Assessing Habitat and Environmental Suitability for Northern Leopard Frogs in the Crab Creek and Pend Oreille Sub-basins of Eastern Washington proposal 200723400

FY07-09 proposal 200723400

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Assessing Habitat and Environmental Suitability for Northern Leopard Frogs in the Crab Creek and Pend Oreille Sub-basins of Eastern Washington
Proposal ID	200723400
Organization	Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Short description	We will improve environmental conditions and evaluate disease in 2 leopard frog populations. We will develop a leopard frog habitat suitability model and apply it in the Crab Creek and Pend O’reille drainages to estimate translocation site availability.
Information transfer	Resulting habitat suitability model for leopard frogs will be available online in pdf format from Washington Dept Fish and Wildlife (www.wdfw.wa); four journal manuscripts are planned; development of model and site evaluation (study phase 1) will be followed by additional site rehabilitation (if neccessary) and leopard frog translocations (study phase 2), and success monitoring (phase 3)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Contacts

Contact	Organization	Email
Form submitter
Steve Germaine	Washington Dept Fish and Wildlife	germassg@dfw.wa.gov
All assigned contacts
Steve Germaine	Washington Dept Fish and Wildlife	germassg@dfw.wa.gov

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Crab

Latitude	Longitude	Waterbody	Description
		Pend Oreille River	throughout the subbasin
		Crab Creek/Potholes Reservoir	nad 27 conus 11 location data are: 321519 easting and 5217939 northing

Section 3. Focal species

primary: All Wildlife
secondary: All Wildlife
Additional: Northern leopard frog, Columbia spotted frog, pacific tree frog, tiger salamander, long-toed salamander,

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding source	Related ID	Related title	Relationship
BPA	[no entry]	native non-native fish interactions in lower Crab Creek, Washington	WDFW Region fish program biologists and ourselves will cooperate in conducting field work related to each project in the Crab Creek subbasin. They plan to sample fish throughout the lower Crab Creek section; we will travel with them in order to conduct on-site wetland evaluations.
[Funding Source left blank]	[no entry]	Alberta and British Columbia leopard frog translocations	INformation sharing. Information gained through model development and assessment will be valuable to ongoing leopard frog translocation projects in Alberta and British Columbia, CA.

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectives	Full description	Associated subbasin plan	Strategy
Apply model to evaluate wetland suitability	In both the Crab Creek and Pend Oreille subbasins we will apply the habitat suitability model to identify all wetland areas suitable for leopard frogs. Within each subbasin we will use the model to identify all areas meeting criteria defined for suitability at the broad (Tier 1), scale. Following identification and ranking of wetland sites at the broad scale, a minimum of the 10 “best” sites in each subbasin will be evaluated further using on-site (Tier 2) evaluation criteria during breeding, summer, and winter seasons.	Intermountain	Objective 2b2, strategy b & c; Crab Creek plan wildlife Goal 3
Develop leopard frog habitat suitability model	We will incorporate published and our prior information describing vegetative, hydrologic, aquatic pollutant, non-native predator, and disease associations of leopard frogs during breeding, summer, and winter seasons into a two-tiered model. Tier 1 will focus on “course filter” habitat described in the Northwest Power Planning Council Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Plan (2000). In this tier, vegetative and hydrologic features will be defined using National Wetland Inventory wetland vegetative types (Cowardin et al. 1979), and will be further informed using data from NLCD (NLCD 1995) and other relevant digital data sources. Tier 2 will focus on within-site habitat and environmental features, and will define necessary ranges of values for all wetland habitat attributes required by leopard frogs during an annual cycle. Attributes will be defined using published literature, WDFW baseline research at Crab Creek, and information from ongoing work in neighboring states and provinces.	Intermountain	Objective 1b, strategy a; Objective 2a5, strategies a and c; Objective 2b2, strategy b
Examine chytrid fungus in leopard frog population	Evaluate the impact of chytrid fungus infection on extant leopard frog populations, sympatrically occurring amphibians and sport fish, and screen for its presence at potential translocation sites. The information will be used to conduct a risk assessment of the potential contribution of chytrid infection on leopard frog persistence with respect to the proposed management activities. We will use molecular techniques (Annis et al. 2004) to screen for the presence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis at the two existing leopard frog populations seasonally. We will also test whether sympatrically occurring amphibians are carriers or reservoirs of chytrid fungus at both extant and candidate leopard frog translocation sites.	Intermountain	Objective 2a5, strategies a & c
Stabilize existing leopard frog populations	Rehabilitate site conditions and evaluate leopard frog population response. We are currently developing quantitative descriptions of vegetative, hydrologic, and vertebrate conditions at existing leopard frog sites. Vegetation metrics are percent cover type, using growth form classes that are subsets of National Wetland INventory classes; hydrologic measures include water depth, temperature, pH, and connectivity to fish bearing waters; leopard frog metrics are an index of breeding chorus activity at each of over 200 survey stations and number observed during post-breeding surveys; fish metrics are number and weight of fish sampled per unit of sampling effort; bullfrog metrics are the same as for leopard frogs. All metrics will be fully evaluated for 3 years pre and 3 years post rehabilitation treatments.	Crab	Crab Creek Plan Wildlife Management Goal 2: "Monitor periodic changes in habitat distributions",and Goal 3: "Inventory all wetlands". Pend Oreille plan Objective 2A5 strategies a, b, c

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element name	Work element title	Description	Start date	End date	Est budget
Remove or Relocate Predaceous Animals	Rehabilitate site conditions	In cooperation with WDFW Region 2 fish program, we will use rotenone, gill and other nets, electro-shocking, and hunting to remove fish and to reduce bullfrogs at treatment ponds. Follow-up applications will be conducted, as necessary in years 2 and 3.	9/1/2007	7/31/2009	$48,597
Biological objectives Stabilize existing leopard frog populations			Metrics
Remove or Relocate Predaceous Animals	Rehabilitate site conditions	In year 1, initial fish and bullfrog abundance and diversity will be estimated in cooperation with Region 2 fish biologists, and using standard techniques and protocols (e.g. Heyer et al. 1994; Kendell 2003). Fish data will be biomass in species and size classes, while bullfrog data will be tallies of individuals in sex and size classes. Fish and bullfrog abundance in each pond will be re-estimated in years 2 and 3.	4/1/2007	8/31/2009	$69,425
Biological objectives Stabilize existing leopard frog populations			Metrics
Manage and Administer Projects	Rehabilitate site conditions and evaluate leopard frog population response	Project design, implementation, coordination, administration.	10/31/2006	9/1/2009	$30,831
Biological objectives Stabilize existing leopard frog populations			Metrics
Produce Inventory or Assessment	Identify suitable wetlands in Crab Creek and Pend O’reille subbasins.	Apply the model in target sub-basins to determine amount and potential suitability of riparian and herbaceous wetlands for leopard frogs. We will use the model to identify all areas meeting criteria defined for suitability at the broad (Tier 1), scale. Broad scale habitat assessment will be performed remotely in Arc/GIS, by a WDFW ITAS specialist, using Qualitative Habitat Analysis (Crab Creek Subbasin plan 2004), National Land Cover (USGS 1995), National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 1979), and Shrubsteppe Thematic Map (Jacobson and Snyder 2000) data. This model tier will be used to identify all wetland areas exceeding a minimum threshold size (to be determined) in target drainages. Following identification and ranking of wetland sites at the broad scale, a minimum of the 10 “best” sites in each subbasin will be evaluated further using Tier 2 (on-site) evaluation criteria during breeding, summer, and winter seasons. Micro-site characteristics will be evaluated by trained WDFW District and Field Biologists using standard wetland measurement techniques and equipment.	4/1/2008	8/1/2009	$61,688
Biological objectives Apply model to evaluate wetland suitability			Metrics
Produce Plan	Define attributes of suitable leopard frog habitat.	We will incorporate published and WDFW-derived information describing vegetative, hydrologic, aquatic contaminant, non-native predator, and disease associations of leopard frogs during breeding, summer, and winter seasons into a two-tiered model. Tier 1 will focus on the “course filter” habitat scale described in the Northwest Power Planning Council Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Plan (2000). In this tier, vegetative and hydrologic features will be defined using National Wetland Inventory wetland vegetative types described by Cowardin et al. (1979), and will be further informed using data from NLCD (NLCD 1995) and other relevant digital sources utilized in development of the Planning Council Plan. Tier 2 will address local or micro-site features, and will quantitatively define wetland habitat attributes required by leopard frogs during an annual cycle. Attributes will be defined using published literature, WDFW baseline research from Crab Creek, and information from ongoing work, shared among neighboring states and provinces.	12/1/2007	10/1/2008	$57,385
Biological objectives Develop leopard frog habitat suitability model			Metrics
Analyze/Interpret Data	Rehabilitate site conditions and evaluate leopard frog population response	Data entry, cleaning, analysis, interpretation, reporting, and dissemination.	8/1/2007	9/1/2009	$118,903
Biological objectives Stabilize existing leopard frog populations			Metrics Secondary R, M, and E Type: number of reports
