Eclectic Echoes

The current crop of Republican and Tea-Party congressmen and women are trying their best to kill this country. At least, that is how it seems to me now. Many of their budget cuts so far have been primarily symbolic; however, now they are cutting into an organization that has historically been significantly underfunded for the tasks put before them – now they are going after NOAA. I have to admit, I have a bias in this, as much of what I do is directly related to NOAA and I work with NOAA employees frequently. But the truth is, every American has a direct stake in this one.

A pair of undergraduate science divers from UCONN working with NOAA and UCONN scientists in the Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary. Copyright E. Heupel

In short:

NOAA is a pretty lean organization operating on a budget that has been essentially flat for the past 5 years (minus two new joint NASA, NOAA and DoD programs to build and launch new weather satellite systems to replace the aging fleet currently in use). Most of the NOAA departments provide either significant public safety services, economic and food sustainability, or both. They also provide significant direct and indirect educational and outreach opportunities to children, educators, and the public. Cutting NOAA by the ~10% proposed will have direct short term and long term negative impacts on every American.

Maybe it would help people who are unfamiliar with NOAA to understand why this is such a big deal, if I explain what NOAA is.

NOAA is a relatively small organization, approximately 7,000 people, nestled under the Department of Commerce (but some argue it should be its own department). It was started in 1970 by President Richard Nixon, but it was formed from many extant government organizations that date back to 1807. NOAA was created to better protect American life and property, for as President Nixon put it:

The oceans and atmosphere are interacting parts of the total environmental system upon which we depend, not only for the quality of our lives, but for life itself.

We face immediate and compelling needs for better protection of life and property from natural hazards, and for a better understanding of the total environment — an understanding which will enable us more effectively to monitor and predict its actions, and ultimately, perhaps to exercise some degree of control over them.

We also face a compelling need for exploration and development leading to the intelligent use of our marine resources. We must understand the nature of these resources, and assure their development without either contaminating the marine environment or upsetting its balance.

Establishment of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — NOAA — within the Department of Commerce would enable us to approach these tasks in a coordinated way.

Much of NOAA’s job is directly related to either protecting American lives and property or protecting American long term economic interests (National Marine Fisheries Service). It’s the responsibility of NOAA to report on and predict all the weather on land or sea and the contents of the seas out to our Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ (the area of ocean from the US coastline to 200 nautical miles out to sea). For years now (essentially since they were founded in 1970), they have been surviving on a pretty trim budget for what they do. For the 2012 fiscal year the President’s budget has NOAA at $5.5 billion, a bit less that we spend on the Federal Prison System ($6.8B) and roughly equivalent to NASA’s Science budget ($5B), the Army’s Training and Recruiting Budget ($5B) or… a hair less than the Budget for the Legislative Branch ($5.6B).

Two NOAA/UNCW Aquarius working divers prepare to splash to recover saturation divers in the habitat. Image J. Brugger

So what do we (meaning the general public) get for $5.5B?

Let’s start with the oldest branches of NOAA – The National Geodetic Survey (NGS) and the Office of Coast Survey (OCS). Both arise from the Survey of the Coast agency created by President Thomas Jefferson to create the essential charts of the new nation’s navigable waters to ensure safe commerce and defense. Today the OCS continues this mission and is responsible for charting the 3.5 million square miles of our Exclusive Economic Zone. This is an ongoing process as storms and other natural processes continue to shape the sea floor topography. In addition, shipwrecks happen and containers fall overboard, all creating new topography and obstacles to safe navigation, etc. Even if topography didn’t change, our technology continues to improve, allowing more accurate and finer resolution maps to be produced. NOAA data from the NGS also provides us with the spatial reference systems that appear on almost every map produced in the U.S. They are responsible for the Continuously Operating Reference System which augments the GPS system to provide sub-meter 3D spatial position accuracy. Possibly one of the most important tasks of NGS, at least for anyone who ever flies, is the extremely high resolution and accuracy information the NGS collects around all airports and provides to the FAA so they can develop safe instrument augmented and instrument only take-off and landing approaches and help determine maximum take off loads. These are clear public safety and economic benefit that we shouldn’t do without.

National Weather Service (NWS), anyone?

I have had the pleasure of living in many states across our beautiful country. Everywhere I’ve lived three things have held true:

• “If you don’t like the weather, just wait a few minutes….”
• There is some form of extreme weather event that is common enough to be on everyone’s mind when the proper season hits
• and finally, in large part because of the first two… many people rely on the national and regional forecasts and warnings provided by the NWS to safely plan their (select (m)any) day, weekend, week, planting, major event, flights, boating, diving (personal favorite), and, in many cases, work.

I’ve personally lived through hurricanes, tornados, horrendous hail storms, desert flash floods, severe coastal flooding, Nor-Easters with gale force winds, 117 degree F summer droughts and extreme cold snaps. In large part I survived them all because I could prepare or take immediate shelter thanks to the advanced warnings provided by the NWS. Many people in this nation, whether they realize it or not, are in the same debt for life and for property to the NWS.

NOAA WP-3D Hurrican Hunters taking off to fly into the eye of another hurricane.

Now to the controversial part of NOAA, or at least historically the most controversial, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). They are responsible for the stewardship of our nation’s marine species and the habitats on which those species depend. NMFS is an old agency originating in the 1870s, with the first fisheries lab in Woods Hole established by the first Fish Commissioner Spencer F. Baird and his left hand man, Vinal Edwards (Employee number 1). Their first task was to try and determine the fate of coastal fish along southern Massachusetts – small boat hand line fishermen and sport fishermen blamed pound net fishermen (erecting nets from the shore) for the disappearance of once plentiful coastal species such as tautog, scup, striped bass, and sea bass.

Today the main job of NMFS remains the monitoring of commercially important fish stocks, predicting the future stock levels and protecting both the future viability of those stocks and the habitats on which they depend. From an economic and societal perspective, all those stocks belong to every American. They are considered a natural resource, which belong to all the people, just as much as the federal forests or fresh waters do. Theirs is not an easy task, and especially here in New England, they are little loved, even though they are doing their best to use the best science available to walk a narrow line – providing enough protections for the fish, a national resource, while not causing undue harm to the fishing community, a limited group of private parties which pay few to no rents for the access to the resources. Already short-handed, the folks at NMFS ensure future food security and economic sustainability.

The NOAA ship Nancy Foster, part of the East Coast NOAA fleet of research and fisheries survey vessels.

The Rest of NOAA

NOAA also conducts extensive research on climate change, ocean acidification, and marine invasive species impacts. They maintain a fleet of 19 research ships and a dozen aircraft. The ships are a mix of oceanography and fisheries research vessels with a Pacific and an Atlantic fleet. The aircraft are mostly used for weather data gathering, including hurricane hunters that take their planes for a wild bronco ride straight through hurricanes and into the eye in order to measure the maximum eyewall winds and eye pressure, essential measurements for predicting the current storm track and helping model future storm behaviors. A professional uniformed corp of sailors, science technicians and airmen operate and maintain these vessels, many of which spent extended time in the Gulf responding to the oil spill.

Did I mention the National Marine Sanctuaries program? Think of it as the National Parks but on - and under - the sea. I have had the privilege of working in three of the sanctuaries, and hope to eventually visit them all. Each sanctuary has its own goals and rules, but in general it is to preserve a culturally, historically, or biologically important area of the sea set aside as a marine protected area. “Marine protected area” is a very loose term. Through much of Stellwagen Bank NMS commercial fishing is allowed exactly as it is throughout the rest of the Gulf of Maine. Other sanctuaries, Like Gray’s Reef NMS and the Florida Keys NMS have varying levels of prohibitions on commercial fishing, or gear types allowed within their boundaries. Each sanctuary employs a small (10-12 full time staff) but very dedicated team of scientists, NOAA Corps, administrators and educators to coordinate and conduct research and reach out to the local and regional communities. Gray’s Reef sponsors a Marine Film Fest every year, along with excellent online educational materials. The Florida Keys now sponsor Lionfish Derbies to catch as many lionfish as possible.

After the evening debriefing, the crew of scientists, educators and outreach specialists continue to discuss the highs and lows of the day and how to make tomorrow even better.

I have been privileged to work with NOAA using their assets for our own research, collaborating with their scientists, helping them undertake a series of interactive broadcast from under the sea to thousands of kids across the nation, linking kids thousands of miles from the sea directly to active ocean research, and giving them the chance to directly ask questions of the researchers and divers.

So where would you cut?

Each part of NOAA directly affects either public safety, current and future food and economic security, or both. If you cut the NWS, you risk putting American lives and property at risk. Cut NMFS and you endanger the sustainability of our fish stocks and risk our future food supplies. Cut the satellites or the uniformed service or reduce the fleet and the other NOAA departments are all reduced in their ability to do their jobs. Cut the outreach and education and you are not just taking away the ability to share the oceans with millions of kids across the nation and significantly reducing the number of teachers’ learning resources, you are dangerously reducing the number of people who will do all these vitally important jobs in the future. Any organization that focuses on science education is important in the 21st Century. We can’t afford to fall even further behind the rest of the world. The price we pay is saving a dollar today at the cost of tens of thousands in lost opportunities tomorrow.

How short-sighted can the people who want to axe NOAA be? The NOAA budget is a scant $5.5 billion and their true operating budget has been essentially flat since 2006. Is this really where you want to cut the budget? To me it smells of self-serving climate change denialism vengeance more than realistic budgetary considerations.

Edit: Dan Satterfield at The AGU Blog has an excellent article highlighting exactly what the loss of the new satellite programs will mean.