Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing Systems The

Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing Systems The Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Regional Association for the Pacific NW

What are we? • A user-driven coastal ocean observing system – “ocean” includes inland marine waters (head of tide to EEZ) – “user-driven” means users define priorities, delivery • A system designed to produce and disseminate ocean observations and related products deemed necessary to the users, in a common manner and according to sound scientific practice • A regional organization through which to integrate and sustain existing observing capability, to strategize for new operational systems, and to provide easy access to data, data products, model forecasts, etc. about regional marine conditions http: //www. nanoos. org

Who are we? • Jan Newton, Ph. D. , (UW), NANOOS Coordinator • Interim Steering Committee: – David Martin, Ph. D. , (UW) – Antonio Baptista, Ph. D. , (OH&SU) – Jack Barth, Ph. D. , (OSU) – Mike Kosro, Ph. D. , (OSU)

A brief history of NANOOS • But first its important to understand the national context for NANOOS… • NANOOS is intended to be the PNW Regional Association of the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS)

IOOS Background The National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) Was Established by Legislation in Public Law 104 -201 [FY 1997 National Defense Authorization Act] 1. To promote the National Goals of: - Assuring National Security - Advancing Economic Development - Protecting the Quality of Life - Strengthening Science Education and Communication through Improved Knowledge of the Ocean 2. And to Coordinate and Strengthen Oceanographic Efforts in Support of these Goals by: - Identifying and Carrying out Partnerships among Federal Agencies, Academia, Industry, and Other Members of the Oceanographic Scientific Community in the Areas of Data, Resources, Education, and Communication - Reporting Annually to Congress on the Program

National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC) Chair: Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Vice Chair: Secretary of the Navy Vice Chair Director, National Science Foundation Administrator National Aeronautics and Space Administration Deputy Secretary Department of Energy Administrator Environmental Protection Agency Commandant United States Coast Guard Director United States Geological Survey Director Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Director Minerals Management Service Director Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Office of Management and Budget

“Ocean. US” is established under the auspices of NOPP NORLC-commissioned reports in 1998 & 1999 recommended establishment of a national capability for integrated and sustained ocean observations & prediction In May 2000: (1) The NORLC directed the establishment of Ocean. US (2) Formation of Ocean. US announced to Congress. To manage the development of an Integrated and Sustained Ocean Observing System (IOOS) for research & operations in the following areas: – – – – Detecting and Forecasting Oceanic Components of Climate Variability Facilitating Safe and Efficient Marine Operations Ensuring National Security Managing Marine Resources Preserving and Restoring Healthy Marine Ecosystems Mitigating Natural Hazards Ensuring Public Health

IOOS Will be an Integrated System

A brief history of IOOS • • NOPP established by law in 1997 NORLC oversight of NOPP NORLC recommends an IOOS in 1998 -1999 NOPP establishes Ocean. US in 2000 to implement a user-driven IOOS • Global IOOS and Coastal IOOS • Coastal IOOS to have two components: – National Backbone – Regional Associations

IOOS Global System • Full implementation of Argo and the global ocean time series observatories. • Successful completion of the Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE). • Optimizing the global network of observations, and • Enhancing the ocean time series observatories with key biological and chemical sensors.

The National Backbone • Measure and process variables needed by all regional systems • Including Biological measurements (e. g. , Pa. COS) • Satellite remote sensing Wave Height • Reference, sentinel stations • Link to global system Ocean Color • Data standards & exchange protocols • Capacity building Surface Temperature

• Primary interface with user groups outside federal agencies. • Focal point for data analysis and product development that will have local, regional and national applications. • Terrestrial influence measurements • Many national backbone R&D projects will be first done in regional observing systems. • Development of regional systems is a very high priority

A brief history of NANOOS • Received $100 K 1 st year planning grant from NOAA Coastal Services Center (late 2003) • Pacific Northwest Regional Ocean Observing System Workshop: 23 -24 October 2003, Portland State University, Portland, OR – Signed a Charter establishing NANOOS – Appointed an Interim Steering Committee • • • David Martin (UW) Jan Newton (UW) Antonio Baptista (OH&SU) Jack Barth (OSU) Mike Kosro (OSU) • Two pilot proposals submitted to NOAA CSC; one funded • NANOOS Governance Workshop: 5 -7 May 2004, Oregon H&S Univ. Beaverton, OR – Gained consensus on Governance Structure and Approach – Held a User Needs Forum – Gained consensus response on prioritization for federal and regional activity • 2 nd year NOAA governance grant with support for Coordinator approved and received • Hired NANOOS Coordinator (J. Newton) on 1 November 2004 • Awaiting results of 3 rd year proposal

