National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

San Francisco Bay Area Network 

Northern Spotted Owl Monitoring Protocol 

Version 6.4 

Natural Resource Report NPS/SFAN/NRR—2010/245 
ON THE COVER 

Female northern spotted owl and fledglings in Point Reyes National Seashore, 2007. 

Photo by Heather Jensen, NPS. 
San Francisco Bay Area Network 

Northern Spotted Owl Monitoring Protocol 

Version 6.4

Natural Resource Report NPS/SFAN/NRR—2010/245 

Press, David 

Adams, Dawn 

Jensen, Heather 

Fehring, Katie1

Merkle, William W.

2 

Koenen, Marcus 

Starcevich, Leigh Ann3

National Park Service 

San Francisco Bay Area I&M Network 

Point Reyes National Seashore 

One Bear Valley Road 

Point Reyes Station, California 94956 

1

PRBO Conservation Science 

4990 Shoreline Highway 

Stinson Beach, California 94970 

2 Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Bldg 201, Fort Mason 

San Francisco, California 94123

3 University of Idaho 

PO Box 1032 

Corvallis, Oregon 97339 

September 2010 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Fort Collins, Colorado 
ii

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that 

address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National 

Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and 

environmental constituencies, and the public. 

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource 

management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse 

audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management 

applicability. 

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal, 

high-level peer review based on the importance of its content, or its potentially controversial or 

precedent-setting nature. Peer review was conducted by highly qualified individuals with subject 

area technical expertise and was overseen by a peer review manager. 

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not 

necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. 

This report is available from the San Francisco Area Network Inventory and Monitoring website 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/sfan) and the Natural Resource Publications Management 

website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM). 

Please cite this publication as: 

Press, D., D. Adams, H. Jensen, K. Fehring, W. Merkle, M. Koenen, and L. A. Starcevich. 2010. 

San Francisco Bay Area Network northern spotted owl monitoring protocol : Version 6.4. 

Natural Resource Report NPS/SFAN/NRR—2010/245. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado.

NPS 963/105610, September 2010
iii

Revision History Log 

Prev. Version # Revision Date Author Changes Made Reason for 

Change 

New 

Version # 

September 

2003

D. Adams, 

K. Fehring, 

D. Hatch, S. 

Allen 

First draft of 

monitoring protocol 

Preparation for first 

peer review. 

1.0 

1.0 August 2004 D. Adams, 

K. Fehring, 

B. Merkle 

Minor revisions to 

previous version. 

Preparation for first 

peer review. 

2.0 

2.0 August 2004 D. Adams, 

K. Fehring, 

B. Merkle 

Minor revisions to 

previous version. 

Preparation for first 

peer review. 

3.0 

3.0 September 

2004

D. Adams, 

K. Fehring, 

B. Merkle 

Minor revisions to 

previous version. 

Preparation for first 

peer review. 

4.0 

4.0 October 2004 D. Adams, 

K. Fehring, 

B. Merkle 

Minor revisions to 

previous version. 

Preparation for first 

peer review. 

5.0 

5.0 May 2008 D. Adams, 

H. Jensen, 

K. Fehring, 

B. Merkle, D. 

Press, M. 

Koenen 

Report format edits. 

Expanded and 

improved sections on 

monitoring history, 

previous research, 

barred owls, and 

reporting methods. 

Revised monitoring 

objectives. Added 

randomized study 

design based on new 

power analyses 

developed by SFSU. 

To address peer 

review comments 

and meet current 

formatting 

guidelines. 

6.3 

6.3 April 2010 D. Press, D. 

Adams, H. 

Jensen, K. 

Fehring, B. 

Merkle, M. 

Koenen, L. 

Starcevich 

Report format edits. 

Expanded NSO 

background info. 

Revised monitoring 

objectives. Added 

management triggers. 

New power analyses 

and sampling design 

recommendations 

from University of 

Idaho. Added 

documentation of 

SOD. Provided 

details on methods 

for long-term 

analyses. 

To address peer 

review comments 

and meet current 

formatting 

guidelines. 

6.4 

 v

Contents 

Page 

Figures.......................................................................................................................................... viii 

Tables ............................................................................................................................................. ix

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) ...........................................................................................x

Appendices .......................................................................................................................................x

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... xi

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xiii 

1.0 Background and Objectives .......................................................................................................1

1.1 Northern Spotted Owl Range-wide Status and Habitat Associations ............................... 1

1.2 History of Spotted Owl Monitoring in Marin County ...................................................... 4

1.2.1 NSO Inventory ........................................................................................................ 4 

1.2.2 NSO Long-Term Monitoring .................................................................................. 4 

1.3 History of Spotted Owl Research in Marin County .......................................................... 6

1.3.1 Habitat Associations ............................................................................................... 7 

1.3.2 Nest Structures ........................................................................................................ 8 

1.3.3 NSO Prey ................................................................................................................ 8 

1.4 Conservation Threats ........................................................................................................ 8

1.4.1 Barred Owls ............................................................................................................ 9 

1.4.2 Sudden Oak Death .................................................................................................. 9 

1.4.3 Genetic Isolation ................................................................................................... 10 

1.4.4 Predation ............................................................................................................... 10 

1.5 Measurable Monitoring Objectives ................................................................................. 10

1.6 Management Objectives .................................................................................................. 11
 vi 

1.7 Triggers for Management Activities ............................................................................... 12

2.0 Sampling Design ......................................................................................................................13

2.1 Study Area and Site Selection ......................................................................................... 13

2.2 Sample Design Power Analysis ...................................................................................... 14

2.2.1 Occupancy Analysis.............................................................................................. 15

2.2.2 Fecundity Analysis................................................................................................ 16

2.2.3 Power Analysis ..................................................................................................... 16

2.3 NSO Monitoring Design ................................................................................................. 17

2.3.1 Sampling Frequency and Timing .......................................................................... 18

2.4 Sample Design Review ................................................................................................... 20

2.5 Additional Surveys .......................................................................................................... 20

3.0 Field Methods ..........................................................................................................................21

3.1 Field Season Preparations ............................................................................................... 21

3.2 Sequence of Events during Field Season ........................................................................ 21

3.3 Survey Protocols ............................................................................................................. 21

3.3.1 Activity Center Monitoring................................................................................... 22

3.3.2 Measuring Nesting Habitat ................................................................................... 22

3.4 Cooperation with Other Research Activities .................................................................. 23

3.4.1 Documenting West Nile Virus .............................................................................. 23

3.4.2 Documenting Sudden Oak Death.......................................................................... 23

3.5 End of Season Procedures ............................................................................................... 24

4.0 Data Handling, Analysis, and Reporting .................................................................................27

4.1 Overview of Database Design ........................................................................................ 27

4.2 Data Entry, Verification, and Editing ............................................................................. 27
 vii 

4.3 Metadata Procedures ....................................................................................................... 28

4.4 Annual Data Summaries ................................................................................................. 28

4.5 Annual Reporting Schedule ............................................................................................ 29

4.6 Long-term Trend Analysis Reporting ............................................................................. 29

4.7 Report Formats ................................................................................................................ 30

4.8 Other Reporting Requirements ....................................................................................... 31

4.9 Report and Data Dissemination ...................................................................................... 31

4.10 Data and Report Archival Procedures ........................................................................... 31

5.0 Personnel Requirements and Training .....................................................................................33

5.1 Roles and Responsibilities .............................................................................................. 33

5.2 Qualifications .................................................................................................................. 34

5.3 Training Procedures ........................................................................................................ 35

6.0 Operational Requirements .......................................................................................................37

6.1 Annual Workload and Field Schedule ............................................................................ 37

6.2 Facility and Equipment Needs ........................................................................................ 38

6.3 Budget ............................................................................................................................. 38

6.4 Permit Requirements ....................................................................................................... 38

7.0 Glossary ...................................................................................................................................39

8.0 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................41
 viii 

Figures 

Page 

Figure 1. NSO suitable habitat (Stralberg et al. 2009) and land management units within 

Marin County, California. ............................................................................................................... 2 

Figure 2. Model averaged apparent survival rates with 95% confidence intervals for male 

and female NSOs in Marin County. ................................................................................................ 5 

Figure 3. Annual fluctuations of mean fecundity (no. female young fledged per female) 

of NSOs in four study areas in California. ...................................................................................... 5

Figure 4. Northern spotted owl study area. Marin County land management units are 

color coded. The study area itself is shaded in black, diagonal lines. .......................................... 14 

Figure 5. Power of the likelihood ratio test to detect trend in the binomial probability of 

spotted owl fecundity in 5 consecutive survey years for four rates of change. ............................ 19 
ix

Tables 

Table 1. Selected sample design for NSO monitoring.. ................................................................ 17

Table 2. Power of the likelihood ratio test to detect trends in spotted owl pair occupancy 

within five consecutive survey years for four revisit designs. ...................................................... 18

Table 3. Annual NSO program tasks. ........................................................................................... 37

Table 4. Estimated annual SFAN NSO monitoring program budget based on FY10 cost 

estimates. ....................................................................................................................................... 38
 x

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) 

Page 

SOP 1. Preparations and Equipment Setup Procedures .................................................................47

SOP 2. Standard Field Procedures .................................................................................................51

SOP 3. Status Designations............................................................................................................77

SOP 4. Data Management Handbook ............................................................................................91

SOP 5. Data Analysis and Reporting ...........................................................................................115

SOP 6. Safety Procedures ............................................................................................................167

SOP 7. Revising the Protocol.......................................................................................................177

Appendices 

Page 

Appendix A: Analysis of Power to Detect Trends in Occupancy and Fecundity in Prairie 

Falcon and Spotted Owl Populations ...........................................................................................223
xi

Executive Summary

This protocol and the attached standard operating procedures detail the background, field 

methods, data management, annual and long-term reporting and analyses, and operational 

requirements to monitor northern spotted owls (NSO) at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 

Muir Woods National Monument, and Point Reyes National Seashore in California. The owls are 

listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and face a variety of threats in Marin 

County including loss of habitat due to development and catastrophic fire, displacement by 

barred owls (Strix varia), change in habitat due to Sudden Oak Death, human disturbances 

during the breeding season, and mortality due to West Nile Virus. 

The parks included for monitoring by this protocol and surrounding Marin County compose the 

southernmost range of the NSO. Although NSO are typically found in old growth forests, in 

Marin NSOs reside in second growth Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), coast redwood 

(Sequoia sempervirens), bishop pine (Pinus muricata), mixed conifer-hardwood, mixed 

evergreen hardwood forests, as well as remnant old-growth stands of coast redwood and 

Douglas-fir. The primary food source for the NSO is the dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma 

fuscipes).

NSO density and fecundity monitoring began in 1993 after an infusion of funding associated 

with the Vision Fire at Point Reyes National Seashore. In 1999, the NPS and partners began 

regular long-term monitoring at 46 select NSO territories. Field methods follow those of the 

USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Protocol (PNW) with slight 

modification to reduce mousing and associated habituation to people. The monitoring program 

continues to the present using a new randomized sampling design that was initiated in 2007. 

The long-term monitoring objectives are to: 

1. Monitor long-term trends in NSO site occupancy rates of territories within the legislated NPS 

boundaries of Marin County, California. 

2. Monitor long-term trends in NSO fecundity (number of female young per territorial female) 

within NSO territories within the legislated NPS boundaries of Marin County, California. 

3. Determine long-term trends in NSO nest site characteristics including nest tree metrics and 

abiotic and biotic habitat characteristics to evaluate changes in nesting habitat associations 

within the legislated NPS boundaries of Marin County, California. 

The sample design presented in this protocol includes an annual panel of 28 randomly selected 

sites with all remaining sites divided equally into four rotating panels of 8 sites each. That 

means a total of 36 sites will be monitored annually to determine occupancy. Fecundity 

determination will occur at every site occupied by a territorial female, no matter if the site is 

within the annual panel or one of the rotating panels. The selected sample design has a power of 

99% to detect a 4% annual decline in occupancy in 5 years (α = 0.20) and 80% power to detect a 

10% annual decline in fecundity in 5 years (α = 0.20). Nest tree characteristics will be recorded 
xii

for every nest detected during monitoring. In addition, a SOD Severity Index has been 

developed and will be calculated to track SOD around activity centers. 

Surveys are conducted during the breeding season from March until the end of July. To 

determine occupancy, surveyors will make a minimum of 3 site visits before determining that a 

site is unoccupied. Given the relatively high detection probabilities, any combination of 3 day 

and night visits would provide a greater than 88% detection probability of either a single or pair. 

The initial visits are made during the day and if occupancy is not ascertained, follow ups are 

made during the night. Additional surveys will be conducted to determine fecundity. 

Marin County monitoring mark-recapture data from 1998 to 2003 were included in a range-wide 

demographic analysis that estimated apparent survival rates for the Marin County study, which 

were stable relative to other study sites and the sex-specific fecundity. Data collected from 2004 

suggest a stable populations and fecundity but statistical analyses have not yet been completed. 

 

Research conducted by PRBO Conservation Science in Marin County using NSO data collected 

in part by this monitoring program looked at prey availability, habitat selection, and conservation 

threats. Habitat modeling suggested that protecting intact forested watersheds is a higher priority 

for protecting the NSO population in Marin County than managing for particular forest types or 

age classes in the region. In addition, a study on nest sites indicated that 91% of the nests in 

surveyed in Marin County were platform nests and 9% of nests were in cavities. In contrast, 80% 

to 90% of nests were in cavities in older forests in northwestern California and the Olympic 

Peninsula in Washington. 

Barred owls (Strix varia) present a growing concern in Marin County. The first barred owls 

were documented in 2002. The first pair was noted in 2005 and the first successful breeding 

occurred in 2007 within the study area. Sudden Oak Death also presents a growing problem. A 

widespread die-off of native coast live oak and tanoak species throughout NSO habitat in Marin 

County may have long-term impacts on habitat, prey populations, and extreme fire behavior. 
xiii

Acknowledgements 

S. Allen, Point Reyes National Seashore, and D. Hatch, Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

began this spotted owl monitoring program in the mid-1990s and have provided unflagging 

support, seeking NPS base and project funding sources to continue to the monitoring program 

and initiate studies to further explore the relationship of northern spotted owls to the Marin 

County landscape. PRBO Conservation Science, Marin Municipal Water District, and Marin 

Open Space District have been partners in the development and continuation of this monitoring 

program. T. Gardali and R. Cormier from PRBO have been valuable program members for the 

last several years. 

M. Monroe has provided support for the monitoring through the Muir Woods National 

Monument‘s volunteer program and has been a liaison with the east Marin County communities 

and municipalities. D. George designed the initial database and database handbook. Numerous 

field techs, volunteers and interns have provided the dedication needed over the years. 

In 2004, an earlier version of this document was peer reviewed by and benefited from comments 

made by three reviewers: R. Gutiérrez, University of Minnesota; P. Happe, Olympic National 

Park; and R. H. Barrett, University of California – Berkeley. 

Preliminary sample design assistance was provided in 2006 through 2008 by G. LeBuhn and E. 

F. Connor, San Francisco State University, though the University of California CESU 

(Cooperative Ecosystems Study Unit) agreement. 

University of Idaho completed the final power analyses and recommended sample design. We 

are grateful to Kirk Steinhorst and especially Leigh Ann Starcevich for the analyses, for 

reviewing sections of the protocol narrative, and for seeing this protocol through to this point. 

1

1.0 Background and Objectives 

The mission of the National Park Service (NPS) is ―to conserve the scenery and the natural and 

historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such 

manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations‖ (NPS 1916). To uphold this goal, in 1992, the NPS began development of a national 

policy to better understand the dynamic nature and condition of natural resources, to detect or 

predict changes that may require intervention, and to serve as reference points for more altered 

parts of the environment (NPS 1992). In 1998, the Director of the NPS approved the Natural 

Resource Challenge to encourage national parks to focus on the preservation of the nation‘s 

natural heritage through science, natural resource inventories, and expanded resource monitoring 

(NPS 1998). Through the Challenge, 270 parks in the national park system were organized into 

32 inventory and monitoring networks. 

The San Francisco Bay Area Network (SFAN) includes Eugene O‘Neill (EUON), John Muir 

(JOMU), and Fort Point (FOPO) National Historic Sites, the Presidio of San Francisco (PRES), 

Muir Woods (MUWO) and Pinnacles National (PINN) Monuments, Point Reyes National 

Seashore (PORE), and Golden Gate National Recreation (GOGA). The network has identified 

vital signs, indicators of ecosystem health, which represent a broad suite of ecological 

phenomena operating across multiple temporal and spatial scales. The intent of SFAN is to 

monitor a balanced and integrated ―package‖ of vital signs that meets the needs of current park 

management and will also be able to accommodate unanticipated environmental conditions in the 

future. 

In 2005, SFAN biologists and cooperators completed a vital sign selection process to rank the 

most important natural resources in the network of NPS units (Adams et al. 2006). The SFAN 

used four criteria to rank indicators: ecological significance, management significance, legal 

mandate, and cost and feasibility. Northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina: NSO) 

represent a vital sign for SFAN due to their ecological significance, a desire to augment to an 

already large data set on NSO (see Section 1.2), and high interest to the public (Adams et al. 

2006). In addition, NPS Management Policies (NPS 2006), the Government Performance and 

Results Act (1993), strategic plan goals for the NPS, and the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP; 

USDA and USDI 1994a, b) require that the NPS monitor long-term status and trends and 

maintain stable or increasing populations of species listed as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act, such as the NSO. 

1.1 Northern Spotted Owl Range-wide Status and Habitat Associations 

NSOs were listed as federally threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on June 22, 1990 

―due to loss and adverse modification of suitable habitat as a result of timber harvesting and 

exacerbated by catastrophic events such as fire, volcanic eruption, and wind storms‖ (USFWS 

1990). The owls are distributed in forested regions from southern British Columbia through 

Washington, Oregon, and northwestern California. They reach the southern limit of their range in 

coastal California north of San Francisco Bay, where they occur in GOGA, MUWO, PORE, and 

other parts of Marin County, California (Figure 1). 
 2

Figure 1. NSO suitable habitat (Stralberg et al. 2009) and land management units within Marin County, 

California. 

NSOs are strongly associated with mature and old-growth coniferous forests throughout their 

entire range (Forsman et al. 1984; Thomas et al. 1990; Carroll and Johnson 2008) because these 

forests support the features necessary for successful nesting, roosting, foraging, and high prey 

densities. Important habitat features include a high canopy closure, a complex and multi-storied 

structure, botanical diversity, a high incidence of potential nest trees and structures, and large 

accumulations of forest floor woody debris (Thomas et al. 1990). 
3

NSO annual home-range sizes generally increase from south to north, and can exceed several 

thousand acres in size (Thomas et al. 1990; Zabel et al. 1995). Carey et al. (1992) and Zabel et al. 

(1995) found that spotted owl habitat use and home range size is related to their primary prey 

species. In comparison to the northern populations, spotted owls in California may require a 

broad variety of habitats (Zabel et al. 2003). In the southern portion of the spotted owl range 

where the dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) is the dominant prey, spotted owls appear to 

exhibit selective generalist behavior in habitat selection – that is, they select habitats containing a 

mix of old and younger forest stands that provide adequate nesting and foraging habitats (Zabel 

et al. 2003). 

Several key studies have explored NSO habitat suitability, nest site occurrence, and life history 

traits (i.e., survival and fecundity) in relation to biotic and abiotic habitat variables at the 

landscape level. In northwestern California, Franklin et al. (2000) found that NSO survival is 

positively associated with levels of old-growth forests, and that both survival and reproductive 

output increase with the length of edge between old-growth forests and other vegetation types. 

Franklin et al. suggested that ―a mosaic of older forest interspersed with other vegetation types 

promoted high fitness in Northern Spotted Owls‖. Importantly, Franklin et al. (2000) 

documented nonlinear habitat relations for NSO, indicating that too much ―suitable‖ habitat may 

actually have negative effects on NSO requirements, such as foraging. Olson et al. (2004) 

confirmed a nonlinear habitat relationship in the Oregon Coast Range, reporting that NSO 

survival was quadratically related to the amount of mid- and late-seral forests within 1,500m of 

activity centers. As with Franklin et al. (2000), edge effects between older forests and other 

habitat types also exerted a positive influence on NSOs in the Olson et al. (2004) study, 

furthering the notion that a mixture of older forests and other habitat types was important to NSO 

survival and reproduction. More recently, Carroll and Johnson (2008) again confirmed a 

quadratic relationship between owl sites and old-growth forests in the northern Californian 

subregion of the NSO range. In the northern regions of the NSO range, however, a more linear 

relationship between owl abundance and older forests was observed, underscoring the 

importance of old growth forest preserves in the recovery of NSO populations. 

Within the NSO range, trends in NSO populations are evaluated through analyses of 

demographic data collected in key study areas on private, tribal, state, and federal lands, with 

some data sets extending back to 1985 (Anthony et al. 2006). Demographic studies include the 

banding of NSO adults and juveniles, resighting of banded owls, occupancy monitoring of 

known NSO territories, and reproductive monitoring of nesting NSOs. 

The most recent demographic analysis of 14 study areas (Anthony et al. 2006) estimated and 

evaluated trends in age-specific survival and fecundity rates, and determined annual rates of 

population change within each study areas and across all study areas. NPS data from Marin 

County was included in the monograph but excluded from estimates of population change due to 

low sample size (see Section 1.2.2). Anthony et al. (2006) estimated that NSO populations across 

the 13 other long-term study areas decreased by an average of 3.7% each year from 1985 to 

2003. Owl survival declined in 5 of the 14 study areas, with the sharpest declines reported from 

all four study areas in Washington. Reasons for these declines in survival and populations likely 

include, but are not limited to the high densities of barred owls (Strix varia) in Washington and 
4

Oregon, loss of habitat due to timber harvest or wildfire, declines in prey abundance, poor 

weather conditions, and forest defoliation caused by insect infestations (Anthony et al. 2006). 

1.2 History of Spotted Owl Monitoring in Marin County 

The three NPS units in Marin County (GOGA, MUWO, and PORE) began a small-scale, joint 

NSO survey in the county in 1993. Previously, there had been informal surveys in the area, but 

only one pair was reported in the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994a, b). In 1995, after the Vision 

wildfire, PORE was able to increase survey efforts and initiate monitoring of NSO sites in and 

around the fire because of an infusion of funds for rehabilitation and environmental compliance 

(Chow and Allen 1997). Additionally, following the fire, Chow studied NSO density and habitat 

associations as a graduate student at Humboldt State University (Chow 2001). 

1.2.1 NSO Inventory 

In 1997 and 1998, recognizing the need for more information about a sensitive species on NPS 

lands, the NPS conducted a formal NSO inventory study of most federal lands in Marin County 

using the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ―Protocol for Surveying Proposed 

Management Activities That May Impact Northern Spotted Owls‖ (USFWS 1992) with national 

NPS funds. The NPS collaborated with PRBO Conservation Science (PRBO) in order to add to 

the inventory public lands adjacent to NPS boundaries, including Marin Municipal Water 

District (MMWD), Marin County Open Space District (MCOSD), and California State Parks. 

The inventory identified at least 80 different NSO territories, or activity sites, throughout Marin 

County. NSO were found in a variety of forested habitat types, including Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), bishop pine (Pinus muricata), 

and mixed hardwood forests comprised of tanbark oak (Lithocarpus densiflorus), coast live oak 

(Quercus agrifolia), and California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica). The results of the 1997 

and 1998 inventory showed many more NSO activity sites than expected on public lands in the 

county. 

1.2.2 NSO Long-Term Monitoring 

In 1999, the NPS and partners began long-term monitoring at 46 of the 80 known NSO 

territories, identified during the inventory phase on the federal, state, and county managed lands 

(Hatch et al. 1999). The 46 territories were non-randomly selected based on accessibility, known 

management issues, and representation of different dominant forest types. Monitoring surveys 

were conducted to determine reproductive rates and population trends. Monitoring methods 

followed those of the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Protocol (PNW) 

created for use in Northwest Forest Plan NSO demographic study areas (Forsman 1995). These 

survey methods include repeated calling and feeding of live mice (Mus domesticus; known as 

―mousing‖) to enhance detection rates. It has been shown, however, that these methods can alter 

owl behavior. For example, owls habituated to people or food conditioning may be more 

vulnerable to disturbance and manipulation by park operations and visitors (Forsman 1995). 

In 1999, the NPS modified the PNW demographic study monitoring protocol in response to 

observed behavioral changes in NSO apparently due to repeated mousing by biologists and 

photographers. All protocol deviations from the PNW protocol were intended to minimize the 

number of mice fed to owls by increasing search effort and observation time. The Modified 

Protocols for Spotted Owl Monitoring and Demographic Studies in Marin County, California 
 5

(Marin Modified Field Protocol; Fehring et al. 2001; see SOP 3: Status Designations) increased 

the search effort and number of visits in order to decrease the number of visits during which 

mice were offered to owls. Increased search effort was used to determine reproductive variables, 

including non-nesting status and number of young. Decreased mousing reduced the potential for 

NSO habituation to people. 

The long-term monitoring included a demographic study using mark-recapture techniques to 

assess population trends. Between 1998 and 2003, the NPS individually marked NSOs at 26 of 

the 46 long-term monitoring territories using unique color bands and numbered U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) bands (Hatch et al. 1999; Fehring et al. 2001; Fehring et al. 2002; Fehring et al. 

2003; Fehring et al. 2004). A total of 110 NSOs (37 adults, 23 subadults, 50 juveniles) were 

banded at the 26 sites. The Marin County study, however, suffered from a small sample size of 

capture-recapture data. The sample size was small due to banding owls at only 26 activity sites 

and a small time period of less than five years of recapture data for most banded owls. Despite 

the limitations of the study results, Marin County capture-recapture data from 1998 to 2003 were 

included in a range-wide demographic analysis workshop in January 2004 (Anthony et al. 2006). 

Due to the relatively small sample size compared to the other 13 sites examined in the 

demography study, the authors were not able to calculate the finite rate of population change (λ)

for the Marin County data (Anthony et al. 2006). The analysis estimated apparent survival rates 

for the Marin County study, which were stable relative to other study sites (Figure 2) and the 

sex-specific fecundity (Figure 3). 

Figure 2. Model averaged apparent survival 

rates with 95% confidence intervals for male 

and female NSOs in Marin County (adapted 

from Anthony et al. 2006).

Figure 3. Annual fluctuations of mean fecundity (no. 

female young fledged per female) of NSOs in four study 

areas in California (adapted from Anthony et al. 2006).

The use of the Marin Modified Field Protocol may have affected estimates of fecundity values 

during the study, but since the annual fluctuations in fecundity appear to be similar to the other 

California study areas, we dismiss that as a measurable effect. In all NSO studies, a potential bias 
6

in fecundity values is possible due to lower detectability of non-reproducing individuals 

(Franklin et al. 1996). The reduced use of mice to determine non-nesting in the Marin Modified 

Field Protocol may have decreased the probability of detecting non-reproducing owls because 

owls are less habituated to respond to observers. Multiple site visits, though, likely increased the 

probability of detection. Detection rates of Marin NSOs based on multiple visits were determined 

to be very high (Connor and LeBuhn 2007c). 

Additionally, the Marin County site-based study, with almost 90% annual occupancy of 

monitored sites does not allow for much growth in occupancy rate to be measured. The general 

recommendation for the Marin County study from the 2004 range-wide workshop participants 

was to add more banding sites, add more demographic monitoring sites in suitable habitat, 

increase juvenile banding efforts and continue monitoring all the sites. Unfortunately, the 

demographic study ended in 2004 because of limited funding. 

In 2004, the program was changed to reduce the level of reproductive monitoring to a random 

subset of 30 of the 46 long-term monitoring territories (Jensen et al. 2004). The remaining 16 

territories were monitored for occupancy only. The number of 30 territories was suggested as a 

minimum number of sites in order to estimate population fecundity (PRBO, Nadav Nur, 

Theoretical Ecologist, pers. com. 2004). 

Other protocol changes were initiated in 2006 as a result of peer review comments to an earlier 

version of this protocol. The reviewers emphasized that the selection process for the 46 longterm monitoring territories was not done randomly, which limited the ability to make inferences 

to the entire population on federal lands. In addition, the high occupancy rate and lack of 

unoccupied sites within suitable habitat in the sample population limited the ability to detect 

growth in occupancy. 

To address peer review comments and begin modifications to the monitoring design, a formal 

study area was established and the entire area was inventoried for NSO occupancy in 2006 

(Jensen et al. 2007). More details on the study area are provided in Section 2.1. Following the 

2006 inventory, all sites were listed under a potential sampling frame for future occupancy 

monitoring. Only sites with a history of pair status for at least one breeding season between 1997 

and 2006 were incorporated into a fecundity sampling frame. From 2007 to 2010, sites were 

randomly selected for full reproductive monitoring from the fecundity sampling frame (Jensen et 

al. 2008; Jensen et al. 2010). In 2007 and 2008, 25 random sites were monitored, while in 2009 

and 2010 the sample size was increased to 30 random sites annually. The first non-nesting year 

for NSO was documented in 2007. Monitoring years 2007-2010 were interim years while the 

program sought statistical support for the occupancy and fecundity data, developed power 

analyses for the data, developed a final long-term sample design, and worked towards final 

protocol approval. The final sample design resulting from these efforts is presented in Section 

2.0. 

1.3 History of Spotted Owl Research in Marin County 

The inventories and long-term monitoring conducted in Marin County have provided fertile 

grounds for opportunistic and complementary research. 
7

1.3.1 Habitat Associations 

Although typically associated with old growth or mature forests, NSOs can utilize a wide variety 

of habitat types. They exhibit flexibility in their use of different forested areas for nesting, 

roosting and feeding requirements, but typical habitat characteristics include a multi-storied 

structure and high canopy cover. In Marin County, NSOs reside in second growth Douglas-fir, 

second growth coast redwood, bishop pine, mixed conifer-hardwood, mixed evergreen hardwood 

forests, as well as remnant old-growth stands of coast redwood and Douglas-fir. 

Chow (2001) studied NSO and habitat associations in Marin County between 1996 and 1998 in 

coordination with NPS inventory efforts (Section 1.2.1). Using a crude density estimate (number 

of owls per area surveyed), she detected 82 territorial owls at the highest density yet reported for 

the species (0.376 owls/ km2; Chow 2001; Blakesley et al. 2004). As with other areas within 

coastal California, NSOs were associated with habitats that had larger trees, greater number of 

potential nest trees, steeper slopes, and larger proportions of downed woody material. Chow 

speculated that the high density at the southern edge of the NSO range ―reflected a relatively 

uniform distribution of suitable habitat‖ and that suitable habitat included mild climatic 

conditions (2001). 

Between 1999 and 2002, PRBO and NPS conducted a more in-depth analysis of NSO occurrence 

and habitat distribution in Marin County (Stralberg et al. 2009. The study objectives were to 

apply and evaluate a habitat-based species distribution model, using a scaled approach that 

would be most useful to land managers. 

Model development included a suite of point (i.e., nest location) and landscape features sourced 

from data collected on site and from locally available GIS layers. Point features included aspect 

and distances to the nearest stream and road. Landscape features were calculated for circular 

areas around activity centers at 200 m, 400 m, and 800 m intervals and included slope, elevation, 

forest cover proportion, proportion of various vegetation cover types (conifer versus hardwood, 

and specific dominant tree species), forest stand age, and total forest edge. 

The analysis benefited from the NPS vegetation map for PORE, GOGA, and MUWO completed 

in 2003 (Schirokauer et al. 2003). The vegetation map represents an intensive effort involving 

initial pilot sampling of vegetation communities, manual GIS digitizing of vegetation polygons 

based on a set of 1994 aerial color photographs, and field verification at over 1,600 vegetation 

plots. Vegetation types were classified at a fine scale to the alliance/association level resulting in 

87 identified plant communities. Classification accuracy of dominant forest and woodland cover 

types was uniformly robust at 80% or greater (Schirokauer et al. 2003). 

Besides the importance of forest cover, the Stralberg et al. (2009) models indicated that forest 

connectivity and topographic conditions, such as slope position and stream proximity, were the 

strongest predictors of nesting owl presence. Topographic preferences may reflect a variety of 

factors, including favorable ambient temperatures, higher prey density, greater nest structure 

availability, and increased cover and protection from predators. In contrast to other studies 

within the NSO range, forest type (i.e., conifer-dominated versus hardwood-dominated), specific 

tree species composition, and mean stand size were not major influences on owl site suitability 

within the study area. Model results indicate that Marin County NSOs are generalists in this part 
8

of their range and may benefit from a high interspersion of forest types within the study area, 

representing ideal conditions for high prey densities. The authors suggested that protecting intact 

forested watersheds is a higher priority for protecting the NSO population than managing for 

particular forest types or age classes in the region (Stralberg et al. 2009). A GIS-layer 

representing a model of the most likely NSO habitat in Marin County was produced in the study. 

1.3.2 Nest Structures 

Between 1999 and 2008, 101 unique nests were located within the NPS study area; 91% of the 

nests were platform nests and 9% of nests were in cavities (Jensen et al. 2010). The ratio of nest 

types in Marin County is similar to the ratio observed in other younger aged forests such as the 

Wenatchee National Forest on the east slope of the Cascade Mountains in Washington 

(Buchanan and Irwin 1993). In the Wenatchee study, 16.5% of nests were cavities, while in older 

forests in northwestern California and the Olympic Peninsula in Washington, 80% and 90% of 

nests were in cavities, respectively (Forsman and Griese 1997; LaHaye and Gutiérrez 1999). 

LaHaye and Gutiérrez (1999) hypothesized that nest type depends on the age of the forest and 

this is supported in Marin County where logging created a younger-aged forest habitat. 

1.3.3 NSO Prey 

In the northern portion of their range, NSOs feed on northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys 

sabrinus), but in the southern portion their diet is principally dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma 

fuscipes). Additional prey items include mice (Peromyscus spp.), red tree voles (Phenacomys 

longicaudus), red-backed voles (Clethrionomys spp.), brush rabbits (Sylvilagus bachmani), 

pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.), and a variety of birds, amphibians and insects (Thomas et al. 

1990). Pellet analyses indicate that spotted owls in Marin County forage primarily on duskyfooted woodrats, deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and meadow voles (Microtus 

californicus) as well as other small mammals and forest-dwelling birds (Chow and Allen 1997, 

2005; Fehring 2003; Fehring et al. 2003). 

In the fall and winter of 2002, PORE and PRBO conducted a follow up study to confirm the 

relative importance of dusky-footed woodrats as a NSO prey species and to assess woodrat house 

densities in forested habitats. The results of the study showed an overall average of 0.95 woodrat 

houses per hectare across all plant communities, with California bay (Umbellularia californica) 

habitat having the highest density (1.19 houses/ha; Fehring 2003). Assuming a winter occupancy 

rate of 1:1 ratio of woodrats to houses, the house index would suggest that there were an average 

of 0.95 woodrats/ha in the Marin County study. The estimate is conservative since using woodrat 

houses may provide an underestimate of actual density, because not all houses are likely detected 

and woodrats will sometimes not use houses. The Marin County woodrat density values were 

similar to 0.9 woodrats/ha estimated from a density study based on direct woodrat trapping in 

late seral, mixed evergreen forests in northwestern California (Ward et al. 1998). The Marin 

County woodrat density estimates were higher than the 0.41 woodrats/ha density found in a 

woodrat trapping study in large, old growth habitat in northwestern California (Sakai and Noon 

1993). 

1.4 Conservation Threats 

The NSO was originally listed as a threatened species because of loss of habitat, reduction in 

quality of habitat, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms (USFWS 1990). The 2004 status 
9

review identified the effects of past and current timber harvest, loss of habitat to fire, and barred 

owls as current major threats, though the effects of barred owls on NSO remained uncertain 

(Courtney et al. 2004). In addition, Courtney and Gutiérrez (2004) identified West Nile Virus 

and Sudden Oak Death (SOD) as new potential threats. The 2008 NSO Recovery Plan 

acknowledged that protecting and managing NSO habitat alone is not adequate for NSO 

recovery and the USFWS prioritized barred owls as a significant and complex threat (USFWS 

2008). Barred owls overlap in territory and diet with NSOs throughout much of their range, and 

barred owls are suspected of displacing the smaller NSO (Hamer et al. 1994, 2001; Leskiw and 

Gutiérrez 1998; Kelly et al. 2003). 

In Marin County, the NSO population is subject to some of these same threats. The greatest 

concerns for the NSO population on federal lands in Marin County, include: (1) loss of habitat 

resulting from urban development along open space boundaries, (2) catastrophic wildfires, (3) 

interspecific competition due to the continued range expansion of the barred owl, (4) structural 

changes in forest heterogeneity due to SOD, (5) possible genetic isolation, (6) human disturbance 

due to intense recreational pressures, (7) use of rodenticides along the urban/wildland interface, 

and (8) West Nile virus. 

1.4.1 Barred Owls 

In May 2002, the first recorded barred owl observation for Marin County occurred within a 

monitored NSO territory at MUWO. The first barred owl pair was detected in 2005, and the first 

successful breeding by barred owls was documented in 2007, also in MUWO (Jensen et al. 

2008). No spotted owl/barred owl hybrids have been documented to date. As of 2009, there are 

currently at least three known barred owls (one pair and a single male) within the NPS NSO 

study area in Marin County (Jensen et al. 2010). Four spotted owl sites selected for monitoring 

within the resident male barred owl‘s Olema Valley territory were determined to be unoccupied 

during the 2008 breeding season. 

1.4.2 Sudden Oak Death 

Of particular recent concern are the effects on NSO habitat of continuing die-off of tanoaks,

coast live oaks and several other tree and shrub species due to a pathogen, Phytophthora 

ramorum, commonly known as Sudden Oak Death (SOD). This disease is widespread in coastal 

California and is commonly found in tanoaks, and in evergreen hardwood forests dominated by 

oaks, California bay, and madrone (Arbutus menziesii). Currently, Marin County is heavily 

infested by SOD. A recent study of PORE vegetation by researchers from University of 

California at Berkeley (Moritz et al. 2008) sampled SOD at 48 locations within three major 

vegetation types: redwood-tanoak, Douglas-fir, and California bay-coast live oak. Additionally, 

foliar samples were taken at 74 locations. Of these foliar sampling locations, 29 (39%) tested 

positive for P. ramorum and the pathogen was found in all three major vegetation types sampled. 

From the proportions of the randomly located plots that tested positive for infection, the 

researchers inferred that as much as 63% of redwood-tanoak forests, 45% of California bay-coast 

live oak forests, and 24% of Douglas-fir forests at PORE may be infected with P. ramorum. In 

several plots, tanoak mortality was greater than 95%. Finally, Moritz et al. (2008) stated that 

because tree species richness is low within their sampled locations, tanoak represents a 

substantial proportion of tree species richness and total woody species richness in both redwood 
10

and Douglas-fir forests. Consequently, if tanoak is eliminated by SOD, as scientists predict, the 

tree species richness of redwood forests could be locally reduced by as much as one-third. 

The die-off of native coast live and tanoak species is occurring throughout NSO habitat in Marin 

County, and this may have long-term impacts on habitat and prey populations. The major NSO 

prey species, the dusky-footed woodrat (Chow and Allen 1997, 2005; Fehring 2003), is

dependent upon cover and food (acorns) provided by tanoaks (Sakai and Noon 1993). There are 

no published studies on the effects SOD on NSO prey base and this is a pressing research need 

for land management agencies in Marin County. 

Oak mortality induced by SOD also causes changes in fuel loading, stand structure, and 

microclimate. As these changes occur, the potential for uncharacteristically extreme fire behavior 

and associated ecological impacts likely will increase. Anecdotal reports from fire fighters 

working in redwood forests infested with SOD during the 2008 Basin Fire in Big Sur, California 

indicated increases in fire intensity of approximately 25% (Lee et al. 2009). 

1.4.3 Genetic Isolation 

Feather samples collected in 1999 and 2000 from Marin County‘s NSO population were part of a 

study conducted at the Conservation Genetics Laboratory at San Jose State University. The 

Conservation Genetics Lab compared the Marin County NSO population with other populations 

of northern and California spotted owls (Strix occidentalis occidentalis). Their results indicated 

that the Marin County NSO population has very little gene flow with NSO populations farther to 

the north and shows no evidence of hybridization with California spotted owls (Henke et al. 

2003; Barrowclough et al. 2005). Henke et al. (2003) did not find evidence of inbreeding effects 

in the Marin County NSO population, but Barrowclough et al. (2005) indicated that due to the 

apparent genetic isolation of Marin County‘s NSO population, the population warrants special 

management attention. 

1.4.4 Predation 

Predation is not believed to be an important threat within Marin County, but common ravens 

(Corvus corvax) and other corvids are suspected predators of NSO eggs. Range-wide NSO 

predators also occur in Marin County and include northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilus), 

Cooper‘s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and great horned owls 

(Bubo virginianus) (Forsman et al. 1984; LaHaye 2004).

1.5 Measurable Monitoring Objectives 

There are three current monitoring objectives for the SFAN NSO Monitoring Program. The 

methods are outlined in the sampling design and field methods sections below.

1. Monitor long-term trends in NSO site occupancy rates of territories within the legislated 

NPS boundaries of Marin County, California. 

2. Monitor long-term trends in NSO fecundity (number of female young per territorial 

female) within NSO territories within the legislated NPS boundaries of Marin County, 

California.
11

3. Determine long-term trends in NSO nest site characteristics including nest tree metrics 

and abiotic and biotic habitat characteristics to evaluate changes in nesting habitat 

associations within the legislated NPS boundaries of Marin County, California. 

Monitoring NSO population occupancy rates and fecundity will allow managers to accurately 

assess the status and trend of this isolated, potentially vulnerable NSO population, where it 

occupies a land use matrix strikingly different from that found throughout most of the NSO 

range. An analysis of historic fecundity data in the Marin County NSO monitoring program 

indicates that fecundity is a valuable parameter to measure for population size declines (Connor 

and LeBuhn 2007a, 2007b). Percent of occupied territories has been shown to be a good 

indicator of long-term declines in population size in a territory-based monitoring program for 

other raptors (Bart and Robson 1995; Katzner et al. 2007). Additional information collected at all 

activity sites will include sex and age of all NSOs. Concurrent monitoring of nest site 

characteristics may provide data on reasons for changes seen in reproductive success and also 

allow assessment of possible changes in nest site selection and/or differences in habitat quality. 

Demographic monitoring to estimate rates of survival and population growth is occurring on 

late-seral stage forest reserves throughout the NSO range as part of the Northwest Forest Plan 

monitoring. While conducting demographic monitoring in Marin County would be ideal to better 

pinpoint changes in the NSO population, it is not feasible given current funding limitations. 

1.6 Management Objectives 

NSO monitoring provides critical data for land managers. Occurrence and nesting status 

information is frequently used by the parks to plan and mitigate for activities that may create 

potential nest or habitat disturbances. Fuel-load management, roads and trails maintenance, and

other construction activities, for example, are generally not planned within 400 m of active nest 

sites or during the February 1 to July 31 seasonal restrictions window currently used by the 

USFWS (USFWS 1992). 

Federal land in Marin County is included in the USFWS 2008 Recovery Plan as a Managed Owl 

Conservation Area (MOCA 2) which is defined as a small habitat block that can support between 

1 and 19 NSO pairs based on the USFWS habitat modeling. USFWS Recovery Action 2 is to 

continue monitoring the population trend of NSO to determine if the population is decreasing, 

stationary, or increasing. While demographic monitoring is currently the primary action to assess 

the population status in other NSO areas, the monitoring methods in this protocol are designed to 

address the potential decline in the NSO population within the Marin County MOCA 2. The nonfederal lands in Marin County (i.e., MMWD, MCOSD, and state parks) are identified as a 

Conservation Support Area (CSA). CSAs may function to provide demographic support to core 

NSO populations in the MOCA network or facilitate dispersal of juvenile NSO among MOCAs 

(USFWS 2008). In most cases, the CSA designation also recognizes existing land management 

that is compatible with the NSO recovery goals (USFWS 2008). 

Given that NSO are a federally listed species, the Marin County NSO habitat is identified in the 

NSO Recovery Plan, and NSOs have high public interest, the SFAN parks have strong 

management interest in continuing NSO population trend monitoring on park lands in Marin 

County. Also, through monitoring NSO, biologists expect to also detect the presence of barred 
12

owls within the study area. While the number of barred owls is still very low, increased 

detections are of great interest to park managers because of their potential threat to NSO. 

1.7 Triggers for Management Activities 

The target management triggers for the NSO are as follows: 

 A 4% annual decline or greater in pair occupancy in 5 consecutive years of monitoring. 

 A 10% annual decline or greater in fecundity in 5 consecutive years of monitoring. 

 A decline in fecundity and/or occupancy of >50% in 2 consecutive years of monitoring. 

 Reproductive failure for 3 out of 6 years. 

 Barred owls are documented at >10 spotted owl sites in any given year. 

Thresholds for NSO occupancy and fecundity reflect the results of power analyses of the longterm monitoring data (see Section 2.2). The threshold levels represent the number of years to 

detect 4% and 10% compounded annual changes with greater than 80% power. A 4% annual 

decline over 5 years therefore represents a 15% cumulative decline. A 10% annual decline over 5 

years represents a 34% cumulative decline. The power analyses indicate that our current 

monitoring design has the ability to detect significant population changes in short periods of 

time, thus allowing for timely, reactive management actions if warranted. 

Identifying or providing examples of specific management actions that may be employed under 

different scenarios is beyond the scope of this monitoring protocol. In some cases, causes of 

declines in the NSO population, such displacement by and competition with as barred owls, may 

be easy to identify. If causes of population declines can be determined, managers may be able to 

act accordingly in a timely manner. In other cases, however, additional, specific research may be 

required. Depending on the management action(s), a procedural process under the National 

Environmental Policy Act may be instigated, requiring significant public input. Consultation 

with USFWS and other regulatory agencies may also be required especially when there are any 

catastrophic declines in fecundity and/or occupancy, repeated reproductive failure, or increases 

in barred owls. Although the SFAN will provide data and guidance, management actions will 

ultimately be decided by PORE, GOGA, and MUWO management staff, including, but not 

limited to, the park Wildlife Biologists, Science Advisors, Chiefs of Resource Management, and 

Superintendents.
13

2.0 Sampling Design

While demographic monitoring in Marin County would be ideal to detect a variety of changes in 

the NSO population, it is not feasible given current funding limitations. Occupancy monitoring, 

when combined with detection probabilities, may be the most cost-effective means to detect 

population trends, long-term effects of barred owls, or other threats to the NSO population on 

federal lands in Marin County. Measuring fecundity using the same methods as other NSO 

studies will provide some regional context to relate possible changes in Marin County to rangewide trends. 

While annual monitoring is ideal for any long-term monitoring program and provides the most 

powerful sample design, limited resources require constrained field efforts. Decisions about 

monitoring efforts must be made within a framework that considers acceptable objectives in 

addition to funding, personnel, and management needs. 

It is recognized that some additional monitoring may be needed annually to help answer 

management questions. For example, scheduling annual trail maintenance or periodic trail 

restoration may require repeated site surveys to determine NSO occupancy status before 

initiating work within NSO habitat. Surveys done for management purposes may be incorporated 

into the monitoring database and reported. 

2.1 Study Area and Site Selection 

The study area is approximately 13,890 hectares (34,320 acres; Figure 4) of federal lands in 

Marin County and includes sites at GOGA, MUWO, and PORE. The study area boundaries were 

created through a GIS analysis, using the area intersected by the 2003 buffered habitat model 

layer (Stralberg et al. 2009) and a 400 m buffer on federally legislative boundaries of GOGA, 

MUWO, and PORE. All NSO territories surveyed during inventory years in 1997, 1998, and 

2006, regardless of results, were selected as the potential sample population or population of 

inference (n= 66) for occupancy and fecundity monitoring. 

A total of eight territories were removed from the potential sample population. The sites were 

eliminated due to private landownership (i.e., Drake‘s View Drive area, Inverness Valleys, 

Paradise Valley), unsafe access (i.e., steep terrain on slopes of Mount Tamalpais), or duplication 

of other sites (i.e., sites too close to be separate and distinct activity sites but which had been 

assigned different names). 

Upon reviewing the list of sites not selected in the GIS analysis, two territories were added back 

into the potential sample population. These two territories had not been selected in the GIS 

analysis because the activity sites were outside of the buffered habitat model, but still within the 

buffered federal land boundary. 

Note that locations of these sites are considered sensitive information and are not provided 

within the protocol and standard operating procedures. GPS locations of the selected sites, 

however, are maintained within the project database. 
14

Figure 4. Northern spotted owl study area. Marin County land management units are color coded. The 

study area itself is shaded in black, diagonal lines. 

2.2 Sample Design Power Analysis 

Sample design analyses considered a broad range of options in order to evaluate different trend 

detection levels, sample sizes, cycling options, and staffing plans. The goal of the analyses was 

to determine the most cost-effective means to detect significant trends within a short-time frame 

and to provide inference to the entire study area rather than a fixed subset of the study area‘s 

NSO population. An initial review of our NSO monitoring data with recommendations for 

sample sizes needed to detect trends over time was conducted by San Francisco State University 

in 2007 (Connor and LeBuhn 2007a, 2007b, 2007c). In 2010, a more refined approach to our 

monitoring data was completed by the University of Idaho (Starcevich and Steinhorst 2010), 
15

which incorporated additional years of data and barred owl presence as a covariate for occupancy 

and detection modeling. The final report of the power to detect trends in occupancy and 

fecundity in the study area‘s NSO populations is included within the protocol as Appendix A.

2.2.1 Occupancy Analysis 

All locations within the final study area (see Section 2.1) that had an NSO detected at any time 

between 1997 and 2008 (60 sites) were included in the potential sample population for 

monitoring occupancy. These sites, known as the occupancy frame, were used to model the 

power to detect trends in occupancy over time for a series of sample designs (Appendix A). 

However, not all territories have been consistently or are currently occupied. 

Occupancy was modeled with logistic regression as a function of related covariates, including 

site and year. The implicit dynamics occupancy model was assumed for the analysis. In contrast 

to the explicit dynamics model, estimates of colonization and local extinction are not explicitly 

measured in the implicit dynamics model (MacKenzie et al. 2006). The net effect of extinction 

and colonization rates on occupancy is monitored rather than estimating the parameters 

separately since monitoring net change over time is the primary goal. 

The model for occupancy incorporated zero inflation. For occupancy, extra zeroes may result 

from imperfect detection. Analysis methods for zero-inflation apply mixture models that 

combine one distribution for the extra zeroes and another distribution for the remaining zeroes 

and non-zero outcomes so that measures of occupancy and fecundity can be accurately estimated 

(MacKenzie et al. 2006). The number of detections for occupancy analysis was modeled as a 

zero-inflated binomial random variable. 

Maximum likelihood was used to estimate the logistic regression coefficients from the models 

for occupancy and detection rates. Detection probabilities were allowed to vary at each visit for 

each site and year, as covariates are often environmental or survey conditions that vary from visit 

to visit (MacKenzie et al. 2006). The models for NSO occupancy rate included covariates for 

year, and barred owl detections, and the detection rate model included covariates for the time of 

survey (day versus night), call method (yes versus no), and number of observers. 

Model selection was conducted using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Model output was 

examined to be certain that valid variance estimates are obtained. When valid estimates of the 

variance could not be acquired for the model with the lowest AIC, then the model with the 

lowest AIC and valid variance was used for trend testing. 

One of six possible occupancy status categories is assigned for each location monitored each 

year. These occupancy categories are mutually exclusive, with all locations falling into only one 

category each year. Ultimately, the most appropriate occupancy model would estimate 

occupancy trends for all status categories simultaneously so that the sum of occupancy estimates 

across categories is always one. However, the available literature has not incorporated techniques 

for estimating occupancy for more than two categories with methods for trend estimation. A 

univariate approach was taken to model the occupancy categories, however, only the pair 

occupancy category provided a meaningful ability to detect trends over time. 
16

Fixed and random effects for location were examined in the modeling effort for occupancy and 

detection rates. Adding a fixed effect for location prohibitively reduced the number of degrees of 

freedom available for error estimation. Modeling the location effect as a random effect in the 

detection model produces the heterogeneous detection probability model which is often difficult 

to implement in a maximum likelihood approach (MacKenzie et al. 2006). In practice, this 

approach resulted in site-by-year level occupancy estimates very near 1 and with nearly zero 

variation and corresponding detection probabilities very near zero. Incorporating the random 

effect into the occupancy model produced similar problems. 

The benefit of incorporating a fixed or random effect for location is that repeat visits to the same 

locations over time can reduce variance and provide more accurate trend estimation. Without a 

location effect, the data are treated like random samples taken independently each year (a [1-n] 

revisit design), no matter what revisit design is actually implemented in the field. The [1-n] 

revisit design has the lowest power for trend detection and therefore provides conservative power 

results. 

Hypothesis testing for trend was conducted with the likelihood ratio test. The occupancy model 

that included a year term was compared to the occupancy model without a year term. A onesided test for a decreasing trend was examined. 

2.2.2 Fecundity Analysis 

For the fecundity analysis, only territories that have had a pair of owls present at some time

between 1999 and 2008 (48 sites) were included in the potential sample population for fecundity 

analysis. These sites, known as the fecundity frame, were used to model the power to detect 

trends in fecundity over time for a series of sample designs (Appendix A). 

Fecundity was monitored with counts of NSO fledglings observed at each nest. As with the 

occupancy analysis, these outcomes were also modeled with the zero-inflated binomial model. 

When measuring fecundity, counts of fledglings might be subject to zeroes from nest failures due 

to non-nesting pairs, predation, or environmental factors. 

Maximum likelihood estimation was used to obtain estimates of the regression coefficients in 

each model. To test for trend in fecundity, the year covariate was included as a predictor in the 

binomial probability model and then tested for significance with a likelihood ratio test. In 

contrast to the occupancy analysis, fecundity inference is made on the change probability of a 

fledgling at a site in a year over time. 

2.2.3 Power Analysis 

The occupancy and fecundity models with the lowest AIC scores and with a valid variancecovariance matrix were used in the power analysis. In both cases, power was computed via a 

parametric bootstrap. For each bootstrap sample, the likelihood ratio test of trend was conducted 

by applying the selected model with and without the term for trend. Power was then calculated 

as the proportion of times that the null hypothesis is rejected for the one-sided alternative 

hypothesis of decreasing trend. 
17

Power must be approximated assuming that tests of trend are conducted at a specific Type I error 

rate. The Type I error rate, designated as α, is the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis. 

For the one-sided test of trend, a Type I error would mean that the population was found to be 

declining when it was not. A Type II error occurs by failing to reject a false null hypothesis and 

thus concluding no change has occurred. For long-term monitoring, the cost of a Type I error 

may be far less than the cost of a Type II error. Mistakenly rejecting a true null hypothesis (Type 

I error) may trigger a management conservation action that is not actually needed. However, 

failing to detect a significant declining trend may have deleterious effects that cannot be reversed 

by the time the trend is actually detected. A conservative approach is to use a larger α value for 

higher power and reduced probability of a Type II error. For this power analysis, an α value of 

0.20 was used. 

2.3 NSO Monitoring Design 

The SFAN I&M Program has selected a sample design for NSO occupancy and fecundity 

monitoring that surveys 36 sites each year. The design includes an annual panel of 28 randomly 

selected sites with all remaining sites divided equally into four rotating panels of 8 sites each 

(Table 1). Following the notation of MacDonald (2003), this revisit schedule of [(1-0), (1-3)] 

indicates that the annual panel is revisited every year and that the four panels are visited for one 

year then not visited for the following three years before being rotated back into the design. 

Under this revisit design, all 60 NSO territories with the SFAN study area will be monitored 

within a four-year time frame, or a single rotation of the sampling design. 

Table 1. Selected sample design for NSO monitoring. The [(1-0), (1-3)] revisit design includes an annual 

panel of 28 sites with four rotating panels of 8 sites each. An example schedule for two monitoring cycles 

over eight years in displayed (Starcevich and Steinhorst 2010). 

Panel Revisit design 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

1 [1-0] 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28

2 [1-3] 8 8 

3 [1-3] 8 8 

4 [1-3] 8 8 

5 [1-3] 8 8 

ANNUAL TOTAL 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Site occupancy will be established at all 36 territories monitored each year. Fecundity 

determination will occur at every site occupied by a territorial female, no matter if the site is 

within the annual panel or one of the rotating panels. Similarly, nest tree characteristics will be 

recorded for every nest detected during monitoring. Geographic coordinates of occupied sites, 

which default to nest locations for nesting pairs, in addition to nest tree and site measurements 

will provide a foundation for understanding NSO habitat relations over time. 

No physical site stratification will used in establishing the monitoring sites included in the annual 

panel. The selected territories are expected to represent a variety of forest types, slopes, 

watersheds, and soil types. Random selection of sites will be made by using a random number 

generator to assign a random number to each site, ordering the list, and selecting the first 28 sites 

for monitoring. 
18

Starcevich and Steinhorst (2010) recommend that 20 to 25 locations with resident females must 

be surveyed annually to detect decreasing trends in fecundity of at least 10% within 5 years 

(Appendix A). Monitoring data indicates that from 1999-2009, approximately 70% of the NSO 

territories monitored resulted with a territorial female and a subsequent fecundity value for the 

monitoring season. The selected revisit design therefore oversamples for fecundity monitoring 

with the prediction that only 70% of sites will be available for fecundity analysis each year. With 

36 sites monitored annually, a 30% reduction in available sites for fecundity monitoring results 

in approximately 25 available sites, which is still a large enough annual sample size to detect the 

targeted trend of a 10% annual decline over 5 years with at least 80% power. 

To further ensure that the annual sample size is large enough to detect trends in fecundity over 

time, the annual panel of 28 sites will be comprised solely of locations included in the fecundity 

sampling frames, which are those sites occupied by a NSO pair during at least one breeding 

season from 1999-2008. We will randomly select the 28 annual panel sites from the list of sites 

within the fecundity sampling frame. The remaining sites within the study area will be randomly 

allotted to the four rotating panels. If needed, the sites included in the occupancy frame but not 

the fecundity frame could be balanced among years in the rotating panels, thus balancing the 

sites where NSO have been detected but where pair occupancy has not been established.

The power analysis conducted by Starcevich and Steinhorst (2010; Appendix A) indicates that 

the selected sample design has a power of 0.992 (99%) to detect a 4% annual decline in 

occupancy in 5 years with α = 0.10, and 1.000 (100%) with α = 0.20 (Table 2). Over 5 years, a 4 

% annual decline results in a total of a 15% loss. 

Additionally, the results of the power analysis suggest that an annual sample of greater than 20 

fecundity sites, as will be achieved with the selected sample design, will result in greater than 

80% power to detect a 10% annual decline in fecundity in 5 years with α = 0.20 (Figure 5). Over 

5 years, a 10 % annual decline results in a total of a 34% loss. 

Table 2. Power of the likelihood ratio test to detect trends in spotted owl pair occupancy within five 

consecutive survey years for four revisit designs (Starcevich and Steinhorst 2010). 

Revisit design Power to detect a 4% annual 

decrease in occupancy 

Power to detect a 10% annual 

decrease in occupancy 

α = 0.10 α = 0.20 α = 0.10 α = 0.20

[(1-0)15, (1-3)1/2] 0.980 1.000 1.000 1.000 

[(1-0)26, (1-3)1/2] 0.992 1.000 1.000 1.000 

[(1-0)28, (1-3)] 0.992 1.000 1.000 1.000 

[(1-0)40, (1-3)] 0.996 1.000 1.000 1.000 

2.3.1 Sampling Frequency and Timing 

Generally, survey visits must occur within the breeding season time period of March 1 to 

September 1 when NSOs demonstrate the highest degree of territoriality and vocal response to 

artificial calls (USFWS 1992; Forsman 1995). Technically, a survey area can be considered 

―occupied‖ if at any time throughout the year a NSO is detected, but assigning a level of 

occupancy, nesting, or reproductive status must occur within the breeding season. Standard 

operating procedure SOP 2: Field Survey Procedures describes more detailed timing guidelines 
19

Figure 5. Power of the likelihood ratio test to detect trend in the binomial probability of spotted owl 

fecundity in 5 consecutive survey years for four rates of change (Starcevich and Steinhorst 2010). 

and number of surveys required for ascertaining certain types of information (e.g., nesting status, 

fledgling counts) within the breeding season period. 

In 2007, San Francisco State University conducted an analysis of day versus night detection of 

NSO singles and pairs using NPS data from 1999-2005 (Connor and LeBuhn 2007c). Using the 

lowest annual probabilities of single owl detection for day and night (night=0.67 and day=0.76), 

Connor and LeBuhn estimated that sampling NSO sites twice during the day and once at night 

provided a 98% probability of detection of at least one NSO. The probabilities of detecting a pair 

of owls were 0.50 for both day and night. Given the relatively high detection probabilities, any 

combination of 3 day and night visits would provide a greater than 96% probability of detection 

of at least one NSO and an 88% detection probability of an NSO pair. 
20

2.4 Sample Design Review 

The effectiveness of the NSO monitoring design to detect target trends in occupancy and 

fecundity will be evaluated through long-term trend reports produced by the SFAN, which are 

scheduled for completion at five-year intervals. Scenarios that would trigger a reassessment of 

the current study design include a change in detectability rates, which could be due to a stronger 

barred owl influence, and broad population-wide biological changes, such as multiple nonbreeding seasons. In addition, the long–term effect of SOD is still unknown, but significant 

impacts on suitable NSO habitat are possible. A precipitous drop in site occupancy rate may 

suggest that owls are leaving the study area, moving further outside of their historic activity 

centers than our field monitoring protocols can capture, or are dying for reasons unknown. 

Reanalyzing the detection rates using new data, reassessing our current NSO habitat model 

(Stralberg et al. 2009), completing another full study area inventory, and revising the field 

methods are possible responses. 

In a study of changes in NSO response to NSO playback calls, Crozier et al. (2006) found NSOs 

responded less frequently to NSO calls after being exposed to barred owl calls. As the barred owl 

population in Marin County is expected to increase, the annual sampling frequency and field 

protocols may need to be adjusted to increase the number of surveys per territory and widen the 

search area requirements. An interagency Barred Owl Work Group and its Survey Protocol 

Subcommitte, a sub-group of NSO managers conducting demographic monitoring under the 

Northwest Forest Plan, has evaluated the effectiveness of the current NSO demographic survey 

protocol in the presence of barred owls. The findings and recommendations from the Barred 

Owl Work Group were adopted by the USFWS in the draft ―2010 Protocol for Surveying 

Proposed Management Activities that May Impact Northern Spotted Owls‖ (USFWS 2010). 

Among other protocol revisions, the draft 2010 protocol, currently under review by the NPS, 

details increased survey effort over a 2-year period in order to determine unoccupied NSO status 

at survey areas. The SFAN anticipates adoption of the draft 2010 protocol following NPS 

approval. 

2.5 Additional Surveys 

Each year, project staff or cooperators survey 15 to 30 additional NSO territories throughout 

Marin County, primarily to address specific management concerns. Most of these additional sites 

are outside the study area covered by this protocol and on lands owned by MMWD and 

MCOSD, who provide funding and support for the surveys conducted by PRBO staff. The NPS 

may include additional monitoring sites each year if sites with management concerns, for 

example sites that may be affected by road or trail maintenance, are not included in the annual 

monitoring sample. These sites also serve to expand the probability of resighting banded owls 

that have relocated out of the NPS study area, as well as detecting any barred owls, West Nile 

Virus or SOD in the areas. The core monitoring objectives do not include monitoring sites or 

areas strictly for direct management purposes, such as in preparation for trail or road work in 

NSO habitat. While these additional NSO surveys are outside of the parameters of this 

monitoring program, the results from outside of the study area may serve to provide an early 

warning to NPS managers of threats to the Marin County NSO population that have not yet 

manifested within NPS boundaries. 
21

3.0 Field Methods 

The NSO field season runs from approximately February to the end of August. Surveys are 

conducted March 1 to July 31. Data are entered into the database throughout the field season. 

Additional time at the end of the field season is used to analyze data and report results. 

3.1 Field Season Preparations 

Field technicians are hired and begin by February of each year. Their initial responsibilities will 

be to gather and check field equipment including binoculars, GPS, calling equipment, etc. All 

field equipment is listed in SOP 1: Preparations and Equipment Setup Procedures. In addition, a 

pre-season meeting convenes at the beginning of the field season for all members of field teams 

to discuss the season priorities, assign territories to field teams, and review protocols. If 

necessary to train interns or new technicians, a training day is scheduled to further review details 

of field techniques, protocols and safety procedures. New staff will also be sent out with trained 

staff until they are familiar with the monitoring protocol and study sites. Each field team is 

responsible for preparing field maps for each territory/activity center, which will be used in the 

field and attached to all final search form data sheets. The SFAN Data Manager provides copies 

of the satellite database to field teams. The satellite database is identical to the master database 

except that the field data tables are empty. Additional details about field season preparations are 

provided in SOP 1: Preparations and Equipment Setup Procedures. 

3.2 Sequence of Events during Field Season 

NSO surveys may be conducted from March 1 to September 1. For the purpose of this 

monitoring program, however, field crews are instructed to complete field work by July 31 to 

allow enough time to enter and analyze data and complete an annual report. The purpose of the 

surveys is to establish the occupancy status, presence of territorial pairs, and reproductive status. 

All monitoring sites in Marin County should be surveyed at least once by April 15 to determine 

occupancy. All monitoring sites selected for reproductive monitoring should be visited during 

the period of April 15 to May 1 to determine nesting status, and may require additional visits. 

Surveys to determine the number of young produced occur as needed during weekly nest checks 

between May 1 and July 31. Although it is anticipated that all field work will be complete by 

July 31, difficult sites may require surveys in August in order to finalize occupancy and 

reproductive status. The survey protocol and field methods are detailed in SOP 2: Standard Field 

Procedures and SOP 3: Status Designations, 

3.3 Survey Protocols 

Standard field survey protocols guide the primary data collection tasks for monitoring, which 

are: 1) to locate owls at individual activity centers, and to determine their sex, age and whether 

they are banded, and 2) determine status; that is, use behavioral observations to determine site 

occupancy and reproductive success for estimating fecundity rates. SOP 2: Standard Field 

Procedures provides more details on the standard procedures for night and day activity center 

monitoring surveys and data collection. SOP 3: Status Designations contains the guidelines for 

determining annual activity center status based on field data collection results. 
22

3.3.1 Activity Center Monitoring 

Activity centers are the focal points of NSO nesting and roosting activity. Within an occupied 

territory, the actual activity center location on the ground may change from year to year, but 

pairs of owls typically remain within the same sub-watershed or canyon. Activity center 

monitoring begins March 1 and continues until occupancy and reproductive success information 

has been obtained following the standard field procedures (SOP 2: Standard Field Procedures), 

but survey efforts should end by July 31. In some cases additional surveys may be needed 

through September 1. At sites that have been previously occupied by NSO pairs, surveyors 

initially attempt to visually locate the owls at their roost sites during the day without calling to 

minimize disturbance to the owls. Alternatively, owls are located using recorded playback or 

vocal imitations of their calls to elicit responses. Day or night surveys are used depending on site 

conditions. When necessary, surveyors utilize call routes along roads and trails with call points 

located a minimum of 400 m (0.25 miles) apart, or at the mouth or head of each forested 

drainage. Calling is conducted for at least 10 minutes at each call point. Off-trail calling is done 

at intervals along continuous transects. 

For most monitoring site visits, it is preferable for efficiency and safety to have more than one 

person in the field. More eyes and ears allow for more thorough and efficient field visits. The 

responsibility for taking field notes is assigned to one member of the field team. If members of a 

team split up during a survey, both members are expected to take notes on their activity and 

combine the information at the end of the survey. Notes are taken either in field notebooks or 

directly on the Site Search Field Form (see SOP 2: Standard Field Procedures). The primary note 

taker is also responsible for entering the data from that site visit into the database and creating a 

map documenting the site visit. Maps are not required for subsequent nest checks following the 

first site search resulting in a nest discovery, unless there is a change in the occupancy or 

reproductive status (e.g., nest failure). 

Variables measured annually for monitoring occupancy include number of owls, sex, age and 

presence/absence of a color band/tab combination. Between 1998 and 2003, 110 owls were 

captured and color-banded on NPS lands and surveyors continue to visually check and note 

presence or absence of USGS and color bands for all owls detected. 

At the NSO territories selected for fecundity monitoring, the owls are monitored to determine 

nest success or failure, the number of young produced, and nest tree and habitat variables. All 

owl activity centers (either nest tree or roost tree location) are recorded in GPS (Global 

Positioning System) coordinates using a Garmin 3+ or similar GPS unit. Roost sites or nest trees 

for which GPS satellite access is not available are mapped on topographic maps from compass 

bearings taken in the field and GPS coordinates are later obtained by using ArcGIS 9.3.1 or 

higher (ESRI 2009). 

3.3.2 Measuring Nesting Habitat 

All nest trees, except those on private lands, are marked (site number and year) using aluminum 

tree tags (Forestry Suppliers, Inc.). The tags assist observers in determining old nest trees and 

tree reuse during monitoring. Nest site measurements include nest tree species, diameter at breast 

height (dbh), nest tree height, nest type, nest height, and aspect, slope, and relative slope position 

(low, middle, ridgetop). Dominant overstory and understory species are also recorded. In the 
23

office using GIS, three additional habitat variables are calculated: distance to forest opening, 

distance to water, and distance to forest edge. Details on the procedures and data collection using 

the Nest Habitat Data Form are found in SOP 2: Standard Field Procedures. 

3.4 Cooperation with Other Research Activities 

NSO monitoring provides information to other ongoing research during regular field activities. 

Additional information is also in SOP 2: Standard Field Procedures. 

3.4.1 Documenting West Nile Virus 

Although West Nile Virus (WNV) has not been detected in a non-captive NSO as of May 2008 

(USFWS 2008), the virus has been found in captive NSO and in wild barred owls. The likelihood 

of finding a dead or sick NSO with WNV is low given the brushy locations that are surveyed, but 

it is possible. Current procedures for handling a sick or dead NSO suspected of having WNV are 

similar to procedures for other birds except the initial contact would be made to the USGS 

National Wildlife Health Center (West Nile Virus Coordinator, Madison, WI (608) 270-2456). 

Additional directions on dealing with bird species found during field work that are suspected to 

have died from WNV are in SOP 2: Standard Field Procedures. 

3.4.2 Documenting Sudden Oak Death 

Sudden Oak Death (SOD) has been confirmed in all areas of the study area. P. ramorum is a 

water mold that acts like a fungus, attacking the trunk of a tree and causing a canker, or wound 

that eventually cuts off the tree‘s flow of nutrients (Moritz et al. 2008). Other secondary decay 

organisms such as beetles and fungi often move in after the tree is infected. Trees infected with 

SOD may survive for one to several years as the infection progresses. As the tree finally dies, the 

leaves may turn from green to brown within a few weeks, hence the appearance of sudden death. 

Many other diseases cause similar symptoms; therefore, the presence of P. ramorum can only be 

confirmed by a laboratory test. 

During field surveys, researchers should look for tanoaks or coast live oaks showing the 

symptoms of SOD. Researchers should be familiar with the document ―How to recognize 

symptoms caused by diseases caused by Phytophthora ramorum causal agent of Sudden Oak 

Death‖ (Garbelotto et al. 2002). If symptoms are noted in previously undocumented areas, 

researchers should inform both the PORE and GOGA Supervisory Botanists who may conduct 

further testing to confirm SOD. 

A SOD Severity Index will be established at each NSO site monitored each year adapted from 

rapid assessment methods developed by Moritz et al. (2008). The severity index evaluates 

affected tanoaks and coast live oaks on a scale of 0 (no SOD present) to 10 (>95% canopy 

cover). The severity index considers both overstory and understory trees within a circular plot 

(50 m radius) and includes both dead and symptomatic vegetation. The center point for the SOD 

severity index rating will be at the established activity centers, such as nest trees, for each NSO 

site monitored. For sites where a defined activity center is not found or is questionable, field staff 

may opt not to develop an SOD severity index. For example, this may occur at unoccupied sites 

or sites with single unknown status. SOP 2: Standard Field Methods provides detailed 

instructions for developing the SOD severity index at each site. 
24

The SOD severity rating will compliment other anticipated SOD data sources. For example, in 

2010, PORE submitted a USDA grant proposal to quantify the potential impacts of SOD on 

northern spotted owls within PORE and GOGA. The project would develop detailed GIS layers 

of SOD presence and severity, quantify the effects of SOD on dusky-footed woodrat populations, 

and model fire behavior within SOD affected forests. Forty-eight SOD sample plots established 

by Moritz et al. (2008) were re-visited by the authors in 2009 and would be re-visited again 

under the USDA grant. We expect to benefit from other SOD research efforts in California led 

by universities and county, state, and federal land management agencies. 

3.5 End of Season Procedures 

At the end of the season, monitoring equipment is cleaned and stored at both PORE and GOGA. 

At PORE, storage of monitoring supplies is in the basement of the Resource Management 

building, Science office, and Lead Biological Technician‘s office. At GOGA, equipment is 

stored in Fort Cronkhite Building 1061 (Resource Management Building, Wildlife Ecologist‘s 

office) and in Fort Cronkhite Building 1063 (SFAN I&M Building, SFAN Data Manager‘s office 

and Dry Lab). 

Following data entry and proofing (described in Section 4.0 below, SOP 4: Data Management 

Handbook), program and park staff analyze the data and produce a brief annual monitoring 

report with basic data summaries and any natural history items of note using the NPS Natural 

Resource Technical Report template (see SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting). The report 

provides pertinent updates to the park program managers and I&M Program Manager for 

inclusion in other reporting requirements (e.g., Annual Administrative Report and Workplan or 

for website updates). The report is posted to the SFAN I&M website. 

The number of volunteers and the total volunteer hours spent on the owl program is summed by 

program staff and provided to the I&M Program Manager and to volunteer coordinators at 

GOGA and PORE for use in annual volunteers in parks reporting. 

All digital photographs taken during the field season should be labeled with site name and date 

and collected by the Data Manager or Lead Biological Technician and put on a cd-rom to include 

with the final report and copy of master and satellite databases. Publication quality photographs 

should be submitted to the I&M Program Manager for use with the annual reporting along with a 

caption or explanation of the photograph. 

Following all error-checking and proofing, all site survey forms are printed, attached to the 

corresponding field map for each site visit, and placed in a binder for that year. Included in the 

binder are a hardcopy of the annual report, any larger maps that were printed, and a CD 

containing a copy of the complete satellite and NSOMASTERXP databases and an electronic 

copy of the annual report. Any paper datasheets completed in the field are cataloged in a separate 

binder. The binders are submitted to the PORE Curatorial Manager two years after the field 

season to allow for ease of access to field maps by subsequent field staff (e.g., the 2007 data are 

archived in 2009). 

The California Department of Fish and Game maintains the central repository for California 

NSO location information in the Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) 
25

data access program. At the end of each season or prior to the next season, the SFAN Data 

Manager and the Lead Biological Technician are responsible for submitting the project 

monitoring data to the BIOS program. The submission consists of a GIS shapefile with metadata 

of northern spotted owls activity centers monitored each year. The shapefile is an important 

annual product of the monitoring program, and a copy with associated metadata is saved to the 

PORE GIS server. Additional end of season procedures are detailed SOP 2: Field Methods, SOP 

4: Data Management Handbook and SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting. 

27

4.0 Data Handling, Analysis, and Reporting 

4.1 Overview of Database Design 

The Marin County Spotted Owl Database, created in 2000, is currently in MS Access XP format 

(NSOMasterXP.mdb). The SFAN Data Manager currently manages the database. The database 

remains in its original format with periodic updates or minor changes, which are documented in a 

separate revision log. 

A full description of the major database tables, database design, and a data management 

handbook is in SOP 4: Data Management Handbook. The SOP describes the design, tables, 

forms, and queries critical to the database operation. SOP 4 contains additional guidelines for 

data entry procedures, error-checking procedures, database versioning, and data archiving. 

Procedures for data handling and quality assurance/quality control for all monitoring protocols 

implemented by the SFAN monitoring program are detailed in the program‘s Data Management 

Plan (Press 2005). MS Access XP is the primary software environment for managing the NSO 

monitoring data. ESRI ArcGIS serves as a tool for validation of spatial data residing in MS 

Access and for plotting site locations on park maps. 

The program database consists of a single master database that contains the tables, forms, 

queries, and reports. Satellite databases are created at the beginning of each season and contain 

the structure of the master database, but with the field data tables left unpopulated. Data related 

to the area surveyed, which can be an existing territory or potential habitat, are entered into the 

SEARCH table. Multiple survey events can be associated with one territory location. If owls are 

observed during the survey, details are recorded in the DETECTIONS table. Detections 

information collected includes UTM coordinates (via GPS if possible) for each owl species. Data 

are also recorded if no owls are observed so that negative survey results are tracked. If mice are 

used during the survey, details on how long each mouse is offered and disposition of mouse is 

recorded in the MICE table, which is linked to the SEARCH table. If the survey is for inventory 

purposes or in a new territory, call points are used during the survey. Information on the call 

points and their UTM coordinates are recorded in the CALLPOINTS and CALLPTSLOCAs 

tables. If a nest is observed at a territory, details on the nest location and nest habitat are 

collected near the end of the season and entered in the NESTTREES table. Additional tables 

include OWLBANDS which stores data on all the banded owls within the survey area 

(approximately 110); and the STATUS table which is a summary table created at the end of the 

season after reviewing all the detection information gathered at a territory. 

4.2 Data Entry, Verification, and Editing 

An electronic Site Search data form is required for all field visits and the electronic entry of the 

Nest Site Habitat data field form is required for each nest with a known location. The blank Site 

Search data forms can be printed directly from the project database and filled out in the field, but 

if a field notebook is used, the electronic data form should be entered in the database within a 

week of the visit. 

Two people participate in the data verification with one person reading the original out loud to 

another person looking at the computer monitor to verify that the two records match. If only one 

person is available, he or she should have any field notes or data forms in front of him or her. 
28

They should then correct any mistakes and check the "error-checked" box on the form. Per the 

SFAN Data Management Plan, several quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures 

must be followed by the database user: 1) Have a familiarity with the database software, database 

structure, and any standard codes for data entry that have been developed; 2) enter or download 

data in a timely manner; and, 3) enter the data, one logical "set" at a time (Press 2005). 

Field data should be entered into the satellite databases, verified and submitted to the Lead 

Biological Technician by August 15 of each year. The Lead Biological Technician will review 

the individual databases for missing data and other obvious inconsistencies before compiling 

them into an annual database. The annual database will undergo the standardized database errorchecking procedures as outlined in SOP 4: Data Management Handbook. Field maps shall also 

be completed by August 15 and submitted to the Lead Biological Technician (SOP 2: Standard 

Field Procedures). 

4.3 Metadata Procedures 

Formal metadata has been completed for the program database and is provided on the NPS Data 

Store website (http://science.nature.nps.gov/nrdata/index.cfm). Each table and field in the project 

database was defined and documented using the NPS Metadata Tools and Editor (MTE) and 

Dataset Catalog. The database, and any GIS data resulting from the monitoring program, is 

considered sensitive information and is not available publicly, but distributed through data 

requests to the Data Manager. Further details on metadata development and distribution are 

provided in SOP 4: Data Management Handbook. 

The complete protocol for this project (Protocol Narrative and SOPs) is an integral component of 

the project metadata. All narrative and SOP version changes are noted in the Master Version 

Table (MVT), which is maintained in SOP 7: Revising the Protocol. Any time the narrative or 

SOP versions are changed, a new Version Key number (VK#) must be created and recorded in 

the MVT, along with the date of the change and the versions of the narrative and SOPs in effect. 

The Version Key number is essential for project information to be interpreted and analyzed 

properly. The protocol narrative, SOPs, and data should not be distributed independently of this 

table.

4.4 Annual Data Summaries 

At the end of each season, following data entry and proofing, each field team works with the 

Lead Biological Technician to determine the final season status for each territory using survey 

results and protocols. At least two people should review the data for each territory to make sure 

that the survey results provide necessary documentation for occupancy and reproductive 

determinations based on SOP 3: Status Determinations. 

All NSO monitoring data are entered into the database, including submissions from PRBO of 

other Marin County territories monitored for management purposes. For the annual reports, only 

NPS occupancy and fecundity data collected within the NSO study area are summarized and 

presented. The exception is the nesting habitat and nest structures section of the annual report, 

which includes data gathered on all nests located in the Marin County since 1998. 
29

Site occupancy and reproductive status are reported directly as percentages of different 

occupancy and reproductive status classes. Annual population fecundity is determined by 

calculating an average fecundity of territorial females within the monitored sample. Fecundity is 

the number of female young (# of fledglings/2) per territorial female (Franklin et al. 1996). 

Standard error of the sample is also reported. 

Other metrics included in the annual summary: 

 Age composition of pairs 

 Survey effort (mean and range of number of visits per site) 

 Nest tree measurements (nest type, height, aspect, tree species, dbh) 

 Habitat characteristics (dominant overstory, elevation, slope, distance to water, etc.) 

 Breeding season weather metrics 

Incidental data collected are also reported, including: 

 Barred owl statistics (number of detections, number of NSO sites with barred owls 

detected) 

 Medium to large scale changes in NSO habitat (e.g., wildfires) 

Further details for the contents of the annual summary including sample tables and figures are 

provided in SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting. 

4.5 Annual Reporting Schedule 

An annual report is produced for the long-term monitoring sites and is prepared by the Lead 

Biological Technician in coordination with the project lead(s). The report is reviewed by the 

project staff from PORE and GOGA. The first draft of the report is produced in the late-summer 

or fall following the field season once the data has all been error-checked. Peer-review and 

completion of the report are the responsibilities of the NSO program managers and should be 

finalized before the start of the next field season. 

The annual report summarizes the field and data collection activities from the season and 

includes the data summaries listed above in the context of data from previous years. The most 

recent 2008 Annual Report (Jensen et al. 2010) is available online at: 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/sfan/vital_signs/Spotted_Owl/birds.cfm

The 2008 annual report, which went through a formal peer review process, will serve as a 

template for future annual reports. Report figures are formatted in a MS Excel spreadsheet and 

can be updated each year and inserted into the report. Additional details on reporting are in SOP 

5: Data Analysis and Reporting. 

4.6 Long-term Trend Analysis Reporting 

Every 5 years, the program will undergo a larger trend analysis and protocol review. The focus 

of the trend assessments will be on the key parameters in the study design (territory occupancy 

rate and fecundity). 
30

Occupancy and fecundity estimates will be obtained annually and will provide measures of 

status. When more than three years of monitoring data are available, linear trends in the logged 

odds of occupancy may be estimated and tested for significance. The number of detections is 

modeled as a zero-inflated binomial random variable (MacKenzie et al. 2006). To test for trends 

in occupancy and fecundity, the year covariate is included as a predictor in the occupancy and 

fecundity models and then tested for significance with likelihood ratio tests.

The methods for detecting long-term trends in the NSO occupancy and fecundity data were 

developed by Starcevich and Steinhorst (2010; Appendix A), which used 10 years of NPS NSO 

monitoring data to estimate the power to detect trends in preparation for this protocol (see 

Section 2.2 Sample Design Power Analysis). Methodology for trend analysis of occupancy and 

fecundity rates is provided in SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting, with pilot data provided in 

SOP 5 Appendix B. Instructions are given for the VGAM package of the R Project for Statistical 

Computing. The VGAM package is used for obtaining maximum likelihood estimates from 

zero-inflated mixture distributions. 

Additional factors will be analyzed in the trend reports such as differences in occupancy and 

fecundity rates between age classes of females and males, different nesting habitat factors, 

effects of climatic and weather conditions, and presence of barred owls. The analyses will also 

show the NPS NSO population within the context of Marin County, by including data collected 

on MMWD and MCOSD lands, and within a regional context, by comparing NSO trends in 

other parts of California. 

Information about NSO habitat associations from this region could have important management 

and ecological implications and will therefore be explored by the SFAN monitoring program as a 

component of long-term trend analyses. SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting outlines our 

approach to analyzing nest site measurements collected in the field and developing NSO habitat 

models in GIS that incorporate both field measurements and landscape variables. 

As described in SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting, data collected on barred owl presence and 

SOD severity at the NSO monitoring sites will be incorporated as important covariates in our 

long-term occupancy, fecundity, and habitat analyses. The significance of these effects may be 

assessed with likelihood ratio tests of regression coefficients in the models for occupancy, 

fecundity, or detection rates. 

4.7 Report Formats 

All documents produced by the NSO monitoring program will be published in either the Natural 

Resource Report Series or the Natural Resource Technical Report Series following guidance 

from the NPS Natural Resource Program Center in Fort Collins, CO. Published reports will 

adhere to a set of strict formatting standards and are peer-reviewed to ensure that information is 

scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and 

designed and published in a professional manner. The Natural Resource Publications 

Management home page hosts a list of all documents published in the NRR and NRTR Series. 

The home page can be found at: http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM/
31

4.8 Other Reporting Requirements 

Information is reported through a variety of other means detailed in the SOP 5: Data Analysis 

and Reporting. These reports include annual updates for the SFAN Annual Administrative 

Report and Workplan, updated resource briefings, informal updates through the SFAN Natural 

Resources and Science Monthly Update, park presentations, and online updates to the public 

internet site. 

4.9 Report and Data Dissemination 

In order for the NSO monitoring program to inform park management and to share its 

information with other organizations and the general public, guidance documents, reports, and 

data must be easily discoverable and obtainable. The main mechanism for distribution of the 

NSO monitoring documents and data will be the Internet. The NSO monitoring protocol, 

accompanying SOPs, and all annual reports will be made available for download at the SFAN 

website: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/sfan/

The annual reports generally do not contain sensitive owl information and, therefore, can be 

distributed to the public. Any maps created are done in large scale and without specific landscape 

details and no owl locations are mentioned by name in the report. 

Although the NSO monitoring database will not be posted for public download, metadata records 

for the master database will be maintained at the NPS Data Store. The metadata records will 

direct interested parties to the SFAN Data Manager for further inquiries. 

In addition to the NPS Data Store of the NPS I&M Program maintains an on-line natural 

resource bibliographic database known as NatureBib. NatureBib records will be created for all of 

the NSO monitoring documents, including the protocol, annual reports, and any resulting 

publications.

The California Department of Fish and Game maintains BIOS data access program. At the end of 

each season or prior to the next season, the SFAN Data Manager and the Lead Biological 

Technician are responsible for submitting the project monitoring data to the BIOS program (see 

SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting). BIOS is the preferred central contact for dissemination of 

NSO data to appropriate parties. 

4.10 Data and Report Archival Procedures 

Annually following data proofing and error checking, the project database located on the PORE 

network (inppore04\Resources\Natural\_Databases\Spotted Owl\NSOMasterXP.mdb) is 

archived onto a CD-ROM with a copy of the annual report and project protocols. All database 

related files reside on a secure server at PORE with regular backup routines and off-site storage 

rotation. All GIS related files reside at PORE (inppore07\GIS\vector\Wildlife\Spotted Owl). A 

mirror copy of the PORE spotted owl folder sits on the Network Drive 

(inpgogamahe1\Divisions\Network I&M\Individual Vital Signs\SpottedOwl) maintained by 

GOGA.

33

5.0 Personnel Requirements and Training 

5.1 Roles and Responsibilities 

The GOGA Wildlife Ecologist, the SFAN Data Manager, and the Lead Biological Technician 

are the program managers for the long-term monitoring program. Additional assistance for 

planning and coordination comes from an additional biological technician, the SFAN I&M 

Program Manager, PORE Science Advisor, PORE Chief of Resource Management, and GOGA 

Chief of Resource Management. PRBO works under contracts with the MMWD and MCOSD 

for monitoring and inventorying NSO on their lands and submits data to the NPS NSO database. 

In general, the GOGA Wildlife Ecologist and SFAN Data Manager are responsible for managing 

the project database, training, and supervising the Lead Biological Technician (GS-07, term, 

subject to furlough position). The Lead Biological Technician is responsible for monitoring 

selected NSO sites, supervising the Biological Technician, providing field training to interns, 

communicating with the other field staff, providing project updates during the course of the 

season, consulting with field staff on protocol and database questions, data entry and errorchecking, and writing the annual report. The Biological Technician (GS-05, term, subject to 

furlough position) is responsible for field monitoring at selected sites, data entry, error-checking 

the data, and other data management tasks. The GOGA Wildlife Ecologist and SFAN Data 

Manager assist with the monitoring of selected sites as needed. The Project Lead duties are 

currently assigned to the SFAN Data Manager (as of 5/12/08). 

Tasks for Project Lead: 

 Supervise the biological technicians 

 Develop and conduct performance review (to be reviewed by I&M Program Manager) 

 Manage owl monitoring program budget 

 Provide or coordinate training for the biological technicians 

 Conduct annual QA/QC field checks 

 Present issues for consultation with the Technical Steering Committee 

 Review and provide comments on annual report 

 Initiate and complete long-term analysis and synthesis report 

 Update protocol as needed 

 Provide field assistance as needed to ensure coverage 

Tasks for the Lead Biological Technician (GS-07): 

 Coordinate logistics for field work 

 Coordinate field assistance for protocol implementation and provide training to field 

assistants such as interns 

 Maintain equipment in good working order and keep maintenance records 

 Collect field data and implement field QA/QC measures 

 Coordinate data entry, verification, and validation in consultation with SFAN Data Manager 

 Perform summary statistical analyses on data; present and interpret results in annual reports 

 Communicate results through a variety of media and channels including Annual 

Administrative Report and Workplan, executive briefing, I&M Update, and online websites 
34

 Coordinate with Project Lead regarding staff and training needs, budget and equipment 

needs, vehicle, data analysis and data interpretation 

 Production of annual hard copy binders 

Tasks for the Biological Technician (GS-05): 

 Provide training to field assistants such as interns 

 Maintain equipment in good working order and keep maintenance records 

 Collect field data and implement field QA/QC measures 

 Perform data entry, verification, and validation in consultation with SFAN Data Manager 

 Production of annual hard copy binders 

Tasks for the Project Intern or Volunteer: 

 Assist biological technicians with field work, data entry, and reporting 

Tasks for SFAN Data Manager: 

 Provide assistance to the biological technicians regarding data management, archiving, 

reporting 

 Assist with GIS needs 

 Assist with compilation of metadata for past and current monitoring programs 

 Review protocol, annual reports, long-term trend analyses 

 Assist with field work at selected monitoring sites 

Tasks for the GOGA Wildlife Ecologist and PORE Science Advisor: 

 Be well-versed in all aspects of the NSO Monitoring Protocol 

 Provide technical assistance to the biological technicians 

 Review protocol, annual reports, long-term trend analyses 

 Assist with field work at selected monitoring sites 

Broad tasks for I&M Program Manager: 

 Broad programmatic oversight and review 

 Coordinate guidance on data management, data analysis and reporting 

 Provide information related to I&M program requirements, including reporting requirements 

and deadlines 

 Review protocol, annual reports, long-term trend analyses 

 Plan program budget in coordination with Project Lead 

 Coordinate peer review of analysis and synthesis reports 

5.2 Qualifications 

Field personnel are required to have normal hearing abilities and either one season of experience 

doing NSO surveys, including field data collection, or training in NSO survey techniques. In 

addition, personnel must also be skilled with the use of GPS equipment for navigation and data 

collection. Observers should be well-organized, be able to make decisions in the field (based on 

a monitoring protocol), and work methodically under sometimes difficult conditions. 
35

Because of the amount of training involved in attaining adequate experience required for 

consistent and accurate field data collection, the project employs few volunteers. Volunteers 

work under the supervision of project staff at all NPS sites. 

5.3 Training Procedures 

Training procedures are outlined in the attached SOP 1: Preparations and Equipment Setup 

Procedures and SOP 2: Standard Field Procedures. New and returning personnel are required to 

read this protocol and all SOPs, and the USFWS Protocol (1992) prior to field data collection. 

In particular, all field personnel need to be familiar with: 

 band colors and tabs (SOP 2), 

 owl aging techniques (SOP 2 and 3), 

 spotted, barred and hybrid owl plumage and calls (SOP 2), 

 field safety considerations (SOP 6), and 

 use of mice and mice management (SOP 2 and 3). 

New full-time personnel are accompanied by returning field staff for on-the-job training typically 

until June. New part-time personnel and volunteers are paired with another more experienced 

field staff member throughout the season.

37

6.0 Operational Requirements 

6.1 Annual Workload and Field Schedule 

Field work is accomplished by two biological technicians with the support of interns and 

volunteers, from March 1 until approximately July 31. The SFAN Data Manager and the GOGA 

Wildlife Ecologist may take the lead on monitoring a few sites each year if needed. Monitoring 

may require 4-6 visits per territory in a season (up to four hours per visit). Surveys can be 

accomplished by a single observer, although two observers are recommended for efficiency and 

safety. 

Immediately following the field season, the biological technicians will proof and error-check the 

database, produce the annual report and maps, and report results to federal, state and county 

agencies. General monitoring program tasks are listed with the target due date and lead person in 

Table 3. 

Procedures for making changes to and archiving previous versions of the protocol and SOPs are 

described in SOP 7: Revising the Protocol. All personnel should be familiar with the revision 

requirements and naming schemes. 

Table 3. Annual NSO program tasks. 

Activity 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Advertise technician 

vacancy (as 

needed) 

Technician season 

Field training (as 

needed) 

Late 

Feb 

Early 

Mar

Satellite copies of 

database to field 

crews 

Mar 1 

Field surveys and 

nest habitat 

sampling 

Satellite database 

data entry 

Due 

July 

31

Data error-checking, 

merge with master 

database. 

Aug 

15

Site summaries, GIS 

layer production 

Aug 

31

Data hardcopy 

binders 

Sept 

30

BIOS annual 

reporting 

Sept 

30

Annual report 

production (draft) 

Sept 

30
38

6.2 Facility and Equipment Needs 

Office space with computers for the biological technicians along with equipment storage space 

and a place to house live mice is provided by PORE. SOP 1: Preparations and Equipment Setup 

Procedures, lists field equipment needs for each field team. 

6.3 Budget 

Estimated costs for conducting NSO monitoring are shown in Table 4. The budget is based on 

FY10 cost estimates with costs expected to increase annually by approximately 4%. Personnel 

expenses for fieldwork are based on the biological technicians doing the majority of the 

fieldwork with assistance from permanent the GOGA Wildlife Ecologist, SFAN Data Manager, 

interns, and volunteers. The Lead Biological Technician is also responsible for preparing the 

annual monitoring report. The initial annual budget for the project is estimated to be $83,850, 

which includes salaries of permanent NPS staff supporting the project. The estimate does not 

include in-kind services of volunteers. Field costs may vary from year to year depending on the 

skill level and experience of the biological technicians. 

Table 4. Estimated annual SFAN NSO monitoring program budget based on FY10 cost estimates. 

Description Cost 

Funding Source Park contribution (PORE) -0- 

Park contribution (GOGA) $4,500 

SFAN I&M contribution $79,350 

 Sub-total $83,850 

Expense Type Biological Tech GS-7 – 16 pp $47,000 

Biological Tech GS-5 – 14 pp $24,000 

SFAN Data Manager GS-11 – 1pp $3,900 

Wildlife Ecologist – GOGA GS-12 – 1pp $4,500 

Vehicle $3,000 

Equipment and supplies $750

Travel, training, meetings $700

 Sub-total $83,850 

Balance -0- 

Additional periodic costs may be incurred if new equipment (e.g., spotting scopes and 

binoculars) are needed beyond those allowable by the annual budget. If these needs cannot be 

met by park or SFAN staff, periodic costs may also include technical assistance through 

cooperative agreements (e.g., through a CESU) or contracts to assist with data analysis during 

development of long-term trend reports. 

6.4 Permit Requirements 

Neither an Endangered Species Act Recovery Permit nor a USGS banding permit is required for 

calling or monitoring NSO surveys. Using a caller to attract wildlife is prohibited within the NPS 

lands though, and does require permission from the Superintendent and/or an NPS research and 

collecting permit. This permit will be obtained through the NPS Research Permit and Reporting 

System: https://science1.nature.nps.gov/research/ac/ResearchIndex.
39

7.0 Glossary 

Abundance – In this context, abundance refers to the mean number of adult NSOs at the activity 

centers monitored or mean number of NSOs located during an inventory effort. 

Activity center – Interchangeable term with  ̳known and/or historic site center‘. This area 

represents the area surrounding concentrations of  ̳the best of‘ detections such as nest stands, 

stands used by roosting pairs or territorial singles, or areas of concentrated nighttime detections. 

Adult: A northern spotted owl ≥ 2 years old.

Breeding season – The time period that includes pair initiation, nesting, and fledging of young. 

The window is considered to be March 1 to September 1 for the purposes of conducting surveys 

to detect NSO (USFWS 1992; Forsman 1995); and considered to be February 1 to July 31 by 

USFWS for the purposes of limiting management activities that may affect nesting NSO. 

Breeding years – Typical years when spotted owls breed during the nesting season; see also nonbreeding years. 

Fecundity – A measure of reproductive success typically reported as the number of female young 

fledged per territorial female (e.g., Anthony et al. 2006) 

Home range – The area annually traversed by spotted owls that provide important habitat 

elements for breeding, feeding, and sheltering 

Inventory – A large scale survey of suitable NSO habitat to detect the number and occupancy 

status of activity centers within a designated area. 

Mousing – Mousing describes the act of offering prey items to spotted owls. The purpose of 

mousing spotted owls is to determine pair status and/or reproductive status. A male spotted owl 

may take a prey item to an unseen female, likewise, adult owls may take prey items to unseen 

young. 

Nest – Northern spotted owls use broken-topped trees, old raptor nests, witches broom, cliff 

ledges, mistletoe brooms, and tree cavities for nests. A spotted owl must be observed using the 

structure or have mice taken to a nesting female positively identified in the structure to designate 

a nest tree. 

Nestling – A young owl that is still in the nest. 

Non-breeding years – Non-breeding years refers to breeding seasons when NSOs did not breed 

across a large landscape. This occurrence was documented in Marin County in 2007 when there 

were no breeding pairs on federal lands. 

NSO – Northern spotted owl. 
40

Occupancy – Determination that an area or activity center contains an owl or owls. A survey area 

can be considered ―occupied‖ if at any time throughout the year a NSO is detected. Assigning a 

level of occupancy, nesting, or reproductive status must occur within the breeding season. 

Productivity – A measure of reproductive success reported as the number of young fledged per 

territorial pair (e.g., Anthony et al. 2006). 

Reproductive status – Determination that nesting owls have laid eggs or have nestlings/ 

fledglings. 

Reproductive success – Measures used to describe the amount of reproduction that occurred 

annually. See fecundity and productivity. 

Roost – Typically a tree used by a spotted owl for extended daytime rest periods. A roost site 

consists of the roost itself and the immediate vicinity. Roost areas are identified by observations 

of spotted owls, and/or the presence of pellets, whitewash and other evidence. 

Spotted Owl Site - See Territory. 

Subadult – A spotted owl in the first or second years of life. 

Territory – Area defended and used by a territorial NSO single or pair for foraging, roosting, and 

nesting; often referred to as a NSO ―site‖ and includes an activity center. 

Vital Signs – As used by the National Park Service, are the subset of indicators chosen a by park 

or park network as part of the vital signs monitoring program. They are defined as any 

measurable feature of the environment that provides insights into changes in the state of the 

ecosystem. Vital signs are intended to track changes in a subset of park resources and processes 

that are determined to be the most significant indicators of ecological condition of those specific 

resources that are of the greatest concern to each park. This subset of resources and processes is 

part of the total suite of natural resources that park managers are directed to preserve 

―unimpaired for future generations,‖ including water, air, geological resources, plants and 

animals, and the various ecological, biological, and physical processes that act on these 

resources. Vital signs may occur at any level of organization including landscape, community, 

population, or genetic levels, and may be compositional (referring to the variety of elements in 

the system), structural (referring to the organization or pattern of the system), or functional 

(referring to ecological processes). 
41

8.0 Literature Cited 

Adams, D., S. Allen, J. Bjork, M. Cooprider, A. Fesnock, M. Koenen, T. Leatherman, S. O'Neil, 

D. Press, D. Schirokauer, B. Welch, and B. Witcher. 2006. San Francisco Bay Area Network 

vital signs monitoring plan. NPS/SFAN/NRR 2006/017. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. NPS D-40, October 2006. 

Anthony, R. G., E. D. Forsman, A. B. Franklin, D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, G. C. White, C. 

J. Schwarz, J. Nichols, J. Hines, G. S. Olson, et al. 2006. Status and trends in demography of 

northern spotted owls, 1985-2003. Wildlife Monographs No. 163: 1-48. 

Barrowclough, G. F., J. G. Groth, L. A. Mertz, and R. J. Gutiérrez. 2005. Genetic structure, 

introgression, and a narrow hybrid zone between northern and California spotted owls (Strix 

occidentalis). Molecular Ecology 14: 1109-1120. 

Bart, J. and D.S. Robson. 1995. Design of a monitoring program for northern spotted owls. Pp. 

75-81 in C.J. Ralph, J.R. Sauer, and S. Droege, editors. Monitoring bird populations by point 

counts. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-149. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, Albany, CA. 

Blakesley, J. A., W. La Haye, J. M. Marzluff, B. R. Noon, and S. Courtney. 2004. Demography 

Chapter. Pp. 8-1 – 8-46 in S P Courtney, J. A. Blakesley, R. E. Bigley, M. L. Cody, J. P. 

Dumbacher, R. C. Fleischer, A. B. Franklin, J. F. Franklin, R. J. Gutiérrez, J. M. Marzluff, 

and L. Sztukowski. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. 

Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR 

Buchanan, J. B. and L. L. Irwin. 1993. Characteristics of spotted owl nest trees in the Wenatchee 

National Forest. Journal of Raptor Research 27(1): 1-7.

Carey, A.B., S.P. Horton, and B.L. Biswell. 1992. Northern spotted owls: influence of prey base 

and landscape character. Ecological Monographs 62(2):223-250. 

Carroll, C., and D.S. Johnson. 2008. The importance of being spatial (and reserved): assessing 

northern spotted owl habitat relationships with hierarchical bayesian models. Conservation 

Biology 22: 1026-1036. 

Chow, N. 2001. Distribution and habitat associations of northern spotted owls in Marin County, 

California. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 

Chow, N. and S. Allen. 1997. Assessment of northern spotted owl after the Vision Fire wildfire 

1996. Unpublished report. Point Reyes National Seashore, Point Reyes, CA. 

Chow, N. and S. Allen. 2005. Assessment of northern spotted owls. Pages 81-87 in S. Allen and 

W. Shook, editors. Vision Fire: Lessons learned from the October 1995 fire. Point Reyes 

National Seashore, U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), National Park Service, Point 

Reyes Station, CA. 
42

Connor, E. F. and G. LeBuhn. 2007a. Spotted owl fecundity initial power and sample size 

estimates. Unpublished report. San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA. 

Connor, E. F. and G. LeBuhn. 2007b. Owl fecundity report addendum. Unpublished report. San 

Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA. 

Connor, E. F. and G. LeBuhn. 2007c. Draft northern spotted owl occupancy. Unpublished report.

San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA. 

Courtney, S. and R. J. Gutiérrez. 2004. Threats Chapter. Pp. 11-1 – 11-17 in S. P. Courtney, J A 

Blakesley, R. E. Bigley, M. L. Cody, J. P. Dumbacher, R. C. Fleischer, A. B. Franklin, J. F. 

Franklin, R. J. Gutiérrez, J. M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. Scientific evaluation of the 

status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR 

Courtney, S. P., J. A. Blakesley, R. E. Bigley, M. L. Cody, J. P. Dumbacher, R. C. Fleischer, A. 

B. Franklin, J. F. Franklin, R. J. Gutiérrez, J. M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. 

Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems 

Institute, Portland, OR.

Crozier, M. L., M. E. Seamans, R. J. Gutiérrez, P. J. Losch, R. B. Horn, S. G. Sovern, and E. D. 

Forsman. 2006. Does the presence of barred owls suppress the calling behavior of spotted 

owls. Condor 108: 760-769.

ESRI (Environmental Science Research Institute, Inc.). 2009. ArcGIS 9.3.1. ESRI, Redlands, 

CA. 

Fehring, K., D. Adams, D. Hatch, and S. Allen. 2001. Modified protocols for spotted owl 

monitoring and demographic studies in Marin County, California - July 2001. Unpublished 

protocol. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes, CA. 

Fehring, K. E., D. B. Adams, and D. Hatch. 2002. Northern spotted owls in Marin County, 

California: 2001 annual report. Unpublished report. National Park Service. 

Fehring, K. E. 2003. Dusky-footed woodrat monitoring in Point Reyes National Seashore: Final 

report. Unpublished report. PRBO Conservation Science, Stinson Beach, CA. 

Fehring, K. E., D. B. Adams, and D. Hatch. 2003. Northern spotted owls in Marin County, 

California: 2002 annual report. Unpublished report. National Park Service. 

Fehring, K. E., D. B. Adams, and D. Hatch. 2004. Northern spotted owls in Marin County, 

California: 2003 annual report. Unpublished report. National Park Service. 

Forsman, E. D. 1995. Spotted Owl monitoring protocols for demographic studies, 29 March 

1995. USDA Forest Service, Corvallis Forestry Sciences Lab, 12 pp. 

Forsman, E. D., and A. R. Griese. 1997. Nests of northern spotted owls on the Olympic 

Peninsula, Washington. Wilson Bulletin 109(1): 28-41.
43

Forsman, E. D., E. C. Meslow, and H. M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted 

owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87: 1-64. 

Franklin A. B., D. R. Anderson, E. D. Forsman, K. P. Burnham, and F. W. Wagner. 1996. 

Methods for collecting and analyzing demographic data on the northern spotted owl. Studies 

in Avian Biology 17: 12-20. 

Franklin, A.B., D.R. Anderson, R.J. Gutiérrez, and K.P. Burnham. 2000. Climate, habitat 

quality, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwestern California. 

Ecological Monographs 70(4):539-590. 

Garbelotto, M., D. M. Rizzo, J. M. Davidson, and S. J. Frankel. 2002. How to recognize 

symptoms caused by diseases caused by Phytophthora ramorum causal agent of sudden oak 

death. Online. 

(http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/garbelotto/downloads/sod_diagnostic_report_final.pdf). 

Accessed 07 April 2010. 

Hamer, T. E., E. D. Forsman, A. D. Fuchs, and M. L. Walters. 1994. Hybridization between 

barred and spotted owls. Auk 111(2): 487–492. 

Hamer, T. E., D. L. Hays, C. M. Singer, and E. D. Forsman. 2001. Diets of northern barred owls 

and northern spotted owls in an area of sympatry. Journal of Raptor Research 35(3): 221–

227. 

Hatch, D., S. Allen, G. Geupel, and M. Semenoff-Irving. 1999. Northern spotted owl 

demographic study Marin County, California: 1999 annual report. Unpublished report. 

National Park Service. 

Henke, A. L., T. Chi, C. Brinegar, and J. Smith. 2003. Preliminary microsatellite analysis of two 

populations of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Unpublished report. 

Conservation Genetics Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State 

University, San Jose, CA.

Jensen H. J., D. B. Adams, W. W. Merkle, and K. E. Fehring. 2004. Monitoring northern spotted 

owls in Marin County, California: 2004 annual report. Unpublished report. National Park 

Service. 

Jensen, H. J., D. B. Adams, and W. W. Merkle. 2007. Northern spotted owl inventory on federal 

lands in Marin County, 2006 annual report. Natural Resources Technical Report 

NPS/PWR/SFAN/NRR—2007/004. San Francisco Bay Area Network, Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area, Fort Cronkhite, Sausalito, California. 

Jensen, H., D. Adams, W. Merkle, and D. Press. 2008. Northern spotted owls on federal lands in 

Marin County, California, 2007 annual report. Natural Resources Technical Report 

NPS/SFAN/NRTR—2008/089. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 
44

Jensen, H. J., W. W. Merkle, and D. Press. 2010. Monitoring northern spotted owls on federal 

lands in Marin County, California: 2008 annual report. Natural Resources Technical Report 

NPS/SFAN/NRTR—2010/312. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Katzner, T., E. J. Milner-Gulland, and E. Bragin. 2007. Using modeling to improve monitoring 

of structured populations: Are we collecting the right data? Conservation Biology 21(1): 241-

252. 

Kelly, E. G., E. D. Forsman, R. and G. Anthony. 2003. Are barred owls displacing spotted owls? 

Condor 105(1): 45-53. 

LaHaye, W. S. 2004. Northern Spotted Owl Biology Chapter. Pp. 2-1 – 2-11 in Courtney, S. P., 

J. A. Blakesley, R. E. Bigley, M. L. Cody, J. P. Dumbacher, R. C. Fleischer, A. B. Franklin, 

J. F. Franklin, R. J. Gutiérrez, J. M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation 

of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR.

LaHaye, W. S., and R. J. Gutiérrez. 1999. Nest sites and nesting habitat of the northern spotted 

owl in northwestern California. Condor 101(2): 324-330.

Lee, C., Y. Valachovic, S. Frankel, and K. Palmieri. 2009. Sudden Oak Death Mortality and 

Fire: Lessons from the Basin Complex. Pages 67 in Fourth Sudden Oak Death Science 

Symposium. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Santa Cruz, CA. 

Leskiw, T. and R. J. Gutiérrez 1998. Possible predation of a spotted owl by a barred owl. 

Western Birds 29:225–226. 

MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, J.A. Royle, K.H. Pollock, L.L. Bailey, and J.E. Hines 2006. 

Occupancy Estimation and Modeling. Academic Press: San Francisco. 

MacDonald, T.L. 2003. Review of environmental monitoring methods: survey designs. 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 85:277-292.

Moritz, M., T. Moody, B. Ramage, and A. Forrestel. 2008. Spatial distribution and impacts of 

Phytophthora ramorum and Sudden Oak Death in Point Reyes National Seashore. Final 

report to the National Park Service. California Cooperative Ecosystems Study Unit Task 

Agreement No.J8C07050015. Berkeley, CA. 

National Park Service Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq. (1988), Aug. 25, 1916, Ch. 408, 39 Stat. 

535. 

National Park Service. 1992. NPS-75 Natural resources inventory and monitoring guideline. 

National Park Service, Washington, DC. 
45

National Park Service Omnibus Management Act, Pub. L. No. 105-391, Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 

3498. National Park Service Management Policies. 2001. U.S. Department of Interior, 

National Park Service. Washington, D.C. 

National Park Service. 2006. National Park Service management policies 2006. National Park 

Service, Washington, DC. 

Olson G. S., E.M. Glenn, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, J.A. Reid, P.J. Loschl, and W.J. Ripple. 

2004. Modeling demographic performance of northern spotted owls relative to forest habitat 

in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:1039–1053.

Press, D. T. 2005. Data management plan for the San Francisco Bay Area Network inventory 

and monitoring program. USDI National Park Service, San Francisco, CA. 113 pp.

Sakai, H. F. and B. R. Noon. 1993. Dusky-footed woodrat abundance in different-aged forests in 

northwestern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 57(2): 373-382. 

Schirokauer, D., T. Keeler-Wolf, T. Meinke, and P. van der Leeden, 2003. Plant community 

classification and mapping project final report. Unpublished report. National Park Service, 

Point Reyes National Seashore, Point Reyes, CA. 

Stralberg, D., K. E. Fehring, N. Nur, L. Y. Pomara, D. B. Adams, D. Hatch, G. R. Geupel, and S. 

Allen. 2009. Modeling nest-site occurrence for the northern spotted owl at its southern range 

limit in central California. Landscape and Urban Planning 90:76-85. 

Starcevich, L. A. and K. Steinhorst. 2010. Analysis of power to detect trends in occupancy and 

fecundity in prairie falcon and spotted owl populations. Unpublished report to San Francisco 

Bay Area Network of the Inventory and Monitoring Program, National Park Service. 

University of Idaho, Corvallis, OR. 

Thomas, J. W., E. D. Forsman, J. B. Lint, E. C. Meslow, B. R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A 

conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: a report of the interagency scientific 

committee to address the conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl. U. S. Department 

Agriculture and U. S. Department of the Interior, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). 1994a. 

Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl; standards and guidelines 

for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within 

the range of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, and USDI 

Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). 1994b. 

Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for latesuccessional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted 
46

owl. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

Portland, Oregon. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl. Federal Register 55:26114–

26194. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Protocol for surveying proposed management 

activities that may impact northern spotted owls. Revised March 17, 1992. Unpublished. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. 2010 Protocol for surveying proposed 

management activities that may impact northern spotted owls. Revised February 18, 2010. 

Unpublished. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted 

Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xii + 142 

pp. 

U. S. Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. (Public Law 103-62, 107 Stat. 285, 

Aug. 3, 1993). 

Ward, J. P., R. J. Gutiérrez, and B. R. Noon. 1998. Habitat selection by northern spotted owls: 

The consequences of prey selection and distribution. Condor 100: 79-92. 

Zabel C.J., K.S. McKelvey, and J.P. Ward, Jr. 1995. Influence of primary prey on home-range 

size and habitat-use patterns of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Canadian 

Journal of Zoology 73(3):433-439. 

Zabel C.J., J.R. Dunk, H.B. Stauffer, L.M. Roberts, B.S. Mulder, and A. Wright. 2003. Northern 

Spotted Owl habitat models for research and management application in California (USA). 

Ecological Applications 13:1027-1040.
47

SOP 1. Preparations and Equipment Setup Procedures 

Version 1.3 

Revision History Log 

Previous 

Version # 

Revision Date Author Changes Made Reasons for 

Change 

New Version 

# 

1.0 12/8/07 D. Adams Format, slight content 

revisions 

Respond to reviewer 

comments. 

1.1 

1.1 05/18/08 D. Adams, 

Paul 

Johnson, 

Marcus 

Koenen 

Minor content revision 

to equip list and 

volunteer mgmt 

Incorporate staff 

edits 

1.2 

1.2 03/04/10 D. Press Minor content 

revision. Added more 

detail on volunteers. 

Added section on 

training new staff. 

In response to peer 

review comments. 

1.3 
48

Contents 

Page 

1.0 Prepare Field Maps ..................................................................................................................49

2.0 Pre-season Meeting ..................................................................................................................49

3.0 Volunteer and Intern Management ..........................................................................................50

4.0 Training New Staff ..................................................................................................................50
49

This SOP outlines the basic activities carried out at the onset of each field season (March). 

1.0 Prepare Field Maps 

Each field team should have field maps for each site for navigation to the designated activity 

sites and for preparing site search maps for each visit. Maps for each of the monitoring sites are 

created using GIS and facilitate finding past Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) nests and activity 

centers in the field. Use topographic maps as a base layer with the addition of labeled roads, 

trails and past NSO nest site occurrences. Create the 8-1/2x11 field map using no greater than a 

1:18,000 scale, include a scale bar, north arrow and title with the minimum of the area identified. 

2.0 Pre-season Meeting 

Project leader or Lead Biological Technician schedules a pre-season meeting in February or 

early March to bring together all the project personnel and plan for the year‘s activities. Identify 

roles and responsibilities during the meeting if they are unclear or new personnel will be 

participating. 

1. Assign NSO survey sites to field personnel including biological technicians, intern, GOGA 

Wildlife Ecologist, SFAN Data Manager, volunteers, or other staff. 

2. Provide annual satellite databases for all field crews. 

3. Review Training Topics: 

 Protocols and SOPs 

 Band colors and tabs 

 NSO aging techniques 

 Spotted, barred and hybrid owl plumage and calls 

 Field safety considerations (See SOP 6: Safety Procedures) 

 Mice maintenance 

4. Review Equipment Needs 

Review the condition and location of equipment needed for the season. Generally, four-wheel 

drive government vehicles are used for accessing NSO owl sites via park roads and trails. Where 

and when possible though, biologists should hike and use mountain bikes on park trails. 

Monitoring equipment is stored at both PORE and GOGA. At PORE, storage of monitoring 

supplies is in the basement of the Resource Management building, Science office, and Lead 

Biological Technician‘s office. At GOGA, equipment is stored in Fort Cronkhite Building 1061 

(Resource Management Building, Wildlife Ecologist‘s office) and in Fort Cronkhite Building 

1063 (SFAN I&M Building, SFAN Data Manager‘s office and Dry Lab). 

Domestic or pet mice used for baiting NSOs are typically purchased at area pet stores and one 

person from the field team is responsible for feeding and caring for them. Generally, 8-20 mice 

are needed on hand depending on the time period in the season. Small cages are used to carry the 

mice (4-6 at a time) into the field. 
50

Each field team needs: 

 Megaphone, tape player, owl tape, and/or 

hoot flute

 Park radio and/or cell phone

 Batteries (AA, C, and D for megaphones)  Binoculars

 Spotting scope and tripod  Field notebook

 Datasheets (site search and nest forms)  Compass

 Watch  Field maps

 Thermometer  GPS unit

 Specimen collecting envelopes and bags  Headlamps/flashlights

 Field clothing  Extra water and food.

 Mouse lure and mice, if necessary  Banding list

 Aluminum tree tags and nails  Monitoring protocol

 Flagging

3.0 Volunteer and Intern Management 

During the pre-season meeting it is important to identify which long-term and new volunteers or 

interns will participate in the NSO monitoring field work, the range of work they are authorized 

to do (e.g., visit sites independently and collect data or only accompany a trained field crew 

member). SFAN staff must determine who will be scheduling their work and supervising their 

activities. Volunteers may assist long-term monitoring efforts covered by this protocol when 

accompanying other assigned field staff. At the SFAN staff‘s discretion, volunteers may be 

permitted to conduct surveys on their own. This has been particularly helpful in the past with 

simple nest checks. Volunteers will not be permitted to work independently until their abilities to 

follow proper procedures and accurately record data consistent with the monitoring protocol are 

confirmed by SFAN staff. Volunteer supervisors should track each volunteer‘s hours and provide 

them to the Lead Biological Technician for the annual report and to the individual park 

Volunteers in Parks Coordinators. 

4.0 Training New Staff 

New field observers hired by the SFAN for the NSO monitoring program will require significant 

training by existing staff. If possible, the SFAN should try to hire biologists with previous 

experience monitoring northern spotted owls. New hires will be required to become intimately 

familiar with field procedures and must accompany existing staff into the field on numerous 

surveys in order to orient themselves to the monitoring sites and learn field techniques first hand. 

New staff will not be permitted to work independently until their abilities to follow proper 

procedures and accurately record data consistent with the monitoring protocol are confirmed by 

SFAN staff. 
51

SOP 2. Standard Field Procedures 

Version 1.4 

Revision History Log 

Previous 

Version # 

Revision Date Author Changes Made Reasons for 

Change 

New Version 

# 

1.1 12/8/07 D. Adams Format, slight content 

revisions 

Respond to reviewer 

comments. 

1.2 

1.2 02/19/08 D. Adams Content corrections Response to internal 

review comments 

1.3 

1.3 04/19/10 D. Press Re-organization of 

figures. Format edits. 

Added SOD severity 

methods. Mention of 

USFWS 2010 

protocol. Added 

Literature Cited 

section. 

To meet current 

formatting guidance 

and respond to peer 

review comments. 

1.4 
52

Contents 

Page 

Figures............................................................................................................................................54

Tables .............................................................................................................................................54

1.0 Survey Period ...........................................................................................................................55

2.0 Survey Area .............................................................................................................................55

3.0 Survey Methods .......................................................................................................................56

3.1 Scheduling Field Surveys ............................................................................................... 56

3.2 Sites with Recent Spotted Owl History .......................................................................... 56 

3.3 Sites with Inconsistent or No Recent Spotted Owl History ............................................ 56

3.4 Day Surveys .................................................................................................................... 56

3.5 Night Surveys .................................................................................................................. 57

4.0 Data Collection and Documentation ........................................................................................58

4.1 Field Survey Map ............................................................................................................ 60

5.0 Specific Field Procedures ........................................................................................................60

5.1 Ageing Owls ................................................................................................................... 60

5.2 Identifying Calls .............................................................................................................. 61

5.3 Reading Color Bands ...................................................................................................... 61

5.4 Collecting Feathers ......................................................................................................... 61

5.5 Using a Compass ............................................................................................................. 62

5.5.1 Compass Basics .................................................................................................... 62

5.5.2 Compass Components ........................................................................................... 62

5.5.3 How to Use a Compass ......................................................................................... 62

5.5.4 How to Triangulate on a Location ........................................................................ 63 

6.0 Completing Data Forms ...........................................................................................................64
53

6.1 Site Search Data Form .................................................................................................... 64

6.2 Nest Habitat Data Form .................................................................................................. 68

6.3 Cooperating with Other Research Activities .................................................................. 72

6.3.1 Documenting West Nile Virus .............................................................................. 72

6.3.2 Documenting Sudden Oak Death.......................................................................... 72

7.0 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................74
54

Figures 

Page 

Figure SOP 2.1. Site Search Form used for monitoring spotted owls in the San Francisco 

Bay Area Network. ........................................................................................................................59

Figure SOP 2.2. Compass components. .........................................................................................62

Figure SOP 2.3. "Dial it up". .........................................................................................................63

Figure SOP 2.4. "Put the red in the shed." .....................................................................................63

Figure SOP 2.5. Triangulation. ......................................................................................................63

Figure SOP 2.6. Nest Habitat Data Form used for recording nest and habitat 

characteristics for spotted owl monitoring in the San Francisco Bay Area Network. ...................69

Tables 

Page 

Table SOP 2.1. Guide to SOD severity index rating on 0-10 scale. ..............................................74
55

This standard operating procedure (SOP) outlines basic field survey procedures and guidelines, 

data collection, and documentation for the SFAN Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) monitoring 

program. The sections on survey methods, data collection and documentation, and specific field 

procedures were adapted from other existing monitoring protocols including those by Forsman 

(1995), the USFWS (1992), and Fehring et al. (2001). 

Research on spotted owls over the last decade has raised concerns regarding the effectiveness of 

the USFWS 1992 survey protocol, particularly those which do not result in spotted owl 

detections, most likely due to barred owl presence. An interagency Barred Owl Work Group and 

its Survey Protocol Subcommitte, a sub-group of NSO managers conducting demographic 

monitoring under the Northwest Forest Plan, has evaluated the effectiveness of the current NSO 

demographic survey protocol in the presence of barred owls. The findings and recommendations 

from the Barred Owl Work Group were adopted by the USFWS in the draft ―2010 Protocol for 

Surveying Proposed Management Activities that May Impact Northern Spotted Owls‖ (USFWS 

2010). Among other protocol revisions, the draft 2010 protocol, currently under review by the 

NPS, details increased survey effort over a 2-year period in order to determine unoccupied NSO 

status at survey areas. The SFAN anticipates adoption of the draft 2010 protocol following NPS 

approval. 

1.0 Survey Period 

Informal surveys or incidental detections may occur any time during the year, but data involving 

occupancy and reproductive status designation as well as valid band confirmations must occur 

within specified time periods as described in this SOP. In general, surveys to establish the 

presence of territorial pairs or singles and to establish reproductive status will take place between 

March 1 and July 31 for the purposes of this monitoring protocol. All designated monitoring sites 

in Marin County should be surveyed at least once by April 15 to determine occupancy. In 

addition, the sites should be visited between April 15 and May 1 to determine nesting status. 

2.0 Survey Area 

The first survey of the season at each site should be an abbreviated search of the most recent 

activity center. The first day search can be expanded to include known roost areas and historic 

nest cores, especially if evidence of whitewash or pellets is found and/or there is easy access to 

past activity centers. If the first day visit is conducted in April, a more extensive search of past 

activity centers is justified. The shortened survey effort is due to the fact that owls at reliable 

territories (e.g., those with solid occupancy histories) will often appear in the historic core area in 

April. 

If owls are not detected on the first visit, the second visit will entail an extensive search of all 

historic activity areas. Depending on evidence found and site history, the second visit could be a 

night survey. For example, if no evidence of owl presence was located on the first visit and the 

history of owl occupancy is unknown, a night survey is probably the best option for the second 

visit. If no response is heard on a second day visit, switch to night surveys to locate owls. It is a 

good idea to be ready to call at the activity site core at dusk when completing a night survey. 

This increases the chances of locating the area where the owls are roosting during the day before 

they start moving throughout the territory at night. If night access is limited to one effective call 
56

point to cover the area, complete a 30+ minute call station from that location. Follow-ups to 

night surveys with NSO detections should be substantial; plan on spending several hours 

searching the area where the owl was heard. 

3.0 Survey Methods 

3.1 Scheduling Field Surveys 

All sites that will be surveyed to determine occupancy status may take a minimum of one (if a 

pair is detected) and up to five visits to maximize detectability based on previous monitoring 

data (Connor and Lebuhn 2007c). Band identification, age, sex, and species verification should 

be determined for all NSO detected. Sites that are monitored for reproductive status will likely 

need additional visits after occupancy status is determined to locate the nest and confirm the 

number of young produced and fledged. 

Do not survey under inclement weather conditions, such as high winds (>10 mph), rain, or high 

noise levels (stream noise, machinery, etc.) that would prevent you from hearing a response that 

would be heard under better conditions. 

3.2 Sites with Recent Spotted Owl History 

Initial attempts to determine occupancy status at sites with reliable histories within the previous 

two years should be conducted during daylight for the first two visits. If no owls or a single owl 

is detected during the initial day visits, subsequent surveys should occur during dusk, night, or 

predawn hours to determine pair status. If necessary, at least one night visit should occur before 

the end of April and an attempt should be made to complete two night visits before June 1. Sites 

with recent history, but no detections for the season should receive three night visits. 

3.3 Sites with Inconsistent or No Recent Spotted Owl History 

Sites with no recent owl history should be visited three times at night if no response is detected. 

Two of the night visits should occur before the end of June. An historic site will be considered 

unoccupied if it receives three night visits with no response. If owl response is heard during a 

night survey, follow-ups need to be conducted the next day except in the case of extreme 

circumstances or inclement weather. If a response is detected numerous times on night surveys, 

but owls cannot be located during day survey efforts, switch efforts to pre-dawn surveys so that a 

search can be conducted as soon there is sufficient light to safely enter forest. 

Early season work is important because locating a nest or definitively determining non-nesting 

may reduce the need for further site visits. 

3.4 Day Surveys 

1) Day surveys should be the first visit for all sites with a well-established activity center. They 

are also used to follow up on any night survey response. The additional search effort can 

minimize the amount of calling required to locate owls in the daytime. 

a) Conduct a search of the known nest/roost area for at least 30 minutes, documenting all 

owls seen or heard as well as whitewash, pellets or other evidence. 
57

b) If no owls are located, initiate calling and continue an expanded search for at least an 

additional hour and covering up to 1⁄2 mile radius around the historic activity center. 

Focus expanded searches around any observed evidence. If no evidence is found, conduct 

a night survey covering the potential habitat. 

2) If owls are located, record the species, sex, age, and band color as well as completing all of 

the fields in the datasheet. Indicate the methods used to determine species, sex and age in the 

narrative (4-note calls, appearance of tail tips, color bands, behaviors etc.)

3.5 Night Surveys 

The intent is to obtain complete coverage of the area of interest such that owls will be able to 

hear the surveyor and the surveyor will be able to hear the owls. 

1) Establish calling stations and survey routes to achieve complete coverage of the area. Calling 

stations should be spaced 400 to 800 m (0.25 to 0.5 mile) apart, depending on topography. 

Take advantage of prominent points within the calling area when establishing calling 

stations. 

2) Conduct night surveys between sunset and sunrise. Be sure not to call the same section of a 

survey route at the same time on each survey effort (i.e., vary the time that you start and the 

point from which you start your route). 

3) Systematically survey the area of interest until an owl responds, or if no response, until a 

minimum of three complete night visits are conducted each year. Survey effort should be 

spread out over two to three months to avoid survey efforts concentrated in a short period of 

time (e.g., in a three-week period at the start of the survey season). 

4) Follow the survey methods listed below (spot calling is the recommended method). Whatever 

method you use, be sure you cover all potential areas within the historic activity site area. 

a) Spot calling: Set up a series of calling stations approximately 400 m (0.25 mile) apart 

along a road. When possible, pick prominent points that cover large areas. Spend at least 

10 minutes at each station, more if the topography prevents you from hearing owls that 

might respond from the previous calling point (e.g., you cross a major ridge). If the 

topography lends itself to fewer, prominent calling points, spend more time at each 

station. If a response is elicited, stop calling immediately and listen carefully to identify 

the owl‘s species, gender and location. A complete 10 minutes of calling is not required if 

a response has been elicited. 

b) Continuous walking or leapfrog surveys: Walk the designated route, stopping at 

frequent intervals to call and listen for responses. If two people are involved, you may 

use a leapfrog method (see Forsman 1983). 

5) If owls are heard during a survey: 
58

a) Estimate the original and final location of the owl(s). The best method is to triangulate on 

the owl's calls, taking compass bearings from two to three locations. Be sure to record on 

the survey form the method used to estimate the location. 

b) Record the location on a map attached to the survey form. The triangulation and 

accompanying map provide a means for verification of the location. 

6) If an owl responds at any station, record the data as required. If no response is heard, proceed 

to the next station calling point. Continue until the defined area is completely covered. 

7) If an owl responds at night, return to the area during the day as soon as possible (see Day 

Surveys) to verify status as described below. 

8) If a response occurs during dusk or pre-dawn hours and there is sufficient time and light to 

complete status verification, do so. 

9) If the survey is for inventory purposes, once a owl responds at night, complete the survey 

route for the remaining stations points that are beyond earshot of the responding owl. Beyond 

earshot is generally over a ridge or at least 800 m to 1200 m (0.5 to 0.75 mile) away. 

Completing the route will provide an opportunity to detect any other owls in the area. 

4.0 Data Collection and Documentation 

In order to establish consistency among the various Marin County survey units, a minimum set 

of information is required to be collected. Whether or not owls are located, a Site Search Form 

form (Figure SOP 2.1) is required for all field visits. All fields on the Site Search Form should be 

filled out and a written narrative completed documenting all relevant events. For all field visits 

you should record the site name, weather, start and end time, a description of the area covered, 

the purpose of survey (e.g., ―Purpose of visit is to locate male and determine his band and age‖ 

or ―Purpose of visit is to confirm reproductive success with second fledgling count‖) and results 

of visit (see detailed Site Search Form section below). 

Be aware of the current status of the site you are visiting and know what data are needed. Since 

we don‘t regularly use ―mousing‖ to determine status it is of the utmost importance to record 

detailed and accurate field notes. Take notes in chronological order using specific times to 

indicate notable events. For all daytime observation you should note the time you get both an 

audio and any visual responses from an owl. 

Note how you knew it was a NSO versus a barred owl. Note where you located the owl(s). 

Indicate the sex and types of NSO responses observed. Note the age of the owls and how it was 

determined. Always note band and tab color and leg, determination of no band if you can 

determine it, or if leg observation is not possible that the band is unknown (see Reading Color 

Bands section below). Always make an effort to determine this information. Never record age, 

sex, and band determination in the detection table if you did not observe it and are not 100% 

positive of your determination. Describe the behavior of the owls. During non-nesting visits 

make sure to note the length of time that a female is observed roosting in view. 
59

Figure SOP 2.1. Site Search Form used for monitoring spotted owls in the San Francisco Bay Area 

Network.

For multiple or moving owls, record and number each response or observation. Make note of 
60

types of vocalizations heard, movements of owls (toward or away from you), or situations such 

as when one response is received and the owl is quiet thereafter. This will give the person(s) 

analyzing the data and determining activity centers additional information to consider. Be 

especially cognizant of the possibility that you may hear hybrid owls, and make careful notes of 

unusual vocalizations. 

When owls are detected on a night survey, you should note the species, response time, compass 

bearing, approximate distance, and a description of calls. For all spotted owl responses also note 

the sex and any movement the owl makes. Use triangulation to pinpoint location of night 

auditory detections. 

If nesting is detected, be sure to record detailed notes regarding the location of nest tree and 

nesting structure so that return visits can be made to collect nest habitat measurements. Record 

any visual cues that may aid in identifying the tree on a subsequent visit. Make an effort to 

obtain a GPS location. Record enough detail so that someone else can easily locate the nest tree 

if needed. 

The Site Search Forms can be printed directly from the project database. Ideally, data forms are 

filled out in the field, but if a field notebook is used instead, forms should be filled out as soon as 

possible upon returning to the office. As a general rule, data forms should be completed and 

entered into the database within a week of the visit. This way the information is still fresh in your 

mind and you may be to provide additional details to your notes, but most importantly it is 

insurance that if you lose the datasheet or field notebook the visit is documented elsewhere. 

4.1 Field Survey Map 

A field survey map is required for all field visits other than nest checks (because the location is 

known from a previous map). The field survey map templates should be created for each area or 

site at the beginning of the season by each field team. Previous years‘ maps are acceptable as 

long as the documentation on the map is clear. 

Noted on the field survey map should be the owl site, date, time period of visit using military 

time (e.g., 1300 – 1550), form id number for database form, outcome of visit (e.g., nest/FA/MA), 

location of nest and owls detected including sex, age, and bands, any call points used, and area 

searched. For both day and night surveys, field maps should also represent route surveyed and 

stations called and should correspond to the narrative text in the Site Search Form. 

All spotted, barred, great horned, barn, saw-whet, pygmy, screech owl and accipiter response or 

observation locations should be noted on the field survey map and Site Search Form. For 

multiple or moving owls, map all response or observation locations and number each location to 

correspond with survey results and narrative. 

5.0 Specific Field Procedures 

5.1 Ageing Owls 

Always make an attempt to look at an owl‘s tail tips on every survey. If it is perched high or 

obscured by foliage, a lure (rat toy) can be used to entice an owl to move to allow a visual of its 
61

legs for bands and tail tips. An owl cannot be recorded as an adult unless the tail tips are seen, 

because there is no plumage difference between an adult and subadult except for the tail tips. 

Adults have mottled and rounded tail tips. First year subadults (S1) and juveniles have white 

pointed tail tips. Second year subadults (S2) have white rounded tail tips. In the situation when 

the tail is clearly not an adult tail, but the surveyor is unable to differentiate further, the code 

(SA) is used to indicate a subadult, age unknown. It can be very difficult to determine between 

an S1 and S2, but it is especially difficult if the tail tips are wet or if there is a mix between white 

and plump rectrices and white and pointy rectrices, or if you have limited experience aging 

subadults. As long as a surveyor can determine an owl is a subadult (SA) and not an adult, it is 

not necessary to differentiate between S1 and S2. Molting of the rectrices can also occur during 

the breeding season, which can leave the owls temporarily tailless or with a mix of shorter and 

longer tail feathers or a mix of a subadult/adult tail tips or S1/S2 tail tips. Describe any odd tail 

observations in the comments section of the data form. If the surveyor is unable to achieve a 

good view of the tail tips, the age should be recorded as unknown. NSO and barred owls have 

similar terminal tail band patterns and the same characteristics can be used to age barred owls. 

5.2 Identifying Calls 

All surveyors should be very familiar with the range of calls that could be heard in the field from 

NSO, barred owls, great horned owls, western screech owls, saw-whet owls and other area 

raptors and corvids. As part of the early season training, each surveyor will receive an audio 

recording of owl calls to review. 

5.3 Reading Color Bands 

Always carry the list of banded owls in the field. Always note band color and leg or 

determination of no band if you can determine it. Always make an effort to determine this 

information. Do not assume that you will have another opportunity to see the owl. Never record 

age, sex, and band determination in the detection table if you did not observe it and are not 100% 

positive of your determination. For example, if you saw a flash of orange on the right leg, record 

band color as ―present‖ in the detection table and explain what you saw in the comments field. If 

you saw only one leg and it was unbanded, include the information in the comments field, but 

select band color as ―unknown‖. Make sure you have a view of both legs, before determining a 

owl as unbanded and using the ―none‖ category in the band color field. If you confirm a banded 

owl that is not a historic owl to that site refer to the banding list to identify where it originated 

and document this in the comment field of the Site Search Form and also in the final status 

summary. Make an extra effort to confirm bands on owls during the early season, particularly 

females. Females can prove to be more challenging to confirm and can elude confirmation even 

when nesting. If a nest fails or when a pair is non-nesting, the pair may not spend much time in 

the core area as the season progresses. 

5.4 Collecting Feathers 

If a surveyor locates a NSO feather during a survey, it should be collected and placed in a 

resealable bag, for potential future use in a genetic study. On the outside of the bag record the 

species, site name, date, collector‘s name, UTMs of the feather‘s location, and sex, age, and band 

ID of the owl the feather came from, if known. Record sex and age as unknown unless the 

surveyor actually witnesses the feather fall off of the owl or it is collected from the remains of a 

fledgling or nestling (in this case only the sex would be unknown). If you are unsure of the owl 
62

species from which the feather came from, collect it and the corresponding collection 

information and show it to the Lead Biological Technician for determination. At the end of the 

season, turn in all feathers to the Project Lead for storage. 

5.5 Using a Compass 

5.5.1 Compass Basics 

The magnetic declination for Point Reyes Station is 14° 52' E and changes by 0° 6' W/year. All 

compasses used in the owl monitoring program should have the ability to preset declination and 

should be set to this value. 

5.5.2 Compass Components 

Figure SOP 2.2. Compass components. 

5.5.3 How to Use a Compass 

―Dial it up.‖ Use the compass housing to dial up a given compass bearing. In this case 

use 315 degrees (NW). See Figures SOP 2.2 and 2.3. 

1. ―Plug it in.‖ Act like you are plugging the compass into your body so that your shoulders 

and entire body turns with the compass and not just your arms. This will ensure you and 

the compass are pointed in the right direction. 

―Put the red in the shed‖ by turning until the compass needle (the red) is in the orienting 

arrow (the shed). See Figure SOP 2.4. 

Once you have the ―red in the shed‖ look in front of you and find a landmark (tree, rock, 

etc.) the direction of travel arrow is pointing you. 
63

2. Walk to the landmark and put the ―red in the shed‖ again. Locate your next landmark and 

walk to it. Keep repeating this process until you reach your destination. 

Figure SOP 2.3. "Dial it up". 

 

Figure SOP 2.4. "Put the red in the shed." 

5.5.4 How to Triangulate on a Location 

Triangulation is used for identifying the point where two bearings intersect. We use triangulation 

to locate owls at night so that we can follow-up on that location the next day. In Figure SOP 2.5, 

―C‖ would be the owl‘s location and ―A‖ and ―B‖ would be calling or listening stations. 

Figure SOP 2.5. Triangulation.

The same steps as described above would be used to achieve this. You would ―dial up‖ a 

compass bearing on the owl‘s auditory from two different locations along the trail or road. 

(While fine-tuning your bearing on the owl you should also estimate the distance the owl is away 

from your location in case the owl moves and you only get one bearing on it). The next step 

would be to transfer the compass bearings to a map by plotting your call stations on the map and 

then lining the orienteering lines on your compass with a north/south line on the map. Using the 

edge of the compass, draw the intersecting bearing lines on the map and place a dot at the point 

of intersection to represent the owl‘s location. The final step is to obtain UTM coordinates from 

ArcView/ArcGIS and plug them into a GPS unit if you have one. You can use the ―Go to‖ 

function on the GPS unit to lead you to the point of detection and hopefully the owl! 
64

6.0 Completing Data Forms 

6.1 Site Search Data Form 

The Site Search Form (Figure SOP 2.1) is filled out for each visit to an owl site, regardless of 

outcome. Fields on the Site Search Form are described below. 

General Information

Form ID #: This eight-digit number is sequentially assigned to each form filled out based upon 

the year and which crew performed the site search. The first four numbers correspond to the 

year. The fifth number corresponds to the crew (PRBO=1 PORE=2 MUWO=3 GOGA=4 

MMWD=5 and MCOSD=6). The final three numbers should correspond to the order in which 

surveys were performed. It is not necessary for the numbers to relate precisely to the sequence of 

searches, so long as every data sheet is given a unique number. It is advisable to keep a log of the 

numbers you have already used and how they correspond to dates and locations. This allows a 

means to track stray data. 

Site Name: Fill out the complete name of the site visited. Be sure to distinguish between sites 

with similar names, e.g., Barnabe Creek and Barnabe North. A look-up table will prompt you 

with the correct spelling of most locations during data entry. 

Owl Site #: ―MRN‖ followed by four numbers. Most sites have been designated with a unique 

number. This field is automatically filled in from the Site Name selection based on the assigned 

number in the SitesLUT. Official MRN numbers are assigned and distributed by the CA 

Department of Fish and Game. 

Date: Indicate the date numerically in the format of month/day/year. 

Crew: indicate the four or five letter acronym for the survey crew that you are a part of. A lookup table will prompt you. 

Recorder: Record your initials here. This allows data managers to efficiently ask the appropriate 

owler any questions regarding the data. The data recorder identified in the field and in the 

database should be the same person. If it is not, indicate this in the narrative. Add new initials by 

clicking on the "Update Initials LUT" button below this field. 

Lead Observer Last Name: Record the last name of the site search's most experienced observer. 

Other Observer's Initials: Record three letter initials strings separated by spaces for observers 

other than the lead. Include the recorder. Use consistent initials sequences for each observer. Use 

prompt to see initials previously used. 

#Observers: record the total number of observers that were on the site search. 

Conditions Summary 
65

Visit Start Time: Indicate the time at which you began actively searching for owls by visually 

searching, calling, or listening. 

Call Start Time: Indicate the time at which you began either playing a tape or simulating spotted 

owl calls with your voice. 

Method: Indicate whether you used voice simulations, a cassette recording broadcast, both of 

these, or if no call simulations were done. Never leave this field blank. A look-up table prompts 

for appropriate answers. 

Visit End Time: Indicate the time at which you ceased any kind of searching for spotted owls 

within your search radius of the activity site. 

Wind: Use the one adjective that most accurately describes weather conditions typical of the 

search. 

Precipitation: Use the one adjective that most accurately describes weather conditions typical of 

the search. 

Temp: Indicate the most characteristic Fahrenheit scale temperature experienced during the 

search. 

Clouds (%): Estimate the average percentage of the sky obscured by clouds during the site 

search. 

Light: Indicate whether the survey was performed primarily during daylight or during hours of 

darkness. 

Visit Summary 

Formal Survey: If the effort was part of regular monitoring or inventory, record ―yes.‖ If 

information was gathered opportunistically, e.g., while camping, hiking, or represents an 

unofficial visitor‘s report, record ―no.‖

NSO Response: Indicate whether there was a positively identified spotted owl heard or seen 

during the site search. Do not indicate yes for barred owl detections. Do not indicate yes for 

―possible‖ spotted owls. Only record "possible" owls in the narrative.

Other Owl Species Detected: Note the four letter AOU codes for other owl, corvid, or raptor 

species heard or seen during the survey, e.g., BDOW for Barred Owl, GHOW for Great Horned 

Owl, WSOW for Western Screech Owl, BNOW for Barn Owl, NPOW for Northern Pygmy Owl, 

NSWO for Northern Saw-Whet Owl, etc. If a barred owl is detected, document it as fully as 

possible, preferably with photography. DO NOT INCLUDE 'POSSIBLE' DETECTIONS. These 

are only appropriate in the narrative. 
66

Was an effort made to see bands?: Please indicate whether observers attempted to look for bands. 

Indicate "NA" for visits without owls. Indicate "yes" if an attempt was made, even if the view 

was poor and no bands were seen. 

Were owls banded on this visit?: Answer yes only if new bands were placed on an owl's legs 

during the visit. 

Were Mice Offered?: Indicate "yes" if live mice were offered to owls during the visit, regardless 

of mouse fate. 

Mousing Purpose: Indicate why mice were offered to the owls. A look-up table provides 

appropriate responses. 

 

Total #Mice Taken: Indicate the total number of mice which did not make it back into the cage. 

Do not include mice offered but which were not taken. Include only the number "added‖ to the 

forest. 

Bait taken to nest?: Check here if any of the bait mice that you offered were taken to a spotted 

owl nest. 

Total # Detected: Note total number of mature NSO, Nestlings, Branchers, and Fledglings: These 

fields allow data managers to quickly quantify detections and verify referenced data in the 

detections subforms. Enter ―0‖ where necessary rather than leave fields blank.

Nest View: Was the view into the nest adequate to see all owls that might be present in it? If you 

have any doubt, answer "no." 

Owl and Other Raptor Detections

Species: Use only one row for each individual detected. Record all owl species and all 

noteworthy diurnal raptors. Use the AOU four letter codes to indicate the species, e.g., SPOW 

for spotted owl or COHA for Cooper‘s Hawk.

Sex: Indicate ―F‖ for Female, ―M‖ for Male, or ―U‖ for Unknown.

Tail: Describe NSO tail feathers using ―P‖ for an acuminate point with a white band, ―T‖ for the 

terminus being worn into a plump triangle, ―R‖ for round and mottled, ―S‖ for tips which are 

undoubtedly subadult but which you are unable to differentiate further, or ―U‖ for unknown.

Age: Describe NSO age using ―A‖ for Adult, ―S1‖ for 1st year subadult, ―S2‖ for 2nd year 

subadult, ―SA‖ for a subadult of unknown age, ―U‖ for an unknown adult or subadult, ―N‖ for 

Nestling, ―B‖ for Brancher, ―F‖ for fledgling, or ―J‖ for unknown age juvenile. For other species 

―I‖ may be used for immature.

Time: Indicate the time the raptor was first detected. 
67

Type: Indicate the kind of detection with ―A‖ for Auditory, ―V‖ for Visual. Both may be 

inscribed in this field in the order of occurrence. 

Band Color: Always fill in this field. Include newly banded owls. Write in the color or pattern of 

the band only if it was positively identified. Write ―PRESENT‖ if you are certain there was a 

band but were unable to definitely determine the color. Write ―NONE‖ if you gained a good 

view of both legs and positively confirmed the absence of a color band on both legs. Write 

―UNKNOWN‖ if the legs were not adequately seen or if only one leg was seen. DO NOT 

ENTER PARTIAL COLORS, e.g., only enter "RED" if it was solid. 

Tab: Always fill in this field. Indicate the color, ―UNKNOWN‖ if the tab was not definitively 

identified, "PRESENT" if you were certain there was a tab but could not identify it, or "GONE" 

if the owl has definitely removed its tab. 

Leg: Always fill in this field. Indicate ―R‖ for the owl‘s right leg, ―L‖ for the owl‘s left leg, "U" 

for cases where information is unknown, "N" for neither leg (in the case of "NONE" as color). 

UTM_E: Record the Universal Transverse Mercator Easting, NAD 83 Zone 10. For the Marin 

County study area this number should be between 499600 and 545700. 

UTM_N: Record the Universal Transverse Mercator Northing, NAD 83 Zone 10. For the Marin 

County study area this number should be between 4184500 and 4236000. 

Meth: Indicate the method used to derive the UTM coordinates. Review the look-up table for 

options. 

Acc: Indicate your estimate of the accuracy of your map or the accuracy given by your GPS unit. 

Use ―80‖ for accuracy at or below 80 m, use ―150‖ for accuracy at or below 150 m, use ―300‖ 

for accuracy at or below 300 m, or another figure for higher numbers. 

Mousing Effort 

Mousing Table: Record one row for each mouse offer. Changing mice or changing mouse 

locations do not constitute a new mouse offer. 

Mouse #: Indicate which mouse in the sequence of offers the row represents. 

Time Out: Indicate the time at which the mouse was placed within striking range of the owl. 

Time Taken: Indicate the time at which the NSO captured the mouse. If the mouse was never 

captured, place a line through the field to indicate a negative response. 

Fate: Always fill in this field. Use the following codes: ―E‖=ate mouse; ―H‖=held mouse until 

observer left or for 1 hour; ―C‖=cached mouse; ―T‖=took mouse to owl of opposite sex; 

―Y‖=took mouse to young; ―A‖=took mouse to owl of opposite sex who took it to young; 

―N‖=took mouse to nest; ―I‖=ignored mouse until observer left or for 1 hour; ―L‖=left with 

mouse, returned or was relocated without it; ―X‖=left with mouse, not relocated; ―W‖=left with 
68

mouse, was relocated without it but with certainty did not deliver to young or mate ―D‖=dropped 

mouse w/o retrieving; or ―B‖=Bander prevented owl from capturing the mouse. This final field is 

an important distinction from ―I‖ or ―D.‖ 

Fate Time: Indicate the time at which the above fate code became apparent. For "Held" mice this 

will be the time you last saw the owl with the mouse. 

Sex: Indicate the gender of the NSO that either interacted with the mouse or was offered the 

mouse. 

Age: Indicate the age of the NSO that either interacted with the mouse or was offered the mouse. 

Behavior/Notes: Briefly indicate exceptional circumstances of any mice. Lengthy details may be 

included in the Narrative. 

Observational Information 

Place a check mark in all the small white boxes which correspond to events or evidence which 

happened, were seen, or became apparent during this site search under the categories of Visit 

Status, Evidence, Nesting Indicators, and Reproductivity. 

Narrative 

This is the most important field in the record of your site search. Narratives are especially 

important at the end of the season when site status is designated. Write an account of all relevant 

events which took place during the site search. Include the time of all significant moments of the 

day. Include directions, landmarks, reasons and reasoning, tools used, unusual circumstances, 

suggestions and questions. Presume that your audience is someone 20 years into the future who 

may not understand owl research. Here you are able to document any nuances of your effort 

which are not captured by the above data fields and explain why your site search was performed 

in the manner that it was and how the results came about. Also by telling the story of your effort, 

data managers have a way to double-check the above data entry and solve any difficulties. 

Consider the narrative as a means by which to avoid a telephone call later in the season asking 

you to explain why or how you came to the conclusions you came to. 

6.2 Nest Habitat Data Form

The Nest Habitat Data Form (Figure SOP 2.6) is filled out for each known nest site each year. 

The measurements and form take about 45 minutes to complete per site and can be filled out at 

any time after a nest is found, but should be done after the young have fledged if possible to 

avoid any disturbance. In addition, the nest trees are tagged with aluminum tags (Forestry 
69

Figure SOP 2.6. Nest Habitat Data Form used for recording nest and habitat characteristics for spotted 

owl monitoring in the San Francisco Bay Area Network. 
70

Suppliers, #25331), stamped to indicate site number and year. Fields on the nest habitat data 

form are described below. 

Location 

Site Name: Official site names are assigned in the office. If it is a new site, you can suggest a 

name based on a local geographic feature. If you are unsure whether it is an existing site or a new 

site, record detailed notes of location and accurately map your location. Cross reference your 

mapped location against a comprehensive territory map upon returning from the field. 

Owl Site #: Official MRN number assigned and distributed by the CA Department of Fish and 

Game. Some sites have yet to receive a MRN # and are recorded as ―None‖.

Year: Record the current year. 

Observers: Record initials of individuals present. 

Measurement Date: Record the date the nest tree measurements were collected. 

Tree Tagged: Yes, if it was a reused tree that was tagged previously or if you tagged it as a new 

tree that year. Tag tree at face height on the most accessible side unless nest tree is located 

directly on a trail. If the latter is the case, tag on side away from trail. Remember to color the 

aluminum tag black using a permanent marker to reduce its visibility. If it is a reused nest tree, 

use a nail to etch the last two digits of the new year of use on the old tag or add a new tag. Enter 

the new tag # in the Tag # field, and describe both tags in the data form comments section. 

Tag #: Tag includes MR# then a space followed by the last two digits of the year it was first 

located, for example: MR001_04. Check trunk of tree at eye level for previous nest tags. 

New Location (never before described): Refers to the nest tree not the site. Yes, if it is the first 

year the nest tree was identified. No, if it is a subsequent year of use. 

Total # of Seasons NSO Documented Nesting in this Tree: You can read nest tree tag for this 

information or check the nest tree forms in the database. 

Number of NSO Fledged From This Tree (this season) and Is this Number Definitive?: This is an 

attempt to avoid underestimating number fledged. If you saw two fledglings on one visit, but 

only one after that you should note that one fledgling is not definitive and the fledge number is 

 ̳1‘, with a note in the comments field about why the number was not definitive. If site was 

monitored for occupancy and management purposes, the number of fledglings may not be 

definitive due to the reduced number of surveys these sites receive. 

GPS Unit Used: Confirm GPS unit and refer to drop down list on nest form. 

UTM E and UTM W: Record UTM coordinates of the nest tree. 

Accuracy: Record accuracy of UTM coordinates. The measure of accuracy can be found on GPS 

unit and will be meters on most units. Record accuracy value in meter units. 
71

Elevation: Obtain elevation from USGS topographic map and use meters as units. 

Physical Features 

Aspect: The compass bearing at which water would flow if you dumped a bucket at the nest tree. 

Average this over the 50 m around the nest to avoid measuring tiny landscape features. Record 

whether this bearing is magnetic (no declination set on compass) or true (declinated compass). 

Slope: Determined using a clinometer. Crouch down to fern height and look across the tops of 

the ferns noting the % slope. Take percentages looking downslope and upslope and average 

them. Double check scales on clinometer by tipping it way up, ensuring that percent scale is 

recorded and not the degrees scale. 

Slope Position: (bottom, mid-slope, ridgeline, or ridgetop). Slope position is general overall 

location on slope. It is often mid-slope. If the slope drops down from the nest site in all 

directions, you are on the ridgetop (rare). If the slope goes up from your position in one direction 

and down in the other three directions, you are on the ridgeline (uncommon). 

Distance to water: Can estimate distance in field, but may have to refer to topographic map or 

ArcGIS for accurate distance. Record distance in meters. Record whether water is present 

throughout season or only present during the wet season. 

Forest Opening: Can estimate distance in field, but may have to refer to topographic map or 

ArcGIS for accurate distance. Record distance in meters. A forest opening for this purpose is 

defined as an area the sun reaches the ground over a minimum patch of 5 m radius.. 

Forest Edge: Can estimate distance in field, but may have to refer to topographic map or ArcGIS 

for accurate distance. Record distance in meters. Defined as a larger scale change in habitat that 

creates a forest border. 

Dominant Vegetation at Site 

Overstory and Understory: Identify and record all dominant species that compose >33% by cover 

of the overstory and understory within 50 m of the nest tree. Overstory classification assumes 

that a tree receives direct sunlight, and thus its loss will increase light penetration to the forest 

floor. Understory vegetation may occur at any height secondary to the upper canopy layer, and 

includes secondary trees, shrubs, and herbs. 

Nest Features 

Nest Tree Species: Determine and record. 

Nest Type: Should be either a platform or cavity (also note: top or side entry). 

Nest Tree Alive: Yes or No. 

Nest Height and Tree Height: Obtained using a clinometer, 50 m tape or pacing, and 

trigonometry. Directions are included with clinometer. One way is to measure your distance 
72

from the tree using either 50 m tape or counting paces far enough so that you are even 

horizontally with base of the tree. (You can use the clinometer to check this. This distance is 

your first ―side‖.) Take a clinometer reading at the nest and the top of the tree to get the angles 

to each from your known distance from the tree. Use the known distance and these to calculate 

the other ―sides‖ (heights). Remember to add your height to the side/angle/side math. Record an 

ocular estimate of tree height and nest height to double check your math. 

Diameter at breast height (dbh): Measured using dbh tape and recorded in centimeters. 

How was the information gathered: Circle all that apply from the list. 

Description of Site: General description of general habitat, stand description, proximity to main 

or alternate roosts, nests, etc. Provide all details needed to orient future field staff to the site. 

 

Direction to Roost/ Nest: Description of access trails, gates, landmarks, flagging, distance, etc. 

Include detailed descriptions of nesting structure, nest aspect (general bearing of which side of 

the tree the platform/cavity is on), and state if the platform has disintegrated. 

6.3 Cooperating with Other Research Activities 

6.3.1 Documenting West Nile Virus 

Although West Nile Virus has not been found in a non-captive NSO as of May 2008, the virus 

has been found in captive NSO and in wild Barred Owls. The likelihood of finding a dead or sick 

NSO with West Nile Virus is low given the brushy locations that are surveyed, but it is possible. 

Current procedures for handling sick or dead spotted owls suspected of having West Nile Virus 

are similar to procedures for other birds except the initial contact would be made to the USGS 

National Wildlife Health Center (West Nile Virus Coordinator, Madison, WI (608) 270-2456). 

Any other bird species found during field work that are suspected to have died from West Nile 

Virus are reported to the California Department of Health Services using their toll-free hotline 

(877-WNV-BIRD). Since fecal material, saliva, and blood are the most likely sources of viral 

infection from handling an animal, latex gloves should be worn and if necessary, eye protection. 

If field staff has been in contact with infected animals or contaminated materials, flushing and 

washing the exposed area with soap and water is the recommended treatment. All birds should be 

submitted for testing as soon as possible following discovery and should not be frozen prior to 

testing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website 

(http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/index.htm) provides basic information about the 

disease, maps and statistics on human cases, and links to other government websites for 

additional information such as county maps and the list of affected bird species. 

6.3.2 Documenting Sudden Oak Death 

Sudden Oak Death (SOD) has been confirmed in all areas of the study area. Phytophthora 

ramorum is a water mold that acts like a fungus, attacking the trunk of a tree and causing a 

canker, or wound that eventually cuts off the tree‘s flow of nutrients (Moritz et al. 2008). Other 

secondary decay organisms such as beetles and fungi often move in after the tree is infected. 
73

Trees infected with SOD may survive for one to several years as the infection progresses. As the 

tree finally dies, the leaves may turn from green to brown within a few weeks, hence the 

appearance of sudden death. Many other diseases cause similar symptoms; therefore, the 

presence of P. ramorum can only be confirmed by a laboratory test. 

During field surveys, researchers should look for tanoaks or coast live oaks showing the 

symptoms of SOD. Researchers should be familiar with the document ―How to recognize 

symptoms caused by diseases caused by P. ramorum causal agent of Sudden Oak Death‖ 

(Garbelotto et al. 2002). If symptoms are noted in previously undocumented areas, researchers 

should inform both the PORE and GOGA Supervisory Botanists who may conduct further 

testing to confirm SOD. 

An SOD Severity Index will be established at each NSO site monitored each year adapted from 

rapid assessment methods developed by Moritz et al. 2008. The severity index evaluates affected 

tanoaks (Lithocarpus densiflorus) and coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) on a scale of 0 (no 

SOD present) to 10 (>95% canopy cover). The severity index considers both the overstory and 

understory within a circular plot (50 m radius) and includes both dead and symptomatic 

vegetation. Ratings of 8-10 consider larger plots at 75 m to 100 m in radius. 

Oak trees classified within the overstory may be a dominant or minor component of the 

overstory or co-dominant with other tree species, such as redwood or Douglas fir. Overstory 

classification assumes that a tree receives direct sunlight, and thus its death will increase light 

penetration to the forest floor. Understory trees may occur at any height secondary to the upper 

canopy layer. Both overstory and understory trees must be ≥1 inch dbh for consideration in the 

rating evaluation. 

The center point for the SOD severity index rating will be at the established activity centers, such 

as nest trees, for each NSO site monitored. The SOD severity index will be entered into the 

STATUS table of the NSO monitoring database (see SOP 4: Data Management Handbook). 

Final status records are entered for each NSO site monitored each year and include geographic 

UTM coordinates of nest trees or activity centers. The center point for each SOD severity index 

rating should match the UTM coordinates in the corresponding STATUS record. 

For sites where a defined activity center is not found or is questionable, field staff may opt not to 

develop an SOD severity index. For example, this may occur at unoccupied sites or sites with 

single unknown status. 

A detailed guide to the SOD severity index rating is presented in Table SOP 2.1. 
74

Table SOP 2.1. Guide to SOD severity index rating on 0-10 scale. Data is collected within a circular plot 

(50 m radius) unless otherwise noted. 

Rating Overstory Understory

Dead1Sympt / Dead2 Dead Sympt / Dead 

0 none AND None AND none AND none

1 none AND None AND 1-2 tr3 OR 1-4 tr

2 none OR < 5% CC4AND/OR 3-4 tr OR 5-6 tr

3 < 5% CC OR > 5% CC AND/OR > 5 tr OR > 7 tr

4 > 5% CC OR > 25% CC NA

5 > 25% CC OR > 50% CC NA

6 > 50% CC OR > 75% CC NA

7 > 75% CC OR > 95% CC NA

8 

> 95% CC OR

> 95% CC in 

area > 75 m r NA

9 > 95% CC in 

area > 75 m r OR

> 95% CC in 

area > 100 m r NA

10 > 95% CC in 

area > 100 m r NA NA

1. Dead is standing dead or fallen, stump sprouting ignored. 

2. Sympt / Dead includes the total of both dead and symptomatic trees. 

3. Trees (tr) are defined as woody stems ≥ 1 inch DBH.

4. CC is canopy cover 

7.0 Literature Cited 

Connor, E. F. and G. LeBuhn. 2007c. Draft northern spotted owl occupancy. Unpublished 

Report. San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA. 

Fehring, K., D. Adams, D. Hatch, and S. Allen. 2001. Modified protocols for spotted owl 

monitoring and demographic studies in Marin County, California - July 2001. Unpublished 

protocol. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes, CA. 

Forsman, E. D. 1995. Spotted Owl monitoring protocols for demographic studies, 29 March 

1995. USDA Forest Service, Corvallis Forestry Sciences Lab, 12 pp. 

Forsman, E. D. 1983. Methods and materials for locating and studying spotted owls. General 

Technical Report PNW-162. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Portland. OR. 

Garbelotto, M., D. M. Rizzo, J. M. Davidson, and S. J. Frankel. 2002. How to recognize 

symptoms caused by diseases caused by Phytophthora ramorum causal agent of sudden oak 

death. Online. 

(http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/garbelotto/downloads/sod_diagnostic_report_final.pdf). 

Accessed 07 April 2010. 
75

Moritz, M., T. Moody, B. Ramage, and A. Forrestel. 2008. Spatial distribution and impacts of 

Phytophthora ramorum and Sudden Oak Death in Point Reyes National Seashore. Final 

report to the National Park Service. California Cooperative Ecosystems Study Unit Task 

Agreement No.J8C07050015. Berkeley, CA. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Protocol for surveying proposed management 

activities that may impact northern spotted owls. Revised March 17, 1992. Unpublished.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. 2010 Protocol for surveying proposed 

management activities that may impact northern spotted owls. Revised February 18, 2010. 

Unpublished. 

77

SOP 3. Status Designations 

Version 1.3 

Revision History Log

Previous 

Version # 

Revision Date Author Changes Made Reasons for 

Change 

New Version 

# 

July 2001 12/8/07 D. Adams Format, slight content 

revisions 

Respond to reviewer 

comments and 

format standards 

1.1 

1.1 5/4/08 D. Adams, H. 

Jensen, D. 

Press 

Format, content 

revisions, additions 

Respond to reviewer 

comments and 

format standards 

1.2 

1.3 4/19/10 D. Press Format revisions and 

minor edits. Mention 

of USFWS 2010 

protocol. Added 

Literature Cited 

section. 

To meet current 

formatting guidelines 

and peer review 

comments. 

1.3 
78

Contents 

Page 

Figures............................................................................................................................................78

1.0 Survey Site Status Determination ............................................................................................80

1.1 Level 1 Occupancy Status ............................................................................................... 80

1.2 Level 2 Residency and Level 3 Pair Status ..................................................................... 81

1.3 Level 4 Breeding/Nesting Status .................................................................................... 83

1.4 Level 5 Productivity ........................................................................................................ 86

2.0 Status Designation Database Fields .........................................................................................88

3.0 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................90

Figures 

Page 

Figure SOP 3.1. The five levels of NSO territory status and study area designation. ...................80
79

This standard operating procedure (SOP) document describes the protocol used to determine the 

annual occupancy, nesting, and reproductivity status of northern spotted owls based on data 

collected during surveys on federal lands in Marin County, California. Survey methods are 

described in SOP 2: Standard Field Procedures. This SOP was adapted from existing monitoring 

protocols, including the ―Spotted Owl Monitoring Protocols for Demographic Studies‖ (PNW 

Protocol; Forsman 1995), the USFWS ―Protocol for Surveying Proposed Management Activities 

That May Impact Northern Spotted Owls‖ (USFWS Protocol; USFWS 1992), and the Marin 

Modified Field Protocol (Fehring et al. 2001). 

In 2001, the Marin County spotted owl monitoring program designed a monitoring protocol, the 

―Marin Modified Field Protocol‖, in response to observed behavioral changes in northern spotted 

owls due to repeated mousing. The modified protocol was based primarily on the PNW Protocol 

and used the advantage of the accessibility of the owl sites to increase the search effort and the 

number of visits in order to decrease the number of mice fed to owls, while striving to obtain the 

same accurate measure of owl reproductive status and success in other monitored areas. This 

SOP formally replaces the Marin Modified Field Protocol as the standard followed by the SFAN 

NSO monitoring program. 

Modifications to the standard, range-wide protocols (PNW and USFWS Protocols) are identified 

as underlined text. Some original text has been lined out but is retained for comparison purposes. 

All modifications are noted with a number corresponding to the endnote. Because some of the 

text is taken directly from the range-wide protocols, there are references to different survey 

periods in Washington, Oregon, and California, which is also retained for comparison purposes. 

The two-letter codes following each status designation refer to the codes used in the program 

database in the status table and form. All sites or areas where management concerns are 

paramount and are not part of the long-term monitoring program should be surveyed according 

to the USFWS Protocol. Occupancy and reproductive status requirements differ, so refer to the 

appropriate protocol. 

The PNW Protocol emphasizes the need to differentiate spotted owls from barred owls and 

spotted/barred hybrids. As this need increases in Marin County, the vigilance is important to 

document the continuing range expansion of the barred owl. 

Research on spotted owls over the last decade has raised concerns regarding the effectiveness of 

the USFWS 1992 survey protocol, particularly those which do not result in spotted owl 

detections, most likely due to barred owl presence. An interagency Barred Owl Work Group and 

its Survey Protocol Subcommitte, a sub-group of NSO managers conducting demographic 

monitoring under the Northwest Forest Plan, has evaluated the effectiveness of the current NSO 

demographic survey protocol in the presence of barred owls. The findings and recommendations 

from the Barred Owl Work Group were adopted by the USFWS in the draft ―2010 Protocol for 

Surveying Proposed Management Activities that May Impact Northern Spotted Owls‖ (USFWS 

2010). Among other protocol revisions, the draft 2010 protocol, currently under review by the 

NPS, details increased survey effort over a 2-year period in order to determine unoccupied NSO 

status at survey areas. The SFAN anticipates adoption of the draft 2010 protocol following NPS 

approval. 
80

1.0 Survey Site Status Determination 

Figure SOP 3.1 illustrates the five levels of status that must be determined at each NSO territory 

in each year that a territory is monitored. 

Figure SOP 3.1. The five levels of NSO territory status and study area designation. 

1.1 Level 1 Occupancy Status 

OCCUPIED: A survey area or site will be considered Occupied if at any time (within or outside 

of breeding season) a spotted owl is detected within the survey area or site (see Level 2). 

UNOCCUPIED (UO): A minimum of 3 visits per year are required to establish that an area is 

Unoccupied (two-year survey; Marin Modified and PNW Protocol). This determination is based 

on a two-year survey. For example, if spotted owls are not detected at a site without previous 

historical data or the site has a gap in historical data, a two-year survey (min. three visits/yr) is 

needed. If no spotted owls are detected the first year, the site Occupancy status would remain 

Unknown (UK) until a second year of surveys confirmed that the site is Unoccupied. 

UNKNOWN (UK): 

Two definitions apply:
81

Definition 1: Applied to areas or territories with no historical site data in which no spotted owls 

were detected during the minimum three visits/breeding season. An Unknown status should be 

applied to the area until a second consecutive year of surveys has been completed. A second year 

of surveys (minimum three visits/breeding season) with no owl detections needs to be completed 

before the site is determined Unoccupied (UO). 

Definition 2: Areas that have no spotted owl detections and that meet the minimum of three 

visit/year during the second year of surveys, but have an incomplete (<3 visits/breeding season) 

survey effort the previous year will be considered Unknown. 

INCOMPLETE (IC): Applied to areas where fewer than three surveys occurred during a single 

breeding season and no spotted owls were detected. In these cases the overall status code would 

be Incomplete, Unknown (UK) would be used for pair status and Not Applicable (NA) for 

Nesting status and Reproduction status. 

NOT SURVEYED (NS): Applied to areas that were not surveyed during the breeding season. 

Pair, nesting, and reproductive status would be Not Applicable (NA). Since status forms are not 

frequently completed if a site was not surveyed during the breeding season, a status of Not 

Surveyed is rarely used. 

1.2 Level 2 Residency and Level 3 Pair Status 

Occupied Resident: 

PAIR (PR): A site will be considered occupied by a Pair if any of the following occurs: 

1. Two marked individuals that have been paired in previous years are found alive on one or 

more occasions between March 1 and September 30 anywhere within a 1 mile radius of 

the traditional site center. There is no requirement that they be seen near each other, as 

long as they appear to be occupying the historical site. In cases were both pair members 

are confirmed alive within the historic range, but where one or both members are 

occasionally found roosting with other owls (not unusual in non-nesting years) we will 

usually classify the two historic pair members as a Pair.*

2. In cases where owls are unmarked or their bands are not seen, owls will be classified as a 

Pair if a male and female are heard and/or observed within 0.5 mile of each other on one 

or more day visits or on two or more night visits. Male and female locations do not need 

to occur on the same visit. For example, Pair status would be assumed if a male and 

female were heard one night, a female was heard another night, and a male on another 

night.* 

3. A male takes a mouse to a female. To be called a spotted owl Pair the female must be 

either: 1) seen or, 2) heard giving definite spotted owl calls. Otherwise the site should be 

listed as occupied by a Pair of undetermined species composition. 
82

4. A female is detected on a nest. If both she and the male are not seen (or heard giving 

definite spotted owl calls), then it should be called a Pair of undetermined species 

composition. 

5. One or both adults are seen with young. To be called a spotted owl Pair, both adults must 

be seen, or the young must be seen late enough in the season to examine their plumage to 

insure they are not hybrids. 

6. If juveniles in advanced stages of plumage development are observed such that you are 

sure as to their species (a trained observer can identify hybrids once the feathers on the 

breast and abdomen develop in late July and August). 

Because of the potential for hybridization, it is becoming increasingly important to confirm the 

identity of both pair members. In the case of females heard on the nest, you need to be aware that 

the contact calls of female barred owls and spotted owls are essentially identical. Thus, if there is 

any suspicion that barred owls are in the area, you should definitely return to the site to confirm 

the species of the female. (Marin Modified and PNW Protocol) 

*NOTE that USFWS protocol defines pair status a little differently in terms of the first and 

second criteria of the PNW and Marin Modified Protocols (USFWS below): 

1. A male and female are heard and/or observed (either initially or through their 

movement) in proximity (<1/4 mile apart) to each other on the same visit....

RESIDENT SINGLE (RS): 

Resident Single status is established by the presence or response of a single owl within the same 

general area on three or more occasions during a breeding season, with no response by an owl of 

the opposite sex after at least three complete surveys. Multiple responses by single owls in the 

same general area over several years are also acceptable for defining Resident Singles. (two or 

more responses in one year and one or more responses in another year should constitute a 

Resident Single). Determining if responses occur within the same general area should be based 

on topography and the locations of adjacent owl activity areas. 

If a single owl is detected, at least two additional visits should be conducted to determine if a 

pair is present. These visits should all take place during the breeding season in which the first 

response is heard. (Marin Modified, PNW, and USFWS Protocol) 

Occupied Unknown 

PAIR UNKNOWN (PU): Two owls, pair status unknown. The presence or response of two 

owls of the opposite sex where pair status cannot be determined and where at least one member 

must meet the resident single requirements or site had pair occupancy the previous breeding 

season. (USFWS protocol; Marin 2007 addition) 

SINGLE UNKNOWN (SU): The response of a male and/or female which does not meet any of 

the above category definitions (USFWS protocol for Unknown Status). Also included would be 
83

cases where owls could not be sexed based on responses and/or unbanded non-vocal owls. Owls 

cannot be positively sexed based on barking and contact calls. Sex should be considered 

unknown until a sexable call such as a four note location call or series hoot is detected. 

1.3 Level 4 Breeding/Nesting Status 

Nesting status surveys may be conducted from April 1 - May 31 in Oregon and California and 

April 1 - June 15 in Washington or at high elevations in Oregon. However, if females are 

detected on the nest prior to these dates, then those visits can be counted as well. To avoid 

missing a late nesting attempt it is important that visits not all take place in early April. If early 

visits do not provide evidence of nesting, at least one visit should take place after April 15 in 

California and Oregon and May 1 in Washington and at higher elevations in Oregon. Species of 

the male and female must be clearly established to avoid any possibility of confusing hybrids and 

spotted owls. 

To minimize mousing use additional visits, extensive searching and careful observation of owl 

behavior to locate nests. Inspect likely platforms and look for feathers plucked from the brood 

patch which are often visible around the edge of the nest. If nesting is suspected but the nest 

cannot be located, use the mousing protocol to locate the nest.1

Mousing: One of the techniques used to assess nesting status will be to feed live mice to owls 

and then observe the owls to see what they do with the mice. Protocol for this procedure is as 

follows: 

1. Locate one or both members of a pair during the day and offer them at least four mice. 

Allow at least a 5-minute pause between mousing attempts. Describe what the owls do 

with each mouse (eat, ignore, cache, carry to nest, etc.). If only a single owl is located, 

the same protocol is followed. If you are unsure whether a mouse was eaten or cached, 

but are sure that it was not carried to a nest or young, be sure to so indicate. In other 

words, don't just record that you have no idea what happened to a mouse when you are 

sure that it was not taken to a nest or to young owls. 

2. If the owl(s) cache mice or simply roost with a mouse for prolonged periods, then it is 

okay to stop mousing after three mice are fed. 

3. If an owl takes a mouse and flies away, follow it as closely as possible to determine 

where it takes the mouse. If you are unable to follow the owl, and don't know if it took 

the mouse to a nest or fledged young then that mouse should not be counted towards the 

requirements of the protocol. Be ready to run, as owls sometimes carry mice several 

hundred yards to reach their nests or young. 

In order to avoid habituating owls to humans, do not feed any more mice than necessary to 

determine nest location and nest status. 

NESTING PAIR (NP): Owls will be classified as a Nesting Pair if any of the following are 

observed: 

 

1

 This statement is added to clarify the methods for locating nests. 
84

1. A female is detected on a nest or either a male or female carries prey into a nest on two or 

more occasions within the dates specified above. After April 15 in California and Oregon 

and May 1 in Washington, nesting may be confirmed on the basis of only one occasion 

where a female is observed on a nest or when a male or female carries prey into a nest. 

The two-visit protocol for confirmation of nesting is dropped after the specified dates 

because there is little chance owls will continue to "play house" (i.e., sit in the nest 

without actually laying eggs) after the first two or three weeks of the nesting period. All 

fecundity monitoring sites in Marin County should be should be visited between April 15 

and May 1 to determine nesting status.

2

2. A female possesses a well-developed brood patch when examined in hand during April 1

- June 30. Presence of a small bare area or molting feathers on the abdomen should not be 

counted as a brood patch. This is a judgment call. When in doubt use other criteria such 

as results of mousing or observations of roosting. Describe the brood patch, including 

dimensions and visual appearance of skin. 

3. Young owls are observed in the presence of at least one adult. Because of the possibility 

of hybridization, an effort should be made to confirm identity of both parents, although 

this will not be absolutely required if the species of juveniles can be conclusively 

determined. Always examine juveniles carefully to make sure that they are not juvenile 

barred owls or hybrids. 

4. Spotted owl eggs, eggshells or remains of nestlings are found in or under a nest. 

NON-NESTING (NN): Confirmation of Non-Nesting status must take place before June 1 in 

California and Oregon and June 15 in Washington. The June 15 cutoff may also be used at 

higher elevations in Oregon if deemed biologically appropriate. With these cutoffs, some pairs 

will inevitably be classified as Non-Nesting, when they in fact nested and failed. This means that 

estimates of the proportion of the population that nests may be somewhat underestimated 

because the estimate will include some pairs that nested and failed early in the season. 

To classify a pair/female as Non-Nesting, the four-mouse protocol should be conducted on one 

or both members of the pair with no evidence of nesting on at least two occasions. At least two 

mice must be taken to be considered a valid mousing attempt. 

If visits to document nesting are made in April they should be at least 3 weeks apart so that late 

nesting attempts will not be overlooked. Visits to determine nesting status in May or early June 

may be done at any interval, including consecutive days. One-day intervals between nesting 

visits are permissible later in the season because there is little chance that a late nesting attempt 

will be overlooked during that period. 

 

2

 This statement is added for Marin County surveyors in order to maximize our chances of determining Non-Nesting 

status based on observing roosting females (See #3 under Non-Nesting Status). 
85

Pairs or single females that are not checked at least twice before June 1 in California and Oregon 

and June 15 in Washington should be listed as "nesting status unknown". Exceptions to this twovisit protocol are: 

1. Female does not possess a brood patch when examined in hand between April 1 and June 

15. (If this occurs, non-nesting status can be confirmed based on 1 visit.) 

2. Females believed to be Non-Nesting based on one visit between April 15 and June 1, and 

which then cannot be located despite repeated return visits to the area. Cases like this are 

not uncommon in poor nesting years, when pairs briefly return to their traditional nest 

areas, then split up and become difficult to locate. 

3. Females observed roosting for 60 minutes or more between April 15 and May 1 3, 

showing no sign of attachment to a nest or young, may be classified as Non-Nesting 

based on a single visit. Females should normally be incubating eggs or brooding young 

during this period. This technique should not be used for confirmation of nesting after 

May 1, as it is common for females with well- developed nestlings to remain out of the 

nest for prolonged periods. When possible complete a second non-nesting confirmation 

visit to make sure. 

NEST FAILURE (NF): (No young are produced) 

All nesting outcomes in Marin County are based on the view into the nest. Nests where the 

female is visible when incubating eggs are classified as ―visible nests‖. Nests with no view into 

the nest are called ―non-visible nests‖. Once a nest is located, weekly visits are required to 

observe activity on the nest such as females incubating or nestling activity. Visits near the 

expected fledge date are especially important. Spotting scopes and extended periods of 

observation are used on all nests. Detailed notes about the presence or absence of whitewash at 

the base of the nest tree are needed to support the following conclusions. 

 A visible nest is classified as a Nest Failure if, after positive confirmation of nesting there is 

no female incubating or nestling activity observed at the nest. Two additional visits are 

required to ensure that no nestlings were obscured and that no nestling fledged between 

visits. 

 A non-visible nest is classified as a Nest Failure if the nest is visited on 3 occasions near the 

expected fledge date and no fledglings are observed. The third visit should be a mousing visit 

(4 mouse protocol with at least 2 mice taken to qualify as a test).4

 

3

 The PNW Protocol requires that a female be observed for 30 minutes between April 15 and May 15. The length of 

observation has been changed to 60 minutes because nesting females have been observed off the nest for longer than 

30 minutes in the mild climate of Marin. The dates have been changed to April 15 - May 1 because it appears that 

this is the 2-week window in Marin when all females will be either incubating eggs or brooding chicks that are less 

than 2 weeks old. Both changes are attempts at being as conservative as possible because we are relying mainly on 

this method for determining non-nesting. 

4

 The PNW protocol requires that failed nests are confirmed with either two mousing visits (at least two mice eaten 

or cached), previously nesting owls cannot be relocated, or a combination of the two. The modification to this is an 

effort to capitalize on the fact that most of the nests in Marin County are platform nests and can be observed with a 
86

1.4 Level 5 Productivity 

NESTING: YOUNG PRODUCED (NY): 

This measure of reproduction is the most important measure, as it is the basis for estimates of 

fecundity. The Number of Young produced is averaged for all females whether they are paired or 

not. Because fecundity is sometimes subdivided by age class (S1, S2, adult) it is critical that age 

of each male and female be determined, even if that requires repeated visits to document. 

The measure of reproduction is the number of young which leave the nest. It is not permissible to 

count "branchers" (i.e., young owls sitting on branches in the nest tree) unless you are sure that 

there are no other young hidden in the nest. The concern with counts of branchers is that you 

may overlook young that are still hidden in a nest. 

Pairs or single females (visible and non-visible nests) will be classified as producing no 

young if: 

1. They are confirmed to be non-nesting based on protocols for determination of 

nesting status (above). 

2. They are moused to protocol on 2 or more occasions before 31 August, with no 

sign of young. This may include any combination of reproductive status visits 

and/or fecundity visits. For example, if a single visit in late May suggests no 

young produced (e.g., adults eat or cache all mice) this could be combined with a 

single visit later in the summer which also indicates no young produced. 

3. Female is observed and designated as non-nesting on one or more occasions in 

April-May (April 1 -June 15 in Washington), but neither she nor her mate can be 

relocated later in the summer, despite repeated attempts (minimum of two) to 

relocate them. As a result, they cannot be moused to determine numbers of young 

produced. This change to the protocol is needed to address the behavior of some 

non-nesting owls or owls that nest and fail - they sometimes become difficult to 

locate and cannot be confirmed as having produced no young. 

The number of young produced is determined as follows:

A pair is classified as producing young if at least one fledgling owl is observed; 

observations of nestlings or branchers do not count. For pairs that produce young, brood 

counts may take place anytime after the young fledge until August 31. However, a 

determined effort should be made to count the number of young produced as early as 

possible after broods fledge, preferably before June 30 in Oregon and July 15 in 

Washington. The objective is to document the number of young produced before any 

mortality occurs. 

 

scope. In addition, our required weekly visits to visible nests make it less likely that young can fledge without being 

observed. The requirement to search under the nest tree for evidence is based on observations that there is usually a 

large amount of whitewash produced by the young before they can fly well and move away from the nest tree. Note 

there is still a mousing requirement for non-visible nests that are suspected of failing. 
87

After the first occasion when young are counted, at least one follow-up visit should be 

made to insure that all young were observed on the first visit. If owlets are found under a 

known or suspected nest tree in late May or June, then the follow-up visit to confirm the 

number of young fledged should take place at least 3 days later to make sure that all 

young have time to leave the nest. In all other situations, the 3-day interval between the 

first and second visit is not required (i.e., visits can be as close as 1 day apart). 

To estimate the number of young produced you should offer 4 mice to one or both adults 

on both visits, and count the maximum number of owlets that are seen or heard. A visit 

counts for determination of number of young produced, as long as an adult takes at least 

1 of the 4 mice offered. 

For pairs that produce young, brood counts occur during the weekly nest visit which first detects 

all nestling owls out of the nest. The objective is to document the number of young produced 

before any mortality occurs. All young owls observed in visible nests should be located again 

once they are out of the nest. Use prompt timing of visits and extensive search efforts to locate 

young close to the nest tree. Look for evidence such as whitewash trails or parental behavior to 

provide clues about the location of recently fledged owls. Listen for the fledgling begging 

whistle which can be very helpful for locating and clarifying the number of fledglings. The 

closer to the expected fledge date, the closer the fledglings will be to the nest tree and the smaller 

the search area. 

For visible nests, the brood count will be defined as the number of young observed both in the 

nest and after they leave the nest. This number must match on two visits or a mousing visit is 

required. 

For non-visible nests, visit the nest as close as possible to the estimated fledging date and follow 

the guidelines below. If a definitive fledgling count cannot be obtained from observation, use 

mousing to verify. 

If zero fledglings are observed, a total of three visits are required near the estimated 

fledging date with mousing on the third visit (four-mouse protocol). 

If one fledgling is observed, this number must be verified on another visit. The highest 

number of fledglings between the two visits will be the number fledged. 

If two fledglings are observed, this number must be verified on another visit. The highest 

number of fledglings between the two visits will be the number fledged. 

If three fledglings are observed, this number must be verified on another visit. The 

highest number of fledglings between the two visits will be the number fledged.5

 

5

 The PNW Protocol requires that both counts of fledglings are estimated by offering the adult(s) 4 mice. The 

modification to this is again an effort to capitalize on the large number of visible platform nests. It is possible that 

we could undercount fledglings without the use of mice. However, the fact that we are checking the nests weekly 
88

If dead owlets are found under a known nest tree they will not be counted as fledged 

unless there is some flight feather development.6

2.0 Status Designation Database Fields 

For each spotted owl site monitored, Occupancy status, Nesting status, and Reproductive status 

designations are assigned in the database to represent the highest level of knowledge of that site 

for that year for each category. A Final status determination represents the highest degree of each 

of these three categories. The status designations are entered into the master database using two 

letter codes, noted below in parentheses. 

Final Status (database field ―Status‖) possibilities include:

 Survey Incomplete (IC) 

 Not Surveyed (NS) 

 Unoccupied (UO) 

 Unknown (UK) 

 Resident Single (RS) 

 Single Unknown (SU) 

 Pair (PR)

 Pair Unknown (PU) 

 Nesting Pair (NP) 

 Non-Nesting Pair (NN) 

 Nesting Failure (NF) 

 Nesting: Young Produced (NY) 

Occupancy Status (database field ―PAIRSTAT‖) possibilities include:

 Not Surveyed (NS) 

 Unoccupied (UO) 

 Unknown (UK) 

 Resident Single (RS) 

 Single Unknown (SU) 

 Pair (PR)

 Pair Unknown (PU) 

Nesting Status (database field ―NESTSTAT‖) possibilities include:

 

will allow us to locate more fledglings before mortality occurs. Note that mousing is used if multiple counts are not 

matching or if the second count is less than either the first count or the number of nestlings. 

6

 The PNW Protocol Addendum states that all young found dead on the ground are to be counted as fledged 

regardless of their position relative to the nest tree. The modification is added to address immature young which 

have either fallen or been preyed upon and ended up under the nest tree. The majority of nests in Marin County are 

platform nests and more young may fall from these nests before fledging. These young have no chance of survival 

(and may have been dead when they hit the ground) and should not be counted as fledged. 
89

 Not Applicable (NA) – Survey Incomplete (IC) or Occupancy status is determined as Not 

Surveyed (NS), Unoccupied (UO), Resident Single (RS) (male), or Single Unknown (SU) 

 Unknown (UK) – Nesting Status of owls cannot be determined according to protocol or 

Occupancy status is Unknown (UK) or Pair Unknown (PU) 

 Nesting Pair (NP) 

 Non-Nesting Pair (NN) – applicable for owl pairs and Resident Single (RS) females 

Reproductive Status (database field ―REPROSTAT‖) possibilities include: 

 Not Applicable (NA) –Occupancy status is determined as Survey Incomplete (IC), Not 

Surveyed (NS), Unoccupied (UO), Resident Single (RS) (male), or Single Unknown (SU) 

 Unknown (UK) –nesting is confirmed but reproductive status of owls cannot be 

determined according to protocol or when Nest Occupancy status is unknown 

 Nesting Pair (NP) 

 Non-Nesting Pair (NN) – applicable for owl pairs and Resident Single (RS) females 

 Nesting Failure (NF) 

 Nesting: Young Produced (NY) – fledglings must be observed; nestlings and branchers 

do not count

The database status records also note the annual status for each site as determined by the USFWS 

and PNW protocols. Determinations of the USFWS and PNW status designations may differ 

from the status designation determinations based on this SOP and therefore must be referenced 

for accuracy. Database codes are not used for these status designation fields. 

Available status designations according to the USFWS protocol (database field ―USFWSSTAT‖) 

include: 

 Survey Incomplete 

 Not Surveyed 

 Unoccupied 

 Unknown

 Resident Single 

 Pair

 Pair Unknown 

 Nesting Pair 

 Non-Nesting Pair 

 Nesting: Young Produced 

Available status designations according to the PNW protocol (database field ―PNWSTAT‖) 

include: 

 Survey Incomplete 

 Not Surveyed 

 Unoccupied 

 Unknown
90

 Resident Single 

 Pair

 Nesting Pair 

 Non-Nesting Pair 

 Nesting Failure 

 Nesting: Young Produced 

Note that Single Unknown is not a permissible status designation for the USFWS and PNW 

protocols. Nesting Failure is not an option under the USWFS protocol, and Pair Unknown is not 

an option under the PNW protocol. The field ―MARINSTATUS‖ is the text equal to the code in 

the ―Status‖ field and may be used as a comparison to the USWFS and PNW status designations.

During spotted owl inventory years, the USFWS protocol has been and will be used for all status 

determinations. 

3.0 Literature Cited 

Fehring, K., D. Adams, D. Hatch, and S. Allen. 2001. Modified protocols for spotted owl 

monitoring and demographic studies in Marin County, California - July 2001. Unpublished 

protocol. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes, CA. 

Forsman, E. D. 1995. Spotted Owl monitoring protocols for demographic studies, 29 March 

1995. USDA Forest Service, Corvallis Forestry Sciences Lab, Corvallis, OR. 12 pp. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Protocol for surveying proposed management 

activities that may impact northern spotted owls. Revised March 17, 1992. Unpublished.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. 2010 Protocol for surveying proposed 

management activities that may impact northern spotted owls. Revised February 18, 2010. 

Unpublished.
91

SOP 4. Data Management Handbook 

Version 1.2 

Revision History Log 

Previous 

Version # 

Revision 

Date 

Author Changes Made Reasons for Change New Version 

# 

Aug. 2000 Daniel George 

Aug. 2004 Dawn Adams 

Sept. 

2007

Dawn Adams Reformatted To meet new formatting 

guidelines. 

1.0 

1.0 May 2008 David Press Edited and updated More thorough 

documentation and 

implementation of new 

data management 

strategies 

1.1 

1.1 March 

2010

David Press Minor text and 

formatting edits. 

Added Literature 

Cited section. 

Converted database 

object descriptions 

to table. 

In preparation for final 

protocol submission 

1,2 
92

Contents 

Page 

Figures............................................................................................................................................94

Tables .............................................................................................................................................94

1.0 Database Design.......................................................................................................................95

1.1 Tables .............................................................................................................................. 97

1.2 Queries ............................................................................................................................ 97

1.3 Macros ............................................................................................................................. 97

1.4 Forms .............................................................................................................................. 97

2.0 Data Recording and Entry ......................................................................................................101

2.1 Data Recording ............................................................................................................. 101

2.2 Additional Spotted Owl Data Files ............................................................................... 101

2.2.1 Site Visit Table ................................................................................................... 101

2.2.2 Form ID# Table................................................................................................... 101

2.2.3 Band Tracking Table........................................................................................... 101

2.2.4 Project Contacts .................................................................................................. 102 

2.3 Data Entry ..................................................................................................................... 102

3.0 Annual Data Work Flow ........................................................................................................102

3.1 Satellite Databases ........................................................................................................ 102 

3.2 Uploading Annual Data to the Master Database ........................................................... 103

3.3 Archiving the Annual Data ........................................................................................... 103

3.4 NSO GIS Shapefile ....................................................................................................... 103

3.4.1 Creating a GIS Shapefile .................................................................................... 103 

3.5 Annual Report and Data Submission ............................................................................ 104

4.0 Data Verification and Validation Procedures ........................................................................104
93

4.1 Site Search Form ........................................................................................................... 104

4.1.1 Data Verification ................................................................................................. 104

4.1.2 Form ID Number Sequence Completeness ......................................................... 105

4.1.3 Site Numbers ....................................................................................................... 105

4.1.4 Dates ................................................................................................................... 105

4.1.5 Recorder Initials .................................................................................................. 105

4.1.6 Visit Times .......................................................................................................... 105

4.1.7 Visit Summary .................................................................................................... 106

4.1.8 Indicate Completion ............................................................................................ 107 

4.2 Detections Form ............................................................................................................ 108

4.2.1 Band Resightings ................................................................................................ 108

4.2.2 UTMs .................................................................................................................. 109 

4.3 Status Form ................................................................................................................... 110

4.4 Nest Tree Habitat Form................................................................................................. 111

5.0 Version Control Guidelines and Database History ................................................................111

6.0 Metadata Procedures ..............................................................................................................112

7.0 Data Storage ...........................................................................................................................113

8.0 Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................114
94

Figures 

Page 

Figure SOP 4.1. Relationships among the NSOMASTERXP.mdb database core tables. .............96

Tables 

Page 

Table SOP 4.1. NSO monitoring database table descriptions. ......................................................98

Table SOP 4.2. NSO monitoring database query descriptions. .....................................................99

Table SOP 4.3. NSO monitoring database macro descriptions. ....................................................99

Table SOP 4.4. NSO monitoring database form descriptions. ....................................................100
95

Two critical long-term goals of the San Francisco Bay Area Network (SFAN) Inventory and 

Monitoring Program (I&M) are to: 

 integrate natural resource inventory and monitoring information into National Park 

Service (NPS) planning, management, and decision making 

 share NPS accomplishments and information with other natural resource organizations 

and form partnerships for attaining common goals and objectives 

For the northern spotted owl (NSO) monitoring program to meet I&M Program goals, a detailed 

management plan is needed to ensure data quality, interpretability, security, longevity and 

availability. 

This SOP describes how the monitoring protocol meets these data management objectives 

through data entry specifications, database design, quality assurance and control measures, 

metadata development, data maintenance, data storage, and data archiving. In this SOP,

particular attention is paid to the procedures all project staff must follow to learn how to enter, 

update, and manage data for the NSO monitoring database. Procedures for data handling and 

quality assurance/quality control for all monitoring protocols implemented by the SFAN 

monitoring program are detailed in the program‘s Data Management Plan (Press 2005).

1.0 Database Design 

The NSO monitoring program has continued the use of a monitoring database developed in 2000 

prior to incorporation within the I&M Program. The database is maintained in MS Access XP 

with similarities to the design concept of the Natural Resource Database Template (NRDT), an 

application developed by the NPS Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring Program. As with 

the NRDT, data organization is based on the concept of a survey, or event, occurring at a 

specified date, time, and location, in this case a spotted owl territory, which is further described 

in a locations table. The project database does not comply with NRDT standards because not all 

core tables and naming conventions are utilized. However, the database has served the project 

staff well, and there are no current plans to convert the database to meet NRDT compliance. 

The program database consists of a single master database, titled NSOMASTERXP, which 

contains all tables, forms, queries, and reports. Satellite databases are created at the beginning of 

each season for each project team, including Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GOGA), 

Point Reyes National Seashore (PORE), and PRBO Conservation Science (PRBO). The satellite 

databases retain the structure of the master database, but with the field data tables left empty. At 

the end of the field season, the satellite data are uploaded into the master database, archived, and 

copies of the master database are distributed back to the project teams. 

Figure SOP 4.1 shows the relationships among the core tables in the database. Data related to the 

area surveyed, which can be an existing territory or potential habitat, are entered into the 

SEARCH table. The SEARCH table is the primary data table, equivalent to tbl_Events in the 

NRDT. Multiple survey events can be associated with one territory location. If owls are observed 
96

Figure SOP 4.1. Relationships among the NSOMASTERXP.mdb database core tables. 

during the survey, details are recorded in the DETECTIONS table. Detection information 

collected includes UTM coordinates (via GPS if possible) for each owl species. Data are also 

recorded if no owls are observed so that negative survey results are tracked. If mice are used 

during the survey, details on how long each mouse is offered and disposition of mouse is 

recorded in the MICE table, which is linked to the SEARCH table. If the survey is for inventory 

purposes or in a new territory, call points may be used during the survey. Information on call 

points and their UTM coordinates are recorded in the CALLPOINTS and CALLPTSLOCAs 

tables. The SEARCH table is linked to the DETECTIONS, MICE, and CALLPOINTS tables by 

the unique FormID field in one-to-many relationships. The FormID is an eight-digit number 
97

sequentially assigned to each field form based upon the survey year and the crew that performed 

the survey. See SOP 2: Standard Field Procedures for more details. 

If a nest is observed at a territory, field data collected at the end of the season on the nest location 

and nest habitat are entered in the NESTTREES table. Nest tree data are entered for each site 

where nests were located each year, even if a nest is re-used within a particular territory. 

Additional tables include OWLBANDS which stores data on all the banded owls within the 

survey area (approximately 110); and the STATUS table which stores site and year summary 

data created at the end of the season after reviewing all the detection information gathered at 

each activity site. 

1.1 Tables 

If a table's title is in all capital letters it is a core table essential to the operation of the database. 

Look-up table are noted with ―LUT‖ at the end of each table name. Altering the title or field 

names will require additional edits to associated forms, queries, and possibly macros. 

Additionally, any changes made to table design within a satellite database may cause errors in 

the process of appending records to the master database. As such, only the SFAN Data Manager 

should perform edits to the core database structure, with thorough documentation of the changes 

made. Complete database table descriptions are provided in Table SOP 4.1. 

1.2 Queries 

If a query's title is in all capital letters it is a core table essential to the operation of the database. 

Altering the title or field names will require additional edits to associated forms, queries, and 

possibly macros. If the core queries are edited or deleted, the database may no longer be able to 

group data in ways that some forms require. Additionally, any query with the word "ERROR" in 

the title may depend on other queries with the word "ERROR" in the title or may be used by a 

macro, and making changes may require changes in other queries or macros. As such, only the 

SFAN Data Manager should perform edits to the core queries, with thorough documentation of 

the changes made. Database query descriptions are provided in Table SOP 4.2. 

1.3 Macros 

Macros represent custom strings of commands. Almost all of the macros in the database are 

commands performed when different buttons in the database are used. Database macro 

descriptions are provided in Table SOP 4.3. 

1.4 Forms 

All of the forms in the database are essential to the operation of data entry. Those in all capital 

letters are primary forms, those in lowercase either provide functions within the primary forms or 

perform secondary functions like printing. Database form descriptions are provided in Table 

SOP 4.4. 
98

Table SOP 4.1. NSO monitoring database table descriptions. 

Database Table Name Description 

BandColorLUT Look-up Table which has all Band Colors already entered. Used by the Detection 

subform within the SITESEARCH form and by the BANDING and STATUS forms. 

BlankDatasheet Used to create dummy fields for PrintBlank forms.

CALLPOINTS Where data are stored for call points which are performed. Data entered into the 

CallPtPerformSubForm, a subform of the SITESEARCH form, are stored in this table.

CALLPTSLOCAs Where data are stored for the UTM locations of call points. Data entered into the 

CallPointSubForm, a subform of the InventoryCallPoints form, are stored in this table.

DETECTIONS Where data for individual “Owl and other raptor detections” are stored.

InitialsLUT Where data are stored for observer initials. New records are created from the “Initials” 

form which comes up when the “Update Observers’ Initials LUT” button is used.

LandownerLUT Lists codes for Marin County landowners. Used by the Combo-box for the 

“Landowner” field on the STATUS form and in the SitesLUT table.

LookUp Home for a series of codes used by many combo-boxes in all forms.

MICE Where data are stored when mouse offer records are entered in the “MouseSub” 

within the SITESEARCH form

NESTTREES Where data are stored for all nest tree records entered in the NESTTREES form.

OWLBAND Where all band records are stored when data are entered in the BANDING form.

SEARCH Where data entered into the SITESEARCH form are stored. The SEARCH table is the 

database’s primary data table. It contains the FormID number, location, date and 

observer information, visit times, conditions summary, visit summary and narrative 

fields. Data entered into the subforms are stored in DETECTIONS, MICE, and 

CALLPOINTS sub-tables. The SEARCH table has a one-to-many relationship to the 

sub-tables, joined by the FormID, allowing variable numbers of records in the subtables to be associated with one site visit.

SitesLUT A list of locations and owl activity site numbers (MRN#) used by several combo-boxes. 

The MRN# site numbers are assigned by the California Department of Fish and Game. 

Also contains records for previous names or numbers used at the activity site. Assists 

in keeping records standard.

STATUS Where data entered into the STATUS form are stored. Contains a summary of an 

activity site’s survey results for a given year.

StatusLUT Contains a list of Status codes used by combo-boxes in the STATUS form. Assists in 

keeping records standard.

Suggestions Contains a memo field for database users to record suggestions or observations about 

the database. Used by the “Suggestions” form.
99

Table SOP 4.2. NSO monitoring database query descriptions. 

Database Query Name Description 

1IDFINDER Used by the “idchooser” combo-box on the WELCOME form to query all FormID 

numbers in the database and order them in descending order to allow the 

database user to choose which form to print. 

2RECORDREVIEW This is the record source for the “SiteSearchByDate” form. It sorts records by 

ascending dates for ease of viewing. 

3STATUSBYYEAR This is the record source for the STATUS form. It sorts records by location in 

ascending order and by year in descending order for ease of viewing in the 

master database 

CALLPTSLOCASORTED This is the record source for the CALLPTSLOCAs form and sorts records by the 

survey area, year, and station number for ease of viewing. 

ERRORCHECK ..... Any query with a title that begins with these letters is a key component of 

standardized error-checking procedures. ERRORCHECK queries are described 

in detail in Section 4.0 Data Verification and Validation Procedures. 

JOINER ..... Any query that begins with these letters joins tables together in preparation and 

for use in another query. 

SUM ..... Any query which begins with these letters is designed to summarize data. 

Table SOP 4.3. NSO monitoring database macro descriptions. 

Database Query Name Description 

AutoExec This macro automatically executes on the opening of the database. It opens the 

WELCOME form, closes all form toolbars and maximizes the WELCOME form. 

Close ..... All macros in the owl database which begin with the word “close” perform 

commands to close forms when buttons in the associated form called “Close” are 

clicked. 

InitialsNew Forces the Initials form to go to a new record when it is first opened. 

Open ..... All macros in the owl database which begin with the word “open” perform 

commands to open forms when buttons such as those in the header of forms 

called “All Visits,” “Band Data,” “Nest Info,” or “Status” are clicked.

RefreshWelcome This macro is run when the small button on the right of the idchooser on the 

WELCOME form is clicked. It closes the WELCOME form and reopens it, forcing 

the query which generates the list of FormID numbers available to re-run. 

REVIEW ..... When macros with this in the title are run, forms will open with records, which 

need to be error-checked. 
 100 

Table SOP 4.4. NSO monitoring database form descriptions. 

Database Table Name Description 

AboutSSF This form describes the fields and appropriate entries for the SITESEARCH form. 

Opened by the “About Site Search Form” at the top left of the SITESEARCH 

form. 

AboutSSF2 A continuation of the “AboutSSF” form. Opened by the “More 

Descriptions/Definitions” button at the bottom of the “AboutSSF” form.

AboutStatus This form describes the fields and appropriate entries for the STATUS form. 

Opened by the “About Status Form” button at the top left of the STATUS form.

BANDING Form for the entry of Banding data sheets (not used since termination of banding 

program in 2003). 

blanksheets This form is a menu of options for printing blank forms. 

CallPointSubForm Form with the title “Spotted Owl Inventory Call Point Location UTMs” at the top. 

Data entered into this form are stored in the CALLPTSLOCAs table. 

CallPtPerformSubform Used within the SITESEARCH form for the entry of the level of effort performed 

at inventory call points on a given visit. Data entered into this subform are stored 

in the CALLPOINTS table. 

Detection Subform Used within the SITESEARCH form for the entry of owl and other raptor 

detections. Data entered here are stored in the DETECTIONS table. 

Initials The form in which the names and associated initials of observers can be entered. 

Data entered into this form are stored in the “InitialsLUT” table.

InventoryCallPoints The form into which inventory call point UTMs can be entered and which appears 

when the “Enter Point UTMs” button is used on the SITESEARCH form. Data 

entered into this form are stored in the CALLPTSLOCAs table. 

MouseSub This is the subform within the SITESEARCH form into which “Mousing Effort” 

records can be entered. Data entered into this form are stored in the MICE table. 

NESTTREES The form into which the Nest Site Habitat Data field form can be entered. Data 

entered into this form are stored in the NESTTREES table. 

PrintBlankInventory This form is designed to generate a blank inventory form when printed. 

PrintBlankSiteInvestigation This form is designed to generate a one-page blank site search form when 

printed. This form may be used for incidental records and informal surveys 

PrintBlankSiteSearch This form is designed to generate a two-page blank site search form when 

printed. This form may be used for times when surveys are performed by those 

without ready access to a computer with the database installed. 

PrintNarrative This form is designed to print out the narrative of a given record and is only 

opened from the WELCOME form. 

PrintSiteInvestigation This form is designed to print out a one-page version of a given record. It can 

only be used for site visits during which there was no mousing effort and is only 

opened from the WELCOME form. 

PrintSiteSearch This form is designed to print out a two-page version of a given record. It has 

enough space for the mousing records and is only opened from the WELCOME 

form 

PrintSub These forms are used by the “PrintBlank” forms to generate empty fields within 

the detections, mouse, and call point sub-forms. 

SITESEARCH The form with the heading “Northern Spotted Owl Site Search Form.” Data 

entered into this form are stored in the SEARCH table. The form contains master 

fields (FormID at a minimum) which are automatically entered into child fields in 

the subforms. Records are ordered by FormID each time the form is opened. 

RECORDREVIEW The form with the heading “All Records For One Location.” This is essentially the 

same form as the SITESEARCH form, but its record source is the query 

SEARCHBYDATE. The query sorts records by the date field. This form is opened 

by the button for Site Search Records within the “RECORD REVIEW” section of 

the WELCOME form, allowing the database user to see all records for one site in 
 101 

Database Table Name Description 

the order of the visits. 

STATUS The form with the heading “Site Status and Activity Center.” Its record source is 

the query STATUSBYYEAR and data entered into the form are stored in the 

table STATUS. 

Suggestions A simple form allowing database users to record problems or suggestions in their 

use of the database. Data entered into this form are stored in the “Suggestions” 

table. 

WELCOME The form with the heading “Marin County Spotted Owl Database” from which the 

user can navigate to different forms within the database. 

2.0 Data Recording and Entry 

2.1 Data Recording 

Data recording procedures are detailed in SOP 2: Standard Field Procedures, including data form 

examples and database field descriptions (Site Search Form, Nest Habitat Data Form, and Status 

Form). Primarily, recording is done in the field using a Site Search data form (preferred) or field 

notebook. Although the observer should complete the site search data form, if time constraints 

occur, a minimum set of information is required for all field visits: the location or site name, 

weather, start and end time, a description of the area covered, annotated field map, purpose of 

survey (e.g., ―Purpose of visit is to locate male and determine his band and age‖ or ―Purpose of 

visit is to confirm reproductive success with second fledgling count‖), and results of visit. 

A Nest Site Habitat data form should be filled out for each nest found during the season. 

Although the nest site form can be filled out at any point during the season, observers should 

consider the nesting activities before embarking on the habitat survey since it can take up to 30 

minutes to complete depending on the site. 

2.2 Additional Spotted Owl Data Files 

Additional temporary data files which are useful to program administration, site visit tracking, 

and site status, should be created annually in either MS Excel or MS Word: 

2.2.1 Site Visit Table 

This table is used throughout the season to keep track of the progress at each site. The chart will 

indicate the number of visits performed, the basic outcomes, and the accumulated knowledge 

about each site. 

2.2.2 Form ID# Table 

This table is used throughout the season to keep track of the FormID numbers assigned. Having 

this table will not only avoid duplicating or skipping numbers, but will become an excellent 

resource at the end of the year for tracking down stray data. 

2.2.3 Band Tracking Table 

This table is used to keep track of which bands are documented at which sites. This tool will help 

identify sites which require additional visits in order to read band combinations. Checking owls 

each visit will also help track if or when a new owl moves into a site. 
102

2.2.4 Project Contacts 

This table tracks program contacts including phone numbers and email addresses. Hard copies 

should be carried into the field at all times.

2.3 Data Entry 

An electronic Site Search data form is required for all field visits and the electronic entry of the 

Nest Site Habitat data form is required for each nest with a known location. The blank Site 

Search data forms can be printed directly from the project database and filled out in the field, but 

if a field notebook is used, the electronic data form should be entered in the database within a 

week of the visit. This ensures that the information is still fresh and the observer can provide 

additional details to their notes, but most importantly it is insurance that if a field notebook is 

lost, the visit is documented elsewhere. 

Per the SFAN Data Management Protocol, several QA/QC procedures must be followed by the 

database user (Press 2005). The database user must:

 Have a familiarity with the database software, database structure, and any standard codes 

for data entry that have been developed. Know how to open the data entry form, create a 

new record, and exit the database properly. Also, learn how to commit both a "field" 

entry and a complete record entry and correct mistakes made while typing. 

 Enter or download data in a timely manner. All data should be entered or downloaded 

into the project database as soon as possible, preferably no less than once a week. 

 Enter the data, one logical "set" at a time. Record in your notebook errors you know you 

have made or any questions that arise about the data content; these will be useful during 

data verification. Initial and date each paper form or field notebook entry as it is 

completed to avoid confusion about what has been entered and what has not with a 

different color than the data. Interrupt your data entry only at logical stopping points. 

3.0 Annual Data Work Flow 

The master database (NSOMASTERXP.MDB) contains all the site search, nest habitat and 

banding data collected since 1998. The SFAN Data Manager is responsible for managing the owl 

database and assisting the project biological technicians with any database issues. 

3.1 Satellite Databases 

Satellite databases are created at the beginning of each season and parallel the structure of the 

master database. The satellite data tables are blank except for the STATUS, NESTTREES and 

OWLBAND tables, which should contain the entire available project data collected thus far for 

reference purposes. The Welcome Form is renamed for the year to help indicate that it is a 

satellite copy. Satellite databases are provided to GOGA, PORE, and PRBO Conservation 

Science for use in entering data during the owl field season. The databases are provided in MS 

Access XP format. 
103

Satellite databases should be backed up regularly during the course of the season. CDs or zip 

disks are a great option if available. If the database is located on a local area network, regularly 

copy the database to an archive on the network, on your hard drive, or both. File names of backup databases should include the date of the back-up, such as: 

GOGA_SPOW_2010_Satellite_040110_BackUp 

Each team entering data into a satellite database is responsible for proofing their database entry 

and sending their complete satellite database and hardcopies of all field forms and maps for each 

site visit to the Lead Biological Technician by August 15th of each season for final review. See 

Section 4.0 Data Verification and Validation Procedures for more information. 

3.2 Uploading Annual Data to the Master Database 

The SFAN Data Manager incorporates all the satellite databases, including the PRBO database, 

into a single annual database and completes additional error-checking queries at the end of the 

season in coordination with the biological technicians. When complete, the Data Manager 

imports the annual dataset into the master database, appends the data to the appropriate tables, 

archives the annual dataset, and distributes the updated master database back to PORE, GOGA, 

and PRBO Conservation Science. 

3.3 Archiving the Annual Data 

Following all error-checking and proofing, all site survey forms are printed, attached to the 

corresponding field map for each site visit, and placed in a binder for that year. Included in the 

binder are a hardcopy of the annual report, any larger maps that were printed, and a CD 

containing a copy of the complete satellite and NSOMASTERXP databases and electronic 

annual report. Any paper datasheets completed in the field are cataloged in a separate binder. 

The binders are submitted to the PORE Curatorial Manager two years after the field season to 

allow for ease of access to field maps by subsequent field staff (e.g., the 2007 data are archived 

in 2009).

3.4 NSO GIS Shapefile 

Each year a GIS shapefile of point data is created for all NSO activity centers monitored in all 

years in Marin County, including the data collected that field season by both the NPS and PRBO. 

The shapefile includes year, location name, MRN#, occupancy status, reproductive status, and 

other fields. The attributes are taken from the STATUS table of the monitoring database. A 

metadata record for the shapefile is created as described in Section 6.0 of this SOP. 

3.4.1 Creating a GIS Shapefile 

Using the project database (NSOMasterXP.mdb), a make-table query is used to begin records for 

a new shapefile for all monitoring years. The make-query query transfers fields from the 

STATUS table into a new database table titled ―BIOS REPORT‖, which can then be exported in 

DBF format. In ArcMap (ESRI 2009), select the Add XY Data option under the Tools menu, 

then navigate to the DBF file containing the BIOS REPORT table fields. In the Add XY Data 

window, choose UTMEAST for the X field and UTMNORTH for the Y field. Set the coordinate 

system (Projected Coordinate Systems>UTM>NAD 1983>NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N.prj), and 

select OK. The table will now appear as a data source. 
104

To create a new shapefile from the imported table, right click on the SPOW data layer in the 

display window. Select Data>Export data. In the Saving Data window, keep the default options, 

select a location for the shapefile, and rename the file (e.g., marin_spow_sites_1999_2009.shp). 

The shapefile can now be queried for different years, status outcomes, etc. 

Use the previous year‘s XML metadata record and text metadata record to create both metadata 

records in both formats for the current year‘s shapefile. Make sure that dates and contact 

information are up-to-date. The XML file may be edited by using ArcCatalog or the NPS 

Metadata Tools and Editor. 

3.5 Annual Report and Data Submission 

Once the annual report has been completed, the report is posted to the SFAN website and a 

record is cataloged in NatureBib. See SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting for more information. 

All project data are also submitted to the Biogeographic Information and Observation System 

(BIOS) data access system, maintained by the California Department of Fish and Game. 

Directions for creating the BIOS GIS shapefile and associated metadata records are provided in 

Section 3.4.1. The annual GIS shapefile and metadata should be copied to the PORE GIS 

directory for internal NPS use. 

4.0 Data Verification and Validation Procedures 

Ideally two people can participate in the data verification with one person reading the original 

out loud to another person looking at the computer monitor to verify that the two records match. 

If only one person is available, they should have any field notes or data forms in front of them. 

4.1 Site Search Form 

4.1.1 Data Verification 

The first step in the process of assuring quality data is to have the recorder re-read the data. This 

should be done either on the same day that the data were entered or just before beginning new 

data entry. The field teams should review their data prior to submitting the satellite databases to 

the Database Manager. 

General Procedure: 

1) Scan all fields to make sure all have been filled in. 

2) Review date field for accuracy. 

3) Sort search times in sequential order to make sure they do not contain unlikely values. 

4) Ensure that ―SPOW Response‖ matches evidence in the detections.

5) Ensure that the total #s of different ages of owls correspond to the detections. 

6) Review the # of mice used and mousing effort for symmetry and logical sequence. 

7) Review detections for completeness and correlation with field notes. 

8) Review Observational Information check-boxes to ensure the appropriate boxes 

have been checked. 

9) Spell-check the narrative and review for completeness and logic. 
105

4.1.2 Form ID Number Sequence Completeness 

Before error-checking data, review the Form ID numbers to check for gaps in the sequence. If 

there is a complete string of numbers for a crew, ensure that the final number is the last number 

for which there are data. If there is a gap, inquire whether there are data for that number or if it 

was not used. This process should be done periodically through the season. In some cases, 

multiple field staff working for the same agency can use different sets of numbers (i.e., 1-100 

and 100-200). 

At the end of the season, all crews should submit copies of their FormID logs as part of the 

permanent record. These can be used in future years to compare to existing data sequences. 

4.1.3 Site Numbers 

Run the following query:

ERRORCHECK10sitenumbers: This query, in conjunction with the ERRORjoinersites 

query, generates a list of location names which have had different values entered for the 

MASTEROWL (MRN#) field. If sites are listed when this query is run, then the number in 

the CountOfMASTEROWL1 field indicates the number of different values in SEARCH 

records for that site. The correct site number appears next to the Location name. 

4.1.4 Dates 

Open the SEARCH table and promote the date field to ascending order. Review the top dates to 

see if there are any outliers. Review and correct any dates occurring in the wrong year or in a 

month outside of the study protocol. Then promote the date field in descending order and review 

in the same manner. 

4.1.5 Recorder Initials 

Run the following query: 

ERRORCHECK11recorder: This query will display SEARCH table records where there are 

no matching [RECORDER] initials in the table InitialsLUT. Records will be displayed either 

because new initials were not added to InitialsLUT or initials were entered incorrectly in the 

[RECORDER] field. The appropriate additions or corrections should be made. 

4.1.6 Visit Times 

Run the following queries: 

ERRORCHECK26callendtimes: Use this query to generate a list of call end times which 

occur before call start times. Check narratives and originals and correct. 

The visit time ERRORCHECK queries below apply to the visual search start/end time fields, 

which were part of the survey protocol until 2004 when they were discontinued. Only visit 

start and end are currently used. These error check queries remain in the database, however, 

and so are described here as part of the administrative record. 
106

ERRORCHECK27visitstarttimes: Use this query to generate a list of all visit start times 

which occur after visual search start time. Check narratives and originals and correct. 

ERRORCHECK20visualendtimes: Use this query to generate a list of empty ―visual search 

end time‖ entries where there should be a value entered. Enter the value of the call start time 

into empty fields. If there was no calling, enter the value of the visit end time field. 

ERRORCHECK21visualendtimes: Use this query to generate a list of inappropriate ―visual 

search end time‖ entries. Running the query will produce a list of records in which the visual 

search end time was recorded as being after the call start time. Change all visual end times to 

the value of the call start time. Running the query again should produce an empty table. 

ERRORCHECK22visualendtimes: Use this query to generate a list of inappropriate ―visual 

search end time‖ entries. Running the query will produce a list of records in which the visual 

search end time was recorded before the visit end time, but during which there was no 

calling. Change all the ―Visitend‖ values to the values of ―Visitend.‖ Running the query a 

second time should produce an empty table. 

ERRORCHECK23visualendtimes: Use this query to generate a list of remaining 

inappropriate visual search end time entries. The query generates a list of all visual search 

end times which do not match either the call start time or the visit end time. Adjust all 

Visitend fields to match Callstart fields, unless there are any null values in the Callstart field. 

Use the value in the Visitend field if there is no value in Callstart. 

ERRORCHECK24visualendtimes: Use this query to generate a list of detections where there 

was no calling, but in which the visual end time and the detection time are the same. Check 

the narrative of the record and verify that the record is accurate. 

ERRORCHECK25visualendtimes: Use this query to generate a list of visual search end times 

that were recorded as times that occurred before or equal to the visual search start times. The 

call start time is listed for reference. For records where visual search start and end and call 

start times are all the same, erase the times entered in visual search times, since there was no 

visual search. For records where the time of visual search end time occurred before visual 

search end time, review the narrative and original of the record for the correct time. 

4.1.7 Visit Summary 

Run the following queries: 

ERRORCHECK30formalsurvey: This query generates a list of all visits for which "No" was 

the response to the "Formal Survey?" question. Review these records to assure that this was 

the correct response. 

ERRORCHECK31spowresponse: This query will generate a list of records for which "No" 

was recorded in the Visit Summary to the "SPOW Response?" question, but for which there 

was a detection recorded. Check any records listed to assure that the detection is meant to be 

associated with the visit and change the SPOWRESPONSE field appropriately. 
107

ERRORCHECK32otherowls: This query generates a list of records for which the visit 

summary indicates that no other owls were seen, but for which there exists a non-SPOW 

detection record. Review the listed site visits and make corrections if needed. 

ERRORCHECK33nestlings: This query will generate a list of records for which the visit 

summary indicates that there were a different number of nestlings than the number of 

nestling detections recorded for the site visit. Review the record(s) and make appropriate 

changes. 

ERRORCHECK34branchers: This query will generate a list of records for which the visit 

summary indicates that there were a different number of branchers than the number of 

brancher detections recorded for the site visit. Review the record(s) and make appropriate 

changes. 

ERRORCHECK35fledglings: This query will generate a list of records for which the visit 

summary indicates that there were a different number of fledglings than the number of 

fledgling detections recorded for the site visit. Review the record(s) and make appropriate 

changes. 

ERRORCHECK36mature: This query will generate a list of records when an entry for the 

visit summary‘s ―mature SPOW‖ field is different from the number of entries in the ―Owl 

Detections‖ field (for adult and subadult SPOW). Review the record(s) and make appropriate 

changes. 

ERRORCHECK37viewofnest: This query generates a list of records for which the recorder 

stated that there was an adequate view into the nest to see all owls that were present within it, 

but for which no young were recorded, no female was stated to have been on the nest, and the 

record does not indicate that the site is non-reproducing or a confirmed nest failure. If you 

discover many records generated from this query, run the "REVIEWviewofnest" macro to 

review all of them in form view. Review the records and change whichever field is 

inaccurate. NOTE: This field did not exist prior to 2000 data. 

ERRORCHECK38mice: This query will generate a list of records for which the recorder 

stated that there was no mousing, but for which 1 or more mice were used. 

ERRORCHECK39mice: This query generates a list of records in which the field for "Total 

#Mice Used:" does not match the number of records of mice which were taken. The query 

works in conjunction with the two queries with "ERRORjoinermice" in the titles. 

4.1.8 Indicate Completion 

Once all of the above queries have been run and all fields in the visit summary fields have been 

error-checked, ensure that the "ErrorVisitSumChecked" and ―ErrorMouseChecked‖ checkboxes 

in the SEARCH table are checked, or set to True. Alternatively, one can check the ―Summary 

Checked‖ and ―Mice Checked‖ boxes in the related Site Search Form.
108

4.2 Detections Form 

4.2.1 Band Resightings 

Partial band color observations do not count as a band color, but should rather be noted as 

―PRESENT‖. For example, if you see orange on a band but are not certain of the absence or 

presence of a pattern, record ―orange‖ only in your notes and in the narrative and ―PRESENT‖ in 

the data field ―band color.‖

Check for standard use of field terms: while checking all band records, make certain that the 

following terms are used appropriately: 

PRESENT: used when a band was known to be present, but the color is not known. For 

example, if observer recorded a color for a tab, but nothing for band color, record 

"present" as band color. 

NONE: used only when it was verified that no band was present on the owl. Both legs 

must be seen. If such records are found at sites where owls of that sex were already 

banded, make certain from the field notes that the observer verified the absence of bands 

on the owl. 

UNKNOWN: used in all situations where both legs could not be seen or the observer 

failed to record the color of a band or whether bands were looked at. 

GONE: This value should be used for tabs which have been removed by the owls 

wearing them. 

Error-Check: Several steps will be required to complete error-checking. Check the "Bands 

Checked" box in the Site Search form or the ―ErrorBandsChecked‖ field directly in the 

SEARCH table only when all steps have been completed. 

Run the following queries: 

ERRORCHECK0referencebands: This query generates a list of all the band colors of owls 

banded in the study area. The query may be printed and used for reference in other errorchecking queries. 

ERRORCHECK40nonspowbands: This query generates a list of all non-NSO detections for 

which a band color was recorded. Check to see if this unusual event actually happened. 

ERRORCHECK41nullbandvalues: This query will generate a list of all NSO detections for 

which no information was recorded for band colors. Review all of the records to assure that 

the appropriate value is "UNKNOWN" and change accordingly. 

ERRORCHECK42owlsthatmoved: This query will generate a list of all NSO band 

combinations which were given (banded) at one location and then recorded as observed at 

another location. Check the narratives and other records to verify, make appropriate changes, 
109

then print up the remaining verified relocated owl records and use for reference during next 

queries. 

ERRORCHECK43ifybands: This query generates a list of questionable band colors. Review 

to make sure that these represent owls that moved or for which there was a justifiably 

unknown "Band leg" value recorded. Change partial colors, e.g., "green" for "green white 

triangle" to "PRESENT." Only true values of band colors should be entered in the band color 

field. This query runs in conjunction to the ERRORjoinerBcolors and 

ERRORjoinerBdetecombos queries. 

ERRORCHECK44ifyband+tabs: This query will generate a list of sex/band/tab/leg 

combinations that were recorded for detections which do not exist in the banding records. 

Some records should include the owls that have removed their tabs. Check these and all 

others to verify accuracy and make appropriate changes if possible. This query works with 

the ERRORjoinerBcombos query and the ERRORjoinerBdetecombos2 query. 

ERRORCHECK45bandedleg: Run this query to generate a list of all records for which the 

recorder stated that there were no bands on the owl (NONE as color) but for which they 

recorded a leg. Because ―NONE‖ is meant to indicate that there were no bands on either leg 

of the owl, review the records that show up and change the band color to ―UNKNOWN‖ and 

the leg to U if the narrative indicates that only one leg was seen. If the narrative indicates that 

both legs were seen, change the leg field to ―N‖ to represent that neither leg bore a band. 

ERRORCHECK45bandedleg2: Run this query to generate a list of all records for which the 

recorder stated that the band color was UNKNOWN, but for which they specified a leg. 

Review the records to see if this was meant to indicate that no colored band was seen on the 

other leg, but that this leg remained unknown. 

ERRORCHECK45bandedleg3: Run this query to generate a list of all records for which the 

recorder stated ―PRESENT‖ as the band color and for which they indicated a leg. Review to 

make sure that the narrative indicates that the band was known to be on that leg. 

4.2.2 UTMs 

Before reviewing the UTMs for accuracy, the dataset must be complete. Open the 

DETECTIONS table and sort the UTM_EAST field ascending. Null values should appear on 

top. Record the FormID numbers, location and dates and review the original maps to generate 

UTMs. Repeat for the UTM_NORTH field. 

The first step in reviewing the UTMs is to correct those which erroneously fall outside of Marin 

County by running the ERRORCHECK51utmeast and ERRORCHECK52utmsnorth queries. 

Check the original maps and correct. 

Use the query ERRORCHECK53utms to create a GIS event theme of NSO detections by 

completing the following steps: 
110

1. Temporarily change the ERRORCHECK53utms query to a make-table query and run 

the query to create a new table. 

2. Open ArcMap and begin a new empty map. 

3. Select the Add XY Data option under the Tools menu, navigate to the NSOMASTER 

database and select the temporary table you just created. 

4. In the Add XY Data window, choose UTM_EAST for the X field and UTM_NORTH 

for the Y field. 

5. Set the coordinate system (Projected Coordinate Systems>UTM>NAD 1983>NAD 

1983 UTM Zone 10N.prj ), and select OK. The table will now appear as a data source 

in the map. 

For comparison, add the previous year‘s shapefile to the map (see Section 3.4). Loading the 

current year of data and the shapefile of the previous year's activity site centers, one can visually 

see what lies at unusual distances from the activity center. These detections should be reviewed 

against the original field maps for accuracy. While zoomed out to the extent of the study area, 

scan the map to look for unusually large clusters. Zoom into these and use the identify feature to 

look for mismatched site names. Measure the distance between distant points bearing the same 

site name. Verify that anything over 250 m apart is appropriate. 

To identify outliers within each activity site, perform an auto-label by site name to all the points 

while zoomed in fairly closely. Contrary names which overlap in the same activity area need to 

be examined to see which were incorrectly entered. 

When complete, be sure to delete the temporary table used to create the GIS theme from the 

database. Check the "UTMs Checked" box in the Site Search form or the ―ErrorUTMsChecked‖ 

field directly in the SEARCH table only when all steps have been completed. 

4.3 Status Form 

The status form is the last form to be completed for each site each year and summarizes the 

survey results for each site. Complete descriptions of each status level (occupancy, residency, 

pair status, nesting status, and reproductive status) and descriptions of determinations are found 

in SOP 3: Status Designations. Directions for entering data into status form fields and available 

values are described in detail in SOP 3. 

Due to the complexities of the survey protocol, nothing can replace repeated review of the Site 

Search records in comparison to the STATUS table for accuracy. However, some queries have 

been built to locate potential errors. These procedures are not comprehensive however, and it is 

recommended that the entire set of STATUS records are reviewed at least three times, reviewing 

each field against supporting evidence. See SOP 2: Standard Field Procedures for details on field 

descriptions as well as the database help text available from the STATUS form. Run the 

following queries to verify that the status entered in the STATUS form has evidence supporting 
111

it in the site search records. When error checking is complete, select the ―Error Checked‖ box in 

the STATUS form for all records. 

ERRORCHECK71statusNY: This query generates a list of all sites which were designated as 

Nested with Young (NY) produced, but for which there are no SEARCH records which have 

detections of branchers or fledglings. 

ERRORCHECK72statusNF: This query generates a list of all sites which were designated as 

a Nest Failure (NF), but for which there are no associated SEARCH records with the 

NONNESTINGINDICATORS field. The field represents surveys in which mice were 

taken, but were not brought to the young. Review to make sure that the nest failures listed in 

this query were confirmed by adequate follow-up visits to visible nests after initial nesting 

confirmation. 

ERRORCHECK73statusN: This query generates a list of STATUS records which were not 

designated Nested with Young (NY), but for which there was a fledgling record. Review and 

make appropriate changes. 

ERRORCHECKstatusNN+: This query generates a list of STATUS records with NonNesting (NN) or Unknown (UK) Nesting status codes, but for which there is a positive 

response in the SEARCH records to the NESTINGINDICATORS field. 

Additional error-checking queries such as these can be added to the database to more 

comprehensively check for likely problems. 

To check the UTMs in the STATUS table for accuracy, view the table as a GIS event theme in a 

new ArcMap project following the directions given in Section 4.2(b) for checking the accuracy 

of UTMs in the DETECTIONS table. Add the theme of the preceding year's shapefile. Set 

unique symbols for the two different layers to compare the locations and look for large 

movements or incorrect UTMs. Review all UTMs which emerged in unlikely or suspiciously far 

points. Correct any UTMs that need correcting in the database. 

Reminder: Do not edit the table in the previous year's shapefile because the changes will be 

made to the associated DBF file immediately. 

4.4 Nest Tree Habitat Form 

Error-check all of the Nest Tree Habitat forms by reading the original physical datasheet and 

comparing this to the data that was entered into the database. Correct any mistakes and check the 

"Error Checked" box on the form. See SOP 2: Standard Field Procedures for detailed description 

of data form/database fields. 

5.0 Version Control Guidelines and Database History 

Version control guidelines for the MS Access Northern Spotted Owl Monitoring Database will 

follow those presented in the SFAN‘s Data Management Plan (Press 2005). Prior to any major 

changes to the database design, a back-up copy of the database should be made. Once the 

database design changes are complete, the database should be assigned the next incremental 
112

version number. The final copy of the previous database version should be archived with the 

version closing date incorporated into the database title. Version numbers should increase 

incrementally by hundredths (e.g., version 1_01, version 1_02, ...etc) for minor changes. Major 

revisions should be designated with the next whole number (e.g., version 2_0, 3_0, 4_0 ...). 

With proper controls and communication, versioning ensures that only the most current database 

version is used for queries and analyses. Significant database re-design may require approval by 

the project manager, review by other data management staff, and revisions to this data 

management SOP. The database version number should be included in the file title of the 

database, for example, NSOMASTERXP_v1_00. 

The SFAN Data Manager maintains a history of the Northern Spotted Owl Monitoring Database 

in a MS Word document titled NSOMASTER_Database_History located at: 

Inppore04\Resources\Natural\_Databases\Spotted Owl 

All design modifications to the database are tracked within this document and are referenced to 

changes in database version numbers. Major changes to the data themselves are also noted in this 

document, such as when a new set of annual data is uploaded. It is especially important to note 

edits to the data that will result in changes to final data summaries previously published in annual 

reports or other media. This will prove invaluable to data users attempting to understand 

differences in data between years. 

The database history may also be used each year to summarize anything that was unique or 

changed about the year‘s methodology and is therefore reflected in the annual dataset. Notes on 

techniques for collection and review of data are also very helpful. 

Data related administrative records previously stored within the database in the YEARMetainfo 

table have been transferred to the NSOMASTER_Database_History document. 

6.0 Metadata Procedures 

The NPS GIS Committee recently required all NPS GIS data layers be described with the NPS 

Metadata Profile, which combines the FDGC standard, elements of the ESRI metadata profile, 

the Biological Data Profile, and NPS-specific elements. Although no standard has been applied 

to natural resource databases and spreadsheets, the SFAN completed the NPS Metadata Profile to 

the greatest extent possible to document the master MS Access NSO Monitoring Database. 

The metadata record for the Northern Spotted Owl Monitoring Database was initially developed 

in Dataset Catalog v3.0, an MS Access metadata development and catalog tool developed by the 

NPS I&M Program. Dataset Catalog is currently the preferred tool to begin metadata records for 

MS Access databases because of its ability to harvest entity and attribute information from this 

database format. 

The metadata record was exported from Dataset Catalog as an XML file and completed in NPS 

Metadata Tools and Editor v1.1 (NPS MTE), thus allowing for all NPS-specific elements in the 

metadata record to be completed. When completed, the metadata record, but not the data 

themselves, was posted to the NPS Data Store for public discovery and consumption. The 
113

database, and any GIS data resulting from the monitoring program, is considered sensitive 

information and is not available publicly, but distributed through data requests to the Data 

Manager. Contact information within the metadata record directs interested parties to the SFAN 

Data Manager for further inquiries. The metadata record posted to the NPS Data Store will be 

updated annually after the annual data have been uploaded or following database revision to a 

new version whole number (i.e., v1_3 to v2_0, but not v2_0 to v2_1). 

The location data for this project are stored as UTM coordinates within the MS Access master 

database. Because GIS spatial data layers are generated from the database for internal use only, 

only simplified metadata records will be developed for these data layers using ArcCatalog and 

the NPS MTE. The metadata records will be saved as XML files and should be stored with the 

spatial data files, but not posted to the NPS Data Store. 

At the end of each season or prior to the next season, the SFAN Data Manager and the Lead 

Biological Technician are responsible for submitting the project monitoring data to the BIOS 

program. A complete and thorough metadata record for the BIOS submission has been created in 

ArcCatalog and the NPS MTE and may simply be updated annually prior to submission. See 

SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting for detailed instructions. 

The complete protocol for this project is an integral component of the project metadata. All 

narrative and SOP version changes are noted in the Master Version Table (MVT), which is 

maintained in SOP 7: Revising the Protocol. Any time the narrative or SOP versions are 

changed, a new Version Key number (VK#) must be created and recorded in the MVT, along 

with the date of the change and the versions of the narrative and SOPs in effect. The Version 

Key number is essential for project information to be properly interpreted and analyzed. The 

protocol narrative, SOPs, and data should not be distributed independently of this table. 

7.0 Data Storage 

NPS IT specialists keep servers at both PORE and GOGA locked and secure, perform regular 

server maintenance and upgrades, and ensure that frequent server back-up procedures are 

functioning properly with weekly off-site storage. 

All master data files for the NSO monitoring project are housed at PORE. NSOMASTERXP, the 

master database, currently in version 1_0, resides at: 

Inppore04\Resources\Natural\_Databases\Spotted Owl 

Inppore04\Resources must always be mapped as the U drive. The following folders reside within 

the above directory: 

SPOW_BackUps 

Back-up copies of the master database or of annual satellite databases should be stored here. File 

names of back-up databases should include the date of the back-up, such as: 

NSOMASTERXP_v1_00_040110_BackUp. 
114

Archived_Master_Dbase_Versions 

When the master database is converted to a new version number, the final previous database 

version should be archived here. 

Archived Annual Data 

Separate folders for each year (i.e., Archived 2009 Data) store final satellite databases and other 

final annual data products. 

BIOS Submission 

Separate folders for each year (i.e., BIOS Submission 2009) store correspondence and final data 

products submitted to the BIOS data access system.

GIS Files 

GIS files are housed on a separate server at: 

Inppore07\GIS\vector1\wildlife\spottedowl\covers 

Inppore07\GIS must always be mapped to the S drive. 

Documents 

Protocol documents, annual reports, seasonal documents or temporary data files (see Section 

2.2), and all other project related files are located at: 

Inppore04\Resources\Science\Spotted Owls 

At the SFAN offices at GOGA, copies of all final documents and data relating to the spotted owl 

monitoring program are archived at: 

Inpgogamahe1\Divisons\Network I&M\IM_Archive\VS_Indicators\Spotted_Owl 

Data and documents are stored in separate folders. The master database will be copied and 

archived here annually after that year‘s field data have been error-checked and uploaded. All 

final documents relating to the NSO monitoring program, including the protocol and all annual 

reports, will also be stored in the NSO archive directory. All files in the archive directory are 

stored in read-only format. 

8.0 Literature Cited 

ESRI (Environmental Science Research Institute, Inc.). 2009. ArcGIS 9.3.1. ESRI, Redlands, 

CA. 

Press, D.T. 2005. Data management plan for the San Francisco Bay Area Network inventory and 

monitoring program. USDI National Park Service. San Francisco, CA. 113 pp. 
 115 

SOP 5. Data Analysis and Reporting 

Version 1.3 

Revision History Log 

Previous 

Version # 

Revision 

Date 

Author Changes Made Reasons for Change New Version 

# 

1.0 Nov. 2007 Dawn Adams Reformatted To meet new formatting 

guidelines. 

1.1 

1.1 March 

2008

Dawn Adams, 

Dave Press, 

Marcus Koenen, 

Bill Merkle 

Updating analysis 

section 

New analysis 1.2 

1.2 March 

2010

D. Press, L.A. 

Starcevich 

Significant 

expansion of section 

on long-term 

analytical techniques 

and reporting. 

Added Literature 

Cited section. Added 

two appendices. 

New analytical methods. 

Response to peer 

review comments. 

1.3 
 116 

Contents 

Page 

Figures..........................................................................................................................................117

Tables ...........................................................................................................................................117

Appendices ...................................................................................................................................117

1.0 Annual and Long-Term Trend Reports..................................................................................118

1.1 Annual Reports ............................................................................................................. 118

1.1.1 Data Summaries .................................................................................................. 118

1.2 Long-Term Trend Reports ............................................................................................ 120

1.2.1 Occupancy Analysis............................................................................................ 121

1.2.2 Fecundity Analysis.............................................................................................. 125

1.2.3 Habitat Analysis and Modeling .......................................................................... 127

1.2.4 Barred Owls ........................................................................................................ 131

1.2.5 Sudden Oak Death .............................................................................................. 132 

1.3 Report Formats .............................................................................................................. 132

4.0 Other Reporting .....................................................................................................................132

4.1 USFWS Permit Reporting ............................................................................................. 132

4.2 Annual Administrative Report and Workplan .............................................................. 132

4.3 SFAN Natural Resource and Science Monthly Updates .............................................. 133

4.4 Resource Briefing ......................................................................................................... 133

4.5 Website Updates ........................................................................................................... 133

4.6 Project Presentations ..................................................................................................... 133 

5.0 Report and Data Dissemination .............................................................................................133

5.2 Data Dissemination ....................................................................................................... 134

5.2.1 BIOS Data Submission ....................................................................................... 134 
 117 

6.0 Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................135 

Figures 

Page 

Figure SOP 5.1. Occupancy status for all NPS study sites (1999-2008). ....................................120 

Figure SOP 5.2. Reproductive status for owl pairs monitored in the NPS study area 

(1999-2005 and 2007-2008). .......................................................................................................121 

Figure SOP 5.3. Histogram of spotted owl fledglings across years, 1998-2008. ........................126

Figure SOP 5.4. Estimated binomial probabilities for spotted owl fledglings by year. ..............127

Tables 

Page 

Table SOP 5.1. Summary of the spotted owl monitoring results for the 2008 breeding 

season. ..........................................................................................................................................119

Table SOP 5.2. Northern spotted owl occupancy categories. ......................................................122

Table SOP 5.3. Covariate information available for occupancy and detection modeling. ..........123

Table SOP 5.4. Final occupancy and detection models for each spotted owl occupancy 

category. .......................................................................................................................................124

Table SOP 5.5. Occupancy estimates (and standard errors) from the final model for each 

spotted owl occupancy category. .................................................................................................124

Table SOP 5.6. Estimated binomial probabilities for fledgling. ..................................................127

Table SOP 5.7. Point and landscape metrics to be considered in a priori habitat models. .........130

Appendices 

Page 

Appendix SOP 5A. R code for occupancy and fecundity estimation and trend analysis. ...........138

Appendix SOP 5B. Example pilot data for occupancy and fecundity analysis ...........................145
118

This SOP details the formal reports (e.g., annual reports) and informal reports (e.g., web updates) 

produced through the I&M Program. For each report, content is described and analyses are 

presented. Additional information on analyses is also presented in SOP 4: Data Management 

Handbook. 

1.0 Annual and Long-Term Trend Reports 

This section provides instructions for: 1) annual data analysis and reports, and 2) periodic trend 

analysis and reporting for northern spotted owl (NSO) monitoring in the San Francisco Bay Area 

Network (SFAN). For the annual reports and long-term trend analysis, only NPS occupancy and 

fecundity data collected within the NSO study area are analyzed and presented. The exception is 

the nesting habitat and nest structures section of the annual report, which includes data gathered 

on all nests located in the county since 1998. 

1.1 Annual Reports 

The purpose of the annual report is to summarize the data for the current year, as well as to 

provide for some comparison with data from previous years. The report is prepared by the Lead 

Biological Technician and reviewed by the project staff from Point Reyes National Seashore 

(PORE) and Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GOGA). The first draft of the report is 

produced in the late-summer or fall following the field season once the data has all been errorchecked. Peer-review and completion of the report are the responsibilities of the NSO program 

managers and should be finalized before the start of the next field season. The report summarizes 

occupancy, fecundity, and any other relevant information. The 2008 annual report, which went 

through a formal peer review process, will serve as a template for future annual reports. 

1.1.1 Data Summaries 

In each annual report, statistics are presented for the following standard survey parameters at a 

minimum: 

 Site occupancy 

o Number and percentage of occupied territories* 

o Occupancy status summary (number of single, pair, unoccupied sites)* 

 Reproduction 

o Reproductive status summary (number of nesting and non-nesting pairs, number of 

nest failures, number of nests that fledged young, and number of young)* 

o Fecundity (average number of female young per territorial female with standard 

error)* 

o Productivity (average number of young per occupied territory with standard error)* 

 Age composition of pairs* 

 Survey effort (mean and range of number of visits per site) 

 Nest tree measurements 

o Nest type, height, and aspect 

o Nest tree species, height, and diameter at breast height 

 Habitat characteristics (presented as average for the season) 

o Dominant understory and overstory vegetation types (general description) 

o Elevation* 
 119 

o Slope* 

o Slope position 

o Distance to forest opening* 

o Distance to forest edge* 

o Distance to water* 

 Weather metrics from Mt. Barnabe and/or Bear Valley weather stations 

o Average monthly precipitation*

o Monthly wind speed (number of days per month with high wind speed of 20 mph or 

higher)* 

* Values with asterisk are also presented in a report figure to help visualize trends. 

Incidental data collected is also reported, including: 

 Barred owl statistics 

o Number of detections 

o Number of NSO sites with barred owls detected 

o Barred owl occupancy status at sites 

o Estimate of number of barred owls in study area 

 Medium to large scale changes in NSO habitat (e.g., wildfires) 

Report figures are formatted in a MS Excel spreadsheet and can be updated with current year 

values and inserted into the report. 

An example table summarizing annual monitoring results is shown in Table SOP 5.1. Site 

occupancy and reproductive status are also reported as percentages of different occupancy 

(Figure SOP 5.1) and reproductive status classes (Figure SOP 5.2) for comparison with other 

monitoring years. Annual population fecundity is determined by calculating an average fecundity 

of territorial females within the monitored sample. Fecundity is the number of female young (# 

of fledglings/2) per territorial female (Franklin et al. 1996). Standard error of the sample is also 

reported. 

The annual reports generally do not contain sensitive owl information and, therefore, can be 

distributed to the public. Any maps created are done in large scale and without specific landscape 

details and no owl locations are mentioned by name in the report. 

Table SOP 5.1. Summary of the spotted owl monitoring results for the 2008 breeding season. 

Number of 

sites 

monitored 

Number of 

occupied 

territories 

Number of 

sites occupied 

by pairs 

Number of sites 

with known 

reproductive 

outcomes 

Number 

of nests 

located 

Number 

of young 

produced 

Fecundity 

25 20 15 13 6 18 0.69
 120 

7 2 7 5 7 4

8 3

9 2

8 7

8 1

7 6

7 2

6 0

14 8

6

10 3

6

2 0

2 0

2 0

3

3

3 8

6

2

14 14

17

7

6

3

8 8

2 0

2

0 %

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1999

(n=36)

2000

(n=36)

2001

(n=35)

2002

(n=41)

2003

(n=36)

2004

(n=38)

2005

(n=36)

2006

(n=55)

2007

(n=25)

2008

(n=25)

Year

Occupancy Status

Pair Single Unknown Unoccupied

Figure SOP 5.1. Occupancy status for all NPS study sites (1999-2008). Numbers within the bars are the 

exact percentage for each status category and n is the total number of spotted owl territories. 

1.2 Long-Term Trend Reports 

Every 5 years, the program will develop a larger trend analysis and protocol review. Long-term 

trend reports would be produced by the project leads and other network staff or through 

cooperative agreements or contracts depending on funding availability. The focus of the trend 

assessments will be on the key parameters in the study design, specifically territory occupancy 

rate and fecundity. The report will include examining patterns and trends in nesting habitat 

selection. At that time, additional factors will be considered for analysis, especially as they relate 

to NSO occupancy and fecundity. Some examples of potential analyses are examining 

differences in occupancy and fecundity rates between age classes of females and males, factors 

associated with differences in habitat quality, different nesting habitat factors (e.g., distance to 

water, forest edge, and dominant forest structure). A long-term trend assessment is also an 

appropriate point to analyze the effects of climate and weather conditions, the presence of barred 

owls, and the presence and severity of Sudden Oak Death (SOD). The significance of these 
 121 

2 4

4 8

6 2 5 9

4 8 4 6

5 9

7 7

2 0

11

12

9

10 13

2 4

8

4

4

3 2

3 3

2 3

2 6

3 5 2 9

6

7 4

15

16

7 6 6 8

12

2 6

8

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1999

(n=25)

2000

(n=27)

2001

(n=26)

2002

(n=34)

2003

(n=31)

2004

(n=24)

2005

(n=17)

2006* 2007

(n=19)

2008

(n=13)

Year

Reproductive Status

Fledged Young Failed Nest Nesting - Unknow n Outcome Non-nesting Pair - Unknow n Nesting Status

Figure SOP 5.2. Reproductive status for owl pairs monitored in the NPS study area (1999-2005 and 

2007-2008). Numbers within the bars are the exact percentage for each status category and n is the total 

number of spotted owl territories. *2006 inventory data was excluded from this analysis. 

effects may be assessed with likelihood ratio tests of regression coefficients in the models for 

occupancy, fecundity, or detection rates. Results will be discussed within the context of the 

Marin County NSO population, by including data collected on MMWD and MCOSD lands, and 

within a regional context, by comparing NSO trends in other parts of California.

1.2.1 Occupancy Analysis 

Methods for detecting long-term trends in the NSO occupancy data were developed by 

Starcevich and Steinhorst (2010; Appendix A), which used 10 years of NPS NSO monitoring 

data to estimate the power to detect trends in preparation for this protocol. The methods in 

Starcevich and Steinhorst (2010) will serve as a roadmap for future long-term trend analyses and 

are summarized here. Our statistical approach may evolve over time allowing us to include new 

covariates into the analysis, such as climatic factors or SOD, and to keep up to date with the 

latest analytical techniques. 
 122 

Analysis code for estimating trends in occupancy rate is provided in Appendix SOP 5A, and pilot 

data are provided in Appendix SOP 5B. Instructions are given to conduct the occupancy and 

fecundity trend analysis with the VGAM package of the R Project for Statistical Computing. 

The VGAM package is used for obtaining maximum likelihood estimates from zero-inflated 

mixture distributions. 

The spotted owl monitoring program employs six mutually exclusive northern spotted owl site 

occupancy categories (Table SOP 5.2). Occupancy will be estimated independently for each 

category. 

Table SOP 5.2. Northern spotted owl occupancy categories. 

Occupancy Code Description 

PR Resident pair detected 

PU Pair detected but pair occupancy not confirmed 

RS Resident single 

SU Single detected but occupancy not confirmed 

UK Occupancy status unknown 

UO Unoccupied 

When more than three years of monitoring data are available, linear trends in the logged odds of 

occupancy may be estimated and tested for significance. The number of detections is modeled as 

a zero-inflated binomial random variable (MacKenzie et al. 2006). Let yijk be the outcome for 

site i, year j, and visit k, and let yijk take a value of 1 if a spotted owl is detected and 0 otherwise. 

Since the outcome is either 0 or 1, the outcome actually has a zero-inflated Bernoulli 

distribution. Let 

ijk y

be the number of detections made at site i and year j during the k

th visit. The 

zero-inflated Bernoulli distribution is expressed as: 

        1

1 1 0

ijk ijk

y y

P Y y p p ijk ij ij ij ij ij   I y



      ,

where πij is the occupancy rate in site i and year j, and 

ij p

is the detection rate for site i and year 

j. There are S sites; T years, and K visits to a site each year. Define the indicator function as 

  0 ij I y 

as 1 when 

0 ij y 

and 0 otherwise. This model assumes an equal number of visits to a 

site within a year, but K can vary among sites and/or years. 

Occupancy (π) is modeled with logistic regression as a function of related covariates:

0 1 log .

1

ij

ij

ij

x



 



          

To test for linear trend in the logged odds of occupancy, the year covariate, xj, should be 

included as a predictor in the occupancy model. The likelihood ratio test is used to assess the 

significance of the trend coefficient. 
 123 

The probability of zero inflation (p) is simultaneously estimated by logistic regression: 

0 1 log

1

ij

ij

ij

p

x

p

 

 

 

       

.

Maximum likelihood is used to estimate the parameter values from the models for occupancy 

and detection rates and the zero-inflated Bernouilli distribution. Occupancy can be modeled at 

the site-by-year level so predictors should be collected at the site level, year level, or site-by-year 

level. Detection probabilities are allowed to vary at each visit for each site and year, so 

covariates are often environmental covariates that vary from visit to visit (MacKenzie et al. 

2006). However, if detection rates are also changing over time, a model that includes a year 

covariate may be needed for accurate occupancy estimation. 

The implicit occupancy model is assumed for this analysis. In contrast to the explicit dynamics 

model, estimates of colonization and local extinction are not explicitly measured in the implicit 

dynamics model (MacKenzie et al. 2006). The net effect of extinction and colonization rates on 

occupancy is monitored rather than estimating the parameters separately since monitoring net 

change over time is the primary goal. 

Model selection is conducted using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Model output is 

examined to be certain that valid variance estimates are obtained. When valid estimates of the 

variance cannot be acquired for the model with the lowest AIC, then the model with the lowest 

AIC and valid variance is used. 

For the pilot data, the occupancy model selected by AIC included site-level, year-level, and visitlevel covariates (Table SOP 5.3). Possible detection models were based on covariates collected 

within each site and year such as month, an indicator for a day vs. night survey, an indicator for 

whether a call method was used, and the number of observers. The detection model with the 

lowest AIC for the NSO pilot data collected from 1999 to 2008 includes the indicator for day 

survey, the indicator for call use, and the number of observers. 

Table SOP 5.3. Covariate information available for occupancy and detection modeling (Starcevich and 

Steinhorst 2010). 

Covariate 

Code 

Level Description 

Year Year Year of the survey 

Month Visit Month of the survey 

Barred Site Indicator of barred owl detection at a site for a given year 

Daytime Visit Indicator that survey occurred during the day 

Call Visit Indicator that a call method was used 

ObsNum Visit Number of observers present during the survey 

The process of model selection was problematic for the spotted owl pilot data. Because 

occupancy analysis is based on a nonlinear model, obtaining a positive-definite Hessian matrix 

was not possible for some models. The Hessian matrix affects the estimates of variance for 
 124 

occupancy and detection regression parameter estimates which affects trend testing. Model 

selection was conducted using AIC as the model selection criterion (Bayes Information Criterion 

was also examined but selected similar models). However, models chosen with AIC often did 

not provide positive-definite Hessian matrices. The model with the lowest AIC and a positivedefinite Hessian matrix was used in the power analysis for trend testing. The final occupancy 

and detection models are provided for each status category in Table SOP 5.4. The final models 

were often a reduced version of the model with the lowest AIC indicating that simpler models 

are more stable for occupancy estimation. The occupancy estimates by category are provided in 

Table SOP 5.5. 

Table SOP 5.4. Final occupancy and detection models for each spotted owl occupancy category 

(Starcevich and Steinhorst 2010). 

Status Category Occupancy Model 

log

1

ij

ij





        

Detection Model 

log

1

ij

ij

p

p

        

PR

0 1Barredij        0 1    Day Call ObsNum ij 2 ij 3 ij

PU

0

    0 1   Day Call ij 2 ij

RS

0

    0 1   Day Call ij 2 ij

SU

0 1Barredij       0 1   Day Call ij 2 ij

UK

0

    0 1   Month Call ij 2 ij

UO

0 1Barredij    0 1Call    ij

Table SOP 5.5. Occupancy estimates (and standard errors) from the final model for each spotted owl 

occupancy category (Starcevich and Steinhorst 2010). 

Status 

Category 

Est. Occupancy Rate 

for Sites 

with Barred Owls 

(SE) 

Est. Occupancy Rate 

for Sites 

without Barred Owls 

(SE) 

Est. Occupancy Rate 

(SE) 

PR 0.9197 (0.0505) ~ 1.000 (0.00001) - 

PU - - 0.0301 (0.0146) 

RS - - 0.1614 (0.0428) 

SU 0.2562 (0.0960) 0.1127 (0.0384) - 

UK - - 0.0208 (0.0058) 

UO 0.1172 (0.0371) 0.0601 (0.0124) - 

Analysis code using the R software package is provided in Appendix SOP 5A, and pilot data are 

provided in Appendix SOP 5B. For each status category, occupancy estimates are provided 

either for the model including the indicator of barred owl presence (estimates of occupancy with 

and without barred owl presence are provided in the second and third columns) or the model 

without a factor for barred owl presence (occupancy estimates given in the fourth column). 
 125 

Columns for the unused model contain a "-" to indicate that this model was not used. Due to the 

complexities of estimating trend with a multi-category occupancy classification, a univariate 

approach was used and occupancy estimates do not sum to 1. Notice that the presence of barred 

owls in a site and year decreases pair occupancy but increases the single-unknown and 

unoccupied status categories. This result suggests that the effect of barred owl presence is to 

reduce pair occupancy and inhibit territorial behavior as evidenced by the positive effects 

observed in the SU and UK status categories. 

1.2.2 Fecundity Analysis 

Methods for detecting long-term trends in the NSO fecundity data were developed by Starcevich 

and Steinhorst (2010; Appendix A; Appendix SOP 5A), which used 10 years of NPS NSO 

monitoring data to analyze re-visit designs and to estimate the power to detect trends in 

preparation for this protocol. The methods in Starcevich and Steinhorst (2010) will serve as a 

roadmap for future long-term trend analyses and are summarized here. Our statistical approach 

may evolve over time allowing us to include new covariates into the analysis, such as barred owl 

presence or SOD, and to keep up to date with the latest analytical techniques. 

Analysis code for estimating and testing trends in fecundity rates is provided in Appendix SOP 

5A, and pilot data are provided in Appendix SOP 5B. Instructions are given for the VGAM 

package of the R Project for Statistical Computing. The VGAM package is used for obtaining 

maximum likelihood estimates from zero-inflated mixture distributions. 

Let 

ij y

be the number of fledglings per territorial female detected in occupied site i and year j. 

Let n be the number of occupied sites and T be the number of years monitored for fecundity. 

The probability mass function of Y is: 

        1 1 0

ij ij

M y y

ij j ij ij j ij

ij

M

P Y y p p I y

y

 

  

       

 

,

where πj is the probability that an extra 0 is not observed at site i in year j, pij is the probability of 

a fledgling at site i in year j, M is the maximum number of fledglings seen in any nest, and I(yij = 

0) is 1 when yij = 0 and is 0 otherwise. Similarly to the occupancy analysis, the parameters, 

 ij

and 

ij p

, are estimated with maximum likelihood estimation. To test for trend in fecundity, the 

year covariate is included as a predictor in the binomial probability model and then tested for 

significance with a likelihood ratio test. In contrast to the occupancy analysis, fecundity 

inference is made on the change in pij over time. We assume that M is 5 based on historical data 

and recommendations from the SFAN ecologists. 

Fecundity of spotted owls is measured by the number of fledglings per territorial female. 

Nesting spotted owls can produce 0 to 3 fledglings, though a maximum of two fledglings was 

observed from the pilot data. The 1998-2008 pilot data indicate that zero inflation may be an 

issue (Figure SOP 5.3). Zero inflation may result from a high number of non-nesting pairs or 

nest failures related to predation or environmental factors. 
 126 

Figure SOP 5.3. Histogram of spotted owl fledglings across years, 1998-2008.

Fecundity is measured as the binomial probability for fledglings. These estimates are provided 

in Table 5.6 by year. While the estimates indicate an increasing trend (Figure SOP 5.4), the 

increase is not significant (LRT test statistic: 0.0043, p-value: 0.9479). The probability of not 

detecting an extra zero is estimated as 0.6396 (SE 0.0466). 
 127 

Table SOP 5.6. Estimated binomial probabilities for fledgling. 

Year Estimated Binomial Probability for Fledglings (SE) 

1999 0.4715 (0.0686) 

2000 0.4724 (0.0574) 

2001 0.4732 (0.0473) 

2002 0.4741 (0.0393) 

2003 0.4750 (0.0349) 

2004 0.4758 (0.0353) 

2005 0.4767 (0.0405) 

2006 0.4776 (0.0490) 

2007 0.4784 (0.0593) 

2008 0.4793 (0.0707) 

Figure SOP 5.4. Estimated binomial probabilities for spotted owl fledglings by year.

1.2.3 Habitat Analysis and Modeling 

Nest site measurements collected in the field will provide ample opportunities for data 

exploration. Trends in NSO nest type and habitat features may be analyzed by testing whether 

mean parameter values differ by year using ANOVA analysis. Post-hoc tests and graphical 

analysis will be used to examine significant test results. Tests of specific parameters will help to 

confirm patterns observed in the field, such as shifts in elevation, towards forest edges, or 

changes in nest tree species. Broader understanding of NSO habitat associations, however, must 
128

take a more unified approach that incorporates both field measurements and landscape variable 

derived from other sources. 

New information about NSO habitat associations from this region could have important 

management and ecological implications and will therefore be explored by the SFAN monitoring 

program as a component of long-term trend analyses. A GIS modeling approach that relates NSO 

nest site occurrence and reproductive success to important habitat variables may help to explain 

any long-term trends detected in the monitoring data. The SFAN has already developed a GIS 

model for nest site occurrence in a collaborative effort with PRBO (Stralberg et al. 2009). The 

SFAN approach to modeling NSO habitat associations within the project area in future modeling 

efforts is outlined below. 

Analyzing spatial relationships can be instrumental in determining many aspects in the lives of 

wildlife including their distribution and abundance. Wildlife-habitat models are an important 

tool in wildlife management for describing habitat selection and habitat quality. Almost any 

wildlife -habitat model that can be described in terms of mapable habitat features can be 

developed with GIS. To accurately describe a relationship between wildlife and habitat 

variables, model development should be a well thought out and well documented process and 

modeling results should be viewed with skepticism. The accuracy and biological meaningfulness 

of the inferences ultimately depends on the models included in the candidate set (Johnson and 

Omland 2004). With that in mind, the increase of GIS technology and model selection 

techniques provides an opportunity to spatially investigate otherwise latent biological patterns. 

A critical component in evaluating habitat selection is to include the influences of spatial and 

temporal scale on ecological processes (Wiens 1989). Multiple years of data can be incorporated 

into analyses to provide insight into processes over time and data can be evaluated at multiple 

spatial scales. A subset of the dataset should be withheld for the purpose of model validation. 

In the case of northern spotted owls, the concept of habitat selection extends beyond the physical 

attributes of vegetation and topography to incorporate the influence of the environmental 

variation associated with climate, prey, intraspecific and interspecific interactions (e.g.,

competitors, predators, parasites, disease), and time lags (e.g., delayed response to changing 

habitat conditions due to site fidelity). Factors affecting spotted owl demographic rates have been 

related to vegetation, weather, barred owls, prey, density-dependent factors, and interaction 

among factors (Franklin et al. 2000; Courtney et al. 2004; Olson et al. 2004; Dugger et al. 2005). 

Biotic and abiotic information collected at nest tree locations used in conjunction with GIS 

derived layers provides an opportunity to evaluate third-order habitat selection (Johnson 1980) of 

spotted owl territories. One approach to evaluate third-order habitat selection would be to 

compare occupied nest sites with an equal, but random sampling of unused, available sites within 

an individual‘s home range or a specified spatial scale to evaluate selection at a fine spatial scale 

using the resource selection function (RSF) approach (McDonald et al. 1990). 

The spotted owl location data can be created using our northern spotted owl master database for 

Marin County. The general work flow for model development is a multiple step process that 

includes: 1) identification of variables to include in the model 2) gathering and assembling 
129

spotted owl data and GIS data, 3) processing and prepping the variables in GIS, 4) construction 

of a priori models, and 5) regression analysis and AICo ranking to evaluate model performance. 

Step1: Variable identification 

The selection of variables will be based on a review of existing literature describing factors 

influencing habitat associations of spotted owls and the spotted owl‘s primary prey (duskyfooted woodrat) in the study area (Table SOP 5.7). A majority of the variables likely to be 

included were identified in a nest site occurrence model for Marin County (Stralberg et al. 2009). 

Step 2: Gathering and assembling spotted owl and GIS data 

To create a spotted owl dataset for the analysis, the selection criteria would be based on the 

objective of the model. Appropriate information can be queried from master database and 

assembled in a spreadsheet. Existing slope, aspect, elevation, aerial imagery, vegetation 

(Schirokauer et al. 2003), hydrology (i.e., streams), boundary, and infrastructure (i.e., roads and 

trails) data layers for the San Francisco Bay area are available from the GIS drives at PORE and 

GOGA.

Step 3: Process and prep the variables in GIS 

For each variable, the spotted owl activity centers (i.e., nest or roost location) would be the focal 

location for calculating spatial conditions. The shape and size of the analysis area will be based 

on purpose of the analysis. For each focal location, a set of spatial metrics would be calculated 

from GIS layers representing the habitat variables. Point metrics would reflect conditions at a 

specific location (e.g., nest site). Landscape metrics would be calculated around focal locations 

using a predefined radius or radii. The pixel size used in GIS analysis would be based on 

accuracy and specificity needs; however it would likely be completed using a 10m x 10m 

resolution. Point and landscape metrics would be calculated using ArcGIS 9.3.1 and standard 

extensions (ESRI 2009; Table SOP 5.7). Before processing any GIS data, all layers would be 

projected in the same geographic coordinate system (North American Datum 1983), all layers 

would have the same projection (UTM Zone 10), and the analytical environment would be set to 

the pixel size chosen to best represent the data.

Step 4: Construction of a priori models 

A priori models would be constructed based on the variables hypothesized to be important based 

on literature support. Once all GIS values are obtained and entered in a spreadsheet, then the data 

table could be converted to a text file and imported into the statistical program R. To test for 

redundancy in explanatory power among habitat variables, a correlation analysis would be 

completed to identify variables with moderate to high correlation (r ≥ 0.60) within each of the 

hypothesized models. The models including correlated variables would be removed from the 

analysis. An information-theoretic approach would be used to evaluate competing models 

(Burnham and Anderson 2002). The goal is to build the simplest model that describes the 

relationship between the habitat variables and the response variable. 

Step 5: Complete regression analysis and AIC ranking to evaluate model performance

Akaike‘s Information Criterion adjusted for small sample size (AICc; Akaike 1973; Burnham 

and Anderson 2002) would likely be used to compare and select among candidate models. The 

goal would be to include the smallest number of predictor variables necessary to make good 
 130 

predictions. Model ranking and selection of ―best‖ models within the study area would be based 

on AICc (Akaike 1973; Burnham and Anderson 2002). If ∆AIC among the top tier of models is 

<2, model averaging will be considered. Otherwise, the most parsimonious model will be 

selected (Burnham and Anderson 2002). 

Table SOP 5.7. Point and landscape metrics to be considered in a priori habitat models. 

Point Variables Reasoning for Variable Consideration

Slope position (proportion) nest sites found in watershed are more likely to 

occur on lower portions of slope (Blakesley 1992; 

LaHaye and Gutierrez 1999; Folliard 2000; 

Stralberg et al. 2009) 

South aspect (degrees) important variable in Stralberg et al. (2009) for nest 

site occurrence; highest densities of woodrat 

houses on south facing aspect (136 – 270 degrees; 

Willy 1992) 

Distance to nearest stream (m) woodrat (primary prey species) live near small 

streams due to higher amounts of food resources 

(English 1923) 

Distance to forest edge (m) measure of fragmentation and possible effects on 

prey densities 

Distance to nearest road (m) measure of fragmentation and possible source of 

nest site disturbance 

Sudden Oak Death severity index (0-10) impacts to canopy closure, acorn production for 

woodrats (NSO prey), and increased fire risk 

Landscape Variables Reasoning for Variable Consideration 

Mean elevation (m) productivity was greatest at lower elevations 

(LaHaye et al. 1997, Bart and Forsman 1992); 

important variable in Stralberg et al. (2009) for nest 

site occurrence 

Elevational position in watershed important variable in Stralberg et al. 2009 for nest 

site occurrence 

Proportion of edge measure of forest fragmentation; increased food 

resources; influenced habitat fitness potential 

(Franklin et al. 2000; Dugger et al. 2005) 

Total forest edge length (m/ha) increased food resources (Franklin et al. 2000; 

Dugger et al. 2005) 

Mean slope (degrees) variable in Stralberg et al. 2009 for nest site 

occurrence 

Percent canopy cover associated with high canopy cover (Forsman et al. 

1984); possible variable in future; data not available 

at this time 

Proportion of old growth trees Possible variable in future; need LIDAR imagery to 

tease out residual trees 

Forested proportion important variable in Stralberg et al. (2009) for nest 

site occurrence 

Conifer proportion variable in Stralberg et al. (2009) for nest site 

occurrence 

Hardwood proportion variable in Stralberg et al. (2009) for nest site 

occurrence 

Douglas-fir proportion variable in Stralberg et al. (2009) for nest site 

occurrence 

Redwood proportion variable in Stralberg et al. (2009) for nest site 

occurrence 
 131 

Landscape Variables (cont.) Reasoning for Variable Consideration 

Bishop pine proportion variable in Stralberg et al. (2009) for nest site 

occurrence 

Oak (tanoak/coast live) proportion important forage and cover for prey (Atsatt and 

Ingram 1983; Sakai and Noon 1993) 

California bay laurel proportion variable in Stralberg et al. (2009) for nest site 

occurrence; Willy (1992) found that California bay 

laurel was a plant of local importance to woodrats 

Shrub proportion harbor abundant prey base; Willy (1992) found 

links to plant species associated with shrub 

species. However, this might be a result of 

forest/shrub edge effect. 

Grass proportion variable in Stralberg et al. (2009) for nest site 

occurrence 

Urban proportion variable in Stralberg et al. (2009) for nest site 

occurrence 

Coarse woody debris (CWD) Possible variable in future; woodrats use CWD in 

house construction; Chow (2001) roosts were 

associated with large, downed woody material 

Sudden Oak Death proportion Quantify tree mortality with aerial imagery 

Covariates Reasoning for covariate consideration

Weather Timing of weather patterns (temperature and 

precipitation) influences reproductive success 

(Franklin et al. 2000) 

Barred owl Competitor and possible predator 

Great-horned owl Competitor and predator 

Female age Effects of female age on productivity (e.g., Anthony 

et al. 2006) 

1.2.4 Barred Owls 

The increasing numbers of barred owls in Marin County are anticipated to have significant, longterm impacts on the NSO population within the NPS study area. Long-term trend reports will 

summarize our current knowledge of barred owls within the study area and their perceived 

impacts on the NSO population. Reported barred owl information will include the following and 

may be expanded upon: 

 Number of barred owl resident singles and pairs 

 Location of barred owl resident singles and pairs (map) 

 Known reproductive outcomes of nesting barred owls 

 Number of banded barred owls (if applicable) 

 Percentage of NSO territories where barred owls have been detected 

 Percentage of NSO territories where barred owls have been detected that are now 

unoccupied 

 Average proximity of NSO activity centers to barred owl activity centers 

 Summary of observations of barred owl and NSO interactions 

Barred owl presence will play an important role in the long-term analyses of the NSO occupancy 

and fecundity data and habitat selection models. As described in the previous sections of this 
132

SOP, barred owl presence will be included as an explanatory covariate in occupancy, fecundity 

and habitat analyses. 

1.2.5 Sudden Oak Death 

The long-term effects of SOD on NSO are unknown. However, with more openings in the forest 

canopy from fallen trees, reduced acorn crops affecting woodrat populations, and increased fuel 

load for wildfire, the potential effects of SOD on NSO populations is significant. SOD presence 

and severity may be an explanatory variable in the long-term trends of NSO occupancy, 

fecundity, and habitat selection. As described in the previous sections of this SOP, SOD will be 

included as an explanatory covariate in occupancy, fecundity, and habitat analyses. 

SOD severity data will be collected at each nest or established activity center monitored each 

year (see protocol narrative Section 3.4.2 and SOP 2 Section 6.3.2). Additional SOD data 

available for inclusion in our analyses would come from other sources. For example, in 2010, 

PORE submitted a US Department of Agriculture grant proposal to quantify the potential 

impacts of SOD on NSO within PORE and GOGA. The project would develop detailed GIS 

layers of SOD presence and severity, quantify the effects of SOD on dusky-footed woodrat 

populations, and model fire behavior within SOD affected forests. 

1.3 Report Formats 

All documents produced by the NSO monitoring program will be published in either the Natural 

Resource Report Series or the Natural Resource Technical Report Series following guidance 

from the NPS Natural Resource Program Center in Fort Collins, CO. Published reports will 

adhere to a set of strict formatting standards and are peer-reviewed to ensure that information is 

scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and 

designed and published in a professional manner. The Natural Resource Publications 

Management home page hosts a list of all documents published in the NRR and NRTR Series. 

The home page can be found at: 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM/

4.0 Other Reporting 

4.1 USFWS Permit Reporting 

The SFAN NSO monitoring program is currently not required to operate under a USFWS 

Endangered Species Act Recovery Permit, because the monitoring study is largely observational 

(with calling). The monitoring program does not include banding, otherwise handling owls, or 

climbing to nests, so a ―take‖ is not expected as a result of typical monitoring activities. 

4.2 Annual Administrative Report and Workplan 

The Lead Biological Technician provides annual administrative updates to the I&M Program 

Manager in August of each year for inclusion in the Annual Administrative Report and 

Workplan. The update includes project highlights, summary of work completed, volunteer hours 

summarized by park, budget, and expected budget for the next fiscal year. 
133

4.3 SFAN Natural Resource and Science Monthly Updates 

Interesting findings and project highlights are disseminated once or twice per season through the 

monthly SFAN update. This one-page monthly report series is distributed by email to park and 

network staff. Highlights are presented in short paragraphs with photographs. The update is 

developed and distributed by the I&M program, and includes information from I&M and from 

the park Natural Resources and Science divisions. 

4.4 Resource Briefing 

At the end of the field season, a resource briefing should be updated and reposted to the I&M 

website. The briefing is a two-page summary of NSO monitoring and provides information to 

park and network staff. 

4.5 Website Updates 

The SFAN I&M program maintains a public website with a page devoted to the NSO monitoring 

program. At the beginning and end of the field season, the public website should be updated with 

any new reports or information about the monitoring. 

4.6 Project Presentations 

Annually, results should be presented formally to park staff at GOGA and PORE. Presentations 

in the past, for example, have been given through the PORE lunch-time seminar series, the 

GOGA educator‘s symposium, or the SFAN Natural Resource and Science Symposium. Posters 

or presentations are also encouraged at scientific meetings such as The Wildlife Society, 

Conservation Biology, Ecological Society of America or other meetings of regional or national 

scope. 

5.0 Report and Data Dissemination 

For the NSO monitoring program to inform park management and to share its information with 

other organizations and the general public, guidance documents, reports, and data must be easily 

discoverable and obtainable. The main mechanism for distribution of the NSO monitoring 

documents and data will be the Internet. The NSO monitoring protocol, accompanying SOPs, 

and all annual reports will be made available for download at the SFAN website: 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/sfan/

Following review and approval by the NPS region‘s key official, the finalized NSO documents 

will be distributed as soon as possible. After new postings to the SFAN website, each cooperator 

will be notified of newly available documents. Cooperators include PORE, GOGA, Muir Woods 

National Monument, PRBO Conservation Science, Marin Municipal Water District, Marin 

County Open Space District, and the State Park Ecologists at Tomales Bay and Samuel P. Taylor 

State Parks. 

The NPS I&M Program maintains an on-line natural resource bibliographic database known as 

NatureBib. NatureBib records will be created for all of the NSO monitoring documents, 

including the protocol, annual reports, and any resulting publications. The public version of 

NatureBib is in development by the NPS I&M program. 
134

5.2 Data Dissemination 

All data collected are public property and subject to requests under the Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA). However, sensitive data, such as the location of rare species, must be withheld. 

While the NSO monitoring database will not be posted for public download a metadata record 

for the database will be maintained at the NPS Data Store. The metadata record will direct 

interested parties to the SFAN Data Manager for further inquiries. Metadata requirements and 

distribution detail are included in SOP 4: Data Management Handbook. 

NSO activity site locations and status information are provided to a number of agencies. This 

way we ensure that our work is available to county and state planners and contractors as they 

plan for projects in and around Marin County. Sharing of electronic information should only 

occur after all the data have been proofed and error-checked, and all site status determinations 

are complete. Ideally, the data dissemination would be accompanied by the annual report, but 

that may not always be possible, depending on the length of time required for report review and 

approval. 

All areas surveyed and owl detections are mapped using GIS software programs, and GIS layers 

and metadata are provided to agencies involved in land management and planning in Marin 

County. Map layers are made available to park staff for park planning and compliance projects. 

5.2.1 BIOS Data Submission 

The California Department of Fish and Game maintains the central repository for California 

NSO location information in the Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) 

data access program. At the end of each season or prior to the next season, the SFAN Data 

Manager and the Lead Biological Technician are responsible for submitting the project 

monitoring data to the BIOS program. BIOS is the preferred central contact for dissemination of 

NSO data to appropriate parties. All sites surveyed for any purpose are included in the reporting 

to California Department of Fish and Game. 

The BIOS data submission will include: 

 GIS shapefile (must include prj, sbn, shx, sbx, and shp files) 

 associated metadata record in both XML and TXT format 

A zipfile should be created to package these products prior to distribution. SOP 4: Data 

Management Handbook provides detailed directions for developing the GIS shapefile and 

metadata records. 

Instructions for submitting data to BIOS are available on-line: 

http://bios.dfg.ca.gov/submitting_data.asp

Email electronic copies of a cover letter, GIS shapefile, and metadata files to: 

Ray McDowell, BIOS Database Coordinator 

Department of Fish and Game 

rmcdowell@dfg.ca.gov
135

6.0 Literature Cited 

Akaike, H. 1973. Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Pages 

267-281 in B. N. Petrov and F. Csaki, editors. Second international symposium on 

information theory. Akademi ai Kiado, Budapest, Hungary. 

Anthony, R. G., E. D. Forsman, A. B. Franklin, D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, G. C. White, C. 

J. Schwarz, J. Nichols, J. Hines, G. S. Olson, et al. 2006. Status and trends in demography of 

northern spotted owls, 1985-2003. Wildlife Monographs No. 163: 1-48. 

Astatt, P.R. and T. Ingram. 1983. Adaptation to oak and other fibrous, phenolic-rich foliage by a 

small mammal, Neotoma fuscipes. Oecologia (Berlin) 60:135-142.

Bart, J. and E.D. Forsman. 1992. Dependence of northern spotted owls Strix occidentalis caurina 

on old-growth forests in the western USA. Biological Conservation 62:95-100.

Blakesley, J.A., A.B. Franklin, and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1992. Spotted owl roost and nest site selection 

in northwestern California. Journal Wildlife Management 56:388-392. 

Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: an 

information-theoretic approach. Second edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 

Chow, N. 2001. Distribution and habitat association of northern spotted owls in Marin County, 

California. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 

Courtney, S. P., J. A. Blakesley, R. E. Bigley, M. L. Cody, J. P. Dumbacher, R. C. Fleischer, A. 

B. Franklin, J. F. Franklin, R. J. Gutiérrez, J. M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. 

Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems 

Institute, Portland, OR. 

Dugger, K.M., F. Wagner, R.G. Anthony, G.S. Olson. 2005. The relationship between habitat 

characteristics and demographic performance of northern spotted owls in southern Oregon. 

Condor 107(4):863-878. 

English, P.F. 1923. The dusky-footed wood rat. Journal of Mammalogy 4(1):1-9.

ESRI (Environmental Science Research Institute, Inc.). 2009. ArcGIS 9.3.1. ESRI, Redlands, 

CA. 

Folliard, L. B., K.P. Reese and L.V. Dillard. 2000. Landscape characteristics of Northern Spotted 

Owl nest sites in managed forests of northwestern California. Journal of Raptor Research 

34:75-84.

Forsman, E. D., E. C. Meslow, and H. M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted 

owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87: 1-64. 
136

Franklin A. B., D. R. Anderson, E. D. Forsman, K. P. Burnham, and F. W. Wagner. 1996. 

Methods for collecting and analyzing demographic data on the northern spotted owl. Studies 

in Avian Biology 17:12-20.

Franklin, A.B., D.R. Anderson, R.J. Gutiérrez, and K.P. Burnham. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, 

and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwestern California. Ecological 

Monographs 70(4):539-590. 

Johnson. D. H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating 

resource preference. Ecology 61:65-71. 

Johnson, J.B. and K.S. Omland. 2004. Model selection in ecology and evolution. TRENDS in 

Ecology and Evolution 19(2):101-108. 

LaHaye, W.S., R.J. Gutiérrez, and D.R. Call. 1997. Nest-site selection and reproductive success 

of California spotted owls. The Wilson Bulletin 109(1):42-51. 

LaHaye, W. S., and R. J. Gutierrez. 1999. Nest sites and nesting habitat of the northern spotted 

owl in northwestern California. Condor 101(2):324-330.

MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, J.A. Royle, K.H. Pollock, L.L. Bailey, and J.E. Hines 2006. 

Occupancy estimation and modeling. Academic Press. San Francisco, CA. 

McDonald, L.L., B.F.J. Manly, and C.M. Rayley. 1990. Analyzing foraging and habitat use 

through selection functions. Studies in Avian Biology 13:325-31. 

Olson G. S., E.M. Glenn, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, J.A. Reid, P.J. Loschl, and W.J. Ripple. 

2004. Modeling demographic performance of northern spotted owls relative to forest habitat 

in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:1039–1053.

Sakai, H.F. and B.R. Noon. 1993. Dusky-footed woodrat abundance in different-aged forests in 

northwestern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 57(2):373-382. 

Schirokauer, D., T. Keeler-Wolf, T. Meinke, and P.van der Leeden. 2003. Plant community 

classification and mapping project final report. Unpublished report. National Park Service, 

Point Reyes National Seashore, Point Reyes, CA. 

Stralberg, D., K. E. Fehring, N. Nur, L. Y. Pomara, D. B. Adams, D. Hatch, G. R. Geupel, and S. 

Allen. 2009. Modeling nest-site occurrence for the northern spotted owl at its southern range 

limit in central California. Landscape and Urban Planning 90:76-85. 

Starcevich, L. A. and K. Steinhorst. 2010. Analysis of power to detect trends in occupancy and 

fecundity in prairie falcon and spotted owl populations. Unpublished report to San Francisco 

Bay Area Network of the Inventory and Monitoring Program, National Park Service. 

University of Idaho, Corvallis, OR. 
137

Wiens J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3:385–397. 

Willy A. 1992. Habitat ecology of the dusky-footed woodrat in Marin County, California. M.S. 

thesis. University of California, Berkeley. 66pp. 
138

Appendix SOP 5A. R code for occupancy and fecundity 

estimation and trend analysis. 

1. Download and open R. 

Go to http://www.r-project.org/ and click on "CRAN" in the left-hand menu. Choose a 

CRAN mirror site. Under "Download and Install R," select the appropriate platform then 

click on "base." From here, the installation files may be downloaded and run. Load the 

version of R that matches the version under which the VGAM package was written 

(currently version 2.9.2). Unfortunately, you will not know if they match until you install 

R and run the VGAM package, but an error message will occur if the versions do not 

match. 

Open R and install the VGAM package. Click on the menu item "Package" then select 

"Install package(s)." Select a CRAN mirror site then scroll to the bottom of the dropdown list and select VGAM. Load the package by typing " library(VGAM)" (without the 

quotes) at the R prompt. After an R package is installed, it must be loaded every time it 

is used in a new R session. 

2. Read the data file. 

To read a data file into R, first change the working directory to the directory in which the 

data are stored by selecting "File\Change dir..." and selecting the appropriate directory. 

The data should be saved as a tab-delimited text file with a header in the first row to use 

the following command: 

SPOWOcc<- read.table("SPOWOcc.txt", header=TRUE, sep = "\t") 

For this example, the pilot data for the occupancy and fecundity analyses are provided in 

Appendix SOP 5B. Copy and paste the two commands into R to obtain the pilot data. 

3. Obtain models for occupancy and detection.

Model selection is conducted using AIC as the selection criterion. Use site-level, yearlevel, and site-by-year level predictors for the occupancy model and use variables 

measured at the visit level for detection models. Compare each pair of occupancy and 

detection models and obtain the set that provides the lowest AIC value. The R code 

provided in the next step may serve as a template for coding occupancy and detection 

models for the VGAM package. AIC values may be obtained with the following function 

call for a model names "fit": AICvlm(fit).

If a fit generates a warning message like the following, then a regularity condition has 

been violated and the standard errors may be calculated in error: 

 
139

Warning messages:

1: In checkwz(wz, M = M, trace = trace, wzeps = control$wzepsilon) :

213 elements replaced by 1.819e-12

The standard errors of the predicted values may be quite large, which can be checked by 

examining the output of the predict.vglm function. If this warning message is 

obtained, this model may produce erroneous standard errors. Select a different model 

that meets regularity conditions. 

4. Estimate occupancy and obtain confidence intervals.

# The following function is used for the estimation of occupancy and detection 

# rates with the models obtained by comparing AIC values. The occupancy 

# model contains terms for the year and an indicator of core sites. The detection 

# model depends only on the month in which the survey was conducted. 

SPOWlik.implicit <-function(parms,vars, data){

tmp<-rep(0,7)

names(tmp)<-c("pconst","psiconst", "year.o", "barred", "daytime", 

"call", "obsnum" )

tmp[vars]<-parms

OccData<-data.frame(unique(cbind(data$Year, data$Barred)))

names(OccData)<-c("Year", "Barred")

M<-dim(OccData)[1]

DetData<-data.frame(unique(cbind(data$Daytime, data$Call, 

data$ObsNum)))

names(DetData)<-c("Daytime", "Call", "ObsNum")

T<-dim(DetData)[1]

Rows<- dim(data)[1]

ones.Occ<-rep(1,M)

ones.Det<-rep(1,T)

year.o<- OccData$Year

barred<- OccData$Barred

daytime<-DetData$Daytime

call<- DetData$Call

obsnum<- DetData$ObsNum

# Model detection probs: 

pmat<-expit(tmp[1]*ones.Det + tmp[5]*daytime + tmp[6]*call + 

tmp[7]*obsnum)

# Model occupancy rates

psi<-expit(tmp[2]*ones.Occ + tmp[3]*year.o+ tmp[4]*barred)

LogLik<-rep(NA,M)

ymat<-data$PR

for(i in 1:M){ # Site loop

prob<-rep(1,T)

for (t in 1:T) { # YEAR loop
140

index<-(1:Rows)*as.numeric((data$Year== OccData[i,1]) & (data$Barred== 

OccData[i,2]) & (data$Daytime== DetData[t,1]) & (data$Call== 

DetData[t,2]) & (data$ObsNum== DetData[t,3]))

index<-index[index!=0]

m<-length(index)

if(m>0) {

 yvec<-ymat[index] 

 ysum<-sum(yvec)

 nodet<-as.numeric(ysum==0)

# Calc Log likelihood

prob[t]<- ((psi[i]* pmat[t])^ysum)*((1- (psi[i]*pmat[t]))^(m-ysum))

 } # end if

 

 } # End Year loop

# Calc prob of occurrence for each site

 LogLik[i]<-log(prod(prob))

 } # End Site loop

 sum(-1*LogLik)

} 

# Copy and paste these general functions into R for summarizing results: 

expit<-function(x) ifelse(x>700,1,exp(x)/(1+exp(x))) 

logit<-function(x) log(x/(1-x))

# Obtain the occupancy and detection models. Analysis of the pilot data indicated # that 

more accurate estimates were obtained by obtaining reasonable starting 

# values for the regression parameters. Initial parameter estimates are obtained 

# for the full occupancy model from a simple logistic regression fit that assumes 

# perfect detection. Note that the intercept estimate is used as the initial estimate 

# for the intercepts of both the occupancy model and the detection model. 

fit.full.logreg<-glm(PR~ Year + Barred + Daytime + Call + ObsNum, 

family = binomial, data=SPOWOcc)

summary(fit.full.logreg) 

# Partial output: 

Coefficients:

 Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) 

(Intercept) 4.29133 0.74572 5.755 8.69e-09 ***

Year -0.10688 0.02479 -4.312 1.62e-05 ***

Barred -0.37174 0.22689 -1.638 0.1013 

Daytime 1.75383 0.13030 13.460 < 2e-16 ***

Call -4.02091 0.71337 -5.636 1.74e-08 ***

ObsNum 0.19897 0.08109 2.454 0.0141 * 
141

# Obtain maximum likelihood estimates for the regression parameters. 

v= c("pconst","psiconst", "year.o", "barred", "daytime", "call", 

"obsnum" )

x<-nlm(SPOWlik.implicit, p=c(4.29133, 4.29133, -0.10688, -0.37174, 

1.75383, -4.02091, 0.19897),vars=v, data=SPOWOcc, hessian=TRUE)

# Note that the output includes two warnings that "NA/Inf" replaced by maximum 

# positive value." This indicates that the Hessian matrix is not positive-definite 

# and the standard errors may be inaccurate. This model is used for trend testing 

# with the likelihood ratio test which is not affected by the Hessian matrix. The 

# model that excludes the year term was found to have lowest AIC and a positive- 

# definite Hessian matrix. 

# Examine the fitted values of occupancy and detection rates: 

phat<-expit(data.matrix(cbind(1, SPOWOcc[,6:8]))%*% data.matrix(x 

$estimate[c(1,4:6)]))

pihat<-expit(data.matrix(cbind(1, SPOWOcc[,c(1,5)]))%*% 

data.matrix(x$estimate[c(2:4)]))

unique(cbind(Barred=SPOWOcc$Barred, Daytime=SPOWOcc$Daytime, 

Call=SPOWOcc$Call, ObsNum=SPOWOcc$ObsNum, 

pihat=round(pihat,4),phat=round(phat,4))) 

# Obtain estimated occupancy probabilities and CI's using the invariance property of 

# MLEs. Account for the fact that VGAM predicts the probability that site is 

# unoccupied: 

X.Occ<- data.matrix(cbind(1, SPOWOcc[,c(1,5)]))

Beta.Occ<- data.matrix(x$estimate[2:4])

Var.Beta.Occ<-solve(x$hessian) 

yhat<- X.Occ%*% Beta.Occ

SE.yhat<-sqrt(diag( X.Occ%*% Var.Beta.Occ[2:4,2:4] %*% t(X.Occ)))

# Estimated occupancy near 1 and estimated SE's near 0 generate a Hessian matrix 

# that is not positive-definite. 

alpha<-0.20

Z.alpha<- qnorm(1-alpha/2)

OccCILow.Untrans<- yhat - Z.alpha* SE.yhat

OccCIHigh.Untrans<- yhat + Z.alpha* SE.yhat

OccCILow <-expit(OccCILow.Untrans) # CI low of prob occupied

OccCIHigh <-expit(OccCIHigh.Untrans) # CI low of prob occupied

Occ.Ests<-data.frame(round(cbind(Year=SPOWOcc$Year+1999, 

Barred=SPOWOcc$Barred, Daytime=SPOWOcc$Daytime, Call=SPOWOcc$Call, 

ObsNum=SPOWOcc$ObsNum, pihat= expit(yhat), OccCILow, OccCIHigh),4))

names(Occ.Ests)<-c("Year", "Barred", "Daytime", "Call", "ObsNum", "pihat", 

"pihat.CI.Low", "pihat.CI.High")

unique(Occ.Ests[order(Occ.Ests$Year, Occ.Ests$Barred, Occ.Ests$Daytime, 

Occ.Ests$Call, Occ.Ests$ObsNum),])
142

5. Test for decreasing trend in occupancy. 

# Plot occupancy estimates by year: 

PiByYr<-data.frame(unique(cbind(Yr= SPOWOcc$Year+1999,Barred= SPOWOcc$Barred, 

pihat=pihat)))

names(PiByYr)[2:3]<-c("Barred", "pihat") 

plot(PiByYr$Yr, PiByYr$pihat, ylim=c(0,1), pch="")

points(PiByYr$Yr[PiByYr$Barred==1], PiByYr$pihat[PiByYr$Barred==1], pch=1)

points(PiByYr$Yr[PiByYr$Barred==0], PiByYr$pihat[PiByYr$Barred==0], pch=2)

legend(2000, .3, pch=1:2, legend=c("Barred owl presence", "Barred owl 

absence"))

# The plot indicates that sites with barred owl presence exhibited substantially 

# lower occupancy levels in the most recent three years. 

# To conduct the likelihood ratio test for trend, a reduced model that excludes the 

# year term in the occupancy model is fit and compared to the full model to 

# determine if the year coefficient is significantly smaller than zero. 

# Obtain starting values for the reduced occupancy model from a simple logistic 

# regression fit that assumes perfect detection. 

fit.red.logreg <-glm(PR~ Barred + Daytime + Call + ObsNum, family = 

binomial, data=SPOWOcc)

summary(fit.red.logreg) 

# Partial output: 

Coefficients:

 Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) 

(Intercept) 3.69101 0.73203 5.042 4.60e-07 ***

Barred -0.58602 0.22111 -2.650 0.008042 ** 

Daytime 1.80314 0.12919 13.958 < 2e-16 ***

Call -4.12134 0.71308 -5.780 7.49e-09 ***

ObsNum 0.28480 0.07892 3.609 0.000307 ***

v2= c("pconst","psiconst", "barred", "daytime", "call", "obsnum" )

x2<-nlm(SPOWlik.implicit, p = c(3.69101, 3.69101, -0.58602, 1.80314, -

4.12134, 0.28480),vars=v2, data=SPOWOcc, hessian=TRUE)

chisq.test<- 2*( x2$minimum-x$minimum)

p.value<-pchisq(chisq.test, 1, lower.tail=FALSE)

c(chisq.test, p.value)

# We reject null hypothesis of a one-sided test of decreasing trend if the p-value is 

# greater alpha and if the coefficient for the trend from the full fit is negative. 

# Here we are testing at the 0.20 level so this p-value <0.0001 indicates that 

# a significant decline has occurred in the occupancy trend. 
143

6. Estimate detection rates and obtain confidence intervals. 

X.Det<- data.matrix(cbind(1, SPOWOcc[,6:8]))

Beta.Det<- data.matrix(x$estimate[c(1,5:7)])

Var.Beta.Det<-solve(x$hessian) 

yhat.Det <- X.Det %*% Beta.Det

SE.yhat.Det <-sqrt(diag( X.Det %*% Var.Beta.Det [c(1,5:7), c(1,5:7)] %*% 

t(X.Det)))

DetCILow.Untrans<- yhat.Det - Z.alpha* SE.yhat.Det

DetCIHigh.Untrans<- yhat.Det + Z.alpha* SE.yhat.Det

DetCILow <-expit(DetCILow.Untrans)

DetCIHigh <-expit(DetCIHigh.Untrans)

Det.Ests<-data.frame(round(cbind(Year=SPOWOcc$Year+1999, 

Daytime=SPOWOcc$Daytime, Call=SPOWOcc$Call, ObsNum=SPOWOcc$ObsNum, 

phat=expit(yhat.Det), DetCILow, DetCIHigh),4))

names(Det.Ests)<-c("Year", "Daytime", "Call", "ObsNum", "phat", 

"phat.CI.Low", "phat.CI.High")

unique(Det.Ests[order(Det.Ests$Year, Det.Ests$Daytime, Det.Ests$Call, 

Det.Ests$ObsNum),])

7. Estimate fecundity and obtain confidence intervals.

The VGAM package allows the separate modeling for occupancy and detection rates. A 

list of matrices, denoted as H, is used to indicate in which model each term occurs. An 

intercept falls into both the occupancy and the detection model, so the H matrix for the 

intercept term is a 2x2 matrix with rows indicating regression terms and columns 

indicating occupancy and detection model inclusion, respectively. The Year and Barred 

terms were included in the occupancy model only and the Daytime, Call, and ObsNum 

terms were used to predict detection rates, so each of these terms includes only one 

column. For more help with model specification in VGAM, use help(constraints) or 

see the following link: 

http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~yee/VGAM/doc/VGAM.pdf. 

# Load the VGAM library. 

library(VGAM) 

# Create "H" matrices to specify the models for fecundity rate and the probability 

# of not obtaining a zero: 

H1<-matrix(c(1,0,0,1),2,2) # Intercept terms

H2<-matrix(c(0,1),2,1) # Year term 

Hlist<-list("(Intercept)"=H1, YEAR=H2)

fit.full = vgam(NUMFLEDG/3 ~ YEAR, zibinomial(zero=NULL), 

constraints=Hlist, data= SPOWFec, maxit=1000, 

weight=rep(3,dim(SPOWFec)[1])) 
144

# Obtain the estimates of the regression coefficients: 

Coefs<-Coef(fit.full) 

Coefs 

# Obtain estimates of the fledgling fecundity rate: 

Fec.Ests<-predict.vglm(fit.full, se.fit=TRUE)

alpha<-0.20

Z.alpha<- qnorm(1-alpha/2)

FecCILow.Untrans<-Fec.Ests$fitted.values[,2]- Z.alpha* Fec.Ests$ se.fit[,2]

FecCIHigh.Untrans<-Fec.Ests$fitted.values[,2]+ Z.alpha* Fec.Ests$

se.fit[,2]

FecCILow <-expit(FecCILow.Untrans) # CI low 

FecCIHigh <-expit(FecCIHigh.Untrans) # CI high 

Fec.Ests.CI<-data.frame(round(cbind(Year=SPOWFec$YEAR+1999, 

phat=expit(Fec.Ests$fitted.values[,2]), phat.CI.Low =FecCILow, 

phat.CI.High =FecCIHigh),6))

unique(Fec.Ests.CI[order(Fec.Ests.CI$Year),])

# Obtain estimates of the probability of not observing an extra zero: 

ProbZero<-1-expit(Coefs[1])

ProbZero.CILow.Untrans<- Fec.Ests$fitted.values[,1]- Z.alpha* Fec.Ests$

se.fit[,1]

ProbZero.CIHigh.Untrans <-Fec.Ests$fitted.values[,1]+ Z.alpha* Fec.Ests$

se.fit[,1]

ProbZero.CILow <-expit(ProbZero.CILow.Untrans)

ProbZero.CIHigh <-expit(ProbZero.CIHigh.Untrans)

unique(round(cbind(ProbZero, CILow=ProbZero.CILow, 

CIHigh=ProbZero.CIHigh),4))

8. Test for decreasing trend in fecundity. 

# Compute the likelihood ratio test for trend: 

H1<-matrix(c(1,0,0,1),2,2) # Intercept terms

H2<-matrix(c(0,0),2,1) # Year term - excluded

Hlist2<-list("(Intercept)"=H1, Year=H2) 

fit.red = vgam(NUMFLEDG/3 ~ 1, zibinomial(zero=NULL), 

constraints=Hlist2, data= SPOWFec, maxit=1000, 

weight=rep(3,dim(SPOWFec)[1])) 

# Compute the p-value for LRT statistic: 

chisq.test<- -2*(logLik(fit.red)- logLik(fit.full))

p.value<-pchisq(chisq.test, 1, lower.tail=FALSE)

c(chisq.test, p.value)

# Reject null hypothesis of a one-sided test of decreasing trend if p-value < alpha 

# = 0.2 and if the coefficient for the trend is negative. Here we fail to reject the 

# null hypothesis with a p-value of 0.9479. 
145

Appendix SOP 5B. Example pilot data for occupancy and 

fecundity analysis 

Occupancy data 

SPOWOcc <- 

structure(list(Year = c(1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 7, 1, 3, 

2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 6, 3, 

4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 9, 7, 7, 7, 6, 9, 9, 8, 8, 

8, 6, 7, 1, 6, 3, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 

4, 2, 0, 0, 0, 2, 2, 2, 0, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1, 3, 3, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 1, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 

1, 9, 9, 1, 8, 9, 3, 9, 8, 8, 8, 8, 2, 2, 2, 6, 6, 3, 3, 3, 3, 

5, 5, 5, 8, 6, 3, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 

2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 6, 3, 3, 7, 

4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 1, 6, 7, 4, 7, 7, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 6, 

5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 6, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 6, 0, 2, 8, 

7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 7, 8, 5, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 0, 8, 0, 7, 1, 

0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 7, 2, 4, 

3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 2, 4, 0, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 2, 7, 0, 

0, 7, 7, 7, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 2, 7, 0, 2, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 

2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 7, 2, 2, 5, 5, 5, 

5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 8, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 7, 7, 7, 8, 3, 8, 

8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 8, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 

5, 7, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8, 1, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 

9, 1, 6, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 4, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 

2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 0, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 4, 0, 3, 

4, 3, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 9, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 

4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 6, 4, 6, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 9, 6, 6, 

6, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 1, 8, 8, 1, 9, 9, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 8, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 3, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 

4, 4, 5, 5, 7, 5, 5, 3, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 4, 6, 7, 2, 9, 9, 9, 9, 

1, 2, 2, 1, 8, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 8, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 

5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 5, 9, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 

6, 7, 4, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 6, 4, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 9, 7, 

5, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 7, 5, 4, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 9, 1, 5, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 9, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3, 3, 0, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 

5, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 9, 8, 9, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 9, 9, 

9, 9, 9, 9, 8, 5, 8, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 

2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 3, 4, 3, 5, 

4, 4, 0, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 1, 0, 0, 9, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9, 0, 

6, 6, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 9, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 

8, 1, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 6, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 4, 1, 

1, 6, 8, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 6, 7, 3, 8, 8, 8, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7, 3, 

7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 8, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 6, 6, 4, 4, 0, 9, 9, 

9, 9, 0, 9, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 6, 9, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 

3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 9, 9, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 2, 5, 

5, 5, 5, 6, 5, 1, 2, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 2, 5, 9, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 5, 

6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 6, 5, 5, 5, 9, 5, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 

8, 9, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 0, 7, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 7, 0, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 4, 5, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 7, 4, 3, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 

7, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 7, 9, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 9, 7, 9, 9, 9, 0, 9, 

0, 0, 9, 9, 5, 4, 0, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 

4, 3, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 7, 3, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 

6, 6, 5, 2, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 8, 5, 1, 2, 2, 0, 0, 

0, 1, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 1, 1, 7, 7, 3, 7, 3, 3, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 

7, 7, 7, 2, 7, 2, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 9, 2, 6, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 

5, 6, 3, 7, 8, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 9, 6, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 

9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 7, 9, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 3, 7, 7, 3, 

3, 3, 7, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 

7, 4, 1, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 0, 4, 4, 6, 4, 4, 4, 

4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 5, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 

0, 7, 6, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 0, 0, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 
146

7, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 

3, 0, 3, 5, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 0, 3, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 

7, 0, 0, 0, 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 

9, 9, 9, 8, 9, 8, 9, 9, 8, 6, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 5, 6, 5, 5, 8, 

7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 1, 6, 5, 8, 2, 5, 3, 

3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 0, 2, 5, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 8, 5, 6, 6, 5, 8, 

5, 5, 5, 7, 7, 6, 7, 5, 5, 6, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 1, 6, 1, 5, 1, 2, 

7, 6, 6, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 6, 6, 6, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 

3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 7, 2, 3, 3, 3, 

2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 7, 7, 7, 7, 5, 1, 5, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 

1, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 0, 0, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 

2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 7, 7, 7, 3, 3, 7, 7, 

7, 3, 3, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 

6, 2, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 

1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 7, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 

2, 5, 7, 5, 4, 4, 6, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 4, 6, 6, 4, 

6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 1, 9, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 6, 7, 

7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 7, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 7, 5, 5, 4, 7, 0, 8, 8, 8, 

8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 

2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 4, 1, 0, 0, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 

4, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 8, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8, 6, 0, 

3, 0, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 5, 8, 0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 8, 2, 

1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 8, 3, 5, 3, 3, 

4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 0, 

9, 9, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9, 1, 1, 0, 2, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 1, 

2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 9, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 9, 9, 2, 4, 3, 

3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 7, 8, 7, 8, 

8, 6, 8, 8, 8, 8, 3, 9, 9, 9, 9, 8, 6, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 7, 0, 

0, 0, 7, 9, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 0, 8, 7, 9, 7, 7, 0, 0, 0, 8, 2, 

5, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 7, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 0, 3, 2, 

2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 0, 5, 6, 5, 5, 5, 

5, 6, 6, 5, 2, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 6, 5, 9, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 

8, 9, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 9, 7, 8, 7, 7, 7, 9, 8, 8, 8, 7, 9, 9, 9, 

9, 9, 9, 8, 7, 9, 9, 7, 9, 9, 9, 7, 7, 7, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9, 0, 0, 

1, 1, 9, 9, 9, 9, 1, 2, 9, 8, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 

2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 

4, 8, 3, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 2, 9, 4, 2, 

9, 9, 9, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 9, 2, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3, 4, 7, 3, 7, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 9, 7, 7, 7, 

7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 1, 3, 1, 7, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 7, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 

3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 7, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 

6, 6, 6, 7, 7), LOCATION_NAME = structure(c(1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 

5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 

5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 

5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 

6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 

6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 

6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 

6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 

6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 

7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 

7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 

7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 

8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 

8L, 8L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 

9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 

9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 10L, 10L, 

10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 

10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 
147

10L, 10L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 

11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 

11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 

11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 11L, 

11L, 11L, 11L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 

12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 

12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 

12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 13L, 

13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 

13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 

13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 

13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 

13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 

13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 

13L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 

14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 

14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 

14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 

14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 

14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 14L, 15L, 15L, 

15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 

15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 

15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 

15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 

15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 

16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 

16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 

16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 

16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 

16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 

16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 17L, 

17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 

17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 

17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 

17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 

17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 

17L, 17L, 17L, 17L, 18L, 18L, 18L, 18L, 18L, 18L, 18L, 18L, 18L, 

19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 

19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 

19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 

19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 20L, 20L, 20L, 

20L, 20L, 20L, 20L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 

21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 

21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 

21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 

21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 23L, 23L, 

23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 24L, 

24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 

24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 

24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 

24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 

24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 

25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 26L, 26L, 

26L, 26L, 26L, 26L, 27L, 27L, 27L, 27L, 27L, 27L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 

28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 

28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 

28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 29L, 

29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 

29L, 30L, 30L, 30L, 30L, 30L, 30L, 30L, 30L, 30L, 30L, 30L, 30L, 

31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 32L, 32L, 32L, 32L, 32L, 

32L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 

33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 

33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 

33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 33L, 

33L, 33L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 35L, 35L, 35L, 35L, 36L, 

36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 

36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 

36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 

36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 

37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 

38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 
148

38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 

38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 

38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 

38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 

39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 40L, 40L, 

40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 

40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 

40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 

40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 41L, 41L, 41L, 

41L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 

42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 

42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 

42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 

43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 44L, 44L, 44L, 44L, 44L, 44L, 44L, 45L, 45L, 

45L, 45L, 45L, 45L, 45L, 45L, 45L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 

46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 

46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 

46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 

46L, 46L, 46L, 46L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 

47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 

47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 

47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 

47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 

48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 

48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 

48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 

48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 

48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 48L, 

49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 

49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 

49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 

49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 

49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 

49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 

50L, 50L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 

51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 

51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 

51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 

51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 

51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 51L, 

51L, 51L, 51L, 52L, 52L, 52L, 52L, 52L, 52L, 52L, 52L, 52L, 53L, 

53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 

53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 

53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 

53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 

53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 

53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 53L, 54L, 54L, 54L, 54L, 54L, 54L, 

54L, 54L, 54L, 54L, 54L, 54L, 54L, 54L, 54L, 54L, 55L, 56L, 56L, 

56L, 56L, 56L, 56L, 56L, 56L, 56L, 56L, 56L, 56L, 56L, 56L, 56L, 

56L, 57L, 57L, 57L, 57L, 57L, 57L, 57L, 57L, 57L, 57L, 58L, 58L, 

58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 

58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 

58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 

58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 

58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 59L, 

59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 

59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 

59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 

59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 

59L, 59L, 59L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 

60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 

60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 

60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 

60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L), .Label = c("Alamere", 

"Arroyo Hondo", "Audubon Canyon", "Baldy Trail", "Barnabe North", 

"Bear Valley", "Bike Path", "Bolema Trail", "Camp Eastwood", 

"Cheda Creek", "Coppermine", "Devils Gulch", "Divide Meadow", 

"Dogtown", "Eucalyptus Gulch", "Five Brooks", "Fox Drive", "Giacomini", 

"Glen Trail", "Greenpicker Trail", "Haggarty Gulch", "Hagmaier Ponds", 

"Homestead Valley", "Horse Trail", "Indian Beach", "Inverness Valley Inn", 

"Jewell Trail", "Kent Canyon", "Lookout", "McCormick Creek", 
149

"McIsaac Gulch", "McKinnan Gulch", "Meadow Trail", "Morses Gulch", 

"Mt Vision Road", "Mt Wittenberg", "Mud Lake", "Muir Woods", 

"Old Pine Trail", "Olema Cemetery", "Pantoll", "Pike County Gulch", 

"Pine Gulch N2", "Pine Gulch North", "Pine Gulch South", "Pioneer Tree Trail", 

"Platform Bridge", "Randall Gulch", "Rifle Range", "Sir Francis Drake", 

"Stewart Trail", "Stinson Gulch", "Swimming Hole", "Teixeira", 

"Volunteer Canyon", "Webb Creek", "West Fir Top", "West Peters Dam", 

"Wilkins Gulch", "Zanardi Ranch"), class = "factor"), Location = c(1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 

6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 

6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 

6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 

8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 

8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 

8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 

10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 

10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 

10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 

10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 

10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 

10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 10L, 12L, 

12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 

12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 

12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 

12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 15L, 15L, 

15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 

15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 

19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 

19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 

19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 

21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 

21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 

21L, 21L, 21L, 21L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 

22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 

22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 

22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 

22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 22L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 

23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 

23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 

23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 

23L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 

24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 

24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 

24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 

24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 

24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 24L, 

24L, 24L, 24L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 

25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 

25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 

25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 

25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 

25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 25L, 

29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 

29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 

29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 

29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 

29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 29L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 

31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 

31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 

31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 

31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 

31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 

31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 

31L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 

34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 
150

34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 

34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 

34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 

34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 36L, 

36L, 36L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 

37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 

37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 

37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 37L, 38L, 

38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 38L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 

39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 

39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 

39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 

39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 39L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 40L, 

42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 42L, 

42L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 

43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 

43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 

43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 

43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 43L, 44L, 

44L, 44L, 44L, 44L, 44L, 44L, 44L, 44L, 44L, 44L, 44L, 44L, 44L, 

47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 47L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 49L, 50L, 

50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 

50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 

50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 50L, 

50L, 55L, 55L, 55L, 55L, 55L, 55L, 55L, 55L, 55L, 55L, 55L, 55L, 

55L, 55L, 55L, 57L, 57L, 57L, 57L, 57L, 57L, 57L, 57L, 57L, 57L, 

57L, 57L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 58L, 59L, 59L, 59L, 

59L, 59L, 59L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 

60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 

60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 

60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 

60L, 60L, 60L, 60L, 61L, 61L, 61L, 61L, 61L, 61L, 62L, 62L, 62L, 

62L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 

63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 

63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 

63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 63L, 64L, 64L, 64L, 64L, 64L, 64L, 

64L, 64L, 64L, 64L, 64L, 64L, 64L, 64L, 64L, 64L, 64L, 64L, 64L, 

64L, 64L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 

65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 

65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 

65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 

65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 65L, 69L, 69L, 

69L, 69L, 69L, 69L, 69L, 69L, 69L, 69L, 69L, 69L, 69L, 69L, 69L, 

70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 

70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 

70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 

70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 70L, 71L, 

71L, 71L, 71L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 

74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 

74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 

74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 74L, 75L, 75L, 

75L, 75L, 75L, 75L, 75L, 75L, 76L, 76L, 76L, 76L, 76L, 76L, 76L, 

77L, 77L, 77L, 77L, 77L, 77L, 77L, 77L, 77L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 

78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 

78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 

78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 

78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 78L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 

79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 

79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 

79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 

79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 79L, 80L, 

80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 

80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 

80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 

80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 

80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 80L, 

80L, 80L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 

81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 

81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 

81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 

81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 
151

81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 81L, 89L, 

89L, 89L, 89L, 89L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 

92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 

92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 

92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 

92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 

92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 

92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 92L, 93L, 93L, 93L, 93L, 93L, 93L, 93L, 93L, 

93L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 

94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 

94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 

94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 

94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 

94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 94L, 95L, 95L, 95L, 95L, 

95L, 95L, 95L, 95L, 95L, 95L, 95L, 95L, 95L, 95L, 95L, 95L, 99L, 

101L, 101L, 101L, 101L, 101L, 101L, 101L, 101L, 101L, 101L, 101L, 

101L, 101L, 101L, 101L, 101L, 102L, 102L, 102L, 102L, 102L, 102L, 

102L, 102L, 102L, 102L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 

103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 

103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 

103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 

103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 

103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 

103L, 103L, 103L, 103L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 

105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 

105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 

105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 

105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 

105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 105L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 

106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 

106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 

106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 

106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 

106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L, 106L), Month = c(5L, 

3L, 6L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 5L, 3L, 5L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 

6L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 6L, 7L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 

4L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 

3L, 7L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 6L, 

3L, 3L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 7L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 

3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 3L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 

6L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 7L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 

4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 7L, 5L, 5L, 

5L, 3L, 4L, 8L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 6L, 7L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

3L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 3L, 3L, 

4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 7L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 

4L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 

5L, 6L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 7L, 3L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 4L, 4L, 

5L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 

7L, 7L, 7L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 5L, 

4L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 

3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 5L, 

4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 6L, 5L, 

5L, 4L, 3L, 7L, 6L, 5L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 

7L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 7L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 3L, 6L, 6L, 

5L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 7L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 3L, 

4L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 8L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 

3L, 4L, 7L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 6L, 4L, 

4L, 6L, 7L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 2L, 3L, 6L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 

4L, 7L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 6L, 7L, 5L, 

4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

5L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 3L, 5L, 7L, 3L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 

5L, 6L, 7L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 

3L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 

4L, 5L, 7L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 7L, 

3L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 6L, 

4L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 

5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 6L, 3L, 7L, 

7L, 7L, 7L, 3L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 3L, 

4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 7L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 7L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 
152

3L, 7L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 

5L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 

3L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 5L, 3L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 

5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 

3L, 6L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 7L, 4L, 4L, 

4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 7L, 7L, 5L, 7L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 

5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 3L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 

7L, 6L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 7L, 6L, 

6L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 3L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 7L, 7L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 

5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 6L, 4L, 

3L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 

6L, 6L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 3L, 

5L, 4L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 4L, 6L, 3L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 

6L, 6L, 3L, 3L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 

5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 6L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 

4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 7L, 5L, 3L, 5L, 3L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 

6L, 3L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 8L, 4L, 6L, 

5L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 

5L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 8L, 8L, 3L, 4L, 

7L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 

5L, 5L, 7L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 7L, 3L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 7L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 6L, 4L, 3L, 

3L, 3L, 7L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 7L, 8L, 8L, 3L, 

7L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 7L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 

6L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 

3L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 6L, 3L, 6L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 

3L, 7L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 7L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 

4L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 8L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 7L, 5L, 3L, 

4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 

3L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 7L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 8L, 6L, 7L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 

6L, 5L, 8L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 8L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 3L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 

5L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 5L, 7L, 4L, 4L, 7L, 3L, 4L, 

5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 

6L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 3L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 

5L, 5L, 3L, 7L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 7L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 

6L, 7L, 8L, 8L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 7L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 

7L, 5L, 7L, 3L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 

6L, 8L, 8L, 7L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 8L, 

8L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 

4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 

4L, 6L, 7L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 4L, 7L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 

4L, 6L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 

5L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 8L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 7L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 

5L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 7L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 

5L, 3L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 5L, 3L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 

5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 6L, 3L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 

6L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 

6L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 5L, 3L, 4L, 7L, 5L, 3L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 6L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 6L, 

6L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 7L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 4L, 6L, 3L, 5L, 

3L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 

5L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 6L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 

6L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 

7L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 

5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 

6L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 4L, 3L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 

6L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 6L, 4L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 3L, 5L, 7L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 

7L, 7L, 3L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 

3L, 4L, 5L, 7L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 

5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 

3L, 7L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 

4L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 

6L, 5L, 5L, 7L, 3L, 7L, 7L, 6L, 7L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 

5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 6L, 3L, 6L, 7L, 
153

3L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 7L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 7L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 

5L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 3L, 7L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 5L, 3L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 8L, 3L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 7L, 

6L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 7L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 7L, 5L, 3L, 

4L, 4L, 7L, 6L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 

4L, 3L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 7L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 

5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 3L, 4L, 3L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 3L, 

5L, 7L, 7L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

5L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 3L, 7L, 4L, 3L, 6L, 7L, 6L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 

4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 

5L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 

5L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 

5L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 3L, 7L, 6L, 

5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 

4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 7L, 5L, 4L, 

4L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 4L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 

6L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 3L, 3L, 

4L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 

3L, 3L, 4L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 

3L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 7L, 3L, 

4L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 3L, 3L, 

7L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 

6L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 7L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 4L, 5L, 

5L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 7L, 3L, 4L, 

5L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 7L, 3L, 3L, 

4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 

4L, 5L, 4L, 5L), Barred = c(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 
154

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 

1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0), Daytime = c(1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 
155

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 

0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 

0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 

0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 
156

1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 

0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L), Call = c(0, 

1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 

0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 

1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 

1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 
157

1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 

1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 

0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 

0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 

1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 

0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 

1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 

1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 

0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 

0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 

1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 

0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 
158

0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 

0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 

0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 

0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 

1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1), ObsNum = c(2, 

1, 3, 4, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 

3, 3, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 2, 4, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 

2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8, 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 

2, 2, 4, 2, 4, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 4, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 

1, 3, 2, 4, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 

3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 4, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 

1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 

2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 4, 2, 

1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 6, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 

2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 

2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 1, 3, 

2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 4, 

2, 5, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 5, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 

2, 1, 1, 1, 9, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 3, 2, 

2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 2, 4, 3, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 

4, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 

2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 2, 3, 5, 3, 3, 4, 3, 1, 5, 1, 1, 4, 2, 2, 3, 

3, 2, 2, 2, 5, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 4, 3, 5, 4, 2, 4, 2, 4, 

4, 5, 3, 2, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 

1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 

1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 4, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 

2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 

2, 3, 2, 2, 5, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 

1, 3, 3, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 

2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 

2, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 4, 5, 3, 1, 

2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 

1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 

3, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 1, 2, 2, 3, 1, 3, 2, 

2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 

3, 3, 1, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 

2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 3, 2, 4, 3, 2, 2, 

2, 1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 

2, 2, 2, 4, 3, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1, 3, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 

2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 2, 1, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 

1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 3, 

2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 3, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 2, 

1, 2, 1, 2, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 

3, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 

1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 4, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 

1, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 3, 12, 1, 1, 4, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 

2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 

2, 1, 2, 4, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 

2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 

2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 

2, 3, 1, 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 

1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 4, 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 

4, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 

2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 

2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 3, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 
159

2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 4, 3, 3, 

4, 7, 3, 4, 2, 1, 1, 8, 6, 4, 3, 3, 6, 3, 4, 2, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 

1, 3, 2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 

2, 3, 3, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 

1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 

2, 1, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 4, 3, 1, 2, 1, 

3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 1, 2, 1, 5, 4, 2, 

2, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 2, 4, 4, 

2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 1, 

2, 4, 2, 1, 4, 3, 2, 4, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 

1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 

2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 3, 6, 4, 4, 6, 3, 4, 3, 5, 5, 

1, 5, 7, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 2, 1, 1, 2, 5, 4, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 

1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 

2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 1, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 

3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 

1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 

2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 2, 1, 2, 1, 5, 3, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 

1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 

1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 2, 

3, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 2, 

2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 

3, 3, 1, 3, 3, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 4, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 1, 

1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 3, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 

1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 

2, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 

3, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 4, 3, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1, 3, 1, 

3, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 

2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 

2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2, 0, 3, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4, 

2, 3, 1, 4, 2, 3, 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 

4, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 

2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 1, 2, 

2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 

2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 4, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 

1, 6, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 

1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 

3, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 

2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 

2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 

2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 3, 4, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 

2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 

1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 5, 3, 3, 3, 1, 2, 

4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 

2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3, 

2, 3, 2, 4, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 3, 

3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2), PR = c(1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 
160

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 
161

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L)), .Names = c("Year", "LOCATION_NAME", "Location", 

"Month", "Barred", "Daytime", "Call", "ObsNum", "PR"), class = "data.frame", row.names = c(1L, 

2L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 8L, 9L, 10L, 11L, 12L, 13L, 14L, 15L, 

