FY 2001 Ongoing proposal 199601900

Additional documents

TitleType

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@fish.washington.edu
Manager authorizing this projectDavid Askren, BPA
Review cycleFY 2001 Ongoing
Province / SubbasinSystemwide / 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

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

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

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 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 2001 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 2001 costSubcontractor
1. Data services for modeling, monitoring, and evaluation 1a. Electronic data integration $30,000
1b. Monitoring and evaluation $30,000
2. Data access in real-time 2a. Coordination with primary sites $20,000
2b. Historical dataset development $20,000
2c. Daily services $30,000
2d. System support services $35,000
2e. DART graphical analysis development $33,000
3. DART habitat function 3a. Develop database for online data access and analysis of spawner-recruit information $30,000
3b. Obtain historical spawner-recruit data and associated habitat information $20,000
3c. Develop web based maps and system to access habitat and stream data $20,000
3d. Develop online analysis tools for evaluating spawner-recruit information 2001 $25,000
4. Regional information management review 4a. Conduct review meetings and draft initial recommendation proposal 2001 $25,000
4b. Coordinate workshop on development of specifications for a regional web based fisheries information system 2001 $27,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2003FY 2005FY 2004FY 2002
$373,152$403,601$388,078$358,800

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2001 cost
Personnel FTE: 12 mo. salaries for PI, admin asst., scientist, webpub., webprog, analyst, data mgr & system adm. $184,198
Fringe Standard UW benefit rates $47,661
Supplies $4,000
Travel Trips to attend regional meetings $2,000
Indirect 26% of Modified total direct costs $64,236
Other Services & Lease $42,905
$345,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost$345,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2001 budget request$345,000
FY 2001 forecast from 2000$198,000
% change from forecast74.2%
Reason for change in estimated budget

The proposed budget is 74% larger than forecast last year due to the inclusion of tasks 3 and 4. Task 4 anticipates ISRP recommendations to improve regional information planning and coordination. Task 3 reflects the need for consistent performance measures for assessing recovery and system wide adaptive management efforts. The remaining work approximates what was previously estimated at $198k.

Reason for change in scope

Objective 3 augments project scope to develop an online, interactive data service focused upon the spawner-recruit metric and related habitat and environmental information. The service is intended to be a decision support tool that integrates spawner-recruit and environmental information in an "all-H" manner similar to that already demonstrated for juvenile migration and its environmental conditions. The emphasis of the first three tasks is to improve access to the broad range of relevant information and its presentation. Analytical tools developed in task 4 will be subject to review by users. Objective 4 augments project scope to anticipate the ISRP's pending review of regional data management review findings. BPA expects the ISRP to recommend improved coordination between regional information managers and services. Objective 4 provides for the coordination of a workshop on specifications for a regional web based fisheries information system.

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:
Ongoing Funding: no; New Funding: no
Date:
Jul 14, 2000

Comment:

This project is proposing new work that has not been technically reviewed. This work also addresses a course of action (reliance on spawner-recruit models) that has not been agreed upon within the basin. It is premature to fund this work until a larger discussion on these issues is completed and the NWPPC Amendment Process is concluded. This would also put an intensive analysis task within a data base project. These tasks would be better addressed as a new proposal for FY 2002.

The proposed budget is 74% larger than forecast last year due to the inclusion of new tasks 3 ($95,000) and 4 ($52,000). Task 4 anticipates ISRP recommendations to improve regional information planning and coordination. Task 3 reflects the need for consistent performance measures for assessing recovery and system wide adaptive management efforts. The remaining work approximates what was previously estimated at $198,000.

This project should not be funded as part of the Fish and Wildlife Program since it is not subject to the same standards of the regional review process. This project also appears to duplicate efforts supported within other data management projects (i.e. Streamnet).


Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 8, 2000

Comment:

CBFWA comment: This project is proposing new work that has not been technically reviewed. This work also addresses a course of action (reliance on spawner-recruit models) that has not been agreed upon within the basin. It is premature to fund this work until a larger discussion on these issues is completed and the NWPPC Amendment Process is concluded. This would also put an intensive analysis task within a data base project. These tasks would be better addressed as a new proposal for FY 2002. The proposed budget is 74% larger than forecast last year due to the inclusion of new tasks 3 ($95,000) and 4 ($52,000). Task 4 anticipates ISRP recommendations to improve regional information planning and coordination. Task 3 reflects the need for consistent performance measures for assessing recovery and system wide adaptive management efforts. The remaining work approximates what was previously estimated at $198,000. This project should not be funded as part of the Fish and Wildlife Program since it is not subject to the same standards of the regional review process. This project also appears to duplicate efforts supported within other data management projects (i.e. Streamnet).

BPA response: An FY01 budget could be developed that "just" keeps the database going. That amount would be approximately $170,000. This assumes that other existing contracts with Skalski and Anderson, which underwrite common infrastructure and integrate part time employment of critical staff, would be funded. Should either component be reduced or removed, the continuity of service would be threatened. A stand-alone DART contract would cost about $250,000 annually. In the meantime, BPA suggests to the Council that an independent contractor be selected and funded to evaluate each of the regional databases in order to objectively determine where there is and is not overlap or redundancy. The objective of this work would not be to evaluate the merits of the various databases, but simply to compare and contrast. The information provided to the Council should help inform a decision about which database(s) to continue funding from the Direct Program.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 13, 2000

Comment:

Bonneville requires. Budget assumption from BPA comment because of continuation of other related contracts.
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