cooperative mesocarnivore surveys for the upper and west

Criss & Co. Consultants

Wildlife Management Services

Cooperative Mesocarnivore Surveys for the Upper and West Fork of Beaver Creek watersheds

in interior Northern California

PREPARED FOR :

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Yreka Field Office

PREPARED BY :

Stuart Farber Steve Criss

July 31, 2006

Pacific fisher July 31, 2006

This study was intended to document the presence of mesocarnivores, primarily Pacific fisher, within the upper and west fork of Beaver Creek watersheds. The study was conducted on U.S. Forest Service public land and private land managed by Timber Products Company and Fruit Growers Supply Company. This study was a cooperative effort between public and private landowners and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The study was also completed through a cooperative effort by the biologists and forest managers of Timber Products Company and Criss & Company Consultants. Primary funding for this study was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka field office. This final report was prepared to complete FWS Agreement No. 813335J030 between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Timber Products Company. For more information regarding this study or to obtain additional copies of this report contact:

Stuart Farber Wildlife & Fisheries

Timber Products Company PO Box 766

Yreka CA 96097 (530) 842-2310

Steve Criss Criss & Company Consultants

5705 Porcupine Court Weed CA 96094

(530) 938-4030

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Yreka Field Office

1829 S. Oregon Street Yreka CA 96097

(530)842-4471

2


Abstract This study documented the presence of mesocarnivores, including Pacific fisher, within the upper and west fork of Beaver Creek watersheds including the South Zone of the Mt. Ashland LSR. Fisher were detected in 6 of the 21 sampling units or an overall detection rate of 29%. Fisher were detected at a total of 7 individual camera stations. Fisher were detected in a variety of physical locations. Fisher were detected as low as 3,400 feet (1,037 m) and as high as 6,160 feet (1,878 m). Fisher were detected primarily on S, SE and SW aspects (57%) and on N or NE aspects (43%). Fisher were detected on slopes between 15% and 50% slope. Our results confirm the continued persistence of fisher in the study area and the South Zone LSR. Detection of fisher in the West Fork of Beaver Creek and Jaynes Canyon Creek watersheds were in similar locations of fisher detected both in the early 1990’s by the USFS and Fruit Growers Supply Company in the late 1990’s. The results also indicate that fisher continue to persist in an environment which has a high density of low use forest roads and no high use county or state roads. Performance of the passive infrared sensor based cameras during the study indicate that fisher and other larger mammals, northern flying squirrel and other smaller mammals and several bird species can be detected by these cameras. Testing of digital passive infrared sensor based cameras were inconclusive, however increased experience with these digital cameras could be very valuable in replacing use of the traditional film based cameras.

3


1.0 Introduction Under the Northwest Forest Plan the Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve (#RO-248) was established on federal forestland as part of a network to maintain connectivity of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems (USFS 1994). In 1996 the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) completed a Mt. Ashland late-successional reserve assessment which intended to describe the physical and habitat conditions of the reserve (Mastrofini et al. 1996). However, the assessment did not conduct any biological surveys to determine the presence of mesocarnivores within the reserve. Several mesocarnivores including Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) and American marten (Martes americana) are historically known to occur or could potentially occur within this late-successional reserve (Mastrofini et al. 1996; R. Klug pers.comm.). This study was designed to conduct a systematic survey for mesocarnivores and document the presence of Pacific fisher within the Upper and West Fork of Beaver Creek watersheds including the late-successional reserve. Our study area specifically encompassed what the late-successional reserve assessment (Mastrofini et al. 1996) described as the late-successional reserve South Zone. This LSR South Zone includes the Upper and West Fork of Beaver Creek watersheds. The study boundaries include U.S.Forest Service forestlands that create the late-successional reserve, matrix and critical habitat designated for northern spotted owls. The study also includes private forestlands owned and managed by Timber Products Company and Fruit Growers Supply Company. This cooperative study between public and private forestland owners, managers and biologists represents a comprehensive survey of mesocarnivores within the entire Upper and West Fork of Beaver Creek watershed (Figure 1). The study results will assist in the development of forest management projects for the USFS and for private landowners and in the development of conservation strategies developed by federal and state agencies. The late-successional reserve assessment states that “roads are affecting the quality of late-successional habitat in some areas, especially in the southern zone”(Mastrofini et al. 1996). The assessment also stated that “open canopy forest, especially where located adjacent to functional late-successional habitat, provides important foraging habitat for some late-successional associated species (i.e. martens, fishers, goshawks, and great gray owls)”. Results from our study should also provide some insight into these observations and help clarify presence of mesocarnivores, including fisher, in a highly roaded and managed landscape. Historically, two separate surveys for fisher have been completed within our study area. The U.S.Forest Service describes “…two fisher detected in the West Fork of Beaver Creek and one fisher in the Applegate watershed west of the LSR”(Mastrofini et al. 1996). Also, Fruit Growers Supply Company completed a survey to determine presence of Pacific fisher in the late 1990’s (R. Klug pers.comm.). By using similar sampling designs and detection methods, comparison with previous studies was possible. In summary, the specific objectives of this study were to:

( 1 ) Describe presence of fisher within our study area, ( 2 ) Reverify presence of fisher from previous fisher survey results, ( 3 ) Compare presence results with environmental factors described in the LSR South

Zone assessment.

