The State of the Birds San Francisco Bay 2011

PRBO Conservation Science and the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Purpose Produced by PRBO Conservation Science and the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture.

This report summarizes the current state PRBO Conservation The San Francisco Bay of knowledge on the bird populations of San Science (PRBO) is Joint Venture is one of Francisco Bay, while also recommending dedicated to conserving eighteen Joint Ventures science-based actions needed to conserve them birds, other wildlife, established under The and the habitats they depend upon. and ecosystems through Migratory Bird Treaty Act Within this report are population trends, innovative scientific and funded under the annual threats, and recommended actions for land and research and outreach. Our Interior Appropriations Act. water managers, policy-makers, non-profit 120 staff and seasonal biologists use the studies It brings together public and private agencies, conservation groups, and researchers. of birds and their habitats to guide biodiversity conservation groups, development interests, and conservation from Alaska to Antarctica. PRBO is others to restore wetlands and wildlife habitat The messages delivered through the report especially active in San Francisco Bay wetlands, in San Francisco Bay watersheds and along the aim to enhance bird conservation in San where we currently play a lead role guiding the Pacific coasts of San Mateo, Marin and Sonoma Francisco Bay by (1) guiding habitat restoration, restoration and management of thousands of counties. The goal of the San Francisco Bay management, and acquisition; (2) increasing acres of tidal habitats. PRBO also studies the Joint Venture is to protect, restore, increase, and knowledge of the population status of San ecosystem effects of climate change and uses enhance all types of wetlands, riparian habitat, Francisco Bay’s birds and the threats to their scientific analyses to inform land managers and associated uplands throughout the San habitats; and (3) influencing public policy and decision-makers about priority actions for Francisco Bay region to benefit birds, fish, and and public awareness of bird and ecosystem conserving ecosystems and wildlife. other wildlife. conservation needs.

Please cite as: Pitkin, M. and Wood, J. (Editors). 2011. The State of the Birds, San Francisco Bay. PRBO Conservation Science and the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture. Contents

Foreword...... 2 Human-created Habitats...... 18

Overview...... 4 Upland Habitats...... 20

Tidal Flats...... 6 Endangered Species...... 22

Managed Ponds...... 8 Policy...... 30

Tidal Marsh...... 12 Success Stories...... 34

Tidal Marsh Herons and Egrets...... 14 Contributors...... 38

Subtidal Habitat...... 16 Photographers...... 40

Funders...... 41

South San Francisco Bay salt pond restoration area

1 Foreword about bird populations and their recent trends in the Bay Area. San Francisco Bay and its surroundings have San Francisco Bay is an area of always been in a state of change, but the rate hemispheric importance to migratory and magnitude of changes have accelerated waterbirds. It harbors populations of dramatically ever since gold mining in the species that have undergone evolution- mid-1800s deluged the Bay with sediments and ary diversification in different parts of contaminants. More recently, burgeoning urban the Bay. Several of these populations development and the alteration of freshwater are officially recognized as Threatened flows into the Bay – resulting from massive or Endangered, and others are of re-engineering of water distribution in the special conservation concern. In a Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta – have increased broader sense, birds are indicators of pressures on natural ecosystems. And while the overall condition of habitats and Shorebirds in San Francisco Bay the future is always uncertain, there is little ecosystems in the Bay – the proverbial question that sea level rise and storm surges will “canaries in the coal mine.” Tidal- The State of the Birds report details the many fundamentally alter both urban and natural areas marsh species can tell us not only about the con- factors that threaten bird populations in the Bay around the periphery of the Bay. dition of the marshes, but about the capacity of Area. Some of these – predators ranging from In order to manage and conserve ecological those marshes to provide huge benefits to people house cats to Peregrine Falcons; competition systems in the context of past changes, and – ecosystem services – through flood protection with invasive species such as Barred Owls; adaptively respond to ongoing and future and enhancement of water quality. And, at the or continuing loss of habitat in the face of changes, it is essential to understand where we end of the day, birds are an essential part of what development – are clear and present dangers. are now. The State of the Birds: San Francisco makes San Francisco Bay a truly special place. Others, such as the drowning of marsh habitats Bay 2011 summarizes what we currently know due to sea level rise, are lurking in the future.

2 John A. Wiens (PRBO Conservation Science) Yet others may be consequences of our own Dealing with the conservation conservation work. A major effort is now challenges is not simple. But underway to restore a network of artificial neither is it impossible. At a ponds once used for salt production to tidal time when news reports seem marshes. This restoration will create new habitat to contain only discouraging for marsh-dwelling species such as Common messages about the state of Yellowthroats and Clapper Rails. At the same nature, The State of the Birds time, it will reduce the amount of shallow open- indicates that populations of water ponds that some nesting birds, ducks, and many species in the Bay Area wintering shorebirds currently use. are stable or increasing, and it How these ripple effects play out may depend highlights several examples of on whether other processes (such as sea level conservation success. These, rise) create suitable habitat elsewhere and together with the many specific if habitat created specifically for ducks and recommendations for actions shorebirds within the restoration project proves by managers, scientists, or the successful. This largest restoration project on public that may help to counter the West Coast is something to be proud of, downward trends for other Arrowhead Marsh, Oakland shoreline especially as it moves forward with ongoing species, give hope. monitoring helping to quantify the impact to Above all, the report emphasizes the for more than a decade. Continued monitoring birds, making course corrections as needed importance of monitoring. We know what will enable us to spot troubling trends and take to ensure the most benefit for birds in the San we know now because populations of several actions to address the root causes before they Francisco Bay Estuary. species in the Bay Area have been monitored become emergency-room cases.

3 Overview low levels, and the Least Tern may be starting to stabilize after years of population growth. In this first ever State of the Birds report for San Francisco Bay, we learn that most bird Grassland and coastal scrub-chaparral populations are stable. Some species are clearly birds are losing habitat. benefiting from conservation action while others Species in these habitat types continue to be are struggling. In the following pages, the report impacted by loss and degradation of habitat highlights these trends, challenges, and the from development, invasive species, and lack of actions people can take to make a difference. natural disturbances such as fire. These trends are consistent with the declining trend found in Most bird populations are stable. the National State of the Birds Report, 2009. When we evaluated groups of birds for each California Clapper Rail still struggles. Over one million shorebirds use the tidal flats and habitat, we found that most are now stabilizing. shallow ponds of the San Francisco Bay each year. This includes birds dependent upon subtidal Perhaps one of the Bay’s most iconic birds, (submerged) habitats, tidal flats, marshes, and this rail still struggles because of habitat loss, All habitat types harbor species at risk. oak woodlands and the endangered Spotted Owl. predator pressure, and invasive species. Sea Declines can be early warnings of a decline level rise will make it even harder for rails to in ecosystem function. Causes of declines need Riparian birds and two endangered persist as they are pushed into marginal habitat to be investigated and actions should be taken species have increased. with rising seas and strong storms. Tidal marsh to stabilize bird populations. Species to watch Riparian birds – species that require stream- restoration efforts and scientific monitoring must include: California Clapper Rail, Western side habitat – and two of our threatened and continue to ensure that this endangered bird can Sandpiper, Forster’s Tern, Caspian Tern, endangered species, the Snowy Plover and Least persist into the future, especially as the location Black-crowned Night Heron, Snowy Egret, Tern, have shown some increases. Recently, the and extent of marsh habitat change. Snowy Plover has been increasing from very Canvasback, Northern Pintail, scaup and scoters.

4 Melissa Pitkin (PRBO Conservation Science) Sea level rise is a critical threat. Predator and invasive species control Habitat restoration needs to take advantage of must continue. the best scientific modeling to predict the best Both animal and plant, and native and non- places to restore marshes and guide restoration native predators and invasive species, remain an design to ensure that marshes, and the benefits ongoing threat. Funding is needed for predator they provide wildlife and people, are maintained. control, invasive removal, and outreach to the Extreme weather events are predicted. public on their role in reducing predators (such as feral cats) and invasive species. Climate models predict more frequent extreme weather events, such as strong storms and heat Human activities can be designed to waves, as the climate changes. These unusually reduce impacts to birds. strong events can cause nest failure, facilitate Disturbance from human recreation, mainte- Critical long-term monitoring research for predation, and cause individual bird death. nance, and transportation activities is something Clapper Rails and Black Rails. The amount of tidal flat habitat needed we can control and reduce to lessen pressures to birds during their sensitive nesting period. Science must continue. requires more study. Continued monitoring of the Bay’s bird Keeping one million shorebirds in San Francisco populations is necessary, to evaluate our success Bay requires better understanding of how many at maintaining healthy ecosystems. Birds are the acres of tidal flats are needed to maintain the proverbial “canary in the coal mine.” Tracking Bay’s high shorebird numbers. Understanding their populations will help us solve problems how sea level rise will change the amount and before they become “emergency-room cases.” location of tidal flats is a high research priority. Restorationists can learn from one A mix of public and private funding is another. needed. To ensure our ability to protect existing habitats, The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project respond to new threats, and maintain and will provide valuable lessons for future marsh enhance the quality of Bay waters upon which restorations within the Bay. birds and people depend, a mix of funding Restored wetlands in Sonoma Baylands. sources is necessary.

5 Tidal Flats

Status — Overall stable, with a geographic South Central North shift from south to north. 350,000

300,000 Trends — Overall, the shorebird population in San Francisco Bay has remained stable 250,000 since the 1990s, but an increase in the 200,000 North Bay and apparent decrease in the 150,000 Central and South Bays indicate a shift of 100,000 shorebirds from south to north. Total Number of Shorebirds Total 50,000 Dunlin feeding One of the more common species, the 0 Western Sandpiper, appears to have 1990-1992 2006-2008 declined Bay-wide. Exposed twice a day by the Bay’s low tides, November high tide roost counts of shorebirds Two other common species — Least tidal flats are teeming with life. Small clams, throughout San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. Sandpiper and Willet — have increased marine worms, and crustaceans feed more greatly. than one million shorebirds each year. Today, Keeping one million shorebirds in San 42% of the Bay’s tidal flats have been lost Francisco Bay will require maintaining compared to historic levels. sufficient tidal flat habitat as well as other shallow water habitats, especially as sea In addition, shorebirds in San Francisco Bay level rises. The amount of tidal flat and other are also dependent on salt ponds, many of habitats needed by shorebirds should be which are now managed to maximize their determined. value as shorebird breeding and foraging habitat. (See Managed Ponds, pages 8–11, for more information.) San Francisco Bay is so critical to the health of shorebird populations that it has been designated a Site of Hemispheric Importance Willet for Shorebirds (www.whsrn.org).

6 Julian Wood and Gary Page (PRBO Conservation Science) Threats Actions  Primary threat: Loss of Planning, Management, and Restoration tidal flat feeding habitat  Plan for mudflat creation and  Minimize pollution due to sea level rise, erosion sustainability by conducting from runoff on paved from storm surges, and physical modeling exercises and surfaces, allowing invasive plants (e.g., hybrid assessing those results over time rainfall to soak into the Spartina). to ensure that current and future ground; convey and  Loss of shallow water coastal defense (e.g., levees, treat storm water runoff feeding habitat, as former rip-rap, and seawalls), salt pond using landscape features Western Sandpipers salt ponds transition to restoration, and development such as rain gardens and tidal marsh through active does not reduce mudflats. Future other water conservation Scientists restoration or through levee restoration should focus on systems. increasing both tidal flat and tidal  Determine the amount of ponds, failure due to impacts of sea  Manage for a mix of pond marsh habitats. other shallow water habitat, level rise. conditions with depths ranging and tidal flats needed to support   Maintain shallow pond feeding from 2 to 5 cm and salinities Reduction of food the Bay’s breeding and migratory and roosting habitat, especially from 120 to 200 ppt for optimum (invertebrates) caused by shorebirds. invasions of non-native when tidal flats are inaccessible shorebird use. during high tides.  Conduct early winter Bay-wide invertebrates, pollution, and  Provide and protect roosting shorebird surveys annually to spot climate change impacts.  Control non-native plants that habitat away from areas of potential declines quickly. Participate  colonize mudflats (e.g., hybrid frequent human use. Human-caused as a citizen scientist in the Pacific Spartina). disturbance to feeding and  Reduce human-caused Flyway Shorebird Survey (www. resting shorebirds, resulting  Remove non-essential barriers disturbance (e.g., hiking, dog prbo.org/pfss). in birds having less energy such as dams, culverts, levees, and walking, boating) in areas where  Monitor site-specific shorebird for migration and survival. other structures that inhibit natural shorebirds feed in high densities response to restoration, and study  flow and settling of sediment. (e.g., Napa River tidal flats, Loss of high tide how mudflat characteristics influence San Leandro Bay, and Hayward roosting habitat such as  Restore watersheds to facilitate habitat quality for shorebirds. southward to southern San levees, islands, structures, movement of tidal flats to higher Francisco Bay). Collaborative  Conduct research to better and high ground as sea level areas as sea level rises and to planning between the San understand and predict changes rises, levees are removed promote movement of sediment Francisco Bay Water Trail and the in tidal flat habitat in the context or deteriorate, and islands downstream to feed tidal flats. within restored ponds are Bay Trail can consider actions to of sea level rise and potentially submerged. minimize disturbance. decreasing sediment supply.

7 Managed Ponds

Northern Shoveler Status: Mixed. female As restoration progresses, the bird community may change: tidal marsh species (pages 12–13) will colonize newly created salt marsh habitat; some waterbirds, such as shorebird and duck species that use open water or tidal flats, may move out. Ongoing monitoring will track how bird species and Commercial salt ponds were constructed numbers change over time. around the edge of San Francisco Bay begin- ning in the mid 1800s. Many former salt production ponds in San Francisco Bay have Caspian Terns Forster’s Terns 4,500 recently transitioned to public ownership and 4,000 are being restored and managed for wildlife. 3,500 These shallow ponds now provide habitat for 3,000 2,500 hundreds of nesting terns, gulls, and shorebirds, 2,000 and roosting and feeding habitat for hundreds 1,500 1,000 of thousands of migrating and wintering shore- 500

0 birds and ducks. 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Number of Breeding Terns in San Francisco Bay Number of Breeding Terns The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Forster’s and Caspian Tern use of salt ponds – (15,100 acres) plans to restore 50–90% of the Declining; the Forster’s Tern breeding population varies South Bay ponds to a mix of tidal marsh and annually but is declining Bay-wide. Caspian Terns show a decrease, especially in recent years. shallow managed ponds. The Napa-Sonoma Forster’s Terns at nest site Marshes Wildlife Area in the North Bay is restoring 4,200 acres of salt ponds to tidal marsh. Cargill Salt still manages about 11,000 acres for salt production, all in the South Bay.

8 Josh Ackerman and Arriana Brand (U.S. Geological Survey); Jill Demers and Catilin Robinson-Nilsen (San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory) Nesting Shorebirds (South Bay 50,000 70,000 ponds) – Population trends unknown, 45,000 ulls 60,000 40,000 underscoring the need for ongoing 35,000 50,000 monitoring of breeding shorebirds. 30,000 40,000 American Avocets and Black-necked 25,000 Stilts are the most abundant nesting 20,000 30,000 shorebirds; breeding American Avocets 15,000 20,000 10,000 are estimated at 1,380 pairs, and 10,000 5,000

Number of Breeding California G Black-necked Stilts are estimated at 0 0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 590 pairs, as of 2003.

California Gulls (South Bay ponds) – Increasing rapidly; the Wintering Dabbling Ducks (South Bay ponds) – population is now at 46,000 gulls. Have increased in the last seven years: see the Success Stories section, page 34.

250,000 45,000

200,000 35,000 Black-necked Stilt 150,000 25,000 100,000 Note: The Western Snowy Plover also nests in the salt ponds; see the 15,000 50,000 Endangered Species section, page 24.

0 5000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Spring-Migrating Small Shorebirds (North and Spring-Migrating Medium-sized Shorebirds (North South Bay ponds) – Have remained relatively stable. and South Bay ponds) – Have increased slightly, according to eight years of monitoring by USGS.*

Threats, Actions *Data for medium-sized and small shorebirds and dabbling ducks come from peak counts for shorebirds (spring) and Please turn to page 10. ducks (winter) in North and South Bay ponds.

9 Managed Ponds (continued from page 9)

Threats  Primary threat: Loss of shallow pond  Contaminants impairing bird reproduction. habitat for roosting, foraging, and nesting Mercury, a legacy of years of mercury mining waterbirds. Wintering and migratory shorebirds and use of mercury in gold mining, is a prevalent roost and feed in salt ponds at high tide. Ducks contaminant throughout San Francisco Bay. utilize shallow, low salinity ponds to forage and Mercury is especially high in the South Bay, roost. Terns and shorebirds nest on islands and where runoff from a large mercury mine in the levees in pond habitat. upper watershed has released, and continues to release, mercury-laden sediments. Mercury  Rising sea levels from global climate change impacts waterbird reproduction, specifically for may increase water depths or erode levees and the Forster’s Tern, in which 48% of breeding nesting islands, impacting habitat for wintering, adults are at or above high risk of impaired migrating, and nesting birds. reproduction due to their present methylmercury  Nest predation and competition from a concentrations. growing population of California Gulls, which prey upon eggs and chicks or displace nesting waterbirds. Forster’s and Caspian Terns have already been displaced from some of their historic nesting colonies by gulls.

Shorebirds in managed pond habitat American Avocets in breeding plumage

10 Actions

Planning, Management, and Restoration Scientists  Convert a large proportion of salt ponds to  Monitor changes in abundance of breeding, managed ponds. Maintain ponds with appropriate migrating, and wintering waterbirds over time to depths – and habitat of varying salinities – to benefit evaluate the overall effects of restoration. nesting, migrating, and wintering shorebirds and  Determine current breeding population size of Northern Shoveler male ducks. nesting American Avocets and Black-necked Stilts.  Practice adaptive management by monitoring Monitor their use, density, and reproductive success at waterbird responses to restoration and modifying created islands. restoration as needed (as in the South Bay Salt Pond  Assess habitat characteristics that enhance Restoration Project). waterbird densities, (e.g. water quality, water depth,  Continue to create islands within managed ponds salinity, invertebrate biomass, island characteristics), for breeding and roosting birds. Experiment with and provide restoration project managers with habitat adding vegetation to some islands to create cover for characteristics that could maximize densities of chicks. waterbirds in the remaining ponded habitat as tidal marsh restoration proceeds.  Improve dissolved oxygen within managed ponds by optimizing water flow between pond and Bay  Suggest ways to reduce the population growth of waters and reducing nutrient inputs from adjacent California Gulls and their impact on other breeding uplands. waterbirds by identifying the causes of population growth and evaluating methods to control it.  Conduct an education campaign to highlight the connection between urban waters and the Bay.  Assess and track the changes in methylmercury concentration in nesting Forster’s Terns, American  Slow the growth of the California Gull population Avocets, and Black-necked Stilts as tidal restoration by reducing gull access to trash at local landfills proceeds. Determine reproductive threshold and other areas. Evaluate whether removal of target concentrations of methylmercury in waterbirds to gulls helps reduce predation pressures on nesting assess changes in risk of contaminant exposure as a waterbirds. result of tidal restoration efforts.  Identify, protect, or manage key existing waterbird nesting areas Bay-wide, given that waterbird populations may be affected by a reduction of pond habitat.

