FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200307200
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 35010 Narrative | Narrative |
| 35010 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| 35010 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| Letter from T. O'Neil (Northwest Habitat Institute) to J. Palensky (CBFWA) RE: Comments on Mainstem/Systemwide project proposal 35010 | Correspondence |
| FY 2005 Powerpoint Presentation Update for Project 200307200 | Powerpoint Presentation |
| FY 2005 Powerpoint Presentation Update for Project 200307200 | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | An Interactive Biodiversity Information System for the Columbia River Basin |
| Proposal ID | 200307200 |
| Organization | Northwest Habitat Institute (NHI) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Thomas O'Neil |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 855 Corvallis, OR 97339-0855 |
| Phone / email | 5417532199 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Thomas O'Neil |
| Review cycle | Mainstem/Systemwide |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / |
| Short description | To complete development of a resident fish and wildlife information system on the Internet to allow users/resource managers to access, query, and retrieve spatial, text, and tabular data. Interactive and decision support tools will also be developed. |
| Target species | All resident fish and wildlife species that occur within the Columbia River Basin. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Entire Columbia River Basin | ||
| Entire Columbia River Basin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 152 |
| 154 |
| 180 |
| 181 |
| 198 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1998 | Completed for USGS-Biological Resources Division: GAP Analysis Program a statewide map and data layers of Oregon Vegetation - Landscape Level Cover Types |
| 1998 | Completed for Oregon Fish and Wildlife a fine scale map (2 ac. miniimum mapping unit) and GIS data layers of the Willamette Valley |
| 1999 | Completed for the Northwest Power Planning Council Wildlife-Habitat Type maps and GIS data layers depicting Current and Historic Conditions of the U.S. portion of the Columbia River Basin |
| 2000 | Completed for Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife a statewide map and GIS data layers of Washington's Wildlife-Habitat Types |
| 2001 | Co-developed and published the Wildlife-Habitats Relationships in Oregon and Washington book and CD-ROM |
| 2001 | Co-developed and published the 2nd Edition of the Atlas of Oregon Wildlife |
| 2001 | Completed the first International map and GIS data layers that shows the U.S. and Canada Columbia River Basin for Current Wildlife-Habitat Types |
| 2001 | Developed and launched a proof of concept of the Interactive Biodiversity Information System (IBIS) on the Internet. |
| 2001 | Co-developed the publication Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat in the Pacific Northwest - Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia |
| 2002 | Developed a Annotated Bibliography on Coastal Cutthroat Trout for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (an abstract for each paper or publication was written and hard copy acquired) done in conjunction with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife |
| 2002 | Co-wrote the report on A Multi-Species Framework Approach for the Columbia River Basin for the Northwest Power Planning Council |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Only a few examples are listed here: | ||
| 19881084 | Streamnet | IBIS's resident fish and wildlife information system would compliment Streamnet's anadromous information system |
| 1525 | Establishing Baseline Key Ecological Functions of Fish and Wildlife for Subbasin Planning | Uses and builds upon the 27 fish and 137 wildlife species range maps and the fish-habitat relationships that were developed for this project. |
| 199609400 | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Habitat Units Acquisition | Could assist with evaluating the restore/enhance 100,000+ acres of wildlife habitat in Washington to mitigate for losses associated with hydroelectric development. |
| 29019 | Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Structural Conditions for Okanogan sub-basin | Assist with the evaluation and subbasin assessment of the Okanogan |
| 24015 | Wetland/Riparian Protection, Restoration, Enhancement and Maintenance in the Coeur d'Alene Subbasin | Assist with the value assessement to the wildlife resource |
| 199303501 | Enhance Fish, Riparian, and Wildlife Habitat Within the Red River Watershed | Could use IBIS information as part of their holistic approach and adaptive management principles to enhance fish, riparian, and wildlife habitat and water quality within the Red River watershed. |
| 24012 | Implement Floodplain Operational Loss Assessment, Protection, Mitigation and Rehabilitation on the Lower Kootenai River Watershed Ecosystem | Assist with the assessment as well as identifying possible linkages with other projects like 24010- Reconnection of Floodplain Slough Habitat to the Kootenai River |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Incorporating all existing IBIS data into an improved database management system (DBMS) and interactive Internet application | a. Restructure existing wildlife-habitat information designing new relationships and improved integration with spatial data sets | 1 | $19,220 | |
| b. Define formats and create wildlife species range maps | 2 | $28,120 | ||
| c. Optimize Internet interfaces and develop the necessary programming and scripts to query the data sets | 1 | $23,600 | ||
| d. Evaluate integrity of interfaces and programming through iterative testing | 1 | $2,480 | ||
| 2. Expand IBIS to include other spatial and non-spatial data, specifically resident and marine fish-habitat data, and incorporate these into interactive Internet applications | a. Design relationships for and integrate existing resident and marine fish-habitat information and spatial data sets | 5 | $9,880 | |
| b. Define formats and create fish species range maps | 2 | $28,120 | ||
| c. Optimize Internet interfaces and develop the necessary programming and scripts to query the data sets | 1 | $9,880 | ||
| d. Evaluate integrity of interfaces and programming through iterative testing | 1 | $2,480 | ||
| 3. Develop advance query capabilities and decision support tools including an interactive mapping application | a. Define common query patterns and common project tracking and decision needs | 4 | $0 | |
| b. Develop scripts, programs and interfaces | 4 | $0 | ||
| c. Evaluate integrity of queries and tools through iterative testing | 4 | $0 | ||
| d. Make presentations and conduct workshops to obtain feedback | 4 | $0 | ||
| e. Finalize queries and tools | 4 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Incorporating all existing IBIS data into an improved database management system (DBMS) and interactive Internet application | 2003 | 2004 | $102,460 |
| 2. Expand IBIS to include other spatial and non-spatial data, specifically resident and marine fish-habitat data, and incorporate these into interactive Internet applications | 2003 | 2007 | $228,380 |
| 3. Develop advance query capabilities and decision support tools including an interactive mapping application | 2004 | 2007 | $361,300 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $137,280 | $140,480 | $143,760 | $146,840 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Incorporating all existing IBIS data into an improved database management system (DBMS) and interactive Internet application | a. Restructure existing wildlife-habitat information designing new relationships and improved integration with spatial data sets | 1 | $28,830 | |
| b. Define formats and create wildlife species range maps | 2 | $42,180 | ||
| c. Optimize Internet interfaces and develop the necessary programming and scripts to query the data sets | 2 | $35,400 | ||
| d. Evaluate integrity of interfaces and programming through iterative testing | 1 | $3,720 | ||
| 2. Expand IBIS to include other spatial and non-spatial data, specifically resident and marine fish-habitat data, and incorporate these into interactive Internet applications | a. Design relationships for and integrate existing resident and marine fish-habitat information and spatial data sets | 5 | $14,820 | |
| b. Define formats and create fish species range maps | 2 | $42,180 | ||
| c. Optimize Internet interfaces and develop the necessary programming and scripts to query the data sets | 5 | $14,820 | ||
| d. Evaluate integrity of interfaces and programming through iterative testing | 1 | $3,720 | ||
| 3. Develop advance query capabilities and decision support tools including an interactive mapping application | a. Define common query patterns and common project tracking and decision needs | 4 | $0 | |
| b. Develop scripts, programs and interfaces | 4 | $0 | ||
| c. Evaluate integrity of queries and tools through iterative testing | 4 | $0 | ||
| d. Make presentations and conduct workshops to obtain feedback | 4 | $0 | ||
| e. Finalize queries and tools | 4 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Incorporating all existing IBIS data into an improved database management system (DBMS) and interactive Internet application | 2003 | 2004 | $153,690 |
| 2. Expand IBIS to include other spatial and non-spatial data, specifically resident and marine fish-habitat data, and incorporate these into interactive Internet applications | 2003 | 2007 | $342,570 |
| 3. Develop advance query capabilities and decision support tools including an interactive mapping application | 2004 | 2007 | $541,950 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $205,920 | $210,720 | $215,640 | $220,260 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Incorporating all existing IBIS data into an improved database management system (DBMS) and interactive Internet application | e. Revise DBMS as needed based on Tasks B-D | 2 | $14,750 | |
| f. Establish interfaces and interactive modes | 2 | $12,200 | ||
| g. Create and update metadata | 1 | $13,500 | ||
| 2. Expand IBIS to include other spatial and non-spatial data, specifically resident and marine fish-habitat data, and incorporate these into interactive Internet applications | e. Revise DBMS as needed based on Tasks B-D | 5 | $14,750 | |
| f. Establish interfaces and interactive modes | 5 | $12,200 | ||
| g. Create and update metadata | 5 | $13,500 | ||
| 3. Develop advance query capabilities and decision support tools including an interactive mapping application | f. Conduct interval testing of queries and tools | 4 | $0 | |
| g. Write descriptions and "how to use manual" | 4 | $0 | ||
| 4. Keep the IBIS DBMS and GIS layers updated with the help of an online peer-reviewed system | a. Actively seek and acquire new data sets (including monitoring data) and update information on resident fish and wildlife from all 4 Northwestern states | 4 | $0 | |
| b. Actively seek and acquire or create new spatial data sets, such as digital aerial photography and satellite imagery and developing the methodology and process to serve these data | 4 | $0 | ||
| 5. Operate and maintain IBIS including Internet access, user technical support, and systematic server and DBMS backups | a. Maintain Internet Access | 5 | $2,400 | |
| b. Provide Technical Support to users | 5 | $0 | ||
| c. Provide for system and information backups and redundancies | 5 | $25,600 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Incorporating all existing IBIS data into an improved database management system (DBMS) and interactive Internet application | 2003 | 2004 | $50,450 |
| 2. Expand IBIS to include other spatial and non-spatial data, specifically resident and marine fish-habitat data, and incorporate these into interactive Internet applications | 2003 | 2007 | $80,450 |
| 3. Develop advance query capabilities and decision support tools including an interactive mapping application | 2004 | 2007 | $62,500 |
| 4. Keep the IBIS DBMS and GIS layers updated with the help of an online peer-reviewed system | 2004 | 2007 | $651,200 |
| 5. Operate and maintain IBIS including Internet access, user technical support, and systematic server and DBMS backups | 2003 | 2007 | $423,400 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $265,700 | $287,000 | $297,600 | $308,800 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6. Monitor use and efficiency of IBIS | a. Evaluate use of queries, tools, pages, and formats | 5 | $5,100 | |
| b. Determine efficiencies of relationships to data versus delivery time to user (includes evaluating other computer programs and delivery software) | 5 | $3,500 | ||
| c. Write reports documenting progress, use, and findings | 5 | $6,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6. Monitor use and efficiency of IBIS | 2003 | 2007 | $80,700 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $15,300 | $16,100 | $16,900 | $17,800 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 4 | $239,950 |
| Fringe | 33% of Personnel expense | $79,184 |
| Supplies | Backup and redundancy system, software, and license renewals | $36,860 |
| Travel | 8 trips - 2 to each of the 4 states | $4,800 |
| Indirect | 20% | $72,156 |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| Other | $0 | |
| $432,950 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $432,950 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $432,950 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| National Biological Information Infrastructure | Developing metadata - FY 03 | $85,000 | in-kind |
| Northwest Habitat Institute | General support for IBIS - FY 03 | $15,000 | in-kind |
| Bureau of Land Management | General support for IBIS - FY 03 tenative | $40,000 | cash |
| National Fish and Wildlife Foundation | General support for IBIS - FY 03 tenative | $40,000 | cash |
| Northwest Habitat Institute | Development of Proof of Concept | $45,000 | in-kind |
| U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | Development of Proof of Concept | $10,000 | cash |
| Bureau of Land Management | Development of Proof of Concept | $24,500 | cash |
| Northwest Power Planning Council | Development of Proof of Concept | $75,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Aug 2, 2002
Comment:
This is a well-written and detailed proposal to provide needed wildlife data for subbasin planning. The approach is to enhance an existing internet site (IBIS) to provide biodiversity databases through an improved database management system. The IBIS site currently exists and is maintained by the Northwest Habitat Institute, but is inadequate and in need of improvement.The goal is to have a more accessible common data management system of peer-reviewed data on fish and wildlife and their habitats that would provide consistent data throughout the basin. The project would provide information and services relevant to regional planning efforts. The data described would be useful in establishing resident fish and wildlife distributions and the linkages among them for subbasin planning.
Objectives are to restructure the existing database on IBIS to allow concurrent use and more complicated data queries. Decision support tools and a manual will be developed. Proposers also intend to monitor the use and effectiveness of IBIS through user feedback.
The project is costly, leading to the question of whether it would produce information of sufficient value to the region to justify its expense. The proponents should address the question of demand for the improved databases. How extensively used is the present version and what are its primary uses? If this project is not funded what will happen to plans for improving this information system?
Additionally, more detail is needed on the products that would be delivered by this project. It is unclear whether there will be sufficient detail in the output to satisfy many users. The sponsors should provide explicit examples of the major types of outputs. For example, what do the terms in figure 3 mean and what will be the explicit information for the basis of Figure 3? The current descriptions are too general.
Maps alone would be of limited use in subbasin planning. Will the detailed 5th HUC-level data on which maps were based be accessible through the program? Will the results be available to users for free or will they have to buy a book and CD?
Does the project duplicate USFS and BLM efforts? More detail should also be provided about the online peer review and processes for quality control. Is there an M&E plan for checking the accuracy and precision of the database?
Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:
OCEAN AND ESTUARY SUBGROUP -- Action item addressed - 198. The proposal identifies data fields related to the entire basin, including estuarine resources (i.e., bays and estuaries; inland marine deeper waters; marine nearshore areas). The project applicant needs to identify which data fields are to be emphasized/actually used, and how this prioritization relates to the estuary/basin. This proposal identifies a specific data management structure. The structure needs to be reviewed to determine how the project fits with current conversations on data base management, including the ongoing StreamNet project, EDT, and with work that LCREP has been coordinating.
DATA MANAGEMENT SUBGROUP -- Does the Proposal address RPA Objectives?
The proposal represents a substantial development of a stand-alone DBMS with addition of data and mapping and Internet capabilities. In other words it would represent a fully functional end-to-end information system, with custom query tools, all for a subset of regional data. While each of the proposals have the potential to improve information system delivery, specifically by overcoming technical constraints with the existing IBIS system, and by expansion to new data sets, the proposal does not document well the extent of these claims. The proposal does not adequately address RPA's 180, 181, or 198.
Elements the Proposal is Lacking.
The strengths of the proposal are in it's claims to overcome deficiencies in the current IBIS information system design, offer basin wide mapping utilities, and provide currently needed wildlife and related habitat data, and some resident fish data, not otherwise available in a regional as opposed to a state context. However there are many lacking elements within the proposal. Despite claims of developing materials to support monitoring; it is not clear how the proposal will actually meet goal 180 by developing or integrating with a monitoring program and ground-truthing data. This proposal appears to be to develop imagery technology rather than to provide the imagery. The main problem with providing digital imagery is not the technology for delivery, rather, it is the very high cost of acquiring the imagery. Since there is no budget request in this proposal for actually acquiring spatial data layers, and it could take years to acquire "all the Columbia spatial data layers", there is no guarantee of delivery of the spatial data from this proposal. It would make more sense to adopt the technology for spatial data provision when there is also a budget for acquisition of data layers. This claim the proposal will fulfill the needs for a regional information system is not supportable by information within the proposal since the needs are currently being identified by SAIC. Furthermore the report by Coutant et. al. identified many problems that concern information management per se rather than nominal collection and delivery of a subset of data. Since the claim of performance for this proposal is narrow it cannot reasonably claim to solve the problems identified by Coutant et al.. There appears to be potential for overlap with other data collection institutions: for example the plan to include marine fish habitat data into IBIS appears to overlap, at least in part, with the current recording of data by the PSMFC. The proposal requires a new DBMS design which results in a custom stand alone solution for just a subset of regional data. The project currently lacks tabular database management; proposed project will develop interactive databases.
Means and Opportunities to Strengthen Proposal.
Clearly identifying how the proposed system is distinct and different from the proposal by StreamNet to provide data collection for stream habitat data users would strengthen the proposal. Detailing the proposed advance query capabilities and decision support tools, and delineating cost effectiveness of off the shelf query tools versus custom query tools would also strengthen this proposal. Another adjustment possibility is to clearly demonstrate how the basin wide mapping utilities apply to other mapping initiatives and how they relate to RME needs. Finally the proposal needs t directly address RME information system design needs and in particular address RME needs with respect to anadromous fish and wildlife populations as opposed to only addressing non-anadromous fish and wildlife populations.
Feasibility of Work
It is not clear whether the proposal is more or less efficient in terms of regional funding resources with a completely separate database organization and administration for collection of terrestrial wildlife and non-migratory fish species. It is also unclear that there is funding for obtaining actual data for digital imagery.
ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:
The ISRP agrees that the proposal should clarify how it will contribute to RPA 180 by developing or integrating with a monitoring program and ground-truthing data, Nevertheless, this is one of the few wildlife proposals in the systemwide solicitation and will provide needed wildlife and resident data for subbasin and basin planning.
Comment:
A systemwide R,M, & E plan has not been developed, therefore information needs (database elements) are unknown at this time. This is a coarse scale assessment tool. CBFWA does not support the marine fish portion of the proposed actions. This project needs to tie in to the spatial scale being implemented through subbasin planning. This project is considered a Core Program project for support for the wildlife managers planning and management. * Failing to fund this project immediately will pose a high risk of significant and immediate negative impact on successful implementation of the Fish and Wildlife Program.Comment:
The Northwest Habitat Institute (NHI) has revised its proposed budget based on anticipation that all tasks will transpire at the highest possible efficiency. The Operation and Maintenance Phase budget has been reduced by ten percent for each year in anticipation of greater efficiency from additional experience, supplemental training and adoption of new, emerging technologies. The Monitoring and Evaluation phases of all years have been left the same as originally proposed since they are comprised of fewer, more discrete tasks that were easy to accurately estimate. For fiscal year 2003, NHI has kept the Planning and Design phase budget the same since success in this phase during the first year will be critical for success in the other 2003 phases and subsequent year phases. The Construction/Implementation phase budget for FY2003 has been reduced by 20 percent due to potential cost savings by overlapping some of these tasks with some of the Planning and Design phase tasks. The overlapping tasks of the Implementation phase should be more quickly achieved since the startup times will already have been absorbed in the Planning and Design phase. For FY2004 and FY2005, both Planning and Design and Construction/Implementation phases have been reduced by ten percent. NHI believes that after working on the project full-time the first year, it will be able to more efficiently achieve subsequent tasks. Additionally, time saved through realized efficiencies in some tasks can be used to overcome problems arising in other tasks since all of the tasks are related and NHI's team will work closely together to achieve all of the tasks by the most efficient means possible. If further reductions are required, refer to full response to CBFWA.Comment:
Fundable in part for the update and maintenance of the wildlife habitat database. Agree (in part) with CBFWA's Core Program ranking. This is a well-written and detailed proposal to provide needed wildlife data for subbasin planning. The approach is to enhance an existing internet site (IBIS) to provide biodiversity databases through an improved database management system. The IBIS site currently exists and is maintained by the Northwest Habitat Institute, but is inadequate and in need of improvement.The goal is to have a more accessible common data management system of peer-reviewed data on fish and wildlife and their habitats that would provide consistent data throughout the basin. The project would provide information and services relevant to regional planning efforts. The data described would be useful in establishing resident fish and wildlife distributions and the linkages among them for subbasin planning. Objectives are to restructure the existing database on IBIS to allow concurrent use and more complicated data queries. Decision support tools and a manual will be developed. Proposers also intend to monitor the use and effectiveness of IBIS through user feedback.
The thorough response addressed the ISRP concerns. It indicates extensive regional agency involvement in the development of IBIS to date, with reasonable expectation of that involvement continuing. With regard to the resident and anadromous fish habitat data they recommend collecting, the ISRP believes that these data should be available to the region, but are unsure as to the utility of adding another database; e.g. with EDT and other concentrations on anadromous freshwater habitat.
Detail on the amount and type of usage is provided. IBIS data will be provided free of charge. A registration gateway to the site will generate data for monitoring use. Quality control mechanisms sound sufficient, and the on-line peer review process is described in more detail.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitIndirect. Upgrade and expand existing IBIS database to include more spatial and non-spatial data, advanced query capabilities, and decision support tools, and mapping capabilities useful to researchers and decision makers.
Comments
The proposal represents a substantial development of a stand-alone DBMS with the addition of data and mapping and Internet capabilities. It would represent a fully functional end-to-end information system, with custom query tools, all for a subset of regional data. While each of the tasks has the potential to improve information system delivery, specifically by overcoming technical constraints with the existing IBIS system, and by expansion to new data sets, the proposal does not document well the extent of these claims. There also appears to be potential for overlap with other data collection institutions.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
Yes
Comment:
BPA Phase 3Comment:
Category:1. Council Staff preferred projects that fit province allocation
Comments:
Dependent on coordination of database system issue for subbasin plans.
Comment:
Explore funding through the subbasin planning support contracts implemented by Council; use lower, scrubbed budget of $388,720 for FY 2004 per council staff discussions.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $0 | $0 | $0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website