IOOS Case Neg

On Case

Inherency
NSTC card is about Earth observations in general- IOOS isnt
mentioned once in the entire card.
Also no warrants about why agency integration actually helps,
just makes a claim
IOOS is satellites
Gustavo Goni et al, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. December
2013. Satellite Remote Sensing in Support of an Integrated Ocean Observing
System. IEEE Geoscience and remote sensing magazine.
https://marine.rutgers.edu/pubs/private/FMK_et_al_IEEE_GRSM2013.pdf
An IOOS remote sensing team should be constituted to work closely with various
agencies and elements of the IOOS (Stakeholders, DMAC, Product and Services, and
Education and Outreach committees). This team should include representatives
from all regional associations or other relevant body of the IOOS. Regional problems
should be identified through regional community assessments, interviews, and
questionnaires. Product focus teams should oversee the development of real-time
satellite image products, including integrating data from multiple platforms and
climatological data sets and data sets that will enable the next generation of ocean
information services. An important process will be product review, validation, and
feedback, guided by metrics. The team should collect disparate real-time data sets
presently available from geographic areas of interest but from various unrelated
observing systems and in different formats, and integrate them into coherent
information products. A set of synoptic, regionally calibrated, consistent set of
products covering coastal zones to the deep ocean should be generated using a
variety of operational and research satellite sensors (see Section 5). The precise
type, format, and product distribution mechanisms will result from consultations
between government resource managers, industry providers, and other
stakeholders including the scientific research community. Further, this pilot activity
will help organize the remote sensing com-munity in the region. The activity
includes active outreach efforts to help people understand the remote sensing
products available from different providers and to enable the development of
innovative ocean information services.

Solvency
First card is a repeat the Inherency card
Lubcheno 12- author is part of NOAA, could be biased. Also,
this card just talks about the agencies involved with the IOOS,
it doesnt say why theyre key to tech efficiency.

Climate Adaptation
They claim that IOOS is needed for effective adaptation but
their Oreskes et al 10 card doesnt once mention IOOS oncethey make an unwarranted assumption that it has the capacity
to solve
On ocean acidification, they claim to solve for acidification, but
all they do is monitor acidification trends, which doesnt
actually solve anything.
Also, in the underlined portions of their Oreskes et al. 10 card
it says that mitigation is needed for adaptations, so the plan
doesnt solve.
Reducing emissions is the only way to solve ocean
acidification- monitoring isnt enough, we need action now.
Turley and Scholes, 09 (The Acidification of Planet Earth, in Climate
Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions, International Alliance of Research
Universities, University of Copenhagen,
http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/14774466/http___climatecongress.ku.pdf , AW)
Acidification of Planet Earths terrestrial and oceanic biospheres is happening now
and caused by two very different anthropogenic sources. Land acidification is
caused by nitric and sulphuric acids and whilst its significance emerged during the
1970s, it is still an issue in the developed world and a growing issue in developing
countries. Land acidification results in changes to species diversity, net primary
productivity, an imbalance of inorganic nitrogen ions in the soil, and eutrophication
of fresh water bodies. Feedbacks between the land and aquatic systems are not well
understood or researched. Ocean acidification is a direct and certain consequence
of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere; its consequences on the global ocean are only
now emerging. The oceans have already taken up around 27-34% of the CO2
produced by humankind since the industrial revolution. Whilst this has limited the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it has come at the price of a dramatic change to
ocean chemistry. In particular, and of great concern, are the observed changes in
ocean pH and carbonate and bicarbonate ion concentrations . Evidence indicates
that ocean acidification is a serious threat to many organisms and may have
implications for food webs and ecosystems and the multi-billion dollar services they
provide. For instance, erosion is likely to outpace growth of tropical coral reefs at
450-480 ppm CO2; there are already reports of a 19% decrease in growth of Great
Barrier Reef corals. When atmospheric CO2 reaches 450 ppm, large areas of the
polar oceans will likely have become corrosive to shells of key marine calcifiers, an

effect that will be strongest in the Arctic. Already, loss of shell weight in planktonic
Antarctic calcifiers has been observed. Decreasing pH could also make oceans
noisier in the audible range with potential implications for marine life, as well as for
scientific, commercial, and naval applications using ocean acoustics. The rate of
change in ocean chemistry is very high (see figure), faster than previous ocean
acidification-driven extinctions in Earths history , from which it took hundreds of
thousands of years for marine ecosystems to recover. Ocean acidification will
continue to track future CO2 emissions to the atmosphere so urgent and substantial
emission reductions are the only way of reducing the impact of ocean acidification.

Their LSA 14 card is mistagged- they claim to prevent

ecosystem destruction, but all this card really says is that
satellites monitor sea level- not that they can solve
destruction.

Coral Reefs
Their Eakin et al. 10 card doesnt have any warrants about how
satellite data actually protects coral reefs- it only claims that
IOOS can monitor them.
Their Moustahfid et al. 11 card is mistagged- the card states
only that IOOS Biological Data Project promotes data
standards, and says absolutely nothing about coral reefs or
warrants that they solve at all.
They dont access this impact.
Coral reefs are resilient- empirics prove
Carter et al, 11 (Robert M. Carter, Craig D. Idso, S. Fred Singer,
2011, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate
Change, Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report
of the NIPCC,
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/2011NIPCCinterimreport.pdf , AS)
The Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) disagreed with the IPCC in
2009, presenting a review of the extensive literature on coral reefs showing, inter
alia, that there was no simple linkage between high temperatures and coral
bleaching, that coral reefs have persisted through geologic time when
temperatures were as much as 10 15C warmer than at present and when CO2
concentrations were two to seven times higher than they are currently, and that
coral readily adapts to rising sea levels (Idso and Singer, 2009).

Oil Spills
They assume that oil spills will lead to ecosystem collapse, but
none of their cards actually have warranted claims- prefer our
evidence- Impact of oil spills is exaggerated
Michael Grunwald, TIME's senior national correspondent. The BP Spill: Has the
Damage Been Exaggerated?
July 29,
+/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2007428,00.html
Well, Limbaugh has a point. The Deepwater Horizon explosion was an awful tragedy
for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it's no leak; it's the biggest oil spill in
U.S. history. It's also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on
coastal communities that depend on tourism, fishing and drilling. But so far while
it's important to acknowledge that the long-term potential danger is simply
unknowable for an underwater event that took place just three months ago it
does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. "The impacts have
been much, much less than everyone feared," says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a
federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana. Yes, the
spill killed birds but so far, less than 1% of the number killed by the Exxon Valdez
spill in Alaska 21 years ago. Yes, we've heard horror stories about oiled dolphins
but so far, wildlife-response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses
of mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but
so far, the region's fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are
gradually being lifted. And yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate
the destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes a real slow-motion
ecological calamity but so far, assessment teams have found only about 350
acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of
wetlands every year.

