Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 53
A Review of the NOAA National Sea Grant College Program Appendix 2 Letter of Request UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere Washington, D.C.20230 November 29, 1993 Ms. Mary Hope Katsourus Staff Director Ocean Studies Board National Research Council2001 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007 Dear Mary Hope: I request the Ocean Studies Board conduct a review and evaluation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Sea Grant College Program. The program is scheduled for Reauthorization so the National Research Council study would serve two purposes: 1) provide the basis for any needed changes in the program, and 2) provide the basis for NOAA working with the Congress on Sea Grant 's Reauthorization. In order for the study to be used for Reauthorization, a final report should be delivered to me by June 1, 1994. As the current Act states, the objective of the program “. . . is to increase the understanding, assessment, development, utilization and conservation of the Nation's ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources . . .” Therefore, in organizing and carrying out the review, I believe it important for the review to clearly recognize Sea Grant is not just a basic science oceanography research program, rather it is a broad marine program designed to address issues and solve problems by combining sciences, social sciences, and the transfer of knowledge and technology. Your team assembled for this review should have the breadth to consider not only the traditional science disciplines in the context of marine program, but also such fields as aquaculture, marine biotecnnology, economics, education, marine engineering, and marine policy. Because of severe budget limitations, and the limited time for the study, we will be looking for a proposal whose funding does not exceed $100,000.00. I and my staff, particularly Ned A. Ostenso and David B. Duane, will be pleased to work out details for the study with you. Sincerely, D. James Baker THE ADMINISTRATOR
Representative terms from entire chapter: