MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
FISH & WILDLIFE BRANCH
ANIMAL CARE APPLICATION FORM
For office use:
Date received
1.
Project Title: Great Basin Spadefoot Ecology
2.
Starting Date: ___May 2009_______
3.
Principal Investigator:
Name: ___Jocelyn Garner_______________________
Position: __Master’s student______________________
Department/Organization: __Natural Resource Sciences_
Region/Institution: _Thompson Rivers University______
Project number
Completion Date: ___August 2011___
Mailing Address: PO Box 31___________
_Lac La Hache, BC_____
_V0K 1T0____________
_____________________
Phone: __403-431-3693____________________
Fax: ________________________
Email: jocelyn_garner@hotmail.com
Experience related to the described proposal:
I have participated in amphibian auditory surveys in the proposed study area. I have captured and handled
amphibians previously while acting as a volunteer site monitor for a RANA (Researching Amphibian
umbers in Alberta) project in Canmore, AB. Similar methods as the proposed ones for this project were
used during the RANA project.
4.
Additional Investigators:
Name: ___Roger Packham________________________
Mailing Address: __Box 1600___________
Position: ____Senior Ecosystems Biologist_______________
__100 Mile House, BC___
Department/Organization: _Ministry of Environment____
__V0K 2E0___________
Region/Institution: ______Cariboo_____________________
_____________________
Phone: _250-395-7853__________
Fax: ___250-395-7883__________
Email: _roger.packham@gov.bc.ca
Experience related to the described proposal:
Roger has conducted amphibian auditory surveys at various ponds in the South Cariboo region from 2006present. This information forms the basis of my study, as the presence of Great Basin Spadefoots was not
known prior to 2006.
Name: ___Jonquil Crosby_________________________
Mailing Address: __Box 1600___________
Position: ___Field Assistant_________________________
__100 Mile House_____
Department/Organization: __BC Conservation Corps_____
___V0K 2E0__________
Region/Institution: ____BC Conservation Foundation_____
_____________________
Phone: __250-945-9229_________
Fax: ________________________
Email: __jonquilc@uvic.ca_______
1
Experience related to the described proposal: Jonquil has conducted amphibian auditory surveys in the
proposed study area.
Other personnel working with protocol: (include experience)
Michael Packham (BC Conservation Corps Field Assistant)- Michael has conducted numerous amphibian
auditory surveys in the proposed study area.
Francis Iredale (Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Biologist)- Francis has conducted spadefoot auditory
surveys and mapped habitat areas in the Thompson Region.
5.
Project Proposal (be concise and write in lay language. Attach other written proposals
applying to this project, if available)
A. Background – Goals and Objectives:
The Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana) is listed as threatened by COSEWIC and is Blue-listed in
British Columbia. It is typically associated with dry arid grasslands of the south-central valleys, ranging
from the Canada-US border up through the interior of BC. In the last few years, auditory surveys have
confirmed 90+ spadefoots ponds in the South Cariboo region, which is the northern extent of their range.
Aside from their presence during the breeding season there is little to no knowledge of the ecology of
spadefoots in this area. The main objectives of this project are:
1. To collect information from the ponds in order to characterize those that support successful
breeding, tadpole development and dispersal.
2. To determine upland (=away from water) habitat use by tracking the movements of adults leaving
the breeding ponds using radio-telemetry.
3. To collect DNA samples from tadpoles that will be used in a province-wide study to determine
connectivity between populations.
B. Key Expected Results and Management Implications:
Identifying the key characteristics of successful breeding ponds will enable us to identify and protect
known and potential spadefoot ponds within their species range in BC. The information obtained from
DNA analysis will determine the extent of connectivity between the northern populations and those found
further south. Preliminary work has shown that connectivity is limited, however, this study will close the
gaps by obtaining DNA from areas not previously sampled.
The telemetry portion of this study will provide information on the type of habitat used by spadefoots
(away from breeding bonds) for foraging, aestivating, hibernating, etc. and will determine if spadefoots are
moving between ponds. Almost all information on habitat use for this species is from populations much
further south (in the US) that are exposed to a dramatically different climate and habitat type. Therefore,
the timelines, habitat conditions and climatic conditions stated in the literature for various life stages and
activities (breeding, development, hibernation, etc) are not applicable to these northern populations.