Topicality
A. While the data collection aspect of the plan text is
exploration, data sharing and agency integration are not.
Exploration is systematic discovery of all aspects of the ocean
National Academies 9 National Academies National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,Institute of Medicine, and National
Research Council 2009
Ocean Exploration Highlights of National Academies
Reports http://dels.nas.edu/resources/staticassets/osb/miscellaneous/exploration_final.pdf
What Is Ocean Exploration?
As defined by the Presidents Panel on Ocean Exploration (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 2000), ocean exploration is discovery through
disciplined, diverse observations and recordings of findings. It includes rigorous,
systematic observations and documentation of biological, chemical, physical,
geological, and archeological aspects of the ocean in the three dimensions of
space and in time.

Ocean development is use of ocean resources, space, and

energy
JIN 98
JIN Japan Institute of Navigation 1998 "Ocean Engineering Research
Committee"
http://members.j-navigation.org/e-committee/Ocean.htm
What is ocean development? Professor Kiyomitsu Fujii of the University of Tokyo
defines ocean development in his book as using oceans for mankind, while
preserving the beauty of nature. In the light of its significance and meaning, the
term "Ocean Development" is not necessarily a new term. Ocean development is
broadly classified into three aspects: (1) Utilization of ocean resources, (2)
Utilization of ocean spaces, and (3) Utilization of ocean energy. Among these,
development of marine resources has long been established as fishery science
and technology, and shipping, naval architecture and port/harbour construction
are covered by the category of using ocean spaces, which have grown into
industries in Japan. When the Committee initiated its activities, however, the real
concept that caught attention was a new type of ocean development, which was
outside the coverage that conventional terms had implied.

B. Violation- the plan is extra topical- it mandates actions

that are not topical
C. The affirmative interpretation is bad for debate
Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash. They
unlimit by depending on non-topical actions. Everything
affects the ocean development / exploration
Timmons 12 Bob Timmons, Artist - Author Speaker, the Artist for the Ocean
October 21, 2012 Ocean Guardians
the-ocean-bob-timmons/

http://oceanguardians.com.au/artist-for-

Everything is connected and everything affects the ocean in the end since its
majority of the planets surface and subsurface.

D. T is voter because it's necessary for good, well-prepared

debating

Environmental Security K

Link
Monitoring oceans leads to increased water security
Richard Lawford et al, Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD. Earth
observations for global water security. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability. Volume 5, Issue 6, December 2013.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343513001577
Information for assessing water security needs must be provided to policy makers
and politicians who are then able to publically articulate whether the water security situation
is improving, remaining constant or deteriorating. This could be done most
effectively if quantitative goals were set, supported by information from a monitoring
system, such that policy makers could readily determine whether a nation or basin was progressing towards
water security. The development of SDGs could be helpful for clarifying which variables and space scales need to be
emphasized in a monitoring system. In addition, they could help to develop a more robust monitoring system by
relying on fully objective

and transparent sources of information based on Earth

observations and serve as the recognized basis for decisions by the UN bodies or panels responsible for
reviewing progress on the implementation of SDGs. This approach would enhance the more prevalent in-country

To address water
security issues, decision makers require information on the current state of the
system and on future states for assessing progress and problems and to facilitate
planning and problem mitigation. These types of information are regularly reviewed by GEO at both the
evaluations and surveys that were commonly used to assess progress on the MDGs.

user need definition and the system development levels. With its focus on interoperability, data integration and
analysis, and capacity development, GEO is in an excellent position to guide the development of a water strategy
monitoring system as part of its post-2015 work programme .

Integration is important for the

communication of information related to water security. Policy makers indicate that
a few meaningful indicators are more relevant to their needs than large quantities
of unprocessed data. They need indicators that answer questions such as: How is the state of the system
trending?, Are there particular areas that are trending differently (e.g. hot spots)? and What steps do we need to
take now? Indicators such as the human water security index [14] have proved to be powerful tools for
communicating global water conditions to a broad audience. A comprehensive water security index that
incorporates the information needed to answer these questions could prove to be a very powerful tool for
interacting with policy makers. For example, drought indices, which have gained a great deal of credibility over the
last few years [15], are examples of some successful metrics upon which society increasingly relies.

Military CP

Link: Satellite
Only the Navy holds the sufficient data processing and tech for
satellites
Easton 11 (Ian EastonChinas, Mr. Easton holds an M.A. in China studies from National Chengchi University
in Taipei, a B.A. in international studies from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Electronic Intelligence
Satellite Developments: Implications for U.S. Air and Naval Operations,
http://project2049.net/who_we_are_easton.html

The U.S. NOSS satellites reportedly operated on a band between 555 MHZ and 10
GHZ, with an accuracy of two to three kilometers, and an ability to detect radar
transmissions out to 3,218km. It was all-weather and also employed satellite
infrared detection sensors and millimeter wave emitters for the detection and
tracking of nuclear submarine wakes, as well as low flying missiles.6 The system was controlled by the Navy
Space Command, with signal processing conducted at the Naval
Information Center in Suitland, Maryland, as well as naval intelligence
centers in Spain, England, Japan and Hawaii. Ground stations supporting the constellations were located in Blossom Point, Maryland; Winter Harbor, Maine; Edzell,
Scotland; Guam; Diego Garcia; and Adak, Alaska.7 The former Soviet Union launched over 200 ELINT satellites from 1967 to 1991. This highly active
program, conducted a variety of missions, included nuclear-powered SAR
satellites and conventionally powered passive ELINT satellites working in tandem
to track U.S. and allied carriers and other warships . Underscoring their importance, Russia maintained at least two ELINT

satellite programs after the fall of

the defense industry.8

the Soviet Union, albeit at a scaled-down level, despite massive cutbacks and cancellations elsewhere across the space and missile sectors of

Neolib/Cap
Satellites expand US neoliberalism to space
Raymond Duvall and Jonathan Havercroft. University of Minnesota and
University of British Columbia. October 2006. Taking Sovereignty Out of This
World: Space Weapons and Empire of the Future. Review of International Studies Cambridge Univ Press.
http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/sites/liu/files/Publications/Havercroft_paper.pdf.
The doctrine of space control has emerged in the U.S. military out of the belief that
assets in space represent a potential target for enemies of the U.S.56 There are two
kinds of vulnerable U.S. assets: private-commercial; and military. One concern is
that rivals may attack commercial satellites, thereby disrupting the flow of
information and potentially inflicting significant harm on global markets. Militarily, a
second concern is that, through its increasing reliance on satellites for its Earthbased military operations, the U.S. has created an asymmetrical vulnerability. An
adversary (including a non-state, terrorist organization) could effectively
immobilize U.S. forces by disabling the military satellites that provide
communication, command, and control capabilities. As noted above, U.S. military
planners are already warning about a possible Space Pearl Harbor. Consequently,
the doctrine of space control is designed to protect commercial and military
satellites from potential attacks, and ultimately to prevent rivals from having access
to space.57 As of the year 2000 there were over 500 satellites in orbit owned by 46
countries, worth in excess of $250 billion. With the rise of the information economy,
satellites are playing an increasing role in international trade and finance. As such,
U.S. military planners are concerned about commercial satellites. One
rationalization for the weaponization of space is that these commercial assets
represent a vulnerability to economic sabotage and terrorism. As Lambeth has
argued, The most compelling reason for moving forward for dispatch toward
acquiring at least the serious elements of space control capability is that the United
States is now unprecedentedly invested and dependent upon on-orbit capabilities,
both military and commercial. Since these equities can only be 11 expected to grow
in sunk cost, it is fair to presume that they will eventually be challenged by potential
opponents.58 Notice how this description of space control discusses space in terms
of a set of capital assets that should be protected from external threats. While
scholars have for a long time debated whether one, if not the, primary objective of
U.S. military endeavors is to protect the interests of business, when it comes to
questions of space control it is one of only two things in space to protect. There are
no human populations in spacewith the exception of the two or three occupants
on the International Space Stationthat could be killed by conflict in space, so the
thing that is being secured through the project of space control is technology
either commercial satellites or military assets. While not a perfect analogy, because
of the lack of labour occurring in orbital space, the doctrine of space control is part
and parcel of an ongoing process of such primitive accumulation. One of the
purposes of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty was to keep outer space a commons
where all states, regardless of technical ability or economic or military power, could

participate in the potential benefits space has to offer. In the years since this treaty
was signed, the primary economic use of space has been for commercial
communications satellites. This industry has expanded dramatically in the last two
decades. Total revenues for commercial space-related industries in 1980 were 2.1
billion dollars; by 2003 this figure had expanded to $91 billion and it was expected
to increase at least as rapidly into the foreseeable future.60 On the economic front,
space control is about determining who has access to this new economy. Positions in
orbit for satellites are a new form of real estate, and by controlling access to outer
space the U.S. would be forcibly appropriating the orbits around Earth, thereby
placing the U.S. in a position to determine which governments and corporations
could use space. In effect, orbital slots around earth would be turned into private
property. This process of primitive accumulation is of importance to our concerns in
two ways. First, the doctrine of space control represents the extension of U.S.
sovereignty into outer space. In addition to being a clear violation of international
law, it reinforces the constitutive effect identified in the previous section on missile
defense, namely to re-inscribe the hard shell borders of the U.S., which are now
extended to include the territory of outer space. This simultaneously constitutes
the exclusive sovereignty of the U.S., while displacing the sovereignty of other
states.

Ban Satellites CP
Text: The USFG should implement a ban on satellites
Satellites lead to space weaponization
Raymond Duvall and Jonathan Havercroft. University of Minnesota and
University of British Columbia. October 2006. Taking Sovereignty Out of This
World: Space Weapons and Empire of the Future. Review of International Studies Cambridge Univ Press.
http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/sites/liu/files/Publications/Havercroft_paper.pdf.
The multiple interests that tie together space exploration and space weaponization
have been vigorously pursued and now are beginning to be substantially realized by
a very small number of militaries, most notably that of the United States. For
example, since the 1990 Persian Gulf War, the U.S. military has increasingly relied
on assets in space to increase its C4ISR (Command, Control, Communication,
Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) functions. Most of these
functions are now routed through satellites in orbit. In addition, new precision
weapons, such as JDAM bombs, and unmanned drones, such as the Predator, rely on
Global Positioning System satellites to help direct them to their targets, and often
these weapons communicate with headquarters through satellite uplinks.29 For
another instance, NASAs recently completed Deep Impact mission, which entailed
smashing part of a probe into a comet to gather information about the content of
comet nuclei, directly served the U.S. military in developing the technology and the
logistical capabilities to intercept small objects moving at very fast speeds
(approximately 23,000 miles per hour).30 As such, the technologies can be adapted
for programs such as missile defense, where a similar problem of intercepting an
object moving at a very high speed is confronted. So, in a certain sense, the military
colonization of orbital space has already begun to a significant extentit is no
longer a distant future vision, nor an unrealizable fiction. We are not in a position to
detail all of the technological or strategic manifestations of this important
development. Pretending to be able to do so would distract from the purposes of
this paper. Our concern, instead, is with the broad forms of space weaponization
that are now being actively pursuedagain, especially by the U.S.and/or that are
very much alive on the drawing board and in the U.S. military imagination. On the
near horizon, three new military uses of orbital space are becoming increasingly
possible, and all three seem particularly likely to be carried out by the U.S . The first,
which has been an active pursuit since at least the 1980s, is the possibility of using
weapons based in space to intercept missile attacks from foreign enemies before
these weapons reach their destinationsa space-based missile-defense shield.
Second, there is serious discussion in the U.S. military of developing space
control, which the U.S. Department of Defense defines as the exploitation of
space and the denial of the use of space to adversaries.31 A third front on which
space weaponization is being pursued by the U.S. is through the practice of force
application from space. In this instance, weapons of varying types (discussed briefly
below) would be placed in orbit, with the ability to attack objects either flying in the
Earths atmosphere or on or near the Earths surface (including even under ground

or under water). In order to carry out these three forms of space weaponization, the
U.S. governmentor any other presumptive space powerwill need to develop new
types of military technologies. To achieve space control it will be necessary to
pursue anti-satellite 7 technology aimed at attacking the satellites of rivals and
protecting ones own satellites from attack. Missile defense will require the
placement of lasers and kinetic-energy interceptors in orbit that will be able to
destroy ballistic missiles in the boost phase. The combination of these two forms of
space weaponization potentially turns space into a battleground. In addition, these
weapon technologies can be adapted and modified in the long term to launch
attacks from space against targets on earth, thereby bringing about the third form
of space weaponization: force application from outer space, which will require yet
additional technologies for placing targetable means of destruction in orbit. Antisatellite technology already exists to some extent. For instance, any state with
ballistic missile technology and a nuclear warhead could launch the warhead into
orbit and detonate it near a targeted satellite.32 Current advances in micro-satellite
technology and space robotics, however, are making it easier to disable or destroy
satellites. For example, in 2005 the U.S. Air Force launched an XSS-11, a satellite
the size of a dishwasher weighing only 100 kilograms. This satellite has the ability
to meet other satellites in orbit, thereby potentially disabling or destroying them.33
The proliferation of such technologies means that it is becoming increasingly likely
that military operations in the future could be carried out against the satellite
systems of rivals.

Global satellite war is coming

World Economic Forum. Oct. 03, 2012. What If Space Was the Next Frontier
for War?. TIME magazine. http://world.time.com/2012/10/03/what-if-space-was-thenext-frontier-for-war/
While it may sound like science fiction, a number of the worlds major militaries are
already preparing for combat in space. The World Economic Forum, in collaboration
with TIME, spoke with Theresa Hitchens, director of the U.N. Institute for
Disarmament Research (UNIDIR). She warns that strikes against satellites could
push earth wars to a new level. (The views expressed here are her own, not those of
the United Nations.) Is there really a threat for conflict in space? We may not be
about to see a real life Death Star hovering into view, but we will see earth wars
elevated into space. It is almost inevitable that if a major conflict arises between
developed powers, satellites will become targets. This was not the case ten years
ago, but since then satellites have increasingly been integrated into a nations
ability to project power and pursue a war. They are used for military
communications, for mapping and to guide bombs. A modern army could not
operate in a satellite-free environment. This is worrying when you consider that, if a
satellite is destroyed or damaged, it is not only the military functions that are taken
out: most of them carry out all kinds of essential civilian services, too. What warning
signs have you seen already? Three nations have tested anti-satellite weapons in
the last three decades: the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s, then
China in 2007. The latter shocked a lot of people. China sent a kinetic weapon a
solid warhead slamming into one of its own weather satellites, causing an

explosion which created thousands of pieces of debris in one of the most crowded
orbits around earth. The worst part was not the demonstration of capability, as
pretty much everyone knew China could do something like this, it was the question
of why they chose to demonstrate it in the manner in which they did. Whats more,
any country that has a medium-range ballistic weapon and a reasonable
commercial satellite programme can develop an anti-satellite weapon, and there is
no real international agreement on what norms of behaviour are acceptable. I am
pretty sure that France, India and Israel all have the capacity.

Predictions show satellite war could go nuclear

World Economic Forum. Oct. 03, 2012. What If Space Was the Next Frontier
for War?. TIME magazine. http://world.time.com/2012/10/03/what-if-space-was-thenext-frontier-for-war/
Say you have a crisis between two nuclear-armed, space-faring countries , Nation A
and Nation B, which have a long-standing border dispute. Nation A, with its satellite
capability, sees that Nation B is mobilizing troops a nd opening up military depots in
a region where things are very tense already, on the tipping point. Nation A thinks:
Thats it, theyre going to attack. So it might decide to pre-emptively strike the
communications satellite used by Nation B to slow down its ability to move toward
the border and give itself time to fortify. Say this happens and Nation B has no use
of satellites for 12 hours, the time it takes it to get another satellite into position.
What does Nation B do? Its blind, its deaf, its thinking all this time that its about
to be overwhelmed by an invasion or even nuked. This is possibly a real crisis
escalation situation; something similar has been played out in U.S. Air Force war
games, a scenario-planning exercise practiced by the U.S. military. The first game
involving anti-satellite weapons stopped in five minutes because it went nuclear
bam. Nation B nuked Nation A. This is not a far-out, The skys falling in! concern, it
is something that has been played out over and over again in the gaming of these
things, and I have real fears about it.

NOAA Tradeoff DA

1nc
NOAAs Beaufort Lab is at risk of closing fiscal situation
means funds are crucial now.
Kollipara 14 Puneet Kollipara, Early Policy Primer and Journalist for the Wonkbooker and writer for
InsiderScience, Opponents Assail the White Houses Plans to Close NOAA Lab in North Carolina,
http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2014/04/opponents-assail-white-house-plan-close-noaa-lab-north-carolina

A proposal by the Obama administration to close a historic marine research

laboratory near Beaufort, North Carolina, is drawing pushback from the scientific
community and local members of Congress. Although the administration frames
it as a tough choice in a time of fiscal restraint, critics argue that the
proposed closure of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) lab would endanger crucial marine research.
Founded more than 100 years ago, the NOAA laboratory on Pivers Island near
Beaufortconducts research into a variety of marine science subjects, including fish
stocks, ecosystem function, and the health of aquatic creatures. Its work has
helped scientists improve how they forecast harmful algal blooms, and it
set in place the first study of invasive lionfish in the South Atlantic, those
familiar with the lab say. And it is the only NOAA lab between Miami, Florida, and
Sandy Hook, New Jersey.
The Obama administration quietly proposed closing the lab in the
presidents fiscal year 2015 budget request released last month, citing the tough
fiscal environment. The lab, which employs 108 workers and contractors, has a
roughly $1.6 million operating and maintenance budget (which does not include
salaries).
The closure is far from set in stone. Congress would have to approve the
request as part of the spending plan for the 2015 fiscal year, which begins 1
October. But that work isnt expected to be finished until late this year, after the
November elections.
In the meantime, some scientists and lawmakers are baffled by the proposal,
which they say doesnt have a clear rationale. And they are making the case for
why the lab deserves to stay open.

Plan trades off with other NOAA Funding.

Showstack 12 Randy Showstack, Staff writer for EOS, NOAA Budget Would Boost Satellite Funding But
Cut Some Key Areas, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012EO100004/pdf

The White Houses proposed fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget for the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), announced on 13 February, looks favorable
at first glance. The administrations request calls for $5.1 billion, an increase of
$153 million (3.1%) above the FY 2012 estimated budget. However, the increase
for NOAA satellites is $163 million, which means that other areas within
the agency would be slated for decreased funding, including programs within

the National Ocean Service (NOS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
National Weather Service (NWS), and some NOAA education programs. The
proposed overall budget for the agency reflects the overarching importance of
weather satellites to public safety, to national security, and to the economy, NOAA
director Jane Lubchenco said at a 16 February briefing, noting that difficult choices
were made regarding the budget. Due to significant resources required
for our weather satellites and the economic conditions in the country,
other parts of our budget have been reduced, in some cases quite
significantly, she said. She added that the imperative to fund both the Joint Polar
Satellite System (JPSS) and geostationary satellites in FY 2013 imposes serious
constraints on the rest of NOAAs budget. The budget for the National
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) would
increase 8.7% to $2.041 billion. This includes full funding for the JPSS ($916.4
million, down from $924 million). In addition, funding for the Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellite R Series (GOES- R) would increase to $802
million, up from $615.6 million. Environmental satellite observing systems would
receive $123.2 million, up from $112.5 million. However, NOAAs Climate Database
Modernization Program to preserve and enhance the availability of climate and
environmental data would be terminated.

Beaufort Lab key to data collection on algae blooms.

CCFHR Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, research office of NOAA, Center for Coastal
Fisheries and Habitat Research, http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/about/centers/ccfhr

We conduct research on the effects of coastal habitat change and restoration on

living marine resources such as seagrasses, marshes, reefs, and fish. Major
programs include: Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms Marine Restoration and Spatial
Planning Ecological Responses to Climate Change Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms
We develop tools for detecting and mitigating the risks of harmful algal to human
health and coastal economies and ecosystems. Our algal toxin test kits and
other molecular-based tools enhance the HAB monitoring capabilities of
public health officials, tribal and state marine resource managers,
commercial and subsistence fishermen, aquaculture facilities, and academic
research programs. We are improving seafood safety and food security within
the US and internationally. Key Actions and Accomplishments Developed and
commercialized an algal toxin test kit for domoic acid in razor clams at the request
of the northwest Pacific tribes. Developed new approaches for rapidly identifying the
toxic algae that cause ciguatera fish poisoning (CFP). Trained 30 Asian scientists in
sampling and detection of CFP causing species. Developed assays for the toxic
algae causing paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) in Alaska and trained
Alaskan public health officials, shellfish growers, state and federal
resources managers and academic scientists. Characterized environmental
and physiological tolerances of toxic species to predict HAB range
extensions and toxicity changes as a result of climate change . Determined
the sensitivity of toxic species to changes in nutrient availability. This information is
used by water district and resource managers to decide on timing and volume of freshwater releases into coastal ecosystems. Marine Restoration and
Spatial Planning We provide research and management guidance to improve marine spatial planning, specializing in evaluating effectiveness of protected

areas and in siting aquaculture and restoration projects. Our capabilities include scientific and deep-technical diving and ROV and underwater acoustics.
We also have expertise in the delineation, recovery and restoration of injured habitats and support federal, state and local habitat protection and
restoration, including Department of Justice litigation of habitat injuries in public trust waters. Key Actions and Accomplishments Modeled wave energy and
its impact on marine habitat and shoreline erosion. The models are used to site ferry terminals, marinas, and restoration projects. Created a program to
track, predict impacts, and slow the spread of the invasive species in Atlantic waters, including lionfish, Asian tiger shrimp, and tunicates. Identified high
productivity areas in Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary to inform design of research-only area to reduce fishing impacts on coral reef
ecosystems. Developed seagrass and coral injury recovery models for damage assessment and restoration that have been used to negotiate over $1
million in compensatory claims. Provided a geospatial framework for coastal resource management, spill response, tidal energy and spill response in
Kachemak Bay Alaska. Developed best management practices (BMPs) and use of models to reduce impacts of aquaculture activities in the coastal ocean.
Ecological Responses to Climate Change We develop information and tools to help communities understand how sea level rise and weather extremes will
impact their shorelines and waterfront properties. We also offer guidance for effective shoreline management based on enhancing the stabilization
capabilities of natural shorelines, and we assist coastal communities in adapting to changing shorelines. Our Alaska team works with coastal managers
and Alaska communities to anticipate and adapt to a changing environment, balance multiple coastal uses, and sustainably manage coastal resources.
Key Actions and Accomplishments Developed the salt marsh monitoring protocol for the National Estuarine Research Reserves biological monitoring
program Mapped shorelines and assessed their vulnerability to erosion from sea level rise and boat wakes for the Department of Defense Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program. Evaluated effectiveness of living vs. engineered shorelines for stabilization. Identified factors affecting

Quantified ecosystem changes and assessed variability

in ocean acidification in nearshore subarctic Alaska habitats. Facility and Personnel
Leadership: B. William Gottholm, Director, 252-728-8746 Jim Guyton Research
Coordination & Admin Services, 252-728-8773 Over 100 NOAA employees are
housed in our Beaufort, North Carolina and Kasitsna Bay, Alaska
campuses.NCCOS owns and maintains the campuses. We share space with NOAA
Fisheries and the North Carolina Estuarine Research Reserve staff in Beaufort, and
offer field-housing to visiting researchers and students in Kasitsna Bay.
rates of carbon sequestration in marsh habitats.

Algae blooms occurring more rapidly now - harm marine

biodiversity.
Kumar 12 T. Nanda Kumar, currently a member of the National Disaster Management Authority, will take
over as the new chairman of the NDDB or National Disaster Management Authority, Red Tide From Algal Bloom:
Scientist, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/red-tide-from-algal-bloomscientist/article3286350.ece

The red tide in the sea off the Rameswaram Island from March 31 to April
2 was an algal bloom caused by the proliferation of a non-toxic organism.
Scientists who analysed seawater samples collected from the area have identified
the organism as Peridinium quinquecorne , a non-toxic dinoflagellate.
This is the first time a massive bloom of Peridinium was observed in India
and that too from the East Coast close to the Gulf of Mannar biosphere
reserve, K. Padmakumar, Director of the Centre for Marine Biodiversity under the
University of Kerala, says.
Dr. Padmakumar had witnessed the red tide during a diving expedition in the
Palk Bay to collect marine organisms. He brought back samples of the seawater
and analysed them in his laboratory here. The red tide, characterised by
discoloration of seawater, had a density of 6.34 lakh cells per litre of water.
As the affected region is a berthing place for fishing vessels and away from coral
reefs, no significant damage was observed. There was no report of foul smell from
the sea or mass mortality of fish, Dr. Padmakumar told The Hindu .
Oxygen depletion
An algal bloom leads to the depletion of oxygen in water, causing the
death of other marine species. Even non-toxic algal blooms are known to

have had a devastating impact on marine life, resulting in mass death of fish
and other organisms. Over the past 10 years, at least 70 algal blooms have
been reported from India, mostly from the West Coast.
Dr. Padmakumar says algal blooms are triggered by nutrient enrichment of
seawater, possibly caused by discharge of sewage, fertilizer residue, or
waste from aquaculture farms. If left unchecked, the situation can lead to
a catastrophic loss of marine life and biodiversity, having an impact on
fishing activities, tourism, human health, and the environment, he says.
A further analysis of seawater will be carried out at the algal research station of the
Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute at Mandapam.

Extinction.
Craig 3, Robin, Associate Professor of Law at the Indiana University School of Law, 2003.
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these
arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable
ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more
than ten times the reefs value for food production. Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef

ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical

cyclingof all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms ,
ecosystems provide. More generally,

carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements. In a very real and direct sense, therefore,

human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planets ability to support life .
Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general , an
ecosystems ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly
dependent on its biodiversity, indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable.
Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of
interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning
that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest
of the reef system. Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services
that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill
in Alaska. Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should

At
the forefrontof such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea not be the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit.

and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it

wenow know that such harm is occurring - even

though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every
problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do
was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but

not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within

: if
we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The
its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much

Black Sea is almost dead, its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, starving out fish and
dolphins, emptying fishermens nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly. More importantly, the Black Sea is not
necessarily unique. The Black Sea is a microcosm of what is happening to the ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up: overfishing, oil spills,
industrial discharges, nutrient pollution, wetlands destruction, the introduction of an alien species. The sea weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed with
shocking suddenness. The lessons of this tragedy should not be lost to the rest of us, because much of what happened here is being repeated all over the
world. The ecological stresses imposed on the Black Sea were not unique to communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to respond to the
emerging crisis. Oxygen-starved dead zones appear with increasing frequency off the coasts of major cities and major rivers, forcing marine animals to

Ethics as well as enlightened self-interest thus suggest that the

United States should protect fully-functioning marine ecosystems wherever possible- even if a
flee and killing all that cannot.

few fishers go out of business as a result.

