DOCSLIB.ORG

Abundance and Distribution of Shorebirds in the San Francisco Bay Area

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Abundance and Distribution of Shorebirds in the San Francisco Bay Area WESTERN BIRDS Volume 33, Number 2, 2002 ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SHOREBIRDS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA LYNNE E. STENZEL, CATHERINE M. HICKEY, JANET E. KJELMYR, and GARY W. PAGE, Point ReyesBird Observatory,4990 ShorelineHighway, Stinson Beach, California 94970 ABSTRACT: On 13 comprehensivecensuses of the San Francisco-SanPablo Bay estuaryand associatedwetlands we counted325,000-396,000 shorebirds (Charadrii)from mid-Augustto mid-September(fall) and in November(early winter), 225,000 from late Januaryto February(late winter); and 589,000-932,000 in late April (spring).Twenty-three of the 38 speciesoccurred on all fall, earlywinter, and springcounts. Median counts in one or moreseasons exceeded 10,000 for 10 of the 23 species,were 1,000-10,000 for 4 of the species,and were less than 1,000 for 9 of the species.On risingtides, while tidal fiats were exposed,those fiats held the majorityof individualsof 12 speciesgroups (encompassing 19 species);salt ponds usuallyheld the majorityof 5 speciesgroups (encompassing 7 species); 1 specieswas primarilyon tidal fiatsand in other wetlandtypes. Most speciesgroups tended to concentratein greaterproportion, relative to the extent of tidal fiat, either in the geographiccenter of the estuaryor in the southernregions of the bay. Shorebirds' densitiesvaried among 14 divisionsof the unvegetatedtidal fiats. Most species groups occurredconsistently in higherdensities in someareas than in others;however, most tidalfiats held relativelyhigh densitiesfor at leastone speciesgroup in at leastone season.Areas supportingthe highesttotal shorebirddensities were also the ones supportinghighest total shorebird biomass, another measure of overallshorebird use. Tidalfiats distinguished most frequenfiy by highdensities or biomasswere on the east sideof centralSan FranciscoBay andadjacent to the activesalt ponds on the eastand southshores of southSan FranciscoBay and alongthe Napa River,which flowsinto San Pablo Bay. The bay is criticalto large numbersof wintering,migrating, and breedingshorebirds, despite extensive loss of natural wetlands.Geographic limita- tions of species'distributions in the bay shouldbe consideredwhen wetlandrestora- tion is planned. The San Francisco-SanPablo Bay estuary and associatedwetlands (hereafter,the bay) are of hemisphericimportance (Harrington and Perry 1995) to winteringand migratingshorebirds. On the conterminousU.S. Pacificcoast, the bay holdsmore total shorebirdsthan any otherwetland in all seasons,and it holdsthe majorityof individualsof the 13 mostabundant WesternBirds 33:69-98, 2002 69 ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SHOREBIRDS IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY shorebirdsin one or more seasons(Page et al. 1999). While a varietyof naturaland artificialhabitats support shorebirds in the bay, more detailed patternsof habitatuse are knownonly generally for all shorebirdsand locally for a few species. In 1964 and 1965, Bollmanet al. (1970) conducteda large-scalebut not comprehensivecensus of water birds in the bay, documentingsizable populationsand generaldistribution patterns. Otherwise, past studiesof shorebirdsusing the bay have focusedprimarily on seasonalabundance patterns,species composition at individualsites (Storer 1951, Recher1966, Holway 1990), or occurrencein specificnontidal habitats (Anderson 1970, Swarth et al. 1982, R. Pratt unpubl.data). While studiesof shorebirds' habitat use in the bay have addressedthe Marbled Godwit, Willet, and WesternSandpiper (Luther 1968, Kellyand Cogswell1979, Warnockand Takekawa 1995), there hasbeen no overallassessment of the relativerole of differenthabitat types or areasin supportingshorebirds. Detailed knowledge of habitatuse is criticalfor recognizingthe importanceof differentparts of the bayto shorebirds,for maintainingthe integrityof habitatsystems used by individualbirds, and for maximizingthe qualityof weftandscreated, restored, or managedin the bay. It is alsoimportant to understandingthe sourcesand significanceof environmentalcontaminants found in shorebirds,especially in urbanizedenvironments such as San FranciscoBay (Ohlendorf and Fleming 1988). In thispaper we reportthe abundanceand spatialdistribution of the bay's mostcommon shorebirds and comparetheir densitiesby 14 divisionsof the tidal fiat. STUDY AREA Our studyarea was the intertidalportion of the San Francisco-SanPablo Bay estuaryand associatednontidal wetlands (Figure 1). Habitats covered during surveysincluded intertidal (fiats, sloughs,and marshes),actively managed salt ponds, and "other" wetlands (sewageand other water- treatmentponds, salt ponds in disuse,and a widevariety of dikedwetlands). Prior to the firstcensus, we reconnoiteredthe bay'sshore, salt ponds, and other wetlandsextensively. From these visitswe outlinedand described censusareas and devisedprotocols for coverageintended to minimize undetectedflock movements that wouldintroduce count errors (Stenzel and Page 1988). Prior to subsequentcensuses we madea reconnaissancefor the availabilityof saltponds and otherwetlands to keep our census-sitedescrip- tionscurrent with changesin habitatconditions and accessibility. We dividedthe bayinto fourmajor regions: San PabloBay (SPB) between the CarquinezBridge and points San Pedro and San Pablo, North San FranciscoBay (SFN)between points San Pedroand San Pabloand the San Francisco-OaklandBay Bridge,Central San FranciscoBay (SFC)between the San Francisco-OaklandBay and San Mateo bridges,and South San FranciscoBay (SFS) south of the San MateoBridge (Figure 1). SFN and SFC combinedwere called Central San FranciscoBay by Stenzeland Page (1988) and the Goals Project(1999). We further subdividedthe intertidal fiatsof the four regionsinto 14 tracts(Figure 1). 7O ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SHOREBIRDS IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY San Pablo 10 0 10 YJIom•er• '•. "Central• •• BaY'c31 w•s• 'South Bay'•• Figure1. San Francisco-SanPablo Bay estuary,showing San PabloBay and three regionsof San FranciscoBay. Tidal tractsin San PabloBay Regioncomprise P1, the west shore between Point San Pedro (referencepoint a) and the Petaluma River mouth (b);P2, the northwestshore between point b and Sonoma Creek (c);P3, the northeastshore between point c and the Napa Rivermouth (d); P4, Napa Riverfiats northof pointd; P5, the eastshore between the CarquinezBridge (e) and Point Pinole (f); and the southeastshore between point f and Point San Pablo(g). Tidal tractsin north San FranciscoBay compriseN1, the west shore betweenpoint a and the GoldenGate (h); and N2, the eastshore between point g andthe BayBridge (i). Tidal tractsin centralSan FranciscoBay compriseC i, the west shorebetween i and the Hayward-SanMateo Bridge0); C2, San LeandroBay (k) and the southshore of Alameda;C3, Haywardshoreline between Bay Farm Island(1) and j. Tidal tractsin southSan FranciscoBay includeS1, the west shorebetween j and the Dumbarton Bridge(m); S2, the eastshore between j and m; and S3, the shoresouth of m. Base map from the EcoAfias,version 1.5003, July 1998, San FranciscoEstuary Institute. 71 ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SHOREBIRDS IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY The westernand northern shoresof San Pablo Bay are surroundedby extensiveagricultural and undevelopeddiked baylands, the largestexpanses of tidalmarsh in the bay,and actively managed salt-evaporation ponds. The easternshore of SPB is partiallydeveloped for residencesand industry. San PabloBay itselfis relativelyshallow; a broadswath of tidalfiat rimsthe west and north shores,and abouthalf the bay is underless than 2 m of waterat low tide. SPB comprisessix tidal tracts (Figure 1), whichtogether were 34- 36% of the total tidalfiat surveyedon our three fall and five springcounts. North San FranciscoBay is distinguishedby a heavilyurbanized shoreline, with most of the rockyintertidal and bluff-backedshore in the bay, and a smallamount of supralittoralwetland habitat. SFN is mosfiydeep water with relativelylittle tidal fiat, whichwe allocatedinto two tidal tracts(Figure 1). Only 8-9% of the total tidal fiat surveyedon our three fall and five spring counts was in SFN. The westernshoreline of centralSan FranciscoBay is developedmostly for industrybut the easternside is a mixtureof developedand undeveloped uplandsand restoredwetlands. A wideswath of tidaland shallowsubtidal fiat dominatesthe southeastshore, but tidal fiat is patchyelsewhere in this region(Figure 1). SFC comprisesthree tidal tracts(Figure 1), whichcom- binedwere I4-I6% of the tidalfiat surveyedon our threefall and fivespring counts. South San FranciscoBay