FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200304200

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Each year after 2003, we expect to spend approximately $150K for hardware and software which will come from the maintenance and upgrade budget after deployment.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The proponent should clarify if the primary objective of this project is to: 1) be a part of a distributed database system providing NMFS primary data to the region, 2) develop a second tier database in the spirit of DART to analyze primary data for NMFS and the region, or 3) do both 1) and 2).

This proposal is potentially for an important and needed project to provide assess to NMFS primary data and make available second tier analyses available via the internet on listed salmon (and steelhead, we assume) related data and metadata sources in the Columbia Basin. The ISRP believes that the objective to "consolidate" data is overstated and a better description of the intended activity is to analyze data from NMFS and other sources according to certain assumptions. Those assumptions and other metadata for the analysis must be made available with the "consolidated" data. The proponent should make it clear that responsibility for and long-term storage of primary data from other agencies rests with other database programs elsewhere in the region, otherwise more than one version of primary data will exist.

It would be helpful in evaluating the potential for overlap of efforts if letters of support are provided from other database projects in the region, including StreamNet, the Fish Passage Center, Data Access in Real Time (DART), the Columbia Basin PIT-Tag Information System (PTAGIS), and from other agencies outside the NWFSC.

This proposal is for partial support of a program that the NWFSC is already pursuing with limited funding. It embraces the NWFSC vision about the future of data sharing through multiple data portals, and of groups of individuals from different agencies sharing common project data. This appears to complement some projects (35016, 35019, 35020) but perhaps duplicates other efforts (35033).

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

DATA MANAGEMENT SUBGROUP -- The NWFSC RM&E proposal is designed to make it possible for researchers to query the data, which will be collected from multiple regional databases, through a single portal. The NWFSC currently has a prototype that has been demonstrated using data from OWEB and PRISM databases.

The project is not designed to ensure that agencies that submit the data have a quality control and quality assurance program that would meet the RME requirement. Hence data may be insufficient for the needs of the BO if the data collecting agencies have not used consistent, rigorous protocols as defined by the RME program.

The proposal anticipates however that there will be concurrent improvements in data quality through implementation of other elements in a regional RME program and the benefits of those improvements will roll up to the RME repository.

The Action Agencies' RME program calls for the systematic, rigorous and directed collection and maintenance of data for status and effectiveness monitoring as defined by the framework. The framework implicitly distinguishes data and information. Information is developed from data through the use of analytical and decision tools. Preferably one develops the tools, and then one seeks the data for the tools. Sometimes there is feedback in that the data suggest new tools. The NWFSC has developed tools such as SWAM which direct the collection of data. However it is unclear how the Council's subbasin planning process and the Action Agencies' RME program would use SWAM and other NWFSC analytical tools. The appropriateness of the tools for the RME program needs resolution before the required data layers can be identified.

RPA 180.

The NWFSC proposed pilot proposal provides a solution to a part of the challenge of "development and implementation of a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program", it does not propose the" ground truthing of regional databases" or a "draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected". The proposal offers a way to bring together the RPA data from many different RPA databases and provide access to it through a single web and GIS environment. It is a basinwide repository of all monitoring and evaluation data.

RPA 198.

The NWFSC proposal does propose to be repository for regional RME data. It also proposes to use a development called SDM web for an RPA tracking pilot at the Regional Office of NMFS.

Pros:

1. The proposed pilot RME database would be helpful to assess the potential problems in developing a larger database. The OWEB database for the coastal salmon restoration program most likely represents the best example of data that was collected consistently with the RME guidelines. Since the NWFSC has previously collected this data, the NWFSC pilot project could assess the OWEB data and database, and propose changes to the OWEB project that would satisfy a BO data management program.
2. The proposal extends badly needed, recently-developed corporate data / information management system.
3. The proposal consolidates fish data collected from numerous sources and tied to metadata.
4. It provides on-line access to NWFSC data and information; it will apply prototype systems technology to allow web access to databases used and needed inside and outside NWFSC.
5. It is a distributed data system, with broad selection capabilities.
6. The data are closer to some of the key regional researchers;
7. The Salmonid Data Management (SDM) Web allows researchers to share all project information and includes a project tracking utility.
8. The project may be consistent with SAIC recommendations if data access tools are the same; it promises to incorporate SAIC findings.
9. It will model similar capabilities without duplicating DART;
10. It will use FPC smolt data.
11. It obtained StreamNet backup files in March 2002.
12. It will develop tools to enhance distribution of data and other info.
13. It proposes linking and making available via the web the Center's Genetic and Evolution Database and the centers Salmonid database.
14. It includes substantial in kind services (approximately 40%).