Funds Trade Off

NOAA funds trade off zero sum.
Smith 13 Marcia S. Smith, President of the Space and Technology Policy Group, New House CR Adds Money
for NASA Exploration, NOAA GOES-R, But It's a Zero Sum Game, http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/newhouse-cr-adds-money-for-nasa-exploration-noaa-goes-r-but-its-a-zero-sum-game

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) introduced the House version of a "full year" Continuing
Resolution (CR) today that would fund the government for the rest of FY2013. The
bulk of the bill is about the Department of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs, but
it covers all government agencies. It gives special attention to NASA's
exploration program and NOAA's geostationary weather satellite program,
but in the end the totals for those agencies do not change. Under a CR,
agencies are generally held to their prior year funding levels not only at
the account level, but for particular projects. In this case, that would be the
funding provided in the FY2012 appropriations bill (P.L. 112-55). Exceptions can
always be made, however, and a number of them are in the Rogers bill, H.R. 933.
For NASA and NOAA, though, it stil is zero sum game where the total
appropriation is the same, but certain programs get more than others.

NOAA = Limited Funds

NOAA has limited funds to provide for projects and research.
Pekow 14 Charles Pekow, DC Outdoor Recreation Examiner and award-winning journalist, House
Committee Offers Tight NOAA Budget for 2015, http://www.examiner.com/article/house-committee-offers-tightnoaa-budget-for-2015

The Republican-dominated committee reported a bill that would give NOAA's

discretionary accounts $5.32512 billion, an increase of only $10.514 million, not
enough to keep up with inflation. The administration had requested an increase of
$163.615 million.
The committee report became available online on the congressional website on
Saturday, May 17, 2014. The bill has been placed on the House Union Calendar so
the House can vote on it after it returns from recess. The Senate has not yet written
a corresponding appropriations bill.
Of the NOAA budget, $3.22048 billion would go toward its coastal, fisheries, marine,
weather, satellite and related programs. The amount includes funding transferred
from other funds and amounts to $148.513 million less than what the administration
asked for. The National Marine Fisheries Service would get $790.2 million.
The committee report also asks NOAA to provide it with quarterly reports on its
stock assessment efforts starting next winter. The reports must describe NOAA's
methods for determining stock assessments, the costs of each survey and how the
agency incorporates independent data. The committee also ordered NOAA to
provide within 90 days of the enactment of the bill a report on how it determines
fishing quotas, especially when spikes occur in fishing. The emphasis would be on
reported spikes in Atlantic sea bass fishing in 2013.

NOAA has tight fiscal situation now.

Erickson 14 Mark St. John Erickson, Daily Press Writer, USS Monitor Conservation Lab to Close From
Funding Woes, http://articles.dailypress.com/2014-01-09/features/dp-nws-monitor-lab-closing-20140109_1_turretatmospheric-administration-national-oceanic

"But we can't do everything that needs to be done in a project like this on

a shoe-string budget. This is the largest marine metals conservation project in
the world and just keeping up with all the daily and weekly pH level, salinity and
clarity checks we have to make with this number of treatment tanks and containers
takes up 95 percent of our time." According to the museum, NOAA is still waiting
on Congressional approval of a budget to determine what funding to make
available to the project this year. Several attempts to address the issue by phone
with David Alberg, superintendent of the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary office
housed on the museum's grounds, were still waiting for a response late Thursday.
Friday's planned shutdown comes about six weeks after a Virginia Congressional
delegation made up of Senators Mark Warner (D) and Tim Kaine (D) as well as
Representatives Robert C. "Bobby" Scott, D-Newport News; Rob Wittman, RWestmoreland Country; Scott Rigell, R-Virginia Beach; and J. Randy Forbes, R-

Chesapeake, sent a bipartisan letter to acting NOAA administrator Kathryn D.

Sullivan asking the agency to develop a plan for "completing the preservation of
these nationally significant artifacts." "While we appreciate the funding constraints
that NOAA and other agencies face in these tight budget times, these are federally
owned National Marine Sanctuary resources," the letter states. "It is important that
this tangible history not be left to decay due to lack of funds."

Beaufort Lab Uniqueness/ Funds Key

Beaufort needs funds to maintain openness.
Shutak 3/17 Mike Shutak, March 17th, 2014, Reporter for Carteret County News-Times:
environment,science,fishing,Newport & Atlantic Beach governments, NOAA Pivers Island Lab May Close (Update),
http://www.carolinacoastonline.com/news_times/article_e4192c50-aabe-11e3-9fd2-0019bb2963f4.html

The federal government has had a lab in Beaufort for about 115 years; but if the
presidents proposed budget is passed, it will close.
President Barack Obamas fiscal 2014-15 budget request has been presented to
Congress for approval. This request includes a proposal to close the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration lab on Pivers Island.
Ciaran Clayton, director of NOAAs Communications and External Affairs, confirmed
the proposal. She said in an email to the News-Times Wednesday the lab has
conducted valuable fisheries and coastal science for more than 100 years.
However, this aging facility requires infrastructure repairs and
improvements exceeding agency budget resources now and for the
foreseeable future, she said. The presidents FY2015 budget request addresses
this challenge by proposing closure of the lab. The proposal requires congressional
approval."
While some of the buildings in the lab are several decades old, some new facilities
have been built. The current main lab building was built in 2007. According to Dr.
James Morris, a biologist at the lab, there are 70 federal employees there, as well as
about 40 non-federal employees, such as contractors.
The infrastructure improvements needed, according to Ms. Clayton, would be an
added expense on top of the $1.6 million the lab needs each year.
NOAAs FY2015 budget proposal included a request to increase competitive
research grants by $6 million to conduct research on coastal ocean issues.
These issues include harmful algal blooms, hypoxia and coastal ecosystem
assessment.

Funds are key.

Kollipara 14 Puneet Kollipara, Early Policy Primer and Journalist for the Wonkbooker and writer for
InsiderScience, Opponents Assail the White Houses Plans to Close NOAA Lab in North Carolina,
http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2014/04/opponents-assail-white-house-plan-close-noaa-lab-north-carolina

This lab is a vital part of the local, national, and international marine science
community and provides important research and information for sustaining fisheries
and coastal ecosystems of the Mid- and South-Atlantic, and to U.S territories in the
Caribbean Sea to the people of this nation, said David Eggleston, a professor and
the director of North Carolina State Universitys Center for Marine Sciences and
Technology, in a 28 March letter to lawmakers.

Even if the lab is closed, NOAA wont be letting go of the labs 62 permanent staff
members, according to a presentation on the proposed budget. Fisheries
employees will continue the research they are currently undertaking at a different
location, the presentation says. Its uncertain what will happen to the others.
But proponents of keeping the lab open say theyre skeptical that the
relocated NOAA researchers would be able to continue doing the same
work they have long been doing at the Beaufort lab.
"It covers a large swath ecologically that other labs cant cover easily without
traveling," saysAmy Freitag, a recent marine science and conservation Ph.D.
graduate of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who collaborated with a
NOAA scientist at the Beaufort lab. "It would be difficult to continue research
in the area from other NOAA facilities." As an example, she mentions that
waters from two regions of the Atlantic converge in an area of the ocean near the
lab. Ecologically speaking, its probably the most fascinating part of the
East Coast Atlantic to look at, she says. You can study fisheries both from that
northern region and from the southern region and see how they interact. Freitag
also worries that numerous partnerships with nearby universities would
suffer if the researchers move far away.
NOAA declined to make Beaufort lab scientists available for interviews. Ciaran
Clayton, a NOAA spokeswoman, said in a statement that the laboratory has
conducted valuable science over the course of its 100-plus-year history. "However,
this aging facility requires infrastructure repairs and improvements
exceeding agency budget resources now and for the foreseeable future,
Clayton said.
Lab proponents dont buy that argument. They note that in recent years NOAA has
invested millions of dollars to upgrade the facility, including by building a
new bridge to the island that houses the lab. To shut the lab after making
those upgrades would be all the more baffling, Freitag says.

Lab Solves Algae Blooms

Beaufort Lab key to data collection on algae blooms.
Restino 13 Carey Restino, Southwestern Alaskan writer for the Homer Tribune, Root Beer Algae Blooms
Found to be Non-Toxic, http://homertribune.com/2013/11/root-beer-algae-bloom-found-to-be-nontoxic/

Now, thanks to careful testing techniques by the Beaufort Laboratory in

North Carolina, the phytoplankton has been identified using genetic
techniques that extract DNA from the preserved samples and analyze it with a
specialized sequencing method. The resulting genetic signature is compared with
DNA signatures from cells in a national database where researchers found a 100
percent match.
Holdereid said the phytoplankton is new to Alaska, with Kachemak Bays bloom
being the first report in the state. But it has been found fairly commonly in other
regions of the world from the Gulf of Mexico to China, Ireland, France, western India,
New Zealand and Norway. In those regions, prolonged large outbreaks have been
frequently associated with fish kills and the death of invertebrate species as well,
she noted.
The fish and invertebrate deaths appear to be caused by a combination of
decreased levels of oxygen saturation or anoxic conditions that result
from the decomposition of the algae in the latter stages of the bloom, and the
presence of a toxin, she said. As well, the algae cells contain a weak toxin capable
of causing fish mortalities when a very high density of cells is in direct contact with
the fish, especially the gills, she said.
This wasnt the only interesting algae bloom in recent years in the bay. A red algae
bloom also caused concern earlier in the year when residents were concerned that
the red tide might be associated with paralytic shellfish poisoning concerns. In that
case also, testing found no cause for concern.
Holdereid said in cases where scientists can compare the algae to previously
identified varieties, identification can typically be made in a matter of
days. Such was the case with the red tide seen last summer, which was quickly
identified as harmless, though it did turn the oysters grown in the area so red that in
some cases, it looked like they were bleeding, Bates said.
It looked like a traffic wreck tide, Holdereid said, though in actuality, these blooms
are sort of like a five-hour energy drink for other organisms in the water.
What is yet unknown, said Holdereid, is why the bloom happened for the first time
this summer. Further research will look at water temperatures and other features to
see if any conclusions can be drawn about this new arrival to Alaska and Kachemak
Bay.
We have to go back and look at the data, she said, adding that a network
of water monitors organized by Catie Bursch with the Kachemak Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve keep a close eye on conditions in the
bay. Part of this is will changing conditions make us more susceptible to algae
blooms.

Beaufort Lab key to monitoring and data-collection on algae

blooms.
COL 9 Consortium for Ocean Leadership, New Study Uncovers Key Role of Bacteria in the Formation of Red
Tide Algal Blooms, http://oceanleadership.org/new-study-uncovers-key-role-of-bacteria-in-the-formation-of-redtide-algal-blooms/

(From NOAA) According to a new study published in Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences, NOAA and NOAA-funded university scientists are closer to
understanding why red tides, called harmful algal blooms form. These toxic
harmful algal blooms threaten marine ecosystems, human health, and cost
local and regional economies millions of dollars annually through fishery
closures and recreation and tourism losses.
The study looked at the impact that the cooperative interactions between marine
microalgae and bacteria have on the growth of harmful algal blooms
Scientists have long recognized that certain species of bacteria are closely
associated with the microalgae that form the harmful algal blooms, but didnt
understand why the blooms formed or what role the bacteria play.
The researchers found that certain species of bacteria form a mutually-beneficial
relationship with the algae that promotes the growth of each. The bacteria release a
chemical which helps the algae absorb iron, a critical nutrient for photosynthesis.
The algae, in turn, release organic compounds to support the growth of the bacteria.
The potential impacts of the study are extensive, and could result in
improved modeling and forecasting of harmful algal blooms or potential
strategies for prevention, according to William Sunda, Ph.D., of NOAAs
Beaufort Laboratory, a co-author of the report.
The results of the research have global implications, said Sunda. If we
can find a way to inhibit the bacteria we should be able to help
communities around the world deal with problematic and costly algal
blooms.

Algae Blooms = Extinction

Extinction.
GSA 9 Geological Survey of America, a leader in advancing the geosciences, enhancing the professional
growth of its members, and promoting the geosciences in the service to humankind, Killer Algae: Key Player in
Mass Extinctions, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019134716.htm

Supervolcanoes and cosmic impacts get all the terrible glory for causing mass
extinctions, but a new theory suggests lowly algae may be the killer behind the
world's great species annihilations.
Today, just about anywhere there is water, there can be toxic algae. The
microscopic plants usually exist in small concentrations, but a sudden warming in
the water or an injection of dust or sediment from land can trigger a
bloom that kills thousands of fish, poisons shellfish, or even humans.
James Castle and John Rodgers of Clemson University think the same thing
happened during the five largest mass extinctions in Earth's history. Each time a
large die off occurred, they found a spike in the number of fossil algae mats called
stromatolites strewn around the planet. Castle will be presenting the research on
October 19 at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Portland,
Oregon.
"If you go through theories of mass extinctions, there are always some unanswered
questions," Castle said. "For example, an impact how does that cause species to
go extinct? Is it climate change, dust in the atmosphere? It's probably not going to
kill off all these species on its own."
But as the nutrient-rich fallout from the disaster lands in the water, it
becomes food for algae. They explode in population, releasing chemicals that can
act as anything from skin irritants to potent neurotoxins. Plants on land can pick up
the compounds in their roots, and pass them on to herbivorous animals.
If the theory is right, it answers a lot of questions about how species died off
in the ancient world. It also raises concerns for how today's algae may damage
the ecosystem in a warmer world.
"Algae growth is favored by warmer temperatures," Castle said. "You get
accelerated metabolism and reproduction of these organisms, and the effect
appears to be enhanced for species of toxin-producing cyanobacteria."
He added that toxic algae in the United States appear to be migrating slowly
northward through the country's ponds and lakes, and along the coast as
temperatures creep upward. Their expanding range portends a host of problems for
fish and wildlife, but also for humans, as algae increasingly invade reservoirs and
other sources of drinking water.

Lab Solves Invasive Lionfish

Beaufort is idealistically perf.
Freitag 14 http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=16856
The Beaufort lab hosts, through NOAA and co-housed National Estuarine Research
Reserve staff, a number of collaborative research projects. For instance, Dr. Chris
Taylor joined the Beaufort lab after completing his dissertation work down the road
at NC States Center for Marine Science and Technology, where he worked closely
with commercial fishermen. I got to know Dr. Taylor during an interview as part of
my dissertation research, investigating the impact of collaborative research. Chris
stated that fishery collaborations allowed him to create a novel dissertation
and appreciated that his position at NOAA allowed him to stay in touch
with those fishermen through the years. The NERRS staff also hold community
education events and work with a wide array of local researchers and stakeholders
to better understand the estuary.
Lionfish guru Dr. Morris is a native of Carteret County, where his family can trace
roots back to colonial America. That family today runs a successful oyster hatchery
and aquaculture facility as well as a small fleet of family fishing boats. The Morris
family are strong community organizers and are active in creating new economic
opportunities for the area, committed to maintaining the heritage of downeast,
the eastern part of Carteret County. Dr. Morris role in this effort is as a strong
member of the scientific community, mentoring students from local universities and
being a stellar example of outreach done well. Dr. Morris has given local talks,
worked closely with local dive shops, and partnered with the culinary
program at Carteret Community college to raise awareness about invasive
lionfish and create potential solutions.
Finally, the Beaufort lab staff are community members for the length of their career.
They are helping to build upon a century-long history of research in the
area and are in the perfect location to research the ecologically
fascinating and economically important mid-Atlantic ecosystem in the
area. They help and watch graduate students in the area learn and grow and often,
move on to career opportunities in other parts of the country. So the Beaufort lab
research stands as a shining example of long-term research understanding
and supporting marine ecosystems, which in turn, support vibrant coastal
communities and their maritime heritage. To see NOAA disappear from this
community would not only be a huge loss to the scientific foundation of
the area but it would unravel many deep community ties that are critical
to creating a healthy, sustainable future for both the ocean and its
humans.

NOPP CP
CP Text: The United States federal government should increase
funding for Integrated Ocean Observation System through the
National Oceanographic Partnership Program for data
collection, data sharing and agency integration
The NOPP solves for better interagency co-op
Committee on Exploration of the Seas, National Research Council.
2003. Exploration of the Seas: Voyage into the Unknown.
http://explore.noaa.gov/sites/OER/Documents/national-research-council-voyage.pdf
NOPP is the governments best attempt to date at interagency coopera-tion. NOPP
has embraced the task of implementing ocean observatories in an integrated, multiagency manner. For example, through NOPP, there is not just one agency
advocating ocean observing: there are many. Through NOPPs Ocean.US office,
which is jointly supported by several NOPP member agencies, this intergovernmental organization is tackling major issues on the development, installation,
and operation of ocean observatories that either cannot or should not be
undertaken by one agency in isolation. NOPP is able to pool funds from the partner
agencies and nonfederal sources to fund research proposals that respond to a broad
interagency solicitation. The program has consistently encouraged proposals from
teams that include academic, commercial, federal, and other not-for-profit partners.
The leaders of the agencies meet twice annually to review program
accomplishments and directions, and an Interagency Working Group is tasked with
the day-to-day operation of the program. The programs independent advisory
group, the Ocean Research Advisory Panel, has already recommended that NOPP
embrace ocean exploration as an additional theme area to comple-ment ocean
observing and to better engage the public in ocean issues. NOPP is an existing
organization that would allow the major agencies with an interest in ocean
exploration and the necessary assets, such as NOAA, NSF, and the Navy, to pursue
a major program cooperatively, and assume leadership of various aspects as fits
with the agencys ability. For example, NOAA might take on the task of systematic
ocean mapping, with NSF piggybacking programs for assessing biodiversity in the
midwater, while the Minerals Management Service adds the equipment and
expertise to assess nonliving resources on those mapping expeditions. An additional
advantage of placing an ocean exploration program under the auspices of NOPP is
that it allows for other member agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Environmental
Protection Agency, to participate at any level with-out any additional bureaucracy.

NOPP is better prepared than NOAA

Committee on Exploration of the Seas, National Research Council.
2003. Exploration of the Seas: Voyage into the Unknown.
http://explore.noaa.gov/sites/OER/Documents/national-research-council-voyage.pdf
After weighing the issues involved in oversight and funding, perhaps the most
appropriate placement for an ocean exploration program is under the auspices of the
interagency NOPP, provided that the problems with routing funds to NOPP-sponsored projects is solved. This
solution has the best chance of leading to major involvement by NOAA, NSF, and
other appropriate organizations such as the Office of Naval Research. The
committee is not prepared to support an ocean exploration program within NOAA
unless major shortcomings of NOAA as a lead agency can be effectively and
demonstrably overcome. A majority of the committee members felt that the
structural problems limiting the effectiveness of NOAAs current ocean exploration
program are insurmountable. A minority of the committee members felt that the problems could be
corrected. If there is no change to the status quo for NOPP or NOAA, the committee recommends that NSF be
encouraged to take on an ocean exploration program. Although a program within NSF would face the same
difficulties of the existing NOAA program in attracting other federal (and nonfederal) partners, NSF has proven
success-ful at managing international research programs as well as a highly-regarded ocean exploration program
that remained true to its founding vision.

Republicans hate the NOAA

Michael Conathan, CAPAFs new Director of Oceans Policy. FEBRUARY 18, 2011.
The GOP decides accurate weather forecasting and hurricane tracking are luxuries
America cant afford http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/18/207538/gop-cutsnoaa-satellite-weather-forecasting-and-hurricane-tracking/
The House of Representatives is debating the Full Year Continuing Resolution Act
(H.R. 1) to fund the federal government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. The
Republican leadership has proposed sweeping cuts to key programs across the
climate change, clean energy, and environmental spectrum. They have also decided
that accurate weather forecasting and hurricane tracking are luxuries America can
no longer afford. The GOPs bill would tear $1.2 billion (21 percent) out of the
presidents proposed budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, or NOAA. On the surface, cutting NOAA may seem like an obvious
choice. The FY 2011 request for the agency included a 16 percent boost over 2010
levels that would have made this years funding level of $5.5 billion the largest in
NOAAs history. Even this total funding level, however, is woefully insufficient for an
agency tasked with managing such fundamental resources as the atmosphere that
regulates our climate, the 4.3 million square miles of our oceanic exclusive
economic zone, the ecological health of coastal regions that are home to more than
50 percent of all Americans, response to environmental catastrophes including the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and fisheries that employ thousands of Americans and
annually contribute tens of billions of dollars to the national economy. More than
$700 million of the presidents proposed 2011 increase in NOAA funding would be
tagged for overhauling our nations aging environmental satellite infrastructure.
Satellites gather key data about our oceans and atmosphere, including cloud cover
and density, miniscule changes in ocean surface elevation and temperatures, and

wind and current trajectories. Such monitoring is integral to our weather and
climate forecasting and it plays a key role in projections of strength and tracking of
major storms and hurricanesthings most Americans feel are worth keeping an eye
on.