes and other

storm systems. These are all critical issues that are tied directly to the oceans. If

we do not put the energy and funds into increasing our knowledge of the oceans,

then we cannot manage their resources wisely nor mitigate the hazards. We find

it inconceivable that just two years ago the Commission’s Report ‘‘An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century’’ set forth a bold course to make understanding, protection, use and management of the oceans the highest of priorities. Now and over the

past few years the trend seems to be to reduce our commitment to ocean issues.

What is the reasoning, the complacency, the downright lack of commitment and caring for our oceans that is demonstrated by this nation?

We should not, therefore, allow this important legislation, that will do much to

address some of these concerns, slip away. We urge you, Mr. Chairman, in the

strongest terms, to do what it takes to see that the Committee, the full House and

the Senate pass the provisions H.R. 3835 into law.

We believe that it would help your committee if we gave you a quick history of

the government’s involvement in undersea research and how it led to where we are

today. First, undersea research in NOAA began when the Agency was created by

the Stratton Commission around 1970 as the Manned Undersea Science and Technology Program (MUST). One year later the Hydro-Lab Undersea Laboratory Program and others were launched, giving scientists first-hand working experience living in an undersea laboratory and using lock-out submersibles. It was immediately

obvious to us that there was great potential to advance our knowledge of the ocean

by placing humans directly into the sea. By 1980, based upon a report from the National Research Council, Congress worked with NOAA to change the program to a

65

regional system with a stronger scientific and technical base in academia and industry. This was named the National Undersea Research Program (NURP). Also about

this time, the Aquarius Undersea Laboratory was built and is still operating today

as the only remaining seafloor lab in the world.

As of 2006, the program consists of six regional Centers covering all coasts of the

U.S. and Caribbean and a National Institute of Undersea Science and Technology.

NURP has continued to operate for the past twenty-six years making discoveries

and improving the management of our coastal, ocean and Great Lakes resources,

placing thousands of scientists in all forms of diving equipment, undersea laboratories and research submersibles as well as using remotely operated vehicles.

But, here again is another ocean program under siege. NURP’s funding decreased

from a high of a little over $18 million dollars ten years ago to about $4.5 million

dollars last year. Around six years ago the Ocean Exploration Program was started

to increase our ability to go even further to places never before seen by man. Although the two programs complemented each other in many ways, they continued

to operate as separate entities.

As we realized that a change was needed back in 1980 to make the program in

undersea research more effective, it appears that it is time, once again, to reassess

how we can make it work better and to bring the two programs- Ocean Exploration

and Undersea Research—together. NOAA has been working on a plan, over the past

year or so, to restructure the two programs and merge them. The legislation you

are considering today provides the building blocks for this new merged program.

MERGING THE OCEAN EXPLORATION AND UNDERSEA RESEARCH

PROGRAMS

NOAA is faced with a great challenge in its role as the Nation’s steward of our

oceans, coasts and Great Lakes—underwater ecosystems that are largely unknown,

yet exploited and highly impacted. Continued failures of traditional assessment and

management methods to sustain resources suggest new approaches are needed, such

as ecosystem-based management. NOAA needs an expanded, integrated program of

undersea exploration, strategic research, and technology development, which will result in:

• new discoveries, resources and promotion of our blue planet

• knowledge and new perspectives needed for Ecosystem-Based Management

• Cutting-edge, innovative technical solutions for science, engineering, and commercial applications.

Together, these elements provide synergy, capacity and knowledge needed to meet

the great ocean challenge.

We maintain that this synergy must continue to include strong ties to regional

partners who promote:

• Closer cooperation with local stakeholders, such as fishery management councils and water quality agencies

• Increased participation in regional ocean science, management, and education

planning activities

• Enhanced scientific and operational capacity through extramural partners in

other federal programs, states, academia, and industry

• Involvement of a broader community of scientists, managers, educators, and

students in NOAA’s mission

• Better outreach through access and proximity to the public, and

• Dedicated support for ecosystem approach to management through coordinated team of NOAA, academic and industry partners.

Lastly, at a time when support for the oceans is most threatened, we need to increase efforts to reveal the importance of this work to the world and what will be

lost to future generations. Ocean education and literacy breeds public support.

These two programs together have already demonstrated their ability to reach students and public groups across the globe to convey the need and excitement of ocean

exploration and research. On-going ‘‘K through gray’’ activities include:

• Virtual ocean programs that bring the sea into classrooms and living rooms

through tele-presence and live events

• Interactive, at-sea learning that enhances ocean literacy, enriches science

education, and promotes environmental stewardship

• Innovative ocean observation programs that promote development of science

and math skills, and problem-solving approaches to learning, and

66

• Informal science center partnerships that expose millions of visitors each year

to the oceans through exhibits and hands-on activities.

Mr. Chairman, we endorse this legislation wholeheartedly, with one recommendation. We believe that the funding levels in the bill for the undersea research program are too small to accomplish the many tasks it will be conducting in the future.

The costs of developing new technologies to explore and study the oceans are high

and we recommend a fifty percent increase in the authorizing numbers in Title II

of H.R. 3835.

We appreciate your attention to our remarks and the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of this most important legislation.

Thank you.