is rimmed by a large systemof managedand disusedsalt ponds, with residential|ydeveloped shoreline limited to the northwestportion of the region.Tidal and shallowsubtidal fiats lie outside the outerlevees of the saltponds. SFS comprises three tidal tracts (Figure 1), togethermaking up 41-44% of the tidal fiat surveyedon our three fall and five springcounts. There wereapproximately 11,400 ha of tidalflats above 0.0 meanlower low water(MLLW) and 14,000 ha of activelymanaged salt ponds in the bay duringour study.We covered83-91% of the tidalfiat on the surveys.North of San PabloBay were 2890 ha of saltponds; reconnaissance trips revealed few shorebirdsand littleshallow habitat, so we coveredonly 7.2-13% of the saltponds in thisarea. At the southend of the baythere were 11,100 ha of salt ponds,of whichwe covered26-87% on the surveys. METHODS We conducted13 censusesbetween April 1988 and April 1993 to estimatetotal numbersof shorebirdsin the bay. We madethree fall counts betweenmid-August and mid-September,1988-1990, three "earlywinter" countsin earlyNovember
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area Directions to Units
    Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area Directions to Units It is highly recommended that you print out a map of the wildlife area prior to accessing. Huichica Creek (1,091 acres) From Hwy 12/121 turn south on Duhig Road and proceed approximately 2 miles then turn left on Las Amigas Road. Follow Las Amigas Road east until it connects with Buchli Station Road then turn right (south) on Buchli Station Road and follow the road through the vineyard areas until you cross the rail road tracks adjacent to CDFW parking lot. All visitors are encouraged to walk existing trails, levees and service roads south of the railroad tracks. Napa River (8,200 acres) The southern ponds (Ponds 1 and 1A) can be viewed from State Hwy. 37 which is located just north of San Pablo Bay. Where the Mare Island Bridge crosses the Napa River travel west 3.5 miles to a parking lot and locked gate on the north side of the highway with an opening provided for pedestrian access. The pedestrian access point in the gate allows foot traffic north to the large metal power transmission towers that bisect the pond. Within Ponds 1 and 1A, beyond the power towers to the north is a zone closed to hunting and fishing. The remaining portion of the Napa River Unit is to the north of these ponds, between South Slogh and Napa Slough (refer to area map), and is accessible only by boat. Ringstrom Bay (396 acres) The unit can be viewed from Ramal Road. From State Hwy. 12/121 take Ramal Road south.
    [Show full text]
  • Alameda, a Geographical History, by Imelda Merlin
    Alameda A Geographical History by Imelda Merlin Friends of the Alameda Free Library Alameda Museum Alameda, California 1 Copyright, 1977 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-73071 Cover picture: Fernside Oaks, Cohen Estate, ca. 1900. 2 FOREWORD My initial purpose in writing this book was to satisfy a partial requirement for a Master’s Degree in Geography from the University of California in Berkeley. But, fortunate is the student who enjoys the subject of his research. This slim volume is essentially the original manuscript, except for minor changes in the interest of greater accuracy, which was approved in 1964 by Drs. James Parsons, Gunther Barth and the late Carl Sauer. That it is being published now, perhaps as a response to a new awareness of and interest in our past, is due to the efforts of the “Friends of the Alameda Free Library” who have made a project of getting my thesis into print. I wish to thank the members of this organization and all others, whose continued interest and perseverance have made this publication possible. Imelda Merlin April, 1977 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge her indebtedness to the many individuals and institutions who gave substantial assistance in assembling much of the material treated in this thesis. Particular thanks are due to Dr. Clarence J. Glacken for suggesting the topic. The writer also greatly appreciates the interest and support rendered by the staff of the Alameda Free Library, especially Mrs. Hendrine Kleinjan, reference librarian, and Mrs. Myrtle Richards, curator of the Alameda Historical Society. The Engineers’ and other departments at the Alameda City Hall supplied valuable maps an information on the historical development of the city.
    [Show full text]
  • No General Shift in Spring Migration Phenology by Eastern North American Birds Since 1970
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.25.445655; this version posted May 26, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. No general shift in spring migration phenology by eastern North American birds since 1970 André Desrochers Département des sciences du bois et de la forêt, Université Laval, Québec, Canada Andra Florea Observatoire d’oiseaux de Tadoussac, Québec, Canada Pierre-Alexandre Dumas Observatoire d’oiseaux de Tadoussac, Québec, Canada, and Département des sci- ences du bois et de la forêt, Université Laval, Québec, Canada We studied the phenology of spring bird migration from eBird and ÉPOQ checklist programs South of 49°N in the province of Quebec, Canada, between 1970 and 2020. 152 species were grouped into Arctic, long-distance, and short-distance migrants. Among those species, 75 sig- nificantly changed their migration dates, after accounting for temporal variability in observation effort, species abundance, and latitude. But in contrast to most studies on the subject, we found no general advance in spring migration dates, with 36 species advancing and 39 species delaying their migration. Several early-migrant species associated to open water advanced their spring mi- gration, possibly due to decreasing early-spring ice cover in the Great Lakes and the St-Lawrence river since 1970. Arctic breeders and short-distance migrants advanced their first arrival dates more than long-distance migrants not breeding in the arctic.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources
    SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips.
    [Show full text]
  • Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority
    Steering Committee Draft | Ocotber 2020 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Steering Committee Draft | Ocotber 2020 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Prepared By: 1625 Shattuck Avenue Suite 300 Berkeley, California 94709 510.848.3815 ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE • SAN DIEGO www.placeworks.com Table of Contents List of Figures & Tables ii Executive Summary 3 1. Introduction 13 1.1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Lifeline Transportation Program 13 1.2 CBTP Guidelines 14 1.3 2004 Richmond-Area CBTP 15 1.4 Current Richmond Area CBTP 15 1.5 COVID-19 and CBTP Development 17 2. Study Area Profile 18 2.1 Demographic Analysis 18 2.2 Transportation Patterns 24 2.3 Transportation Network 28 3. Previous Studies and Mobility Gaps 33 3.1 Local Studies 33 3.2 Countywide Studies 37 3.3 Current Studies 39 3.4 Thematic Mobility Challenges 40 4. Outreach and Engagement Summary 43 4.1 CBTP Advisor Groups 43 4.2 Outreach Strategy 44 4.3 Outreach Awareness 44 4.4 Outreach Results 46 4.5 Outreach Summary 54 5. Methodology and Recommendations 56 5.1 COVID-19 and CBTP Development 56 5.2 Evaluation Criteria 57 5.3 Evaluation Process 60 5.4 Recommended Projects and Plans 62 Appendix A Existing Conditions Report Appendix B Outreach Materials and Results Appendix C Recommendations Scoring Results Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan i Contra Costa Transportation Authority List of Figures
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning
    Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Community Meeting Presentation April, 2019 Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Project Scope Location: 9.5 miles of mainstem Sonoma Creek from Adobe Canyon to Madrone Road Goal: Create a Restoration Vision and design a demonstration project to • Improve Steelhead Habitat • Address Streamside Landowner Needs • Improve Hydrology and Water Quality • Address Bank Erosion Issues • Improve Riparian Vegetation Timeline: January 2019 – July 2020 Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Landowner Survey: https://sonomaecologycenter.org/creeksurvey/ • Mailed to 280 creekside property owners • 20% response rate Responses to: Which is your biggest concern for Sonoma Creek? (check all that apply) Flooding Bank Erosion Habitat for 1 Steelhead Summer Flows Mosquitos Debris or Litter 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Project Goal: Improve Steelhead Habitat • Improve Steelhead spawning and rearing habitat in Sonoma Creek • Improve high flow refuge for Steelhead Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Project Goal: Address Streamside Landowner Needs • Reduce risk of property damage from erosion or flooding along Sonoma Creek • Cultivate land owner stewardship of streamside properties Upper Sonoma Creek Habitat Restoration Planning Project Goal: Improve Hydrology and Water Quality • Restore natural hydrology in Sonoma Creek (Slow it, Spread it, Sink it) • Improve Sonoma Creek water quality (temp, contaminants, pathogens, fine sediment) Upper
    [Show full text]
  • The Systematic Position of the Surfbird, Aphriza Virgata
    THE SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF THE SURFBIRD, APHRIZA VIRGATA JOSEPH R. JEHL, JR. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 The taxonomic relationships of the Surfbird, ( 1884) elevated the tumstone-Surfbird unit Aphriza virgata, have long been one of the to family rank. But, although they stated (p. most controversial problems in shorebird clas- 126) that Aphrizu “agrees very closely” with sification. Although the species has been as- Arenaria, the only points of similarity men- signed to a monotypic family (Shufeldt 1888; tioned were “robust feet, without trace of web Ridgway 1919), most modern workers agree between toes, the well formed hind toe, and that it should be placed with the turnstones the strong claws; the toes with a lateral margin ( Arenaria spp. ) in the subfamily Arenariinae, forming a broad flat under surface.” These even though they have reached no consensuson differences are hardly sufficient to support the affinities of this subfamily. For example, familial differentiation, or even to suggest Lowe ( 1931), Peters ( 1934), Storer ( 1960), close generic relationship. and Wetmore (1965a) include the Arenariinae Coues (1884605) was uncertain about the in the Scolopacidae (sandpipers), whereas Surfbirds’ relationships. He called it “a re- Wetmore (1951) and the American Ornithol- markable isolated form, perhaps a plover and ogists ’ Union (1957) place it in the Charadri- connecting this family with the next [Haema- idae (plovers). The reasons for these diverg- topodidae] by close relationships with Strep- ent views have never been stated. However, it silas [Armaria], but with the hind toe as well seems that those assigning the Arenariinae to developed as usual in Sandpipers, and general the Charadriidae have relied heavily on their appearance rather sandpiper-like than plover- views of tumstone relationships, because schol- like.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of Chile a Photo Guide
    © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be 88 distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical 89 means without prior written permission of the publisher. WALKING WATERBIRDS unmistakable, elegant wader; no similar species in Chile SHOREBIRDS For ID purposes there are 3 basic types of shorebirds: 6 ‘unmistakable’ species (avocet, stilt, oystercatchers, sheathbill; pp. 89–91); 13 plovers (mainly visual feeders with stop- start feeding actions; pp. 92–98); and 22 sandpipers (mainly tactile feeders, probing and pick- ing as they walk along; pp. 99–109). Most favor open habitats, typically near water. Different species readily associate together, which can help with ID—compare size, shape, and behavior of an unfamiliar species with other species you know (see below); voice can also be useful. 2 1 5 3 3 3 4 4 7 6 6 Andean Avocet Recurvirostra andina 45–48cm N Andes. Fairly common s. to Atacama (3700–4600m); rarely wanders to coast. Shallow saline lakes, At first glance, these shorebirds might seem impossible to ID, but it helps when different species as- adjacent bogs. Feeds by wading, sweeping its bill side to side in shallow water. Calls: ringing, slightly sociate together. The unmistakable White-backed Stilt left of center (1) is one reference point, and nasal wiek wiek…, and wehk. Ages/sexes similar, but female bill more strongly recurved. the large brown sandpiper with a decurved bill at far left is a Hudsonian Whimbrel (2), another reference for size. Thus, the 4 stocky, short-billed, standing shorebirds = Black-bellied Plovers (3).
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA FISH and GAME ' CONSERVATION of WILDLIFE THROUGH EDUCATION'
    REPRINT FROM CALIFORNIA FISH and GAME ' CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE THROUGH EDUCATION' . VOLUME 50 APRIL 1964 NUMBER 2 ANNUAL ABUNDANCE OF YOUNG STRIPED BASS, ROCCUS SAXATILIS, IN THE SACRAMENTO- SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CALIFORNIA' HAROLD K. CHADWICK Inland Fisheries Branch California Department of Fish and Game INTRODUCTION A reliable index of striped bass spawning success would serve two important management purposes. First, it would enable us to determine if recruitment is directly related to spawning success. If it is, we could predict important changes in the fishery three years in advance. Second, it would give insight into environmental factors responsible for good and poor year-classes. Besides increasing our understanding of the bass population, this knowledge might be used to improve recruit- ment by modifying water development plans in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta under the State Water Resources Development System. Fyke net samples provided the earliest information on young bass distribution (Hatton, 1940). They were not promising for estimating abundance, and subsequent sampling of eggs and larvae with plankton nets also had important limitations (Calhoun and Woodhull, 1948; Cal- houn, Woodhull, and Johnson, 1950). An exploratory survey with tow nets in the early summer of 1947 (Calhoun and Woodhull, 1948) found bass about an inch long dis- tributed throughout the lower Sacramento-San Joaquin River system except in the Sacramento River above Isleton. This suggested the best index of spawning success would be the abundance of bass about an inch long, measured by tow netting. In 1948 and 1949 extensive tow net surveys were made to measure the relative abundance of young bass in the Delta between Rio Vista and Pittsburg (Erkkila et al., 1950).
    [Show full text]
  • Bothin Marsh 46
    EMERGENT ECOLOGIES OF THE BAY EDGE ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE CMG Summer Internship 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Research Introduction 2 Approach 2 What’s Out There Regional Map 6 Site Visits ` 9 Salt Marsh Section 11 Plant Community Profiles 13 What’s Changing AUTHORS Impacts of Sea Level Rise 24 Sarah Fitzgerald Marsh Migration Process 26 Jeff Milla Yutong Wu PROJECT TEAM What We Can Do Lauren Bergenholtz Ilia Savin Tactical Matrix 29 Julia Price Site Scale Analysis: Treasure Island 34 Nico Wright Site Scale Analysis: Bothin Marsh 46 This publication financed initiated, guided, and published under the direction of CMG Landscape Architecture. Conclusion Closing Statements 58 Unless specifically referenced all photographs and Acknowledgments 60 graphic work by authors. Bibliography 62 San Francisco, 2019. Cover photo: Pump station fronting Shorebird Marsh. Corte Madera, CA RESEARCH INTRODUCTION BREADTH As human-induced climate change accelerates and impacts regional map coastal ecologies, designers must anticipate fast-changing conditions, while design must adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. With this task in mind, this research project investigates the needs of existing plant communities in the San plant communities Francisco Bay, explores how ecological dynamics are changing, of the Bay Edge and ultimately proposes a toolkit of tactics that designers can use to inform site designs. DEPTH landscape tactics matrix two case studies: Treasure Island Bothin Marsh APPROACH Working across scales, we began our research with a broad suggesting design adaptations for Treasure Island and Bothin survey of the Bay’s ecological history and current habitat Marsh.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Shorebird Profiles
    List of Shorebird Profiles Pacific Central Atlantic Species Page Flyway Flyway Flyway American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) •513 American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) •••499 Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) •488 Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) •••501 Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani)•490 Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) •511 Dowitcher (Limnodromus spp.)•••485 Dunlin (Calidris alpina)•••483 Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemestica)••475 Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)•••492 Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) ••503 Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa)••505 Pacific Golden-Plover (Pluvialis fulva) •497 Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)••473 Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres)•••479 Sanderling (Calidris alba)•••477 Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus)••494 Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia)•••507 Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)•509 Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri) •••481 Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) ••515 All illustrations in these profiles are copyrighted © George C. West, and used with permission. To view his work go to http://www.birchwoodstudio.com. S H O R E B I R D S M 472 I Explore the World with Shorebirds! S A T R ER G S RO CHOOLS P Red Knot (Calidris canutus) Description The Red Knot is a chunky, medium sized shorebird that measures about 10 inches from bill to tail. When in its breeding plumage, the edges of its head and the underside of its neck and belly are orangish. The bird’s upper body is streaked a dark brown. It has a brownish gray tail and yellow green legs and feet. In the winter, the Red Knot carries a plain, grayish plumage that has very few distinctive features. Call Its call is a low, two-note whistle that sometimes includes a churring “knot” sound that is what inspired its name.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle on Many Fronts
    RISING REALITY The Risk The Embarcadero The Future The Shorelines Resources Battle on many fronts The Bay Area faces a common threat along its shores, but must meet it with an array of ambitious and creative responses By John King November 2016 Boardwalks along the edge of the Alviso Salt Marsh restoration project allow visitors to enjoy the surrounding area on the edge of San Francisco Bay in Alviso. Michael Macor, The Chronicle The levee that rings Oakland International Airport seemingly has nothing in common with the salt­crusted stretch of flat land alongside Menlo Park’s Bayfront Park. One is a 7­foot­high line of boulders, an engineered barrier between the tidal flows that surge in through the Golden Gate twice daily and the runways used by 10,000 commercial flights every month. The other is quiet desolation, a white void dotted with stagnant pools of water. Both, though, are examples of the Bay Area shoreline at risk from the long­term effects of sea level rise — and reminders that there’s no single way to prepare for what might lie ahead. RISINGThe REALITY correct remed yThe in someRisk areas The of Embarcadero shoreline will in vTheolv eFuture forms of naThetural Shorelines healing, wi thResources restored and managed marshes that provide habitat for wildlife and trails for people. But when major public investments or large residential communities are at risk, barriers might be needed to keep out water that wants to come in. It’s a future where now­isolated salt ponds near Silicon Valley would be reunited with the larger bay, while North Bay farmland is turned back into marshes.
    [Show full text]