# Presentation: 319640

## NOAA STRATEGY FOR

**NOAA ****STRATEGY FOR**
**REVIEW OF THE REPORTS OF **
**THE U.S. COMMISSION ON **
**OCEAN POLICY and the PEW OCEANS COMMISSION**
- Lee Dantzler, Deputy Chair
- NOAA Ocean Council
- Tuesday, November 4, 2003
- 17th NOAA Science Advisory Board Meeting

- November 4, 2003

**Notes:**
When the topic of the U.S Commission on Ocean Policy comes up these days, the first question asked is most often “When will the draft report be out?”
Under the Ocean Act, the Commission is to provide a copy of its draft report to the Governors of the coastal States for review, before it finalizes its report.  The Commission intends to sent the report to all of the governors, not just the coastal governors.  It will append their input to its report, and presumably the governors’ input may lead to some changes in the Commission’s draft report.
The Commission recently issued a statement saying the draft report will be completed in the “late fall.”  The best information we have is that this means sometime between Thanksgiving and December 21.  
Regarding the final report, an estimate of the soonest it could be released would be 60 days after the draft – 30 days for gubernatorial review and 30 days to finalize the report.   It could be longer.
NOAA, of course, is tracking this issue closely.  More importantly, NOAA is working to be as proactive as possible regarding the Commission’s report.  This presentation is about NOAA’s preparation to respond to the Commission’s report.

## What this Briefing Is (and Isn’t)

- NOAA will respond to the Ocean Commission’s Report.  The proposed process for which is outlined here.
- NOAA does not anticipate responding directly to the Pew Oceans Commission’s report.  Rather, we will address its recommendations in due course within its ongoing business (NOAA Fisheries likely having the lead)

## NOAA and the Commission’s Recommendations

-            The report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (UCSOP) has major implications for NOAA.  Once released, the Administration’s response will be coordinated among many agencies, probably over a very short response time period. Preparing for this is already underway within NOAA.

- November 4, 2003

**Notes:**
The importance and relevance of the Commission’s report to NOAA cannot be overstated.  It has been 30 years since a U.S. President appointed a national ocean commission of this stature.  That Commission’s recommendations led to the creation of NOAA.  This Commission’s recommendations have equally significant implications and ramifications for NOAA and the nation.

The underlying issue is nothing less than the direction of the nation’s ocean policy and NOAA for the next generation and beyond.

Furthermore, under the Oceans Act, the President has 90 days from the report’s release to deliver a plan to Congress.  That plan must state how the Administration intends to implement and respond to the Commission’s recommendations.  

Therefore, another important goal of this review process is to ensure NOAA is well positioned to participate in development of the President’s report.

## Key Elements of Anticipated Report

- New governance concepts to enable a comprehensive and coordinated approach among Executive, Legislative, State/Regional/Local leadership entities
- Specific management challenges
- Maritime commerce & transportation
- Enhancing the ocean’ value and ensuring continued vitality
- Advancing our understanding of the oceans
- Promoting ocean awareness and a stewardship ethic
- Establishing U.S. leadership role in the international community
- How to sustain a national ocean policy into the future

**Notes:**
The Commission’s report will touch on a wide range of NOAA ocean  issues...
Getting all the players to work at the table is an integrated way
Working towards a consistent  national policy of managing coastal growth and its implications
Taking an ecosystem-based approach in management
Creating a consistent national policy

NOAA will be a key player in how the Administration responds to this report.

## NOAA Ocean Council Assigned Lead

**NOS Assistant Administrator****	****	****Rick Spinrad (Chair)**
**NESDIS****	****	****	****	****	****Lee Dantzler (Deputy Chair)**
**NMFS ****	****	****	****	****	**William Fox
**OAR****	****	****	****	****	**Louisa Koch
**NWS ****	****	****	****	****	**Paul Moersdorf
**NMAO****	****	****	****	****	**Beth White
**Program Planning & Integration****	****	**Mary Glackin
**NFA****	****	****	****	****	**Erika Wilson, *ex officio*
**Allocation Council****	****	****	**Beth White, *ex officio*
**Research Council ****	****	****	**Don Scavia, *ex officio*
**International Affairs Council ****	****	**Susan Ware-Harris, *ex officio*
**Observing System Council****	****	**John Pereira,* ex officio*
**Education Council****	****	****	**Marlene Kaplan, *ex officio*
**CFO Council****	****	****	****	**Pending, *ex officio*
**Legislative Affairs****	****	****	**Brook Davis,* ex officio*
**Public Affairs****	****	****	****	**Jordan St. John, *ex officio*

**Council Membership**

## Our Goals and Objectives

**TO ANTICIPATE **the report’s recommendations, conduct a timely and thorough review, and develop consistent NOAA responses to the report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
**TO POSITION** NOAA to actively participate in interagency coordination of the President’s anticipated implementation plan.
**TO INTEGRATE** the review across NOAA—
- Capture the value added provided by NOAA Goal Teams, Program/Matrix Program Managers, Line and Staff Offices, and Councils
- Share the review task broadly (this will be a substantial task)
- Ensure input by relevant NOAA experts
- Provide the Administrator and NOAA Executive Council with timely, useful response information

- November 4, 2003

**Notes:**
This summer, the NOAA Ocean Council (NOC) sought and obtained approval from VADM Lautenbacher and the NOAA Executive Council to serve as the lead for issues associated with the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (Commission).
It was recognized that one important task for the NOAA Ocean Council was to develop and implement a strategy for reviewing the Commission report throughout NOAA. It was agreed that the Council would present the proposed strategy to the NOAA Executive Panel in September.
The Council developed the strategy and the NOAA Executive Panel approved it.  The Council is now implementing the strategy.  
The Council will conduct the review in three phases:  anticipatory, preliminary and final.  As I stated, an important objective is to be proactive and this requires anticipating the actions the Commission. 
In addition to providing timely products, this proactive approach may help expose opportunities that may not be readily apparent.  Also, by staying ahead of the game NOAA will be better prepared to respond to unforeseen circumstances and requests that are very likely to occur over the next several months.  It will also help lay the groundwork for, and inform subsequent discussions on, longer term ramifications of the Commission’s report.
A key element of the proposal is to utilize new institutions within NOAA to the best advantage, thereby demonstrating their utility and value in evaluating issues of agency wide interest and concern. Using these institutions will also share the task of review broadly, which should help make the review more efficient.  In short, many hands make light work.
And, of course, the bottom line is to produce a valuable product, which will best produced by reaching out to experts throughout the agency.

## NOAA Review to Leverage New NOAA Program Structure and Processes Put in Place this Year

**Mission-Level Goal Teams** (Corporate long-term strategies)
**NOAA Programs** (Translating strategies into structured activities)
**NOAA Advisory Councils** (Thematic area oversight)
**NOAA Line Offices** (Resource allocation & management)

- November 4, 2003

**Notes:**
As was noted, within 90 days after the Commission issues its final report, the Oceans Act requires the President to send to Congress an implementation plan.  Efforts to develop the President’s implementation plan are being developed through an interagency working group headed by the White House Council on Environmental Quality.  NOAA sits on that Working Group.  A primary product of this process will be to provide NOAA leadership with proposed materials to take to the CEQ-led working group.  

Throughout the process, the NOAA Ocean Council will provide ongoing support to NOAA representatives to the IWG.  Those representatives are working directly the Council in the review process.

In addition, at the July briefing VADM Lautenbacher stated that he wants to ensure that NOAA (and DOC) leaders are reading from the same script when it comes to inquiries from the press and constituencies on NOAA’s views of the Commission’s report.  The second product will be to develop talking points for distribution throughout the agency.

These materials will be subject to NEP and NEC review and approval.

## NOAA Mission Goals

- Protect, restore, and manage the use of coastal and ocean resources through _ecosystem-based management_
- Understand _climate_ variability and change to enhance society’s ability to respond
- Serve society’s needs for _weather and water_ information
- Support the Nation’s _commerce_ with information for safe, efficient, and environmentally sound _transportation_

## Preliminary – Internal NOA use only

## NOAA Advisory Councils

**Ocean Council**				Richard Spinrad
**Platform Allocation Council**		Jack Kelly
**Research Council** 			Louisa Koch
**International Affairs Council** 		William Brennan
**Observing System Council**		Greg Withee
**Education Council**			Marlene Kaplan
**CFO Council**				Ted David
**CIO Council**				Carl Staton

## The  Review Process 

**The  Review Process**** **

- November 4, 2003

**Notes:**
Here is a graphic portrayal.  More detailed information on the role of the Goal Teams, LOs and Councils is presented in the next slide.

## Anticipated Timeline

- ...
**Anticipatory Phase**: Develop responses based on what is expected in the report (Nov 15 + 3 weeks)
- ...
**Preliminary Phase**: Refine those responses based on draft report as delivered to the Governors (Upon receipt of draft report from Commission)
- ...
**Final Phase**: Minor adjustments to NOAA’s recommendations to CEQ when Commission’s final report is issued (upon receipt of final report and Administration’s requested response date)

- November 4, 2003

**Notes:**
The rationale for beginning this effort before the Commission issues its draft report has been stated several times, i.e., the goal is to be, or at a minimum be in a position to be, proactive, not reactive.

In many cases, the Commission has given a fairly good indication of its general direction.  It has released a draft Table of Contents, Mid-Term Report, and several Commissioners have made presentations with rather detailed insights into the Commission’s direction  These materials will be made available to NOAA reviewers by the NOC during the Anticipatory Phase.  

The Preliminary Phase will serve as a way to vet the responses developed in the Anticipatory Phase.  

The Final Phase should require little more than a final check.

## Challenges and Opportunities

**Scope** ...  Commission’s report is far-reaching, and touches nearly all aspects of NOAA.
**Convergence** ... Many of Commission’s concerns were captured during last year’s development of NOAA’s new strategic plan
**Review Resources** ... NOAA’s response will require a substantial effort...and at a time NOAA is restructuring its program and planning processes
**External Input** ...Should we (and if so, how?) provide input to NOAA’s review by its stakeholders and constituents? (Note: Input implicitly assumed captured during NOAA Strategic Plan development process and the Commission’s public meetings)
**The SAB** ...What role should the SAB play?  How?  When?