4


2.0 Environment Our study area encompassed the Upper and West Fork Beaver Creek watersheds including the South Zone of the Mt.Ashland late-successional reserve. The study area encompassed approximately 51,408 acres or approximately 81 square miles of forestlands. The study area included the USFS forestlands and private forestlands owned and managed by Timber Products Company and Fruit Growers Supply Company. The total acres of forestland within the study area included: USFS 35,147 acres, Timber Products Company 6,939 acres, Fruit Growers Supply Company 7,586 acres and other private ownerships 1,802 acres. Within this portion of the eastern Klamath Mountains province the climatic conditions are characterized normally by cold, moist winters and hot, dry summers. Precipitation nomographs for the study area range from 20 inches (51 cm) to over 60 inches (152 cm) in annual precipitation (Mastrofini et al. 1996). Elevations in our study area range from 2,300 feet (700 m) to 7,532 feet (2,300 m) at the Mt Ashland Ski Area. At elevations between 2,300 feet (700 m) and 4,000 feet (1,220 m) precipitation typically falls as rain and snow is infrequent. At elevation between 4,000 feet (1,220 m) and 7,532 feet (2,300 m) winter precipitation typically falls as snow and continuous snow pack is common from November through March. The Mt.Ashland Ski Area averages over 27 feet (8 m) of total snow fall per year and the average snow pack depth is 80 inches (203 cm) (Mastrofini et al. 1996). Within the study area, elevation, aspects, geology and disturbance patterns have created distinct vegetation patterns. Specific vegetation communities change as elevation and moisture increases:

( 1 ) Montane hardwood and Montane Hardwood-Conifer communities dominate at low elevations, ( 2 ) Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and white

fir (Abies concolor) communities at middle elevations, ( 3 ) Shasta red fir (Abies magnifica shastensis) communities at high elevations and, ( 4 ) Mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) communities along the highest ridges and

peaks. (Mastrofini et al. 1996).

5


Figure 1 Location of study area

River

River

Klam

ath

Klamath

River

Shasta

Shasta

Little

Sc o tt

River

River

River

Scott

Fork

East

River

Lake Siskiyou

LakeGrass

Copco Lake

Iron GateReservoir

LakeShastina

Parks

Cre

ek

#*

40n09w40n05w

40s01e 40s02e

47n09w

46n07w

45n05w45n04w

43n06w

46n04w

45n06w

42n09w

47n04w

42n06w

43n09w

47n07w

40s02w

44n04w

41n06w

44n05w44n06w

46n08w

44n07w

42n05w

41n05w

45n07w

47n08w

41n09w

46n05w

43n04w43n05w

47n05w

40s01w

42n04w

46n09w

47n06w

42n10w

46n06w

42n07w

41n07w 41n04w

44n09w

43n07w

44n10w

43n10w

45n08w

44n08w

40n04w

41n10w

42n08w

41n08w

43n08w

45n09w

46n10w

45n10w

40n06w40n07w

42n03w

43n03w

44n03w

40n08w

46n03w

47n03w

45n03w

40n10w

41n03w

40s03w

48n06w48n08w

47n10w

48n05w48n07w 48n04w48n09w48n03w

41s01e41s02w 41s01w 41s02e

39n07w 39n06w39n10w

48n10w

41s03w

39n09w 39n08w

39s02e39s01e

39n05w

40s03e

39s01w39s02w

39n04w

41s03e

39s03w

45n11w

47n02w

46n02w

39s03e

48n02w

44n11w

39n03w

LegendTimber Products Klamath National ForestOther TimberlandMt Ashland Project Area

§̈¦I-5

¦96

Fort Jones

Yreka

Etna

Weed

3 0 3 6 91.5Miles

Mt Ashland Ski Park

6


3.0 Methods This project was a cooperative effort between private landowners and federal agencies. The USFWS provided guidance during design and implementation of the project. The USFS provided access to federal ownership within the project area. Timber Products Company and Fruit Growers Supply Company provided access to private land located within the project area. Criss and Company Consultants performed the majority of the field work including completion of baited camera stations. Timber Products Company supervised the field work to ensure study design standards were being met. Timber Products Company also created GIS maps, completed data entry and constructed databases necessary to begin the project, compiled results of field surveys and co-authored the final report. Surveys for Pacific fisher were completed following a modified Zielinski and Kucera (1995) protocol. The study area was divided into 21 four square mile sampling units (Figure 2). The goal of the sampling protocol was to maximize the probability of detecting fisher and marten while minimizing multiple detections of the same animal (Zielinski and Kucera 1995). Each sampling unit had two baited camera stations for every four square mile sampling unit which were spaced approximately 1 mile apart. Baited camera station locations were selected (i.e. locations were not randomly located) within sampling units as described in Zielinski and Kucera (1995). The selection of baited camera station locations focused on areas likely to detect fisher including stream riparian areas, ridge tops and locations of previous visual detections of fisher (Buck 1983; Seglund 1995). Samplings units were sampled for a minimum of 28 continuous days. Cameras and bait were examined every 7 days and film and bait were replaced as necessary. Each baited camera station was baited using the same bait consisting of raw chicken and cans of cat food placed within a “chicken wire” basket. No additional olfactory attractants or visual attractants were used. Each basket was placed three to five feet from the base of the tree. The camera was placed a maximum of 12 feet from the bait for all camera stations. We recorded physical and environmental conditions found at each camera station. We also recorded a GPS location, legal location, landowner, elevation, aspect and slope. We used Stealth Cam Model MC2-GRT (Appendix A). The Stealth Cam Model MC2-GRT is a 35mm camera imbedded within a protective plastic case. The sensor unit, according to the manufacturer, is a “passive infrared sensor” or motion detection unit. The passive infrared sensor can be adjusted between long range (30 ft effective distance) or short range (15 feet effective distance). The manufacturer recommends selecting short range (15 feet) for slow moving animal action. The passive infrared sensor has 45 degree window. At the short range setting the horizontal coverage of the passive infrared sensor was 12.4 feet according to the manufacturer. We used the short range setting throughout the study. We also set the cameras to record the date and time for each photograph, taking one photograph for every motion event and waiting one minute between photographs. These were the minimum time settings available with this camera model. We also used two Cuddeback Digital Scouting Model C-1000 cameras (Appendix A) side-by-side with the Stealth Cam cameras. The Cuddeback Digital camera, according to the manufacturer, is also based on a “passive infrared sensor”. The passive infrared sensor is reported by the manufacturer to be effective up to 100 feet. This study attempted to test the functionality, reliability and overall performance of digital cameras in the harsh environment of the study area.

7


Figure 2 Four-square mile sampling units and camera locations

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

#*

Mt Ashland Ski Park

31 3332 34

19

35

30

19

18

06

30

31

07

31 32

18

3336

11 11

30

31

19

30

19

31

11

18

30

22

11

2420 2321

02

32

24

29

07

03

17

23

2220

09

04

08

04

29

05

10

28

02

10

01

31

06

05

21 23

32

16

21

01

27

25

26

28

0812

24

03

09

26

15

26

06

28

33

12

07

25

24

14

25

36

22

36

24

14

21

10

34

15

27

20

34

29

13

22

15

19

27

36

23

35

30

35

19

05

22

23

29

03

13

28

35

25

34

16

04

02

29

17

01

20

32

14

33

05

33

25

16

22

03

10

32

1516

27

06

08 09

04

12 08

27

17 13

26

35

09

34

26

36

28

02

20

17

07

21

01

21

36

2629

18

20

252728

33 3534

12

14

23 24

020306 04

13

0501 01

16 15

36

13 1814 1316

17

1415

02

09

04

24

18

25

13

12

24

17

25

21

16

28

33

03

36

01

19

30

31

05 0406

20

07

17

08

06

29

18

17

05

18

32

08

16 1517 13

01

17

0911

14

10 12

14 13

0907

15

11

16

08

17

100912

17

07

1813

9B

9A

5B 2B

2A1B

1A

7A

4B

4A

3B3A

5A

8B8A

7B

6A

6B

21B21A

20B

20A

19B19A

17B

18B

18A

16A

16B

15B

15A

13A12B

12A 11B10A

10B

13B14A

14B

17A

11A

!( Camera Stations

Sampling Units

Timber Products Ownership

Fruit Growers Ownership

Klamath Nat Forest

Other Owner

0 1 2 3 40.5Miles

t 5

6 7 8 9

1011121314

15

16 17

1819

20

4

21

3

2

1

8


4.0 Results Twenty one sampling units were completed between October of 2005 and May of 2006. Fisher were detected in 6 of the 21 sampling units or an overall detection rate 29% (Figure 3; Figure 4). Fisher were detected at a total of 7 individual camera stations (Figure 4; Appendix B). Three detections occurred on USFS ownership, two detections occurred on Timber Products Company ownership and two detections occurred on Fruit Growers Supply Company ownership. Nineteen of the twenty-one sampling units were completed during the winter months of October through March and two sampling units were completed during the summer months of April through September. During the winter period of October to March fisher were detected in 6 of 19 sampling units. During the summer period of April through September fisher were not detected in either of the two remaining sampling units. Wildlife Species Detected The baited camera stations detected numerous other mammals in addition to fisher. Of the larger mammals gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) were detected in 38% of the sampling units, black bear (Ursus americanus) in 38%, black-tail deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in 5%, spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis) in 5%, raccoon (Procyon lotor) in 10% and oppossum (Didelphis virginiana) in 5% (Figure 4). Smaller mammals we detected included: northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) in 33% of the sampling units, Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii) in 24%, golden-mantled ground squirrel (Spermophilus lateralis) in 10%, long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) in 5%, vole (Microtus sp.) in 5%, deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) in 17%, western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus) in 17%, chipmunk (Tamias sp.) in 17% and northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) in 5%. Birds detected during the study included Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) in 14% of the sampling units and Northern shrike (Lanius excubitor) in 10% of the sampling units. Larger and smaller mammals detected in other similar studies in the eastern Klamath province (Anderson et. al. 1995; Farber and Franklin 2005) but not detected in this study included: bobcat (Felis rufus), mountain lion (Felis concolor), and ringtail (Bassariscus astutus). Other larger mammals not detected in this study included American marten (Martes americana) and wolverine (Gulo gulo). Elevation, Aspect and Slope The mean elevation of all 42 camera stations in the study was 4,645 feet (1,416 m) and elevation ranged from 2,600 feet (793 m) to 6,722 feet (2,050 m)(Appendix C). Mean elevation of the 7 individual fisher camera station detections was 4,690 feet (1,430 m) and ranged from 3,400 feet (1,037 m) to 6,160 feet (1,878 m). A two-sample t-test between elevations where fisher were detected versus where fisher were not detected found no significant difference (t-test, p<0.05). Camera stations occurred on all aspect categories including: N, NE, NW, S, SE, SW, E and W. Of the 7 individual fisher camera station detections four occurred on S, SE or SW aspects (57%) and three occurred on N or NE aspects (43%)(Apppendix D). No detections occurred on E or W aspects. We found no significant difference between aspect where fisher were detected versus where fisher were not detected (t-test , p<0.05). The mean slope of all 42 camera stations in the study was 37% and ranged from 5% to 80% slope. The mean slope of fisher detections was 31% which ranged from 15% to 50% slope (Appendix D). We found no significant difference between slope where fisher were detected versus where fisher were not detected (t-test, p<0.05). A non-significant relationship was evident where fisher detections occurred on slopes less than 50%. Fisher occurred at 18.7% of stations with less than 50% slope and at 10% of stations with greater than 50% slope (See Appendix D).