Cons:

1. It has the potential to be inconsistent with approach of slow-moving SAIC project because of timing differences.
2. Data / information will be collected but not necessarily standardized. It will be a repository, no guarantee of data integrity.
3. Its deliverables may lack Data Exchange Formats to make data comparable from State-to-State and agency-to-agency?
4. It duplicates part of StreamNet responsibilities without being a part of it. For example, thirty spatial data layers needed (including status information) might duplicate some new StreamNet data layers and will need integration. Will the States and Tribes cooperate?
5. SDM prototype tool appears to duplicate StreamNet's (and USFS?) restoration project databases from OWEB and PRISM.
6. It lacks resident fish data that Action Agencies need for other BOs. Not part of agency mission.
7. How will data be kept up to date? By periodic re-collection or update from sources? Two versions may be on the Web simultaneously.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

In general the ISRP agrees with the RME comments and specifically, that the project is not designed to ensure that agencies that submit the data have a quality control and quality assurance program that would meet the RME requirement. Hence data may be insufficient for the needs of the BO if the data collecting agencies have not used consistent, rigorous protocols. However, some elements of the comments are very troubling to the ISRP. The comments imply that the consistent, rigorous protocols are to be defined by the RME program and that concurrent improvements in data quality through implementation of other elements in a regional RME program and the benefits of those improvements will roll up to a "...RME repository of data." The comment that "The proposed pilot RME database would be helpful to assess the potential problems in developing a larger database." indicate to the ISRP that the RME Program participants need to carefully consider and evaluate the roles of: 1) databases for storage of primary data, versus 2) databases for second tier analysis of primary data using various assumptions. In short, the ISRP strongly disagrees with the RME group implication under RPAs 180 and 198 that this project might be"... a basinwide repository of all monitoring and evaluation data." It is not clear to the ISRP that efforts within the Council's FWP to develop consistent, rigorous protocols for monitoring and evaluation and long-term storage of data are well coordinated with the RME program. It seems that the RME program has significant potential for fragmentation and duplication of efforts within the region.

Comment:

Comment:

The Council could consider partial funding of #35048 and increased base funding of StreamNet (#198810804) to allow for prioritization and capture of necessary monitoring data (see the review of StreamNet and #35033). Obviously, StreamNet and the sponsors of #35048 would have to provide more complete study plans on each high priority task. The plans for capturing additional data could be reviewed by CBFWA staff and the ISRP. If the Council agrees to extend the period for consideration of funding of this and perhaps other monitoring proposals (e.g., new data to be captured by StreamNet and the NMFS Proposal #35048, Tier I monitoring proposed by #35016, and Tier III monitoring proposed by #35020) then the ISRP could review the set at a later time. If funded, this project should be coordinated with other monitoring projects to ensure compatibility of objectives, common methods and protocols. This coordination could be accomplished under the favorably reviewed CBFWA proposal #35033.

This proposal lacks sufficient technical detail for scientific review. Most objectives in the proposal have a Stage II step to identify the team, tasks, costs, etc. For example, the sponsor provided the following generic statement on most tasks "Detailed Project Plan: To be completed within four weeks of acceptance of funding. The plan will identify: the project team; all tasks; the estimated costs of each task including the cost of any necessary software and hardware and a detailed budget; any dependencies between tasks such as which task must finish before another can begin; who will complete each task; identification of a probable user group for the project; other needed consultation and participants; the actual deliverables such as code and documentation; the dates the deliverables are due; project team meeting schedule; project team reporting requirements; the project manager; and, the program manager to whom the project manager reports."

The section of this proposal to monitor and evaluate the success or failure of itself, the proposed work, is inadequate. The response to the comment about potential overlap with other efforts illustrates an absence of collaboration with other agencies. Activities under this project provide an opportunity to strengthen StreamNet and other regional databases. We encourage NMFS to work more closely with the other State, Tribal, and Federal agencies through CBFWA to establish priorities for capture of additional needed data and to establish a comprehensive collaborative, systemwide monitoring and evaluation program.

Comment:

Comments
Must make sure data system is consistent and useable across the Basin.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

The proposal is not technically adequate and this speaks poorly for the likelihood it will succeed in making data widely available in useful form. The proposal lacks clarity and is based on the assumption that QA/QC will occur at the level of individuals and agencies that enter raw data. Whether data will in fact be readily contributed to this group and database is uncertain. Another issue of concern is the continuing lack of evidence of clear collaboration with other efforts to form useful, integrated databases.

This revised proposal attempts to provide more information than its previous version, but the information is presented in a confusing way. A methods section usually begins with objectives, then provides some background to tasks and methods, then lists tasks and the methods to be used to perform the tasks that meet the objectives. This proposal divides objectives into categories, then lists a group of tasks, calling them objectives. The Task section is similarly divided in a disjointed and confusing way. Methods are scattered and confusingly presented.

The proposal states that while there is some overlap in RME programs at spatial and temporal scales, this proposal will not duplicate or replace existing efforts. This does not seem to be demonstrated.

The report lists eight ongoing data management projects. A detailed diagram is provided to show tasks to be undertaken under 35048 relative to other data management tasks. The question is whether this is the most efficient way to coordinate the needed RME data or does it introduce yet another layer of programming? For example, the same tasks might be performed under StreamNet’s proposed additions (198810804). It is also unclear how this effort is distinct from that proposed by the Northwest Habitat Institute in its enhancement of the Interactive Biodiversity Information System (IBIS). The proposal does not make a convincing argument of the need for a separate effort. This entire project rests on the ability to see an integrated picture of data availability and data needs, and to develop the needed coordination and collaboration to integrate the two. The proposal does not present a clear picture of that global view nor does it create a picture of a systematic, sequential, and effective approach.

Notably absent is explicit discussion of the conditions and challenges of collaboration with existing efforts, a difficult task particularly when people are asked to change practices so that they can meet standardized protocols. Incentives and mechanisms to ensure effective collaboration among people in the three subbasins are missing.

Comment:

Comment:

Comments: