1
Introduction

The ocean dominates Earth’s surface and greatly affects our daily lives. It regulates Earth’s climate, plays a critical role in the hydrological cycle, sustains a large portion of Earth’s biodiversity, supplies food and mineral resources, constitutes an important medium of national defense, provides an inexpensive means of transportation, is the final destination of many waste products, is a major location of human recreation, and inspires our aesthetic nature.

– Oceanography in the Next Decade, 1992

In its 2004 report An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP) recommended the development of “a national ocean and coastal infrastructure and technology strategy to support science, resource management, assessments, enforcement, and education” (USCOP, 2004). One of the USCOP’s tasks was to develop an inventory of U.S. infrastructure for ocean science, education, and various management and industry activities; this revealed that significant components of the U.S. infrastructure were aged or obsolete, and in some areas capacity was insufficient to meet the needs of the ocean community. The USCOP expressed concern that there was a growing technology gap in U.S. facilities, as well as a decline of national leadership in marine technology development. Both of these issues could result in increasing reliance on foreign facilities, potentially reducing the access of U.S. researchers to new technologies, data, and opportunities.

In response to An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, the administration formed the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST)1 to coordinate the nation’s ocean research enterprise among the federal agencies. In 2007, SOST released Charting the Course of Ocean Science in the United States for the Next Decade: An Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy, with key strategies that focused on compelling ocean-related societal and scientific issues (stewardship of natural and cultural ocean resources, increasing resilience to natural hazards, enabling marine operations, the ocean’s role in climate, improving ecosystem health, and enhancing human health; JSOST, 2007). Through continued planning for ocean science needs beyond the next decade, SOST has been evaluating the current status and future needs of the nation’s research infrastructure. Federal agencies with ocean responsibilities will need to anticipate the directions that ocean research could take over the next decades because of the lengthy lead times for planning, designing, funding, and building major infrastructure assets, and because of the long service life of many of these assets (often 25-30 years or more). Balancing the competing needs of construction and ongoing support is a major challenge to sustaining the U.S. ocean research enterprise. Given current struggles to maintain, operate, and upgrade major infrastructure elements while maintaining a robust research portfolio, a strategic plan is needed for future investments to ensure that new facilities provide the greatest value, least redundancy, and highest efficiency in terms of operation and flexibility to incorporate new technological advances. SOST sought advice from the National Research Council on a strategy for addressing the nation’s ocean research infrastructure needs in 2030, focusing on facilities and hardware needed to address

