Item R09
Apr 04 02 09:588
Commissioner Williams
(305) 289-6306
p.2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: Wednesday April. 17.2002
Division:
BOCC
Bulk Item: Yes
No XX
Department: Corom. Nora Williams
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: General Land Use Update.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION:
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
TOTAL COST:
BUDGETED: Yes
No XX
COST TO COUNTY:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty _ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management_
DIVISION DIRECTOR
APPROV AL:
~ IAJj~ ~.-v..J
(Nora Williams, Commissioner, Dist. IV)
DOCUMENTATION:
Included
To Follow XX
Not Required _
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM ##~
Revised 2/27/01
Apr 12 02 03:15p
Commissioner Williams
(3051 289-6306
p. 1
Nora Williams
490 63RD St. Ocean, #110
Marathon, FL 33050
Phone: 30f>..289-6000; Fax 305-289.0036; Emait: noraW@mail.state.f1.us
BOCC, District IV
Fax
To: BOCC From: Comm. Nora Williams
Fax: . Pages: /0
Phone; Date: April 12. 2002
He: IGTF Minutes 4/4102 & Land Use Update CC: J. Roberts, T. McGarry, D. Kolhage
o Urgent For Review
Please Comment
Plea.. Reply
o Please Recycle
Attached please find the final minutes for the Intergovernmental Task Force
meeting of 4/4/02, and a commentary from Comm. Williams on her Land Use Update
agenda item and back up documentation.
~o9
Apr 12 02 03:16p
Commissioner Williams
(305) 289-6306
p.2
Intergovernmental Task Force
Minutes
Th~day,ApriI4,2002
I 0:00AM
Marathon Gov't Center, BOeC Chambers
1. Welcome and Introduction
II. Federal Funding:
A. The Army Corp. of Engineers (ACOE) will begin work promptly on a documentthat
will be composed of three documents. The Program Implementation Guidelines
(PIG), a draft Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) and the Programmatic
Environmental Impact Study (EIS). It was noted that no credit for construction can be
given until a peA is executed, and that no PCA can be executed until a construction
appropriation is made. The Programmatic EIS is necessary even though it is clear
that there is a positive environment impact from improving wastewater. The Corp
will try to create this draft document by contract quickly, within six months. But, we
will need to have designated the non-Federal sponsor first.
Savings and Slippage: Savings and Slippage (S&8) is applied to all projects
appropriated funding each year. S&S is not an excess pot of money. OMB applies
this S&S because they realize some projects will slip each year. OMB decides on a
percentage each year to apply to the different appropriations. We can usually get
S&S programmed back to the project if a need exists. Of the initial funding, $80,000
sent to S&8. The Corps has $420,000 to work with in FY02. Future appropriations
will be unlikely to be budgeted by the Corp under OMB, due to the program
priorities as reflected in the OMB budget comments. There are additional challenges
because of our wartime status. If money is provided through a Congressional add,
the draft PCA will be a blueprint ready to go, and the final peA will be negotiated
and signed. The Corps doesn't lobby for our adds.
This is not a grant process. Grants have to be specifically authorized as such. That
doesn't necessarily mean the Corps builds each project. There are several different
kinds of agreements, including oversight participation. One place where you can
receive credit pre-PCA is land acquisition. Current fair market value is the credit.
The PCA ,lays out details for how various partnership arrangements can work.
Matching funds (even if to be returned by user fees) must be provided upfront and
cannot come from a Federal source. The PCA needs a financial plan for the pr~iects
to be funded.
Tfthere is one non-Federal sponsor, all our projects will be listed in a single PCA so
all those projects will be eligible for funding as they become ready. In other words,
with a non-Federal sponsor, everyone can be covered. It is also a huge plus for the
Corp and for an efficient process, because a bunch of different agreements do not
have to be created. If a problem emerges with the non-federal partner, a change is
doable as long as the projects remains as described. Changing the plan is a big
problem. Nora requested Sharon look at how the NevadaIMissouri programs got the
sizable appropriations they received, as well as provide a copy of the model
agreement, issued by Memorandum dated 27 November 2001, for that program.
Although there are no guarantees once a project is started, Richard's experience has
been that Congress will usually fund projects to completion once they have been
initially funded. Traditionally in these programs, ACOE controls bidding and
Apr 12 02 03:16p
Commissioner Williams
(305) 289-6306
p.3
Intergovernmental Task Force
Minutes
Thursday, April 4, 2002
1 0:00AM
Marathon Gov't Center, BOCC Chambers
construction. That could work for us, but Richard will try to also allow an option for
construction management and oversight in which we would be the contracting
officer. The PCA should specify that the non-federal sponsor need not necessarily be
the contracting officer. Warning: If a construction project is started before the PCA is
in place, it cannot be funded. That could leave Marathon and Key West out of the
picture according to the current schedule, but if we can get a dollar construction
appropriation this year, there is hope. We desperately need an appropriation now.
