San Francisco Breeding Bird Atlas

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

San Francisco Breeding Bird Atlas San Francisco Breeding Bird Atlas Figure 1: California Quail © Alan Hopkins San Francisco Field Ornithologist’s Home Page http://www.sffo.org All material ©2001-2003 San Francisco Field Ornithologists. Additional portions may also be copyrighted by the individuals who generated those portions. Last Revised 1 June 2003 Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents........................................................................................................................2 Table of Tables ...........................................................................................................................9 Table of Figures ........................................................................................................................10 Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................15 The Evolution of Natural History of San Francisco ...................................................................16 Water and Wetlands ..............................................................................................................16 Pre-colonial Flora..................................................................................................................18 Pre-colonial Fauna ................................................................................................................21 What Happened?...................................................................................................................23 Present Day Natural History of San Francisco ...........................................................................27 Urbanization..........................................................................................................................27 Plant communities.................................................................................................................27 Mixed Evergreen Forest ....................................................................................................27 Oak Woodland and Oak Savannah.....................................................................................28 Bishop Pine Forest ............................................................................................................28 Coast Redwood Forest.......................................................................................................28 Grassland ..........................................................................................................................28 Coastal Beach–Dune Vegetation........................................................................................28 Northern Coastal Scrub .....................................................................................................30 Chaparral...........................................................................................................................31 Coastal Salt Marsh.............................................................................................................31 Coastal Riparian Forest .....................................................................................................32 Freshwater Marsh..............................................................................................................33 Urban Forest......................................................................................................................34 Exotic plants......................................................................................................................34 Topography...........................................................................................................................34 Climate .................................................................................................................................35 Geology and soils..................................................................................................................36 Additional fauna....................................................................................................................37 San Francisco Geography..........................................................................................................40 Atlas Methodology....................................................................................................................42 Table of Contents Atlas Results .............................................................................................................................54 Relative Distribution of Species ............................................................................................54 Relative Abundance of Species .............................................................................................56 Species Diversity...................................................................................................................57 Highlights .............................................................................................................................58 Composition of Avifauna ......................................................................................................59 A Note on Dates....................................................................................................................60 Additional Breeding Records.................................................................................................60 Conservation Applications of this Atlas.....................................................................................66 Identification of Breeding Bird Species of Special Concern...................................................66 American Peregrine Falcon ...............................................................................................68 California Least Tern.........................................................................................................68 Bank Swallow ...................................................................................................................68 Identification of Habitats of Special Concern.........................................................................68 Northern Coastal Scrub .....................................................................................................71 Mixed Evergreen Forest ....................................................................................................72 Freshwater Marsh..............................................................................................................7DRAFT 2 Valley Grassland ...............................................................................................................72 Coastal Riparian Forest .....................................................................................................72 Species Accounts ......................................................................................................................73 Grebes Podicipedidae .............................................................................................................73 Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps................................................................................73 Storm-Petrels Hydrobatidae....................................................................................................73 Leach’s Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa.....................................................................73 Ashy Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma homochroa.......................................................................74 Cormorants Phalacrocoracidae ...............................................................................................74 Brandt’s Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicillatus ...................................................................74 Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus................................................................75 Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus ........................................................................76 Bitterns and Herons Ardeidae.................................................................................................77 Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias........................................................................................77 Great Egret Ardea alba .......................................................................................................77 Snowy Egret Egretta thula ..................................................................................................78 Table of Contents Green Heron Butorides virescens .........................................................................................78 Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax .............................................................78 Swans, Geese and Ducks Anatidae .........................................................................................79 Canada Goose Branta canadensis ........................................................................................79 Gadwall Anas strepera ........................................................................................................80 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos.................................................................................................80 Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis .........................................................................................81 Kites, Eagles, Hawks and Allies Accipitridae..........................................................................81
Recommended publications
  • Vocalization Behavior of the Endangered Bahama Oriole (Icterus Northropi): Ontogenetic, Sexual, Temporal, Duetting Pair, and Geographic Variation Valerie A
    Loma Linda University TheScholarsRepository@LLU: Digital Archive of Research, Scholarship & Creative Works Loma Linda University Electronic Theses, Dissertations & Projects 3-1-2011 Vocalization Behavior of the Endangered Bahama Oriole (Icterus northropi): Ontogenetic, Sexual, Temporal, Duetting Pair, and Geographic Variation Valerie A. Lee Loma Linda University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/etd Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Lee, Valerie A., "Vocalization Behavior of the Endangered Bahama Oriole (Icterus northropi): Ontogenetic, Sexual, Temporal, Duetting Pair, and Geographic Variation" (2011). Loma Linda University Electronic Theses, Dissertations & Projects. 37. http://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/etd/37 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by TheScholarsRepository@LLU: Digital Archive of Research, Scholarship & Creative Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loma Linda University Electronic Theses, Dissertations & Projects by an authorized administrator of TheScholarsRepository@LLU: Digital Archive of Research, Scholarship & Creative Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY School of Science and Technology in conjunction with the Faculty of Graduate Studies ____________________ Vocalization Behavior of the Endangered Bahama Oriole (Icterus northropi): Ontogenetic, Sexual, Temporal, Duetting Pair, and Geographic Variation by Valerie A. Lee ____________________ A Thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biology ____________________ March 2011 © 2011 Valerie A. Lee All Rights Reserved Each person whose signature appears below certifies that this thesis in his/her opinion is adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree Master of Science. , Chairperson William K. Hayes, Professor of Biology Stephen G.
    [Show full text]
  • Song and Plumage Evolution in the New World Orioles (Icterus) Show Similar Lability and Convergence in Patterns
    ORIGINAL ARTICLE doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00082.x SONG AND PLUMAGE EVOLUTION IN THE NEW WORLD ORIOLES (ICTERUS) SHOW SIMILAR LABILITY AND CONVERGENCE IN PATTERNS J. Jordan Price,1,2 Nicholas R. Friedman,1,3 and Kevin E. Omland4,5 1Department of Biology, St. Mary’s College of Maryland, St. Mary’s City, Maryland 20686 2E-mail: [email protected] 3E-mail: [email protected] 4Department of Biological Sciences, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland 21250 5E-mail: [email protected] Received August 28, 2006 Accepted November 23, 2006 Both song and color patterns in birds are thought to evolve rapidly and exhibit high levels of homoplasy, yet few previous studies have compared the evolution of these traits systematically using the same taxa. Here we reconstruct the evolution of song in the New World orioles (Icterus) and compare patterns of vocal evolution to previously reconstructed patterns of change in plumage evolution in this clade. Individual vocal characters exhibit high levels of homoplasy, reflected in a low overall consistency index (CI = 0.27) and retention index (RI = 0.35). Levels of lability in song are comparable to those found for oriole plumage patterns using the same taxa (CI = 0.31, RI = 0.63), but are strikingly dissimilar to the conservative patterns of change seen in the songs of oropendolas (Psarocolius, Ocyalus;CI= 0.82, RI = 0.87), a group closely related to the orioles. Oriole song is also similar to oriole plumage in exhibiting repeated convergence in overall patterns, with some distantly related taxa sounding remarkably similar.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Status Report Presented to the CITIZENS’ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
    2012 San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Status Report Presented to the CITIZENS’ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE May 2018 McLaren Bike Park Opening Prepared by: Antonio Guerra, Capital Finance Manager, Recreation and Parks 415‐581‐2554, [email protected] Ananda Hirsch, Capital Manager, Port of San Francisco 415‐274‐0442, [email protected] 2012 San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Status Report Presented to the CITIZENS’ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE May 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Program Budget Project Revenues 2 Project Expenditures 4 Project Schedules 6 Project Status Summaries 8 Citywide Programs 2930 Citywide Parks 3334 Executive Summary San Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Bond Program Budget $M Neighborhood Parks In November 2012, 71.6% of voters approved Proposition B for a Angelo J. Rossi Playground 8.2 $195 million General Obligation Bond, known as the 2012 San Balboa Park 7 Francisco Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond (the “bond”). Garfield Square 11 George Chri s topher Playground 2.8 This funding will continue a decade of investment in the aging Gilman Playground 1.8 infrastructure of our park system. Specifically, the bond Glen Ca nyon Park 12 allocates: Hyde & Turk Mini Park 1 Joe DiMaggio Playground 5.5 Margaret S. Hayward Playground 14 $99 million for Neighborhood Parks, selected based on Moscone Recreation Center 1.5 community feedback, their physical condition, the variety of Mountain Lake Park 2 amenities offered,
    [Show full text]
  • Glen Park News Spring 2014
    SPRING 2014 VOLUME 32, NO. 1 Muni Reworks 35-Eureka Line New Playground Comes Alive Reroute Plan he San Francisco Municipal Transportaion Agency appears T ready to back off its controver- sial rerouting plan to run the 35-Eureka by bus along Diamond Zachary Street and eliminate Clark direct bus service to another portion of Glen Park altogether, after neighbors rallied to stop the proposed change. Muni’s original proposal, unveiled last winter, called for eliminating the 35-Eureka’s current loop along Moffitt, Bemis and Addison streets and extend the route south along Diamond Street to serve the Glen Park BART station. The 35-Eureka proposal is part of the San Francisco Municipal Transpor- tation Agency’s Transit Effectiveness Project, which aims make the public transit system more efficient, reliable, safe and comfortable for its riders, in part by overhauling routes. The goal behind the 35-Eureka Glen Park children and parents enjoy the playground during opening week. Photo by Liz Mangelsdorf change is to provide a direct Muni link between the Castro and Noe Val- ids being kids, they would not draw was the canyon. Now, it feels like ley neighborhoods and the Glen Park wait for the official inaugura- the playground is a destination, too.” BART station. K tion of the renovated Glen Can- The $5.8 million Glen Canyon Park While many residents are in favor yon Park Playground. They poured in playground improvements were funded of connecting the bus to BART, there before the speeches were over, before by the voter-backed 2008 Clean and was fierce opposition to the Diamond by the ribbon was cut.
    [Show full text]
  • File No. 131042 Amended in Board 11/5/13 Resolution No
    AMENDED IN BOARD 11/5/13 FILE NO. 131042 RESOLUTION NO. 391-13 1 [Park, Recreation, and Open Space Advisory Committee - Membership List] 2 3 Resolution approving and modifying the Recreation and Park Commission's list of 4 recommended organizations for membership in the Park, Recreation, and Open Space 5 Advisory Committee. 6 7 WHEREAS, San Francisco Park Code, Article 13, Section 13.01, established the Park, 8 Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee. That Ordinance provides that the 9 Recreation and Park Commission shall prepare, and the Board of Supervisors shall approve 1O or modify, a list of organizations qualified to nominate individuals for Park, Recreation and 11 Open Space Advisory Committee membership; now, therefore, be it 12 RESOLVED, That the list of recommended organizations qualified to nominate 13 individuals for Park Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee membership are: 14 California Native Plant Society- Verba Buena Chapter, Friends of Duboce Park, Friends of 15 Mountain Lake Park, Friends of Recreation and Parks, Golden Gate Audubon Society - San 16 Francisco Conservation Committee, People Organizing to Demand Environmental Rights, 17 Proposition E Implementation Committee, San Francisco Beautiful, Neighborhood Park 18 Council, Committee for Better Parks and Recreation in Chinatown, San Francisco Friends of 19 the Urban Forest, San Francisco Group of the Sierra Club, San Francisco League of 20 Conservation Voters, San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners, San Francisco Tomorrow, 21 Save the Redwoods League,
    [Show full text]
  • Monthly Capital Report October 2018
    San Francisco Recreation and Parks Capital & Planning Division Monthly Report September 30, 2018 Toks Ajike Director of Planning and Capital Management Prepared by: Antonio Guerra, Capital Finance Manager The City and County of San Francisco launched the PeopleSoft financial and procurement system on July 3, 2017. This new financial system replaces the over 20-year old FAMIS system and completely changes the way the department processes and reports on financial transactions and procurement. As such, there have been some changes in the standard monthly capital report. This report contains the following: Active project balances and non-reconciled closed projects Unlike previous monthly reports, this report does not show FY 2018-19 actuals due to changes in the People Soft BI reporting syastem. The Department hopes to have this data in time for the November 2018 monthly report. Recreation and Parks Monthly Capital Report ‐ September 30, 2018 Project Description Budget Actuals Encumbered Balance PW Mansell St Strtscp 1,718,517.08 1,668,345.86 3,777.25 46,393.97 PW TGHill Rockslide Rsp 3,111.05 2,526.45 0.00 584.60 RP 11th & Natoma Acquistion 9,866,104.26 9,830,256.41 0.00 35,847.85 RP 11th Street And Natoma Park 210,000.00 9.30 9,620.00 200,370.70 RP 1268p‐marina Harbor Bioswal 780,177.00 56,377.81 0.00 723,799.19 RP 1290P‐Shoreview Park 3,932.00 53,183.82 0.00 ‐49,251.82 RP 1291P‐Ggp Senior Center 48,538.16 27,875.12 13,051.20 7,611.84 RP 17th & Folsom Park Acq 3,190.00 0.00 0.00 3,190.00 RP 17Th And Folsom 4,976,560.11 4,921,987.49 88,978.69
    [Show full text]
  • Presidio of San Francisco an Outline of Its Evolution As a U.S
    Special History Study Presidio of San Francisco An Outline of Its Evolution as a U.S. Army Post, 1847-1990 Presidio of San Francisco GOLDEN GATE National Recreation Area California NOV 1CM992 . Special History Study Presidio of San Francisco An Outline of Its Evolution as a U.S. Army Post, 1847-1990 August 1992 Erwin N. Thompson Sally B. Woodbridge Presidio of San Francisco GOLDEN GATE National Recreation Area California United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Denver Service Center "Significance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder" Brian W. Dippie Printed on Recycled Paper CONTENTS PREFACE vii ABBREVIATIONS viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1: THE BEGINNINGS, 1846-1861 5 A. Takeover 5 B. The Indians 8 C. The Boundaries 9 D. Adobes, Forts, and Other Matters 10 CHAPTER 2: CIVIL WAR, 1861-1865 21 A. Organizing 21 B. Keeping the Peace 22 C. Building the Post 23 CHAPTER 3: THE PRESIDIO COMES OF AGE, 1866-1890 31 A. Peacetime 31 B. The Division Comes to the Presidio 36 C. Officers' Club, 20 46 D. Other Buildings 47 E. Troop Duty 49 F. Fort Winfield Scott 51 CHAPTER 4: BEAUTIFICATION, GROWTH, CAMPS, EARTHQUAKE, FORT WINFIELD SCOTT, 1883-1907 53 A. Beautification 53 B. Growth 64 C. Camps and Cantonments 70 D. Earthquake 75 E. Fort Winfield Scott, Again 78 CHAPTER 5: THE PRESIDIO AND THE FORT, 1906-1930 81 A. A Headquarters for the Division 81 B. Housing and Other Structures, 1907-1910 81 C. Infantry Terrace 84 D. Fires and Firemen 86 E. Barracks 35 and Cavalry Stables 90 F.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Lake Enhancement Plan Environmental Assessment
    1. Introduction The Mountain Lake Enhancement Plan and Environmental Assessment is a cooperative effort between the Presidio Trust (Trust), the National Park Service (NPS), and the Golden Gate National Parks Association (GGNPA). The Presidio Trust is a wholly- owned federal government corporation whose purposes are to preserve and enhance the Presidio as a national park, while at the same time ensuring that the Presidio becomes financially self-sufficient by 2013. The Trust assumed administrative jurisdiction over 80 percent of the Presidio on July 1, 1998, and the NPS retains jurisdiction over the coastal areas. The Trust is managed by a seven-person Board of Directors, on which a Department of Interior representative serves. NPS, in cooperation with the Trust, provides visitor services and interpretive and educational programs throughout the Presidio. The Trust is lead agency for environmental review and compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). GGNPA is administering project funds and coordinating phase one of the project. The San Francisco International Airport has provided $500,000 to fund the first phase of the Mountain Lake Enhancement Plan under the terms and conditions outlined within the Cooperative Agreement for the Restoration of Mountain Lake, 24 July 1998. The overall goal of the Mountain Lake Enhancement Plan is to improve the health of the lake and adjacent shoreline and terrestrial environments within the 14.25-acre Project Area. This document analyzes three site plan alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) and a no action alternative. It is a project-level EA that is based upon the Presidio Trust Act and the 1994 General Management Plan Amendment for the Presidio of San Francisco (GMPA) prepared by the NPS, a planning document that provides guidelines regarding the management, use, and development of the Presidio.
    [Show full text]
  • Landbird Monitoring in the Sonoran Desert Network 2012 Annual Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Landbird Monitoring in the Sonoran Desert Network 2012 Annual Report Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SODN/NRTR—2013/744 ON THE COVER Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullatus). Photo by Moez Ali. Landbird Monitoring in the Sonoran Desert Network 2012 Annual Report Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SODN/NRTR—2013/744 Authors Moez Ali Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 230 Cherry Street, Suite 150 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Kristen Beaupré National Park Service Sonoran Desert Network 7660 E. Broadway Blvd, Suite 303 Tucson, Arizona 85710 Patricia Valentine-Darby University of West Florida Department of Biology 11000 University Parkway Pensacola, Florida 32514 Chris White Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 230 Cherry Street, Suite 150 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Project Contact Robert E. Bennetts National Park Service Southern Plains Network Capulin Volcano National Monument PO Box 40 Des Moines, New Mexico 88418 May 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colora- do, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource manage- ment, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forest Plan City & County of San Francisco
    Urban Forest Plan City & County of San Francisco Urban Forestry Council & Department of the Environment April 2006 Dr. Jim Clark of HortScience prepared this document with assistance from the Urban Forestry Council and the Department of the Environment. This Urban Forest Plan is intended for use in the City and County of San Francisco. It is the first step in a process that will incorporate the Urban Forest Plan into San Francisco’s General Plan. This plan is a living document that can be changed and adapted. This plan will be distributed to the Board of Supervisors, Mayor’s Office, City departments and agencies, community groups and members of the public. We welcome input and questions regarding the Urban Forest Plan. Please contact the Department of the Environment, Urban Forestry Council Coordinator, Alexis Harte, 11 Grove Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, 415-355-3764, [email protected] or Grace Ma, Urban Forest Associate, 415-355-3731, [email protected]. The Urban Forestry Council approved this document on February 28, 2006 and it was forwarded to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on April 2006. Urban Forestry Council Members Carolyn Blair Mike Boss Jocelyn Cohen Kelly Cornell Larry Costello Bonnie Fisher Steve Griswold David Habert Jane Herman Lena Miller Terry Milne Kelly Quirke AnMarie Rodgers Paul Sacamano Michael Sullivan Department of the Environment, Urban Forest Program Staff Alexis Harte Grace Ma Acknowledgements David Binder Research Department of Parking and Transportation Friends of the Urban Forest Greg McPherson, Center for Urban Forest Research Neighborhood Parks Council David Novak and the UFORE research team Sean Stasio, Department of Recreation and Park With support from Lisa and Douglas Goldman Fund PG&E Safe Tree Fund EXECUTIVE SUMMARY San Francisco Urban Forest Plan April 2006 People appreciate and enjoy San Francisco’s 668,000 trees.
    [Show full text]
  • Map Showing Locations of Damaging Landslides in San Francisco City and County, California, Resulting from 1997-98 El Nino˜ Rainstorms
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MISCELLANEOUS FIELD STUDIES U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP MF-2325-G Pamphlet accompanies map SUMMARY Landslides in the city and county of San Francisco caused an estimated $4.1 million, including three red-tagged homes, extensive damage to the Olympic golf course, and minor damage to several residential properties. "Tagged" structures are those that have been either condemned (red) or in need of significant repair (yellow). Municipal and county building inspection departments EXPLANATION are commonly responsible for such determinations. According to a report from the Location of damaging landslide. The number San Francisco Chief Building Inspector, the damage mostly occurred on steep 2 slopes near Mount Sutro, Twin Peaks, Mount Davidson, Diamond Heights, identifies the landslide in the database. Data on Potrero Hill, and the Seacliff area. Most of the damage was reported between file with authors, USGS, Menlo Park, California February 2 and February 26, 1998, although a few slides occurred in January, the and Golden, Colorado. earliest being reported January 8. A reconnaissance survey was conducted on May 1, 1998, with brief visits to all but a few of the affected areas. Sources of information included a San Francisco Department of Building Inspection memorandum, dated 2/27/98, and various news reports. No reports assessing road damage in the county were obtained. A large rotational slump damaged three adjacent homes on the cliff above Phelan Beach in the Seacliff district. At the time of the survey, the houses were 4 closed to occupants and one house foundation was being stabilized. The slump reportedly began on February 8 after a week of heavy rain.
    [Show full text]
  • 21 Sep 2018 Lists of Victims and Hosts of the Parasitic
    version: 21 Sep 2018 Lists of victims and hosts of the parasitic cowbirds (Molothrus). Peter E. Lowther, Field Museum Brood parasitism is an awkward term to describe an interaction between two species in which, as in predator-prey relationships, one species gains at the expense of the other. Brood parasites "prey" upon parental care. Victimized species usually have reduced breeding success, partly because of the additional cost of caring for alien eggs and young, and partly because of the behavior of brood parasites (both adults and young) which may directly and adversely affect the survival of the victim's own eggs or young. About 1% of all bird species, among 7 families, are brood parasites. The 5 species of brood parasitic “cowbirds” are currently all treated as members of the genus Molothrus. Host selection is an active process. Not all species co-occurring with brood parasites are equally likely to be selected nor are they of equal quality as hosts. Rather, to varying degrees, brood parasites are specialized for certain categories of hosts. Brood parasites may rely on a single host species to rear their young or may distribute their eggs among many species, seemingly without regard to any characteristics of potential hosts. Lists of species are not the best means to describe interactions between a brood parasitic species and its hosts. Such lists do not necessarily reflect the taxonomy used by the brood parasites themselves nor do they accurately reflect the complex interactions within bird communities (see Ortega 1998: 183-184). Host lists do, however, offer some insight into the process of host selection and do emphasize the wide variety of features than can impact on host selection.
    [Show full text]