16L, 17L, 18L, 19L, 20L, 21L, 22L, 23L, 24L, 25L, 26L, 27L, 28L, 

29L, 30L, 31L, 32L, 33L, 34L, 35L, 36L, 37L, 38L, 39L, 40L, 41L, 

42L, 43L, 44L, 45L, 46L, 47L, 48L, 49L, 50L, 51L, 52L, 53L, 54L, 

55L, 56L, 57L, 58L, 59L, 60L, 61L, 62L, 63L, 64L, 65L, 66L, 67L, 

68L, 69L, 70L, 71L, 72L, 73L, 74L, 75L, 76L, 77L, 78L, 79L, 80L, 

81L, 82L, 83L, 84L, 85L, 86L, 87L, 88L, 89L, 90L, 91L, 92L, 93L, 

94L, 95L, 96L, 97L, 98L, 99L, 100L, 101L, 102L, 103L, 104L, 105L, 

106L, 107L, 108L, 109L, 110L, 111L, 112L, 113L, 114L, 115L, 116L, 

117L, 118L, 119L, 120L, 121L, 122L, 123L, 124L, 125L, 126L, 127L, 

128L, 129L, 130L, 131L, 132L, 133L, 134L, 135L, 136L, 137L, 138L, 

139L, 140L, 141L, 142L, 143L, 144L, 145L, 146L, 147L, 148L, 149L, 

150L, 151L, 152L, 153L, 154L, 155L, 156L, 157L, 158L, 159L, 160L, 

161L, 162L, 163L, 164L, 165L, 166L, 167L, 168L, 169L, 170L, 171L, 

172L, 173L, 174L, 175L, 176L, 177L, 178L, 179L, 180L, 181L, 182L, 

183L, 184L, 185L, 186L, 187L, 188L, 189L, 190L, 191L, 192L, 193L, 

194L, 195L, 196L, 197L, 198L, 199L, 200L, 201L, 202L, 203L, 204L, 

205L, 206L, 207L, 208L, 209L, 210L, 211L, 212L, 213L, 214L, 215L, 

216L, 217L, 218L, 219L, 220L, 221L, 222L, 223L, 224L, 225L, 226L, 

227L, 228L, 229L, 230L, 231L, 232L, 233L, 234L, 235L, 236L, 237L, 

238L, 239L, 240L, 241L, 242L, 243L, 244L, 245L, 246L, 247L, 248L, 

249L, 250L, 251L, 252L, 253L, 254L, 255L, 256L, 257L, 258L, 259L, 

260L, 261L, 262L, 263L, 264L, 265L, 266L, 267L, 268L, 269L, 270L, 

271L, 272L, 273L, 274L, 275L, 276L, 277L, 278L, 279L, 280L, 281L, 
162

282L, 283L, 284L, 285L, 286L, 287L, 288L, 289L, 290L, 291L, 292L, 

293L, 294L, 295L, 296L, 297L, 298L, 299L, 300L, 301L, 302L, 303L, 

304L, 305L, 306L, 307L, 308L, 309L, 310L, 311L, 312L, 313L, 314L, 

315L, 316L, 317L, 318L, 319L, 320L, 321L, 322L, 323L, 324L, 325L, 

326L, 327L, 328L, 329L, 330L, 331L, 332L, 333L, 334L, 335L, 336L, 

337L, 338L, 339L, 340L, 341L, 342L, 343L, 344L, 345L, 346L, 347L, 

348L, 349L, 350L, 351L, 352L, 353L, 354L, 355L, 356L, 357L, 358L, 

359L, 360L, 361L, 362L, 363L, 364L, 365L, 366L, 367L, 368L, 369L, 

370L, 371L, 372L, 373L, 374L, 375L, 376L, 377L, 378L, 379L, 380L, 

381L, 382L, 383L, 384L, 385L, 386L, 387L, 388L, 389L, 390L, 391L, 

392L, 393L, 394L, 395L, 396L, 397L, 398L, 399L, 400L, 401L, 402L, 

403L, 404L, 405L, 406L, 407L, 408L, 409L, 410L, 411L, 412L, 413L, 

414L, 415L, 416L, 417L, 418L, 419L, 420L, 421L, 422L, 423L, 424L, 

425L, 426L, 427L, 428L, 429L, 430L, 431L, 432L, 433L, 434L, 435L, 

436L, 437L, 438L, 439L, 440L, 441L, 442L, 443L, 444L, 445L, 446L, 

447L, 448L, 449L, 450L, 451L, 452L, 453L, 454L, 455L, 456L, 457L, 

458L, 459L, 460L, 461L, 462L, 463L, 464L, 465L, 466L, 467L, 468L, 

469L, 470L, 471L, 472L, 473L, 474L, 475L, 476L, 477L, 478L, 479L, 

480L, 481L, 482L, 483L, 484L, 485L, 486L, 487L, 488L, 489L, 490L, 

491L, 492L, 493L, 494L, 495L, 496L, 497L, 498L, 499L, 500L, 501L, 

502L, 503L, 504L, 505L, 506L, 507L, 508L, 509L, 510L, 511L, 512L, 

513L, 514L, 515L, 516L, 517L, 518L, 519L, 520L, 521L, 522L, 523L, 

524L, 525L, 526L, 527L, 528L, 529L, 530L, 531L, 532L, 533L, 534L, 

535L, 536L, 537L, 538L, 539L, 540L, 541L, 542L, 543L, 544L, 545L, 

546L, 547L, 548L, 549L, 550L, 551L, 552L, 553L, 554L, 555L, 556L, 

557L, 558L, 559L, 560L, 561L, 562L, 563L, 564L, 565L, 566L, 567L, 

568L, 569L, 570L, 571L, 572L, 573L, 574L, 575L, 576L, 577L, 578L, 

579L, 580L, 581L, 582L, 583L, 584L, 585L, 586L, 587L, 588L, 589L, 

590L, 591L, 592L, 593L, 594L, 595L, 596L, 597L, 598L, 599L, 600L, 

601L, 602L, 603L, 604L, 605L, 606L, 607L, 608L, 609L, 610L, 611L, 

612L, 613L, 614L, 615L, 616L, 617L, 618L, 619L, 620L, 621L, 622L, 

623L, 624L, 625L, 626L, 627L, 628L, 629L, 630L, 631L, 632L, 633L, 

634L, 635L, 636L, 637L, 638L, 639L, 640L, 641L, 642L, 643L, 644L, 

645L, 646L, 647L, 648L, 649L, 650L, 651L, 652L, 653L, 654L, 655L, 

656L, 657L, 658L, 659L, 660L, 661L, 662L, 663L, 664L, 665L, 666L, 

667L, 668L, 669L, 670L, 671L, 672L, 673L, 674L, 675L, 676L, 677L, 

678L, 679L, 680L, 681L, 682L, 683L, 684L, 685L, 686L, 687L, 688L, 

689L, 690L, 691L, 692L, 693L, 694L, 695L, 696L, 697L, 698L, 699L, 

700L, 701L, 702L, 703L, 704L, 705L, 706L, 707L, 708L, 709L, 710L, 

711L, 712L, 713L, 714L, 715L, 716L, 717L, 718L, 719L, 720L, 721L, 

722L, 723L, 724L, 725L, 726L, 727L, 728L, 729L, 730L, 731L, 732L, 

733L, 734L, 735L, 736L, 737L, 738L, 739L, 740L, 741L, 742L, 743L, 

744L, 745L, 746L, 747L, 748L, 749L, 750L, 751L, 752L, 753L, 754L, 

755L, 756L, 757L, 758L, 759L, 760L, 761L, 762L, 763L, 764L, 765L, 

766L, 767L, 768L, 769L, 770L, 771L, 772L, 773L, 774L, 775L, 776L, 

777L, 778L, 779L, 780L, 781L, 782L, 783L, 784L, 785L, 786L, 787L, 

788L, 789L, 790L, 791L, 792L, 793L, 794L, 795L, 796L, 797L, 798L, 

799L, 800L, 801L, 802L, 803L, 804L, 805L, 806L, 807L, 808L, 809L, 

810L, 811L, 812L, 813L, 814L, 815L, 816L, 817L, 818L, 819L, 820L, 

821L, 822L, 823L, 824L, 825L, 826L, 827L, 828L, 829L, 830L, 831L, 

832L, 833L, 834L, 835L, 836L, 837L, 838L, 839L, 840L, 841L, 842L, 

843L, 844L, 845L, 846L, 847L, 848L, 849L, 850L, 851L, 852L, 853L, 

854L, 855L, 856L, 857L, 858L, 860L, 861L, 862L, 863L, 864L, 865L, 

866L, 867L, 868L, 869L, 870L, 871L, 872L, 873L, 874L, 875L, 876L, 

877L, 878L, 879L, 880L, 881L, 882L, 883L, 884L, 885L, 886L, 887L, 

888L, 889L, 890L, 891L, 892L, 893L, 894L, 895L, 896L, 897L, 898L, 

899L, 900L, 901L, 902L, 903L, 904L, 905L, 906L, 907L, 908L, 909L, 

910L, 911L, 912L, 913L, 914L, 915L, 916L, 917L, 918L, 919L, 920L, 

921L, 922L, 923L, 924L, 925L, 926L, 927L, 928L, 929L, 930L, 931L, 

932L, 933L, 934L, 935L, 936L, 937L, 938L, 939L, 940L, 941L, 942L, 

943L, 944L, 945L, 946L, 947L, 948L, 949L, 950L, 951L, 952L, 953L, 

954L, 955L, 956L, 957L, 958L, 959L, 960L, 961L, 962L, 963L, 964L, 

965L, 966L, 967L, 968L, 969L, 970L, 971L, 972L, 973L, 974L, 975L, 

976L, 977L, 978L, 979L, 980L, 981L, 982L, 983L, 984L, 985L, 986L, 

987L, 988L, 989L, 990L, 991L, 992L, 993L, 994L, 995L, 996L, 997L, 

998L, 999L, 1000L, 1001L, 1002L, 1003L, 1004L, 1005L, 1006L, 

1007L, 1008L, 1009L, 1010L, 1011L, 1012L, 1013L, 1014L, 1015L, 

1016L, 1017L, 1018L, 1019L, 1020L, 1021L, 1022L, 1023L, 1024L, 

1025L, 1026L, 1027L, 1028L, 1029L, 1030L, 1031L, 1032L, 1033L, 

1034L, 1035L, 1036L, 1037L, 1038L, 1039L, 1040L, 1041L, 1042L, 

1043L, 1044L, 1045L, 1046L, 1047L, 1048L, 1049L, 1050L, 1051L, 
163

1052L, 1053L, 1054L, 1055L, 1056L, 1057L, 1058L, 1059L, 1060L, 

1061L, 1062L, 1063L, 1064L, 1065L, 1066L, 1067L, 1068L, 1069L, 

1070L, 1071L, 1072L, 1073L, 1074L, 1075L, 1076L, 1077L, 1078L, 

1079L, 1080L, 1081L, 1082L, 1083L, 1084L, 1085L, 1086L, 1087L, 

1088L, 1089L, 1090L, 1091L, 1092L, 1093L, 1094L, 1095L, 1096L, 

1097L, 1098L, 1099L, 1100L, 1101L, 1102L, 1103L, 1104L, 1105L, 

1106L, 1107L, 1108L, 1109L, 1110L, 1111L, 1112L, 1113L, 1114L, 

1115L, 1116L, 1117L, 1118L, 1119L, 1120L, 1121L, 1122L, 1123L, 

1124L, 1125L, 1126L, 1127L, 1128L, 1129L, 1130L, 1131L, 1132L, 

1133L, 1134L, 1135L, 1137L, 1138L, 1139L, 1140L, 1141L, 1142L, 

1143L, 1144L, 1145L, 1146L, 1147L, 1148L, 1149L, 1150L, 1151L, 

1152L, 1153L, 1154L, 1155L, 1156L, 1157L, 1158L, 1159L, 1160L, 

1161L, 1162L, 1163L, 1164L, 1165L, 1166L, 1167L, 1168L, 1169L, 

1170L, 1171L, 1172L, 1173L, 1174L, 1175L, 1176L, 1177L, 1178L, 

1179L, 1180L, 1181L, 1182L, 1183L, 1184L, 1185L, 1186L, 1187L, 

1188L, 1189L, 1190L, 1191L, 1192L, 1193L, 1194L, 1195L, 1196L, 

1197L, 1198L, 1199L, 1200L, 1201L, 1202L, 1203L, 1204L, 1205L, 

1206L, 1207L, 1208L, 1209L, 1210L, 1211L, 1212L, 1213L, 1214L, 

1215L, 1216L, 1217L, 1218L, 1219L, 1220L, 1221L, 1222L, 1223L, 

1224L, 1225L, 1226L, 1227L, 1228L, 1229L, 1230L, 1231L, 1232L, 

1233L, 1234L, 1235L, 1236L, 1237L, 1238L, 1239L, 1240L, 1241L, 

1242L, 1243L, 1244L, 1245L, 1246L, 1247L, 1248L, 1249L, 1250L, 

1251L, 1252L, 1253L, 1254L, 1255L, 1256L, 1257L, 1258L, 1259L, 

1260L, 1261L, 1262L, 1263L, 1264L, 1266L, 1267L, 1268L, 1269L, 

1270L, 1271L, 1272L, 1273L, 1274L, 1275L, 1276L, 1277L, 1278L, 

1279L, 1280L, 1281L, 1282L, 1283L, 1284L, 1285L, 1286L, 1287L, 

1288L, 1289L, 1290L, 1291L, 1292L, 1293L, 1294L, 1295L, 1296L, 

1297L, 1298L, 1299L, 1300L, 1301L, 1302L, 1303L, 1304L, 1305L, 

1306L, 1307L, 1308L, 1309L, 1310L, 1311L, 1312L, 1313L, 1314L, 

1315L, 1316L, 1317L, 1318L, 1319L, 1320L, 1321L, 1322L, 1323L, 

1324L, 1325L, 1326L, 1327L, 1328L, 1329L, 1330L, 1331L, 1332L, 

1333L, 1334L, 1335L, 1336L, 1337L, 1338L, 1339L, 1340L, 1341L, 

1342L, 1343L, 1344L, 1345L, 1346L, 1347L, 1348L, 1349L, 1350L, 

1351L, 1352L, 1353L, 1354L, 1355L, 1356L, 1357L, 1358L, 1359L, 

1360L, 1361L, 1362L, 1363L, 1364L, 1365L, 1366L, 1367L, 1368L, 

1369L, 1370L, 1371L, 1372L, 1373L, 1374L, 1375L, 1376L, 1377L, 

1378L, 1379L, 1380L, 1381L, 1382L, 1383L, 1384L, 1385L, 1386L, 

1387L, 1388L, 1389L, 1390L, 1391L, 1392L, 1393L, 1394L, 1395L, 

1396L, 1397L, 1398L, 1399L, 1400L, 1401L, 1402L, 1403L, 1404L, 

1405L, 1406L, 1407L, 1408L, 1409L, 1410L, 1411L, 1412L, 1413L, 

1414L, 1415L, 1416L, 1417L, 1418L, 1419L, 1420L, 1421L, 1422L, 

1423L, 1424L, 1425L, 1426L, 1427L, 1428L, 1429L, 1430L, 1431L, 

1432L, 1433L, 1434L, 1435L, 1436L, 1437L, 1438L, 1439L, 1440L, 

1441L, 1442L, 1443L, 1444L, 1445L, 1446L, 1447L, 1448L, 1449L, 

1450L, 1451L, 1452L, 1453L, 1454L, 1455L, 1456L, 1457L, 1458L, 

1459L, 1460L, 1461L, 1462L, 1463L, 1464L, 1465L, 1466L, 1467L, 

1468L, 1469L, 1470L, 1471L, 1472L, 1473L, 1474L, 1475L, 1476L, 

1477L, 1478L, 1479L, 1480L, 1481L, 1482L, 1483L, 1484L, 1485L, 

1486L, 1487L, 1488L, 1489L, 1490L, 1491L, 1492L, 1493L, 1494L, 

1495L, 1496L, 1497L, 1498L, 1499L, 1500L, 1501L, 1502L, 1503L, 

1504L, 1505L, 1506L, 1507L, 1508L, 1509L, 1510L, 1511L, 1512L, 

1513L, 1514L, 1515L, 1516L, 1517L, 1518L, 1519L, 1520L, 1521L, 

1522L, 1523L, 1524L, 1525L, 1526L, 1527L, 1528L, 1529L, 1530L, 

1531L, 1532L, 1533L, 1534L, 1535L, 1536L, 1537L, 1538L, 1539L, 

1540L, 1541L, 1542L, 1543L, 1544L, 1545L, 1546L, 1547L, 1548L, 

1549L, 1550L, 1551L, 1552L, 1553L, 1554L, 1555L, 1556L, 1557L, 

1558L, 1559L, 1560L, 1561L, 1562L, 1563L, 1564L, 1565L, 1566L, 

1567L, 1568L, 1569L, 1570L, 1571L, 1572L, 1573L, 1574L, 1575L, 

1576L, 1577L, 1578L, 1579L, 1580L, 1581L, 1582L, 1583L, 1584L, 

1585L, 1586L, 1587L, 1588L, 1589L, 1590L, 1591L, 1592L, 1593L, 

1594L, 1595L, 1596L, 1597L, 1598L, 1599L, 1600L, 1601L, 1602L, 

1603L, 1604L, 1605L, 1606L, 1607L, 1608L, 1609L, 1610L, 1611L, 

1612L, 1613L, 1614L, 1615L, 1616L, 1617L, 1618L, 1619L, 1620L, 

1621L, 1622L, 1623L, 1624L, 1625L, 1626L, 1627L, 1628L, 1629L, 

1630L, 1631L, 1632L, 1633L, 1634L, 1635L, 1636L, 1637L, 1638L, 

1639L, 1640L, 1641L, 1642L, 1643L, 1644L, 1645L, 1646L, 1647L, 

1648L, 1649L, 1650L, 1651L, 1652L, 1653L, 1654L, 1655L, 1656L, 

1657L, 1658L, 1659L, 1660L, 1661L, 1662L, 1663L, 1664L, 1665L, 

1666L, 1667L, 1668L, 1669L, 1670L, 1671L, 1672L, 1673L, 1674L, 

1675L, 1676L, 1677L, 1678L, 1679L, 1680L, 1681L, 1682L, 1683L, 

1684L, 1685L, 1686L, 1687L, 1688L, 1689L, 1690L, 1691L, 1692L, 
164

1693L, 1694L, 1695L, 1696L, 1697L, 1698L, 1699L, 1700L, 1701L, 

1702L, 1703L, 1704L, 1705L, 1706L, 1707L, 1708L, 1709L, 1710L, 

1711L, 1712L, 1713L, 1714L, 1715L, 1716L, 1717L, 1718L, 1719L, 

1720L, 1721L, 1722L, 1723L, 1724L, 1725L, 1726L, 1727L, 1728L, 

1729L, 1730L, 1731L, 1732L, 1733L, 1734L, 1735L, 1736L, 1737L, 

1738L, 1739L, 1740L, 1741L, 1742L, 1743L, 1744L, 1745L, 1746L, 

1747L, 1748L, 1749L, 1750L, 1751L, 1752L, 1753L, 1754L, 1755L, 

1756L, 1757L, 1758L, 1759L, 1760L, 1761L, 1762L, 1763L, 1764L, 

1765L, 1766L, 1767L, 1768L, 1769L, 1770L, 1771L, 1772L, 1773L, 

1774L, 1775L, 1776L, 1777L, 1778L, 1779L, 1780L, 1781L, 1782L, 

1783L, 1784L, 1785L, 1786L, 1787L, 1788L, 1789L, 1790L, 1791L, 

1792L, 1793L, 1794L, 1795L, 1796L, 1797L, 1798L, 1799L, 1800L, 

1801L, 1802L, 1803L, 1804L, 1805L, 1806L, 1807L, 1808L, 1809L, 

1810L, 1811L, 1812L, 1813L, 1814L, 1815L, 1816L, 1817L, 1818L, 

1819L, 1820L, 1821L, 1822L, 1823L, 1824L, 1825L, 1826L, 1827L, 

1828L, 1829L, 1830L, 1831L, 1832L, 1833L, 1834L, 1835L, 1836L, 

1837L, 1838L, 1839L, 1840L, 1841L, 1842L, 1843L, 1844L, 1845L, 

1846L, 1847L, 1848L, 1849L, 1850L, 1851L, 1852L, 1853L, 1854L, 

1855L, 1856L, 1857L, 1858L, 1859L, 1860L, 1861L, 1862L, 1863L, 

1864L, 1865L, 1866L, 1867L, 1868L, 1869L, 1870L, 1871L, 1872L, 

1873L, 1874L, 1875L, 1876L, 1877L, 1878L, 1879L, 1880L, 1881L, 

1882L, 1883L, 1884L, 1885L, 1886L, 1887L, 1888L, 1889L, 1890L, 

1891L, 1892L, 1893L, 1894L, 1895L, 1896L, 1897L, 1898L, 1899L, 

1900L, 1901L, 1902L, 1903L, 1904L, 1905L, 1906L, 1907L, 1908L, 

1909L, 1910L, 1911L, 1912L, 1913L, 1914L, 1915L, 1916L, 1917L, 

1918L, 1919L, 1920L, 1921L, 1922L, 1923L, 1924L, 1925L, 1926L, 

1927L, 1928L, 1929L, 1930L, 1931L, 1932L, 1933L, 1934L, 1935L, 

1936L, 1937L, 1938L, 1939L, 1940L, 1941L, 1942L, 1943L, 1944L, 

1945L, 1946L, 1947L, 1948L, 1949L, 1950L, 1951L, 1952L, 1953L, 

1954L, 1955L, 1956L, 1957L, 1958L, 1959L, 1960L, 1961L, 1962L, 

1963L, 1964L, 1965L, 1966L, 1967L, 1968L, 1969L, 1970L, 1971L, 

1972L, 1973L, 1974L, 1975L, 1976L, 1977L, 1978L, 1979L, 1980L, 

1981L, 1982L, 1983L, 1984L, 1985L, 1986L, 1987L, 1988L, 1989L, 

1990L, 1991L, 1992L, 1993L, 1994L, 1995L, 1996L, 1997L, 1998L, 

1999L, 2000L, 2001L, 2002L, 2003L, 2004L, 2005L, 2006L, 2007L, 

2008L, 2009L, 2010L, 2011L, 2012L, 2013L, 2014L, 2015L, 2016L, 

2017L, 2018L, 2019L, 2020L, 2021L, 2022L, 2023L, 2024L, 2025L, 

2026L, 2027L, 2028L, 2029L, 2030L, 2031L, 2032L, 2033L, 2034L, 

2035L, 2036L, 2037L, 2038L, 2039L, 2040L, 2041L, 2042L, 2043L, 

2044L, 2045L, 2046L, 2047L, 2048L, 2049L, 2050L, 2051L, 2052L, 

2053L, 2054L, 2055L, 2056L, 2057L, 2058L, 2059L, 2060L, 2061L, 

2062L, 2063L, 2064L, 2065L, 2066L, 2067L, 2068L, 2069L, 2070L, 

2071L, 2072L, 2073L, 2074L, 2075L, 2076L, 2077L, 2078L, 2079L, 

2080L, 2081L, 2082L, 2083L, 2084L, 2085L, 2086L, 2087L, 2088L, 

2089L, 2090L, 2091L, 2092L, 2093L, 2094L, 2095L, 2096L, 2097L, 

2098L, 2099L, 2100L, 2101L, 2102L, 2103L, 2104L, 2105L, 2106L, 

2107L, 2108L, 2109L, 2110L, 2111L, 2112L, 2113L, 2114L, 2115L, 

2116L, 2117L, 2118L, 2119L, 2120L, 2121L, 2122L, 2123L, 2124L, 

2125L, 2126L, 2127L, 2128L, 2129L, 2130L, 2131L, 2132L, 2133L, 

2134L, 2135L, 2136L, 2137L, 2138L, 2139L, 2140L, 2141L, 2142L, 

2143L, 2144L, 2145L, 2146L, 2147L, 2148L, 2149L, 2150L, 2151L, 

2152L, 2153L, 2154L, 2155L, 2156L, 2157L, 2158L, 2159L, 2160L, 

2161L, 2162L, 2163L, 2164L, 2165L, 2166L, 2167L, 2168L, 2169L, 

2170L, 2171L, 2172L, 2173L, 2174L, 2175L, 2176L, 2177L, 2178L, 

2179L, 2180L, 2181L, 2182L, 2183L, 2184L))
165

Fecundity data

SPOWFec <- 

structure(list(YEAR = c(1999L, 1999L, 1999L, 1999L, 1999L, 1999L, 

1999L, 1999L, 1999L, 1999L, 1999L, 1999L, 1999L, 1999L, 1999L, 

1999L, 1999L, 1999L, 1999L, 2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 

2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 

2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 2000L, 

2000L, 2000L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 

2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 

2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 2001L, 

2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 

2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 

2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 2002L, 

2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 

2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 

2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 2003L, 

2003L, 2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 

2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 

2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 2004L, 2005L, 2005L, 

2005L, 2005L, 2005L, 2005L, 2005L, 2005L, 2005L, 2005L, 2005L, 

2005L, 2005L, 2005L, 2005L, 2005L, 2005L, 2005L, 2005L, 2005L, 

2005L, 2006L, 2006L, 2006L, 2006L, 2006L, 2006L, 2006L, 2006L, 

2006L, 2006L, 2007L, 2007L, 2007L, 2007L, 2007L, 2007L, 2007L, 

2007L, 2007L, 2007L, 2007L, 2007L, 2008L, 2008L, 2008L, 2008L, 

2008L, 2008L, 2008L, 2008L, 2008L, 2008L, 2008L, 2008L), LOCATION = structure(c(1L, 

2L, 4L, 5L, 9L, 10L, 11L, 13L, 14L, 15L, 18L, 20L, 22L, 23L, 

24L, 25L, 27L, 28L, 30L, 1L, 2L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 9L, 10L, 12L, 

13L, 14L, 15L, 17L, 18L, 19L, 20L, 21L, 22L, 23L, 24L, 25L, 26L, 

27L, 28L, 30L, 1L, 2L, 3L, 4L, 6L, 8L, 9L, 10L, 11L, 12L, 13L, 

14L, 15L, 17L, 19L, 20L, 21L, 22L, 23L, 25L, 26L, 27L, 28L, 29L, 

30L, 1L, 2L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 8L, 9L, 10L, 11L, 13L, 15L, 

17L, 18L, 19L, 20L, 21L, 22L, 23L, 24L, 25L, 26L, 27L, 28L, 29L, 

30L, 1L, 2L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 8L, 9L, 10L, 11L, 12L, 13L, 14L, 

15L, 16L, 17L, 18L, 19L, 20L, 21L, 22L, 23L, 24L, 25L, 26L, 27L, 

28L, 29L, 2L, 3L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 8L, 9L, 11L, 13L, 14L, 15L, 16L, 

17L, 18L, 19L, 21L, 22L, 24L, 25L, 26L, 27L, 28L, 29L, 30L, 1L, 

2L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 8L, 10L, 12L, 13L, 15L, 17L, 18L, 19L, 20L, 22L, 

23L, 24L, 25L, 26L, 27L, 28L, 3L, 8L, 10L, 13L, 14L, 16L, 18L, 

23L, 27L, 28L, 8L, 10L, 11L, 12L, 13L, 15L, 16L, 19L, 23L, 24L, 

27L, 28L, 8L, 11L, 12L, 13L, 15L, 16L, 19L, 24L, 26L, 27L, 28L, 

29L), .Label = c("ALAMERE", "ARROYO HONDO", "BARNABE NORTH", 

"BEAR VALLEY", "BIKE PATH", "CAMP EASTWOOD", "COPPERMINE", "DEVILS GULCH", 

"DIVIDE MEADOW", "DOGTOWN", "EUCALYPTUS GULCH", "FIVE BROOKS", 

"FOX DRIVE", "HAGGARTY GULCH", "HORSE TRAIL", "KENT CANYON", 

"MEADOW TRAIL", "MT WITTENBERG", "MUIR WOODS", "OLEMA CEMETERY", 

"PIKE COUNTY GULCH", "PIONEER TREE TRAIL", "PLATFORM BRIDGE", 

"RANDALL GULCH", "RIFLE RANGE", "STEWART TRAIL", "SWIMMING HOLE", 

"WEST PETERS DAM", "WILKINS GULCH", "ZANARDI RANCH"), class = "factor"), 

 VISIT = c(2L, 9L, 7L, 4L, 9L, 7L, 7L, 4L, 10L, 2L, 5L, 10L, 

 3L, 5L, 5L, 8L, 10L, 6L, 5L, 9L, 8L, 8L, 11L, 4L, 6L, 3L, 

 6L, 10L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 5L, 2L, 4L, 3L, 10L, 10L, 7L, 5L, 5L, 

 9L, 8L, 7L, 8L, 7L, 8L, 14L, 8L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 9L, 7L, 9L, 

 3L, 6L, 7L, 2L, 3L, 13L, 6L, 10L, 3L, 12L, 11L, 15L, 9L, 

 5L, 4L, 12L, 7L, NA, 6L, 4L, NA, 8L, NA, 2L, NA, 5L, 13L, 

 7L, 10L, 15L, 7L, 8L, 5L, NA, 8L, 8L, 7L, 10L, NA, 8L, 11L, 

 4L, 3L, 9L, 6L, 3L, NA, 13L, 4L, 8L, 12L, 10L, NA, 8L, 3L, 

 NA, NA, 11L, 7L, NA, NA, 9L, 2L, 12L, 12L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 11L, 

 5L, 3L, 3L, 6L, 2L, 7L, 7L, 14L, 8L, 10L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 3L, 

 2L, 12L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 11L, 2L, 8L, 8L, 2L, 7L, 4L, 6L, 11L, 

 3L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 13L, 2L, 17L, 5L, 11L, 7L, 

 7L, 12L, 10L, 9L, 5L, 4L, 2L, 5L, 4L, 9L, 5L, 3L, 2L, 5L, 

 4L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 5L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 8L, 2L, 4L, 8L, 4L, 2L, 8L, 

 9L, 8L, 7L, 8L, 7L, 7L, 10L, 2L, 6L, 7L), Status = structure(c(2L, 

 3L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 

 3L, 1L, 1L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 3L, 2L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 1L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 1L, 3L, 1L, 3L, 

 3L, 3L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 

 3L, 1L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 2L, 1L, 3L, 1L, 3L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 1L, 

 2L, 2L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 1L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 2L, 
166

 3L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 

 3L, 1L, 2L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 2L, 2L, 

 3L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 

 2L, 3L, 1L, 1L, 3L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 2L, 1L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 

 2L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 1L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 1L, 3L, 

 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 4L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 

 3L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 3L), .Label = c("NF", "NN", "NY", 

 "RS"), class = "factor"), FAGE = structure(c(2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 4L, 5L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 4L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 4L, 2L, 4L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 6L, 2L, 

 2L, 4L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 6L, 5L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 2L, 2L, 6L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 

 2L, 2L, 4L, 5L, 2L, 1L, 4L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 4L, 

 2L, 2L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 6L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 4L, 2L, 2L, 6L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 6L, 6L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 3L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 5L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 6L), .Label = c("", "A", "S", "S1", "S2", 

 "U"), class = "factor"), MAGE = structure(c(5L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 5L, 6L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 4L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 6L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 4L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 5L, 

 5L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 4L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 5L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 6L, 2L, 

 2L, 6L, 2L, 6L, 5L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 2L, 4L, 2L, 4L, 2L, 2L, 

 6L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 2L, 

 6L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 5L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 6L, 6L), .Label = c("", "A", "S", "S1", "S2", "U"

 ), class = "factor"), NUMFLEDG = c(0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 2L, 0L, 

 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 2L, 

 1L, 2L, 0L, 2L, 0L, 2L, 2L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 2L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 2L, 

 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 2L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 0L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 2L, 0L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 2L, 0L, 0L, 2L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

 0L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 0L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 

 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 0L, 0L, 2L, 0L, 

 1L, 2L, 2L, 0L, 2L, 0L, 2L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 2L, 0L, 0L, 2L, 0L, 

 2L, 2L, 0L, 1L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 0L, 2L, 2L, 0L, 2L, 0L, 0L, 2L, 

 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 0L, 0L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 0L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 

 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 

 1L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 0L, 2L, 0L, 

 2L, 2L)), .Names = c("YEAR", "LOCATION", "VISIT", "Status", 

"FAGE", "MAGE", "NUMFLEDG"), class = "data.frame", row.names = c(NA, 

-203L))
 167 

SOP 6. Safety Procedures 

Version 1.2 

Revision History Log 

Previous 

Version # 

Revision 

Date 

Author Changes Made Reasons for Change New Version 

# 

Nov. 2007 Dawn Adams Created To meet new formatting 

and content guidelines. 

1.0 

1.0 Feb. 2008 Dawn Adams Layout, added 

emergency #s 

Edited for peer review 1.1 

1.1 March 

2010

David Press Added Section 3.0 

on check in / check 

out procedures. 

To formalize these 

procedures 

1.2 

 
 168 

Contents 

Page 

1.0 Weather and Field Attire ........................................................................................................169

2.0 Field Hazards .........................................................................................................................169

3.0 Check Out / Check In Procedures ..........................................................................................169

Appendix SOP 6A. Job hazard analysis (JHA) for northern spotted owl monitoring 

activities. ......................................................................................................................................171
169

This SOP provides safety information related to monitoring spotted owls at Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area (GOGA), Muir Woods National Monument (MUWO), and Point 

Reyes National Seashore (PORE). Also see SFAN Field Safety SOP maintained on the GOGA 

network drive: inpgogamahe1\Divisions\Network I&M\Shared\Standard Operating 

Procedures\SFAN Field SOPs\Standard Operating Procedures. 

1.0 Weather and Field Attire 

Summer conditions are often mild (between 60 - 80°F), but when conducting fieldwork along the 

coastal environment, it is important to dress appropriately for a range of weather conditions. 

Because of the possibility of encountering poison oak and general uneven terrain found off-trail, 

field personnel should wear long pants and high-topped hiking boots. Leg gaiters are also 

recommended to reduce the exposure to poison oak and the risk of tick bites during surveys. 

Since surveys can last longer than anticipated, field personnel are encouraged to take extra food 

and drinking water into the field. 

2.0 Field Hazards 

Biting or stinging invertebrates (wasps, spiders, ticks) may be encountered. The bites or stings 

from these animals can be painful, but usually not fatal. If bitten or stung and painful swelling or 

an allergic reaction occurs, seek medical attention immediately. Check your clothing and 

exposed skin frequently when in the field for ticks and upon returning from the field, do a more 

thorough body search for ticks. 

Poison oak is found throughout the owl habitat in the study area. Before doing any fieldwork 

personnel should become familiar with the dangers associated with exposure to this native plant. 

If exposure occurs wash thoroughly with soap and rinse with plenty of water upon returning 

from the field and then apply Tecnu® ointment (provided at headquarters). If a strong reaction 

occurs, seek medical attention and alert your supervisor as soon as possible. 

Appendix SOP 6A is the Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) for the spotted owl monitoring program. 

The JHA analyzes the duties, tasks, and potential hazards associated with the program, and 

addresses the hazards through safe work behaviors and procedures. 

3.0 Check Out / Check In Procedures 

When working in the field solo, whether during the day or at night, field staff should inform a 

supervisor, co-worker, or other responsible party of field plans and check back in at the end of 

the survey. At the beginning of the season, a list of field sites to be monitored should be 

developed that contains the geographic coordinates of the most recent activity centers. 

Coordinates should be in both UTM (NAD83, Zone 10) and Lat/Long (WGS 84). Detailed 

directions to the activity centers should be included, with trail and road names, distances, and 

off-trail landmarks. A copy of the site directions should be retained by all project staff and a 

copy should be given to park dispatch. If a spouse or housemate will be responsible for ensuring 

the safe return of staff after hours, a copy of the site directions should be left at home and should 

include pertinent phone numbers to call in case of emergency. Phone numbers should include 
170

those for other project staff (work, home, and cell), park dispatch, Marin County Sheriff, and 

911.

At the beginning of the season, project staff should meet with NPS law enforcement staff to 

discuss possible safety concerns with any of the NSO sites planned for monitoring that year. If 

necessary, law enforcement staff may accompany the project staff on initial visits to sites of 

concern. 
1 

17

Appendix SOP 6A. Job hazard analysis (JHA) for northern spotted owl monitoring 

activities. 

POINT REYES NATIONAL 

SEASHORE 

Job Safety Analysis 

Job Title: Spotted Owl Monitoring 

Date: June 7, 2006 

 page 1 of 3 

Analysis by: Heather Jensen, Dawn Adams 

Division: SCIENCE 

Title of person 

Reviewed by: Sarah Allen

Location: PORE, GOGA, MUWO 

who does job: Biotechnician- Wildlife Approved by: 

Supervisor: Program Lead 

 

Personal Protective Equipment: Long-sleeved shirt, thick pants, sturdy boots, eye protection 

Training and/or certifications Permits 

A. SEQUENCE OF BASIC JOB STEPS B. POTENTIAL JOB HAZARDS 

C. SAFE BEHAVIORS- SAFE WORK 

PROCEDURES REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE 

JOB/PROJECT 

Identify steps and sequence of work 

activities 

Task: Identify hazards in each basic 

step. 

Site: Identify site hazards that could 

affect workers 

Determine specific controls and safe behaviors for 

each hazard. 

Office Work- Computer use for email 

and data entry

Muscle and eye strain, repetitive stress 

injury 

Proper posture and use of ergonomic furniture 

 

 Take breaks every hour 

Mouse care and use Mouse bites Handle mice gently, lifting by the tails unless tails 

have injuries; use greater care when mice are agitated 

Owl capture and handling Talon cuts while handling owls After capture, control owl's legs at all times 

 Keep talons and beak at a safe distance from face 

 

Being struck by adult owls when near 

juvenile owls 

Communicate location of adults clearly with your field 

partner, and have one person watching owls at all 

times 

 

 Wear a hat and/or glasses to protect face and eyes 

Travel to Field Locations in Vehicle Driving hazards such as accident Use defensive driving techniques 

 Expect oncoming traffic on one-lane roads in park 

 Be alert for foggy conditions 
2 

17

A. SEQUENCE OF BASIC JOB STEPS B. POTENTIAL JOB HAZARDS 

C. SAFE BEHAVIORS- SAFE WORK 

PROCEDURES REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE 

JOB/PROJECT 

Identify steps and sequence of work 

activities 

Task: Identify hazards in each basic 

step. 

Site: Identify site hazards that could 

affect workers 

Determine specific controls and safe behaviors for 

each hazard. 

 

 Watch for deer, elk and other wildlife, and adjust 

speeds to safely operate around areas of high use 

 Obey traffic laws and wear seatbelt at all times 

 

 Do not drive when fatigued, be familiar with route or 

prepare for unknown route 

 Do not talk on radio or cell phone while driving 

 Do not put hot drinks on your lap 

 Be familiar with the vehicle and its operation 

 

 Check gauges, tires, wipers, fluids and replace when 

necessary 

 

 Check vehicle has spare tires, jumper cable and jack 

with all parts. 

Hiking to work areas on trails, routes 

or off trail navigation

Working off trail Consult with law enforcement staff about areas that 

may be unsafe to travel off trail. If needed, arrange to 

have law enforcement staff join the initial site visits 

and clear the area. 

Getting lost or confused as a group Have map and compass and other navigational aids 

and know how to use them. 

 Losing a crew member Travel together when off-trail 

 

 Make sure both members of the team are aware of 

location, and can find route out if they are separated. 

 

 When trail hiking, plan stops at trail junctions to 

regroup. 

 

 Arrange meeting places and times -- all crewmembers 

must wear a watch. 

 Have a travel plan for each day and make sure it is 

understood by all crewmembers 

 Stay in communication via radio or stay in sight 

 Carry cell phone, radio and spare batteries 

 If lost or disorientated, stay calm, assess location by 

consulting map and landmarks, and proceed to 
3 

17

A. SEQUENCE OF BASIC JOB STEPS B. POTENTIAL JOB HAZARDS 

C. SAFE BEHAVIORS- SAFE WORK 

PROCEDURES REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE 

JOB/PROJECT 

Identify steps and sequence of work 

activities 

Task: Identify hazards in each basic 

step. 

Site: Identify site hazards that could 

affect workers 

Determine specific controls and safe behaviors for 

each hazard. 

nearest road or trail. 

 Do not panic -- Have a mental plan for what to do if 

lost 

 If injured, stay put and call dispatch. 

 Working at night When possible, conduct night work in pairs. If working 

alone, leave a travel/survey plan with a supervisor, coworker, or responsible party who will notify proper 

authorities in the event of a disappearance. 

 Carry a light source and extra batteries. 

 Loose footing When traveling in areas with steep or unstable terrain, 

stagger your positions so that you are not immediately 

below someone, yell "rock" if you dislodge one. 

 Lightning storms In the event of a lightning storm, turn your radio off, if 

near a vehicle, get entirely inside. If in the outdoors try 

to do the following: separate the group, get off ridge 

tops and away from trees, get as low as possible and 

if possible lie on non-conductive material. 

 Wind storms If it is windy enough to blow small twigs and branches 

out of the trees, try to get out of the woods or find an 

area away from hazard trees 

 Exposure to cold, wet conditions Wear proper equipment- and bring extra layers. 

 Recognize the signs of hypothermia in yourself and 

others 

 Carry and eat high-calorie foods, stay well-hydrated 

 Exposure to heat and sun Have hat, sunscreen and sunglasses 

 Overexertion and dehydration Recognize the signs of dehydration 

 Take frequent rest stops (15 min per every 2 hours) 

and stay hydrated 

 Injuries due to hiking (aches, sprains and 

blisters) 

Pay attention to footing- plan ahead for the route to 

avoid steep, unstable terrain 
4 

17

A. SEQUENCE OF BASIC JOB STEPS B. POTENTIAL JOB HAZARDS 

C. SAFE BEHAVIORS- SAFE WORK 

PROCEDURES REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE 

JOB/PROJECT 

Identify steps and sequence of work 

activities 

Task: Identify hazards in each basic 

step. 

Site: Identify site hazards that could 

affect workers 

Determine specific controls and safe behaviors for 

each hazard. 

 Use appropriate footwear, boots and socks. 

 Prevent blisters and have blister treatments (moleskin, 

tape etc) accessible. 

 Injuries due to falling (lacerations, broken 

bones, head injuries) 

Pay particular attention to traveling on steep slopes, 

unstable terrain, through dense vegetation, and in 

foggy conditions. Practice fall- arrest techniques (roll 

on to stomach, dig elbow, feet and knees in). 

 Have first aid kit, stabilize injured person, treat for 

shock and know how to initiate rescue via radio 

 Injuries due to carrying a heavy pack Reduce pack weights when possible 

 Pay attention to how you put your pack on (avoid 

twisting motions- get help or place pack on surface or 

against tree) 

 Make sure your pack is properly fitted and balanced 

Hiking to work areas- Stream and river 

crossings

Exposure, sprains, broken bones, 

drowning 

Avoid swift or deep water crossings by using foot or 

automobile bridges. 

 Be careful on slippery logs and watch footing on either 

side of stream crossing. 

Working in the outdoors Exposure to allergy-causing plants and 

insects 

Alert crew members to possible problems with 

allergens. Be alert for toxic plants and alert to 

common bee and wasp nesting habitat and activityespecially the person in front. 

 Carry Benadryl, epi-pen or other antihistamine 

 Exposure to toxic plants Avoid poison oak when possible. Wear long-sleeved 

shirts, long pants, and 

hiking boots. Wash skin exposed to poison oak with 

Tecnu or other appropriate cleaner and change 

clothes if necessary at end of day/survey. 

 Do not eat any fungus or plant unless you are 100% 

sure it is edible. 
5 

17

A. SEQUENCE OF BASIC JOB STEPS B. POTENTIAL JOB HAZARDS 

C. SAFE BEHAVIORS- SAFE WORK 

PROCEDURES REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE 

JOB/PROJECT 

Identify steps and sequence of work 

activities 

Task: Identify hazards in each basic 

step. 

Site: Identify site hazards that could 

affect workers 

Determine specific controls and safe behaviors for 

each hazard. 

 Exposure to ticks Wear proper attire (long-sleeved shirts and long 

pants) and do frequent tick checks. If bitten by black 

legged tick, properly remove tick, save tick, send tick 

in for lab analysis, and monitor general health 

condition. 

 Exposure to giardia, E. coli and other 

pathogens 

Do not drink any water unless it has been filtered, 

boiled or treated in some fashion 

 Do not create more contaminated areas- urinate away 

from streams and water, dig a cathole for solid waste 

and bury toilet paper. 

 Wash hands when possible and carry hand cleaner 

 Improper nutrition due to inappropriate 

food choices 

Bring a variety of healthy, nutritious food that will give 

you good energy during travel and work. Do not rely 

on sugar snacks. 

 Loss of food to ravens, raccoons, small 

animals 

Prevent animals from getting into your food by not 

leaving you backpack open or accessible to animals. 

 Cougar attack If approached by cougar make yourself large and 

noisy, wave arms, yell, grab a stick. Back away from 

cougars but do not turn and run, ever. If attacked, fight 

back. 

 Strange or aggressive human interactions Terminate contact with visitor and leave the area, 

contact dispatch (GOGA: 415-561-5656; PORE: 415-

464-5170 or emergency numbers (911) 

 177 

SOP 7. Revising the Protocol 

Version 1.2 

Revision History Log 

Previous 

Version # 

Revision 

Date 

Author Changes 

Made 

Reasons for Change New 

Version # 

Sept. 2007 Marcus 

Koenen 

Adapted from 

SFAN Water 

Quality 

Protocol 

1.0

1.0 May 2008 Dawn Adams Added App. A 

with reviewers 

comments 

and response 

In prep for submitting to 

PWR. 

1.01

1.01 March 

2010

David Press Added App. B 

with reviewers 

comments 

and response. 

Added App. C 

and App. D 

also. Changed 

this SOP from 

SOP 8 to SOP 

7.

In prep for submitting 

protocol for final approval. 

Removed SOP 7 After 

the Season from protocol. 

1.2
 178 

Contents 

Page 

Tables ...........................................................................................................................................178

1.0 Revision Procedures...............................................................................................................179

2.0 Protocol Reviews ...................................................................................................................180

Appendix SOP 7A: 2004 Peer Review Comments and Response from Protocol Authors. ........181

Appendix SOP 7B: 2008 Peer Review Comments and Response from Protocol Authors. .........185

Appendix SOP 7C: December 2008 Letter From SFAN to PWR Protocol Review 

Coordinator. .................................................................................................................................210

Appendix SOP 7D: April 2009 PWR Response to SFAN Peer Review Clarification 

Letter. ...........................................................................................................................................215

Tables 

Page 

Table SOP 7.1. Master version table and current SFAN northern spotted owl protocol 

documents. ...................................................................................................................................180
 179

This standard operating procedure (SOP) explains how to make changes to the Northern Spotted 

Owl (NSO) Monitoring Protocol Narrative for the San Francisco Bay Area Network (SFAN) and 

accompanying SOPs, and tracking these changes. Editors of the Protocol Narrative or any one of 

the SOPs need to follow this outlined procedure in order to eliminate confusion in how data is 

collected and analyzed. All observers should be familiar with this SOP in order to identify and 

use the most current methodologies. 

1.0 Revision Procedures 

The NSO Monitoring Protocol Narrative for the SFAN and accompanying SOPs has attempted 

to incorporate sound methodologies for collecting and analyzing spotted owl data. However, all 

protocols regardless of how sound require editing as new and different information becomes 

available. Required edits should be made in a timely manner and appropriate reviews 

undertaken. The Protocol Narrative is a general overview of the protocol that gives the history 

and justification for doing the work and an overview of the sampling methods, but that does not 

provide all of the methodological details. The Protocol Narrative will only be revised if major 

changes are made to the protocol. The SOPs, in contrast, are very specific step-by-step 

instructions for performing a given task. They are expected to be revised more frequently than 

the protocol narrative. 

All edits require review for clarity and technical soundness. Small changes or additions to 

existing methods will be reviewed in-house by SFAN staff. However, if a complete change in 

methods is sought, than an outside review is required. Regional and national staff of the National 

Park Service (NPS) with familiarity in spotted owl monitoring and data analysis will be utilized 

as reviewers. Also, experts in spotted owl research, monitoring, and statistical methodologies 

outside of the NPS can be utilized in the review process. 

Document edits and protocol versioning in the Revision History Log that accompanies the 

Protocol Narrative and each SOP. Log changes in the Protocol Narrative or SOP being edited 

only. Version numbers increase incrementally by tenths (e.g., version 1.1, version 1.2, etc.) for 

minor changes. Major revisions should be designated with the next whole number (e.g., version 

2.0, 3.0, 4.0, etc.) Record the previous version number, date of revision, author of the revision, 

identify paragraphs and pages where changes are made, and the reason for making the changes 

along with the new version number. 

Narrative and SOP updates may occur independently. That is, a change in one SOP will not 

necessarily invoke changes in other SOPs; a narrative update may not require SOP 

modifications. The program tracks the narrative and SOP version numbers in a Master Version 

Table (MVT; Table SOP 7.1), which is maintained in this document (SOP 7). Anytime a 

narrative or an SOP version change occurs, a new Version Key number (VK#) must be created 

and recorded in the MVT, along with the date of the change and the versions of the narrative and 

SOPs in effect. The VK number increments by whole integers (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The protocol 

narrative, SOPs, and data should not be distributed independently of this table. 

Updates to the MVT and changes to the Protocol Narrative or SOP must be provided to the 

SFAN Data Manager for inclusion in the master version table database and the metadata record. 
 180 

In addition, the database may have to be edited by the Data Manager to accompany changes in 

the Protocol Narrative and SOPs. 

Post new versions on the website and forward copies to all individuals with a previous version of 

the effected Protocol Narrative or SOP, including spotted owl project staff from Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore. Archive older versions of the 

protocol narrative and SOPs on the network archive server under the Spotted Owl vital sign 

folder. 

Table SOP 7.1. Master version table and current SFAN northern spotted owl protocol documents. 

Version 

Key # 

Date of 

Change 

Protocol 

Narrative 

SOP 

1 

SOP 

2 

SOP 

3 

SOP 

4 

SOP 

5 

SOP 

6 

SOP 

8 

VK1 May 2008 6.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.01

VK2 July 2010 6.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2

 

2.0 Protocol Reviews 

A draft of the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Monitoring Protocol was submitted and reviewed by 

three reviewers in 2004 and to two additional reviewers in 2008. Appendix SOP 7A summarizes 

the major deficiencies and suggested corrective actions noted by the reviewers along with the 

authors‘ responses. The summary does not include layout, grammatical, spelling or table/figure 

change edit recommendations. Appendix SOP 7B documents all review comments with the 

authors‘ specific responses for the 2008 review. The authors‘ responses are documented in 

italics in both appendices. Hard copies of reviewer comments are on file at the San Francisco 

Bay Area Network Inventory and Monitoring office. 
 181

Appendix SOP 7A: 2004 peer review comments and response 

from protocol authors. 

A draft of the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Monitoring Protocol was submitted and reviewed by 

three reviewers in 2004. In 2007 and 2008, review comments were incorporated into the 

protocol. This appendix summarizes the major deficiencies and suggested corrective actions 

noted by the reviewers. This summary does not include layout, grammatical, spelling or 

table/figure change edit recommendations. The text in italics represents the changes made to the 

document based on the reviewer‘s comments. Hard copies of reviewer comments are on file at 

the San Francisco Bay Area Network Inventory and Monitoring office. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Review #1: Dr. Patti Happe, Wildlife Branch Chief, Olympic National Park 

patti_happe@nps.gov, Phone 360-565-3065 

Reviewer expressed concern over dropping the demography study and banding program and 

consequent loss of survival information, which she values the more than reproductive metrics 

and sees the Marin population as an important contribution to a range-wide study. 

Due to funding and personnel constraints for overall SFAN vital signs monitoring program, the 

monitoring program could not continue the additional effort spent on banding at this time. 

Needs a better description of sample population and area of inference, how sample was selected. 

Revised protocol narrative included a better description of previous study design and its 

limitations. The revised study design and subsequent reselection of study sites was described in 

detail. 

Needs a better description of monitoring history. 

Revised protocol included information from additional monitoring studies and expanded on 

those previously described. 

Use more descriptive maps, include NSO range-wide map. 

Revised map included in protocol narrative: increased size, included NSO range inset, improved 

NSO habitat and park boundaries delineations, and provided better description in text. Authors 

desired the protocol to be a public document, so did not represent sites selected for monitoring 

in smaller scale maps. 

Data management section is missing metadata procedures. 

Metadata information included in revised protocol.

Include more about why the NSO was federally listed, primary threats, and which threats apply 

to this population. Note absence of recovery plan and how it would apply to the SFAN area. 

Information from draft recovery plan (made available in August 2007) was included in narrative 

background section. 
 182

Need support for 15% change threshold and description of what it means. 

Revised study design and power analysis used previous data to determine specific probabilities 

and length of time needed to detect 10% declines in fecundity and occupancy. 

Needs a better description of satellite database processes. 

Included in narrative and SOP.

Is it necessary to continue nest characterization? Do we expect changes and would it change 

management actions? 

Authors determined that due to potential changes in nesting habitat from sudden oak death and 

ease of collecting the nest and habitat data warranted continuing the nest characterization. 

Review #2: Dr. Rocky Gutiérrez, Ph.D., University of Minnesota 

gutie012@tc.umn.edu, Phone 612-624-2720 

This reviewer provided the most extensive review comments throughout the protocol. Every 

comment is not addressed but some (e.g., sample design comments) are lumped into a single 

comment. 

Details of sample design (randomization) and data analysis are unclear. The sampling and 

experimental design is not appropriate and sufficient to answer the monitoring questions and 

ensure statistical validity. The key issues are that no stratified random sampling design was 

employed and no specific analysis discussed. The current sample can be used but it limits 

inference to the sites monitored and not to the parks in general. Consider using MacKenzie 

detectability models or correct for survey effort when looking at changes in occupancy. 

Corrected through SFSU sample design analysis, reselection of random sample populations for 

occupancy and fecundity monitoring. SFSU analyzed past data to determine probability of 

detection (both day and night) for at least one owl and a pair of owls, and incorporated the 

detectability values into a power/sample size analysis for occupancy populations. The data 

analysis section and SOP was expanded and more detail provided. 

Need to expand discussion of the barred owl issue, and references to NSO Status review 2004. 

Barred owls should be a major reason for continued monitoring of spotted owls. 

Included additional results from status review and draft recovery plan, which expanded the 

barred owl issues range-wide and within Marin County. 

Relevant research on spotted owls in Marin County is not cited (Chow thesis). 

Additional information provided in narrative on Marin County owl studies including Nola 

Chow’s thesis. Rearranged background sections on history of inventory, monitoring, and 

research. 

Protocol does not include clear and specific objectives for management action such as thresholds 

and or trends. 

Expanded information on management objectives and triggers for management actions, but 

specific thresholds and subsequent management actions have not been identified. If causes of 
 183

population declines can be determined, managers may be able to act accordingly or request 

additional research. 

Reporting section of protocol is incomplete, not well organized, and needs improvement. 

Reporting section revised to make clear the types of reports and reporting schedule. 

Protocol is missing example field forms, training manual, and facility and office needs section. 

Missing pieces included in revised protocol and expanded SOPs. 

Marin County NSO population is almost a closed population so if banding a large proportion of 

the small population, it is a powerful assessment of a population‘s status.

Due to funding and personnel constraints for overall SFAN vital signs monitoring program, the 

monitoring program could not continue the additional effort spent on banding at this time. A new 

demography study is a research option if declines are detected. 

Overly ambitious set of monitoring objectives. 

Monitoring objectives were reduced and remaining ones were narrowed in scope. 

Reviewer suggested that the SFAN field season methods include having different monitoring 

teams check the same activity site as a check and balance. 

Not possible because of limited field staff and site access logistics, but instituted periodically and 

when possible. 

Emphasize need for hearing tests or adequate hearing ability in field personnel. 

Addressed in personnel requirements. 

Reviewer felt that survey stations set only 0.25 miles apart would lead to excessive survey 

stations and a 0.5 mile distance is suitable. 

Unlike other NSO areas, Marin has smaller canyons and terrain features, and prominent points 

are not as common. In addition, the area has a higher amount of vehicle and plane traffic which 

the authors felt necessitated more dense survey points. Protocol text was changed to “survey 

stations a minimum of 0.25 mile apart”.

Each member of a survey team should keep notes for future cross-referencing. 

Authors changed the protocol to indicate that if members of a field team split up during a survey, 

both are required to take notes with the designated survey notetaker responsible for compiling 

the notes at the end of the survey. 

Reviewer suggests collecting larger scale habitat metrics like size of patch, edge, etc. 

Larger scale habitat metrics were identified through GIS during the habitat model preparation, 

but data is not analyzed on an annual basis and would be part of a long-term trend analysis.

Describe formal procedures for proof reading data. 

Description of quality assurance/quality control procedures were expanded in data management 

SOP and data entry, verification and editing sections of protocol. 
 184

Reviewer questioned the purpose of the conceptual model appendix included in the original 

draft, which suggested that SFAN was developing a comprehensive model. 

Authors decided to remove model from protocol as it was no longer a requirement and 

apparently was not a critical piece of information needed to understand the monitoring 

objectives. 

Review #3: Dr. Reginald H. Barrett, University of California, Berkeley, 

rbarrett@nature.berkeley.edu, Phone 510-642-7261 

Reviewer generally thought the protocol met all the requirements of the protocol checklist, but 

had a couple additional suggestions: 

Add an organizational chart of all the staff and relationships. 

Revised protocol provides an expanded list of staff member involved in NSO monitoring and 

responsibilities, but authors felt that an organizational chart was not warranted. 

Provide a chart of all the data sets (files, etc.) with names and contact information for responsible 

staff. 

Additional network pathways for specific files were included in revised protocol. Due to expected 

turnover of staff, names and contact information were not included in protocol, but are provided 

on an annual basis to program staff and other cooperators. 
 185 

Appendix SOP 7B: 2008 peer review comments and response 

from protocol authors. 

A draft of the Spotted Owl Monitoring Protocol was submitted to Dr. James Agee, PWR 

Protocol Review Coordinator, and Dr. Penny Latham, PWR Regional I&M Coordinator in May 

2008. Dr. Agee forwarded the protocol to two anonymous peer reviewers (R1 and R2). In 2009 

and 2010, review comments were incorporated into the protocol. This appendix summarizes the 

deficiencies and suggested corrective actions noted by the reviewers. The text in italics 

represents the authors‘ changes to the document based on the reviewers‘ comments. Hard copies 

of reviewer comments are on file. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

College of Forest Resources Box 352100 

University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195 

James K. Agee, Emeritus Professor of Forest Ecology 

Ph: 206-543-8242 Fax: 543-3254 

112 Winkenwerder Hall 

email: jagee@u.washington.edu

October 1, 2008 

The scientific review for “Northern Spotted Owl Monitoring Protocol” for the San Francisco 

Bay Area Network Inventory and Monitoring Program is complete. The protocol receives the 

following decision: 

Needs Major Revision 

Attached to this letter are review and informational documents: (1) a PWR Protocol Review 

Checklist. Each question is addressed in the left column; if scientific, it is addressed by me and 

the word is in bold, and if administrative is addressed in normal font, as a ―yes‖, ―no‖, ―in part‖, 

or N.A. [not applicable]. (2) The individual reviews are included with author‘s names erased, 

and reviewers are identified in this cover letter as R1 or R2. The reviews are self-explanatory, 

but what I attempt to do here is place them in an integrated context beyond the abbreviated 

response in the PWR Protocol Review Checklist. 

The protocol is well-written and given the limited sample design, is presented well, with 

appropriate power analyses. Many of the earlier review comments (by NPS-selected reviewers) 

were addressed in the revision. Nevertheless, due to the high profile of the Northern Spotted 

Owl, I chose to send the protocol out for a blind peer review. While the protocol appears 

sufficient to ―generally‖ inform managers from the San Francisco Network of national parks 

about the status and trends of Northern Spotted Owl breeding in these parks, both reviewers were 

in consistent agreement that this ―general‖ protocol was insufficient. This is due to funding 
 186 

limitations that significantly limit the number of sites and visits, and possible incompatibility 

with data collected by other agencies. 

Due to the high profile of this particular vital sign, the review was forwarded in mid-August to 

assigned NPS personnel (Drs. David Graber and Steve Fancy, together with Penny Latham) to 

evaluate its political status. Their response is that all NPS monitoring protocols will be exempt 

from the ―highly influential‖ criterion, as these are just study plans, so that issue is now moot. 

As I read the protocol, it does deviate from the Forest Service PNW Station standards, which I 

believe are those used by the other Federal agencies. If true, then more funding would be 

required to bring the protocol into compliance. The small sample size is less an issue if the 

methods are compatible with those of other agencies, so that this protocol can be part of a larger 

dataset. On its own, it will need a larger sample size. This is the most critical issue to be 

addressed in a response. If the plan is to be part of larger sample, then objectives will have to be 

revised to reflect that the monitoring will be less to draw conclusions about park owls and more 

to draw conclusions about larger geographic populations. 

The comments of reviewers are attached here, and major points include: 

A sample of 20-25 sites is too narrow to be effective (R1). And, if increased sampling will be 

needed in the future this will complicate analyses (R2). Why not increase sample size now?

Methods are well-described but are unlikely to be effective in establishing no occupancy (R2). 

There is a pressing need to correlate change in owl populations with causes, but neither sudden 

oak death nor barred owls will be monitored in sufficient detail to establish cause (R1, R2) 

There are no trigger points for management actions, and no suggestions of what actions might 

include (R1, R2) 

Nest site characteristics are well done, but what if changes in owl numbers is associated with 

foraging area characteristics (R1)? 

Long-term trend analysis needs more definition 

Upon receipt of the protocol, due to the complex nature of the comments, I will send this out for 

another review to at least one reviewer. Please address each comment of the reviewers in detail. 

Sincerely, 

James K. Agee 

National Park Service, Pacific West Region, Protocol Review Coordinator 
 187 

PWR PROTOCOL REVIEW CHECKLIST 

Protocol Name: SFAN Spotted Owl 

Science Reviewer: J.K. Agee Admin. Reviewer: Mark Huff 

Overall Organization and Presentation of Protocol Narrative 

Yes 1. Is the overall monitoring protocol well-organized with sections clearly 

delineated? 

Yes 2. Does the protocol have a title page with authors‘ names, protocol version 

number and date? (Protocol version numbers should be constructed to allow 

for both major and minor changes.) Is there a Table of Contents, abstract, and 

the three basic sections: 1-Narrative, 2-Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), 

and 3-Supplementary Materials or Appendices recommended in the NPS 

standards published by Oakley et al. 2003 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/protocols/ProtocolGuidelines.pdf).

Yes 3. Is there a complete and accurate table of contents with page numbers? 

(Chapters should be paginated consecutively, i.e. Chap. 1 (pp. 1-20), Chap. 2 

(pp. 21-28), Chap. 3 (pp. 29-44), etc. to allow for modular updates.) 

Yes 4. Are the tables and figures clearly labeled and understandable? 

Yes 5. Is the protocol bound so that it lies flat, preferably in a 3-ring binder? 

Section 1 A. Background and Objectives (Chapter 1) 

Yes 1. Does the protocol narrative provide a rationale or justification for why a 

particular resource or resource issue was selected for monitoring? Is the history 

and background for this resource issue well-referenced with supporting 

literature cited? 

Yes 2. Does the protocol narrative discuss the linkages between this and other 

monitoring projects? 

--Monitoring NSO in Marin County 

--Sudden Oak Death 

Yes 3. Does the protocol narrative describe how monitoring results will inform 

management decisions? 

Yes 4. Does the protocol narrative contain careful documentation of the monitoring 

objectives or monitoring questions being asked? 

No 5. Does the protocol narrative identify specific measurable objectives such as 

thresholds or trigger points for management actions? 

Section 1 B. Sampling Design (Chapter 2) 

Unclear 1. Is there a clear and logical rationale for selecting the sampling design over 

others? 

Yes 2a. Were the criteria for site selection clearly discussed including stratification, 

spatial design, and whether this monitoring will be co-located and/or integrated 

with other VS monitoring protocols? (See Checklist, Section 1A2.) 

Yes, but 

questionable 

2b. Has the target population or ―sampling frame‖, and the sampling units, 

been identified? In other words, is the desired level of inference clear? 

Yes 3. Is the sampling frequency and replication identified? 

Yes 4. Is the timing of sampling defined? 

No, but 5. Are the location of sampling sites clearly identified? 
 188 

justified 

Yes 6. Is the level of change that can be detected for the amount or type of sampling 

being instituted identified? (See Checklist, Section 1A5.) 

Section 1 C. Field Methods (Chapter 3) 

Yes 1. Are preparations for the field season and equipment setup included? Are 

requirements for permitting and compliance discussed? 

Yes 2. Does the protocol include clear and detailed information on taking 

measurements with example survey forms included? (Protocol variables and 

measurements may be discussed in detail in a SOP. A complete set of forms 

should be included in either the supplementary materials or a SOP.) 

Yes 3. Is the method of access for sampling sites provided? 

N.A. 4. Is there an overview of procedures for establishing, monumenting, and 

maintenance of plots discussed in one or more SOPs? 

N.A. 5. Does the protocol include details for the post-collection processing of 

samples or vouchers? 

Yes 6. Does the protocol include procedures to be followed at the end of the field 

season? 

Section 1 D. Data Handling, Analysis and Reporting (Chapter 4) 

Yes 1. Does the protocol provide an overview of the process for entering, editing, 

and storing data, identification of database software, and whether the database 

is consistent with the recommended I&M database template structure? (For 

water quality protocols, see specific water quality guidance in Part B or WRD‘s 

General Comments 15, and checklist items in Section 2, items 8-10, below.) 

N.A. 2. Are quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures presented 

for the various levels of data collection and analysis? (See water quality Part B 

guidance or General Comments 15 as appropriate.) 

Yes 3. Is the data structure clearly presented and sufficient to capture the required 

information to meet the stated goal? Is there an overview of the database 

design? 

Yes 4. Are there recommendations for routine data summaries and statistical 

analysis to detect change? 

Yes 5. Is there a recommended reporting schedule? 

--the word ―style‖ is misspelled (stayle) in Reporting Section 4.5 

Yes 6. Is there a recommended report format with examples of summary tables and 

figures? 

In part 7. Is there a recommendation for long-term trend analysis (e.g. every 5 or 10 

years)? 

Yes 8. Does the protocol narrative include an adequate description of metadata and 

data archival procedures? 

Yes 9. Does the protocol narrative describe the frequency of testing and review of 

protocol effectiveness? 

Section 1 E. Personnel Requirements and Training (Chapter 5) 

mostly Does the narrative include a listing of the personnel and describe their roles and 

responsibilities, and qualifications? 

--The Network used outside experts to develop the analytical parts of the 

protocol. Expertise for population trends reporting is not defined. 
 189 

Yes 2. Does the protocol include a discussion of training procedures for personnel? 

Section 1 F. Operational Requirements (Chapter 6) 

Yes 1. Are facility, vehicle and equipment needs identified? 

Probably n/a 2. Is there a summary of key partnerships with agencies, organizations and 

individuals that are part of the monitoring program and a description of their 

contribution? Is there a list of relevant cooperative agreements and other 

partnership agreements, if applicable? 

Yes 3. Is a schedule for the annual fieldwork and administrative needs required to 

implement this protocol included? 

Yes 4. Is there an overall budget that summarizes the annual and periodic costs of 

implementation of the protocol? Does it seem reasonable? 

mostly 5. Does the staffing plan and budget demonstrate that adequate resources have 

been allocated to data management, analysis, and reporting activities (ca. 30% 

are recommended)? 

Only 1-2 pp allocated to Wildlife Ecologist; may be insufficient. 

Section 1 G. Literature Cited (Chapter 7) 

Yes 1. Are the literature citations relevant, sufficient and consistently formatted? 

Section 2 Standard Operating Procedures (Selected essential SOPs in addition to those 

mentioned in the narrative outline are identified in the checklist below. For 

Water Quality protocols, Part B Guidance or WRD‘s General Comments 15 

should be consulted when developing SOPs.) 

Yes 1. Is there a table of contents for the SOPs? 

Yes 2. Are changes to each SOP clearly identified with a title, version number or

revision date, and page numbers? Changes to protocol modules (Chapters or 

SOPs) should be reflected in the overall protocol version number and protocol 

revision history log either through a minor or major revision; however, you 

may also wish to develop a numbering scheme for SOPs, e.g. SOP 1.00, 1.01...

Yes 3. Is there a SOP with instructions for revising the protocol and a revision 

history log? 

Yes 4. Is there a SOP with instructions for preparation before the field season? Is 

there a SOP with instructions for procedures and equipment storage during and 

after the field season? (Also see numbers 10 and 11 below.) 

Yes 5. Is there a SOP for training field personnel? 

Yes 6. Is there a SOP that clearly defines protocol variables and how to measure 

them? (See Checklist, Section 1C2.) 

7. Are there clear and detailed driving and other navigational instructions to 

sampling sites? 

Yes 8. Are the details of Data Management identified in one or more SOPs? Topics 

to be included are at minimum identified in Section 1D and may include 

customized data management routines. Specifically for water quality 

monitoring data, does the SOP specify how data will be reported to WRD for 

entry into the Environmental Protection Agency‘s STORET database?

NA 9. For water quality monitoring and other monitoring as appropriate, is there a 

quality control SOP associated with each protocol that adequately documents 

QC objectives for measurement sensitivity (detection limits), measurement 

precision, measurement systematic error (bias as percent recovery), data 
 190 

completeness (including adequacy of planned sample sizes and statistical 

power – this topic may be in the SOP on Sampling Design), and (if applicable 

for lab measurements only) blank control? Are instrument calibration details 

included either in the QC SOP or in a separate calibration SOP? 

NA 10. For water quality protocols, is there a SOP that includes an explanation of 

how data comparability (a quality assurance basic) was considered in choosing 

which protocols and chemical labs to utilize? Do protocol SOPs contain 

enough field and lab method details to allow others to determine if data 

produced is comparable enough to other regional data sets to be considered 

credible by regulatory agencies interested in the data? 

NA 11. Do aquatic protocol SOPs adequately describe the details of all Sampling 

Protocols (Field and Laboratory), as well as equipment needs and operation, 

sampling techniques, sample preservation and handling and logistics? 

Yes 12. Are all major procedures required for the protocol sufficiently explained? 

Are any SOPs missing? 

Yes 13. Are the literature citations with the SOP relevant, sufficient and 

consistently formatted? 

Section 3 Supplementary Materials or Appendices 

NA 1. Is there a table of contents with Section 3 – Supplementary Materials that 

clearly identifies the materials provided in this section of the protocol? 

NA 2. Are the supplementary materials relevant, sufficient and consistently 

presented? Consistent formatting is desirable, but not always possible. 

Yes 3. Are data collection forms provided either in this section or in an SOP? 

Yes 4. Is there a section for the Administrative Record that provides the history of 

protocol development and refinement? A summary event table is highly 

recommended in addition to the supporting materials required in the Protocol 

Review File Checklist, e.g. the initial study plan or protocol development 

summary, the results of protocol development studies, peer review comments 

and responses during the development phase, and/or any published protocol on 

which a major portion of the methodology included in this protocol is based. 

(The published protocol may be presented either in Section 2 or Section 3 

depending upon its contribution to the current protocol.) 
 191

PRC (Agee) Comments 

This is a well-written and concise protocol. Specific comments by page number, paragraph, and 

line number: 

Xiii, par 1 l 6: the owl is threatened, not endangered (as noted page 1 line 1). 

Fixed. 

P3, par 3. If there were 80 known sites before state and county lands were added, why did not 

that number increase when the other lands were added (Patti Happe made same comments in 

earlier draft). 

The 1997-1998 inventories included NPS and adjacent lands, including Marin Municipal 

Water District, Marin County Open Space, and California State Parks. The inventory 

identified at least 80 different NSO activity sites throughout Marin County. The 80 sites 

were not just on federal lands. The paragraph noted has been revised to be clearer. 

P6, par 2, l 7: If the Stralberg analysis was done in 1999-2002, how is it not published 6 years 

later? 

Stralberg’s habitat model was published in 2009. The full citation is noted here and has 

been updated in the Literature Cited section of the protocol.

Stralberg, D., K. E. Fehring, N. Nur, L. Y. Pomara, D. B. Adams, D. Hatch, G. R. Geupel, 

and S. Allen. 2009. Modeling nest-site occurrence for the Northern Spotted Owl at its 

southern range limit in central California. Landscape and Urban Planning 90:76-85. 

P8, par 2, l 3 from bottom. If tanoak represents one species, how can its loss represent a 

―substantial proportion‖ of tree species richness (defined as number of species)?

Average species richness was low in the plots studied for Sudden Oak Death. In redwood 

forests, for example, average tree species richness was 3.2, which included tanoak. The 

authors wrote: 

“Tanoak represents a substantial proportion of tree species richness and total woody species 

richness in both redwood and Douglas-fir forests. In our redwood plots, which are speciespoor in comparison to our Douglas-fir plots, tanoak accounts for an average of one third of 

tree species richness and one fifth of total woody species richness. If tanoak is eventually 

eliminated by SOD, the species richness of redwood forests will be severely reduced.”

We have modified the section referenced (page 8, paragraph 2) to more accurately reflect the 

study’s findings.

P9, par 4 (Mgt objectives). Given the comments of two reviewers, I question that NSO 

monitoring will actually provide ―critical data for land managers‖.
 192

The sentence is in reference to the annual needs that park managers have for NSO data 

in order to perform regular park operations and maintenance. Consultation with NSO 

biologists has become a routine element when planning for fuel reduction projects, trail 

re-routes, and law enforcement actions. In this sense, the NSO monitoring data has 

proven itself to be a critical planning tool year after year. We hope that with revisions to 

our sampling design the SPOW data will prove equally as critical in determining the 

long-term trends in the status of the species in the parks.

P26, par 2, l 7: comparison, not comparision 

 

Fixed. 

P 26, last par, l 6: Style not Stayle 

 

Fixed. 
 193

SFAN Spotted Owl Reviewer #1. 

Process of Vial Signs Protocol Review: Summary 

San Francisco Bay Area Network Northern Spotted Owl Monitoring Protocol v6.3 

Background and Objectives 

A good background of previous work was presented. The protocol represents significant work 

and thought. However, I am concerned that the objectives of the protocol will not meet the 

objectives of the Vital Signs monitoring. Some specific objectives were presented. The 

objectives of the protocol are limited to addressing long-term trends in occupancy and 

reproduction of a subset of documented ―activity sites‖. It seems improbable that there will be 

timely information to inform managers about emerging problems. There are no firm monitoring 

plans for the threats that seem most imminent: increasing barred owls and declining forest health 

due to sudden oak death. The objectives and the rest of the protocol seem excessively bounded 

by lack of funds and personnel. Even if a decline is noted, the reasons for the decline in spotted 

owls will be obscure. 

Sampling Design

The sample design is limited by funding and personnel. I am concerned that the selection of 20-

25 permanent monitoring sites results in a too narrow sample and that will not allow inferences 

to be drawn without pseudo-replication. Of further concern is the departure of the protocol from 

monitoring on other federal lands making it impossible to interpret results in the light of more 

widespread geographic phenomenon. The 3 years on/3years off sampling is efficient in terms of 

cost:benefit ratios, but very inefficient in timely detection of changes. 

Sampling Methods

Methods are well described and based on a power analysis, for number of visits. But I am 

concerned that the number of visits is still too low (3) to establish no occupancy, particularly 

with increasing barred owl presence. Establishing occupancy is easy (you see one and it‘s 

occupied), reproduction is more time consuming, but vacancy (proving a negative) is the most 

difficult. 

It is not clear if the detailed measurements around nest trees will help meet overall objectives or 

if they will prove redundant. 

Analytical Techniques

The analytical techniques are well developed and adequate given the design. As stated above, 

statistical rigor was used in developing sampling frequency using power analyses. Long-term 

trend analysis (5-10 yr) will be problematic with a 3yr on/3yr off design. 
 194

R1 Specific Comments 

p. xiii: threats: put in order of importance; habitat loss due to anthropogenic and natural causes is 

probably number 1 (if within this broad category a more specific threat is paramount it should be 

identified; e.g., wildfire), barred owl is probably number 2, human disturbance is probably 

number 3. Is there any local data on sudden oak death? Other introduced plant diseases? WNV? 

How about other mosquito-borne diseases (e.g., the equine encephalitis group of arboviruses, 

avian malarias, etc.)? My concern here is that real threats be identified, new potential threats be 

identified along with some likelihood, etc. and not just a ―bandwagon‖ list of threats. My 

concern goes beyond the bandwagon idea: we are likely going to experience a variety of new 

threats due to introduction of pests and diseases and exacerbation of endemic pests and diseases 

due to climate and land-use changes. 

The sentence has been re-arranged, but we do not believe, nor do we suggest, that the list 

of potential threats is complete or that it represents the order of importance. At this point, 

we do not have enough information to accurately place these threats in order of 

importance. We consider all of these as real threats until proven otherwise. More detail 

on threats is provided in the protocol narrative, specifically in section 1.4. 

The objectives apply to ―activity sites‖ suggesting a limited subset of already identified locations 

available in the sampling universe within the legislated NPS boundaries will be monitored; the 

evaluation of changes in nesting ―habitat‖ (there is no such thing as nesting habitat; there is 

habitat, and there are nest sites) within the boundaries is a non-sequitur if sampling is limited to 

existing activity sites. 

We have modified our use of the terms “territory” and “activity site” within our 

monitoring objectives and throughout the remainder of the protocol and SOPs. We will 

be monitoring occupancy and fecundity of NSO territories. All known territories within 

the study area have been identified through exhaustive inventory efforts. Each year, 

surveys are focused on the activity site, or activity center, within each territory. The 

activity site is defined as the area occupied during a single breeding season by a 

territorial NSO resident single or pair, which would include a nest and/or roost site. 

Activity sites may, or may not, change from year to year. 

Page 1, line 1: what was the reason for listing? 

Sentence revised to read: Northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina: NSO) were 

listed as federally threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on June 22, 1990 

“due to loss and adverse modification of suitable habitat as a result of timber harvesting 

and exacerbated by catastrophic events such as fire, volcanic eruption, and wind storms” 

(USFWS 1990). 

Page 3, 1.2.2: what was the basis for the choice of the 46 of the 80 known activity sites? 

As noted on pg. 5, par. 2, the 46 sites were based on accessibility, management issues, 

and forest type. The selection was non-random, leading the NPS to modify its sampling 
 195

design during the course of developing this protocol. The selection criteria of the 46 sites 

have been moved to page 3, section 1.2.2. 

Owls habituated to food may be less vulnerable to disturbance by park visitors and recreationists 

and other people because they are habituated—the presence of people is no longer novel or 

threatening. Mousing/habituation could also reduce the stress of repeated playback/imitated calls 

during surveys. Foster et al. found negative effects of research on owls they attributed to radios, 

but which could have as easily been attributed to repeated calling, capture, and handling for 

banding and for attaching radios as to the radio itself—improper attachment leading to injury to 

the owl, especially sores and lacerations is, of course, very serious (Foster, C. C., E. D. Forsman, 

E. C. Meslow, G. S. Miller, J. A. Reid, F. F. Wagner, A. B. Carey, and J. B. Lint. 1992 . 

Survival and reproduction of radio-marked adult spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 

56(1): 91-95). In my talks with Forsman, he has often discounted the negative impacts of normal 

forest operations (from maintenance to recreation) on owls and cites the case of an owl nest in a 

spar tree in a logging operation. Habituation can be a good thing. 

The SFAN protocol limits the amount of mousing to the bare minimum needed to 

successfully determine occupancy and reproductive status. Mousing is used as a last 

resort only. Our approach to mousing and our concern for habituating a listed T&E 

species is consistent with NPS management policies. We have no intention of modifying 

our approach to mousing. In a response letter to the SFAN (Appendix SOP 7D), reviewer 

4 wrote that in regards to mousing, “We don’t have any concerns with the consistency of 

SFAN methods.”

Page 5: dismiss the protocol as a measurable effect because other sites also used same protocol? 

In the sentence referenced, “fluctuations” has been modified to read “annual 

fluctuations in fecundity”. We simply noted that during the demography study we 

observed fluctuations similar to other CA study sites, leading us to believe that our 

modified monitoring protocol did not have a measurable effect on fecundity 

determinations.

Paragraph 2 suggests highly biased sampling. 

We agree and modified our site selection accordingly following our 2006 inventory. See 

next paragraph in narrative. 

Paragraph 3 is circular: habitat is defined as the space(s) occupied by the species. Growth in 

occupancy must follow growth in habitat space. Yes, of course, there is some fluctuation around 

carrying capacity due to random demographic and environmental (e.g., weather) effects. 

In the paragraph, we use the term “suitable habitat”, meaning the forested areas within 

the park boundaries where we would expect spotted owls to occur. The reviewer is 

correct that occupancy must follow growth in habitat space, but only if occupancy is 

already at carrying capacity. We simply noted a previous reviewer’s concerns that we 

are at carrying capacity, making occupancy growth impossible to measure. 
 196

1.3.1. I suggest rigorous use of terminology. When using ―habitat‖ use it to refer to the areas 

actually occupied by spotted owls or the types of areas routinely occupied by owls. Use other 

language (forest types, forest seral stages, plant community classification, etc. such as provided 

in Wildlife-Habitat relationships manuals) when referring to the biotic environment in a more 

general way. 

Old-growth and mature forests is a particularly annoying combination of terms. What is mature: 

generally when trees reach their asymptotic height or when they become economically ―mature‖. 

You can just say older forest or late-seral stage forest, etc. Similarly ―multi-storied structure and 

high canopy cover‖ is over-used. You could say botanically diverse forests with complex 

structure and be more accurate and more descriptive. 

We should be moving away from jargon and shibboleths if we want to advance our 

understanding of animal-environment relationships. 

I‘ll skip further comments on language and terminology as it could get tedious.

Our use of terminology is consistent with that in the published NSO literature. Some 

minor changes were made throughout the protocol as suggested. 

Page 7, 1.4, 1st sentence; yes, well written, and should be place up front in any discussion of 

threats. Nice discussion in this section. 

Page 8, line 1 suggests that BAOW are now the major potential threat within the area to be 

monitored? The next paragraph documents a major forest health problem with SOD. Does this 

also create increased fire danger? Any quantitative information on effects on prey base? Might 

this be a threat that has to be monitored? 

Oak mortality induced by SOD likely causes changes in fuel loading, stand structure, and 

microclimate. As these changes occur, the potential for uncharacteristically extreme fire 

behavior and associated ecological impacts may increase. Anecdotal reports from fire 

fighters working in redwood forests infested with SOD during the 2008 Basin Fire in Big 

Sur, California indicated increases in fire intensity of approximately 25% (Lee et al. 

2009). 

We are not aware of any quantitative studies in the published literature that have 

investigated the effects of SOD on NSO prey base. However, PORE has submitted a grant 

request to USDA to research effects of SOD on NSO, including prey base. 

We have added an additional component to our field methods that establishes a SOD 

severity rating at each activity center identified during our monitoring efforts. Please 

refer to Section 3.4.2 of the protocol narrative and Section 6.3.2 in SOP 2: Standard 

Field Methods.

1.5: Would it not be necessary to include BAOW and SOD in your objectives given the massive 
 197

potential for impacts on owls? Again it is not clear if only existing activity sites are being 

monitored or if new activity sites can be recruited. 

Measures of barred owl populations or SOD as causal factors for changes in spotted owl 

populations is beyond the scope of this monitoring protocol. In a response letter to the 

SFAN (Appendix SOP 7D), Dr. Agee, the PWR Protocol Review Coordinator, wrote, “As 

these are likely research topics, they should not be required as part of a monitoring 

protocol.”

As mentioned, we have added a severity rating for SOD occurrence at activity centers to 

our field methods. Focused efforts beyond the incidental detections of barred owls would 

likely require calling for barred owls within spotted owl territories, which may greatly 

hinder our abilities to detect trends in the spotted owl population. Rather than add 

extensive monitoring of BAOW and SOD to the NSO protocol, we propose to use these 

simple measures of BAOW and SOD presence as covariates when analyzing long-term 

trends in the spotted owl data. BAOW presence was included as a covariate in the 

occupancy power analysis developed by Starcevich and Steinhorst (2010). See SOP 5: 

Data Analysis and Reporting for details. 

We anticipate that additional SOD data sources within the study area will become 

available over time from other research projects. For example, in 2010, PORE submitted 

a USDA grant proposal to quantify the potential impacts of SOD on northern spotted 

owls within PORE and GOGA. The project would develop detailed GIS layers of SOD 

presence and severity, quantify the effects of SOD on dusky-footed woodrat populations, 

and model fire behavior within SOD affected forests. 

All known territories within the study area were identified during inventory efforts in 

1997-1998 and 2006. A few areas with suitable habitat but where NSO were not detected 

may be re-inventoried as time allows. Newly discovered territories will be added into the 

sampling design. 

Page 9.Para 1: I don‘t believe owl demographic data can be used to accurately assess status and 

trend in the short- to medium term unless there is understanding of the factors underlying the 

demography. Nest-site characteristics may prove less important than foraging area 

characteristics. 

Status and trends in NSO occupancy and fecundity can be assessed given our proposed 

sample design, as outlined in Section 2.0 Sample Design. The reviewer is correct, 

however, that the protocol may not have the ability to identify the underlying factors 

resulting in significant changes to occupancy and fecundity. The NSO monitoring 

program is unfortunately unable to collect meaningful data on all factors that may 

influence the NSO population within the study area. In a response letter to the SFAN 

(Appendix SOP 7D), reviewer 4 wrote, “My understanding is that vital signs monitoring 

is to detect change, and if change is detected, we are to do targeted research to 

understand what is going on. Monitoring foraging habitat and prey base is way beyond 

what the program is supposed to do.”
 198

We propose to collect information on nest site characteristics, activity center Sudden Oak 

Death presence and severity, and barred owl presence within the territories that are 

monitored. These factors may prove valuable in determining the cause of declines in 

occupancy and fecundity and will not tax the program with extensive, additional data 

collection. In addition, the SFAN has access to a broad range of additional abiotic and 

biotic data sources which may be employed when trying to understand long-term trends 

in the NSO data. For example, weather and climate data, both local and regional, are 

readily accessible. In addition, we have outlined in SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting 

our approach to NSO habitat modeling within the study area using nest site 

measurements and a suite of available landscape variables. On a final note, NSO 

monitoring may identify future, critical research needs, such as woodrat density, to help 

explain trends in the data. 

Lack of funding may preclude effective monitoring and evaluation if the methods chosen 

deviated markedly from the more widespread use of more intensive methods—you lose the 

ability for comparing local demographic performance to regional and universal performance. 

Without the ability to fund a rigorous banding program, our monitoring efforts are less 

intensive than the demography monitoring areas within the northern spotted owl’s range. 

However, our occupancy and fecundity methods and data are comparable and could be 

compared at regional and range-wide spatial scales. For example, data from our study 

area was incorporated into Anthony et al. (2006) which analyzed demographic data from 

14 study areas in Washington, Oregon, and California for the time period of 1985–2003.

Data from our monitoring effort will also contribute towards Recovery Action 3, to 

conduct occupancy inventory or predictive modeling, of the NSO Recovery Plan (USFWS 

2008). The recovery plan notes, “Periodic assessment of the distribution of spotted owls 

is important because the demographic study areas may not be representative of rangewide conditions.” 

1.6. para 1: so at least 1 purpose of the monitoring is to keep people away from active nest sites? 

Yes – this is an important management objective of the program. 

The presence of BAOW is not only a potential threat to SPOW but also may affect the efficacy 

of monitoring of SPOW; SPOW may become harder to detect in the presence of BAOW. It may 

be necessary to make provision for some additional methods if BAOW increasingly respond to 

SPOW playback calls. 

Spotted owl detections within the presence of barred owls is a difficult issue faced by all 

agencies monitoring spotted owls range-wide. While the reviewer is correct that we may 

need to make provisions for additional methods to monitor spotted owls as our barred 

owl population increases, we will seek guidance in this matter to ensure that new 

methods are compatible with range-wide recommendations. 
 199

The USFWS released the draft “2010 Protocol for Surveying Proposed Management 

Activities that May Impact Northern Spotted Owls” (USFWS 2010) in February 2010. 

The revised protocol addresses the effectiveness of the USFWS 1992 survey protocol, 

particularly those surveys which do not result in spotted owl detections, most likely due 

to barred owl presence. Among other protocol revisions, the draft 2010 protocol, 

currently under review by the NPS, details increased survey effort over a 2-year period in 

order to determine unoccupied NSO status at survey areas. The SFAN anticipates 

adoption of the draft 2010 protocol following NPS approval.

Page 10, 1.7: trigger points not identified—therefore no planned response to changes in owl 

populations? Kind of abrogates the need for monitoring. If causes of declines can be determined 

... that is not built into the monitoring. The failure to obtain funding for BAOW and SOD 

studies may very undercut the value of any SPOW monitoring. 

Management triggers have been identified and added to the protocol under Section 1.7. 

Identifying or providing examples of specific management actions that may be employed 

under different scenarios is beyond the scope of this monitoring protocol. In some cases, 

causes of declines in the NSO population, such as barred owls, may be easy to identify. In 

other cases, however, additional, specific research may be required. Depending on the 

management action(s), the NEPA process may be instigated, requiring significant public 

input. Although the SFAN will provide data and guidance, management actions will 

ultimately be decided by PORE, GOGA, and MUWO management staff, including, but 

not limited to, the park Wildlife Biologists, Science Advisors, Chiefs of Resource 

Management, and Superintendents.

Measures of barred owl populations or sudden oak death as causal factors for changes in 

spotted owl populations is beyond the scope of this monitoring protocol. In a response 

letter to the SFAN (Appendix SOP 7D), Dr. Agee, the PWR Protocol Review 

Coordinator, wrote, “As these are likely research topics, they should not be required as 

part of a monitoring protocol.” As previously explained, however, barred owl and SOD 

data can be used as covariates in our long-term trend analyses. 

Page 12, 2.1: One has to wonder that with 3 years on and 3years off, what might actually be 

gained by monitoring other than documenting population stability or population collapse ... 

would there be opportunity for management intervention at all? 

During revisions of this protocol, we developed new occupancy and fecundity power 

analyses under contract with the University of Idaho (Starcevich and Steinhorst 2010), 

which is included in the protocol as Appendix A. Starcevich and Steinhorst (2010) 

reviewed the power to detect trends for a variety of sample sizes and re-visit designs. The 

resulting sample design that we propose to implement is detailed in Section 2.0 of the 

protocol narrative. The SFAN will not implement a 3 years on 3 years off monitoring 

design. 

Page 2.3.1.: By choosing a limited set of permanent sites have you limited your inference to 

these sites and these sites alone? In other words, you have one unique sample that you will study 
 200

repeatedly, allowing no inference to other areas beyond the 1st sample in time, and allowing no 

calculation of error without using pseudo-replication. 

Our revised sample design overcomes the short comings of the previous sample design 

noted by the reviewer. We propose an annual panel of 28 sites and four rotating of panels 

of 8 sites each. A total of 36 sites will be monitored each year. Over a four year period, 

all territories within the study area will be surveyed.

Page 14, Para 2: increasing presence of BAOW may change these probabilities. I assume you 

are limiting samples to days without unusual weather or disturbances. No or low breeding 

obviously changes these probabilities; don‘t you have to assume some no/low breeding years and 

a priori adjust effort? 1 detection is sufficient; 3 failure to detect might well be insufficient. 

The SFAN must re-visit the NSO detection rate within the study area on a regular basis to 

ensure that the monitoring design it still capable of meeting the monitoring objectives. 

We expect to review the entire monitoring design, which incorporates the detection rate, 

approximately every 5 years when trend reports are prepared. Conditions in the field, 

such as a significant increase in barred owl detections, may warrant more immediate 

evaluation of the monitoring design. 

The USFWS released the draft “2010 Protocol for Surveying Proposed Management 

Activities that May Impact Northern Spotted Owls” (USFWS 2010) in February 2010. 

The revised protocol addresses the effectiveness of the USFWS 1992 survey protocol, 

particularly those surveys which do not result in spotted owl detections, most likely due 

to barred owl presence. Among other protocol revisions, the draft 2010 protocol, 

currently under review by the NPS, details increased survey effort over a 2-year period in 

order to determine unoccupied NSO status at survey areas. The SFAN anticipates 

adoption of the draft 2010 protocol following NPS approval.

Page 15, 2.5.: accepting an increased likelihood to detect catastrophic decline is perhaps a fatal 

flaw in this plan, if, as stated, monitoring results are to be feedback to management. 

Our revised sample design has more than the ability to simply detect catastrophic 

declines. The sample design allows us to detect a 4% annual decline in occupancy within 

5 years with 99% power. In addition, we will be able to detect a 10% annual decline in 

fecundity within 5 years with 80% power or greater. See Section 2.0 Sampling Design for 

details.

Page 19, 3.1: Will new survey members be formally ―certified‖ as competent (or not) by trusted, 

experienced staff during field familiarization? 

With a limited budget and staff, monitoring efforts would lose significant ground if a 

newly hired survey member proves to be incompetent in the field. However, even with 

rigorous hiring procedures and thorough reference checks, the SFAN may inadvertently 

hire someone that is inadequate in the field. New hires will undergo significant training 

and thorough review of field notes, datasheets, and maps. New staff will not be permitted 
 201

to conduct solo surveys until supervisory staff is confident in their abilities. If a new hire 

proves incompetent, the SFAN staff will be forced to fill in as needed until an adequate 

replacement arrives. Training requirements for new staff have been added in a new 

section of SOP 1. 

Page 20: What provision is there for field observers to report any problems or doubts they have 

about the protocol so that these can be addressed immediately? 

While there is no formal method for reporting problems outlined in the protocol, our staff 

is small, works together very closely during the field season, and checks-in almost daily. 

Field observers are traditionally supervised by others that are actively participating in 

the monitoring. The staff holds a pre-season, organizational meeting, and there are 

several follow-ups during the course of the season, both via email and during face-toface meetings. Field observers are always encouraged to report problems or doubts 

regarding their work. 

3.3.2. To what use will these detailed measurement of nest trees be put? It doesn‘t seem to 

address the monitoring objectives. 

Nest site measurements directly address monitoring objective 3. Other studies have 

detailed similar nest characteristics (i.e., Buchanan and Irwin 1993). Nest site 

measurements are very simple to conduct in the field with virtually no extra cost to the 

field crew. They also provide us with good indications of major changes in nest site 

selection and habitat around the nest sites. Some nest site variables may be incorporated 

into modeling approaches to assess NSO habitat relationships within the study area. 

Page 21, 3.4.1: are there other diseases as likely or more likely to affect the owls, such as those 

in the equine encephalitis group? 

Unknown. The NSO Recovery Plan (USFWS 2008) indicates that, “At this time, no avian 

diseases are significantly affecting spotted owls. It is unknown whether avian diseases 

such as West Nile Virus (WNV) or avian flu will significantly affect spotted owls.”

3.4.2: I would think a more careful reporting for SOD would be employed; all SOD could be 

GPS‘d and reported.

SOD is widespread throughout much of the NSO study area. A GPS point of all SOD 

occurrences would take away from much of the limited field time available for NSO 

monitoring. An independent effort to develop GIS layers of SOD presence and severity is 

a more suitable approach. The NPS submitted a proposal to USDA in 2010 to develop 

these GIS layers as part of an SOD research project. In addition, a SOD Severity Index 

has been added to the protocol that will provide an assessment of SOD around NSO 

activity centers.

Page 29: certification procedures for biotechs and volunteers should be developed. 
 202

Although no formal certification procedures exist, training requirements for volunteers 

and new staff are outlined in SOP 1. 

SOP 2, Page 24: define overstory and understory very specifically. 33% by cover? By Biomass? 

Count overstory foliage in the understory as in the understory. Be very specific. 

We have added specific details to this section, including clarification that we are 

recording species that compose >33% by cover. Overstory classification assumes that a 

tree receives direct sunlight, and thus its loss will increase light penetration to the forest 

floor. Understory vegetation may occur at any height secondary to the upper canopy 

layer, and includes secondary trees, shrubs, and herbs.

SOP 2, Page 25: description of site is too vaguely worded, too subject to interobserver 

variability. 

This portion of the nest habitat form has no set guidelines. However we have added the 

following guidance to this section, “Provide all details needed to orient future field staff 

to the site.”

SOP 5, Page 4: I may have missed it, but all the data collected around nests—how do you avoid 

duplicate measurements or do you intend them? I‘m confused about how you value ―trends‖ in 

slope, distance to opening, distance to edge, water, etc. 

During the course of this study, we have documented owls re-using nest trees, sometimes 

even the same platform or cavity nest structure. As of 2008, of the 274 nests located, 

approximately 12% of those were re-used nest trees. For each year that a nest tree is 

used, we re- measure nest tree DBH, nest height, slope, aspect, distance to water, etc. at 

the nest tree. During analysis, it will be easy to filter the data for nest trees used in more 

than one year and avoid adding duplicate measurements into the analysis. 

A suite of habitat variables will be employed to evaluate NSO habitat relationships within 

the study area over time. Some measures will be collected on site whereas others will be 

based on available GIS layers. If models that predict NSO nest site occurrence or 

reproductive success shift over time, the data can be further explored to see what habitat 

variables are driving model variances. For example, we could explore an interaction 

between year and distance to edge to see if there has been a significant movement of NSO 

towards forest edge habitats over time. The root cause of such a shift, however, may not 

be explained by the data and could require additional research. 

Nice Job Hazard Analysis. 
 203

SFAN Spotted Owl Reviewer #2 

The three reviewers who reviewed an earlier version of this protocol in 2004 affirmed many of 

the checklist items. I agree with those assessments and did not cover them in this review. Key 

comments made by 2004 reviewer R. J. Gutiérrez are referenced below as RJG. 

1. Is the overall monitoring protocol well organized, clearly written and will it produce 

scientifically sound results? 

RJG stated that the basic protocol is fine, which I agree, but he also stated that the details of 

analysis are sufficiently unclear to allow answering the question will it produce “scientifically 

sound results?” The key issues are the randomization design for the sampling and the explicit 

analysis to be used for different types of data gathered. The randomized design issue was 

addressed by the authors. Analyses to assess long term trends are too hypothetical. It‘s still 

unclear if the monitoring data are capable of delivering statistically significant trends. While the 

analytical methods for occupancy rate and fecundity are described briefly in SOP 5, it seems that 

the details of the methods are in an unpublished report by Connor and LeBuhn 2007. In SOP 5, 

the analytical methods are not linked back to the sampling design to demonstrate that detecting 

trends are feasible in such small landscapes. Also, the Narrative needs to succulently describe 

the analyses used to assess long-term trends. 

During revisions of this protocol, we developed new occupancy and fecundity power 

analyses under contract with the University of Idaho (Starcevich and Steinhorst 2010), 

which is included in the protocol as Appendix A. Starcevich and Steinhorst (2010) 

reviewed the power to detect trends for a variety of sample sizes and re-visit designs. The 

resulting sample design that we propose to implement is detailed in Section 2.0 of the 

protocol narrative. The sample design allows us to detect a 4% annual decline in 

occupancy within 5 years with 99% power. In addition, we will be able to detect a 10% 

annual decline in fecundity within 5 years with 80% power or greater. Our methods for 

long-term occupancy and fecundity analyses are entirely derived from Starcevich and 

Steinhorst (2010) and are described in SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting. 

It is not clear how the authors are addressing long-term effects of barred owls relative to the 

listed three measureable objectives in the Narrative. 

Narrative 2.1: Occupancy monitoring, when combined with detection probabilities, may be the 

most cost-effective means to detect population trends, long-term effects of barred owls, or other 

threats to the NSO population on federal lands in Marin County.

Olson et al. (2005) recommend the use of a site-specific barred owl covariate in NSO 

detectability analyses to prevent false conclusions about NSO occupancy decreases. 

Issues surrounding the sampling of Barred Owls need to be addressed. 

A systematic protocol for sampling barred owl occupancy within the study area is beyond 

the scope of this monitoring protocol. Focused efforts beyond the incidental detections of 
 204

barred owls would likely require calling for barred owls within spotted owl territories, 

which may greatly hinder our abilities to detect trends in the spotted owl population. Our 

approach instead will be to use BAOW as a covariate when analyzing long-term trends in 

the spotted owl data. BAOW presence was included as a covariate in the occupancy 

power analysis developed by Starcevich and Steinhorst (2010). SOP 5: Data Analysis 

and Reporting details our approach to incorporating barred owls presence into 

occupancy, fecundity, and habitat analyses.

5. Does the monitoring protocol include a good and thorough summary of existing and previous 

monitoring work in the parks, the network of parks, and region relative to the indicator 

Key research/monitoring findings on spotted owls in CA and from the broader perspective--

Anthony et al. 2006--needs to be included (providing a range-wide context for work in Marin 

County). 

Section 1.1 has been re-organized and re-titled as “Northern Spotted Owl Range-Wide 

Status and Habitat Associations”. The rationale for monitoring initially contained in 

Section 1.1 has been expanded and moved to just before Section 1.1. A summary of key 

research findings from the NSO literature, including Anthony et al. 2006, has been 

included in Section 1.1. 

7. Does the monitoring protocol include clear and specific objectives for management action 

such as thresholds and or trends? 

The authors acknowledge that trigger points for management have not been identified. Not clear 

what management can do. Removal of barred owls from national parks is not a viable option. 

Management triggers have been identified and added to the protocol under Section 1.7. 

Identifying or providing examples of specific management actions that may be employed 

under different scenarios is beyond the scope of this monitoring protocol. 

4. Is the sampling and experimental design appropriate and sufficient to answer the monitoring 

questions and ensure statistical validity? 

Details are missing for long-term analyses and habitat relations.

Detailed statistical methods for detecting changes in occupancy and fecundity over time 

have been added to SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting. We have also drafted a detailed 

GIS modeling approach that will be used to investigate how occupancy and reproductive 

success may be related to important habitat variables. 

1. Is planning and project management (e.g., staffing, budgeting, scheduling) clearly described, 

logical, and likely to ensure that the project objectives will be met? 

Budget/staffing time commitment for analyses and reports not clear. 
 205

Annual reporting is built into the annual project schedule as indicated in Table 3. The 

Lead Biological Technician is responsible for report preparation in coordination with the 

project lead(s), as indicated in Section 4.5 and Section 5.1. We have added to Section 6.3 

to clarify that the annual budget for the Lead Biological Technician includes completion 

of the annual report. Section 5.1 clarifies that long-term trend reports are initiated and 

completed by the project lead(s). Budget needs for long-term trend reports are unknown 

at this time. However, Section 6.3 states, “If these needs cannot be met by park or SFAN 

staff, periodic costs may also include technical assistance through cooperative 

agreements (e.g., through a CESU) or contracts to assist with data analysis during 

development of long-term trend reports.”

7. Does the plan discuss the need for periodic reviews of the overall monitoring program as well 

as individual protocols or other components? 

Protocol revisions are discussed in several places in the protocol narrative and SOPs. 

Section 2.4 of the protocol narrative discusses the need to periodically review the 

effectiveness of the NSO monitoring design to detect target trends in occupancy and 

fecundity in a timely manner. Scenarios that would trigger a reassessment of the current 

study design include a change in detectability rates, which could be due to a stronger 

barred owl influence, and broad population-wide biological changes, such as multiple 

non-breeding seasons. Section 4.6 and SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting note that a 

review of the sampling design, field methods, and analytical techniques will be explored 

in detail as a component of the long-term trend reports produced every 5 years. Finally, 

SOP 7: Revising the Protocol addresses the need to revise methodologies for collecting 

and analyzing monitoring data as new information becomes available. The SOP provides 

detailed instructions on protocol revisions to ensure that edits are reviewed, welldocumented, and that current protocol versions are adequately distributed.

1. Are the literature citations relevant, sufficient and consistently formatted? 

A succinct, broader literature review is needed of the NSO, especially (1) habitat studies that 

might guide objective 3 and (2) summarize 2006 Anthony et al. results. 

Section 1.1 has been re-organized and re-titled as “Northern Spotted Owl Range-Wide 

Status and Habitat Associations”. The rationale for monitoring initially contained in 

Section 1.1 has been expanded and moved to just before Section 1.1. A summary of key 

research findings from the NSO literature, including Anthony et al. 2006, has been 

included in Section 1.1. Section 1.3.1 has been expanded and discusses research on NSO 

habitat relationships within the I&M study area. 

2. Does the literature reflect current scientific understanding of the target indicator(s)? 

Agree with RJG‘s 2004 comment: Was insufficient to determine this.

Relevant citations from the scientific literature have been expanded.
 206

Additional comments and suggestions: 

A. Sample Design

The protocol appears sufficient to ―generally‖ inform managers from San Francisco Network 

National Parks about the status and trends of the NSO breeding in these Parks. For this species, 

high-profile and threatened, the NPS needs to be extraordinarily careful in developing a protocol 

that will stand up in the courts. The reality is that the NSO is among the most litigated species in 

North America. The context surrounding the NSO, unfortunately, raises the bar for developing a 

monitoring protocol--beyond simply informing status and trends to managers that have few, if 

any options to take management actions for this species. 

It is plausible that NSO monitoring results from Marin County National Parks could find its way 

into court cases. If so, would the trend analyses of occupancy and fecundity rates used in this 

protocol stand up in court? Statistical inferences that can be drawn from the protocol 

design/methods seem weak. 

The protocol states: there is a 78% probability in capturing a 10% annual decline over 8 years 

n=20. 

A 10% annual decline is an extraordinarily steep decline. Detecting this steep decline comes at a 

moderate probability, too, 78% at alpha=0.2. Any decline less than a very rapid local extinction 

will not be detected effectively. It seems evident: for this protocol to be effective, the monitoring 

sample size needs to be increased substantially, perhaps doubled, and the sample frequency 

needs to be annual rather than periodic. The budget is well below what is needed to monitor this 

species effectively. 

Our revised sampling design, presented in Section 2.0 of the protocol narrative, 

addresses the reviewers concerns. We are proposing to monitor an annual panel of 28 

sites for occupancy and fecundity. The remaining 32 sites within the study area are split 

into four panels of 8 sites each, which will be visited over a four year period. With 8 

additional sites monitored each year, we reach a total of 36 sites monitored annually (28 

+ 8). The sample design allows us to detect a 4% annual decline in occupancy within 5 

years with 99% power. In addition, we will be able to detect a 10% annual decline in 

fecundity within 5 years with 80% power or greater.

B. Barred Owls

A systematic protocol for reliably sampling Barred Owl occupancy was not presented in the 

protocol. The following outputs are expected in the protocol using what is assumed to be an 

opportunistic sampling scheme for Barred Owls: 

 Barred owl 

o Number of detections 

o Number of NSO sites with barred owls detected 

o Barred owl occupancy status at sites 

o Estimate of number of barred owls in study area 
 207

To test for barred owl effects, correlations between number of barred owls on NSO territories 

can be made with NSO territory occupancy or fecundity. Barred owl presence on a territory 

could be used as a covariate in a logistic regression analysis of NSO reproductive success. 

Effects of barred owls could be determined through examining whether barred owl presence is 

associated with changes in NSO nest site characteristics at different scales (ANOVA). 

A systematic protocol for sampling barred owl occupancy within the study area is beyond 

the scope of this monitoring protocol. Focused efforts beyond the incidental detections of 

barred owls would likely require calling for barred owls within spotted owl territories, 

which may greatly hinder our abilities to detect trends in the spotted owl population. Our 

approach instead will be to use BAOW as a covariate when analyzing long-term trends in 

the spotted owl data. BAOW presence was included as a covariate in the occupancy 

power analysis developed by Starcevich and Steinhorst (2010). See SOP: 5 Data Analysis 

and Reporting for details.

C. Effects of Periodically Changing the Study Design

The authors suggested that the sample design would have to change as Barred Owl populations 

increased (inevitable?) (text shown below). Yet, no assessment was given on the effects that 

drawing new samples would have on future analyses and the ability to detect trends in a 

reasonable timeframe. If new samples are inevitable, does it make sense to commit a long-term 

monitoring program to this species? 

Narrative 2.3.1: Sample sites will be permanent, unless there are biological reasons to review the 

protocol, reassess the sample population, and reselect a sample. Scenarios that would trigger a 

reassessment of the current study design include a change in detectability rates, which could be 

due to a stronger barred owl influence, and broad population-wide biological changes, such as 

multiple non-breeding seasons. In addition, a precipitous drop in the occupancy rate may 

suggest that owls are leaving the study area, moving further outside of their historic activity 

centers than our field monitoring protocols can capture, or are dying for reasons unknown. 

Reanalyzing the detection rates using new data, completing a full study area inventory, and 

revising the field methods are possible responses.

Narrative 2.5.3: A random sample that is initially representative of a larger sample population 

can lose this ability with long-term, large-scale population changes, such as what has been seen 

in the effects of barred owls on the NSO populations in the Pacific Northwest. While the best 

sampling design is spatially and temporally balanced enough to reflect these large-scale shifts, 

in some cases, the shift is not captured. Knowing that the Marin County NSO population has the 

potential for a large change with an expansion of barred owl numbers, another inventory may be 

needed to in the near future to avoid the problem of missing such shifts in distribution or 

abundance of NSO or barred owls. Depending on findings, a new random fecundity and/or 

occupancy monitoring sample could be selected from this inventoried population, which may 

avoid any research bias that could develop by surveying the same sample of sites each year. 

Our newly proposed sampling design visits all sites within our study area within a 4 year 

time-frame. A random sample that is not representative of the entire population is no 
 208

longer an issue with this protocol. The protocol narrative reflects this change, and the 

second paragraph quoted above has been removed. 

As with other monitoring protocols, we will still need to review our sample design and 

field methods on a periodic basis to ensure that we are still able to meet our monitoring 

objectives. Protocol review will be a component of our long-term trend reports. We have 

added Section 2.4 Sample Design Review to the protocol narrative which outlines the 

need to review the sample design and field methods on a periodic basis.

D. Inconsistencies 

1. Narrative 4.4: For the annual reports, only NPS occupancy data from the 25 long-term 

monitoring sites and NPS fecundity data from the 25 fecundity sites are summarized and 

presented. 

Narrative 2.3.1: The process was repeated for the fecundity monitoring using the fecundity 

potential sample population and selecting the first 20 sites.

This was an unintentional inconsistency in the draft protocol we submitted for review. 

The error is irrelevant at this point since we have increased our sample size. We will 

monitor 36 sites each year for occupancy and fecundity. Both sections noted above have 

been revised to reflect our currently proposed sample design.

2. Inconsistent when long-term trend reports will be produced: 

SOP 5 2.0: every 9-13 years 

Narrative 4.6: every 10 years.

This was an unintentional inconsistency in the draft protocol we submitted for review. 

With our current proposal of annual monitoring, we now suggest that long-term trend 

reports should be produced every 5 years.

E. Budget 

Narrative 6.2: Not clear from the budget where/how analyses and report production are being 

funded? 

Annual reporting is built-into the annual project schedule as indicated in Table 3. The 

Lead Biological Technician is responsible for report preparation in coordination with the 

project lead(s), as indicated in Section 4.5 and Section 5.1. We have added to Section 6.3 

to clarify that the annual budget for the Lead Biological Technician includes completion 

of the annual report. Section 5.1 clarifies that long-term trend reports are initiated and 

completed by the project lead(s). Budget needs for long-term trend reports are unknown 

at this time. However, Section 6.3 states, “If these needs cannot be met by park or SFAN 

staff, periodic costs may also include technical assistance through cooperative 

agreements (e.g., through a CESU) or contracts to assist with data analysis during 

development of long-term trend reports.”
 209

F. Peer Review Reconciliation 

Comment from 2004 reviewer RJG: ―....need to clarify the style. I would write this as if it were 

a proposal. We will do this and we will do that style. or this will be done and that will be done 

by this group in this manner.‖

Style still needs work. 

For example from SOP 5.2: Some examples of potential analyses are examining differences in 

occupancy and fecundity rates between age classes of females and males, factors associated with 

differences in habitat quality, different nesting habitat factors (e.g., distance to water, forest 

edge, and dominant forest structure).

Improvements to the writing style were made throughout the protocol narrative and 

accompanying SOPs.

Long-term Trend Analysis Reporting

Narrative section 4.6 lacks any explanation of what kind of analyses will be done to determine 

statistically significant long-term trends. This is the most important analysis of the monitoring 

project. 

Detailed statistical methods for detecting changes in occupancy and fecundity over time 

have been added to SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting. We have also drafted a detailed 

GIS modeling approach that will be used to investigate how occupancy and reproductive 

success may be related to important habitat variables. The approach to trend detection 

tiers off of the power analyses performed by Starcevich and Steinhorst (2010) which is 

described in detail in protocol Section 2.2, Section 2.3, and is included as Appendix A. 

Protocol Section 4.6 directs readers to the detailed step-by-step guidance to methods for 

long-term analytical techniques presented in SOP 5. 

 
 210

Appendix SOP 7C: December 2008 letter from SFAN to PWR 

Protocol Review Coordinator. 

In December 2008, SFAN and park staff associated with the northern spotted owl monitoring 

protocol drafted a series of questions and clarifications following the formal peer review 

comments received in October 2008. A letter was sent to Dr. Jim Agee, PWR Protocol Review 

Coordinator, via email. The SFAN letter is included below and Dr. Agee‘s response is included 

as Appendix SOP 7D. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

12/18/2008 

Dear Dr. Agee, 

Thank you for the response and comments from yourself and two reviewers on the SFAN 

Spotted Owl Monitoring Protocol. We greatly appreciate the reviewers‘ time and their high level 

of scrutiny. Many of the comments will be relatively easy to address in a subsequent draft. For 

example, we agree that we made inconsistent use of the term ―habitat‖ and were unclear about 

the number of sample sites in different sections of the protocol and SOP. 

We are writing, however, to seek additional feedback from you and the reviewers which would 

greatly help us in addressing the peer review comments. In particular we seek further input on 

the issues of sample size and cycling. Below, we respond to the six main issues that you pointed 

out in your cover letter with questions and requests for guidance. Given that this was an 

anonymous review, they may want to respond in writing but we would also welcome a dialogue, 

perhaps even a conference call, with our project team to allow for in-depth discussion and to 

reduce the amount of time needed for back and forth correspondence. Also, on several 

comments below we note that they run counter to the guidance from NPS. These may require 

additional conversations between you and Penny to give us additional guidance. 

 

Review Point 1. 

 A sample of 20-25 sites is too narrow to be effective (R1). And, if increased sampling 

will be needed in the future this will complicate analyses (R2). Why not increase sample 

size now? 

The Northwest Forest Plan suggests that more than 50 pairs should be monitored or ideally more 

than 75-100 (Lint, Joseph et al. 1999, Northern Spotted Owl Effectiveness Monitoring Plan). If 

this were applied to the SFAN spotted owl population, it would require a complete census of our 

study area and even then, may not be possible because of the available number of pairs and site 

access. 

For occupancy, the sample size (n=20) selected in our protocol was based on a 78% probability 

of capturing a 10% annual decline over 8 years. For fecundity, the sample size (n=20) selected 

in our protocol was based on a 74% power of detecting a 10% annual decline in fecundity over 
 211

12 years. It appears that the main concern is the level of decline that we can detect in not 

adequate (we would only be able to detect a catastrophic change). This is a good issue to bring 

up, but we would like additional guidance on what level of change would be considered 

acceptable. If, for example, we increased our sample size to n=30, it would increase power to 

88% power of detecting a 10% annual decline over 12 years, would reviewers find that to be 

adequate? 

Related to this issue, reviewers also pointed out that the current sample size of 20 would be 

adequate if data can be rolled up with regional studies. It should be noted that our data currently 

contribute to a county-wide data set on spotted owls in this region. PRBO Conservation Science, 

for example, annually monitors spotted owls on up to 25 sites on non-federal lands. These lands 

include those managed by Marin County and the Marin Municipal Water District. The focus of 

their monitoring is tracking site occupancy and reproductive success in areas with management 

concerns. While their monitoring objective is different, their field methods are identical so that 

occupancy and fecundity can be compared. 

Also, in the past, data collected through this monitoring program were incorporated into the 5-

year review (Anthony et al. 2006. Status and Trends in Demography of Northern Spotted Owls: 

1985-2003. Wildlife Monograph 163). While we are still collecting occupancy and fecundity 

data, we did drop banding. The field methods for determining occupancy and fecundity are still 

compatible with those of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) and can be rolled up with future 

analyses. Barrowclough et al (page 1117; 2005) notes that monitoring the spotted owl in this 

region continues to be of interest to the NWFP because it is geographically distinct. Data from 

our monitoring effort will also contribute towards Recovery Action 3 (conduct occupancy 

inventory in areas outside of the demographic study areas; USFWS 2008. Spotted Owl 

Recovery Plan). The question for reviewers is then if we highlighted how data are compatible 

with the data collected by PRBO and the NWFP, would reviewers view the proposed sample size 

as adequate or would sample size continue to be problematic? 

Related to sample design, in the protocol we proposed a 3-year on 3-year off rotation. We have 

also considered a 1 year on and 2 year off or a 1 year on 1 year off that would provide us with 

similar power. We selected the 3/3 design anticipating that it would be easier to hire a technician 

for 3 consecutive years than to hire and train a new person every other year or every 3rd year. 

Similarly, the design proposed for landbird monitoring would fall in 3 years on 3 years off and 

we could cycle these two programs. If the 3/3 design, however is insufficient, we would like 

thoughts from the reviewers if either of the two other designs 1/1 or 1/2 would be sufficient. We 

note also that even in our ―off‖ years, PRBO will continue to monitor sites and NPS will also 

monitor some sites to address park management needs. These sites will not be randomly selected 

and may not include all monitoring described in the protocol. However, the effort will help us 

determine if unusual events may be occurring during a year (such as the non-nesting year in 

2007). Guidance on cycling will be very helpful because if cycling of any kind is unacceptable, 

then our board and steering committee must make serious decisions that would require us to drop 

the spotted owl or another monitoring program. 
 212

Review Point 2. 

 Methods are well-described but are unlikely to be effective in establishing no occupancy 

(R2). 

We are using the same standard as in the NWFP to determine site occupancy including day visits 

to look for signs of use (white wash and pellets), night calling, and in some cases pre-dawn visits 

or searches of a larger area around previous sites. Occupancy analyses of our 1999-2005 data 

indicate that surveying a site twice during the day and once at night within a season would give a 

98% probability of detection. In addition, we are awaiting the release of the updated USFWS 

northern spotted owl protocol (expected in 2009) that will help define the probability of detecting 

spotted owl presence or absence given the presence or absence of a barred owl. If the reviewer 

has something else in mind can they point us to acceptable standards? 

Review Point 3. 

 There is a pressing need to correlate change in owl populations with causes, but neither 

sudden oak death nor barred owls will be monitored in sufficient detail to establish cause 

(R1, R2).

We agree that this is a pressing issue but this is a research topic rather than a component of the 

monitoring protocol. Golden Gate NRA has received funding in 2007 to conduct a barred owl 

study to evaluate effects on spotted owls. The study did not get implemented because of the 

small population of barred owls in our study area (1 pair). Funding has been requested again for 

the years 2010-11. In regards to incorporating barred owl monitoring into spotted owl 

monitoring, according to the Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (May 2008), there is no 

consensus on how to monitor barred owls within areas inhabited by spotted owls. 

Similarly, there has been recent research on the prevalence and distribution of Sudden Oak Death 

(SOD) at Point Reyes NS and Golden Gate NRA. Not all of the results were presented in the 

protocol and the research is on-going and is a coordinated effort by several agencies and 

universities. This work is also continuing into 2009. In addition, we note that spotted owls 

exhibit site tenacity that can result in a time lag (delayed response to habitat change). This may 

confound the immediate effects of SOD on spotted owl biology. In the near future, we may be 

able to determine a correlative effect by evaluating our long-term spotted owl occupancy and 

reproductive data with current and available SOD monitoring data. 

Although research is ongoing or planned, the main point is that while long-term monitoring 

should be able to detect trends, monitoring may not necessarily determine cause and effect. The 

direction we received from the national program is that once trends are detected, it is reasonable 

that additional research may be triggered to look for causal links. While we can strengthen the 

section of the protocol dealing with triggers for more research or management (see Review Point 

4 below), the request to expand monitoring to SOD and barred owls or the myriad of other 

potential threats listed by R1, is outside of the scope of vital signs monitoring. As far as we 

know, the NWFP has not done this either. 
 213 

Review Point 4. 

 There are no trigger points for management actions, and no suggestions of what actions 

might include (R1, R2). 

While we agree that this section can be enhanced, determining specific management actions are 

difficult if not impossible without knowing causal links. We expect that once a ―trigger‖ is met, 

additional research will be needed to determine causal links. Only after that can management 

actions be seriously considered. 

Reasonable triggers for more research that we are considering include: 

a. a decline in productivity and/or occupancy of > 50% in one year, 

b. reproductive failure for 3 out of 6 years, and 

c. barred owls are documented at >10 spotted owl sites in any given year. 

If the reviewers have other reasonable triggers in mind, we would greatly appreciate their input. 

Review Point 5. 

 Nest site characteristics are well done, but what if changes in owl numbers is associated 

with foraging area characteristics (R1)? 

As in the Review Point 3, research on prey base and a foraging area are outside of the scope of 

this monitoring effort. The reason nest site characteristics have been incorporated into the study 

is because it is very simple to do with virtually no extra cost to the field crew. It also provides us 

with a good indication of major habitat changes that may be occurring around the nest sites. The 

reviewers are correct that if owl numbers change for other reasons (such as foraging area 

characteristics), research will be needed. Foraging research has been conducted in the park by 

PRBO Conservation Science (see Fehring et al. 2003) and could be conducted again if owl 

productivity changes. Similarly, if the extent or intensity of SOD increases, additional foraging 

or habitat research may be warranted. 

Review Point 6. 

 Long-term trend analysis needs more definition. 

We can add more information here. Connor and Lebuhn (quantitative ecologists at San 

Francisco State University working with the spotted owl team) suggest that trend analyses can be 

conducted by fitting the appropriate ANOVA model or occupancy model to the respective 

fecundity and occupancy data, and examining tests for linear or quadratic trends and for temporal 

differences in the fecundity data, and a likelihood ratio test for a year effect on occupancy in the 

occupancy data. Such analyses could be updated each year after data are obtained for the current 

year. 
 214 

Other Points 

Mousing: R1 notes a concern about reduced mousing in our protocol. Early in the monitoring 

program, we followed the standard NWFP protocol. However, staff noted that owls were 

frequenting campgrounds, following hikers and roosting on deck railings of homes. Park 

managers decided at the time that causing habituation to spotted owl was not acceptable in this 

study area. Staff began to field test a modified approach that would reduce habitation of owls to 

people. The modified protocol relies on increased survey effort over mousing. This often 

succeeds because nests are generally platform types and not cavity types. Mousing is still 

conducted as a last result. When developing the modified approach in 1999, field staff tested the 

methods and compared results to the standard NWFP methods. Park staff also consulted with 

NWFP biologists to ensure data consistency while still meeting park expectations for reduced 

mousing. Given that data were comparable with our monitoring effort, they were included in the 

5-year review (Anthony et al. Status and Trends in Demography of Northern Spotted Owls: 

1985-2003. Wildlife Monograph 163). 

Banding: While the reviewers expressed concern that we were not banding we would like more 

guidance about the reason for this. As noted above, we believe that our methods are compatible 

with the NWFP for occupancy and fecundity monitoring. Banding would initially increase the 

work load but may provide increased efficiency in the field. We would have to determine if 

banding for the sake of increasing our efficiency is a good justification. Additional insight from 

the reviewers on why we should band would be helpful. 

Protocol: R1 noted that, ―Of further concern is the departure of the protocol from monitoring on 

other federal lands making it impossible to interpret results in the light of more widespread 

geographic phenomenon.‖ As noted above, our methods are consistent. If the reviewer can 

provide specifics as to what aspect of our field methods the reviewer is most concerned with, it 

would be very helpful. 

Thank you for your help. We look forward to your and/or the reviewers' response. 

Happy Holidays, 

Marcus 

****************************************************** 

Marcus Koenen 

Inventory and Monitoring Coordinator 

San Francisco Bay Area Network (SFAN) 

*******************************************************
 215 

Appendix SOP 7D: April 2009 PWR response to SFAN peer 

review clarification letter. 

In April 2009, Dr. Jim Agee responded to the letter from the SFAN and park staff presented in 

Appendix SOP 7C. Dr. Agee‘s letter is included below as Appendix SOP 7D. Responses from 

the SFAN are included in italics. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

College of Forest Resources Box 352100 

University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195 

James K. Agee, Emeritus Professor of Forest Ecology Phone: none Fax: 206-543-3254 

112 Winkenwerder Hall email: jagee@u.washington.edu

______________________________________________________________________________ 

April 20, 2009 

The review of the SFAN network response to the initial peer review of the Northern Spotted Owl 

protocol has been completed. We sent the 2008 version of the protocol, the 2008 peer review, 

and the network‘s response to two reviewers familiar with northern spotted owl issues. We‘ll 

call them here reviewer 3 and reviewer 4. Note that reviewer 3 was reviewer 2 in the 2008 

review. The 2008 peer review raised five major issues, and these are addressed by each reviewer 

below. The review is organized as follows: 

 Issue raised by 2008 peer review 

 Network response 

 Reviewer 3 comments 

 Reviewer 4 comments 

 PRC (Agee) conclusions

At the end of this letter is a summary of findings. 

Review Point 1. A sample of 20-25 sites is too narrow to be effective (R1). And, 

if increased sampling will be needed in the future this will complicate analyses 

(R2). Why not increase sample size now? 

Network response. The Northwest Forest Plan suggests that more than 50 pairs should be 

monitored or ideally more than 75-100 (Lint, Joseph et al. 1999, Northern Spotted Owl 

Effectiveness Monitoring Plan). If this were applied to the SFAN spotted owl population, it 

would require a complete census of our study area and even then, may not be possible because of 

the available number of pairs and site access. Related to sample design, in the protocol we 
 216

proposed a 3-year on 3-year off rotation. ....Guidance on cycling will be very helpful because if 

cycling of any kind is unacceptable, then our board and steering committee must make serious 

decisions that would require us to drop the spotted owl or another monitoring program. 

Reviewer 3 response. Noted above, 50 pairs are recommended by Northern Spotted Owl 

experts, which likely would require a complete census. It is not clear to me why the Network is 

asking the peer reviewers to find a solution for achieving something less than what experts have 

already tested and recommended (from 8 demography locations studied for more than 20 years). 

If documenting long-term trends of the Northern Spotted Owl is a high priority Vital Sign for 

this network, then the Network needs to provide effective design and sufficient resources to 

achieve what experts are recommending. There is a reality check that the Network seems 

unwilling to address; that is, rare, wide-ranging vertebrates are expensive to monitor effectively, 

and there are few, if any, short cuts. The question on the table is less about science and 

reconciling comments by peer reviewers and more about whether or not the Network is capable 

or willing to provide sufficient resources to monitor this species effectively. 

Dr. Agee‘s October 1, 2008 letter stated the following: ―The small sample size is less an issue if 

the methods are compatible with those of other agencies, so that this protocol can be part of a 

larger dataset. On its own, it will need a larger sample size.‖ Dr. Agee stated the problem and 

solution, succinctly. Building on this point: increase the sample size by forming a ―regional‖ 

partnership (agreement) to monitor trends of the Owl at a broader geographic scale than the 

parks alone. To achieve this, the Network‘s monitoring objectives, analyses, and interpretations 

would need to be revised, to project trends broader than at a multi-Park scale. While the design, 

analytical methods, and reporting would shift to a larger scale, monitoring implemented on NPS 

land could continue to inform land managers of the Owl‘s status locally. A partnership approach 

has its risks, however. If partners pull out, then implementation of the protocol is in jeopardy. 

Reviewer 4 response. We agree with the reviewers that the sample size is pretty small. In 

addition, we question the value of doing just a portion of the demographic monitoring protocol, 

fecundity monitoring. The demographic meta-analyses has illustrated that the main driver of 

spotted owl lambda is adult female survival, not fecundity. Although fecundity is interesting, if 

the main question is spotted owl population trends, and you can‘t measure survival (which you 

can‘t without banding) then I think the network would be better served, and have a more 

powerful monitoring program if their effort focused solely on occupancy monitoring. Given the 

level access and spotted owl density, I suspect that they could get to almost all of the 60 sites. 

