HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa223sec10-16ptAAlaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Landbird and shorebird migration, breeding, and habitat use, Study plan
Section 10.16 : Initial study report -- Part A: Sections 1-6, 8-10
SuWa 223
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
ABR, Inc.-Environmental Research and Services
AEA-identified category, if specified:
Initial study report
AEA-identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS-assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 223
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
[Anchorage : Alaska Energy Authority, 2014]
Date published:
June 2014
Published for:
Alaska Energy Authority
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Document type:
Pagination:
85 p. in various pagings
Related work(s):
The following parts of Section 10.16 appear in separate files:
Part A ; Part B ; Part C.
Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
Notes:
This volume includes appendices A-G.
All reports in the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Document series include an ARLIS-
produced cover page and an ARLIS-assigned number for uniformity and citability. All reports
are posted online at http://www.arlis.org/resources/susitna-watana/
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
(FERC No. 14241)
Landbird and Shorebird Migration, Breeding,
and Habitat Use
Study Plan Section 10.16
Initial Study Report
Part A: Sections 1-6, 8-10
Prepared for
Alaska Energy Authority
Prepared by
ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Services
Anchorage, Alaska
June 2014
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page i June 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
2. Study Objectives................................................................................................................ 1
3. Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 2
4. Methods and Variances in 2013 ....................................................................................... 2
4.1. Point-count Surveys .......................................................................................... 3
4.1.1. Plot-allocation Procedure ................................................................ 3
4.1.2. Field Surveys .................................................................................. 7
4.1.3. Data Analysis .................................................................................. 8
4.2. Riparian- and Lacustrine-focused Surveys ..................................................... 11
4.2.1. Variances....................................................................................... 13
4.3. Survey of Colonially Nesting Swallows ......................................................... 13
4.3.1. Variances....................................................................................... 14
4.4. Migration Survey ............................................................................................ 14
4.4.1. Variances....................................................................................... 14
4.5. Integration of Existing Information with Current Study (hereafter referred to
as Comparison with Historical Data) .............................................................. 15
4.5.1. Variances....................................................................................... 15
4.6. Mercury Assessment (hereafter referred to as Mercury Assessment Support)15
4.6.1. Variances....................................................................................... 16
5. Results .............................................................................................................................. 16
5.1. Point-count Surveys ........................................................................................ 16
5.1.1. Landbirds ...................................................................................... 17
5.1.2. Shorebirds ..................................................................................... 18
5.2. Riverine- and Lacustrine-focused Surveys ..................................................... 19
5.2.1. Lacustrine-focused Surveys .......................................................... 20
5.2.2. Riverine-focused Surveys ............................................................. 21
5.3. Survey of Colonially Nesting Swallows ......................................................... 22
6. Discussion......................................................................................................................... 23
6.1. Point-count Surveys ........................................................................................ 23
6.1.1. Landbirds ...................................................................................... 23
6.1.2. Shorebirds ..................................................................................... 26
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page ii June 2014
6.2. Riverine-and Lacustrine-focused Surveys ...................................................... 27
6.3. Survey of Colonially Nesting Swallows ......................................................... 28
7. Completing the Study ..................................................................................................... 30
8. Literature Cited .............................................................................................................. 30
9. Tables ............................................................................................................................... 34
10. Figures .............................................................................................................................. 54
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Common and Scientific Names, Breeding Status, and Relative Abundance of Avian
Species Recorded During the Landbird and Shorebird Study, 2013.
Appendix B: Number of Landbirds Recorded in Focal Habitat Types During Point-Count
Surveys, 2013.
Appendix C: Average Occurrence of Landbird Species in Focal Habitat Types, Calculated from
Point-Count Survey Data, 2013.
Appendix D: Number of Shorebirds Recorded in Focal Habitat Types During Point-Count
Surveys, 2013.
Appendix E: Average Occurrence of Shorebird Species in Focal Habitat Types, Calculated from
Point-Count Survey Data, 2013.
Appendix F: Number of Birds Detected Per Hour on Riverine-Focused Survey Transects Along
Tributary Streams and The Susitna River, 2013.
Appendix G: Photographs of Selected Colonies Monitored During Swallow Nesting Surveys,
2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page iii June 2014
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1-1. Vegetation Types Mapped in the 1980s (Kreig and Associates 1987),
Classified as Rare or Common for Allocation of Landbird/Shorebird Point-count
Plots in 2013. ..........................................................................................................................34
Table 5.1-1. Habitats Surveyed and the Number of Landbird/Shorebird Point-counts
Conducted in Each Focal Habitat Type, 2013. .......................................................................35
Table 5.1-2. Abundance and Average Occurrence of Landbird Species Observed During
Point-count Surveys, 2013. .....................................................................................................36
Table 5.1-3. DISTANCE Detection Groups, Model Covariates, Estimated Densities,
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) Scores, and Associated Results from Detection-
function Modeling of Point-count Survey Data, 2013. ...........................................................38
Table 5.1-4. Estimated Density and Estimated Total Breeding Birds in the Landbird and
Shorebird Study Area, Based on Point-count Survey Data, 2013. .........................................39
Table 5.1-5. Abundance and Average Occurrence of Shorebird Species Observed During
Point-count Surveys, 2013. .....................................................................................................41
Table. 5.2-1. Number of Birds Observed (n) and Percent Occurrence by Habitat Type
during Lacustrine-focused Surveys, 2013. .............................................................................42
Table. 5.2-2. Number of Birds Observed (n) and Percent Occurrence by Habitat Type
during Riverine-focused Surveys, 2013. ................................................................................45
Table 5.3-1. Colonies Identified During Swallow Nesting Survey, 2013. ....................................48
Table. 6.1-1. Average Occurrence1 of Landbirds and Shorebirds Calculated from Point-
count Data for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project in 2013 and for Eight Other
Comparable Point-count Studies in Interior Alaska. ..............................................................49
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Study Area for Landbird and Shorebird Surveys, 2013. .............................................55
Figure 3-2. Sampling Area and Point-count Plot Locations for Landbird and Shorebird
Surveys, 2013. ........................................................................................................................56
Figure 3-3. Survey Area for Colonially Nesting Swallows, 2013. ................................................57
Figure 5.2-1. Riverine- and Lacustrine-focused Survey Locations, 2013. ....................................58
Figure 5.3-1. Colonies Identified During the Swallow Nesting Survey, 2013. .............................59
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page iv June 2014
LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS
Abbreviation Definition
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
AIC Akaike Information Criterion
AOU American Ornithologists’ Union
APA Alaska Power Authority
AVC Alaska Vegetation Classification
CIRWG Cook Inlet Region Working Group
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
GIS geographic information system
GPS global positioning system
ILP Integrated Licensing Process
ISR Initial Study Report
n sample size
PRM Project River Mile
Project Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
RSP Revised Study Plan
SD standard deviation
SPD study plan determination
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USR Updated Study Report
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 1 June 2014
1. INTRODUCTION
On December 14, 2012, Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) its Revised Study Plan (RSP) for the Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric Project No. 14241 (Project), which included 58 individual study plans
(AEA 2012). Section 10.16 of the RSP described the Landbird and Shorebird Migration,
Breeding, and Habitat Use Study.
On February 1, 2013, FERC staff issued its study plan determination (February 1 SPD) for 44 of
the 58 studies, approving 31 studies as filed and 13 with modifications. RSP Section 10.16 was
one of the 31 studies approved with no modifications.
In the first year of this study (2013), data were collected on breeding landbirds and shorebirds
that occurred in the Project vicinity. Three survey methods were employed: (1) ground-based
point-count surveys for breeding birds (focusing on landbirds and shorebirds) in all available
habitats; (2) ground-based point-count and transect surveys focused on riverine and lacustrine
habitats; and (3) aerial surveys for colonially nesting swallows. The ground-based monitoring of
bird migration using a combination of daytime visual observations and nocturnal radar sampling
(which yielded data on the migration of landbirds and shorebirds) is reported in Initial Study
Report (ISR) 10.15, Waterbird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use.
Following the first study season, FERC’s regulations for the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP)
require AEA to “prepare and file with the Commission an initial study report describing its
overall progress in implementing the study plan and schedule and the data collected, including an
explanation of any variance from the study plan and schedule” (18 CFR 5.15(c)(1)). This ISR on
the Landbird and Shorebird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use Study has been prepared in
accordance with FERC’s ILP regulations and details AEA’s status in implementing the study, as
set forth in the FERC-approved RSP (referred to herein as the “Study Plan”).
The common names of bird species are capitalized throughout this report, in keeping with the
formal nomenclature recognized by the American Ornithologist’s Union in the Check-list of
North American Birds (AOU 1998, 2012).
2. STUDY OBJECTIVES
As established in the RSP (Section 10.16.1), the goal of this study is to collect baseline data on
the occurrence, distribution, abundance, and habitat use of breeding landbirds and shorebirds in
the Project area to enable assessments of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on these
birds from construction and operation of the proposed Project. This study was designed to
provide data on species of conservation concern, both landbirds and shorebirds, that are known
or expected to occur in the Project area (see AEA 2011), as well as numerous other species that
are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 2 June 2014
The study has four specific objectives:
• Collect data on the distribution and abundance of landbirds and shorebirds during the
summer breeding season.
• Identify habitat associations for landbirds and shorebirds.
• Evaluate changes in distribution, abundance, and habitat use of landbirds and shorebirds
through comparison with historical data.
• Characterize the timing, volume, direction, and altitude of landbirds and shorebirds
migrating through the dam and camp facilities area (reported in ISR Study 10.15,
Waterbird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use).
3. STUDY AREA
As established in the RSP (Section 10.16.3), the study area for the ground-based point-count
surveys includes the areas of the proposed Watana Reservoir (at predicted maximum pool
elevation), the Watana Dam Site, and Watana Camp, the three alternative Susitna-Watana
Transmission Line/Access corridors, and a 2-mile buffer surrounding each of those areas (Figure
3-1).
As established in the RSP (Section 10.16.3), because lacustrine habitats were surveyed only
when they occurred near point-count plots, the transect surveys for landbirds and shorebirds in
lacustrine habitats were conducted in the same study area used for the point-count surveys, as
described above (Figure 3-1).
As established in the RSP (Section 10.16.3), the transect and point-count surveys for landbirds
and shorebirds in riverine habitats were conducted along the prominent rivers and streams in the
area of the proposed Watana Reservoir (at predicted high water) and in areas surrounding the site
of the proposed Watana Dam plus a 2-mile buffer around those areas (Figure 3-2).
As established in the RSP (Section 10.16.3), the survey area for colonially nesting swallows
includes suitable riverine cliff and bluff nesting habitats within the area of the proposed Watana
Reservoir (at predicted maximum-pool elevation) (Figure 3-3).
4. METHODS AND VARIANCES IN 2013
The landbird and shorebird study methods include the following components:
• Conduct ground-based point-count surveys to collect field data on the occurrence,
distribution, and abundance of landbirds and shorebirds in the study area during the
summer breeding season.
• Collect habitat-use data for landbirds and shorebirds during the point-count surveys to
inform the Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use (Study 10.19), which will be the first step
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 3 June 2014
in quantifying habitat change (i.e., gain/loss and alteration) for landbirds and shorebirds
from the proposed Project.
• Conduct focused point-count and linear walking surveys in riverine and lacustrine
habitats, targeting piscivorous species and other species typical of fluvial, riparian, and
lacustrine habitats, which often are under-represented in standard point-count surveys.
• Conduct aerial surveys of colonially nesting swallows in riparian habitats within the
inundation zone of the proposed Watana Reservoir.
• Review the literature on the foraging habits and diets of piscivorous and partly
piscivorous landbird and shorebird species (e.g., Belted Kingfisher, American Dipper,
Spotted Sandpiper), which will be used to inform the Mercury Assessment and Potential
for Bioaccumulation Study (Study 5.7).
• Conduct visual migration-watch surveys and radar sampling in the immediate vicinity of
the dam, powerhouse, and camp facilities (reported in ISR Study 10.15, Waterbird
Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use).
• Compare historical (Alaska Power Authority [APA] Susitna Hydroelectric Project) data
from the 1980s for landbirds and shorebirds with the current data from this study, to
evaluate any changes in distribution, abundance, and habitat use over the intervening 30
years. Many species of migratory birds have suffered population declines in recent
decades, so these comparisons may also provide information on the population status of
those species in the Project area.
4.1. Point-count Surveys
4.1.1. Plot-allocation Procedure
The study team implemented the plot-allocation procedures as described in the RSP (Section
10.16.4.1.1) with the exception of the variance explained below (Section 4.1.1.1). In this study,
ground-based point-count surveys for breeding landbirds and shorebirds were used. Point-count
surveys, in which all birds seen or heard are recorded, were designed originally as a survey
method for singing male passerines, and are now the preferred method for inventory and
monitoring efforts for landbirds in remote, roadless landscapes in Alaska (Handel and Cady
2004; ALMS 2010). These methods have also been adopted for shorebirds (ASG 2008) and are
especially appropriate in forested landscapes, where shorebirds typically occur in low densities
and where plot-based methods (involving a few large plots with set area boundaries) would yield
few observations, even with a relatively large survey effort.
Point-count surveys are appropriate for large development projects that can affect a large
geographic area and can include many different types of habitats. The sample points can be
distributed across the landscape and allocated among habitat types to ensure that all prominent
habitat types are sampled. Because management agencies in Alaska are increasingly concerned
with landbird and shorebird species of conservation concern (which generally are uncommon),
and because it is important to sample many different occurrences of each habitat type to detect
uncommon species (which are patchy in occurrence across the landscape), the point-count
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 4 June 2014
locations surveyed in this study were allocated in as many different occurrences of each of the
habitat types in the study area as possible. Because the wildlife habitat mapping for the Project
(ISR Study 11.5) is not yet complete for the study area, the point-count plots surveyed were
allocated using a two-stage, stratified systematic/random sampling design in which vegetation
types from the APA Project vegetation map (Kreig and Associates1987) were used as one of two
primary sampling strata. The vegetation types used from the APA Project vegetation map are
roughly equivalent to the Alaska Vegetation Classification (AVC) Level-III vegetation classes of
Viereck et al. (1992) [see Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study (Study 11.5)].
In 2013, the sampling frame used for the allocation of point-count transects and plots consisted
of those state and federal lands within the area covered by the APA Project vegetation map
(Kreig and Associates 1987) and within the 2-mile buffer study area surrounding the proposed
Project components, as described below in Section 4.1.1.1. By using this sampling frame,
researchers avoided any allocation of point-count transects or plots on Cook Inlet Region
Working Group (CIRWG) lands (Figure 3-2), where access was not granted in 2013. The
stratified systematic/random sampling design used to select the locations of transects and point-
count plots on each transect involved the use of a two-stage, cluster sampling technique
(Morrison et al. 2008). First, a grid of potential point-count plot locations was created across the
entire study area using a Geographic Information System (ArcGIS). The systematic locations of
potential point-count plots determined using the grid were not randomly assigned, but their
locations were unbiased with respect to the distribution of breeding birds on the landscape. The
grid of potential point-count plots was created to maintain minimum distances between point-
count plots (see below), while maximizing efficiency of access to the point-count plots in the
field. Using the vegetation types mapped by Kreig and Associates (1987) to define open and
closed habitats, all potential point-count plots in closed habitat types were spaced 250 m (820 ft)
apart, and all potential point-count plots in open habitat types were spaced 500 m (1,640 ft)
apart, in accordance with the field sampling protocols developed for landbird point-count
surveys in Alaska for the Alaska Landbird Monitoring System (ALMS 2010) protocol.
In the second stage of the point-count plot allocation process, the vegetation types mapped by
Kreig and Associates (1987) were categorized as common or rare based on their relative areal
coverage in the mapped area. This categorization was the first step in an attempt to allocate an
adequate number of point-count plots in both common and rare habitat types. Because rare
habitats are often under-sampled or even unsampled in random plot-allocation procedures, an
effort was made to place additional point-count plots in rare habitats. Rare vegetation types (each
less than 4 percent of the total area mapped by Kreig and Associates [1987]) were combined into
one sampling stratum, and common vegetation types (each greater than 4 percent of the total area
mapped) were aggregated into a second sampling stratum (Table 4.1-1). Using these two
sampling strata, a random, spatially balanced sample of 100 transect-starting locations was
selected using ArcGIS. In initial runs of the selection of transect-starting locations, the final set
of point-count locations was still skewed heavily toward common habitats when an even split (50
transect-starting locations in rare habitats and 50 in common habitats) was used. Therefore, the
selection of random transect-starting locations was set in favor of rare habitats (70 in rare
habitats and 30 in common habitats).
The second stratum used in the stratified systematic/random sampling design to allocate point-
count plot locations involved a split of the study area into two parts, one of which was the
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 5 June 2014
proposed Watana Reservoir (plus a 2-mile buffer) and the other was the remaining portions of
the study area (Watana Dam, Watana Camp, the three possible Susitna-Watana Roads, the three
possible Susitna-Watana Transmission Lines, and a 2-mile buffer surrounding these areas). Half
of the transect starting locations were located in the first stratum, the proposed Watana Reservoir
plus 2-mile buffer (which would undergo more habitat alteration from development of the
Project), and the other half of the transect-starting locations were located within the second
stratum, which comprised the remaining portions of the study area.
In the last phase of the point-count plot allocation process, the 15 potential point-count plot
locations (defined by the grid of points, described above) closest to each transect-starting
location were selected for inclusion in that transect. Each point-count transect was designed to be
surveyed in one day by each survey team of two, and included 15 spatially independent point-
count plots arranged around the transect-starting location (roughly in the center of the grid of
point-count plots). Finally, using aerial imagery and topographic maps, the point-count plot
locations on each transect were modified visually, when necessary, by adding or removing plots
on each transect so as to minimize landscape hazards in travelling in the field, maintain a close
clustering of plots, and maximize efficiency of surveying in the field. A total of 100 potential
point-count transects and 1,500 point-count plots were allocated in the study area (Figure 3-2).
4.1.1.1. Variances
As described in the RSP (Section 10.16.4.1.1), aerial image-signatures from current aerial
imagery were planned to be used as the habitat sampling strata in a pseudo-stratified random
sampling procedure to allocate point-count survey locations. However, because high-resolution
aerial imagery was not available for the full study area at the time the point-count plots were
allocated, it was not possible to use aerial image-signatures as the habitat strata to determine
point-count plot locations. Instead, as described above in Section 4.1.1, the 1987 vegetation map
polygons prepared by Kreig and Associates (1987) were used as the habitat sampling strata in a
stratified systematic/random sampling procedure to allocate point-count transects and plots by
vegetation type. Given that the 1987 vegetation map appears to be reasonably accurate at the
Level-III vegetation classes of Viereck et al. (1992) when compared to current imagery (see
Study 11.5), this alternative plot-allocation procedure served to adequately achieve the study
objective of allocating point-count plots randomly by habitat type. Additionally, the stratified
systematic/random sampling procedure used in 2013 is less prone to bias in the determination of
point-count plot locations than the pseudo-stratified random sampling procedure originally
proposed in the RSP (Section 10.16.4). For these reasons, and to maintain consistency with the
plot-allocation procedure used in 2013, the same stratified systematic/random sampling
procedure will be used again in the next study year, with the addition of new AVC Level-III
vegetation mapping from Study 11.5 for those portions of the study area that were not surveyed
in 2013.
Another variance occurred in 2013 in which the study area for the point-count surveys, as
described in the RSP (Section 10.16.3) and in Section 3 above, was reduced for two reasons.
First, the study area was restricted to those areas for which vegetation had been mapped by Kreig
and Associates (1987) for the APA Project. Because the current wildlife habitat mapping for the
Project was not complete for the study area at the time that point-count plots were allocated (see
above), the best available and finest-scale vegetation map (prepared by Kreig and Associates
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 6 June 2014
1987) was used to allocate point-count plots by vegetation types. The APA Project vegetation
map, however, does not completely cover the entire study area described in the Study Plan;
missing are portions of the northern Susitna-Watana Transmission Line/Road alternative near the
Denali Highway (Figure 3-2). Because of this, the study area in 2013 was restricted to those
areas where vegetation mapping had been completed for the APA Project. This variance reduced
the size of the study area in 2013 by approximately 12 percent. Similar habitats to those
occurring at the northern end of the Denali Corridor were sampled elsewhere in study area in
2013, as judged from the vegetation sampling done at the northern end of the Denali Corridor by
the study team for the Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study (Study 11.5). In the next
study year, field sampling in those portions of the Denali Corridor that were not sampled in 2013
will be accomplished by making use of the new wildlife habitat mapping being completed for the
Project (see ISR Study 11.5) to allocate point-count locations by habitat type. Hence, across both
study years, this variance will not hinder achievement of the study objectives, and no
modifications to the Study Plan are needed for the next year of study.
Second, because land-access permits were not available for CIR WG lands, private lands, or
Alaska Railroad Corporation land, the allocation of point-count transects and plots in 2013 was
restricted to State and Federal lands within the study area. Because of this restriction,
approximately 27 percent of the study area described in the Study Plan was excluded from field
surveys during 2013; the vast majority of that 27 percent of the study area occurs on CIRWG
lands. Some of the prominent habitats occurring on CIRWG lands in the Gold Creek Corridor
(where the bulk of the restricted access occurred) and that do not occur elsewhere in the study
area include lower elevation mixed and broadleaf riverine forests along the Susitna River, lower
elevation wet scrub habitats on terraces above the Susitna River, and wetland complexes in the
Fog Lakes area and at the northern end of Stephan Lake. In particular, none of the large stands of
riverine balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera) along the Susitna River were sampled in 2013
because those stands essentially only occur downstream of Devils Canyon (where access was
restricted).
Even with the lack of access to some portions of the study area in 2013, the study team was able
to conduct 1,364 point-count surveys, which is more than 500 point counts above the goal of 800
point counts per year noted in the RSP (Section 10.16.8). If sampling on CIRWG lands is
authorized for the next study season, the study objective of collecting data in all portions of the
study area (e.g., so as to compare landbird and shorebird data for the three alternative Susitna-
Watana Transmission Line/Road corridors), will be achieved. At that point, sufficient data will
be available to calculate reasonable abundance estimates for all of the numerically dominant
species and most of the common species. For those areas that were sampled in only one year and
especially for some of the more uncommon species, the study team is likely to have less
confidence in the abundance estimates because of low sample sizes of observations. However,
this does not indicate that the study will fall short of meeting its objectives. Rather, it represents
the common case of a data caveat that will have to be carefully taken into account when making
comparisons of levels of abundance among the three alternative Susitna-Watana Transmission
Line/Road corridors, and comparisons of the current data to historical data from the 1980s (see
Section 4.5 below).
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 7 June 2014
4.1.2. Field Surveys
The study team implemented the field survey methods as described in the RSP (Section
10.16.4.1.2) with no variances. Point-count field surveys were conducted following standard
protocols for point-count surveys for breeding birds in Alaska (Handel and Cady 2004; ALMS
2010). These protocols are based on variable circular-plot point-count methods in which
temporally stratified observation periods and distance estimates are recorded to allow the
calculation of densities (Ralph et al. 1995; Buckland et al. 2001; Farnsworth et al. 2002;
Rosenstock et al. 2002).
A staff of 8–10 biologists conducted the field surveys in 2013, working in 4–5 separate crews of
2 biologists, each consisting of primary and secondary observers. Because of the length of the
survey period (29 continuous field days, see below), several staff changes were required, mostly
during the middle of the sampling period. All primary observers who were responsible for
recording the point-count observations were experienced point-count observers skilled in the
identification of Alaska birds by both sight and sound. A minimum of 2 days of training in
horizontal distance estimation and refresher training in bird identification (by sight, song, and
call) for all observers was conducted either immediately prior to the field surveys (in Anchorage)
or during the field surveys, as a new observer worked alongside a trained observer before being
allowed to record point-count observations. The distance-estimation training included estimation
to visual targets at known distances, auditory distance testing in a simulated point-count survey,
accuracy retesting of distance estimates, and final distance testing in a simulated survey.
Point-count surveys are conducted during the bird breeding season and are scheduled to
encompass the variable arrival dates of different species of migratory birds for a specific location
(ALMS 2010). In 2013, the start date for the field surveys was delayed 8 days because
abnormally cold spring weather and deep snowpack in the study area resulted in the late arrival
of most migratory birds. Surveys began on May 23, 2013, and continued through June 20, 2013,
for a total of 28 survey days. During this period, only one survey day was lost to inclement
weather (rain). Because the lingering snowpack in the study area limited access to breeding-bird
habitats, the point-count surveys were focused first at lower elevations in the eastern portion of
the study area (which receives substantially less snowfall than areas to the west and north). As
the season and snowmelt progressed, field surveys were conducted at higher elevations and in
the western and northern portions of the study area.
In 2013, the point-count surveys were conducted during early morning hours (0230 to 1100) to
coincide with the period of greatest vocal activity of breeding species, especially singing male
passerines. All point-count transects were accessed by helicopter and then surveyed on foot using
preselected Global Positioning System (GPS) locations on handheld GPS receivers to navigate to
each point-count plot. Standard 10-minute observation periods were used. During each point-
count, observers recorded the species, number of individuals, sex (if possible), time period (in 1-
minute intervals), behavior (e.g., singing, calling, flying), approximate horizontal distance to
each bird observed (see below), and, whenever possible, the specific habitat being used by each
bird at the time of observation. In closed habitats, the horizontal distance to birds was estimated
using 10-m (32.8ft) distance classes up to 100 m (328 ft), then larger classes of 100–125 m (328–
410 ft), 125–150 m (410–492 ft), and >150 m (492 ft) were used. In open habitats, distances
were binned in 10-m (32.8ft) classes to 100 m (328 ft), then larger classes of 100–150 m (328–
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 8 June 2014
492ft), 150–400 m (492–1,312 ft), and >400 m (1,312 ft) were used. In the field, laser
rangefinders were used to confirm and calibrate the distance estimates recorded by measuring
distances to visible landmarks (e.g., tree trunks, large rocks, slope crests) before starting a point-
count.
In addition to the bird observations, at each point-count plot observers recorded the Viereck et al.
(1992) Level-III vegetation type (and Level-IV whenever possible) for the primary habitat
surrounding the plot. The primary habitat surrounding each plot was considered the focal habitat
for the point-count observations. Whenever possible, however, the habitat actually being used by
each bird at the time of observation, whether the focal habitat or not, was also recorded. Data on
the habitats (in this case vegetation type) being used by birds at the time of observation will be
used as an additional source of ground-reference data to help in the mapping of wildlife habitats
in the Upper and Middle Susitna River Basin (see ISR Study 11.5) and also will be used to
inform the habitat-use evaluations for landbirds and shorebirds, to be conducted in the next year
of study for the Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use (ISR Study 10.19). Additional data collected
at each point-count plot included site photographs, atmospheric data (temperature, wind speed,
cloud cover, precipitation), and ambient noise levels. In some cases, researchers relocated,
removed, or added point-count plots in the field, as necessary, to ensure the safety of the field
crew (when the allocated point-count plots could not be accessed) and/or to increase the
detectability of birds (e.g., by avoiding stream noise). All new point-count plots were located at
least 250 m (820 ft) from any nearby point-count plots in closed habitats, or 500 m (1,640 ft) in
open habitats.
The landbird and shorebird study also provided data on incidental sightings of other birds,
mammals, and frogs to inform the qualitative results and reporting efforts of other wildlife
studies being conducted in 2013.
4.1.2.1. Variances
No variances from the field methods for the point-count surveys described in the RSP (Section
10.16.4.1.2) occurred in 2013.
4.1.3. Data Analysis
4.1.3.1. Occurrence, Abundance, and Habitat Use
Researchers implemented the data analysis methods described in the RSP (Section 10.16.4.1.3)
with no variances. The point-count survey data (uncorrected for detectability; see Section
4.1.3.2, Distance Analysis and Density Calculations, below) were summarized to assess the
observed occurrence, abundance, and habitat use of landbird and shorebird species within the
study area. To assess occurrence and abundance, the total number of bird detections, percent
occurrence, and average occurrence (number of bird detections/total number of point-count
plots) in the study area were calculated for each species. To assess habitat use, average
occurrence values were calculated for each sampled habitat. Average occurrence values
(birds/point-count—in this case calculated individually for each sampled habitat) facilitate
unbiased comparisons of bird detections among habitat types because the values are standardized
to account for variation in field effort (i.e., the variable number of point-counts conducted in
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 9 June 2014
each habitat), which will directly influence the number of bird detections. Observations of birds
detected in adjacent habitats outside of the focal habitat type in which each point-count plot was
centered were removed from this analysis because those habitats typically occurred at some
distance from the observer and hence were unlikely to have been adequately sampled (i.e., less
active and less vocal species in those adjacent habitats likely would have been missed). For these
preliminary analyses, the habitats evaluated were the AVC Level-III categories (Viereck et al.
1992), which primarily represent vegetation structure. For the USR, which will be prepared with
data from the field surveys in both study seasons, a more formal habitat-use assessment will be
conducted using the mapped wildlife habitat types for the study area (see Study 11.5). The
abundance and habitat-use results are presented separately for landbirds and shorebirds because
of the large differences in abundance between the two bird groups; landbirds are far more
abundant than shorebirds in the study area. For all of these analyses, only observations recorded
during the point-count sampling periods were used (i.e., detections of birds recorded at previous
plots and all detections recorded before and/or after the point-count periods were excluded).
Detections of birds not identified to species (e.g., unknown warblers or sparrows) also were
excluded because those observations provided no information on species occurrence, abundance,
and habitat use.
To place the 2013 abundance information for landbirds and shorebirds in the study area within
the context of other information on landbird and shorebird abundance in the region of the
Project, the average occurrence values for landbirds and shorebirds across the full study area
were compared with average occurrence values calculated for eight other relatively recent avian
point-count studies in Interior Alaska (see Sections 6.1.1, Landbirds, and 6.1.2, Shorebirds,
below). As with the comparisons among habitats sampled in the study area, the average
occurrence values for each point-count study (calculated as the total number of detections of
each species/total number of point-count plots sampled) facilitate unbiased comparisons of
abundance among studies because the data have been standardized for varying levels of survey
effort. For the USR, comparisons of the landbird and shorebird abundance and habitat-use data
from each year of survey in the study area will be made with the data for these same species
groups collected in the 1980s for the APA Project (see Section 4.5, Comparisons with Historical
Data, below).
One species (Common Redpoll), which was frequently observed in the study area in 2013,
deserves special comment because of the difficulty in identification. Redpolls were commonly
detected (mostly in flight) and it is not possible to confidently identify redpolls to species by
vocalizations or in-flight visual observations alone. Due to this uncertainty, field observers
recorded redpolls as “unknown redpoll” if they did not observe them well enough to confirm the
identification. However, because the field surveys were conducted during the breeding season
and the study area is within the breeding range of Common Redpolls, and well outside the
breeding range of Hoary Redpolls (Knox and Lowther 2000a, 2000b), it was assumed that the
majority of the redpolls observed were Common Redpolls. Accordingly, all redpoll observations
were treated as Common Redpolls in the data analyses.
4.1.3.2. Distance Analysis and Density Calculations
Knowing how well birds are detected during field surveys is critical for producing accurate
estimates of density and abundance (Buckland et al. 2001; 2004). For point-count surveys,
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 10 June 2014
detectability varies with both the radial distance of the target bird from the observer and
environmental conditions, which may hinder detections of vocalizations or visual observations
(e.g., wind and river noise, closed vs. open habitats).
Using the first year of data collected for this study, preliminary densities corrected for
detectability (hereafter, corrected densities) of breeding birds were estimated using point-count
sampling analyses available in the computer software package MRDS in program R (Miller
2012) and by following the analytical methods for distance analyses described by Buckland et al.
(2001; 2004). This approach accounts for the decreased probability of detecting a bird with
increased distance from the observer. A minimum of approximately 60 observations for each
species or species group is necessary to fit detection functions accurately (Buckland et al. 2001).
To meet this minimum sample-size criterion, each species was assigned to one of seven detection
groups, based on shared vocalization quality and behaviors that affect visual detections: grouse,
warblers, flycatchers, thrushes, chickadees, sparrows, or corvids (Gray Jay, Black-billed Magpie,
and Common Raven). The detection groups were defined by the majority of the species in that
group, but species outside those taxonomic groupings were included in a detection group if they
exhibited similar vocalization quality and behavior. Species that did not fit into one of the seven
detection groups were excluded from the preliminary density analyses conducted for this report.
For the USR, sample sizes of observations will be larger with two years of data, so it should be
possible to estimate densities for more species.
The inclusion of data for birds that are detected while flying over a point-count plot leads to an
overestimation of densities of breeding birds (Buckland et al. 2001; 2004), so all observations of
flying birds were excluded from the analysis. In particular, this restriction greatly reduced the
estimated abundance level for Common Redpolls relative to the analyses based on the
uncorrected data (see Section 4.1.3.1, Occupancy, Abundance, and Habitat Use, above). For
many species, males have a much higher detection probability than females because males often
engage in singing and displaying activities. For detection groups in which at least 85 percent of
the observations consisted of singing males (warblers and flycatchers), the observations of
females and individuals of unknown sex were excluded from analysis. The male-only analyses
were conducted because the male-only detection models (see below) were the best fit for those
two detection groups. Density estimates for the species within those censored detection groups
are estimates of male density only, although males represented the vast majority (85 percent or
more) of the observations in those detection groups.
Density estimation was conducted in two steps. First, a detection function was fitted for each
detection group to estimate the probability of detection of the species in that group, based on the
radial distance of the target from the observer and on other covariates. Next, the group-specific
detection function was applied to each species within a group to estimate species-specific
densities for the entire study area. For each detection group, nine detection models were fitted to
the distribution of observation distances to find the model that best estimated the probability of
detection. The models used employed a half-normal key function and included observer, habitat
type (closed vs. open), and background noise as covariates. Models without covariates were
evaluated with and without a cosine adjustment term.
Model fit was evaluated based on the lowest Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Pearson’s
chi-squared test. Once the best detection model was selected for a detection group, a filter was
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 11 June 2014
used to apply the fitted detection function to each species within each detection group, and
species-specific corrected densities for the study area then were calculated. Corrected density
estimates were calculated with the formula:
aPa
sEnDˆ
)(ˆˆ
⋅
⋅=
where 𝐷�is the corrected density estimate, n is the total number of observations, Eˆ(s) is the
average flock size, a is the area sampled at each point-count plot multiplied by the number of
sampling occasions, and 𝑃� is the probability of detection estimated by the detection model
(Buckland et al. 2001). Confidence intervals for the density estimates were calculated using
bootstrap procedures (Buckland et al. 2001), and the estimated numbers of breeding birds of each
species in the study area was calculated by applying density estimates to the area encompassed
by the 2-mi buffer study area (assuming uniform densities throughout the study area).
4.1.3.3. Variances
No variances from the analysis methods of the point-count data described in the RSP (Section
10.16.4.1.3) occurred in 2013.
4.2. Riparian- and Lacustrine-focused Surveys
The study team implemented the methods as described in the RSP (Section 10.16.4.2) for the
riparian- and lacustrine-focused surveys (hereafter referred to as riverine- and lacustrine-focused
surveys) with the exception of the variances explained below (Section 4.2.1). Several species of
landbirds and shorebirds that are known to be closely associated with riverine and lacustrine
habitats (Belted Kingfisher, American Dipper, Semipalmated Plover, Solitary Sandpiper, Spotted
Sandpiper, Wandering Tattler) are not commonly recorded in standard point-count survey
locations allocated randomly across all available habitats (as described above in Section 4.1.1,
Plot-allocation Procedure). Therefore, additional surveys were conducted specifically in riverine
and lacustrine habitats that may be affected by Project development. These additional surveys
were requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The riverine- and lacustrine-
focused surveys were conducted between May 24 and June 20, 2013, the same period when
point-count surveys were conducted, as described above in Section 4.1.2, Field Surveys.
On riverine-focused surveys, observers walked along transects that followed riverine corridors.
Point-count plots were interspersed along the transects to increase the number of point-count
plots in riverine habitats. The riverine corridors surveyed generally were the larger, named
tributary streams to the Susitna River and the Susitna River itself. The riverine-focused transect
locations were assigned using ArcGIS Version 10.1 software and a random, spatially balanced
selection of 13 starting locations (generally the center of each transect). The starting locations
were allocated along riverine corridors in the Watana Reservoir and Watana Dam portions of the
study area (plus a 2-mi buffer surrounding the maximum pool elevation of the reservoir). No
transects were allocated on CIRWG lands. On each transect, between 10 and 15 point-count plots
were allocated upstream and downstream from the starting location. The 13 riverine-focused
point-count transects included 171 potential point-count plots, which resulted in a total set of 113
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 12 June 2014
transects and 1,671 potential point-count plots being allocated in the full study area in 2013
(Figure 3-2).
The point-counts and transect surveys in riverine corridors generally were conducted later in the
sampling period (after the second week of June), after shorefast ice had melted and high water
from spring flooding had subsided. Each of the riverine-focused transects was accessed by
helicopter and then surveyed on foot using preselected GPS locations on handheld GPS receivers
to navigate between each point-count plot. Point-counts in riparian habitats were conducted as
described above in Section 4.1.2, Field Surveys, except that no attempt was made to move the
point-count locations away from the riverine corridors to reduce stream noise. Moving the point-
count locations out of the riverine corridors would have negated the focus of the surveys, which
was to document the use of riparian and riverine habitats by breeding birds. Stream noise
hindered auditory detection of birds in some areas with fast water but was a negligible concern in
areas of slower riffles and flat water and some sloughs along the Susitna River. Because of this
potential hindrance, most records of birds in riparian and riverine habitats were obtained through
visual detection, rather than auditory.
In addition to the point-counts conducted in riverine corridors, researchers walked slowly along
each stream course as they moved between point-count locations and recorded all birds observed,
as well as the habitat being used at the time of observation. Bird activity in riverine waters and
along stream shorelines was recorded, as well as activity in riparian and upland habitats when
those habitats occurred adjacent to the sampled streams. When traveling along stream courses, it
was sometimes necessary for researchers to climb around cutbanks and bends in the streams
(when streams could not be crossed safely); such diversions resulted in some sections of streams
not being visible, so that a complete sampling of the riverine corridors on each transect was not
always possible. For transects along the mainstem Susitna River, the sampling transects were
located only along one side of the river. Birds were visible at least as far as the middle of the
river, but it was not possible to survey across the entire width of the river and detect birds on the
opposite river bank. Similarly, the opposite sides of islands in the Susitna River were not visible
to observers. To provide a standardized relative measure of abundance for all species recorded
during the riverine-focused surveys, the resulting data are presented as the number of
observations of each species per unit time spent in transit (following methods used by Andres et
al. 1999 and Boisvert and Schick 2007).
The lacustrine-focused surveys were transect surveys that were conducted concurrently with the
transect-based point-counts described above in Section 4.1, Point-count Surveys. Lacustrine
water bodies in the vicinity of established point-count transects were surveyed when a water
body was located within approximately 250 m (820 ft) of any preselected point-count plot
location. During the lacustrine-focused surveys, researchers walked the perimeter of each water
body or, for small ponds, selected a vantage point from which the entire water body and
shoreline were visible. All birds seen or heard using lacustrine habitats or adjacent vegetated
habitats were recorded, as was the habitat being used at the time of observation.
An additional goal of the riverine- and lacustrine-focused surveys was to collect data on the
distribution and abundance of piscivorous species (primarily Belted Kingfisher, but also
American Dipper and Spotted Sandpiper, which occasionally consume fish) in the inundation
zone of the proposed Watana Reservoir and immediately below the location of the proposed
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 13 June 2014
Watana Dam. This information was collected to inform the mercury assessment study (see ISR
Study 5.7).
4.2.1. Variances
The same variance in the study area sampled in 2013 for the point-count surveys (described
above in Section 4.1.1.1) also applies to the riverine- and lacustrine-focused surveys. Because
the lacustrine-focused transect surveys were geographically linked to the locations of the point
counts, both the lack of fine-scale vegetation mapping for the APA Project and the lack of
authorization to sample on CIRWG lands precluded sampling in two portions of the study area,
as described above in Section 4.1.1.1. For the riverine-focused surveys, the lack of authorization
to sample on CIRWG lands precluded sampling on some tributary rivers and streams in the study
area. As described above in Section 4.1.1.1, neither of these variances will hinder the
achievement of the study objectives because sampling in the areas not surveyed in 2013 will be
possible during the next study season, assuming that CIRWG lands are accessible.
4.3. Survey of Colonially Nesting Swallows
The study team implemented the colonially nesting swallow survey methods as described in the
RSP (Section 10.16.4.3) with the exception of variances explained below (Section 4.3.1). The
focal species for the survey of colonially nesting swallows included Bank Swallow, Cliff
Swallow, and Violet-green Swallow. These three species are gregarious, colonial nesters that
prefer to nest in riverine cutbanks and cliffs near fluvial waters (Kessel et al. 1982; Brown et al.
1992; Brown and Brown 2002; Garrison 1999). Bank and Violet-green Swallows nest in burrows
in relatively soft, sandy substrates and may form mixed-species colonies (Brown et al. 1992;
Garrison 1999). Cliff Swallows build nest cavities of mud and clay on rocky cliffs, bridges, and
other human-made structures (Brown and Brown 2002). All three species feed on flying insects
and often forage over or near water bodies (Brown et al. 1992; Brown and Brown 2002; Garrison
1999).
In 2013, the swallow survey was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, an aerial survey was
used to identify swallow nesting habitat and active swallow colonies in the study area on July 1–
2. In the second phase, accessible colonies were observed from the ground to estimate activity
levels, stage of breeding (nest building, incubation, or nestling [feeding of young]), and
abundance. The second phase of the survey was completed in two periods: July 2–3, during the
period of incubation for the majority of birds, and July 15–16, during the estimated peak in
feeding of young.
The aerial survey used a piston-engine helicopter (Robinson R44) flying slowly (15–35 mph) at
low altitude (15–150 ft above ground level) throughout all potential nesting habitat in the study
area. Two observers positioned on the same side of the helicopter searched for suitable nesting
habitat and recorded all active or potentially active colonies. One observer recorded the
geographic coordinates of each colony on a hand-held GPS receiver while the other observer
photographed the habitat and the extent of the colony to aid in accurate burrow counts and to
quantify the total area of potential nesting habitat. Both observers assisted in species
identification.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 14 June 2014
Colonies that were accessible (i.e., with no land-access restrictions and which could be accessed
safely) were observed during the second phase. Researchers accessed each site by helicopter
(landing only in areas approved for helicopter landings) and observed each colony for a
minimum of 10 minutes to confirm species identification and obtain estimates of abundance and
activity. Spotting scopes and digital video camcorders were used to monitor colony activity.
Digital videos were preferred because they allowed researchers to estimate rates of entry into
burrows (a measure of feeding frequency) in addition to obtaining counts of active burrows. At
colonies that were accessible from the ground, a random sample of burrows was examined
visually using a flashlight. Burrows containing eggs, young, or adults were considered to be
occupied. The number of eggs or young in each nest was recorded. These data were used to
estimate the total number of active burrows in each colony and in the overall survey area,
thereby facilitating an estimate of population size.
4.3.1. Variances
In 2013, an aerial survey was used to locate swallow nesting colonies rather than the boat-based
survey described in the RSP (Section 10.16.4.3). After a visual assessment of the study area, it
was clear that a helicopter would be a more efficient survey platform and would allow greater
coverage of available habitats than would a boat-based survey. Hence, the implementation of this
variance improved the survey coverage and efficiency, improving the achievement of the study
objectives. In the next survey year, the colonially nesting swallow survey will be conducted
again using a helicopter survey platform for optimal survey efficiency and to maintain
consistency with 2013 survey methods.
In 2013, the colonially nesting swallow surveys extended beyond the study area defined in the
RSP (Section 10.16.3), as a 2-mi buffer surrounding the proposed Watana Reservoir, Watana
Dam site, and Watana Camp was included in the survey. Surveying this additional buffer area
was deemed advantageous because it allowed researchers to survey all potential swallow nesting
habitat in areas that could be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed Project (i.e., with the
inclusion of colonies very near to but not expected to be directly inundated by the proposed
Watana Reservoir). Additionally, the expansion was feasible given the greater efficiency in
locating swallow colonies from a helicopter, as opposed to a boat. This variance enhanced the
study objectives by widening the search area for potential swallow colonies.
4.4. Migration Survey
The migration survey component of this study was conducted using a combination of daytime
visual sampling and nocturnal radar and visual sampling (using night-vision devices) during both
the spring (late April to June) and fall (late August to mid-October) migration periods. This study
component was conducted in association with the waterbird study (Study 10.15) and is reported
in ISR Study 10.15.
4.4.1. Variances
See ISR Study 10.15.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 15 June 2014
4.5. Integration of Existing Information with Current Study
(hereafter referred to as Comparison with Historical Data)
The methods for comparing current and historical data on landbirds and shorebirds in the study
area, as described in the RSP (Section 10.16.4.5), will be implemented in the next year of study;
the single variance to the Study Plan methods is explained in below (Section 4.5.1). For the USR,
the landbird and shorebird data collected in both study seasons will be compared with the data
collected for the APA Project area in the early 1980s (Kessel et al. 1982, AEA 2011). The
primary focus will be to compare occurrence, abundance, and habitat-use patterns in the
historical data with the results from the current data set, and to highlight any changes that may
have occurred over the intervening 30 years.
4.5.1. Variances
As described in the RSP (Section 10.16.4.5), comparisons of the current and historical (1980s
APA Project) data on landbirds and shorebirds were planned to be made in both the ISR and the
USR. However, it is well known that annual fluctuations in the abundance of landbirds and
shorebirds can be quite large; therefore, it could be misleading to make comparisons of the
historical data with only one year (2013) of current data. For these reasons, comparisons with the
historical data will be presented in the USR, after data from both years of this study are
available. The implementation of this variance will enhance the achievement of the study
objectives by avoiding potentially contradictory and misleading information being presented in
the ISR and the USR. When conducting the comparisons of current and historical data, the study
team will correct for the lack of access to CIRWG lands in 2013 (see the variance described
above in Section 4.1.1.1) by using only the data for areas sampled in both study years to compare
to the historical data. Additionally, the comparison of current to historical data will be done
correcting, as well as possible, for differences in the habitats sampled; this is likely to further
restrict the current point-count data that can be used in these comparisons.
4.6. Mercury Assessment (hereafter referred to as Mercury
Assessment Support)
The study team implemented the mercury assessment support methods as described in the RSP
(Section 10.16.4.6) with no variances. Scientific literature on the foraging habits and diets of
piscivorous landbirds and shorebirds (primarily Belted Kingfisher, but also American Dipper and
Spotted Sandpiper) was reviewed to inform the mercury risk-assessment study (Study5.7) and to
complement the field data gathered on the distribution and abundance of these species in the
study area. The literature review focused on studies conducted in Alaska to the extent possible,
but few such studies were available, so literature from elsewhere was included. In addition to the
literature review, in the RSP (Section 10.16.4.6) the opportunistic collection of feathers from any
Belted Kingfisher nests located during the landbird and shorebird field surveys was proposed, for
transfer to the mercury study lead for laboratory analysis of methyl-mercury levels. No Belted
Kingfisher feathers were collected in 2013, however, because no nests of that species were found
during the field surveys.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 16 June 2014
4.6.1. Variances
No variances from the methods described in the RSP (Section 10.16.4.6) for literature review of
diets and foraging habits of piscivorous landbirds and shorebirds occurred in 2013.
5. RESULTS
The results of each of the 2013 breeding landbird and shorebird survey efforts (point-counts,
riverine- and lacustrine-focused surveys, and swallow surveys) are presented separately below.
The focus of the results is on the observations of landbirds and shorebirds, although observations
of other bird species groups are reported for the riverine- and lacustrine-focused surveys because
those surveys were designed specifically to assess the use of those habitats by species that are
typically under-sampled in point-count surveys. Observations of waterbirds and raptors that were
made during the landbird and shorebird surveys are reported in the ISRs for waterbirds and
raptors (ISR Studies 10.15 and 10.14). A complete list of the 107 bird species recorded during all
four survey tasks of the breeding landbird and shorebird study is appended to this ISR (Appendix
A); organized phylogenetically (AOU 2012), it includes common and scientific names, breeding
status, and relative abundance.
This report summarizes the work conducted to date, including the landbird and shorebird species
observed, an initial assessment of their abundance and population density, and a preliminary
analysis of habitat associations. The final habitat-association information will be critical for
predicting the direct impacts of the proposed Project on breeding landbirds and shorebirds
(through habitat loss and disturbance) in the license application. The final habitat-association
analysis will be conducted for the USR after the wildlife habitat mapping for the study area is
completed (see ISR Study 11.5).
5.1. Point-count Surveys
The point-count data developed in support of this study are available for download at
http://gis.suhydro.org/reports/isr. The data are in the file:
ISR_10_16_LSBRD_Data_ABR.accdb.
In 2013, the study team conducted 1,364 point-count surveys along113 transects in the study area
(Figure 3-2) between May 23 and June 20, 2013. Point-count plots were spread throughout the
study area as much as possible (see Section 4.1.1, Plot-allocation Procedure, above). Across all
species groups (landbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and raptors), 14,880 individual birds of at least
97 different species were recorded during the point-count surveys, including 53 landbirds, 11
shorebirds, 25 waterbirds, and 8 raptors. Averages of 7.0 ± 4.9 (mean ± SD) species (range 0–15)
and 10.9 ± 5.5individual birds (range 0–61) were recorded among all point-count plots. No birds
were detected on 15 plots (0.01 percent of all plots surveyed).
Because the wildlife habitat map for the study area is not yet complete (see ISR Study 11.5),
only a preliminary assessment of habitat use by breeding birds was conducted for this report. For
this analysis, all records of AVC Level-IV vegetation types (Viereck et al. 1992) recorded in the
field were aggregated to the broader Level-III vegetation types, resulting in a total of 24 focal
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 17 June 2014
habitat types (Table 5.1-1). The number of observations of each bird species recorded in each
focal habitat type was tallied and the average occurrence was calculated to provide an estimate of
habitat use for each species.
5.1.1. Landbirds
5.1.1.1. Abundance
During the point-count surveys in 2013, researchers recorded 53 landbird species (Table 5.1-2)
and calculated averages of 6.0 ± 2.7 landbird species (range 0–15) and 9.6 ± 4.7 individual
landbirds (range 0–52) per plot. Most of the birds observed were assumed to be nesting in the
study area, based on observations of nests or repeated observations of display activities,
territorial behavior (e.g., singing), or alarm and mobbing reactions typical of nesting birds.
Using the raw point-count data (uncorrected for detectability), the most frequently observed
landbird species (each accounting for 5 percent or more of the total landbird point-count
observations) were Fox Sparrow, White-crowned Sparrow, Common Redpoll, Yellow-rumped
Warbler, Varied Thrush, Savannah Sparrow, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, and American Tree
Sparrow; combined, they accounted for 59 percent of the total landbird point-count observations
(Table 5.1-2). Six landbird species (Dark-eyed Junco, Wilson’s Warbler, Blackpoll Warbler,
Gray-cheeked Thrush, Swainson’s Thrush, and American Robin) each accounted for 3.0 to 4.9
percent of the total landbird point-count observations; combined, these species accounted for 23
percent of all landbird point-count observations. Another 27 species (each accounting for 0.1 to
2.9 percent of the total landbird point-count observations) together accounted for 17 percent of
all landbird observations. Lastly, 12 species each accounted for less than 0.1 percent of the total
landbird point-count observations); combined, those 12 species accounted for less than 1 percent
of all landbird point-count observations.
5.1.1.2. Habitat Associations
Landbirds were observed in each of the 24 habitat types sampled in the study area in 2013,
including forests and woodlands; scrub (tall, low, and dwarf types); herbaceous meadows;
riverine habitats; and partially vegetated and barren areas at higher elevations (Table 5.1-2).
Landbird abundance was highest in Closed Mixed Forests, in which a total average occurrence of
13.2 landbirds (of all species) per point count was recorded (n = 14 plots; Appendices B and C).
Mixed Woodlands, Open Needleleaf Forests, and Needleleaf Woodlands also had relatively high
landbird abundance, with total average occurrence values for landbirds of all species of 11.4, 9.5,
and 9.4 (n = 14, 349, and 195 plots), respectively. Landbird species richness was highest in Open
Needleleaf Forest and Needleleaf Woodland, in which 37 and 34 landbird species were observed,
respectively. The lowest landbird abundance levels were recorded in Riverine habitats and
Barrens, where the total average occurrence values for all landbird species were 0.3 (n = 52
plots) and 1.7 (n = 7 plots), respectively. The lowest landbird species richness was found in Dry
Graminoid Meadows and Barrens, where 5 and 6 landbird species, respectively, were recorded
during the point-count surveys. Of the individual species, White-crowned Sparrows were
observed in the greatest number of habitat types (n = 20; Appendices B and C).Other common
species of landbirds occurred in 13–18 different habitat types, whereas the species observed least
frequently occurred in only 1–3 habitats each (Table 5.1-2).
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 18 June 2014
5.1.1.3. Density
In the distance analyses used to estimate breeding bird densities, the best detection model for
most bird detection groups was the model with the lowest AIC score. Several detection groups
had more than one model within two integer AIC scores of the best model. When more than one
model was supported by the data, the associated chi-square statistic was evaluated and the model
that produced the smallest confidence interval around the density estimate was selected. For each
detection group, all models within two AIC scores of the best model are presented (Table 5.1-3).
Although the chickadee detection group contained enough observations (n = 122) to meet the
minimum sample-size criterion for detection function analysis, no detection model was a good fit
(the confidence intervals were unacceptably large for both of the best models; Table 5.1-3), thus
no density estimates for species within this detection group (Boreal Chickadee, Black-capped
Chickadee, Bohemian Waxwing) were produced. Re-evaluation of the existing dataset in
conjunction with the additional data to be collected during the next study season may yield better
models and more precise density estimates.
For the grouse, flycatcher, and corvid detection groups, several models were within 2 integer
AIC scores of the best model, indicating that those models were strongly supported by the data,
and produced similar density estimates. The models containing no covariates or only the habitat
type covariate, however, produced the smallest confidence intervals around the density estimate.
The simpler model without covariates was selected for estimating total density for species within
these detection groups.
For the warbler and thrush detection groups, the models with the lowest integer AIC values were
used to estimate densities. Both of these models included observer and habitat type covariates in
the detection functions and the model for warblers also included background noise as a covariate.
After correcting for detectability, Fox Sparrow was the most abundant species in the study area,
followed by White-crowned Sparrow, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, and
Wilson’s Warbler. In contrast, Ruffed Grouse, Spruce Grouse, Alder Flycatcher, Black-billed
Magpie, and Rusty Blackbird were all considered rare (Table 5.1-4). Within the study area,
Willow Ptarmigan were the most abundant game bird species, outnumbering other ptarmigan and
grouse species. Varied Thrush was the most common thrush species, and Fox and White-
crowned Sparrows were the most common sparrows in the study area. Ruby-crowned Kinglet (in
the Old World warbler family) and Yellow-rumped Warbler were the most common warbler
species. Of the two flycatchers analyzed, Olive-sided Flycatchers were more common than Alder
Flycatchers.
5.1.2. Shorebirds
5.1.2.1. Abundance
The study team recorded 11 shorebird species in the study area in 2013 (Table 5.1-5) and
calculated an average of 0.4 ± 0.6 shorebird species (range 0–4) and 0.6 ± 1.0 individual
shorebirds (range 0–12) per plot during the point-count surveys. Most shorebirds were assumed
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 19 June 2014
to be nesting in the area, based on observations of nests or repeated observations of aerial display
activities and territorial behavior, or alarm and mobbing reactions typical of nesting birds.
Based on the raw point-count data (uncorrected for detectability), Wilson’s Snipe was the most
common shorebird species in the study area, accounting for 61 percent of all shorebird
observations. Seven shorebird species (American Golden-Plover, Lesser Yellowlegs, Spotted
Sandpiper, Least Sandpiper, Red-necked Phalarope, Semipalmated Plover, and Solitary
Sandpiper) were much less common, together accounting for less than 10 percent of all shorebird
point-count observations in the study area. Three other species (Wandering Tattler, Whimbrel,
and Greater Yellowlegs) were rarely encountered, together accounting for less than 1 percent of
all shorebird point-count observations in the study area (Table 5.1-5).
5.1.2.2. Habitat Associations
Shorebirds were observed in 22 of the 24 focal habitat types sampled in the study area in 2013
(Table 5.1-5), but they were most common in the open habitats. Shorebird abundance was
highest in Wet Graminoid Meadows, where a total average occurrence of 0.90 shorebirds (of all
species) per point count was recorded (n = 20 plots) (Appendices D and E). Riverine habitats,
Closed Mixed Forest, and Moist Graminoid Meadows also had relatively high shorebird
abundance (total average-occurrence values for shorebirds of all species of 0.87, 0.57, and 0.54;
n = 52, 14, and 42 plots, respectively). Species richness of shorebirds was highest in Open
Needleleaf Forest and Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub, where 7 and 6 shorebird species were recorded,
respectively. No shorebirds were detected in two habitats (Barrens and Broadleaf Woodland). Of
the individual species, Wilson’s Snipe was observed in the greatest number of habitat types (n =
18; Appendices D and E). All other shorebird species were found in nine or fewer habitats;
Wandering Tattler, Greater Yellowlegs, and Red-necked Phalarope, which were found in only
one habitat type each.
5.1.2.3. Density
For the USR, more detailed habitat-use analyses will be conducted for each species of shorebird
and landbird (using abundance data corrected for detectability whenever possible); in those
analyses, the use of each of the mapped wildlife habitat types (see ISR Study 11.5) sampled in
the study area will be assessed.
No shorebird species were detected frequently enough in 2013 to support calculation of density
estimates. Although a high number of detections (464) was recorded for Wilson’s Snipe, most of
those birds were observed in flight (aerial displays). Calculation of density estimates using birds
in flight will overestimate their true breeding density. After more field data are collected in the
next study season, it may be possible to calculate breeding densities for the most common
species of shorebirds.
5.2. Riverine- and Lacustrine-focused Surveys
The riverine- and lacustrine-focused survey data developed in support of this study are available
for download at http://gis.suhydro.org/reports/isr. The data are in two files:
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 20 June 2014
• ISR_10_16_LSBRD_Data_ABR.accdb
• ISR_10_16_LSBRD_Data_ABR.gdb
The study team conducted 13 riverine- and 59 lacustrine-focused transects in 22 days of surveys
in the study area in May and June 2013 (Figure 5.2-1). Lacustrine-focused surveys were
completed during the point-count surveys and consequently were spread throughout the entire
study area for the landbird and shorebird study (see Section 4.2, Riverine- and Lacustrine-
focused Surveys, above) whereas the riverine-focused surveys were located within the area of the
proposed Watana Dam and Watana Reservoir and a 2-mile buffer surrounding those areas.
Similar to the methods used for the point-count surveys, the habitat being used by each bird
observed was recorded, whenever possible, during the riverine- and lacustrine-focused surveys.
Habitats were recorded in the field as AVC Level-III or, whenever possible, Level-IV vegetation
types (Viereck et al. 1992). For the preliminary analyses conducted for this report, vegetation
types were aggregated to the broader Level-III categories, which primarily represent vegetation
structure.
5.2.1. Lacustrine-focused Surveys
The 59 lacustrine-focused surveys were completed within the same study area used for the point-
count surveys over a period of 22 days between May 24 and June 20, 2013. Twenty-six of the
surveys were located within or near the area of the proposed Watana Reservoir, seven in the area
of the Watana Dam and Camp, 15 in the Denali Corridor, 10 in the Chulitna Corridor, and one in
the Gold Creek Corridor (Figure 5.2-1). The surveys ranged from 1 to 109 minutes in length and
varied in distance from a single point location to approximately 5.2 km (3.2 mi) along the
shorelines of lacustrine water bodies.
Overall, 435 individual birds of 50 different species were recorded during the lacustrine-focused
surveys, including 21 waterbird, 11 shorebird, and 18 landbird species. Averages of 2.9 ± 2.8
species (range 0–13) and 7.5 ± 10.0individual birds (range 0–46) were recorded per survey,
although 10 locations (17 percent) had zero detections. Waterbirds were the most abundant
species group observed, and composed 55 percent (n = 235) of all observations. Shorebirds and
landbirds were less abundant, accounting for 31 percent (n = 132) and 15 percent (n = 63) of all
observations, respectively.
The most abundant landbirds found near lacustrine water bodies were American Robin, Rusty
Blackbird, Bohemian Waxwing, and Savannah Sparrow, which together comprised almost half
of all landbird detections on the lacustrine-focused surveys. Tree Swallows, Violet-Green
Swallows, and Bank Swallows comprised 11 percent of all landbirds observed. Landbirds were
generally found in Open Low Shrub, Closed Low Shrub, and in Open Needleleaf Forests near
the shorelines of lacustrine water bodies, but were also found foraging directly along the
shorelines of ponds and lakes; swallows were often found foraging in the air directly above water
bodies (Table 5.2-1).
The most abundant waterbird species recorded during the lacustrine-focused surveys were
Green-Winged Teal, Northern Pintail, and American Wigeon, which together accounted for
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 21 June 2014
almost 40 percent of all waterbird observations. Waterbirds were observed almost exclusively in
lacustrine waters (97 percent of waterbird observations) (Table 5.2-1).
Red-Necked Phalarope was the most abundant shorebird species observed on the lacustrine-
focused surveys, composing 25 percent of all shorebird observations (Table 5.2-1). Other
common shorebird species included Wilson’s Snipe, Lesser Yellowlegs, and Least Sandpiper,
which together accounted for 55 percent of all shorebird detections. Shorebirds were found in
lacustrine habitats 70 percent of the time and in adjacent Moist Graminoid Meadow habitats 24
percent of the time.
5.2.2. Riverine-focused Surveys
The 13 riverine-focused transects were sampled during the five-day period of June 15–19, 2013,
except for one transect that was sampled along the Susitna River on May 23. The latter transect
was a pilot transect along the Susitna River to test the methodology; at that time, substantial
shorefast ice remained along the riverbanks, limiting the availability of riverine habitats to birds,
especially along the narrow tributary streams of the Susitna River. The other 12 transects were
sampled in late June after the subsidence of high, turbid flows and the melting of shorefast ice.
The riverine-focused transects were located along portions of the Susitna River mainstem and the
major tributary streams in the proposed Watana Reservoir, plus a 2-mi buffer surrounding the
proposed Watana Dam and reservoir. Seven transects were located along tributary streams
(Tsusena, Deadman, Watana, Kosina, Jay, and 2 unnamed creeks), four transects were located
along the mainstem of the Susitna River, and two were located along portions of tributary
streams (Goose and an unnamed creek) and the Susitna River (Figure 5.2-1; Appendix F).
In all, 692 individual birds of 44 different species were recorded during the riverine-focused
surveys, including 28 landbird, 11 waterbird, 3 shorebird, and 2 raptor species. Averages of 12.7
± 4.5 species (range 7–21) and 53.2 ± 36.6 individual birds (range 7–137) were recorded per
transect. Landbirds were the most abundant species group (62 percent of all observations);
waterbirds (19 percent) and shorebirds (18 percent) were less abundant. Across all transects and
species, an average of 12.72 birds were recorded per hour of survey time. The average number of
individuals observed per hour across all 13 transects ranged from a minimum of 0.02 birds per
hour for the least common species (American Robin, Yellow Warbler, and Common Merganser)
to a maximum of 2.24 birds per hour for the most abundant species (Spotted Sandpiper)
(Appendix F).
Across all 13 transects, an average of 7.9 landbirds was recorded per hour during the riverine-
focused surveys. The most common species observed were Blackpoll Warbler, Wilson’s
Warbler, Fox Sparrow, and Northern Waterthrush. These four species combined accounted for
nearly 43 percent of all observations during the riverine-focused surveys, and each species
individually accounted for at least five percent of all landbird observations. Landbirds were most
frequently observed in Open Needleleaf Forest and a variety of riparian shrub habitats adjacent
to riverine water bodies (Table 5.2-2).
For waterbirds, an average of 2.4 birds per hour was recorded across all 13 transects. Harlequin
Duck was the most commonly recorded species during the riverine-focused surveys, followed by
Green-winged Teal, American Wigeon, and Mallard. These four species combined accounted for
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 22 June 2014
80 percent of all observations of waterbirds. All waterbirds observed were found either in
riverine waters or were observed flying low over the sampled streams (Table 5.2-2).
Lastly, for shorebirds, across all 13 transects an average of 2.3 birds per hour was recorded
during the riverine-focused surveys. Spotted Sandpiper was by far the most abundant shorebird
species and accounted for 98 percent of the shorebird observations and 17 percent of all bird
observations made. Spotted Sandpipers were observed most frequently using riverine shoreline
habitats, but they were also found in low riparian shrub habitats located along tributary streams
and the Susitna River (Table 5.2-2).
5.3. Survey of Colonially Nesting Swallows
The colonially nesting swallow survey data developed in support of this study are available for
download at http://gis.suhydro.org/reports/isr. The data are in the file
ISR_10_16_LSBRD_Data_ABR.accdb.
A total of 25 swallow colonies (both active and inactive) were identified in the study area during
the survey in 2013 (Figure 5.3-1, Table 5.3-1). Twelve (48%) of the colonies were classified as
active, two were inactive, and the status of the 11 other colonies could not be determined. All of
the active colonies were inhabited by Bank Swallows and colonies S10 and S12 also were
inhabited by Violet-green Swallows. The number of swallow burrows (potential nest sites) per
colony ranged from one to 354 across all 25 colonies, totaling 935 burrows and averaging 37.4
burrows per colony (Table 5.3-1).
Although the study team did not locate any Cliff Swallow colonies during the swallow survey,
Cliff Swallows were observed in the study area during the landbird and shorebird point-count
surveys (see Section 5.1, Point-count Surveys, above) and Cliff Swallow nests were found on
human structures during searches for bat roosts in several locations near, but outside of the
swallow colony survey area (Study10.13).
The study team was able to conduct ground-based observations of swallow activity at 772
burrows in nine colonies (Table 5.3-1); the other 16 colonies were located in areas that were
either unavailable for sampling in 2013 or were otherwise inaccessible (e.g., at the top of cliffs).
Five of the 16 colonies that were not observed from the ground were active, and the status of the
other 11 is unknown (Table 5.3-1). Two of the nine colonies observed from the ground appeared
to be inactive. A total of 361 (47%) of the 772 burrows observed were being used by nesting
swallows, and 9 to 196 active burrows were recorded per colony. Within the proposed reservoir
area, a total of 319 active burrows were located below the maximum-pool elevation of 2,050 ft.
During colony monitoring, which was conducted in mid-July to coincide with the period of peak
feeding of young, burrow entry-rate data were recorded at six colonies as an index of feeding
frequency. During this period, the burrow entry rate averaged 2.5 entries per 10 minute sampling
period (range1.0 to 3.2; Table 5.3-1). Colony S10 was located on a 6- to 10-foot-tall cut bank
along the Susitna River, which allowed Project researchers to visually inspect burrows to
estimate the number of young in each nest. For 12 nests inspected visually, the average number
of nestlings was 2.1.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 23 June 2014
Fifteen of the colonies were located below the maximum-pool elevation (2,050 feet) of the
proposed Watana Reservoir and three were located within the proposed Watana Camp area.
Seventeen colonies were located along the Susitna River, six in the Watana Creek drainage, and
two in the Deadman Creek drainage (Figure 5.3-1). The majority of the colonies (n = 15) were
located in firm soils high up on heavily eroded hillsides (see examples in Appendix G). Five
colonies were located in soft substrates on cut banks of the Susitna River, which were freshly
formed by ice scour during the break-up of river ice in spring 2013 (Appendix G).
6. DISCUSSION
The field surveys for landbirds and shorebirds in 2013 were executed as planned with the
necessary variances described above in Section 4, Methods and Variances in 2013. Although it
was a cold, late spring in the study area, the weather during the survey period was generally
excellent and the study team conducted 1,364 point counts, which is more than 500 point counts
above the goal of 800 point counts per year noted in the RSP (Section 10.16.8). The preliminary
data analyses presented in this report (see discussion below) indicate that the data are of
sufficient quantity and quality to meet the study objectives, when coupled with the inclusion of a
second year of data.
The landbird and shorebird study is related to several other on-going Project studies, the most
important being the Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle
Susitna River Basin (Study 11.5). First, the vegetation mapping from Study 11.5 will be used in
the next study season for point-count plot allocation in those areas for which there is no APA
Project vegetation mapping, as described above in Section 4.1.1.1. Second, the completed
wildlife habitat mapping for Study 11.5 will be used for analyses of landbird and shorebird
habitat use and also as a covariate in the distance analyses to determine densities for landbirds
and shorebirds. In turn, the abundance and habitat-use data from the landbird and shorebird study
will be used by another related study (Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use, Study10.19). The
landbird and shorebird study is on schedule to achieve its study objectives and provide the
necessary data for Study 10.19. Lastly, the landbird and shorebird study team will be providing a
literature review of the diets and foraging habits of piscivorous landbirds and shorebirds for use
in the mercury risk-assessment study (Study 5.7). This literature review has been completed (see
Section 4.6, Mercury Assessment, above) and it will be provided to the mercury risk-assessment
study team in 2014.
6.1. Point-count Surveys
6.1.1. Landbirds
During the point-count surveys in 2013, landbirds were by far the most abundant bird group
recorded, accounting for 87 percent of all observations. Within landbirds, sparrows were the
most abundant species group observed in the study area, composing over 40 percent of all
landbird observations. Warblers and thrushes were also common in the study area, accounting
for about 20 percent and 18 percent, respectively, of all landbird observations. In contrast, grouse
and ptarmigan, chickadees, and woodpeckers were recorded infrequently, accounting for
only1.3, 0.8, and 0.2 percent, respectively, of all landbird observations. These ratios are typical
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 24 June 2014
of other studies of landbirds in Alaska, in which migrants (e.g., sparrows, warblers, thrushes)
greatly outnumber resident species such as grouse and ptarmigan, chickadees, and woodpeckers.
Several other landbird species (American Dipper, Belted Kingfisher, and swallows) are often
detected in low numbers during point-counts because they are often or exclusively associated
with riverine habitats, which typically are under-sampled in point-count surveys. In this study,
the inclusion of additional point-count plots in riverine areas helped to increase the number of
detections of most of these species, although Belted Kingfishers were not recorded on any point-
count plots. Belted Kingfishers, however, were observed in small numbers during aerial surveys
for migrant waterbirds and breeding Harlequin Ducks along streams in the Project area (see
Study 10.15 and Section 6.2, Riverine- and Lacustrine-focused Surveys, below).
During the first week of point-count surveys in late May, resident species had already started
nesting while migratory species were still arriving and establishing territories. It is likely that
other migrants also were moving through the study area en route to their breeding grounds.
Hence, it is important to interpret the first week of observations carefully to exclude, whenever
possible, migrants from other populations from the breeding population estimates for the study
area. Before calculating final abundance estimates for landbirds after the next year of study, all
point-count data in the full data set will be reviewed to include only birds that were breeding in
the study area.
Abundance estimates from the point-count survey data for a subset of species were corrected for
detectability, and density estimates were calculated using distance-analysis techniques. In
general, the eight most abundant species from the uncorrected data were estimated to be
abundant species after correcting for detectability, with the prominent exception of Common
Redpoll. Because most Common Redpolls were observed in flight, the majority of observations
could not be included in the distance analyses. Several other species also were considered less
common or more common after correcting for detectability, though dramatic differences in the
rankings of species by commonness after correcting for detectability did not occur. The density
estimates and the estimated number of breeding birds shown in Table 5.1-4 represent values
calculated for the study area as a whole. In the next study season, using the full two-year data set,
densities and estimated numbers of breeding birds will be calculated for the various project
components, including the three alternative Susitna-Watana Transmission Line/Access corridors.
Those data will then be used, in the License Application, to determine the estimated numbers of
breeding landbirds that would be affected by development of the proposed Project.
To place the results of this study in the context of other studies of breeding landbirds in Alaska,
the species and levels of abundance (uncorrected for detectability) recorded in this study in 2013
were compared with results from eight other relatively recent point-count studies conducted in
Interior Alaska (Table 6.1-1). The eight studies evaluated were conducted in Gates of the Arctic
National Park and Preserve (DiFolco 1996). Fort Wainwright (Benson 1999), Yukon-Charley
National Preserve (Swanson and Nigro 2003), State of Alaska forest lands near Fairbanks and
Tok (Hannah et al. 2003; Benson 2004), Denali National Park and Preserve (McIntyre 2005),
Bureau of Land Management lands in the Black River and White Mountains areas (Sharbaugh et
al. 2009; and Shaw and Schmidt 2011). Although geography and habitats varied greatly among
these studies and the Project area, the comparisons are useful for assessing general similarities
and differences in species richness and abundance among the studies.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 25 June 2014
In general, the species and abundance levels recorded in the Project study area were comparable
to those other point-count studies in Interior Alaska; however, several notable differences were
found. Three species (Hammond’s Flycatcher, Say’s Phoebe, and Western Wood-Pewee) that
were detected in several of the other studies were notably absent in the point-count surveys for
this study. Hammond’s Flycatcher, which was recorded in six of the eight other studies from
Interior Alaska, does not occur on a regular basis south of the Alaska Range and it is likely that
the Project study area is located just south of the species’ normal range. Say’s Phoebe was
recorded in four of the eight other studies. Say’s Phoebes breed in rocky areas at high elevations
and, though they are uncommon, were expected to occur in the Project study area. The lack of
observations of this species in 2013 is curious, although suitable nesting habitats may have been
under-sampled (7 and 39 point-count plots were conducted in Barrens and Partially Vegetated
habitats, respectively); additional sampling in the next study season may produce detections of
this species. Western Wood-Pewee was recorded in three of the eight other point-count studies.
This species is generally uncommon in Interior Alaska and was recorded in relatively low
densities in the other studies. Although it was not in the study area, one Western Wood-Pewee
was observed by researchers near the Stephan Lake Lodge, which is located at a lower elevation
than the majority of the point-count plots surveyed. Hence, although Western Wood-Pewees
were not detected during the point-count surveys, they are known to occur near the study area.
Three species (Cliff Swallow, American Dipper, and Snow Bunting) were detected in the Project
study area, but not in any of the other eight studies. As discussed above in Section 5.1, Point-
count Surveys, Cliff Swallows were found breeding in the study area, although they appeared to
be uncommon. The addition of point-count plots in riverine areas in this study increased the
potential to detect American Dipper, which appeared to be uncommon in the study area. Snow
Buntings were uncommon in the study area and were found almost exclusively in barrens or
partially vegetated habitats above tree line.
The abundance of several species recorded in the other eight studies was notably different than in
this study. Five species were substantially more abundant in the Project study area than in the
eight other studies. Willow Ptarmigan were over eight times more abundant (average occurrence
of 0.082 in this study vs. mean average occurrence of 0.010 for the other studies); Northern
Waterthrushes were three times more abundant (average occurrence = 0.274 vs. 0.082); Ruby-
crowned Kinglets and Varied Thrushes were more than twice as abundant (average occurrence =
0.478 vs. 0.216, and 0.587 vs. 0.203, respectively); and Wilson’s Warblers were almost twice as
abundant (average occurrence = 0.444 vs. 0.262).
Three species were substantially less abundant in the Project study area than in the eight other
studies. Hairy Woodpeckers were more than an order of magnitude less abundant (average
occurrence of <0.001 in this study vs. mean average occurrence of 0.012 for the eight other
studies); Orange-crowned Warblers were an order of magnitude less abundant (average
occurrence = 0.067 vs. 0.327); and Swainson’s Thrushes were less than half as abundant
(average occurrence = 0.299 vs.0.771). The differences in landbird abundance between the
Project study and the eight other studies examined may be due to differences in the habitats
sampled (e.g., differences in sampling effort in mixed vs. needleleaf forests and/or elevational
differences in study areas). These differences will be evaluated further in the USR after the next
year of data collection.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 26 June 2014
This study represents one of the most extensive point-count surveys yet conducted in Interior
Alaska, in terms of both the large area surveyed and the intensity of sampling. This study will
benefit, however, from access to those portions of the study area in the Gold Creek Corridor
where lower-elevation vegetation types (e.g., various types of mixed and broadleaf-dominated
forests) are located primarily on CIRWG lands. Currently, these habitat types are noticeably
under-sampled relative to the needleleaf forests that dominate much of the rest of the study area
(Table 5.1-1). Increased sampling of these vegetation types and others that are currently under-
sampled will increase the number of detections for less common species and will improve the
estimates of density and breeding population numbers for more landbird species. Assuming
access to the full study area described in the RSP (Section 10.16.3) is authorized for the next
study year, the combination of two seasons of point-count data on landbird abundance and
habitat use will be sufficient to meet the study objectives.
6.1.2. Shorebirds
During the point-count surveys in 2013, shorebirds accounted for only 5.2 percent of all
observations recorded. This low frequency is not surprising, however, given that most breeding
shorebirds depend on open habitats for nesting and brood-rearing, whereas the study area is
strongly dominated by forests. Wilson’s Snipe was the most common shorebird observed,
including many observations of birds involved in aerial flight displays (winnowing) that occurred
above a diversity of different habitat types. Spotted Sandpipers were uncommon overall but were
regularly recorded along streams during the riverine-focused point-count surveys. American
Golden-Plovers also were uncommon and were found most often in open, higher elevation
montane habitats. Other boreal forest-breeding shorebirds (e.g., Solitary Sandpiper, Least
Sandpiper, Lesser Yellowlegs) were detected infrequently during the point-count surveys, likely
due to the relatively low breeding densities of these species (Cooper 1994; Moskoff 1995;
Tibbitts and Moskoff 1999) and the relatively small amount of suitable habitat available for these
species in the study area, rather than to low detectability.
As noted above in Section 5.1.2.3, Shorebird Densities, too few shorebirds of any species were
detected during the point-count surveys in 2013 to allow calculation of density estimates. With
additional field data collection in the next study season, it may be possible to calculate breeding
densities for some of the more common shorebird species.
Shorebirds were recorded infrequently in the eight other point-count studies in Interior Alaska
that were assessed for species richness and abundance levels to compare with the data collected
in this study; thus, few comparisons can be made (Table 6.1-1). One species (Upland Sandpiper)
has been recorded in Denali National Park and Preserve, but was not detected in the Project
study area in 2013. This little-studied species has a restricted and patchy breeding range in the
Alaska Range (Kessel and Gibson 1978). Similarly, the Surfbird has been recorded in the White
Mountains north of Fairbanks but not in this study, although suitable habitat is available at higher
elevations in the Project study area.
In terms of abundance, Wilson’s Snipe was recorded three times more commonly in the Project
study area (average occurrence = 0.340) than in the other eight studies (mean average occurrence
= 0.111) conducted in Interior Alaska. The average occurrence value for Wilson’s Snipe in the
Project study area was similar to that reported for Fort Wainwright (0.323) by Benson (1999).
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 27 June 2014
American Golden-Plover also was recorded three times more commonly in the Project study area
(average occurrence = 0.048) vs. the mean average occurrence of 0.014 for eight other studies.
For shorebirds in particular, the riverine- and lacustrine-focused surveys provided useful
complementary data to those obtained during the point-count surveys. Increased information on
shorebird occurrence and abundance will be derived in the next study season once access can be
achieved in the Gold Creek Corridor and sampling can be conducted there in lower elevation
habitats that are primarily located on CIRWG lands. In particular, it will be beneficial to sample
open wetland habitat types (e.g., Open Dwarf Forest and Wet Graminoid Meadow) at lower
elevations. Those types are known to be used by breeding shorebirds but were under-sampled in
2013 due to access restrictions on CIRWG lands. Assuming full access to the study area
described in the RSP (Section 10.16.3) is authorized, the combination of two seasons of data on
shorebird abundance and habitat use will be sufficient to meet the study objectives.
6.2. Riverine-and Lacustrine-focused Surveys
The riverine- and lacustrine-focused surveys proved to be effective methods to record the
occurrence of some landbird and shorebird species that are not commonly recorded in standard
point-count surveys. The riverine-focused transect surveys in particular allowed for the detection
of several species that occur in riverine environments where audible detection using point counts
can be difficult. The data from the lacustrine-focused surveys provided information on the use of
lacustrine water bodies by landbirds and shorebirds, and also provided additional information on
the use of smaller lakes and ponds by waterbirds, to complement the data collected during the
aerial waterbird surveys (see ISR Study 10.15).
Using the riverine- and lacustrine-focused surveys, researchers were able to increase the total
number of observations of several uncommon habitat specialists, such as Spotted Sandpipers,
American Dippers, and Rusty Blackbirds. Spotted Sandpipers were found to be fairly common in
riverine habitats throughout the study area. American Dippers were rarely observed during point-
counts in riverine habitats, but the additional riverine-transect surveys allowed researchers to
record additional occurrences of this species. During the lacustrine-focused surveys, researchers
were able to document Rusty Blackbirds using open needleleaf forests and adjacent lacustrine
habitats. Continuation of the riverine- and lacustrine-focused surveys in the next study season
will be valuable for increasing the information on the occurrence of these and other species that
are often under-recorded during standard point-count surveys.
In general, the number of avian observations recorded during the riverine-focused surveys was
relatively few along the clear-water tributary streams when compared to the Susitna River,
indicating that many birds are more attracted to the shoreline habitat of the Susitna River than
riverine habitats along the tributary streams. In particular, the abundance of waterbirds and
shorebirds (strongly dominated by Spotted Sandpipers) was notably higher on those riverine
surveys along the Susitna River (Appendix F). In contrast, some species (e.g., Belted Kingfisher
and American Dippers, see below) were never observed along the Susitna River, likely because
the turbid waters would severely hinder visual foraging activities in the water column. During
the riverine-focused surveys, many waterbirds were observed flying low over stream courses,
indicating that the streams act as corridors for travel during the breeding season.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 28 June 2014
Belted Kingfishers were not observed and American Dippers were observed rarely on the
ground-based riverine-focused surveys. These two species, however, were observed regularly in
small numbers on some of the clear-water tributaries of the Susitna River during the aerial
(helicopter-based) surveys for migrating waterbirds and breeding Harlequin Ducks (see ISR
Study 10.15). An important difference between the two survey efforts is that, during the aerial
surveys, each stream was sampled continuously from its mouth upstream until the habitat was no
longer suitable for Harlequin Ducks, whereas during the ground-based surveys observers
sampled only portions of each stream corridor. During the aerial waterbird surveys, Belted
Kingfishers were observed on Wells, Tsusena, Watana, Deadman, and Seattle creeks, and on the
Black, Oshetna, and Indian rivers. The greatest number of individuals detected during a single
survey effort was five during the mid-August surveys (August14–18, 2013). Single individuals
were observed on Indian River and Seattle and Tsusena creeks, and two individuals were seen on
Deadman Creek. American Dippers were seen regularly during the aerial surveys of waterbirds,
with a peak number of 11 individuals recorded during the survey on May 23–24, 2013. American
Dippers were observed on nine tributary streams in the Project area: Indian River and Portage,
Fog, Devil, Tsusena, Kosina, Goose, Cheechako, and Gilbert creeks.
6.3. Survey of Colonially Nesting Swallows
The results of the swallow surveys in 2013 indicated a minimum of 361 nesting pairs of Bank
Swallows in the survey area during the 2013 nesting season; 319 (88%) of those nesting pairs
were located below the elevation of the maximum pool for the proposed Watana Reservoir
(2,050 ft). Although the proportion of active burrows in the colonies surveyed was highly
variable, applying the overall observed proportion of active burrows (0.47) from the monitored
colonies to the unmonitored colonies (n = 163 burrows) produced an estimate of another 77
nesting pairs of Bank Swallows in the study area (including 34 located below the reservoir
maximum pool elevation). Although Violet-green Swallows were observed at two of the nesting
colonies, no Violet-green Swallows were recorded during the monitoring of burrows for nesting
activity.
The burrow entry-rate results reported here are the maximum activity counts recorded during
either the first or second visits. Activity counts can vary greatly within a short period of time
depending on the nesting stage of each individual breeding pair, prey availability, hatching
success or failure, and nest depredation. For instance, burrow entry rates for most colonies were
substantially lower during the first visit (July1–3) because most pairs were incubating, whereas
during the second visit (July 14–15) most pairs were feeding young. Additionally, although 18 of
23 burrows at colony S8 were active during the first visit, none were active during the second
visit, evidently due to predation by a bear (see Appendix G). Some of the colonies monitored in
this study were in unusual and potentially vulnerable locations (only 6 to 10 feet above ground
level); reproductive success in swallows is greater for higher and deeper burrows (Hoogland and
Sherman 1976; Cramp et al. 1988; Sieber 1980).
The vast majority of individuals observed at the nesting colonies were Bank Swallows. All three
colonially nesting species (Bank Swallow, Violet-green Swallow, and Cliff Swallow) were
relatively uncommon during the point-count surveys but Bank Swallows were recorded most
often (Table 5.1-2). Cliff Swallow abundance was likely underestimated due to their inaccessible
nesting locations. Cliff Swallows nest most commonly on human structures, but are also known
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 29 June 2014
to nest deep in caves or vertical chimneys where their nest structures are out of sight. Nesting
Cliff Swallows have been observed on human-built structures at Clarence, Deadman, and Big
lakes and under bridges along the Denali Highway (N. Schwab and B. Lawhead, ABR, Inc.,
personal communication, August 16, 2013). It is likely that Cliff Swallows breed in the survey
area for colonially nesting swallows, but suitable nesting habitat for Cliff Swallows appears to be
fairly uncommon there.
Colonially nesting swallow habitat in the study area is limited to steep slopes and cut banks
along the Susitna River and the lower stretches of its major tributaries. The majority of the
colonies were located in firmer soils higher up on heavily eroded slopes. Many of these features
are highly unstable and actively eroding. Several other colonies were located in the loose, sandy
substrates of riverine cut banks that were freshly formed from ice scour during spring break-up
in early June. The location of colonies in such unstable habitats suggests that substantial annual
turnover in colony habitation may occur (Garrison 1999). For this reason, some authors have
suggested that Bank Swallows exhibit low levels of site fidelity (Freer 1979; Hjertaas 1984;
Jones 1987). Due to their proximity to the Susitna River, at least seven colonies (S2, S8, S9, S10,
S15, S16, and S17) are susceptible to potential damage or destruction in future years as a result
of ice scour, flooding, and erosion.
The average burrow entry rate of 2.5 entries per 10 minutes was less than the 3.7 to 4.7 entries
per 10 minutes that Hickman (1979) observed at other colonies in Interior Alaska. This
difference could indicate that the observations in the Project study area were not made during the
peak feeding period, that food availability was lower at the colonies monitored, or that fewer
feeding events were needed to support a smaller number of young per nest. The average count of
2.1 young per nest (recorded at colony S10) was low in comparison to the average clutch size of
4.1 ± 0.8 eggs reported for other Bank Swallow colonies in Interior Alaska (Hickman 1979). The
lower nestling numbers could indicate low hatching success or low nestling survivorship.
Avian surveys for the APA Project in the early 1980s (Kessel et al.1982) did not include surveys
of colonially nesting swallows, so a direct comparison of the results of this study and that one is
not possible. Kessel et al. (1982) reported Bank Swallows to be uncommon, which is consistent
with the point-count surveys in this study (Table 5.1-2). However, in the swallow nesting
surveys in 2013, Bank Swallows appeared to be relatively common in suitable habitat. Violet-
green Swallows appeared to be more abundant in the study area in 2013 than in the early 1980s.
Cliff Swallows were considered uncommon in the early 1980s and nesting colonies were
observed opportunistically in some of the same locations as in 2013 (Kessel et al. 1982). Overall,
all three species of colonially nesting swallows were relatively uncommon at the scale of the full
landbird and shorebird study area (Appendix A).
Colonially nesting swallow surveys in the next study season will provide another year of data to
improve the abundance estimates reported in this ISR. As with other landbird species, swallow
abundance is likely to fluctuate substantially between years as a result of variability in
reproductive success and survivorship. For this reason, a second year of surveys will be helpful
in understanding the abundance of breeding swallows in the study area. Additional surveys also
will result in a better understanding of swallow nesting activity, habitat use, and colony location
changes throughout the study area. The 2013 results in combination with another study year will
provide sufficient data to meet the study objectives.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 30 June 2014
7. COMPLETING THE STUDY
[Section 7 appears in the Part C section of this ISR.]
8. LITERATURE CITED
AEA (Alaska Energy Authority). 2011. Pre-Application Document: Susitna–Watana
Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 14241. December 2011. Prepared for the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission by the Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, AK.
AEA. 2012. Revised Study Plan: Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No.
14241. December 2012. Prepared for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by the
Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. Available on-line at http://www.susitna-
watanahydro.org/study-plan.Accessed October 2013.
ALMS (Alaska Landbird Monitoring Survey). 2010. Boreal Partners in Flight: Alaska Landbird
Monitoring Survey. Available on-line at
http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/bpif/monitor/alms.php#information.Accessed
October 2013.
Andres, B. A., D. L. Brann, and B. T. Browne. 1999. Legacy Resource Management Program:
Inventory of breeding birds on local training areas of the Alaska Army National Guard.
Final report prepared for Alaska Army National Guard, Fort Richardson, Alaska, by U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
AOU (American Ornithologists’ Union). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. 7th ed.
American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.
AOU. 2012. 53rd Supplement to the AOU Check-list of North American Birds. Auk: 573–588.
ASG (Alaska Shorebird Group). 2008. Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan. Version II. Alaska
Shorebird Group, Anchorage, Alaska.
Benson, A. M. 1999. Distribution of Landbirds among Habitats on the Yukon Maneuver Area
Fort Wainwright, Alaska. Report prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Region 7 by the Alaska Bird Observatory.
Benson, A. M. 2004. Habitat Selection and Densities of Passerines Breeding in Interior Alaska.
Final Report prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Alaska
Ecological Services by the Alaska Bird Observatory, Fairbanks, AK.
Boisvert, J. H., and C. T. Schick. 2007. Breeding Bird Surveys, Stewart River Training Area,
Alaska, 2006. Final report prepared for Alaska Army National Guard, Fort Richardson,
AK, by ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Services, Anchorage, AK.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 31 June 2014
Brown, C. R., A. M. Knott, and E. J. Damrose. 1992. Violet-green Swallow (Tachycineta
thalassina). In A. F. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. B. Gill (eds.), The birds of North
America, No. 14. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Brown, C. R., and M. B. Brown. 2002. Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota). In A. F.
Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. B. Gill (eds.), The birds of North America, No. 149. The
Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Buckland, S. T., D. R. Anderson, K. T. Burnham, J. L. Laake, D. L. Borchers, and J. Thomas.
2001. Introduction to distance sampling: Estimating abundance of biological
populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Buckland, S. T., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, J. L. Laake, D. L. Borchers, and L. Thomas.
2004. Advanced distance sampling: Estimating abundance of biological populations.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Cooper, J. M. 1994. Least Sandpiper (Calidris minutilla). In A. Poole and F. Gill, (eds.), The
birds of North America, No. 115. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Cramp, S., D. J. Brooks, E. Dunn, R. Gillmor, J. Hall-Craggs et al. 1988. The birds of the
Western Palearctic. Vol. 5: tyrant flycatchers to thrushes. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, United Kingdom.
DiFolco, D. L. 1996. 1996 Neotropical Migratory Bird Surveys, Gates of the Arctic National
Park and Preserve. National Park Service, Report GAAR 96-01. Fairbanks, Alaska.
Farnsworth, G. L., K. H. Pollock, J. D. Nichols, T. R. Simons, J. E. Hines, and J. R. Sauer. 2002.
A removal model for estimating detection probabilities from point-count surveys. Auk
119: 414–425.
Freer, V. M. 1979. Factors affecting site tenacity in New York Bank Swallows. Bird-Banding
50: 349-357.
Garrison, B. A. 1999. Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia). In A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill (eds.), The
Birds of North America, No. 414. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Handel, C. M., and M. N. Cady. 2004. Alaska Landbird Monitoring Survey: protocol for setting
up and conducting point count surveys. U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center,
Anchorage. Available on-line
athttp://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/bpif/monitor/alms/ALMSprotocol_2004.pdf.Acc
essed October 2013.
Hannah, K. C., A. R. Ajmi and T. R. Walker. 2003. Distribution and Abundance of Landbirds in
the Tanana Valley State Forest 2002-2003. Alaska Bird Observatory Report.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 32 June 2014
Hickman, G. R. 1979. Nesting ecology of Bank Swallows in interior Alaska. Master’s thesis,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Hjertaas, D. G. 1984. Colony site selection in Bank Swallows. Master’s thesis, University of
Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Hoogland, J. L., and P. W. Sherman. 1976. Advantages and disadvantages of Bank Swallow
(Riparia riparia) coloniality. Ecological Monographs 46: 33–58.
Jones, G. 1987. Colonization patterns in Sand Martins Riparia riparia. Bird Study 34: 20–25.
Kessel, B. K. and D.D. Gibson 1978. Status and distribution of Alaska birds. Studies in Avian
Biology. 1:1–100.
Kessel, B., S. O. MacDonald, D. D. Gibson, B. A. Cooper, and B. A. Anderson. 1982. Susitna
Hydroelectric Project environmental studies, Phase I final report—Subtask 7.11: Birds
and non-game mammals. Report prepared by University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks,
and Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc., Phoenix, New York, for Alaska Power
Authority, Anchorage, Alaska. 149 pp.
Knox, A. G., and P E. Lowther. 2000a. Common Redpoll (Acanthis flammea). In A. Poole and F
Gill, (eds.), The birds of North America, No. 543. The Birds of North America, Inc.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Knox, A. G., and P. E. Lowther. 2000b. Hoary Redpoll (Acanthis hornemanni). In A. Poole and
F Gill, (eds.), The birds of North America, No. 544. The Birds of North America, Inc.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Kreig and Associates. 1987. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, vegetation mapping final report and
user guide. Report prepared by Ray A. Kreig and Associates, Inc., Anchorage, for Harza–
Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture, Anchorage. [APA Doc. No. 3509].
McIntyre, C. 2005. Monitoring Trends of Passerine Birds in Denali National Park and Preserve,
Alaska: 2005 Progress Report. Report to the Central Alaska Network, Vital Signs
Monitoring Program.
Miller, D. L. 2012. Distance: a simple way to fit detection functions to distance sampling data
and calculate abundance/density for biological populations. R package version 0.7.1.
Available on-line at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Distance.Accessed October
2013.
Moskoff, W. 1995. Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria). In A. Poole and F. Gill, (eds.), The
birds of North America, No. 156. The Birds of North America Inc., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Morrison, M. L., W. M Block, M. D. Strickland, B. A. Collier, and M. J. Peterson. 2008. Wildlife
study design, 2nd ed. Chapter 3, Experimental designs, pp. 77–135. Springer Science and
Business Media, New York.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 33 June 2014
Ralph, C. J., S. Droege, and J. R. Sauer. 1995. Managing and monitoring birds using point-
counts: standards and applications. In C. J. Ralph, S. Droege, and J. R. Sauer (eds.),
Monitoring bird populations by point-counts, pp. 161–168. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-149.
Rosenstock, S. S., D. R. Anderson, K. M. Giesen, T. Leukering, and M. F. Carter. 2002.
Landbird counting techniques: current practices and an alternative. Auk 119: 246–253.
Sharbaugh, S., J. Schmidt, C. A. Abercrombie, J. P. Houghton. 2009. Landbird Surveys in the
Black River Region of the Bureau of Land Management Eastern Interior Field Office,
Alaska. Final Report to the Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks Field Office by Hart
Crowser, Inc.
Shaw, D., and J. H. Schmidt. 2011. The Breeding Landbird Communities of the Mount Prindle
and Pinnell Mountain Trail Area in Alaska during 2010 and 2011: An Assessment Based
on Repeated Counts and Hierarchical Occupancy Modeling. Report prepared for the
Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks Field Office, by the Alaska Bird Observatory,
Fairbanks, Alaska.
Sieber, O. 1980. Causal and functional aspects of brood distribution in Sand Martins (Riparia
riparia). Journal of Comparative Ethology 52: 19–56.
Swanson, S. A., and D. A. Nigro. 2003. A Breeding Landbird Inventory of Yukon-Charley
Rivers National Preserve, Alaska, June 1999 and 2000. Yukon-Charley Rivers National
Preserve Alaska Report YUCH-03-001.
Tibbitts, T. L. and W. Moskoff. 1999. Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes). In A. Poole and F.
Gill, (eds.), The birds of North America, No. 427. The Birds of North America Inc.,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Viereck, L. A., C. T. Dyrness, A. R. Batten, and K. J. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska Vegetation
Classification. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-286. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 34 June 2014
9. TABLES
Table 4.1-1. Vegetation Types Mapped in the 1980s (Kreig and Associates 1987), Classified as Rare or Common for
Allocation of Landbird/Shorebird Point-count Plots in 2013.
Vegetation Type Percent of Mapped Area
Rare Vegetation Types1 <4% of Mapped Area
Dry Forb Meadow <0.01
Dry Graminoid Meadow 0.01
Moist Graminoid Meadow 0.16
Broadleaf Woodland 0.17
Moist Dwarf Shrub (ericaceous) 0.24
Dwarf Forest Woodland 0.50
Open Broadleaf Forest 0.62
Closed Dwarf Forest 0.63
Mixed Woodland 0.96
Closed Broadleaf Forest 1.02
Wet Graminoid Meadow 1.09
Barrens 1.91
Unknown 2.04
Open Dwarf Forest 2.07
Water 2.45
Closed Needleleaf Forest 2.57
Open Tall Shrub 3.03
Closed Tall Shrub 3.72
Common Vegetation Types1 >4% of Mapped Area
Needleleaf Woodland 5.33
Open Mixed Forest 6.24
Closed Mixed Forest 6.89
Dry Dwarf Shrub 9.28
Open Needleleaf Forest 12.29
Closed Low Shrub 12.54
Open Low Shrub 24.26
Notes:
1. Vegetation types were considered common if they accounted for 4% or more of the mapped area, and they were considered rare if they
accounted for less than 4% of the mapped area.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 35 June 2014
Table 5.1-1. Habitats Surveyed and the Number of Landbird/Shorebird Point-counts Conducted in Each Focal Habitat
Type, 2013.
Focal Habitat Type1 Number of Point-Count Plots
Barrens 7
Partially Vegetated 39
Closed Broadleaf Forest 2
Open Broadleaf Forest 13
Broadleaf Woodland 3
Closed Mixed Forest 14
Open Mixed Forest 103
Mixed Woodland 14
Closed Needleleaf Forest 12
Open Needleleaf Forest 349
Needleleaf Woodland 195
Dry Graminoid Meadow 4
Moist Graminoid Meadow 42
Wet Graminoid Meadow 20
Riverine Waters (including shorelines) 52
Dry Dwarf Shrub 8
Shrub Dwarf Ericaceous 103
Wet Dwarf Shrub 7
Open Dwarf Forest 13
Dwarf Forest Woodland 14
Closed Low Shrub 92
Open Low Shrub 169
Closed Tall Shrub 45
Open Tall Shrub 44
Total 1,364
Notes:
1. Level-III vegetation types of the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992), with the addition of barren and partially vegetated
habitats and riverine waters; the primary habitat surrounding each point-count plot was considered the focal habitat (see text).
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 36 June 2014
Table 5.1-2. Abundance and Average Occurrence of Landbird Species Observed During Point-count Surveys, 2013.
Species
Total Number
Detected
% of Landbird
Observations
Average
Occurrence1
Fox Sparrow 1,590 12.3 1.166
White-crowned Sparrow 1,261 9.7 0.925
Common Redpoll 1,169 8.8 0.857
Yellow-rumped Warbler 837 6.5 0.614
Varied Thrush 801 6.2 0.587
Savannah Sparrow 675 5.2 0.495
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 652 5.0 0.478
American Tree Sparrow 649 5.0 0.476
Dark-eyed Junco 624 4.8 0.458
Wilson's Warbler 606 4.7 0.444
Blackpoll Warbler 522 4.0 0.383
Gray-cheeked Thrush 517 4.0 0.379
Swainson's Thrush 408 3.1 0.299
American Robin 390 3.0 0.286
Northern Waterthrush 374 2.9 0.274
Hermit Thrush 229 1.8 0.168
Gray Jay 168 1.3 0.123
American Pipit 160 1.2 0.117
Golden-crowned Sparrow 155 1.2 0.114
Willow Ptarmigan 112 0.9 0.082
Horned Lark 111 0.9 0.081
Arctic Warbler 104 0.8 0.076
Orange-crowned Warbler 91 0.7 0.067
Boreal Chickadee 88 0.7 0.065
White-winged Crossbill 81 0.6 0.059
Lincoln's Sparrow 77 0.6 0.057
Olive-sided Flycatcher 75 0.6 0.055
Bohemian Waxwing 74 0.6 0.054
Rock Ptarmigan 51 0.4 0.037
Snow Bunting 43 0.3 0.032
Common Raven 39 0.3 0.029
Lapland Longspur 35 0.3 0.026
Alder Flycatcher 30 0.2 0.022
Rusty Blackbird 23 0.2 0.017
Northern Flicker 22 0.2 0.016
Black-capped Chickadee 18 0.1 0.013
Pine Siskin 14 0.1 0.010
Bank Swallow 11 0.1 0.008
Northern Wheatear 10 0.1 0.007
Cliff Swallow 8 0.1 0.006
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 37 June 2014
Species
Total Number
Detected
% of Landbird
Observations
Average
Occurrence1
Violet-green Swallow 8 0.1 0.006
Black-billed Magpie 6 0.05 0.004
Tree Swallow 6 0.05 0.004
Spruce Grouse 5 0.04 0.004
Yellow Warbler 5 0.04 0.004
American Three-toed Woodpecker 4 0.00 0.003
Downy Woodpecker 3 0.03 0.002
Townsend's Warbler 3 0.02 0.002
American Dipper 2 0.02 0.002
Pine Grosbeak 2 0.02 0.002
Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch 1 0.01 <0.001
Hairy Woodpecker 1 0.01 <0.001
Ruffed Grouse 1 0.01 <0.001
Total 12,951 100 9.495
Notes:
1. Average occurrence = total number of birds detected/total number of point counts conducted for the full study area.
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 38 June 2014
Table 5.1-3. DISTANCE Detection Groups, Model Covariates, Estimated Densities, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) Scores, and Associated Results from Detection-
function Modeling of Point-count Survey Data, 2013.
Detection Group Model1
Density: Birds/km2
(95% Confidence Limits) AIC1 ∆AIC Model Weight Chi2 Chi P2
All Individuals
Grouse
Habitat Type 2.7 (2.0–3.6) 324.75 0 0.26 0.88 0.83
No covariates 2.7 (2.0–3.5) 325.63 0.88 0.17 0.66 0.72
Habitat Type + Observer 4.1 (0.0–532.7) 325.8 1.04 0.15 42.99 0.01
Observer 3.4 (0.0–54,754.2) 325.83 1.08 0.15 17.85 0.40
Habitat Type + Noise 2.7 (2.0–3.6) 326.75 2.00 0.09 1.74 0.99
Chickadees Habitat Type + Observer 22.3 (0.0–85,269.6) 185.07 0 0.58 94.34 0.08
Habitat Type + Observer + Noise 23.5 (0.0–96,017.8) 186.83 1.76 0.24 183.65 0
Corvids Habitat Type 6.2 (0.0–1,396.4) 358.39 0 0.50 4.94 0.96
Habitat Type + Noise 6.2 (0.0–1,374.0) 360.24 1.85 0.20 12.17 0.99
No covariates 4.9 (3.8–6.2) 360.34 1.95 0.19 2.29 0.51
Thrushes Habitat Type + Observer 53.7 (13.8–209.9) 4,338.64 0 1.00 140.72 0.02
Habitat Type + Observer + Noise 53.6 (18.1–158.9) 4,339.65 1.01 0.60 206.06 0.51
Sparrows Habitat Type + Observer + Noise 160.5 (153.0–168.3) 49,790.85 0 0.81 739.66 1.00
Males Only3
Warblers Habitat Type + Observer + Noise 129.2 (121.0–137.9) 26,659.01 0 0.80 354.97 1.00
Flycatchers
No covariates 1.4 (1.0–2.0) 296.62 0 0.29 212.14 0.94
Observer 1.9 (0.0–229.0) 296.64 0.01 0.28 0.29 0.87
Habitat Type + Observer 1.9 (0.0–218.9) 298.43 1.81 0.12 10.79 0.70
Habitat Type 1.4 (1.0–2.0) 298.46 1.83 0.11 10.79 0.97
Observer + Noise 1.9 (0.0–233.4) 298.54 1.92 0.11 0.52 0.97
Notes:
1. All models within two integer AIC values of the lowest AIC value are presented.
2. Pearson’s chi-squared value and chi-squared probability.
3. Models for warblers and flycatchers were based on observations of males only.
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 39 June 2014
Table 5.1-4. Estimated Density and Estimated Total Breeding Birds in the Landbird and Shorebird Study Area, Based on
Point-count Survey Data, 2013.
Common Name n
Average
Flock Size
Density: Birds/km2
(95% Confidence Limits)
Total Estimated Birds
(95% Confidence Limits)1
Ruffed Grouse 1 1.00 0.01 (0–0.06) 17 (3–89)
Spruce Grouse 4 1.00 0.06 (0.02–0.16) 89 (34–232)
Willow Ptarmigan 84 1.01 1.83 (1.34–2.51) 2,692 (1,963–3,691)
Rock Ptarmigan 41 1.00 0.72 (0.49–1.07) 1,057 (713–1,569)
Unidentified ptarmigan 2 1.00 0.04 (0.01–0.14) 56 (16–199)
Olive-sided Flycatcher2 100 1.01 1.13 (0.81–1.59) 1,667 (1,189–2,337)
Alder Flycatcher2 18 1.00 0.30 (0.16–0.57) 438 (230–837)
Gray Jay 148 1.18 4.56 (3.56–5.84) 6,700 (5,229–8,584)
Black-billed Magpie 1 1.00 0.03 (0.01–0.14) 40 (8–207)
Common Raven 9 1.00 0.28 (0.14–0.54) 405 (206–795)
Horned Lark 96 1.02 3.69 (2.83–4.81) 5,420 (4,155–7,071)
Tree Swallow 4 1.00 0.11 (0.04–0.33) 162 (54–491)
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 587 1.00 25.08 (22.87–27.51) 36,850 (33,602–40,413)
Arctic Warbler 88 1.01 5.15 (3.86–6.87) 7,571 (5,677–10,096)
Northern Wheatear 8 1.15 0.24 (0.11–0.52) 352 (163–757)
Gray-cheeked Thrush 451 1.01 12.02 (10.56–13.69) 17,664 (15,514–20,111)
Swainson's Thrush 354 1.01 10.25 (8.73–12.04) 15,059 (12,821–17,688)
Hermit Thrush 177 1.01 4.46 (0.21–95.69) 6,549 (305–140,584)
Unidentified (Catharus) thrush 9 1.11 0.11 (0.05–0.23) 155 (71–340)
American Robin 357 1.01 7.48 (0.29–195.86) 10,982 (419–287,744)
Varied Thrush 710 1.01 16.19 (14.37–18.25) 23,792 (21,111–26,813)
Unidentified thrush 2 1.00 0.04 (0.01–0.14) 58 (17–203)
American Pipit 115 1.03 2.89 (2.25–3.72) 4,250 (3,306–5,464)
Lapland Longspur 32 1.00 1.46 (0.85–2.50) 2,145 (1,252–3,674)
Snow Bunting 36 1.02 1.53 (0.98–2.40) 2,248 (1,435–3,522)
Northern Waterthrush2 318 1.00 17.29 (15.17–19.71) 25,405 (22,286–28,961)
Orange-crowned Warbler2 68 1.00 3.45 (2.57–4.65) 5,074 (3,771–6,827)
Yellow Warbler2 7 1.39 0.34 (0.14–0.84) 497 (199–1,241)
Blackpoll Warbler2 420 1.00 20.88 (18.73–23.28) 30,674 (27,511–34,200)
Yellow-rumped Warbler2 669 1.00 31.94 (29.02–35.16) 46,928 (42,629–51,661)
Townsend's Warbler2 1 1.00 0.04 (0.01–0.20) 58 (11–300)
Wilson's Warbler2 500 1.00 24.88 (22.47–27.56) 36,556 (33,010–40,483)
Unidentified warbler2 4 1.00 0.14 (0.05–0.35) 203 (80–514)
American Tree Sparrow 543 1.01 22.21 (19.64–25.11) 32,625 (28,852–36,892)
Savannah Sparrow 617 1.04 23.10 (20.76–25.69) 33,929 (30,498–37,747)
Fox Sparrow 1,425 1.00 41.20 (38.65–43.92) 60,528 (56,786–64,516)
Lincoln's Sparrow 75 1.00 1.99 (1.50–2.65) 2,928 (2,202–3,893)
White-crowned Sparrow 1,123 1.02 34.46 (31.96–37.15) 50,626 (46,956–54,582)
Golden-crowned Sparrow 118 1.02 4.29 (3.36–5.47) 6,295 (4,930–8,038)
Unidentified sparrow 37 1.30 1.05 (0.68–1.63) 1,547 (999–2,395)
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 40 June 2014
Common Name n
Average
Flock Size
Density: Birds/km2
(95% Confidence Limits)
Total Estimated Birds
(95% Confidence Limits)1
Dark-eyed Junco 549 1.06 16.84 (15.14–18.74) 24,743 (22,243–27,525)
Rusty Blackbird 16 1.31 0.28 (0.15–0.51) 414 (227–753)
Common Redpoll 34 1.16 1.19 (0.75–1.87) 1,742 (1,105–2,747)
Notes:
1. Estimated number of breeding birds in the 2-mi buffer study area used for the point-count surveys.
2. Results shown for these species are based on male-only detection-function models (see text).
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 41 June 2014
Table 5.1-5. Abundance and Average Occurrence of Shorebird Species Observed During Point-count Surveys, 2013.
Species Total Detected
% of Shorebird
Observations
Average
Occurrence1
Wilson's Snipe 464 61.2 0.340
American Golden-Plover 66 8.7 0.048
Lesser Yellowlegs 64 8.4 0.047
Spotted Sandpiper 59 7.8 0.043
Least Sandpiper 39 5.1 0.029
Red-necked Phalarope 19 2.5 0.014
Semipalmated Plover 18 2.4 0.013
Solitary Sandpiper 15 2.0 0.011
Wandering Tattler 7 0.9 0.005
Whimbrel 5 0.7 0.004
Greater Yellowlegs 2 0.3 0.001
Total 758 100 0.556
Notes:
1. Average occurrence = total number of birds detected/total number of point counts conducted for the full study area.
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 42 June 2014
Table. 5.2-1. Number of Birds Observed (n) and Percent Occurrence by Habitat Type during Lacustrine-focused Surveys, 2013.
Percent Occurrence1 by Habitat Type2
Species n Open Needleleaf Forest Mixed Woodland Moist Graminoid Meadow Lacustrine Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Snow Goose 4 100
Trumpeter Swan 9 100
American Wigeon 27 100
Mallard 4 100
Northern Shoveler 5 100
Northern Pintail 28 100
Green-winged Teal 38 10.53 89.47
Ring-necked Duck 10 100
Greater Scaup 17 100
Lesser Scaup 15 46.67 53.33
Unidentified scaup 9 100
Surf Scoter 2 100
White-winged Scoter 2 100
Long-tailed Duck 7 100
Bufflehead 11 100
Barrow's Goldeneye 16
Unidentified waterfowl 10
Red-throated Loon 2 100
Common Loon 2 100
Horned Grebe 6 100
Red-necked Grebe 2 100
Mew Gull 9 100
Waterbirds Total 226 2.71 97.29
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 43 June 2014
Percent Occurrence1 by Habitat Type2
Species n Open Needleleaf Forest Mixed Woodland Moist Graminoid Meadow Lacustrine Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub American Golden-Plover 3 66.67 33.33
Semipalmated Plover 1 100
Solitary Sandpiper 5 40.00 60.00
Wandering Tattler 1
Greater Yellowlegs 1 100
Lesser Yellowlegs 21 5.88 23.53 64.71 5.88
Least Sandpiper 17 7.14 92.86
Pectoral Sandpiper 1 100
Unidentified sandpiper—medium 3 100
Long-billed Dowitcher 3 33.33 66.67
Wilson's Snipe 20 17.65 82.35
Red-necked Phalarope 34 8.82 91.18
Unidentified shorebird—small 19 100
Unidentified shorebird—large 1 100
Unidentified shorebird 2 100
Shorebirds Total 141 2.91 0.97 24.27 69.9 0.97 0.97 Gray Jay 1 100
Tree Swallow 2
Violet-green Swallow 1
Bank Swallow 4 12.50 87.50
Arctic Warbler 1 100
Northern Wheatear 1 100
Hermit Thrush 5 100
American Robin 8 25.00 12.50 62.50
Bohemian Waxwing 7 100
Blackpoll Warbler 3 100
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 44 June 2014
Percent Occurrence1 by Habitat Type2
Species n Open Needleleaf Forest Mixed Woodland Moist Graminoid Meadow Lacustrine Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Yellow-rumped Warbler 4 100
American Tree Sparrow 3 100
Savannah Sparrow 7 42.86 14.28 42.86
Fox Sparrow 3 33.33 66.67
Lincoln's Sparrow 2 100
White-crowned Sparrow 1 100
Dark-eyed Junco 2 100
Rusty Blackbird 8 50.00 12.50 37.50
Landbirds Total 63 7.84 19.61 13.73 11.76 1.96 45.1
Grand Total 430 1.87 2.93 10.13 78.13 0.53 0.27 6.13
Notes:
1. Percent-occurrence values exclude birds in flight; hence, those species observed only in flight lack percent-occurrence information for habitats.
2. Level-III vegetation types of the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992).
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 45 June 2014
Table. 5.2-2. Number of Birds Observed (n) and Percent Occurrence by Habitat Type during Riverine-focused Surveys, 2013.
Percent Occurrence1 by Habitat Type2
Species n Open Mixed Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Moist Graminoid Meadow Riverine Wet Dwarf Shrub Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Open Tall Shrub American Wigeon 18 100
Mallard 14 100
Northern Shoveler 2 100
Northern Pintail 5 100
Green-winged Teal 21 100
Harlequin Duck 50 100
Common Goldeneye 2
Barrow's Goldeneye 2 100
Common Merganser 1 100
Red-breasted Merganser 6 100
Unidentified duck 3
Mew Gull 6 100
Waterbird Total 130 100
Spotted Sandpiper 122 0.85 88.03 4.27 2.56 3.42 0.85
Solitary Sandpiper 1
Wilson's Snipe 1 100
Unidentified shorebird—medium 1 100
Shorebird Total 124 0.85 0.85 87.29 4.24 2.54 3.39 0.85
Bald Eagle 3 100
Great Horned Owl 1 100
Unidentified raptor 4 100
Raptor Total 8 25.00 25.00 50.00
Olive-sided Flycatcher 1 100
Alder Flycatcher 19 68.42 31.58
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 46 June 2014
Percent Occurrence1 by Habitat Type2
Species n Open Mixed Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Moist Graminoid Meadow Riverine Wet Dwarf Shrub Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Open Tall Shrub Gray Jay 4 100
Tree Swallow 3
Violet-green Swallow 10 100
Bank Swallow 15 100
Unidentified swallow 1
Boreal Chickadee 4 75.00 25.00
American Dipper 2 100
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 21 33.33 66.67
Gray-cheeked Thrush 9 88.89 11.11
Swainson's Thrush 15 23.08 46.15 7.69 23.08
Hermit Thrush 16 57.14 21.43 7.14 14.29
American Robin 1
Varied Thrush 7 28.57 57.14 14.29
Northern Waterthrush 39 17.95 38.46 5.13 12.82 10.26 15.38
Orange-crowned Warbler 5 100
Yellow Warbler 1 100
Blackpoll Warbler 56 7.27 45.45 10.91 5.45 9.09 1.82 20.00
Yellow-rumped Warbler 22 36.36 54.55 9.09
Wilson's Warbler 50 18.75 14.58 4.17 4.17 2.08 56.25
American Tree Sparrow 3 33.33 66.67
Savannah Sparrow 17 5.88 35.29 29.41 29.41
Fox Sparrow 39 33.33 58.97 7.69
Lincoln's Sparrow 3 100
White-crowned Sparrow 32 36.00 44.00 4.00 4.00 12.00
Unidentified sparrow 9
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 47 June 2014
Percent Occurrence1 by Habitat Type2
Species n Open Mixed Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Moist Graminoid Meadow Riverine Wet Dwarf Shrub Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Open Tall Shrub Dark-eyed Junco 10 25.00 62.50 12.50
Unidentified redpoll 12 14.29 85.71
Pine Siskin 2 100
Unidentified passerine 1 100
Landbird Total 430 23.7 41.67 3.39 6.51 1.82 6.77 1.82 14.06 0.26
Grand Total 692 14.97 26.64 2.30 0.33 37.99 1.15 5.1 1.64 9.54 0.33
Notes:
1. Percent-occurrence values exclude birds in flight; hence, those species only observed in flight lack percent-occurrence information for habitats.
2. Level-III vegetation types of the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992).
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 48 June 2014
Table 5.3-1. Colonies Identified During Swallow Nesting Survey, 2013.
Colony ID Species General Location Structure Elevation (feet)1 Number of Burrows Status Number of Active Nests Average Burrow Entry Rate
D1 Unknown Deadman Creek Erosional Slope 2,238 2 Unknown Unknown —
D2 Bank Swallow Deadman Creek Erosional Slope 2,172 17 Active Unknown —
S1 Unknown Susitna River Erosional Slope 1,503 10 Unknown Unknown —
S2 Unknown Susitna River Erosional Slope 1,543 3 Unknown Unknown —
S3 Unknown Susitna River Cliff Face 1,575 3 Unknown Unknown —
S42 Bank Swallow Susitna River Cliff Face 1,550 354 Active 196 2.5
S5 Bank Swallow Susitna River Erosional Slope 1,904 9 Active Unknown —
S6 Unknown Susitna River Rock Outcrop 1,708 1 Unknown Unknown —
S72 Bank Swallow Susitna River Cliff Face 1,751 60 Active 15 3
S82 Bank Swallow Susitna River Cut Bank 1,691 23 Active3 18 —
S9 Unknown Susitna River Cut Bank 1,689 4 Unknown Unknown —
S102 Bank and Violet-green swallows Susitna River Cut Bank 1,775 48 Active 30 2.2
S112 Unknown Susitna River Erosional Slope 1,952 53 Inactive 0 —
S122 Bank and Violet-green swallows Susitna River Erosional Slope 1,927 119 Active 51 1.7
S132 Unknown Susitna River Erosional Slope 1,915 24 Inactive 0 —
S14 Bank Swallow Susitna River Erosional Slope 2,643 33 Active Unknown —
S15 Bank Swallow Susitna River Cut Bank 2,075 6 Active Unknown —
S16 Bank Swallow Susitna River Cut Bank 2,085 3 Active Unknown —
S172 Bank Swallow Susitna River Erosional Slope 2,106 64 Active 42 3.2
W1 Unknown Watana Creek Erosional Slope 1,823 2 Unknown Unknown —
W22 Bank Swallow Watana Creek Cut Bank 1,689 27 Active 9 1.0
W3 Unknown Watana Creek Erosional Slope 2,243 27 Unknown Unknown —
W4 Unknown Watana Creek Erosional Slope 2,263 25 Unknown Unknown —
W5 Unknown Watana Creek Erosional Slope 2,255 7 Unknown Unknown —
W6 Unknown Watana Creek Erosional Slope 2,246 11 Unknown Unknown —
Notes:
1. Elevation above mean sea level; surface elevation of proposed Watana Reservoir at maximum pool would be 2,050 feet.
2. Colonies observed from the ground to estimate abundance and quantify average burrow entry rate per 10-minute sampling period (as an index of feeding activity).
3. Colony S8 was active during the first visit but was inactive during the second visit, when sign of bear predation was found at most burrows.
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 49 June 2014
Table. 6.1-1. Average Occurrence1 of Landbirds and Shorebirds Calculated from Point-count Data for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project in 2013 and for Eight
Other Comparable Point-count Studies in Interior Alaska.
