• Draft U.S. Ocean Policy Plan Precedes Proposal to Move NOAA to Interior Department (From the American Geophysical Union)

    Eos, Vol. 93, No. 4, 24 January 2012
    The Obama administration’s ambitious
    plan to protect oceans was released on
    12 January, just 1 day prior to the administration’s
    apparently unrelated announcement
    of a proposed governmental reorganization
    that would move the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from
    the Department of Commerce to the Department
    of the Interior. The proposed NOAA
    move is part of a larger administration proposal
    to consolidate six federal agencies
    that are focused on business and trade into
    one department. The action is contingent
    upon congressional approval.
    The proposal to move NOAA to the Interior
    department has prompted a variety of
    reactions, with some considering it common
    sense to group agencies dealing with natural
    resources in the same department. Others
    have charged that the proposed move
    could blunt NOAA’s leading role in protecting
    oceans, among other concerns.
    The draft National Ocean Policy Implementation
    Plan, issued by the White House’s
    National Ocean Council, provides a framework
    for more than 2 dozen federal agencies
    and offices involved with oceans to
    work together on a plan to implement the
    National Ocean Policy. President Barack
    Obama established that policy—formally
    known as the National Policy for the Stewardship
    of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the
    Great Lakes—through a 19 July 2010 executive
    order. An earlier 2004 report by the U.S.
    Commission on Ocean Policy had received
    bipartisan support.
    The draft plan, which lays out nine priority
    objectives along with more than
    50 action items and nearly 300 significant
    milestones with timetables, has a strong
    focus on science and the need for increased
    observations. The objectives include adopting
    ecosystem-based management “as a
    foundational principle” for ocean management.
    For the objective on informing decisions
    and increasing understanding to
    improve management and policy decisions,
    action items include advancing fundamental
    scientific knowledge through exploration
    and research, and providing data and tools
    to support science-based decision making
    and ecosystem-based management.
    Among the action items for an objective
    on observations, mapping, and infrastructure
    are improving remote sensing systems
    and further implementing the U.S. Integrated
    Ocean Observing System (IOOS). Other
    objectives call for improved coordination
    and support for ocean management issues,
    establishing and implementing an integrated
    ecosystem protection and restoration strategy,
    strengthening resiliency and adaptation
    to climate change and ocean acidification,
    enhancing water quality and implementing
    sustainable practices on land, addressing
    environmental stewardship needs in the Arctic
    Ocean, and implementing comprehensive
    coastal and marine spatial planning and
    management.
    The draft plan notes that it creates no new
    regulations, attempts to leverage existing
    federal agency resources, and was prepared
    in light of expected federal budgets for the
    next several years.
    “For the first time in the history of this
    country, we have a national policy that pertains
    to the 70% of the planet that we call
    the oceans. We never had that before,” Jerry
    Miller, assistant director for ocean sciences
    at the White House Office of Science and
    Technology Policy (OSTP), told Eos. Miller
    said that while the National Ocean Council
    has a long-term vision for managing oceans,
    “this document is intended to be the sort of
    boots on the ground, [to] get on with business
    in the foreseeable future here in a realistic
    fashion with budget levels that we can
    reasonably expect.”
    Both Miller and Steve Fetter, who oversees
    OSTP’s environment and energy division,
    said the concept of science-based decision
    making and having the necessary data are
    fundamental to the plan. Fetter told Eos that
    the main message in the plan is “the commitment
    to using the best available scientific
    information and analysis to inform all of our
    policies and programs regarding the oceans
    and the coasts.” Fetter added that “everything
    else [in the plan] is in support of that.”
    Reaction to the Draft Implementation Plan
    The draft plan has received a generally
    favorable response. Former NOAA administrator
    Conrad Lautenbacher told Eos that
    he is pleased to see the release of the draft
    plan and “look[s] forward even more to the
    application of resources to the goals outlined.
    In particular, the importance of an
    Earth observing system stands out as a prerequisite
    to realize just about every part of
    the plan.” Lautenbacher said he supports
    additional resources for fulfilling IOOS goals
    as a critical system within the Global Earth
    Observation System of Systems.
    Margaret Leinen, chair of the Ocean
    Research Advisory Panel, which provides
    guidance to the U.S. government about
    ocean research, told Eos the plan “is important
    because it will provide both guidance
    and prioritization to all federal agencies
    and programs that are involved with ocean
    affairs. For the research community, this
    plan is intended to provide clear guidance
    on the types of research most needed by the
    federal government.”
    Antonio Busalacchi, director of the Earth
    System Science Interdisciplinary Center
    (ESSIC) at the University of Maryland, College
    Park, cited as the most important
    aspects of the report a call for coordination
    among agencies focused on oceans,
    a regional approach to implementing policies
    that recognizes that “one size doesn’t
    fit all,” and a recognition of the importance
    of observations for research and for operational
    needs.
    Environmental groups applauded the
    plan. Jeff Watters, senior manager of government
    relations with the Ocean Conservancy,
    told Eos that although he “would clearly love
    to see more federal dollars going toward
    ocean conservation issues,” he recognizes
    that the purpose of this particular plan is not
    to be a giant conservation wish list. “This
    [plan] is about management of the agencies
    and management of resources,” he said, “to
    make sure we are going about ocean management
    and ocean research in a smart and
    targeted way that is frankly more effective
    and more efficient.”
    Staci Lewis, senior policy manager with the
    Consortium for Ocean Leadership, said she is
    looking for the final plan to strike a balance
    between tight budgetary times and proceeding
    with a number of key action items. “Hopefully,
    they are able to translate these [plan]
    milestones into tangible results while keeping
    the budgetary issues in mind,” she said.
    Support for the draft plan was not universal,
    however. National Ocean Industries
    Association president Randall Luthi said in
    a statement that “the use of Coastal Marine
    Spatial Planning may very well be a multilayered
    bureaucratic solution seeking a problem
    that doesn’t exist. Our industry has been
    successfully operating for decades, without
    major conflict, guided by the planning
    already inherent in the 5-year offshore leasing
    process mandated under the Outer Continental
    Shelf Lands Act.” U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings
    (R-Wash.) charged that the plan would
    help the administration move forward with
    “imposing new mandatory ‘ocean zoning.’”
    Hastings said the plan “isn’t about protecting
    the ocean; it’s about expanding power and
    government control over Americans’ lives.”
    Hastings’s comments “reflect politics at its
    rawest,” said Morgan Gopnik, former senior
    advisor to the U.S. Commission on Ocean
    Policy. She said Hastings’s charges about
    expanding power and government control
    are neither accurate nor relevant to the
    plan. “There is nothing radical about these
    proposals; they are common sense. The
    new policy will make ocean management
    more efficient and less [Washington] D.C.-
    centric, with lots of input from state, local,
    and tribal authorities.” Miller at OSTP added
    that coastal and marine spatial planning “is
    not ocean zoning, it’s ocean planning” that
    NEWS
    Draft U.S. Ocean Policy Plan Precedes Proposal
    to Move NOAA to Interior Department
    PAGES 43–44
    Eos, Vol. 93, No. 4, 24 January 2012
    brings together a broad spectrum of stakeholders
    in a collaborative planning process.
    NOAA’s Proposed Move
    During a 13 January briefing, Jeff Zients
    of the White House Office of Management
    and Budget said that all of NOAA would be
    moved to the Interior department under the
    administration proposal. “As part of the specific
    proposal that would be developed once
    we have consolidation authority, the appropriate
    integration of NOAA into the Interior
    department would be carefully worked
    through.”
    Sarah Chasis, director of the Natural
    Resources Defense Council’s Ocean Initiative,
    said the proposed move for NOAA was
    “a side issue” in the proposed reorganization,
    with the principal focus being on business
    and trade agencies. Chasis told Eos that
    while the draft implementation plan is a positive
    and important step forward for ocean
    stewardship, the proposal to move NOAA
    to Interior is troubling. She said NOAA currently
    plays an important role in checks and
    balances with Interior, which has responsibility
    for extractive offshore oil and gas
    activities. “Making sure that [NOAA is] free
    to weigh in in a way that’s not squelched or
    unduly influenced by the extraction goals of
    [Interior] is really important,” she said, adding,
    “We need to focus on implementing the
    National Ocean Policy plan. There are so
    many important things to be done, and reorganization
    takes a lot of time and effort and
    diverts from policy and implementation.”
    Jeb Berman, director of government relations
    with the National Marine Sanctuary
    Foundation, said NOAA was “blindsided” by
    the reorganization announcement and had
    not been informed about it until the prior
    evening. Berman told Eos that moving the
    entire agency to Interior “creates so much
    bureaucratic headache and would require
    NOAA to take its eye off the ball for a significant
    period of time. And even though
    they’ve fixed some of the oil/gas problems
    recently at [Interior], it’s still the agency
    that’s directed to lease expeditiously.” He
    added, “Now, if some pieces of NOAA were
    integrated into existing resource management
    functions at [Interior], that could
    potentially make sense.”
    Busalacchi of ESSIC said he is withholding
    judgment for now regarding the proposed
    move. “On the plus side in terms
    of management of ecosystems, it seems
    to make sense. Similarly with climate services,
    over the past 1.5 years NOAA and
    [Interior] have had many discussions
    regarding interagency coordination pertaining
    to climate, impacts, information,
    and services. However, when it comes
    to the operational prediction and observation
    components of NOAA, it would
    appear these represent significant new
    mandates for [Interior].”
    Former NOAA administrator Lautenbacher
    commented, “I think it is premature
    to assume that NOAA will be transferred to
    Interior. There are certainly other options
    which many have proposed over the years.
    The president’s announcement on Friday
    asks Congress to reinstate presidential
    authority to make organizational changes
    within the executive branch, an authority
    which ended in the Reagan era. The
    example of how such authority might be
    used centered on the consolidation of six
    current disparate organizations that affect
    trade and the economy. I certainly agree
    that bringing together these various structures
    would be a logical and useful undertaking.
    And I do believe that streamlining
    executive branch organizational structure,
    if done properly, could be highly advantageous
    to improving the efficiency and effectiveness
    of government.”
    He added, though, “At this point, it is pure
    speculation as to what the effect would be
    on the current Commerce department lineup
    and, in particular, NOAA. I do continue
    to support strongly the enactment of an
    organic act for NOAA no matter what happens
    in the future. As to the proper home
    for NOAA in a future government reorganization,
    I would have to see the details and
    overall context of the change before I could
    make a determination as to [its] value and
    my support for such a change. Remember,
    there is a long way to go before any of this
    potential reorganization activity can even
    begin to be formulated and seriously proposed,
    let alone actually happening.”
    Miller of OSTP noted, “We don’t anticipate
    any impact [from the proposed NOAA
    move] on the implementation plan.” As Eos
    went to press, NOAA had not made any public
    comments regarding the proposed reorganization,
    despite attempts by Eos to solicit
    agency comments.
    For more information about the draft
    National Ocean Policy Implementation
    Plan, see http:// www .whitehouse
    .gov/ administration/
    eop/ oceans/
    implementationplan.
    The public comment
    period is open through 27 February 2012.
    —Randy Showstack, Staff Writer