Success Story • South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project – See page 34

11 6

5 Tidal Marsh 4 3 Density 2

1 Status: Stable to increasing 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 The three species chosen to indicate the state of the tidal marsh are Song Sparrow, Song Sparrow – The most common tidal marsh bird is Common Yellowthroat, and Black Rail. Data overall stable, but the last 10 years show declines. were collected from over 200 locations throughout San Francisco Bay Estuary using 0.5 5-minute point count surveys during April– May to assess breeding season density (birds 0.4 per hectare). 0.3 Tidal marshes are the vegetated, tidally Song Sparrow – Stable overall (decreasing influenced wetlands found along the edges of Density 0.2 North Bay and Suisun Bay; increasing South San Francisco Bay and associated channels. Bay) 0.1 Pacific cordgrass, pickleweed, and other Salt Marsh Common Yellowthroat – Slightly 0.0 specialized plants adapted to salty water 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 increasing. provide important habitat for many animal California Black Rail – Recently increasing. Saltmarsh Common Yellowthroat – Prefers channels species, such as young salmon and other and brackish marshes and has increased since the 1990s. Note: For California Clapper Rail, see fishes, rails, songbirds, shorebirds, egrets, Endangered Species section, page 22. ducks, and the endangered salt marsh harvest 0.25 mouse. Some animals, like the indicator 0.20 species here and the salt marsh harvest mouse, are endemic to the tidal marshes of 0.15

San Francisco Bay – meaning they do not Density 0.10 occur anywhere else in the world. While 0.05 80% of historic tidal marsh habitat has been 0.00 lost since the mid-1800s, growing marsh 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 restoration efforts are reversing this trend and California Black Rail – Recent increases give hope for California Black Rail causing the acreage to increase again. this State-listed species.

12 Julian Wood and Nadav Nur (PRBO Conservation Science) Common Yellowthroat Threats Actions  Primary threat: Rising  Invasive plants, Planning, Management, and  Halt development on sea level resulting in some particularly invasive Restoration existing or potential marshes “drowning” or Spartina hybrids (crosses  Support and use sea level rise modeling future baylands disappearing and other between native cordgrass tools to better understand impacts on tidal including salt ponds, marshes transitioning from and introduced cordgrasses), marsh habitat due to climate change, and diked baylands, and uplands with future fresh water to brackish cover mudflat areas and to prioritize areas for preservation and marsh potential. marsh or from high marsh channels, eliminating restoration of marsh habitat. For an example  Control introduced predators such as to low marsh. Limited space important feeding sites of a model focused on predicting Bay-wide red foxes and feral house cats, especially remains along the Bay’s for shorebirds and marsh changes to the tidal marsh ecosystem, visit in areas with high concentrations of marsh shoreline for marshes to birds. Pepperweed invades www.prbo.org/sfbayslr. birds. Educate the public about the impact expand or regenerate. marshes and channel edges,  Identify and protect upland areas for of cats on bird populations, and remove outcompeting gumplant and  Loss and conversion of marshes to move to as sea level rises. feral cat feeding stations. restorable marsh due to other native marsh plants  Promote restoration in high-priority  Reduce native predator populations urbanization (especially required by Song Sparrows areas like the Petaluma and Napa River (raccoon, skunk, crow, and raven) by in south and central Bay) and Common Yellowthroats systems and South San Francisco Bay that eliminating or securing food waste in parks, threaten potential future for nesting and cover. are better able to cope with rising sea levels. residential areas, businesses, and other marsh locations.  Introduced and sources near the Bay.  Promote re-use of clean sediment from  Extreme storm events increased predators such dredged navigation channels to jump-start  Monitor and control introduced invasive push water beyond typical as non-native red foxes, marsh restoration in subsided areas or to plants early, when costs are lower, or when high tide levels, eroding Norway rats,and house help marshes keep pace with sea level rise a direct threat to marsh birds is likely. marsh habitat and flooding cats, and native raccoons, in the future. high marsh – critical as corvids, and gulls prey Scientists upon birds nesting in  Restore high-ground refugia, such as refugia for marsh birds.  Monitor marsh bird population sizes marshes surrounding the broad levee slopes and gradual upland High water can flood and reproduction annually to determine Bay. Predator numbers are transitions, with native vegetation to offer nests and push rails and Bay-wide trends and to evaluate the success usually inflated near urban birds and small mammals refuge from high other marsh animals to of conservation efforts. Make results known areas. tide events. higher ground and adjacent to conservation practitioners and the public.  Pollution, contaminants,  Support the South Bay Salt Pond urbanized areas, where they  Advance predictive modeling of future and toxic events such Restoration Project, and promote it as are vulnerable to predators. habitat conditions and bird response, to as oil spills directly kill a model for future restoration efforts. High water events are guide habitat acquisition and restoration. predicted to become more birds as well as vegetation, This large restoration project can serve severe and more frequent fish, and invertebrates. as a demonstration project, as it is being  Assess contaminant thresholds in birds, with climate change. Mercury, PCBs, and adaptively managed to ensure the most to evaluate impacts of mercury and other other contaminants affect benefit to the San Francisco Bay ecosystem. toxins to marsh birds. reproduction.

Success Stories South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project – See page 34 Carl’s Marsh restoration – See page 34

13 Status: Overall stable with large HabitatTidal Marsh Type variation between years Herons and Egrets

Status: Stable to decreasing. Great Blue Heron Great Egret The number of nests of herons and egrets 1000 900 throughout San Francisco Bay shows 800 dramatic variation from year to year with an 700 apparent decrease in the last 5–10 years. 600 Large between-year declines are related to 500 400 heavy rainfall, which can reduce the survival Number of Nests 300 of young birds before they are old enough to 200 breed. 100 0 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Great Blue Herons (blue) and Great Egrets (red) reveal dynamic but generally stable populations.

Nest colony on Sherman Island in the North Bay Black-crowned Night Heron Snowy Egret 800 San Francisco Bay’s herons and egrets 700 600 depend on large trees, dense types of 500 vegetation, and man-made structures 400 surrounded by tidal marsh, tidal mudflats, and 300 Number of Nests non-tidal wetlands for nesting in spring and 200 summer and for feeding year-round. Important 100 Great Egret feeding half-grown chicks 0 feeding sites also include creeks and ponds. 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 View a map of the locations of all known egret Black-crowned Night-Herons (blue) and Snowy Egrets and heron colonies in the San Francisco Bay (red) show dramatic variation in nesting abundances; however, Area: www.egret.org/googleearthheronries. recent trends (since 2005) suggest regional declines.

14 Contributors: JohnJohn Kelly Kelly (Audubon (Audubon Canyon Canyon Ranch) Ranch); and Caitlin Nilson-RobinsonRobinson-Nilsen (San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory) Great Blue Heron Threats Actions  Primary threat: Loss or Planning, Management, and Restoration disturbance of colony nesting sites from damage to nest trees or  Protect and restore tidal marsh and tidal flat habitat within construction activities (noise) that 1-6 miles of nesting sites. This is the most urgent action needed scare birds away from nesting sites. to protect or sustain heron and egret nesting populations in San Francisco Bay.  Loss of wetland feeding areas Great Egret close to the nesting colony (within  Provide year-round protection to colony nesting sites. They 1–6 miles). Greater distance are frequently destroyed when trees or other habitat features are between nest and feeding areas removed or damaged during the non-breeding season (fall and reduces the chance of survival for winter). Such protection depends on local action, recognizing that their young. heron and egret use of surrounding areas depends on the year-round protection of colony sites.  Degradation of wetland feeding areas and associated declines  Create 200-meter buffer zones of no human activity around in prey (fish, small mammals, nesting areas during the nesting season (January–August). invertebrates).  Protect and restore wetland areas surrounding colony sites. Snowy Egret  Nest predation by native or non-  Create and protect clumps of native trees at distances of 5 native animals, such as raccoons, miles or greater from existing colonies, preferably near open water. feral cats, raptors, or ravens. Scientists  More intense winter storms, as predicted with climate change, lower  Improve models of heron and egret habitat sensitivity as the survival of young egrets and potential biological indicators of wetland condition, and identify herons. factors that can determine the linkage between colonies and surrounding habitat.

Black-crowned Night-Heron

Success Story West Marin Island National Wildlife Refuge – See page 35

15 Subtidal

Status: Sea Ducks Diving Ducks Most diving and sea duck species are stable, but four species are declining. 320,000 300,000 280,000 The species of sea and diving ducks 260,000 240,000 wintering in San Francisco Bay show stable 220,000 200,000 populations, with the following exceptions: 180,000 160,000 Canvasback (a diving duck): Nationally, 140,000 120,000 Canvasback numbers are highly variable 100,000 Number of birds counted 80,000 around a long-term average of about 60,000 40,000 600,000. Locally, their wintering numbers 20,000 0 in the Bay have shown long-term decline, 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 perhaps due to habitat loss in the Bay or the creation of habitat in areas like the Central Sea Ducks (blue) – Overall stable but may be declining in the Valley. Subtidal habitat is the habitat below the surface past two decades. Diving Ducks (red) – Populations are variable Scaup (a diving duck) and scoters (sea with no clear trend. of San Francisco Bay, typically submerged. ducks) are declining throughout North Birds using the subtidal habitat in the Bay America as well as in the Bay. The San Francisco Bay populations of these two feed on fish, shellfish (including mussels), groups of ducks represent, on average, invertebrates, underwater plants, and algae. between 40% and 50% of all scaup and scoters counted in the Pacific Flyway. If conditions change in San Francisco Bay, a large percentage of the population may be affected.

Greater Scaup Surf Scoter

Canvasback . 16 Mark Herzog, Josh Ackerman, Susan W. De La Cruz (U.S. Geological Survey); Jill Demers (San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory); Cheryl Strong (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Threats Actions  Primary threat: Reduced quality Planning, Management, and Restoration Scientists and quantity of wintering habitat  Ensure that wintering habitat remains available  Continue the USFWS mid-winter from increasing contaminants (selenium, for sea ducks and diving ducks, by restoring and waterfowl survey, which has provided cadmium, and mercury); loss of deep preserving deeper and less saline water ponds within a consistent record of winter waterfowl pond habitat; and changes in prey restoration areas such as South San Francisco Bay populations since 1955. species composition. and Napa-Sonoma Marsh.  Study prey density and waterfowl feeding  Climate change and sea level rise,  Minimize pollution from runoff by working behavior to determine high-quality habitat that resulting in changed salinities and water with local governments and communities to should be protected or enhanced (e.g. eelgrass, depth. This could alter prey composition create programs that reduce runoff (e.g. reducing creek mouths, ponds, shoals). and herring spawning. impervious surfaces) and upgrade storm water and  Model carrying capacity of intertidal and  Loss of herring stock in San sewage treatment plant facilities. subtidal habitats to help set wintering population Francisco Bay and along the Pacific  Reduce contaminant release when conducting goals. Current efforts have shown the value Coast. Herring spawn is important in restoration activities by maintaining deeper water of San Pablo Bay subtidal habitats, and they diving duck diets, particularly for scoters depths. Special care should be taken to minimize point to prey distribution and fish and shorebird during spring migration, but also is used actions that increase contaminant release (mercury, competitors as key elements in future modeling heavily by scoters and scaup throughout selenium, and cadmium) or methylmercury efforts that incorporate all sub-bays. the winter. production in shallow water areas.  Evaluate the effects of human disturbance on  Disturbance from boat traffic flushes  Minimize disturbance in key foraging areas foraging and roosting birds. resting or foraging ducks off the surface from recreational and ferry boats, especially in the of the water.  Model sea level rise, salinity, and sediment following areas: in northern San Pablo Bay; near to help predict how benthic prey availability in  Winter oil spills have the potential for eelgrass beds; and within the central part of San subtidal and intertidal habitats may change in catastrophic impact to duck populations. Francisco Bay from the Bay Bridge to the San Mateo the future. Bridge.  Declining availability of quality  Determine habitat connectivity among breeding habitat in Alaska, Canada,  Encourage restoration of eelgrass, which is a San Francisco Bay, migratory corridors, and and the northern Intermountain West substrate for herring spawn and prey species like breeding areas to help establish flyway-wide Region. crabs, mussels, and small fish. conservation efforts year-round.  Implement the Subtidal Habitat Goals Report recommendations for the restoration, protection, and science needed to protect this habitat type – www.sfbaysubtidal.org.

17 Human-created Habitats

Status: Stable Brandt’s Cormorant Brandt’s Cormorant anomalies Western Gull 2000 Seabirds are long-lived birds; thus their populations can withstand occasional years

1500 of poor reproduction or reduced reproductive effort. Because of this, evaluating the status

1000 of a nesting colony is done by looking at the reproductive success or breeding population

500 size. The figures at left present over two Number of Breeding Pairs (208) Several human-created habitats are used by decades of data on reproductive effort for cormorants and gulls. 0 birds: levees, bridges, and buildings, to name 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Western Gull and Brandt’s Cormorant: a few. Data on the bird use of all these habitats Stable. In 20 years of monitoring the nesting Brandt’s Cormorants (blue) and Western Gulls (red) – are not available. In this section we discuss success of these long-lived seabirds, repro- Alcatraz Island reproductive success. two key places, Alcatraz Island and some of ductive success has remained largely constant the Bay’s bridges, where bird monitoring data until 2009 and 2010. The complete nesting failure in 2009 and 2010 was likely due exist. San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge Richmond–San Rafael Bridge 900 to a low anchovy population throughout the Alcatraz, once a barren sandstone rock 800 Central California coast region. originally inhabited by seabirds, faced a 700 Double-crested Cormorant: Stable, though 600 long period of human settlement. In the last their reproductive success has varied over 500 the last 26 years. In 2009 and 2010, these 20 years, the island has once again begun 400

300 cormorants showed a sharp decline, but they to attract seabirds that use its human-created Peak Nest Count appear to be recovering. The low number of structures as home. 200 100 nesting pairs in 2009 was likely due to a low

Over100 feet above the water the I-beams and 0 anchovy population throughout the Central 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 other support structures under the roadways of California coast region. the Richmond–San Rafael Bridge and the San Double-crested Cormorants – Number of nesting pairs on Bay Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge serve as nest- bridges. ing platforms for Double-crested Cormorants.

18 Meredith Elliott and Sara Acosta (PRBO Conservation Science); Mark J. Rauzon (Laney College) Threats Actions  Primary threat: Human Planning, Management, and Restoration disturbance, including main-  Adjust timing of maintenance and construction activities and tenance activities, tourism, and manage tourism to reduce bird disturbance during the months of boating, can cause seabirds to February–July. If not possible, maintenance and construction personnel abandon the nesting colony. should work with biologists on ways to limit disturbance.  Lack of food due to steep  Create new habitat on bridges and piers when possible. Explore declines in common prey using methods of social attraction to draw birds to newly built species, as evidenced by the ‘cormorant condos’ (artificial nesting structures on the new San Double-crested 2009 region-wide anchovy crash, Cormorant Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge). can cause seabirds not to breed.  Re-install historic buoys at Alcatraz and work with the Bay  Losing nesting sites on Conservation Development Commission to implement seasonal closures human-created structures. On Success Story to create a boat-free buffer zone during the seabird nesting season. Alcatraz, if nesting areas are Seabirds on Alcatraz opened for public tourism during  Educate tourists on Alcatraz about the sensitivity of nesting Island – See page 35 the spring and summer, nesting seabirds. National Park Service programs should continue to increase habitat will be lost. tourist awareness of nesting seabirds on Alcatraz, especially with regard to closed areas during the nesting season.  Contaminants accumulation in adult birds, in high Scientists concentrations, can affect  Assess contaminants through studies of nesting birds. Failed- reproduction and chick survival. to-hatch eggs have been collected opportunistically from the bridge Cormorants are fish-eating birds colonies, but eggs should be collected and analyzed for contaminants and are at risk of accumulating on an annual basis. Relating cormorant contaminants with prey contaminants (e.g., mercury, contaminants can help identify which fish species carry the most lead) from San Francisco Bay. contaminants in San Francisco Bay. Further research on lethal levels of  Climate change effects such these contaminants in Double-crested Cormorants should be considered. as extreme high temperatures  Prey studies are needed. A better understanding of Double-crested result in heat stress in nesting Cormorant diet is needed, since food affects the survival of this birds (nausea, dizziness, seizures, population. death) and nest abandonment, as witnessed in 2008 on Alcatraz  Conduct complete annual monitoring of all known Double-crested Island. Cormorant breeding sites, especially the South Bay power towers.

Western Gull at nest site, Alcatraz Island

19 Upland Habitats

Status: Mixed Riparian Oak Woodland Coniferous-Redwood Forest Coastal Scrub/Chaparral Grasslands Each upland type was assigned a suite of 30 indicator species that best represent that 20 habitat in the Bay Area. Over the 42 years 10 of study: 0 -10 Indicators for riparian birds show an -20 increase of greater than 20%. Riparian -30 habitats are recognized as one of the most Estimated Percent Change -40 important upland habitat types in the West for -50 birds and other wildlife. Streams were heavily 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 impacted in the past. In response to the listing of imperiled salmonids and concern for water Birds in Upland Habitats – Data are from the Breeding Bird quality, stream restoration has increased Surrounding the waters and wetlands of Survey for 14 routes in eight Bay Area counties. dramatically over the past several decades, San Francisco Bay are a variety of ‘upland’ benefiting birds as well. habitats including the five most common Indicators for oak woodland and coniferous- types – coastal scrub-chaparral, coniferous- redwood forest birds are stable. redwood forests, grasslands, oak woodlands, Coastal scrub-chaparral and grassland and riparian (streamside) forests. These birds are declining, coastal scrub by 27% vegetation communities vary in their mix of and grassland by over 45%. Species in these native and non-native plant species and the habitat types continue to be impacted by loss composition of bird communities they support. and degradation of habitat. These trends are consistent with the declining trend found in the National State of the Birds Report, 2009.

Savannah Sparrow in Acorn Woodpecker in grassland oak woodland

20 Tom Gardali and Leo Salas (PRBO Conservation Science) Threats Actions  Primary threat: Habitat loss and degradation Planning, Management, and Scientists Restoration: caused by land-use changes such as open space  Determine which species are most conversion to housing or intensive agriculture,  Adopt and implement the Uplands vulnerable to the effects of climate change. invasions of native and non-native species, and Habitat Goals and Bay Area Critical Link-  Map future distributions of species under lack of ecological disturbances such as fire. For ages documents: www.bayarealands.org. example, the two habitat types with the greatest bird climate and land use change scenarios.  Control the most destructive invasive declines, coastal scrub-chaparral and grasslands, are  Monitor upland birds to track distribution species, and support and participate in the transitioning to other habitat types due to lack of and abundance changes and nest success and Bay Area Early Detection Network disturbance and the invasion of native species (such survival. as Douglas fir), non-native plant species (such as (www.baedn.org).  Identify Bay Area species population broom), and annual grasses that alter fire regimes.  Use disturbance (e.g., fire and grazing) to targets, working with the San Francisco Bay  create and maintain diverse upland habitats. Lack of appreciation for the habitat value of Joint Venture. scrub-chaparral and grasslands. Not typically  Promote conservation on private lands,  Study the use of grazing and other thought of as beautiful or in need of protection, including thorough use of economic incentive disturbances as vegetation management tools. scrub-chaparral is seen as an eyesore or fire hazard, programs. and a “clear the brush” attitude reduces habitat.  Continue to restore riparian areas.  Climate change affects vegetation type and water availability, thereby altering the amount, type, and  Promote wise water use in order to quality of habitats available to birds. maintain stream flows and groundwater recharge.  Gaps in scientific knowledge that is needed to inform and evaluate land management decisions and  Educate the public on the value of policy actions. habitats such as coastal scrub-chaparral and grasslands.

Success Story Riparian restoration on Chileno Creek (Marin County) – See page 36 Wilson’s Warbler in Wrentit in coastal scrub- riparian habitat chaparral

21 Endangered Species Clapper Rail

Status: Decreasing 5000 Clapper Rails in San Francisco Bay have

4000 decreased dramatically from the tens of thousands that roamed the undiked marshes 3000 before the California Gold Rush.

2000 Hunting, then development reduced popula- tions and pushed Clapper Rails into smaller 1000 marshes separated by urban landscapes. Minimum Population Estimate Minimum Population Estimate More recently, the rail population hit a low 0 1970s 1980s 1990s 2005-08 point in the early 1990s, likely due to preda- YearYEAR tion by non-native red foxes. The Clapper Clapper Rail populations have declined Rail’s rebound during the 1990s was possibly since the 1970s. Population estimates due to fox control but also coincided with using different methods from published the rapid invasion of a tall non-native plant California Clapper Rails nest in the tidal and unpublished sources should be (invasive Spartina). This invader benefited marshes of San Francisco Bay, and recovery interpreted with caution. rails because it provided nesting habitat and of this species has been a major impetus protection from predators and high tides. for marsh restoration around the Bay. 1.50 Beginning in the mid-2000s, the rail popula- Unfortunately, the Clapper Rail struggles to 1.25 tion declined sharply, due in part to the removal of invasive Spartina, which threatens survive because of habitat loss, predator 1.00 tidal flat and marsh ecosystems as a whole. pressure, and invasive species. The growing 0.75 This recent decline may be leveling off, but threat from sea level rise also threatens the 0.50 the future of Clapper Rails in San Francisco Density Index Clapper Rail. Bay remains tenuous. However, we can be

Expected Counts at a Point 0.25 hopeful that as thousands of acres are being 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 restored to tidal marsh habitat, California Clapper Rails will be back on the road to Standardized Bay-wide point count recovery. surveys for Clapper Rails show a steep decline that may be leveling off.

22 Julian Wood, Len Liu, and Nadav Nur (PRBOContributors: Conservation name, Science) name Threats Actions  Continue funding and support for tidal marsh restoration such as the South  Primary threat: Predators,  Pollution, contaminants, Planning, Management, and Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, which including introduced species and toxic spills (including Restoration aims to restore over 15,100 acres of former such as Norway rats, house oil spills) directly kill rails, salt ponds to a diversity of habitat types cats, and red foxes prey on vegetation, fish, and the  Prioritize sites: Use the most current to benefit all birds, including tidal marsh- Clapper Rails and their nests. invertebrate community and thorough scientific modeling of dependent species. Some native species of raptors, that sustains marsh wildlife. climate change scenarios to prioritize areas snakes, and mammals also Toxins (e.g., mercury, lead) for acquisition and restoration (an example Scientists prey on Clapper Rails. accumulate in rails, impairing is PRBO’s sea level rise modeling tool:  Support research that seeks to under- their reproduction and survival. www.prbo.org/sfbayslr).  Invasive non-native plant stand marsh development processes in the species can reduce nesting and  Rising sea levels from  Acquire and restore uplands and diked face of sea level rise, as well as potential foraging habitat for Clapper global climate change areas where current shoreline marsh may management actions that can mitigate Rails, even changing the will drown some marshes migrate as sea level rises. these impacts. invertebrate community on and increase nest flooding,  Control predators by eliminating cat  Study the effect of trail use on which they feed. Perennial making the habitat unsuit- feeding stations, supporting predator Clapper Rails – both direct impacts from pepperweed reduces high- able for Clapper Rails. See control programs, and keeping marshes, disturbance as well as potential increased tide refugia, and hybrid www.prbo.org/sfbayslr to public parks, and adjacent housing areas predator access from trails. Spartina may reduce channel view maps of projected free of garbage. and mudflat areas important change in marsh habitat and  Support research on Clapper Rail for foraging rails. However, changes in bird and plant  Enforce regulations on unlawful population trends (including reproductive invasive plant control/removal species distribution. recreation in sensitive marshes. success, which has not been closely decisions should always studied at a Bay-wide scale), habitat  Conduct active marsh planting consider short-term and long- use, and the impacts of invasive hybrid in restored areas where plants are not term effects on birds (e.g., Spartina and its removal. regenerating on their own, or in sites invasive Spartina eradication where non-native plant removal has  Support research that can inform how may have contributed to reduced overall plant cover. to create upland transition zone habitat as significant reductions in refugia for Clapper Rails. Clapper Rail populations at  Restore high ground adjacent to some sites and should proceed marshes, such as levees and uplands with  Update habitat models as new data with caution). dense vegetation, to offer birds refuge from become available, to better predict areas high-tide events. where tidal marsh will persist given sea level rise.  Locate public access points and trails to the Bay shore away from Clapper Rail habitat. Success Story Carl’s Marsh – See page 34

23 Endangered Species Western Snowy Plover

Status: Uncertain – appears to be recover- 350 ing in the South Bay. 300 Snowy Plovers in San Francisco Bay have

250 decreased from historic numbers but more

200 recently show an increasing trend, possibly reflecting improved survey effort. Snowy 150 Plover reproductive success is low in the Bay 100 and has decreased over the past four years.

No. of Snowy Plovers in SF Bay 50

0 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010

How long will it take Snowy Plovers to rebound to their 1970s level? The Western Snowy Plover is a federally threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Primarily found nesting on coastal beaches, a subset of the population nests in San Francisco Bay. Plovers use dry pond bottoms, isolated islands, and levees in managed ponds as well as active salt ponds for nesting.

Snowy Plover chicks

24 Gary Page and Lynne Stenzel (PRBOContributors: Conservation name, Science); name 24 Caitlin Robinson-Nilsen (San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory) Threats Actions  Predators impact Snowy Planning, Management, and Restoration  Prevent California Gulls from establishing colonies near plover nesting habitat. Plovers by preying upon their  Continue to control predators in San Francisco eggs and chicks. Nest cameras Bay, to reduce depredation of plover eggs and chicks.  Practice adaptive management. Support ongoing have documented a large suite of monitoring of managed ponds and nesting islands to  predators, including California Remove feral cat feeding stations near plover determine their effectiveness in supporting plovers. Gulls, Common Ravens, Northern nesting areas in the South Bay, and educate the public Employ an adaptive management approach to pond Harriers and the native gray fox. about the need for this action. design, acreage, and public access if the current plan Maintaining predator control  Continue to create and improve plover nesting proves to be ineffective. measures is costly, and funds are within restoration projects. Specifically, continue to scarce.  Conduct public outreach to reduce disturbance create nesting islands, shallow ponds, and cover for to nesting plovers from public access and use of  Habitat loss from salt pond plover nests and chicks. recreation trails. Close trails seasonally around nesting conversion projects is a threat to  Maintain 500 nesting plovers in San Francisco habitat. the Snowy Plover, as some of the Bay, as set by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ponds it nests in are former salt Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan. The South Scientists ponds that are now being converted Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project aims to support  Experiment with substrates that provide cover. to marsh in the North and South 250 breeding Snowy Plovers. Other federal and state Test the effectiveness of oyster shells on the pond Bay. agencies need to collaborate to develop a strategy bottom to camouflage Snowy Plover nests and chicks,  Rising sea level from global to support at least 250 additional plovers within San reduce predation, and increase nesting density. climate change may submerge Francisco Bay.  Assess the implications of public access on nesting the shallow ponds where Snowy  Provide dry spring nesting habitat and late season plovers to determine the level of disturbance likely Plovers nest. nesting habitat. Initiate managed pond draw-down from future public access and trail use. Determine  Disturbance to nesting plovers early enough in the spring to provide dry early season consequence of disturbance on flushing rates, nest by the public, from future public nesting habitat, and continue to draw down ponds temperatures, incubation duration, and nest success of access and recreation trails. throughout the season to create optimal late season the plovers. nesting habitat.  Prevent avian predators from nesting and perching near nesting plovers by modifying the design of power towers and by removing predator perches (e.g. sign posts, old duck hunting blinds).

25 25 Endangered Species California Least Tern

San Francisco Bay Status: Stable 450

400 Since 1984, the number of California

350 Least Tern pairs in the Alameda colony has 300 increased by 9.7% per year, but the colony 250 size appears to have stabilized in the last 200 decade. 150

100 Dropped prey items have revealed the diet Number of breeding pairs 50 and foraging habits of Least Terns at the 0 Alameda Point colony from 1981 to present. 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 They show that small estuarine fishes are the dominant prey item. Since the 1990s, Breeding pairs of Least Terns in the Alameda Point colony. northern anchovy and surfperches have While the colony has grown over the last 26 years, it appears declined in the tern’s diet, while Clupeids to be stabilizing. (e.g., herring, sardine) have increased. The largest Least Tern colony in San Francisco Understanding prey items is important, Bay is located at Alameda Point on the because diet is critical to tern reproductive runway complex of the former Naval Air success. Station, Alameda. The 3.9–hectare breeding Atherinopsidae (silversides) area is surrounded by a chain link fence. Engraulidae (anchovies) Clupeidae (herrings)

Smaller colonies can be found at Napa– Salmonidae (salmon)

Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area, Montezuma Embiotocidae (surfperches)

Wetlands, and Hayward Regional Shoreline. Gobiidae (gobies)

Osmeridae (smelts)

Others

Average percent of each fish in the diet of Least Terns in the Alameda Point colony. Small fishes are the dominant prey item.

26 Meredith Elliott (PRBOContributors: Conservation name, Science); name Susan Euing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Threats Actions  Primary threat: Avian predators including falcons, Planning, Management, and Restoration hawks, owls, crows, and ravens prey upon young and  Continue predator management, especially of adult terns. Human activities, such as leaving food for Peregrine Falcons. The increase in local Peregrine predators and altering native habitat, result in higher than Falcon attacks on the terns at Alameda Point is a normal predator populations. growing concern. Authorization to permanently remove  Development of the Naval Air Station looms, as the marauding Peregrine Falcons from Least Tern sites needs base has been decommissioned. to be given to predator management personnel by the appropriate state agency.  Encroaching vegetation is reducing the nesting area available to the birds. The California Least Tern needs  Control vegetation by continuing to apply herbicide, bare ground for nesting and roosting. Encroachment of remove weeds, and add gravel to the nesting substrate. vegetation reduces the amount of nesting habitat.  Reduce air traffic disturbance by expanding outreach  Low flying aircraft over the nesting colony flush adult to local airports and pilots regarding impacts to the terns from their nests, leaving young and eggs vulnerable endangered Least Tern. to predators and unfavorable weather conditions.  Secure/identify adequate undeveloped space beyond  Sea level rise from climate change threatens to the existing colony to allow for colony movement or submerge the colony site, as it is built on reclaimed land persistence in the long term, given the uncertain future of close to sea level. the Navy’s presence.  Loss of common prey species, such as the region-wide Scientists anchovy crash in 2009, can result in fewer feedings to  Study the diet and energy requirements of chicks, nutritional deficiencies, and higher rates of chick developing terns and evaluate the nutritional content of death. common prey species.  Contaminants can directly kill birds, but they also kill  Monitor contaminant impacts to terns. Failed-to- the prey items that birds depend upon for food. California hatch eggs should continue to be collected and analyzed Least Terns feed on fish and are at risk of accumulating for contaminants. Further research on lethal levels of contaminants (e.g., mercury and lead) found in San these contaminants in Least Terns is needed. Francisco Bay. These contaminants, in great enough concentrations, can affect survival and breeding success.

Success Story Monitoring Least Terns at Alameda Point – See page 37

27 Endangered Species Northern Spotted Owl

Status: Stable 100 The Bay Area’s population of Northern 85 Spotted Owls is thought to be stable; however, thorough population monitoring is 70 not available as all sites are not monitored every year. 55 While fecundity (reproductive success) is

40 generally high, we lack survival data for 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % sites occupied by pair of Nthrn. Spotted Owls owls, which may be more important to the Percent of Northern Spotted Owl sites surveyed that overall number of birds in the population. were occupied by a pair. All sites are not surveyed every Current monitoring occurs on the following year; however, sites surveyed likely reflect the overall public lands: Point Reyes National Seashore, population of owls in Marin County. In general, the number Golden Gate National Recreation Area, In the San Francisco Bay Area (primarily of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County appears stable. Marin Municipal Water District, Marin Marin County), Northern Spotted Owls nest County Open Space District, and California in both old-growth and mature second-growth 0.8 State Parks (Tomales Bay, Mount Tamalpais, forests of Douglas-fir, coast redwood, bishop 0.7 and Samuel P. Taylor). pine, mixed conifer–hardwood, and other 0.6 0.5 evergreen hardwood trees. This varies from 0.4 the rest of the population of Northern Spotted 0.3

Owls in the Pacific Northwest, where they are 0.2 commonly associated with mature coniferous 0.1 forests. 0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Northern Spotted Owl Fucundity in Marin County n=26 n=41 n=43 n=48 n=38 n=42 n=18 n=35 n=32 n=47 n=44 In Marin County, unique forest types are bishop pine and evergreen forests. Except for 2007 when almost no young were produced, Spotted owl fecundity (reproductive success) appears stable.

28 Renée Cormier (PRBOContributors: Conservation name, Science); name Dave Press (National Park Service). Threats Actions  Primary threat: Barred Owls pose a threat to Spotted Planning, Management, and Restoration Owls by competing for space and food and through direct  Follow U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines aggressive interactions. Currently, the number of Barred for protecting Spotted Owls. Restrictions for habitat Owls in the Bay Area is relatively small but is predicted to modifications around Spotted Owl territories are increase. in effect year-round, and modifications to potential  Rat poisons. Spotted Owls feed upon rats; when rats Spotted Owl habitat may require consultation with have been poisoned with rodenticides used by residents USFWS personnel. Spotted Owl fledgling and businesses, the owls can become sick or die.  Limit loud noises, such as motorized gardening  Sudden Oak Death changes the forest structure and equipment, during the nesting season (February 1st to July 9th) near Spotted Owl habitat. plant composition, and the loss of tanoaks in particular  Discontinue the use of rodenticides as a means to kill pests in areas with Spotted Owl threaten the owl’s preferred food source, the dusky-footed habitat. Residents and business owners should consider rodent prevention and trapping woodrat, which depends on the tanoak for cover and food. instead of poisons that harm more than the rodent.  Loss of forests due to urban development along national  Communicate to the public the USFWS guidelines pertaining to activities such as park and county open space boundaries and the threat of noise disturbance and construction near Spotted Owl habitat during the nesting season wildfires. Losing forests reduces feeding, roosting, and (February 1st to July 9th). nesting habitat for Northern Spotted Owls.  Human activities, such as extended presence near Scientists Spotted Owl nest trees and noise disturbance from yard  Continue and expand monitoring of Spotted Owl and Barred Owl populations on maintenance, tree trimming, and construction activities in public lands. Current research is ongoing in Marin County but should be expanded to the communities neighboring owl nesting sites, can disturb include Sonoma and Napa counties, on both public and private lands. nesting owls and may prevent them from feeding their Public young. Community awareness of regulated protections for Spotted Owls is lacking.  Leave owls alone. Spotted Owls reside near many busy trails in the Bay Area, and it is not uncommon for fledgling owls to perch on the ground. If you see an owl, give it  Genetic isolation. The Marin County population of space and keep pets on leash. The parents will continue to care for a fledgling owl on the Northern Spotted Owls is isolated from populations to the ground. north because of a break in forested habitat needed for dispersal. Small populations, such as those found in Marin  Discontinue the use of rodenticides as a means to kill pests. Residents and business County, are at a higher risk of local extinction. owners should consider rodent prevention and trapping instead of poisons that harm more than the rodent.

Success Story Spotted Owl monitoring on public lands – See page 36

29 Policy

The human population of the San Francisco flood protection as sea levels rise; healthy streams Bay Area has more than tripled since the 1950s, improve our water quality; diverse and abundant yet the ponds, open waters, mudflats, and bird populations provide us with recreation, marshes continue to support rich and abundant inspiration, and enjoyment; and birds’ presence birdlife. Protection of birds and their habitats has in the Bay Area indicates the sustained quality of resulted from decades of public involvement, those habitats and the services they provide. conservation investments, and a strong frame- Today the most fundamental policy challenges work of laws and regulations. However, we to maintaining and enhancing conservation in the cannot assume that all threats to birds and their Bay Area, across a broad array of habitat types, habitats have been averted and that all protection can be grouped into four categories: 1) funding; is permanent. We need an engaged public and 2) climate change including sea level rise; 3) informed decision-makers to continue to protect threats from development; and 4) balancing public use with adequate protections for birds. the hundreds of thousands of majestic and The State of the Birds Report offers policy ecologically important birds that depend on the recommendations for each. Caitlin Robinson-Nilsen (left) and Cheryl Strong hold San Francisco Bay Estuary region. Black-necked Stilt chicks at Hayward Regional Shoreline. Funding The future state of the birds in San Francisco Bay region is at significant risk, resulting from Our ability to protect existing habitats To protect birds in San Francisco Bay region: the urban use of the area, the looming threat of and respond to new threats is compromised Support the efforts of the San Francisco Bay climate change and associated sea level rise, without adequate funding to: 1) acquire, Restoration Authority (California Government and funding limitations during this period of restore, and manage important habitats in Code §66700 et seq.) to establish a regional economic uncertainty. It is time to develop and public spaces; 2) continue incentives for the funding program in the Bay Area. Doing support solutions that benefit our environment, private protection of open spaces; and 3) so would support wetlands restoration, economy, and community. A more resilient San continue efforts to maintain and enhance the enhancement, and management, and associated Francisco Bay will be better for birds, people, quality of Bay waters upon which birds and public access and flood management. and the economy: healthy tidal marshes provide people depend.

30 Dan Taylor (Audubon California); Beth Huning (San Francisco Bay Joint Venture). v

Support full funding for the Federal Land and isms, and continue the systematic Water Conservation Act, the North American removal and control of the species Wetlands Conservation Act, and other relevant that pose a significant threat to federal authorities to increase and improve birds’ habitats in the Bay region, wetland habitats and wetland-dependent bird such as invasive Spartina hybrids. populations. Restore full funding for the Support federal appropriations to the U.S. Williamson Act (California Army Corps of Engineers for wetland restora- Government Code §51200 et seq.), tion projects authorized in the Water Resources which has historically provided Development Act; appropriations for the critically important property tax San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge incentives and prevents urban Complex; and appropriations for NOAA and development for over 1.23 million USEPA for programs focused on wetlands res- acres of upland bird habitat and toration and water quality improvements in San open spaces in the nine-county Bay Francisco Bay. Area region. State funding for this program has been deeply cut and is Alcatraz Island  Ensure adequate funding for the San Francisco threatened with elimination. Bay Regional Water Quality Board’s effective enforcement of the Federal Clean Water Act Support continued state funding for the San nongovernmental organizations active in and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program of the protecting habitats in the Bay Area. Act (California Water Code §13000 et seq.), State Coastal Conservancy, which provides grants and to local jurisdictions for infrastructure to multiple organizations for wetland restoration Support science and monitoring associated with improvements to aid in keeping sewage and and other projects that benefit birds, and support restoration and management projects that answer animal waste out of the Bay and reducing funding for the California Department of Fish and key uncertainties and help guide priorities for storm-water pollution, to reduce the threat of Game to manage their ecological reserves and future bird habitat protection and enhancement. wildlife areas in the San Francisco Bay Area. catastrophic spills and improve water quality Climate change and sea level rise and supply for wildlife and for people. Increase local funding for habitat acquisition To ensure that critically important habitat areas  and management actions by entities such as Ensure adequate funding for the early detection for people and birds are preserved, we encourage: of non-native invasive plants and aquatic organ- Open Space Districts, land trusts, and other

31 Policy (continued from page 31)

Rapid reduction of greenhouse gases through Support dredging policies and regulations that Efforts to exempt projects, or to weaken the full implementation of AB 32, the California require beneficial re-use of material currently existing development protection provisions Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 being disposed offshore or in-Bay. Sediment that of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Health and Safety Code §38500 et is in the system will enable marshes to better (California Public Resources Code §21000 seq.), and support for national climate change build and keep pace with sea level rise, protecting et seq.) or the McAteer-Petris Act (California legislation to help mitigate the most extreme not only marsh and mudflat habitats but enabling Government Code §66600 et seq.) establishing levels of climate change. them to serve their natural functions as buffers the Bay Conservation Development Commission against sea level rise and storm events. (BCDC), should be opposed. Full implementation of the California Climate Adaptation Strategy of 2009. On the issues of Support science and monitoring to improve our Implement the Climate Change amendments to sea level rise, discourage urban development in ability to predict the effects of climate change BCDC’s Bay Plan. areas containing habitat and habitat restoration as a means to prioritize future land acquisition, The recommendations in the Subtidal Habitat potential and that are vulnerable to sea level rise. management, and restoration efforts and to Goals report should be implemented in order to mitigate sea level rise impacts. The acquisition and restoration of remaining maintain and improve fish and wildlife habitat in open space areas in proximity to existing Threats from development the Bay. wetlands to provide for future habitat refugia With the population of the Bay Area estimated Utilize decision-support tools, such as that for tidal marsh and tidal flats, birds, and other to grow to over eight million people by the end developed by the Bay Area Open Space Council’s wildlife in the face of rising sea level; and of this decade, there will be additional pressures Upland Habitat Goals project, and the San to allow for tidal wetlands to migrate up the to fill baylands and adjacent restorable uplands Francisco Bay Sea Level Rise decision support shoreline as the Bay rises. for urban development. To ensure that habitat tool developed by PRBO Conservation Science When practical, encourage the use of natural protection and restoration objectives can be met, and its partners, as resources for determining shoreline protection and buffer lands such as tidal we encourage that: priority parcels for future protection and marsh, eelgrass and oysters, and rocky subtidal Further development should be prohibited on restoration. habitat, in contrast to sea walls and other artificial Bay wetlands or lands adjacent to, and restorable The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality barriers that are prone to catastrophic failure and to, wetland conditions. Control Board should complete and adopt its provide little habitat value.

32 Contributors: John Kelly (Audubon Canyon Ranch) and Caitlin Nilson-Robinson (San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory) Regulations regarding dogs and cats should be implemented to protect key shoreline areas used by endangered bird species. New boat launching and access points should be developed away from sensitive habitats. Boating activities should avoid those areas that provide important foraging and resting for diving ducks, grebes, and waterbirds during the migratory and wintering seasons when those species are present. Clapper Rail, dependent on tidal Study impacts of public access on wildlife as a marsh habitat in the Bay means to improve future planning for beneficial public access. Support educational programs and facilities to help the public to appreciate, understand, and Tidal marshland is likely to be inundated by sea level rise. Here, value birds and the ecology of San Francisco Bay. winter rainwater and an extreme high tide flood the Bay shore.

Wetlands and Riparian Area Protection Program Protect and enhance values of tidal marsh, recommendations in order to provide protection managed pond, open Bay, and other sensitive for many bird species. habitats, particularly those utilized by listed and Public use and bird protection sensitive wildlife species. Where wildlife would be negatively impacted by public use, public A balancing act exists in wildlife conservation: access should be limited. As much as possible, the needs of sensitive wildlife populations versus access should be designed in ways and locations the need to connect the public with the outdoors that both provide public enjoyment and reduce and provide opportunities to observe wildlife. We impacts to sensitive habitats and species. recommend the following policy considerations to accommodate habitat protection and outdoor recreation:

33 Status: Overall stable with large Success Stories variation between years

Managed Ponds South San Francisco Bay Salt Pond Restoration Tidal Marsh Carl’s Marsh

With the transfer of over 15,000 acres to 70,000 Carl’s Marsh is a great example of

public ownership in 2003, the South Bay Salt 60,000 successful tidal marsh restoration. Pond Restoration Project is the largest wetland 50,000 After this 42-acre dry fallow field restoration on the West Coast. An early goal in 40,000 was breached in 1994, sediment the long-term restoration plan was to reduce 30,000 began accumulating with each tidal 20,000

salinity in open ponds from their inherited toxic 10,000 cycle, and the site is now a lush

production concentrations to those of ambient 0 tidal marsh supporting a diversity of 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Bay waters. The U.S. Geological Survey began birds including several endangered Dabbling ducks have increased in South Bay ponds. monitoring birds and water quality from the start California Clapper Rails. This collab- of the project and has documented increases Western Sandpipers. Further north, in the Eden orative project between California in shorebirds and ducks as the restoration has Landing pond complex, small shorebirds during Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Song Sparrow proceeded. Examples include the 480-acre spring have increased from 10,000 to over and Sonoma Land Trust was more Island Ponds that were opened to tidal action 50,000 birds observed in monthly surveys, as successful than expected. The transition from in 2006. As salinity declined from 160 to less water depths declined in former commercial salt fallow agricultural land, to productive mudflat than 20 ppt, average numbers of dabbling ducks ponds now maintained as seasonal wetlands. habitat for shorebirds, to a fully vegetated increased from zero in 2003 to over 4,000 birds Numerous ponds are planned for enhancements marsh was rapid, occurring within the first at high tide on a given winter day in 2009. In the or restoration to tidal marsh within a 50-year time five years. Carl’s Marsh now supports over 60 larger Alviso system and across the South Bay’s horizon, and continued monitoring is critical to pairs of breeding Samuel’s Song Sparrows. managed ponds, dabbling ducks such as Northern learn from successes or unexpected changes that This subspecies of Song Sparrow is found Shoveler increased substantially through winter can feed back into adaptive management in this only in the tidal marshes of San Pablo Bay and 2010. The restoration project occurs within a extremely important area for birds within San is recognized by CDFG as a Bird Species of designated area of Hemispheric Importance Francisco Bay. Special Concern. for migratory and wintering shorebirds such as —L. Arriana Brand and Cheryl Strong —Julian Wood and Nadav Nur

34 Tidal Marsh Herons and Egrets Human-created Habitats

West Marin Island Seabirds on Alcatraz Island The West Marin Island National Prior to human settlement, Alcatraz Island Wildlife Refuge is a protected home was home to thousands of nesting seabirds, to one of the largest nesting colonies as indicated by the guano-covered sandstone. of herons and egrets in San Francisco As early human settlement took place, birds Bay, and is a true bird conservation left the island and did not return throughout success story. During the 1980s the military and prison history. Over a century the Marin Islands were slated for later, Alcatraz became part of the Golden development. Over the next 12 years, Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), local citizens, the Friends of the a unit of the National Park Service (NPS), Brandt’s Cormorant Marin Islands, the California Coastal and birds slowly began to return to reclaim Snowy Egret with nest material Conservancy, the Trust for Public the island. The Brandt’s Cormorant colony on Alcatraz is one of Land, and at least 14 other agencies the few known estuarine breeding sites for this species. Pigeon and organizations participated in the establishment of the Marin Islands Guillemots are not known to breed elsewhere in San Francisco Bay. National Wildlife Refuge and State Ecological Reserve. Senator The Western Gull and Black-crowned Night Heron colonies are Barbara Boxer designated September 19th as Marin Islands National the largest in the Bay. Currently, this diversity of species exists in a Song Sparrow Wildlife Refuge Day in 1992. delicate balance with the considerable human presence both on and The establishment of West Marin Island Wildlife Refuge was largely around Alcatraz Island. Over the last 10 years, PRBO Conservation due to data provided by ongoing monitoring, which began in 1979 and Science and the NPS have been monitoring the return of the documented the importance of the island to nesting herons and egrets. nesting birds and especially the growth of the cormorant colony. Region-wide monitoring of heronries throughout the San Francisco With cooperative efforts between biologists and Bay Area by Audubon Canyon Ranch substantiated the importance NPS staff, improved public outreach (signage, of this nesting colony and now guides the management of the Marin bird interpretive displays, tours), and island Islands National Wildlife Refuge. Today the Refuge is home to over management (altered tourism, maintenance, and 500 nesting pairs of herons and egrets each year. construction activities to protect nesting birds) —John Kelly human-caused disturbance to the cormorants has been reduced and the colony has grown. —Sara Acosta

Pigeon Guillemots

35 Status: Overall stable with large HabitatSuccess Type Stories variation between years

Upland Habitats Chileno Creek, Marin County Over the years, neighboring ranches joined in and the cumulative effect in Marin and southern Sally and Mike Gale live and groundwater, and provide Sonoma counties has greatly increased the work on a 600-acre ranch first better wildlife habitat. number and diversity of birds. purchased by Sally’s great- Working with the Marin grandfather in 1856. The Gale Resource Conservation —Tom Gardali Ranch is located in Marin District, the Natural County’s picturesque Chileno Resource Conservation Endangered Species Spotted Owls Valley, where agriculture has been Service, and the Students a way of life for 150 years. Mike and Teachers Restoring For over 10 years, the and Sally took over operation of a Watershed Program National Park Service, Marin the ranch in 1993 and currently (STRAW), the Gales Municipal Water District, and tend a humanely raised grass-fed undertook a seven-acre Marin County Open Space beef herd of about 100 cows as riparian restoration project. have been conducting surveys well as other farm enterprises such The restoration has on their lands to ensure that as u-pick apples. successfully increased Northern Spotted Owls are Mike and Sally are stewards of native vegetation (see not disturbed by management the land and quickly noticed that photo), especially to benefit activities. Their commitment to the creek running through their Riparian habitat on the Gale Ranch, birds. The number of the protection of Spotted Owls property, Chileno Creek, was before and after restoration began bird species found on the has resulted in better timing of Adult Spotted Owl completely lacking vegetation and Gale Ranch has increased management activities (e.g., drying out in the summer. The Gales recognized significantly since the restoration project began. trail work) to avoid disturbance to nesting owls the need to revive Chileno Creek in order to The growing populations of the 33 bird species and increased knowledge about the status of retain soil and prevent creek sedimentation, keep inhabiting the ranch tell us the restoration is Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County. evaporation in check, retain water, replenish really paying off. —Renée Cormier and Dave Press

36 Contributors: John Kelly (Audubon Canyon Ranch) and Caitlin Nilson-Robinson (San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory) Endangered Species—Least Tern Watch Marshland on Reclaimed Shoreline

Monitoring and Protecting a California Sonoma Baylands Least Tern Breeding Colony Much of the historic Tern Watch is a volunteer predator observation program at marshland in the North Bay Alameda Point. The intention of Tern Watch is to give a broader was diked from the Bay picture of predator presence during the least tern breeding season, and drained in the late 19th allowing USFWS to conduct proactive predator management. century for farming oat hay Annually, volunteers are recruited and trained to observe the tern and other crops. From 1991 colony from a vehicle outside the colony fence line, for three to 1996, the State Coastal hours at a time. Volunteers record predator and Least Tern activi- Conservancy and the Sonoma ties during daytime hours, seven days a week. Land Trust conceived and Not only are the Tern Watch data useful for understanding developed the Sonoma the local predators at the Least Tern colony, but the volunteers Baylands Project to restore themselves act as predator deterrents. The physical presence of a tidal marsh on 320 acres. This human in their vehicle close to the Least Tern colony appears to pioneering project of wetland creation used dredged materials from navigation deter many avian predators from entering the nesting area, thus channels to jump-start the restoration. giving more protection to the terns. The Tern Watch volunteers While it took many years to establish, the site now boasts large numbers of also record least tern activities and their responses to predator shorebirds (sometimes as many as 18,000 individuals), with at least 23 species presence. While conducting a tern watch, each volunteer is able to amassing on the mud before and after high tides. As rising water pushes the enjoy the behaviors and nature of the Least Terns in their breeding birds off these restored bay mudflats, they pause at the Baylands for a last frantic habitat, a rare sight to see. forage before moving to upland habitats where they rest and preen until the tide In 2010, the presence and vigilance begins to drop again. During high tide in the winter, 18 species of ducks and of volunteers at the Least Tern colony geese have been recorded in the aquatic habitats within the Sonoma Baylands. helped thwart several hunting attempts With its ability to attract large populations of wading birds, the site is also made by juvenile Peregrine Falcons. The attractive to diurnal raptors including Merlin, Prairie and Peregrine Falcons. quick response time by volunteers alert- Surveys for endangered California Clapper Rails by PRBO biologists since 2008 ing the biologists of predators enabled have documented their presence, along with Black Rails, in the restored Sonoma them to chase off marauding predators Baylands. in time. The restoration of Sonoma Baylands has enhanced opportunities for San Pablo and San Francisco Bays’ wildlife, especially birds, in ways only dreamed of 30 —Meredith Elliot and Mark Rauzon Least Tern incubating eggs years ago. —Caroline Warner and Rich Stallcup

37 Status: Overall stable with large Contributors variation between years

Josh Ackerman, PhD; Sara Acosta; Marine L. Arriana Brand, PhD; Renee Cormier; Avian Susan W. De La Cruz; Jill Demers; Executive Meredith Elliott; Research Wildlife Ecologist, PRBO Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Ecologist, PRBO Wildlife Biologist, Director, San Francisco Marine Ecologist, Biologist, U.S. Conservation Science Geological Survey, Conservation Science U.S. Fish and Wildlife Bay Bird Observatory PRBO Conservation Geological Survey Western Ecological Service Science Research Center

Tom Gardali; Director, Mark Herzog, PhD; Beth Huning, Amy Hutzel; Program John P. Kelly, PhD; Leonard Liu; Nadav Nur, PhD; Pacific Coast and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Coordinator, San Manager, San Francisco Director, Conservation Wetlands Ecologist; Population Ecologist; Central Valley, PRBO Geological Survey Francisco Bay Joint Bay Area Program, State Science and Habitat PRBO Conservation PRBO Conservation Conservation Science Venture Coastal Conservancy Protection, Audubon Science Science Canyon Ranch Not pictured: Susan Euing; Wildlife Biologist; U.S. Geological Survey

38 Contributors: John Kelly (Audubon Canyon Ranch) and Caitlin Nilson-Robinson (San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory) Gary Page; Wetlands Claire Peaslee; Editor, Melissa Pitkin; Dave Press; Wildlife Mark Rauzon; Caitlin Robinson- Leonardo Salas, PhD; Ecologist; PRBO PRBO Conservation Director, Education Ecologist, Point Reyes Geography Department Nilsen; Waterbird Senior Scientist, Conservation Science Science and Outreach and San National Seashore Chair, Laney College Program Director, San Informatics and Francisco Bay groups, Francisco Bay Bird Climate Change, PRBO PRBO Conservation Observatory Conservation Science Science

Rich Stallcup; Lynne Stenzel; Cheryl Strong; Dan Taylor; Director of Caroline Warner; John Wiens; PhD Julian Wood; San Naturalist, PRBO Wetland Ecologist, Wildlife Biologist, Public Policy, Audubon Outreach Coordinator, Chief Scientist, PRBO Francisco Bay Program Conservation Science PRBO Conservation U.S. Fish and Wildlife California San Francisco Bay Conservation Science Manager, PRBO Service Science Joint Venture Conservation Science

39 Photo credits

Sara Acosta—p19 gull; p31 Alcatraz Caroline Hardter (Creative Commons)—p24 landscape Audubon Canyon Ranch —p14 Sherman Island Beth Huning—front cover marsh landscape; p5 surveying; Brian Aydemir (Creative Commons)—p18 Alcatraz p8 salt ponds; p10 landscape, shorebirds; p12 Mike Baird—p6 Willet; p16 row of scoters landscape; p22 marsh; p30 landscape; p32 landscape Peter Baye—p33 flood tide Scott Jennings—p29 owl Len Blumin—p19 cormorant Bruce Jensen—p20 large landscape Philip Bouchard (Creative Commons)—p6 tidal flat Walter Kitundu—front cover and p22 clapper rail Cris Benton—p1 South Bay; p2 South Bay; p8 South Peter LaTourrette—front cover, canvasback; p11 flying Bay; p40 tidal marsh; p41 aerial flock shoveler; p12 rail; p21 warbler Von Canon (Creative Commons)—p14 flying heron Lorenz-Avelar (wwwlorenz-avelarcom)—p16 underwater Renée Cormier—p28 owls; p36 owl Marin RCD—p36 two views Gale Ranch Corinne C DeBra—p12 marsh landscape; p20 trail James Matuszak—p2 shorebirds Franco Folini (Creative Commons)—p2 SF Bay David Reinsche—p30 field biologists Wally Gobetz (Creative Commons)—p4 Bay bridge Caitlin Robinson-Nilson—p24 plover, chicks Tom Grey—front: terns, egret, sparrow, avocets; p8 San Francisco Bay Subtidal Goals Project—p12 tidal shoveler, terns; p9 stilt; p10 avocets; p13 yellowthroat; marsh p14-15 herons & egrets; p16 three duck species; p20 Sonoma Land Trust— p5 wetlands, p37 wetlands sparrow, woodpecker; p21 wrentit; p26 tern; p33 rail; Jack Snell (Creative Commons)—p18 Richmond Bridge p34 sparrow; p35 three bird species; p36 warbler; Ingrid Taylar—p3 landscape; p4 shorebirds; p34 flying p37 tern willets; back cover flying avocets

Anonymous photographers (Creative Commons)—cover aerial landscape; p6 dunlin; p18 Alcatraz; p28 forest

Diana Howard—treatment of all graphs South San Francisco Bay tidal marsh

40 Reviewers (does not include contributors)

John Baker Ryan DiGaudio Amy Hutzel Barbara Salzman Grant Ballard Wendy Eliot Brooke Langston Nat Seavy Kathi Borgman Arthur Feinstein Jen McBroom Christina Sloop John Bourgeois Michael Fitzgibbon John Parodi Laura Valoppi Ellie Cohen Geoff Geupel Steve Rottenborn

Funders

The 2011 State of the Birds Report, San Francisco Bay was funded by the following:

The Joseph and Vera Long Foundation (formerly the J.M. Long Foundation) Pacific Gas and Electric Foundation PRBO Conservation Science San Francisco Bay Joint Venture San Francisco Estuary Partnership U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

American Avocets Aerial view of shorebird flock over saltworks

41 The State of the Birds San Francisco Bay 2011 is a collaborative project of PRBO Conservation Science and the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, with contributions from numerous partners. Found online at www.prbo.org/sfbaystate of the birds