A White House plan to bundle the agency in charge of weather forecasts, fisheries and atmospheric science into the Interior Department has raised alarm among environmentalists and at least one Democratic lawmaker who fear the enlarged agency could collapse under its own weight.

But some supporters argue the plan to move the entire National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from the Commerce Department to Interior could better align the agencies' shared roles of species protection, scientific research and ocean energy development, among other responsibilities.

The proposal, which is part of a broader White House consolidation plan that would fold six other business and trade agencies into one, is expected to save a total of $3 billion in government spending, said Jeff Zients, deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget.

A detailed NOAA integration plan would be developed as soon as Congress gives the president broader consolidation powers, as it has done for many presidents until Ronald Reagan, Zients said.

Obama first alluded to the need for consolidation a year ago in his State of the Union address, quipping that NOAA manages saltwater salmon, while Fish and Wildlife Service oversees freshwater salmon.

"It's good news for salmon, in that the salmon, both saltwater and freshwater, will finally be together," Zients said on a conference call today.

The proposal was quickly panned by environmentalists who argue folding NOAA into Interior could threaten the agency's scientific independence.

Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said streamlining government functions is a worthwhile endeavor, but that she was "extremely troubled" by the president's proposal.

"This is not merely some technical, bureaucratic shift," she said in a statement. "The move could erode the capabilities and mute the voice of the government's primary agency for protecting our oceans and the ecosystems and economies that depend on them."

Beinecke said the consolidation could compromise the agency's independence, possibly sacrificing its scientific and environmental strengths.

NOAA, which uses its roughly $5 billion annual budget for everything from daily weather forecasts to storm warnings, climate monitoring and fisheries management, would join an Interior Department vested with managing energy development, recreation, wildlife and other resources on roughly one-fifth of the nation's land and virtually all of its oceans.

Under current funding levels, the addition of NOAA would increase the Interior budget by roughly half.

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), whose Senate subcommittee oversees many aspects of NOAA, said he fears the agency's fisheries role could suffer under the plan.

"I have some serious concerns about some of the details," he said in a statement. "As producer of more than half of the nation's seafood, the proper management of our fisheries is vital to thousands of jobs in Alaska and to protecting this precious resource. I'm not sure burying NOAA in an already over-burdened Interior is a good idea."

Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), said the senator welcomed the opportunity to increase oversight over an agency that has a significant impact on her state.

It wasn't immediately clear whether the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee would be given greater jurisdiction over the agency if the consolidation moves forward.

NOAA and Interior currently share the role of policing energy development in the nation's waters and protecting endangered and at-risk species, among other tasks.

NOAA and Interior are currently evaluating whether to allow Royal Dutch Shell PLC to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic Ocean. The two agencies will also collaborate on the implementation of a new White House action plan to improve stewardship of the nation's oceans (Greenwire, Jan. 12).

Some argued the agencies' overlap supports the idea of a merger.

"There are both legitimate political and policy rationales for this action," Paul Bledsoe, an Interior aide during the Clinton years who also worked with NOAA while at the White House, said in an email.

Shrinking and reforming the government could improve Obama's political leverage, given the GOP and tea party emphasis on the issue, he said.

"Substantively, the increasing importance of integrating oceanic energy projects -- off-shore oil and gas, wind, eventually wave and tidal energy -- into broader oceans policy makes Interior a logical home for NOAA. Likewise, U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA have scientific symmetry between the study of land and atmosphere," said Bledsoe, now a senior adviser at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "But there will undoubtedly be some who worry that DOI is becoming a Super-Department."

Federal employee groups appeared conflicted about Obama's overall consolidation plan, applauding the aim to gain efficiencies but holding off full support of an effort that could lead to fewer government workers.

William Dougan, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, said his group was supportive "to the extent that savings can be found while protecting jobs."

"Though his proposal shows promise for rooting out inefficiencies, the fact that a restructuring could lead to large-scale lay-offs is a very serious concern," he said in a statement. "With millions of American workers already unemployed, we are looking for proposals that create jobs, not eliminate them. Our sincere hope is that as these federal agencies are reconfigured, they find a way to make sure thousands of people working in these agencies aren't given pink slips."

The American Federation of Government Employees had a similar reaction, supporting Obama's overall goal. But President John Gage said employees should not be laid off when they only carry out work created by Congress and elected officials "who have mandated these various layers of bureaucracy largely for political gains."

Reporter Emily Yehle contributed.