California Spotted Owl Module: 2009
Overview

John Keane, Sierra Nevada
Research Center, PSW.
Field Project Leaders &: GIS Analysis:
•Claire Gallagher, Paula Shaklee,
Gretchen Jehle, Ross Gerrard SNRC-PSW
Plumas-Lassen Study: Acknowledgments.
•National Forest Service Region 5.
•Plumas and Lassen National Forests.
•National Fire Plan.
•Peter Stine, Sierra Nevada Research
Center, PSW.
•QLG Members.

Field Researchers:
Rachel Kussow, Mason
Werner, Erica Sisson
2009 PLS Annual Report







Monitor density, reproduction &
demographics of CSOs.
Address other potential stress factors
(Barred Owls, WNV).
Update on diet analysis
Updates on habitat modeling & radiotelemetry
Results from Meadow Valley Project
Area Case Study.
Results from CSO surveys in wildfire
areas.
FY2009 Research Objectives.
CSO Density Across the PLS Area




Surveyed 1,877 km2
(468,500 acres)
73 territorial sites – 63
confirmed pairs, 5
unconfirmed pairs, 5 tsingles.
Thirty sites with
successful nests (47.6%).
Fledged 1.57
young/successful nest.
Nesting Success 2004-2009
Year
% Successful
#
Fledglings
2004
49.4
1.68
2005
17.7
1.47
2006
13.8
1.50
2007
55.4
1.81
2008
16.4
1.70
2009
47.6
1.57
Barred/Sparred Owl Status in the
HFQLG Area




First record in 1989
39 records within the
HFQLG Project Area
through 2009.
53 records across the
Sierra Nevada from 19892009.
Data suggest Barred Owls
stable in the northern
Sierra Nevada
West Nile Virus in California




1999: Introduced to
the Eastern US.
2002: WNV arrives in
California
2003: WNV spreads
across Southern CA
2004: In late summer,
WNV moves through
California
Data: The Center for Disease Control, 2006
2003
2004
California Spotted owls and West Nile
Virus in California



Tested for WNV in blood samples
from 209 CSOs collected between
2003-2007.
Samples from Plumas/Lassen &
Sierra/SKC CSO studies.
No positive test results for WNV in
any of the 209 CSOs blood samples
2004
Update: CSO Diet Analysis
100%
Insects
90%
Birds
80%
Other Sm.
Mammals
70%
Pocket Gopher
60%
Broad-footed
Mole
50%
Deer Mouse
40%
Sites by Elevation (m), Low to High
1679
1604
1572
1470
1469
1467
1461
1438
1427
1426
1401
1346
0%
1319
Woodrat
1262
10%
1230
Flying Squirrel
1136
20%
1097
Other Lg.
Mammals
1032
30%
Update: Habitat Modeling & Radio-Telemetry

Completed data collection of
radio-telemetry data – ready for
habitat analysis.

Landscape & home range models
ready for habitat analyses.

FIA plot analyses underway.

Primary challenge remains issues
with vegetation information.

Significant progress on mapping
treatment effects.

Identify issues with canopy cover
that we need to address.
Assess CSO Response to
Forest/Fuels Treatments
and Wildfire
•Untreated Areas –
baseline
•Treated Areas – 4
Project Areas
•High-severity Wildfire
•Low/Moderateseverity Wildfire
Case Study: Meadow Valley Project Area
•~58,900 acres (238.5) km2
•First project area with full
implementation of
treatments completed
•Projects completed in late
2007.
Case Study:
Meadow Valley
Project Area

Landscape area
surveyed annually
between 20032009.
Case Study: Meadow
Valley Project Area





Number of CSO territories
ranged from 6-9 across years.
Core of 7 territories
consistently across years,
except for 6 in 2008 & 2009.
In 2003 (8) & 2007 (9)
additional 1-2 territories.
Some movement of individual
territories across years.
Evidence for possible negative
associations with treatments at
2 territories plus evidence of
possible colonization of a
treated site in 2008.
Case Study: Meadow
Valley Project Area


Maple Flat territory
Miller Fork territory
Case Study: Meadow
Valley Project Area






Miller Fork territory
Two commercial thins in
area prior to 2003.
Meadow Valley Project thin
conducted during the 2005
breeding period.
Thin occurred within 100m
of 2004 nest tree.
Single CSOs detected in
2005 & 2006.
New territory established
about 2 miles to the NW in
2007 & 2008.
Case Study: Meadow
Valley Project Area









Maple Flat territory
Higher elevation site
Projects implemented during 2007
breeding season
Apparent shift in females home
range use coincided with
treatment locations
Male migrated elevationally in
winter and was found dead in
February 2008.
Female migrated to near Lake
Oroville during winter 2007-2008.
Female detected within 4 miles of
core area in March 2009, then
wandered north, eventually
settling about 15 km away for the
2008 breeding period.
Maple Flat unoccupied in 2008.
Occupancy status confounded
with possible change in pair
status.
Case Study: Meadow
Valley Project Area





Pine Leaf territory
Adult male CSO in site
during 2008.
Radio-tracked in 2008.
Pair present in 2008.
Nest – 8 April 2009.
Case Study: Meadow Valley Project Area - Summary
•2008 & 2009 results suggest similar
number of CSO sites across the study
period.
•Evidence for treatment effects at 3
territories.
•Requires accurate information on
treatments and effects on vegetation.
•Creeks, Scott’s John Creek, Empire
projects
Assess CSO Response to
Forest/Fuels Treatments
and Wildfire
•Untreated Areas –
baseline
•Treated Areas – 4
Project Areas
•High-severity Wildfire
•Low/Moderateseverity Wildfire
BAER Fire Severity: Cub/Onion & Moonlight/Antelope Fires
Moonlight/Antelope Complex – 2007
Cub/Onion Complex – 2008
~88,000 ac.
~21,000 ac.
60
50
40
Moonlight/Antelope
30
Cub/Onion
20
10
0
H
M
L
U
Case Study: Moonlight-Antelope Complex Fire Area
Pre-Fire:
•70% Suitable CSO Habitat
•23 CSO Mgmt Areas/Status Unknown
Post-Fire:
•6% Suitable CSO Habitat
CSO territories in the
Moonlight/Antelope
Wildfire Complex Area:
2008-2009.
•2008: 1 CSO pair w/i fire
perimeter + 10 single male
nocturnal detections
•2009: 1 CSO pair w/i
perimeter.
•6-9 CSO territorial sites
distributed across 1-mile
buffer.
CSO territories in the
Cub/Onion Wildfire
Complex Area: 2009
• 4 CSO pairs, 1
unconfirmed pair, 2
territorial single males
w/i fire perimeter.
•Similar distribution
and abundance
patterns as compared
to untreated
areas/MVPA.
Treatment & Wildfire Effects: Summary of Results to Date
•No apparent reduction in the number of CSOs territories at the landscape
scale in MVPA -evidence for treatment effects at home-range scale within
MVPA.
•CSOs abundant & normally distributed within low-moderate severity
burned landscape in Cub/Onion Complex Fire.
•CSOs not able to persist within the high-severity burned landscape in the
Moonlight/Antelope Complex Fire.
•Illustrate importance of considering effects at multiple spatial scales.
•Interpret cautiously as there may be effects that are only expressed over
longer time periods.
•Illustrate the strengths and limitations of the case study approach –
associations with treatments, short vs long-term responses, additional case
studies.
•Requires accurate information on treatments and effects on vegetation.
2010 Plan of Work

Complete the radio-telemetry project, diet,
and habitat modeling components.

Continue density and demographic
monitoring for estimating population
trends.
Continue monitoring of barred owls and
WNV.
Conduct second year of CSO surveys in
the Cub/Onion fire area.
Conduct surveys in the Creeks, Scott’s
John Creek, & Empire project areas.
Moonlight/Antelope CFA – future options
Barred Owls – future options




