Hearing Title:

Segment 4 Of 5     Previous Hearing Segment(3)   Next Hearing Segment(5)

SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    Tables

 Page 279       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

Appendix 2:

Panel II Biographies, Financial Disclosures, and Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

BIOGRAPHY FOR MARCIA K. MCNUTT

President, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, 7700 Sandholdt Road, Moss Landing, CA 95039–0628; (831) 775–1814 (office); (831) 775–1647 (fax); mcnutt@mbari.org

Table 3

Sea Experience

Participant on 14 oceanographic expeditions on ships from Scripps, Woods Hole, Oregon State University, and Columbia University.

Co-chief scientist on Crossgrain 2 marine geophysical expedition to the Marquesas Islands, April 1987.

Co-chief scientist on the R/V Ewing EW9103 multichannel seismic expedition to French Polynesia, May, 1991

Chief scientist on the R/V Ewing EW9106 marine geophysical survey of the Marquesas Fracture Zone, September-October, 1991

Chief scientist on the R/V Ewing EW9204 ocean bottom seismometer experiment in the Marquesas Islands, May, 1992

 Page 280       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

Co-chief scientist on BARGE, a multichannel seismic survey on Lake Mead of the Colorado Plateau—Basin and Range breakaway zone, March, 1994

Chief scientist on EW9602, multichannel seismic survey of the Austral Islands, March-May, 1996

Chief scientist on R/V Roger Revelle expedition to measure hydrothermal heat flux in the Hawaiian Islands, August-September, 1997

Professional Societies

American Geophysical Union (Fellow)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (Fellow)
Geological Society of America (Fellow)

Relevant Activities
Member, NSF panel for graduate fellowships in Earth Sciences, 1985, 1986, 1987 (Chairman 1988, 1989, 1990)
NSF Ocean Sciences, Panelist, 1986–1988, 1990
NSF Science and Technology Centers Panelist 1989
Member, Lithosphere Panel, Ocean Drilling Program, 1986–1988
Chairman, Joint Committee for Marine Geology and Geophysics, MIT/WHOI Joint Program, 1984–1988, 1991–1995
Member, Atolls and Guyots Detailed Planning Group, Ocean Drilling Program, 1991
Member, Performance Evaluation Committee, Ocean Drilling Program, 1991

 Page 281       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

Member, Organizing Committee for the Frontiers of Science Symposium, National Academy of Sciences, 1991–2, 1994
Member, Advisory Committee for Earth Sciences, National Science Foundation, 1990–1993
Member, NASA Earth Science and Applications Division Advisory Subcommittee, 1990–1993
Member, Advisory Structure Review Committee, Ocean Drilling Program, 1992–1993
Chairman, Organizing Committee for the Frontiers of Science Symposium, National Academy of Sciences, 1993
Chairman, Visiting Committee, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 1993
Member, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, National Research Council, 1994
Member, Committee on Geophysical and Environmental Data, National Research Council, 1994
Member, National Academy of Sciences Television Advisory Committee, 1994
Member, Committee to Study the Criteria for Federal Support for Research and Development (Press Committee), 1995
Member, Organizing Committee for the German-American Frontiers of Science Symposium, 1995, 1996
Member, National Medal of Science Committee, 1995–1997
Member, New England Aquarium Advisory Board, 1995–1997
Co-Chair, NSF-OCE Workshop on the Future of Marine Geosciences, 1995–1998
Vice-Chair, Advisory Committee for Geosciences, National Science Foundation 1996–1998
Co-Chair, Chinese-American Frontiers of Science Symposium, August, 1998
Member, Government-University-Industry-Research-Roundtable Committee on Stress in Universities, 1995–1998
Member, NRC Committee on 50 Years of Ocean Sciences at NSF, 1998
Member, ODP Executive Committee for Drilling Opportunities in the 21st Century, 1998–9
Member, German-American Academic Council, 1994–1999
President, American Geophysical Union 2000–2002

 Page 282       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

Member, Ocean Science Synthesis Committee, NSF 1998-present
Member, Board of Directors, Monterey Bay Aquarium, 1998-present
Member, Schlumberger Technical Advisory Committee, 2000-present
Chair, Ocean Research Advisory Panel, National Ocean Partnership Program, 2001-present
Chair, President's Panel on Ocean Exploration, 2000-present
Chair, Monterey Bay Crescent Ocean Research Consortium, 2000-present

Author of more than 80 peer reviewed publications in Ocean and Earth Sciences

73840k3.eps

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Response to Questions from the Honorable Robert Underwood with Regard to the Hearing on Ocean Exploration and Observations

Submitted by Marcia McNutt, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

1. In light of pressing scientific question such as climate change, ocean interactions, ocean circulation and heat exchange, why hasn't the National Science Foundation or the university community devoted more of its own resources to doing work on their own? Why is the U.S. in general lagging behind devoting resources to answering these questions?

I think it is best if the Director of NSF responds to the question of why NSF is not investing more in this area. I will only point out that the National Science Board has ranked Ocean Observing Systems for understanding ocean health and climate very highly for its Major Research Equipment fund, but that the fund has been cut by the White House and Congress in the past few fiscal years.

 Page 283       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

    The university community, in my opinion, is doing what it can to address the pressing issues concerning climate, but universities have few sources of revenue to fund this work other than the federal government. Such initiatives are consistently highly rated for university and state matching funds whenever federal funds are available, showing the high regard for the relevancy of such work within the university systems.

