Please read the information provided explaining the Wildlife Survey that is underway for the area that will be affected by the proposed solar facility. This is being done by eminently qualified individuals as a way to understand how the features of this facility; fencing, massive rows of solar panels, power lines, and possible battery storage buildings will impose on the wildlife habitat and biodiversity of the area.
Updated letter from Nate Bickford, PhD Chair of Natural Sciences at Oregon Tech
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
Wildlife Surveys in two Study Areas Adjacent to Bonanza
Nate Bickford, PhD Chair of Natural Sciences at Oregon Tech ( See attached CV)
Home PageWe are using wildlife survey methods to get an idea of wildlife occupancy and distribution in two Study areas near Bonanza, OR. These surveys were established to identify wildlife patterns of habitat use, contrasting the two study areas. This study was not developed to quantify habitat but instead look at occupancy and abundance. We will be focusing on large animals (deer and pronghorn) but will include all wildlife data collected (birds, small mammals, etc.).
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 that to count all of the individuals. Determining with confidence that a species is not present on a sampling unit also requires more intensive sampling that 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) offered a excellent overview for mangers 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 increases.
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 photos to survey occupancy and abundance.
For our camera photos we will place 14 cameras in the study areas. We are using basic methods that will allow us to identify occupancy and abundance (Kays et al. 2020). We will place 7 cameras in each study area covering likely movement corridors. The cameras will be checked monthly during point count surveys. During the check battery will be checked and SD card replaced. Then pictures will be grouped and evaluated.
Point Count Stations
A total of 8- point count stations were established, 4 in each of the two study 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 (1 hour at each point count station). We change which sites are surveyed in the mourning vs. evening surveys. During these counts we will identify all species we hear or see.
At the end of the survey, we will create a report on our findings and recommendations.