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data	Evaluate effects of chytrid fungus leopard frogs.	Evaluate the impact of chytrid fungus infection on extant leopard frog populations. Specimen samples (skin swab or tissue sample) will be collected during field surveys at each extant population site. Surveys will be repeated over multiple seasons. Chytrid fungus outbreaks that could dramatically reduce the effective population size have been suggested to interact seasonally with colder temperatures (Berger et al. 2004). Knowledge of when outbreaks are most likely to occur needs to be assessed to inform optimum times for management activities (e.g., translocation). We will use molecular laboratory techniques (Annis et al. 2004) to screen for the presence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Infection and mortality rates in different age classes will be determined and incorporated into population viability models. Seasonal occurrence and infection rate will be correlated with habitat and vertebrate assemblage parameters to assess synergistic effects that may decrease leopard frog persistence.	3/15/2008	8/31/2009	$18,645
Biological objectives Examine chytrid fungus in leopard frog population			Metrics Secondary R, M, and E Type: percent occurrence
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data	evaluate leopard frog population response	We will quantify leopard frog populations during at least 3 of the 5 years prior to, and 3 years following initial treatments. Leopard frog data will be generated using repeated call chorus surveys during breeding season, dip net/minnow trap tadpole surveys prior to metamorphosis in July, and visual encounter and funnel trap counts immediately post-metamorphosis (Heyer et al. 1994; Kendell 2003). Replication will be adjusted if necessary to reach a level affording sufficient analytical power to detect biologically meaningful responses (e.g. 20% change; Block et al. 2001; Morrison et al. 2001).	4/1/2007	8/31/2009	$48,597
Biological objectives Stabilize existing leopard frog populations			Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: abundance
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data	Evaluate the model’s ability to correctly classify suitable sites.	We will apply the model at the two occupied Crab Creek sites and in neighboring states and provinces. Each site occupied by leopard frogs will be screened using model metrics and classified as suitable or not. Percent model accuracy will equal the number of correctly classified sites. The model will be revised and re-applied in an iterative manner until =95% classification success for site suitability is attained. In addition, we will compare the number of wetland sites classified as suitable for leopard frogs based on Tier 1 with the proportion classified as suitable when screened using Tier 2 metrics.	9/1/2007	9/1/2008	$51,495
Biological objectives Develop leopard frog habitat suitability model			Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data	Evaluate the prevalence of chytrid fungus infection on sympatrically occurring amphibians and sport fish.	Same as methods for evaluating chytrids effects on extant leopard frog population, described above, but target species will be bullfrogs, all fish species present, and all other native amphibian species present. Population viability models will not be developed.	3/15/2008	8/31/2009	$15,273
Biological objectives Examine chytrid fungus in leopard frog population			Metrics Secondary R, M, and E Type: percent occurrence Secondary R, M, and E Type: presence
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data	Screen for chytrid fungus at potential translocation sites.	Sympatrically occurring vertebrates will be screened for the presence of pathogenic chytrids at potentially suitable wetland sites in both target sub-basins. Screening methods will be the same as described for extant leopard frog populations, above. Target sample will be bullfrogs, sympatrically occurring fish species, and sympatrically occurring native amphibians (R. catsbiena, R. luteiventris, H. regilla, A. macrodatylum, A. tigrinum). Population viability models will not be developed. Collectively, this information will be used to conduct a risk assessment of the potential contribution of chytrid infection on leopard frog persistence with respect to the proposed management activities. The probability of inter-species disease transfer will be evaluated based upon candidate site vertebrate composition and prevalence of chytrids fungus.	10/1/2008	8/31/2009	$32,630
Biological objectives Examine chytrid fungus in leopard frog population			Metrics Secondary R, M, and E Type: presence, percent occurrence

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Item	Note	FY07	FY08	FY09
Fringe Benefits	[blank]	$18,845	$21,233	$22,603
Supplies	[blank]	$26,050	$18,980	$18,380
Travel	[blank]	$1,500	$2,500	$2,500
Personnel	[blank]	$75,066	$81,359	$86,675
Overhead	[blank]	$40,290	$44,003	$45,486
Other	professional outside svcs	$18,000	$15,000	$15,000
Totals		$179,751	$183,075	$190,644

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Total itemized budget:	$553,470
Total work element budget:	$553,470

Cost sharing

Funding source/org	Item or service provided	FY 07 est value ($)	FY 08 est value ($)	FY 09 est value ($)	Cash or in-kind?	Status
Totals		$0	$0	$0

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $125,000
FY 2011 estimated budget: $125,000

Comments: leopard frog translocations planned for these years

Future O&M costs:

Termination date: 2015
Comments: Post-translocation monitoring will continue at target sites for 5 years post-release, then will occur ever 3 - 5 years afterwards.

Final deliverables: 1) Arc/GIS basemap and tabular data describing vegetative, hydrologic, and physical attributes of occupied and unoccupied ponds for periods covering breeding, post-breeding summer, fall migration, and winter seasons. 2) Datafile (in Excel or Access format) of detailed wetland site information in studied segments of the Crab Creek and Pend O’reille sub basins. Information will include location and extent of each National Wetlands Inventory-defined wetland habitat type present, and a ranking of wetlands by potential suitability as leopard frog habitat. 3) Leopard frog habitat suitability model, including evaluation of ability of Quality Habitat Assessment model (Tier 1 of the leopard frog model) to accurately identify suitable leopard frog habitat. 4) Journal manuscript describing leopard frog response to habitat rehabilitation efforts. 5) Journal manuscript describing infection rate of chytrid in leopard frogs and its impact on population viability. 6) Journal manuscript describing the screening, incidence and cross-species transfer of chytrid in response to management and rehabilitation efforts. 7) Journal manuscript correlating chytrid occurance with respect to habitat parameters and their relevance for reintroduction efforts. 8) Presentations at regional, national and international scientific meetings discussing the use of habitat suitability models as related to the epidemiology of chytrid in assessing leopard frog rehabilitation and population viability.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

FY07 budget	FY08 budget	FY09 budget	Total budget	Type	Category	Recommendation
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0	$0	$0	$0	Expense	ProvinceExpense	Do Not Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0	$0	$0	$0		ProvinceExpense
Comments: No subbasin plan

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: The proposal clearly explains the problem of declining leopard frog populations in Washington State. Background information is provided to justify improving environmental conditions and evaluating disease in two leopard frog populations. The proposed techniques for disease assessment appear to be the best available. The proposal is clearly written with well-defined objectives and work elements. The relationship to the subbasin plan is clearly stated and collaborative efforts with other projects are noted. Measurable benefit to leopard frogs is not explicitly identified nor is the likelihood of long-term success discussed. Long-term benefits will persist only if continued monitoring and management is conducted and if the limitations that are identified are truly the limiting factors and they can be reduced by the actions proposed. The proposal would be stronger if it identified how visual surveys for leopard frogs will be deployed (i.e., how much effort will this require). Some benefit to other species is mentioned but a complete discussion of the impact on non-focal species would be beneficial. Plans for information transfer that emphasize publication of results and providing the habitat suitability model on WDFW website are good. Successes and lessons learned concerning habitat restoration should be made available to others in the region involved in similar efforts.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable