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.

Field Researchers: Rachel Kussow, Mason Werner, Erica Sisson

•National Forest Service Region 5.•Plumas and Lassen National Forests.•National Fire Plan.•Peter Stine, Sierra Nevada Research Center, PSW.•QLG Members.

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 & radio-

telemetry 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 t-singles.

Thirty sites with successful nests (47.6%).

Fledged 1.57 young/successful nest.

Nesting Success 2004-2009Year % 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 1989-2009.

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

2003

2004Data: The Center for Disease Control, 2006

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%10

32

1097

1136

1230

1262

1319

1346

1401

1426

1427

1438

1461

1467

1469

1470

1572

1604

1679

Sites by Elevation (m), Low to High

Insects

Birds

Other Sm.Mammals

Pocket Gopher

Broad-footedMoleDeer Mouse

Other Lg.Mammals

Flying Squirrel

Woodrat

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/Moderate-severity 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 2003-2009.

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/Moderate-severity Wildfire

BAER Fire Severity: Cub/Onion & Moonlight/Antelope FiresMoonlight/Antelope Complex – 2007

~88,000 ac.

Cub/Onion Complex – 2008

~21,000 ac.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

H M L U

Moonlight/AntelopeCub/Onion

Case Study: Moonlight-Antelope Complex Fire Area

Post-Fire:•70% Suitable CSO Habitat

•23 CSO Mgmt Areas/Status Unknown•6% Suitable CSO Habitat

Pre-Fire:

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/iperimeter.

•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