Results from this study will be used in developing local and regional management plans and policy for this
species. The majority (over 90%) of our study area is comprised of contiguous Crown land; therefore
government can have a huge influence on management and conservation efforts. Wildlife Habitat Areas
(WHAs) will be proposed for those areas found to contain active spadefoot populations. It is important to
determine the range of these animals in order to propose an appropriately sized area for the WHA.
In addition to my partnership with the Ministry of Environment, I will be partnering with the Grassland
Conservation Council (GCC) of BC. The GCC is working on a Priority Grasslands Initiative project that
identifies the highest priority grasslands in BC and provides a scientific basis for planning and decisionmaking in such areas. A major factor for determining a high priority area is the presence, distribution, and
abundance of species at risk habitat. The data on spadefoot wetland and upland habitat area gathered during
this study will refine the GCC’s Spadefoot Habitat Prediction Model. The information contained in this
2
model will be used as support of the Ministry of Environment inventory surveys, as input into the Priority
Grasslands Analysis for the Cariboo region and for urban planning around sensitive habitat in the context
of the GCC’s Ecological Assessment Methodology. Habitat conditions and water quality data will be used
in the GCC’s management recommendations to partners such as the Ministry of Forests and Range and the
ranching industry.
6.
CCAC Invasiveness Category: (see Appendix A)
A___ B___ C__
D___
7.
Species and Number of Animals Required: (include justification of numbers predicted to be
used)
Species: __Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana________________________________________
Number expected for 2009 to 2011: __Approximately 60 adults and 300 tadpoles_______________
Justification for numbers: ________________________________________________________________
Telemetry= approximately 60. 10-20 individuals from 3 ponds will be captured and fitted with transmitters.
DNA Sampling= approximately 300. Samples will be collected from 30 ponds, with 10 samples from each
pond. This is part of a province-wide study to determine connectivity between spadefoot populations.
Samples will also be collected from the Thompson and Okanagan Regions.
8.
Details of Capture, Handling and Surgical Procedures and Final Disposition:
(be detailed and SPECIFIC, attach additional pages, if necessary)
Please refer to Appendix B – CCAC guidelines on: the care and use of wildlife (2003) for
techniques considered appropriate and other guidelines for handling and care.
Capture Technique: (if technique has been used before on this or other species, please reference to journal
or researcher who has previously used the technique). If traps are to be used please specify the type of traps
that will be used, how long the traps are to be set for, modifications made for the target species and the
interval they will be checked.
Various methods of capture may be used. The first option is to capture individuals by hand. If this proves
unsuccessful we will use drift fencing with pitfall traps or floating-funnel traps.
Drift fencing will be constructed using standard procedures (Heyer et al., 1994). Wooden 2x2” stakes will
support hardware cloth fencing that stands approx. 30cm above ground and is buried 5cm into the soil.
Pitfall traps will be installed at the ends of the fencing, and at regular intervals along the fence if longer
than 5m. Pitfall traps will consist of a plastic container (5-10L) sunk into the ground such that the top is
flush with the soil. Moss and/or a damp sponge will be placed into traps to provide moisture and cover. A
stick that extends up to ground level will also be placed in the traps to allow escape for any small mammals
captured. Wooden cover boards raised off the ground will be placed over the traps for cover from rainfall
and sun. The traps will be checked at least every 36-48 hours, more often if the weather is warm and dry.
All fences will be removed once metamorph dispersal from ponds has ceased (as indicated by the absence
of tadpoles from ponds) and/or adults have moved to upland areas (when no animals have been caught in
the traps for 7 consecutive days).
The construction of our floating-funnel traps will be similar to a common minnow trap (a container that is
closed at one end with an inward funnel shaped opening at the other end, or with funnel openings at both
ends) with the addition of a small floating platform inside the trap to provide a raft. These will be supported
by floating 2x4” wood pieces. Animals swimming on the water surface will be directed into the traps by
3
mesh stapled onto the floating wood pieces that extends about 10cm above and below the water surface.
The traps will be checked at least every 36-48 hours.
Tadpoles will be captured using the above mentioned floating-funnel traps or dip nets. We will periodically
sweep the shoreline waters with the dip net and transfer captured individuals to a holding bucket filled with
pond water. We will quickly identify the tadpole’s stage of development using a simplified Gosner
development index (Gosner, 1960) and collect DNA samples before returning them to the pond.
Reference: Gosner, KL. 1960. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on
identification. Herpetologica 16:183-19.
