Scope of work -
Wildlife Surveys in Bonanza
The Wildlife
Conservation Group at Oregon Tech are using wildlife
survey to identify wildlife occupancy and distribution
in two regions near Bonanza, OR.
We hypothesize that
the agricultural ground and sage ridges along Langell
valley rd. and Tear rd., bonanza act as island refuge
for mule deer and pronghorn. This may concentrate
wildlife in these areas making them important habitat to
protect for wildlife.
Consequently, we
will compare the agricultural / sage ridges habitat to
flat sage prairie habitat in the adjacent Chainy
allotment region for mule deer and pronghorn occupancy.
We feel comparing the agricultural / sage ridge habitat
to flat undeveloped contiguous sage habitat will be a
good comparison because although they are different
habitat types but are located in close proximity. These
locations also have similar vegetative species and
similar wildlife species.
The goal of the
study is to identify if the agricultural/sage ridge
habitat is especially important for mule deer and
pronghorn, thus should be considered when industrial
development such as solar arrays are proposed.
Methods
For some population
studies, simply determining whether a species is present
in an area is sufficient for conducting the planned data
analysis. It is far easier to determine if there is at
least one individual of the target species on a sampling
unit than it is to count all the individuals.
Determining with confidence that a species is not
present on a sampling unit also requires more intensive
sampling than collecting count or frequency data because
it is so difficult to dismiss the possibility that an
individual eluded detection. The probability of
occurrence can be estimated using approaches such as
those described by MacKenzie and Royale (2005).
MacKenzie (2005) offered an excellent overview for
managers of the trade-off between the number of units
sampled per year and the number of years (or other unit
of time) for which the study is to be conducted. The
variation in the estimated trend in occupancy decreases
as the number of times of data collection increases. A
similar level of precision can be achieved by surveying
more units over fewer years vs. surveying fewer units
over a longer period.
Animals can be
surveyed using direct methods (counting the animals
themselves) or indirect methods (counting signs or
signals, such as dung, tracks, or sounds). We are using
direct counting methods using point counts and camera
trapping to survey occupancy and abundance.
For our camera
trapping methods, we will place 6 cameras in each study
area. We are using basic methods that will allow us to
identify occupancy and basic abundance with the least
number of cameras (Kays et al. 2020). We will place
cameras on trees at about knee height in a funnel area
(high wildlife traffic) that will allow us to have the
best likelihood of capturing pictures of wildlife. We
have not chosen the locations for the cameras in the
Chainy allotment BLM area near Malone reservoir because
we need access to the sites. Once we have access, we
will place cameras and GPS locations. We will then give
a map of the camera locations to BLM Biologist. Cameras
will be checked monthly, replacing SD cards.
Point Count Stations
A total of 8-point count stations were established, 4 in
each of the two areas. The point locations were
established to get the best 360 views of the region. A
full survey will be 4 hours in each region. We change
which sites are surveyed in the morning vs evening
surveys. During these counts we will focus surveys on
large mammals (Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and
Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana)). We will record the
number of individuals, time, and distance from point
count station.
At the end of the
survey, we will create a report on our findings and
recommendations.
Bailey, L.L.,
T.R.Simons, and K.H. Pollock. 2004. Estimating site
occupancy and species detection probability parameters
for terrestrial salamanders. Ecological Applications
14:692–702.
Buckland, S.T., D.R.
Anderson, K P. Burnham, and J.L. Laake. 1993. Distance
Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological
Populations. Chapman and Hall, New York. 446pp.
Davis, D.E. and R.L.
Winstead,. 1980. Estimating the numbers of wildlife
populations. Pages. 221–245.In S.D. Schemnitz, editor,
Wildlife management techniques manual, The Wildlife
Society, Boston.
Forsman,
E.D. 1988. A survey of spotted owls in young forests in
the northern Coast Range of Oregon. Murrelet 69:65-68.
Gese,
E.M., 2001. Monitoring of terrestrial carnivore
populations. Pages 373–396 In: J.L. Gittleman et al.,
editors. Carnivore Conservation. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Girard, I., J.P.
Ouellet, R. Courtois, C. Dussault, and L. Breton. 2002.
Effects of sampling effort based on GPS telemetry on
home-range size estimations. Journal of Wildlife
Management 66:1290–1300.
Huff, M.H., K.A.
Bettinger, H.L. Ferguson, M.J. Brown, and B. Altman.
2000. A habitat-based point-count protocol for
terrestrial birds, emphasizing Washington and Oregon.
United States Forest Service General Technical Report
PNW-GTR-501
Kays,
R., Arbogast, B. S., Baker‐Whatton, M., Beirne, C.,
Boone, H. M., Bowler, M., ... &Spironello, W. R. (2020).
An empirical evaluation of camera trap study design: How
many, how long and when?. Methods in Ecology and
Evolution, 11(6), 700-713.
MacKenzie,
D.I. 2005. Was it there? Dealing with imperfect
detection for species presence/absence data. Australia
and New Zealand Journal of Statistics 47:65–74.
MacKenzie,
D.I., J.D. Nichols, J.E. Hines, M.G. Knutson, and A.D.
Franklin. 2003. Estimating site occupancy, colonization
and local extinction probabilities when a species is not
detected with certainty. Ecology 84:2200–2207.
MacKenzie,
D.I., and J.A. Royle. 2005. Designing efficient
occupancy studies: general advice and tips on allocation
of survey effort. Journal of Applied Ecology
42:1105–1114.
Moruzzi,T.L.,
T.K. Fuller, R.M. DeGraaf, R.T. Brooks,and W.J. Li.
2002. Assessing remotely triggered cameras for surveying
carnivore distribution. Wildlife Society Bulletin
30:380-386
Nichols, J.D., J.E.
Hines, J.R. Sauer, F.W. Fallon, J E. Fallon, and P.J.
Heglund. 2000. A double observer approach for estimating
detection probability and abundance from point counts.
Auk 117:393–408.
Ralph, C.J., S.
Droege, and J.R. Sauer. 1995. Managing and monitoring
birds using point counts: Standards and applications.
Pages 161–168 in C. J. Ralph, J. R. Sauer, and S. Droege,
Editors. Monitoring Bird Populations by Point
Counts.USDA Forest Service General Technical Report
PSW-GTR-149.
Ralph, C.J., G.R.
Geupel, P. Pyle, T.E. Martin, and D.F. DeSante. 1993.
Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds.
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report
PSW-GTR-144. 41pp.
To
help pay for these surveys we are asking for donations
Here