    From: The American Geophysical Union

    The Obama administration’s ambitious plan to protect oceans was released on 12 January, just 1 day prior to the administra-tion’s apparently unrelated announcement of a proposed governmental reorganization that would move the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from the Department of Commerce to the Depart-ment of the Interior. The proposed NOAA move is part of a larger administration pro-posal to consolidate six federal agencies that are focused on business and trade into one department. The action is contingent upon congressional approval.

    The proposal to move NOAA to the Inte-rior department has prompted a variety of reactions, with some considering it common sense to group agencies dealing with natu-ral resources in the same department. Oth-ers have charged that the proposed move could blunt NOAA’s leading role in protect-ing oceans, among other concerns.

    The draft National Ocean Policy Imple-mentation Plan, issued by the White House’s National Ocean Council, provides a frame-work for more than 2 dozen federal agen-cies and offices involved with oceans to work together on a plan to implement the National Ocean Policy. President Barack Obama established that policy—formally known as the National Policy for the Stew-ardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes—through a 19 July 2010 execu-tive order. An earlier 2004 report by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy had received bipartisan support.

    The draft plan, which lays out nine pri-ority objectives along with more than 50 action items and nearly 300 significant milestones with timetables, has a strong focus on science and the need for increased observations. The objectives include adopt-ing ecosystem-based management “as a foundational principle” for ocean manage-ment. For the objective on informing deci-sions and increasing understanding to improve management and policy decisions, action items include advancing fundamen-tal scientific knowledge through exploration and research, and providing data and tools to support science-based decision making and ecosystem-based management.

    Among the action items for an objective on observations, mapping, and infrastruc-ture are improving remote sensing systems and further implementing the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). Other objectives call for improved coordination and support for ocean management issues, establishing and implementing an integrated ecosystem protection and restoration strat-egy, strengthening resiliency and adaptation to climate change and ocean acidification, enhancing water quality and implementing sustainable practices on land, addressing environmental stewardship needs in the Arc-tic Ocean, and implementing comprehen-sive coastal and marine spatial planning and management.

    The draft plan notes that it creates no new regulations, attempts to leverage existing federal agency resources, and was prepared in light of expected federal budgets for the next several years.

    “For the first time in the history of this country, we have a national policy that per-tains to the 70% of the planet that we call the oceans. We never had that before,” Jerry Miller, assistant director for ocean sciences at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), told Eos. Miller said that while the National Ocean Council has a long-term vision for managing oceans, “this document is intended to be the sort of boots on the ground, [to] get on with busi-ness in the foreseeable future here in a real-istic fashion with budget levels that we can reasonably expect.”

    Both Miller and Steve Fetter, who oversees OSTP’s environment and energy division, said the concept of science-based decision making and having the necessary data are fundamental to the plan. Fetter told Eos that the main message in the plan is “the com-mitment to using the best available scientific information and analysis to inform all of our policies and programs regarding the oceans and the coasts.” Fetter added that “every-thing else [in the plan] is in support of that.”

    Reaction to the Draft Implementation Plan

    The draft plan has received a generally favorable response. Former NOAA admin-istrator Conrad Lautenbacher told Eos that he is pleased to see the release of the draft plan and “look[s] forward even more to the application of resources to the goals out-lined. In particular, the importance of an Earth observing system stands out as a pre-requisite to realize just about every part of the plan.” Lautenbacher said he supports additional resources for fulfilling IOOS goals as a critical system within the Global Earth Observation System of Systems.

    Margaret Leinen, chair of the Ocean Research Advisory Panel, which provides guidance to the U.S. government about ocean research, told Eos the plan “is impor-tant because it will provide both guidance and prioritization to all federal agencies and programs that are involved with ocean affairs. For the research community, this plan is intended to provide clear guidance on the types of research most needed by the federal government.”

    Antonio Busalacchi, director of the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center (ESSIC) at the University of Maryland, Col-lege Park, cited as the most important aspects of the report a call for coordina-tion among agencies focused on oceans, a regional approach to implementing poli-cies that recognizes that “one size doesn’t fit all,” and a recognition of the importance of observations for research and for opera-tional needs.

    Environmental groups applauded the plan. Jeff Watters, senior manager of govern-ment relations with the Ocean Conservancy, told Eos that although he “would clearly love to see more federal dollars going toward ocean conservation issues,” he recognizes that the purpose of this particular plan is not to be a giant conservation wish list. “This [plan] is about management of the agencies and management of resources,” he said, “to make sure we are going about ocean man-agement and ocean research in a smart and targeted way that is frankly more effective and more efficient.”

    Staci Lewis, senior policy manager with the Consortium for Ocean Leadership, said she is looking for the final plan to strike a balance between tight budgetary times and proceed-ing with a number of key action items. “Hope-fully, they are able to translate these [plan] milestones into tangible results while keeping the budgetary issues in mind,” she said.

    Support for the draft plan was not uni-versal, however. National Ocean Industries Association president Randall Luthi said in a statement that “the use of Coastal Marine Spatial Planning may very well be a multilay-ered bureaucratic solution seeking a prob-lem that doesn’t exist. Our industry has been successfully operating for decades, with-out major conflict, guided by the planning already inherent in the 5-year offshore leas-ing process mandated under the Outer Con-tinental Shelf Lands Act.” U.S. Rep. Doc Hast-ings (R-Wash.) charged that the plan would help the administration move forward with “imposing new mandatory ‘ocean zoning.’” Hastings said the plan “isn’t about protecting the ocean; it’s about expanding power and government control over Americans’ lives.”