Heyer, R. et al. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians.
Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington.
Method of Handling: All animals will be captured carefully and will be handled for the shortest amount of
time needed to obtain the necessary information (i.e. transmitter fitting, DNA collection etc.). If an animal
begins to dry out, water will be poured over it while held in cupped hands or in a bucket. Those individuals
that are held captive (injured etc.) will be placed into conditions that are as similar to their natural habitat as
possible. The Standard Operating Procedure: Hygiene Protocols for Amphibian Research will be followed
to reduce the risk of transferring fungus, bacteria, or other diseases between ponds.
Other Procedures: (Marking method, Sampling)
Biometric Data Collection: Individuals captured in the above mentioned traps will be weighed using a
Pesola spring scale, measured using a clear plastic ruler and photographed. Metamorphs (juveniles) will be
released on the other side of the fence after data is recorded.
Radio-telemetry: The transmitters will be attached using a belt design. Preliminary studies of various
belting techniques and materials (plastic tubing, silk, Steri-wrap®) on captive spadefoots have been
conducted at Thompson Rivers University. From this work, we have determined that Steri-wrap® provides
the best results (no abrasions present after two months of lab trials) and we will be using this material and
technique in the field. The belt will be secured around the animal’s waist such that the transmitter sits on
top of the pelvis. Adults will be fitted with the transmitter and belt in a quick and efficient manner and
released at the site of capture. These animals will be located daily and visual contact will be made
providing that no unnecessary disturbance is caused to the animal. The animal will be briefly captured once
every week to inspect for injuries and to be weighed. After approximately 3 weeks with the transmitter the
animal will be captured for inspection and will be refitted with a new transmitter (battery life is
approximately 3 weeks). Animals with skin abrasions or that have lost a more than 15% of body mass will
not be refitted with transmitters. We have chosen 15% as our cut-off point as fluctuations of up to 10%
body mass are not uncommon, even in healthy lab animals not fitted with transmitters.
DNA Collection: Tadpoles collected by dipnet procedures or floating-funnel traps will be used for DNA
samples. The distal end of the tadpole tail will be collected and placed in sample tubes containing storage
buffer. Samples will be sample taken using a sterilized scalpel or scissors (procedure obtained from M.
Russello, UBCO). After sample is taken tadpoles will be released at the site of capture.
Chemical Restraint, Analgesics or other Pharmaceutical Agents used: (doses and volumes planned)
Contingency Plan: (what training, preparations and equipment are available in event of animal injury
during capture or handling)
In the event of skin abrasion/wounds due to the transmitter belt, the belt will be removed and the abrasion
will be treated with an antiseptic cream (e.g. polysporin). If the wound is open than the individual will be
monitored until healing is evident. If recovery is unlikely (no signs of healing after 2 days) the animal will
be euthanized.
4
Animals displaying abnormal behaviour (inability or reluctance to move, and/or the inability to flip after
being placed on the back) will be monitored in captivity. If no signs of healing and/or recovery are apparent
after 2 hours the animal will be euthanized.
Method of Euthanasia and Disposal Technique: (if necessary):
Animals unlikely to recover from injuries will be euthanized using a crushing blow to the head from the
blunt end of a small hatchet.
9.
Details of Potentially Controversial Procedures and Justification:
(Include any expected morbidity and methods used to avoid)
Previous studies using similar transmitter-belt designs have resulted in animals with abrasions or wounds at
the site of belt attachment. To avoid this, lab studies were conducted at Thompson Rivers University to
determine the best belt material. We will be using Steri-wrap® to construct our transmitter belts, as this
material caused no abrasions during the two month lab study.
10.
Budget:
Funding sources applied for: _NSERC Industrial Postgraduate Scholarship- $21,000/yr for 2 yrs___
Are these peer reviewed? Yes ___ No ___
Status: Approved ___ Pending ___
HCTF-$20,000
Status: Approved ___ Pending ___
MOE Conservation Framework Funding-$5100
Status: Approved ___ Pending ___
MOE $5000
Status: Approved ___ Pending ___
11.
Region:
Identify the study area(s) in general and specific terms: (e.g. Region #, land status)
The study area is located near 70 Mile House in the Cariboo Region (Region 5) of BC.
12.
Permit:
Is a permit required? Yes ___ No ___ Status: Approved ___ Pending ___
Please attach any permit documents to application.
__________________________________________
___________________
5
Principal Investigator’s Signature
Date
Appendix A:
Canadian Council on Animal Care: Categories of Invasiveness for Wildlife Studies
A. Methods used on most invertebrates or on live isolates
Possible examples: the use of tissue culture and tissues obtained at necropsy; the use of
eggs, protozoa or other single-celled organisms; experiments involving containment,
incision or other invasive procedures on metazoa.
B. Methods used which cause little or no discomfort or stress
Possible examples: observational studies in which the same individuals are not repeatedly
observed so as to habituate or otherwise modify their behavior; census or other surveys
which do not involve capture or marking individuals; non-invasive studies on animals
that have been habituated to captivity; short periods of food and/or water deprivation
equivalent to periods of abstinence in nature.
C. Methods which cause minor stress or pain of short duration
Possible examples: capture, using methods with little or no potential to cause injury and
marking of animals for immediate release; long-term observational studies on freeranging animals where the behaviour of individuals may be altered by repeated contact;
brief restraint for blood or tissue sampling; short periods of restraint beyond that for
simple observation or examination, but consistent with minimal distress; short periods of
food and/or water deprivation which exceed periods of abstinence in nature; exposure to
non-lethal levels of drugs or chemicals; low velocity darting and slow-injection darts with
immobilization chemicals. Such procedures should not cause significant changes in the
animal's appearance, in physiological parameters such as respiratory or cardiac rate, or
fecal or urinary output, in social responses or in ability to survive.
Note: During or after Category C studies, animals must not show self-mutilation,
anorexia, dehydration, hyperactivity, increased recumbency or dormancy, increased
vocalization, aggressive-defensive behavior or demonstrate social withdrawal and selfisolation.
D. Methods which cause moderate to severe distress or discomfort
Possible examples: capture, using methods that have the potential to cause injury (e.g.
Leg snares, leghold traps, high velocity darting and rapid-injection darts with
immobilization chemicals, net gunning, etc.); maintenance of wild caught animals in
captivity; translocation of wildlife to new habitats; major surgical procedures conducted
under general anesthesia, with subsequent recovery; prolonged (several hours or more)
periods of physical restraint; induction of behavioral stresses such as maternal
deprivation, aggression, predator-prey interactions; procedures which cause severe,
persistent or irreversible disruption of sensorimotor organization.
6
Other examples in captive animals include induction of anatomical and physiological
abnormalities that will result in pain or distress; the exposure of an animal to noxious
stimuli from which escape is impossible; the production of radiation sickness; exposure
to drugs or chemicals at levels that impair physiological systems. (NB. Experiments
described in this paragraph would be Category E if performed on wildlife immediately
prior to release.)
Note: Procedures used in Category D studies should not cause prolonged or severe
clinical distress as may be exhibited by a wide range of clinical signs, such as marked
abnormalities in behavioral patterns or attitudes, the absence of grooming, dehydration,
abnormal vocalization, prolonged anorexia, circulatory collapse, extreme lethargy or
disinclination to move, and clinical signs of severe or advanced local or systemic
infection, etc.
E. Procedures which cause severe pain near, at, or above the pain tolerance threshold of
unanesthetized conscious animals
This Category of Invasiveness is not necessarily confined to surgical procedures, but may
include exposure to noxious stimuli or agents whose effects are unknown; exposure to
drugs or chemicals at levels that (may) markedly impair physiological systems and which
cause death, severe pain, or extreme distress; behavioral studies about which the effects
of the degree of distress are not known; environmental deprivation that has the potential
to seriously jeopardize an animal’s wellbeing; use of muscle relaxants or paralytic drugs
without anesthetics; burn or trauma infliction on unanesthetized animals; a euthanasia
method not approved by the CCAC; any procedures (e.g., the injection of noxious agents
or the induction of severe stress or shock) that will result in pain which approaches the
pain tolerance threshold and cannot be relieved by analgesia (e.g., removal of teeth
without analgesia, or when toxicity testing and experimentally-induced infectious disease
studies have death as the endpoint), capture methods with a high potential of causing
severe injury that could result in severe chronic pain and/or death.
7
Appendix B:
Canadian Council on Animal Care guidelines on: the care and use of wildlife
(2003)
http://www.ccac.ca/english/gui_pol/GUFRAME.HTM
http://www.ccac.ca/english/gdlines/wildlife/Wildlife.pdf
8