The National Federation of Regional Associations (NFRA)

1. The National Federation ofRegional 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

2. 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

3. Diverse Needs Require a Regional Approach GCOOS PacIOOS CarIOOS

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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.,

7. 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

8. 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 RAWorkshop attendees include national and international representatives from adjoining regions • Regions are developing mechanisms to address the “hard” issues.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. Regional Association Progress From Page 12 of Pre-Conference Brief (Dated figures – info in flux)

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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-ChairRick Devoe Jan Newton Evans Waddell Steven Rumrilll Pacific Islands IOOS: Mid-Atlantic (MACOORA) Eileen SheaBill Boicourt Chris ChungCarolyn Thoroughgood Central and Northern California (CeNCOOS): Northeast (GoMOOS) Heather KetteringJosie 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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.

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

21. General IOOS Advocacy Themes • Present ocean observing as ONE OF THEBEST ACHIEVABLE OPTIONS for implementing recommendations from President’s Ocean Commission. • 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. • Cast the IOOS as a FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENT of most U.S. ocean objectives.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. Senate S. 316; ‘The Ocean and Coastal Observation System Act of 2005‘ - 2/10/05, Introduced by Senator Snowe - 4/19/05, Reported out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation - 7/1/05, Passed the full Senate by Unanimous Consent House H.R. 1489; `The Coastal Ocean Observation System Integration and Implementation Act of 2005‘ - 4/6/05, Introduce by Chairman Gilchrest H.R. 1584; ‘The Ocean and Coastal Observation System Act of 2005' - 4/12/05, Introduced by Representatives Weldon and Allen IOOS Authorization Bills

28. Senate The Senate CJS Appropriations bill included $109 million for IOOS related activities An increase of $35 million over FY05 House The House SSJC Appropriations bill included $15 million for IOOS related activities The increase in IOOS funds is noteworthy considering that overall the House funded NOAA at $496 million below the FY05 enacted level IOOS FY06 Appropriations FY06 Conference Report $87 Million

29. IOOS Funding Versus Ideal Ocean Commission Budget

30. Regional Resource Challenges Assumes ~11 will be established and that all 11 will be fully operational by Yr 5

31. 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

32. 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