69 



QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR DR. NED OSTENSO - NOAA 



1) Do you feel that the $16 million appropriated last year for 

 NtJRP is adequate to support the undersea research needs of the 

 U.S. civilian undersea research community? How much more in 

 additional funding do you feel the Program justifies? 



Answer: The funds appropriated by the Congress last year were 

 used to support a wide variety of research projects at six 

 National Undersea Research Centers and two missions of the ALVIN 

 research submersible under a multi-agency agreement. Those 

 research projects addressed NOAA goals in: global change, 

 fisheries management, living and non-living marine resources, 

 biological productivity and recruitment, habitat assesment, and 

 anthropogenically-induced pollution resulting from dumping of 

 sewage sludge into the ocean. Projects in the fields normally 

 supported by the National Office in diving safety and physiology 

 and undersea technology could not be supported due to 

 restrictions placed on the program by Appropriations Committee 

 language . 



2) You mention in your testimony that while individual proposals 

 are approved through a peer review process, the funding that 

 supports these proposals is allocated to Centers in a non- 

 competitive manner. 



a) Describe the difference between how projects were funded 

 in 1993 with specific funding levels earmarked for centers and 

 how funding was allocated in previous years. 



Answer: Funding of individual research proposals in 1993 was 

 implemented through a similar peer review process to that used in 

 the past. Panels of expert scientists were convened at each 

 center to review projects for their scientific merit, operational 

 feasibility, and relevance to NOAA goals. Panel recommendations 

 were used to select the most meritorious projects that could be 

 included in the centers' omnibus proposals. Because the funding 

 level for all centers was earmarked in Appropriations Committee 

 language, the number and type of proposals that were supported 

 was determined by the funds earmarked for each center. Because 

 the amount for each Center was pre-determined , there was no 

 flexibility to allow for funding of the highest priority 

 research. As a result, some expensive submersible-based programs 

 were not supported at one center while less expensive SCUBA 

 projects with lower panel ratings were supported. Several 

 projects of national significance (and not geographically 

 specific) that the National Office traditionaly supports in the 

 areas of diving safety and physiology, undersea technology, and 



