FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25042
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
Title | Type |
---|---|
Genetic Diversity and Population Differentiation of Pygmy Rabbits (<I>Brachylagus idahoensis</I>) | Response Attachment |
25042 Revised Proposal Budget | Response Attachment |
25042 Revised Proposal Narrative | Response Attachment |
25042 Narrative | Narrative |
25042 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
25042 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Columbia Cascade: Columbia Upper Middle Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Columbia Cascade: Columbia Upper Middle Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Letter from B. Tweit (WDFW) to J. Eckman (CBFWA) RE: Within-year modification request for projects 200105300 and 25042 | Correspondence |
Letter from J. Koenings (WDFW) to F. Cassidy (NPCC) RE: Letter of support for projects 25020, 25064, 25042 and 25012 | Correspondence |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | pygmy rabbit recovery - captive breeding |
Proposal ID | 25042 |
Organization | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | David Hays |
Mailing address | WDFW-Wildlife Management, 600 Capitol Way N. Olympia, WA 98501-1091 |
Phone / email | 3609022366 / haysdwh@dfw.wa.gov |
Manager authorizing this project | David Brittell |
Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Crab Creek |
Short description | The project involves captive husbandry and captive breeding of wild-caught Washington pygmy rabbits, as well as augmentation of wild populations in the Crab Creek Subbasin with captive reared rabbits. |
Target species | pygmy rabbit |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
47.45 | -119.7 | Point centered on Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Area, principal augmentation area. |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
This is a new project |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
1194044 | Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Area (Douglas County Pygmy Rabbit Project) | Supports management of Sagebrush Flat and continued existence of pygmy rabbits at Sagebrush Flat |
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 |
---|---|---|---|
2. | $0 |
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. Raise 8-12 pygmy rabbits in captivity to successfully breed, rear 50-100 young annually | a. Construct captive breeding facility | 1 | $26,770 | Yes |
b. Capture wild rabbits and rear in captivity | 3 | $69,049 | Yes | |
2. Translocate young rabbits, release, and monitor their success in the wild. | a. Hire temporary biologist for release and monitoring b. Purchase and set up electric predator control fence. c. Control predators inside release area d. Construct temporary burrows e. Purchase and attach radio-transmitters f. Monitor daily movements | 3 | $125,095 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Raise 8-12 pygmy rabbits in captivity to successfully breed, rear 50-100 young annually | 2003 | 2004 | $134,244 |
2. Translocate young rabbits, release and monitor their success in the wild. | 2003 | 2004 | $105,961 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
---|---|
$120,102 | $120,102 |
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 | $50,294 | |
Fringe | $11,884 | |
Supplies | $27,216 | |
Travel | $13,065 | |
Indirect | $44,465 | |
Subcontractor | Subcontractors WSU, Fencing Contractor | $73,990 |
$220,914 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost | $220,914 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2002 budget request | $220,914 |
FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
WDFW | Project Mgmt share | $8,000 | in-kind |
WSU | Project Mgmt share | $9,000 | in-kind |
WDFW/Oregon Zoo | Project Assistance - Field Staff | $17,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. The general quality of the proposal is good.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
This project relies on habitat improvements to sustain any gains in population abundance.Comment:
Fundable. The response satisfactorily documented that the Washington population is an ESU, that the experimental animals of Idaho origin cannot stray into the Washington population, and that there will be adequate supervision of students. The status of the Washington population does appear critical, justifying research into captive breeding.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:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUN/A
Comments
Already ESA Req? N/A
Biop? no
Comment:
Comment:
Comment: