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 IOOSUS IOOS

NFRA and 11 RAs

NFRA and 11 RAs

Regional Users and PartnersMariners, managers, search and rescue personnel,

researchers

Regional Users and PartnersMariners, 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 TerritoriesRAs 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 ValidationExperiments

AncillaryData

DataRetrieval &Processing

3D ModelAssimilation

ApplicationServer (GIS)

ResearchServer (POET)

ModelData

Real time dataRetrieval &Processing

3D ModelAssimilation

Public Feedback

ApplicationServer

ResearchServer

Sea Surface Conditions Meteorology Oceanography Water Quality Currents Precipitation

Education CommunitiesFishery managementEconomic models

Data AssimilationPWS Weather

PWS Waves

Dat

a A

ssim

ilati

on

Case Study: Tropical Storm Ernesto : Sept 1-3 2006

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

FY00

FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

FY08

FY09

Pres Req

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1411.5/ 2.5RA/DMAC

2114.5/ 6.5RA/NOAA

Cong 6 ? 13.04 16.26 36 42.4 33.8 21.4 27.220.4/6.8*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