By Bob Lewis

This year will be the 113^th year of Christmas Bird Counts in North America.  Golden Gate Bird Alliance sponsors two counts in our region, centered in San Francisco and Oakland.  Although Christmas counts are great fun and an opportunity to meet other birders, see a variety of birds and get a good understanding of what birds are available in our area, they also have a more serious side.

The National Audubon Society has made the results of all counts available to everyone at www.audubon.org/bird/cbc/hr/index.html. This Citizen Science data is used by environmentalists and ornithologists to understand population changes, and consider actions that might help to minimize the loss of endangered species.

Recently I took a look at data from the Oakland Count to see what it might say.

For a variety of reasons, it was easy for me to look at the data from 1974 to 2011.  This is a 38-year period.  I divided it in half, and compared the years 1974-1993 with 1994-2011.  Over this period, the population of Alameda County increased over 40 percent.  Another development that potentially affected bird populations was the Oakland Hills fire in 1991, just before the beginning of the second period.

I averaged the count data over each period, and applied some statistical tests to the results.  Here’s what I found, for the top 20 increases and decreases:

Birds with increasing populations			Birds with decreasing populations
Species	% incr.	Avg(1)	Species	% decr.	Avg(2)
Common Raven	1258	146	White-winged Scoter	95	199
Red-shouldered Hawk	978	29	Bonaparte’s Gull	94	164
Pygmy Nuthatch	362	95	Northern Pintail	90	1599
American Crow	302	386	Red Knot	88	117
Common Merganser	276	87	Horned Lark	87	45
Hairy Woodpecker	222	23	Pine Siskin	84	891
Black Phoebe	177	186	Ruddy Turnstone	77	22
Townsend’s Warbler	171	125	California Quail	77	432
Greater Yellowlegs	158	60	Glaucous-winged Gull	76	1386
Black-necked Stilt	121	162	Loggerhead Shrike	75	26
Wood Duck	116	17	Brandt’s Cormorant	74	107
Cinnamon Teal	110	40	Red-throated Loon	72	44
Marsh Wren	99	10	American Pipit	68	196
Acorn Woodpecker	97	39	Canvasback	65	1356
Nuttall’s Woodpecker	85	88	European Starling	64	6154
Rock Pigeon	78	2124	Wilson’s Snipe	63	33
Gadwall	76	152	Wrentit	60	445
Bufflehead	65	2093	Brewer’s Blackbird	60	1805
Brown Creeper	55	74	Burrowing Owl	58	10
Turkey Vulture	37	183	Red-breasted Merganser	57	90

 

(1)   This is the average number of birds seen per year during the second period, 1994-2011.

…

By Mike Lynes

Federal and local government agencies have been moving forward in recent months with plans to transfer part of the former Alameda Naval Air Station to the Department of Veterans Affairs for construction of V.A. facilities on the site. In August, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services issued a Biological Opinion that would allow the project to proceed, but that warned the transfer will make life more difficult for the endangered California Least Terns that nest on the airstrip at the former base.

Under the new plan, the V.A. medical clinic will not be located directly on the tarmac area used by the terns, which Golden Gate Bird Alliance has long fought to have recognized as an official wildlife refuge. Instead, it will be built to the north of the tarmac, on a parcel known as the Northwest Territories. The V.A. columbarium will be built on a small portion of the tarmac near the clinic and will host burial and memorial activities. Several hundred people will visit the VA facilities each day.

The FWS found that the project will increase disturbance and predation pressures on the California Least Terns and will potentially reduce or degrade their foraging habitat.  To offset those impacts, the VA will be required to carefully monitor the terns, reduce predators, and minimize disturbances.

Least Tern with prey / Photo by Bob Lewis

While aspects of the project remain worrisome, the current plans are an improvement over past designs to construct the entire complex on the refuge. Moreover, the Biological Opinion further restricts development on the Northwest Territories and other properties adjacent to the terns’ habitat in order to minimize the cumulative impacts of light, noise and predators over time.

The Alameda Wildlife Refuge is so important because it is home to one of the most thriving colonies of endangered California Least Terns and provides habitat for more than 180 other species of birds. The colony has consistently produced more young terns than colonies three to five times its size in Southern California, where predation and disturbance pressures hinder management.  The success of the Alameda colony is essential for the species’ survival and recovery.

Golden Gate Bird Alliance and others are particularly concerned about the management of wetlands and other habitats at Alameda Point.  These habitats draw predators away from the tern colony—which stands alone on an empty tarmac that dissuades predators. If those habitats are compromised, predators may hunt more intensely within the California Least Tern colony. …

By Phila Rogers

When eighty California poets come together to create an anthology about crows and ravens, you know these corvids have a strong grip on the human imagination.

The anthology A Bird Black as the Sun: California Poets on Crows & Ravens was produced by two Santa Barbara poets, Enid Osborn and Cynthia Anderson, and published earlier this year by Green Poet Press.

The Press is affiliated with Green Poet Project, founded by Osborn in 1999 to promote poetry events and publications in the Santa Barbara area.

 

The title is taken from Gary Snyder’s Myths and Texts:

“Raven

on a roost of furs

No bird in a bird-book

Black as the sun”

 

 

This wonderful collection is divided into ten sections beginning with Awakener and ending with Night-Bringer.  The titles evoke certain aspects of “crowness” such as “Enigma,” “Muse,” “Omen,” “Joker” and “Messenger.”

I had not intended to read every poem, but ended up doing so.  Not every poem resonated with my corvid sensibilities, but most did.

Jim Natal’s poem “Early Morning Crow,” states that “Crows have no shame.  They caw at 6 A.M., expect a response from windows reflecting overcast skies….” and then ends with “a solitary crow that croaks:  Is anybody there?  Is anybody there?  Then flies away before you can form a suitable answer.”

Osborn, one of the co-editors of the collection, says that “what sets crows and ravens apart from other birds is their ability to individuate and surprise.”  She adds that “The same is true of the poets who fill these pages.”

Like all good poems, this collection inspires you to dig deep for your own crow thoughts.  For instance, deborah major writes in her “San Francisco Crows:”

When I was a child

There were no crows

in San Francisco

no wild crows

sleek, black and full

of harsh, assaulting song.

Those lines prompted me to remember that when I heard the raucous, impertinent Common Raven’s call for the first time a few years ago, I thought it gave a nice, unexpected wildness to the Berkeley hill where I live.  Then, as their numbers increased and they took up surveillance positions on the tops of the tallest conifers, I worried whether they were looking for songbird nests to raid.  And as ravens and crows became more abundant everywhere, I wondered why.

I especially appreciated the poems in the section titled “Joker.” W.K. Gourley speaks through a crow in his poem “Crow Advises Claude, the Bird Hunter,” saying:

Claude, you have a faulty view of my kin,

Our Corvus family is not responsible

For foot-tracks around your eyes

Or measuring a straight flying distance.

…

By Jack Dumbacher

The Barred Owl (Strix varia) is the eastern cousin to our western Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis).  Like the Spotted Owl, the Barred Owl lives in forests, hunts at night, and feeds largely on small mammals.  They differ in that the Barred Owl is more of a generalist opportunistic predator (feeding also on crayfish, snakes, even small birds and insects), has a broader habitat tolerance, and is slightly larger and more aggressive than the Spotted Owl.

In the last 100 years, Barred Owls have gradually extended their range westward, and around 1959, they began to formally “invade” the Spotted Owl’s range in British Columbia.  By the 1970’s, Barred Owls were documented in Washington and Oregon, by 1976 they were documented in northern California, and the first Barred Owls were documented in Marin County in 2003.

On the one hand, this is now one more good bird that you can reliably “tick” on your Bay Area bird list.  On the other hand, evidence is mounting that Barred Owls are having a significant detrimental effect on Spotted Owls – they compete for food and nesting sites, they are aggressive to Spotted Owls, they breed faster and disperse farther, they even interbreed with Spotted Owls and have an unknown effect on each others genomes.

Barred Owl (left) and Spotted Owl (right) / Photo courtesy of CNN

In 2011, the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl identified competition with the invading Barred Owl as one of the most pressing threats to the Northern Spotted Owl.  The easier it is to see a Barred Owl, the harder it is to see a Spotted Owl.

Again, on the one hand, this is a fascinating biological experiment.  What will be the final outcome?  Will the owls interbreed to become a new hybrid species?  Will Barred Owls outcompete Spotted Owls in the western states?  Or will they achieve an equilibrium and continue to co-exist side by side?  No one knows the answer, but one goal of conservation biology is to create a natural environment where species can continue to evolve and do naturally what species will do.

Spotted Owl / Photo by Jack Dumbacher

On the other hand, it is not clear that this experiment is completely natural.  There is some hint that human-caused habitat and climate change aided the Barred Owls in their westward dispersal. Human changes to western forests may have tipped the hand of evolution to favor Barred Owls in these now-disturbed forests. …

Golden Gate Bird Alliance encourages San Francisco voters to approve Measure B, the $196 million parks bond that will be on the November ballot.

We reviewed arguments both for and against the Parks Bond. Some of our allies make strong cases for opposing the bond, based on the S.F. Recreation and Parks Department’s poor track record on issues important to local wildlife.

However, on balance we feel that the bond provides much-needed funding for city parks and for wildlife habitat — including $6.5 million for natural areas in Golden Gate Park, $2 million for Lake Merced, $4 million for trails, and $35 million for waterfront parks at the Port of San Francisco.

San Francisco’s parks badly need improvement and maintenance. If this measure fails, there won’t be another opportunity to fund parks for a number of years. So we are supporting the bond measure — and then we will keep a close eye on how Rec & Parks spends the money, to make sure that wildlife and habitat get their fair share.

You can read the text of Measure B here, or view arguments for and against it in the ballot pamphlet here.

Other Ballot Measures

As a 501c3 nonprofit organization, Golden Gate Bird Alliance can not endorse political candidates. As a local Audubon chapter, we do most of our advocacy on Bay Area issues. So when election time comes around, our focus is on local issues and ballot measures.

In addition to the San Francisco parks bond, our Conservation Committees and Board of Directors reviewed two other local ballot measures. We decided to take a neutral position on both of them:

Oakland Zoo Parcel Tax: Oakland voters are considering Measure A1, a parcel tax that will generate $6 million per year for 20 years. While critics say the zoo is expanding too aggressively into Knowland Park, which contains sensitive habitat, zoo officials say the parcel tax money will not be used for that expansion and will improve animal care and nature education. GGBA takes a neutral position.

You can read the text of Measure A1 and pro and con arguments here.

Berkeley Measure T: Berkeley voters are being asked to provide $30 million for improvements in West Berkeley and adjust the zoning to allow for more development. We opted to stay neutral because the activities that would directly affect Aquatic Park, a local important bird area, have been tabled for decision in early 2013.…