Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
77749e.eps
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Response by Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Question: On page 81 of the hearing transcript, Chairman Ehlers requested information on Michigan and New Hampshire Sea Grant Funding.
Answer:
In FY 2001, Michigan received $208,000 in pass-through, $1,323,025 in core funds, and $83,000 in National Strategic Investment funding.
In FY 2001, New Hampshire received $2,246,166 in pass-through, $942,000 in core funds, and $0 in National Strategic Investment funding.
Core funds are program funds allocated to each state and managed locally.
The Sea Grant statute at 33 USC 1123(c)(3)(F) authorizes the Secretary to ''accept funds from other Federal departments and agencies, including agencies within the Administration, to pay for and add to grants made and contracts entered into by the Secretary.'' It also, at 33 USC 1123(d)(2)(B) requires the Director to ''advise the Secretary with respect to the expertise and capabilities which are available within or through the national sea grant college program and encourage the use of such expertise and capabilities, on a cooperative or other basis, by other offices and activities within the Administration, and other Federal departments and agencies.'' These funds are referred to as ''pass-through'' Sea Grant funds. Pass-through funds do not include funds appropriated directly to Sea Grant.
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
National Strategic Investments are competitions on specific themes awarded by the National Sea Grant College Program office. They allow Sea Grant to focus significant funds on high visibility, national issues. They provide a flexible mechanism for Sea Grant to respond to high priority issues and opportunities within NOAA and the Administration without disruption of the strategic objectives of individual programs.
Question from Rep. Grucci
The proposed move of the Sea Grant program from NOAA to NSF concerns me as more research is ongoing at Sea Grant. If removed from NOAA, would Sea Grant be competing for research monies with other competitive grant applications? If so, would this be to the detriment of good, focused oceanic research? I am concerned that grants for lobster research or brown tide would be competing for dollars with physicists and biologists. Do you have any comments?
Furthermore, Sea Grant's ability to conduct activities strengthens its purpose and establishment. Would moving Sea Grant out of NOAA risk these extension efforts?
Answer:
If the transfer occurs, it would be NSF's decision as to how to allocate the $57 million proposed for Sea Grant in the President's NSF budget. NSF and NOAA will coordinate in identifying research priorities.
Additionally, if the transfer occurs, it would be NSF's decision on how to conduct extension activities. NOAA and NSF would consult on various alternatives.
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Questions from Rep. Morella
1. What is the status of the ''bottom up'' review you mentioned in your testimony? What are the general parameters of the inquiry and when will it be complete?
Answer:
The NOAA Program Review was directed by NOAA's Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.), in January and began by soliciting input from all NOAA employees. NOAH employees as well as the 16 NOAA executives on the Program Review Team were asked to address the following three questions:
1) Is the NOAA organization aligned with its current missions and future missions? If not, what are your recommendations for change, near term and/or long term?
2) Are there significant imbalances in resources versus requirements? If so, what are your recommendations for change, near term and/or long term?
3) Are we being as efficient as possible in meeting our current and future mission tasking? If not, what are your recommendations for change near and/or long-term?
The Program Review Team has been meeting for the past few months. A report to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere has been conducted.
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Following report submission by the Program Review Team, which is chaired by the Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Scott B. Gudes, results from the review will be considered by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, the NOAA Executive Council, the Department of Commerce and the Office of Management and Budget. At that time, decisions will be made about what actions the agency should pursue.
2. What are the specific procedures for allocating money among the various Sea Grant programs and who makes these determinations? How much is allocated to ''core'' and how is its distribution different than ''new'' money? Who is responsible for these decisions?
Answer:
Since 1998, the National Sea Grant Office (NSGO) in NOAA allocates Sea Grant funding based on a three-tiered system that includes Base Funding, Merit Funding, and National Strategic Investments (NSIs.) Core funding is defined as Base Funding plus Merit Funding. Core funds are used by state Sea Grant programs to meet priorities in their state and region as determined by a strategic planning process involving constituents from a range of backgrounds, scientists, and representatives of industry, and government.
The individual program core funding level is a funding allocation target for each program made in advance of a fiscal year. The core funding is intended to provide a continuum of support around which individual programs can plan and develop, providing both a basis for estimating the dollars available to a program in a given year and a target amount for omnibus proposals submitted to NOAA for that year. The funds support a small group of people dedicated to communicating with relevant constituents on issues related to the Sea Grant program, as well as scientific research related to the Sea Grant mission. The core funding level for a given program consists of two components: the program's base funding and merit funding. Program base funding represents NOAA's investment in local infrastructure and addresses directly the stability of funding required by the Sea Grant Act. Merit funding is intended to reward program performance and is determined every four years. More detailed explanations follow below.