Potential NANOOS partners/participants (not exclusive): Academia (UW, OSU, OHSU, WWU, PSU, UO, etc. ) NOAA (PMEL, NWFSC, AFSC, NOS HAZMAT, etc. ) US Coast Guard (primarily 13 th District) US EPA, USGS, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Navy Tribal Governments Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Washington and Oregon Sea Grant Programs Washington State Ferries Washington Depts of Ecology, Fish & Wildlife, Health, Natural Resources, etc. Oregon Depts of Environmental Quality, Fish & Wildlife, Geology & Mineral Industries, Land Conservation & Development, etc. National Estuarine Research Reserves (South Slough, Padilla Bay) Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team California Coastal Commission, etc. Institute of Ocean Sciences, etc, Canada NGOs (Surfrider Foundation, TNC, People for Puget Sound, etc. ) Regional Aquaria and Marine Science Centers Marine Exchanges of Puget Sound and Columbia River Northwest Marine Trades Association Fisherman’s and Shellfish Grower’s Associations West Coast Seafood Processors Association The Boeing Company and other technology/data industry WET Labs Inc. , Seabird Inc. , Biospherical, and other marine sensor industry

Next Steps • Actively engage stakeholders, broaden diversity of participants • Formulate and sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between partners/participants • Hold a 3 rd NANOOS Planning Workshop in early 2005 to finalize governance plans and begin to build system design

Workshop Goals • Inform NANOOS “membership” regarding progress, status, updates • Engage with respect to the MOA • Identify regional priorities for observing system data products and design.

The National Federation of Regional Associations (NFRA)

NFRA Meeting Agenda Feb 16 -18, 2005 To progress on moving the ocean observing system forward by focusing on NFRA and RA development 1. Purposes: - Facilitate development of the NFRA as an organization - Prepare for 2 nd Annual IOOS Implementation Conference in May - Share strategies among Regional Associations - Provide updates on RA, COTS, and Ocean. US activities 2. Desired Outcomes: - NFRA agreement on DRAFT Mission Statement and Terms of Reference; agreement on “direction” of DRAFT Bylaws - Identification of RA actions prior to May 2 nd meeting - & agenda - Recommendations for 2 nd Annual IOOS Implementation Conference - Agreement on benchmarks for implementing communication strategies and COTS/ONR work group plans (from RA perspective) - Enhanced communication & coordination among various ocean observing entities and activities

NFRA Mission Statement The National Federation of Regional Associations (NFRA) exists to represent the interests and needs of the Regional Associations, as defined by the IOOS Implementation Plan, which will design, operate, and improve regional coastal ocean observing systems (RCOOS’s) on behalf of users of the coastal waters and Great Lakes of the United States. To fulfill this mission, the NFRA: • Fosters communication between the Regional Associations and the Federal agencies that establish standards and protocols for an integrated ocean observing system, operate the backbone of the national system, and help fund the Regional Associations; • Serves as an advocate for the Regional Associations to the federal agencies, the Congress and the general public; • Participates with the federal agencies and Ocean. US in establishing, standards, protocols, and best practices for coastal ocean observing systems; • Promotes the science, technologies, education, and management required for continuous improvement and reliable operation of coastal ocean observing systems among the Regional Associations and with the federal agencies; and • Promotes understanding of the potential of an integrated ocean observing system to meet society’s needs as identified in the seven societal pillars of the IOOS.

NFRA Terms of Reference The objective of NFRA is to make major contributions to the attainment of a robust and sustained national presence for Regional Associations (RA’s) from around the country, as a key component of the IOOS. As a means of attaining this objective the NFRA will: – Initiate key actions to enable effective coordination, integration, and implementation of regional coastal ocean observing systems in close collaboration with Ocean. US, the U. S. Global Ocean Observing System Steering Committee, and applicable federal agencies; – Establish, when requested, collective agreements between and among RA’s to promote more effective inter-regional collaboration; – Develop and advocate coordinated views of coastal ocean observation, prediction, and science to the Congress, the federal government, program sponsors, international bodies, and others; – Facilitate linkages between Regional Associations and national organizations representing industry, education, and scientific enterprises in relation to their goals, plans, and programs; – Serve as a venue for the exchange of policy and technical information between and among Regional Associations; – – – Facilitate the education and outreach programs of Regional Associations; Encourage and foster Regional Association responsiveness to user communities; Promote capacity building; Promote sharing of facilities and infrastructure and other resources; Encourage interdisciplinary design, implementation and use of observing infrastructure.

NFRA Terms of Reference (con’t) Members – Members shall initially be those nascent Regional Associations that have received competitive federal funding to begin regional partnership building and collaboration efforts. Initially, each RA shall have two (2) members on the NFRA Organizing Committee, at least one of whom must be from a non-academic institution/agency. Further, upon the agreement of the Organizing Committee, the RA providing the Chair of the Organizing Committee may be permitted to have three (3) representatives. Upon the eventual incorporation of the NFRA, the Organizing Committee will be dissolved and renamed the NFRA Governing Board. Affiliates – Affiliated organizations may be federal agencies, national, international or nongovernmental organizations concerned with operations and research within the coastal ocean environment and/or education related to ocean and coastal environments and resources, with which it is mutually beneficial that the NFRA maintains collaborative relationships. Designation of Affiliate status will be with the consensus of the Membership. Affiliates may participate fully in NFRA meetings and other activities; however approval by Affiliates will not be required to establish NFRA consensus.

NFRA Terms of Reference (con’t) Meetings – The NFRA will convene at least once every year in open plenary session. Each Regional Association and Affiliate will designate a principal point-of-contact for communication and coordination between meetings. Attendance at plenary meetings of the Partnership shall be open to all Members and Affiliated Organizations. Representatives of the Regional Associations should have the requisite authority to commit the resources of such. Chairperson, Vice Chairperson & Secretariat – During the period of time that the NFRA Organizing Committee exists, the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Organizing Committee shall be selected and approved by vote of the Organizing Committee for a period of time determined by the Committee. Upon receipt of sufficient funding for financing the NFRA, an Executive Director of the NFRA will be selected by the Organizing Committee (or Governing Board as appropriate) and will be responsible for the day-to-day management and operation of the organization, under the direction of the NFRA Organizing Committee or Governing Board. – Each Regional Association may designate a representative to serve on the NFRA secretariat; to be involved in overseeing the activities of the organization; and to guide the work of the Executive Director of the NFRA between plenary meetings.

NFRA Terms of Reference (con’t) Funding – As detailed in the first IOOS Implementation Meeting (August 31 st – September 2 nd, 2004), initial funding for the Executive Director, NFRA office staff, and operating/travel expenses will be sought from the federal government (estimated at $500, 000 per year total). The Executive Director will prepare and present a budget and cost-sharing plan for approval by Members and Affiliates will bear their own costs for attending meetings and participating in activities of the NFRA. Members are invited to share the costs of other NFRA activities through voluntary contributions, which may be financial or in-kind (such as hosting meetings, organizing workshops, conducting pilot projects, financing publications, employing consultants, providing for their own costs of communications, and other such activities. ) NFRA members are also encouraged to pursue opportunities for securing funds from private sources on behalf of the NFRA, in consultation with the full NFRA membership. Working Groups – The NFRA may establish, as mutually agreed, working groups on a continuing basis or on an ad hoc basis, as appropriate, to investigate specific areas of interest, cooperation, and coordination and to report at subsequent plenary meetings. Representatives of each Member and Affiliate are invited to participate in any working groups. The continuation of working groups will be reviewed and approved at the annual plenary meetings. Wherever possible, the NFRA will work through existing mechanisms and will establish its own working groups only where either a) the topic is entirely contained within the NFRA/IOOS objectives and activities or b) no adequate forum presently exists.

NFRA Terms of Reference (con’t) Adoption and Amendment • The NRFA Organizing Committee drafted these Terms of Reference (TOR) in December 2004. • NFRA TOR provided to Ocean. US for further transmittal to the Ocean. US Executive Committee (EXCOM) in January 2005. • NFRA TOR reviewed, modified and approved by the NFRA Organizing Committee at its annual meeting in February 2005. • The Organizing Committee (or Governing Board) may amend these TOR during any annual meeting. • Any number of amendments or an entire revision may be submitted and voted upon at a single meeting and will be approved and adopted upon receiving a majority vote of the members at that meeting.