9


Figure 3 2006 Presence results by sampling unit and camera location.

#*Mt Ashland Ski Park

31 3332 34

19

35

30

19

18

06

30

31

07

31 32

18

3336

11 11

30

31

19

30

19

31

11

18

30

22

11

2420 23

36

21

02

32

24

29

07

03

17

23

2220

09

04

08

04

29

05

10

28

02

10

01

31

06

05

21 23

32

16

21

01

27

25

24

26

28

0812

24

03

09

26

15

26

06

28

33

12

07

25

24

14

25

25

36

22

14

21

10

34

15

27

20

34

29

13

22

15

19

27

36

23

35

30

35

19

05

22

23

29

03

13

28

3534

16

04

02

29

17

01

20

32

14

33

05

33

25

16

22

03

10

32

1516

27

06

08 09

04

12 08

27

17

01

13

26

35

09

34

26

36

28

02

20

17

07

21

21

36

2629

18

20

252728

33 3534

12

14

23 24

02

13

0306 040501 01

16 15 131814 1316

1714

15

09

36

02

04

18

21

16

28

33

24

30

19

31

25

17

13

03

12

24

18

25

0605

36

01

0406

17

07 08

18

20

17

16 15

29

14

07

17 13

05

32

08

01

0911

14 13

10

15

1209

16

07

17

11

1718

17

08 1009 12

19

30

06

31

1318

Sampling Units

Fisher Detected

Fisher Not Detected

0 1 2 3 40.5Miles

t 5

6 7 8 9

1011121314

15

16 17

1819

20

4

21

3

2

1

10


Figure 4 Species Found within Study Area

!( !(!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

31 3332 34

19

35

30

19

18

06

30

31

07

31 32

18

3336

11 11

30

31

19

30

19

01 02

31

11

30

22

11

2420 2321

02

03

32

24

29

07

03

17

23

2220

09

04

08

04

29

05

10

04

28

02

10

01

31

06

05

21 23

32

21

01

27

25

26

28

08

12

24

03

09

26

15

26

06

28

33

12

07

25

24

25

36

22

21

10

34

06

27

20

34

29

2219

27

36

23

35

30

35

19

05

22

23

29

36

24

05

03

28

3534

04

02

29

17

01

20

32

14

33

01

05

33

25

16

22

03

10

32

1516

2527

06

08 09

04

12 08

18

27

17 13

26

35

09

34

14

26

36

28

02

20

07

15

21

21

36

2629

16

18

13

01

20

25

14

27

15

28

33 35

16 13

34

17

12

14

23 24

02

13

36

16 15 131814 1316

17

14

15

0305 0406

24

25

13

09

18

04

24

12

25

36

01

17

21

16

28

33

06

20

19

30

31

29

01

17

05

32

08

18

17

18 16 15 1417

17

1314 1315

07

1617

17

18

07 08 09

0807

1110

13

1212

9B9A

5B 2B

2A

1B

1A

7A

4B

4A

3B3A

5A

8B8A7B

6A

6B

21B21A

20B

20A

19B19A

17B

17A

18B

18A

16A16B

15B

15A

13A12B

12A 11B

11A

10A

10B

13B14A

14B

t

!( Camera Locations

!( Flying Squirrel

!( Grey Fox

!( Black Bear

!( Pacific Fisher

Sampling Units



Klamath Nat Forest

Other Owner

0 1 2 3 40.5Miles

11


Days to Detection & Survey Efficiency The protocol for the study was to survey for 28 days at each camera station. Due to extreme weather conditions, including snow storms which exceeded several feet of snow accumulation, several camera stations were not accessible at the end of the 28 day sampling period. The cameras continued to collect photographs during and after the extreme weathers conditions, including detection of fishers. The potential loss of sampling days were due to extreme weather and accumulated snow fall conditions which limited access to sites to bait and check cameras. We believe the extension of the sampling period at several camera stations for up to 7 days, compensated for the potential loss of sampling days. Accordingly, we believe our days to detection results should be viewed with some caution due to the extreme weather conditions we encountered during the study. The mean number of days to detection of fisher was 24 days and the median was 30 days, which indicates the days to detection were non-normally disturbed (Figure 5). The days to detection also had a standard deviation of 13 days around the mean. The minimum number of days to detection was 6 days and the maximum was 36 days. Four or 67% of our sampling unit detections occurred after 28 days. After extending the sampling period at several camera stations survey efficiency was very high. The mean number of operational days (i.e. days where the camera and bait were functioning to protocol) was 31 days and the median was 31 days (Appendix C). The mean number of lost operational days not previously accounted for by bait being taken from the station, camera running out of film or camera malfunctions was 1 day and the median was zero days (Appendix C). The overall survey efficiency calculated by the total lost operational days of 43 days versus the total operational days of 1,335 days equaled 96.8%. Figure 5 Histogram of Sampling Units versus Days to Fisher Detection

