FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25042

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

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. The general quality of the proposal is good.

1. Washington ESU: The response should provide data that shows this is a distinct ESU of pygmy rabbits. "Unpublished data" that are not presented, evaluated, or analyzed in the proposal, are the only basis for the claim that saving this population really warrants a crisis effort. Show us the data that this is a genetically distinct population. The proposal ignores work that has been done outside of the state of Washington. What is the difference in the Idaho and Washington population?
2. Details of the Breeding Program: If the Washington population of pygmy rabbits is a unique ESU then efforts at recovery may be necessary. The breeding program should begin with the local population even though it will be a small founder population. In the end they may need to outbreed the population but should still start with the local stock and use a full genetic pedigree to monitor the genetic relatedness of the captive brood stock.
3. Habitat Limiting Factors: The response should describe the limiting factors in the habitat. If the root causes of decline are not addressed, a captive breeding program is not justified. Captive breeding may be a misplaced effort, since the ongoing decline of the remnant population in WA, and the evident ineffectiveness of the habitat work, leads reviewers to suspect that the proposers have not yet correctly identified the actual critical habitat, and this should be the highest priority. To put the matter in perspective, it would be good if the proposers could document that there is a real commitment of significant resources to habitat acquisition, protection and restoration, and to research to figure out why this WA population is doing so poorly compared to the ID population. That is, a captive breeding focus could divert resources away from other efforts that logically should be as high or higher priority for this population; the investment in captive breeding could become disproportionate.
4. Release Sites: Where are the experimental release research sites from the Oregon Zoo breeding program? Are they isolated? Multiple release sites should also be used to reduce the risk due to disease or random events. The proposal did not include a specification of where the release site will be, relative to the present or historic range of this ESU. Proposers should be sure that it is hundreds of miles distant, and isolated by significant barriers, because this is an out of basin transfer, contamination of the potential WA ESU with ID genetics would undermine the whole premise of the project.
5. Parallel Breeding Facilities: The proposal outlines procedures to safely capture, maintain, and breed rabbits. Plans for a parallel breeding facility at another location should be implemented as insurance against catastrophic loss at the WSU location. There is some bad experience with disease in captive breeding programs, that must not be repeated here.
6. Predator avoidance training and monitoring after release are important components of the project. However, the use of above ground fences to contain an animal that is itself an active burrower and has burrowing predators does not seem appropriate.
7. Experienced Investigator: The use of a doctoral student to conduct this work adds risk to the population. These animals and this program have sufficient risk without introducing an unknown student. A Post-doctoral fellow may be acceptable but the ISRP would strongly recommend an experienced investigator.

Comment:

Comment:

Overall prospects for success of the recovery effort are still in doubt, because, they do not appear to have a handle on the root cause for the continuing decline or the characteristics of needed habitat. The response acknowledges that the limiting factors are unknown. If the root causes of decline are not addressed, a captive breeding program may be a misplaced effort. The ongoing decline of the remnant population in WA, and the evident ineffectiveness of the habitat work, leads reviewers to suspect that the actual critical habitat has not been identified, and this should be the highest priority. To put the matter in perspective, it would be good if the proposers could document that there is a real commitment of significant resources to habitat acquisition, protection and restoration, and to research to figure out why this WA population is doing so poorly compared to the ID population. The ongoing habitat purchases or protection projects seem largely to just be riding the coattails of bird recovery programs with better understood habitat requirements. A captive breeding focus could divert resources away from other efforts that logically should be as high or higher priority for this population; the investment in captive breeding could become disproportionate.

Comment:

Comments

Already ESA Req? N/A

Biop? no

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: