Species Detection Survey Protocols

SPECIES DETECTION SURVEY PROTOCOLS

SWIFT FOX SURVEYS

Fish and Wildlife Branch Technical Report No. 2014-17 December 2014

i www.environment.gov.sk.ca/

SWIFT FOX SURVEY PROTOCOL

First Edition 2014

PUBLISHED BY:

Fish and Wildlife Branch Ministry of Environment 3211 Albert Street Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 5W6 [email protected]

SUGGESTED CITATION FOR THIS MANUAL: Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 2014. Swift fox survey protocol. Fish and Wildlife Branch Technical Report No. 2014-17. 3211 Albert Street, Regina, Saskatchewan. 10pp.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Alberta’s Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Ministry is gratefully acknowledged for provision of their Sensitive Species Inventory Guidelines April 2013 document and permission to adapt the guidelines for Saskatchewan. The document provided a base reference and content source for personnel conducting respective species surveys in Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan Swift Fox Survey Protocol Acknowledgements: Sue McAdam has compiled much of the respective Saskatchewan species-specific survey protocol parameters and lead edits of the Saskatchewan protocol versions based on the Alberta Sensitive Species Inventory Guidelines April 2013. The Research Permit Process Renewal working group (Karyn Scalise, Sue McAdam, Ben Sawa, Andrea Benville and Ed Beveridge) has also contributed to reviews of the Saskatchewan protocol along with additional ministry-external reviewers.

COVER PHOTO CREDITS: H. Armbruster

CONTACT: [email protected]

COPYRIGHT Brand and product names mentioned in this document are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. Use of brand names does not constitute an endorsement.

Except as noted, all illustrations are copyright 2014 Ministry of Environment.

ii

17.0 SWIFT FOX SURVEY PROTOCOL

17.1 INTRODUCTION This survey protocol provides instruction on survey techniques and data collection for the occupancy (presence/not-detected) of swift fox (Vulpes velox). Live capture combined with telemetry and spot lighting were previously used to detect swift fox. Trapping is stressful and has caused injury to captured animals (Schauster et al. 2002). Less intrusive survey methods, such as scent post surveys combined with motion-activated cameras (Hockaday 2011) and scat/track surveys are now more commonly used in swift fox detection surveys.

17.1.1 Status and Distribution Historically, swift fox were found throughout prairie regions in southern Saskatchewan and Alberta (COSEWIC 2009). They were considered extirpated from Canada in the late 1930s following drastic range-wide declines in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Extirpation was primarily due to habitat loss, trapping and predator control.

The swift fox reintroduction program was initiated in 1983, with a soft release in the Nashlyn PFRA community pasture. Later hard releases were carried out until the program ended in the mid 1990s. Swift fox have now re-established in Alberta and Saskatchewan and have expanded into northern Montana. Census results from 2006 indicate that a small but stable population of approximately 647 foxes in Canada. Also, all fox captured during the 2006 survey were unmarked, indicating that the populations are reproducing naturally (Moehrenschlager and Moehrenschlager 2006). Considering the small vulnerable swift fox populations, their ability to persist is still uncertain. For further information on the status of the swift fox in Saskatchewan, please visit the Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre (SKCDC) website.

The Saskatchewan population is concentrated south of the Cypress Hills and in the vicinity of Grasslands National Park and northwest of Val Marie (COSEWIC 2009). Swift fox have been documented undertaking significant dispersal events (Ausband and Moehrenschlager 2009). Swift fox have been confirmed in the Hudson Bay, Battleford and Dakota Dunes areas of Saskatchewan.

17.1.2 Biology Swift fox are active throughout the year and are primarily nocturnal. Swift fox are capable of reaching speeds of over 60 km/h. Speed facilitates hunting for this opportunistic predator.

In Canada, breeding begins in March and gestation averages 51 days (Moehrenschlager and Moehrenschlager 2006). Pups remain in the den for the first month and are weaned at six to seven weeks. Juveniles disperse at four to five months of age, in the late summer in Canada (Moehrenschlager and Moehrenschlager 2006).

Swift fox need relatively flat, native grassland habitat with low ground cover to enhance mobility and visibility. They also require the presence of burrowing animals such as badgers (Taxidea taxus) and Richardson’s ground squirrels (Urocitellus richardsonii) for dens. Swift fox will modify and use multiple dens for year-round for shelter, raising young and for escaping predators.

December 2014 Fish & Wildlife Branch Swift Fox Survey Protocol Page 1 of 9

17.2 SURVEY STANDARDS The standards provide instructions on the areal extent of surveys to be conducted. They also provide information on experience, capabilities, minimum equipment needs, survey conditions, and permit requirements.

17.2.1 Survey Area Extent Surveys must be conducted in areas with SKCDC observations as well as in any areas that provide suitable habitat for the species in question. The proposed project area, plus the appropriate setback distances, must be assessed. All suitable habitat within this area must be surveyed. Setback distances identified in the Saskatchewan Activity Restriction Guidelines (Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment 2013a) are based on the species and the level of disturbance associated with the project.

17.2.2 Personnel Personnel must be able to identify swift fox, identify suitable habitat, and have a well-developed search image for swift fox. Personnel must be familiar with the survey methodology. Knowledge of specific swift fox biology and behaviour is also a desirable asset that would allow for more accurate results. Personnel must be capable of working safely in winter conditions. The need for experienced observers cannot be over-emphasized.

17.2.3 Time of Year Surveys must be conducted during winter as swift fox home ranges expand considerably in the winter therefore detection will likely increase. Furthermore they are less confined to natal dens and are more likely to investigate food odours due to a scarcity of resources. Surveys during the breeding season (February 16th- July 31st) must be avoided. Surveys must start no earlier than September 1st and be completed no later than February 15th each year.

17.2.4 Time of Day Swift fox are largely nocturnal; therefore camera traps must be set up for detection during night time hours. Stations must be in place a minimum of 1 hour prior to sunset, and visited no earlier than 1 hour after sunrise. Considering this deployment strategy, camera equipment must have suitable infrared ability for clear night-time photography as well as cold tolerance to reliably function in extreme winter weather.

17.2.5 Environmental Conditions A compendium of environmental condition standards (Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment 2013b) has been prepared to complement the survey protocols for Saskatchewan. The full range of values for the respective environmental condition (e.g., temperature, precipitation, cloud cover, noise, etc.) has been provided in the standards document with the expectation that appropriate value range(s) will be applied as per the survey protocol parameters.

17.2.5.1 Scent Post Camera Trap Survey Environmental Conditions Deployment during inclement weather may reduce activity at camera traps, therefore surveys must be extended if periods of rain, snow and/or high winds occur during the camera trap deployment. Camera traps must be periodically monitored to ensure scent lures have not been removed and that equipment is functioning properly, especially after inclement weather events.

December 2014 Fish & Wildlife Branch Swift Fox Survey Protocol Page 2 of 9

17.2.5.2 Snow Track Survey Environmental Conditions Snow track surveys must be carried out between three to five days of a snow obliterating event (Squires et al. 2004). A snow obliterating event is defined as a snowfall of 1 or more centimetres or an average daily wind speed of 30 km/h or more (ABMI 2010). This time period allows more opportunity for tracks to accumulate in the area (Linnell et al. 2007) and increases detection compared to surveying soon after a snow event (Squires et al. 2004, Linnell et al. 2007).

Snow must be a minimum of two to five centimeters deep and soft enough for animals to leave tracks (Halfpenny et al. 1995). Tracking surveys must also end before signs are too old to distinguish identification characteristics. Avoid surveying with freeze/thaw conditions as they may prevent tracks from being left on the surface (Halfpenny et al. 1995). Sunny conditions may also provide shadowing of tracks resulting in better detection. Periods of extreme cold (<-30°C) during track accumulation must also be avoided (Linden et. al. 1996) as animal activity may be reduced and there are safety risks to personnel.

17.2.6 Survey Effort The primary method for surveys involves the use of scent post stations and motion-activated cameras. This method can be supplemented with secondary snow tracking and spotlight surveys. Camera traps must be deployed in a 1 km grid network throughout the project area. Arrangement of the traps will depend on the nature of the survey area. Camaclang and colleagues (2010) provide estimates of latency of detection and graphs that show a cumulative proportion of swift fox sightings using scent posts. This work supports mitigation-type monitoring that must involve 5 or more days of successive camera trapping surveys to ensure adequate detection.

Once the target species is detected, subsequent survey visits are not necessary. However, if additional surveys are not conducted to detect additional individuals and/or to determine the precise location of nests/dens etc., presence is assumed in suitable habitat throughout the project area and the appropriate setback distances in the Saskatchewan Activity Restriction Guidelines for Sensitive Species must be applied.

17.2.7 Equipment List • GPS receiver • Motion-activated camera with ability for quality nighttime photography and ability to function in cold temperatures (lithium batteries recommended) • 5 cm x 5 cm Wood Lath, rebar and wire • Absorbent clay discs • Scent lure (strong-smelling oily bait such as mackerel oil or sardine oil) • 500,000 to 1 million candlepower spotlight (optional) • Camera • Thermometer • Wild Species Survey Loadform

December 2014 Fish & Wildlife Branch Swift Fox Survey Protocol Page 3 of 9

17.2.8 Permit Requirements Fish and Wildlife Branch requires obtaining a Research Permit to carry out scent post surveys. Scent post surveys disturb the natural behaviour of the species and are considered an invasive procedure.

17.3 SURVEY METHODS The survey methods section describes the procedures for conducting swift fox surveys. All Survey Protocols are available on the ministry research permit downloads webpage. Please refresh your internet browser to ensure you have the most up-to-date document versions. Properly conducted surveys and reliable data submissions are vital tools required to understand and manage wildlife populations and their habitat.

17.3.1 Procedures The procedures include two commonly used techniques for surveying swift fox. Ground searches and scent post camera trap methods have been effective in detecting swift fox. Snow tracking is used as a supplementary procedure that is described in a separate protocol.

17.3.1.1 Ground Searches Ground searches can be conducted between September 1st and February 15th, unless snow cover is excessive and will not allow reliable detection of burrows. Inspect all burrows, particularly those with a “runway” to the entrance that is greater than 15 cm in diameter for evidence of swift fox activity (i.e., tracks, scat, prey and their parts, or loose soil across the breadth of the burrow floor). Document the direction and distance from a reference GPS location (UTM; Datum NAD 83). Minimize audible and physical disturbance in the vicinity of potential dens.

17.3.1.2 Scent Post Camera Trap Surveys These surveys may be used to determine the local occurrence of swift fox within a specified area. Swift fox prefer open spaces rather than shrub or tree cover, therefore, when selecting the sites for the camera trap, avoid shrubby or treed areas. As swift fox habitually hunt and forage along fence lines, rock piles, and other topographic features, scent posts can be set up at these sites. Fence posts, especially corner posts, or along the fence lines are good sites, as are exposed hills and edges of trails through such areas.

Scent post trapping attracts an animal to a camera, which then takes a photograph of the visit (Vanak and Gompper 2007). A piece of wooden lath with rebar is driven into the ground with an absorbent clay disc coated with a strong smelling lure (i.e., mackerel oil, canned sardines or anchovies are suitable) attached to it. Mackerel oil is the preferred attractants as it is thought to be more powerful and longer-lasting than other lures. Plaster discs are to be soaked in attractant at the time of the deployment. Attach discs to the stake approximately 5 cm from the top using a nail or screw. If the ground is frozen, rebar may be driven into the ground and a wooden lath wired to it.

Cameras must be placed approximately three meters from scent posts and approximately 100- 200 meters from the road. Cameras should be mounted on custom-made iron stakes and positioned approximately 40 cm from the ground facing the scent-post. Cameras must be set to capture visitation 24-hours a day, and if triggered, take multiple photographs. Video capability is available on many cameras and may also be used to record visitation from wildlife.

December 2014 Fish & Wildlife Branch Swift Fox Survey Protocol Page 4 of 9

Camera traps must be set up during the day so that they are “set” for that night. Each camera station location must be recorded with a GPS receiver (UTM; Datum NAD 83) to facilitate relocation because animals can chew off stakes or remove them completely. Scent posts may be checked at any time the following day but must be “reset” before the next night.

Bring extra lure and stakes when checking the scent posts as other predators and scavengers also visit these stations. Ground squirrels (Urocitellus spp.), rabbits (Lagomorpha spp.), mice/voles (Peromyscus spp./Talpa spp.) and ants (Formicidae) have been known to clean up the bait, and cattle may knock over the lath if it is located in an active pasture. Records of daily camera trapping activities (i.e., dates each survey route was conducted, number and location of camera stations, description of habitat at each camera station, etc.) and the results of each trap night must be maintained.

Scent posts must be set up in native grassland areas, although fox may use adjacent cultivated lands. Scent posts must remain deployed for a total of five consecutive good-weather nights, as swift fox typically cover their home range once in approximately this time frame. If bad weather (e.g., rainfall, blizzards) that would inhibit activity occurs, the station cycle must start over.

Scent posts must be established approximately 1 km apart. If a specific site is being targeted, scent posts must effectively cover the area 3 km from the centre, radiating out from the centre in four directions to at least 3 km. If swift fox are confirmed or suspected in the area, night lighting or additional track surveys (e.g., snow tracking if conditions are appropriate) may be warranted (see Supplemental Surveys section 17.3.2).

17.3.2 Supplemental Surveys These survey methods can be used to supplement the results of scent post surveys, or to confirm the presence of swift fox in the area.

17.3.2.1 Snow Tracking Surveys Snow tracking surveys can be used to supplement scent post information by having personnel watch for tracks in the snow while performing Scent Post Camera Trap surveys, or by conducting dedicated transect surveys. In the latter case, the Survey Area Extent (Section 17.2.1) must be searched for tracks. Prior to heading into the field, transects must be determined so that start and finish points are known.

Transects are to be broken down into 250 m segments. Each transect is to be 250 m from adjacent transects. Surveys may be completed on foot or by vehicle. Transects done on foot, skis or snowshoes provide the most complete surveys. The best approach is to travel routes on foot in preferred habitats and use vehicles to survey between preferred habitats. This will save time and effort (Halfpenny et al. 1995). Vehicles such as snowmobiles may be used, but must be driven at < 10 km/h while tracking so small or more obscure sign are less likely to be missed. Take rest breaks to reduce fatigue and concentration of searching for tracks (Halfpenny et al. 1995).

December 2014 Fish & Wildlife Branch Swift Fox Survey Protocol Page 5 of 9

Record general site characteristics such as: . general habitat type . disturbance type . general weather conditions (i.e., temperature, cloud cover, wind, precipitation) . snow depth, percent snow cover, snow texture . days since last snowfall or track obliterating event . percent snow cover . time of day

Mark the location along the transect and snow depth of each observation using a GPS receiver (NAD 83; UTM). Record start and stop coordinates of each transect and/or segment and keep a record of the route by using the track log function.

If tracks are abundant, snow and GPS locations may be recorded at the start and end of the segment (D’Eon et al. 2006). Also record sightings, beds, auditory observations, scat, scent posts etc. For direct observations of animals, estimate the distance to the animal. Distinguish between tracks and trails. Old tracks can be recorded if they are identified as such.