0

1

2

3

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Days to Fisher Detection

Num

ber o

f Sam

plin

g U

nits

n = 6

Performance of Passive Infrared Sensor Film Cameras versus Digital Cameras

12


We primarily used Stealth Cam Model MC2-GRT throughout the study (Appendix A). However, we attempted to explicitly test the use of two Cuddeback Digital Scouting Model C-1000 cameras (Appendix A) side-by-side with the Stealth Cam model. We were primarily interested in the performance of the passive infrared sensors to detect a variety of animals, the battery life of digital cameras in very cold environments and overall ease of use of digital cameras while conducting surveys in a harsh environment. A Stealth Cam and a Cuddeback Digital camera were run side-by-side at sampling unit 6, camera station 6A. For the 29 day period between September 20th and October 19th little or no wildlife activity was noted on field notes collected during field visits to add bait and change batteries. The Stealth Cam recorded no wildlife during the survey period. The Cuddeback Digital camera recorded a fisher on 9/28/2005, 8 days after beginning the survey. See Appendix B for the digital camera photograph. The Cuddeback Digital camera recorded no other wildlife during the rest of the survey period. A Stealth Cam and a Cuddeback Digital camera were run side-by-side at sampling unit 9, camera stations 9A and 9B. For a 28 day period between October 25th and November 21st little or no wildlife activity was noted on field notes collected during field visits to add bait and change batteries. At camera station 9A, both the Stealth Cam and Cuddeback Digital unit appeared to function properly. Field notes indicate ice had built up on both cameras by mid-November. No wildlife were recorded by either the Stealth Cam or the Cuddeback Digital during the survey period. At camera station 9B, both the Stealth Cam and Cuddeback Digital unit appeared to function properly. The Stealth Cam recorded only a Northern flying squirrel during the survey period. The Cuddeback Digital recorded no wildlife during the survey period. A Stealth Cam and a Cuddeback Digital camera were run side-by-side at sampling unit 17, camera stations 17A and 17B. The Stealth Cam units recorded bear and grey fox at both stations. The digital cameras appeared to function properly, but the cameras failed to activate out of “sleep” mode and into “active” recording mode. Accordingly, no pictures were taken by the Cuddeback Digital cameras during the entire survey period. Mapping and GPS Positions of Camera Stations All camera stations were recorded using GPS coordinates. These coordinates are located in Appendix C. A detailed location map of all camera stations is located in Appendix D.

13


5.0 Discussion Comparison of Results with Previous Surveys The LSR South Zone assessment (Mastrofini et al. 1996) reported standardized surveys using camera and track plate methods were previously completed by the USFS. These surveys were not completed for the assessment, but rather occurred over a period of years in the 1990’s prior to the assessment. The results of these surveys were two fisher detections in the West fork of Beaver Creek and one detection within the Applegate River watershed. Fruit Growers Supply Company conducted surveys for fisher using sooted track plates in the West Fork of Beaver Creek and Jaynes Canyon watersheds in the late 1990’s and detected fisher in one location in the Trapper Creek watershed Our results in 2006 confirm the persistence of fisher previously detected in the West Fork of Beaver Creek and Jaynes Canyon Creek watersheds. Review of the specific locations where USFS and Fruit Growers Supply Company surveys were completed indicates that the 2006 detections occurred in very similar locations as the previous detections. Our results appear to confirm that fisher are persisting in our study area including the LSR South Zone. High Elevation and Continuous Snow Pack within the Study Area Some have suggested that deep snowfall may limit fisher populations or movement (Powell and Zielinski 1994; Campbell 2004). Krohn et al. (1997) found fisher occupied forested areas with less than 13 cm (5.1 in) mean monthly snowfall and seasonally occupied forested areas with 13 cm (5.1 in) to 23 cm (9.1 in) mean monthly snowfall. Unfortunately, the mean monthly snowfall maps described by Krohn et al. (1997) only describe the southern portion of our study area. The southern portions of the study area was predicted to have both seasonal and year around fisher use. Based on snowfall measurements at the Mt. Ashland Ski Area of 203 cm (80 inches) the northern portion of the study area would likely not support fisher year around. Our detections of fisher at higher elevations (Stations 1A and 6A) were made during the fall before heavy winter snows. The remainder of our detections were made near the contact zone between continuous snow pack (> 4,000 feet) and relatively snow free areas (< 4,000 feet). Our results are consistent with the predicted use by Krohn et al. (1997). Habitat Successional Stages within the Study Area The amounts and distribution of suitable habitats for wildlife species including fisher often assist with determining a species presence in an environment. This study did not have access to a complete and reliable GIS coverage or database for wildlife habitat for the entire study area. Consequently, analysis of these habitat factors was not attempted. However, in 1996 the USFS completed an analysis of habitat within the Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (Mastrofini et al. 1996). The LSR assessment indicated that a variety of habitat successional stages occurred on USFS forestlands including: 22% late-successional, 44% mid-successional, 11% early successional, 11% open forests and 11% non-forest habitats. This assessment did not include habitats found on private forestlands within the LSR South Zone. Our detection of fisher in 29% of the sampling units indicate that fisher are present in an environment which supports a variety of habitats and successional stages.

14


Rural Forest Roads within Study Area The study area has a well developed transportation system of forest roads built primarily for the forest management of both public and private lands. The LSR South Zone assessment found that on USFS forestlands road densities by sub-basins ranged from 2.36 miles/square mile to 5.48 miles/square mile (Mastrofini et al. 1996). Since most of the sub-basins have road densities exceeding 2 miles/square mile it was determined by the USFS that these road densities reduced overall habitat value for fisher to a low probability of long-term viability of the species (Mastrofini et al. 1996). Several studies have suggested that landscapes with higher road densities reduce fisher habitat suitability (Dark 1997; Campbell 2004). Specifically, high use roads that are generally paved and are designated as state or county highways have been reported to reduce fisher use of habitats or cause direct mortality from vehicles (Dark 1997; Campbell 2004). While the LSR South Zone has a well developed transportation network of forest roads, none of these roads are classified as state highway or county roads. This absence of paved state or county roads within our study area may contribute to our multiple fisher detections within the study area. Heinemeyer (1993) found that high use, high speed paved roads increased fisher direct mortality, however low use forest roads were not a barrier to fisher movement. Dark (1997) found fisher present in landscapes with a “…greater than average density of low use roads”. Our results indicate fisher are persisting in an environment with a relatively high density of low use forest roads. Our results also support similar findings of these other studies which indicate that fisher continue to persist in an environment which has a high density of low use forest roads and no high use county or state roads. Performance of Passive Infrared Sensor based Film Cameras versus Digital Cameras Passive infrared based remote cameras are an effective and reliable tool to detect presence of mesocarnivores (Farber and Franklin 2005). We attempted to explicitly test passive infrared sensor based Stealth Cam film cameras with Cuddeback digital cameras. Our results were confounded by several factors including few wildlife detections, equipment malfunctions and a small number of comparison samples. In general, the three sampling units and five camera stations chosen for the side-by-side comparison did not detect abundant and diverse wildlife. Subsequently, we were not able to test for differences in the camera detections by wildlife species, wildlife species size or time of day. In general, both the Stealth Cam and Cuddeback Digital functioned properly. The cameras recorded photographs during every field visit to add bait and change batteries. The recording of photographs during these field visits gave us confidence that if wildlife entered the detection distance of the passive infrared sensor the unit would record a photograph. We found the digital cameras to have a sustained battery life in the field, under sub-32oF air temperatures, to exceed 30 days. The 4 D cell batteries which runs the digital camera and passive infrared sensor appear to meet or exceed both the manufacturer’s specifications and our practical use of the cameras. We had difficulties using the Cuddeback Digital settings, especially the “sleep” versus “active” mode. This equipment malfunction during setup failed to activate the cameras to record photographs during the entire survey period at camera stations 17A and 17B. We believe that with more experience in the field with these units and better planning, equipment malfunctions will be reduced. Our experience is that digital cameras could be very valuable in replacing the use of traditional film based cameras units by eliminating film and film developing costs and extend sampling periods when film based cameras have run out of film.

15


Finally, the Cuddeback Digital camera did detect a fisher at camera station 6A when the Stealth Cam did not. Also, the Stealth Cam detected a flying squirrel at camera station 9A when the Cuddeback Digital did not. We do not have any specific information that explains why we observed these differences between the two cameras. Again, in future studies, we hope to better test for differences in the camera detections by wildlife species, wildlife species size, or time of day. 5.1 Limitations of Results This investigation detected fisher in portions of the study area including the South Zone of the Mt. Ashland LSR. Our investigation did not attempt to identify the number of individual fisher or estimate population densities in our study area which would be necessary to identify population trends. In addition, due to fisher relatively large home ranges versus our relatively small four-square mile sampling grid, we did not attempt to measure habitat types or vegetation disturbance rates in areas with fisher detections or in areas without fisher detections. 6.0 Conclusions Our survey of 42 separate baited camera stations within 21 four-square mile sampling units covering approximately 51,408 acres provided some insights into occurrence and persistence of fisher in our study area. Our conclusions are summarized as:

( 1 ) Fisher presence was detected in 29% of the samplings units.

( 2 ) Our detections of fisher verifies detections made of fisher in the early 1990’s and

indicates that fisher continue to persist within the Mt. Ashland LSR South Zone.

( 3 ) The Stealth Cam cameras performed well even during harsh winter conditions including the detection of fisher, much smaller mammals and numerous bird species.

( 4 ) Cuddeback Digital cameras performed well, but researchers should be cautious when

making camera settings, transferring digital photographs to flash memory cards and maintaining units during heavy rain or snow conditions.

( 5 ) Fisher were detected on a variety of aspects including S, SE, SW, N and NE aspects.

( 6 ) Fisher were detected on slopes between 15% and 50%.

( 7 ) Portions of our study area were located above 5,000 feet in a snow dominated zone that may have limited fisher detection, although detection of fisher ranged from 3,400 feet (1,037 m) to 6,160 feet (1,878 m).

( 8 ) Fisher continue to persist in an environment which has a high density of low use forest roads and no high use county or state roads.

16


7.0 Acknowledgements This cooperative study could not have been completed without the support and cooperation of many individuals. The authors specifically thank Cliff Oakley and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who helped design the study and provided primary funding for the study. The authors also thank Fruit Growers Supply Company and Timber Products Company for access to their private forestland. We thank Timber Products Company for providing staff and logistical support for the study. We especially thank Tom Franklin and Timber Products Company for the use of geographic information system mapping and databases used to complete the study. We also thank Laura Finley and Scott Yaeger of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their helpful comments in preparing this final report. 8.0 References Anderson, S. and M. Gausen, J. Owen 1995 Forest Carnivore Survey of Collins-Baldy Late

Successional Reserve (RC 355). Scott River Ranger District. Klamath National Forest. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Siskiyou County, California. March 1995. 11 p.

