Report of panel on Coastal Zone and University/National Laboratories report submitted to National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal Zone Information Center

Report of
Panel on
Coastal Zone and University/National Laboratories

Submitted to
National Council
on
Marine Resources and Engineering Development

October 1, 1969

Ot-FIUE' OF -@'=1111.r`- 'IOU,
RE IS -@C=i
1.ntorior
Wash-ington2 D. C. 20240

Report of

Panel on

Coastal Zone and University/ National Laboratories

ALAN BERMAN, PANEL CHAIRMAN
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, D.C.

property of cSC Librarr7

Report Submitted to

National Council

Marine Resources and Engineering Development

October Ib 1?69DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
1@j
N@ CHARLESTON, SC 29405-24 13

-61@
@Ij
1,5

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Coastal Zone Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
University/National Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Conclusions Related to Manpower Requirements for the Marine Sciences 9
Federal Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

CHAPTER 1
DISCUSSION OF COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES

I. BACKGROUND. . . * * ' * ' * * ' * * ' * ' ' * * ' * * * ' ' ' ' ' * * ' * * ' 15
A. General Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 15
B. Commission Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 16
C. Review of Present Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 16

1. General Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 16
2. Federal Agencies Missions, Problems, and Responsibilities in
Relation to Coastal Zone Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3. State Agencies and Other Coastal Zone Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. University and/or Other Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
D . General Considerations in Configuring a Coastal Zone
Laboratory System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Basic Problems . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2. Coastal Zone Areas and Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 23
a. The Northeast Atlantic Coastal Zone Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
b. The Middle Atlantic Coastal Zone Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
c. The Southeast Atlantic Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
d. The Gulf Coast Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
e. The Pacific Southwest Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
f. The Pacific Northwest Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
g. The Alaskan Coastal Zone Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
h. The Hawaiian Island Coastal Zone Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
i. The Great Lakes Coastal Zone Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
j. The Puerto Rico-Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Area . . . . . . . . . 27
3. Multidisciplinary versus Single Purpose Agency Laboratories . . . . . 27
4. Size, Number and Critical Mass Considerations for Coastal
Zone Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5. Administrative Considerations Relative to Coastal
Zone Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

a. Agency Sponsorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
b. Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
c. Congruence with Coastal Zone Authority Jurisdictions . . . . . . . 31
d. Program Review and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
e. jFle@dbility of Operation at Federal Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . 32
f. Long-Term Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

iii

II. AVAILABLE OPTIONS ............................ 33
A. Coastal Zone Laboratory Configurations to Support Federal Agencies
and Their Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Consolidated, Multidisciplinary Coastal Zone Laboratories . . . . . . 34
2.. Maintain and Strengthen Federal Laboratories Which Support
the Mission of Single Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3. Operate a Contract Research Program to Support the Objectives
of Mission- Oriented Agencies . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4. Smithsonian Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
B. Regional Coastal Zone Laboratory Configurations in Support of
Coastal Zone Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ..... . . . . . . . 37
1. Maintain and Strengthen Present Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2. Area Coastal Zone Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3. Area and Regional Coastal Zone Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
C. Other Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

CHAPTER 2
DISCUSSION OF UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
A. General Background Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B. Definition, Roles, and Responsibilities of a University/National
Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
C. Probl ems Associated with the Present Methods for Supporting
Oceanographic Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
D. Criteria and Considerations Relative to the Selection of
University/National Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
E. Administrative Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
1. Models for Support and Operation of National Laboratories . . . . . . . 48
2. Areas of Federal Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3. Review Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 52
4. Staff Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5. Budget Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6. Facility Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
7. Support Requirements for Oceanographic Laboratories
Not National Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

II. AVAILABLE OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

A. Option 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
1. Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2. Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3. Disadvantages .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
B. Option 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
1. Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . 63
2. Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3. Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
C. Option 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
1. Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2. Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3. Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 67

D. Option 4 . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . . . . 67
1. Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2. Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3. Disadvantages . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

CHAPTER 3
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MANPOWER
IN OCEAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Il. MANPOWER CHARACTERISTICS BY AREAS OF ACTIVITY . . . . . . . . 70
A. Marine-Related Employment in the Private Industry Sector . . . . . . . 70
1. Shipbuilding and Advanced Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2. Offshore Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3. Merchant Marine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4. Coastal Dredging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5. Aquaria and Parks . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
B. Marine-Related Employment in the Academic Community ... . . . . . . 71
C. Marine-Related Employment in Government Agencies . . . . . . . . . . 71
1. Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2. ESSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . 71
3. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (BCF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . , 73
4. Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife (BSF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5. Bureau of Mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7. U.S. Geological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
8. The Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
9. U.S. Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
10. Health, Education, and Welfare - 1@u@lic Health Service . . . . . . . 75
11. The Smithsonian Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
12. Other Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
13. Military Oceanography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

III. PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE MANPOWER SUPPLY AND DEMAND
IN OCEAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

A. General Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
B. Assumptions . . . . . ***-***--*- * * * * ' * * ' 76
C. Projections of Ocean_Related Manpower by Activity Area . . . . . . . . 76
D. Student and Graduate Level Populations in Marine-Related
Academic Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

IV. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION OF FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES

I. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

A. General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
B. Commission's Recommendations . . . . . . . 86
C. Review of Present Federal Marine Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

1. General Comments on Non-Defense Federal Laboratories . . . . . . . 87
2. Department of the Interior Marine Laboratories . . .. . . . . . . . . . 87
3. Department of Commerce Marine Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4. Department of Transportation Marine Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . 94
5. Other Nondefense Federal Marine Laboratories . . . . . . ... . . . . 96
6. General Comments on Defense Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7. Coastal Engineering Laboratories and Activities of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
8. Navy Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

D. Problems Common to Federal Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
1. Background . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
2. Justification for In-House Federal Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
3. Other Problems Common to Federal Marine Laboratories . . . . . . . 107
E. Tropical and Arctic Laboratory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

APPENDIX A -QUESTIONNAIRES TO OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTIONS,
UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENTS OF OCEANOGRAPHY AND
NATIONAL LABORATORIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

APPENDIX B - INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 115

APPENDIX C - MEMBERSHIP - TASK FORCE ON MARINE LABORATORIES. 116

PREFACE
The Ch .arter of the Panel on Coastal Zone and University/National Laboratories
gave the Panel responsibility to

e Analyze the national requirements for marine research and training and
the current capabilities to provide the information and personnel required
to utilize more wisely and fully the marine environment.

e Evaluate those recommendations of the Commission on Marine Sciences,
Engineering and Resources which apply to Coastal Zone laboratories and
University/National laboratories.

* Develop possible alteratives to the Commission's recommendations and
present the pros and cons of each.

9 Recommend to the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering
Development a course of action.

The Panel reviewed the recommendations of the Commission on Marine Sciences,
Engineering and Resources and determined that the following recommendations were
directly relevant to its considerations.

� UniVersity/National laboratories should be established at appropriate locations,
equipped with the facilities necessary to undertake global and regional programs
in ocean science, and assured adequate institutional funding for continuity and
maintenance of both programs and facilities.

� Coastal Zone laboratories should be established in association with appropriate
academic institutions to engage in the scientific investigation of estuarine and
coastal processes, and to be prepared to advise the States in managing the
estuaries and coastal zones.

� The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (National Sea Grant Program)
should have the prime responsibility to provide institutional support for the
Coastal Zone laboratories. The Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1966
should be amended to permit grants for the construction and maintenance of
vessels and other facilities.

� Federal marine science laboratories should be strengthened by adequate
funding and staffing. Selective consolidation of marginal laboratories is
one way of achieving this purpose; however, it should be remembered that
effectiveness is not necessarily a function of size.

� The National Science Foundation should expand its support for undergraduate and
graduate education in the basic marine related scientific disciplines and plan post-
doctoral and mid-career marine orientation programs in consultation with
the academic and industrial marine communities.

vii

� The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency should be assigned responsi-
bility to help assure that the nation's marine manpower needs are satisfied
and to help devise uniform standards for the nomenclature of occupations.

� The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency should expand its support of
ocean engineering and marine technician training at all levels and should aid
selected universities in organizing graduate-level education in the application
of social sciences to marine affairs.

In addition to the recommendations put forth by the Commission, each of the
individual Panels made many recommendations. In particular, the Panel on Basic
Science and Research made the following recommendations:

� The pr esent variety of institutional arrangements for the development and
support of oceanography is good and should be nurtured. Furthermore, as
the horizons of oceanography continue to expand, new institutional arrange-
ments can be encouraged.

� A small group of institutions, which should include but should not be re-
stricted to the acknowledged leaders, should be designated "University/
National laboratories." They should be distributed geographically to cover
different parts of the oceans and should be provided with adequate facilities
for undertaking global, deep-ocean programs and basic science. Facilities
should be madeavailable to scientists at other universities and federal lab-
oratories for related basic-science activity. University/National laboratories
should be accorded adequate institutional support for maintenance and oper-
ation, and in turn they should commit themselves and their facilities to serve
the needs of scientific groups affiliated with other institutions. Such an institu-
tional arrangement will insure that the nation's leading oceanographic insti-
tutions will be provided adequate resources and support to insure- their contin-
ued health and vigor.

� A network of estuarine and coastal-zone research institutions should be estab-
lished in association with appropriate academic institutions to undertake the
basic and applied research on estuarine processes so that state and local gov-
ernments can have information on which to base management procedures
rationally. These facilities need not be large in size, but should have adequate
facilities and staff sizes exceeding -the critical limit to maintain stable pro-
grams. The activity should be supported under the Sea Grant Program.

� Federal laboratories should be strengthened by moving in the direction of
fewer but stronger laboratories, adequately staffed, and with even closer affil-
iations with academic institutions. Steps should be taken to provide an atmo-
sphere in these laboratories conducive to attracting first-rank scientists by
providing the necessary flexibility at the scientific leadership level.

In response to its assignment, the Panel has reviewed a number of actions which
might be followed to implement these recommendations. A number of alternative con-
cepts are presented herein relative to. possible Federal positions with respect to
University/National laboratories and to Coastal Zone laboratories. It is believed that
all of the presently recognized advantages and disadvantages of each of the possible
options have been set down. In addition, the Panel has presented a general discussion
of administrative factors and policy decisions that must be considered before any of
the recommendations are implemented.

viii

Any course of action that the Federal government elects to pursue will have
inherent advantages and disadvantages. No uniquely excellent course of action exists
for the implementation of the recommendations in the Commission's report.

The Panel's conclusions are presented with full recognition of the difficulties
which may be encountered. These choices were based on considerations which were
believed would result ultimately in the greatest long-term national strength in marine
activities.

PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES

The position of the United States Government with respect to Coastal Zone labora-
tories should be guided by the needs and objectives of the Nation in the maintenance,.
restoration, and proper use of the coastal zone. These needs and objectives include:

e The development of a value system for determining, in the best public
interest, a proper mix of tangible vs intangible, social vs economic, and
consumptive vs nonconsumptive uses.

* The prevention and abatement of environment deterioration.

9 The resolution of conflicting valid uses (e.g.', public access vs private
ownership, fish and wildlife vs landfill, industrial development vs .'
preservation of natural areas, and water quality vs waste-disposal
requirements).

9 The development of knowledge to predict the consequences of man-made
changes in the environment and estuarine habitats.

9 The development of knowledge. to determine optimum planning for mineral
extraction, aquaculture, and fish husbandry.

9 The assessment of economic, social, legal, and policy interactions in the
best long-term public interest.

e, The minimizing of damage from natural events - e.g., storms, tsunamis,
and currents - while maintaining the environment.

e The development of long- and short-range plans, based on comprehensive
and continuously evolving models of the coastal zone, which give appro-
priate recognition to all relevant scientific, economic, legal, and social
considerations.

These needs exist at Federal, State, and local levels. Each has responsibilities
related to the coastal zone. The Panel believes that the best way to provide the analysis,
research and development needed for a rational approach to the proper management and
utilizatio@ of the coastal zone would be to establish and designate multidisciplinary lab-
oratories with area and regional interests.

While most research, development, and analysis must be directed to regional and
local coastal-zone components, there are clear national requirements which have been
imposed on agencies of the Federal government. Consequently, the Panel believes that,
to fulfill the national needs in the coastal zone, laboratories must be maintained both by
the Federal government and by institutions capable of meeting regional and local needs.
The Panel proposes to distinguish between the two types of laboratories with the names,
Federal Area Coastal Zone Laborator and Regional Coastal Zone Laboratory.

2 PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Federal Area Coastal Zone Laboratories, operated by a department of the Federal
government, would represent Federal responsibilities and agency missions, such as those
of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration, the Environmental Science Services Administration, the U.S. Public Health
Service, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Sport Fish-
eries and Wildlife, the National Park Service, and the Atomic Energy Commission. The
FACZL's would conduct research necessary to the implementation of Federal missions,
and in addition could provide certain facilities for common use in the areas they serve.

Regional Coastal Zone Laboratories would conduct research, analysis, and develop-
ment specifically related to the coastal zones of their region, and would serve as scien-
tific and technical advisors to Coastal Zone Authorities and appropriate State agencies.

The Panel has arrived at this division of responsibility for Coastal Zone laboratories
in the belief that, if implemented, establishment of Federal Area Coastal Zone Labora-
tories and Regional Coastal Zone Laboratories would:

e Demonstrate the Federal government's recognition of the clear interests
of the State governments in manymatters relating to coastal-zone man-
agement, and its recognition that it is in the interest of the National well
being that appropriate State authorities have as much technically com-
petent judgment as possible on which to base their decisions.

e Create technical organizations to give adequate research and techno-
logical support to the Federal decision-making process as it relates to
coastal-zone matters.

9 Recognize through Federal action the need to support Regional Coastal
Zone Laboratories which can conduct a vigorous research program,
develop the technology for the effective utilization of the coastal zone,
and assume responsibilities for training the necessary scientists, engi-
neers, and technicians.

The Panel has considered a number of options which might be pursued in order to
implement the foregoing. These options, together with possible advantages and disad-
vantages, are delineated in Section H of Chapter I of the text of this report.

The Panel has considered these options and has made the choices outlined in the
following pages. Whichever option is ultimately selected by the Federal government,
the Panel believes that it is imperative to implement the following specific recommendation.

The organization of Coastal Zone laboratories should be based on major
coastal zone areas, which are in turn, composed of regions based on con-
siderations of ecology, commonality of problems, and geographical factors.
The coast of the United States should be considered in terms of 10 major
areas and 27 regions, defined in section I.D.2 of Chapter I of the text of
this Report.

Based on either experience or the changing interests of these areas, the details of
the area and regional boundaries may be- subject to some alteration.

The Panel, which concurs in principl. e with the sense of urgency and organizational
recommendations of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources,
makes the following specific recommendations with respect to Federal Area Coastal
Zone Laboratories.

PANEL FINDINGS AND @ RECOMMENDATIONS 3

� To support its own statutory responsibilities, the Federal government should
organize and operate a multidisciplinary Coastal Zone laboratory in each

coastal area.

� The initial nucleus for these laboratories should.come from a consolidation

by the Department of Interior of the laboratories of its several bureaus. In
a later stage, the broader needs of the Federal government should be met
by collocating other Federal laboratories with those of the Department of

the Interior.

e In the event that a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA)
is created, along the lines recommended in the Commission's report, then it
would seem necessary and proper to assign these area Coastal Zone Labora-

tories to NOAA.

With respect to Regional Coastal Zone Laboratories, the Panel recommends that:

9 Based on proposals received and accepted, Regional Coastal Zone Labora-

tories for each of the 27 regional subdivisions should be designated, no later

then 1975. This action should not prejudice, as experience and need may

warrant, future subdivisions of the initially selected regions.

* Each of these Regional Coastal Zone Laboratories should be under the auspices

of institutions of higher education or affiliated organizations with compe-

tence in coastal zone research. The research activities should be augmented,

as appropriate, by consortium arrangements with other public and private

institutions.

e The total competence involved should include the several scientific disci-

plines and engineering specialties, the law, economics, sociology, and such

other specialties as may be necessary for proper analysis and research into

coastal zone problems and opportunities by consortia and other arrangements.

o Federal responsibility for designation and core support of Regional Coastal

'Zone Laboratoriles should be assigned to the National Science Foundation,

4 PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

which should review and recommend any changes in legislation required to

carry out this responsibility.

� Other Federal agencies with mission interests in the coastal zone should

cooperate actively with the Regional Coastal Zone Laboratories and should

fund as necessary, by direct grant or contract, research appropriate to their

mission interests, consulting with NSF to insure a,coordinated program. The

Regional Coastal Zone Laboratories should be established on a cost-sharing

basis.

� The cognizant Federal agency should develop a cost-sharing formula to

determine the percentages to be provided from Federal and non-Federal

sources for the construction of facilities and operations.

� The cognizant Federal agency will provide mechanisms for a comprehensive

periodic review to insure that the research programs of both the Area and Re-

gional Coastal Zone Laboratories are responsive to the needs of their areas

and regions and their sponsors.

The Panel suggests that the process for selection and designation should require
"candidate" Regional Coastal Zone Laboratories to provide:

1. A description of e2dsting facilities that are available through the lead institution
or through consortium members, if any.

2. A projection of additional facilities needed to accomplish the research program,
together with cost estimates.

3. Budget plans for a 5-year program, shown in annual increments.

4. The proposed composition and organizational affiliations of laboratory advisory
groups which will be established.

5. A plan detailing the nature and method of interaction with cognizant State or
Regional Coastal Zone Authorities and the general public.

6. A plan for facilities for the education and training of personnel competent in
coastal-zone problems.

The Panel notes that there is no Federal agency with an assigned responsibility for
delineating and monitoring coastal zone problems and opportunities. The Panel therefore
recommends that:

PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5

e The Department of the Interior should establish a program for the compi-
lation and analysis of information relpting to the total national interest
in the coastal zone, and for recommendation to the President of appropriate
policy and program development as such compilation and analysis may

indicate.

UNIVERSITYMATIONAL LABORATORIES

The Panel has reviewed the Commission's recommendations relative to the creation
of University/National laboratories. Webelieve that the policy of the Federal govern-
ment should be oriented towards an enhanced understanding of the global sea. To achieve
this objective at an accelerated pace, specific goals of the Nation should be directed
towards:

* Encouraging exploratory research and development in marine science and
engineering.

9 Supplying an environment in which new ideas may be conceived, supported
in their.infancy, and developed into working models.

9 Maintaining an effective national position for advancing and working coop-
eratively in the international aspects of marine science and technology.

* Assuring that the marine manpower needs of the United States are met by
providing graduate, postdoctoral, and continuing education for marine
scientists and engineers.

� Assuring that marine engineering and technology are based on good sci-
ence, and that sound engineering and technological support are used in
the advancement of marine science.

� Encouraging and fostering long-term, large-scale scientific and techno-
logical programs and providing the management of facilities for their
accomplishment.

Since the phrase "University/National Laboratory" was not explicitly defined in the
Commission's report, the Panel has adopted the following definition.

A University /National Laboratory is a largely Federally funded laboratory
complex whose major responsibility is to carry out research and develop-
ment oriented towards goals of national importance. It further has the duty
of designing, operating and providing to the American scientific community
unique and/or expensive facilities for carrying out oceanic research. In
addition, it is a center where basic and applied research and exploratory
development can be carried out on a continuing basis using a multidisci-
plinary approach.

The Panel suggests that the name National Oceanographic Laboratory be used as a
substitute for the name University/National Laboratory.

6 PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In reviewing the Commission's recommendations and various alternate options
which might be adopted, the Panel has been guided by the following considerations:

* Major aspects of our understanding and utilization of the world ocean will
depend increasingly on the types. of studies most effectively carried out
at large, multidisciplinary laboratories.

* Studies of great national importance will require additional special facil-
ities, including ships, exotic platforms, aircraft, buoys, submersibles,
and man-in-the-sea equipment and habitats.

* A sizable number of existing institutions, with demonstrated competence
in oceanic studies, can provide the proper base on which to build national
efforts of expanded scope.

* The high post of procuring and operating major facilities and equipment
increasingly will require provision for common and efficient usage by
the oceanographic research community at large.

The following four main options, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive, have
been considered'by the Panel:

Option 1

The U.S. Government could designate one or more existing oceanographic laboratories
as National Oceanographic Laboratories. Overhead, support, and facilities costs, as well
as sufficient funding to enable these laboratories to grow to some preassigned size, would
be provided by the Federal' government.

Option 2

The U.S. Government could "nationalize" the use of all oceanographic facilities for
which it now provides predominant budgetary support. These facilities (predominantly
ships) would be maintained, supported, and expanded by a'single Federal agency, and the
services of these facilities would be made available to all competent oceanographers.

Option 3

The U.S. Government could encourage strongly the formation of regional laboratory
consortia, which would be composed of all the oceanographic laboratories in a given
geographic region of the country. Consortium facilities of a unique nature would be pro-
vided by the Federal government, and the consortium members would be expected to use
these facilities jointly.

Option 4

The U.S. Government could accept present institutional forms, without sponsoring
changes, and would encourage th e growth of, oceanographic research and training by in-
creasing the magnitude Iof funding, and by instituting the block f undin
g of facilities, sup-
port and overhead costs.

Details of these options, together with possible advantages and disadvantages of each
option, are delineated in Section Il of Chapter 2 of this report. The Panel has debated
these options and their possible consequences quite extensively. With a clear recognition
of these consequences, the Panel recommends a program that combines elements of
Options 1, 3, and 4. Since funding is such an important consideration, the Panel strongly
endorses the following admonition:

PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7

The Federal government should not establish a policy of giving selective growth
and funding to National Oceanographic Laboratories unless the national ocean-
ographic budget will permit both the continued growth of existing university
and private laboratories and the simultaneous development of strong National
Oceanographic Laboratories.

Failure to heed this admonition would have a catastrophic effect on the health Of
American oceanography, and would amount to disregarding the Commission's injunction
that "the present variety of institutional arrangements for the development and support
of oceanography is good and should be nurtured."

On the basis of the above admonition and findings, the Panel recommends that:

*initially the United States Government should designate one major east

coast oceanographic laboratory and one major west coast oceanographic
laboratory as "National Oceanographic Laboratories." The Federal govern-
ment should selectively sponsor the growth of these laboratories to that of
a four- to five-hundred-man professional staff, together with the required
support personnel.

The United States Government should encourage and assist in the forma-
tion of regional oceanographic consortia of all of the oceanographic labo-
ratories in a given geographic region of the country. Unique facilities should
be provided to the consortia members. Strong encouragement should be

given to the joint use of these facilities and to the establishment of coop-

erative research programs.

o An improved program should be established for the increased support of
leading universities and private research institutions now engaged in ocean-
ographic research and graduate training.

To implement these recommendations, the following general steps and procedures
should be adopted.

� One Federal agency should be assigned the funding responsibility for all
institutional support. This support should be block funded on the basis
of negotiations following periodic institutional review.

� This Federal agency should also be given the major funding responsibility
for the provision of ship and shore facilities.

8 PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Sufficient funding should be provided to assure that existing oceanographic
institutions are Sustained at their present levels of operation and are per-
mitted to grow at a rate commensurate with their capabilities and performance.

With regard to the designation and administration of the National Oceanographic Lab-
oratory Program, the following guidelines are suggested.

� Candidate oceanographic institutions should be selected on the basis of
demonstrated strength in broadly based oceanographic research as man-
if ested by scientific accomplishments and by the research and facilities
management skills at the institution.

� The institutions designated as National Oceanographic Laboratories must
be willing to assume leadership and place proper emphasis on research
and development programs oriented towards the achievement of broad
national oceanic goals.

� An important consideration must be the willingness and ability of the insti-
tution to make appropriate formal arrangements for use of facilities by
outside investigators and for cooperation with other institutions engaged
in oceanic studies. It is anticipated that appropriate user committees
will be established to govern the utilization and scheduling of facilities,
and that membership in such committees would be open to State, private,
and Federal institutions without geographic limitations.

� Funding for core operating expenses and facilities, and projects as appro-'
priate, at the National Oceanographic Laboratory would be provided through
the responsible Federal agency with administrative emphasis on maintaining
continuity and local flexibility needed for effective scientific work.

� Additional support of projects at National Oceanographic Laboratories by
State and private sources will be encouraged, as will support by all Fed-
eral sources.

The National Oceanographic Laboratory Program should be implemented through the
following steps:

� Designation of the responsible agency by Executive Order.

� Formulation of program plans by the responsible agency based, in part, on
discussions with appropriate oceanographic institutions.

� Selection of the two laboratories and the awarding of initial grants, prefer-
ably in FY 1971, to cover planning, travel, and other administrative costs
associated with the development of a five-year plan for the two National
Oceanographic Laboratories, including detailed consideration of proposed
capital and operating costs.

� Review of the initial plan under the leadership of the responsible agency
with representatives of other Federal agencies and other institutions with
oceanographic interests.

� Inclusion of a National Oceanographic Laboratories Program in the proposed
budget of the responsible agency as soon as feasible, preferably in FY
1972.

PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9

With regard to encouraging the development of regional consortia, the following
procedures should be followed:

� Unique or expensive facilities, such as large computers, deep submer-
gence vehicles, undersea habitats, large arrays of buoys, etc., should
be located at or should be under the administration of one or another
member laboratory of each consortium. These facilities would be avail-
able to competent scientists, as agreed upon by members of the consortium.,

� User committees composed of scientists from the individual laboratories
should be established for the equitable and efficient coordination and uti-
lization of unique facilities and cooperative use of vessels as appropriate.

� The research programs of the individual laboratories should be locally
controlled and administered, but cooperative research programs should
be encouraged.

� Multiple-source funding of mission- oriented research should be continued
and administered by the cognizant Federal agencies.

� Provisions should be made for the allocation of a block of funds for the
support of promising research by students and recent graduates who
have been selected by an appropriate consortium committee.

� A well-defined review procedure for member laboratories of each con-
sortium should be developed and agreed upon by all parties concerned.
The general procedures discussed in Section I.E.3. of Chapter 2 of the,
text of this report should be followed.

With regard to an improved program for the support of leading universities and.pri-
vate nonprofit research institutions now engaged in oceanographic research and training,
the following guidelines are suggested:

* Funding should be provided to upgrade by replacement the fleet of re-
search vessels which this group of institutions now operates. Priorities
for replacements would be based on evaluation of program needs and the
condition of vessels to be replaced.

e Funding should be provided for upgrading shore facilities, support for
which has lagged in recent years.

9 Block funding of ship operations should be provided by a single agency
in order to increase efficiency of management, scheduling, and operation.

9 Other institutional support should be provided for computing, shop, and
other shared facilities and equipment and for a reasonable portion of
supporting personnel; and general purpose research and training activities.

CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE MARINE SCIENCES

In response to its basic Charter, the Panel analyzed the national population employed
in ocean-related fields. The analysis was carried out in terms of discipline orientations
and levels of education. In addition, the current national ability to educate personnel in
the various oceanographic disciplines was evaluated in the context of various projected
growth rates and attrition factors. The Panel finds that:

10 PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

� If it is assumed that there will be an annual five-percent attrition of
people already in the field and an overall annual growth rate of three
percent, then a net annual rate of production of graduate oceanog-
raphers in the physical and biological disciplines would exceed the
yearly requirements for these fields.

� A majority of personnel employed in one of the physical science sub-
disciplines of oceanography are not oceanographers. They tend to have
been educated specifically as physicists, chemists, meteorologists, etc.
Consequently, a large fraction of the physical scientists engaged in
marine research and development could, in the future, continue to be
staffed in part by personnel recruited from the total population of grad-
uates from the physical -science departments of American universities.

� Although there is an adequate supply of graduates in the physical and
biological sciences engaged in marine activities, deficiencies could
occur in subdisciplinary specialties.

� Since ocean engineering is a relatively new field of graduate-level edu-
cation, few personnel with expertise in the design and construction of
marine structures are available. Thus, some dfffiCUltyL may be encoun-
tered if a growth in applied marine engineering and advanced technology
were to be sustained only by the present ocean- engineering manpower
pool and rate of production.

� Technician requirements parallel those for engineers. The short-term,
less intensive training required for technicians suggests that the supply
of marine technicians could adjust more readily to specific demands
through recruitment and on-the-job training and existing educational
programs than the supply of more highly trained personnel.

Having assessed the current and anticipated national involvement in the marine sci-
ences, the Panel accepted the following conclusions with regard to ocean manpower
requirements.

e The present Iproduction rate of graduate oceanographers and other marine
scientists is adequate for the current level of national involvement in ocean
science and technology.

* The currrent training rate of ocean scientists appears adequate to match

attrition and turnover losses of five percent and to sustain a net annual
growth rate 'of three@ percent. A greater rate of annual rincrease in applied
marine programs would require a modest increase in the current training
rate of graduate ocean engineers and scientists. The required increase
could be easily achieved by a small expansion of existing university pro-

grams.

PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9 Certain specialized areas of marine research are undermanned relative
to national needs. The num6er of disciplines and the personnel requirements
in this category are sufficiently small that the deficiencies can 6e, easily rec-
tified through existing programs.

FEDERAL LABORATORIES

In evaluating the Commission's recommendations and in developing possible alter-
natives, the. Panel kept firmly in mind the following admonition of tile Commission:

"The role of the Federal Laboratory is critical not only to the missions of
the Federal agencies, but to the entire national marine sciences enterprise."

The Panel paid particular attention to both defense and nondefense Federal marine
laboratories. Both classes of laboratories were carefully considered in the many Panel
discussions. The present and potential roles of all Federal laboratories were debated
in the analyses of alternative options for both Coastal Zone and University/National
laboratories.

A summary of these laboratories is contained in Chapter 4 of this report. Sections
II of Chapters I and 2 document the various options, together with the possible advantages
and disadvantages of Federal laboratories, relative to the alternatives developed by the
Panel in its deliberations on Coastal Zone and University/National laboratories.

As a result of its review, the Panel finds that:

9 The term "Federal laboratory,",as used in the Commission's Report,
actually encompasses a heterogeneous grouping of over 80 mission-
oriented laboratories, large and small, which vary -in size from some 10
scientists and support personnel at the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife Tiburon Marine Laboratory, Tiburon, California, to over 3500
professional and support personnel who make up the Naval Ship Research
and Development Center, Carderock, Maryland.

* By organization, these Federal marine laboratories report to 29 bureaus
of 11 departments and agencies of the Federal government. By mission,
they support the authorities and responsibilities of their superior agencies
who, collectively are charged with the responsibility for deriving the max-
imum benefit to the United States economy, security, health, and welfare
from marine-science activities. In management, most share such common
ills of Federal agencies as excessive layers of superior organizations
and lack of control in balancing the resources of men, money, and mate-
rials against assigned workload. Quantitatively, there are some 85 Fed-
eral marine laboratories. Qualitatively, the Commission's report noted
that "some of them are understaffed and underutilized, some involved in
research somewhat removed from their agency's primary interests, but
most with programs of high quality. These laboratories form a valuable
component of the national capability in marine science."

e As evidenced by their recommendations for selective consolidation of
marginal laboratories into a small number of stronger centers, the Com-
mission clearly favored fewer, stronger, and more adequately staffed

12 PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

and equipped Federal laboratories. While the Commission was indefinite
as to which'laboratories they judged to be "marginal," it is apparent that
the Commission was principally concerned with the ability of the many
small nondefense Federal laboratories to support the statutory respon-
sibilities of their parent agencies.

* There is an immediate need for well-rounded, well-equipped, and well-
staffed Federal research centers which have the organic capability to
employ a systematic approach to the conduct of research primarily re-
lated to the missions of their parent agencies. It is noted that there is
no universally accepted standard for the critical or optimum size of a
Federal or any other type of laboratory. The situation is further com-
plicated in the area of estuarine and coastal-zone research where, be-
cause of the highly local nature of the problems, it may be best not to
coalesce all small laboratories within a given regional area into one
center.

e In keeping with the broad responsibilities of the Federal government in
coastal affairs, it is highly preferable to employ the appropriate non-
defense Federal marine laboratories to address the large-scale area
problems. Regional problems should be addressed by appropriate State,
university, and other locally oriented laboratories.

9 Although many nondefense Federal marine laboratories involved in coastal
affairs have a creditable history of supporting the work of their sponsoring
agencies, none currently has the multidisciplinary requirements necessary
to solve large-scale area problems.

e While the Department of Interior is clearly the Federal agency most resp6n-
sible for coastal-zone affairs, its marine laboratories are organizationally
submerged under ten separate bureaus and offices and are generally under-
manned, underfunded relative to mission, narrowly mission oriented, widely
scattered, and otherwise lack the inherent capabilities to carry out the broad
responsibilities of the Department.

* The three laboratories of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers represent the
principal Department of Defense responsibilities in the coastal zone. No
immediate changes are envisioned in these laboratories to meet the mis-
sion of the Corps.

9 None of the U.S. Navy laboratories is considered appropriate for direct
utilization in coastal zone roles. Navy laboratories must continue to sup-
port ocean science and ocean engineering specif ically oriented towards
the Navy's uniquely military mission of national security. Support of basic
and applied research which may have application in the coastal zone should
be continued through the Office of Naval Research.

a None of the eldsting Federal marine laboratories is considered appro-
priate for the roles of the University/National laboratories recommended
in the Commission's report. Both defense and nondefense Federal marine
laboratories were evaluated and, for a variety of reasons, none was found
acceptable.

e The cost and time required to provide additional and special oceanographic
facilities and equipment are so great that the Nation cannot afford to scatter
geographically these national resources to meet local interests. The

PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13

necessity for an immediate and effective national oceanic program demands
provision for common and efficient usageby the oceanographic research
community at large and requires that major Federal marine laboratories
and their principal facilities be consolidated wherever possible in the vicin-
ity of the National Oceanographic Laboratories.

e All Federal marine laboratories suffer from many common management
problems, most of which result in an imbalance between quantitative and
qualitative resources and assigned workload. These problems must be
addressed at the highest executive levels if the Federal marine labora-
tories are to be a viable national oceanic resource and if these labora-
tories are to continue optimum support of the missions and tasks of their
parent agencies.

e Although the Navy has made significant progress in consolidating its lab-
oratory structure, and recognizing the need for various levels of marine
science expertise in Navy's warfare- system-oriented centers, there is
nevertheless too much diffusion of ocean sciences and ocean engineering
skills, programs, and facilities within the Navy laboratories.

Based on the above findings, the Panel recommends that:

*Multidisciplinary nondefense Federal Coastal Zone Laboratory complexes
should be established in each major coast zone area to carry out the respon-
sibilities of the Federal government. Initially, Interior should consolidate
various of its laboratories to form th6 nucleus for these complexes. Collocating
other nondefense Coastal Zone Federal Laboratories, e.g., those of the Depart-
ment of Commerce and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
with those of Interior would meet the broader needs of the Federal government.

e Should a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) be established,
it would be appropriate to assign these area laboratories to NOAA.

e Interaction between the Federal area complexes and the Regional Coastal
Zone Laboratories, as recommended elsewhere in the Panel findings and rec-
ommendations related to Coastal Zone laboratories, should be on a mutually
agreeable arrangement.

9 Federal laboratories with marine-related missions beyond the coastal zone
should be collocated whenever possible to promote efficiency of utilization
of support facilities and to encourage exchange of ideas on common prob-
lems. Any mechanism of either collocation or consolidation, however, must
assure that statutory interests and missions of an agency are not placed in
a subsidiary position within an agency with predominantly unrelated missions.

14 PANEL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATTONS

� The major Federal marine laboratories and their principal facilities should
be consolidated whenever possible in the vicinity of the National Oceano-
graphic. Laboratories recommended in this report, or in the vicinity of one of
the nationally recognized oceanographic laboratories.

� The Navy should continue its formation of centers of excellence and should
concentrate the skills, programs, and facilities for such important ocean
science and ocean engineering as man-in-the-sea, deep diving, and undersea
medicine, in one collocated laboratory complex. As ocean science and ocean
engineering are prime requisites for underseas warfare systems, this complex
should be located at an existing, Navy center capable of coping with large
underseas- weapons systems. Further, national and Navy programs would
both be' best served if this Navy center were so located as to permit close
cooperation between the Navy and one of the National Oceanographic Labo-
ratories recommended in this report.

o The.-se.nior executives of each Federal department and agency with marine
laboratories should, pursue a vigorous and continuing program to minimize
.the problems of laboratory management as reported in chapter 4 and else-
where in the text of this report. In particular, relief should be obtained from
excessively restrictive manpower ceiling controls. In addition, laboratory
directors should be provided more flexibility in marine science program content
and should be granted a reasonable amount of discretionary funds with which
to conduct independent research.

CHAPTER 1

DISCUSSION OF COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES

I. BACKGROUND

A. General Objectives

The position of the United States Government with respect to Coastal Zone laboratories
should be guided by the needs and objectives of the Nation in the maintenance, restoration,
and proper use of the coastal zone.

It is the view of the Panel that any configuration of Coastal Zone laboratories, which
is eventually sponsored by the Federal government must:

9 Support the decisions and programs of the Federal government

Support Coastal Zone Authorities and appropriate State agencies

Support a larger national involvement in maritime and coastal affairs.

The foregoing objectives will be best implemented if a series of actions with respect
to Coastal Zone laboratories are taken to:

Create a technical organization which will give adequate research and
technological support to the Federal decision-making process as it relates
to coastal zone matters. It must be recognized that in many areas the
Federal government has a primacy of interest and as a matter of national
policy it has a general interest in almost all matters related to the admin-
istration of our coastal zones, Decisions made in this area must be based
on sound engineering, ecological and oceanographic concepts and principles.
A group which is competent to provide this judgment must be created and
maintained within the Federal establishment.

� Demonstrate the Federal government's recognition of the clear interests
of the State governments in many matters relating to coastal zone man-
agement. It is in the interest of the National well being that appropriate
State authorities have as much technically competent judgment to back
their decisions as it is possible to give them. Thus, the Federal govern-
ment should recognize the necessity to give support to marine labora-
tories whose missions and organizational forms are such that they sup-
port Coastal Zone Authorities within individual states.

� Reflect a policy that the Nation's interests and capabilities in oceano-
graphic affairs must be greatly expanded. Thus, there must be a general
sponsorship on the part of the Federal government of various laboratories
which can conduct a vigorous research program, develop the necessary
technology, and assume responsibilities for training the necessary sci-
entists, engineers, and technicians associated with the coastal zone area.
It should be the objective of the Federal government to enlarge the Nation's

16 COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES

activity in this area. Consequently, Federal sponsorship should be designed
to yield an overall increase in the general national capability in areas re-
lated to coastal zone management.

B. Commission Recommendations

The Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering, and Resources has examined the
problems of coastal zone and estuarine laboratories and has made several recommen-
dations for their restructuring. The Commission has recommended:

"A network of estuarine and coastal zone research institutions should be
established in association with appropriate academic institutions to under-
take basic and,applied research on estuarine processes so that State and
local Governments can have information on which to base management pro-
cedures rationally. These facilities need not be large in size, but should have
adequate facilities and staff sizes, exceeding the critical limit to maintain
stable programs. The activity should be supported under the Sea Grant
Program."

The Panel concurs with the Commission's recommendations concerning Coastal Zone
laboratories. However, there are many details that must be attended to before such im-
plementation can occur. Foremost among these are the following considerations:

* The Commission did not define the scope of the activity that should be in-
cluded in coastal zone or estuarine research. Since estuarine research
is often related to local problems, the critical size of such a research
activity is difficult to define.

* How should the research activities of the estuarine and coastal zone lab-
oratories overlap and.be coordinated with those of the University/National
laboratories ?

9 Since the estuarine laboratories are generally concerned with applied
problems, related to the local region, should they be responsive to nat-
ional needs? What fraction of the work of such laboratories should be
basic research?

* A generally acceptable scheme for the classification of estuaries has not
yet been developed. Individual estuaries have very little in common with
each other. They have quite different topographical features, ecological
systems, chemical constituents, etc. Should there really be a formal
attempt to create a network of estuarine laboratories?

These considerations will be dealt with in connection with the procedures proposed
for the implementation of the Commission's recommendations.

C. Review of Present Situation

1. General Comments

While estuarine and coastal zone research has been traditionally subordinate to nat-
ional emphasis on deep-ocean research, the current deterioration of the coastal environ-
ment has changed this trend. The coastal zone potential which resulted in this change
includes such diverse activities as mineral exploitation, commercial and sport fishing,

COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES 17

aquaculture, waste disposal, etc. Problems associated with multiple use of the coastal
zone are inherently severe and are further complicated by the use of coastal areas for
land filling and development and by dredging for channel clearing.

The need for intensive research to develop the technology and science necessary to
achieve greater utilization of these offshore waters and their resources has not gone
unfilled. At present, there is a large number of research activities being carried out in
the estuarine and coastal zone regions. The sponsors of this intense activity include the
States, various inter- and intra-state regional groups, interested universities, private
profit and nonprofit organizations, and, of course, various departments of the Federal
government. The latter group includes the Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration, the Fish and Wildlife review, the Geological Survey, the Army Corps of Engineers,
the Environmental Science Service Administration, the Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard, etc.
It is clear from this large array of sponsors that a need exists for a central group which
could initiate, direct, focus, and interchange the results of the research activities of vari-
ous organizations.

At present, many of the research organizations dealing with coastal zone activities
are subcritical in size, and, therefore, ineffective. A number of Federal agencies run a
multiplicity of laboratories. The existence, size, mission, and location of these labora-
tories are often the result of historical accident or political expediency rather than the
result of a comprehensive design and management decision to create a laboratory system.
Many were organized to study local or regional problems which, for various reasons,
could not at the time be handled at a lower governmental level or by academic institutions.
The apparent Balkanization of the Federal government's Coastal Zone laboratories led to
the Commission's recommendation that Federal laboratories should be consolidated and
improved. On the other hand, the problems to which estuarine research is addressed are
sometimes of such a specifically local concern that it may be unwise to attempt to collect
several of these organizations into one large administrative unit. Therefore, it is dif -
ficult to determine any universal measure of critical size. In fact, certain university
centers, which are strong in research related to the understanding of estuarine and coastal
processes, have developed around the interests and competence of single, outstanding
individuals. Such groups should probably be financially supported and left untouched.

Existing Coastal Zone laboratories are to some degree effective in research (on the
local situation) directed towards solution of local and regional problems, They are spon-
sored by academic institutions (e.g., Texas A&M), industry (e.g., Battelle Memorial Insti-
tute), states (e.g., California Marine Fisheries Laboratory), and Federal (e.g., BCF, Bio-
logical Laboratory, Milford, Conn.), or a combination of those (e.g., Virginia Institute of
Marine Sciences). There is reasonably continuous communication among the Directors
and scientists of Coastal Zone laboratories, and there is an effective interchange of staff,
students, programs, and plans. Although these laboratories do not exist as a network, the
informal process of communication provides a rather successful check on unnecessary
duplication of programs, except through some academic courses. The existence of many
varied laboratories has provided a diversity of opportunities for people with quality proj-
ects to find an optimum place to do their work. Selective support by several agencies has
resulted in the orientation of the various laboratories towards projects of concern to the
Nation.

2. Federal Agencies Missions, Problems, and Respons ibilities
in Relation to Coastal Zone Laboratories

As pointed out in the Commission report, there exists within the Federal agencies
strong elements for carrying. out marine activities. Imbedded within the many Federal
departments are important activities related to coastal zone affairs.

18 COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES

� The U.S. Navy is directly involved in many aspects of marine science
and engineering in support of its primary mission. Its laboratories and
test facilities represent the strongest existing element in the program
for marine technology development. However, very few of the Navy lab-
oratories can be considered as being primarily dedicated to coastal zone
problems.

� The U.S.'Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the protection and
maintenance of the coast and waterways. It has developed the Nation's
primary competence in coastal engineering. Its coastal engineering
research center is one of the key elements in the Federal capability in
this field. The U.S. Lake Survey of the Great Lakes undertakes, prepares,
and publishes navigational charts and related material to study elements
affectinglake level and river flow. In addition, it advises international
bodies &iriged with the management and use of the lake waters. Finally,
it has a responsibility to conduct scientific investigation of physical as-
pects of fresh water and to compile maps for the Army Map Service.

� The National Science Foundation supports marine atmospheric sciences
'as part of its basic mission to foster the Nation's scientific endeavor. It
funds the development of marine and atmospheric research facilities,
including oceanographic ships. It has sponsored a broad spectrum of
research activities and has supported the education of environmental
scientists of all kinds. The Foundation's discipline -oriented marine
science and education program is inseparable from its programs in other
scientific fields. These programs represent a primary resource for de-
veloping the capability for a major national commitment to coastal zone
activities. The Foundation Sea Grant Program is primarily oriented to
the coastal zone.

* The Department of Commerce has strong responsibilities in coastal zone
areas. In particular, the Environmental Science Services Administration
(ESSA) and the Maritime Administration are concerned with coastal zone
facilities and air/sea interaction problems in the coastal zone regions.
The Environmental Science Services Administration provides a great
variety of services to the general public and specialized users. ESSA
conducts both research and technical service programs to provide weather
and marine forecasts and warnings, river and flood forecasts and warnings,
earth description mapping and charting, marine description mapping and
charting, telecommunications, and space services, and national environ-
mental satellite systems.

� The Department of the Interior is responsible for many of the, Nation's
resources, and it has taken constructive action in many program areas
connected with marine development. It has made great strides towards
developing a comprehensive program for fresh-water management and in
conservation of coastal fish and wildlife resources. Several Interior
Bureaus have action programs leading to Federal or local preservation
of many miles of sea shore for recreation and conservation of wildlife
habitats. Interior is also responsible for the investigation and managing
of the Nation's mineral resources, including those of the coastal zone
region. It has the responsibility for maintaining water quality standards
in all interstate waters and for preparing comprehensive pollution abate-
ment programs.

COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES 19

* The Smithsonian Institution engages in world-wide research in biological
and archeological oceanography, and in assembling and managing the na-
tional collection of biological and geological specimens.

* The U.S. Coast Guard, which is a component of the Department of Trans-
portation, is heavily involved in all matters concerning coastal zone
management.

e Other cabinet-level agencies that have major coastal zone responsibilities
and interests include the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare;
the Atomic Energy Commission; the Department of State; and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Although many Federal nondefense oceanography laboratories involved in coastal
zone affairs have a creditable history of supporting the work of their sponsoring agencies,
a number of deficiencies do exist in Federal posture.

� Many Of the Federal laboratories are undermanned and underfunded relative
to their mission. The quality was criticized in the Commission report,
partly because Federal laboratories involved in coastal zone affairs pre-
sent an array of almost total fragmentation. Few are able to conduct ade-
quately tasks associated with their major mission. For the major agencies,
such as Commerce and Interior, which have at least nine or ten bureau-
level agencies involved in coastal zone affairs, there is no corporate lab-
oratory which provides an overall function of supplying departmental -wide
support and research.

� The Federal laboratory structure tends to be oriented toward the rather
narrow mission goals of individual. sponsoring agencies. Because of the
mission orientation of individual laboratories and their sponsors, there
is little central focus of coastal scientific and engineering capabilities
among Federal laboratories. The laboratories of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, and the
Coastal Engineering Research Center of the Corps of Engineers are not
organized so that they can work closely on a routine basis.

� There is no single agency within the Federal establishment which has the
responsibility of doing systems analysis relative to national problems of
coastal zone usage. For example, the Commission has indicated that in
the future we can look forward to changes in the patterns of ocean trans-
portation. The principal carriers will become significantly larger and
will no doubt require new, vastly different port depths, turning basins,
and terminal facilities for operations. Furthermore, the number of com-
mercial carriers may decrease drastically. In this context, our present
port facilities are obsolescent. The same may be said for most coastal
zone airport facilities. Unfortunately, there is no single group which has
the prime responsibility of doing systems studies related to providing the
Nation with modern terminal facilities. The creation of new facilities
will involve legal, ecological, political, social, and environmental prob-
lems. Solution of these problems will require a broad base of techno-
logical organization that is fully versed in all aspects of science, engi-
neering, and systems planning.

20 COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES

The present configuration of Federal nondefense Coastal Zone labora-
tories is not organized on either a souna-r-egional basis or a sound eco-
logical basis. The present configuration appears to be more nearly an
accident of history than a rational design of a network or laboratories.
Although the existing nondefense Federal laboratories could accommodate
a considerable expansion of program activities, these laboratories are
not located so that collectively they allow maximum efficiency of use.
Most are not of optimum size. Diverse management and political expe-
diency in the past have led Federal laboratories to be organized so that
they often do not reflect the integrity of the biogeographic provinces of
our coastal zone. Finally, no Federal nondefense laboratory is a multi-
disciplinary complex capable of approaching coastal zone problems on a
broad and balanced basis.

The inexorable trend towards more intensive use of the coastal zone is generating
new research requirements throughout the Nation. The present level of funding support
for such research, estimated at no more than $25 million annually from all sources is
inadequate. Additional funds and talents must be enlisted. to keep pace with technical and
engineering capabilities that are even now exploring and developing the coastal zone in
ways that were barely conceived of a decade ago. Institutional arrangements must be
developed to focus talents toward assessing the impact of these massive changes on envi-
ronment, people, and resources.

3. State Agencies and Other Coastal Zone Authorities

As pointed out by the COMSER report, the responsibility to develop the coastal zone
and to protect long-term values is shared by Federal, State, and local agencies. To date
effective management has been hindered by the variety of government jurisdiction involved,
the low priority afforded marine matters by State governments, the diffusion of responsi-
bilities among State agencies, and the failure of State agencies to develop and implement
long-range plans.

The Panel was able to identif y only 17 Coastal Zone laboratories that are run by State
jurisdictions. Three of these exist on the East Coast, five on the Gulf Coast region, six
on the West Coast, two in Alaska, and one in Hawaii. In some States, fishery groups at a
university serve many of the roles of a state -affiliated Coastal Zone laboratory.

A diffusion of responsibility for coastal zone affairs exists within State governments.
Individual State agencies often deal directly with their counterparts at the Federal level
Too often, States lack comprehensive plans based on an appraisal of statewide interests
in their coastal resources. In these cases, States have tended to react only to Federal
plans or programs.

The key function; of the Coastal Zone Authorities proposed by the Commission would
be to coordinate plans and uses of coastal waters and adjacent lands and to regulate and
develop these areas. The proposed Coastal Zone Authority would presumably draw on
all available knowledge of the physical, biological, and economic characteristics of the
States' coasts and estuaries. The Commission recommended that Coastal Zone labora-
tories should support the coastal authorities by conducting research and special studies
and by helping to develop the necessary technology. The great diversity, resources,
scope, and activities of coastal State governments will prevent adoption of a uniform
administrative approach to Coastal Zone Authorities. In some States, a single authority
might appropriately be given jurisdiction over the State's entire coast. In others, sev-
eral groups might be established under a single authority within a State to deal with sep-
arate estuarine areas. The management of interstate estuaries will require agreements
to be developed between adjacent States to delegate at least limited management authority

COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES 21

to an interstate -body. The form of the State authority may vary from a volunteer com-
mission with a small staff to a strong agency, such as the New York Port Authority, which
has major development authority buttressed by the power to issue bonds. In some cases,
interstate authorities with the Federal government as an equal partner, such as the Del-
aware River Basin Authority may be appropriate.

Some States have excellent laboratories and competent personnel which are usually
affiliated with their Fish and Game Departments. This is apt to be particularly true in
States where commercial or sports fisheries are important to the State economy. State
laboratories, however, are frequently subject to political pressure. Administrators and
commissioners, more often than not, are chosen for political rather than professional
reasons. This factor must be taken into account when considering the quality and objec-
tivity of the advice that Coastal Zone laboratories offer to State Coastal Zone Authorities.
Despite the best of intentions the Coastal Zone Authorities will be, at least to some extent,
subject to various pressures. It seems essential that the best possible legal, scientific,
and technical information should be made available to Coastal Zone Authorities. Coastal
Zone laboratories which advise Coastal Zone Authorities should be free to state the sci-
entific validity of a course of action without the danger of pressure or reprisals, espe-
ciallywhenfindings will be diametrically opposed to the most financially profitable course
of action.

4. University and/or Other Institutions

The Nation has considerable strength in the study of estuarine and coastal pro-
cesses. This strength arises from a few "well established" research centers which are in-
volved in some aspects of estuarine -coastal research. What the Nation does not have is well-
rounded, well-equipped centers through which all important disciplines and specialties
are focused in a systematic approach to understanding estuarine and coastal processes.
Particularly lacking are institutions where research on the social, economic, legal, and
political problems of the coastal zone can be pursued. The present university centers of
strength-and there are several-have grown around the interests and competence of
individuals, e.g., Pritchard at Johns Hopkins, Odum at Georgia, Haskins at Rutgers,
North at Cal Tech. At other institutions (e.g., Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences,
University of Rhode Island, University of Washington, Oregon State University, and Lou-
isiana State University), an effort has been made to establish broadly based, multidisci-
plinary programs. Unfortunately, these efforts have not taken the form of discrete, "well-
equipped' centers because of lack of funds.

With very few exceptions, coastal and estuarine studies are only a part of broad uni-
versity marine interests and depend on either the strength* of an individual or Federal-Aid
programs that provide funds in specific categories, such as pollution research and fish and
wildlife studies. What is required is focus and identifiable grouping of individuals and facil-
ities with a, definite estuarine -coastal mission. To a small extent the Sea Grant Program
has attempted to develop a broad grouping of capabilities in the coastal zone.

The essence of a Coastal Zone laboratory is an orientation towards applied problems.
While much basic work is necessary, it may be considered "applied," because it is directed
to an end product, or because it is an essential precursor to application. Traditionally,
universities have been concerned primarily with basic science, the principal exceptions
being colleges of agriculture and extension stations in land grant universities. Schools of
fisheries have tended to swing between applied and basic research, depending on the orien-
tation of the administration and faculty. Jn Sea Grant experience, the tradition is changing.
The student demand for "relevance" is one factor in accelerating the change, but the change
was apparent before student unrest became a problem. Whatever the cause, universities,
especially the land grant schools, are not only willing but anxious to move in applied direc-
tions. "Environmental awareness" has become a prime motivator in determining research
directions, even among some senior basic scientists.

22 COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES

Under the present Sea Grant Program three approaches exist to the support of uni-
versity efforts in coastal zone affairs. These are:

� Institutional Support, given to major universities with broadly based,
multidisciplinary programs in marine research, education, and advisory
services. Eight such awards have been made.

� Coherent Project, Support, essentially a lesser version of institutional
support, in which a university develops a program with a central theme
or objective involving several projects. Universities supported under
this category are expected to grow to institutional status.

e General Project Support, given for a definite period for conduct of a
clearly defined project.

Under institutional support, coastal zone. activities already are in progress, notably
at the Universities of Rhode-4sland, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin, Oregon State, and
Texas A&M. It is apparent that Coastal Zone laboratories of this type might form a basis
for a national Coastal Zone laboratory network. At present they are a natural part of Sea
Grant institutional programs, with separate identification but support from the institution
as a whole.

Some Coherent Projects are de facto Coastal Zone laboratory programs without bene-
fit of title or facilities support. fhie-U-niversity of Delaware program is oriented to the
Delaware estuary and coastal productivity and has a systems engineering approach.

The Louisiana State University program is directed.to the salt marshes. The Coherent
Project pattern requires only retitling in specific cases to be a Coastal Zone laboratory
program.

A final observation to be made with regard to the present involvement of universities
in coastal zone research is the point that, in many states, the dominant university with
involvement in coastal zone research is not the State University.

D. General Considerations in Configuring a Coastal Zone Laboratory System

1. Basic Problems

It is difficult to present a unique organizational structure to support the objectives
outlined-above without some knowledge of the ultimate configuration of the Federal and State
jurisdictions which will deal with the coastal zone in the future. On the Federal level
we must, of necessity, consider an appropriate Coastal Zone laboratory network which
might be used effectively within the present organization of the Federal government.
Whatever configuration is adopted, it should be such that it could be easily adjusted to
changes in the organization of other Federal departments. Thus, the solution suggested
should be invariant to the creation of a NOAA. Indeedany solution which is recommended
should be. capable of being subsumed by a NOAA.

The problems of developing a laboratory configuration, "to support Coastal Zone
Authorities to allow them to manage coastal interests more rationally" are even more
difficult than the problems related to the organization of a laboratory configuration to
support the operations and needs of Federal agencies in this area. Since the Panel is
not, and cannot be, familiar with the ultimate structure, functions, or political juris-
dictions of all future Coastal Zone Authorities, it is difficult to foresee how a laboratory
system or network would interact with them.

COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES 23

Certain State organizations'involved in the use of our coastal resources already have
research and engineering organizations affiliated with them. In other cases, one might
imagine that the Coastal Zone laboratories would be a component of the State university
system, a private university or other private institution. Under such circumstances, it
is not clear how a university laboratory would succeed in doing detailed and sustained
technical studies that are necessary to provide information on which the decisions of
Coastal Zone Authorities may be based. Should the Coastal Zone Authority be ineffective
or promulgate decisions not based upon the best scientific and engineering practice, the
Coastal Zone laboratories could serve as an important counterforce through publication
of its research results and conclusions.

While university laboratories may reasonably be expected to carry out a sensible and
comprehensive program of research, with or without the sanction of the Coastal Zone
Authorities, and to undertake certain Ad Hoc studies for Coastal Zone Authorities by
mutual arrangement, it is somewhat difficult to configure a permanent arrangement
whereby university laboratories would, for example, make recommendations on a routine
or sustaining basis or serve the function of a corporate research group for an organization
such as the Port of New York Authority.

Coupling the technological output of Federally sponsored Coastal Zone laboratories to
the decision-making process of Coastal Zone Authorities may be a sufficiently complex
process that one of two alternatives will have to be accepted. Legislation might be written
such that.if a Coastal Zone Authority elected to sponsor a laboratory to assist it in its
work, then the Federal government would pay a proportionate share of the laboratory
operating.funds without any precondition as to standards of operation or quality of labora-
tory performance. Under these conditions Coastal Zone laboratories would be organiza-
tional components of Coastal Zone Authorities and would be funded by a Federal grant
that would be supplemented by matching funds.

The other alternative would be for the Federal government to elect not to sponsor any
laboratory that had the specific mission of assisting Coastal Zone Authorities. The Fed-
eral government might attempt to sponsor Regional Coastal Zone Research Laboratories
with the expectation that these laboratories would be staffed by articulate and influential
members of the scientific and engineering community, who could be counted on to take
the initiative to give appropriate advice when pressing coastal zone issues arose.
4
With regard to the third objective of Federal policy (enhanced support of national
involvement in maritime and coastal affairs), the solution to the problem is considerably
clearer. Here, a reasonable system already exists in the Sea Grant Program. No new
laws are required to set up or to channel money into programs that are designed to stim-
ulate interests in coastal zones. The difficulties that exist are merely matters of the size
of the appropriations that have been devoted to this program'.

A Sea Grant Program tends to accelerate and expand that segment of the research
community that is devoted to coastal zone problems. In addition it increases the oppor-
tunities for graduate and undergraduate study in the area. Finally, it serves as a mech-
anism for training low-level technicians and for attracting people into industries and
activities related to oceanographic affairs..

2. Coastal Zone Areas and Regions

The Panel firmly believes that the purview of the Coastal Zone laboratories
should be regional. Therefore, Coastal Zone laboratories (and hopefully Coastal Zone
Authorities) should be organized on a regional basis. The areas of responsibility of
these laboratories should, where appropriate, transcend the seaward extension of state
boundaries. The designation of coastal zone regions should be based on consideration
of ecological regions, commonality of problems, and geographical factors.

24 COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES

We feel that any organization of Coastal Zone Authorities and Coastal Zone labora-
tories should reflect the -integrity of major coastal zone area, which are in turn composed
of certain well-defined regions. The Panel suggests that the coast of the United States be
considered in terms of 10 major areas:

Northeast Atlantic
Middle Atlantic
Southeast Atlantic
Gulf Coast
Pacific Southwest
Pacific Northwest
Alaska
Hawaii
Great Lakes
PuertoRic o- Virgin Islands

To make proper regional sense, the coastal regions should in some cases transcend
national boundaries. Thus, consideration must be given to the development of Coastal
Zone Authorities that are, where appropriate, international in their areas of responsibility.

a. The Northeast Atlantic Coastal Zone Area

Within the continental United States the Northeast Atlantic area would extend from
the mouth of the St. Croix River (Canadian-U.S. border) to the tip of Montauk Point, Long
Island. If, as the Panel would recommend, coastal zone areas were to be considered
international in scope, then from an ecological viewpoint the entire Canadian coast, from
Cape Sable to the mouth of the St. Croix River, should be included in the Northeast Atlantic
coastal zone region. Possible regions of tht Northeast Atlantic area might include

� The Bay of Fundy-Minas Basin region. This would include the entire Canadian
coastal zone from Cape Sable to the mouth of the St. Croix River.

� The Gulf of Maine coastal zone region. This would include the New England
Coast from the St. Croix River to the coast of Cape Cod, with the dividing line
being approximately at Monomoy Point.

e The Nantucket Sound, Buzzards Bay, Narragansett Bay, Block Island, Long
Island Sound region. This region would include the entire Coast of Massa-
chusetts not included in the Gulf of Maine region and the entire coastal
.regions of Rhode. Island and Connecticut. It would include the entire New
York State Coast from the Throgs Neck Bridge to Montauk Point, including
the Great Peconic Bay and Gardners Bay. Fishers Island, Block Island,
Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket would be included in this region.

b. The Middle Atlantic Coastal Zone Area

The Middle Atlantic coastal zone area would include the entire coastline from
Montauk Point to a seaward extension of the Virginia and. North Carolina border. The
regions of the Middle Atlantic coastal zone region might include:

9 The New York Bight. This region would include the entire New York Bight
from Montauk Point to Cape May, New Jersey. In view of the complexity
of this region, it might be subdivided into the following districts:

9 The Long Island wetlands district.. This district would stretch from
Montauk Point to Far Rockaway.

COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES 25

e The Port of New York District. This district would -include Far Rock-
away, Jamaica Bay, New York Harbor, Newark Bay, the Coast of Staten
Island, Raritan Bay, and all coastlines as far as Sandy Hook, New Jersey.

* The Jersey barrier beaches district. This district would include the
New Jersey Coast from Sandy Hook to Cape May.

9 The Delaware Bay region. This region would include the Coast of New
Jersey, Cape May to the mouth of the Delaware River, and the Coast of
Delaware as far south as Cape Henlopen, Delaware.

e The Delmarva region. This region would include the Delmarva Atlan-
tic Coast Region extending from Cape Henlopen, Delaware to the
Virginia-North Carolina line.

* The Chesapeake Bay region. This region would include Chesapeake
bay proper, and such major estuaries as. the Potomac River, the York
River, the James River, and the Rappahanock River.

c. The Southeast Atlantic Area

This area would extend from the seaward extension of the Virginia-North Carolina
bor.de r southward to the southern tip of the Florida Peninsula. It might be. organized into
three region s:

� The North Carolina region. This region would extend along the entire
coast of North Carolina from the seaward extension of the North Carolina-
Virginia border to the seaward extension of the North Carolina-South
Carolina border. This region would include responsibility for Currituck
Sound, Albemarle Sound, the Pamlico River estuary, and the coastal, off -
shore beaches of North Carolina.

� The South Carolina- Georgia region. This region would include the entire
coast from the seaward extension of the North Carolina-South Carolina
border to the mouth of the St. Mary's River between Georgia and Florida.

� The Florida Atlantic region. This region would extend from the St. Mary's
River, along the coast of Florida to Key West at the extreme southern tip
of the Florida mainland. It would include Florida Bay, the Florida Keys,
and Dry Tortuga.

d. The Gulf Coast Area,

The Gulf area would extend from the southern tip of the Florida Peninsula to the
mouth of the Rio Grande River. If international considerations were to be considered,
this area should probably be extended as far south as Tampico in Mexico. In the Amer-
ican segment of the Gulf Coast three regions would be considered:

e The East Gulf region. This region would include the entire coast of
Florida as far west as the mouth of the Perdido River.

* The Central Gulf Coast region. This region would include the Gulf
Coast from the seaward extension of the Alabama-Florida boundary to
the mouth of the Sabine River, which is the seaward extension of the
Texas-Louisiana boundary.

26 COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES

e The Western Gulf coastal zone region. This region would include the
entire coast of Texas from the mouth of the Sabine River to the mouth
of the Rio Grande.

e. The Pacific Southwest Area

On an ecological basis the Pacific Southwest coastal area should include sections
of the coast of Baja, Calif ornia. In particular, a logical extension of the Pacific Southwest
coastal zone area would extend from the seaward extension of the Ore gon- California bor-
der to Punta Eugenia in Baja, California. This region should consist of three separate
regions.

� The Southern California coastal zone region. This region would extend
from Point Conception to Punta Eugenia,.

� The, Northern California coastal region. This region would extend from
Point Conception to the California-Oregon border.

� The San Francisco Bay coastal zone region.

f. The Pacific Northwest Area

This coastal zone should logically include the entire coast of the states of Oregon
and Washington. The coast of Vancouver Island and associated areas in British Columbia
should, if possible, be included in this region. This coastal zone would be broken into two
regions:

� The Pacific Northwest coastal zone region. This region would include
the Oregon coast, the Pacif ic coast of the State of Washington and the
Pacific Coast of Vancouver Island.

� The Puget Sound region. This region would include all of the coastal
regions bordering the Strait Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and the Strait
of Georgia, including all inlets which enter these waters.

g. The Alaskan Coastal Zone Area

This region should include the entire Canadian and Alaskan Coast from Queen
Charlotte Strait northward. The logical regions of the Alaskan coastal zone region would
include:

a The Gulf of Alaska region. If the coastal zone regions were to be inter-
national in extent, this region would extend from Cape Scott on the north-
west tip of Vancouver Island to Unimak Island. If this were not to be an
international coastal zone region, it would include only the Alaskan coast
as far south as the Canadian-U.S. border.

� The Aleutian Island coastal zone region. This region would include all
of the Aleutian Islands west of Unimak.

� The Bering Sea region. This region would include all of the Alaskan
coast f rom Unimak Island to Point Hope. St. Lawrence Island and Nunivak
Island would also be included.

� The Alaskan Arctic region. This region would extend eastward f rom
Point Hope to the Canadian-U.S. border.

COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES 27

h. The Hawaiian Island Coastal Zone Area

The Hawaiian Island coastal zone area@ would include the entire coastal zone of the
Hawaiian Archipelago.

i. The Great Lakes Coastal Zone Area

The Great Lakes coastal zone area would include all five of the Great Lakes. The
relevant Coastal Zone Authorities would, with one exception, be international in character.
Because each of the Great Lakes represents a separate ecological problem, it is suggested
that this area be divided into five separate regions:

� The Lake Superior coastal zone region.

� The Lake Michigan coastal zone region.

� The Lake Huron coastal zone region. This region would include Lake
St. Clair, North Channel, and the Georgian Bay.

� The Lake Erie coastal zone region.

� The Lake Ontario coastal zone region.

The Puerto Rico-Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Area

This would include the entire coastline of Puerto ]Rico and the Virgin Islands.

3. Multidisciplinary vs Single-Purpose Agency Laboratories

Laboratories are normally organized to encompass either a single professional
discipline or they are multidisciplinary in character. Multidisciplinary laboratories are
typically set up by major corporations to act as a corporation-wide research center for
all corporate components or subgroupings.

It is the strongly expressed view of the Panel that Federal Coastal Zone Laboratories
should be multidisciplinary in scope. They should be so organized and so staffed that they
can be responsive to the needs and problems of the many Federal agencies that are involved
in coastal zone matters. It is the Panel's feeling that a broadly based approach to coastal
zone problems is far superior to an approach based upon laboratories that are organized
about a single discipline or the needs of a single agency in pursuit of its mission.

Multidisciplinary groupings have traditionally provided considerable interdisciplinary
cross fertilization and they have proven to be one of the hallmarks of all successful cor-
porate laboratories. For example, fishery environmental research without adequate geo-
logical or hydrological support can lead to incomplete or erroneous conclusions. Such
studies are more efficiently and more competently performed if there are groups within
one organization that are broadly based. Major disciplines such as marine biology, zool-
ogy, geology, hydrology, chemical and physical oceanography, and engineering should be
part of most Federal Coastal Zone Laboratories. Many of these laboratories also must
have capabilities in systems ecology and for working with mathematical and physical
models. The interdisciplinary character of such laboratories would give the Coastal Zone
Authorities access to a broadly based group capable of commenting on various aspects of
problems as they evolve, and also capable of suggesting alternative solutions to proposals
that threaten coastal zone resources or processes.

28 COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES

The major difficulty associated with the support of a multidisciplinary laboratory is
the fact that recipients of the knowledge are often interested in the output of only one
component of the laboratory. Thus, if all Coastal Zone laboratories were multidisci-
plinary in character, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries would still be interested pri-
marily in the research related to fisheries. It would not be in a position to fund or spon-
sor research whose final product would more properly be of interest to the Corps of
Engineers or to the Geological Survey.

Despite some of the well known shortcomings of multidisciplinary laboratories, the
Panel feels that broadly based laboratories are nonetheless desirable. Coastal zone prob-
lems are sufficiently complex that they form a basis for synthesizing the research effort
of many basic scientif ic disciplines. One would hope that through the matrix of multi-
disciplinary Coastal Zone laboratories a confluence of technical studies would result
which would produce a basis of knowledge and information to allow us to manage our
coastal zone areas in an optimal manner.

4. Size, Number, and Critical Mass Considerations for Coastal
Zone Laboratories

The Panel believes that the Coastal Zone laboratory network should show a con-
gruence of areas of interest with coastal zone areas and regions and with the jurisdictions
of Coastal Zone Authorities. At the Federal level, Coastal Zone laboratories should be
devoted to problems in relatively large areas, while at the state or university level the
laboratory organization should be based on coastal zone regions. The Federal laboratories
should be interdisciplinary in character and should have enough staff competence, physical
facilities@ and breadth of intellectual interest to execute a useful program of research in-
volving all aspects of a coastal, zone area. Laboratories for coastal zone regions, which
would be oriented to problems of a local nature, would not necessarily have to be as
broadly based in the technical disciplines as the major area laboratories. On the other
hand, they should not be restricted only to specific research needs of the region.

The proper size of the staff of a coastal zone laboratory can be estimated only approx-
imately. Clearly, the appropriate staff size would depend on whether or not the laboratory
was involved in area or regional problems, and also upon such factors as whether a labora-
tory was a single-purpose laboratory or a multidisciplinary laboratory. At a multidisci-
plinary laboratory devoted to research, the organizational structure is normally based on
research subgroups that are oriented towards a single professional discipline. To achieve
criticality of research productivity and intellectual vitality, these research subgroups
should have a minimum of about 15 or 20 professionals. This figure is based on the orga-
nizational experiences of many government and private laboratories. If eight to ten sepa-
rate disciplines are pursued in a multidisciplinary laboratory, then a good size for a pro-
fessional staff would be-between 150 and 200.

In successful major laboratories, the professional staff is typically supported by
approximately one and one-half support personnel per professional staff member. This
figure is not absolute and clearly will vary greatly with the nature of the work. Thus, it
would appear that an appropriate staff size for a Federal Coastal Zone Area Laboratory
that pursues ten separate disciplines would be 400 or 500 people.

The costs of such a laboratory would vary greatly with the nature of the work carried
but and the expense of supporting facilities. Typically, it is found that approximately $35
to $40 thousand is required to support one direct charge research scientist. This figure
would include the scientist's salary and a proportional share of the expenses of overhead
employees, the cost of minor procurements, supplies, travel, etc. Thus, for a laboratory
with a 200-man professional staff, an annual operating budget of approximately $7 to $8
million a year would be required. For a national network with 10 Federal Area Coastal

COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES 29

Zone Laboratories, an annual budget of the order of $70 to $80 million would therefore be
required. The cost of operating research ships or procuring special facilities would not
be included in the costs outlined above. It should be noted that the nucleusfor such facil-
ities now exists. In some cases, such as the Federal complex at Narragansett, the existing
facilities are already adequate to serve as a Federal Coastal Zone Area Laboratory.

It is the view of the Panel that laboratories which are connected with coastal zone
regions should either be university oriented or should be directly affiliated with Coastal
Zone Authorities. Because of the variability of problems in different regions, these lab-
oratories would not necessarily encompass as many disciplines as would be encompassed
in a Federal Area Coastal Zone Laboratory. These regional laboratories would of necessity
be somewhat smaller in overall size than the area laboratories. Nonetheless, the unit sub-
group size, which would define the number of investigators involved in the study of a given
discipline, would probably be about the same.

The budgetary support required for professionals devoted to regional problems would
not differ appreciably from the budgetary requirements of major area laboratories. The
same rules of thumb obtain. If there were a total of approximately 30 regions, approxi-
mately 20 to 25 might have separate laboratory systems. One can assume that, for pur-
poses of planning, regional laboratories would have annual budgets of approximately $3 to
$4 million. Thus, the network would require an annual expenditure of between $75 and
$100 million.

As a rough guess, the overall annual operating cost for all Coastal Zone laboratories,
both area and regional, would be between $150 and $200 million a year. Much of this money
would already by included in existing appropriations.

5. Administrative Considerations Relative to Coastal Zone Laboratories

a. Agency sponsorship

A Coastal Zone laboratory "network" which is appropriately sized to reflect
the Nation's coastal zones management problems will be a large-scale undertaking. If a
comprehensive approach is undertaken at the Federal level then the laboratory network
should be administered and sponsored from a relatively senior level within the sponsoring
agency. As ultimately envisaged in this report, approximately three approaches to the
Coastal Zone laboratory problem should be undertaken.

One approach sees a Federal laboratory effort which would centralize multidisci-
plinary research in a number of area Coastal Zone laboratories. These laboratories
would undertake research and technological development programs -for bureau-level agen-
cies and would represent a consolidation of research functions of several bureaus. Ideally,
the Federal Area Coastal Zone Laboratory System (FACZLS) should report to its parent
department at the level of an Assistant Secretary for Research and Development. These
laboratories would represent corporate research centers which would attend to departmental-
wide problems in a given coastal zone region.

If no major departmental reorganization is undertaken within the Federal government,
then the area Coastal Zone laboratories should come under the purview of the Department
of Interior. The area Coastal Zone laboratories would initially represent a consolidation
of all Department of Interior laboratories and research functions having significant involve-
ment in coastal zone matters. As these laboratories develop stature and capability, other
Federal research efforts associated with the needs of bureaus outside of the Department
of Interior should be collocated on the sites of the Federal area Coastal Zone laboratories.
Various host-tenant relationships can be developed between the regional laboratory and the
other agencies. The major laboratory complex might gradually assume responsibility for

30 COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES

physical facilities, for the procurement of research equipment, accounting, payroll, and
common user facilities such as libraries, computers, data storage, banks, etc.

Historically when Federal sponsorship is involved, considerable local pressure usu-
ally arises when any attempt is made to consolidate laboratories or their functions. Be-
cause such. 'political realities" cannot be ignored, it is the Panel's view that the process
of consolidating laboratories would require a period of several years for full implementation.
Nonetheless, all appropriate Federal research and development functions within a major
coastal zone region should be moved to central locations as rapidly as possible. The ex-
cess laboratory sites would be downgraded to the status of field stations which would be
subordinate to. the central regional laboratory group. As the process of attrition takes
place, the field sites would be phased out or maintained at a minimal level necessary to
expedite research of a highly localized nature. In the meantime, a moratorium should be
called on the construction of new coastal zone type laboratories.

In the event of a reorganization along the lines recommended in the Commission
report, then it would seem necessary and proper to assign these Area Coastal Zone Lab-
oratories to NOAA. Presumably, NOAA would be organized in a manner that would par-
allel a cabinet level Federal department. A single Office should be established in NOAA
to direct the, laboratory system. This office would be responsible for continuity of funds,
long-term development of physical facilities, long-term planning, program review, and
other functions normally provided by an office for centralized laboratory management.

Nongovernment laboratories sponsored to encourage an expansion of national com-
petence in coastal zone affairs will in all probability be university or university associated
laboratories. Clearly, the National Science Foundation would be the proper mechanism for
the administration of such laboratory groups until a NOAA is created. For each region, the
National Science Foundation would establish core facilities at selected institutions. It would
fund and review programs on a regional basis to assure that the interests of the region are
being responded to in a proper manner and that the quality of research and technological
development was appropriate to the regional problem.

b. Funding

The problems of funding a Coastal Zone laboratory network are in many respects
quite similar to those of funding University/National laboratories.

For those Coastal Zone laboratories that are Federal in character, the pattern of
funding should be such that some operating funds are supplied in a block from the parent
agency. These funds should be sufficient to cover most of the overhead employees (guards,
librarians, computer operators, ship crews, administrative staff, etc.) and to provide for
the upkeep of physical facilities. Approximately one-fourth to one-third of the funds avail-
able to the Federal Area Coastal Zone Laboratory should be used to generate and prose-
cute internally generated programs.

In addition to the independent research and development funds, a very significant
fraction of the center's funds should come from bureau-level sponsoring agencies which
have mission- oriented research that they wish to have undertaken. Bureau funds would
be somewhat competitive in nature in that the sponsoring bureaus or agencies would not
have a mandatory requirement to fund research activities at a particular Area Coastal
Zone Laboratory. Past experience has shown that when a modified free enterprise system
is instituted at a Government laboratory, the vitality of the organization appears to increase
greatly.- Thus, to insure survival, individual Federal laboratories would have to demon-
strate their responsiveness to the needs of sponsoring bureaus and agencies.

Provision should also be, made so that the Federal laboratories can receive funds
from a multiplicity of agencies. Thus, while a Federal Area Coastal Zone Laboratory

COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES 31

might be operated by either NOAA or by the Department of Interior, it should be able to
receive funds from NASA, AEC, or the Public Health Service, as well as from those bureaus
which constitute the component parts of NOAA or the Department of Interior. This procedure
would allow Government agencies to shop for research support and would put pressure on
the laboratories to do work that is responsive to overall Federal needs.

Funds in support of university- associated Regional Coastal Zone Laboratories must
also have a certain degree of long-term stability. The arrangements between the National
Science Foundation and these laboratories would not necessarily guarantee an annual bud-
get. However, a commitment would exist on the part of the Federal government to support
certain core facilities that are necessary for the operation of the laboratory. Individual
laboratories would be able to apply to their normal sponsors for funds to support specific
research programs that would be appropriate for coastal zone research in their region of
interest. These laboratories would be able to accept funds from Coastal Zone Authorities,
Federal agencies, and from private sources such as university endowments. The ability to
have multiple sponsorship and to be essentially guaranteed institutional stability would in-
sure that these groups would maintain a vigorous independence which would allow them to
provide totally unbiased research and advice free of overt political pressure.

c. Congruence with Coastal Zone Authority Jurisdictions

Any configuration of Federally sponsored Regional Coastal Zone Laboratories must
be organized in reasonable congruence with the jurisdictions of Coastal Zone Authorities.
It is extremely important to develop a commonality of authority, jurisdiction, and regional
focus for coastal zone research programs. It is felt that local interests will be best served
if research is sponsored on a regional basis. Specialized research, knowledge, and obser-
vation will then be available, and there will be little question of local problems being set-
tled by "outsiders" who are not familiar with the local situation. Further, if Regional
Coastal Zone Laboratories are organized along lines which parallel the jurisdiction of
Coastal Zone Authorities, then the local State governments will be able to appropriate
funds for laboratory organizations which fall within State interests.

Federally sponsored laboratories should be organized only on the basis of major
coastal zone areas. The Federal government has coastal zone responsibilities and inter-
ests which exceed, in geographic extent, those of the States. In addition, because many
coastal zones should be considered in consonance with the coastal zones of contiguous
foreign countries, the Federal government must organize a laboratory program to include
international groupings.

If the Federal government does not have the resources to organize ten Area Coastal
Zone Laboratories, it might begin by organizing laboratories which would serve two or
three contiguous coastal zone areas (e.g., there might be one Coastal Zone Laboratory
for the Pacific coast, one for the Great Lakes, one for the Atlantic, and one for the Gulf
coast). Hopefully, Federal research interests and funding resources can be particu-
larized to the broad and natural ecological regions which exist in each coastal zone area.

d. Program Review and Evaluation

Any Federally sponsored program must be subject to a process of program re-
view and evaluation in order to determine whether the national needs are being served in
an optimum manner. Since various laboratory forms will exist within the network of
Coastal Zone laboratories, various mechanisms must be used for program review and
evaluation.

It is recommended that within each major coastal zone area an annual review take
place. This review will be accomplished by a board composed or representatives of spon-
soring agencies within the Federal government, representatives of each of the regional

32 COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES

Coastal Zone Authorities, and represehtatives from the academic community in other
coastal zone regions. The work of all of Coastal Zone laboratories, both Federal and
university -affiliated, should be subject to a single comprehensive review program. This
review program should require the laboratories to outline the research accomplished
during the past year, the major problems of the current year, and future research to be
undertaken. An evaluation should be submitted defining the technical import of the lab-
oratories' findings.

The regional review process should evaluate the adequacy of the work relative to
the regional problems and it should make recommendations as to the appropriate level of
effort that should take place in future years. In so doing, a well defined rationale for the
level of effort should be developed. It is anticipated that this rationale would have con-
siderable local sponsorship and endorsement.

The senior agency which sponsors and controls the national coastal zone program
would submit an annual report to Congress which would outline the laboratory accom-
plishments and set forth the program needs for the forthcoming year. This agency would
defend the relative, allocation of funds to different components of the overall national
coastal zone program.

The comprehensive regional research review would take place after other reviews
have occurred at lower levels. Thus, all research proposals from groups within local
regions would be subject to a well defined process of evaluation. Peer groups from other
regions should review the research program and make recommendations to the sponsoring
agencies.

Subordinate reviews should be made on both a programmatic and disciplinary basis.
Programmatic reviews should be undertaken by sponsoring agencies in those aspects of
the laboratory's mis sion- oriented work in which the agencies are most interested.

e. Flexibility of Operation at Federal Laboratories

. The Panel believes that research efforts at Federally operated Coastal Zone lab-
oratories will not be successful unless the laboratories are granted considerable flexi-
bility of operation. While a number of Federal laboratories have outstanding records of
scientific success and productivity, one can also point to the rather dismal records of
certain Federal research establishments. The poor quality of the latter laboratories is
usually attributed to one or more of the following causes:

� Artificial constraints on personnel in both numbers and grade level,
which result in an inability to attract, promote, and hold talented
individuals.

� Inadequate financial and technical support which frequently results in
talented scientists being unable to carry out their programs because
the resources available to them are simply inadequate to the tasks.

� Cumbersome centralized control and reporting systems which encour-
age people to make minimum technical innovations, rather than attempt
to upgrade or to change the program.

To be successful, a Federal laboratory should have reasonable continuity of funds for
its core program, a relatively simple after-the-fact reporting and review system for at
least part of its program, and a certain amount of funds available for programs that are
developed by the laboratory staff on a speculative basis. In addition, budgetary and ceiling-
point constraints should be sufficiently relaxed that reasonable people can be attracted and

COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES 33

held. The poorer Federal laboratories are normally characterized by very low average-
GS-grade levels. As a result, they cannot compete for, or retain, either senior or com-
petent people. If overall ceiling controls must be established, then the total number of
Federal laboratories. should be reduced so that a relatively few competent laboratories
can be kept at a critical level. - In the past, many Federal laboratories suffered from being
marginal in both personnel and budgetary support levels. By consolidation of budgetary
and ceiling point resources, critical size laboratories can be established.

Federally- operated Coastal Zone laboratories should not be totally captive to a single
bureau or agency. Total dependence on a single parent organization at the bureau level
tends to be extremely restrictive to the operation of a laboratory. The laboratory admin-
istration has very little flexibility and must, in some sense, be overly responsive to the
parent agency. The more successful laboratories in the Federal government are operated
under circumstances which allow the local laboratory management considerable indepen-
dence by apportioning a significant amount of unprogrammed funds which can be used
according to the internal dictates of the laboratory. The performance achieved from
these funds is reviewed after the fact. It is recommended that Federally sponsored Coastal
Zone laboratories be operated in this pattern.

f. Long-Term Planning

The concept of a network of Coastal Zone laboratories implies central direction
and review. Above and beyond such factors as the interchange and comparison of programs
and the common use of facilities, a network of Coastal Zone laboratories should be char-
acterized by common long-term planning at a departmental level. Thus, within the depart-
ment which is ultimately assigned responsibility for overseeing the operation of the coastal
zone network, a group should be established to provide long-term plans for the development
of new competences and facilities. A planning group should exist which can make overall
projections of manpower, budget, and facility requirements for the departmental laboratory
system. These plans should be centralized within a single program for presentation to
Congress on a yearly basis. For the case of Federally operated Coastal Zone laboratories,
agency competition for funds to build new physical facilities would be eliminated by cen-
tralizing the planning function at a departmental level.

In addition to the planning, which would be carried out for Federally operated labora-
tories, long-term planning would also be required for the university -associated Coastal
Zone laboratories. The National Science Foundation, or other principal sponsors, would
be required to submit, on an annual basis, a realistic projection of the growth, develop-
ment, and budgetary needs for the following five years. The projections of the National
Science Foundation would have to be coordinated with the projections for the Federal
laboratories.

The planning function would not affect research decisions per se. It is clearly recog-
nized that good research does not result from following plans that were laid out five years
previously. The objective of centralized planning is to achieve facilities and staff size that
are in consonance with the available resources and that represent the optimum allocation
of resources which can be made available to the Coastal Zone laboratories.

II. AVAILABLE OPTIONS

In order to implement the propaedeutics discussed above, the Federal government has
a number of options which might be pursued. These are discussed below in two contexts
(e.g., support of Federal agencies, support of Coastal Zone Authorities).

34 COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES

A. Coastal Zone Laboratory Configurations to Support Federal Agencies
and Their Missions
1. Consolidated, Multidisciplinary Coastal Zone Laboratories
Concept
The Federal Government would consolidate all coastal zone research and techno-
logical undertakings into one or more centralized Coastal Zone Laboratories whose mis-
,sions are to carry out multidisciplinary research related to the management and under-
standing of the coastal zones of our Nation. A number of suboptions would be subsumed
under this context.
e Form one single department-wide Coastal Zone laboratory which would
synthesize all of the research carried out by various Federal agencies
relatedJo the coastal zones.

e Form a number of centers organized about large regional interests. In
this case, approximately four Coastal Zone laboratories would be created
to cover the Pacific coast, the Great Lakes, the Atlantic coast, and the
Gulf coast.

9 Create one central multidisciplinary laboratory for each of thei major
coastal zone areas defined above.

Whatever suboption is selected, management of the Federal Coastal Zone laboratory
system should be centralized at the level of an Assistant Secretary of a major Federal
department. If there were to be no reorganization of our Nation's maritime effort, then
this Federal Coastal Zone laboratory system would be centralized in the Department of
the Interior, and each of these laboratories would be known as a Department of Interior
Area Coastal Zone Laboratory. If a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency were
created, then it would presumably have control of the proposed laboratory network.

Advantages

This configuration would allow the Federal government to aggregate its research
activities into units of critical size which could be given a central focus. Broadly based
activity would take place in these centers. Because of the intellectual cross-fertilization
which could be anticipated, a high grade of research and technological achievements could
be anticipated. In addition, a reasonable economy of costs would be achieved as a result
of the consolidation of certain overhead functions. Finally, research could be undertaken
on a broadly based technological scale that is not presently available in Federal labora-
tories which operate in support of the mission of a single bureau. Research on local prob-
lems would generally be relegated to Regional Coastal Zone Laboratories.

Disadvantages

Multidisciplinary, broadly based laboratories tend to be somewhat diffuse in their
support of the mission of any individual agency. Establishment of a multidisciplinary
laboratory would tend to disrupt a number of very excellent working relationships which
currently obtain between bureau-level organizations and their support laboratories. The
possible diffusion of effort which might result from an attempt to serve many bureaus
might tend to weaken the support given to individual Federal agencies. In addition, Con-
gress reviews the budget at the bureau level rather than at the departmental level. As a
result, the present budget structure, and the Congressional review process associated
with it, would be subject to considerable and rather painful revision. Because bureau
level activities would no longer have a specific responsibility for the maintenance of a
laboratory effort, the degree to which these agencies would fight for support of laboratory
funds is unclear.

COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES 35

Consolidation of function into central research laboratories would represent a loss of
a considerable amount of local concern and knowledge. While the present Federal labora-
tories are frequently subject to the criticism of being undersized and diffuse, it is clear
that the Federal laboratories in some cases do have a considerable involvement with ex-
tremely local problems. Centralization of research and development, with the concom-
itant abandonment of outlying facilities, would represent a change in past practices. The
Federal laboratories would no longer be able to particularize their research to relatively
local problems.

2. Maintain and Strengthen Federal Laboratories which Support the
Mission of Single Agencies.

Concept

Under this concept, the Federal government would maintain the present organi-
zational relationship between bureau-level agencies and their existing research and
development laboratories. While certain consolidations and efficiencies would presum-
ably be effected, the resulting laboratory network would still be dedicated to the support
of a single agency. For example, a number of the present laboratories run by the Bureau
of Commercial Fisheries might be agglomerated into somewhat larger individual units
and organized on broader ecological and geographical bases. However, the final labora-
tory configuration would still be oriented towards serving the needs of the Bureau of Com-
mercial Fisheries.

Advantages

This arrangement would allow agencies which have statutory responsibilities to be
assured of continued technical support. Internal organizational changes could be made to
improve efficiency. A series of laboratories dedicated'to serving the mission of a parent
bureau would exist. This would be more or less a continuation of the status quo and would
allow existing Congressional review processes to continue. The laboratories would con-
tinue to receive their total support from their parent bureau. It is anticipated that the
parent bureau would wage a vigorous campaign for the budgetary and facilities support
of the laboratories because of the bureau identification with the laboratories.

Disadvantages

This option would essentially fail to change the status quo in a substantive way.
It would represent a continuation of the present fragmented responsibility for both the
research and the administration of various components of our coastal zone problems.
Indeed, even if the existing laboratories were to be consolidated into technically more
efficient units, the fact that they would still be oriented towards the needs of a single
sponsoring agency would tend to discourage a broadly based multidisciplinary attack with
a central focus on the overall problems of a particular coastal zone region.

3. Operate a Contract Research Program to Support the Objectives
of Mis sion- Oriented Agencies.

Concept

Under this proposal, the Federal government would downgrade the role and respon-
sibilities of its in-house laboratories in matters related to coastal zone research. As these
laboratories would suffer cumulative attrition, Federal agencies would obtain research and
technological support through the mechanism of a contract research program at univer-
sities, at nonprofit research centers, or at industrial laboratories. The model that would
be followed here would be that of the contract research program of the Office of Naval
Research. It would represent the predominant mode of the Federal government's partic-
ipation in coastal zone research and technology.

36 COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES

Advantages

The advantages of this option are that the sponsoring agencies would be free to
contract with those organizations which are most competent to satisfy their research
needs. The Federal government would not bear a long-term responsibility for the staff
of Coastal Zone laboratories, nor would it be required to procure support for special-
purpose facilities. In addition, because research contracts would be awarded compet-
itively, the competition so engendered might stimulate a high level of technical perfor-
mance. This procedure would remove all the inflexible constraints that frequently occur
when the Federal government attempts to accomplish its research with in-house organi-
zations. The research capabilities of laboratories which did the research would not be
based on artificial limitations as to grade level or ceiling,points. In a larger sense, it
might be assumed that this option would go far toward stimulating the growth of a research
industry in the United States which was oriented toward coastal zone research. Thus, the
Federal government might achieve through this policy the twin objectives of supporting
its own coastal zone decisions and of encouraging the existence of a research complex
devoted to coastal zone matters. Finally, because the Federal government often finds
that it is uneconomic to develop and to retain personnel with exotic technological special-
ties, these could be secured on a consulting basis, only as needed. As a result, there
would not be a need to support highly specialized research personnel whose activities
are only of occasional value to the Federal government's program.

Disadvantages

This option would fail to provide the continuity and long-term dedicated support
which is found in the more successful Federal laboratories. A certain degree of pressure
always exists when research is subject to competitive bidding among many organizations.
Organizations which hope to compete for research contracts tend to slant their proposals
and their results in a way which they feel will iconform to the presumed prejudices and
known opinions of the sponsoring agency. As a result, the quality of research available
to the Federal government might deteriorate. In addition, because contracts would exist
either on a project or a yearly renewal basis, the Federal government would have no
repository of personnel with broad backgrounds and cumulative skills in the areas of
interest. The cumulative experience and corporate memory which is found in the better
in-house laboratories would be lost. The Federal government would be extremely depen-
dent upon the skill and ability of contract administrators in parent agencies rather than
upon the capabilities of serious and dedicated working scientists in a Federal research
laboratory.

4. Smithsonian Model

Concept

Under this concept, the Federal government would establish a number of labora-
tories that would be administered by either an organization modeled on the pattern of the
Smithsonian, or by the Smithsonian itself. Multidisciplinary regional laboratories might
be established within the concept of a "Federal University Structure." The operation of
these laboratories would follow the pattern set by the present research component of the
Smithsonian Institution.

Advantages

The Smithsonian's mode of operation gives the Federal government considerable
flexibility in that the operation involves components that are both under the Civil Service
system and outside of the system. Many of the difficulties related to Civil Service oper-
ation are thus obviated. In addition, the Smithsonian has sufficient prestige and seniority

COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES 37

within the Government that it reports to the President at a level that is approximately
equivalent to a Cabinet-level agency. The traditions of the Smithsonian for carrying out
research programs are well established, and thus there is a reasonable prognosis for
research being conducted at a competent level.

Disadvantages

Under this model, the responsiveness of the laboratory organization to the spon-
soring agency would be unclear. The laboratory would not be a component of any depart-
ment or bureau which had an operational responsibility for coastal zone management. The
applied aspects of research in the coastal zone might be considerably diluted. In addition,
the Nation has had no experience in the operation of a Smithsonian- type research organi-
zation on a scale which would be required for an appropriate national attack on coastal
zone problems. If the magnitude of the effort required $150 to $200 million a year, the
managerial capabilities and techniques of a Smithsonian type of management would have
to change substantially. The sheer magnitude of the operation would probably cause it to
evolve in a manner so that the operation would closely parallel normal Federal laboratory
management techniques. As a result, the country would have a laboratory system with a
number of disadvantages unique to this form of organization, but without some of the
advantages which obtain in the better Federal laboratories.

B. Regional Coastal Zone Laboratory Configurations in Support of
Coastal Zone Authorities

The Panel anticipates that Coastal Zone Authorities will consider and attempt to re-
solve problems related to an extremely wide spectrum of activities associated with off -
shore development. The following subjects would presumably be appropriate for Coastal
Zone Authority attention:

� The provision of sufficient and appropriate marine recreational facilities to
state residents

� The maintenance of local water quality

� Maintenance of high-level concentrations of living marine resources

� The recovery of underwater mineral wealth

� The prevention of beach erosion

� The creation of modern transportation facilities

� The provision of information to permit a proper mixture of development
and uses that recognize equally the laws of ecology along with those of
thermodynamics, supply and demand, etc.

� Keeping long-term options open.

It is obvious that no laboratory system can be uniquely structured which can focus on
all of these problems. The development of a laboratory system which will reflect the
structure of the Coastal Zone Authorities, which historically have originated via political
considerations, represents an additional complication. Furthermore, some Coastal Zone
Authorities are extremely provincial in makeup while others, like the Chesapeake Bay
Authority, are interstate in character. This consideration introduces an even more
difficult restraint in developing a,laboratory structure.

38 COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES

On the other hand there are certain features that all estuarine and coastal zone lab-
oratories should have in common. In general, they all should have an applied orientation.
The types of problems that are appropriate for their attention are those for which imme-
diate solutions are required. In providing the scientific backup for coastal zone manage-
ment, these laboratories should be immune from political pressure. Because intelligent
coastal zone management requires a mixture of information concerning the biology, geol-
ogy, and hydrology of the coastal zone, it is desirable that these laboratories be multi-
disciplinary in scope..

1. Maintain and Strengthen Present Laboratories

Concept

@The present system of coastal zone and estuarine laboratories would be strength-
ened and developed through increased funding, and the laboratories would be encouraged
to engage in multidisciplinary attacks on local problems. Many of these laboratories are
already a part of local State universities and are eligible for Sea Grant support. New
facilities appropriate to local needs would be federally financed and constructed to in-
crease the capabilities and scope of these local laboratories. A series of scholarships
could be provided so that a steady flow of trained coastal zone scientists would be main-
tained. A loosely composed network of these laboratories would be established, based
on supplementary central funding (Federal) and review. Intpraction between those lab-
oratories would be encouraged by an exchange of personnel and equipment and by spon-
soring interlaboratory seminars.

Advantages

Generally speaking, solutions to local problems can be provided with more dis-
patch by specific attention to these problems from estuarine laboratories with more local
missions and interests. The responsibilities of the state and local authorities toward such
research would be unimpaired by this option. Local funding, and consequently local inter-
est, in the health and vigor of the Regional Coastal Zone Laboratory would be maintained.
Upgrading of the research facilities would result in a concomitant upgrading of research
activities in an evolutionary manner with minimal upheaval. Since local problems would
be given primary attention, little overlap would occur and the tedious process of coor-
dination of research activities would be unnecessary.

This option would be best suited to insure close cooperation between Coastal Zone
Authorities and Regional Coastal Zone Laboratories. The presently existing array of
"regional" Coastal Zone laboratories has developed as a result of a combination of polit-
ical and economic pressures and is therefore most responsive to local requirements.

Disadvantages

The rather fragmented and unrelated coastal zone and estuarine research now
being employed would be perpetuated by the adoption of this option. Local laboratories
would be upgraded uniformly, and all existing laboratories would grow in a fashion unre-
lated to their potential or quality. Local problems would continue to receive emphasis,
and only short-range solutions to immediate problems would result. More basic, and
consequently more important, questions such as estuarine classification would remain
unattended. Unique and costly facilities would be duplicated at various research insti-
tutions, and there would not be efficient utilization of such facilities.

COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES 39

2. Area Coastal Zone Laboratories

Concept

The coastal zones of the United States would be arbitrarily divided into the ten
geographic regions enumerated previously. In each of the major coastal zone areas, a
central Coastal Zone laboratory would be developed. Preferably, it would be located in
the vicinity of, or contiguous to, some local university with coastal zone interests. At
this Regional Coastal Zone Laboratory, research activities, cutting across State interests
4_' but pertaining to that region, would be initiated. Mathematical models of the local bio-
logical and ecological conditions would be developed. In addition, studies of air-sea
interactions, human effects on coastal zones, marine geology, and the determination of
mineral potential would be investigated.

Interactions between these central regional laboratories and the local laboratories
would be encouraged through the use of shared facilities, manpower, and program devel-
opment. Financial assistance would be made available to the existing laboratories through
a Sea Grant type of organization.

Advantages

Local estuaries and coastal zone laboratories would be encouraged to continue
their research on local problems, but at the same time they would be encouraged to widen
their scope of activity through their interactions with the Regional Coastal Zone Labora-
tory. The Area Coastal Zone Laboratory would be the focal point of research activity
in each area. In addition, it would coordinate its scientific activities with those of other
area and regional laboratories. By this means, a network of interacting coastal zone and
estuarine laboratories would be established.

Unique and expensive facilities would be housed at the area laboratory and would be
made available to all the local regional laboratories in that area. Efficient utilization of
such shared facilities would be insured by user committees. Work of a more involved
nature, beyond the capability of an individual local laboratory, would be undertaken at the
area laboratory, or it would be divided into problem areas which could be handled by local
laboratories.

Disadvantages

The division of the major coastal zone areas has been made primarily on a geo-
graphic basis. It would be difficult for Coastal Zone Authorities (which are structured
to reflect local needs) to interact with a central Area Coastal Zone Laboratory. Many
Coastal Zone Authorities might be associated with an individual Area Coastal Zone Lab-
oratory. Consequently, it would be difficult for that laboratory to respond effectively to
the myriad problems which would be presented for solution by the many associated Coastal
Zone Authorities. Difficulties of problem selections would be present with this plan.

Unique facilities would be available only at the Area Coastal Zone Laboratory and
would not be duplicated at the local laboratories. As a result there would be some ten-
dency toward maintaining the inferior status of some of the smaller local laboratories.
This might occur as the result of good people leaving the local laboratories for the Area
Coastal Zone Laboratories with their superior facilities.

40 COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES

3. Area and Regional Coastal Zone Laboratories

Concept

A two-tiered system composed of both Area and Regional Coastal Zone Labora-
tories would be established and structured to focus on coastal zone and estuarine needs
at both an area and a regional level.

The regional laboratories would be given the responsibility of supplying the science
and technology necessary for the management of the local coastal zones. Furthermore,
solutions to offshore problems of purely local concern would be the responsibility of the
Regional Coastal Zone Laboratories. Although only local problems will be examined, a
multidisciplinary approach would be encouraged. Financing would originate at the Federal,
State and; hopefully, local level.

In each major area, an Area Coastal Zone Laboratory would also be established.
Here, offshore coastal and estuarine zone problems of either a more general or a more
difficult nature would be examined. At the Area Coastal Zone Laboratory, unique and/or
costly facilities would be housed which would be available to scientists at all laboratories,
including the private, the regional, and the subregional Coastal Zone laboratories. Federal
block funding would be used for staff salaries as well as for providing and maintaining the
unique, facilities.

Advantages

.The two-level approach to coastal zone research provides a plan which is most
responsive to local needs, yet can also attend to national, more general, and less im-
mediate (but important) coastal zone research needs. The interaction of the Coastal
Zone Authorities with the Regional Coastal Zone Laboratories should be exceptionally'
strong, since the interests of both groups are identical and focused on the same geo-
graphic region. Hence, local problems should receive very rapid attention and subse-
quent action. A grass-roots interest in maintaining the vigor and strength of the regional
laboratory would be likely, and State and local financing of research needs would probably
result. There would probably be Congressional support for local laboratories of the sort
described by this option, because the impact of a local laboratory, attending to local needs,
would be directly felt by the local community.

Disadvantages

The primary disadvantage of this laboratory system would be its high cost. If
an area and a regional laboratory were to be considered for each of the areas and regions
described above, then up to a total of 37 laboratories could be designated (27 regional and
10 area laboratories). The cost of such an undertaking would be large, but a substantial
amount already exists in present appropriations.

A second problem associated with this option is the assignment of local problem-
solving as'the appropriate research activity of the regional laboratories. Although this
is a necessary aspect of all Coastal Zone laboratories, the lack of research program
depth would be stifling to most good scientists. The initiative to develop and expand
research programs would be lacking, since, as the program attained depth and scope, it
would be diverted to the attention of the larger Regional Coastal Zone Laboratories.

In addition, the more unique and, most likely, the more sophisticated laboratory
facilities would exist for the most part at the Area Coastal Zone Laboratories. Such an
attraction, coupled with the lesser program scope at the regional laboratories, could
make it difficult to hold the better scientists at the regional laboratories. Hence, some
regional laboratories would never be truly much more than marginal operations.

COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES 41

C. Other Options

There are, of course, a significant number of variations to either of these two options,
with attendant advantages and disadvantages. These would include such procedures as the
division of the research of the United States into four (NE, NW, SE, SW) or perhaps only
two (Atlantic and Pacific) coastal regions with an equal number of central regional labo-
ratories. Another possible procedure would be to select from each area the most out-
standing Coastal Zone laboratory for designation as the central area laboratory. This
would make unnecessary the construction of a new laboratory, but it would necessitate
4:7 the development of criteria for the selection of such lead laboratories. Because of the
diverse nature of activity being carried out at the local laboratories, such a table of
criteria would be extremely difficult to generate.

CHAPTER 2

DISCUSSION OF UNIVERSITYMATIONAL LABORATORIES

I. INTRODUCTION

A. General Background Considerations

The Commission inade the following recommendations:

0 The present variety of institutional arrangements for the development
and support of oceanography is good and should be nurtured. Further-
more, as the horizons of oceanography continue to expand, new institu-
tional arrangements can be encouraged.

A small group of institutions, which should include but not be restricted
to the acknowledged leaders, should be designated as "University/National
laboratories." They should be distributed geographically to cover differ-
ent parts of the ocean and should be provided with adequate facilities for
undertaking local deep-ocean programs and basic sciences. Facilities
should be made available to scientists at other universities and Federal
laboratories for related basic science activity. University/National
laboratories should be accorded adequate institutional support for main-
tenance and operations, and in turn they should commit themselves and
their facilities to serve the needs of scientific groups affiliated with
other institutions. Such an institutional arrangement will insure that the
Nation's leading oceanographic institutions will be provided adequate
resources and support to insure their continued health and vigor.

A survey shows that most Federal agencies and non- Federal institutions
concur at least in principle with these recommendations. Unfortunately, the
Commission's discussion of the University/National laboratories is somewhat
imprecise. Although it is implicit in the report that the proposed National
oceanographic laboratories would be modeled on the National laboratories run
by the Atomic Energy Commission, a number of questions remain to be resolved.

� The Commission report did not explain or define the roles@ responsibil-
ities, and missions of a University/National oceanographic laboratory.

� The method of operation of such an institution was not explained nor were
the obligations of the Federal government defined. In other words, the
question of whether or not the Federal government would fund one or
more of the following: ships, facilities, overhead, personnel, new build-
ings, individual programs, or specific investigators was not addressed.

The process of review, evaluation, and coordination of operations of
University/National laboratories was not defined nor was there any

UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES 43

discussion of the appropriate size or number of University/N ational
oceanographic laboratories.

* Although it was recommended that the University/National laboratories
should be distributed geographically, very little rationale for this recom-
mendation was given other than to state that the different institutions
would be able to cover different parts of the ocean. The implicit pre-
sumption exists that individual National laboratories would be given a
franchise to cover certain areas of the ocean.

9 The question of the requirements for designation and the method of
selection of an institution as a University/National laboratory was not
covered by the report.

9 A review of present institutions which might reasonably be considered
as candidates for designation to the University/National laboratory status
indicates that some of these are private universities, some are State-run
institutions, and one or more are independent corporations. The legal
problems that would be involved in such a designation has not been
addressed. Questions of a change being required in the institutions' char-
ters, enabling legislation, or terms of incorporation were not reviewed
by the Commission.

9 The Commission report did not address the question as to how the funding
level of University/National laboratories would be reviewed, in order to
justify to Congress the size, scope, and uniqueness of programs in the
proposed National Laboratories.

While the difficulties alluded to in the foregoing paragraphs are very real
and must be resolved before a National oceanographic laboratory system can
evolve, the concept of National laboratories is indeed reasonably attractive. We
believe that the Commission's recommendations should be construed to mean
that the combined facility resources of our major oceanographic institutions
must be considered a national resource. If our Nation is to develop a vigorous
commitment to maritime affairs, then we must recognize that our major ocean-
ographic institutions will require a coherent program for the development of
competent staffs and facilities. These must be maintained at appropriate support
levels so that the expensive and relatively unique resources of these institutions
may be used by all American scientists of acceptable credentials regardless of
affiliation.

The meaning of the term "University/National laboratory" was not defined
by the Commission; several National laboratories do exist which might serve as
reasonable models. Of particular interest would be the operation of the National
Observatory at Kitt Peak, the National Radio Observatory at Green Bank, the
National Magnet Laboratory at MIT, and the Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Fundamentally, a National laboratory is an organization which has certain costly
facilities that are either unique or are not generally available elsewhere in the
country. For example, there are relatively few 300-foot radio telescopes in the
United States. It is clear that, unless a 300-foot dish was constructed for the
narrow goals of a mission-oriented agency, the institution controlling this facil-
ity would have to make it available to competent scientists throughout the country.

The situation in oceanography is somewhat different from the situation at
places such as Brookhaven, Oak Ridge, Kitt Peak, or Green Bank. There are a
large number of oceanographic institutions in the United States. These vary in

44 UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES

number, size, and in staff levels from very tiny operations to reasonably large-
size laboratories, such as Scripps or Woods Hole. Almost every oceanographic
laboratory has a number of facilities which are common to all oceanographic
laboratories. Most oceanographic laboratories have: (a) one or more sea-going
vessels;.(b) a staff to handle the maintenance, engineering and logistics asso-
ciated with such vessels; (c) terminal facilities (docks, warehouses, etc.) to sup-
port the operations of sea-going vessels; (d) digital computers; (e) calibration
and test facilities for equipment routinely used at sea; and (f) machine shops
and other service groups to maintain, repair, and ready equipment for deploy-
ment in oceanographic research. No oceanographic laboratory has a facility
that has the relative or absolute uniqueness of a large radio telescope or of a
30-BeV accelerator.

Clearly, the uniqueness of facilities, cannot form a basis for the establish-
ment of any individual National oceanographic laboratory. Nonetheless, the
Panel feels that a number of considerations obtain which militate in favor of the
establishment of some system displaying broad and comprehensive support of
the Nation's oceanographic research community. The factors which dictate the
need for some form of National oceanographic laboratory system are the following:

e A mechanism must be devised to.allow for the orderly development and
general sharing of oceanographic facilities which will become sufficiently
expensive in the future so as to preclude their replication at every exist-
ing oceanographic laboratory.

9 While American oceanographic institutions have shown a commendable
ability to form consortia to undertake large-scale research programs,
most of the present oceanographic institutions do not individually have
sufficient depth of engineering talent, managerial skill, or scientific
background to undertake some of the larger and more imaginative tasks
which we hope will propel our nation into the forefront of oceanographic
research and accomplishment.

* A system must be. d eveloped which will permit orderly growth in times
of budget expansion and sensible and effective retrenchment in times of
budget stringency. The present system with its 'multiplicity of oceano-
graphic laboratories requires. that proportionate shares of budget cuts
be absorbed by all institutions. This tends to have a deleterious effect
on the smaller institutions and does not leave the larger institutions with
an efficient cushion to continue an effective program. If a National lab-
oratory system existed, then overall facility planning and budgeting would
allow for. the maintenance of sufficient facilities to handle the minimum
needs of competent workers in the field.

* Under the present system the more expensive facilities of oceanographic
institutions are largely supported by imposing an overhead tax on funds
which support individual research programs. The reckoning of this tax
is a complicated procedure and creates considerable difficulty and inflex-
ibility in the operation and provision of the routine personnel and support
costs of our oceanographic laboratories.

13. Definition, Roles, and Responsibilities of a University/National
Laboratory

The Panel would propose the acceptance of the following definition of a
University/National oceanographic laboratory:

UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES 45

A University/National laboratory is a Federally funded laboratory com-
plex whose major responsibility is to carry out research and development
oriented towards scientific goals of national importance. It further has
the duty of designing, operating, and providing to the American scientific
community unique and/or expensive facilities for carrying out oceanic
research. In addition, it is a center where basic and applied research
and exploratory development can be carried out on a continuing basis
using a multidisciplinary approach.

The Panel construes the foregoing definition to imply that a University/National
oceanographic laboratory would:

@ Provide national leadership in large-scale efforts in marine science that
require major facilities, equipment, and staff. This objective will be
served by the laboratories' encouragement and by the fostering of long-
term, large-scale scientific and technological programs that are neces-
sarily expensive and by the provision of management of facilities for
their accomplishment.

e Help assure that the marine manpower needs of the United States are
met by providing graduate, postdoctoral, and continuing education for
marine scientists and engineers.

9 Insure that marine engineering and technology are based on good science,
and that sound engineering and technological support are used in the
advancement of marine science.

* Encourage and fund exploratory research and development in marine
science and engineering and supply an environment in which new ideas
may be conceived, supported in their infancy, and developed into working
models.

e Maintain an effective position of the United States for advancing and
cooperating in the international aspects of marine science and technology.

* Not be or become routine operational agencies, for the collection of
synoptic oceanographic and meteorological data, but, on the other hand,
work closely with agencies, such as the Navy Oceanographic Office, ESSA,
the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the
U.S. Coast Guard, which have some surveying missions and, where appro-
priate, serve as managers for large, cooperative but short-term research
projects, such as JOIDES.

* Coordinate the assignment and scheduling of facilities, on the basis of
the merit and ability of investigators, or teams of investigators.

* Insure the just treatment of all potential users, including members of
Federal laboratories and industry.

Based on the experience of existing National laboratories, it is clear that National
laboratories may be administered in a variety of ways. Successful National laboratories
have been operated by consortia of universities, by nonprofit corporations, by individual
universities, and by the U.S. Government as either in-house laboratories or quasi-public
corporations. Clearly, National laboratories do not, by definition, have to be a part of a
university. The important characteristic of a National laboritory -should be the existence of
suTf-icient flexibility of operation and intellectual scope to allow a comprehensive interac-
tion with all Federal, State, academic, and industrial components of the oceanic community.

46 UNWERSITYMATIONAL LABORATORIES

C. Problems Associated with the Present Methods for Supporting
Oceanographic Institutions

While American oceanographic institutions can boast an impressive record of scien-
tific accomplishment, the Panel believes that this record was developed in spite of the
present arrangements for institutional support rather than because of it. Support for
oceanographic institutions has included a mix of sponsorship by the Office of Naval
Research, the National Science Foundation, the Atomic Energy Commission, and several
other Federal and non-Federal sources. There are certain weaknesses in the present
multiple-agency funding that can be summarized as follows:

� The stability of program support depends on the funding priorities, or
problems, of several different funding agencies.

� Program directors must coordinate activities and funding requirements
with several different agencies with varying degrees of interest.

� Each Federal agency has its own administrative guidelines which make
uniform handling of purchases, appointment of personnel, and consistent
recovery of indirect costs impractical,

� Block funding for the support of vessel costs is hampered under conditions
where each agency feels the. need to furnish exactly its share of such costs.

As a consequence of these weaknesses, our oceanographic laboratories have diffi-
culty undertaking long-range coherent research projects of importance to our national
oceanographic effort. This difficulty is directly traceable to the lack of stability of pro-
gram support on a long-term basis.

Cost-of'operations tends to increase because of the lack of uniform administrative
regulations and reporting requirements of various Federally supported accounts.

Finally, because of the complex problems involved in acquiring sponsorship, a con-
siderable -amount of scientific time andeffort is pre-empted. Given more stable insti-
tutional support, this scientific talent -could be applied more effectively to scientific
problems.

D. Criteria and Considerations Relative to the Selection of
University/National Laboratories

The designation of certain oceanographic laboratories as University/National labor-
atories implies selective growth, funding, and expansion for the laboratories that are so
designated. If it could be safely assumed that our National oceanographic budget would
undergo a marked increase in. future years, then this selective treatment could be viewed
with equanimity, because the normal growth of the remaining laboratories would not be
inhibited. However, if the future national oceanographic budget either grew slowly or
remained relatively constant in absolute terms, then the preferential growth of University/
National laboratories would occur at the expense of the remainder of the oceanographic
community.

Concern over this problem led the Panel to circularize the following question to the
directors of all major oceanographic laboratories in the United States:

9 If your institution were not to be designated as a University/National
laboratory, how would that affect it? Do you feel that the designation

UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES 47

of a selected group of laboratories would effectively inhibit the growth
of those laboratories which were not so anointed? How would you view
this situation from the standpoint of the overall health of the national
oceanographic effort?

The response of the Division of Marine Resources, University of Washington, and
the response of the College of Geosciences, Texas A&M University are particularly
instructive. The University of Washington replied,

11 ... failure to attain U/N laboratory status would curtail but not prohibit
our growth. If UIN laboratories are funded by redistribution of funds
at existing funding levels, it would mean that any institution not so
designated would suffer drastically as would the national oceanographic
effort. The essential consideration is the establishment of the prope
number of labs, which depends on funding strength, the national aims,
and the strengthening of present repositories of excellence."

Texas A&M answered,

"It would seriously handicap not only the growth but the existence of my
Institution, since the more outstanding staff members would leave. They
would be attracted to the broader facilities, capabilities, missions, and
potentialities of those institutions that would be designated as University/
National laboratories. This would eventually result in the depletion of
the staff to the point that eventually my Institution could not function
effectively to solve important problems. Similar results would occur
at other existing major institutions that would not be designated as
University/National laboratories. Thus, the overall effect would be to
restrict the total number of competent institutions to meet the increas-
ing teaching and research requirements necessary to expand the ocean-
ographic effort of the Nation, at a time when there is maximum need
for these capabilities if our nation is to be able to develop at an accel-
erated rate the marine resources of the sea, for its benefit and that of
the developing nations of the world."

Clearly, great care and discretion must be exercised in the selection of University/
National laboratories. It is the strongly expressed view of the Panel that University
National laboratories, '%Zich are given selective growth and funding, should not be estab-
lished unless the National oceanognLphic budget will permit both the continued growth of
other oceanographic laboratories and the simultaneous development of strong National
oceanographic centers.

While a number of options concerning the selection of University/National oceano-
graphic laboratories are discussed below, the Panel believes that the selection of an
institution should be based on consideration of the following factors:

� Excellence and breadth of its scientific capability.

9 Existing size, strength, and experience in facilities management.

� The presence of a strong scientific community.

� Related activities of universities, government, and industry.

To these consideration, it should be added that the size of the selected institutions should
be sufficient to encompass a wide diversity of research and teaching in marine and related
atmospheric sciences. Thought should be given to a spread of geographic locations in

48 UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES

order to have a good coverage of oceans and climates. Thus, the Atlantic and Pacific
should be encompassed, as well as the tropics and the temperate. zones. This might be
accomplished with four continental laboratories - NE, SE, NW, and SW. Their location
should, if possible, coincide with the'location of Federal laboratories with related objec-
tives. They should be well staffed and of appropriate size, and the program should not
be an excuse for large expansion of an existing smaller laboratory or, for that matter,
of a larger laboratory.

An additional criterion for selection should be a history of successful operation over
a substantial period of years. In.choosing institutions on the basis o'f critical mass and
experience, Scripps, Woods Hole, and Lamont stand out from all others. On the basis
of diversity or breadth of spectrum, Scripps and Woods Hole stand almost alone. On the
basis of geographic distribution, the University of Miami is the appropriate SE location
and is also the only suitable one in biogeographically subtropical waters. Scripps and
Woods Hole fill the Pacific SW and Atlantic NE locations. The NW choice would probably
be the University of Washington, with Oregon State a strong contender. On the basis of
association with neighboring Federal agencies, Scripps and Miami stand out, with Oregon
State and Washington following. At Miami, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the
ESSA labs will be immediately adjacent to each other. On the basis of an educational
function, Rhode Island would, at present, lead Woods Hole, where graduate teaching is
barely out of the planning stage.

The choice of institutions for designation as University/National laboratories will
be a complex process. Whatever criteria are ultimately used as a basis of selection, i
should be made clear that future designations of other institutions would not be foreclosed.

E. Administrative Factors

1. Models for Support and Operation of Nation;@l Laboratories

a. Some Characteristics of NASA funding

Funds for NASA are appropriated under these categories: Research and
Development, Construction of Facilities, and Research and Program Management (which
until recently was called Administrative Operations). Within each of these categories,
the amount appropriated is specified for each of six program activities, and, in some
cases, up to four suba.ctivities. The median line-item in the Research and Development
category is $135,000,000 and in the Research and Program Management Category is
$67,000,000. The Research and Program Management Category covers salaries and
other base expenses (power, computers, etc.) at the Federal laboratories operated by
NASA.

This system of funding for salaries and certain other expenses at laboratories can
be thought of as a type of block funding. It is presented, and defended however, primarily
in terms of the program activities (e.g. manned space flight) rather than in terms of
object classification. Some people feel that funds for Research and Program Management
have proved especially vulnerable in the budgetary process and that this has led to a
somewhat awkward mismatch in the categories of funds available to the laboratories.
The older title (Administrative Operations) was sometimes misinterpreted to indicate
an administrative overhead account. Use of this special category of funds appears to be
grounded in the assignment to the laboratories of major out-of-house program manage-
ment responsibilities.

UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES 49

b. Some Characteristics of AEC Funding

Funds for AEC are appropriated under two categories: Operating Expenses
and Plant and Capital Equipment. The Operating Expense category is split among some-
thing over 30 program activities and subactivities (e.g., physical research - low energy
physics) with the median line item being $30,000,000. All major AEC laboratories are
operated by contractors such as universities or industrial firms. At AEC @Headquarters
the offices concerned with particular activities, allocate part of the available funds among
the various laboratories and, in many cases, reserve part for contracts with individual
investigators at universities and elsewhere. At the beginning of each fiscal year the
laboratories each receive a "financial plan" showing the amount they can spend within
each activity and subactivity. Major responsibility for project selection and review is
ordinarily delegated to the laboratory, so that 11finanical plans" reflect, especially regard-
ing basic research, the suggestions of the laboratory scaled down in accordance with the
current state of the fiscal climate.

In addition, the laboratories can seek support from other agencies. AEC approval
is required, and the fund transfers are handled by interagency agreements. In practice
these steps have not appeared to constrain work for other agencies.

c. A Joint AEC-NASA Office

The Space Nuclear Propulsion Office is a program office staffed jointly by
AEC and NASA - an arrangement apparently unique within the Federal Government, but
one which the participants feel has been fully successful. The integration is sufficiently
close that the co-workers, on occasion, lose track of who is working for whom. The R and
D management aspect of the operation has proceeded much more smoothly than seems
likely with more traditional arrangements. On the other hand, some parts of the adminis-
trative workload are about twice as heavy as would be the case under single agency
management. Separate budgets and budget justifications are prepared for the separate
segments of the program for which AEC and NASA take fiscal responsibility. Numerous
Congressional hearings must be prepared for and attended, and the budget faces double
jeopardy. Two sets of procedures must be kept and applied in a variety of administrative
and personnel matters.

d. Some Characteristics of NSF Funding

Except for the small Special Foreign Currency Program, the entire NSF
appropriation is categorized as Salaries and Expenses. The activities and subactivities
for which amounts are specified in the appropriation include: scientific research project
support, specialized research facilities and equipment, National research centers, a
National sea grant program, and institutional support for science.

The pattern of support for the National Center for Atmospheric Research seems
particularly noteworthy. NCAR was founded in 1960 and is operated by the University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), a consortium of 27 universities. The
present laboratory complex in Colorado is NSF-owned, and the laboratory has 500 staff
members including about 100 at the Ph.D. level. NSF has been providing about $11 million
annually for its operation. The contract between NSF and UCAR "is designed to give
UCAR the scientific and managerial initiative essential to NCAR's task .... At the same
time, the contract contains requirements for Foundation review and approval which assure
that the Foundation can exercise its sponsorship responsibility." NCAR conducts its own
research program, serves as a focus for planning joint ventures, and makes its facilities
available to outside investigators.

50 UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES

e. Characteristics of Laboratory Funding under a Naval
Industrial Fund Plan (Naval Research Laboratory)

The Naval Research Laboratory operates on the Naval Industrial Fund (NIF)
plan. As such, it is effectively a nonprofit, government-run corporation which exists
for the purpose of doing research. Its parent agency, the Office of Naval Research,
provides approximately one-third of the funds (32 million dollars) to carry out a program
of basic research and exploratory development. The funds for basic research from the
Office of Naval Research constitute approximately 22 to 23 million dollars and are used
to pay scientific salaries and the cost of operating certain facilities, such as radio tele-
scopes, oceanographic research vessels, cyclotrons, nuclear reactors, and special
computers. The remaining two-thirds of NRL's funding comes from other Navy activities
and other sections of the Government. The Naval Research Laboratory can accept funds
and project sponsorship from almost any agency of the United States Government. Actually
approximately one-third of its programs are sponsored by agencies outside of the Depart-
ment of the Navy. Approximately 15 percent of the total funds of the Laboratory is
supplied by agencies entirely outside the Department of Defense.

Internally, an overhead rate is established which is used to support shops, libraries,
and the administrative support necessary to run a laboratory. Computation of overhead
charges is based on the number of hours worked by direct-charge employees involved in
any given program. Funds for the construction of facilities come as part of the total
military construction appropriation that is appropriated directly by Congress.

The NRL, model, while it has its drawbacks, has proven to be very successful and
offers a great deal of flexibility in operation. The performance of the Laboratory is
reviewed after the fact. Program proposals are normally, written and reviewed by the
Laboratory internal management. The Laboratory's achievements are then reviewed
after the work has been completed.

Because only one-third of the funds comes from the parent agency, the remaining
funds must be made up through research undertaken as the'result of agreements with
various sponsors in the Navy and in the remainder of the U.S. Government. Since no
organization in the Government is obligated to contract with NRL for research funding,
the Laboratory must function on a competitive basis with university, in-house, and
industrial laboratories. This competition has proven to be a healthy stimulus and a
source of much relevant work usefully performed for various sponsoring agencies.

f. Relevance to Marine Laboratories in the NOAA Case

The three categories of appropriations employed by NASA appear embedded in
the use of employees at Federal laboratories for program management at out-of-house
locations. Such a model seems inappropriate for a marine agency in which a major part
of the laboratory structure might be largely based on the development of existing non-
Federal laboratories. Even though the NASA model might not apply very directly, it
would certainly be possible to develop a funding scheme in which some monies were ear-
marked for "base",or "block" support. Such a scheme is bound to run into problems of
mismatch. In addition, such budgets can be more difficult to defend in convincing fashion.

Some problems of mismatch crop up with the split between operating and capital
equipment expenses used by the AEC. The notion of subdividing a budget according to
classes of closely related objectives seems an eminently sensible and workable one.
Such schemes of subdivision seem preferable in general to schemes based in whole or in
part on classes of expenses. The NSF appropriation appears to be broken down into
reasonably coherent program activities and to be free of special expense categories.
NSF may provide the best model to advocate for construction of the budget of a new agency.

UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES 51

g. Relevance to Marine Laboratories in the Non-NOAA Case.

For the purposes of comment, it is suggested that NSF should be assigned
principal responsibility for univ ersity- related marine laboratories. It appears that, NSF,
given the money, could provide facilities support and institutional support programs.

It is the strongly expressed view of the Panel that whatever model is followed for
funding the National oceanographic laboratories, there must be one agency within the
Government that has the mission of acting as a financial sponsor for the National labora-
tories. If there is not a single agency entrusted to worry about the current budgets and
long-term development of these National laboratories, then the laboratories will be
considerably worse off than they are at present. When an organization is in a sense a
"National orphan," and when there is no central agency within the Government to which
it may turn, then,it must ultimately wither and die.

2. Areas of Federal Support

Development of a National oceanographic laboratory will require modifications in
the existing relationships between the Federal Government and the participating institu-
tions. Planning for the establishment of such a laboratory will require a major invest-
ment hi scientific and technical talent and other local resources by the selected institution.
Program objectives must be defined cooperatively and the supporting facilities planned
and acquired.. The organization must be carefully constructed to assure accomplishment
of scientific objectives and the proper participation of many institutions and agencies.

In the definition and development phase, the. Federal sponsor must work closely with
the institution to develop a jointly acceptable master plan. Following the joint acceptance
of this plan, support must be assured at an adequate level on a continuing basis. Institu-
tional support, at least in major program areas, is necessary for proper local manage-
ment. A review process of programs and project scheduling must be cooperatively
established which will assure the, maintenance of a high level of scientific productivity
commensurate with the achievement of national goals.

Clearly the major funds for ships, facilities, overhead, personnel and new buildings
must be supplied from Federal sources if the program is to be more than a paper fantasy.
Individual programs and specific investigators will be sponsored by Federal and non-
Federal agencies as the result of review and negotiations between the laboratory and the
agencies on the, desirability. of pursuing an individual research program. However, it is
important for efficient management that as much flexibility as possible be given to the
University/National laboratory management. Therefore, institutional or block funding of
major program areas must be provided with whatever review is necessary,on the basis
of the performance of accepted objectives. It would be desirable to have this funding
committed over a long period of time. This approach differs from.present support
patterns which are short-term and limited in the scope of objectives.
The funding'pattern for a U 'niversity/Na.tional laboratory would differ from the present
pattern of Federal sponsorship in that at least the following should be line items of the bud-
get and block funded as laboratory support: fleet procurement and operations; facilities
procurement and operations; common use equipment and supplies; support and technical per-
sonnel; salaries of senior technical personnel; administrative and managerial functions; and
"seed" research funds, based on some small percentage of overall budget, to be devoted to
support innovative projects of exceptional scientific merit.

The percentage of total funds available to a National oceanographic laboratory that
come in support of the foregoing items should probably not exceed 50% of the institutional
budget. The remainder of the funds required to run the laboratory should reflect Federal
and non- Federal support for specific research projects.

52 UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES

3. Review Procedures

The establishment of National oceanographic laboratories will require a well-
defined system of a review, evaluation, and coordination. The Panel expects that the
scientific programs of the laboratories would be reviewed by panels of competent scien-
tists chosen by agreement between the sponsor and the laboratory. Although there would
be continuous administrative and budgetary review, all the review processes should be
designed to promote the long-term funding of continuing operations and to increase the
efficiency of the proposal and review processes. Coordination of all University/National
laboratories will be required to prevent undesirable overlap of programs and operations,
although some replication is frequently good and necessary. We would expect each of the
laboratories to be represented on a coordinating body. Evaluation and coordination of
major objectives should be on a long-term basis and will represent the consensus of the
members of the scientific community and the Federal sponsor who will participate in the
programs.

The review process used at Argonne National Laboratory might well serve as a model
that could be emulated at the National oceanographic laboratories:

� Review of the operation of Argonne National Laboratory maybe divided
into the internal and external mechanisms.

� The internal mechanisms are related to the organizational structure of
Argonne. The Laboratory Director has, in line positions, Associate Lab-
atory Directors for the major categories of work. These are Engineer-
ing, High Energy Physics, Physical and Biological Research, and Educa-
tional Affairs. The Directors of the Scientific and Technical divisions of
the Laboratory report to the first three of these Associate Directors.

� Internal review of the technical program of the Laboratory is carried out
by successive reviews by the Division Directors, the Associate Laboratory
Directors, and the Laboratory Director and his staff. Division Directors
(frequently with the advice and consultation of their senior staff) conduct
in-depth reviews of on-going programs as well as proposals for new
research. This occurs at least twice per year during budget preparations,
and is followed by reviews by the appropriate Associate Laboratory
Director. The Laboratory Director and his staff may participate or may
conduct independent reviews. In any case, at least two and occasionally
three independent reviews are conducted at least twice a year.

� External reviews of the Laboratory's program are carried out by review
committees. These committees report to the President of The University
of Chicago and to the President of Argonne Universities Association. The
members of these review committees are drawn from the university
community, industry, and other National laboratories. They meet usually
once a year 'and report on the quality of the scientific work of the unit
under consideration.

� The Laboratory's operations other than the technical program are reviewed
by the Technical Services Manager, the Business Manager, the Budget
Manager, and the Laboratory Director and his staff. Such reviews are
carried out at least twice a year in connection with budget preparations
and in special situations as required.

Although the precise amount varies from Institution to Institution, at present approx-
imately 75 to 85 percent of the total operation in the marine sciences is supported by

UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES 53

Federal funds and is already subject to annuad review. Thus, the oceanographic institu-
tions have had considerable experience with detailed annual reviews.

The Panel believes that the traditional type of programmatic review would not be
appropriate for National oceanographic laboratories. To the fullest extent possible the
annual reviews of these laboratories should be administrative functions, specifically
funded, with major reviews of a substantive nature relating to program content, under-
taken at longer intervals.

4. Staff Levels

The Panel reviewed the growth projections of several major oceanographic lab-
oratories to determine the budget requirements, the facility requirements, and the staff
levels that would be needed for a National laboratory. It is clear that no uniquely appro-
priate size exists for such an organization. At any given time, its size will be a function
of the objectives and goals of the work, the amount of funding available@ and the availa-
bility of high-quality staff members.

The influence of the objectives of a National laboratory on its size can be illustrated
by a comparison between existing laboratories. The Ames Laboratory, with a mission
emphasizing fundamental materials research, has about 750 employees and an operating
budget of about $9,500,000 per year. On the other hand, the Argonne Laboratory, which
has broadly defined responsibilities in reactor programs, in physical research, and in
biological and medical research, employs about 5600 people and has an operating budget
of $100,000,000 per year. While other factors enter into the difference in size of the two
laboratories, the goals and objectives are the most important. The influence of the amount
of funding and the availability of staff on the size of a Laboratory needs no comment.

A detailed review of all of the laboratories which might reasonably be considered as
candidates for designation as a National oceanographic laboratory indicate that on a
National basis there is a need for a modest expansion and improvement in our pool of
good sea-going scientists and technicians. In addition we need better supporting facilities
and additional technical support personnel as well as better facilities to improve the
quality of undergraduate experience and education in the marine sciences.

To redress these deficiencies and to incorporate within the National oceanographic
laboratories all phases of marine science and engineering development, the Panel believes
that a small but purposeful expansion in the staff levels is necessary. At present, none
of the existing oceanographic institutions has sufficient size and depth to satisfy all of
the requirements of a National laboratory. The deficiency is a matter of degree and it
varies from institution to institution. Even the largest of our oceanographic institutions
exhibit some shortcomings when viewed in the context of a National laboratory.

As an example, the resident scientific staff of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institu-
tion is composed of 78 men and women: 22 senior scientists, 33 associate scientists, and
23 assistant scientists. The resident technical staff includes 17 research specialists and
54 research associates. These 149 resident staff members are supported by approxi-
mately 425 additional employees who are technicians, clerical workers, ships' crews,
shop personnel, and others. The central themes guiding the research at WHOI include:
physical oceanograph, geology and geophysics, chemistry, biology, and ocean engineering.
In pursuit of these disciplines, the Institution is organized into five departments which
have professional staffs that average about 30 people. The number of senior scientists
in any department generally is not in excess of five or six people.

Admittedly the quality and productivity of a group cannot be measured in purely
numerical terms. Certainly the professional productivity and influence of WHOI far

54 UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES

exceeds what may be expected from an organization of its size. Nonetheless, it is clear
from the limited numbers of professionals employed at WHOI, that there are significant
limits both to the number of relevant scientific disciplines that are represented at the
Institution and to the number of people. available to work in any given discipline. For
example, only a few people at WHOI pursue the crucial area of marine corrosion as their
central professional orientation.

The foregoing comments are not intended to denigrate the scale of effort at Woods
Hole.'Rathe r, they are meant to illustrate the premise that even some of our largest
institutions are, in many respects, inadequately staffed to assume the roles and responsi-
bilities of a National laboratory as envisaged herein.

While the Panel does not and cannot presume to describe staffing levels for National
laboratories, we estimate, on the basis of extended discussion with various laboratory
directors, that the professional and technical staff of a National oceanographic laboratory
should number between 400 and 500 people. This number may be arrived at in a variety
of ways. For example, a typical research division at a major National or corporate
laboratory (Argonne, NRL, NBS, BTL, etc ') is usually organized about a group of approx-
imately 50 professionals who work with a central focus on one of the major scientific
disciplines (metallurgy, reactor design, marine biology, etc.). A group of this size is
able to work on a number of problems requiring expertise in one or more of the sub-
disciplines within the major field of interest, It would appear desirable that a multidis7
ci plinary National laboratory should be able to mount a critical level effort in eight or
ten major oceanographic disciplines. Consequently, four to five hundred professionals
with appropriate support would seem to be a reasonable staff level. 7

If WHOI were designated as a National laboratory, its professional -staff would have
to be expanded by a factor of about 2-1/2. This expansion would, of necessity, be accom-
panied by some expansion of the present support staff of 425 people. Fortunately, after
a certain level of support has been reached, the support staff does not increase linearly
with the scientific and technical staff (for example, the number of librarians and guards
in a laboratory increases rather slowly as the professional staff increases)..

The staff level at Scripps is more nearly of a size to allow it to assume the role of
a National laboratory. The total staff at Scripps numbers approximately 225 professionals
supported. by a nonacademic staff of about 750 people. This effort is supplemented by a
group of about 125 matriculated graduate students pursuing advanced degrees. If one
includes these graduate students, then by the considerations outlined above, an increase
of only 50 to 150 professionals would be required for Scripps to reach a professional
staff level that is appropriate for a National oceanographic laboratory.

The other oceanographic laboratories which might be considered for designation as
National oceanographic laboratories would have to undergo a commensurate growth in
their full-time*professional staff. In general, no laboratory should be considered for
such designation if it would require a staff expansion by a factor of 4 or 5 to reach the
professional staff size discussed. The rationale for this view is related to the rates of
growth that can be reasonably absorbed by an institution. To double a staff within 10
years, an annual growth rate of about 7, percent would be required. A time scale of 10
years has been arbitrarily chosen as the appropriate time required for a small ocean-
ographic laboratory to develop into a National laboratory. To increase the size of a
staff by a factor of 5 within.10 years, an annual growth rate of about 17-1/2 percent
would be required. When consideration is given to the fact that large laboratories
typically undergo staff attritions of about 5 to 6 percent per year, rather high levels of
recruitment would be required. There appears to be a limit to the rate of growth that
can be sustained without accepting a degradation in the quality of the staff or the

UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES 55

acceptance of some rather disruptive growing pains. Laboratories probably should not
attempt to sustain overall rates of growth which require the assimilation of new staff
members at rates exceeding 15 percent per year.