NFRA Bylaws Articles I - XIII: (Note: dependent on State in which incorporated) – Specifies that NFRA is to be a non-profit corporation to be incorporated with the National Capital Region – Specifies composition, powers, and duties of Governing Board (NFRA Organizing Committee morphs to this). Details specifics of an Executive Committee who are authorized to hire and oversee the activities of the Executive Director of the NFRA. The Executive Director of the NFRA is responsible for hiring NFRA staff. For the NFRA meeting: – Achieve consensus on the future desired general structure (non-profit corporation) of the NFRA physically located within the NCR and the articulated structure of the Governing Board and Executive Committee as described in the DRAFT Bylaws.

West Coast Industry Workshop

A Workshop to Explore Private Sector Interest and Roles in the U. S. IOOS: Focus West Coast (fall 2005) • WORKSHOP GOAL: Define the interests and potential roles of the private sector in the west coast regional/coastal ocean component of the U. S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). • WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES: – Introduce the U. S. IOOS and specifically the plans for the Pacific Northwest (NANOOS), central California (Ce. NCOOS, ) and southern California (SCCOS) Coastal Ocean Observing Systems, (and AOOS? ) including: ● Observing system elements and networks ● Data management; ● Modeling systems and products ● Governance ● Outreach (communications, training, etc. ) – Identify the basis for public/private/academic sector interactions in the context of U. S. IOOS, including: ● Modes of cooperation ● Business opportunities ● Potential areas of conflict – Develop plan-of-action, including: ● Public relations ● Demonstration project initiation ● Follow-on communications ● Plans for advocacy

Exploring Potential Roles of Industry • Ocean. US now has an Industry liaison (Andy Clark) onboard. • They are hosting an Industry Day March 18, 2005. • East Coast to have an Industry Workshop in Spring/Summer 2005.

IOOS Legislative Update

IOOS Legislation • Last year: – S 1400 was passed unanimously in the Senate and, late in the session, the House introduced the complimentary HR 5001 bill. Both bills would have authorized $100’s M for the global, national backbone and regional modules of the IOOS. HR 5001 did not emerge from the House by the end of the session (4 committees were involved). • This year: – S 361 introduced in Senate (provided in your packet). Strong bipartisan support from powerful Senators. – House will reintroduce IOOS legislation (text to parallel S 361). – Bipartisan support requested early in “Dear Colleagues” letter from Weldon (R-PA) and Allen (D-ME) (provided in your packet).

IOOS Legislation • The odds: – Good news – GEOSS is a White House priority and Ocean Action Plan stipulates that IOOS will be the ocean observing component of GEOSS. Strong bipartisan support in House and Senate. Ocean Commission strongly endorsed the IOOS. – Bad news – Extremely tight and polarized budget year (Iraq, Social Security, etc. ). No funding is identified in Ocean Action Plan. Congress has stated that the ~$4 B+ cost for implementing recommendations in COP report are not executable given budgetary pressures. • Bottom line: Difficult to say – the Hill and the White House (OSTP) does understand that many/most of the COP Recommendations require an IOOS and we’ve hammered home the message that it is affordable.

NANOOS 3 rd Year Proposal

NANOOS Third Year Proposal • Based on results of First IOOS Implementation Conference (August 2004): – The highest priority (accepted by Feds) was to fund (adequately) the Regional Associations and NFRA (estimated at $0. 5 M/year for two years to allow RA’s to successfully pursue accreditation). • NOAA (CSC) issued a BAA calling for proposals requesting up to $400 K for up to three years. – NANOOS submitted a proposal responsive to this BAA.

NANOOS Proposal Deliverables

Proposal Focuses on Accreditation Interim Steering Committee Users Advisory Group Governing Council NANOOS Coordinator Executive Committee Officers, NANOOS Coordinator, Standing Committee Chairs DMAC Education Workshops User/Stakeholder Outreach Other NANOOS Priorities A Standing Committees: Operations Committee Data/Information Management and Communications Committee Modeling and Analysis Product Committee Science and Research Committee Education and Outreach Committee Nominating Committee B

Timeline

NANOOS Proposal Deliverables Specific commitment to: “expand the existing Steering Committee (Martin, Barth, Kosro and Baptista) to explicitly ensure the transition of a Steering Committee dominated by academic representatives to a much more broadly-based steering group representing the diversity of stakeholder interests (fishing, marine operations, Tribes, federal and state/local agencies, etc. ) from the Pacific Northwest Region. ”

The Way Forward

Way forward 1. Expand to a NANOOS Steering Committee that includes a wider diversity of stakeholder interests. 2. Draft and sign an MOA to guide NANOOS in its transition from point “A” to point “B”. 3. Begin to scope NANOOS system design based on user-driven needs for ocean data products.

1. NANOOS Steering Committee Additions • State government • Tribal governments • Non-governmental organization • Marine Industry • Technology Industry • Education/Outreach

1. NANOOS Steering Committee Additions • State government: Dr. Greg Mc. Murray, Marine Affairs Coordinator Oregon Dept of Land Conservation & Development • Tribal governments: Mr. Terry Wright, Division Manager Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission • Non-governmental organization: • Marine Industry: Mr. Ian Miller, WA Field Coordinator Surfrider Foundation Mr. Robert Bohlman, Executive Director Marine Exchange of Puget Sound • Technology Industry: • Dr. Jay Pearlman, Chief Scientist Education/Outreach: The Boeing Company Mr. Patrick Corcoran, Extension Coastal Storms Spc. Oregon Sea Grant Program

1. NANOOS Steering Committee With these additions: • SC increases from 4 to 10 people • SC regional representation better balanced: 5 from WA, 5 from OR • SC stakeholder representation better balanced: 4 academics to 6 non-academics (includes 2 governmental, 2 industry, 1 NGO, 1 education/outreach)

2. Draft MOA: Memorandum of Agreement To Establish and Implement the Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing Systems This draft MOA for NANOOS: • is on the NANOOS website • will be presented here • will be discussed here soliciting: –your initial reactions –points of contact to review/sign

2. MOA Timeline Present draft MOA to NANOOS Membership at 3 rd NANOOS Workshop Feb Mar Sign MOA by 1 June Apr May NANOOS Members obtain approval of MOA from their respective institutions/organizations Jun 2005

3. System Design To be based on PNW user needs This is the objective of the bulk of this workshop… …hopefully this is why you are here !

MOA 28 February 2005 11: 00 -1200

MOA Attributes • Memorandum of Agreement • Required for NANOOS to be accredited • Outlines structure and responsibilities for governance, membership, fiscal, data and other components of NANOOS • Non-binding, implies “general intention” • Signage = membership

(Slide from 2 nd NANOOS Planning Workshop, May 2004) Consensus Points • There was general consensus that NANOOS should evolve towards a open-membership, non-profit entity at some point in the future • There was less consensus (expressed) on the timing of this evolution • Accomplishing this in some small number of years, in keeping with the “schedule” for RA accreditation and NFRA formation was discussed in Plenary • We should seek legal counsel on issues dealing with 501 c 3 • Now, for information – this is not our area of expertise • Later, for execution • We should draft an initial Governance enabling document • MOA and/or Bylaws – to be determined at this Workshop • Post on Web for Public Comment • Provide “vetted” Document at next NANOOS Workshop

(Slide from 2 nd NANOOS Planning Workshop, May 2004) “Distilled” (by ISC) Response to Questions determined from Group Reports • Do we draft an MOU or MOA for signing soon, or do we seek openmembership non-profit corp. and be content with status quo until then? • We should draft an MOA for signing by initial institutions (exact makeup TBD) soon. The enabling document should expressly articulate that this initial Governance structure will evolve towards an open-membership, non -profit corporate entity in a directed manner. • How are the Governing Board Members to be selected? • Should the Working Groups be aligned FUNCTIONALLY or should they be aligned THEMATICALLY? • Initial Board Members will be assigned from the signatory institutions on the initial enabling MOA. The MOA will detail this assignment as well as the specific intent to move towards an elected Board (to come either from the Membership or Chairs of Working Groups – no Group consensus here) as NANOOS matures. The initial Governing Board will select from among its members, an Executive Committee. • Working Groups should be aligned FUNCTIONALLY to maximize efficiency (data/products can serve multiple Themes) & to simplify structure.

Draft MOA Based on your input, the MOA has been edited since the document presented at the workshop. Please see the new document, which is on-line.

2. MOA Timeline Present draft MOA to NANOOS Membership at 3 rd NANOOS Workshop Feb Mar Sign MOA by 1 June Apr May NANOOS Members obtain approval of MOA from their respective institutions/organizations Jun 2005

2. MOA • Over the next ~40 minutes, and beyond, we request: • Your reactions, perceived sticking points, etc • Point-of-contact for your agency/entity