    Hastings’s comments “reflect politics at its rawest,” said Morgan Gopnik, former senior advisor to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. She said Hastings’s charges about expanding power and government con-trol are neither accurate nor relevant to the plan. “There is nothing radical about these proposals; they are common sense. The new policy will make ocean management more efficient and less

    [Washington] D.C.-centric, with lots of input from state, local, and tribal authorities.” Miller at OSTP added that coastal and marine spatial planning “is not ocean zoning, it’s ocean planning” that


    brings together a broad spectrum of stake-holders in a collaborative planning process.

    NOAA’s Proposed Move

    During a 13 January briefing, Jeff Zients of the White House Office of Management and Budget said that all of NOAA would be moved to the Interior department under the administration proposal. “As part of the spe-cific proposal that would be developed once we have consolidation authority, the appro-priate integration of NOAA into the Inte-rior department would be carefully worked through.”

    Sarah Chasis, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Ocean Initia-tive, said the proposed move for NOAA was “a side issue” in the proposed reorganiza-tion, with the principal focus being on busi-ness and trade agencies. Chasis told Eos that while the draft implementation plan is a pos-itive and important step forward for ocean stewardship, the proposal to move NOAA to Interior is troubling. She said NOAA cur-rently plays an important role in checks and balances with Interior, which has respon-sibility for extractive offshore oil and gas activities. “Making sure that [NOAA is] free to weigh in in a way that’s not squelched or unduly influenced by the extraction goals of [Interior] is really important,” she said, add-ing, “We need to focus on implementing the National Ocean Policy plan. There are so many important things to be done, and reor-ganization takes a lot of time and effort and diverts from policy and implementation.”

    Jeb Berman, director of government rela-tions with the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, said NOAA was “blindsided” by the reorganization announcement and had not been informed about it until the prior evening. Berman told Eos that moving the entire agency to Interior “creates so much bureaucratic headache and would require NOAA to take its eye off the ball for a sig-nificant period of time. And even though they’ve fixed some of the oil/gas problems recently at [Interior], it’s still the agency that’s directed to lease expeditiously.” He added, “Now, if some pieces of NOAA were integrated into existing resource manage-ment functions at [Interior], that could potentially make sense.”

    Busalacchi of ESSIC said he is withhold-ing judgment for now regarding the pro-posed move. “On the plus side in terms of management of ecosystems, it seems to make sense. Similarly with climate ser-vices, over the past 1.5 years NOAA and [Interior] have had many discussions regarding interagency coordination per-taining to climate, impacts, information, and services. However, when it comes to the operational prediction and obser-vation components of NOAA, it would appear these represent significant new mandates for [Interior].”

    Former NOAA administrator Lauten-bacher commented, “I think it is premature to assume that NOAA will be transferred to Interior. There are certainly other options which many have proposed over the years. The president’s announcement on Friday asks Congress to reinstate presidential authority to make organizational changes within the executive branch, an author-ity which ended in the Reagan era. The example of how such authority might be used centered on the consolidation of six current disparate organizations that affect trade and the economy. I certainly agree that bringing together these various struc-tures would be a logical and useful under-taking. And I do believe that streamlining executive branch organizational structure, if done properly, could be highly advanta-geous to improving the efficiency and effec-tiveness of government.”

    He added, though, “At this point, it is pure speculation as to what the effect would be on the current Commerce department lineup and, in particular, NOAA. I do continue to support strongly the enactment of an organic act for NOAA no matter what hap-pens in the future. As to the proper home for NOAA in a future government reorgani-zation, I would have to see the details and overall context of the change before I could make a determination as to [its] value and my support for such a change. Remember, there is a long way to go before any of this potential reorganization activity can even begin to be formulated and seriously pro-posed, let alone actually happening.”

    Miller of OSTP noted, “We don’t antici-pate any impact [from the proposed NOAA move] on the implementation plan.” As Eos went to press, NOAA had not made any pub-lic comments regarding the proposed reor-ganization, despite attempts by Eos to solicit agency comments.

    For more information about the draft National Ocean Policy Implementa-tion Plan, see http://www.whitehouse .gov/administration/eop/oceans/ implementationplan. The public comment period is open through 27 February 2012.

    —Randy ShowStack, Staff Writer

    Leave a reply

    Please Answer: *