FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25042

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titlepygmy rabbit recovery - captive breeding
Proposal ID25042
OrganizationWashington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDavid Hays
Mailing addressWDFW-Wildlife Management, 600 Capitol Way N. Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phone / email3609022366 / haysdwh@dfw.wa.gov
Manager authorizing this projectDavid Brittell
Review cycleColumbia Plateau
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Crab Creek
Short descriptionThe 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 speciespygmy rabbit
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
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 agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
This is a new project

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
2. $0
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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 2003FY 2004
$120,102$120,102

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 $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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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.

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Jun 15, 2001

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.

Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

This project relies on habitat improvements to sustain any gains in population abundance.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 10, 2001

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.


Recommendation:
Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
N/A

Comments

Already ESA Req? N/A

Biop? no


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment:


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment: