CNDDB News Blog

Our barred owl datasets have been updated!

Barred Owl Observations by PLSS Section [ds2873] is available to view and to download in the BIOS Viewer. This layer summarizes the information contained in the Barred Owl Observations Database and allows users to see PLSS sections containing barred owl detections as well as the year an owl was first reported and last found in those sections.

Barred Owl Observations [ds8] is available in the BIOS Viewer for CNDDB subscribers. The barred owl database includes barred owl (Strix varia), Strix hybrid, and unknown Strix detections. This dataset is only available to CNDDB subscribers because it contains references to sensitive spotted owl locations. For a copy of the geodatabase or for site-specific inquiries, contact the database manager at owlobs@wildlife.ca.gov.

Due to the varied nature of barred owl surveys, detections, and reporting in the state, these datasets may not fully represent the historical and current distribution of barred owls in California.

For more information on barred owls in California, check out CDFW’s Barred Owl Threat web page.

A lot has happened the last two years. Most notably, a pandemic hit the world and we found ourselves quickly adapting to working from home. Our Spotted Owl Database Manager volunteered and assisted in contact tracing for a year. In addition, we had numerous staff changes. We said goodbye our contractors and our supervisor in early in 2021, and recently lost one of our long-time botanists (though we are happy she still works within CDFW). We welcomed a few new staff as well, including a scientific aid and our new supervisor. Though things were challenging and ever-changing, we kept progressing CNDDB the best we could. Here is a summary of what we have done in 2021, and our goals for 2022:

2021 By the Numbers

• 100,400 total occurrences in CNDDB
  • 1,200 new occurrences mapped
  • 1,600 occurrences updated
• 272,300 total source records in CNDDB
  • 7,200 sources added (3,400 records added through the Online Field Survey Form)
  • 5,200 sources processed
• 3,600 total spotted owl records
  • 1,600 CSO and 2000 NSO records added
  • 1,300 spotted owl sites updated
  • 343 activity centers updated
  • 28 activity centers added
• 900 barred owl records added to the Barred Owl Observations Database
• 87 element state rankings have been updated
• Continued expanding our CNDDB iNaturalist Project (click to join us!)
  • 35,900 observations
  • 1,800 species
  • 2,900 people

Accomplishments since our 2019 yearly review

• Reached 100,000 Element Occurrences in the database
• Launched the CNDDB FAQ page
• Launched a CNDDB overview video on our training page

Goals for 2022

• Expand CNDDB staff resources to the extent possible
• Develop and broaden CNDDB outreach
• Update CNDDB training materials
  • Update RareFind training video
  • Develop a virtual CNDDB training course
• Continue planning for new ways CNDDB systems and processes can better serve all interested parties, such as the use of an observation data system.

And, of course, we will continue producing high-quality data for environmental planners and researchers to use in protecting California’s rarest natural resources. We can’t do it without your help, though, so please remember to submit your data. Visit our data submission page, which includes a link to our Online Field Survey Form, the preferred method for data submission. As always, you can contact us at any time with suggestions or questions by emailing CNDDB@wildlife.ca.gov. Wishing everyone a wonderful 2022!

California roach (Hesperoleucus symmetricus) photographed by © Robin Gwen Agarwal

Roach are a small (~4 inch), stout bodied minnow in the family Cyprinidae and are distributed throughout much of central California. Various populations of roach have been recognized as California fish Species of Special Concern since the first edition of that project (Moyle et al. 1989) and all naturally occurring populations continue to be recognized as Fish Species of Special Concern (Moyle et al. 2015).

The taxonomy and nomenclature of roach (and closely related hitch) has been unsettled and complicated over the past 30+ years with various subspecies suggested but not formally described, as well as the genus being lumped or separated with hitch (Hesperoleucus or Lavinia?). Complicating this for CNDDB subscribers is that CNDDB had not updated their species concepts (elements) since about 2010 and they have not aligned with the species profiles presented in the most recent Fish Species of Special Concern (Moyle et al. 2015). The 2015 Fish Species of Special Concern acknowledged that “…a thorough analysis needs to be published in the peer-reviewed literature in order to solidify this taxonomy” (Moyle et al. 2015 page 3 of Central California Roach species account). Subsequent to the 2015 Fish Species of Special Concern, genetic analysis of roach were published in 2017 (Baumsteiger et al. 2017) and in 2019 a formal nomenclature article was published providing names and descriptions supported by the genetic analysis (Baumsteiger & Moyle 2019).

In reviewing the best available information to update our nomenclature, CNDDB opted to adopt the entity concepts presented by Baumsteiger & Moyle (2019) that builds on and clarifies the previous concepts presented in the 2015 Fish Species of Special Concern. Additionally, CNDDB recognizes that the species accounts in the 2015 report are some of the most detailed accounts for the various roach populations. Generally, across the landscape, the distribution of roach has not changed; what has changed is the names applied to all of those previously known populations. The 2015 Fish Species of Special Concern recognized 3 roach species with 3 named subspecies and 4 undescribed subspecies. This new arrangement recognizes 4 roach species with 4 named subspecies.

Please reference the enclosed table (PDF) cross walking the roach entity concepts between CNDDB circa 2010, the 2015 Fish Species of Special Concern, Baumsteiger & Moyle 2019, and the updated CNDDB elements as of November 2021. Further, the enclosed figure (PDF) shows the distribution of roach with the different entity concepts over the same time period.

References and resources

• Baumsteiger, J., P. Moyle, A. Aguilar, S. O’Rourke, and M. Miller. 2017. Genomics clarifies taxonomic boundaries in a difficult species complex. PLoS ONE 12(12):e0189417.
• Baumsteiger, J. and P. Moyle. 2019. A reappraisal of the California Roach/Hitch (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Hesperoleucus/Lavinia) species complex. Zootaxa 4543(2):221-240. 
• Moyle, P., J. Williams, and E. Wikramanayake. 1989. Fish Species of Special Concern of California. 1^st edition. Final report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, Calif. Contract no. 7337.
• Moyle, P., R. Yoshiyama, J. Williams, and E. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish Species of Special Concern in California. 2nd edition (PDF). Final report submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, Calif. Contract no. 2128IF.
• Moyle, P., R. Quinones, J. Katz, and J. Weaver. 2015. Fish Species of Special Concern in California. 3^rd edition. CDFW, Sacramento, Calif.

Individual species accounts:

1. Central California Roach (PDF)
2. Red Hills Roach (PDF)
3. Russian River Roach (PDF)
4. Clear Lake Roach (PDF)
5. Monterey Roach (PDF)
6. Navarro Roach (PDF)
7. Tomales Roach (PDF)
8. Gualala Roach (PDF)
9. Northern Roach (PDF)