Buck, S. and C. Mullis, A. Mossman. 1983. Corral Bottom – Hayfork Bally Fisher Study. Report to the

U.S. Forest Service. February 1, 1983. 135 p. Campbell, L.A. 2004. Distribution of Habitat Associations of Mammalian Carnivores in the Central and

Southern Sierra Nevada. Dissertation, University of California, Davis. 167 p. Dark, S. 1997. A Landscape-Scale Analysis of Mammalian Carnivore Distribution and Habitat Use by

Fisher. Masters Thesis. Humboldt State University. May 1997. 67 p. Farber, S.L. and T.Franklin. 2005. Presence-absence surveys for Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti)

in the Eastern Klamath Province of interior Northern California. Timber Products Company. 130 Phillipe Lane, Yreka, CA, 96097. 35 p.

Heinemeyer, K.S. 1993. Temporal dynamics in the movements, habitat use, activity and spacing of

reintroduced fishers in northwestern Montana. Masters thesis. University of Montana. Missoula, Montana. 154 p.

Higley, J. M. 1993. Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation draft fisher survey report. Hoopa Tribal Forestry

Department, Hoopa, California. 20 p. Klug, R. 2005. Personal Communication regarding previous surveys for mesocarnivores during the late

1990’s in the West Fork of Beaver Creek and Jaynes Canyon. Fruit Grower Supply Company. Krohn, W.B. and W.J. Zielinski, R.B. Boone. 1997. Relations among fishers, snow, and martens in

California: results from small-scale spatial comparisons. In Martes: Taxonomy, Ecology, Techniques and Management, pages 211-232. The Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edomonton.

17


Mastrofini, K. and B. Rose, G. Lewis, F. Way, S. Cuenca, R Siemers, D. Goheen, T. Atzet, B.

Miller, W. Rolle. 1996. Late-Successional Reserve Assessment Mt. Ashland LSR (#RO-248). Rogue River National Forest, Ashland Ranger District and the Klamath National Forest, Oak Knoll Ranger District. Revised June 21, 1996.

Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher: In Ruggiero, L.F. and K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J.

Lyon, W.J. Zielinski, The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western United States. USDA Forest Service. GTR-RM-254. pp 38-73.

Seglund, A.E. 1995. The Use of Resting Sites by the Pacific Fisher. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State

University, Arcata, California. 66 p. USFS (USDA). 1994. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Management of

Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, Oregon.

Zielinski, W.J. and T.E. Kucera. 1995. American martern, fisher, lynx and wolverine: survey

methods for their detection. Gen. Tech. Report PSW-GTR-157. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany, CA 163 p.

18


Appendix A Photographic Cameras Types – Stealth Cam

Photographic Cameras Types – Cuddeback Digital

19


Appendix B: Fisher detections within study area. Sampling Unit #1: Camera Site 1A 9/25/2005 Sampling Unit #6: Camera Site 6A 9/28/2005 (Note: Date stamp on digital picture is incorrect)

20


Sampling Unit #12: Camera site 12A 12/3/2005 Sampling Unit #13: Camera Site 13B 12/1/2005

21


Sampling Unit #18: Camera Site 15A 12/3/2006 Sampling Unit #18: Camera Site 18A 11/24/2005

22


Sampling Unit #18: Camera Site 18B 11/25/2005

23


Appendix C Fisher Detection by Camera Station

Camera Start End

Opera tional

Lost Elev. UTM UTM Fisher Unit Station Date Date Days Days Feet North East

1 1A 09/19/05 10/19/05 31 0 5970 46 57.625 10 05 22.308 Y 1B 09/19/05 10/19/05 31 0 5666 46 56.368 10 05 22.221 N 2 2A 09/19/05 10/19/05 31 0 5619 46 55.569 10 05 21.377 N 2B 09/19/05 10/19/05 31 6 4549 46 53.569 10 05 22.602 N 3 3A 09/19/05 10/19/05 31 0 5514 46 55.013 10 05 19.481 N 3B 09/19/05 10/19/05 31 0 5417 46 54.270 10 05 17.993 N 4 4A 09/20/05 10/19/05 30 0 4845 46.54.270 10 05 12.215 N 4B 09/19/05 10/19/05 30 0 5366 46 52.911 10 05 13.063 N 5 5A 09/19/05 10/19/05 31 0 4845 46 53.559 10 05 19.509 N 5B 09/19/05 10/19/05 31 0 4994 46 53.925 10 05 15.948 N 6 6A 09/20/05 10/19/05 30 0 6160 46 51.875 10 05 12.083 Y 6B 09/20/05 10/19/05 30 0 6722 46 50.603 10 05 11.024 N 7 7A 09/20/05 10/19/05 30 0 5336 46 51.503 10 05 13.865 N 7B 09/20/05 10/19/05 30 0 5370 46 50.886 10 05 14.621 N 8 8A 09/20/05 10/19/05 30 0 4643 46 51.247 10 05 15.412 N 8B 09/19/05 10/19/05 30 0 3902 46 51.015 10 05 17.628 N 9 9A 10/25/05 11/21/05 28 3 4568 46 52.085 10 05 18.876 N 9B 10/25/05 11/21/05 28 0 4171 46 50.714 10 05 19.344 N

