488 



(The following was received for inclusion in the printed record:) 



Statement of William F. Royce, Associate Dean, Univeksity op 



Washington 



The creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), a 

 supei*agency for the oceanic affairs of the U.S. Government, has been proposed 

 by tlie Commission on Marine Science Engineering and Resources. The agency 

 would administer the nation's civil marine and atmospheric programs. It would' 

 include the U-S. Coast Guard, the Environmental 'Science Services Administra- 

 tion, which already includes the Weather Bureau and the Coast and Geodetic 

 Survey, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the marine and anadromous 

 fisheries functions of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the National 

 Sea-Grant Program, the U.S. Lake Survey, and the National Oceanographie 

 Data Center. 



iSignificantly, the new agency would not include a number of marine and 

 atmospheric functions that are integral to other agencies such as the Marine 

 Defense Program of the Navy, the basic research of the National Science Founda- 

 tion, the specialized programs of NASA, the Atomic Energy Commission, and 

 the Corps of Engineers which have rather little relation to marine resources,, 

 and the Water Management Programs of the Department of Interior. This omis- 

 sion emphasizes the orientation of NOAA toward use of the sea and its resources. 



Also recommended for the new agency would be new responsibility for (1) 

 institutional support of University National 'Laboratories and Coastal Zone 

 Laboratories, (2) development of fundamental marine technology, (3) formula- 

 tion and implementation of national projects and grants to states for coastal 

 zone management, and (4) development and coordination of weather modification 

 activities. 



All of the Commission's recommendations represent an effort to strengithen 

 greatly the nations capability in the use of the sea and its resources. They would 

 strengthen both science and basic technology that are important to all users 

 of the seas. They would bring together in a single agency or coordinate better 

 the fishery management functions, the international enforcement of fishery regu- 

 lations, the forecasting of oceanic conditions that can be useful to fishermen, the 

 development of better charts and aids to navigatnon, and the standards for vessel 

 inspection and licensing. Further, they would strengthen the ties between resource 

 agencies and the universities and the coordination beitween state and federal 

 fisheries. 



The Commission that prepared this report was appointed by President Johnson 

 in January, 1967. The members represented diverse institutions and areas of the 

 country, universities, a state agency, federal departments, and U.S. business. 

 Their activities and interests were a substantial shift away from the oceano- 

 graphie emphasis long provided by Woods Hole Oceanographie Institution and! 

 the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, which were not directly represented. 

 The Commission had four congressional advisors : Senators Cotton and Magnuson, 

 Representatives Lennon and Mosher. 



The fisheries people in the Pacific Northwest will have an interest primarily 

 with respect to the recommendations from the Panel on Marine Resources, which 

 included Professor Crutchfield of the University of Washington's Department 

 of Economics and David A. Adams, Commissioner of Fisheries from North 

 Carolina. The fisheries people will have special interests also in recommendations 

 of the International Panel, which was chaired by Professor Auerbach from the 

 University of Minnesota Law School and included as members Mr. Blaustein, a 

 director of the Standard Oil Company, and Mr. Jaworski, an attorney. 



With respect to the development of the living resources of the oceans, the 

 Commission has produced a number of specific recommendations to guide the new 

 agency. The emphasis and the arrangement of these recommendations stem 

 largely from Professor Crutchfield's economic approach to fishery problems. The 

 Commission recommends that a major objective of fishery management should be 

 to produce the largest net economic return consistent with the biological capa- 

 bilities of the stocks. It views this course as vital to the expansion of the fishing 

 industry, which is faced with rapidly increasing costs and slowly increasing prices 

 for its fish. The Commission recommends the reduction of fishing effort on 

 some heavily exploited stocks, but does not, however, suggest how this should 

 be done. It does recognize the difficulty that the United States would have if it 

 attempted to limit effort in international fisheries and the fact that fishermen in 