If there are difficulties in identifying a set of tracks, follow it and look for other signs (scat, etc.). Take measurements of the stride, straddle, track depth and track dimensions. Take a photograph of a clear track showing a scale for size. Ensure there is enough contrast to make the track visible in a photograph. In addition, following the tracks (back-tracking) to look for more visible tracks is encouraged.

If it begins to snow while tracking, note when it started and the details on the survey conditions. Make sure to link this information with applicable observations. If conditions become impossible to continue for track identification or safety, make sure a GPS location is taken where tracking stopped.

17.3.2.2 Spotlighting Surveys Spotlighting surveys can be used to confirm the presence of swift fox in an area if tracks or scat have been found. The surveys must be initiated one hour after sunset and end by no later than one hour before sunrise. Surveys must be conducted on consecutive nights when weather permits (visibility must be at least 500 m). One observer must be spotlighting each side of the route, using a light of 500,000 to 1 million candlepower is recommended, and binoculars can be used to aid in identification. If a vehicle is being used, the route must be driven at a maximum of 15 km/h, with stops allowed for confirmation of observations.

17.4 SUBMISSIONS Please refer to the Submissions section under the Standard Permit Conditions on the Ministry of Environment website. Observations should be submitted using the appropriate loadform from the Biodiversity webpage. Any incidental wild species (plant or animal) observations should also be submitted to the ministry ([email protected]) using the Plant or Wild Species Loadform respectively.

December 2014 Fish & Wildlife Branch Swift Fox Survey Protocol Page 6 of 9

iMapInvasives is the provincial system for submitting the occurrence of invasive plant or animal species. Any observations of prohibited, noxious or nuisance weeds, along with observations of any other invasive species, should be submitted using this website. An account is not required to submit observations. If you have any questions, please contact the SKCDC for more information.

17.4 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Alberta Species at Risk Reports

Alberta Status Reports

Alberta Swift Fox Recovery Plan 2006-2011

Hinterland Who’s Who - Swift Fox Fact Sheet

Hinterland Who’s Who – Swift Fox Video

Identifying Animal Tracks and other Wildlife Tracking Skills

Montana Field Guide

Saskatchewan Activity Restriction Guidelines

Saskatchewan Activity Restriction Guidelines for Sensitive Species Background Information

Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre (SKCDC)

Species at Risk Public Registry, Swift Fox

The Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan

7.5 LITERATURE CITED Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. 2010. Overview of field data collection protocols abridged (10045), Version 2011-02-01. Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute, Alberta, Canada. [Online] http://www.abmi.ca. Accessed November 7, 2014

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2010. The general status of Alberta wild species 2010. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton AB. [Online only] http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/SpeciesAtRisk/GeneralStatusOfAlbertaWildSpeci es/GeneralStatusOfAlbertaWildSpecies2010/Default.aspx

Ausband, D. and A. Moehrenschlager. 2009 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 43(1), 73–77

Camaclang, A. E., A. Moehrenschlager, and P. Fargey. 2010. Swift fox use of gas structure sites at a small Community Pasture in southwest Saskatchewan. Centre for Conservation Research Report No. 3. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

December 2014 Fish & Wildlife Branch Swift Fox Survey Protocol Page 7 of 9

COSEWIC. 2002. Canadian species at risk, November 2002. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 37 pp. (see http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/index.htm for most recent species listings)

COSEWIC. 2009. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Swift Fox Vulpes velox in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. Vii + 49pp. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/ec/CW69-14-108-2010-eng.pdf Accessed July 9, 2013.

Cotterill, S. E. 1997. Population census of swift fox (Vulpes velox) in Canada: winter 1996-1997. Prepared for the Swift Fox National Recovery Team. Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Service, Wildlife Management Division. 50 pp.

Cotterill, S. E. 1997. Status of the Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 7. Edmonton, AB. 17 pp. http://www.srd.alberta.ca/biodiversitystewardship/speciesatrisk/DetailedStatus/docum ents/Status-SwiftFox-inAlberta-1997.pdf

Government of Alberta. 2011a. Alberta Wildlife Act. Alberta Queen’s Printer. [Online] http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/W10.pdf

Government of Alberta. 2011b. Alberta Wildlife Regulation. Alberta Queen’s Printer. [Online] http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=1997_143.cfm&leg_type=Regs&isbncln=9780 779760732

Halfpenny, J.C., R.W. Thompson, S.C. Morse, T. Holden and R. Rezendes, 1995. Snow Tracking. Pp. 91-163 in W.J. Zielinski and T.E. Kucera. American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine: Survey methods for their detection. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General and Technical Report PSW-GTR-157. 163 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-157/ Accessed October 30, 2014

Hockaday, J. 2011. Coming to our senses on swift fox recovery. http://albertawilderness.ca/issues/wildlife/species-at-risk/archive/2011-04-00-coming- to-our-senses-on-swift-fox-recovery Accessed April 9, 2014.

Linden, H., E. Helle, P. Helle, & M. Wikman. 1996. Wildlife triangle scheme in Finland: methods and aims for monitoring wildlife populations. Finnish Game Research 49: 4-11.

Linnell, J.D.C., P. Fiske, J. Odden, and H. Brøseth. 2007. An evaluation of structures snow-track surveys to monitor Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx populations. Wildlife Biology wbio-13-04- 12.3d 13:4. 456-466 http://www.bio.ntnu.no/users/herfinda/Linnell_et_al_2007.pdf Accessed November 3, 2014.

December 2014 Fish & Wildlife Branch Swift Fox Survey Protocol Page 8 of 9

Moehrenschlager, A. and C. Moehrenschlager. 2001. Census of swift fox (Vulpes velox) in Canada and northern Montana: 2000-2001. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 24. Edmonton, AB. 21pp. http://srd.alberta.ca/BioDiversityStewardship/SpeciesAtRisk/ProgramReports.aspx

Moehrenschlager, A. and C. Moehrenschlager. 2006. Population census of reintroduced swift fox (Vulpes velox) in Canada and northern Montana 2005/2006. Centre for Conservation Research Report No. 1, Calgary Zoo. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Research Permit Process Renewal Protocol Working Group. 2013. Non-invasive mammal surveys-winter tracking and searches for mineral licks. Fish and Wildlife Branch Technical Report No. 2013-19. 3211 Albert Street, Regina, Saskatchewan. 7pp.

Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 2013a. Saskatchewan Activity Restriction Guidelines for Sensitive Species. http://www.biodiversity.sk.ca/Docs/SKactivityrestrictions.pdf Accessed July 30, 2013

Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 2013b. Fish & Wildlife Branch scientific research permit environmental condition standards. Fish and Wildlife Branch Technical Report No. 2013- 21. 3211 Albert Street, Regina, Saskatchewan. 60pp.

Schauster, E.R. , E.M. Gese amd A.M. Kitchen. 2002. An evaluation of survey methods for monitoring swift fox abundance. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 30(2)464-477. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/02pubs/gese021.pdf Accessed April 8, 2014.

Squires, J.R., K.S. Mckelvey and L.F. Ruggiero. 2004. A snow-tracking protocol used to delineate local Lynx, Lynx Canadensis, distributions. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 118:583-589. http://www.google.ca/url?url=http://canadianfieldnaturalist.ca/index.php/cfn/article/d ownload/60/59&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=2phXVN7yI7GZsQTgzoH4CA&ved=0 CBgQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGVXTPOLnDhyeRDuptwrTZjOg8ndQ Accessed November 3, 2014

Vanak, A.T., and M. E. Gompper. 2007. Effectiveness of non-invasive techniques for surveying activity and habitat use of the Indian fox in southern India. Wildlife Biology 13:219-224.

December 2014 Fish & Wildlife Branch Swift Fox Survey Protocol Page 9 of 9