Regional Associations: Essential Components of the US IOOS Josie Quintrell, NFRA Executive Director ORRAP Ocean Observing Subpanel June 2008 Graphic courtesy of GoMOOS

Why a regional approach to US IOOS? US territorial waters are diverse: US IOOS covers 10 Large Marine Ecosystem (LMEs) Provides the higher resolution observations and model outputs for regional needs Addresses diversity of regional needs from the Caribbean to the Great Lakes to Alaska Provides a forum for understanding user needs from multiple sectors Builds synergies among researchers and federal, state and local agencies Can be flexible, agile, and responsive Provides a test bed for transitioning from research to operations Increases provide access and integration of data from regional sources such gov’t, academic, NGOS and others

RAs link between Users and Federal Partners US IOOS NFRA and 11 RAs Regional Users and Partners Mariners, managers, search and rescue personnel, researchers Regional Users and Partners Mariners, managers, search and rescue personnel, researchers

National Network of Regional Associations 11 RAs serve the entire US Coastline, including Great Lakes, the Caribbean and the Pacific Territories RAs are the legal entities that seek out user needs, design and implement the Regional Coastal Ocean Observing Systems (RCOOS)

A non-profit association dedicated to: –Representing the needs of the 11 Regional Association to IOOS partners and others –Developing “one voice” for the regional perspective –Educating through communication of lessons learned, success stories –Governed by Board of Directors appoint by RAs –Represent regional perspective on IOOS policy issues –Advocate for national legislation and funding Funding: RA dues, NOAA contract, special projects Leadership: Molly McMammon, Chair; David Martin, VC; Rick DeVoe, Treas. Christine Manninen.

Regional Associations Engages stakeholders to understand needs and identify products Collaborates with regional partners (including regional offices of federal agencies) on setting priorities, designing and implementing RCOOS RCOOS include: – observations from a variety of platforms buoys, HF Radar, gliders, ships, satellites –Data management and integration. Data portals for accessing regional data –Modeling, analysis and product development Circulation, waves, storm surge, ecosystem Decision support tools, websites, visualizations

RA are building an informed and engaged IOOS constituency 482 partners and counting … Federal Agencies (106) Business and Industry (66) Shipping (18) Researchers and Universities (149) State agencies (59) Non-governmental Organizations (58) International Organizations (11) Local and Tribal governments (8)

RA Organizational Chart

Regional Real Time Data 2,800 obs. at 776 location from 30 data providers

Prince William Sound: RA Conceptual Framework PWS ROMS Field Validation Experiments Ancillary Data Retrieval & Processing 3D Model Assimilation Application Server (GIS) Research Server (POET) Model Data Real time data Retrieval & Processing 3D Model Assimilation Public Feedback Application Server Research Server Sea Surface Conditions Meteorology Oceanography Water Quality Currents Precipitation Education Communities Fishery management Economic models Data Assimilation PWS Weather PWS Waves Data Assimilation

Case Study: Tropical Storm Ernesto : Sept Regional forecast (RU-WRF) provided the most accurate real-time forecast of Tropical Storm Ernesto after landfall. Used by Researchers, by Regional, State & Local Managers, by Power Companies, by Agriculture Extension. The most significant difference with operational models was improved physics. This is a common storm track for the Mid-Atlantic States. MACOORA

Southern California

Integration of Regional Data Data Partnerships and Data Portals Mechanism for providing access to all regional data Data resides with providers but is made available through data portals Need to develop common vocabularies, standards and protocols for integration of data Support need for regional providers to prepare and serve data Puts the “I” into IOOS at the regional level

IOOS Funding History … in $ millions FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 Pres Req / 2.5 RA/DMAC / 6.5 RA/NOAA Cong6? /6.8* RA/NOAA ??? CR likely 74% of FY08 IOOS dollars going to regions (includes ACT). All regions received Planning and RCOOS support in FY08. But, we’re doing more (ie funding all regions) with less money, critical resources are being taken out of the water

Challenges Enhancing the coastal observation system, requires adequate funding Competitive process pits region against region: can’t build a national network if only a few regions are funded. Balancing expectations – users are becoming disillusioned Developing the standards and tools to achieve a national data management system is non-trivial and time consuming. Clarifying the roles and responsibilities of federal government and regional associations, particularly for enhancing and maintaining operational systems and regional scale models. Lack of oceanographic forecasting capacity similar to weather forecasting that routinely uses observations to develop forecasts and predictions. Liability concerns for non-governmental agencies disseminating predictions and forecasts. Communication is an unnatural act – always difficult, always time consuming but critical

In summary …. Regional approach is demonstrating success –Building a network of engaged users –Regions are overcoming political and institutional barriers to develop regional priorities –Data partnerships are making data from a variety of sources, accessible and interoperable. But, still more to do … – Need sustained and appropriate funding – Funding model that supports capacity in all regions – Participation by all federal agencies in IOOS – strong interagency leadership – DMAC standards and protocols

S 950 System Elements: 1) Nat’l 2) RAs 3) DMAC 4) R&D 5) Outreach NORLC: 1) adopts plans, budgets, standards devel by IOOC; 2) coord with earth obs 3) coord intra and extra mural res 4) promote tech devel 5) supports financial management Interagency Ocean Observing Committee: 1) est by NORLC 2) annual and long term budgets 3) coordinates RA and agency priorities 4) est standards 5) integrate assets 6) migration to operations Integrate Ocean Observing Office: 1) Est by IOOC 2) located in, but not office of NOAA 3) staffed by IOOC employees HR 2342 System Elements: Federal and Non- federal assets NORLC: Oversight of System Interagency Working Group (same as IWGOO): 1) implements plans 2) develop and transmit coordinated budgets to Congress 3) id gaps 4) est DMAC standards 5) est required variables 6) develop standards for integrating non federal and RICE into system 7) develop comp matching grant for R&D

S 950 Role of NOAA 1) Lead agency 2) Shall est IOOS Program Office 3) Merit-based funding process for RAs 4) Competitive grants for R&D 5) Certification process for RAs 6) Implement DMAC 7) Dev efficient admin procedures HR 2342 Role of NOAA 1) Lead agency 2) May est IOOS Program Office 3) Competitive funding process for RICEs 4) Competitive process for R&D 5) Certify or establish RICEs 6) Implement DMAC 7) Implement policies & standards developed by NORLC 8) Integrate non-fed and RICE data into system 9) Process for id gaps 10) Implement education 11) Report to Council thru IWG

S 950 Regions RA RAs established by NOAA thru rule making, RAs shall Demonstrate organizational structure Operate under strategic plan Work with governmental and other users Provides for Fed participation Provides civil liability for RAs HR 2342 Regions RICE = Regional Information Coordinating Entity (same as RAs) Certified or established by NOAA if they demonstrate that they: Dem org structure Id Gaps Comply with fed requirements Demonstrate ability to work with gov & non-gov users Provides for Fed participation Provides civil liability for RAs

S 950 Additional Provisions Provisions for Interagency financing Research to Operations: NOAA to est plan to both fund R&D and establish a plan for transitioning R&D to operations Reports to Congress: Implementation Plan within 12 months; Progress Report every 2 years HR 2342 Additional Provisions Provisions for Interagency financing System Advisory Committee – est by NOAA for IWG, non-FACA Public/ Private Use Relationship: NORLC to develop plan within 6 months Independent Cost Estimate - IWG in coordination with NOAA and NASA to develop within 1 year Congressional notice of life-cycle costs in excess of $250,000,000