FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 199601900

Additional documents

TitleType
199601900 Narrative Narrative
199601900 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation
199601900 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleSecond-Tier Database Support
Proposal ID199601900
OrganizationUniversity of Washington (UW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJames J. Anderson
Mailing address1325 - 4th Ave., Suite 1820 Seattle, WA 98101
Phone / email2065434772 / jim@cbr.washington.edu
Manager authorizing this projectDavid Askren, BPA
Review cycleMainstem/Systemwide
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide /
Short descriptionProvide single-point, internet-based access to a subset of information to guide and support BPA's independent decisions pertaining to its responsibilities under the Power Act and Endangered Species Act.
Target species
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
198
152

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
NMFS/BPA Action 198 NMFS The Action Agencies, in coordination with NMFS, USFWS, and other Federal agencies, NWPPC, states, and Tribes, shall develop a common data management system for fish populations, water quality, and habitat data.
NMFS Action 198 NMFS The Action Agencies, in coordination with NMFS, USFWS, and other Federal agencies, NWPPC, states, and Tribes, shall develop a common data management system for fish populations, water quality, and habitat data.
NMFS Action 152 NMFS The Action Agencies shall coordinate their efforts and support offsite habitat enhancement measures undertaken by other Federal agencies, states, Tribes, and local governments by the following:
NMFS/BPA Action 180 NMFS The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the level of FCRPS funding to develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program. This program shall be developed collaboratively with appropriate regional agencies and shall determine population and environmental status (including assessment of performance measures and standards) and allow ground-truthing of regional databases. A draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected, frequency of samples, and sampling sites shall be developed by September 2001. Implementation should begin no later than the spring of 2002 and will be fully implemented no later than 2003.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1995 Initial analysis, design, and implementation of DART 1,358 weekly accesses in December 1995 Designed DART main web page Inter-organizational contact and coordination Automated data acquisition Graphics design (joint effort with Dr. John Skalski's group)
1996 Interacted and coordinated with primary sites (PSMFC, USACE, FPC) 3,736 weekly accesses in April 1996 Added new river and PIT-Tag features Created numerous reports, scripts and web pages Created data processing scripts Added new databases
1997 Interacted and coordinated with primary sites (PSMFC, USACE, FPC) 10,010 weekly accesses in April 1997 Updated processing scripts Added adult features Added CWT data, USGS data Daily maintenance and backups
BPA interface for Technical Management Team requests
Automated reporting to USACE via BPA
1998 Interacted and coordinated with primary sites (PSMFC, USACE, FPC)
10,643 weekly accesses in April 1998
Updated processing scripts
Added PNI Index, recreational fishing page
Updated USGS data
System upgrade and migration to data warehouse status
Built PIT Tag ESU at the request of Technical Management Team
Daily maintenance and backups
Responded to 111,000 web customers via DART web services
1999 Interacted and coordinated with primary sites (PSMFC, USACE, FPC)
10,590 weekly accesses in April 1999
Added hourly water quality at the request of USACE
Upgraded graphics
Upgraded and added new reporting functions for USGS and USACE
Rewrote scripts to process FPC and USACE data files
Upgraded the system
Upgraded ESU at the request of Technical Management Team
Daily maintenance and backups
Y2K conversion for all internal applications
Responded to 238,000 web customers via DART web services
2000 Interacted and coordinated with primary sites (PSMFC, USACE, FPC)
17,481 weekly accesses in April 2000
Added oceanographic and climate data
Upgraded DART to E-450 Solaris
Gave ISRP review of DART and on-site demo at CBR/UW
Tested conversion to Oracle capabilities with recommendations to BPA
Added JavaDart (java graphics for advanced users)
Upgraded coded wire tag database on the web
Preliminary design for a spawner-recruit database for BPA
Responded to 51,784 web customers (number for Jan-Apr) via DART web services
Daily maintenance and backups
2001 Interacted & coordinated with expanded number of primary sites (PSMFC, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Grant County PUD,Douglas County PUD Chelan County PUD, USGS, PFEL, NWS, NCDC, NBR, SnoTel, NOAA, and Fish Passage Center)
Acquired and assimilated USGS Historical water temperature data for the Snake River Basin
Acquired and assimilated USACE mainstem turbidity data
Extended current ESU definitions and reports to historical years
Implemented Disc Mirroring and unloaded DB backup systems to improve recovery and reduce downtime from hardware and software failures
Implemented archive of primary data sources
Expanded Bonneville adult passage data set back through 1949
Added coil specific PIT-tag data to allow CJS survival and travel-time analysis
Launched release summary query at ISAB request
Developed OLAP queries to provide user-selected CJS survival and travel time analysis
Added Tag Coordinator as standard PIT-tag query selection
Updated and improved DART's online help pages
Obtained full year of oxygen saturation data for mainstem dams
Responded to 405,884 web customers via DART web services
Daily maintanence, backups, and performance tuning
2002 Integrated 3 climate information sources (USACE, NWS, Sno-Tel) with the NCDC historical records to provide extensive timeseries of climate records
Adjusted data loads to accommodate modified USACE source files
Acquired complete set of historical transport information
Updated PNI to include 2001 data
Assimilated Bonneville adult passage data from 1938-1948
Adjusted USGS data collection procedures to access updates USGS server
Added date restriction data selection capabilities to many of its query pages enabling researchers to select data from desired time windows
Developed and launched hydrosystem performance measures of smolt exposures to temperature, spill, outflow and dissolved gas
Upgraded DB server with 500MB RAM

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
FISH passage CEnter DART automatically downloades data from FPC
STREAM NET DART access stream net CTW and PIT tag data for use in DART's analysis tools for example the survival analysis tool

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
DART operations and regional support 2003-2007 $103,167
2. Real-time operations 2003-2007 $79,524
Tool development 2003-2007 $62,330
Planning and coordination 2003-2007 $30,090
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. DART operations and regional support 2004 2007 $201,103
2. Real-time operations 2004 2007 $155,017
3. Tool development 2004 2007 $121,500
4. Planning and coordination 2004 2007 $58,655
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$264,075$272,200$280,651$287,946

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: 8% faculty, 16% student, 50% system support, 100% data mgnt, 66% webprog, 25% admin. $125,465
Fringe Different rates applied according to UW benefit rates for faculty and staff categories. $29,555
Supplies Books, journals, misc. computer supplies $8,000
Travel Trips to regional meetings & conferences $1,000
Indirect 26% (excl. student fees, equip, office lease) $44,044
Capital Upgrade processor for E-450 $22,000
Other Services and office lease $45,047
$275,111
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$275,111
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$275,111
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$275,000
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Aug 2, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed. This is a valuable project providing service to the scientific community in the region at relatively low cost. Previous concerns of the ISRP with overlap of responsibilities between database projects have been addressed. In fact, some degree of overlap of services provided by second tier database projects (modeling, projections, analysis, use of multiple first tier (primary) databases) is healthy for the region, because it promotes careful evaluation of assumptions made in analyses of primary data. The project history and technical background sections are informative, however the Section f. Proposal objectives, tasks and methods is too brief to allow scientific review. The response should provide specific tasks and detailed methods to accomplish each objective (some of the necessary material is in the other sections). Also, the project must have a monitoring and evaluation plan, including for example, lists of services provided. It is not acceptable for one of the most quantitative projects to not have a quantitative monitoring and evaluation plan in the proposal.

Only 4 objectives are identified, but in the text, it is stated that an FTE is needed for objective 5. Please clarify.

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

DATA MANAGEMENT SUBGROUP -- Action 180:

The DART proposal is not considered a core contribution to a basin wide hierarchical monitoring program and appears to be more closely directed to reporting and tracking the effect of temperature, flow and gas changes on populations and passage.

Action 198

Apart from indicating general support and suggesting actions that should take place DART does not propose any particular actions.

Pros:

  1. Identified as a non-discretionary work element by BPA
  2. Project has created and maintains a number of mainstem FCRPS applications for TDG, flow operations and temperature.
  3. Applications integrate data from Fish Passage Center, Corps of Engineers, tagging programs, StreamNet, EPA and others.
  4. Will participate in Regional database integration using tools such as XML.
  5. Provides tracking of performance standards for the hydro system called for under the BiOp.

Cons:

  1. The DART proposals for RME are not specific enough to meet RME needs.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

The ISRP is somewhat confused by comments on this and other proposals. In other cases, e.g., #35048, there is apparently strong support for analyses of primary data to be conducted in second tier databases, whereas there is weak support for similar analyses to be conducted under this project. The response should more clearly identify current and proposed tasks and services to meet the needs of RPA 198.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 24, 2002

Comment:

The DART website is partially redundant to the Fish Passage Center website. BPA funds DART for an independent source of information and should fund the project through BPA Fish and Wildlife Division overhead.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Nov 5, 2002

Comment:

Fundable. Disagree with CBFWA's recommendation of Do Not Fund. This valuable project provides service to the scientific community in the region at relatively low cost. Specifically, it provides access to and analysis of data from multiple databases. Previous concerns of the ISRP with overlap of responsibilities between database projects have been addressed. In fact, some degree of overlap of services provided by second tier database projects (modeling, projections, analysis, use of multiple first tier (primary) databases) is healthy for the region, because it promotes careful evaluation of assumptions made in analyses of primary data. This project is also on the frontier in providing a prototype reporting and analysis application for access to distributed databases, a need that has previously been identified by the ISRP.

The project history and technical background sections are informative, and the sponsor provided careful and complete responses to the ISRP concerns with objectives, tasks, methods, and monitoring and evaluation. The sponsor understood and responded to the concern that quantitative projects that monitor and analyze data from other projects have an internal component for monitoring and evaluation of themselves. For example, a number of DART's tools report predictions of adult or juvenile passage, water quality and transport. These tools can be evaluated on the correspondence of predictions to observed data. Each year, DART provides an on-line, post-season analysis of the accuracy of these predictions.

Again, the ISRP would like to comment that we were somewhat confused by the Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments on this and other proposals. In other cases, e.g., proposal #35048, there is apparently strong support by the RME group for analyses of primary data to be conducted in second tier databases, whereas there is very weak support for similar analyses to be conducted by DART. The ISRP believes there is an inconsistency here.

The next proposal should include an evaluative summary of usage to date that indicates the distribution of use across different types of users, as well as the distribution of use across different products. It should include the details of a plan for how DART assesses demand for current and new products, the type of outreach that is done to assess demand, and methods used to inform and expand the user base.


Recommendation:
Date:
Jan 21, 2003

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Indirect. This project will provide integration and direct and timely public access to Columbia Basin environmental, operational, fishery, administrative, and other information essential to aid operational and resource management decisions by the Federal Government.

Comments
Project overlaps with several other database projects but also has the potential to integrate data from numerous other sources.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes


Recommendation:
Fund (Tier 1)
Date:
Jun 11, 2003

Comment:

Category:
1. Council Staff preferred projects that fit province allocation

Comments:
Identified as Bi-op critical.


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 4, 2003

Comment:

Provides integrated data access for use in in-season management and hydrosystem performance tracking. Budget consistent with NPCC recommendation.
Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Budget gradually increase in anticipation of cost replacements increase for software/hardware in the future, as well as other contractual services.
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$264,075 $264,075 $264,075

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website