Page images
PDF
EPUB

Million

sonably large sea areas to measure changes of the biological properties, and associated physical and chemical properties, with any reasonably small number of research vessels. The only hope, therefore, of doing such mapping on an adequate basis will involve the use of vessels of opportunity for measuring physical, chemical and biological parameters in the near-surface waters of the ocean employing automatic instrumentation, which can be operated by the ship's crew, with perhaps the supervision and participation of one technician per ship. It is proposed, therefore, that, together with the work by research vessels outlined in K. above, there be carried out in selected areas of the North Pacific and North Atlantic, where we have already adequate general survey data, a program employing such instrumentation aboard ships of opportunity. Instrumentation for the collection of phytoplankton samples and zooplankton samples has already been developed, but can stand some improvement. Instrumentation already exists for the measurement of such physical properties as temperature and salinity. The state of the art of automatic chemical instrumentation is such that it should be possible without much difficulty to adopt existing automatic instrumentation to the continuous determination at sea of such chemical properties as phosphate, nirtite, nitrate, silicate, organic carbon, chlorophyll, etc. It is proposed that equipment be developed, and provided for the use of approximately 100 ships, including merchant vessels, fishing vessels, and naval vessels, operating in the selected areas.

The cost of this program is estimated as follows: (a) Facilities : Equipment development-

$1 Procurement of equipment for 100 ships.

40 (6) Operating costs :

Costs of vessel operations (salaries and support of technicians
and fees to vessel operators, $5 million per year..

25 Data processing and analysis, $2 million per year.

10 N. Development of new methods and equipment for more effective attack on scientific problems.

(1) It is likely that in the near future new and perhaps exotic methods for more effective attack on the problems of the ocean environment will be developed and it is important that the development of these should be accompanied at the start by strong scientific input. As an example, recent work has demonstrated that man can live and function at ambient pressures of 400-foot depths. It is anticipated that in the very near future man will be able to work to depths of 1,000 feet. It is estimated that a complete manned sea-bottom laboratory will cost $5 million. This includes the bottom laboratory, 2 workboats (1 free flooding, 1 ALVIN type, budgeted in item 2 below), a Spar surface vessel and an elevator from surface to bottom. In addition, $4 million will be needed for logistics support, operation, and related research.

(2) A recent proposal to build an “island" just on the edge of a submarine canyon offers an excellent opportunity for a permanent undersea laboratory. Preliminary estimates for construction costs are $5 million. Support research should be budgeted for at least $20 million.

(3) In a concentrated effort to develop a deep sea technology, a special study group (Project Sea Bed) recently convened in Monterey, Calif., proposed, in addition to the above, the development of the Deep Spar vessel (construction cost, $15 million; support and related research, $4 million) for

convenient operation on the ocean bottom and the development of a research submarine which can also act as a mother ship for deep submersibles. The total estimate for a deep sea technology program as estimated by Sea Bed for 5 years is $125 million. IV. Preliminary budget estimates for facilities and training

(1-a) New shore facilities.—The shore facility needs for basic research were grossly underestimated in Chapter 1, "Introduction and Summary of Recommendations" at only $16.5 million over the 10-year period 1960–70. A special NASCO report, “A Review of Oceanography 1960 to 1970 and Comments on the Interagency Committee on Oceanography Fiscal Year 1962 Program” (August 1961), revised this estimate on the basis of information received from the directors of 12 oceanographic laboratories. This report concluded that at least $29 million for new shore facilities were needed over the 5 years from 1962 to 1966, and at least $25 million during 1967–71. We estimate now that about one-third of the 1962–66 need has been met by new construction during the past 3 years, leaving about $30 million for 1965–70. This must be a low estimate in terms of the order of magnitude increase in activity to be anticipated under the terms of reference of this report, when every available national marine facility would be used to maximum capacity. We estimate a minimum of $100 million in new facilities needed during such a 5-year interval. At a cost of $50 per square foot and 250 square feet per erson, this amount will provide space for 8,000 people.

(7-b) Conversion of existing shore facilities.—The conversion of existing shore faciliteis from their primarily military use to research and technological use would be a major task. Costs of converting the buildings at the U.S. Naval Weapons Plant ran from $5 per square foot (for a 6,000-square-foot Coast Guard laboratory) to $10 per square foot for the NODC and Naval Instrumentation Center (total available floor space for both—67,000 square feet, to be fully staffed with 300 people). Many Navy laboratories could be converted at a similar cost, thus an average of about $10 per square foot seeins reasonable. At least 25 laboratories the size of the Navy Instrumentation Center (32,000 square feet) would need to be converted, costing about $8 million and providing space for about 3,000 people.