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
1. Base Funding ($44 Million)—The base funding is designed to provide a stable base of funding for each Sea Grant program, as required by the 1998 Sea Grant Reauthorization Act. This funding represents the NOAA investment history and cumulative performance record that is the legacy of each individual program. Since FY 1998, there have been additional increases to the base programs usually distributed as an across-the-board inflation adjustment. In addition, in FY 2001 each program received a $50,000 increase for the purpose of increasing their program's emphasis on Coastal Communities. In FY 2002, each Sea Grant Program is receiving an additional $15,000 for Fisheries Extension.
2. Merit Funding ($3 Million)—Merit funding is awarded to Sea Grant programs based upon the outcome of performance evaluations conducted by boards of outside visitors and the NOAA/NSGO every four years. Sea Grant programs are rated in one of four categories and all programs within a category receive the same amount of merit funding, independent of the amount it received under Base Funding.
3. National Strategic Investments ($11 Million)—National Strategic Investments (NSIs) are national competitions conducted through RFP's issued by the NOAA/NSGO. Funding decisions are solely based on a peer-review, competitive process that is very similar to that used by the NSF. NSI topics are determined through Sea Grant's authorizing legislation or administratively by the NOAA/NSGO with advice from a national issues panel. NSIs promote research meritocracy, healthy competition, and provide a flexible mechanism for Sea Grant to respond to high priority national issues. Examples of NSIs include oyster disease and oyster-related human health risks, marine biotechnology, zebra mussel and other non-indigenous species, technology development and transfer, and fisheries habitat.
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
BIOGRAPHY FOR RUSSELL A. MOLL
Director, California Sea Grant College, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, Dept. 0232, La Jolla, CA 92093–0232; Program Voice: 858–534–4440; Fax: 858–534–2231; e-mail: rmoll@ucsd.edu
EDUCATION
BA University of Vermont 1968—(zoology)
M.S. Long Island University 1971—(marine sciences)
M.S. University of Michigan 1983—(biostatistics)
Ph.D. State University of New York at Stony Brook 1974—(marine biology)
POSITIONS
Director, California Sea Grant College Program (2000–), University of California; Director (1996–2000), Acting Director, Michigan Sea Grant College Program (1996) University of Michigan; Associate Director, University of Michigan Biological Station (1998–2000); Associate Program Director (1994–1996), National Science Foundation; Director (1989–1996), Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems Research (CILER); Assistant Director (1988–1993), Acting Assistant Director (1985–1988), Michigan Sea Grant College Program; Associate Research Scientist (1981–), Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences, University of Michigan; Lecturer (1982), University of Michigan; Assistant Research Scientist (1976–1981), University of Michigan; Research Investigator (1974–1976), University of Michigan
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Society of Limnology and Oceanography (Treasurer 1996–), International Association of Theoretical and Applied Limnology, The Oceanographic Society
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
Moll, R.A., and M.Z. Brahce. 1986. The seasonal and spatial distribution of bacteria, chlorophyll, and nutrients in nearshore Lake Michigan. J. Great Lakes Res. 12:52–62.
Healey, M.J., and R.A. Moll. 1988. Abundance and distribution of bacterioplankton in the Gambia River, West Africa. Microbial Ecology 16:291–310.
Moll, R.A., and P.J. Mansfield. 1991. Response of bacteria and phytoplankton to contaminated sediments. Hydrobiologia 219:281–299.
Moll, R.A., A. Bratkovich, W.Y.B. Chang and P. Pu. 1993. Physical, chemical and biological conditions associated with the Lake Michigan vernal thermal front. Estuaries 16:92–103.
Moll, R., T. Johengen, A. Bratkovich, J. Saylor, G. Meadows, L. Meadows, and G. Pernie. 1993. Vernal thermal fronts in large lakes: A case study from Lake Michigan. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 25:65–68.
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Moll, R.A., D.J. Jude, R. Rossmann, G. Kantak, J. Barres, S. DeBoe, J. Giesy, and M. Tuchman. 1995. Movement and loadings of inorganic contaminants through the lower Saginaw River. J. Great Lakes Res. 21(1):17–34.
Verbrugge, D.A., J. Giesy, M.A. Mora, L. Williams, R. Rossmann, R.A. Moll, and M. Tuchman. 1995. Concentrations of dissolved and particulate polychlorinated biphenyls in water from the Saginaw River, Michigan. J. Great Lakes Res. 21:219–233
77749f.eps
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Response from Russell Moll, Director, California Sea Grant College Program
1. Reply to the question from Mr. Grucci: Many of us within the Sea Grant community have concerns regarding the proposal to move funds for Sea Grant from NOAA to NSF. In particular how will the National, Science Foundation maintain the outreach portion of Sea Grant or the basic components of the current network of programs? Many of these issues were addressed in my written testimony provided to the staff of the House Science Committee. As such, I refer Congressman Grucci to that written testimony.
2. Reply to the question from Mrs. Morella: The allocation of funds among the various Sea Grant programs is a complex issue that has three major components—the prior funding history, merit and overall quality of the program. The National Sea Grant Office determines how funds are allocated to each Sea Grant program. While the individual Sea Grant Programs provide a modest amount of input on this issue to the National Sea Grant Office, the final decision rests with the latter. For a more complete description of the specific allocation procedures, I encourage Congresswoman Morella to contact the National Sea Grant Office. Once funds arrive at each Sea Grant Program, they make the decision locally on how to allocate monies to the different components of the program such as research and outreach.
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
BIOGRAPHY FOR MARY HOPE KATSOUROS
Mary Hope Katsouros is a Senior Fellow and Senior Vice President for The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. Prior to joining The Heinz Center in 1996, she was the Director of the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council.
The Ocean Studies Board serves as an independent advisor to the federal government on a broad range of ocean science and policy issues. In her capacity as director, she was responsible for the scientific, administrative, and financial affairs of the Ocean Studies Board. Specifically, she developed appropriate research agenda and strategies for achieving program activities; designed or approved program study plans; coordinated the selection of committee members; developed support for new and follow-up research/policy studies; wrote or approved study proposals; maintained positive relations with sponsors; supervised and participated in ongoing research by directing, reviewing, and contributing to the writing of reports and publications; and planned oral presentations of research findings to sponsors and the broader professional/policymaking community.
Ms. Katsouros has supervised the production of more than 50 National Research Council reports on issues spanning the oceanographic research disciplines and linking ocean science and policy. Some recent studies include the ocean's role in global change, the effects of low-frequency sound on marine mammals, the application of analytical chemistry to oceanic carbon cycles, the global ocean observing system, marine fisheries science and management, biological diversity in marine systems, coastal science and policy improving decision-making, and ecosystem management for sustainable fisheries. Ms. Katsouros joined the National Research Council in 1971 and served in several staff positions before assuming the directorship in 1989.
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Her personal research interests include pollutants in the marine environment especially inputs, fates, and effects of oil spills. She also is interested in the law of the sea and its affect on resource management and marine scientific research. Ms. Katsouros has served as an advisor to the Department of State on law of the sea issues and to the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment on oil spills. In recognition of her service to ocean sciences, Ms. Katsouros was the recipient of the 1996 American Geophysical Union's Ocean Sciences Award.
Ms. Katsouros holds a law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center with undergraduate and Master's degrees from the George Washington University.
77749g.eps
Mary Hope Katsouros did not respond to the questions posed by the members after the hearing.
BIOGRAPHY FOR NANCY N. RABALAIS
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, 8124 Hwy. 56, Chauvin, Louisiana 70344; 985–851–2800, –2836 direct, –2874 fax; nrabalais@lumcon.edu
Nancy Rabalais is a Professor at the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium where she has been employed since 1983. She earned a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Texas at Austin in 1983, and her B.S. and M.S. in Biology from Texas A&I University, Kingsville, in 1972 and 1975. Prior to LUMCON, Dr. Rabalais was a Research Associate then graduate student at the University of Texas Marine Science Institute in Port Aransas. She teaches marine science courses at LUMCON and in the Dept. of Oceanography & Coastal Sciences at Louisiana State University. Dr. Rabalais' research interests include the dynamics of hypoxic environments, interactions of large rivers with the coastal ocean, estuarine and coastal eutrophication, benthic ecology, and environmental effects of habitat alterations and contaminants. Dr. Rabalais is a AAAS Fellow, an Aldo Leopold Leadership Program Fellow, a Past President of the Estuarine Research Federation and currently is Chair of the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council. She was named a 1999 NOAA Environmental Hero for her work on the causes and consequences of Gulf hypoxia, received the 2002 Bostwick H. Ketchum Award for coastal research from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and shares the 1999 Blasker Award for Environmental Science and Engineering with Gene Turner of LSU for similar endeavors.