5. Budget Requirements

It is difficult to project the budget requirements of a National oceanographic
laboratory with any accuracy. 'While precise estimates are impossible to supply, the
budgetary requirements for a National oceanographic laboratory have been reviewed by
all of the oceanographic laboratories which might be considered as candidates for selec-
tion. A detailed publication of these figures would not serve any useful purpose, since
these projections are based on a large number of assumptions which may not be realized.
A review of these projections, taken in conjunction with data related to the operating
expenses of existing national laboratories, allows a rough projection of operating budgets.

The budgetary cost of supporting a member of the professional staff of a laboratory
normally runs between $35,000 and $40,000 per year. The variation in cost is a ,
statistical one, representing minor fluctuations in the cost of research and in the account-
ing methods used to decide which direct charge and which support employees are figured
into the computation. By a calculation of this type, one finds that a laboratory with a
400 -man professional staff (which the Panel feels is representative of a desirable size
for a National Laboratory), would require an annual operating budget of 14 to 16 million
dollars per arinum for routine salary-related expenses. This budget would only cover
salary, support personnel costs, and routine minor procurements. Major capital invest-
ments and the cost of operating and maintaining large facilities, such as oceanographic
vessels and computers, would not be included in this total. The basic annual operating
cost of 14 to 16 million dollars would be supplemented by the cost of the capital invest-
ment needed to buy special purpose major procurements. In a well run laboratory,
special purpose major procurements ($40,000 tape recorders, mass spectrometers,
specially designed buoys, etc.), should amount to approximately 10 to 15 percent of the
routine or fixed salary-related budgets. With a laboratory having a 400-man professional
staff, the routine investment in major procurements should amount to about 2 million
dollars per annum. Thus, the salary-related costs and the capital investment for major
procurements would amount to approximately 16 to 18 million dollars per year.

These costs would be supplemented by the costs of computer centers, operating
ships, aircraft, other special facilities. A computer center for a laboratory of the size
envisoned would cost between 1/2 and I million dollars per annum. Ship costs are a
function of the number and size of the ships in theneet. Depending on where the salaries
for the crew appear in the budget, it might reasonably be considered that ship operating
maintenance costs for a major oceanographic laboratory would amount to between 5 to
8 million dollars per year.

Summing up, we find that a major National oceanographic laboratory should cost
approximately 20 to 25 million dollars to operate. This figure does not include the costs
of funding new vessels or new buildings. The costs related here should be contrasted
with the present level of operations. Roughly speaking, the 1969 budget levels of the
major Laboratories are: Scripps, 12 million dollars; Woods Hole, 9.5 million dollars;
University of Miami, 6.3 million dollars; Lamont, 5 million dollars; Oregon State, 2.7
million dollars; and University of Washington, 2.3 million dollars. None of the foregoing
figures are deemed to be precise in that they have not been reviewed for uniformity of
accounting procedures or subjected to a standard criteria for intramural and extramural
expenditures.

As pointed out, the Panel does not believe that the Federal Government must supply
all of the funds outlined above under a National oceanographic laboratory program. The
funds required from the Federal Government under the National oceanographic laboratory

56 UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES

program. would be primarily for core support and would not exceed 50 to 55 percent of
the total institutional , r@equirements. Nonetheless, Federal agency funds would constitute
the remaining funding. The Panel believes that funds above and beyond those necessary
for core or institutional support as defined above should continue to come on the basis of
mutual agreements between the National oceanographic institutions and sponsoring agencies
which are interested in specific research programs. At present, Federal funds for ocean-
ography probably constitute 85 to 95 percent of the total, monies expended in the field.

Assuming that the ratio of 50 to 55 percent of total budget is accepted and implemented
under the -National oceanographic laboratory. program, then the support program will
require 10.to 12-1/2 million dollars, per yea� per laboratory. If four laboratories are
selected to be National oceanographic laboratories, then the annual budget for core support
and'fixed operating expenses will amount to approximately 5.0 million dollars per year.

6. Facility Ne eds

The results of a Panel survey indicate that the available facilities at all oceano-
graphic laboratories are inadequate to the needs of a National oceanographic laboratory.
Most of the Oceanographic laboratories have made an inventory of their present facilities
and have submitted an appraisal of their long-term needs to the Panel.

Whileit. would.not be particularly useful to include lists of facility needs in this
report', it is instructive to consider, in general terms, the anticipated needs of three
institutions Woods Hole,, Scripps, and the University of Washington. These needs are
discussed to- illustrate the diversity of the required facilities and the magnitude and
types of Federal,support that might be required. We wish to reiterate that we are speak-
ing in general terms and that our projections do not represent the off icial views of the
institutions: concerned.

.The present facilities of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography were deemed to be
only minimally adequate for the level of operations that took place in 1966 and 1967. No
new University -funded space has been provided since the transfer of Revelle College -
activities'to the upper campus in 1964. This event was prior to the expansion associated
with the beep Sea Drilling and North Pacific Buoy projects. Future space requirements
are necessarily keyed to projections of overall staff size. In view of the heterogeneous
nature of the space presently available at Scripps (scientific collection storage, classrooms,
shops, offices, warehousing, laboratories, special facilities, etc.), it can only be assumed
that the present overall mix of facilities will obtain in the future. Also, it is probably
safe to assume that the space factors. currently required to support an individual staff
member will represent the minimal level of facility support needed for an expanded pro-
gram in,the future.

It appears that Scripps could usefully avail itself, within the next 5 or 6 years, of
approximately eight buildings, which would represent an additional useful space equivalent
to 250,000 square feet. These facilities would include a new library building, a research
support.shop,. equipment warehouses, an oceanographic collection building, and some
general-purpose laborato 'ries. At present construction prices for laboratory-type struc-
tures, these additional facilities. would @cost approximately 20 million dollars. The Federal
contribution to this building program cannot be defined precisely, However, it may
reasonably be,estim.ated that half of the required funds for new. facility construction would
have to be supplied by the Federal government. Thus, establishing Scripps as a National
Oceanographic'Laborato .ry would require approximately 10 million dollars worth of con-
struction funds within the next 5 to 6 years.

In addition to.an expansion of the shore-based establishment, the. Scripps ocean-going
fleet would require, a selected expansion. Some of its older ships should be replaced, and
some new ships should be added to supplement the size of the fleet. The Horizon should

UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES 57

be replaced in the early 1970s by a vessel in the 950 to 1000 ton class. In addition, a
biological training ship and possibly a high performance AGOR will probably be required
in the late 1970s. During the next 10 years, the other ships in the Scripps fleet will prob-
ably be adequate for the normal institutional usages or for any anticipated expansion of
its activities.

The present shore-based facilities of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution are
totally inadequate both for the present staff level and for the expanded levels that would
be required if Woods Hole were to be designated as a National oceanographic laboratory.
The space available per scientific investigator at Woods Hole is approximately half the
amount that is commonly accepted for planning purposes at major National laboratories.
The newest institutional building is the Marine Services Building, located on the newly
enlarged pier. Two other laboratories, the Bigelow Building and the Laboratory of
Oceanography, are adjacent to the pier. The Marine Sciences Building, which was designed
primarily for biology and chemistry, is physically separated from the other buildings but
is still within the village of Woods Hole.

The Institution has additional land available to it. Looking to the future, the Institu-
tion has purchased a 140-acre site in Quisset. This site, which is intended for a future
campus, is about 1/2 mile from the village campus in Woods Hole. It is intended that,
in the future, the village campus will concentrate on matters related to research and
education. If Woods Hole were to be designated as a National oceanographic laboratory,
then the satellite activities (particularly those of an applied nature) would be located on
the outer campus at Quisset. The first use of the Quisset campus will be for a program
in aquaculture.

At present, Woods Hole has a serious brick- and- mortar problem. There is a need
to build a new laboratory building with 120,000 square feet of floor space. It is anticipated
that this laboratory will be build on the land near Challenger House. This construction
would represent only 20 percent of the ultimate needs of the Institution. Thus, it appears
that, if the Institution were to expand to the site that is believed to be required for a
National Laboratory, approximately 600,000 square feet of building would be required.
Construction of this magnitude would cost approximately 50 million dollars.

Because Woods Hole is a private corporation, it would have some difficulty in obtain-
ing state funds for construction of facilities. Based on past experience, it is reasonable to
assume that the required expansion of the physical plant at Woods Hole would require a
substantial Federal contribution. For purposes of planning, it should be assumed that
over the next 10 years the Federal government would have to invest approximately 40
million dollars to improve the shore-based facilities of this Institution if it is to play the
desired role of a National oceanographic laboratory.

The sea-going facilities of the Woods Hole consist of four sea-going vessels and,
assuming the successful refurbishment of the Alvin, two submersibles. With the exception
of the Gosnold and the Chain all of the surface ships are relatively modern. It is antici-
pated that by the late 1970s this fleet might have been augmented by one or more major
research vessels and one or more exotic platforms or submersible vehicles. Given the
available oceanographic vessels, only a relatively small incremental change would be
required in the fleet size. The costs of these increments would not be trivial. Major
research vessels, depending on size and complexity, represent an initial cost that may be
in the range of 10 to 30 million dollars. With the completion of the new Marine Services
Building, facilities for ship handling and services are adequate for foreseeable needs.

The facility requirements of the Division of Marine Resources, of the University of
Washington are of interest in that they typify the situation that exists in some of the more
moderate sized oceanographic laboratories. A'review of the anticipated needs of the

58 UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES

University of Washington indicate that a minimum of approximately 400,000 to 450,000
square feet of additional floor space would be required over the next 10 years. This
construction would include a new research building designed primarily for chemical and
experimental physical oceanography and a special purpose laboratory building for model
studies that contains special environmental spaces and high pressure equipment. In
addition, there is a need for many special facilities for technical services, these facilities
including machine shops, a development laboratory for the design, construction, and
evaluation of instruments, a calibration laboratory, an acoustics laboratory, a diving
shop, a small boat maintenance shop, a woodworking shop, and an electronics shop.

The pattern of funding facility construction at the University of Washington would
probably be similar to the funding pattern required for Scripps. Thus, the Federal con-
tribution to the anticipated construction costs of about 35 million dollars would probably
amount to 17 or 18 million dollars.

The fleet of the University of Washington would have to be expanded to include a new,
large AGOR and a newly designed.stable platform. In addition, it would appear prudent
to procure a.new research vessel of approximately 150 feet with replaceable modular
laboratories to increase its versatility and to decrease the turnaround time. In addition
to a new student training ship of approximately the same dimensions, one or two small
submersibles, some aircraft support, and two to four somewhat specialized research
vessels in the 65 to 85 foot category would also be required.

It is clear that any program for the development of University/National laboratories
will require a considerable annual national investment in the new facilities. Although
there is clearly a significant need to expand the sea-going fleet, the required facilities
are mostly in the area of new. laboratory facilities. For rough planning, it would appear
that over the next 10 years an investment of 100 million dollars for shore-based facilities
would be required to achieve the establishment of four properly staffed and equipped
National laboratories. This sum would have to be supplemented by a 10-year investment.
of 150 to 200 million dollars for mobile ocean-going facilities.

7. Support Requirements for Oceanographic Laboratories
not National Laboratories

As evidenced in many aspects of this report, the Panel was deeply concerned about
the need to protect and maintain the operation of oceanographic laboratories that are not
designated as National laboratories. The Panel specifically recommends an improved ,
program for the support of the leading universities and:private research institutions now
engaged in oceanographic research and graduate training.

This program should incorporate the assignment of funding responsibility for all
institutional support to one Federal agency (preferably NSF). The Panel construes the
areas of institutional support to include the costs of ship operations and the costs of
central computers, shop services, and other shared facilities and equipment. In addition,
institutional support should cover the costs of a reasonable portion, of supporting and
overhead personnel, and it should provide a small allowance for general purpose research
and training activities. This support should be provided in block form on the basis of
negotiations following periodic institutional review. Funding in this block form would
range from 40 to 60 percent of each institution's total annual budget. The balance would
be derived from project support provided by the responsible agency, by other Federal
sources, or by State and local sources, as appropriate.

The designated Federal agency should also be assigned responsibility for the pro-
vision of facilities to the community of competing institutions. Presumably, this respon-
sibility would imply a coordination responsibility with any other agencies which may con-
tinue to provide support for certain facilities, such as ships and submersibles.

UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES 59

The Panel was not able to develop precise figures for the funds which would be
required to support these institutions. Rather than attempt to publish a "wish list," it is
sufficient to state that the funds which must be supplied will need to be sufficient to assure
that the group of existing institutions are sustained at their present levels of operation
and are permitted growth commensurate with their capabilities and performance. This
means that facilities support must be provided to upgrade by replacement about two-
thirds of the existing fleet of research vessels which this group now operates. It also
means the upgrading of shore-based facilities which have been inadequately supported
in recent fiscal years.

In general terms, the budget requirements may be divided into the three broad cate-
gories which consist of ship construction, shore facilities construction, and operational
and institutional block support.

Ship Construction

Estimates for a 10-year program for the replacement of aging vessels, now making
up approximately two-thirds of the collective university -private institution fleet, indicates
that about 24 new vessels of varying size will be required. These estimates were recently
developed jointly by the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research.
Prorated annually, the program might cost a total of approximately 15 million dollars
per year.

Shore Facilities Construction

Estimates for a 10-year program to upgrade and expand moderately the laboratory
and shore support facilities of the leading oceanographic institutions, other than those
designated as National oceanographic laboratories, vary rather broadly. It is quite likely
that 60 million dollars might be required over a 10-year period. Part of this sum would
be met by matching grants from States and from private sources. Institutions would
compete for funds on the basis of plans generated locally in accordance with demonstrated
need. Evaluation procedures should follow the well -established patterns employed by
NSF in its various facilities support programs. Prorated annually, this program might
cost 6 million dollars per year but might begin at a lower level (say 4 million dollars)
and increase yearly to meet increasing costs and growing needs.

Operational and Institutional Block Support

The full cost of ship operations for the university -private institution fleet now con-
stitutes 20 to 25 percent of the annual operating budgets of these institutions. Using 14
million dollars as abase for Fiscal 'Year 1970 and assuming annual increments of between
5 and 10 percent annual costs for a nearly steady-state fleet, these costs may be expected
to rise to 25 million dollars or more by 1980. Other block support for institutional costs
will approximately equal ship operations support as institutional funding rises to an
average 50-percent level. The latter, however, can begin at a substantially lower per-
centage and rise selectively at individual institutions in accordance with program per-
formance, need, and other considerations.

II. AVAILABLE OPTIONS

If the U.S. Government accepts the view that strong Federal sponsorship of oceano-
graphic research centers is necessary, then it is the view of the Panel that the following
four options should be considered.

1. The U.S. Government could designate one or more existing oceanographic labora-
tories as National oceanographic laboratories. It could state that, as a matter of national

60 UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES

policy, the Federal government intended to undertake'responsibility for all overhead,
support, and facility costs. The growth of these National laboratories to some preassigned
size could be sponsored, selectively by the Federal government.
2. The U.S. Government could "Nationalize'@ the use of all oceanographic facilities
for which it now provides predominant budgetary support. These facilities (predominantly
ships) would be maintained and, supported by a single Federal agency, and the services
of these facilities would be made available to all competent oceanographers. The schedul-
ing of these Nationalized facilities would be controlled by members of the oceanographic
research community through the mechanism of appropriately established user committees.
In addition to ship operation and support, the agency which was given responsibility for
this task might supply other services, such as consolidated engineering, software develop-
ment, and ship and exotic platform design.

3. The U.S. Government could encourage the formation of regional laboratory centers,
which would be composed of consortia of all of the oceanographic laboratories in a given
geographic region of 'the country. While the component members of these centers could
maintain their institutional integrity and location, they would be encouraged to use the
facilities of the regional centers and to consolidate their research programs with other
members of the center.

4. The U.S. Government could accept present institutional forms, without sponsoring
changes, and encourage the growth of oceanographic research and training by increasing
the magnitude of funding and introducing more flexibility in the funding pattern. Under
this option, the U.S. Government would block-fund facilities, their support, and their
overhead costs at existing and/or evolving oceanographic laboratories and institutions.

The Panel has reviewed each of these options. All are rather difficult to implement
and all of them are subject to many objections. The problem of converting a number of
existing laboratories with a multiplicity of corporate forms into some variant of a National
oceanographic system is bound to be extraordinarily difficult. The principal difficulty
will be in establishing the criteria and rationale for the selection of any course of action.
The definition of a National laboratory in the context of oceanographic research is not a
simple problem. Mechanisms for providing budgetary support, providing program review,
developing long-term planning, and determining appropriate level of effort would all have
to be addressed. The problems of the Federal responsibilities towards laboratories
which are not Federal institutions will have to be examined.

Philosophical questions of whether our nation is better off with an oceanographic
effort that is spread out in many parts of the country and in many institutions, as opposed
to being concentrated in a few well-funded laboratories, cannot be easily resolved one
way or the other. While all of these questions must be addressed before a National lab-
oratory system can be implemented, the Panel has reasonable confidence that these prob-
lems can be resolved. The issues which must be considered in choosing one of the fore-
going options are sufficiently complex that these options cannot be accepted or rejected
on the basis of short-term objections. Our goal must be the establishment of a system
which will do the most to nurture and enhance the maritime capability of this natibn.
The advantages and disadvantages of the four options are discussed in the following
subsections.

A. Option I

1. Concept

Under option 1, one or more of the currently existing oceanographic institutions
would be declared to be a National oceanographic laboratory. Where necessary, appropriate

UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES 61

enabling legislation or charter changes -would be instituted. Once one of the existing
laboratories had been declared a National oceanographic laboratory, its growth would
be selectively encouraged in order to create an oceanographic center of critical size.
It is envisaged that a National laboratory would be large enough to service the unusual
and/or major facility needs of most oceanographers in the country. It would also be able
to attract a significant fraction of the oceanographic research community and thus would
be able to create an intellectual environment whichwould be hospitable to the concept of
large-scale programs. Under this option, approximately four suboptions exist:

Suboption IA. Proclaim only Woods Hole and Scripps to be National oceanographic
laboratories.

Suboption IB. Proclaim Woods Hole, Scripps, The University of Miami, and The
University of Washington to be National oceanographic laboratories.

Suboption 1C. Proclaim the nations ten largest oceanographic institutes to be National
oceanographic laboratories.

Suboption ID. Proclaim four geographically separate Federal laboratories to be
National oceanographic laboratories.

Suboption IE. Any combination of options IB and 1D.

2. Advantages

The advantage of pursuing this option, in any of the variants listed above, would
be that a selective development of a major oceanographic laboratory could occur. If
suboption IA were followed, then we could look forward to the existence of a National
oceanographic laboratory on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. As facilities were
given selectively to these institutions by the Federal Government, these laboratories
would take on more and more of the character of a National laboratory. Scientists from
other oceanographic institutes would congregate at these centers, and one might hope that
by this process an enhanced degree of vitality, and programmatic synthesis would be
achieved.

A certain degree of efficiency would be achieved as the need for replication of f acili-
ties decreased. Facilities such as large-scale digital computers, central library and
data repositories, special physical models of various components of the ocean, exotic
platforms, and major and minor research vessels would be available, along with their
operational support groups. Other institutions would ultimately find it unnecessary to
maintain these facilities separately. Further, by forcing investigators from other labor-
atories to use these facilities, one would insure a large degree of intellectual cross-
fertilization. Both Scripps and Woods Hole traditionally have had strong and close associa-
tion with university groups. By making the facilities of the National laboratory available,
universities which do not have a sea-going oceanographic capability could be encouraged
to develop curricula in oceanography without facing the expense of providing facilities.

Suboption IB is in essence a variant of suboption IA. However, rather than designating
two laboratories, we would designate four laboratories as National oceanographic labora-
tories. This would. have the advantage that there would be better regional distribution.
One National laboratory would in essence be located at each corner of our country. Greater
centralization on regional plans and programs could be achieved. If there were four
National oceanographic laboratories and the Federal oceanographic budget were held at
a fixed level, then the size of each of the laboratories would be only half the size of the
national laboratories that would exist if there were on two laboratories so designated.
With regard to university education and the training of future oceanographers, this option

62 UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES

is twice as attractive as suboption 1A; both Miami and the University of Washington are
university- affiliated institutions.

Suboption IC would consist of designating the nations ten largest oceanographic
laboratories as National oceanographic laboratories. From time to time this number
might be changed as a new Laboratory grew beyond a certai-n threshold or one of the
existing Laboratories fell below some critical threshold of size and effectiveness. The,
advantage of this approach would be that a broad base of geographically distributed
laboratories could be used. Sponsorship would be given to all ten organizations in an
effort to avoid extreme centralization of our oceanographic research effort.

Again, for a fixed budget, each Laboratory could only grow to 1/5 the size that a
national laboratory would grow if the number were limited to two. Nonetheless, by con-
centrating on ten major laboratories, some help could be given to the smaller laboratories
in this group. Because of the greater geographical distribution of these ten laboratories,
local investigators would not have to travel as far to make contact and use facilities.

Suboption 1D would be to use one or more of the laboratories that are already in the
Federal laboratory system. The advantage of using existing Federal laboratories would
be that these laboratories are already within the Federal structure and are more easily
controlled and directed. A laboratory which is a component of the Federal Government
must be intrinsically responsive to the stated aims of national policy. A Federal institu-
tion can be expanded to provide such services as are necessary to the National oceano-
graphic community to encourage growth, to maintain engineering competence, and to
provide for facilities in an orderly manner. In addition, many Federal laboratories have
a commendable history of working with universities and in sharing facilities.

3. Disadvantages

The disadvantages of suboptions 1A, 1B, and IC are reasonably numerous. The
principle difficulty associated with suboption 1A would be the need to justify the selection
of only two laboratories. However one might justify such a selection, opposition would
develop from the laboratories which were not selected. The fear would undoubtedly be
expressed that the selected laboratories would grow while the smaller laboratories not
selected as National laboratories would wither and die. The wisdom of concentrating
oceanographic research in two major centers is certainly open to some,question. There
is a National strength that comes through organizational diversity. Indeed, the argument
can and has been made that one of the principle strengths of American oceanography is
that many individual organizations exist and these are not bound up with the parochial
views and vested interests of a few large organizations.

The same objection can be raised to suboption 1B. The designation of four labora-
tories is only slightly more liberal than the designation of two. Under such circumstances,
the objection can be made that the designation of limited numbers of laboratories still
will tend to rule out of all constructive future development the existing laboratories that
are not annointed as National laboratories.

Suboption 1C would mean effectively no selective government policy on the creation
of a National laboratory. Ten laboratories would be encouraged to grow. Presumably
the funds which are likely to be available would be such that none of them could grow to
a critical size so that they could become equivalent to an Argonne Laboratory, an Oak
Ridge, or a Brookhaven. In addition, specialized and expensive facilities would have to
be provided and replicated at ten institutions. The programs of each institution would
have to be justified to Congress individually, and one would have to account for their
number, programmatic uniqueness, and social utility. Unreasonable or nonproductive
competition might develop among the ten national laboratories for budgetary support, new

UNVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES 63

facilities, and personnel ceilings if these were to be invoked. It is felt that this would
eventually become an extremely untenable situation.

Suboption ID involves the use of Federal laboratories to serve as National labora-
tories. A number of difficulties exist with such use of Federal laboratories. Federal
laboratories tend to be subject to arbitrary ceiling and other operational constraints that
limit their size. If not skilfully managed, a Federal Laboratory could become inflexible
and inadequate in its relation with the American oceanographic research community.
Despite these difficulties, a great deal of scientific attainment and stature has been
achieved by certain Federal laboratories. The principal difficulty with this option is that
the existing Federal oceanographic laboratories do not have the present scientific stature,
manpower, or reputation to serve as a reasonable nucleation center for National oceano-
graphic laboratories. Thus, unless DOD laboratories were detached from the parent
organization, personnel would have to be recruited almost ab initio, and new Federal
organizations would.have to be formed. The efficacy of this course of action would be
subject to question when existing nonprofit institutions were available for the purpose
in the private sector of our society.

B. Option 2

1. C oncept

Under option 2, it is proposed that all oceanographic vessels, exotic platforms,
and specialized facilities which have been paid for by the U.S. Government (or whose
operation is supported by more than 80 percent with Federal funds) would be put into a
National oceanographic facilities pool and made available to all competent oceanographers.
A Federal agency that is competent to handle all of the administrative aspects of ship
operations would be assigned responsibility for this pool. This responsibility would
include selection and training of operating crews, provision of shore-based support facil-
ities, and the scheduling of routine overhauls. In addition, this agency would arrange for
all aspects of the financing of this pool, including testimony before Congress at budget
hearings. In its facility operation aspects the designated agency would perform services
that are analogous to those performed by MSTS (Military Sea Transportation Service),
which has operated the Navy's oceanographic research vessels with rather outstanding
success. In those aspects of its activities which cover financial responsibility for the
facilities, it would subsume many of the facility support tasks that are currently the
responsibility of ONR and NSF.

2. Advantages

The existence of a centralized pool of ships and other facilities would go a long
way towards the establishment of a national laboratory or facility system. The operation
of the pool would be such that the ships scheduling and configuration would be determined
by representatives of the user institutions subject to the constraints imposed by ship
safety and budgetary limitations. Typically, a group composed of representatives of the
ten or 20 largest oceanographic institutions might be members of the scheduling and
operations control group. To insure that incestuous relationships and logrollings did
not obtain, knowledgable public members who are not associated with the user institutions
might be asked to serve on the scheduling and facilities control groups. Typcially, the
public members would be drawn from industry and parts of the federal government which
did not have responsibility for maintaining the funds of ships within the pool.

A single budget line should be developed to provide funds for the maintenance and
operation of the vessels within the research fleet. A civilian agency Would be given
responsibility to stand before Congress and justify the utilization of the vessels and
develop documentation to justify the magnitude and necessity of this budget item. The

64 UNVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES

advantage of this system to the Nation would mean that in times of budget stringency the
size of the oceanographic fleet could be viewed as a whole. If it were necessary to reduce
the magnitude of the fleet, then a 10-percent cut would result in a lay-up of 10 percent of
the available vessels in the ocean. Under the present system, where each institution
must develop its own funds for each ship, a certain critical level of budget deficiency
forces an entire ship. to be laid up. Thus, a 25-percent cut in the operating funds of a
vessel under control of one institution may in effect be a 100 -percent cut. The existence
of centralized research vessel management would insure that the size of the National
fleet would expand or contract in a manner appropriate to the size of the National ocean-
ographic program.

The proposed system would result in the elimination of multiple support staffs. It
would insure professional care and the adoption of standard procedures. for all of the -
vessels. It is expected that the operating agency would handle such services as recruit-
ment and training of crews, port clearances, maintenance, operation of ships, and upgrad-
ing of physical facilities on board ships. In the event that marked advances were made
in the technology applicable to oceanographic vessels, then the application of these advances
to individual ships could be programmed on a comprehensive basis. Under this option
each institution would not have to individually raise funds for complex and costly electronic
equipment and individually train maintenance and operational personnel. In addition,
ships could then be replaced on an orderly basis related to their age and usefulness
rather than on the basis of the priorities of one oceanographic institution versus another.

The group which actually maintained and operated these ships might be a contractor
to the responsible Federal agency. Indeed, one of the present oceanographic institutions
might serve that role. On the other hand, private industry or nonprofit groups could
also serve the necessary function.

The tradition that institutions maintain intimate control of the operation of their own
vessels is reasonably deeply ingrained in the system. Nonetheless, despite the strong
views of many oceanographers, there is considerable evidence that ship operation is not
a necessary function of an institution that is undertaking oceanographic research. The
Navy laboratories and at least one Federal contract research center have had outstand-
ingly successful experience in developing operations at sea, using MSTS-operated vessels
over which.they did not have institutional control. Their experience has shown that the
at-sea operations of such vessels proceeds quite smoothly and that there is no significant
loss in operational flexibility in this mode of operation.

One would hope that in the course of time a national service would develop in which
officers made a career of serving aboard oceanographic research vessels. Promotion
and advancement toward senior command might require collateral fitness reports from
senior scientists who cruised on their vessels. Such comment would evaluate the cooper-
ative spirit and oceanographic competence of the captains and crews of the oceanographic
vessels in the pool.

The other key facilities of a large oceanographic laboratory which are basically
overhead in nature are usually involved in engineering and equipment maintenance. There
is an immense convenience in having such staffs available at an oceanographic institution.
Possibly the services of the personnel should be under a comprehensive agency, which
would either provide engineering services by regional grouping or provide them on a
continuing basis to individual institutions..

Major institutional items of hardware and software such as computers and program
libraries should not and do not have to be unique to an individual oceanographic institution.
Within the last few years, computer technology has changed extraordinarily rapidly. It
is now possible to make extensive use of time-shared computers from many dispersed

UNrVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES 65

geographic locations. Thus while it is at present somewhat awkward to share a computer
one can certainly envisage that in the future no University/National laboratory will have
its own dedicated digital computer. For research the only requirement is immediate and
convenient access to a computer. One may have reasonable confidence that computer
technology is moving forward rapidly enough so that a central computer might be located
in some city which had a convenient labor supply for application programmers and com-
puter operators. This would tend 'to increase the efficiency, to lower overhead costs,
and to relieve oceanographic institutions of the need of recruiting computer operators
and programmers. Furthermore, every institution would have a much larger computer
available than it presently has.

3. Disadvantages

The overall objectives of the U.S. Government should be the support of oceano-
graphic research and the development of an enhanced national maritime capability. From
this standpoint the Panel believes that this option has a number of disadvantages. It does
not address the problem of increasing institutional size to allow them to develop a greater
training and/or research capability. While some such increase may be implicit through
enhanced efficiency of operation, this proposal does not create a center which could act
as a home for groups which can undertake a larger scale of experimental work than is
now possible with thecurrent institutional configuration.

This option would probably encounter some objections from the oceanographic
institutions. While the validity of such objections might reasonably be questioned, the
fact remains that there has been a tradition of institutional control of facilities. Propon-
ents of this tradition can point to the general success and convenience of such operations.
The existence of a new agency or a pool, however well run, would result in greater
inflexibility in scheduling. Ship operating schedules are often worked out 2 years ahead.
An increase in scheduling delays might create impossible situations. A greater degree
of travel and coordination would be required, which would represent something of an
inconvenience to the ship operators.

Centralized operation of facilities would undoubtedly tend to enforce uniform standards
of equipment. While there may be an effective economy in such standardization, it would
reduce the desire for and possibility of innovative changes on the part of the working per-
sonnel of the institutions. They would be led to feel that such changes were not among
their prerogatives. Admittedly, the oceanographic community must eventually realize
that if it is to do big science, then the individual scientist can no longer modify major
facilities in an arbitrary way. Nonetheless, the tradition of making such modifications
is well ingrained in the system and has resulted in some striking advances.

The adoption of this option would also serve to centralize the determination of fleet
,and facility sizes within the same organization that operates this fleet. From the stand-
point of National interest it is not clear that this would be the most useful configuration.
If a NOAA were to be developed, then the operation of National oceanographic facilities
would be an ideal functionfor this agency. However, unless a NOAA-like institution
were to be developed, considerable objections could be raised to assigning agency respon-
sibility to anyone of the presently existing -sponsors of oceanographic research.

C. Option 3

1. Concept

Under concept 3. it is proposed that, a number of. regional laboratory consortia be
established, each consisting of a geographical cluster of existing laboratories, with one
strong member of each group being designated as the Regional Lead Laboratory. This

66 UNIVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES

approach would tend to result in strong interaction between diverse research laboratories
without introducing the strains'associated with a radical restructuring.

The above concept can be implemented by arbitrarily subdividing the oceanographic
research of the United States into four or more main groupings: Northeast United States,
with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution designated as lead laboratory; Southeast
United States, with the University of Miami as lead laboratory; Northwest United @tates-
(including Alaska), with the University of Washington as lead laboratory; and Southwest
United States (including Hawaii), with the Scripps Institute of Oceanography as lead lab-
oratory. The research units of the individual laboratories would be locally controlled
and administered, but cooperative research programs would be encouraged. The lead
laboratories would be authorized to procure, develop, and maintain reasonably large
regional fleets with diverse and exotic capabilities which would be available to all the
members of each laboratory grouping. Unique or expensive facilities such as data reduc-
tion centers, deep submergence vehicles, and large arrays of buoys would be located at,
or be.under'the administration of, the local lead laboratory; however, these facilities
would be available to all. Multiple source funding of mission oriented research would be
continued, but additional funds would become available (via an organization like NOAA) for
the development of the local laboratory and the lead laboratory facilities. All member
laboratories will have equal standing, regardless of affiliation (government, university,
or private institution). User committees composed of scientists from the individual
laboratories would be established for the equitable and efficient use of the regional fleets
and the unique facilities.

2. Advantages

The advantages of such an operational plan are clear. The individual research
programs of the laboratories making up each regional consortium would be initiated,
nurtured, and developed locally, with inputs from other member laboratories only when
appropriate and mutually agreeable. Hence individuality of scientific program, responsive
to local conditions andpressures and molded according to the -discretion of the local research
scientists, would be preserved. University laboratories would be encouraged to maintain
and develop their- own expertise and scientific strengths as well as to couple with the
nonuniversity members of the consortium. Fellowship programs could be initiated to
attract qualified graduates of the various conventional scientific disciplines into post-
graduate research programs in oceanography which could also be carried out at non-
university member laboratories. Thus the dual character of a graduate training institute
and a research facility could be incorporated into all member laboratories. And the key
scientists of the nonuniversity laboratories would have the opportunity to enter into the
role of adjunct professors.

The concept of having available unique or unusually expensive facilities at the regional
Jead laboratories would be incorporated in this plan of action. It would now be possible
to justify large capital investments for facilities which would be shared by several user
research teams. Efficient use of these shared facilities would be assured by the demand
and competition resulting from their availability to all member laboratories. Also, well-
qualified supporting staffs, such as those required for fleet maintenance and development,
could be attracted and held by the opportunities and challenges inherent in a large and
diversified regional fleet.

It should be noted that there are attendant advantages to any plan of action which has
shared facilities as a central element. Setting up user committees for efficient utiliza-
tion of such facilities automatically provides a simplified and informal method of program
coordination. The principal scientists making up the utilization committee must compare
and evaluate the prograins of one another to determine scheduling priorities. This type of
spontaneous interaction will frequently generate cooperative programs. At the very least,
familiarity with the research programs of other groups will minimize duplication of effort.

UNVERSITY/NATIONAL LABORATORIES 67

Finally, this type of program emphasizes the development of the research capabilities
of each of the member laboratories in a manner and rate which is locally determined.
The character of the individual member laboratories will not be modified by external
committees. There should therefore be no consequent legal problems or charter changes
necessary for the implementation of this program.

3. Disadvantages

There are, of course, attendant disadvantages to this proposal. An obvious flaw
is that associated with the rather arbitrary division of the U.S. oceanographic effort on
a geographical basis. This would tend to lump together member laboratories having very
little in common. The regional fleets associated with each laboratory consortium would
not necessarily satisfy the requirements of all members of the consortium. Yet a group-
ing based on some criterion other than that of location becomes extremely involved.
Selecting the grouping on the basis of common interest, for instance, in addition to mixing
together laboratories geographically removed from each other, would also result in
minimizing the crossfertilization of ideas which might result from a heterogeneous group-
ing. Also, most research laboratories have diversified interests. It is unlikely that any
laboratory group could be assembled in which, all interests would be common.

The concept of a regional fleet associated with a geographically contiguous regional
laboratory consortium has similar inherent difficulties. Being located, say, in the north-
east United States does not automatically result in a laboratory developing interests M'
the North Atlantic exclusively. By what mechanism, then, would a member of the south-
west consortium gain access to the North Atlantic regional fleet? Would the user committee
for the northeast regional fleet give preferential treatment to fellow members from the
northeast U.S. laboratory consortium? On the other hand, establishing user committees
composed of key scientists from the entire U.S. would be unwieldy and would most likely
be impossible to convene because of conflicting commitments. Establishing a user
committee in Washington, on the other hand, negates many of the advantages associated
with local control and interaction.

The selection of a Regional Lead Laboratory also presents a rather difficult problem.
In certain geographical areas the choice may be rather straightforward. However some
regions of the United States contain several strong oceanographic laboratories. Making
a selection between such laboratories will be, to say the least, an extremely difficult
and touchy problem.

D. Option 4

1. Concept

Under option 4 the U.S. Government would accept the present institutional form
of the oceanographic laboratories without attempting to sponsor changes. It would attempt
to encourage the growth of oceanographic research and training by increasing the magni-
tude of funding and by introducing more flexibility into the funding pattern. The U.S.
Government would block-fund facilities, their support, and their overhead costs at exist-
ing and/or evolving oceanographic laboratories and institutions. As a possible variant
of this option, the Government might centralize all of the funding for oceanographic research
and educational institutions in the hands of one agency. This agency could coordinate the
funds and services needed by other Federal agencies. If NOAA were created, it could
undertake responsibility for the funding and support of the civilian aspects of the national
oceanographic research effort.

70 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MANPOWER

Il. MANPOWER CHARACTERISTICS BY AREAS OF ACTIVITY

A. Marine-Related Employment in the Private Industry Sector

1. Shipbuilding and Advanced Technology

Of the 1428 engineering job holders in one lar ge shipyard, 499 have two-year
Associate-of -Arts degrees, 70 have science degrees,and 68 have degrees in other fields
such as social science, history, or education. Of the scientists employed, 80 percent
were trained in chemistry. No oceanographers or ocean engineers were indicated. Sixty-
six percent of the engineers were trained in mechanical, electrical, civil, or industrial
engineering.

The advanced technology industry (research submersibles, ocean platforms) is like-
wise heavily populated with engineers. One firm employs two oceanographers out of a
total of H scientists'and two ocean engineers out of a total of 111 engineers. For the
remainder, the @principal science training has been in either physics, mathematics,
chemistry, or metallurgy. In the area of advanced technology, engineers were found to
be predominantly mechanical, electronic, electrical, and civil. Eighty of the engineers
out of'a total of 459 identified in this area did not have four-year college degrees.

2. Offshore Oil

The personnel reported in offshore oil activi -ties are those engaged in exploration
and production activities. The data exclude personnel involved in that component of the
oil industry's research afid development activities related to petrochemicals. The num-
bers, however, do -include contract services personnel engaged in exploration and drilling.

The scientists employed by the oil industry are predominantly geologists. Some
physicists, geophysicists, and mathematicians are also employed. Although the National
Petroleum Council study does not list oceanographers and ocean engineers, small numbers
are known to be employed by the multipurpose geophysical surveying contractors and
consultants. The engineers- of the oil industry are predominantly petroleum engineers.
The industry also employs relatively large numbers of mechanical,. civil, and electrical
engineers, and smaller numbers in other discipline areas.

3. Merchant Marine

Merchant Marine employment f igur es do not give any indication of personnel with
educational backgrounds in oceanography or ocean engineering. Howe ver, it is known
from the survey of university curricula in marine sciences that some of the maritime
academies now offer such courses. In addition, part of the cadet -m idshipm an Is "sea'
year" at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy can now be spent aboard government and
private ocean-research vessels.

4. Coastal Dredging

The engineers in this category were reported to be civil, mechanical, and 6lectri-
cal. Technicians include surveyors as well as engineering aides.

5. Aquaria and Parks

The scientists include biologists (general), zoologists, and chemists. No oceano-
graphic training was indicated.

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MANPOWER 71-

B. Marine-Related Employment in the Academic Community

The academic community is one of the major employers of marine scientists and
ocean engineers. Data which were obtained from a review of university curricula in
marine sciences were supplemented by a NASCO oceanographic laboratory survey of
April, 1969. The academic community employs 1534 people associated with oceanography
or ocean engineering in teaching capacities and 1758 people in research capacities. Many
of these have dual functions for both teaching and research. Of those people in instruc-
tional positions, 438 were identified as having formal training in one of the oceanographic
disciplines. Presumably the remaining 1100 people in this category received their formal
training in fields other than oceanography.

A breakdown of the formal academic training of the noninstructional staffs of academic
institutions was not available. Informal estimates by those who have been closely associ-
ated with this group indicate that a relatively small percentage of these people (10 to 40
percent) have had their formal training in one of the oceanographic disciplines.

C. Marine-Related Employment in Government Agencies

One shortcoming of the Federal statistics is that ocean engineering is not one of the
standard job classifications. Another pitfall in the use of the statistics is that many of
the -administrators in,-oceanographic activities have scientific or engineering job titles.
Table 2 lists the results of the 1969 survey in government employment. A number of
technicians who were identified by job titles are listed under scientific or engineering
technician categories. This placement may be in error, but the total number is.as
reported.

1. Navy

The total number of scientists, engineers, and technicians employ ed by th e Navy
is somewhat larger than is shown by Table 2. The scientists, engineers, and technicians
employed by NASC, NFEC, NESC Admin., Intel., BuM@ed, NCC, NRTC , Security, and
Marine Corps are not included in this table.

The biological scientists include-in addition to the general biologists -microbiology,
physiology, entomology, soil conservation, and forestry. -No oceanographic disciplines
are indicated.

Over 50 percent of the physical scientist population of the U.S. Navy is considered to
be physicists, and 17 percent chemists. Personnel with job titles of oceanographer (574),
cartographer (282), geophysicist (99), meteorologist (67), geodist (41). and geologist (11)
are more likely to have had some training in oceanographic institutions. Other physical
science disciplines in marine-related activities include metallurgy, astronomy, health
physics, photographic technology, textile technology, forest products technology, and
hydrology.

The engineering in the civilian establishment of the Navy is largely electronics,
mechanical, general, electrical, aerospace, and civil, engineering. Ocean engineers is
not a Navy job category.

2. ESSA

ESSA conducts in-house programs of scientific research, mapping, and charting.
The figures in Table 2 include only the staffsof the ESSA research laboratories. Car-
tographers are largely not reported here. Of- the 464 physical scientists in ESSA labora-
tories, over 73 percent are classed as meteorologists and physicists. Eight other

Table 1
PRELIMINARY SURVEY DATA
University and Industrial Scientific, Engineering, and Technical (S-E-T) Positions in Marine Activities
Non-Federal Biological Physical Engineering. Naval Arch Total
Activity 7Technic Sci S-E-T
Sci7 Technic Engrs] Technic Marine Engrs & Others
(Oceanographic disciplines in parentheses)
Shipbuilding
1 large yard' 0* 0 25 1428 675 (est) 97 Nav. Arch. (N.A.) 2225
23 design firms & 0 0 3 1190 2040 170 N.A. 3403
3 yards2
Adv. Technol-
671
4 large firms,3 7 0 73 (2) 459 (2) 132+ incl N.A.
Subtotals 7 0 101 (2) 3077 (2) 284T 267 N.A. 6299
Offshore Oil4 1221, 206 1868 750
Merchant Marinetl >
- - 10000 Mar. Engrs (M.E.) 10000 z
(plus 8600 Deck O's and
1600 Radio O's)
Coastal Dred e 400 150 550
9
Contractors6
Aquaria & PSVI-S7 133 ? 7 ? 10 ? -150
Academic
Teachingd 477 (108) - 560 (281)1 263 (49) 30 N.A. 1534 teach.
Resear h (850 professionals plus 908 technicians and lab staff) (1758 rsch)
TOTALS 617 (108), ? 1889 (283) 206 5618 (51) 3747 297 N.A.- 18533 0
10000 M.E.
(plus 8600 D.O. and
1600 R.O.)
ITechnicians estimated on basis of information supplied by Naval Ship Systems Command.
2Estimates based on information supplied by Naval Ship Systems Command.
3Four of the largest industrial firms engaged in advanced undersea technology.
4Based on a report of the National Petroleum Council and consultation with NPC staff. Not included in this listing are 1196 deck officers.
1188 marine engineers, and 271 radio officers on oceanic oil tankers.
5Supplied by MARAD; licensed officers in the U.S. Merchant Marine, 1969.
6supplied by Corps of Engineers.
7Supplied by National Recreation and Park Association.
8Data from "University Curricula in Marine Sciences, 1969-7011 (in press); 43 undergrad. and 71 grad. schools.
9Data for 1968 from a survey by NASCO, April 1969 (unpublished); 34 academic institutes, 10 of which are large.

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MANPOWER 73

disciplines, including oceanography and geophysics, make up the remainder. Some 106
out of 108 engineers are oriented toward electronics, while the other two are mechanical
engineers. Electronic, meteorological, and physical science technicians make up more
than 96 percent of the technician work force.

Within ESSA's officer corps, an integral part of C&GS, 29 officers have received
formal undergraduate and graduate training in ocean science and ocean engineering. In
addition, 11 other officers have taken advanced studies in marine science.

All personnel employed by MARAD appear to be involved with administrative duties.
Mechanical and general engineers and naval architects comprise 85 percent of the engi-
neering work force. Over 50 percent of the technicians are shipbuilding inspectors, while
the remainder are naval architect or engineering technicians. MARAD also operates the
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at King's Point, New York, where at least two members
of the academic staff have had formal oceanographic training and several others have
ocean engineering backgrounds.

3. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (BCF)

BCF employs the largest number of fisheries biologists, 445 out of a total 486
biologists. The remaining biological scientists are in seven subdisciplines. Physical
scientists employed by BCF include 76 chemists, 39 oceanographers, nine physical scien-
tists, two meteorologists, and one health physicist. Over half the engineers are classified
as chemical, while the remainder are classified as mechanical, electronic, and general
engineers. Some 75 percent of the technicians are biological technicians. The remaining
technicians work as physical science, electronics, or engineering technicians.

4. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (BSF)

BSF reports 30 fisheries biologists, four wildlife biologists, three biological tech-
nicians and one physical science technician.

5. Bureau of Mines

The Bureau of Mines, in its marine mineral exploration program, has four physical
scientists, two geologists, two geophysicists, seven mining engineers, three mechanical
engineers, and five electronics engineers; also three marine engineering, one cartographic,
and one physical science technician.

6. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration

FWPCA is concerned with pollution problems of both fresh water and salt water.
It is estimated that the majority of its scientific and technical staff works on marine
problems about 35 percent of the time. The biological scientists include 63 biologists
and 18 microbiologists. Chemists make up 64 percent of the physical scientists. Some
148 out of 155 engineers are employed as sanitary engineers. Over half of the technicians
are physical science technicians, while the remainder are biological and engineering
technicians.

7. U.S. Geological Survey

Only half of the USGS staff works on marine-oriented activities on a full-time
basis. The remainder is on "other than full time." Some 60 percent of the physical
scientists employed by USGS are geologists, while 20 percent are hydrologists. Chemists,
geophysicists, oceanographers and mathematicians make up the other physical science

rn
o m 0 C, z to tTj (D (D
0
C+ 0,0 m
> CD
EI) m (I pi
-.r, (@ > n m
0 m cn
CD (D m
cn CD m

co Cil 00 C4 00

W rp
I.- CD C4

0 m p
N7 I.-
W CL71 N2
ba C4 m
W CD

0
aq m
Ul W CD
ND OD
N7 co @--A m ca ND
W -3 m 00 0) rn @-L -3

W W
CD W CA 00 CID
W
(D

C) C4 0 to
CA -3 Ul

W
ril -4 0
to co & -4 >
M CA 00 C) t-z & CD
C) 00 W 00 CD Ul to OD 00 fil I.-
In I--
CD

1-3 CD
(D
Cil &
to co
Na C) to I.-
CA CA m om to W to ba W

00 p
I--
co CO -4 ta
W (M 00

W
w
m W -3 co 1.- 00 cn
1P. 00 op@ C> " (D W w W & CD &
Ul co -4 w m w -4 C4 W co -3 W m @--A w Cn I.-

HHA&OCINVw livoiNHOHI aN-v oijillmalos

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MANPOWER 75

disciplines. There is only one full-time oceanographer. The engineers are of two disci-
plines, hydraulic and petroleum. Physical science and engineering aides comprise over
86 percent of the technicians. The others are electronic or cartographic technicians.

8. The Corps of Engineers

The Corps of Engineers employs 20 marine biologists in that part of its civil works
program which is marine oriented. The physical science disciplines include hydrology,
chemistry, geology, meteorology, geodesy, mathematics, and a general and miscellaneous
category. Over 78 percent of the engineering employees are civil engineers, while the
remainder are mechanical, electrical, electronic, general, and sanitary engineers. The
Corps also lists 35 naval architects and five marine engineers. Half of the technicians
are in engineering categories, while the others include construction inspectors, surveyors,
draftsmen, and electronic technicians@

9. U.S. Coast Guard

The civilian staff numbers reported for the Coast Guard include faculty members
(seven scientists, eight engineers) at the Coast Guard Academy. Some 12 out of 16 physi-
cal scientists are oceanographers; two physicists and two @mathematicians make up the
remainder. The USCG employs 84 civil engineers, 34 electronic engineers, and 49 gen-
eral engineers, with the remainder split among four other engineering categories. Some
13 naval architects are listed. Technicians are mostly naval architect, mechanical, and
electrical technicians, plus five physical science aides.

10. Health, Education, and Welfare-Public Health Service

The listed HEW-PHS staff engaged in shellfish laboratory activities includes com-
missioned officers. General biologists and microbiologists dominate the biological sci-
entists. The physical scientists are chemists. Technicians are discipline -oriented in
their respective categories.

11. The Smithsonian Institution

The Smithsonian staff includes 50 zoologists, two marine botanists, nine paleontolo-
gists, and four marine geologists. The technicians were not categorized, but it is believed
they are mostly sorting center (biological) aides.

12. Other Agencies

The Atomic Energy Commission, the National Space and Aeronautics Administra-
tion, and the National Science Foundation staffs listed are believed to be all engaged in
administrative work. Of the biological scientists, NSF has seven biologists, and AEC one
marine biologist and one botanist. In addition to the three oceanographers shown,- the
physical scientists include chemists, physicists, mathematicians, and geologists. Engi-
neers are either civil, general, or marine engineers.

13. Military Oceanography

Some 121 naval officers are reported to have a postgraduate education in oceanog-
raphy. Some 450 members of the Naval Weather Service Command have had oceano-
graphic training, and 900 enlisted personnel have had air/sea interaction or special
prediction training. The Coast Guard reports 20 officers with academic backgrounds in
oceanography and 227 others with various scientific discipline backgrounds. The Coast
Guard also reports some 2657 officers with engineering backgrounds (1635 from the
Academy) with 20 discipline areas reported.

76 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MANPOWER

III. PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE MANPOWER SUPPLY AND DEMAND
IN OCEAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES

A. General Comments

Estimating future manpower requirements is, at best, a risky, highly speculative
undertaking. There are many pitfalls in a field that has many permutations and combina-
tions among, scientific, engineering, and technician disciplines. These difficulties are
further compounded by the vagaries of human nature and behavior. The greatest pitfall
would be to make simple extrapolations, of past or present experience, into the future.
At best, only qualitative estimates of trends. can be obtained.

The level of ocean-related activities is almost completely dominated by the level of
Government spending. Except for the offshore oil industries and parts of the fishing and
shipbuilding industries, employment is a strong function.of Governmental support of
research and development, of Government subsidies, or of revenue sharing. To project
future manpower requirements, one must project Government spending in the various
oceanic activities. In this regard, marine activities must compete with all other Govern-
ment activities for public revenues. At present marine research and development obtains
about three percent of all Federal research and development expenditures. Shipbuilding
and fishing subsidies add to the marine-related Government expenditures.

B. Assumptions

There are a number of reasons'for expecting an increased demand for scientific,
engineering, and technician manpower in marine activities. The demands on the marine
environment should grow at least as fast as the national rate of population growth, which
is currently growing at a rate of approximately three percent per year. With an expand-
ing population in the United States and elsewhere, it may be safely assumed there also
will be an expanding economy. It could be argued that research and development work in
the marine environment calls for and will receive a larger amount of tax dollar support
than it now receives because of the unexploited potential of the ocean. However, our
society may elect to fund other national priorities in preference to an enlarged effort in
oceanography. It is sufficient for the present purpose to assert that growth of Government-
supported marine activities will be steady, and it will be more or less in concert with the
population increase. Admittedly, the rate of overall increase may climb abruptly if reve-
nues from the oceans climb. The effects of the offshore oil industry on the manpower
spectrum is a good example of an abrupt change in demand.

Another reason to anticipate a slow change in the manpower picture is the inertial
effect of. the large number of people already. employed in oceanographic activities by the
Navy. It is not expected that this manpower pool will fluctuate very much in size or shape
over the near-term future.

Projections of future manpower requirements are considered in two phases: (1) an
attrition rate for the people already employed in the field, and (2) an estimate of growth
or expansion of activity. The Panel believes that it is realistic to assume an attrition
rate of five to six percent. This is based on an assumed annual replacement of the work
force of three percent due to retirements and two or three percent for lateral transfers
to other fields, or other reasons.

C. Projections of Ocean-Related Manpower by A ctivity Area

By inspection of Tables I and 2, one can readily deduce that the Government and
academic institutions are the principal employers of oceanographic scientists. Industrial

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MANPOWER 77

employment is primarily in engineering occupations. The mix of scientific, engineering,
and technician disciplines varies with each area of activity, making projections more
diff icult.

The principal ocean-related activities by industries were examined in terms of the
disciplines learned at marine or related science schools, and by employment levels
depicted in the previous tables. Attrition rates and assumed growth rates, which vary
with the area of activity, are applied to obtain rough estimates of personnel needs. (See
Table 3.)

The reasons why so few of the engineers employed in ocean-related activities are
called ocean engineers is not too clear. Ocean engineering as a discipline area is only
several years old. Perhaps it is misleading to term it a discipline area because ocean
engineers have subdiscipline specialties related to mechanical, electrical, and civil engi-
neering, just as their land counterparts do.

As a result of the foregoing considerations, it is not realistic, to project future needs
for ocean engineers on the basis of present employment levels. There simply are not
enough ocean engineers to constitute a base level, nor enough experience to know their
versatility or worth -in all areas of activity.

Shipbuilding manpower statistics do not indicate any presently employed marine
scientists or ocean engineers. There are approximately 2500 engineer positions in the
shipbuilding industry. About 500 of these are held by persons without four-year college
degrees. The anticipated demand for engineers, including ocean engineers, is indicated.
A large number of technicians are already employed (>2700). Our increasingly complex
technology would indicate an increased demand for technician manpower. The demand
for naval architects and marine engineers is thought to be small, but constant.

Advanced technology, like ocean engineering, is a new field. There is little experi-
ence on which to draw, If one considers manpower for instrument design and manufacture
(not included in Tables 1 or 2), more scientists than shown are employed. However, the
total numbers are small. Turnover is estimated at five to ten persons per year.; Growth
would be primarily in the engineering aspects.

Scientists and engineers engaged in offshore oil exploration and production were not
reported by the National Petroleum Council in its manpower study. The numbers listed
in Table 3 are estimates of those marine specialists thought to be engaged by exploration
contractors and ocean engineering consulting firms. Offshore oil could experience a
sharp increase in demand for oceanographic and ocean engineering manpower, but it is
estimated that the need would not exceed 100 per year.

The Merchant Marine, whose licensed officers are supplied largely by theone Federal
and four State maritime academies, is felt to have a relatively steady manpower situation.
When one includes the annuitants from the military fleet and recruits from the fishing
fleet and from the ranks, it appears that supply is now and will continue to be about equal
to demand. A new source of licensed Merchant Marine officers has developed in the past
two years. Officers are now produced by union-operated licensing schools for Merchant
Marine personnel..

The manpower of the academic institutions and the Government should be considered
collectively, and in the same light. About eighty-five percent of academic oceanographic
research is federally supported. As mentioned earlier, Federal and academic activities
undertake most of the scientific activities in oceanography. Accordingly, they employ
most of the scientific graduates in the field. Overall, it is felt that the growth of scientific
activities in oceanography will be relatively nominal and that the growth of engineering
activities will be limited by the availability of manpower and funds.

78 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MANPOWER

Table 3
Projections of Ocean-Related Manpower Needs by Activity Area, 1970-1980

Estimated Manpower
Needs/Yr Due to
Activity Ocean-Related Employment - Summed
Disciplines Turn- Expan- Expan- Needs/Yr
over sion sion
'), (var. %) No.
(@ 59b

Shipbuilding Oc. Engrs. - - slight 10 10
Nav. Arch. 270 14 2 5 19
Technic,(var.) 2700 135 5 135, 270

Adv. Tech. Biol. Sci. 7 - 10
Phys. Sci. 73 4 10 7 11
Oc. Engr. 459 23 10 46 69

Offshore Oil Phys. Sci. 60 est 6 6
Oc. Engr. 90 est 10 9 9
Technic 75 est 8 8

Merchant Marine Lic. Ships Off. 20200 1010 stable ?

Academic Inst. Biol. Sci. 477 24 3 14 38
Teach Phys. Sci. 560 28 3 16 44
Oc. Engr. 263 13 10 26 39
Research Technic 908 45 10 90 135

Summary Fed. Fish Biol. 475 23 2 10 33
Agencies Biol. Sci. 307 15 10 30. 45
Phys. Sci. 4578 230 3 135 365
Oceanographers 679 34 3 20 54
Engr. 14710 735 ? > 735
Technic (var.) 13034 650 10 1300 1950
Nav. Arch. 1881 M 2 38 133 @_j

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MANPOWER 79

D. Student and Graduate Level Populations in Marine-Related
Academic Institutions

Table 4 lists both student enrollments and degrees granted in 1961 and in 1968 for
eight marine and related curricula programs. While the Table indicates a significant
growth in the numbers of schools, enrollments, and graduates over the past nine years,
one should interpret this growth curve cautiously. The data are based on questionnaire
surveys. The same schools were not all represented throughout the period. Some schools
have redesignated their programs as being r@arine related without changing the intrinsic
content in an appreciable manner. This phenomenon is especially true in basic science
and basic engineering. Finally, the base from which the growth began was relatively
small. Consequently, any increase would seem relatively large. Nevertheless, the in-
crease in oceanographic, ocean engineering, and marine technician programs is real.

The student population represented by the enrollment numbers is not completely
defined. The baccalaureate candidates are reported to be third- and fourth-year students,
but it is not known how many are part-time students. Many of the advanced degree candi-
dates are known to be part-time students. Also, it is not known how large a fraction of
the graduates go on to higher degrees or postdoctoral education. The survey from which
the student data of Table 4 were collected did not determine the disciplinary distribution
of students in the sciences. These data were obtained from a survey of twelve large
oceanographic institutions conducted by the Office of Naval Research in September, 1968.
The results are shown in Table 5. These data indicate that about one-third of the graduate
students are in biological sciences, one-third in geology and geophysics, and one-third in
physical and chemical oceanography. The subdisciplinary categories of the ocean engi-
neering group is unknown.

One should also keep in mind the time it takes to earn advanced graduate degrees.
NAS Publication 1489, "Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities," indicates a median
total time of 7.6 years from baccalaureate to doctorate for earth science students, and
2.1 years for a master's degree. Similar times are indicated for ecology and engineering
students.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Because of the many intangibles involved, it is not possible to develop a precise
equation for the supply and demand of oceanographic manpower. In the past, less than
one person in ten employed in an oceanographic research activity had formal training in
an oceanographic discipline. Clearly, both the supply and demand for manpower with
oceanographic training will be a sensitive function of the total Federal funds invested in
the field.

Table 6 presents an approximate correlation between future employment levels and
student populations in marine-related schools. By inspection, it would appear that the
enrollments and the anticipated number of graduates will be sufficient to meet personnel
needs in the foreseeable future. This conclusion is especially obvious in the biological
sciences. It is anticipated that over 800 graduates per year will be available to satisfy
what appears to be an average annual need for 116 biological scientists.

At present, a majority of personnel in the physical science group were not trained
as oceanographers. Their formal education was in fields such as physics, chemistry,
meteorology, and geology. It is anticipated that components of the national reservoir of
people with training in these fields will be available to meet future personnel needs. It
should be borne in mind that the marine scientist population is most closely related to
the Government's programs, and estimated projected needs were quite nominal.

80 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MANPOWER

Table 4
Oceanic Academia
(All Reporting Institutions)

1960-61 1968-69 1960-69
Curricula and
Degrees Offered NO. Enroll- Degrees No. Enroll- Degrees Degrees
Schools ment Granted Schools ment Granted Granted

Oceanography
BS 5 83 13 16 1451 300 925
MS 16 202 40 31 1005 267 986
PhD 16 169 29 28 663 132 511

Marine Relat. Basic
Sci.
BS 4 34 10 26 1201 388 1076
MS 14 61 34 36 327 145 582
PhD 13 90 27 23 332 73 360

Marine Food & Fish.
Sci.
BS 4 252 32 5 560 142 538
MS 3 38 16 6 121 50 199
PhD 2 35 3 3 89 22 76

Ocean Engineering
BS - - - 1 179 30 57
MS 11 313 46 76
PhD 3 52 3 7

Marine-Relat. Basic
Engr.
BS 2 253 123 8 251 105 966
MS 1 2 2 11 196 45 120
PhD I - - 7 113 18 45

Naval Arch. & Marine
Engr.
BS 4 559 127 6 766 181 1396
MS 2 49 49 -3 100 46 398
PhD 1 3 - 2 21 6 51

Maritime Academies
BS 4 1639 336 5 1910 460 3366

Technicians- A.A. 1 3 3 14 942 167 382

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MANPOWER 81

Table 5
Graduate Student Specialties at 12 Large Marine Science Institutions, 1967-68*

Specialties

Institution
Geol.
Bio. Chem. Phys. Geophys. Acoustics Ocean Eng.

U. Alaska 3@@ 6 3 4
U.Nash., 25 @7 30 13

Ore. St. U. 26 10 23 23

U. Hawaii 15 4 14, 36 2 .13

SIO 86 18 23 44 5

TAMU 9 5 18 10

U. Miami 73 1 5 7 4 25

JHU 6 3 11 2

NYU - 19 -

Columbia 10 4 83

WHOI 1 - 5 3 1

URI 42 14 12 13 -

Totals 296 68 167 238 12 38

Percent 36.2 8.3 20.4 29.1 AT 4.65
*From an@ONR Survey, September 1968 (unpublished).

82 SCIENTIFICAND TECHNICAL MANPOWER

Table 6
Approximate Correlation of Employment Levels and
Students in Marine-Related Schools, 1969
Present Projected Present Anticip.
Specialty 'Emplokm Ientl Needs5 Enrollment2 Grad/Yr3
(per year)

Physical Sci. BS 1768 BS 588
.Ind. & Acad. 1889 (283) 61 MS , 888 MS 444
Fed. Gov't. 5272 (682) 365 PhD 662 PhD 94

4
Biological Sci. BS 1444 BS 480
Ind. & Acad. 617 (108) 38 MS 565 MS 282
Fed.'Gov't. 778 (27) 78 PhD 420 PhD 60

Engineering BE 430 BE 143
Ind. & Acad. 5618 (49) 127 ME 509 ME 254
Fed. Gov't. 14503 725 DE 165 DE 23

Marine Engr. (Ind.) 10000 ? ? ?

Naval Arch. BS 766 BS 255
Ind. & Acad. 297 19 MS ,100 MS 50
Fed. Gov't. 1903 .128 PhD 21 PhD 3

Ship Officers (Ind.) 10200 ? ? ?

Technicians (all) 470
Ind. & Acad. 4861 413 AA 942
Fed. Gov't. 13033 19.50
10ceanogr'aphic disciplines in parentheses.
2AII degree levels, 1968-69; phy.'sci. are 2/3 of total sci., biol. are 1/3 of sci., plus the fisheries.
students.
3-Estimated from enrollments; approx. 1/3 of BS, 1/2 of MS, and 1/7 of PhD candidates.
4Includes -fisheries biologists.
5From. Table 3.

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MANPOWER ; 83

Although it appears that there will be an overall sufficiency of graduate scientists,
occasional shortages in particular subdisciplinary specialties might arise. This could
be expected to happen if new programs were initiated on a large scale. For example, a
large-scale civilian man-in-the-sea development effort would create a need for medical
doctors trained in hyperbaric medicine that might easily exceed the available supply.

The situation in relation to the supply of engineers for ocean activities has a different
complexion. On inspection, it would appear that there is, or will be, a shortage of engi-
neers. The projection is based mainly on the need for replacements to compensate for
normal attrition in the large number of engineers currently employed in the field. No
allowance was made for projected growth in Government programs in this manpower
area. This large number of engineers is comprised of some 28 subdisciplines (see
Table 7) and includes very f'ew "ocean" engineers. The national concern should be not
with the apparent shortage of ocean engineers, but with a more general shortage of other
kinds of engineers. This is further amplified by the report of the Engineering Manpower
Commission of the Engineers Joint Council.* In this report they project a national short-
age of some 125,000 engineers by 1971 and over 300,000 by 1976.

It would appear prudent for the ocean-related activities to enhance graduate and
undergraduate training opportunities in "ocean engineering," just to assure a certain and
viable supply of future engineers.

The situation for technicians closely parallels that for engineers. As ocean technology
expands and at the same time becomes more complex, the need for technicians who can
maintain, repair, and operate equipment will become more pressing. A shortage of engi-
neers will compound the demand for technical assistance.

As in the engineers situation, it is difficult to make a case for "marine technicians."
At least 22 technician disciplines are included in the present survey data. The critical
categories would seem to be those which require several years of post-high school educa-
tion, as opposed to those requiring only on-the-job training. Even so, the technician popu-
lation can be expanded more quickly and at less expense than the engineering population.
The technician can be expected to fluctuate more widely and more rapidly than the profes-
sional scientist and engineer manpower pool. It takes less time, on the average, to train
technicians, so the work force can be expanded in shorter time. In times of budget stress,
technician help is more likely to be released or not hired than the professional categories.

*"Demand for Engineers and Technicians-1966."

84 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MANPOWER

Table 7
Position Titles Related to Discipline Backgrounds of Personnel
Engaged in Marine Activities

Biological Scientists (15)

Aquatic Ecologist Genetics Soil Conservationist
Entomologist Husbandman Wildlife Biologist
Fishery Biologist Marine Biologist Zoologist
Forester Microbiologist Biochemist
Gen. Biol. Scientist Physiologist Botanist

Physical Scientists (20)

Gen. Phy. Sci: Metallurgist Geodosist
Marine (& Naval) Sci. Astronomer & Space Mathematician
Physicist Meteorologist (& Statistician)
Health Physicist Geologist Forest Prod. Technol.
Geophysicist Marine Geologist Textile Technol.
Hydrologist Oceanographer Photographic Technol.
Chemist Cartographer Paleontologist

Engineers (28)

General Aerospace Industrial
Safety Marine (& Naval) Hydraulic
Fire Prevention Electronics Petroleum
Materials Naval Architect Mining
Landscape Architect Agricultural Structural
Civil Ceramic Systems
Sanitary Chemical Thermal
Mechanical Machine Design Metallurgical
Nuclear Welding Textile
Electrical

Technicians (22)

Biological Technic. Shipbuilding Insp. Math Technic.
Forestry Technic. Ship Surveyor Mechanical Eng. Technic.
Engineering Aide Ind. Eng. Technic. Phy. Sci. Aide
Engineering Technic. Phy. Sci. Technic. Marine Eng. Technic.
Construction Inspector. Meteorological Technic. Naval Architectural
Surveying Navigational Info. Technic. Technic.
Draftsman Cartographic Technic. Electrical Technic.
Electronic Technic. Geodetic Technic.

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION OF FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES

I. BACKGROUND

A. General Considerations

Today the U.S. Government maintains a large number of Federal marine laboratories
which, although generally situated within the continental United States-, have missions
and responsibilities throughout the world ocean.

By organization, these Federal marine laboratories report to 29 bureaus of 11
departments and agencies of the Federal government. By mission, they support the
authorities and responsibilities of their superior agencies which collectively are charged
with the responsibility for deriving the maximum benefit to the United States economy,
security, health, and welfare from marine science activities. In management, most share
such common ills of Federal agencies as excessive layers of superior organizations and
lack of control in balancing the resources of men, money, and materials against assigned
workload. Quantitatively, there are some 85 Federal marine laboratories. Qualitatively,
the Commission's report noted that "some of them are understaffed and underutilized,
some involved in research somewhat removed from their agency's primary interests,
but most with programs of high quality. These laboratories form a valuable component
of the national capability in marine science."

The above comparisons notwithstanding, the Panel cautions against two pitfalls in
analyzing the Commission's comments and recommendations bearing on Federal labora-
tories. First, the term "Federal laboratory," as used in the report is misleading in that
there is no typical Federal marine laboratory among the some 85 laboratories of the 29
bureaus of the 11 departments and agencies mentioned above. Second, it must be noted
that the Commission apparently focused its investigations principally on the non-Federal
marine science communities, then on the nondefense Federal laboratories, and, in par-
ticular, only made passing reference to the large marine science centers and laboratories
in the Department of Defense.

Thus, the term "Federal laboratory," as used in the Commission's report, actually
encompasses a heterogeneous grouping of over 80 mission -oriented laboratories, large
and small, which vary in size from some 10 scientists and. support personnel at the
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Tiburon Marine Laboratory, Tiburon, California
to over 3500 professional and support personnel who make up the Naval Ship Research
and Development Center, Carderock, Maryland.

It is significant to note that of these many Federal -marine laboratories, only the
Department of Defense laboratories have a population of over 100 professionals. For
example, the largest Bureau of Commercial Fisheries' laboratory (Seattle, Washington)
has a total of approximately 83 professional and 61 support personnel. Similarly, the
largest Environmental Sciences Administration laboratory (Miami, Florida) has a total

86 FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES

population of approximately 50 personnel. The largest Department of Health, Education
Welfare, Bureau of Water Hygiene laboratory (Narragansett, Rhode Island) has about
14 professional and 20 support personnel.

B. Commission's Recommendations

The report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources con-
tained a number of recommendations which apply to Federal marine laboratories, both
directly and indirectly. Quoted below are those recommendations which the Panel con-
sidered most pertinent during the course of its review:

"A small group of i 'nstitutions, which should include but not be restricted to
the acknowledged leaders, should be designated 'University/ National labora-
tories.' They should be distributed geographically to cover different parts of
the ocean and should be provided with adequate facilities for undertaking
global deep.ocean programs in basic science. Their facilities should be
available to scientists at other universities and Federal laboratories for
related basic science-, activities. They should be accorded adequate insti-
tutional support for maintenance and operation, and in turn should commit
themselves and. their facilities to serve needs of scientific groups affiliated
with other institutions. Such an institutional arrangement will insure that
the Nation's leading oce a*nographic institutions will be provided adequate re-
sources and support to insure their continued health and vigor."

e 7A network -of estu*arine and coastal zone research institutions should be
established in association with appropriate academic institutions to under7
take the basic and applied research on estuarine processes so that state
and local governments can have information on which to base rational
management procedures. These facilities need not be large in size but
should have adequate facilities and staff sizes exceeding the critical limit
to maintain stable programs. Their activities should be supported under
the Sea Grant College Program."

9 "Federal laboratories should be strengthened by moving in the direction of
fewer but stronger laboratories adequately funded and staffed with even
closer affiliation with academic institutions. Steps should be taken 'to pro-
vide an atmosphere in these laboratories conducive to attracting'first rank
scientists by providing the necessary flexibility at the scientific leader-
ship level.'.'

Many marine functions of existing agencies and bureaus should, wherever
possible, be consoliated to improve the effectiveness of the Government's
participation in a National marine program."

� "The Federal Government should initiate in the near future a program to
assure development of basic multipurpose technology that will enhance. the
capability of a broad spectrum of users to perform useful work on and in
the oceans."

� "Person-to-per'son contacts should be encouraged between groups working
in related technological fields. Such contacts could be achieved through
contract programs, special information exchange programs, and reciprocal
arrangements with industry, government, and the academic community
whereby their scientists and engineers would be exchanged.".

.FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES 87

* "Establishment within the Department of Defense of a strong primary mis-
sion in undersea technology to meet present and future threats."

* "The Commission recommends that the Navy maintain and, as required,
expand its broad program of oceanographic research, in,particular its
underwater acoustics research program."

C. Review of Present Federal Marine Laboratories

1. General Comments on Nondefense Federal Laboratories

As evidenced by their recommendation for selective consolidation of marginal
laboratories into a small number of stronger centers, the Commission clearly favored
fewer, stronger, and more adequately staffed and equipped Federal laboratories. While
the Commission was indefinite as to which laboratories they judged to be "marginal," it
is apparent that the Commission was principally concerned with the ability of the many
small nondefense Federal laboratories to support the statutory responsibilities of their
parent agencies.

The Panel shares this concern and, strongly supports the position that there is an
immediate need for well-rounded, well-equipped, and well-staffed Federal research
centers which have organic capability to employ a systematic approach to the conduct of
research primarily related to the missions of their parent agencies. It is to be noted
that there is no universally accepted standard for the critical or optimum size of a
Federal or any other type of laboratory. The situation is further complicated in the area
of estuarine and coastal zone research where, because of the highly local nature of the
problems, it may be best not to coalesce all small laboratories within a given regional
area into one center.

In order to provide a better basis for evaluating the nondefense Federal laboratories,
the Panel has outlined below the present laboratory structure for various Federal agencies,
that maintain such laboratories to support their missions.

2. Department of the Interior Marine Laboratories

a. Background

Of all the nondefense Federal agencies, the Department of the Interior has
the largest interest in the coastal zone. Since its creation more than 120 years ago, the
Department has slowly evolved from the role of general housekeeper for the Federal
government to that of the "custodian of the Nation's natural resources." Under the
Defense Procurement Act of 1950, as amended, the Secretary of the Interior was delegated
responsibilities relating to petroleum and natural gas, solid fuels, electric power, fishery
commodities or products, and metals and minerals.

Today the Department's geographical responsibilities include the entire continental
United States and lands within the Arctic Circle. Its marine-related responsibilities
include the custody of 750 million acres of lands, the conservation and development of
mineral and water resources, the conservation, development, and utilization of fish and
wildlife resources, the coordination of Federal and State recreation programs, the
prevention, control, and abatement of pollution of the Nation's water resources, and the
management of hydroelectric powersystems.

It is apparent-that the Department of the Interior combines the Federal government's
major responsibilities for the development, use, and management of the living resources
of the sea with the responsibilities for marine mineral exploration, recreation, and

88 FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES

water quality and supply. Representative of these responsibilities is the fact that
Interior's budget for ocean affairs constitutes about 35 percent of the total Federal
civilian effort in marine activities.

b. Mission and Objectives

Succinctly stated, the basic mission of the Department of the Interior is to
manage, conserve, and develop the natural resources of the United States, both in the
ocean as well as on the land. In carrying out its mission in marine resources, the
Department's objectives fall into the following four principal programs:

(1) Fishery program objectives

� Increase the net contribution of living marine resources to the
national economy

� Improve the economic status of people in the fishing industry

� Supply the growing and diversified demands of the American people
for fish and shellfish products efficiently and economically

* Bring more of the world's, living aquatic resources into economic
commercial production to benefit all mankind.

9 Develop and protect the mar ine game fish resources

e Increase man's understanding and control of living aquatic resources
and their environment

(2) Marine mineral program objectives

* Provide the necessary information and analysis of the geologic
framework of the continental margin of the United States

o Assess the resource potentials of.the continental shelf and the deep
sea floor

e Assist private industry in developing technology for mining placer
and lode resources of the seabed

(3) Marine recreational program objectives

o Provide and preserve public access to the shoreline

o Develop an understanding of the socioeconomic aspects of outdoor
recreation

o Develop and improve the recreational potentials of the ocean

o Develop a systematic, continuing survey of catch and fishing sport
in the marine recreational fisheries

(4) Marine water resource program objectives

o Maintain high water-quality standards for multiple use of the ocean
environment

FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES 89

� Develop and perfect a practical, low-cost, large-scale desalting
technology

� Improve water-quality monitoring and data collection

� Improve understanding of the effects of specific pollutants on water
quality and the living resources

� Improve knowledge of the economics of various uses of the marine
environment.

c. Organization

(1) Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife, Parks, and Marine Resources.

The recently created position of Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife,
Parks, and Marine Resources discharges the duties of the Secretary with respect to the
development, conservation, and utilization of the fish, wildlife, marine, and national
park resources of the Natiom The Assistant Secretary exercises direction and super-
vision over the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife, which comprise the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park
Service, and the Office of Marine Resources.

(2) Office of Marine Resources

The Office of Marine Resources was created to advance and coordinate
the Department's marine resource policies, programs, plans, and requests for legisla-
tion. This Office serves as the focal point for the Department's interacting with Federal,
State, and local governmental agencies, international organizations, private industry, the
scientific and academic communities, and the general public.

(3) Principal Bureaus and Offices with Marine Responsibilities

Rapid proliferation of marine science programs in the Federal government
since World War II has been accompanied by similar growth in Interior. The following
12 bureaus and offices now have marine responsibilities: Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, National Park Service (all under the
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife, Parks, and Marine Resources); Geological
Survey, Bureau of Mines (under the Assistant Secretary for Mineral Resources); Bureau
of Land Management, Office of Oil and Gas, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (under the
Assistant Secretary for Public Land Management); Office of Saline Water, Office of Water
Resources Research, and Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (under the
Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research); and the Office of the Secretary (see
Table 1).

d. Physical Facilities

The Department has an array of laboratories, vessels, and other facilities
strategically located along the sea coasts and around the Great Lakes (Fig. 1 and Table 2).
These range from well-known laboratories, such as the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries'
Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, to the recently completed Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island. Still other
laboratories are authorized but yet to be funded. In addition, the Department operates
a number of field offices supporting marine mineral research (Geological Survey and
Bureau of Land Management) and a large assortment of outdoor recreation facilities
(national parks, national seashores, and national monuments), plus thousands of acres of
coastal wildlife refuges.

90 FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES

Table I
Marine Interests of the Bureaus and Offices in the Department of the Interior
(See legend below for explanation of abbreviations)

NON- LIVING RESOURCES GEOLOGY
� sea bottom delineation and extraction * structure (GS)
(BM, GS) 9 geologic mapping (GS)
� sea water extraction (OSW, FWPCA) e determination of mineral potential
� mineral economics (BM, OOG) (GS, BM)
LAND MANAGEMENT * determination of geological engineer-
� exploration and leasing (GS, BLM) ing characteristics (GS)
� exploitation (GS, BM) WATER
e.recreation (NPS, BSFW, BLM, BOR) 9 behavior, currents, temperature (GS,
� classification- use benefit determina- BCF, BSFW, FWPCA)
tions (BLM, GS, NPS, FWPCA) e quality (FWPCA)
-for specialized uses * hydraulics (GS, FWPCA)
(BLM, OS, NPS) * tidal and thermal energy (GS)
� ocean resources economics (BLM) * supply (GS, OSW)
� underwater and shoreline natural area 0 research (OWRR,OSW,FWPCA,BCF)
perpetuation (NPS, BSFW) LIVING RESOURCES
TECHNOLOGY e life cycle and ecology (BCF, BSFW,
� submersibles (BCF, BM, BSFW, GS, NPS)
NPS) * location and migrations (BCF, BSFW,
� drilling and sampling techniques (GS, NPS)
BM) * control and augmentation (BCF)
� EROS, buoys and other data collectors e resource assessment (BCF, BSFW)
I (GS, BCF, BSFW, NPS, FWPCA) * management (BCF, BSFW, NPS)
� data collection and distribution (All * foods (BCF)
Bureaus and Offices) * underwater and shoreline natural area
� environmental monitoring (BCF, perpetuation (NPS, BSFW)
FWPCA, GS, BSFW, NPS) e recreation (BOR, NPS, BSFW, FWPCA)
* fishery economics (BCF)

Legend:
GS - Geological Survey
BM - Bureau of Mines
NPS - National Park Service
OSW - Office of Saline Water
BSFW - Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
FWPCA - Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
OWRR - Office of Water Resources Research
BCF - Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
BLM - Bureau of Land Management
BOR - Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
OS - Office of the Secretary
OOG - Office of Oil and Gas.

A BIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES (BSF&W)
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 9 Major Facilities 0 BIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES (BCF)
a TECHNOLOGICAL LABORATORIES (BCF)
* EXPLORATORY FISHING BASES (BCF)
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION TECHNOLOGICAL LABORATORIES 0

MARINE MINERAL RESEARCH & EXPLORATION FACILITIES

SEATTLE
CORVALLIS BOOTHBAY HARBOR
Pacific Northwest DULUTH Marine Water
bore
at
Water Laboratory Fresh Water Laboratory Dual 'to'Y GLOUCESTER
lity Le iGAI
NARRA NSE Pill
Ilk
MILFORD WOODS HOLE
Oceanographic institution
0 COLLEGE PARK (Geological Survey personnel
ANN ARBOR
M rine Mineral Technology Center Great Lakes and contract)
STANFORD TIBURON IB:reau of Mines1l @ater Laboratory WASHINGTON, D.C. OXFORD
MENLO PARK Office of Marine Geology
and Hydrology (Geological Surveyl @d
Outer Continental Shelf offices z
HAWAII ANGELES (geological Survey and Bureau of LLmd Mannaggemeno BEAUFORT 171
TERMINAL ISLAND
LoJOLLA Marine Geology Field office
nee
HONOLULU (Geological Survey)
BRUNSWICK >
Outer Continental Shoff offlites GULFBREEZE H
(Geological Survey and Bureau of NEW (IRLEAN&F 0
Land Management) @d
Outer Comtimmb@l Sheff Office 0 PASCAGOULA P-1
lGoological survey) St. PETERSBURG t4
ANCHORAGE 1. ALIKE BAY GALVESTON PETERSBURG W .
JUN 'J MIA
EAU CORPUS CHRISTI Marine Geology Reid Offics
KETCHIKAN (Geological survey)

CD
Fig. 1 Major Marine Facilities Operated by the Department of the Interior

LX2
Table 2
Department of the Interior
Major Ships Engaged in Oceanographic Work
Length Draft Beam Displ. Complement Comm.
(feet) (feet) (feet) To source Built by Mission
'ge Crew ITech. Agency
A. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
Albatross IV 187 15, 32 4088 19 12.. New 1963 1963 Fishery Oceanography and
Charles H. Gilbert 123 11 21 383 11 5 New 1952 1952 Patrol Work
David Starr Jordan 171 11 37 846 22 13 New 1965 1966
George B. Kelez 176 12 32 936 12 6 Conversion 1944 1963
John R. Hanning 86 9 22 147 7 2 New 1950 1950
Miller Freeman 216 18 42 1,782 26 10 New - 1967 1967 Fishery Oceanography
Murre 11 86 9 24 250 4 5 Conversion 1943 1949 Fishery Oceanography
Townsend Cromwell 158 10 33 652 13 7 New 1963 1964 Fishery Oceanography
Undaunted 143 14 33 760 15 12 Conversion 1944 1965 Fishery Oceanography
George M. Dowers 73 8 22 120 4 6 New 1955 1955 Fishing Gear Res.
Delaware 11 155 12 30 680 .14 6 New 1968 1968 Fishing Gear Res.
John N. Cobb 93 9 25 250 7 4 New 1950 1950 Fishing Gear Res.
Oregon 100 10 26 -410 10 5 New 1946 1946 Fishing-Gear Res.
Oregonll 170 13 34 906 14 10 New 1967 1967 Fishing Gear Res.
Pribilof 19 51 12893 19 - Conversion 1954 1964 Cargo ship serving Pribilof
Islands seal management
program >
@A
B. Bureau of Mines 0
Cripple Cree 65 116-1/2118 3 1 7 1964 1 Marine Mining
k 95 M
- 39 2 Conversion 11952
Virginia City 205 5 1,235 20 0 Conversion 11943 1966 Marine Mining
C. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Dolphin 1 107 112 125 __ 1 400 1 9. 1 7 1 Conversion 11953 11964 1 Marine game fish research
D. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Clean Waters 65 6 17 39 1 6 New 1967 1967 Water quality s veillance,
training, and research
W. H. Hutton 50 5 13 25 1 4 Conversion 1938 1963 Servicing water-quality
monitoring network
E. Geological Survey
Polaris 96 1 7 120 1 57 1 5 1 9 1 Conversion 11927 11967 1 Marine Geology

FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES 93

High seas research vessels total 21 and run the gamut from converted barges to
modern research vessels, such as the R/V MILLER FREEMAN and the R/V OREGON 11
(Table 2), which were designed for specific missions of fishery oceanography in the North
Pacific and exploratory fishing in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean. Such vessels, along
with personnel from their associated bases and laboratories, cooperate in many inter-
agency oceanographic programs, such as BOMEX, EASTROPAC, and the Indian Ocean
Expedition.

Although the Department could accommodate a considerable expansion of program
activities at present and authorized marine research facilities, the laboratories are not
located so collectively as to allow maximum efficiency of use, nor are they all of optimum
size. Diverse management and political expediency in the past have led Interior labora-
tories to serve such single missions as fishery research (sport or commercial) pesticide
research, geological investigations, marine ecology, and water pollution control. A study
is proposed that will state long-term laboratory and facility requirements and policies for
laboratory location and administration. Preliminary steps are under way to explore
occupation of joint facilities. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries has already taken
initial steps to combine several of its small laboratories into a Center of Excellence for
Estuarine Studies.

3. Department of Commerce Marine Laboratories. Environmental
Science Services Administration

a. Background

The Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA) of the Department
of Commerce was established in 1965 through the consolidation of the Coast and Geodetic
Survey, the Weather Bureau, and the Central Radio Propagation Laboratory of the National
Bureau of Standards.

ESSA consists of staff offices and five major components. The latter are: the
Environmental Data Service, the Weather Bureau, the ESSA Research Laboratories, the
Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the National Environmental Satellite Center. The field
organization that was formally a part of the Weather Bureau and the Coast and Geodetic
Survey remains essentially intact.

b. Mission

The mission of ESSA is to describe, und erstand, and predict the state of the
oceans, the state of the lower and upper atmosphere, and the size and shape of the earth,
in order to further the safety and welfare of the public, enhance and improve the Nation's
economy, and assist those Federal departments concerned with the national defense, the
exploration of outer space, and the management of natural resources.

c. Functions and Activities

ESSA conducts comprehensive programs with respect to meteorology, clima-
tology, hydrology, surveying, cartography, oceanography, terrestrial and space investi-
gations, electromagnetic wave propagation, electromagnetic properties of the atmosphere,
telecommunications services, and other related activities within the special competence
of ESSA.

Functions and operations of ESSA include basic and applied research, observations,
processing and dissemination of forecasts, warnings, and information about the state of
the oceans and inland waters, the upper and lower atmosphere, the space environment,
and the earth.

94 FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES

d. Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

The Department of'Commerce has a single top-level executive, the Assistant
Secretary for Science arid'Technology, who, among.other duties, has cognizance over all
the research and development carried out within the Department. In addition to ESSA,
the following operating units of Commerce report to him: National Bureau of Standards,
Patent Office, Office of State Technical Services, Office of Standards Policy, and Office
of Telecommunications.

e. ESSA Marine Laboratories

Of the 12 principal ESSA research facilities, the following constitute the major
marine laboratories:

(1) Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratories (AOML).

These laboratories consist of the following component laboratories all
located in Miami, Florida: Marine Geology and Geophysics Laboratory, Physical Oceanog-
graphy Laboratory, Sea-Air Interaction Laboratory, the National Hurricane Research
Laboratory, and the Experimental Meteorological Laboratory. The objective of these
laboratories is to increase knowledge and provide better understanding of the Atlantic
Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, studying their influences and interactions
with the physical environment for extending the marine services and operations of ESSA,
and application to national needs forimprovement of oceanographic and tropical meteoro-
logical investigative techniques and instrumentation. Hurricane research was recently
incorporated within AOML. Principal research activities are conducted within the follow-
ing task areas: Structure and motions of the ocean; ocean basin characteristics; sea-air
interaction; and hurricane genesis, movement and dissipation.

(2) Pacific Oceanographic Laboratories (POL).

The Pacific Oceanographic Laboratories located in Seattle, Washington,
are staffed by marine geophysicists and physical oceanographers. Included within the
POL is a joint oceanographic group with the University of Washington in Seattle, Wash-
ington, and a joint Tsunami research effort with the University of Hawaii at Honolulu,
Hawaii. The objectives of these laboratories are to increase knowledge and prov-ide
better understanding of the Pacific Ocean and adjacent regions and their influences on or
interactions with the physical environment. The facilities also extend the marine service
operations of ESSA and provide for the improvement of oceanographic investigative tech-
niques and instrumentation. Liaison is niaintained with the scientific community and
other national and international organizations in oceanography and related sciences.
Principal research activities are conductied'within the following task areas: Structure
and motions of the ocean, ocean basin characteristics, and Tsunami research.

(3) Other Principal ESSA Coastal Facilities.

These include: Environmental Data Services and the National Environ-
mental Satellite Center, located in Washington, D.C.; and the two ship operating bases
operated by the Coast and Geodetic Survey--the Atlantic Marine Center, Norfolk, Vir-
ginia and the Pacific Marine Center, Seattle, Washington.

4. Department of Transportation Marine Laboratories. Coast Guard

a. Mission

The Coast Guard has been involved in ocean science for more than a century.
Its statutory mission in oceanography is stated in Article 94, Title 14, U.S. Code as:

FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES 95

"The Coast Guard shall conduct such oceanographic research, use
such equipment or instruments, and collect and analyze such ocean-
ographic data, in cooperation with other agencies of the Government
or not, as may be in the national interest."

b. Coast Guard Marine Laboratories

(1) Coast Guard Oceanographic Unit (CGOU)

The CGOU is the principal marine laboratory of the Coast Guard, directly
employing about 60 oceanographers and technicians and utilizing three vessels, the ,
ROCKAWAY, the GLACIER, and the EVERGREEN, as principal oceanographic platforms.
In addition to the staff of the unit, there are about 15 technicians and oceanographers on
the ROCKAWAY and about 80 technicians stationed on 40 other cutters. These cutters
are equipped for oceanographic sampling.

The CGOU's mission is to exercise cognizance over the Coast Guard oceanographic
program. This includes functions such as data collection, processing, and dissemina-
tion. The Unit is responsible for liaison and cooperation with other agencies and is con-
cerned with instrument development and calibration, and oceanographic techniques and
procedures. In general, it conducts oceanographic research in support of the statutory
functions of the Coast Guard in furtherance of the national oceanographic effort. Finally,
it provides oceanographic support of the operation of the International Ice Patrol, and it
conducts studies of ice and current conditions in accordance with the International Con-:
ference on Safety of Life at Sea and 46 USC 783.

Oceanographic operations at the Coast Guard Oceanographic Unit include:

9 Data collection, processing, and transmission from United States Weather
Ships on a continuous real-time basis

Physical oceanographic work by Coast Guard icebreakers. Current studies
include the physical oceanography of Baffin Bay and Davis Strait, Chukchi
Sea, and the Weddell Sea.

Coastal oceanographic monitoring by selected Coast Guard ships, lightships
and stations, and coastal airborne infrared radiometry

9 Search and Rescue research into the drift and detection of survivors and
the improvement of search prediction methods

9 Oceanographic@ operations and research of the International Ice Patrol

Participation in large national oceanographic efforts, such as ICITA,
EASTROPAC, and BOMEX.

(2) National Data Buoy Development Project

The National Data.Buoy Development Project was established to develop
a national capability to implement networks of unmanned, automatic, environmental data
buoys in coastal North American, deep ocean, estuarine, and Great Lakes areas. The
project consolidates national planning and development efforts. As a starting point, it
uses the several underfunded, uncoordinated data buoy programs that were previously
begun by individual agencies of the Federal government. The project directly employs
a staff of 18 ocean scientists, engineers,, and technicians, and 10 administrative support
personnel for in-house operations.

96 FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES

Present activities of the project include:

* Systems planning, including the publishing of a Preliminary, Concept. Formu-
lation Summary, a tentative Specific Operational Requirement, and two
engineering studies of alternative technical approaches to meet operational
requirements

* Participation in the Navy North Pacific (NORPAC) buoy testing program in
order to obtain HF vs satellite relay comparison data

* Commencement of initial mooring, sensors, and power supply studies and
investigations

o Direction and supervision of several out-of-house contractual investigations
of systems engineering, communications problems, sensor development,
automation, mooring systems, and systems analysis.

(3) Field Testing and Development Center (FTDC)

The FTDC, located at Curtis Bay, Maryland has the mission to conduct
field tests'under controlled service conditions and to develop warning prototypes of
various devices being considered for servicewide use. The Center employs a technical
and support@ staff of 27 people.

(4) Coast Guard Academy

The Coast Guard Academy located at New London, Connecticut operates
a small laboratory with a staff of two oceanographers and one technician. This staff
works with about 40 to 50 cadets. The principal mission of the laboratory is to train
cadets who are working toward an Ocean Science degree. In addition, the laboratory is
also involved in an on-going study of the Niantic River estuary. The cadets participate
in the acquisition, processing, and analysis of oceanographic data from the laboratory's
24-ft research boat and from cutters and icebreakers on summer cruises.

5. Other Nondefense Federal Marine Laboratories

a. Smithsonian Institution

(1) Background

The Smithsonian Institution is a unique organization whose functions are
dual, being both private and governmental. As a legal governmental organization, the
Smithsonian Institution is one of the 32 independent offices and establishments of the
Government of the United States, which include of particular interest to this Panel, the
Atomic Energy Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation.

The Smithsonian Institution was created by an act of Congress approved in 1846. In
1829, James Smithson bequeathed his fortune to the United States to found, at Washington,
under the name of the "Smithsonian Institution" an establishment for the "increase and
diffusion of knowledge among men."

As a Federal agency, its establishment has as members the President of the United
States, the Vice President, the Chief Justice, and the 12 members of the President's
Cabinet. It is governed by a Board of Regents consisting of the Vice President, the Chief
Justice, three Members each of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives,
and six citizens of the United States appointed by joint resolution of Congress. The

FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES 97

Secretary of the Institution is its executive officer and the director of its activities. As
a Federal agency, the Smithsonian is funded by Federal appropriations and administers
various Federal programs placed under its control by Congress. The first Federal
appropriation for Smithsonian operation took place in 1877.

The Smithsonian Institution itself is a private, nonprofit corporation. It receives
and administers contracts and grants and accepts gifts and bequests from both private
and public sources and, administers these activities in its capacity as a private
organization.

(2) Functions and Activities

To carry out Smithson's mandate, the Institution performs fundamental
research; publishes the results of studies, explorations, and investigations; preserves
for study and reference about 62 million items of scientific, cultural, and historical
interest; maintains exhibits representative of the arts, American history, aeronautics
and space exploration, technology, and natural history; participates in the international
exchange of learned publications; and engages in programs of education, along with
natural and international cooperative research and training.

Among its many reference collections are the vital collections of catalogued marine
organisms and fossils in the National Museum of Natural History which have made the
Smithsonian the study and reference center for the leading marine biologists of the world.

(3) Marine Laboratories

The Smithsonian operates three facilities which the panel considers im-
portant among the marine laboratory resources of the Federal government. These are:

The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, located on Barra Colorado Island in
the Panama Canal Zone. This Institute conducts a wide variety of tropical research
programs and operates two marine biology laboratories, one on the Atlantic side of the
Isthmus at Galeta Island and the other at Fort Amador on the Pacific side. In addition
to the marine research conducted in the littoral waters of two oceans in Panama, the
Institute's scientific staff conducts research in other parts of Central and South America,
the Pacific, Asia, and Africa, where comparative studies are clarifying the distinctive
biological role of the tropics.

I The Chesapeake Bay Center for Field Biology, Edgewater, Maryland is a major
component of the Smithsonian established in 1965 on 700 acres of waterfront lands on
the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay through the generosity of private individuals
and foundations. This new Center is conducting research particularly important to the.
problems of the coastal zone including such areas as: water quality; productivity of
plankton in the Bay and rivers; distribution and abundance of native and introduced aquatic
vegetation and their diseases; fish populations, varieties, distribution, rate of growth, and
predator-prey relationships; ecology of aquatic birds; and other coastal zone and estuarine
research oriented towards both land and water ecosystems and their interrelationships.

The Oceanographic Sorting Center, Washington, D.C., which was established in late
1962 to act as a service organization to the scientific community. in receiving, sorting,
recording, and distributing marine biological and geological specimens. Initial sorting
is done by tec hnician- level personnel, and the sorted collections are shipped to special-
ists located throughout the world, such as the Mediterranean Marine Sorting Center in
Tunisia. This procedure permits the effective use of the small number of highly skilled
taxonomists. The Center is supported both by direct appropriation and through contracts
with several Federal agencies, including the Department of Interior, the National Science
Foundation, and the Office of Naval Research.

98 FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES

b. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (DHEW)

(1) Background

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was created by Reor-
ganization Plan 1 of 1953, which abolished the Federal Security Agency. and transferred
all functions to the new organization. DHEW was established for the purpose of improv-
ing the administration of those agencies of the Government, the major responsibilities
of which are to promote the general welfare in the fields of health, education, and social
security.

Within the DHEW is the Public Health Service, which had its origin in act of 1798
authorizing marine hospitals for the care of American merchant seamen. Subsequent
legislation and Presidential Reorganizational Plans have vastly broadened the scope of
its activities. Today, the Public Health Service consists of three operating agencies:
the Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service, the Health Services and
Mental Health Administration, and the National Institutes of Health. Unified direction of
these agencies is the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary (Health and Scientific
Affairs) whose principal deputy is the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service.

(2) DHEW Marine Laboratories

Within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Public Health
Service has four laboratories engaged in marine sciences research, and also supports a
broad spectrum of marine-oriented research through research grants. These fou r in-
house laboratories, which are operated by the Consumer Protection and Environmental
Health Services's Bureau of Water Hygiene, are the Northeastern Water Hygiene Labora-
tory,. Narragansett, Rhode Island; the Gulf Coast Water Hygiene Laboratory, Dauphin
Island, Alabama; the Northwestern Water Hygiene Laboratory, Gig Harbor, Washington;
and the Cincinnati Water Hygiene Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.

The prime responsibility of the laboratories is to provide the technical and scientific
competence for measurement and assessment of the biological, chemical, and physical
factors that determine the environmental characteristics of water when it is used for
human consumption, recreation, and food production.

(3) Other DHEW Marine Research Programs

In addition to the above in-house research programs, it is to be noted that
the Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service supports over $1 million in
research grants annually in marine science areas related to. its programs, including such
areas as seafood and seafood poisons, safety of SCUBA diving, pesticides in seafood, ocean
disposal of solid wastes, and microbiology of the marine environment.

The National Institutes of Health supports a multimillion- dollar research grants
program in areas related to the marine environment. Studies include such subjects as
barometric decompression, marine physiology, aquatic biology, mode of action of marine
toxins, diseases and behavior of marine organisms, pathophysiology of drowning, com-
munications in deep sea diving, and related subjects.

6. General Comments on Defense Laboratories

The marine science programs under the Department of Defense generally fall into
two categories. The principal DOD programs are those of the Department of the Navy
which are principally oriented towards maintaining the capabilities of our naval forces to
conduct their Presidential and OSD assigned missions related to national defense. The

FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES 99

second category consists of those long- e stabli shed functions of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers related to public works in the coastal and inland waters of the United States.

As compared to the non-Defense laboratories, the DOD laboratories which support
the above Army and Navy programs are "big business," albeit nonprofit, in terms of
men, money, and'materials. For example, well over one-half of the Federal marine
science program is sponsored by the Navy and many of the Navy's programs are carried
out by the large in-house laboratories. These laboratories range in size from the Naval
Civil Engineering Laboratory with about 370 personnel and a total funding of approximately
$8 million, to the Naval Ship Research and Development Center with about 3,500 personnel
and a total funding of over $100 million.

7. Coastal Engineering Laboratories and Activities of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

a. Background

In addition to its military mission, the Congress has given the Corps of Engi-
neers certain Civil Works missions dealing with improvement of channels for navigation,
flood control, and protection and restoration of ocean shores. Some $1.2 billion is spent
annually on this program, of which some $200 million is spent on projects in the coastal
areas of the United States, including the Great Lakes. The Corps has a research pro-
gram to support this Civil Works mission which is carried out by three Corps labora-
tories. Before describing these laboratories, however, it would be well to describe the
overall Corps' organization in order to put the research program in its proper context.

b. The Corps Districts and Project Reports

The Civil Works design, construction, operation, and maintenance program of
the Corps is carried out by an organization of 45 Districts reporting to 9 Divisions
around the country. Twenty-two of these Districts border on our coastline and are
engaged in studying and analyzing the coastal'processes to the extent that they influence
the various Corps projects being studied, constructed, or maintained in that area. Their
work is not research, but the practice of engineering. Nevertheless, these Districts col-
lect a vast amount of tidewater and coastal physical data which appears in their design
studies of various projects.

It is of some interest to note that the project studies are made by the Corps only on
specific instruction by Congress. In effect, this means that the Corps' Districts have no
authority to collect and analyze general coastal data. Their studies are made only on
specific instructions from Congress to study a particular area for a particular purpose.

In preparing its report on a particular project, the Corps District contacts all inter-
ested public agencies- Federal, State, and local-to determine their views on the project
and to get their input on such matters as effects of the proposed project on fish and wild-
life and on water quality.

P@ublic hearings are held which allow persons and organizations to express their
thoughts concerning the proposed project. A draft of the final report is circulated to the
interested public agencies before completion, and any conflicts of interest are worked
out, if possible, before the report is sent to Congress.

c. Corps' Laboratories

In order to enable the Corps to fulfill its mission of design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of this $200 - million- a-y ear coastal works program, the
Corps carried out a program in coastal engineering research. This research program

100 FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES

is shown in the Marine Council report to be $8.4 million for FY 69; of this total about one-
half is direct R&D appropriations and one-half is spin-off R&D from the design, construc-
tion, and operation of coastal area projects by the Corps of Engineers.

The Corps coastal engineering research mission is carried out principally by the
Coastal Engineering Research Center in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Lake Survey District
in Detroit, Michigan, and the Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi.
The largest R&D appropriation in coastal engineering is to CERC with the Lake Survey
second. WES does not receive a direct R&D appropriation but undertakes specified R&D
work on request with funds supplied by the Office of the Chief of Engineers or by CERC.

d. Coastal Engineering Research Center

The research program at CERC is divided into ten project categories as
follows:

1. Wave Action in Coastal Waters
2. Shore Processes
3. Tides and Surges
4. Inlet Dynamics
5. Estuary Dynamics
6. Coastal Works Evaluation
7. Functional Design of Coastal Works
8. Structural Design of Coastal Works
9. Coastal Construction Techniques
10. Environmental Data Collection.

About 35% of CERC's R&D funds is spent in-house by its staff of 93 persons in its own
laboratory wave tanks and field experiments. The other 651/0 is spent on R&D contracts
with other agencies, universities, and private firms. The results of research Eire pub-
lished in a Technical Memorandum series, which is given wide distribution. The staff
of CERC also acts, on request, as consultants to field offices of the Corps and other
government agencies.

e. Lake Survey

The Lake Survey R&D program involves a study of the physical linmology
water movements, water quality, and hydrology of the Great Lakes. Most of its funds
are spent, in-house. In addition to its R&D mission, the Lake Survey prepares and dis-
tributes the hydrographic charts of the Great Lakes and operates the Great Lakes Data
Center. Its duties involve considerable contact with agencies of the Canadian govern-
ment having an interest in the Great Lakes.

f. Waterways Experiment Station

As stated earlier, WES has no funds appropriated directly to it for research.
Instead, it undertakes specified research on commission from the Office of the Chief of
Engineers or CERC. . The principal R&D activities of WES in the coastal engineering field
have been in the design of rubble-mound breakwaters and jetties, the intrusion of Bait
water into coastal estuaries, the shoaling processes in estuaries, and the mechanics of
coastal inlets. In addition to its R&D work, a much larger mission of WES is the study
of specific field problems by means of small-scale hydraulic models. Although these
model studies frequently have an R&D spin-off, they are not considered to be part of the
R&D effort and are funded by project funds instead of. R&D funds.

FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES .101

g. Ecological Effects

As might be suspected, one of the most difficult things for the Corps to deter-
mine accurately is the effect of certain coastal projects on the ecology of the adjacent
area. Project study funds appropriated by Congress are frequently not sufficient to
enable a long-term study of the ecology to be undertaken. Thus, reliance must be placed
largely on the existing knowledge of other agencies working in this field. It would seem
that one present need is for better detailed definitions of the ecology of ow various
coastal areas, coupled with a better understanding of the interrelation of the ecology with
e- the physical and chemical properties of the water mass. Only in this way can we improve
our ability to estimate reliably in advance the quantitative effects of proposed engineer-
ing work on the ecology of the surrounding coastal area.

h. Summary

The Corps R&D program in coastal engineering is a mission-oriented program
and extends from studying the fundamentals of shore processes to the development of
design criteria for coastal structures. The area of interest extends from the inshore
head of tidewaters to the depths offshore in which engineering structures are constructed.
Although greatly concerned with the effects of proposed engineering works on the ecology
of coastal areas, the Corps R&D program is not geared to meet its own needs in this type
of study completely. The Corps must rely heavily on others to develop the detailed
knowledge needed in this field of activity.

8. Navy Laboratories

a. Background

Marine science and technology have played lead roles in the development of
the U.S. Navy since the Continental Navy fought in the American Revolution. The first
American Congress authorized experiments in ships and guns in 1789. Research pro-
grams in the fields of magnetism, meteorology, and astronomy were conducted in the
Naval Observatory in 1830, 14 years before the Observatory opened formally in 1844.
Through its constantly evolving scientific and technical efforts, the Navy has managed
to weather the frequent storms of technological revolution during the last two centuries.
Today the Navy is still the principal supporter of oceanic research and development with
more than one-half of the total Federal marine science program being funded with monies
appropriated for the Navy. While its programs must be oriented towards national security,
many of the Navy's programs have provided vital scientific knowledge and sound engineer-
ing technology. The results of these programs have given invaluable support to other
Federal agencies, to academic institutions, -and to the ocean-oriented industry.

The Navy has continued to advocate the need to maintain in-house scientific and
technological capabilities. The Navy espouses the view that its success in marine
science can be attributed in large measure to its long-standing policy of maintaining
numerous Navy laboratories. This year, one of the principal Navy laboratories, the
Naval Underwater@ Weapons Research and Engineering Station, Newport, Rhode Island,
celebrates its centennial. At least eight of the present Navy laboratories can trace their
earliest beginnings in marine science and technology to the more languorous days before
World War H, and three of these laboratories had their founding before the Great White
Fleet circumnavigated the world in 1967.

While the above remarks imply long periods of stability in the evolution of the Navy
laboratories, such is not the case. It can be generally stated that, under the stimuli of
frequent wars and increasingly complex technological revolutions, the Navy laboratory

102 FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES

community has endured more change than it has enjoyed stability. By way of example,
the following brief resume sketches the evolution of the current Naval Material Command
laboratories since World War H.

b. Evolution of the Present Navy Material Command Laboratories
9@inceWWII

Following World War II, the Navy found itself with a large and diverse mixture
of research development, test, and evaluation facilities (RDT&E), many of which had
sprung up to meet the immediate needs of global war with little thought given to postwar
requirements. Since their inception, all of these RDT&E facilities had operated under
the venerable bureau organization wherein each laboratory reported only to one bureau.
Before the formation of the Naval Material Support Establishment in 1963, little corporate
direction was exercised in the evolution of the laboratories because the various bureaus
enjoyed a semiautonomous state in a loose confederacy that produced the Navy's material
needs.

By the early 1960's, the bureau system had fostered a complete Balkanization of
research and development into isolated pockets which were almost solely oriented towards
the parent bureau's separate role (e.g., aircraft, ships, ordnance, supply, construction).
By the 1960's, the already difficult task of designing, developing, constructing, and then
integrating the hardware of the separate bureaus into naval systems became extremely
complex. The perplexing problems of man-machine interface also began to demand
more and more research and development to insure complete system integration. Radical
change was required within the Navy laboratory structure in order to bridge the systems
gaps and to reduce the Balkanization effect that continued even after the material bureaus
were forced into the Naval Material Support Establishment in 1963. Following the major
material command reorganization of 1966, the Navy material laboratories were divorced
from their @parent bureaus and put under the immediate command of the Chief of Naval
Material.

In 1967, the Navy commenced its current program of integrating the separate labora-
tories into centers of excellence which are basically oriented towards solving the tech-
nological problems of major warfare systems. As noted in the following chronological
sketch, the rate of change in the evolu'tion of Navy laboratories has accelerated rapidly
since 1963 and reflects the growing complexity of maintaining national security.

1946 - Establishment of the Office of Naval Research

1955 - The position of Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research and Development)
was created "in order to afford one Assistant Secretary full time duties in
the vital area of Research and Development."

1963 - In a major Navy reorganization, the four material support bureaus (then
Ships, Weapons, Supplies & Accounts, and Yards & Docks) with their support-
ing laboratories were located within the Naval Material Support Establishment
and placed under the command of the Chief of Naval Material.

1966 - Establishment of a civilian Director of Navy Laboratories (DNL) reporting
directly to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research and Development)
and coequal with the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Development), the
Deputy Chief of Staff (R&D) Marine Corps, the Chief of Naval Development,
and the Chief of Naval Research

In a second major Navy reorganization, the Naval Material Command was
established with six principal subordinate organizations (Commands vice
Bureaus). Of major significance to the laboratory community, the 15

FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES 103

principal Navy laboratories were removed from the direct control of. the
Bureaus. In announcing this reorganization, the Secretary of the Navy stated
that he expected this change to "centralize and improve the coordination of
RDT&E management. "

1967 Implementation of Navy plans to establish centers of excellence capable of
prosecuting large systems development. Five large Navy R&D Centers were
formed by consolidating existing laboratory facilities as follows:

Naval Ship Research and Development Center, composed of the former David
Taylor Model Basin (Carderock, Maryland), Marine Engineering Laboratory
(Annapolis, Maryland), and Naval Mine Defense Laboratory (Panama City,
Florida).

Naval Weapons Center, composed of the former Naval Ordnance Test Station
(China Lake, California) and the Naval Ordnance Laboratory Corona (Corona,
California).

Naval Command Control Communications Laboratory Center, composed of
the former Navy Electronics Laboratory (San Diego, California) minus its
ocean sciences organization. The name of NCCCLC was subsequently
changed to Navy Electronics Laboratory Center.

Naval Undersea Warfare Center, composed of the former Pasadena Annex
of the Naval Ordnance Test Station (Pasadena, California) plus the ocean
sciences component (Underseas Technology Directorate) of the former Naval
Electronics Laboratory in San Diego, California. Also included were several
auxiliary sites, such as San Clemente Island'of the former Pasadena Annex.
Subsequently, the headquarters of the center was moved to San Diego, and
the name was later changed to Naval Undersea Research and Development
Center. An additional satellite laboratory was recently established in Hawaii.

The scope of the Naval Air Development Center was increased through in-
corporation within it certain of the former component laboratories of the
Naval Air Engineering Center.

1969 In April of this year, the Navy announced the disestablishment of the Naval
Radiological Defense Laboratory, the Naval Weapons Center Corona Labora-
tories, and the Naval Applied Science Laboratory. Key functions of these
laboratories are being transferred to appropriate centers and laboratories.
The consolidation of the Naval Underwater Sound Laboratory with the Naval
Underwater Weapons Research and Engineering Station into a Naval Undersea
Research and Development Center for the Atlantic Coast is still under active
consideration.

By way of comparison, 15 Navy laboratories existed before the 1966 reorgani-
zation, each serving only one bureau. There are now 12 centers and labora-
tories, all supporting more than one system command. With the three dis-
establishments mentioned previously, and with the formation of the East
Coast Naval Undersea Research and Development Center, the Navy will have
further consolidated its Naval Material Command laboratory resources into
six major centers of excellence and three laboratories- all serving multiple
customers.

104 FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES

c. Marine Science and Technology in Navy Laboratories Today

1. Background

Well over one-half of the Federal marine-science program is sponsored by
the Navy, with the principal objective of maintaining and improving the capabilities of our
naval forces to conduct their uniquely military missions related to national security'
With the growing worldwide interest in the oceans, both as potential areas of sophisticated
military operations and as a source of living and mineral resources, the importance of
the Navy's marine science and technology programs is steadily increasing. These. pro-
grams not only contribute to immediate and future naval needs, but also enhance the
Nation's global maritime presence and augment national political, economic, technical,
and scientific capabilities.

The Navy's Oceanographic Program is currently concentrated in three areas:

9 The Ocean Science Program includes the study of the physical,
chemical, biological, and geological characteristics of the oceans.
Underwater acoustics research in support of the Navy's antisub-
marine-warfare program is a major areaof concern. Research
and development in these areas is conducted under the Chief of
Naval Research, utilizing the various in-house Navy laboratories,
through contracts with private institutions, universities, and other
contractors, and through cooperation with other Federal agencies,
such as the Bureau of Commerical Fisheries.

The Ocean Engineering and Development Program is conducted
under the Chief of Naval Development, with responsibility for
undersea search, rescue, salvage and construction. Inherent in
this program is the necessary development effort required to
insure that the best materials, tools, vehicles, habitats, and
equipment are available for use in the marine environment.
These programs are generally carried out through the Navy's
in-house laboratories and by contract to institutions and to the
industrial community.

9 The Oceanographic Operations Program involves direct support
of both naval operating forces and navigators generally through
the collection of environmental data by specially equipped ships,
submarines, aircraft, and buoys, as well as other devices. The
transformation of these data into useful products for Navy use,
for other national programs, and, in some cases, for interna-
tional distribution is a responsibility of the Oceanographer of
the Navy.

2. -Laboratory Organization for Marine Science and Technology

It is pertinent to note that the formal Naval Oceanographic Program out-
lined above does not represent the total employment of marine science and technology
within the Navy. On the contrary, many of the various professions and skills that have
been identified as components of "marine science and technology" are required in signif-
icant numbers in the Navy's test and evaluation field activities as well as in the large
in-house laboratories. In fact, it may be noted that there is an apparent proliferation of
marine science and technology within the in-house laboratories and that the Navy does
not have even one of its laboratories designated as "centers of excellence" in these areas.

FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES 105

There are several reasons for this apparent proliferation. First, it is to be expected
that at least a limited amount of marine science and technology must be employed in all
of the Navy's laboratories, regardless of organizational structure, because of the uniquely
marine environment in which all naval systems must be able to operate. The Navy desires
to organize its centers of excellence based on warfare systems. However, the spectrum
of laboratory requirements is so large and so varied as to defy simple or permanent
solution. For example, rational alternatives for laboratory organization based on the
numerous Navy requirements would include:

� Warfare areas (e.g., antisubmarine, strike, amphibious)

� Weaponry (e.g., mines, torpedoes, air-launched missiles, naval guns)

� Common platforms (e.g., surface, subsurface, air)

� Common military functions (e.g., communications, command & control,
logistics, surveillance)

� Technology (e.g., oceanography, materials, electronics).

With the Navy's broad and varying requirements, it is apparent that it is impossible
to organize a laboratory structure that will fit completely into one or even several of the
various alternative possible structures. The immediate problem becomes the common
management dilemna of attempting to organize a multidimensional problem into only
several dimensions. The result of any such attempt is that duplications and gaps are
likely, and the final choice of organizational structure must reflect both the priorities of
the requirements and the relative difficulties of managing the interfaces. With the grow-
ing complexity and costs of weapon systems, priority must be given to managing the sys-
tem interfaces, and the minor duplications in technologies, such as materials and elec-
tronics, must be accepted.

There are also more subtle reasons for the diffusion of marine science and technology
capabilities within the Navy. It is not surprising, for instance, that the Navy is subjected
to the same political pressures as, say, the Department of Interior. As a result, it has
located some. of its research and development facilities far afield from the optimum sites.
Finally, certain Navy laboratories, like their academic and industrial counterparts, have
succumbed to the loudly touted promise of an oceanic bonanza and have, with fond hopes,
added "oceanography" to their credentials.

The Panel appreciates the above reasons and is heartened by the recent progress
made by the Navy in strengthening its laboratory resources through selective consolida-
tion. Nevertheless, it is the general opinion of the Panel that further consolidation is in
order as regards the Navy's marine science and technology programs. For instance, it
is noted that there is considerable fragmentation of physical laboratory facilities, as well
as divisions in the management effort, of such vital and related Navy programs as man-
in-the-sea, deep diving, and undersea medicine. Elements of these programs are dis-
persed among different bureaus and offices and between widely separated laboratory
facilities. Further, it is reported that three costly and scarce hyperbaric chambers
may be constructed independently of each other at three different and distant sites.

It is therefore concluded that National oceanic needs and Navy missions would both
be better served if the Navy were to concentrate the skills, programs, and facilities for
such important ocean science and ocean engineering undertakings in one center. As
ocean science and ocean engineering are the prime requisites for underseas warfare
systems, it would be most appropriate if this center were an existing center capable of
coping with large underseas weapons systems. The Panel further concludes that national
and Navy programs would be additionally enhanced if this Navy center were so located as

106 FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES

to permit cooperative efforts between the Navy and one of the National Oceanographic
Laboratories or one of the National Oceanographic Research Centers recommended by
the Panel in the Panel Findings and Recommendations portion of this report. The
advantages of such consolidation and location would include:

� Great potential for increase in efficiency because of concentration in one
area of the multidisciplinary scientific, technical, and support skills required
for critical mass in these programs.

� Opportunity to reduce costs of such facilities as hyperbaric chambers by
combining them into one complex with shared support.

� Proximity and potential for recruiting and exchange of high quality personnel
in the academic and professional environment associated with the nationally
recognized universities and institutions recommended as National Oceano-
graphic Laboratories as lead laboratories in the Regional Oceanographic
Laboratory Centers.

� Mutual availability of special facilities, such as ships, exotic platforms,
aircraft, buoys, submersibles, and other major requirements, including
instrumented test ranges.

e Proximity of excellent applied engineering support from large Navy center
and nearby oceanic oriented industry.

D. Problems Common to Federal Laboratories

1. Background

During the past several decades, the in-house Federal laboratories, both non-
defense as well as defense, have been subjected to repeated studies and have been the
.target of much criticism by the Congress and by their parent departments and agencies.
Governmental files and Congressional Records contain literally dozens of studies and
hundreds of comments and recommendations on the subject of in-house Federal labora-
tories. While there are a significant number of outstanding Federal laboratories with
long records of achievement, there are also many Federal laboratories whose poor
quality justifies the documented criticism. While most of the recommendations of the
many studies have been signed off as "implemented," the basic causes of poor quality
have not been eliminated but have only taken on new effects. Therefore, in the words of
the much-quoted professor, the Panel feels that "this has all been told before but it will
have to be told again because apparently nobody listened."

2. Justification for In-House Federal Laboratories

Although less frequently encountered than in the past, one problem common to
Federal agencies has been the need to justify in-house laboratories vis-a-vis outside
contracts. Today, there is growing- recognition that most Federal agencies require in-
house scientific and technical competence to carry out their assigned missions and tasks.
Outlined below are some of the more commonly accepted reasons for in-house Federal
laboratories:

e Dependable source for carrying out the statutory requirements of the
Federal government in such functions as inspection and regulation.

* In-house basis for sound decision- making by the Federal government
through employment of such techniques as systems analysis.

FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES 107

9 Competence to demonstrate feasibility of possible solutions to mission-
related problems, as through the manufacture of prototypes.

e Capability to monitor technical work performed within agency or by
contract.

o Reliable and stable in-house corporate memory not possible through
contract operations.,

e Capability to test and evaluate mission related equippage.

* Stimulus for both Federal and civilian agencies in same or similar fields.

* Attraction for top-caliber scientific and technical personnel.

* Training ground for future technical managers and administrators.

* Maintenance of national competence, especially during times of
financial retrenchment or in peace.

9 Rapid, and often only, response capability to sudden agency problems.

9 Sole means of carrying out programs not adaptable, or not acceptable,
or not economical for private laboratories, such as sensitive warfare
projects or mapping and charting missions.

3. Other Problems Common to Federal Marine Laboratories

The Panel was concerned to observe that many of the problems common to most
Federal laboratories appear to be particularly chronic in the various Federal marine
laboratories reviewed during the study. These problems, which are by no means new and
which are well documented in the many studies mentioned previously, are not insoluble.
They will not be solved, however, unless they are recognized and addressed in detail by
the highest executive levels in the responsible Federal agencies. The following discussion
highlights those problems which the Panel believes to be most debilitating to the Federal
marine laboratories.

There is an apparent tendency to treat research - and- development functions in the
same manner as any other function in matters of hiring, reductions in force, budget cuts,
facilities construction, equipment procurement, travel, and the like. Various critics have
aptly dubbed this tendency the " share- and- share- alike- syndrome." This prevalent policy,
which should be readily correctable at the top executive level, is probably a cardinal
cause behind mediocrity in Federal laboratories. It becomes extremely difficult to re-
cruit and retain top quality personnel under such a policy, particularly in comparison
with the pay, prestige, and privileges afforded research personnel in private laboratories.

Too many layers of management often occur between the laboratory director and the
decision making level in the parent agency. Numerous Federal laboratories are so buried
organizationally as to stifle communication and feedback between key personnel. As a
result, certain laboratories simply become invisible in the organization and thus soon
ineffectual. In addition, these multiple tiers of management often contain an excess of
middle managers who frequently contribute to the "share - and- share -alike syndrome."
Related to this problem of layering are the many laboratories which lack a single and
visible spokesman who can champion their cause at the top executive level, whenever
necessary.

108 FEDERAL MARINE LABORATORIES

Laboratory directors often lack flexibility in the key matter of controlling certain
of his resources. For instance, most of the nondefense laboratory directors lack
"discretionary funds" to spend for independent mission-oriented research or for research
on national problems which are well.within the capability of the laboratory. Operations
are greatly hampered by the continuing trend towards overcentralization at the Washing-
ton level, as currently evidenced by increasingly detailed reporting requirements, espe-
cially in the areas of financial and manpower controls. Finally, an inordinate effort is
required at all levels to justify and to acquire new facilities and major equipment, such
as large computers.

Manpower controls which operate in isolation to the total workload assigned to a
laboratory are often illogical. These controls frequently restrict the director's- ability
to carry out projects for which he has ample funds. Personnel controls are not only
confined to total numbers of permanent employees, but also inhibit the laboratory director
in employing temporary employees. Flexibility is further reduced in matters related to
distribution of grade levels and average salaries. The cumulative effects of these con-
trols are visible in many laboratories in the form of high average ages of professional
personnel, lack of input of recent college graduates, and a serious imbalance in the ratio
of support to professional personnel. The latter is particularly common during fluctua-
tions in manpower ceilings, when laboratory directors follow the natural tendency to lay
off support personnel when ceilings are reduced and then hire new professionals, partic-
ularly recent graduates, when ceilings are increased. One very noticeable effect of this
latter problem is the large number of professionals who must perform menial and un-
economical work because of the lack of support personnel.

E. Tropical and Arctic Laboratory Requirements

During the final stages of this study, it was noted by various members of the Panel
that no specific requirements had been derived regarding laboratories for tropical and
arctic research. There is, of course, certain research being carried out in tropics by
the Smithsonian Institution, and arctic research is sponsored by both the Office of Naval
Research and the National Science Foundation. Nevertheless, it was generally concluded
that additional programs and additional facilities would be mandatory in both areas during
the coming decade.

Such programs and facilities could be supported through the Coastal Zone laboratory
complex. However, the broad nature of the present and potential problems are such as
to warrant the attention of the Federal'government. Thus, while the subject of tropical
and arctic laboratories was not a specific task of the Panel, it is the opinion of the Panel
that the Marine Science Council should address the subject during the next appropriate
review concerning general marine science programs.

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRES TO OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTIONS,
UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENTS OF OCEANOGRAPHY AND
NATIONAL LABORATORIES

The following series of questions concerning University/National Laboratories and
Coastal Zone Laboratories was submitted to,the Directors of the major university oceano-
graphic departments and oceanographic institutions.

QUESTIONNAIRE A

1'. What do you see as the role, responsibilities, mission, and problems of a University/-
National laboratory?

2. How would your present method of operation be changed if your institution were to be
designated as a University/National laboratory?

3., What do you see as the obligations of the Federal Government in such. a relationship?
4. Should the Federal Government fund one or more of the following: ships, facilities,
overhead, personnel, new buildings, individual programs, or specific investigators?
How would the funding pattern of a University/National laboratory differ from your
present Federal sponsorship?

5. What process of review, evaluation, and coordination of your operations would you
anticipate if the Federal budget undertook responsibility for the items listed in
paragraph 4 above?
6. What do you believe would be the appropriate size of a University/National laboratory?
What do you think is the appropriate number of University/National laboratories?
Should their location be decided on a geographic basis?

7. What should the requirements be for designation of an oceanographic institution as a
University/National laboratory? Of the ten largest oceanographic laboratories
referred to on page 146, Vol. 1, of the' Panel Report of the, Commission on Marine
Science, Engineering, and Resources, which if any should be designated as University/
National laboratories?. What is the basis for your choice?

8. If the designation of your institution as a University/National laboratory caused your
institution to be defined by Congress as a* Federal contract research center, would
this designation with the attendant funding and ceiling limitations be acceptable to you?

9. As a private university, a State-run institution, or' an independent corporation, would
the designation of your institution as a UnIversity/National. laboratory present legal
problems? Would a change be required in your charter, enabling legislation, or terms

109

110 APPENDIX A

of incorporation? Would such changes be either possible or acceptable to your
institution ?

10. Discuss the inadequacies or difficulties that are inherent in your present financial
sponsorship. Given your present mix of sponsorship by the Office of Naval Research,
the National Science Foundation, and the' Atomic Energy Commission and other
Federal and non- Feder al'source s, how would you anticipate the situation would
change if your laboratory were to be designated as a University/National laboratory?
If you are not so designated, what would you regard as the optimum mix of financial
sponsorship for your institution?

11. Congress normally reviews the funding level of Federal programs on an annual
basis. Such a review typically requires a justification of the size, scope, and unique-
ness of the program in considerable detail. Would you be willing to accept such
detailed Federal intervention into your operations?

12. Oceanographic laboratories have a commendable history of forming interinstitutional
consortia to tackle large or unusual programs. In your view, has this mode of opera-
tion been satisfactory? Does our Nation require greater capabilities or new organi-
zational forms in order to attack "big science types of oceanographic problems"?
Would the existence of a University/National laboratory status help our Nation
achieve an ,enhanced capability that is not presently available to undertake large-scale
oceanographic ventures ?

13. The recommendations of the Commission give the existing F .ederal in-house labora-
tories rather short shrift. The Commission's recommendations. allude to the need
for fewer@ but stronger Federal laboratories and express concern that federal .
laboratorie's do not possess sufficient economy and flexibility. In view of the spec-
tacular scientific success and stature of various components of the Federal laboratory
system (e.g., Naval Research Laboratory, National Institutes of Health, Nation al
Bureau of Standards), do you. believe that this assessment is either accurate or
correct? Do you believe that the Federal in-house laboratories should be con
sidered as candidates for designation as National laboratories? What would be the
inherent advantages or disadvantages in using the existing Federal laboratory
structure as a vehicle for creating National laboratories? Do you believe that it is .
axiomatic that a National laboratory can only exist within the context of a university
relationship ?

14. What should be the mix of appli ,ed versus basic research in a University/National
laboratory? How would this mix compare with the current mix that obtains presently
in, yo:ur institution? How would you accommodate the change in program content?
If the national oceanographic program requires a significant fraction of applied
research, would this militate against your institution's acceptance of a University/
National laboratory designation?

15. If, your institution were hot to be designated as a University or National laboratory,
how would that affect it? Do you feel that the designation of a selected group of
laboratories would effectively'inhibit the growth of those laboratories which were
not so anointed? How would you view this situation from the standpoint of the
overall health of the national oceanographic effort?

16. What are your present growth plans for the next ten years with respect'to your staff,
your program, special facilities, buildings, and ships, assuming that you are not
designated as a University/National laboratory? What capabilities do you anticipate
that you will have by 1980 to conduct research and/or train future oceanographers?
Comment on the present adequacy of your ability to train oceanographers. How

APPENDIX A

would this assessment change if your institution were to be designated as a
University or National laboratory?

17. What do you see as the proper ultimate staff size, budget level, and physical plant
size of your institution? When do you expect to achieve this status, and upon what
do you base your estimate on terminal size? Would the designation of your insti-
tution as a University/National laboratory help or hinder your long-term plans?

18. Based on the experiences in Federal in-house laboratories, it is reasonable to
anticipate that, if you were to be designated as one of the University/National labo-
ratories, then various laboratories in the system might be assigned as lead labora-
tories or possibly might be given as exclusive franchise to conduct research in
specific fields of oceanography (i.e., marine biology, geophysics, physical oceanog-
raphy, etc.). How would you accept and adjust to such an arrangement, which might
preclude your staff from working in certain fields of oceanography?

19. The recommendation concerning the establishment of estuarine and coastal zone
research institutions states that the network of such institutions should be established
in association with appropriate academic institutions. Do you feel that the applied
aspects of coastal zone research are necessarily a proper area of research for an
academic institution? Do you feel that it is appropriate for academic institutions
to work closely with State and local governments to allow them to manage local
resources? Would the establishment of such a network preclude your institution from
partaking in work where it currently has significant interests and activities?

20. What do you consider to be an appropriate size and a critical size for an estuarine
and coastal-zone research institution? What facilities would you foresee that such
an institution would enjoy? The Commission refers to the term "network" to
describe these institutions. How do you foresee the operation of a network? Would
it require program coordination, facility coordination, common funding, and/or
sponsorship by a single Federal agency?

21. What do you foresee as your institutional responsibility to the mapping and charting
activities of the Federal government? How can these activities be made responsive
to the needs of basic sciences? What mechanism should be established whereby
the mapping and charting activities of the Federal government can be reviewed to
insure both responsiveness to the needs of science and responsiveness to the
intrinsic interest of various operational branches of the Federal government?

22. The Commission recommends that the major civil responsibility for providing
institutional and facility support should be investigated in the new agency recom-
mended by the Commission and that the National Science Foundation should be
relieved of this responsibility, while the Office of Naval Research should continue
to provide the kinds of support it has in the past. Othe'r Federal agencies should
provide limited institutional and facility support. How do you construe this recom-
mendation in the context of the possible designation of your institution as a
University/National laboratory?

23. In the text of the Commission's report, it recommends a target of 50 percent
in-house Federal laboratory and 50 percent out-of-house as being a reasonable
goal for basic research. It does, however, recognize that this ratio will be a
function of agency needs as well as agency programs. Do you concur with this
assessment as to the relative scale of Federal in-house research to non-Federal
research? Essentially, do you believe that the funding support for Federal
in-house basic research laboratories in the field of oceanography should be
matched on a dollar -for -dollar basis with that of the non-Federal laboratories?
If such a target were to be achieved, given the present national oceanographic

112 APPENDIX A

budget, how would that reduce or expand the relative fraction of the total funds
available to your institution? The Commission recommends that the basic science
effort of this Nation must be maintained and expanded to accomplish the program
described in its report. It recommends an incremental increase of approximately
20 percent -a year for operating and capital expenditures, which should be main-
tained until the current basic science funding base is increased by $200,000,000
annually. If Congress were to agree to such a program, what capabilities would
you anticipate that your institution would have, assuming that you were to be
allocated a pro-rata amount of such an increase?

24. In the 1966 report of the President's Scientific Advisory Committee on.the Effec-
tive Use of the Seas, the recommendation was made that all oceanographic fleets
or vessels be regional fleets. The Commission did not concur with this view,
although it anticipated that the University/National laboratories could be exp Iected
to provide ship facilities from many scientists from nonship-operating institutions.
If you were to be designated as a University/National laboratory, how would you
handle the ship scheduling problem? How would you charge for the use of ship
time? How would these procedures differ from the procedures that you currently
follow? Would the time and services of your ships be more or less generally avail-
able to outside users?

RECIPIENTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE A

Institute of Marine Sciences Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory
University of Alaska Columbia University

Scripps Institution of Oceanography Institute of Marine and Atmospheric
University of California Sciences
University of Miami
Coastal Engineering Research Center
Department of the Army Department of Oceanography
Washington, D. C. Oregon State University

Marine, Laboratory Graduate School of Oceanography
Duke University University of Rhode Island

Gulf Universities Research Corporation College of Geosciences
Houston, - Texas Texas A and M University

Hawaii Institute of Geophysics Department of Oceanography
University of Hawaii University of Washington

Department of Oceanography Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
The Johns Hopkins University Woods Hole, Massachusetts

QUESTIONNAIRE B
1. What do you see as the role, responsibilities, mission, and operational problems of
a National laboratory?

2. How would the present method of operation of your institution be changed if you were
not designated as a National- laboratory ?

APPENDIX A 113

3. What do you see as the obligation of the Federal Government to a National laboratory?

4. Should the Federal Government block-fund, one or more of the following aspects of
National laboratory costs: facilities, overhead personnel, new buildings, individual
programs, or specific investigators?

5. What process of review exists for the evaluation, and coordination of your operations?

6. What do you believe to be the appropriate size of a National laboratory?

7. What requirements should be satisfied before an institution can qualify for designation
as a National laboratory?

8. What process is followed in order to make the unique facilities of your institution
available to nonresident scientists?

9. Do you have user groups or external review panels which consider the technical
merits of the programs of outside investigators, who propose to use the facilities
of your institution?

10. When outside user groups wish to use your facilities, how are they charged?
Specifically, do they pay labor, facility rental charges, and/or a pro rata share of
institution overhead costs?

Ai 11. When your institution determines that there is a need for new or expanded facilities,
what process is used to provide funds and what is the financial route that must be
followed. Are you required to show that the facilities so desired are both unique
and singularly appropriate to your institution?
It
12. Do you feel that the existence of National laboratories provide particular advantages
to the American academic community? If so, what are these?

13. How might the operation of our National laboratories be altered to optimize
utilization of large and expensive facilities?

14. If your institution has either a Board of Governors or a Board of Visitors, how are
the members of these Boards selected? What groups are represented and how are
the national and public interests protected?

15. Is there an optimum corporate structure of management agencies for a National
laboratory? Discuss the pros and cons of operating a National laboratory as:

a. A Federal Civil Service Laboratory
b. A Federal Contract Research Center
c. A University- affiliated laboratory
d. A nonprofit corporation
e. A laboratory managed by a commercial corporation under contract to a
National agency.

114 APPENDIX A

RECIPIENTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE B

This Questionnaire was transmitted to the Directors of selected National laboratories.

Argonne National Laboratory National Magnet Laboratory
Argonne, Illinois Cambridge, Massachusetts

Brookhaven National Laboratory National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Upton, New York Green Bank, West Virginia

Kitt Peak National Laboratory Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Tucson, Arizona Oak Ridge, Tennessee

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEWS

The following persons were interviewed by members of the Task Force on Marine
Laboratories:

Mr. Bruce T. Lundin
Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Mr.'Joseph M. Caldwell
Technical Director
Coastal Engineering Research Center
Department of the Army,

Dr. William A. Nierenberg, Director
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California,, San Diego

Dr. Paul M. Fye, Director
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, Massachusetts

115

APPENDIX C

MEMBERSHIP

TASK FORCE ON MARINE LABORATORIES

Dr. Alan Berman (Chairman)
Director of Research
Naval Research Laboratory

Dr. James S. Coleman Mr. Morton Rubin
Technical Advisor Deputy Chief, Plans and Requirements
Atomic Energy Commission Division
Environmental Science Services
Mr. Harold L. Goodwin Administration
Planning Officer Department of Commerce
Office of Sea Grant Programs
National Science Foundation Mr. John F. Ryan
Office of Facilities
Mr. John L. S. Hickey National Aeronautics and Space
Sanitary Engineering Director Administration
Public Health Service
Department of Health, Education and Dr. Albert 1. Schindler, Head
Welfare Metal Physics Branch
Metallurgy Division
Dr. Merton C. Ingham Naval Research Laboratory
Director of Oceanography
Oceanographic Unit Dr. Roland F. Smith
U.S. Coast Guard Assistant Director
Office of Marine Resources
Miss Mary K. Johrde Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
Program Director, Oceanography Section Department of the Interior
Division of Environmental Sciences
National Science Foundation Dr. I. Eugene Wallen, Head
Office of Limnology and
Mr. Arnold B. Joseph Oceanography
Marine Science Council Smithsonian Institution
Executive Office of the President
Mr. William D. Garrett
Captain Justin E. Langille, III, USN (Executive Secretary)
Deputy Director of Navy Laboratories Ocean Sciences Division
Department of the Navy Naval Research Laboratory

116

APPENDIX C 117

Additional assistance was provided to the Committee by:

Mr. Robert B. Abel Mr. Max C. McLean
National Science Foundation ESSA, Department of Commerce

Dr. Dail W. Brown Mr. Herbert B. Quinn
Smithsonian Institution National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Mr. Robert N. Culnan
ESSA, Department of Commerce Mr. Glenn Schleede
Bureau of the Budget
Dr. David T. Goldman
Bureau of the Budget

DATE DUE

I
I- @

I
GAYLORDINO. 2333 PRINTED IN U.S.A.

I - -

3 668 14107 0963