(2) Development of deep-diving submersibles.The technology needed to build deep-diving manned and automated submersibles is now available. As a minimum, the DSSRG report should be implemented. This program is planned at $300 million for 5 years. NASCO's report recommended a budget totaling $15 million from 1960 to 1964 and another $15 million for the next years. We estimate that about one-fifth of the recommended program has been funded leaving about $25 million for the next 5 years. In the terms of reference of this report, a deep submergence research program to explore the Continental Shelf, slopes and deeps at least double in size to that recommended in 1959 or $50 million per year is justified in addition to the $300 million DSSRG program.

(3-a) Construction of new oceanographic research ships, both as general purpose replacements of existing obsolete ships, and as special purpose platforms should be a major objective of the program. Ninety-two ships will be required to carry out the programs outlined in this report. There are now operating 32 research and survey ships 15 years or more old with a combined tonnage of 61,000 tons. The three 13,000-ton ships should be replaced by ships in the 3,000-ton class, bringing the total tonnage to 34,000 tons. All 32 ships should be replaced during the first half of the 5-year plan. At $2,500 per ton the total cost would be $85 million. In addition 20 more new ships will be needed. Many of these will be unique and will require considerable design and develop ment (funding estimated at $5 million). The construction cost of these 20 ships is estimated at $3.5 million each, totaling $70 million. The remaining 40 ships required for the programs in this report could be conversions. See (4-a) below.

(3-b) Special purpose ships like FLIP, biological laboratory ships, drilling ships, and heavy equipment ships will be needed. At least two each of the above should be built for estimated construction costs of $1,500,000. $2 million, $5,500,000, and $7 million each, respectively; the total construction costs will be $32 million. Additional operating costs for the ships are estimated at $6 million per year starting at one-fourth of this amount for the second year, one-half for the third year, etc., totaling $15 million.

(4-a) Conversion of certain types of existing naval vessels for research, survey and exploration could greatly expand our capacity for oceanic work. All conversions to date have been World War II ships. These ships are now 20 years old. Any extensive future conversion program should use post-World War II ships. Conversion costs averaged about $1 million. Total estimated cost for converting is $40 million.

(4-b) Conversion of fleet submarines is particularly attractive. A host of problems ranging from fisheries research to underice research are uniquely adapted to a research submarine. Six submarines could be assigned to research and development tasks soon after their conversion. We estimate a conversion cost of about $2.6 million each (including $0.9 million for overhaul) and operating costs of $1.5 million each per year for 4 years, for a total of $51.6 million.

(5) Development of improved oceanographic instrumentation for the measurement of physical and chemical properties of ocean waters, currents, sediments, and of the properties of the air-sea boundary should be accelerated. Modern technology and engineering have not yet been applied to oceanic instrumentation on a broad scale.

Though many different and, at times, sophisticated devices have been developed, we must still rely on primitive instruments for most oceanographic observationsthe bathythermograph and Nansen bottle-reversing thermometer. A major engineering effort should be mounted to utilize the new materials and technology available today. The Navy Instrumentation Center budget is now at $2.5 million. The Navy Oceanographic Office budget for development and procurement is about $8.5 million. The ICO 1965 budget for instrumentation is $9.1 million. The 5-year accelerated budget should double the ICO budget by the end of the second year and reach a level of $25 million by the fourth year ; 5-year total, $97 million.

(6) Installation of high precision navigation systems having extended coverage is now possible and should be one of the first steps taken during the 5-year program. Shore-based radio and satellite systems are complementary.

An optimum long-range radio navigation system to provide +44 mile accuracy out to 1,000 miles off coasts all around the United States would require three additional stations along the gulf coast and five along the west coast costing about $24 million. The east coast is about optimum now. Receivers would cost $40,000 per ship or $8 million for 200 ships.

A precise short-range navigation system is also needed to provide adequate navigational control out to 100 miles and in all inshore waters. This would require 60 stations around the United States at $100,000 each. Total cost, $6 million. Receivers would cost $20,000 per ship or $4 million for 200 ships.

