IOOS: First Annual Implementation Conference

Washington, D.C.

David L. Martin, Ph.D.

Chair, NFRA Organizing Committee

August 31, 2004

Development of Regional Associations and of the National Federation of Regional

Associations ( NFRA)

Convergence of Interests and Capabilities – Leading to IOOS

NOPP and Ocean.US

Ocean Caucus

NSF Ocean Observatories Initiative

Recognized Need

Global OceanObserving System

GOOS

Commission on Ocean Policy

Academic Community

Note: Regional interests are implicit throughout

What will IOOS Look Like?

• Global Component (nearly entirely a Federal responsibility – for both operations & research support)

• Coastal Component– National System (‘backbone’) – Mostly Federal

• Networks regions into a national federations and link environmental changes that propagate across regions

– Federation of Regional Observing Systems• Regional federal entities, state & local government with

involvement with academia, Tribal, private industry, NGOs and other stakeholders -- increase temporal/spatial resolution of backbone & increase variables measured and products produced

•Primary interface with user groups outside federal agencies.

•Focal point for data analysis and product development that will have local, regional and national applications.

•Terrestrial influence measurements

•Many national backbone R&D projects will be first done in regional observing systems.

•Incorporate sub-regional systems

•Development of regional systems is a very high priority with Congress and the Commission on Ocean Policy

Required Characteristics of Regional Efforts

• A Solid Governance Structure– Describing governing and executive bodies, the roles and responsibilities of

members, and how decisions are made/modified, etc.

• Provision of an acceptable business plan that is endorsed by stakeholders– Articulate Regional system goals IAW seven IOOS goals, specify products and

customers, conform to protocols, be capable of 24/7 ops providing timely user-driven products, describe sources of funding, provide a budget, etc. This should become the Regional Strategic Plan

• Describe the process by which the governance structure and business plan were developed/improved

• Easy to list, rigorous to implement, and . . . how do we agree and/or accomplish these? How do we formalize and empower the “We” in the various U.S. Regions?

Regional Associations Provide the Legitimizing Framework

• For the Individual U.S. Regions:– They provide a focal point for a Regional Consortia of stakeholders to whom

accountable (performance based) transfers of Federal resources can occur – Enhance intra-regional connectivity and collaboration

• Priorities, technology transfer, science, etc., etc., etc.

• As Part of a National Federation of Regional Associations– Lessons learned from other RAs (best practices, etc.)– Facilitates seamless interconnectivity (interoperability) between Regions– Demonstration to national leadership of maturity (vice bickering)– Ease pressure for Congressional earmarks/plus-ups as RAs become the

vehicle of choice for directed regional ocean observing resources– Etc., etc.,

Regional Associations are Formed to:

• Oversee & manage the design and sustained operation of integrated Regional observing systems addressing societal needs

• Agree and establish Regional geographic boundaries• Incorporate sub-regional efforts within the integrated system• Obtain and disperse funds to operate and improve Regional

observing systems• Ensure the timely provision of quality controlled data and

information to users and private sector data and product providers

Governance System for RAs: Reaching Consensus

• A wide range of stakeholders needs to be approached, educated and encouraged to participate

– Tribal leaders, private sector, Academia,Regional Federal agencies, other state/local governments, NGO’s, etc.

– Interactions in a number of Region have accelerated during past year• Need to identify the MANY others – a Region’s constituents must help.

• Regional participants must remain engaged with colleagues in other Regional Associations, Ocean.US and others in D.C. and the nation– e.g., Regional Observing System “Summit”: Regional Interoperability

Forum, attend RA meetings nearby, etc.• e.g., Various RA Workshop attendees include national and international

representatives from adjoining regions

• Regions are developing mechanisms to address the “hard” issues.

Because RA Governance Means More Than Merely Getting Along . .

• What is the governance mechanism for the RA? How is the Regional Association to be chartered for a multi-state role (with international connectivity if applicable)?

– What roles will various entities agree to play? And what will they not do?• What is the role of Regional Federal agencies (or Tribal, state, local, etc.) in the Regional

Association hierarchy and decisions?

• What is the role of non-governmental entities (private sector, academia, NGO’s etc) ? – How are differences between stakeholders arbitrated?

• Prioritization/scheduling of observing systems• Allocations of resources

– How are “boundaries” between regions determined?

- e.g., For the PNW, what is the geographical extent of “Northern California”? • These issues and others have been identified and discussed at various fora

– Arriving at equitable solutions will take time and discourse – ignoring such issues is not an option• Ocean.US (e.g., the entire federal structure in Washington, D.C.) will NOT solve Regional

governance issues.– Regions must do this for themselves

Criteria for a Certification as a Regional Association

• Proof of a Solid Governance Structure that can deliver a Regional IOOS– By incorporating/improving existing assets and engaging regional expertise. It

must serve as its own fiscal agent (accept funds, enter enforceable contracts, etc.); it must be insurable unless indemnified legislatively

• Adoption of a membership policy– That specifies one or more categories, qualifications, rights and responsibilities;

describes how members are added/removed; provides for geographic balance; ensures diverse membership from regional user and provider groups and stakeholders

• Creation of a Governing Board– Formally created, public in all transactions IAW State/Fed laws; appoints a Chief

Administrative Officer or Executive body; that is bound by procedures, that develops metrics to improve system performance; exercises appropriate powers to ensure its autonomy; is diverse in its makeup

Criteria for a Certification as a Regional Association (continued)

• Formally involves users who will use the data and information products generated by the RA as evidenced by:– A panel advisory to the Governing Board that includes representatives of

a significant share primary users and private sector data and product providers together with a detailed description of how this panel will be used

– An active, ongoing outreach and marketing program described in the RA’s Business Plan1 having

• A person or entity assigned responsibility for education and communication• Documents how the RCOOS is responsive to needs of users and private

sector data and product providers• Establishes processes by which the needs of users and private sector data and

product providers and gauged

1Note: Criteria for acceptable RA Business Plan are similarly detailed

Goals & Objectives• Establish an RCOOS that addresses the 7 societal goals as determined by user groups

in the region• Contribute to the development of the IOOS as a whole

Needs, Benefits, Product Development & Marketing• Link to objectives• Prepare a plan for product development & diversifying the user base

Linking Observations to Model and Products• Observations & data transmission• Data management & communications• Data analysis & products

Research & Development

Training• Workforce of trained operators• User community

Funding• Prepare a plan for obtaining, increasing, sustaining & diversifying revenues for

design, implementation, operation and improvement

Criteria for a Certification as a Regional Association (Bus. Plan)

The National Federation of Regional Associations Will Assist

• Promote Regional observing systems nationwide• Enhance communications between NOPP agencies

and RA• Assist in delineation of geographic boundaries • Promote inter-RA collaboration• Guide the development of the backbone• Influence the development and enable the

implementation of national standards and protocols.

NFRA Organizing Committee

Alaska (AOOS): Caribbean: Molly McCammon Jorge Corredor Nancy Bird Roy Watlington

Pacific Northwest (NANOOS) Southeast (SEACOOS) David Martin - Chair Rick Devoe Steven Rumrilll Andy Clark

Hawaii and Pacific Islands: Mid-Atlantic (MARA) Eileen Shea Bill Boicourt Chris Chung Carolyn Thoroughgood

Central and Northern California (CeNCOOS): Northeast (GoMOOS) Marcia McNutt Philip Bogden Linda Sheehan Janet Campbell

Southern California (SCCOOS): Great Lakes John Orcutt Jeffrey Reutter Marco A. Gonzalez, Esq. Thomas Rayburn

Gulf of Mexico (GCOOS): US GOOS Steering Committee Landry Bernard Worth Nowlin Buzz Martin Mark Luther

Organizing Committee Initial Tasks

• NFRA Mission Statement• Regional RA Summit

– Criteria for Certification as Regional Association– Criteria for Acceptable Business Plan– Interactions with Congressional delegations

• Primarily Senate version and House mods to S 1400

• Regional priorities for Backbone and RCOOS’s• Provision of near-term (FY05 & 06) and long-term RA and

regional RCOOS resource needs• Review of IOOS Implementation Plan

– Participants in First IOOS Implementation Conference

Regional Effort Resource Needs

Assumes ~10 will be established and that all 10 ill be fully operational by Yr 5

YR 1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5Start-up ($0.5M each) 2.5 2.5 1 0.5 0formation of Regional Assoc.

Initial Systems [$5M-$15M/ea] 44.5 41.5 68 55.5 23(Integration of networks in region, data integration cntrs.,data access & sharing sys.)

Mature Systems [$20m-$30M/ea] 0 60 120 180 270full operations

NFRA 0.5 0.5 1 1.5 1.5(Estab. And operation of NFRA)

Education & Outreach 2.5 5.5 10 12.5 15.5(Public education, outreach to potential users and private sector data/product providers

TOTAL 50 110 200 250 310

Regional Effort Summary

• The IOOS has global and coastal modules – Coastal efforts consist of both national “backbone” (mostly Federal – e.g.,

NDBC, CMAN, NWLON, USACE Wave & RSM, USGS stream gauges, etc.) and non-federal Regional efforts

• To address regional concerns and build regional constituencies WITHIN the construct of an integrated system

• The goal is Regional relevancy with National oversight. • Regional Associations, and a National Federation of these Associations will

provide the governance structure to enable this portion of the IOOS

• Resource requirements are substantial for RCOOS initial and full operation; they are relatively modest for RA Certification, but several times greater than present RA Partnership building grants (present funding levels do not allow certification in 2 years)

• Fundamental issue concerns the level of actionable Federal support of these non-agency Regional efforts (to date, support ≠ sufficient funding)