77749h.eps
77749i.eps
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Response by Nancy N. Rabalais, Professor, Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium
Mr. Grucci,
My understanding of the OMB proposal to move Sea Grant to the National Science Foundation is that the integrity of the Sea Grant program would be preserved under the umbrella of the National Science Foundation. Given the very different missions of the two institutions, the type of research that they fund, and the funding mechanisms (such as state support and matching requirements for Sea Grant), I think it would be improbable that these distinctions would be maintained. A move of the Sea Grant program to NSF would not harm ''good, focused oceanic research'' that you question because whatever funds are provided to the NSF will be well spent on whatever type of research is eventually supported. The NSF has a good reputation for funding the best, peer-reviewed science. I do not expect, however, that specific, applied research programs such as those identified by you (''lobster or brown tide'') would receive much support within the current NSF system for determination of research foci and awarding of grants.
I hope that these additional comments are useful.
Nancy N. Rabalais
Professor, Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium
S 124 Hwy. 56
Chauvin, LA 70344
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
BIOGRAPHY FOR MICHAEL J. DONAHUE
Dr. Michael J. Donahue is President/CEO of the Great Lakes Commission, a bi-national agency serving the Great Lakes states and provinces in the areas of policy research, development and advocacy on a range of environmental protection, resource management and economic development issues. He has served in this capacity since 1987. His responsibilities include strategic planning, regional advocacy, program development and oversight, intergovernmental relations and administration. Prior to this appointment, Donahue held senior management/research positions with The Center for the Great Lakes, the Great Lakes Basin Commission and various departments at the University of Michigan:
Donahue is an Adjunct Professor at the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan, and a Lecturer in Law at the University of Toledo School of Law. He has designed and taught graduate seminars on bi-national resource management issues, and lectured extensively throughout the United States and Canada.
Donahue is U.S. Chairman of the International Joint Commission's Science Advisory Board, a member of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Environmental Advisory Board, and a member of the Michigan Sea Grant Advisory Board. He has also been a member of the board of directors of more than a dozen other regional agencies, organizations and research institutes. He has authored more than a 150 professional papers, book chapters and journal articles, and is author of 1987 book titled Institutional Arrangements for Great Lakes Management: Past Practices and Future Alternatives. He is the recipient of multiple awards including the Great Lakes Commission's ''Outstanding Service'' award and the ''Distinguished Leadership'' award of the Interstate Council on Water Policy. He holds three degrees from the University of Michigan including a doctorate in Urban, Technological and Environmental Planning.
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Michael Donahue did not respond to the questions posed by the members after the hearing.
Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record
SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF DR. GERALDINE KNATZ
77749j.eps
77749k.eps
77749l.eps
77749m.eps
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF KEVIN G. SELLNER
Introduction
It is my pleasure to submit the following comments to the House Science Committee. I am submitting these comments in reference to the transfer of the Coastal Ocean Program to Sea Grant as proposed in H.R. 3389. I oppose the transfer and provide the following text in support of my opposition.
As an active researcher in plankton ecology for more than two decades and a former Program Officer in the Coastal Ocean Program coordinating the interagency research program ECOHAB (Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms), I feel I am qualified through working experiences with both the COP and Sea Grant to effectively assess the success likely for COP programs on their transfer to Sea Grant. I offer the following comments for consideration.
Sea Grant as a National Resource
The Sea Grant Program is a highly recognized and successful program in the U.S., supporting coastal and Great Lakes research focused on identified local to State needs in specific areas of interest such as aquaculture and biotechnology. The program is a huge success and is viewed as an integral part of our national research program for excellence in coastal resource-related areas. Working through its state-affiliated offices, Sea Grant has provided some of the first support for critically needed research in many focused areas, providing an excellent foundation for familiarizing local officials and resource managers with critical insights for modifying local resource management. Through its outreach and extension programs, it has distributed information to many coastal sectors and provides one of the most effective distribution sites for sorely needed basic fundamental science in many areas.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In this effort, Sea Grant provides resources for modest grants towards providing baseline information for specific local-State identified problems. Generally, grants are one or several years duration and support one to several investigators. Receiving institutions provide matching funds, ensuring active partnership from the recipient institutions and the Federal Government, and thereby guaranteeing institutional commitment to recognition of the products for its local stakeholders. The Sea Grant outreach and extension programs guarantee distribution, fulfilling the interests of local user community (policy staffs and resource managers) and through the primary funding, the research interests of the investigators.
The admirable program is a huge local resource. However, by the nature of its focus on assisting in local issue resolution, Sea Grant cannot fulfill the goals of the Coastal Ocean Program's research effort.
The Coastal Ocean Program as a ''One-and-Only'' Research Opportunity
Throughout its short history, the Coastal Ocean Program has worked with the research and management communities to identify large scale, regional to national problems and provide funding for addressing the complex spatial and temporal concerns with long-term, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional research programs and projects. There are few, if any other comparable programs for duration or funding level that specifically focus on regional to national issues for societal benefit. That is, once identified through workshops of researchers, managers, and private organizations, initiatives are developed that outline the critical problems to be explored and the expected impacts for basic knowledge and its application to living or coastal resources. Through committed large funding levels over 3–6 year periods, research is encouraged that will provide critically important information for altering regional to national policies on specific topical areas. For example, NECOP (Nutrient Enhanced Coastal Ocean Productivity) in the early 1990's set the stage for the extensive 'dead zone' studies and evaluations later in the decade leading to the national Gulf of Mexico Ecosystems and Hypoxia Assessment that now serves as the guiding document to managing nutrients in the Mississippi River drainage basin. The Bering Sea FOCI (Fisheries Oceanography Coordinated Investigations) project, the study of pollack in the Bering Sea sponsored by COP in the 1990's, identified a critical zone in international waters, the 'donut hole,' that contained reproductive stocks for both U.S. and the former Soviet Union fisheries. This information helped in international negotiations for fishing in this critical area. Additionally, it identified a highly productive southeast area of the region leading to the multi-year Southeast Bering Sea Carrying Capacity (SEBSCC) project which now funnels information on stocks to regional fisheries managers. COP also helped set up the Great Lakes Coastal Forecast System, to predict the physical state of the Great Lakes, extremely valuable to ship traffic in the region and was the initial supported of CoastWatch, the national real-time and near-real time distributor of satellite information. The CoastWatch operations were subsequently transferred to NESDIS in 1995–1996. GLOBEC (Global Ocean Ecosystems Dynamics), an interagency and multi-national program with the National Science Foundation, has provided critically needed fisheries-related information for both coasts, providing detail of fish stocks and food items critical to managing depauperate fish stocks and besieged U.S. fisheries. The COP multiple-stressors program has sponsored two 5–6 year projects with COASTES (Complexity and Stressors in Estuarine Coastal Ecosystems) linking academic and Federal scientists, State management, modelers, and socio-economists in deriving products of practical importance to the management of nutrients and trace metal additions in a Chesapeake Bay tributary. ECOHAB, another interagency research program involving four other Federal agencies, is coordinated and run from NOAA COP. ECOHAB supports regional multidisciplinary studies to provide insights into bloom ecology and impacts, with a goal to provide new detection capabilities for routine use in public monitoring programs as well as forecasting models for bloom and toxin delivery to coastal sites along the U.S. Its forecasting models are now being examined for application in coastal waters of our European allies, such as Ireland. A complementary program, MERHAB (Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms), is also run through COP and provides direct multi-year support for new technology development and incorporation of new tools into public programs. It requires direct collaboration of Federal scientists and staffs, academic researchers, State and other public officials, NGOs, and industry for 3–5 year; it is designed to transition research products from COP-supported projects to non-Federal supported monitoring programs in States, local jurisdictions, and Indian Nations. COP also oversees and coordinates the National Event Response Program for Harmful Algal Blooms, an interagency, immediate response program to assist States and local jurisdictions in dealing with specific events. It provides analytical services, research expertise from Federal and academic institutions, sampling platforms, and remote sensing technologies for immediate response for algal bloom-generated threats to endangered and threatened species, birds, fish, and other living resources, including humans. The program has provided direct assistance to FL and CA for repeated events, and guidance to other states where initial threats were thought to be HAB-related.
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
All of the projects in these programs (except the latter) are selected in open competition and after extensive peer review, modeled after the National Science Foundation process, but with a coastal resource focus. Once selected, the multidisciplinary, 3–6 year projects receive approximately $1M annually with additional support for oceanographic ship charter, rental, and hire. Through its Federal partnerships, ship time on UNOLS vessels is sought and expenses shared with its Federal partners. COP's annual ship operations can exceed $2–3M for the large, ocean-going research projects, sums over and above the research funding provided in the large projects.
Unfortunately, these types of programs cannot be accommodated in Sea Grant. There is no infrastructure in place to oversee the types of multi-year programs, and there is no capability for providing the ship time required for the long-term, coastal-oceanic sampling programs. Undertaking such a program in Sea Grant would require a massive change in administration and a large commitment to flexibility, tasks easily agreed to but unlikely to succeed with the historical commitment to single-several investigator studies for estuarine and Great Lakes projects administered by individual states.
Finally, a critical aspect of COP's success with its large programs directed at providing responsive research for spatially and temporally expansive regional problems has been its investment in intra- and interagency partnerships as well as collaborations outside the Federal Government. COP partners throughout NOAA, other Federal agencies, State resource and health departments, academic institutions, non-governmental organizations, and Indian Nations. Staff have worked to include strong collaborations with other line offices and centers within NOAA, including the National Sea Grant Program, NMFS' Office of Protected Resources, and the National Oceanographic Data Center in ECOHAB, the National Sanctuaries Program and NMFS's Northwest Fisheries Science Center in MERHAB, and the Office of Response and Restoration, NESDIS (National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service) for the National Event Response Program for Harmful Algal Blooms, and the NMFS centers, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, and the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, for the fisheries-related projects (GLOBEC, SEBSCC). Federal partners are critical and important collaborators in ECOHAB (NSF, ONR, EPA, NASA), GLOBEC (NSF), and the National Event Response Program for Harmful Algal Blooms (EPA, FDA, CDC). State partners include Maryland's Department of Natural Resources, Florida's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Maine's Department of Marine Resources, Oregon's Office of Land Conservation and Development, Washington's Department of Health, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Department of Ecology, NJ Department of Environmental Protection, and the NY-Suffolk County Department of Health. Non-governmental organizations working with COP include CORE (Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education) for ECOHAB and the National Ocean Partnership Program, Environmental Defense for revisions of the national harmful algal plan (Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae: A National Plan), START (Solutions To Avoid Red Tide) for Florida red tide work, the Marine Mammal Stranding Network, the National Office for Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algal Blooms, and many others. There are strong working relationships between COP and the Quileute and Quinault Indian Nations and the Makah and Hoh Tribes of the Pacific Northwest in the MERHAB Program. These are active working relationships established between COP and representatives of these organizations to expand the application of COP's sponsored-research results throughout the national community, collaborations and relationships jeopardized in the suggested transfer of the COP to Sea Grant. What took so long to establish for the strong, functional COP would need to be re-implemented, requiring extensive administrative flexibility and willingness for forging new associations. Even with best intentions, re-forging these relationships would take several funding cycles, seriously curtailing existing programs and stalling any new grants or cooperative agreements.
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Solution
The national community of researchers and coastal managers seek long-term funding and solutions to current and emerging problems in our coastal zones and living resources. Both the COP and Sea Grant provide funding for addressing coastal issues, but at different scales and outcomes. COP and Sea Grant are highly respected and quite distinct programs, and hence, should remain independent. Sea Grant's outreach program is unparalleled and a national resource. COP's long-term, multidisciplinary studies for assisting coastal resource management and health are unmatched for altering regional, national, and international resource management and response efforts. The transfer of COP to Sea Grant jeopardizes the on-going programs and the highly anticipated results for coastal managers, but more importantly future ocean-going projects requiring long term, and large individual fiscal commitments for supporting multidisciplinary, multi-investigator programs. The two offices function well as they are presently, with specific approaches, strengths, and projects. Combining the two jeopardizes the existing COP provided opportunity not seen anywhere else for coastal resource-focused, regional, multi-investigator research over very large spatial and temporal scales, yielding national and internationally applicable results for our besieged coastal systems. COP should remain independent of the Sea Grant Program in order for these large programs to continue because within Sea Grant there is a limited national/regional approach to setting priorities for coastal management as exists within the COP's present line Office, the National Ocean Service.
Respectfully submitted by: Dr. Kevin G. Sellner, Director, Chesapeake Research Consortium, 645 Contees Wharf Road, Edgewater, MD 21037.
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2