Transcript 2006-2007 Accomplishments

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
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
Sea Surface Conditions Meteorology Oceanography Water Quality
PWS Weather
Currents
Precipitation
Data Assimilation
Field Validation
Experiments
PWS ROMS
Model
Ancillary
Data
PWS Waves
RealData
time data
Retrieval &
Processing
Application
Server
Server
(GIS)
3D Model
Assimilation
Research
Server
Server
(POET)
Public Feedback
Education
Economic models
Fishery management
Communities
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
Pres
Req
FY
00
FY
01
FY
02
FY
03
FY
04
FY
05
FY
06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
11.5/ 2.5
21
14.5/ 6.5
RA/DMAC
RA/NOAA
27.2
20.4/6.8*
???
CR likely
Cong 6
?
13.04 16.26 36
42.4
33.8
21.4
RA/NOAA
•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
HR 2342
System Elements: 1) Nat’l 2) RAs
3) DMAC 4) R&D 5) Outreach
System Elements: Federal and Nonfederal assets
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
NORLC: Oversight of System
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
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
Integrate Ocean Observing Office:
1) Est by IOOC 2) located in, but not
office of NOAA 3) staffed by IOOC
employees
S 950 Role of NOAA
HR 2342
1) Lead agency
1) Lead agency
2) Shall est IOOS Program Office
2) May 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
Role of NOAA
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
HR 2342 Regions
RA
RICE = Regional Information
Coordinating Entity (same as RAs)
RAs established by NOAA thru rule
making, RAs shall
Certified or established by NOAA if
they demonstrate that they:
• Demonstrate organizational
structure
• Dem org structure
• Operate under strategic plan
• Id Gaps
• Comply with fed requirements
• Work with governmental and
other users
• Demonstrate ability to work
with gov & non-gov users
Provides for Fed participation
Provides for Fed participation
Provides civil liability for RAs
Provides civil liability for RAs
S 950
HR 2342
Additional Provisions
Additional Provisions
Provisions for Interagency financing
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
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