Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Demonstrate novel methods of mist incubation and mechanical egg planting in salmon restoration. |
| Proposal ID | 34033 |
| Organization | Alaska Resource & Economic Development, Inc. (ARED) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Brian Ashton |
| Mailing address | PO Box 559 Wrangell, AK 99929 |
| Phone / email | 9078742905 / ashtonb@ared.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | Brian Ashton |
| Review cycle | FY 2002 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Documentation of methods and proceedures for mist incubation and mechanical egg planting in two separate systems and the collaborative authoring of a proceedures manual for application of this inovative technology |
| Target species | All salmonids |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
|
|
Harding River |
|
|
Cathedral Falls |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Manufacture Portable Mist Incubation Units |
Build and Operate Portable Incubation units |
4 months |
$36,556 |
|
| 2. Collaborative Demonstration of Technology |
Incubate, plant eggs and study results |
9 Months |
$82,596 |
|
| 3. Collaborative Development of Standard Operating Procedures and Protocols |
Compile and disseminate data, alter operations per collaborative dialog, evaluate operations and proceedures, facilitate co-authoring of SOP's & Protocols |
14 Months |
$80,839 |
|
| 4.Agency and Public Collaboration Development |
Implementation of Collaborative Project with State, federal and private organizations. (See Matching funds for itemization) |
14 Months |
$0 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$95,134 |
| Fringe |
Insurance |
$19,760 |
| Supplies |
Nutrient Supplimentation/Field Consumables |
$19,824 |
| Travel |
Travel |
$9,408 |
| Indirect |
@ 10% |
$11,846 |
| Capital |
Portable Incubation hardware and Freeze core sampling equipment |
$29,328 |
| PIT tags |
# of tags: NA |
$0 |
| NEPA |
|
$2,478 |
| Subcontractor |
Communications, Publishing |
$12,213 |
| $199,991 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $199,991 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $199,991 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Pew Charitable Trust Matching for Task Based #1 |
Grant |
$46,013 |
cash |
| Pew Charitable Trust Matching for Task Based #2 |
Grant |
$77,777 |
cash |
| Pew Charitable Trust Matching for Task Based #3 |
Grant |
$113,502 |
cash |
| Pew charitable Trust Matching for Task Based #4 |
Grant |
$98,210 |
cash |
| SSSF Matching Funds for Task Based #1 |
Grant |
$20,618 |
cash |
| SSSF Matching funds for Task Based #2 |
Grant |
$92,363 |
cash |
| SSSF Matching Funds for Task Based #3 |
Grant |
$13,316 |
cash |
| USFS |
Personnel, Field Equipt and & Travel |
$250,000 |
in-kind |
| Organized Village of Kake |
Accounting |
$60,000 |
in-kind |
| Kake Nonprofit Fisheries Corporation |
Lab Facilities and Staff |
$12,000 |
in-kind |
| Alaska Resource & Economic Development, Inc. |
Egg Planter and Mist Incubation Technology Development |
$500,000 |
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:
This proposal is not fundable, innovative, or technically justified. This sister proposal to 34032 is slightly more complete, but has similar problems. The technique is at most marginally innovative, as it is well known and has been in use for a decade in Alaska. There is no indication of the need for these techniques or of how the techniques will be integrated into restoration in any subbasin. Mist incubation is not new (ARED will provide the technology as part of cost sharing but there's no documentation of the existence of the technology). The egg planter is not new, and was developed and patented 20 years ago. Transportable, modular, incubation systems are not new and have been developed, for instance, by NSRAA and NOAA Fisheries Auke Bay Lab (see comment on 34032). The budget is not explained or justified; there are large matches of cash from PEW and the Southeast Salmon Recovery Fund that are not documented; there are several cooperators indicated but no documentation of what their role would be.
Additionally, a big portion of the large budget is to collate and publish standard operating procedures, which after 10 years of application in Alaska are probably already developed. Why do mist incubation units have to be designed if they are already in application? The tasks and methods are very sparse.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 28, 2002
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 12, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Indirect benefit. Demonstration of technology used to outplant eyed salmon eggs incubated in mist incubation with the goal of producing a manual for protocols, methods and procedures to effect restoration.
Comments
This project proposes to test the efficacy of mist incubation and mechanical egg planting for restoration of depleted salmon. Although the technology proposed may be innovative, the authors provide little evidence that this technology is effective (i.e., lack of peer-reviewed citations) and the key component of the proposed research is not the rearing technology but rather identification of habitat and environmental factors that will increase survival and make egg-plants successful. (This is true of other egg planting strategies as well.) Unfortunately the authors provide only cursory methodological and no analytical detail for how they will assess environmental quality in these experiments.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
No
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 12, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Indirect benefit. Demonstration of technology used to out-plant eyed salmon eggs incubated in mist incubation with the goal of producing a manual for protocols, methods and procedures to effect restoration. Comments
This project proposes to test the efficacy of mist incubation and mechanical egg planting for restoration of depleted salmon. Although the technology proposed may be innovative, the authors provide little evidence that this technology is effective (i.e. lack of peer-reviewed citations) and the key component of the proposed research is not the rearing technology but rather identification of habitat and environmental factors that will increase survival and make egg-plants successful (This is true of other egg planting strategies as well). Unfortunately the authors provide only cursory methodological and no analytical detail for how they will assess environmental quality in these experiments.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No