(od 
Looking at this package in a perhaps simplified way, it appears to me that 
the new organization would be particularly strong in the second and fourth 
categories of functions, according to my taxonomy. It would be very strong in 
surveying, mapping, monitoring and forecasting, that is in providing necessary 
services te government, industry and other organizations. However, with respect 
to this function there remain numerous problems in organizational structure, 
because some other organizations that do a good deal of marine surveying, 
mapping and forecasting are excluded, including the Geological Survey, the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, and the Coastal Engineering 
Laboratories of the Army Engineers. 
NOAA would also be particularly strong in having a new purpose in the devel- 
opment of fundamental engineering and technology. This is obviously one of 
the areas where there needs to be some new and better ways of doing things, 
but one does encounter questions in the case of both the atmosphere and the 
ocean, such as: what about the work that NASA and FAA are engaged in? In 
the marine area, what do we do about engineering development work that is 
being pursued by FWPCA, the Maritime Administration, the Corps of Engineers, 
and the Bureau of Mines? 
The weakest area of the new NOAA would be with respect to the function 
of resources Management and intervention in the environment, since the only 
complete transfer of existing responsibility to the new agency seems to be in 
the area of living resources. NOAA would take over essentially all the manage- 
ment functions of the Federal Government related to fisheries resources, since, 
for these resources, it would have all civilian mission-oriented functions, includ- 
ing basic mission-relevant research, survey and monitoring, intervention and 
management. It would, in this respect, be advantageous in that it would closely 
couple the activities both in the atmosphere and ocean related to living resources. 
Thus, we who are particularly concerned with fisheries, would have the best of 
both worlds. I am not convinced, however, considering the importance of other 
Marine resources and other kinds of interventions in the environment, such as 
the management of petroleum and mineral resources on the outer continental 
shelf, or the prevention and control of marine pollution, or the maintenance 
of peaches and harbors, or the subject of ocean transportation, or the matter 
of recreation, that this is the optimum solution. 
NOAA would have responsibility for a good deal of the research, exploration, 
survey and forecasting that the presently responsible resources-management 
agencies need as a basis of the management missions. 
Consequently, one needs seriously to ask whether it would be better to couple 
more closely all the functions concerning civilian uses of the sea, even though 
some have important connections with the atmosphere, rather than having a 
close coupling of certain aspects of sea and atmosphere, but leaving much of 
the function of resource management and environmental intervention outside the 
new agency. 
While I agree with Dr. Calhoun, and others, that the creation of NOAA would 
be better than maintaining the status quo, I also agree with him that a different 
kind of organization would be more desirable. 
I personally believe that it would be highly desirable to concentrate in a 
single agency all the various functions having to do with Civilian uses of the 
ocean environment and ocean resources, leaving the coupling with atmospheric 
affairs more loose. In other words, I would like to see the marine functions of the 
various Bureaus and Offices of the Department of Interior, the maritime func- 
tions of ESSA, the marine functions of the Department of Transportation, in- 
cluding both the Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration, the coastal 
research and engineering functions of the Army Engineers, and the Sea Grant 
College Program of the National Science Foundation, all placed in a single agency, 
together with the new initiatives for advancement of ocean technology and 
engineering, the institutional support of university scientific research, the na- 
tional projects, and grants to states for coastal zone management. I also believe 
that serious consideration should be given to transferring the primary responsi- 
bility for the International Fisheries Commissions to this new agency; this, how- 
ever, is contingent upon an appropriate realignment of the Congressional Com- 
mittees dealing with marine affairs, since the principal handicap to the activities 
of the International Fisheries (Commissions, appears to be not So much in the 
Executive Branch as in the Legislative Branch of our Government. 
By combining all of these various functions into a single agency, and develop- 
ing an integrated program and adequate budget for it, I sincerely believe that 
