FY 2002 Innovative proposal 34032

Additional documents

TitleType
34032 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleOtolith Marking using Portable Mist Incubation
Proposal ID34032
OrganizationAlaska Resource & Economic Development, Inc. (ARED)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameTod Jones
Mailing address2001 Marine Drive #253 Astoria, OR 97103
Phone / email5033256452 / jonest@ared.net
Manager authorizing this projectTod Jones
Review cycleFY 2002 Innovative
Province / SubbasinColumbia Estuary / Grays
Short descriptionDevelopment of Otolith Marking in a Mist Incubation environment using three methods
Target speciesCoho
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
46.3703 -123.5563 Gray's River Hatchery, 25 Miles East of Astoria, Hwy 4
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 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 2002 costSubcontractor
Fabrication of mist incubation unit Build portable mist incubation marking unit 2 $54,500
Incubate and otolith mark fry marking otolith in mist incubation 3.5 $34,918
Analysis Lab Work, Compile Data and Report 2.5 $11,249
Other (communications, travel) Other 10 $21,285
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 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel $41,217
Supplies $6,400
Travel $1,500
Indirect 10% $11,086
Capital $54,500
NEPA $0
$7,249
$121,952
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$121,952
Total FY 2002 budget request$121,952
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:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 24, 2002

Comment:

Not fundable, only marginally innovative, and not an adequate proposal. The technique has already been tested. The concept, a modular transportable system for applying thermal marks to wild-spawning salmon, has been demonstrated in Alaska by the Northern Regional Aquaculture Association (Sitka, AK; Steve Reifenstuhl, 907-747-850) in cooperation with NOAA Fisheries Auke Bay Lab (Juneau; Don Mortensen, 907-789-6088). They used streamside incubators, recirculating water during marking, and propane heaters. They marked several hundred thousand pink salmon at Auke Creek, Juneau, and chum salmon on a stream on Kuiu Island. Mortensen is preparing a technical memorandum reporting their results.

The proposal seeks to establish the effectiveness of creating pre-hatch thermal marks with mist incubation by testing three approaches, but provides little detail about these tests. It may be that use of a mist incubator would save energy costs and constitute a significant innovation; the proposers report that they have experience with mist incubation systems but give no information about that experience. The proposal cites unpublished report of Alaska trials as its only reference in the technical background. Tasks and methods are provided in abbreviated form. The proposers have not developed protocols for testing and demonstrating the proposed system (task 1 is to collaborate with WDFW to do so, but there is no indication from WDFW of its commitment to do so; tasks 3, 4, and 5 indicate a conceptual plan for methods but no rigorous plan is presented; task 6, develop an otolith remover isn't needed, technicians with knives and forceps are quite efficient.) The proposal presents no conceptual design for the 'connex' trailer facility. Not much more detail is given on the techniques or its application in the Columbia River Basin. Overall, this is an incomplete proposal.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 28, 2002

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 12, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Indirect benefit. Mark enhanced wild fish stock otoliths by using a portable mist incubation system. Otolith marking will allow for more accurate run-reconstruction by sampling spawn carcasses.

Comments
This project is designed to develop an otolith marking system using a portable mist incubation system. The proposal does not adequately describe the technology or justify its need as it is written. The authors indicate that mist incubation works effectively on all species of salmon eggs but cite no published references to support this claim. Furthermore, it is not clear that this technology even if feasible will be any more effective or efficient than current technologies for thermal marking. Some preliminary data and more detailed justification and description of the experimental design and methods are required.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
No


Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 12, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Indirect benefit. Mark enhanced wild fish stock otoliths by using a portable mist incubation system. Otolith marking will allow for more accurate run-reconstruction by sampling spawn carcasses.

Comments
This project is designed to develop an otolith marking system using a portable mist incubation system. The proposal does not adequately describe the technology or justify its need as it is written. The author’s indicate that mist incubation works effectively on all species of salmon eggs but cite no published references to support this claim. Furthermore, it is not clear that this technology even if feasible will be any more effective or efficient than current technologies for thermal marking. Some preliminary data and more detailed justification and description of the experimental design and methods are required.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No