Key West Commissioner Merili McCoy layed out two aspects of the program as
described: 1) We will have to jump through the hoops with no guarantees, 2) We will
need to commit to having the projects completely funded without outside funding to
have any hope of obtaining the federal appropriation . We need to stand together to
move forward.
B. Project timing issues and the legislative calendar: Congressman Deutsch's office was
unable to submit an appropriation request before the deadline, but a possibility for an
appropriation still exists. Our lobbyists and the environmental groups will work hard
to try and make this appropriation happen. Congressman Deutsch's office will
provide greater clarification ofthe timing issues that made them feel unable to submit
the request.
C. Non-Federal Sponsor Issues: It was reported that what we've talked about so far is
just the beginning of the process. There is an enormous amount of work, detail,
reports, and material required. This is a complex procedure, and it would be good to
have the entity involved be one with experience, and on-going shared projects with
the Corps-{)ne of the reasons South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
seems a logical non-federal partner. Not only are they involved in the Everglades
Restoration project, but they are going after federal funding in a powerful way every
year, and would include us in those efforts.
Our municipal representatives will return to their respective Boards and Councils to
report on the consensus that a single non-Federal sponsor will most serve to expedite
and ease the process. Specifically: allows all of us to be covered under a single peA
to make our projects eligible for funding, saves many steps and possible confusions,
even makes the State process of matching likely to work better. SFWMD benefits
involve their on-going work and experience in this regard.
D. The non-Federal match: Mike McDaniel, DCA, hopes the Keys program will be one
project, even including those projects not specifically funded by the federal
authorization. He would like to see any expenditure post-PCA on Keys projects for
water quality improvement qualify for the non-Federal match. DCA supports having
a single non-Federal sponsor.
E. Where do we go from here?:
1) Stop the actions that are decaying our Wa.qhington support, and speak with a
strong, common voice of support for those projects ready for funding, Key West and
Apr 12 02 03:16p
Commissioner Williams
(305) 289-6306
p.4
Intergovernmental Task Force
Minutes
Thursday, April 4, 2002
lO:OOAM
Marathon Gov't Center, BOCC Chambers
Marathon. Our lobbyists and the environmental groups working on our behalf in
Washington reported that there has been a decay over the course of the last twelve
months, largely due to conflicting voices from the Monroe County Commission as
well as some citizen groups, exacerbated by changes in policy direction for
unincorporated Monroe-and lack of progress. Nora Williams promised to bring this
information to the BOCC with a request to fIx the problem.
2) Get support from Councils/Commissions for single non-Federal sponsor, with
hopes that we can request assistance from SFWMD at their May Board meeting. The
Corps asked that we make this detennination and get the sponsor commitment as
soon as possible, as they cannot create their draft PCA, the key to our funding,
without it. A conference call will be set up Wednesday, May 1, 2002 to coordinate
our effort.
3) Work for an appropriation this year, no matter how small.
III. Carrying Capacity Update:
A. General Update: Public workshops are happening. scheduled to be completed on
time, revised version should be on the web within a couple of weeks.
B. Long Tenn Strategy: Mike McDaniel reported that the impact analysis tool that
emerges at the end of this process will need on-going updating, and accessing
(computer) work and that is viewed by DCA to be a county-wide project of
importance and worth to every municipal government.
C. Where do we go from here?:
All municipalities committed to inform their Boards about this at the upcoming
meetings. The costs, which appear reasonable give the scope of the work. are
proposed to be split based on population percentage among the municipal
governments. We will need to get Commission support for shared costs as the
project evolves. A document detailing expected costs was distributed (and will be
distributed to the individual municipal governing boards).
IV. Affordable Housing Update: Rebecca and Nora reported that productive meetings had
already been held with the contractor approved by the Affordable Housing Summit
members. It was reported that the Islamorada Village Council will be re-visited in hopes
that the new council will wish to participate in the county-wide effort.
VI. Close of meeting at 12:30 PM..
Apr 12 02 03:16p
Commissioner Williams
(305) 289-6306
p.5
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: Wednesday ApriL 17.2002
Division:
BOCC
Bulk Item: Yes
No XX
Department: Comm. Nora Williams
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: General Land Use Update.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION:
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
TOTAL COST:
BUDGETED: Yes
No XX
COST TO COUNTY:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No
AMOUNTPERMONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County AUy _ OMBlPurchasing _ Risk Management_
't{~ kJci~~.. ,.1
DIVISION DIRECTOR
APPROVAL:
~..-
(Nora Williams. Commissioner. Dist. IV)
DOCUMENTATION:
Included
To Follow XX
Not Required _
DISPOSITION:
AGENDAITEM#~
Revised 2/27/0 I
Apr 12 02 03:17p
Commissioner Williams
(305) 289-S30S
p.S
Land Use; Update Agenda Item
April 17, 2002
Land Use UDdates:
My agenda item on Wednesday will include the following:
(1) Carrying Capacity Update; .While there has been much press about the National Academy of
Sciences review of the Draft Canying Capacity Model. it is clear that, at the very least, we will
have an impact analysis tool of some importance, which we will need to incorporate into our
Land Development Regulations. The Carrying Capacity doesn't hit when the Corps turns in its
product in June of2002, however. It will need to be maintained, and regularly updated, and DCA
has suggested that all of the municipal governments in Monroe County should participate in
maintaining and updating that model. Attached you will find some details on such a proposal.
This was discussed at some length in the Intergovernmental Task Force Minutes (which you will
also receive today - we just finished making the Corps' requested changes) and all local municipal
governments will be asked for a resolution of support in sharing these costs based on population
percentage represented.
Also, given the concern expressed in the NAS review of the draft model and the importance of
this study on the future of the Florida Keys, would the Commission like to consider a resolution
of support for a NAS review of the fmal report and model, which is not currently planned?
(2) Proposed changes to the Rule Plan: We are preparing (or have prepared at this point) a
statement of support for the proposed changes to the Work Plan. A hearing will be held before a
hearing officer on June 24-26. 2002.
(3) When you read the minutes from the IGTF meeting last week, you will note that there are
many reasons that a single non-federal sponsor should be supported with regard to the federal
authorization for water quality funding. The Corps cannot move forward with its documentation
until such a sponsor is selected. It was the feeling ofthe IGTF, for fairly obvious reasons, that the
natural candidate for such ajob would be the South Florida Water Management District. The
demands on the non-federal sponsor are cumbersome, and no one has more experience with the
present system that SFWMD, which is partnering with the Corps on the huge Everglades Restudy
efforts. If, in fact, SFWMD is willing to be the non-federal sponsor, they can not only help
protect ALL of our projects for funding, they can help us GET funding, but adding our projects to
their thus-far-very-successful efforts to receive Everglades funding. You will be asked for a
resolution of support for this IGTF proposal.
(4) Please do read those minutes for the IGTF. One of the things that came up at the meeting was
the decay of confidence in our commitments on water quality issues in Washington. A decay that
our lobbyists and the environmental groups present placed squarely at the feet of unincorporated
Monroe (that's us). While it was mentioned that other constituent groups and other municipalities
had delivered mixed messages, we were cited as uniquely guilty. It was noted that this "decay in
confidence" has occurred over the course of the past 12 months. A look at our agenda this month
should give you some indication why. We are hurting other municipality's efforts to get funding
when we flail all over the map; switch tracks and don't speak with a single voice. My other
agenda item is an attempt at an approach to correct it. But, for goodness sake, stop thinking of
this as a personality problem between two commissioners. This has much broader ramifications
and is hurting our credibility at both the state and federal levels - as was acknowledged by those
representatives present.
Apr 12 02 03:17p
o
I~
~
..
IrJO
~
Commissioner Williams
(305) 289-6306
ca
l>>
::J
N
~
""'";
o
::J
(II
en
..
CD
~
III
.,
Cl.
~
....
:T
CD
(')
C')
~
3:
m
II)
n
:T
-<
CD
I>>
~UJi ..,
-~I
tit ~~~=~!-<
~ ~ ~NN!,,"a.:
~ ~ I~ ~~i!l:
~a-
Cl5;
... .
ii
II II
(;)~
ii
i ~
II II
:d.
~. ~.
~ 3
aQ,
~ ~
i 1
iI i3
Sl.Sl.
.. t
" ~
1- i'
~ ~
If
.. ..
a [
~l
i ~
- ""
Sl..jj
t!s
gll.
82.
~~
z: '"
3- 8
~[
g
.
'8
!'!.
g'
i
"
to
".
~
;!,
-<
~
a-
d>
a-
a-
3
o
~
8
~
:f
..
ii
~
5:
6
1
w
-1-1-1
99 ~
~ ~ r:
m
t
'" '" 3' Ii
.. .. n I
il i~ &:
-< ~ IS"
!!!,~
g i i ;!
.. .. ll.
i~ ~ !!.
.0.5"
" "" ;>
a... ,Il- 5
n Ii ':I !l
o =: _ n
~g-~ :
a ... 'I
; i if
iil' !i 0
; ~ i
&!! I
.... '"
5'! i
Iii
. ..
i
~
'"
i
...
J:t:!l
! ~:: m
!" ... VI tl
lI:~~
...~~
...... y ~.
:::-
~~~
'" .. ...
... 01
I"
i ~i~9 09
! fig Ii!
~ ~ iiI ,
It _
-I ~
I- i I ii
Ii I....
:: G) C\Il! '" (,It
.. I'il~' ~~
;I ~ OJ ....
; j.f!if
i ! = E r:
!if ~ c c c
i if ~ H
ill ~t:5
($ ;:1;..
.. i" i o~
;- OI:.! II a
Ii II "" if
is: Q.! i"
[ i! ~~ !
CD .. a i [~
6 !f~ :~a'
5 I~ ~... B a
IU m n_
~ ~ GI; ~
!J ~;'i
Q' ;- B
a if 3-
90 '..
3 ~
i
o
...i
~~
~ ~ ~ ~~ 2;'
0.... to) i::i-
~ ~~~8~!
.. 88 88~i
N::T
g-e-
wn
o
!!1
~1::~
...--
. CD ..
~~~
~ crt CD
:::s~
... "
~~I
M.., ...."" N:E -<
tl ~ ~~~::8":
~ ~ g 8 8 8 ~ ~I"
- ~ ~oo?""tl
r.n 8008<<0
"0
I~ ~:!1 ~
isq'!i!i!i'
g~~:ig,R~~
a &.!>a6 In> 0;
~..3~~~(ii
~& ~i.~~
~-g '" 9'lit'"
"w ~
o III
" ~
"
~
c
:ii
CD
;
::J
..
o
f fJ. ; ~ ~ ~ i~
ill P Ii
~,-I, ~.-I. ~ t t i i!i~'i~ i
,.. r-- r:- Ii Ii ; 'II~ ~ 18. g i ~
:: 8:" :: i~!ft=:~'l
~~ ~ i ~ ~~irp.ll. !.
'"!!, Iil i : -l;ili~i ~
if ~I ; !a;I~1 i
:Il~ Ii ii' g ~Ullil 3
i! is ~ l~~~i!:-
Si ~!l 3 ~..i~i;; ~
3", .Q ~ i!'i.il..!~ ~
'll!,- iti a ~la:"-. 5'
~I ~ ~ i flli!;I:
fila I~ g ~ 0 1S~1l'0I12 ~ ~
6 Ill;::r ~r'-!5it 1112.
~! !J~ ~~!Vi~!~
._.. co ~o. J; .-
S"I i g III ~.. ~z
1. ~ ~ 51 t ;l if
~. Q"i[ii-t
~ =il~"E~!,
i ~ li ~ ~ i
& ~ 1. i Il i
' ~.fiti
i ~ Ii ..
.. I I 0
II ~ '" ~
5 , ! ~
I :J .. ;
i i ~ I
~ l i i
1::5
!~
l"...
=i:
!!l~~~~g
.....cnflo_oo
_10 ~ 8 8 ~ 00
:: tl
.. ~8g8g
......
.....
~~
~3:
... '
...-
...
~... ... r ...
o fir.) CJt C ~
~ ~ ~ g
!lit in ~ P
;;10 '" 8
~ ~
g ~ g
g ~ 8
h
......
- ...
.....
~~
.....
..
.....
...
:: tl :z
tl: f N
..... en ~
l":" :..,
:: en ....,
! ~ ;
~ 8 ~
00,0
o <> 0
~
ill .I~ 1ft ~ p'i'
g2~ ~~ ~~i~
,.'g0l ~ _. ~ii
~~~-J&-g!~"~
~;i[~IO!J!{l
I~~~~i~l'~i
5> _ ~ g ~ m ~
Cl '" ~i
::ta'
-< i i
... ~l:
~ 0",\"
(,.) Ni Q. ....
o ,,"
C) ~2:
g -<~
gi;
... ..
<n
II)
3
(1)
o
<0
III
:::II
N
III
=t
o
:::II
<n
S'
~
II)
.,
e:
o ~
...1
~~
~i
~i
"2;
8~
wo
o
!!1
-
:T
CD
(')
(")
~
I~ III ~
1-<-'
~i
~t:
~~..
N"
g!
p.7
"T1
0-
a:
II
'"
.z
&>
{
o
~
i
n.
~
l;n
!l:
'<
~
g
I
"
fit
~
AI
!
f
..
"
~
..
"
...
m
3.
~
8:
~
lit
~
\P
Apr 12 02 03:18p
Apr 12 02 01:28p
Commissioner Williams
(305) 289-6306
(305)289-2854
Growth Mtt
."
FLORIDA KEYS CARRYING CAPACITY STUDY
DRAFT
LONG-TERM DATA STRATEGY
CARRYING CAPACITY ANALYSIS MODEL AND
ROUTINE PLANNING TOOL
December. 200t
Revised Fehrullf)i. 1002
Prepared by the Flonda Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research
Institute for the V,S, Anny Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Community
Affairs.
p.8
p.2
Apr 12 02 03:18p
Apr 12 02 01:29p
Commissioner Williams
(305) 289-6306
(305)289-2854
Growth Mr;t
Executive Summary
Data stewardship rotes for the Carrying Capacity Analysis Model (CCAM) and Routine Planning
Tool (RPT) are closely lied to lhe application slewanlship roles needed to maintain lht: overall
operation of the CCAM, Careful planning is necessary to ensure (TAM and Rl>T longevity and
utility. Key stewardship roles include system maintenance, data housing, data updates, metadata
mamtenance, data transfer, output archiving and overall stewardship cost accountmg.
SySlem maintenance includes CCAM and RPT designated computer and lOoftware maintenance.
At a minimum, two computer systems are needed to house the CCAM and RPT systems and data,
Significant (40+ gigabytes) drive space will be: needed to house the data. Ideally, the CCAM and
RPT will draw from the same database, however a mirrored database may be necessary to mt:et
RPT data formal needs. A backup archive of the database will be maintained by the model host
designate. The developer will archive a copy of the CCAM and RPT data as delivered to lhe host
deSIgnate, Data updates may be initiated by changes in core CCAM sourcC data or updalt:
suggestions submitted via the RPT website, All data updates will be accompanied by metadata
updates and be preceded by a thorough review of the proposed updates. Official model output
will be archived by the host designate and made available for posting to the RPT website A
summary record fOT each CeAM scenario nm wilt be generated and archivM for possible use in
subsequent scenarios.
Startup costs for the host designate may be as high as $40,000, bUt may be much lower if the host
designate is equipped with the software and hardware needed to run the CCAM and RPT.
Annual operating costs include GIS Analyst ttme as well as system and software license
maintenance. These pending costs range between $15,000 and $20,000. This figure does not
include overhead costs which would likely significantly increase the annual costs,
CCAM and RPT implementation requires close coordination between the model developer and
designated host. The CCAMtest model report issued by URS Corporation in November, 2001, is
under review and will be used to refine the long-tcnndata stewardship strategy. Additional
slTlltegies for long-term data management may be necessary upon fmalizatlon of the CCAM and
RPT, Staff at FMRI have consulted with the URS Corporation concerning data management and
will continue to worlcclosety with development personnel to coordinate data management
strategies.
p.9
p.3
2
Apr 12 02 03:18p
Commissioner Williams
(305) 289-6306
(305)299-2854
Apr 12 02 01:29p
Growth t1r;t
lntroouctioa:
Planning for data housing, updates, and standard transfer protocol IS necessary to ensure (he
utility and longevity of the Canying Capacity AnalysIs Model (CCAM) and the Rouhne Planning
Tool (RPT). In its role as data provider and GIS coordinator for the Flonda Keys Carrymg
Capacity Study (FKCCS), the 1'Iorida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) is tasked in the Database
Management Scope of Work for the FKCCS with outlinmg "a 1000g-tenn data strategy", the focus
of which "will be on determining protocols for preserving, updaling, and servmg the data
following project completion". To fully address this strategy, c()nsideration ofCCAM
implementation, maintenance, and regular operation is required. Further, because the RPT is
envisioned as an interactive web site designed for frequent use, additional attention to data
updates and application within the RPT is necessary, Thil) report addressc:s these issues, as well
as the roles of the ultimate model and data stewards regarding data transter, archival activities for
mode1-derived data sets, model-run parameters (scenarios), and cost accounting for model
operation, nlaintenance, and updating. AddibOnal attention is given to implementation of the
CCAM and RPT to address initial transfer of FKCCS products and data from the developers
(URS COTporation) and coordination between developer staff and the desjgnated model steward
organization.
Implementation:
Upon successful completion of the FKCCS, a transfer ofthc data, metad~ta, model executables,
source code, and documentation on CeAM operatIon and maintenance: must be accomplished,
Successful transfer ofthe FKCCStecbnology will occur when the designated model host
achieves autonomy regarding model execution, data and application maintenance, and RPT
serving. A successful transfer requires close coordination between tech11lcal staff at URS
Corporation and the designated host OTganiUltion. Initial steps to achieve transfer and
implementation include communication of hardware and software nee~s for CCAM execution
and maintenance (as well as RPT site serving), acquisition of requisite hardware and software by
the designated hostorgamzatt01T amtan accompanying lime- and dol1ar~osl assessment by the
host to ensure adequate infrastructure fOT long-term model stewardship,
Subsequent transfer steps include actual installation ofthe CCAMand RPT software followed by
severaltesl sccnllrio runs to ensure proper operation. Several site visits by the developer !Olaff
will be necessary to achieve optimal installation and operation, DepeJ1di!}g on final !:election of
the host organization, fonnallraining mayor may not be necessary to ensure that host staff are
adequately prepared to opera~e the CCAM and RPT,
The CCAM and RPT are built on the GIS technology offered by ESRl. The CCAM integrates
elements of ESRI's primary GIS, Arclnfo 8.1 Via subroutines wrlttm in Visual Basic for
Applications (VBA), ESRl's Arc Internet Mapserver (ArcIMS) is used to build and serve (he
RPT. ArcIMS provicfes an off..tne-shelfsoluhon for dlsserrunating spatIal data via the internet,
however, customization built into the RPT is anticipated to require minimal additional data and
system maintenance.