Providing satellite navigation receivers for 200 ships at $25,000 per ship would cost $5 million.

(7) About 10 long-range and 10 medium-range aircraft should be used for routine data collection and special purpose tasks in connection with the above projects. Converting them for this purpose would cost an average of $500,000. Their operating costs will be close to $700,000 per year for each aircraft.

(8) Retraining costs for 6,000 scientists, engineers, and Navy personnel are estimated at $5,000 per person for an average training period of 6 months for a total of $30 million.

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES AT THE HEARING ON S. 944

STATEMENT OF MILNER B. SCHAEFER, DIRECTOR OF MARINE RESOURCES,

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA My name is Milner B. Schaefer. I am professor of oceanography in the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and director of the Institute of Marine Resources, of the University of California. I am also chairman of the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, chairman of the California Governor's Advisory Commission on Ocean Resources, and a member of several other committees concerned with the ocean and its contents. In appearing before you this morning, however, I am testifying in my personal capacity. What I have to say does not necessarily represent the opinions of any of the several organizations with which I am associated.

The world ocean, most of which is the common property of all men and all nations, presents tremendous opportunities for advancing human welfare, because of the materials we can extract from it to support our burgeoning population, such as the fish, minerals, and water, and because of the other uses we make of it for transportation, recreation, and disposal of domestic and industrial wastes. It is of great importance in determining climate and weather; substantial improvement in long-range weather forecasting depends on understanding the interactions between ocean and atmosphere. Finally, military operations on and under the sea are a vital element of our defense. As the least known and least understood region of earth, of which it covers nearly three-fourths, the world ocean presents a great intellectual and technological challenge; it is the great frontier of the modern world.

Until a few years ago, we in the United States have been extremely laggard in taking up the challenge of this oceanic frontier, in pursuing its opportunities for advancing knowledge and the welfare of our people. However, during the last 6 years both the administration and the Congress have acted vigorously to make possible increased understanding and utilization of the sea. Funds have been made available for the construction and conversion of oceanographic ships. For the first time in decades, both the Government agencies and the university laboratories have a number of these craft especially designed and constructed for oceanographic research. New vehicles for going deep under the sea are becoming available. Additional shoreside facilities have been constructed. Budgets for research and for systematic surveys have been increased. Previous statutory limitations on the permitted areas of operation for the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Coast Guard, and the Geological Survey have been removed, so that those agencies are now able to participate in oceanwide programs. The Bureau of Mines, not previously much concerned with the sea, has commenced studies toward mining of the sea bottom. The Public Health Service has became increasingly involved with studies of the oceanic environment in relation to the effects of waste disposal, pesticides, and so forth.

To my mind, the most important development of the last few years is the increased attraction of capable young research scientists and engineers to the problems of the sea. A number of universities not previously concerned with the ocean have developed new faculties and curriculums in ocean research and ocean engineering. There have been attracted to oceanography a considerable number of men already having advanced education in physics, chemistry, mathematics, and biology who are applying their talents to the problems of the ocean. I am tremendously impressed by the increasing number of students of the highest caliber who are applying for admission to our graduate schools in the marine sciences.

The importance of the resources of the sea, and the opportunities which they present for supporting the economy and welfare of our citizens, are also commencing to attract considerable attention from the State governments. For example, in California the role of the ocean and its resources in the development of the State is receiving major attention in the formulation of our State development plan. Several branches of the resources agency, and other divisions of the State government, are undertaking studies of the role of particular marine resources, and a committee of the faculty of the University of California, drawn from several campuses, is making a broad review of the resources of the sea in relation to the future development of the State. The Governor has recently established an Advisory Commission on Ocean Resources, including representatives of government, industry, and the scientific community, to assist with development of policy and programs toward the utilization by our citizens and industry of the resources of the ocean.

The national needs in oceanography involve the responsibilities and missions, and require the active participation, of several Federal departments and agencies. Some 20 different bureaus and agencies are involved. Properly coordinated development of a comprehensive national oceanographic program and budget presents formidable problems not only because of the number of agencies of the executive branch which are involved, but also because different parts of the program and budget are dealt with by many different committees and subcommittees of the Congress. I am informed that during 1964, portions of the oceanographic program and budget were dealt with by 23 subcommittees of 15 substantive committees and 14 appropriation subcommittees, essentially on an agency-by-agency basis.

In order to provide coordination in the development of the national oceanographic program and budget, there was established in early 1960 the Interagency Committee on Oceanography (ICO), which is a committee of the Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST). Members come from major departments and agencies having statutory missions concerned with the sea. The Chairman of the ICO is the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research and Development, and staff functions are carried out by personnel seconded to the ICO from the member agencies.

The main task of ICO since 1961 has been to develop and annual oceanographic program for the nonclassified activities sponsored by the Federal Government. The long-range Federal goals in oceanography were presented in 1963 by ICO in a unified manner in a document entitled “Oceanography—The 10 Years Ahead: A Long Range National Oceanographic Plan, 1963–1972.” This long-range program, and also the annual programs, are laid out toward goals like strengthening basic science, or managing resources, rather than functions like research, ships, or surveys, although the budget is also presented by functions.

As I understand the procedure, each year panels of the ICO established for each functional area receive the proposed oceanographic programs, with budget estimates, from the several member bureaus and agencies at about the same time they submit their entire programs to their parent departments. After considering the plans of the bureaus and agencies in the context of the national longrange goals, the national oceanographic program for the particular fiscal year is drafted. This draft is submitted to the Office of Science and Technology within the Executive Office of the President, and also is submitted to the Bureau of the Budget. After receiving and incorporating the recommendations of OST and the Bureau of the Budget, the national oceanographic program is formally submitted to FCST where it is reviewed by a panel, under the President's Science Advisory Council, of independent advisors from outside the Government but appointed by OST. The resulting recommendations on the Federal effort in oceanography are used by the departments in formulating their final budgets, but may, of course, be modified both by the departments and later on by the Congress. With respect to air-sea interaction problems, the FCST Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences also has a role similar to that of ICO.

My personal opinion is that the Interagency Committee on Oceanography has done a magnificant job with the extremely difficult task of coordination of the activities of the multiplicity of agencies concerned. The Select Committee on Government Research of the House of Representatives has, in its recent report on Interagency Coordination in Research and Development, used the ICO as an example of multiagency coordination. However, despite the indispensable coordinating function which the ICO has performed, there do develop imbalances and deficiencies in the national oceanographic program. The ICO performs an essential function, as a means whereby the several different agencies of the Government involved with oceanography can develop a more inclusive and better coordinated program for marine research and development, pursuant to the missions of the individual agencies, than would be possible without it. It is, however, in my opinion, by its nature, not able fully to deal with some important aspects of a comprehensive, well balanced and fully coordinated program:

(1) Since its members represent individual agencies, and since its staff is seconded from the agencies, it is handicapped in its ability to establish the relative importance of programs proposed by the different agencies, or the relative merits of different components of the program within each agency.

(2) The budget for the national oceanographic program is composed of the budgets for oceanography of each agency, which are incorporated into the President's budget for the individual agencies or departments, and which are arrived at by the agency or department head within the overall budget limitations for his department. Fragments of the oceanographic program in each department have, then, to compete with other unrelated, programs. The ICO, representing the individual departments and agencies, has to work within the limitations of the budgets thus determined, which may not properly reflect the relative desirability of the different elements in a more comprehensive franje of reference.

(3) The oceanographic program and the budget are not presented to the Congress as a single package. The components of the program and budget, consisting of the agency components, are considered individually by a number of different subcommittees of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate. The national oceanographic program and budget is not considered by the Appropriations Committees as a coordinated unit, but its agency components are judgeri individually by different subcommittees in relation to the multiple missions of the different agencies.

The need for the national oceanographic program to be developed and funded in a more unified manner has been widely discussed and debated, which, I believe, emphasizes the importance of establishing some new machinery to make this possible. The necessity for this seems especially urgent for those elements of the oceanographic program involving the present missions of several different agencies, such as the study of air-sea interactions, or research and development on the extractive resources of the sea. Further, with the imminent rapid development of applied engineering in the ocean, there will inevitably arise difficult problems concerning the proper balance between the application of knowledge already obtained and the acquisition of new knowledge on which future applications may be based. These problems, again, demand consideration in a broader context than the individual missions of the several Government agencies.

S. 944, the bill which is here under consideration, appeals to me as being an important means of improving the coordination of our expanded activities in research and development in the world ocean. By establishing the responsibility at the secretarial level, it should be possible to achieve a better balance of ocean

« PreviousContinue »