Occupancy monitoring would require fewer visits per site, and consequently for the same level 

of effort, more sites could be sampled, the area of inference would be greater, as would the 

power to detect trend. 

I understand all too well the financial constraints with the I&M program, and do not have serious 

reservations with an on and off cycle of NSO monitoring, especially if the sample size is 

increased. However, I am a bit concerned about a 3 on and 3 off cycle. In many other NSO 

monitoring areas an every other year breeding cycle is prevalent. If the SFAN gets into that 

cycle, data would may hard to interpret because you could be in a situation where the trends 

would be either biased high (2 good years and one bad) or low. I suggest it might be better to a 2 

year cycle. 
 217

PRC Conclusions. The reviewers agree that the sample size is too small, and there just are not 

short cuts to solve this problem. It‘s the network‘s call on whether you want to focus on 

fecundity or occupancy, and whether a 3-on/3-off or 2-on/2-off yearly sampling cycle is best 

(Reviewer 4 seems to have a good justification for 2-on/2-off).

This protocol includes a revised sample design that includes annual sampling and increases the 

number of sites sampled. Details are presented in Section 2.0. We are proposing to monitor 

an annual panel of 28 sites for occupancy and fecundity. The remaining 32 sites within 

the study area are split into four panels of 8 sites each, which will be visited over a four 

year period. With 8 additional sites monitored each year, we reach a total of 36 sites 

monitored annually (28 + 8). The sample design allows us to detect a 4% annual decline 

in occupancy within 5 years with 99% power. In addition, we will be able to detect a 10% 

annual decline in fecundity within 5 years with 80% power or greater. 

Review Point 2. Methods are well-described but are unlikely to be effective in 

establishing no occupancy (R2). 

Network response. We are using the same standard as in the NWFP to determine site 

occupancy including day visits to look for signs of use (white wash and pellets), night calling, 

and in some cases pre-dawn visits or searches of a larger area around previous sites. Occupancy 

analyses of our 1999-2005 data indicate that surveying a site twice during the day and once at 

night within a season would give a 98% probability of detection. In addition, we are awaiting 

the release of the updated USFWS northern spotted owl protocol (expected in 2009) that will 

help define the probability of detecting spotted owl presence or absence given the presence or 

absence of a barred owl. If the reviewer has something else in mind can they point us to 

acceptable standards? 

Reviewer 3 response. The approaches provided are okay. 

Reviewer 4 response. I agree with the SFAN network, their methods are well documented to do 

well in detecting NSO‘s, and with a formal occupancy analysis, with a proportion of the sites 

being revisited, one would be able to assess detection probability and possible changes in 

detection over time. We suggest that SFAN model occupancy as Gail Olson did using the 

MacKenzie et al 2003 methods, where changes in detect ability would be accounted for in the 

estimation of occupancy rate, regardless of the cause (breeding status, weather, barred owls, 

habituation, etc). 

PRC conclusions. Network approach is acceptable.

Review Point 3. Correlate changes in owl populations with causes. 

PRC conclusions. There was no network response to review point #3. It dealt with measures of 

barred owl populations or sudden oak death as causal factors for changes in spotted owl 
 218

populations. As these are likely research topics, they should not be required as part of a 

monitoring protocol. However, if the nest tree part of the protocol is retained, it seems that SOD 

could be monitored in the vicinity of nest trees quite easily. 

A SOD severity index has now been included to rapidly assess the state of SOD in around 

activity centers. Details for SOD data collection are provided in SOP 2: Standard Field 

Procedures. 

Review Point 4. There are no trigger points for management actions, and no 

suggestions of what actions might include (R1, R2). 

Network response. While we agree that this section can be enhanced, determining specific 

management actions are difficult if not impossible without knowing causal links. We expect that 

once a ―trigger‖ is met, additional research will be needed to determine causal links. Only after 

that can management actions be seriously considered. 

Reasonable triggers for more research that we are considering include: 

a. a decline in productivity and/or occupancy of > 50% in one year, 

b. reproductive failure for 3 out of 6 years, and 

c. barred owls are documented at >10 spotted owl sites in any given year. If the reviewers 

have other reasonable triggers in mind, we would greatly appreciate their input. 

Reviewer 3 response. The triggers provided are okay, as long a brief rationale is provided. Re: 

management actions: Recommend providing additional information by reviewing known 

management actions or proposed management actions (published and unpublished) (e.g., the 

ongoing USFWS Barred Owl removal study was a management action). The best sources are the 

Recovery Plan(s) and USFWS 5-year reviews, as well as, contacting the USFWS directly on this 

topic, then adapt accordingly as NPS management actions to consider.

Reviewer 4 response. I have always struggled with this issue, especially for a species that is a 

regional management issue. SFAN management team needs to decide what they will do under 

what situations. One suggestion would be management actions to take if there is an increase in 

barred owls and decrease in spotted owl occupancy. Because they are at the beginning phase of 

the invasion, they most likely can take effective action, or at least try, if the Park (s) decide that 

is something the can and should do. 

PRC conclusions. Reviewer 3 is clear and reviewer 4 somewhat less so, but the management 

triggers appear reasonable and acceptable. Make sure they are presented in the protocol revision 

not as triggers to be ―considered‖ but triggers that will be employed.

Two key management triggers have been added that are closely linked with our ability to 

detect trends. 
 219

 A 4% annual decline or greater in pair occupancy in 5 consecutive years of 

monitoring. 

 A 10% annual decline or greater in fecundity in 5 consecutive years of 

monitoring. 

The thresholds for these management triggers are a product of the power analysis 

conducted by Starcevich and Steinhorst (2010; Appendix A) and the adopted sample 

design for the monitoring program (see Section 2.0 Sample Design) 

The previously identified management triggers were left in because they will serve to help 

identify unexpected , yet catastrophic changes that could occur and would trigger 

immediate consultation with USFWS. 

Review Point 5: Nest site characteristics are well done, but what if changes in 

owl numbers is associated with foraging area characteristics (R1)? 

Network response. As in the Review Point 3, research on prey base and a foraging area are 

outside of the scope of this monitoring effort. The reason nest site characteristics have been 

incorporated into the study is because it is very simple to do with virtually no extra cost to the 

field crew. It also provides us with a good indication of major habitat changes that may be 

occurring around the nest sites. The reviewers are correct that if owl numbers change for other 

reasons (such as foraging area characteristics), research will be needed. 

Reviewer 3 response. No response. 

Reviewer 4 response. I do question the value of continuing to measure nest tree 

characteristics. If the network is concerned about habitat changes, then that should be measured 

or assessed either through this or another (vegetation monitoring ?-) protocol. If nest trees are 

being monitored for management and compliance (e.g., to protect all known nest sites) that that 

should be just stated. My understanding is that vital signs monitoring is to detect change, and if 

change is detected, we are to do targeted research to understand what is going on. Monitoring 

foraging habitat and prey base is way beyond what the program is supposed to do. 

PRC conclusions. Network response is acceptable. 

Review Point 6. Long-term trend analysis needs more definition 

Network response. We can add more information here. Connor and Lebuhn (quantitative 

ecologists at San Francisco State University working with the spotted owl team) suggest that 

trend analyses can be conducted by fitting the appropriate ANOVA model or occupancy model 

to the respective fecundity and occupancy data, and examining tests for linear or quadratic trends 

and for temporal differences in the fecundity data, and a likelihood ratio test for a year effect on 
 220

occupancy in the occupancy data. Such analyses could be updated each year after data are 

obtained for the current year. 

Reviewer 3 response. The protocol authors seem to be struggling with this section, nibbling 

around the edges without taking it on directly. I will repeat my original comment because I 

believe the intent at that time was clear: 

―Narrative section 4.6 lacks any explanation of what kind of analyses will be done to determine 

statistically significant long-term trends. This is the most important analysis of the monitoring 

project.‖ 

The protocol is incomplete without addressing this point sufficiently. I recommend that authors 

contact one or more NPS or I&M quantitative ecologists who have completed this section of a 

protocol for a vertebrate species and/or contact Tom Philippi, I&M Quantitative Ecologist, to 

assist and provide more comprehensive perspective on the expectations for this section of the 

protocol. 

Reviewer 4 response. Unfortunately, given our recommendations above, the network will need 

to go back to their statisticians. However, occupancy analysis is becoming fairly common, so I 

don‘t think this should be too hard to do (I hope).

PRC conclusions. The network needs to more specifically address the issue of long-term trends. 

Additional information has been added to both the narrative, specifically in Section 4.4 

and 4.6, and in detail in SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting for conducting the longterm occupancy and fecundity trend analyses. Instructions are also provided for the 

occupancy and fecundity trend analysis using the VGAM package of the R Project for 

Statistical Computing in the appendix to SOP 5. 

Other review comments made by reviewer 4: 

Mousing: We don‘t have any concerns with the consistency of SFANs methods.

Banding: There are advantages to banding, but in the original review it was decided that they 

were outweighed by cost and impact to the owls. We don‘t have concerns about the impacts of 

capture. They might have less overall impact if the monitored owls were banded and could be 

quickly identified this way, in fact it might save costs overall. This is a decision they should 

make with input from the field crew. However, if SFAN switches to occupancy monitoring, 

banding would not be required. 

Protocol: R1 noted that, ―Of further concern is the departure of the protocol from monitoring on 

other federal lands making it impossible to interpret results in the light of more widespread 

geographic phenomenon.‖ I agree with SFAN. I‘m not sure what is this reviewer‘s intent, 

except to perhaps have SFAN do full blown demographic monitoring, which they are not 

required to do, nor do they have the resources to do. In addition, as they state above, the 
 221 

recovery plan does call for occupancy monitoring outside of the demographic areas, which is 

what they will be doing. 

Summary of conclusions. 

On review points 1 and 6, the reviewers agreed that the sample size was too small and that longterm trend analysis needs to be more specifically defined. On review points 2, 4 and 5, the 

reviewers agreed that the approach taken by the network for site occupancy and management 

thresholds is adequate. Reviewer 5 questioned the need for measuring nest tree characteristics, 

but if it can be afforded I see no reason that it should not be acceptable. 

I hope this additional review has provided adequate guidance to the network to complete an 

acceptable protocol for northern spotted owl. Please remember to address not only the 

comments in this supplementary review but also those made in the 2008 review before 

resubmitting the protocol. 

Sincerely, 

James K. Agee 

PWR Protocol Review Coordinator 

 223 

Appendix A: Analysis of power to detect trends in 

occupancy and fecundity in prairie falcon and spotted owl 

populations 

San Francisco Bay Area Network 

of the 

National Park Service 

Authors: 

Leigh Ann Harrod Starcevich 

Kirk Steinhorst 

March 2010

In Partial Fulfillment of 

Contract Number J8W07060004 

Contractor: Kirk Steinhorst, University of Idaho

Subcontractor: Leigh Ann Harrod Starcevich 

PO Box 1032 

Corvallis, OR 97339 

lah@peak.org 
 224 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................225

2. GENERAL ANALYSIS APPROACH ....................................................................................225 

2.1 Occupancy and trend modeling .................................................................................. 225 

2.2 Fecundity and trend modeling .................................................................................... 226 

2.3 Power approach ........................................................................................................... 227 

2.4 Revisit designs ............................................................................................................ 228

3. PRAIRIE FALCON POWER ANALYSES ...........................................................................229

3.1 Survey design .............................................................................................................. 229 

3.2 Occupancy analysis ..................................................................................................... 230 

3.2.1 Evaluation of detection probabilities ................................................................ 230 

3.2.2 Power analysis ................................................................................................... 232

3.3 Fecundity power analysis ............................................................................................ 235 

3.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 238

4. SPOTTED OWL POWER ANALYSES ................................................................................239

4.1 Sampling design .......................................................................................................... 239 

4.2 Occupancy analysis ..................................................................................................... 241 

4.3 Fecundıty analysis ....................................................................................................... 247

4.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 251

5. CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................252

6. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................253

APPENDIX A: Power to detect trends in spotted owl occupancy status categories by 

revisit design ................................................................................................................................254
 225 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors would like to thank Marcus Koenen, David Press, Bill Merkle, and Gavin Emmons 

of the San Francisco Area Network for providing helpful background for this analysis and 

Kathryn M. Irvine for her help with occupancy modeling. 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The San Francisco Bay Area Network (SFAN) of the National Park Service (NPS) has identified 

prairie falcon and spotted owl populations as two of the network's Vital Signs for long-term 

monitoring. Specifically, trends in occupancy and fecundity will be monitored so that 

detrimental changes in the population can be identified to inform timely management decisions. 

The analysis approaches for measures of occupancy and fecundity are first discussed, and then 

power to detect trends in occupancy and fecundity is computed for all metrics of interest for the 

two species. 

2. GENERAL ANALYSIS APPROACH 

The models for both occupancy and fecundity incorporate zero inflation. For occupancy 

analysis, extra zeroes may result from imperfect detection. When measuring fecundity, counts of 

hatchlings or fledglings might be subject to zeroes from nest failures due to non-nesting pairs, 

predation, or environmental factors. Analysis methods for zero-inflation apply mixture models 

that combine one distribution for the extra zeroes and another distribution for the remaining 

zeroes and non-zero outcomes so that measures of occupancy and fecundity can be accurately 

estimated (MacKenzie et al. 2006). The number of detections for occupancy analysis and the 

number of hatchlings or fledglings for fecundity analysis are modeled as zero-inflated binomial 

random variables. 

2.1 Occupancy and trend modeling 

Let yijk be the outcome for site i, year j, and visit k, and let yijk take a value of 1 if a prairie falcon 

is detected and 0 otherwise. Let 

ijk y

be the number of detections made at site i and year j during 

the k

th visit. The zero-inflated binomial distribution is expressed as: 

        1

1 1 0

ijk ijk

y y

P Y y p p ijk ij ij ij ij ijk   I y



      ,

where πj is the occupancy rate in year j and 

ij p

is the detection rate for site i and year j. Assume 

that there are S sites, T years, and K visits to a site each year. Define the indicator function as 

  0 ij I y 

as 1 when 

0 ij y 

and 0 otherwise. This model assumes an equal number of visits to a 

site within a year, but K can vary among sites or among years. 

Occupancy (π) is modeled with logistic regression as a function of related covariates:
226 

0 1 log ,

1

ij

ij

ij

x



 



          

where 

ij x

represents a covariate for the i

th site and the jth year. Multiple site-level or year-level 

covariates may be incorporated. To test for linear trend in the logged odds ratio of occupancy, 

the year covariate should be included as a predictor in the occupancy model. The probability of 

zero inflation (p) is simultaneously estimated by logistic regression: 

0 1 log

1

ij

ijk

ij

p

x

p

 

 

 

       

,

where 

ijk x

represents a covariate collected at the i

th site and kth visit during the jth year. 

The implicit dynamics occupancy model is assumed for this analysis. In contrast to the explicit 

dynamics model, estimates of colonization and local extinction are not explicitly measured in the 

implicit dynamics model (MacKenzie et al. 2006). The net effect of extinction and colonization 

rates on occupancy is monitored rather than estimating the parameters separately since 

monitoring net change over time is the primary goal. 

Maximum likelihood is used to estimate the regression coefficients from the models for 

occupancy and detection rates. Occupancy can be modeled at the site-by-year level so predictors 

should be collected at the site level, year level, or site-by-year level. Detection probabilities are 

allowed to vary at each visit for each site and year, so covariates are often environmental 

covariates that vary from visit to visit (MacKenzie et al. 2006). However, if detection rates are 

also changing over time, a model that includes a year covariate may be needed for accurate 

occupancy estimation. Model selection is conducted using the Akaike Information Criterion 

(AIC). Model output is examined to be certain that valid variance estimates are obtained. When 

valid estimates of the variance cannot be acquired for the model with the lowest AIC, then the 

model with the lowest AIC and valid variance is used. 

2.2 Fecundity and trend modeling 

Fecundity is monitored with counts of hatchlings or fledglings observed at each nest. These 

outcomes are also modeled with the zero-inflated binomial model. Let 

ij y

be the number of 

hatchlings or fledglings detected in occupied site i and year j. Let n be the number of occupied 

sites and T be the number of years monitored for fecundity. The probability mass function of Y

is: 

        1 1 0

ij ij

M y y

ij ij ij ij ij ij

ij

M

P Y y p p I y

y

 

  

       

 

,
227 

where πij is the probability that an extra 0 is not observed at site i in year j, pij is the probability 

of a hatchling/fledgling at site i in year j, M is the maximum number of hatchlings/fledglings 

seen in any nest, and I(yij = 0) is 1 when yij = 0 and is 0 otherwise. Maximum likelihood 

estimation is used to obtain estimates of the regression coefficients in each model, and the 

invariance property of maximum likelihood estimates is used to obtain estimates of 

 ij

and 

ij p . 

To test for trend in fecundity, the year covariate is included as a predictor in the binomial 

probability model and then tested for significance with a likelihood ratio test. In contrast to the 

occupancy analysis, fecundity inference is made on the change in pij over time. 

2.3 Power approach 

Power is often calculated assuming large-sample properties for hypothesis tests of significance. 

However, the assumptions necessary for assuming asymptotic normality are extensive and often 

difficult to verify (Sumathi and Aruna Rao, 2009). Ridout et al. (2001) observed that the normal 

approximation to the score test underestimates the true test size for testing the significance of the 

dispersion parameter when comparing the zero-inflated negative binomial and zero-inflated 

Poisson distributions. Jung et al. (2005) corrected this problem with a parametric bootstrapping 

approach to significance testing, which provided uniformly higher power. For both prairie 

falcon and spotted owl monitoring, trend is tested with the likelihood ratio test, which 

demonstrates power equal to or higher than that provided by the Wald test (Lyles et al. 2006). 

Model selection for occupancy and fecundity is conducted using the pilot data for prairie falcons 

and spotted owls. In each case, the model with the lowest AIC score with a valid variancecovariance matrix is used in the power analysis. In all four cases, power is computed via a 

parametric bootstrap. For each bootstrap sample, the likelihood ratio test of trend is conducted 

by applying the selected model with and without the term for trend. Power is calculated as the 

proportion of times that the null hypothesis is rejected for the one-sided alternative hypothesis of 

decreasing trend, i.e. 

: 0 H

o  

vs. 

: 0 H

a   .

Power must be approximated assuming that tests of trend are conducted at a specific Type I error 

rate. The Type I error rate, designated as α, is the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis. 

For two-sided tests of trend, a Type I error would mean that the population was found to be 

changing when it was not. A Type II error occurs by failing to reject a false null hypothesis and 

thus concluding no change has occurred. For long-term monitoring, the cost of a Type I error 

may be far less than the cost of a Type II error. Mistakenly rejecting a true null hypothesis (Type 

I error) may trigger a management conservation action that is not actually needed. However, 

failing to detect a significant trend may have deleterious effects that cannot be reversed by the 

time the trend is actually detected. A conservative approach is to use a larger α value for higher 

power and reduced probability of a Type II error (Buhl-Mortensen 1996; Gibbs, et al. 1998; 

Mapstone 1995). For this power analysis, an α value of 0.20 is used. Power does not fall below 

the α value assumed for the trend test. 
228 

2.4 Revisit designs 

Revisit designs specify the schedule of sites visitations by year for the duration of the monitoring 

period. Revisit design allow balance over space and time of available survey effort. The 

notation of MacDonald (2003) is used to describe the revisit designs. 

The notation employs a string of numbers, dashes, and commas to identify the revisit design 

among panels. The numbers in odd-numbered positions will designate the number of 

consecutive visits to a panel before it rotates out of the revisit schedule. Digits in the evennumbered positions indicate the number of sampling occasions that the panel will not be 

revisited. Therefore, a revisit schedule of [1-0] indicates that the panel will be revisited each 

year and never rotated out of the schedule. This revisit schedule is equivalent to taking a random 

sample of sites and visiting them every year. The [1-n] revisit design represents a sampling 

design in which independent random samples are taken every year. A [2-2] revisit design 

consists of one panel visited for two consecutive years and then rested for two consecutive years 

before beginning the cycle again. Differing revisit schedules among panels are indicated by 

separating the digits in parentheses by commas within the brackets. For example, a revisit 

schedule of [(1-0), (1-3)] indicates that the revisit design includes an annual panel that is 

revisited every year and four panels that are visited for one year then not visited for the following 

three years before being rotated back into the design. 

A random site effect may be incorporated in the occupancy or detection model to account for 

variation among sites. However, implementing the appropriate correlation structure in a mixed 

model approach may be problematic with maximum likelihood estimation (MacKenzie et al. 

2006). Incorporating numerous fixed site effects may exhaust available degrees of freedom 

making variance estimates unreliable and trend testing inaccurate. Without fixed or random site 

effects, the data are treated as if collected from a [1-n] revisit design. This revisit design has the 

lowest power for trend detection (Urquhart and Kincaid, 1999), so power results are 

conservative. Since site effects are difficult to incorporate, MacKenzie et al. (2006) suggest 

using a [1-0] design so that unexplained variation among sites is minimized for more accurate 

tests of trend. Incorporating relevant site-level covariates into the occupancy model will also 

help explain differences in occupancy from site-to-site. 
229 

3. PRAIRIE FALCON POWER ANALYSES 

SFAN, in cooperation with Pinnacles National Monument (PINN), has monitored the occupancy 

rate and fecundity measures of the prairie falcon population in PINN since 1984. SFAN 

personnel are interested in monitoring trends in occupancy and fecundity measures. This section 

will address the power to detect changes in prairie falcon occupancy and fecundity 

measurements over time. 

3.1 Survey design 

The target population includes 36 territories historically used by prairie falcon in PINN. Of the 

36 territories in the target population, 18 of these territories fall into the "core" area. The core 

area consists of territories that are more accessible to climbers and hikers. These areas have been 

surveyed more consistently and frequently over the last 22 years to assess hiking/climbing 

pressure during the breeding season. Eighteen non-core areas were identified and added to the 

sample over time. Due to the added monitoring importance of the core areas, the core and noncore areas will be treated as separate strata with core territories censused annually. Depending 

on survey resources and the results of the power analysis, the non-core territories will be either 

censused or allocated to a set of panels that are visited on an alternating cycle. 

Sites are visited at least 3 times each year with visits lasting 1 to 4 hours. At least 3 visits to a 

site are needed to determine that a site is unoccupied, and visits are spaced 21 to 28 days apart. 

In sites where prairie falcon detections are made, territorial occupancy is assessed by examining 

the behavior of each detected prairie falcon. Territorial behavior is verified by observing 

courtship or reproductive behavior or by evidence of offspring. 

Pilot data collected since 1984 are available with a more consistent effort made since 2002. 

Detections from Ball Pinnacle and Central High Peaks were excluded because these territories 

are near other historic territories and are not considered independent territories. Some survey 

records for territories in which no detections were made were omitted from the database prior to 

the 2008 survey, potentially causing invalid inference on occupancy and detection rates from the 

incomplete data set. For this reason, only the 2008 and 2009 data are used for the power 

analysis. This database problem does not affect the fecundity data set because the subset of pairoccupied sites is the target population for fecundity monitoring. Fecundity monitoring data were 

collected from 2002 to 2009. While fecundity data are available since 1984, the data collected 

since 2002 represent the current methodology and are thought to be more consistent. 

SFAN is interested in approximating the power to detect trends in occupancy and fecundity 

measures. For a Type I error rate of 0.2, the power to detect a 50% decline in each indicator of 

interest over a 10-year period in a one-sided alternative hypothesis is examined for several 

sample sizes and revisit designs. 
230 

3.2 Occupancy analysis 

The definition of occupancy requires a verification of territorial behavior. A prairie falcon 

detection does not necessarily imply that occupancy has been established. Designation of site 

occupancy requires multiple site visits within a year and evidence of territorial behavior. To 

estimate occupancy according to the SFAN definition of occupancy, only detections verifying 

territorial behavior should be used. Detection probabilities from this analysis would reflect the 

detection of an individual or pair displaying territorial behavior. However, the current data set 

reflects all detections regardless of behavior. Therefore, occupancy may be overestimated in this 

analysis. Data analysis may be improved by recording an indicator that the detection provides 

proof of territorial occupancy. This field could be recorded as a 0/1 binary field rather than a 

descriptive field for easier data analysis. 

The pilot data are examined to determine if the estimated detection rates for prairie falcon are 

substantially less than one, indicating that occupancy estimates should be calculated assuming 

imperfect detection. In the next section, the occupancy analysis approach and concurrent 

estimation of trend over time are discussed. All occupancy estimates relate to pair occupancy 

since no single prairie falcons were observed in 2008 or 2009. 

3.2.1 Evaluation of detection probabilities 

Maximum likelihood estimation was used to obtain estimates of regression coefficients for 

models of occupancy and detection rates. Occupancy models were based on a site-level 

covariate (an indicator for core area) and the survey year. Detection models were based on 

covariates collected within each site and year such as month, high temperature, low temperature, 

average wind speed, cloud cover, and level of precipitation. The occupancy model selected from 

the modeling exercise contained covariates for the year and core area inclusion. The three 

detection models with the lowest AIC are given in Table 3.1. The lowest detection probabilities 

from the first model were obtained for the relatively-few PRFA surveys conducted when 

precipitation was present. Because the AIC for the month-only detection model is only slightly 

larger, this more parsimonious model is used for model stability. 
231 

Table 3.1: Best detection models from 2008-2009 pilot data 

Detection model variables AIC 

Range of 

estimated 

detection 

rates 

2008 

estimated 

occupancy 

rate (SE) 

2009 

estimated 

occupancy 

rate (SE) 

Hi_TempF, CCPct, Precip_Code 518.31 0.3011 –

0.6965 

0.9271 

(0.1020) 

1.0000

(0.0031) 

Month, Precip_Code 519.84 0.3281 –

0.6511 

0.8788 

(0.0957) 

1.0000

(0.0016) 

Month 520.27 0.3305 –

0.6513 

0.8787 

(0.0956) 

1.0000

(0.0010) 

Plotting the estimated detection probabilities against the month predictor (Figure 3.1), one may 

observe that detection probabilities for PRFA are highest later in the season. A t-test of the twosided hypothesis that the mean detection rate is equal to 1 is highly significant (p-value < 

0.0001). There is no evidence that PRFA detection probabilities are so high as to warrant 

conducting a trend analysis that assumes perfect detectability. Therefore, the zero-inflated 

Bernoulli distribution is assumed. 

Figure 3.1: Estimated detection probabilities by month 
232 

3.2.2 Power analysis 

The power analysis is conducted using the parametric bootstrapping approach. The models for 

occupancy and detection obtained from the pilot data are used. The month covariate is randomly 

selected from the pilot data so that months in which prairie falcon surveys are more common will 

occur more frequently in the bootstrap samples. 

Power is examined for a range of sample sizes that are visited using several revisit designs. 

Figures 3.2 through 3.5 provide illustrations of several possible revisit designs for a range of 

annual sample sizes. For each revisit design, the set of core territories is visited annually and all 

territories are visited at least once over the course of the revisit cycle. Notice that, for the [(1-0), 

(1-4)] revisit design, 10 years are required to obtain complete replication at all territories. For 

the [(1-0), (1-1)] design, all sites are visited at least twice in four survey years. When the [1-0] 

revisit design is used, all sites are visited annually and a complete replicate is obtained after the 

second survey year. 

An issue that arose in the occupancy modeling exercise is the difficulty in obtaining stable 

maximum likelihood estimates from occupancy and detection models that incorporate an effect 

for the territory. Fixed effects for each site require considerable degrees of freedom that can 

result in erroneous variance estimation. Incorporating a random effect into the detection model 

for a heterogeneous detection probability model generated occupancy estimates very close to 1 in 

every case. Furthermore, occupancy and detection models with any complexity generally 

produced Hessian matrices that were not positive-definite, so standard errors for trend estimation 

could be wrong. Since neither a fixed nor a random effect for territory can be incorporated into 

the models, the sample is treated as if were collected in a [1-n] design. The revisit designs 

cannot be distinguished from another because the benefits of sampling the same sites annually 

cannot be integrated into the model. However, the [1-n] revisit design has lowest power for 

trend detection, so the power results provided here are conservative. 

MacKenzie et al. (2006) suggest that the heterogeneous detection probability model, while 

difficult to implement in a maximum likelihood setting, may be conducted with a Bayesian 

approach. When incorporating a fixed or random site effect is not possible, including site-level 

covariates that are related to occupancy will help explain site-to-site differences in occupancy 

estimates. Unexplained site-to-site variation is included in the residual error term which 

increases the standard error of the estimate of the trend coefficient and decreases power to detect 

trend. 
233 

 Year 

Panel Core/ 

non-core 

1 2

1 Core 18 18

2 Non-core 3 3

ANNUAL 

TOTAL 21 21

Figure 3.2: [1-0] revisit design for annual census of core sites and sample of 3 non-core sites 

Year 

Panel Core/ 

non-core 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Core 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

2 Non-core 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 Non-core 3 3

4 Non-core 3 3

5 Non-core 3 3

6 Non-core 3 3

7 Non-core 3 3

ANNUAL 

TOTAL 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

Figure 3.3: [(1-0),(1-4)] revisit design 

Year 

Panel Core/ 

non-core 

1 2 3 4

1 Core 18 18 18 18

2 Non-core 6 6 6 6

3 Non-core 6 6

4 Non-core 6 6

ANNUAL 

TOTAL 30 30 30 30

Figure 3.4: [(1-0),(1-1)] revisit design 

 Year 

Panel Core/ 

non-core 

1 2

1 Core 18 18

2 Non-core 18 18

ANNUAL 

TOTAL 36 36

Figure 3.5: [1-0] revisit design for annual census of all sites 
234 

The power to detect a 50% decline in occupancy after 10 consecutive survey years is provided in 

Table 3.2 for the revisit designs described in Figures 3.2 through 3.5. The [1-0] revisit design is 

known to have the highest power to detect trend (Urquhart and Kincaid, 1999). As discussed 

previously, the default revisit design is assumed to be a [1-n] design since the effect of territory 

cannot be explicitly modeled. Therefore, the difference among the power calculations presented 

in Table 3.2 is a function of annual sample size rather than an artifact of the revisit design. 

Table 3.2: Power to detect occupancy trends for different sample sizes and revisit designs 

Annual 

sample size 

of 

territories 

Number of 

core sites 

surveyed 

annually 

Number of 

non-core sites 

surveyed 

annually 

Revisit 

design 

Power to detect a 50% 

decrease after 10 

consecutive survey years 

18 18 0 [1-0] 0.953 

21 18 3 [1-0] 0.973 

24 18 6 [(1-0),(1-4)] 1.000 

30 18 12 [(1-0),(1-1)] 1.000 

36 18 18 [1-0] 1.000 

Because the core sites must be censused each year to monitor high-use areas, the power to detect 

trends in non-core sites is examined separately (Table 3.3). The samples will be stratified by 

core and non-core areas, so trends may be estimated separately for each subpopulation. 

Comparisons of Tables 3.2 and 3.3 indicate that the high power to detect trends across the set of 

territories is largely due to the census of core sites. The pilot data did not indicate a significant 

difference in occupancy between core and non-core sites (p=0.1413). However, if future prairie 

falcon trends occur at different rates between core and non-core areas or if inference to the 

subpopulation of non-core sites is of interest, then results for trends in prairie falcon occupancy 

at PINN may be misleading unless at least between 9 and 12 non-core territories are surveyed 

each year. If historic data are corrected so that non-detections are included in the data set, the 

pilot data may be helpful in determining if sample sizes for non-core areas should be considered 

independently from the annual census of core sites. 

Table 3.3: Power to detect occupancy trends for non-core sites only 

Number of 

non-core sites 

surveyed 

annually 

Revisit 

design 

Power to detect a 50% 

decrease after 10 

consecutive survey years 

3 [1-0] 0.559

6 [1-0] 0.754

9 [1-0] 0.773

12 [1-0] 0.852
235 

3.3 Fecundity power analysis 

Fecundity will be monitored by examining trends in the binomial probability of hatchlings and 

fledglings. Histograms of prairie falcon hatchlings and fledglings per nest from data pooled over 

the years 2002 to 2009 indicate a large number of zeroes in each outcome (Figures 3.6 and 3.7, 

respectively). The additional zeroes may be a result of mechanisms such as imperfect detection 

rates, predation, or environmental factors and are accounted for using a zero-inflated binomial 

model. The maximum number of eggs observed in the pilot data is 5, so this is assumed to be the 

maximum number of hatchlings or fledglings per nest in PINN. 

Assuming that the numbers of hatchlings and fledglings follow zero-inflated binomial 

distributions and assuming that a random sample of occupied sites are visited each year, the 

power to detect a 50% decline in fecundity after 10 consecutive survey years is provided for 

hatchlings (Table 3.4) and fledgling (Table 3.5). The results of the power analysis indicate that 

annual surveys of at least 10 pair-occupied sites provides power of at least 0.8 to detect a 50% 

decline over 10 years in hatchling or fledgling rates. 

Figure 3.6: Histogram of hatchlings across years, 2002 - 2009
236 

Figure 3.7: Histogram of fledglings across years, 2002 - 2009 

Table 3.4: Power to detect a 50% decline in the probability of hatchlings 

Annual 

sample size 

of occupied 

nests 

Power to detect a 50% decrease 

after 10 years 

(based on 2002-2009 pilot data) 

5 0.609

10 0.910

15 1.000

20 1.000

25 1.000

Table 3.5: Power to detect a 50% decline in the probability of known fledglings 

Annual 

sample size 

of occupied 

nests 

Power to detect a 50% decrease 

after 10 years 

(based on 2002-2009 pilot data) 

5 0.645

10 0.922

15 0.977

20 1.000

25 1.000
237 

Core sites are visited annually so that hiking and climbing pressure can be assessed throughout 

the breeding season. Given that the set of core sites is censused annually, power is examined for 

samples that contain all core sites and a range of non-core sites each year. For counts of both 

hatchlings (Table 3.6) and fledglings (Table 3.7), the power to detect trend in the binomial 

probability for each outcome is one. This level of power is attained even when no non-core sites 

are surveyed. However, if inference to non-core sites is of interest, then this subpopulation 

should be sampled with sufficient effort. Power to detect a 50% decline over 10 consecutive 

years exceeds 0.8 for as few as three sites each year for hatchlings (Table 3.8) and fledglings 

(Table 3.9). 

Table 3.6: Power to detect trend in the binomial probability for hatchlings for a census of core 

sites and a sample of non-core sites 

Annual 

sample size 

of 

territories 

Number of 

core sites 

surveyed 

annually 

Number of 

non-core sites 

surveyed 

annually 

Power to detect a 50% 

decrease after 10 

consecutive survey years 

18 18 0 1.000

21 18 3 1.000

24 18 6 1.000

30 18 12 1.000

36 18 18 1.000

Table 3.7: Power to detect trend in the binomial probability for fledglings for a census of core 

sites and a sample of non-core sites 

Annual 

sample size 

of 

territories 

Number of 

core sites 

surveyed 

annually 

Number of 

non-core sites 

surveyed 

annually 

Power to detect a 50% 

decrease after 10 

consecutive survey years 

18 18 0 1.000

21 18 3 1.000

24 18 6 1.000

30 18 12 1.000

36 18 18 1.000
238 

Table 3.8: Power to detect trend in the binomial probability for hatchlings for non-core sites 

only 

Number of 

non-core sites 

surveyed 

annually 

Revisit 

design 

Power to detect a 50% 

decrease after 10 

consecutive survey years 

3 [1-0] 0.875

6 [1-0] 0.957

9 [1-0] 1.000

12 [1-0] 1.000

Table 3.9: Power to detect trend in the binomial probability for fledglings for non-core sites only 

Number of 

non-core sites 

surveyed 

annually 

Revisit 

design 

Power to detect a 50% 

decrease after 10 

consecutive survey years 

3 [1-0] 0.816

6 [1-0] 0.969

9 [1-0] 0.988

12 [1-0] 0.996

3.4 Conclusions 

Annual surveys of 27 to 30 territories consisting of a census of the 18 core sites and 9 to 12 of 

the non-core sites for occupancy surveys and at least 10 occupied territories for fecundity 

surveys should provide power greater than 0.80 for trend detection. Stratified random sampling 

within the non-core subpopulation will allow inference to that subpopulation of territories. 

MacKenzie et al. (2006) recommend the [1-0] revisit design so that the additional variation from 

alternating territories in and out of the survey will not affect variance estimates and therefore the 

power to detect trends. However, management goals may necessitate the use of seriallyalternating revisit designs so that all territories may be visited intermittently. 

Gavin Emmons stated that some territorial pairs arrive in the spring rather than in the late winter, 

so territories designated as "occupied" for that year may actually be unoccupied early in the 

survey season. This would cause underestimation of detection rates. The pilot data indicate that 

detection probabilities are lowest in January and gradually increase over the course of the survey 

season (Figure 3.1). Most of these late-winter visits occur in core territories which are visited 

throughout the hiking and climbing season. The occupancy model used in this application 

applies the assumption that occupancy is consistent throughout the monitoring period. Defining 

the monitoring window so that this assumption is true will allow accurate and precise estimation 

of occupancy and detection rates. Determining the occupancy sampling time frame a priori will 

not bias the results but will provide more accurate estimation of detection and occupancy rates 

from a more balanced data set. 
239 

4. SPOTTED OWL POWER ANALYSES 

The monitoring goals of the spotted owl protocol are to detect substantial long-term trends in 

spotted owl occupancy and fecundity rates at activity sites within NPS boundaries in Marin 

County, California. The methods described in Section 2 are used to calculate the power to detect 

trend in spotted owl metrics. Some background on the sampling design is followed by 

discussions of the power to detect trend in spotted owl occupancy and fecundity rates. For a 

Type I error rate of 0.2, the power to detect declines of 4%, 10%, 12%, and 15% in each 

indicator of interest over 5- and 10-year periods in a one-sided alternative hypothesis is 

examined for several sample sizes of sites and revisit designs. Results from an initial analysis 

provide the basis for further power analysis to inform survey design choices. 

4.1 Sampling design 

The spotted owl study area consists of all federal lands within Marin County and includes 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Muir Woods National Monument, Point Reyes National 

Seashore, and Samuel P. Taylor State Park, as well as a 400m buffer around these parks. The 

sampling frame consists of all sites within the study area where a spotted owl has been observed 

in any survey conducted between 1997 and 2006. A total of 66 sites were initially identified 

from this list. Eight sites were removed due to inaccessibility (on private land or unsafe to 

access) or close proximity to another site. Two sites were added to the frame that fell just 

outside of the GIS buffer. The final 60 sites serve as the sampling frame for occupancy 

monitoring. Occupancy surveys are conducted between March 1 and August 31. 

Between March 1 and May 31, nesting status is assessed. From May 1 to August 31, nests are 

monitored and fecundity measurements are collected. Fecundity surveys are only conducted at 

sites containing territorial females, including resident single females and both nesting and nonnesting pairs. Sites that do not meet these criteria of a territorial female are omitted from 

fecundity estimation based on a "non-target" assessment. Inclusion probabilities may be 

adjusted to account for changes in the sampling frame so that unbiased estimation is achieved. 

The number of locations monitored for fecundity is given for the pilot data collected from 1999 

to 2008 (Table 4.1). For fecundity monitoring, the subset of 48 sites containing a nesting pair

during at least one year is used as the sampling frame. 

Since fecundity measurements are conditional on territorial female at a monitored territory, the 

target population can change from year to year. Furthermore, locations that had not previously 

hosted a territorial female could later be colonized, thus meeting the definition of the target 

population for fecundity monitoring. Unfortunately, some nests cannot be evaluated for 

occupancy by territorial females until later in the survey season, so selecting a sample from the 

set of sites meeting the criteria for fecundity sampling is not possible. Therefore, a random 

sample from the sampling frame of 48 sites will be used for monitoring. The fecundity sample 

should be larger than necessary given that roughly 70% of the sites are eligible for fecundity 

surveys (David Press, personal communication). 
240 

Table 4.1: Number of locations sampled for SPOW fecundity monitoring by year 

Year Number of locations Number of fecundity locations 

1999 34 19

2000 34 25

2001 34 25

2002 41 27

2003 34 28

2004 24 24

2005 21 21

2006 NA NA

2007 25 12

2008 25 12

2009 30 26

One of six possible occupancy status categories is assigned for each location each year (Table 

4.2). These occupancy categories are mutually exclusive, with all locations falling into only one 

category each year. Ultimately, the most appropriate occupancy model would estimate 

occupancy trends for all status categories simultaneously so that the sum of occupancy estimates 

across categories is always one. However, the available literature has not incorporated 

techniques for estimating occupancy for more than two categories with methods for trend 

estimation. Given the instability of occupancy and detection models in the univariate case 

(discussed in the next section), the multivariate case was not explored. 

Table 4.2: Occupancy categories 

Occupancy code Description 

PR Resident pair detected 

PU Pair detected but pair occupancy not confirmed 

RS Resident single 

SU Resident single detected but occupancy not confirmed 

UK Occupancy status unknown 

UO Unoccupied 

To estimate occupancy according to the SFAN definition of occupancy, only detections verifying 

territorial behavior are used. The proportion of detections falling within each status category is 

provided in Table 4.3. The majority of detections occurred within locations with a resident pair. 

Resident single occupancy is rare in comparison. Status categories for which territoriality is 

unknown (PU, SU, and UK) also occur less frequently. Without adjusting for imperfect 

detection, observed detection rates imply high occupancy rates for resident pairs. However, 

some of the categories are quite rare and estimates of the binomial probabilities may be unstable 

because they are close to 0 (Olkin, et al., 1981). 
241 

Table 4.3: Observed status category frequency among all detections by year 

Year PR PU RS SU UK UO

1999 0.82 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.06

2000 0.81 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.09

2001 0.85 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.13

2002 0.89 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.05

2003 0.96 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02

2004 0.92 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.01

2005 0.88 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.03

2006 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.11 0.05 0.02

2007 0.79 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.04

2008 0.79 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.08

4.2 Occupancy analysis 

The pilot data for occupancy modeling are taken from the set of sites chosen for monitoring. 

Sites outside the SFAN monitoring area were excluded because they do not represent the target 

population for which trends will be estimated. Covariate information available for occupancy 

and detection modeling is described in Table 4.4. These variables represent all modeling 

variables included by SFAN personnel in the pilot data set. 

Table 4.4: Covariate information available for occupancy and detection modeling 

Covariate code Description 

Year Year of the survey 

Month Month of the survey 

Barred Indicator of barred owl detection at a site for a given year 

Daytime Indicator that survey occurred during the day 

Call Indicator that a call method was used 

ObsNum Number of observers present during the survey 

The process of model selection was problematic for the spotted owl pilot data. Because 

occupancy analysis is based on a nonlinear model, obtaining a positive-definite Hessian matrix 

was not possible for some models. The Hessian matrix affects the estimates of variance for 

occupancy and detection regression parameter estimates which affects trend testing. Model 

selection was conducted using AIC as the model selection criterion (Bayes Information Criterion 

was also examined but selected similar models). However, models chosen with AIC often did 

not provide positive-definite Hessian matrices. The model with the lowest AIC and a positivedefinite Hessian matrix was used in the power analysis for trend testing. The final occupancy 

and detection models selected with this approach are provided for each status category in Table 

4.5. The final models were often a reduced version of the model with the lowest AIC indicating 

that simpler models are more stable for occupancy estimation. 
242 

The occupancy estimates by category are provided in Table 4.6. For each status category, 

occupancy estimates are provided either for the model including the indicator of barred owl 

presence (estimates of occupancy with and without barred owl presence are provided in the 

second and third columns) or the model without a factor for barred owl presence (occupancy 

estimates given in the fourth column). Columns for the unused model contain a "-" to indicate 

that this model was not used. Due to the complexities of estimating trend with a multi-category 

occupancy classification, a univariate approach was used and occupancy estimates do not sum to 

1. Notice that the presence of barred owls in a site and year decreases pair occupancy but 

increases the single-unknown and unoccupied status categories. This result suggests that the 

effect of barred owl presence is to reduce pair occupancy and inhibit territorial behavior as 

evidenced by the positive effects observed in the SU and UK status categories. 

Table 4.5: Final occupancy and detection models for each spotted owl occupancy category 

Status category Occupancy model 

log

1

ij

ij





        

Detection model 

log

1

ij

ij

p

p

        

PR

0 1Barredij        0 1    Day Call ObsNum ij 2 ij 3 ij

PU

0

    0 1   Day Call ij 2 ij

RS

0

    0 1   Day Call ij 2 ij

SU

0 1Barredij       0 1   Day Call ij 2 ij

UK

0

    0 1   Month Call ij 2 ij

UO

0 1Barredij    0 1Call    ij
243 

Table 4.6: Occupancy estimates (and standard errors) from the final model for each spotted owl 

occupancy category 

Status 

category 

Est. occupancy rate 

for sites 

with barred owls 

(SE) 

Est. occupancy rate 

for sites 

without barred owls 

(SE) 

Est. occupancy rate 

(SE) 

PR 0.9197 (0.0505) ~ 1.000 (0.00001) - 

PU - - 0.0301 (0.0146) 

RS - - 0.1614 (0.0428) 

SU 0.2562 (0.0960) 0.1127 (0.0384) - 

UK - - 0.0208 (0.0058) 

UO 0.1172 (0.0371) 0.0601 (0.0124) - 

Fixed and random effects for location were examined in the modeling effort for occupancy and 

detection rates. Adding a fixed effect for location prohibitively reduced the number of degrees 

of freedom available for error estimation. Modeling the location effect as a random effect in the 

detection model produces the heterogeneous detection probability model which is often difficult 

to implement in a maximum likelihood approach (MacKenzie et al. 2006). In practice, this 

approach resulted in site-by-year level occupancy estimates very near 1 and with nearly zero 

variation and corresponding detection probabilities very near zero. Incorporating the random 

effect into the occupancy model produced similar problems. A Bayesian approach may be more 

appropriate for a random effects modeling approach (MacKenzie et al. 2006). 

The benefit of incorporating a fixed or random effect for location is that repeat visits to the same 

locations over time can reduce variance and provide more accurate trend estimation. Without a 

location effect, the data are treated like random samples taken independently each year (a [1-n] 

revisit design). MacKenzie et al. (2006) argue that the [1-0] revisit design is best for trend 

estimation because the models cannot distinguish between variation among different locations 

and that observed over time. However, the implicit occupancy model used in this analysis does 

not require that the same sites are visited annually because the local extinction and colonization 

parameters are not explicitly estimated. MacKenzie et al. (2006) recommend that the [1-0] 

revisit design be used unless destructive sampling occurs. However, the needs of the monitoring 

program may dictate that all sites be visited periodically, making a revisit design that 

accommodates those requirements more desirable. 

The revisit designs initially under consideration were the [1-0], [2-2], [(1-0)5,(2-2)], and [(1-

0)10,(2-2)] designs (Figures 4.1 – 4.4, respectively, are provided for a set annual sample of 40 

sites). The difference in the latter two designs is that an annual panel of 5 sites is used in the [(1-

0)5,(2-2)] design while an annual panel of 10 sites is used in the [(1-0)10,(2-2)] design. As 

discussed, the trend analysis treats the data as if a [1-n] design has been used. The [1-n] revisit 

design has the lowest power for trend detection and therefore provides conservative power 

results. The replication within a location cannot be used to induce a correlation within a location 

over time to reduce the variance of the trend estimate. The results of the power analysis for the 

six spotted owl occupancy status categories, monitoring periods of 5 and 10 years, and all revisit 

designs are provided in Appendix A. Power is given for a one-sided hypothesis test of no change 
244 

versus a decreasing trend over time. The results of the initial power analysis demonstrate that 

the revisit designs are indistinguishable when neither the occupancy nor the detection model 

includes an effect for location. 

The detection model exhibited considerable influence on the final estimates of occupancy. 

Estimated occupancy could vary widely depending on what covariates were included in the 

detection model. The problems described above indicate that detection models might perform 

best when they are simple and covariates uncorrelated with predictors used in both the 

occupancy and detection models are used. 

 Year 

Panel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

ANNUAL TOTAL 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

Figure 4.1: [1-0] revisit design for an annual sample of 40 sites 

 Year 

Panel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 40 40 40 40

ANNUAL TOTAL 40 40 0 0 40 40 0 0

Figure 4.2: [(2-2)] revisit design for an annual sample of 40 sites 

 Year 

Panel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

2 35 35 35 35

ANNUAL TOTAL 40 40 5 5 40 40 5 5

Figure 4.3: [(1-0)5, (2-2)] revisit design for an annual sample of 40 sites 

 Year 

Panel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

2 30 30 30 30

ANNUAL TOTAL 40 40 10 10 40 40 10 10

Figure 4.4: [(1-0)10, (2-2)] revisit design for an annual sample of 40 sites 

Power to detect trends in pair occupancy over time (Figures A.1 and A.2) is nearly 1 for trends 

over either 5 or 10 years. For pairs whose occupancy status is unknown (Figures A.3 and A.4), 

power is considerably lower, only reaching 0.8 for annual declines of over 10% and censuses 

over 10 consecutive years. Power to detect declines in resident single occupancy within 5 years 

is below 0.8 unless all of the sites in the population are visited and declines are at least 15% 

annually (Figure A.5). However, the power to detect trend in resident single status is at or above 

0.8 for annual samples of as few as 20 locations per year when the annual decline is 10% or 

greater over 10 years (Figure A.6). Power for trend detection within 5 years is consistently 

below 0.8 for the single unknown, unknown, and unoccupied categories, but power to detect 
245 

trends within 10 years are near 0.8 for the single unknown and unoccupied categories when 

declines are at least 10% annually. 

Overall, the power to detect trend in pair occupancy is excellent at the α = 0.2 level. However, 

higher levels of effort or change are required for trend detection in other status categories 

because of their relative rarity. Maximum likelihood estimates of binomial probabilities that are 

close to 0 are generally unstable (Olkin et al., 1981). This may explain the decrease in power for 

an increasing number of sites in the power plot of unoccupied status (Figure 4.16). 

Based on the results of the initial power analysis, the spotted owl workgroup determined that 

monitoring the occupancy of spotted owl pairs is of greatest importance. The relative rarity of 

the other status categories causes trend estimation to be more difficult unless changes are 

extreme. Data collection will continue for the other status categories so that baseline information 

is available for monitoring any future changes, but trends will only be calculated for spotted owl 

pairs. 

In addition to focusing inference on the occupancy of spotted owl pairs, the results of the initial 

occupancy power analysis indicated that power to detect trend was adequate for a 5-year 

monitoring period. The final sampling design for occupancy and fecundity sampling needed to 

meet some additional criteria, including visiting all occupancy and fecundity sites at least once 

within one revisit cycle, obtaining an adequate fecundity sample size given that about 70% of 

occupancy sites are eligible for fecundity surveys, and possible restrictions on annual funding. 

Two possible funding scenarios were proposed: annual funding and funding for two consecutive 

year of high survey intensity followed by two years with low survey intensity. Based on these 

two funding scenarios and two proposed sample sizes from the fecundity analysis, four revisit 

designs were examined (Figures 4.5 to 4.8). 

The four proposed revisit designs provide options for sampling designs given different levels and 

cycles of funding and for annual samples of 35 and 43 locations so that 25 and 30 fecundity sites 

may be visited in fully-funded years. The revisit design notation (1-3)1/2 indicates that only half 

of the [1-3] panels are visited, so there are two [1-3] panels visited and no sites from this revisit 

design are surveyed in the other two years. 
246 

 Year 

Panel Revisit design 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 [1-0] 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

2 [1-3] 20 20

3 [1-3] 20 20

ANNUAL TOTAL 35 35 15 15 35 35 15 15

Figure 4.5: [(1-0)10, (1-3)1/2] revisit design for an annual sample of 35 sites 

 Year 

Panel Revisit design 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 [1-0] 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26

2 [1-3] 17 17

3 [1-3] 17 17

ANNUAL TOTAL 43 43 26 26 43 43 26 26

Figure 4.6: [(1-0)26, (1-3)1/2] revisit design for an annual sample of 43 sites 

 Year 

Panel Revisit design 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 [1-0] 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28

2 [1-3] 8 8

3 [1-3] 8 8

4 [1-3] 8 8

5 [1-3] 8 8

ANNUAL TOTAL 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Figure 4.7: [(1-0)28, (1-3)] revisit design for an annual sample of 36 sites 

 Year 

Panel Revisit design 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 [1-0] 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

2 [1-3] 5 5

3 [1-3] 5 5

4 [1-3] 5 5

5 [1-3] 5 5

ANNUAL TOTAL 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

Figure 4.8: [(1-0)40, (1-3)] revisit design for an annual sample of 45 sites

If location effects could be incorporated into the model, we would expect power to be lowest for 

the revisit design represented in Figure 1 and the highest for Figure 4 based on the increasing 

size of the annual revisit panel. The [1-0] annual panel sites will be selected from the list of sites 

that fall in both the occupancy and fecundity sampling frames. Then the remaining sites could 

be ordered randomly and allotted to the other panels. If needed, the sites included in both the 

occupancy and fecundity frames could be balanced among years in the remaining panels, thus 

also balancing the sites that historically have not contained successful nests. 
247 

The power for each revisit design is provided in Table 4.7. The power to detect trend is very 

high because the estimated occupancy rate is near 1, making declines easy to detect. Power was 

estimated to be near or equal to one for all revisit scenarios and both levels of change given a 

Type II error of 0.20, so power was also examined at the α = 0.10 level. At this level, power is at 

or above 0.98 for all revisit designs. Because site-level effects are not incorporated in this 

occupancy analysis, power is conservative for trend detection. Furthermore, power calculated 

from this model is a function of the total sample size rather than of panel sample sizes. 

Table 4.7: Power to detect trends in spotted owl pair occupancy within five consecutive survey 

years for four revisit designs 

Revisit design Power to detect a 4% annual 

decrease in occupancy 

Power to detect a 10% annual 

decrease in occupancy 

α = 0.10 α = 0.20 α = 0.10 α = 0.20

[(1-0)15, (1-3)1/2] 0.992 1.000 1.000 1.000

[(1-0)26, (1-3)1/2] 0.992 1.000 1.000 1.000

[(1-0)28, (1-3)] 0.992 1.000 1.000 1.000

[(1-0)40, (1-3)] 0.996 1.000 1.000 1.000

4.3 Fecundity analysis 

Fecundity of spotted owls is measured by the number of fledglings per territorial female. 

Nesting spotted owls can produce 0 to 3 fledglings, though a maximum of two fledglings was 

observed from the pilot data. The 1998-2008 pilot data indicate that zero inflation may be an 

issue (Figure 4.5). Zero inflation may result from a high number of non-nesting pairs or nest 

failures related to predation or environmental factors. 
248 

Figure 4.5: Histogram of detected spotted owl fledglings across sites and years from the pilot 

data 

Fecundity is measured as the binomial probability for fledglings. These estimates are provided 

in Table 4.8 by year. While the estimates indicate an increasing trend (Figure 4.6), the increase 

is not significant (LRT test statistic: 0.0043, p-value: 0.9479). The probability of not detecting 

an extra zero is estimated as 0.6395 (SE 0.0466). 

Table 4.8: Estimated binomial probabilities for fledgling 

Year Estimated binomial probability for fledglings (SE) 

1999 0.4715 (0.0686) 

2000 0.4724 (0.0574) 

2001 0.4732 (0.0473) 

2002 0.4741 (0.0393) 

2003 0.4750 (0.0349) 

2004 0.4758 (0.0353) 

2005 0.4767 (0.0405) 

2006 0.4776 (0.0490) 

2007 0.4784 (0.0593) 

2008 0.4793 (0.0707) 
249 

Figure 4.6: Estimated binomial probabilities for spotted owl fledglings by year 

The power to detect trends in fledgling rates is calculated as described in section 2.2. The 

intercept-only model for zero-inflation is constant across all locations and years. The fledgling 

rate model is allowed to change linearly across years for trend testing. The power to detect 

decreasing trends in spotted owl fecundity is based on the likelihood ratio test for monitoring 

periods of 5 years (Figure 4.7) and 10 years (Figure 4.8). Twenty to 25 locations with resident 

females must be surveyed annually to detect decreasing trends of at least 10% within 5 years. 

Power to detect a 4% decline within 5 years never exceeds 0.5. For a 10-year monitoring period, 

power to detect decreasing trends of at least 10% is at least 0.8 for samples as low as 10 occupied 

locations per year. Around 30 nests must be visited annually to detect a 4% decline with power 

of 0.8 within 10 years. Out of 25 sites selected for fecundity monitoring, the 2007 and 2008 

surveys resulted in 12 sites with territorial females for fecundity analysis. At this level of effort, 

longer monitoring time frames are required to achieve adequate power for trend detection. 
250 

Figure 4.7: Power to detect trend in the 

binomial probability of spotted owl 

hatchling success in 5 consecutive survey 

years for four rates of change 

Figure 4.8: Power to detect trend in the 

binomial probability of spotted owl 

hatchling success in 10 consecutive 

survey years for four rates of change 
251 

4.4 Conclusions 

The power to detect decreasing trends in spotted owl occupancy is nearly 1 for the pair 

occupancy status. Power to detect declines in sites with resident singles, sites with single spotted 

owls with unknown status, and in unoccupied sites exceeds 0.8 when annual declines are at least 

10% for monitoring of at least 10 years. Power to detect trends in the pair unknown and 

unknown categories is uniformly low based on the rarity of these status categories. 

The power to detect trends in spotted owl fecundity within 5 years is at least 0.8 when the annual 

decline is at least 10% and at least 25 to 30 sites with known reproductive outcomes are visited 

annually. Given that roughly 70% of the sites visited qualify for fecundity monitoring, an initial 

sample of 35 to 43 sites is needed to obtain the desired sample size. For a 10-year monitoring 

window, power is around 0.9 even for annual fecundity samples as small as 10 territories when 

annual declines are at least 10%. When the annual decline is 4% over 10 years, at least 30 

territories must be surveyed annually to achieve power of 0.8 or more. 
252 

5. CONCLUSIONS 

Overall, power for trend detection is high for prairie falcon and spotted owl monitoring. For 

prairie falcon monitoring, 27 to 30 (18 core and 9 to 12 non-core) territories should be visited 

annually to achieve power of 0.8 to detect a net decline in pair occupancy of 50% in 10 years. 

Power to detect a similar trend in fecundity measures may be obtained by monitoring fecundity 

in at least 10 pair-occupied sites. 

A preliminary power analysis indicated that power to detect trends in spotted owl pairs exceeds 

0.9 at the α = 0.2 level. Because other status categories were relatively rare and power for trend 

detection was low, these categories will be tracked over time but not monitored for trend. Four 

possible revisit designs at various levels of effort in a five-year period are proposed, each 

provided power of about 1.00 for trend detection in pair occupancy at the α = 0.2 level.

The power analysis was ultimately based on a [1-n] design because a fixed or random site effect 

could not be incorporated into the zero-inflated binomial models. Therefore, the benefits of 

sampling the same sites through time could not be used to reduce the estimate of the trend 

variance for higher power. However, this restriction means that the power analysis is 

conservative. MacKenzie et al. (2006) suggest that a Bayesian analysis might resolve this 

problem encountered in maximum likelihood estimation. If maximum estimation is to be used to 

trend estimation and testing, then MacKenzie et al. (2006) recommend using a [1-0] revisit 

design so that additional sites do not rotate into the sample from year to year and increase site-tosite variation. This additional variation cannot be explained by the model, and the additional 

unexplained error reduces power to detect trend. Site-level covariates related to occupancy could 

be incorporated into the occupancy model to account for some site-to-site differences in 

occupancy. 

From panel design theory, it is known that revisiting the same sites each year provides the 

highest power for trend detection and visiting an independent random sample each year gives the 

lowest power to detect trend (Urquhart and Kincaid, 1999). Skipping survey years increases the 

amount of time required to detect trends, but adding a panel of sites visited annually can increase 

the power to nearly that of the always-revisit design. Without specific information to compare 

revisit designs, SFAN personnel may need to rely on management needs to determine what 

revisit design is best. If all prairie falcon territories or spotted owl locations need to be visited in 

a cycle, then incorporating a revisit design that visits a majority of the same sites annually will 

help reduce site-to-site variation. Visiting the remaining sites with a serially-alternating revisit 

schedule will ensure that all sites are evaluated regularly. 
253 

6. REFERENCES 

Buhl-Mortensen, L. 1996. Type II statistical errors in environmental science and the 

precautionary principle. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32:528-531.

Gibbs, J. P., S. Droege, and P. Eagle. 1998. Monitoring populations of plants and animals. 

BioScience 48:935–940. 

Jung, B.C., Jhun, M., and Lee, J.W. (2005). Bootstrap tests for overdispersion in a Zero-Inflated 

Poisson Regression Model, Biometrics 61, 626-8. 

Lyles, Robert H., Hung-Mo Lin, and John M. Williamson (2007). A practical approach to 

computing power for generalized linear models with nominal, count, or ordinal 

responses. Statistics in Medicine 26, 1632-48. 

MacDonald, T.L. (2003). Review of environmental monitoring methods: survey designs. 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 85, 277-292.

MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, J.A. Royle, K.H. Pollock, L.L. Bailey, and J.E. Hines (2006). 

Occupancy Estimation and Modeling. Academic Press: San Francisco. 

Mapstone, B. D. 1995. Scalable decision rules for environmental impact studies: effect size, 

Type I, and Type II errors. Ecological Applications 5:401–410.

Olkin, L. A.J. Petkau, and J.V. Zidek (1981). A comparison of n estimators for the binomial 

distribution. Journal of the American Statistical Association 76, 637-642. 

Ridout, M., J. Hinde, and C.G.B. Demetrio (2001). A score test for testing a zero-inflated 

Poisson regression model against a zero-inflated negative binomial alternatives. 

Biometrics 57, 219-233. 

Sumathi K. and Aruna Rao K. (2009) On Estimation and Tests for Zero Inflated Regression 

Models, InterStat (on-line), August 

http://interstat.statjournals.net/YEAR/2009/abstracts/0908004.php

Urquhart, N.S. and T.M. Kincaid (1999). Designs for detecting trend from repeated surveys of 

ecological resources. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics

4(4), 404-414. 
254 

APPENDIX A: Power to detect trends in spotted owl occupancy status categories by revisit 

design 

Figure A.1: Power to detect population declines in PR occupancy in tests of trend over 5 

consecutive survey years for the α=0.20 significance level 
255 

Figure A.2: Power to detect population declines in PR occupancy in tests of trend over 10 

consecutive survey years for the α=0.20 significance level 
256 

Figure A.3: Power to detect population declines in PU occupancy in tests of trend over 5 

consecutive survey years for the α=0.20 significance level 
257 

Figure A.4: Power to detect population declines in PU occupancy in tests of trend over 10 

consecutive survey years for the α=0.20 significance level 
258 

Figure A.5: Power to detect population declines in RS occupancy in tests of trend over 5 

consecutive survey years for the α=0.20 significance level 
259 

Figure A.6: Power to detect population declines in RS occupancy in tests of trend over 10 

consecutive survey years for the α=0.20 significance level 
260 

Figure A.7: Power to detect population declines in SU occupancy in tests of trend over 5 

consecutive survey years for the α=0.20 significance level 
261 

Figure A.8: Power to detect population declines in SU occupancy in tests of trend over 10 

consecutive survey years for the α=0.20 significance level 
262 

Figure A.9: Power to detect population declines in UK occupancy in tests of trend over 5 

consecutive survey years for the α=0.20 significance level 
263 

Figure A.10: Power to detect population declines in UK occupancy in tests of trend over 10 

consecutive survey years for the α=0.20 significance level 
264 

Figure A.11: Power to detect population declines in UO occupancy in tests of trend over 5 

consecutive survey years for the α=0.20 significance level 
265 

Figure A.12: Power to detect population declines in UO occupancy in tests of trend over 10 

consecutive survey years for the α=0.20 significance level 

 

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation‘s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated 

Island Communities. 

NPS 963/105610, September 2010 
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM