Docstoc

Martin

Document Sample
Martin Powered By Docstoc
					     The National Federation of
     Regional Associations (NFRA)
        Providing Regional Teamwork to Develop the
        Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS)

               GCOOS Stakeholders Meeting
                 University of South Alabama
                        David L. Martin, Ph.D.
Associate Director, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington
                Co-Chair, NFRA Governing Committee
                           January 10, 2006
     Components of the IOOS

• Global Component (nearly entirely a Federal
  responsibility – for both operations & research
  support)
• Coastal Component
   – National System (‘backbone’) – Mostly Federal
      • Networks regional components into a national federation and
        links environmental changes that propagate across regions
   – Federation of Regional Observing Systems
      • Regional federal, state & local government entities partner with
        academia, Tribes, private industry, NGOs, and other stakeholders
      • Increase temporal/spatial resolution of backbone & increase
        variables measured and products produced tailored to meet
        regional user needs
Diverse Needs Require
a Regional Approach




                  GCOOS
        PacIOOS           CarIOOS
        Required Characteristics of
            Regional Efforts
• A Solid Governance Structure
   – Describing governing and executive bodies, roles and responsibilities of
     members, how decisions are made/modified, user input, etc.
• Provision of an acceptable business plan that is endorsed by
  stakeholders
   – Articulate regional system goals in relation to 7 IOOS goals, specify
     products and customers, conform to protocols, show capability of 24/7
     ops & providing timely user-driven products, describe budget & sources
     of funding, process for user input, education & outreach, data
     management plan, 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? The Answer – Regional
  Associations.
        Regional Associations are
              Formed to:
• Oversee & manage the design and sustained operation of
  integrated Regional observing systems addressing societal needs
   – Including regional programs for data integration and dissemination
• 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
• Ensure program is user-driven and meets defined user needs
• Support development of backbone measurements
• Enhance the national backbone through investment in the
  RCOOS
   Regional Associations Provide a
      Legitimizing Framework
• For the Individual U.S. Regions:
   – Provide a focal point for a regional consortium 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
   – Share lessons learned from other RAs (best practices, etc.)
   – Facilitates seamless interconnectivity (interoperability) between Regions
   – Demonstrates maturity of program to national leadership
   – Eases pressure for Congressional earmarks/plus-ups as RAs become vehicle
     of choice for directed regional ocean observing resources
   – Etc., etc.,
    Regional Associations Also
    Build IOOS Partnerships
         (an informed constituency)
• Business and Industry (66)
• Shipping (18)
• Researchers and Universities (149)
• State agencies (59)
• NGOs (58)
• International Organizations (11)
• Local and Tribal governments (8)
• Federal Agencies (106)
~ 480 partners and growing
    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 Regions 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.
    Regional Governance Within Our
           Federalist System
• 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? How do we ensure they are meaningful
            partners at the table?
          • What is the role of non-governmental entities (private sector, academia, NGO’s etc) ?
          • How do we reconcile the existing NOPP RA construct with that of the Commission on
            Ocean Policy Regional governance structure recommendations? Who should do this?
     – How are differences between stakeholders arbitrated?
          • Prioritization/scheduling of observing systems
          • Allocations of resources
•   These issues and others have been identified and discussed at various forums
     – 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 all
    Regional-specific governance issues.
     – Regions must do this for themselves
    Criteria for Certification as a
  Regional Association (Governance)
• 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 (State/Fed laws); appoints a
     Chief Administrative Officer or Executive body; bound by procedures;
     develops metrics to improve system performance; exercises appropriate
     powers to ensure its autonomy; is diverse in its makeup
    Criteria for Certification as a
  Regional Association (Governance)
• 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 of 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 Plan having
       • A person or entity assigned responsibility for education, outreach & public
         awareness
       • Documentation of how the RCOOS is responsive to needs of users and
         private sector data and product providers
       • Established processes by which the needs of users and private sector data and
         product providers are gauged – feedback loop
     Criteria for Certification as a
    Regional Association (Bus. Plan)
 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 of regional system
Regional Association Progress




                                                                                      MACOORA
                                  SECOORA




                                                                            CeNCOOS



                                                                                                SCCOOS1
                                                                   NANOOS




                                                                                                          NERA1,2



                                                                                                                           PacOOS
                                            GCOOS




                                                                                                                                    TOTAL
                                                    GLOS1

                                                            AOOS




                                                                                                                    CaRA
Category         Activity


Funding          Funding Year     3         3        3      3      3        3          2          2         1       1       1
Organization     Governing Body   X         X        X      X      X        X                     X         X                        8
                 Website          X         X        X      X      X        X         X           X         X                        8
                 Staff            P         P               F      P        F         P           P         F                        8
                 Stakeholders     X         X        X      X      X        X         X           X         X       X      X        11
                 Inventory        X         X        X      X      X        X6        X           X         X       X      X        11
                 Gap analysis     X         X        X      X      X        X         X           X         X       X      X        11
                 Regional
                 Coordination     X         X               X      X        X                     X                                  6
                 International
                 Coordination               X        X      X      X                              X         X              X         7
Infrastructure   Subregional OS   X         X        X      X      X        X         X           X         X              X        10
                 Real-time        X         X        X             X        X         X           X         X              X         9
                 Pilot Project    Y3                        Y4     Y5                                       X                        4
                                               7
                 DMAC             X         X        X      X8              X                     X         X              X         8
Education        Implementation   X         X        X      X               X         X           X         X                        8
                 Council          X         X                                                                                        2
Governance       Plan in Review   X                         X      X                              X                                  4
                 Approved by
                 Stakeholders               X                               X                               X                        3
Business Plan    In Review                  X        X                                                                               2
                 Approved by
                 Stakeholders                                                                              X                         1
TOTAL                             14        15      11      13     12       12         8         13        14       3       7


                            From Page 12 of Pre-Conference Brief (Dated figures – info in flux)
The National Federation of Regional
 Associations (NFRA) Will Assist

• Promote Regional observing systems nationwide
• Serve in an advocacy role
• Enhance communications between NOPP agencies
  and RAs
• Promote inter-RA collaboration
• Guide development of the backbone
• Influence development and enable implementation
  of national standards and protocols
National Federation of Regional
     Associations (NFRA)
• Founded in February, 2005
• Envisioned to become a non-profit trade
  association dedicated to
   – Representing the needs of the 11 Regional Association
     to the federal government and others
   – Articulating the benefits of a regional approach to the
     IOOS
   – Education through communication of lessons learned,
     success stories, etc
         NFRA Governing Committee


Alaska (AOOS):                               Caribbean IOOS:
 Molly McCammon - Co-Chair                    Jorge Corredor
 Nancy Bird                                   Roy Watlington

Pacific Northwest (NANOOS)                   Southeast (SECOORA)
 David Martin – Co-Chair                      Rick Devoe
 Jan Newton                                   Evans Waddell
 Steven Rumrilll

Pacific Islands IOOS:                        Mid-Atlantic (MACOORA)
 Eileen Shea                                  Bill Boicourt
 Chris Chung                                  Carolyn Thoroughgood

Central and Northern California (CeNCOOS):   Northeast (GoMOOS)
 Heather Kettering                             Josie Quintrell
                                               Janet Campbell

Southern California (SCCOOS):                Great Lakes (GLOS)
 John Orcutt                                  Christine Manninen
 Marco A. Gonzalez, Esq.                      Roger Gauthier

Gulf of Mexico (GCOOS):                      US GOOS Steering Committee - Affiliate
 Ray Toll                                     Worth Nowlin
 Buzz Martin                                  Mark Luther
            NFRA Actions to date

• Drafted and Approved NFRA Mission Statement
• Drafted and Approved NFRA Terms of Reference
• Full Participants in Regional RA Summits including:
   – Vetted Criteria for Certification as Regional Association
   – Vetted Criteria for Acceptable Business Plan
   – Assisted Congress with IOOS authorizing legislation & funding
       • Primarily Senate S 1400 and S 361 version and House H 5001 and H
         1489 – (NFRA letter to Rep. Gilchrist stressing Regional approach)
• Provided Regional priorities for Backbone and RCOOS’s
• Reviewed IOOS Implementation Plan
   – Participants in First and Second IOOS Implementation Conferences
• Drafted Provisional NFRA Bylaws for future incorporation
• Collaborated with other coalitions to promote IOOS
  (e.g.,NFRA/Marine Safety Joint IOOS Resolution)
• Provided near-term (FY 05 & 06) and long-term RA and
  regional RCOOS resource needs – a Consensus document
NFRA Consensus on FY-05/06 Actions
           (revisited)
• Fund RA’s and NFRA sufficiently (Priority 1)
    – RA Estimated Cost: 11 * $0.5M = $5.5M in FY05 & FY06 Good progress from
      NOAA, continuation needed
    – NFRA estimated Cost: $0.5M in FY05 & FY06 Not done
• Fund necessary DMAC activities (Priority 2)
    – National IOOS DMAC effort estimated cost: $0.8M in FY05 & $1M in FY06
      $0.5M provided?
    – Regional DMAC effort estimated cost: 11* $0.3M = $3.3M ($1.1M in FY05 &
      $2.2 FY06) Not individually awarded, some progress through Pilot Projects
• Fund Regional Pilot Projects (Priority 3)
    –   To generate success stories
    –   Using NOPP Socio-economic analysis of IOOS sector impacts
    –   To build regional constituencies
    –   To foster strong ties with business/private data & product providers
    –   Estimated cost: 11 * $0.5M = $5.5M ($2M in FY05 & $3.5M in FY06) 2 RA
        Pilots competitively funded by NOAA in addition to Congressional directives
• Total Cost: $9.9M in FY05 & $12.7M in FY06
           Some NFRA Near-Term
              Future Activities
• NFRA Governance
   – Continue work on NFRA bylaws and incorporation as 501 (c) (3).
   – Further define responsibilities/job descriptions for main NFRA entities
     (Chair, Vice Chair, Treasure, Secretary, etc.)
• Optimize NFRA Organization
   – Organize & Staff an NFRA office within the NCR
   – Develop budget and arrange for funding
• Communication/Outreach
   – Develop visibility for and understanding of the NFRA.
   – Work with Ocean.US and many others on industry coordination and
     partnerships.
   – Develop complimentary outreach/communications strategy in conjunction
     with Ocean.US and others.
• Information Provision Role in Advocating the IOOS
   –   Coordinate NFRA positions on federal policy issues of concern.
   –   Work with Ocean.US and NORLC agencies on the above as appropriate.
   –   Coordinate NFRA positions on IOOS funding solutions
   –   Work with NFRA members on advancing the above.
              IOOS Advocacy


                    • Secure OMB and
                      agency support
Three Principal     • Pass authorizing
Advocacy Tasks        legislation for
                      governance
                    • Secure short and long-
                      term appropriations for
                      ocean observing
General IOOS Advocacy Themes


1. Present ocean observing as ONE OF THE BEST
   ACHIEVABLE OPTIONS for implementing
   recommendations from President’s Ocean Commission.
2. Answer the question of “Why Now?” by promoting
   IOOS as the ESSENTIAL FIRST STEP to the more
   sweeping ocean program and policy objectives that can’t
   be achieved today.
3. Cast the IOOS as a FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENT
   of most U.S. ocean objectives.
One of the Best Achievable Options

• Little new money in current budget climate for major
  new ocean objectives.
• Policy makers will be looking for achievable
  solutions.
• IOOS is Achievable.
   – It is affordable.
   – IOOS is already partially in place.
   – The IOOS has a high and quick cost benefit return.
   – The IOOS can be implemented without whole scale
     reorganization of federal agencies.
   – IOOS and it’s mission to gather data for better decision making
     is relatively non-controversial.
            Essential First Step


• Need to address the question of “Why Now?”
• Good programs and policy result from good data. The
  IOOS will enable better implementation of more
  sweeping ocean program and policy objectives to be
  implemented in the future.
• IOOS can leverage existing infrastructure investments
  and have immediate utility.
• Creating and deploying IOOS brings together a broad
  ocean constituency that will help support the more
  sweeping ocean program and policy objectives.
          Advocacy Goals for
          OMB and Agencies
• Line up support for IOOS with key agencies:
   – NOAA, Army Corps, EPA, NSF, USCG, DoD, DHS
• Secure baseline budget request for IOOS from at
  least one agency. What is achievable?
   – NOAA = $50 million in FY ’07 or FY ’08??
• Build support for IOOS at OMB so that agency
  budget requests for IOOS will be approved.
• Press OMB for implementation of Ocean Action
  plan in FY ’07 and FY ’08 budgets.
Key Themes for Promoting the IOOS
     with OMB and Agencies
  • Cost Benefit and Return on Investment (ROI) for OMB.
  • IOOS is the U.S. coastal component of Global Earth
    Observing System of Systems.
  • IOOS maximizes utility of existing ocean observing
    resources already in place.
  • IOOS will provide better data to improve existing agency
    mission operations and functions.
  • IOOS is politically attractive due to its nationally
    distributed support.
  • IOOS is an affordable component of Ocean Action Plan.
Issues/Challenges to be Addressed
  for OMB and Agency Meetings

• Budget Caps.
• Governance questions - NOAA is supposed
  to be the lead but that is contentious.
• Competition for resources with existing
  programs.
        IOOS Authorization Bills

               Senate                                   House
•   S. 316; ‘The Ocean and Coastal        •   H.R. 1489; `The Coastal Ocean
    Observation System Act of 2005‘           Observation System Integration
                                              and Implementation Act of 2005‘
    - 2/10/05, Introduced by Senator          - 4/6/05, Introduce by Chairman
    Snowe                                     Gilchrest

    - 4/19/05, Reported out of the        •   H.R. 1584; ‘The Ocean and Coastal
    Senate Committee on Commerce,
    Science, and Transportation               Observation System Act of 2005'

    - 7/1/05, Passed the full Senate by       - 4/12/05, Introduced by
    Unanimous Consent                         Representatives Weldon and Allen
         IOOS FY06 Appropriations

                Senate                                      House
•   The Senate CJS Appropriations bill      •     The House SSJC Appropriations
    included $109 million for IOOS                bill included $15 million for IOOS
    related activities                            related activities

•   An increase of $35 million over FY05    •     The increase in IOOS funds is
                                                  noteworthy considering that
                                                  overall the House funded NOAA
                                                  at $496 million below the FY05
                                                  enacted level



                     FY06 Conference Report
                                    $87 Million
IOOS Funding Versus Ideal
 Ocean Commission Budget
                                                      Ocean Commission
                                                      NOAA Appropriation
            IOOS Funding Profile
 500

 400

 300

 200

 100

  0
       FY '04   FY '05   FY '06   FY '07   FY '08   FY '09   FY '10
   Regional Resource Challenges

Assumes ~11 will be established and that all 11 will be fully operational by Yr 5

                                               YR 1      YR2       YR3       YR4    YR5
       Start-up ($0.5M each)                    2.5      2.5        1        0.5     0
       formation 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   270
       full 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
          Additional Regional Input

• Regions appreciated recent NDBC solicitation of Regional
  priorities for enhancement of buoy component of Backbone, but
  improved coordination on Backbone prioritization from all NOPP
  agencies is needed.
   – Recommendation: Federal agencies recognize RAs as primary structure for
     RCOOS’s and conduit from which to gather information on ocean
     observation priorities
   – Recommendation: Develop enhanced pathway for RA input to IOOS DMAC

• There is a need for better definition of the National Backbone,
  especially as it evolves through time (What is it? Who is
  responsible?)
   – Recommendation: A standing working group involving NFRA, Ocean.US
     and NOPP agencies could define
                              Summary

• The IOOS has (1) global and (2) 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;
  recent (ongoing) NOAA CSC grant process could provide
  sufficient funds for this effort. Other federal agencies???
• Fundamental challenge remains the level of resource support of
  these non-agency Regional COOS efforts. Substantial hurdles
  (Legislative & other) must be overcome to fully fund all IOOS
  modules.
   – Success in IOOS requires full support of the (3) pillars of the effort

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:3/27/2012
language:English
pages:32