    During the years that I was on the faculty at MIT, I came to understand the university budgeting process quite well. Basically, universities have 3 main sources of income: tuition, gifts, and sponsored research. MIT, probably like most other universities, runs its research programs on a ''cost minus'' basis. By the time the university adds up all of the costs it incurs in order to be a research university as opposed to merely a teaching institution, it loses money on its grants and contracts. That money lost must come from gifts and endowment income. Each dollar taken from such funds to further subsidize the research means one dollar less to provide scholarship assistance for students. MIT practices ''need blind'' admissions. If a student meets the admission criteria, MIT ensures that student that he or she will be offered a financial assistance package that will allow that student to attend MIT regardless of family finances. Further subsidy of research, such as a major university investment in oceans and climate, would jeopardize MIT's need blind admissions. MIT is the place where a smart kid from the barrio can still go to get a first class education no matter who her daddy is or the size of the family bank account one of the most pure meritocracies. We should keep it that way.

    Certainly this is not to say that MIT would be better off without a research program. The dollars and cents analysis fails to recognize that MIT would not be MIT if it were not a world-class research university, thanks to government funding. But nevertheless I hope I have made the point that there are not extra pots of money being wasted on useless enterprises that could better be devoted to the oceans.

 Page 284       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

2. Should there be a specific capitalized program to develop new technologies for ocean exploration and observation, providing incentives and seed money to encourage the public and private sector to get involved in development? Such a program would be similar to the Hybrid Automobile Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce.

    My own view is that a capital program to develop new technologies for ocean exploration and observation is best undertaken hand-in-hand with the scientific research programs that will use those tools. I see no other way to ensure that the technology actually meets the needs for measuring, sampling, and experimenting in the ocean. Allow me to provide an example.

    When I was on the faculty at MIT, most of ocean science was undertaken in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences within the School of Science. Most of the development of new ocean technology took place within the Department of Ocean Engineering within the School of Engineering. The natural barriers that arise between departments and schools at any large institution made it very difficult for those two groups of researchers to work together. Often they didn't even know each other. The problem was confounded by the fact that NSF funds research and instrumentation programs separately under different program managers. The MIT scientists continued to solve the problems they COULD solve, rather than the problems they SHOULD solve, because they used whatever technology they already had. On the other hand, the engineers built nifty new devices to deploy in the ocean that caused the scientists to scratch their heads and say, ''That is cute, but what is it good for?''

    Since arriving at MBARI, I have been impressed by how much more progress can be made with less effort when all barriers (organizational and financial) to collaboration are removed. Here the scientists discuss with the engineers an entire suite of worthwhile problems that cannot currently be addressed due to lack of appropriate technology. The engineers then help them select which ones are most ripe for a great leap forward because the necessary technology is just now on the horizon. Often this is technology that has matured on account of great investment by other sectors (defense, biomedical, communications, information technology), but the other drivers will not put in the extra 5% needed to adapt the technology to work autonomously underwater. So MBARI fills that niche, reaping great rewards for the ocean science community from modest investment.

 Page 285       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

To set up a separate government program for ocean technology development divorced from the research programs (such as Ocean Exploration or Ocean Observing Systems) would be a step in the wrong direction, in my view. I am greatly in favor of providing incentives, but they should be done within the context of a long-term and forward-thinking research and development program.

3. The observation system you all talk about is primarily for the physical environment. What are the practical applications of applying this new stream of data to the management of biological species? How would this information ultimately support the management of resources through an understanding of such things as primary productivity, fish stocks and marine pollution?

I don't believe that I spoke about an observing system for the physical environment, but certainly other presenters did. The Ocean Exploration panel report stresses the importance of characterizing the ocean in all disciplines: biological, chemical, geological, as well as physical. In the questioning after my presentation, I made the point that the current emphasis needs to be on the development of in situ biological and chemical sensors for the ocean. Thanks largely to substantial investment by the Navy, an organization with a very special need to understand the ocean's physical environment, physical and geophysical sensors for the ocean are relatively mature and commercially available at reasonable cost. The same cannot be said for biological and chemical sensors. In my personal view, the current generation of plans for ocean observing systems are incomplete in that they are not sufficiently investing in the development of chemical and biological sensors that can operate unattended on autonomous platforms for long periods of time. My own institution, MBARI, is currently investing heavily in chemical sensors that work at low power and require no expendable reagents to detect chemical species of interest. We have also developed a device (the ESP, or Environmental Sample Processor) that can identify micro-organisms in the ocean in situ, autonomously, using their genetic code, and beam the results back to shore labs. Both of these devices currently work on moorings and are quite adaptable to use on autonomous underwater vehicles.

 Page 286       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

We have already successfully used the ESP to predict the occurrence of the red tide and other harmful algal blooms by detecting the first onset of growth of toxic marine organisms in the ocean before they make their way up the food chain to poison shellfish, marine mammals, and humans. It is our belief that the current standards for what organisms are being monitored is grossly inadequate. A far larger number of micro-organisms harmful to human health are present in the environment, but prior to the development of the MBARI ESP there was no way to determine what organisms are actually making people sick. The potential for tools such as this to improve public health, track pollution, and better understand the marine food web is enormous. Clearly much more investment in these sorts of devices is needed.

73840l3.eps

73840m3.eps

73840n3.eps

73840o3.eps

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Questions submitted by the Honorable Robert Underwood, Subcommittee on Resources

Responses submitted by Robert D. Ballard, President, Institute for Exploration

 Page 287       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

1. What Federal assets are available through the Department of Defense to support ocean observation and exploration? Sharing what has been done with the military and civilian satellite program and the opening of access to SOSUS array data, are there other areas where science might benefit from former and current defensive technologies to achieve cost savings in building a civilian ocean observing capability?

As far as I am concerned, the greatest contribution the U.S. Navy could make to ocean exploration—or any ocean observatory program—would be for them to declassify their multi-narrow beam bathymetric data base. One can defend to some degree their reluctance to declassify some of their data base that was collected near U.S. harbors, but there is no reason whatsoever to protect data collected in deep water. There is no military threat to the U.S. in deep water, particularly far from home. The U.S. Navy also has modified various nuclear submarines that might be highly useful to ocean exploration as well as the unmanned vehicles deployed by those submarines.

2. You discuss ocean farming and ocean colonization as the future of the ocean. But considering the lack of information we currently possess about the oceans, how far in the future do you foresee these events occurring?

The fact that we lack information regarding ocean farming and eventual colonization is the point I wanted to make. We are doing nothing in these two areas of potential ocean utilization. I would like to see at least some amount of funding directed toward these areas. In particular, I would like to see a research program built around using the FLIP ship from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as a proto-type for living at sea for long periods of time. Clearly, without a Federal research program in open ocean farming or what is needed to colonize the open sea, their futures are very far away but need not be.

 Page 288       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

3. As the Explorer-In-Residence at the National Geographic, I'm sure you are familiar with the Sustainable Seas Expeditions. Could you please describe for us what tangible research has been accomplished as part of these expeditions? Should ocean exploration in general be focused on the U.S. EEZ initially, or a broader approach taken from the beginning?

Although I am an Explorer-in-Residence for the National Geographic Society, I am not familiar with the science program associated with the Sustainable Seas Program. If I were asked to evaluate its scientific accomplishments, I would seek a list of papers published in refereed journals resulting from data collected during that program since that is the traditional measure of the science being done. The exploration of America's EEZ clearly needs to be done. This is especially so in the western Pacific where the geology of those territories is extremely complex resulting in a highly varied world which may contain many new discoveries. I do, however, believe that the greatest potential for discovery is in the southern hemisphere and polar regions simply because they are so vast and unexplored.

4. Should there be a specific capitalized program to develop new technologies for ocean exploration and observation, providing incentives and seed money to encourage the public and private sector to get involved in development? Such a program would be similar to the Hybrid Automobile Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce.

I agree! We need to support the development of AUVs (autonomous underwater vehicles) that can traverse long stretches of the seafloor—on the order of hundreds of kilometers—before needing to return to the surface for new power packages.

 Page 289       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

 Page 290       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

Disclosure Requirement

Required by House Rule XL, clause 2(g) and Rules of the Committee on Resources

A. This part to be completed by all witnesses:

    1. Name: Robert A. Weller

    2. Business Address: Clark 204a, MS 29, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543

    3. Business Phone Number: (508) 289–2508

    4. Organization you are representing: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

    5. Any training or educational certificates, diplomas, degrees or educational experiences which add to your qualifications to testify on or knowledge of the subject matter of the hearing: B.A., 1972, magna cum laude, Harvard University (Engineering and applied physics); Ph.D., 1978, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Oceanography).

    6. Any professional licenses, certifications, or affiliations held which are relevant to your qualifications to testify on or knowledge of the subject of the hearing: PATENT: U.S. Patent No. 4,152,934, ''Vector Measuring Current Meter'' (with R. Davis, assigned to the Secretary of the Navy). AWARDS: James B. Macelwane Award, 1986, American Geophysical Union; Fellow, American Geophysical Union, 1986; NASA Certificate of Recognition, 1991; Henry B. Bigelow Chair for Excellence in Oceanography, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1993–1997; Secretary of the Navy Chair in Oceanography, 1998–. MEMBERSHIPS: American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Oceanography Society, U.S. Naval Institute.

 Page 291       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

7. Any employment, occupation, ownership in a firm or business, or work-related experiences which relate to your qualifications to testify on or knowledge of the subject matter of the hearing:

Employment:

Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Research Assistant, 1972–1978;
Postgraduate Research Oceanographer, 1978–1979

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Postdoctoral Scholar, 1979–1980;
Postdoctoral Investigator, 1980;
Assistant Scientist, 1980–1984;
Associate Scientist, 1984–1994;
Associate Scientist with Tenure, 1988
Senior Scientist, 1994
Director, Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research, 1998

Sea duty (research cruises):

U.S.C.G. Evergreen, Site D, February 1972;
R.V. Thomas Washington, Kuroshio Current survey, off Japan, August 1973;
R.V. Thomas Washington, NORPAX (North Pacific Experiment) Pole Experiment, January-February 1974;

 Page 292       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

R.V. Alexander Agassiz-7603, TWATE III, current meter test, February-March 1976;
R.P. FLIP (FLoating Instrument Platform), thesis experiment, January 1977;
R.P. FLIP, upper ocean response study, North Pacific, May 1980;
R.V. Oceanus-85, Long Term Upper Ocean Study (LOTUS), North Atlantic, August 1980;
R.V. Knorr-85, Gulf Stream Extension and LOTUS, November 1980;
R.V. Knorr-87, LOTUS, February 1981, Chief Scientist;
R.V. Oceanus-103, LOTUS, September 1981, Chief Scientist;
R.V. Oceanus-119, LOTUS, May 1982;
R.P. FLIP, upper ocean studies, North Pacific, December 1982, Chief Scientist;
R.P. FLIP, upper ocean studies, North Pacific, May 1983, Co-Chief Scientist;
R.P. FLIP, October-November 1983, 35-day Mixed Layer Dynamics Experiment (MILDEX), North Pacific, Co-Chief Scientist;
R.V. Oceanus-145, LOTUS, North Atlantic, January 1984;
R.V. Oceanus, LOTUS, North Atlantic, May 1984;
R.V. Knorr-119, FASINEX (Frontal Air-Sea Interaction Experiment), co-Chief Scientist, North Atlantic, mooring deployment, January-February 1986;
R.V. Oceanus-175, FASINEX, Chief Scientist, February-March 1986;
R.V. Knorr-123, FASINEX, Chief Scientist, mooring recovery, June 1986;
R.V. Endeavor, Buoy Farm, North Atlantic, test buoy deployment, January 1989;
R.P. FLIP, surface wave and mixed layer study (SWAPP) trial cruise, North Pacific, July-August 1989;
R.P. FLIP, SWAPP (Surface Wave Processes Program), Co-Chief Scientist, February-March 1990;
R.V. Oceanus-240, leg 3, Subduction mooring deployment, North Atlantic, Chief Scientist, June-July, 1991;

 Page 293       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

R.V. Oceanus-250, Subduction experiment, North Atlantic, Chief Scientist, January-February, 1992;
R.V. Wecoma, Chief Scientist, TOGA COARE mooring recovery cruise in the western equatorial Pacific, March 1993;
R.V. Thomas Thompson-TN040, mooring deployment cruise in Arabian Sea, October 1994;
R.V. Endeavor-260, Chief Scientist, mooring deployment cruise on Georges Bank, January, 1995;
R.V. Thomas Thompson-TN046, Arabian Sea, Chief Scientist; mooring recovery and deployment cruise in Arabian Sea, April 1995;
R.V. Thomas Thompson-TN052, mooring recovery cruise in Arabian Sea, October 1995;
R.V. Roger Revelle, Chief Scientist, Lima, Peru to San Diego, mooring deployments in equatorial eastern Pacific, April 1997;
R.V. Thomas Thompson, Chief Scientist, eastern Pacific mooring recovery and deployment cruise, eastern equatorial Pacific, November-December 1997;
R.V. Argo Maine, Massachusetts Bay, mooring recovery cruise, Sept. 1998;
R.V. Gyre, Gulf of Mexico, U.S. Navy mine counter-measures field experiment, GOMEX99, Gulf of Mexico, September 1999;
R.V. Melville, Cook 02, Chief Scientist, mooring deployment in South American stratus cloud deck west of northern Chile, September-October 2000.

Service:

American Geophysical Union
President-elect Ocean Sciences Section, 1998–2000;
President Ocean Sciences Section, 2000–

 Page 294       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences
Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, Committee Toward A National Collaboratory, 1991–1993;
GOALS (Global Ocean Atmosphere Land System) Panel, 1995–1997;
GEWEX (Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment) Panel, 1995–1997;
Panel on the Global Ocean Observing System, 1996–1997;
TOGA Panel on Near-Term Development of Operational Ocean Observations, 1991–1993;
Committee on Radio Frequencies, 1990–1996;
Guidance Group for formation of a Committee to consider 'On Being A Scholar in a Digital Age', 1998–;
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, 1999–.

International science panels

CCCO–JSC Ocean Observing System Development Panel (OOSDP), 1990–1995;
JSTC/WCRP Ocean Observations for Climate Panel, 1995–present;
International CLIVAR (Climate Variability Program) Scientific Steering Group, 1999–;
Chair, CLIVAR Pacific Implementation Workshop Organizing Committee, 1999–;
WOCE International Indian Ocean Special Studies working group, 1991–1992;
TOGA (Tropical Ocean-Global Atmosphere) Program
TOGA Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment (COARE) Science Working Group, 1990–1994;
TOGA COARE International Scientific Oversight Team, 1992–1993;
VEPIC (VAMOS (Variability of the American Monsoon System)—EPIC (Eastern Pacific Investigation of Climate) Science steering group), 1999–;

 Page 295       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

IOC (International Oceanographic Commission) Data Exchange Policy Group, 2000–;
GOOS Capacity Building Panel, 2000–.

National science panels

W.O.C.E. (World Ocean Circulation Experiment)
Working Group on the Surface Layer;
Working Group on Technology Development;
Process Studies Implementation Panel (chairman);
Working Group for In-Situ Measurements for Fluxes;
Organizing Committee for the Workshop on Atmospheric Forcing of Ocean Circulation (January, 1988; sponsored by Institute for Naval Oceanography, W.O.C.E., and T.O.G.A.);
U.S. CLIVAR (Climate Variability)
Scientific Steering Committee, 1998–;
Co-Chair, Pacific Implementation Group, 1998–.

American Meteorological Society

Program Committee, Seventh Conference on Ocean-Atmosphere Interaction, 1988;
Associate Editor, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 1993–1998.

U.S. Navy, Office of Naval Research

Coordinator for the Frontal Air-Sea Interaction Experiment (FASINEX), 1984–1988;
Coordinator for the Surface Wave Processes Program (SWAPP), 1989–1995;

 Page 296       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

Executive Committee for Marine Luminescence in the Mixed Layer (MLML), 1988–1991;
Executive Committee for Subduction program, 1990–1995;
Planning Committee for the Atlantic Stratocumulus Transition Experiment (ASTER), 1990–1992;
Secretary of the Navy Chair in Oceanography, 1998–;
Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Technology Area Review and Assessment (TARA) panel for Battlespace Environments, 1998–;
Chair, ONR Code 32/Battlespace Environments Board of Visitors, 2000;
WHOI-Surface Warfare Development Group Workshop, 2000;
Co-coordinator (with Jim Edson) ONR CBLAST–LOW, (Coupled Boundary Layer Air-Sea Interaction—Low wind), 2000–.

National Science Foundation

National Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Technology Division Review Panel, 1993–1996;
HIAPER Review Panel, 1998.

NOAA

Chairman, science team and later science advisory group for the Surface and Upper Ocean Observations Project of the NOAA Climate and Global Change Program, 1990–1994;
NOAA NODC/Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Sea Surface Temperature Working Group, 1991–1992;
Science Working Group, Pan American Climate Studies (PACS), 1997–2000;
Chair, EPIC (Eastern Pacific Investigation of Climate) Science Steering Group, 1997–present;
Director, WHOI–NOAA Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research (CICOR), 1998–present;

 Page 297       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

NOAA Climate Council, 1999–present;
NOAA Climate Observing Systems Council, 1999–present;
NEOOS (Northeast Ocean Observing System) Steering Group, 1999–2000.

Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Educatlon (CORE)

Ocean Observatories Steering Committee, 2000–;
ORAP subcommittee to review the Integrated Ocean Observing Plan, 2000.

Other

NASA Working Group on Science Requirements for Low Frequency Passive Microwave Observations of the Earth, 1990–1991;
GOMOOS (Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System), CEO Search Committee, 2000;
Encyclopedia of Oceanography, Editorial Advisory Board;
SEAFLUX Organizing Committee, a project to look at producing turbulent air-sea fluxes from satellite data, 1998–.

Publications:

75 papers in reviewed journals
43 non-refereed publications, technical reports, chapters

8. Any offices, elected positions, or representational capacity held in the organization on whose behalf you are testifying:

 Page 298       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

Director, WHOI–NOAA Cooperative Institute for Climate and Ocean Research (CICOR), 1998–;
Partnership for Ocean Global Observations (POGO), WHOI representative, 1999–;
WHOI Physical Oceanographic Observing Laboratory (POOL) steering committee, 1999–.

B. To be completed by nongovernmental witnesses only:

1. Any federal grants or contracts (including subgrants or subcontracts) which you have received since October 1, 1998 from the agencies funding ocean exploration and/or observing systems, including the source and amount and amount or each grant or contract:

Table 4

2. Any federal grants or contracts (including subgrants or subcontracts) which were received since October 1, 1998, from the agencies funding ocean exploration and/or observing systems, by the organization(s) which you represent at this hearing, including the source and amount or each grant or contract:

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is a private, not-for-profit research institution whose scientists are funded largely by the federal government, including grants or contracts from the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The federal funding is approximately $75M per year.

3. Any other information you wish to convey which might aid the members of the Committee to better understand the context of your testimony:

 Page 299       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

The witness is an oceanographer interested in ocean dynamics, the physics of atmosphere-ocean coupling, and the role of the ocean in climate variability. He has been involved in the development of the instrumentation and technology that now makes it possible to deploy surface moorings in the open ocean to collect observations of surface meteorology and oceanographic variability. These observations are essential to the determination of how much heat, freshwater, and other properties are exchanged between the ocean and the atmosphere, how the ocean responds to the surface winds and the heat exchange with the atmosphere, and how the atmosphere in turn responds to the ocean.

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Questions submitted by the Honorable Robert Underwood, Subcommittee on Resources

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

1. What would be the absolute priorities in a world of limited resources to be able to put in place a real-time observation system?

In order of priority, with highest priority number 1:

1) A global array of surface moorings observing and reporting a) surface meteorology and atmosphere-ocean exchanges of heat, freshwater, and momentum; b) physical properties (temperature, salinity, and ocean currents) through the water column from surface to bottom, and c) key biological, chemical, and geological observables (nutrients, chlorophyll, carbon dioxide, seismic information, for example).

 Page 300       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

2) The global deployment of the ARGO profiling floats, which would collect temperature and salinity profiles from the surface to 2000 meter depth, every 10 days, at a spacing of roughly 300 km.

3) Upgraded instrumentation on the Volunteer Observing Ship fleet (merchant ships that routinely repeat the same tracks across the ocean basins), to measure surface meteorology and atmosphere-ocean exchanges of heat, freshwater, and momentum and to make observations at the sea surface and in the upper ocean of physical (temperature, salinity, currents), chemical (carbon dioxide), and biological (chlorophyll, nutrients) properties.

2. Aside from the initial outlays for equipment, how would the equipment be maintained in perpetuity, who would pay for this responsibility, and who would maintain it?

The global ocean observing system will be an international partnership, like the global system for observing and reporting weather. The different nations would have, by agreement, different contributions and the responsibility for supporting and maintaining them.

This points to the allocation in the U.S. of federal funding for operational ocean measurements that would be realistic in coping with inflation and to the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. That infrastructure would include: a) a lead agency or entity that would be the U.S. point of contact for other nations, that could negotiate and monitor international agreements on responsibilities for elements of the ocean observing system, and that would focus and coordinate funding of the U.S. contributions, b) the people and ships needed to deploy and maintain the U.S. contributions, c) the people and hardware needed for the transmission, collection, and processing of data, and d) the ability to engage in capacity building and technology exchange to help other nations and thus ensure that quality and uniformity of the observing system. The maintenance would be done be a partnership of government, academic, and private laboratories. These labs now have the capability to work globally and the experience and knowledge to go forward. Additional ship time and people would be needed.

 Page 301       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

3. Should there be a specific capitalized program to develop new technologies for ocean exploration and observation, providing incentives and seed money to encourage the public and private sector to get involved in development? Such a program would be similar to the Hybrid Automobile Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce.

    Yes. Ocean observation and exploration, exclusive of satellite remote sensing, is at present a small enterprise in the U.S. and the resulting lack of incentives, foci, and opportunities limit participation and in turn our ability to conduct both.

    For example, there is a lack of capacity for relaying in real-time data from the ocean's surface back to laboratories in the U.S. It was hoped that the new generation of telecommunications systems using low earth orbiting satellites (such as Iridium) would solve this problem. However, present market forces are not driving the private sector to provide upgraded communication over the global ocean. As a result we lack capacity to relay ocean data in real time.

    A key requirement for such a program will be the ability to sustain support over a number if years. The cycle for testing new technologies that would address long-term ocean observations and exploration is one that takes many years. Not all new hardware deployed in the ocean is recovered, and a number of field trials are required to confirm success. It is not uncommon for new ocean instrumentation to take 10 years to reach operational status.

4. The observation system you all talk about is primarily for the physical environment. What are the practical applications of applying this new information to the management of biological species? How would this information ultimately support the management of resources through the understanding of such things as primary productivity, fish stocks and marine pollution?

 Page 302       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

Observing and understanding the physical environment (temperature, salinity, currents) provides an essential foundation. Population variability can be driven by a number of causes, one of which is change in the environment. Environmental change has several year (El Niño), decadal (Pacific Decadal Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation), and longer periods of variability and may alone drive change in species' populations and distributions of populations among different year classes. The impact of fishing pressure cannot be understood unless the variability driven by change in the environment is also understood. Management of the pollock fishery in the northeast Pacific is now done making use of observations of the physical environment. In the northwest Atlantic Ocean, there is decadal variability in the flow patterns of water down along Canada into the Gulf of Maine and to Georges Bank. This must be observed and understood as an integral part of developing an understanding and management plan for the fish populations there.

Nutrients and pollutants are distributed both horizontally, into different parts of the ocean, and vertically, through the water column, by physical processes (currents, mixing). Understanding of these processes is needed for developing understanding of the biological, chemical and geological variability in the oceans. Currents, for example, carry spilled oil, the algae in toxic algal blooms, and larvae. The exchange of nutrients between the buoyant surface layer of the ocean, where nutrients are often depleted, and the nutrient-rich water below is understood only if the physical processes of mixing are taken into account. Currents and waves are needed by the oil and shipping industries, who are working to place drilling platforms in deeper water and to improve the cost-effectiveness and safety of marine transportation.

 Page 303       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

73840p3.eps

73840q3.eps

73840r3.eps

73840s3.eps

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Questions submitted by the Honorable Robert Underwood, Committee on Resources

Responses by J. Frederick Grassle, Director, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University

1. The Physical Ocean Real-Time System (PORTS), run by NOAA, has a similar purpose to that of the innovative LEO–15 System you described. Is it envisioned that additional LEO–15 installations would link with existing and future PORTS installations? How do the two systems currently interact? Should they be integrated as they expand? What about cost savings through integration?

Establishment of observing systems must be integrated with existing marine observation systems such as PORTS. Presently, PORTS installations are centered at a number of ports throughout the country where they primarily support navigation needs of ships entering and departing harbors. In the NY/NJ Harbor for example, PORTS consists of five sites, a current meter at Bergen Point and four sites with tide gauges (two of these have salinity and temperature sensors as well). Three sites provide weather information. The addition of information from an observatory like LEO would complement and make more useful the data collected and disseminated through PORTS. For example, we have proposed providing real time surface current information from high frequency radar (CODAR) units and subsurface salinity and temperature data. These additional data will allow us to forecast the three-dimensional circulation for the entire New York Bight. Currently, the PORTS system and LEO–15 do not interact. However, Rutgers University has advanced a proposal to establish a NY/NJ Harbor Observing System that would certainly capitalize on and incorporate PORTS data. Current efforts to install a CODAR system in the NY/NJ Harbor will be integrated with PORTS and jointly made available to the public over the Internet.

 Page 304       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

As observing systems evolve regionally throughout the nation, they should integrate PORTS systems. Integration of existing data collection systems such as PORTS, satellite-based imaging capabilities, aircraft, autonomous undersea vehicles, and shore-based remote sensing systems should be included. With government, the academic community, and industry working together, the operational capabilities of these observing systems will develop at minimal cost, providing more efficient use of coastal waters and major savings to port and shipping interests.

2. Please expand on your comments on how the Ocean Exploration Program and Office of Ocean Exploration are duplicative of the NURP, and provide examples.

Research supported by NURP is broad-based, high-quality, peer-reviewed science that responds to the mission needs of NOAA. Frequently however, NURP research leads to discoveries that fall into the exploration category. Regardless of whether a NURP project is classified as exploration or research, a common set of procedures has been used to evaluate the scientific integrity of the proposed work, ensure the safety of the mission, and to select the most appropriate sampling and sensing tools and platforms. One recent example is the Deep East exploration cruise developed by three NURP Centers on the east coast (Rutgers U., U. Connecticut, U. North Carolina–Wilmington). These centers relied on the existing rigors of their peer review procedures and cruise planning expertise to assemble the inaugural ocean exploration mission on the east coast. The cruise was efficiently organized by experienced ocean explorers, benefits from existing science and operations expertise, and relies on regional and local mechanisms to interact with educators, the science community, and the undersea technology community. The Ocean Exploration program should capitalize on this proven experience in conducting safe, efficient, high-quality programs rather than recreate the capabilities available through the NURP program. NOAA should ensure that NURP provides a major part of the science and operational support services required by the Ocean Exploration program.

 Page 305       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

3. You highlight the relatively long-running Ocean Drilling Program, which provided extensive information on sedimentary strata and the earth's crust. In light of other priorities mentioned by the President's Ocean Exploration Panel and other witnesses today, should this program be maintained, or the resources applied to other priorities? Could we find out just as much about the earth's crust from the private sector through cooperative agreements or other means?

The Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) has been a leader in ocean exploration since it began in 1985 and cost sharing by the international partners makes it an exceptional bargain for the United States.

Scientific ocean drilling has produced data relevant to understanding many important issues affecting society today, including climate change, energy resources, metal exploration, and geologic hazards, such as volcanoes and earthquakes. The 1998 National Research Council paper, Opportunities in Ocean Sciences: Challenges on the Horizon states, ''Ocean drilling has produced sediment cores that provide our best long-term records of natural climate fluctuations.'' Through these cores, scientists have gained new understanding of the range of climatic conditions that have occurred on our planet, discovered that the Earth undergoes very rapid climate changes, and documented evidence of climate extremes. The program discovered how massive sulfide ore deposits rich in iron, copper, and zinc form, which has changed the exploration strategy of mineral resource companies. ODP has revolutionized our understanding of geologic hazards, such as tsunamis and great earthquakes in subduction zones. ODP has documented living organisms as deep as 3000 feet below the sea floor—illustrating that the deep subsurface biosphere plays a fundamental role in life on Earth.

 Page 306       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

    ODP has been a leader in developing ocean observing systems. The program has established several permanent subseafloor observatories containing seismometers that will provide tsunami warnings, monitor earthquake activity, and verify underground nuclear testing. Through these observatories, we have begun to understand how water circulation through ocean crust affects systems as diverse as ocean chemistry, atmospheric composition, metallic ore deposits, and earthquakes. Simply put, without an Ocean Drilling Program, there can be no comprehensive ocean observing system.

    Deep water oil and gas is a bright frontier for conventional energy supplies. Because ODP has a wealth of experience in drilling in several thousand meters of water, the program has also developed tools and technology that have paved the way for technology and knowledge transfer to industry for deep water oil and gas exploration. Current exploration by industry heavily uses knowledge and experience developed and transferred by ODP over the last twenty years. ODP has also contributed to the discovery of methane hydrates, a potentially huge energy source buried within ocean sediments. Future ODP research is scheduled to better evaluate the future economic potential of gas hydrates.

    Furthermore, ODP is perhaps the most successful example of an international science partnership. The contributions of more than 20 nations are combined to fund this program. In addition, the program works in partnership with the private sector in many areas of research and technology development. By leading the international efforts of the Ocean Drilling Program, the United States has been at the forefront of the oceanic discoveries. The United States has contributed 60% of the funding over the life of the program, yet it has benefited greatly from 100% of the program's research and educational efforts.

 Page 307       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

    The active drilling phase of the Ocean Drilling Program will draw to a close in September 2003, but a great deal of work has been expended in developing a successor program, the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP). IODP will bring together the resources of many countries to fund new ships and new technology to greatly extend the reach of the program and the value to U.S. taxpayers. Japan will be a partner with the U.S. and will provide a state-of-the-art riser drilling vessel at a cost of nearly a half a billion U.S. dollars. Through its anticipated contribution of no more than 40% of the total costs of this new international program, the United States stands to benefit handsomely. Research on climate and environmental changes on the Earth, the deep biosphere, mineral and energy resources, geologic hazards and the installation of new and more capable ocean observatories will yield information highly relevant to the Nation's national policies and international relations.

    So in summary, the answer to your first question, ''In light of other priorities mentioned by the President's Ocean Exploration Panel and the other witnesses today, should this program be maintained, or the resources applied to other priorities?,'' the ODP and its successor, the IODP, are essential to the goals of mapping the ocean floor, exploring ocean dynamics, developing sensor and other technologies, and providing educational opportunities such as those outlined by the President's Panel for Ocean Exploration. The ODP has a history of demonstrated success in these areas and the new technology used in IODP will continue to contribute exciting new discoveries.

    In response to your second question, ''Could we find out just as much about the earth's crust from the private sector through cooperative agreements or other means?,'' I believe the answer is a resounding no. ODP has demonstrated through its many successes the benefits of a close cooperation among international partners, both public and private. This collaboration has proven to be a winning combination from all aspects—societally relevant research, education, technology development and transfer, and cost efficiency, all guided by a comprehensive international peer-review advisory system. It seems inconceivable to me that private concerns alone could organize and execute such a far-reaching and complicated program with anything approaching the cost efficiency and research excellence of ODP.

 Page 308       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

    ODP is a superb example of international cooperation that has led to very significant discoveries of relevance to policy makers around the globe. The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, for which funding is needed to begin in FY 2004, is of highest priority for continuing this research, and I hope scientific ocean drilling will receive full support from the Congress.

4. Should there be a specific capitalized program to develop new technologies for ocean exploration and observation, providing incentives and seed money to encourage the public and private sector to get involved in development? Such a program would be similar to the Hybrid Automobile Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce.

    The major impediment to ocean exploration is the lack of suitable undersea systems to provide regular access to the deep ocean. Existing assets (DSV ALVIN and the ROV JASON) are oversubscribed, and are best suited for small-scale, high-resolution sampling and sensing missions. Incentives to develop new exploration tools including ocean observatory systems can benefit from public-private partnerships where scientific demand for specific sampling, sensing, and exploration capabilities can be addressed by private sector capabilities. Incentives and seed money, like that available through the two programs noted above plus the Small Business Innovation and Research Program provide a means to foster this partnership. The SBIR program in particular has been successful in stimulating development of undersea samplers that have improved the capabilities of the DSV ALVIN. More funding for ocean technology via the SBIR infrastructure would greatly enhance development of new ocean exploration and observation technology.

    The National Ocean Partnership Program has played an effective role in developing public and private sector partnerships for ocean exploration and observation through a peer review process that encourages creative partnerships among universities, government, and the private sector. I strongly recommend that an integrated ocean and coastal observing system be funded as part of the National Ocean Partnership Program under the auspices of the National Ocean Leadership Council (section 7902(a) of title 10 United States Code). Economic incentives to promote private partnerships with academically-based observing systems will assist technology development and lead to new markets for value-added data products and services.

 Page 309       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

5. The observation system you all talk about is primarily for the physical environment. What are the practical applications of applying this new stream of data to the management of biological species? How would this information ultimately support the management of resources through an understanding of such things as primary productivity, fish stocks and marine pollution?

The physical measuring system allows prediction of patterns of ocean currents, sediment movements, river plumes, and passive dispersal of most marine organisms. Physical processes do affect the distribution, abundance, and health of biological resources. Thus, it is important to understand how changes in these processes govern the distribution and dynamics of biological species. The Census of Marine Life (CoML) program with support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and federal agencies through the National Ocean Partnership Program has developed several pilot projects to demonstrate new technologies that are deployed with regard to the physical predictions provided by ocean observing systems. These technologies and new approaches to biological sampling of the ocean will be integrated into future observing systems and used to predict fluctuations in fish stocks, changes in the distribution patterns of economically important fish and shellfish, toxic algal blooms, and changes in essential fish habitat.

The measurement and prediction capabilities of both the LEO–15 observatory and the proposed network of regional ocean observing systems are designed to address issues concerning a broad range of user needs including management of biological resources. For example, ocean color imagery provides a suite of derived products including plant biomass, colored dissolved organic matter, sediments, primary productivity and, potentially, phytoplankton community classification. Emerging acoustic imaging and tagging methods are expected to be incorporated in observing systems to understand the population dynamics of species throughout their range, especially coastal migratory species. Real-time measurements, data assimilation, and physical modeling used to understand the distribution of organisms are the same measurements needed to: enhance the safety and efficiency of marine transportation, measure movements of contaminated sediments in storms, improve weather forecasts, and encourage greater public safety and enjoyment of the ocean.

 Page 310       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

73840w3.eps

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Questions submitted by the Honorable Robert Underwood, Subcommittee on Resources

Responses by Alfred M. Beeton, Senior Science Advisor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

1. You mention the current Global Ocean Observing System and their system for collecting and managing data. How would you foresee data being collected and managed in the U.S.? Should this be included as part of NOAA?

The Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) is an umbrella term for many complementary activities planned and underway by governments all over the world. At the same time, within the U.S. the proposed integrated ocean observing system (or ''Ocean.US''), which is the U.S. contribution to GOOS, is the combined effort of a number of Federal agencies. An Ocean.US Office has been established as a focal point for these agency activities. Because of the disparate nature and purposes of these activities, it is not practical to propose centralized management. But an Ocean.US Office can bring an enormous added value by effectively coordinating these efforts.

Enclosed is a copy of a report titled ''Toward A U.S. Plan for an Integrated, Sustained Ocean Observing System'', prepared in 1999 in response to a request from the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans. The report presents excellent recommendations for both coastal ocean and open ocean observations.

 Page 311       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

2. Please explain the Office for Ocean Exploration that has been established within NOAA. How do you foresee its role in future ocean exploration? How will it cooperate with other ocean exploration and observation also being undertaken?

On June 12, 2000, President William J. Clinton requested that the Secretary of Commerce convene a panel of leading scientists, explorers, and educators to develop a national strategy for ocean exploration. As a result, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was designated to be the leading federal agency for the initiative because of its role as the major agency for ocean observations. The Office for Ocean Exploration was created to be in charge of the program in collaboration with marine research institutions, universities and other relevant Federal agencies. Its role in the future of ocean exploration will be to identify resources available, facilitate partnerships, the dissemination of information and the development of new technologies. Cooperation with current exploration and observation initiatives is an intrinsic part of the effort to capitalize on joint opportunities with other compatible government missions and industry, as well as to avoid duplication of efforts.

3. Should there be a specific capitalized program to develop new technologies for ocean exploration and observation, providing incentives and seed money to encourage the public and private sector to get involved in development? Such a program would be similar to the Hybrid Automobile Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce.

Recent advances in technologies for ocean exploration and observation now make it possible to develop systems that will routinely monitor the chemical and biological components of the ocean and coastal ecosystems. Recent advances made with sensors for monitoring the occurrence of harmful algae, as well as other organisms, are very encouraging and have enormous potential, but much more needs to be done. Only a few years ago monitoring and assessment of organisms relied on methods in use for almost a hundred years. A specific capitalized program will be very useful to enhance and stimulate development of new technologies. I suggest that the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council be asked to establish a Committee to advise on the present state of such technology and what the opportunities are for enhancement and more rapid development of new technologies.

 Page 312       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 4 Of 5

4. The observation system that you all talk about is primarily for the physical environment. What are the practical applications of applying this new stream of data to the management of biological species? How would this information ultimately support the management of resources through an understanding of such things as primary productivity, fish stocks and marine pollution?

There are indeed important practical applications for living marine resource management. The observing system will collect data on chemical and biological variables in addition to physical parameters. Because of the complexity of the chemistry and biology issues, these components of the system are not yet fully developed. More work is needed. However, GOOS is intended to provide operationally useful information on changes in the state of living resources and their ecosystems to be able to assess present stocks and predict their future states, as well as their vulnerability to changes in climate, fishing pressure, pollution, and the incidence of harmful algal blooms. New technologies are also being evaluated for more cost-effective sampling, such as remote sensing techniques (using ocean color, for example) and new sensors on in situ instruments.

Next Hearing Segment(5)