DOCSLIB.ORG

Coastal California (BCR 32) Waterbird Conservation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coastal California (BCR 32) Waterbird Conservation Plan Coastal California (BCR 32) Waterbird Conservation Plan Encompassing the Coastal Slope and Coast Ranges of Central and Southern California and the Central Valley i Coastal California (BCR 32) Waterbird Conservation Plan Encompassing the Coastal Slope and Coast Ranges of Central and Southern California and the Central Valley W. DAVID SHUFORD Additional Species Account Authors: Lyann A. Comrack, Meredith Elliott, Catherine M. Hickey, Gary L. Ivey, John P. Kelly, Dan Robinette, Cheryl Strong Published by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region ii Author contact information: W. David Shuford Point Blue Conservation Science 3820 Cypress Drive # 11 Petaluma, CA 94954 [email protected] www.pointblue.org Typography and design: Timothy W. Brittain Recommended Citation: Shuford, W. D. (author and editor). 2014. Coastal California (BCR 32) Waterbird Conservation Plan: Encompassing the coastal slope and Coast Ranges of central and southern California and the Central Valley. A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas initiative. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825. iii CONTENTS Acknowledgments ................................................................................v Avian Influenza ........................................................................ 27 Photograph Credits .............................................................................vi Newcastle Disease...................................................................... 27 Steatitus or Yellow Fat Disease ................................................... 27 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................ 1 West Nile Virus ......................................................................... 28 CHAPTER 1 Introduction ............................................................. 3 Subsidized and Introduced Predators ............................................. 28 Goals and Objectives ....................................................................... 3 Impacts of Subsidized Predators ................................................ 28 Species Coverage ............................................................................. 4 Non-native Predators ................................................................. 29 Invasive Species ............................................................................. 29 CHAPTER 2 Description of the Coastal California Region ........... 7 Invasive Spartina ....................................................................... 29 Geographic Extent .......................................................................... 7 Perennial Pepperweed or Whitetop ............................................ 29 Physical Geography ......................................................................... 7 Tamarisk or Saltcedar ................................................................ 30 Central Valley .............................................................................. 7 Giant Reed ................................................................................ 30 Coastal Slope ............................................................................... 8 Water Primrose .......................................................................... 30 Ecological Importance ..................................................................... 9 Water Hyacinth ......................................................................... 30 Role of BCR 32 in North American Waterbird Conservation .......... 9 Spanish Sunflower ..................................................................... 30 Threats to Ecological Integrity ....................................................... 10 Other Plant Species ................................................................... 30 Central Valley ............................................................................ 10 Invasive Invertebrates and Vertebrates........................................ 30 Coastal Slope ............................................................................. 11 Human Disturbance ...................................................................... 31 CHAPTER 3 Waterbirds in BCR 32 ............................................ 13 Conflicts with Human Interests ..................................................... 31 Patterns of Seasonal Use and Dispersion ........................................ 13 Aquaculture and Fish Hatcheries ............................................... 31 Seasonal Use Patterns ................................................................ 13 Human Health Concerns .......................................................... 32 Colonial vs. Noncolonial Breeders ............................................. 13 Inter-species Conflicts ................................................................... 32 Wintering, Postbreeding, and Climate Change and Sea-level Rise ................................................ 32 Migrant Waterbirds ................................................................ 13 CHAPTER 5 Conservation Priority of Waterbirds in BCR 32 ..... 35 Status and Biology of Breeding Waterbirds .................................... 14 Prioritization Process ..................................................................... 35 Habitat Needs ........................................................................... 14 Factor Scores ............................................................................. 35 Distribution .............................................................................. 16 Categories of Conservation Concern for BCR 32 ...................... 36 Population Estimates and Trends ............................................... 17 Results of Prioritization ............................................................. 37 Key Habitats and Sites............................................................... 19 Spatial and Temporal Variability in Breeding ............................. 21 CHAPTER 6 Conservation Goals ................................................ 41 Status and Biology of Migrant and Wintering Waterbirds ............. 21 Population Goals ........................................................................... 41 Population Estimates and Trends ............................................... 21 Population Goals: Listed Species ............................................... 41 Key Habitats and Sites............................................................... 22 Population Goals: Joint Ventures ............................................... 41 Population Goals: BCR 32 Waterbird Plan ................................ 42 CHAPTER 4 Conservation Issues and Threats to Waterbirds ..... 23 Habitat Goals ................................................................................ 42 Loss of Habitat Integrity ............................................................... 23 Habitat Goals: Listed Species .................................................... 42 Habitat Alterations Favoring Predators ...................................... 23 Habitat Goals: Joint Ventures .................................................... 44 Siltation .................................................................................... 23 Habitat Goals: BCR 32 Waterbird Plan ..................................... 44 Collisions .................................................................................. 23 Priorities and Recommendations ................................................... 45 Liquefied Natural Gas Plans ...................................................... 23 CHAPTER 7 Inventorying and Population Monitoring Changing or Detrimental Agricultural, Municipal, or .............. 47 Industrial Practices .................................................................. 24 Goals and Objectives ..................................................................... 47 Competition for Water .................................................................. 24 Existing Efforts .............................................................................. 47 Contaminants ............................................................................... 24 Inventorying.............................................................................. 47 Organochlorine Pesticides ......................................................... 25 Monitoring................................................................................ 47 Selenium ................................................................................... 25 Priorities and Recommendations ................................................... 48 Mercury .................................................................................... 25 Colonial Waterbirds .................................................................. 48 PDBEs ...................................................................................... 26 Solitary Breeders ........................................................................ 48 Miscellaneous Contaminants ..................................................... 26 Wintering and Migrant Waterbirds ........................................... 48 Diseases and Toxins ....................................................................... 26 CHAPTER 8 Research Needs ....................................................... 49 Algal Toxins ............................................................................... 26 Priorities and Recommendations ..................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Santa Cruz County Coastal Climate Change Vulnerability Report
    Santa Cruz County Coastal Climate Change Vulnerability Report JUNE 2017 CENTRAL COAST WETLANDS GROUP MOSS LANDING MARINE LABS | 8272 MOSS LANDING RD, MOSS LANDING, CA Santa Cruz County Coastal Climate Change Vulnerability Report This page intentionally left blank Santa Cruz County Coastal Climate Change Vulnerability Report i Prepared by Central Coast Wetlands Group at Moss Landing Marine Labs Technical assistance provided by: ESA Revell Coastal The Nature Conservancy Center for Ocean Solutions Prepared for The County of Santa Cruz Funding Provided by: The California Ocean Protection Council Grant number C0300700 Santa Cruz County Coastal Climate Change Vulnerability Report ii Primary Authors: Central Coast Wetlands group Ross Clark Sarah Stoner-Duncan Jason Adelaars Sierra Tobin Kamille Hammerstrom Acknowledgements: California State Ocean Protection Council Abe Doherty Paige Berube Nick Sadrpour Santa Cruz County David Carlson City of Capitola Rich Grunow Coastal Conservation and Research Jim Oakden Science Team David Revell, Revell Coastal Bob Battalio, ESA James Gregory, ESA James Jackson, ESA GIS Layer support AMBAG Santa Cruz County Adapt Monterey Bay Kelly Leo, TNC Sarah Newkirk, TNC Eric Hartge, Center for Ocean Solution Santa Cruz County Coastal Climate Change Vulnerability Report iii Contents Contents Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................ viii 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • First Record of a California Gull for North Carolina
    General Field Notes LYNN MOSELEY EIS M. OSYE rth Crln Edtr Sth Crln Edtr prtnt f l prtnt f l Glfrd Cll h Ctdl Grnbr, C 240 Chrltn, SC 240 OICE Publication of any unusual sightings of birds in the Field Notes or Briefs for the Files does not imply that these reports have been accepted into the official Checklist of Birds records for either North or South Carolina. Decisions regarding the official Checklists are made by the respective State Records Committees and will be reported upon periodically in THE CHAT. rt rd f Clfrn Gll fr rth Crln Stephen J. Dinsmore John O. Fussell Jeremy Nance 2600 Glen Burnie 1412 Shepard Street 3259 N 1st Avenue Raleigh, NC 27607 Morehead City, NC 28557 Tucson, AZ 85719 At approximately 1400 h on 29 January 1993, we observed an adult California Gull (Larus californicus) at the Carteret County landfill, located southwest of Newport, North Carolina. We were birding the northwest corner of the landfill when Fussell called our attention to a slightly darker-mantled gull resting with hundreds of other gulls, mostly Herring Gulls (L. argentatus). We immediately recognized the bird as an adult California Gull. We were able to observe and photograph the bird for the nest half hour at distances of 75-100 m. At 1430 the bird suddenly flew south over the dump and we were not able to relocated it over the next 2 hours. Sprn 6 The following is a detailed description of the bird, much of it written immediately after the sighting. The bird was slightly smaller and slimmer than the numerous Herring Gulls surrounding it.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Climate Change Hazards
    January 11, 2017 King Tide at Its Beach source: Visit Santa Cruz County City of Santa Cruz Beaches Urban Climate Adaptation Policy Implication & Response Strategy Evaluation Technical Report June 30, 2020 This page intentionally left blank for doodling City of Santa Cruz Beaches Climate Adaptation Policy Response Strategy Technical Report ii Report Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Report prepared by the Central Coast Wetlands Group at Moss Landing Marine Labs and Integral Consulting Authors: Ross Clark, Sarah Stoner-Duncan, David Revell, Rachel Pausch, Andre Joseph-Witzig Funding Provided by the California Coastal Commission City of Santa Cruz Beaches Climate Adaptation Policy Response Strategy Technical Report iii Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Goals .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Planning Context .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Project Process ......................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan
    The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan A Strategy for Protecting and Managing Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Habitats and Associated Birds in California A Project of California Partners in Flight and PRBO Conservation Science The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan A Strategy for Protecting and Managing Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Habitats and Associated Birds in California Version 2.0 2004 Conservation Plan Authors Grant Ballard, PRBO Conservation Science Mary K. Chase, PRBO Conservation Science Tom Gardali, PRBO Conservation Science Geoffrey R. Geupel, PRBO Conservation Science Tonya Haff, PRBO Conservation Science (Currently at Museum of Natural History Collections, Environmental Studies Dept., University of CA) Aaron Holmes, PRBO Conservation Science Diana Humple, PRBO Conservation Science John C. Lovio, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, U.S. Navy (Currently at TAIC, San Diego) Mike Lynes, PRBO Conservation Science (Currently at Hastings University) Sandy Scoggin, PRBO Conservation Science (Currently at San Francisco Bay Joint Venture) Christopher Solek, Cal Poly Ponoma (Currently at UC Berkeley) Diana Stralberg, PRBO Conservation Science Species Account Authors Completed Accounts Mountain Quail - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Greater Roadrunner - Pete Famolaro, Sweetwater Authority Water District. Coastal Cactus Wren - Laszlo Szijj and Chris Solek, Cal Poly Pomona. Wrentit - Geoff Geupel, Grant Ballard, and Mary K. Chase, PRBO Conservation Science. Gray Vireo - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Black-chinned Sparrow - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Costa's Hummingbird (coastal) - Kirsten Winter, Cleveland National Forest. Sage Sparrow - Barbara A. Carlson, UC-Riverside Reserve System, and Mary K. Chase. California Gnatcatcher - Patrick Mock, URS Consultants (San Diego). Accounts in Progress Rufous-crowned Sparrow - Scott Morrison, The Nature Conservancy (San Diego).
    [Show full text]
  • Nesting Populations of California and Ring-Billed Gulls in California
    WESTERN BIR Volume 31, Number 3, 2000 NESTING POPULATIONS OF CLwO AND RING-BI--F-r GULLS IN CALIFORNIA: RECENT SURVEYS AND HISTORICAL STATUS W. DAVID SHUFORD, Point Reyes Bird Observatory(PRBO), 4990 Shoreline Highway, StinsonBeach, California94970 THOMAS P. RYAN, San FranciscoBay Bird Observatory(SFBBO), P.O. Box 247, 1290 Hope Street,Alviso, California 95002 ABSTRACT: Statewidesurveys from 1994 to 1997 revealed33,125 to 39,678 breedingpairs of CaliforniaGulls and at least9611 to 12,660 pairsof Ring-billed Gullsin California.Gulls nested at 12 inland sitesand in San FranciscoBay. The Mono Lake colonywas by far the largestof the CaliforniaGull, holding 70% to 80% of the statepopulation, followed by SanFrancisco Bay with 11% to 14%. ButteValley WildlifeArea, Clear Lake NationalWildlife Refuge, and Honey Lake WildlifeArea were the only othersites that heldover 1000 pairsof CaliforniaGulls. In mostyears, Butte Valley, Clear Lake, Big Sage Reservoir,and Honey Lake togetherheld over 98% of the state'sbreeding Ring-billed Gulls; Goose Lake held9% in 1997. Muchof the historicalrecord of gullcolonies consists of estimatestoo roughfor assessmentof populationtrends. Nevertheless, California Gulls, at least,have increased substantially in recentdecades, driven largely by trendsat Mono Lake and San FranciscoBay (first colonizedin 1980). Irregularoccupancy of some locationsreflects the changing suitabilityof nestingsites with fluctuatingwater levels.In 1994, low water at six sites allowedcoyotes access to nestingcolonies, and resultingpredation appeared to reducenesting success greatly at threesites. Nesting islands secure from predators and humandisturbance are nestinggulls' greatest need. Conover(1983) compileddata suggestingthat breedingpopulations of Ring-billed(Larus delawarensis)and California(Larus californicus)gulls haveincreased greafiy in the Westin recentdecades. Detailed assessments of populationstatus and trends of these speciesin individualwestern states, however,have been publishedonly for Washington(Conover et al.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.4 Biological Resources
    3.4 Biological Resources 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential for implementation of the Proposed Project to have impacts on biological resources, including sensitive plants, animals, and habitats. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated to candidate, sensitive, or special status species (as defined in Section 3.4.6 below), sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional waters of the United States, wildlife corridors or other significant migratory pathway, and a potential to conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. Data used to prepare this section were taken from the Orange County General Plan, the City of Lake Forest General Plan, Lake Forest Municipal Code, field observations, and other sources, referenced within this section, for background information. Full bibliographic references are noted in Section 3.4.12 (References). No comments with respect to biological resources were received during the NOP comment period. The Proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and zone change for development of Sites 1 to 6 and creation of public facilities overlay on Site 7. 3.4.2 Environmental Setting Regional Characteristics The City of Lake Forest, with a population of approximately 77,700 as of January 2004, is an area of 16.6 square miles located in the heart of South Orange County and Saddleback Valley, between the coastal floodplain and the Santa Ana Mountains (see Figure 2-1, Regional Location). The western portion of the City is near sea level, while the northeastern portion reaches elevations of up to 1,500 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • The Herring Gull Complex (Larus Argentatus - Fuscus - Cachinnans) As a Model Group for Recent Holarctic Vertebrate Radiations
    The Herring Gull Complex (Larus argentatus - fuscus - cachinnans) as a Model Group for Recent Holarctic Vertebrate Radiations Dorit Liebers-Helbig, Viviane Sternkopf, Andreas J. Helbig{, and Peter de Knijff Abstract Under what circumstances speciation in sexually reproducing animals can occur without geographical disjunction is still controversial. According to the ring species model, a reproductive barrier may arise through “isolation-by-distance” when peripheral populations of a species meet after expanding around some uninhabitable barrier. The classical example for this kind of speciation is the herring gull (Larus argentatus) complex with a circumpolar distribution in the northern hemisphere. An analysis of mitochondrial DNA variation among 21 gull taxa indicated that members of this complex differentiated largely in allopatry following multiple vicariance and long-distance colonization events, not primarily through “isolation-by-distance”. In a recent approach, we applied nuclear intron sequences and AFLP markers to be compared with the mitochondrial phylogeography. These markers served to reconstruct the overall phylogeny of the genus Larus and to test for the apparent biphyletic origin of two species (argentatus, hyperboreus) as well as the unex- pected position of L. marinus within this complex. All three taxa are members of the herring gull radiation but experienced, to a different degree, extensive mitochon- drial introgression through hybridization. The discrepancies between the mitochon- drial gene tree and the taxon phylogeny based on nuclear markers are illustrated. 1 Introduction Ernst Mayr (1942), based on earlier ideas of Stegmann (1934) and Geyr (1938), proposed that reproductive isolation may evolve in a single species through D. Liebers-Helbig (*) and V. Sternkopf Deutsches Meeresmuseum, Katharinenberg 14-20, 18439 Stralsund, Germany e-mail: [email protected] P.
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California California clapper rail Suaeda californica Cirsium hydrophilum Chloropyron molle Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris (California sea-blite) var. hydrophilum ssp. molle (Reithrodontomys obsoletus) (Suisun thistle) (soft bird’s-beak) raviventris) Volume II Appendices Tidal marsh at China Camp State Park. VII. APPENDICES Appendix A Species referred to in this recovery plan……………....…………………….3 Appendix B Recovery Priority Ranking System for Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................................................11 Appendix C Species of Concern or Regional Conservation Significance in Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California….......................................13 Appendix D Agencies, organizations, and websites involved with tidal marsh Recovery.................................................................................................... 189 Appendix E Environmental contaminants in San Francisco Bay...................................193 Appendix F Population Persistence Modeling for Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California with Intial Application to California clapper rail …............................................................................209 Appendix G Glossary……………......................................................................………229 Appendix H Summary of Major Public Comments and Service
    [Show full text]
  • City of Santa Barbara Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment
    City of Santa Barbara Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment Project Members Sara Denka Alyssa Hall Laura Nicholson Advisor James Frew March 2015 A Group Project submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Science and Management Cover Photos: Laura Nicholson Declaration of Authorship As authors of this Group Project report, we are proud to archive this report on the Bren School’s website such that the results of our research are available for all to read. Our signatures on the document signify our joint responsibility to fulfill the archiving standards set by the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. Sara Denka Alyssa Hall Laura Nicholson The mission of the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management is to produce professionals with unrivaled training in environmental science and management who will devote their unique skills to the diagnosis, assessment, mitigation, prevention, and remedy of the environmental problems of today and the future. A guiding principle of the School is that the analysis of environmental problems requires quantitative training in more than one discipline and an awareness of the physical, biological, social, political, and economic consequences that arise from scientific or technological decisions. The Group Project is required of all students in the Master’s of Environmental Science and Management (MESM) Program. It is a three-quarter activity in which small groups of students conduct focused, interdisciplinary research on the scientific, management, and policy dimensions of a specific environmental issue. This Final Group Project Report is authored by MESM students and has been reviewed and approved by: James Frew, PhD March, 2015 Acknowledgements This project could not have been accomplished without the consultation and guidance of many people both at The Bren School and within the Santa Barbara Community.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Coastal Santa Barbara Streams and Estuaries Bioassessment Program
    SOUTHERN COASTAL SANTA BARBARA STREAMS AND ESTUARIES BIOASSESSMENT PROGRAM 2014 REPORT AND UPDATED INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Prepared for: City of Santa Barbara, Creeks Division County of Santa Barbara, Project Clean Water Prepared By: www.ecologyconsultantsinc.com Ecology Consultants, Inc. Executive Summary Introduction This report summarizes the results of the 2014 Southern Coastal Santa Barbara Streams and Estuaries Bioassessment Program, an effort funded by the City of Santa Barbara and County of Santa Barbara. This is the 15th year of the Program, which began in 2000. Ecology Consultants, Inc. (Ecology) prepared this report, and serves as the City and County’s consultant for the Program. The purpose of the Program is to assess and monitor the “biological integrity” of study streams and estuaries as they respond through time to natural and human influences. The Program involves annual collection and analyses of benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) samples and other pertinent physiochemical and biological data at study streams using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) endorsed rapid bioassessment methodology. BMI samples are analyzed in the laboratory to determine BMI abundance, composition, and diversity. Scores and classifications of biological integrity are determined for study streams using the BMI based Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) constructed by Ecology. The IBI was initially built in 2004, updated in 2009, and has been updated again this year. The IBI yields a numeric score and classifies the biological integrity of a given stream as Very Poor, Poor, Fair, Good, or Excellent based on the contents of the BMI sample collected from the stream. Several “core metrics” are calculated and used to determine the IBI score.
    [Show full text]
  • 22 First Certain Record of California Gull (Larus
    22 NOTES Florida Field Naturalist 28(1):22-24, 2000. FIRST CERTAIN RECORD OF CALIFORNIA GULL (LARUS CALIFORNICUS) IN FLORIDA DOUGLAS B. MCNAIR Tall Timbers Research Station, 13093 Henry Beadel Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32312-0918 The status of California Gull (Larus californicus) in Florida, prior to this record, is unresolved. Robertson and Woolfenden (1992) placed California Gull on their unverified list, while Stevenson and Anderson (1994) placed it on their accredited list (see Wool- fenden et al. 1996). I follow the criteria of Robertson and Woolfenden (1992). Gulls in their third winter were photographed in Pinellas County in 1978 and 1979; species identification was not considered certain although the birds probably were California Gulls (Robertson and Woolfenden 1992, Stevenson and Anderson 1994). Following the ambiguous photographs, six sight observations of California Gulls have been reported. The Florida Ornithological Society Records Committee (FOSRC) rejected two reports; two undetailed reports never reviewed by the FOSRC lack documentation (Baker 1991a, b; Stevenson and Anderson 1994); and two detailed reports (a bird seen in late October 1982 [Stevenson and Anderson 1994] and an adult in February 1983 [Powell 1986, FOSRC]) are valid, although formal documentation is lacking for each. Both valid reports occurred on the peninsula, one on Gulf coast (Pinellas County), the other on the Atlantic coast (Brevard County). I discovered a first-winter California Gull at Apalachicola, Franklin County, on 26 Sep- tember 1998, when Hurricane Georges was more than 300 km offshore. Sustained winds at Apalachicola were about 50 km. The bird was associated with a mixed flock of gulls, terns, and skimmers resting on a partially flooded vacant lot at the tip of a small penin- sula at the mouth of the Apalachicola River.
    [Show full text]