10 10A 10/25/05 11/21/05 28 0 3354 46 47.833 10 05 18.852 N 10B 10/25/05 11/21/05 28 0 3781 46 49.524 10 05 18.833 N

11 11A 10/25/05 11/21/05 28 0 5214 46 49.474 10 05 16.966 N 11B 10/25/05 11/21/05 28 0 5167 46 47.719 10 05 16.025 N

12 12A 10/21/05 12/03/05 35 2 4425 46 47.689 10 05 12.182 Y 12B 10/21/05 11/26/05 33 1 5460 46 48.990 10 05 12.515 N

13 13A 10/21/05 11/27/05 34 0 5726 46 48.524 10 05 07.514 N 13B 10/21/05 12/17/05 34 0 4599 46 48.091 10 05 09.970 Y

14 14A 10/21/05 11/25/05 32 2 5210 46 47.949 10 05 05.766 N 14B 10/21/05 12/03/05 36 4 4399 46 48.914 10 05 05.324 N

15 15A 10/24/05 12/03/05 33 0 4604 46 46.249 10 05 07.264 Y 15B 10/24/05 11/22/05 29 0 5210 46 45.267 10 05 06.983 N

16 16A 10/24/05 11/22/05 29 0 5286 46 42.521 10.05 05.512 N 16B 10/24/05 11/22/05 29 0 5431 46 41.856 10 05 06.940 N

17 17A 04/27/06 05/24/06 28 7 3807 46 43.403 10 05 09.997 N 17B 04/27/06 05/24/06 28 3 3966 46 40.533 10 05 09.993 N

18 18A 10/24/05 12/12/05 49 0 3398 46 45.998 10 05 10.009 Y 18B 11/22/05 12/26/05 35 0 3667 46 43.929 10 05 08.472 Y

19 19A 12/15/05 01/25/06 32 0 3677 46 45.888 10 05 12.868 N 19B 12/15/05 12/26/06 10 0 3159 46 45.931 10 05 17.540 N 19B 04/26/06 05/29/06 34 15 3159 - - -

20 20A 12/17/05 01/23/06 39 0 2915 46 44.093 10 05 12.993 N 20B 12/15/05 01/26/05 43 0 3476 46 42.196 10 05 13.301 N

21 21A 12/15/05 01/08/06 25 0 2720 46 43.465 10 05 16.495 N 21B 12/15/05 01/15/06 32 0 2537 46 43.049 10 05 14.532 N

24


Appendix D Camera Stations Locations by Aspect

Aspect

Category (Azimuth)

All

Camera Stations

Fisher

Detected Stations

N (337.5 to 22.5) 7 (17%) 2 (29%)

NE (22.5 to 67.5) 4 (10%) 1 (14%)

E (67.5 to 112.5) 4 (10%) 0

SE (112.5 to 157.5) 9 (21%) 2 (29%)

S (157.5 to 202.5) 8 (19%) 1 (14%)

SW (202.5 to 247.5) 6 (14%) 1 (14%)

W (247.5 to 292.5) 3 (7%) 0

NW (292.5 to 337.5) 1 (2%) 0

TOTAL 42 (100%) 7 (100%)

Camera Stations Locations by Percent Slope

Slope

(Percent)

All

Camera Stations

Fisher

Detected Stations

0% to 9% 1 (2%) 0

10% to 19% 1 (2%) 1 (14%)

20% to 29% 13 (31%) 2 (29%)

30% to 39% 9 (21%) 1 (14%)

40% to 49% 8 (19%) 2 (29%)

50% to 59% 6 (14%) 1 (14%)

60% to 69% 2 (5%) 0

70% to 79% 1 (2%) 0

80% to 89% 1 (2%) 0

Over 90% 0 0

TOTAL 42 (100%) 7 (100%)

25


!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

#*

Mt Ashland Ski Park

31 3332 34

19

35

30

19

18

06

30

31

07

31 32

18

3336

11 11

30

31

19

30

19

31

11

18

30

22

11

2420 2321

02

32

24

29

07

03

17

23

2220

09

04

08

04

29

05

10

28

02

10

01

31

06

05

21 23

32

16

21

01

27

25

26

28

0812

24

03

09

26

15

26

06

28

33

12

07

25

24

14

25

36

22

36

24

14

21

10

34

15

27

20

34

29

13

22

15

19

27

36

23

35

30

35

19

05

22

23

29

03

13

28

35

25

34

16

04

02

29

17

01

20

32

14

33

05

33

25

16

22

03

10

32

1516

27

06

08 09

04

12 08

27

17 13

26

35

09

34

26

36

28

02

20

17

07

21

01

21

36

2629

18

20

252728

33 3534

12

14

23 24

020306 04

13

0501 01

16 15

36

13 1814 1316

17

1415

02

09

04

24

18

25

13

12

24

17

25

21

16

28

33

03

36

01

19

30

31

05 0406

20

07

17

08

06

29

18

17

05

18

32

08

16 1517 13

01

17

0911

14

10 12

14 13

0907

15

11

16

08

17

100912

17

07

1813

9B

9A

5B 2B

2A1B

1A

7A

4B

4A

3B3A

5A

8B8A

7B

6A

6B

21B21A

20B

20A

19B19A

17B

18B

18A

16A

16B

15B

15A

13A12B

12A 11B10A

10B

13B14A

14B

17A

11A

!( Camera Stations

Sampling Units



Klamath Nat Forest

Other Owner

HIGHWAY

MAINLINE

ROAD

0 1 2 3 40.5Miles

t

26

cooperative mesocarnivore surveys for the upper and west

Documents