Operation and maintenance manuals that address both the application and data handling
routines/methods are required to ensure model and RPT operation continuity independent of
personnel turnover in either the developer Or host organizations. The manual or manuals should
be produced by URS Corporation and include specific hardware amhoftware instructions to
ensure thorough and proper configuration of the system, Specific technical instructions should be
tempered With plain-language text explamlng the purpose or role of cacl~ technical aspect of the
p.10
p.4
3
Apr 12 02 03:19p
Commissioner Williams
(305) 289-6306
(3051289-2854
Apr 12 02 01:2Sp
Growth Mc::t
systc:m, All primary operational and maintenance tasks should be clearly conveyed such that any
or aU tasks can be easily replicated by the staff allhe host organization.
A.pplication and Data Stewardship Role5=
Long"tenn use of thc CCAMaod RPTdepends on a clear understanding l)f well-defined, critical
responsibilities for maintenance and updates of both the application and data. Specific needs for
mamtenance ofFKCCSproduct$ include system maintenance, data housing, data updates, and
metadata maintenance.
System Maintenance
System architecture maintenance will Include maintenance of both web-server equipment and
software, and CCAM systems and processors (software), Establishment of a firewall or suitable
computer demilitarized zone is necessary to secure the data and infonnation served via the RPT.
Adequate drive space to house both model input data and a limited number of scenario results, as
well as data served through the RPT, must be allocated. Additional drive space will be necessary
to handle mtermediate data generated during scenario nms. Estimated disk space usage for input
CCAM data ranges between 7 and 10 gigabytes. Drive space needed dwing CCAM execution
may double the amount of space used by Input data. Since output data will include both vector
and raster datasets derived from input data, a similar amount of drive space is required for
corresponding output (7 to 10 GR). Model output data will, of course, accumulate with each
scenario run and therefore lIle designated machine can not be ex.pected to house all output data.
The system used to execute the model should, however. include enough free drive space to handle
several scenario runs prior to archiving of output data. Scenario(input), Ulalysis (run.time), and
resultant (output (limited)) data will, in total, require at least 40 gigabytes of drive space.
Data Housing:
Vector and raster inpurdata for the CCAM will be stored for us(: in the ESRl Personal
GeoDatabase format and in ArcInfo worlcspaces, respectively. Depending on the resources of the
designated host, the data may additionally be nested in a relationaldatab3.$e management system
and accessed through ESRl's Spatial Database Engine (SDE). All data layers will be backed up
on separate system drives and tapes to be available in the event that rcplaccOlents arc necessary,
The CCAM and RPT ideally will access the same data source for model nms and data serving.
Since the ArcIMS architecture to be used for the RPT requires eith~r SDE-houscd data or
shapefiles, it will be necessary to develop a separate assemblage of data (shapefiles) if the
designated host organization can not store data via SDE: If the destgnat~d host IS able to serve
the data VIa SDE, the Personal GeoDatabase and raster data produced by the contractor may be
served via SDE and ArcIMS,
If SDE is not an option, a separate set of data will be fonnatted as shapefiles and housed on the
designated RPT web server. The shapefiles will share the backup system used by the COTe
CCAM data to aVOId versioning problems and ensure data intcgnty, Tl\f! single source backup
will be mirrored and stored l)ffsite or in an l)therwise secure and separate location to guard against
catastrophic events. Since the backup archive wilrbe in a fonnat (Personal GeoDalabase)
different from that used by the RPT (shapefile), layer replaccmentsfupdates for the RPT will
require the additional step of converting the data from Personal GeoDalaba!':t= or ArcInfo raster to
shapelile,
In lime, new developments in web-serving technology may allow direct access of Personal
GeoDatabase and raster data by the RPT. Introduction of such technology will require careful
considemtion before implementation in the CCAM and RPT. Should the new technology be
applied. a review of the protocols necessary to maintain thc CCAM Dnq RPT will bc required.
p. 11
p.5
4
Apr 12 02 03:19p
Apr 12 02 01:29p
Commissioner Williams
(305) 289-6306
(305)289-2854
p. 12
Growth Mr;t
p.6
Data Updates:
The effc(;tivcncss of the CCAM and RPT will depend on the quality of the componcnt input data.
Data updates are necessary to ensure the health of the principal layers and therefore the quality of
CCAM output. Data update frequency is dependent upon the nature of individual data. Table I
lists the primary data layers for the CCAM as determined by the model developers. Anticipated
update frequencies are included for each layer,
Updates of data for use In the CCAM ond RPT will depend upon the availability of updated, or
improved source data and the subsequent reconfiguration of the updated layer for use In the
CCAM, The data update procedure will be implemented when updated source data are made
available and are adequately verified fOI" logical consistency, internal fjdeli~ (spatial and tabular)
and overall accuracy, To ensure the quality ofreplacement data, a QAlQC process will precede
actual loading ofthe data into the CCAM and RPT,
DIl~set Namr
Dataset Steward
Datastt Vintace
Datnet Purpose
apid assessment of
etlands requiring
ddirional protection
asures
Update Frequency
1991 Aerial Photos
Infrequent. Updates are
nade as funding allows,
'Iassitication
rfomu:d in 1993
Infrequent. As funding
IlOWIi,
Infrequenr. As funding
llows.
Infrequent. Updates
ependent upon funding and
~ounty initiative,
Inft~quent. Dependent upon
ding and county
, itiative,
1995 to present
rovide data for long - Frequent. Data are collected
eml water quality trend n a regular basis.
nalyses III the Florida olleetion time scales vary
eys om monthly to yearly.
5
Apr 12 02 03:20p
Apr 12 02 01:30p
Commissioner Williams
(305) 289-6306
1305J289-2854
Growth Mtt
The RPT will provide a means for intemet users to browse and download select CCAM data and
scenario outputs. Additionally, the RPT WIll offer internet users the opportunity to submit
suggested updates to the data used in the CCAM. Suggested updates submitted through the RPT
will requirt: staff hme to handle the logistics of suggestion submittal (retrieval of suggestions
from web-server directory, acknowledgement of receipt of suggested upqate and the forward of
the suggestion for evaluation) as well as the evaluation of update suggestions to determme
whether or not the update should be performed. The decision to update any piece of CCAM data
will be preceded by a thorough review ofthe proposed update and accompanied by thorough
documentation of the information used to decide for and against a suggested update, The model
host will maintain a record of all suggested updates and subsequent investigations. The metadata
record for any data for which an update is deemed appropriate will record in detailthc update
process. The process will include the source of thl': rnggested update, a step.by.step narrative of
the evaluation process and a justification for the decision to perform the update.
Meradata Alainrenance
Metadata maintenance win accompany all data transactions (including data updates, new data
additions, and data serving). Metadata updates will be performed at the same time data updates
are executed. The metadata for an updated layer will be amended to reOect the changes in the
related data layer and provide a record reflecting the history of the data layer with regards to the
CCAM and RPT. The Spatial Metadata Management System (SM~) 01' similar me:tadata
processor will be used to manage metadata. All metadata will be maintained to comply WIth
Federal Geographic Data Commission (FGOC) standards.
Da1a Transfer Protocol:
CCAM and RPT data used in the fiilaTversion of the model will be transtpTed to the designated
host on digital tape or DVD in Personal GeoDatabase format. The: data win be organi7ed in a
manner that will allow direct application to the CCAM and RPT. The jleveloper will retain a
copy of the final version of all data used in the model. FGDC-compliant metadata records in
either lITML or SGML format will be supplied along with the CCAM and RPT data,
Subsequent data transfer for updates to the CCAM and RPT database will ideally be
accomplished via internet File Transfer Protocol but may be done with other media. Dependent
upon data source, transferred data may require refonnatting for use in the C:CAM and/or RPT
The model developer win provide detailed instructions for data. requiring special fonnatting for
use in thc CCAM and/or RPT.
Model Outpat Archivi.g:
Data output generated by model runs will be housed by the model desi,gnate and made available
to authorized users upon request A record of all model runs will be assembled and be made
available for posting to the website hosting the RPT. Model output will he accompanIed by a
run-reoord listing the parameters used to run the model.
The model-run record will include al a minimum the following information:
. Model run title (any common-name Identifier to aid ill output identification)
. Model run summary (brief narrative of history of model run includlng requestor name and
purpose for request, technician notes concerning the model run, and Sl,lInmary of the output)
. Date ofmodcl run
. Model run requestor (agency or mdividual who initiated the model run)
p. 13
p.?
6
Apr 12 02 03:20p
Apr 12 02 01:30p
Commissioner Williams
(305) 289-6306
(305)289-2854
p. 14
Growth Mtt
p.8
· CCAM rull number (official model runs will be numbered sequC'ntially)
· Parameters (list of speciflc model inputs)
. Name of technician who executed the model run
. Output/results (list of model-derived data and/or products)
· Output dissemination (list of ~del results recipients)
. Archive record (list of where the model output is stored and a catalog number (CCAM run
number) for traclong}
The model-run records will be archived in an Act!::>s database as well as in paper-copy files. The
technIcian assigned to perfonn the model run will be responsible for completing thc run record
and supervising personnel will issue approval before the model run output and record are
disseminated and archived. The list of model output recipients will be updated each time the
results are provided to interested parties,
Cost ACtollBaing:
A cost breakdown for CCAM, RPT and attendant data stewardship activities must include staff,
computing equipment and software licenses/maintenance amounts. Costs 3J"e dependant upon
final CCAM and RPT configurations,
Staff
Data stewardship activities necessary to maintain the currency of the CCAM and RPT WlII
require approximately 25% of a GIS Analyst's time. Achtsl model executions are expected to be
infrequent but may require between five and ten days 00 complete the necessary data archiving
and model run records, Additional duties will include handling data update requests, momtoring
data sources for available updates, acquiring new data from on-going monitoring projects,
perfonning data update review and loading updates into the CCAM database. The individual
assigned to the data maintenance position for the CCAM and.RPT will require a skill level
commensurate wlth at least a $40.000 peT annum salary. Training cost~ are not estimated here
since they will vary greatly with the skill set of the designated analyst.
Computing Equipment
The processing and drive space requirements for CCAM operation will I"equire a high-end
desktop PC (in year 200 1 terms). While the prices for new machines vary, it is estimated that the '"M'
CCAM computer will cost betweeri$6,OOO and $10,000 as a one-time purchase, The RPT tool
requires an additional computer configured as a web server and a computer firewall or DMZ to
protect RPT~sc:rvcd data and information. The estimated cost for sy.stems..to house and serve the
RPT ranges between $6,000 and $8,000. Y carly maintenance figures for both CCAM and RPT
systems is estimated at $1,000.
,..i"-'"
Software/License Ma;nlerrallce
Startup costs for a host-designate not licensed to use the ESRI software needed 10 run the CCAM
and RPT will be much higher than those of an already licensed organization, The same is true in
terms of web-serving capability, Startup costs for a designate tbat is nolprepared to serve content
over the internet will need to Include acquisition of a high-spee~ access line as well as purchase
of a server node and software.
As of2ool, the core Arclnfo software suite costs approximately $10,000 as an initial purchase
and approximately $1,200 in yearly license maintenance, The required S~tial Analyst extension
for Arclnfo retails for $2,500, The approximate cost of ArelMS software is $8,000 with an
additional $1,500 per year to serve the 4ata. Sltc configurations may affect this pricing structure.
7
Apr 12 02 03:21p
ApI"' 12 02 01;31p
Commissioner Williams (305) 289-6306
p. 15
Growth M~t (30SJ28S-2854 p.9
In summary (ignonng startup costs whieh may be as high as S40,OOO) the eslllnatcd yearly
operating cost WIll likely range between $15.000 and $20,000, This figure docl; not include:
overhead costs which would likely significantly increase the annual cosls. All costs presented in
this report are preliminary and subject 10 adjustment in response to changes in CCAM and RPT
configurations, software and system needs and staffing requirements for overall system
maintenance,
Summary:
Data and application stewardship are closely lied. The tssues surrounding CCAM and RPT
stewardship include system maintenance, data housing, data updates, metadata, data transfer,
output archiving and overall stewardship costs, The follOWing list and Ftgure 1 summarizes
stewardship activities:
. System Maintenance
CCAM system
RPT web server
. Data Housing
CCAM and RPT primal)' data set
Secondary RPT data set (depending on serving capabilities)
Data Backup
· Data Updates
RPT update submittals
Primary source data updates
. Metadata Maintenance
. Data Transfer
. Output Maintenance
Primary 31'chive
Posting to RPT site
. Operation Costs
Staff time
System maintenance costs
Software/server costs
The CCAM test model report issued by URS Corporation in November, 2()O I is under review and
will be used to refine the long-term data stewardship strategy, Additional strategIes for long-term
data management may be necessary upon finalization of the CCAM and RPT. Staff at FMRJ
have consulted URS Corporation concernmg data management and will continue to work closely
with development personnel to coordinate dab management strategies,
8
.._---~
Apr 12 02 03:21p
Commissioner Williams
(305) 289-6306
p. 16
OFfsm:, fii!i\
MIRRORED ~
BACKUP I '
I
I CAM
fq
OUTPUT =\
ARCHIVEJ
(~
c
~
>
c:
~
c
~
I"I'l
III
D
-- ~~.u, ",.
,)
>S
~DATA
.... J 1I1tu. l b.___
Figure I, Sytlized schematic of data flow for the CCAM and RPT, A single database serves the CCAM
and RPT, Output from the CCAM is both archived and made available for serving through the RPT or
related website. Data updates are accomplished through a review process that takes into account new
information submitted via the RPT from internet users and updates in the underlying source data used in the
CCAM,
9