1

Formerly the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST). Member agencies are the Arctic Research Commission, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the Department of Defense (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Office of Naval Research), the Department of Energy (Office of Science), the Department of Health and Human Services (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health), the Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Coast Guard), the Department of the Interior (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Geological Survey), the Department of Justice, the Department of State, the Department of Transportation (Maritime Administration), the Environmental Protection Agency, the Executive Office of the President (Council on Environmental Quality, Domestic Policy Council, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy), the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Marine Mammal Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the Smithsonian Institution.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 5
1 Introduction search enterprise among the federal agencies. In 2007, SOST The ocean dominates Earth’s surface and greatly affects our daily lives. It regulates Earth’s climate, plays a critical released Charting the Course of Ocean Science in the United role in the hydrological cycle, sustains a large portion of States for the Next Decade: An Ocean Research Priorities Earth’s biodiversity, supplies food and mineral resources, Plan and Implementation Strategy, with key strategies that constitutes an important medium of national defense, pro- focused on compelling ocean-related societal and scientific vides an inexpensive means of transportation, is the final issues (stewardship of natural and cultural ocean resources, destination of many waste products, is a major location increasing resilience to natural hazards, enabling marine of human recreation, and inspires our aesthetic nature. operations, the ocean’s role in climate, improving ecosystem – Oceanography in the Next Decade, 1992 health, and enhancing human health; JSOST, 2007). Through continued planning for ocean science needs beyond the next In its 2004 report An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st decade, SOST has been evaluating the current status and Century, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP) future needs of the nation’s research infrastructure. Federal recommended the development of “a national ocean and agencies with ocean responsibilities will need to anticipate coastal infrastructure and technology strategy to support the directions that ocean research could take over the next science, resource management, assessments, enforcement, decades because of the lengthy lead times for planning, de- and education” (USCOP, 2004). One of the USCOP’s tasks signing, funding, and building major infrastructure assets, was to develop an inventory of U.S. infrastructure for ocean and because of the long service life of many of these assets science, education, and various management and industry (often 25-30 years or more). Balancing the competing needs activities; this revealed that significant components of the of construction and ongoing support is a major challenge to U.S. infrastructure were aged or obsolete, and in some areas sustaining the U.S. ocean research enterprise. Given current capacity was insufficient to meet the needs of the ocean struggles to maintain, operate, and upgrade major infrastruc- community. The USCOP expressed concern that there was a ture elements while maintaining a robust research portfolio, a growing technology gap in U.S. facilities, as well as a decline strategic plan is needed for future investments to ensure that of national leadership in marine technology development. new facilities provide the greatest value, least redundancy, Both of these issues could result in increasing reliance on and highest efficiency in terms of operation and flexibility foreign facilities, potentially reducing the access of U.S. to incorporate new technological advances. SOST sought researchers to new technologies, data, and opportunities. advice from the National Research Council on a strategy for In response to An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Cen- addressing the nation’s ocean research infrastructure needs in tury, the administration formed the National Science and 2030, focusing on facilities and hardware needed to address Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST)1 to coordinate the nation’s ocean re- Coast Guard), the Department of the Interior (Bureau of Ocean Energy 1 Formerly the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Geological Survey), (JSOST). Member agencies are the Arctic Research Commission, the the Department of Justice, the Department of State, the Department of Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce (National Oceanic Transportation (Maritime Administration), the Environmental Protection and Atmospheric Administration), the Department of Defense (U.S. Army Agency, the Executive Office of the President (Council on Environmental Corps of Engineers, Office of Naval Research), the Department of Energy Quality, Domestic Policy Council, Office of Management and Budget, Office (Office of Science), the Department of Health and Human Services (Centers of Science and Technology Policy), the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Marine for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, Mammal Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Institutes of Health), the Department of Homeland Security (U.S. the National Science Foundation, and the Smithsonian Institution. 5

OCR for page 5
6 CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR OCEAN RESEARCH AND SOCIETAL NEEDS IN 2030 BOX 1.1 Statement of Task The National Research Council will assemble an expert committee to provide advice and a perspective from the worldwide ocean community on the types of U.S. ocean infrastructure that will facilitate research in 2030, including advice as to what criteria may be most appropriate for setting priorities. The committee will identify major research questions anticipated to be at the forefront of ocean science in 2030 based on national and international assessments, input from the worldwide scientific community, and ongoing research planning activities. Next, the committee will define categories of infrastructure that should be included in planning for the nation’s ocean research infrastructure of 2030 and that will be required to answer the major research questions of the future, taking into consideration • New scientific and technological developments, including adoption of capabilities and discoveries outside of the ocean sciences; • Interdependence of various infrastructure assets and multipurpose or multiuser assets; • ow anticipated changes in the oceans, its interactions with the atmosphere, land, sea ice, marine and terrestrial ecosystems, and humans, and H commercial enterprises might affect demand for various assets and operational characteristics; • Potential use of infrastructure assets supported by federal, state, and local governments and by industry to collect data for multiple goals; • otential for emerging technology to increase the substitutability of various infrastructure components, thus providing greater flexibility or surge P capacity; • Potential opportunities to phase out programs or facilities in order to develop capabilities in new research areas; and • nstitutional or policy barriers, if any, that may hinder the optimal use of facilities and infrastructure. This would include restrictions on the use I of facilities and infrastructure by nontraditional users, including private industry, and possible ways to optimize the use of research facilities. The report will provide advice on the criteria and processes that could be used to set priorities for the development of new ocean infrastructure or replacement of existing facilities. It will not recommend specific new infrastructure or facility fabrication or construction investments. In undertaking this task, the committee will consider a variety of issues, such as partnerships with other nations and industry, constraints on acquisition and operation of research platforms, and suitability of facilities for addressing a diversity of scientific endeavors. In the same context as Charting the Course of Ocean Science in the United States for the Next Decade: An Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy, this study will address societal issues. In addition, the committee will recommend ways in which the federal agencies can maximize the value of investments in ocean infrastructure. This may include practices that would facilitate the transition of facilities and infrastructure for research into operational use. WHAT IS INFRASTRUCTURE? significant oceanographic research questions. The Statement of Task is found in Box 1.1. Committee biographies can be The Merriam-Webster Dictionary3 defines “infrastruc- found in Appendix A. ture” as “the underlying foundation or basic framework (as During the course of this study, the National Ocean of a system or organization)” or “the resources (as personnel, Council was established to implement the Final Recom- buildings, or equipment) required for an activity.” Consistent mendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force with this definition, U.S. infrastructure for ocean research (Executive Order 13547, July 19, 2010). The implementation could be broadly defined as the full portfolio of platforms, strategy for the National Ocean Policy (CEQ, 2010) includes sensors, data sets and systems, models, computational and the following priorities: ecosystem-based management; network services, personnel, facilities, and enabling organi- coastal and marine spatial planning; informing decisions zations that the nation can bring to bear to answer questions and improving decision making, coordination and support; requiring understanding of the ocean. resiliency and adaptation to climate change and ocean acidi- For the purpose of this report, the committee adopts a fication; regional ecosystem protection and restoration; water slightly narrower definition that focuses on the shared or quality and sustainable practices on land; changing condi- community resources accessible to the U.S. ocean research tions in the Arctic; and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ob- enterprise. This excludes personnel and resources associated servations, mapping, and infrastructure. SOST has also been exclusively with a particular investigator’s research activi- in the process of updating Charting the Course of Ocean ties, which are often very specialized, prototypes in devel- Science in the United States for the Next Decade: An Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy.2 2 3 http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/nstc/oceans. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infrastructure.

OCR for page 5
7 INTRODUCTION opment, or fully dedicated to a particular task. Under the BOX 1.2 committee’s definition, U.S. ocean research infrastructure is Ocean Science Infrastructure on the Decline the full portfolio of platforms, sensors, data sets and sys- tems, models, supporting personnel, facilities, and enabling Many pieces of infrastructure that enable U.S. scientists to organizations that the nation can bring to bear to answer conduct crucial studies in the ocean are clearly degrading. In this questions about the ocean, and that is (or could be) shared box, two examples of at-risk infrastructure are discussed. by or accessible to the ocean research community as a whole. Infrastructure capabilities that allow study of the high-latitude ocean are waning, although these regions are among the most As defined here, ocean research infrastructure is a national sensitive to a warming climate due to the amplification of tempera- portfolio of resources and assets that include technology, fa- ture changes nearest the poles. Arctic sea ice is already in decline cilities, data, people, and institutions. This portfolio changes (Stroeve et al., 2007), with implications for ecosystem changes, U.S. over time in response to federal, state, local, and private- jurisdiction interests, national security, and commercial shipping sector investments in ocean research infrastructure and to routes. However, the United States is having difficulty ensuring the developments in oceanography and other fields (information continued operation of ice-breaking research vessels able to func- technology, power systems, robotics, and genomics, among tion in multiyear ice. The largest icebreakers, the U.S. Coast Guard’s others). The state of the nation’s ocean research infrastruc- Polar Star and Polar Sea, are over 30 years old and have exceeded ture at any point in time determines how well, how quickly, their service lives. At the time of writing, the Polar Star has recently and at what cost the nation can obtain answers to basic and been reactivated from caretaker status (where the crew is removed applied questions about the ocean. However, significant and engines and systems are shut down), and the Polar Sea returned components of U.S. ocean infrastructure are currently in- to operations after engine casualties. Newer ice-breaking research sufficient to meet needs for the ocean research community vessels such as the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy were designed (see Box 1.2). to operate in multiyear ice only in conjunction with a heavier ship, The committee defines the ocean research community which would break a path for them to follow. The lack of heavy ice- in the broadest possible terms, with inclusion of the entire breaker capabilities will cause the nation to be dependent on leasing ocean science enterprise. While academia is a significant part or operating in collaboration with foreign icebreakers to conduct of this group, the ocean research community encompasses science missions in high latitudes. Additionally, resupply missions scientists and policy makers at all levels of government and to Antarctic research bases are also dependent upon icebreakers within industry and nonprofit foundations. from other countries. The current decrease in U.S. icebreaking capability makes high-latitude research more complex and adds an REPORT SCOPE element of risk because the enabling infrastructure is not within the nation’s direct control. In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard is in danger This report addresses the factors for federal agencies to of losing valuable skill sets, as crew from the heavy icebreakers are consider as they plan investments that will affect ocean re- reassigned to different positions. search infrastructure over the next 20 years. As noted above, Ocean color satellites have been a key contributor to understand- the report focuses on components of infrastructure that are or ing the impact of climate on ocean biology (Behrenfeld et al., 2006). could be shared as a community-wide resource. It excludes Ocean color data are used in identifying and monitoring conditions certain categories of ocean research personnel (such as prin- that could lead to harmful algal blooms, and were used to identify cipal investigators, administrators, and graduate students) patches of oil during the Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon well and facilities and equipment that are private, proprietary, explosion and oil spill. The Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sen- or in the inventory of an individual scientist and cannot be sor (SeaWiFS)/Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer shared by the ocean research community as a whole. (MODIS) sensors were launched in a sequence designed to provide The report describes categories of ocean research a continuous, intercomparable time-series of chlorophyll concentra- infrastructure, reviews how infrastructure components have tions throughout the ocean since 1997 (McClain, 2009). However, evolved over the past 20 years, and considers the science SeaWiFS ceased operations in December 2010 and both MODIS questions that are likely to determine the infrastructure that sensors are beyond their lifespan; there is no U.S. mission of equal will be needed in 2030. These science questions include quality planned to be in space until 2019 or later. The capability to basic, exploratory work that seeks to broaden our knowl- produce climate-quality observations of ocean color is presently edge about the ocean in general ways, as well as applied threatened, as some questions regarding access to foreign ocean work that seeks to generate information to address spe- color data remain unresolved. The ability to detect shifts in ocean cific societal needs. The committee examines past trends in biology on a global scale is endangered at a time when a shifting ocean research infrastructure development and categorizes climate might be expected to cause significant change in oceanic essential infrastructure assets for the next 20 years, suggests primary production. how federal agencies could prioritize investments in ocean

OCR for page 5
8 CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR OCEAN RESEARCH AND SOCIETAL NEEDS IN 2030 research infrastructure, and discusses ways that the value of or energy extraction, mitigating impacts of natural hazards these investments could be maximized. such as tsunamis, and using the ocean effectively for national The report does not make recommendations about security). These questions often remain unanswered because specific changes to U.S. ocean research infrastructure, nor of limitations in the technology needed to address them. For does it assign priorities to future infrastructure investments example, genomics developments have recently enabled new or to the science questions that the shared infrastructure is fishery management options based on identification of dis- intended to support. However, critical needs for specific tinct genetic subpopulations. Investments that motivate and infrastructure categories are mentioned in the text, in that nurture new technological developments and infrastructure the science research of the future cannot be done without are likely to allow previously unanswerable questions to these types of assets. Decisions regarding prioritization are gain traction. Other questions have gained in importance in to be made by federal agencies and other sponsors, with ap- recent years and are likely to be more prominent in 2030 than propriate input from the broad ocean science community. It is they are today or were in 1990 (e.g., the role of the ocean in the committee’s belief that the processes and considerations global climate or on human health). The time is right for a suggested in this report will inform the approach that federal new look at the ocean infrastructure that will be necessary to agencies take over the next two decades to ensure the avail- support these needs in the future: the traditional societal driv- ability of an effective and efficient shared ocean research ers of ocean research for much of the 20th century (national infrastructure for supporting world-class basic and applied defense, offshore oil and gas, fisheries, and transportation) ocean research in the United States. have been expanded into a broader context that now includes global climate change, environmental quality, energy, and ecological sustainability (CNA, 2007). SOCIETAL DRIVERS Ocean research is driven by science questions. These THE LINK BETWEEN OCEAN RESEARCH questions, in turn, can arise from the work of individual INFRASTRUCTURE AND SOCIETAL DRIVERS investigators seeking to broaden basic knowledge and un- derstanding of the ocean through exploration and scientific Ocean research infrastructure provides the foundation investigation of ocean phenomena, from the need to generate on which basic and applied marine research activities are applied information to address specific societal concerns, carried out. These research activities involve the deploy- or from some combination of basic and applied interests. A ment of platforms, sensors, and sampling devices to collect representative list of major science research questions for samples and data, the analysis of samples and data (often in 2030, and their implications for infrastructure, is discussed shore-based facilities), and the construction of models to ex- in detail in Chapter 2. The list of major research questions plain natural phenomena and develop predictive capabilities. could have been organized in a variety of ways, including The models drive future data needs, which, in turn, improve by discipline, by region, or thematically. For this report, the the models. Information produced by research and models committee chose an organization based on each question’s represents the best answers to date to the questions that relationship to compelling societal objectives. These four motivated the research. These answers advance fundamental overarching societal drivers are: enabling stewardship of understanding of ocean science and connected global issues, the environment, protecting life and property, promoting develop the future priorities related to ocean research and sustainable economic vitality, and increasing fundamen- technology, and help inform policy decisions such as marine tal scientific understanding. These objectives were deter- resource management. They also inform the next set of scien- mined by the committee, based on a synthesis of national tific questions that are asked as new phenomena, threats, and ocean policy objectives (e.g., USCOP, 2004; JSOST, 2007; opportunities connected to the ocean are discovered. There CEQ, 2010). It should be kept in mind that there is overlap are fundamental links between ocean research infrastructure, between the societal drivers and the knowledge bases they ocean science activities, and societal questions and the ben- require, and that some science questions could easily fall efits associated with answering them (Figure 1.1). into more than one category. In this report, each question is The linkages shown in Figure 1.1 represent “flows” that placed in a single category. often go in both directions, and it is possible to think of the Basic science questions evolve naturally, as research connection between infrastructure and societal objectives as shifts the frontiers of knowledge and as technological either top down or bottom up. Starting at the top, every soci- advances make possible new kinds of inquiries. Applied sci- etal objective implies a demand for certain information, the ence questions evolve as the information base increases or acquisition of which has a certain value for society. Acquir- as national priorities change in response to major economic, ing the information often requires answering science ques- political, and environmental developments. Some of the tions and/or developing and validating models (for example, important societal needs related to the ocean have been with models of fish stock recruitment or climate change). Science us for many years and are likely to remain important in 2030 questions lead to research activities (funded research projects and beyond (e.g., managing human activities such as fishing of investigators in both public and private ocean organiza-

OCR for page 5
9 INTRODUCTION Information/knowledge Economic Societal objectives • understanding of the ocean bene ts • advance basic knowledge • climate projec ons • manage natural hazards derived from • weather and storm forecasts • preserve environment achieving • ecosystem response to forcing • etc… objec ves • etc… Ocean research Models Answers to (research and science questions opera onal) Research Data activities Monetary investment Infrastructure ocean research and pla orms data management infrastructure funding sensors facili es models enabling organiza ons data sets people FIGURE 1.1 Conceptual diagram illustrating links between ocean infrastructure, scientific research, relevant societal objectives, and benefits associated with achieving these objectives. structure also enables or supports research and modeling tions), which result in data collection, analysis, and model activities and, therefore, supports the production of informa- development. Data and models also feed back to science tion, which contributes to certain societal objectives—and questions and research activities by suggesting the next set thus to the aggregate societal benefits produced. The task of questions to be answered. All of this work relies on ocean of prioritizing ocean research infrastructure investments can research infrastructure for the tools and resources to col- therefore be interpreted as maximizing the net benefits from lect, manage, and analyze data. Some models and data sets infrastructure investments over time by choosing the best are considered part of the infrastructure (e.g., global ocean combination of infrastructure investments subject to a budget models, widely used climate models). Others, specific to constraint for a given period of time. the work of one or two investigators, would fall into ocean A formal optimization of this kind requires extensive research. Ocean science and research activities make use of information about the value or benefit generated by achiev- infrastructure (e.g., ships, buoys, community models) and, ing each societal objective to some degree, and about the in some cases, add to the infrastructure (e.g., by developing linkages between each piece of infrastructure and these ob- new data sets that become part of infrastructure), leading to jectives in addition to the price of infrastructure. A rational some overlap between infrastructure and research activities. approach to prioritizing investments in infrastructure has Following the linkages bottom up from infrastructure to to assign (whether explicitly or implicitly) a value to both societal benefits also suggests a useful approach to thinking societal goals and to basic research and technology develop- about infrastructure priorities. Each piece of ocean research ment. This report takes a first step in assembling that infor- infrastructure has an associated cost. Each piece of infra-

OCR for page 5
10 CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR OCEAN RESEARCH AND SOCIETAL NEEDS IN 2030 mation by associating science questions with infrastructure It is these five points that were used to structure the report. components (Chapter 4) and suggesting the factors that The Statement of Task also includes a bulleted set of con- federal agencies should consider in quantifying the linkages siderations that are addressed within the report chapters and between infrastructure investments and outcomes (Chapters were used to focus and refine specific issues. 5 and 6). The uncertainty associated with future benefits In order to address its charge and formulate conclusions from infrastructure investments, in part due to unanticipated and recommendations, the committee reviewed relevant applications, is also recognized in the report. ocean policy documents, community and agency strategic plans, peer-reviewed publications, and input from the ocean science community in response to a public solicitation. The STUDY APPROACH information gathering process for this report also included The Committee on an Ocean Infrastructure Strategy for presentations by and discussions with representatives of U.S. Ocean Research in 2030 was assembled by the National federal agencies, community groups, and experts in a va- Research Council to provide recommendations to SOST, riety of scientific and engineering disciplines. This was which is composed of the federal agencies with interests and/ accomplished through meeting open sessions with invited or responsibility for the ocean environment. In addition to presentations, a workshop with 20 invited speakers (Appen- SOST agencies, the committee envisions that this report will dix B), community input solicited through advertisements in be of use for policy makers and the greater oceanographic scientific journals, and a session at the 2010 Ocean Sciences community. Meeting (Appendix C). The committee determined that the charge (Box 1.1) was written broadly and the most significant aspects of the charge REPORT ORGANIZATION were embedded in paragraph text. These main points are This report identifies a number of issues related to 1. Identify major research questions anticipated to strategic thinking about ocean infrastructure needs and be at the forefront of ocean science in 2030. capabilities for 2030. Chapter 2 discusses major science 2. Define categories of infrastructure that should research questions that are expected to be of importance in be included in planning for the nation’s ocean the next 20 years. In Chapter 3, the committee considers research infrastructure of 2030. ocean infrastructure trends in the past 20 years (1990-2010) 3. Provide advice on the criteria and processes that and categorizes the types of infrastructure for consideration could be used to set priorities for the development when planning for future U.S. ocean research infrastruc- of new ocean infrastructure or replacement of ture. Linkages between the major research questions and existing facilities. needed infrastructure assets and capabilities for 2030 are 4. Recommend ways the federal agencies can explored in Chapter 4. Criteria and processes that could be m aximize the value of investments in ocean used to set priorities for infrastructure investments is ad- infrastructure. dressed in Chapter 5, while Chapter 6 evaluates ways that 5. Address societal issues in the same context as federal investments in ocean research infrastructure could Charting the Course of Ocean Science in the United be maximized. States for the Next Decade: An Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy.