93 



a state of the art observational, imaging, and manipulative platform. In addition, the 

 community will need a family of ROVs and AUVs that are designed to carry out a range of 

 tasks at the complete range of oceanic depths. 



Presently, our deep submergence assets are: a depth limited (4000 m) submersible 

 (ALVIN) that is no longer optimally configured for deep submergence; restricted access to 

 a 6000 m submersible (USN Sea Cliff; 40 dives/yr) that has proved to be unreliable; and a 

 single deep submergence ROV (Jason-Medea), that is just coming on line. Given these 

 capabilities, I think we are very poorly equipped to meet the scientific challenges of the 

 global abyss as we cross the threshold of the 21st century. 



In the long tenn, as a nation we must outline a national deep submergence science 

 plan and define a strategy for implementation. I am sure that a component of such an 

 exercise would be to create a more rational ftinding/support scheme than the fragmented 

 and unsatisfactory situation we have now. I think the long term key to a solution is to 

 reduce the fragmented funding profile for deep submergence science and create a specific 

 National Deep Submergence Program that can rise and fall on its merits and needs. Given 

 NURP's mandate, it is an existing federal program that is well positioned to play a lead role 

 in a new funding paradigm. The NSF would be the other natural home for a national 

 program, but at present lacks a specific mandate. I can't emphasize too much that a deep 

 submergence program must stand alone because it has such unique and critical asset needs 

 (submersibles, ROVs and AUVs). To lump the program into % general ship operating 

 budgets (the way it is at NSF), a broadly focused program (the way it is at NOAA), and an 

 environmental science directorate (the way it is at ONR), is a recipe for frustration and 

 mediocrity. 



Question #6: Is there overlap between the research activities of NURP, Sea Grant, 

 NSF, and the Navy? 



In general, I would say the overlap is minimal and not a problem. Each agency has 

 their own distinctive agenda and their is an effort to coordinate endeavors where there is 

 overlap. The problem is not so much overlap as it is underlap. Certain programs, like 

 deep submergence science, fall through the cracks between the agencies because each 

 agency has only a small part of the deep submergence science portfolio. 



As 1 suggested in my answer to question 5, 1 believe the long term solution is to 

 focus the support and development of deep submergence assets in one agency where it has 

 an identity and a mandate. 



Question #7: How did the 1993 earmarking of the NURP appropriation effect the 

 ALVIN three-agency MOU? 