Species Gates of the Arctic2 Fort Wainwright3 Yukon Charley4 Tanana Valley5 Fairbanks/ Tok6 Denali7 Black River8 White Mountains9
Average of 8 Other Studies This Study
Landbirds
Ruffed Grouse <0.001
Spruce Grouse 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
Sharp-tailed Grouse 0.012 0.012
Willow Ptarmigan 0.010 0.019 0.002 0.010 0.082
Rock Ptarmigan 0.010 0.017 0.014 0.037
Downy Woodpecker 0.002 0.002 0.002
Hairy Woodpecker 0.012 0.006 0.017 0.012 <0.001
American Three-toed Woodpecker 0.002 0.010 0.006 0.023 0.023 0.103 0.028 0.003
Black-backed Woodpecker
Northern Flicker 0.014 0.023 0.025 0.021 0.016
Olive-sided Flycatcher 0.028 0.064 0.100 0.096 0.333 0.002 0.104 0.055
Western Wood Pewee 0.050 0.006 0.009 0.021
Alder Flycatcher 0.028 0.633 0.140 0.271 0.134 0.130 0.197 0.004 0.192 0.022
Hammond’s Flycatcher 0.072 0.070 0.372 0.044 0.011 0.017 0.098
Say’s Phoebe 0.028 0.094 0.037 0.053
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 50 June 2014
Species Gates of the Arctic2 Fort Wainwright3 Yukon Charley4 Tanana Valley5 Fairbanks/ Tok6 Denali7 Black River8 White Mountains9
Average of 8 Other Studies This Study
Northern Shrike 0.008 0.004 0.006
Gray Jay 0.361 0.220 0.141 0.292 0.211 0.291 0.002 0.217 0.123
Black-billed Magpie 0.027 0.027 0.004
Common Raven 0.054 0.030 0.023 0.025 0.015 0.009 0.026 0.029
Horned Lark 0.060 0.080 0.051 0.114 0.077 0.081
Tree Swallow 0.006 0.006 0.004 0.009 0.006 0.004
Violet-green Swallow 0.111 0.011 0.061 0.006
Bank Swallow 0.222 0.006 0.114 0.008
Cliff Swallow 0.006
Black-capped Chickadee 0.082 0.127 0.037 0.082 0.013
Boreal Chickadee 0.132 0.070 0.049 0.183 0.015 0.077 0.088 0.065
Red-breasted Nuthatch 0.009 0.009
American Dipper 0.002
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 0.250 0.459 0.260 0.029 0.273 0.230 0.222 0.002 0.216 0.478
Townsend’s Solitaire 0.188 0.030 0.109
Arctic Warbler 0.410 0.006 0.208 0.076
Northern Wheatear 0.020 0.071 0.046 0.007
Gray-cheeked Thrush 0.472 0.008 0.280 0.548 0.590 0.028 0.321 0.379
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 51 June 2014
Species Gates of the Arctic2 Fort Wainwright3 Yukon Charley4 Tanana Valley5 Fairbanks/ Tok6 Denali7 Black River8 White Mountains9
Average of 8 Other Studies This Study
Swainson's Thrush 0.639 1.273 0.630 0.438 1.117 0.981 1.085 0.004 0.771 0.299
Hermit Thrush 0.068 0.050 0.274 0.048 0.257 0.068 0.127 0.168
American Robin 0.250 0.152 0.380 0.179 0.121 0.391 0.368 0.156 0.249 0.286
Varied Thrush 0.056 0.259 0.440 0.242 0.310 0.085 0.030 0.203 0.587
American Pipit 0.170 0.100 0.060 0.488 0.204 0.117
Bohemian Waxwing 0.058 0.020 0.014 0.022 0.031 0.043 0.002 0.027 0.054
Lapland Longspur 0.139 0.040 0.244 0.141 0.026
Smith’s Longspur 0.028 0.028
Snow Bunting 0.032
Northern Waterthrush 0.083 0.078 0.040 0.165 0.043 0.082 0.274
Orange-crowned Warbler 0.611 0.495 0.200 0.173 0.130 0.724 0.274 0.006 0.327 0.067
Yellow Warbler 0.066 0.010 0.011 0.103 0.006 0.039 0.004
Blackpoll Warbler 0.100 0.003 0.011 0.038 0.383
Yellow-rumped Warbler 0.167 0.802 0.710 1.037 0.762 0.284 1.179 0.706 0.614
Townsend's Warbler 0.110 0.080 0.055 0.499 0.186 0.002
Wilson's Warbler 0.194 0.010 0.210 0.003 0.969 0.299 0.151 0.262 0.444
American Tree Sparrow 1.528 0.020 0.400 1.157 0.462 0.713 0.476
Savannah Sparrow 0.778 0.178 0.270 0.009 0.912 0.596 0.457 0.495
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 52 June 2014
Species Gates of the Arctic2 Fort Wainwright3 Yukon Charley4 Tanana Valley5 Fairbanks/ Tok6 Denali7 Black River8 White Mountains9
Average of 8 Other Studies This Study
Fox Sparrow 0.076 0.330 0.973 1.162 0.341 0.577 1.166
Lincoln's Sparrow 0.667 0.120 0.012 0.087 0.192 0.094 0.004 0.168 0.057
White-crowned Sparrow 1.306 0.381 0.820 0.133 0.037 2.992 1.197 0.713 0.947 0.925
Golden-crowned Sparrow 0.034 0.006 0.020 0.114
Dark-eyed Junco 0.139 1.255 0.040 1.274 1.268 0.831 1.145 0.850 0.458
Red-winged Blackbird 0.004 0.004
Rusty Blackbird 0.044 0.027 0.035 0.017
Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch 0.004 0.004 <0.001
Pine Grosbeak 0.050 0.004 0.017 0.024 0.002
White-winged Crossbill 0.278 0.319 0.490 0.098 0.050 1.180 0.368 0.397 0.059
Common Redpoll 0.944 1.517 0.500 0.455 0.033 0.785 0.444 0.095 0.597 0.857
Pine Siskin 0.040 0.019 0.030 0.010
Shorebirds
American Golden-Plover 0.015 0.013 0.014 0.048
Semipalmated Plover 0.013
Spotted Sandpiper 0.083 0.025 0.019 0.000 0.032 0.043
Upland Sandpiper 0.056 0.050 0.053
Solitary Sandpiper 0.002 0.012 0.007 0.011
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 53 June 2014
Species Gates of the Arctic2 Fort Wainwright3 Yukon Charley4 Tanana Valley5 Fairbanks/ Tok6 Denali7 Black River8 White Mountains9
Average of 8 Other Studies This Study
Wandering Tattler 0.005
Greater Yellowlegs 0.011 0.011 0.001
Lesser Yellowlegs 0.111 0.138 0.003 0.038 0.138 0.086 0.047
Whimbrel 0.011 0.011 0.004
Least Sandpiper 0.029
Wilson's Snipe 0.056 0.323 0.150 0.006 0.020 0.169 0.017 0.151 0.111 0.340
Red-necked Phalarope 0.014
Surfbird 0.037 0.037
Notes:
1. Average occurrence = total number of birds detected/total number of point counts conducted in each study.
2. Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve (DiFolco 1996).
3. Tanana Flats and Yukon Maneuver Area, Fort Wainwright (Benson 1999).
4. Yukon Charley National Preserve (Swanson and Nigro 2003).
5. Tanana Valley State Forest (Hannah et al. 2003).
6. Tok and Fairbanks areas (Benson 2004).
7. Denali National Park and Preserve (McIntyre 2005).
8. Bureau of Land Management, Black River area (Sharbaugh et al. 2009).
9. Bureau of Land Management, White Mountains area (Shaw and Schmidt 2011).
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 54 June 2014
10. FIGURES
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 55 June 2014
Figure 3-1. Study Area for Landbird and Shorebird Surveys, 2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 56 June 2014
Figure 3-2. Sampling Area and Point-count Plot Locations for Landbird and Shorebird Surveys, 2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 57 June 2014
Figure 3-3. Survey Area for Colonially Nesting Swallows, 2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 58 June 2014
Figure 5.2-1. Riverine- and Lacustrine-focused Survey Locations, 2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE STUDY (10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Page 59 June 2014
Figure 5.3-1. Colonies Identified During the Swallow Nesting Survey, 2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014
PART A - APPENDIX A: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES,
BREEDING STATUS, AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF AVIAN SPECIES
RECORDED DURING THE LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD STUDY, 2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 1 June 2014
Common Name Scientific Name Breeding Status1 Abundance2
Snow Goose3 Chen caerulescens Unlikely4 Rare
Canada Goose3 Branta canadensis Unlikely4 Rare
Trumpeter Swan3 Cygnus buccinator Confirmed4 Common
American Wigeon3 Anas americana Probable4 Uncommon
Mallard3 Anas platyrhynchos Probable4 Uncommon
Northern Shoveler3 Anas clypeata Confirmed4 Rare
Northern Pintail3 Anas acuta Confirmed4 Uncommon
Green-winged Teal3 Anas crecca Probable4 Common
Ring-necked Duck3 Aythya collaris Probable4 Uncommon
Greater Scaup3 Aythya marila Confirmed4 Common
Lesser Scaup3 Aythya affinis Confirmed4 Common
Harlequin Duck3 Histrionicus histrionicus Confirmed4 Uncommon
Surf Scoter3 Melanitta perspicillata Confirmed4 Rare
White-winged Scoter3 Melanitta fusca Confirmed4 Rare
Long-tailed Duck3 Clangula hyemalis Probable4 Uncommon
Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Confirmed4 Uncommon
Common Goldeneye3 Bucephala clangula Probable4 Rare
Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Confirmed4 Uncommon
Common Merganser Mergus merganser Confirmed4 Uncommon
Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Confirmed4 Common
Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Probable Rare
Spruce Grouse Falcipennis canadensis Possible Rare
Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus Confirmed Common
Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus muta Confirmed Uncommon
Red-throated Loon3 Gavia stellata Confirmed4 Rare
Common Loon Gavia immer Confirmed4 Rare
Horned Grebe3 Podiceps auritus Confirmed4 Uncommon
Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Confirmed4 Rare
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Confirmed5 [see ISR 10.14]
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Possible5 [see ISR 10.14]
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 2 June 2014
Common Name Scientific Name Breeding Status1 Abundance2
Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Probable5 [see ISR 10.14]
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Confirmed5 [see ISR 10.14]
Golden Eagle3 Aquila chrysaetos Confirmed5 [see ISR 10.14]
Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Unlikely4 Rare
American Golden-Plover3 Pluvialis dominica Confirmed Uncommon
Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus Confirmed Uncommon
Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Confirmed Common
Solitary Sandpiper3 Tringa solitaria Probable Uncommon
Wandering Tattler Tringa incana Probable Rare
Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Unlikely Rare
Lesser Yellowlegs3 Tringa flavipes Confirmed Uncommon
Whimbrel3 Numenius phaeopus Possible Rare
Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Probable Uncommon
Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Unlikely Rare
Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Unlikely Rare
Wilson's Snipe3 Gallinago delicata Confirmed Common
Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Probable Uncommon
Bonaparte's Gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia Confirmed4 Rare
Mew Gull Larus canus Confirmed4 Uncommon
Herring Gull Larus argentatus Probable4 Common
Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea Confirmed4 Uncommon
Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus Possible Rare
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Possible5 [see ISR 10.14]
Short-eared Owl3 Asio flammeus Unlikely5 [see ISR 10.14]
Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Probable Rare
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Possible Rare
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Possible Rare
American Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides dorsalis Possible Rare
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Possible Uncommon
Merlin Falco columbarius Probable5 [see ISR 10.14]
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 3 June 2014
Common Name Scientific Name Breeding Status1 Abundance2
Peregrine Falcon3 Falco peregrinus Confirmed5 [see ISR 10.14]
Olive-sided Flycatcher3 Contopus cooperi Confirmed Uncommon
Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Probable Uncommon
Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis Confirmed Common
Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia Possible Rare
Common Raven Corvus corax Probable Uncommon
Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Confirmed Uncommon
Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Probable Uncommon
Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina Confirmed Uncommon
Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Confirmed Uncommon
Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Confirmed Rare
Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Probable Uncommon
Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonicus Confirmed Uncommon
American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus Confirmed Uncommon
Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Confirmed Abundant
Arctic Warbler Phylloscopus borealis Confirmed Uncommon
Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe Probable Uncommon
Gray-cheeked Thrush3 Catharus minimus Probable Common
Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Probable Common
Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Probable Uncommon
American Robin Turdus migratorius Confirmed Common
Varied Thrush3 Ixoreus naevius Confirmed Abundant
American Pipit Anthus rubescens Probable Uncommon
Bohemian Waxwing3 Bombycilla garrulus Probable Uncommon
Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus Probable Uncommon
Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Probable Uncommon
Northern Waterthrush Parkesia noveboracensis Confirmed Uncommon
Orange-crowned Warbler Oreothlypis celata Confirmed Uncommon
Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia Probable Rare
Blackpoll Warbler3 Setophaga striata Confirmed Common
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix A – Page 4 June 2014
Common Name Scientific Name Breeding Status1 Abundance2
Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata Probable Abundant
Townsend's Warbler3 Setophaga townsendi Possible Rare
Wilson's Warbler Cardellina pusilla Probable Common
American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea Confirmed Abundant
Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Confirmed Abundant
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Confirmed Abundant
Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Confirmed Uncommon
White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Confirmed Abundant
Golden-crowned Sparrow3 Zonotrichia atricapilla Probable Uncommon
Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Confirmed Common
Rusty Blackbird3 Euphagus carolinus Probable Uncommon
Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch Leucosticte tephrocotis Unlikely Rare
Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator Probable Rare
White-winged Crossbill3 Loxial eucoptera Possible Uncommon
Common Redpoll Acanthis flammea Probable Abundant
Pine Siskin Spinus pinus Probable Uncommon
Notes:
1. Breeding status follows Andres et al. (1999): Confirmed: definitive observation of nesting, including nest found, adults carrying nesting material and/or food, flightless young. Probable:
breeding behavior observations, including pair observed in suitable habitat, territorial or courtship behavior. Possible: individual (male or female) heard or seen in suitable nesting habitat, but no
further evidence was noted. Unlikely: male or female observed but did not show evidence of breeding, was not in suitable nesting habitat, or was an obvious migrant (based on range or
behavior).
2. Abundance categories adapted from Kessel et al.(1982): Abundant: species occurs in all or nearly all suitable habitats in large numbers. Common: species occurs in nearly all suitable habitats. Uncommon: species occurs regularly, but uses little suitable habitat or not regularly observed in suitable habitat. Rare: species occurs no more than a few times, irregularly, throughout the
study area.
3. Species of conservation or management concern (following Table 2 in ABR 2011), consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and
the U.S. Department of the Interior United States Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Implementation of Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds”
(dated March 30, 2011).
4. Breeding status noted in waterbird study (ISR 10.15).
5. Breeding status noted in raptor study (ISR 10.14).
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014
PART A - APPENDIX B: NUMBER OF LANDBIRDS RECORDED IN
FOCAL HABITAT TYPES DURING POINT-COUNT SURVEYS, 2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix B – Page 1 June 2014
Focal Habitat Type1
Common Name Barrens Partially Vegetated Closed Broadleaf Forest Open Broadleaf Forest Broadleaf Woodland Closed Mixed Forest Open Mixed Forest Mixed Woodland Closed Needleleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Riverine Waters Dry Dwarf Shrub Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub Wet Dwarf Shrub Open Dwarf Forest Dwarf Forest Woodland Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Open Tall Shrub Tot
al
Ruffed Grouse 1 1
Spruce Grouse 2 3 5
Willow Ptarmigan 1 1 3 1 2 5 4 21 50 1 2 91
Rock Ptarmigan 2 9 12 2 14 4 2 45
Downy
Wd k 2 2
Hairy
Wd k 1 1
American Three-
t d W d k
3 1 4
Northern Flicker 2 2 9 6 19
Olive-sided
Fl t h 1 2 47 22 1 1 3 77
Alder Flycatcher 14 2 1 1 1 1 20
Gray Jay 12 3 97 29 4 2 14
7 Black-billed
Mi 1 1 2
Common Raven 1 2 1 4
Horned Lark 2 19 3 28 1 6 45 1 3 10
8 Tree Swallow 2 1 1 4
Violet-green
S ll 3 3
Bank Swallow 6 6
Black-capped
Chi k d 1 10 3 1 1 16
Boreal Chickadee 4 11 1 51 24 1 92
American Dipper 1 1
Ruby-crowned
Ki l t 3 7 46 10 16 32
1
13
2 7 4 6 5 1 2 56
0 Arctic Warbler 4 1 3 18 45 6 5 82
Northern
Wh t 1 3 5 9
Gray-cheeked
Th h 1 2 2 2 18 2 4 10
9
93 1 13 1 3 3 19 53 27 28 38
1
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix B – Page 2 June 2014
Focal Habitat Type1
Common Name Barrens Partially Vegetated Closed Broadleaf Forest Open Broadleaf Forest Broadleaf Woodland Closed Mixed Forest Open Mixed Forest Mixed Woodland Closed Needleleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Riverine Waters Dry Dwarf Shrub Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub Wet Dwarf Shrub Open Dwarf Forest Dwarf Forest Woodland Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Open Tall Shrub Tot
al
Swainson's
Th h 8 2 36 10
2
10 4 13
8
35 1 13 7 35
6 Hermit Thrush 1 7 1 3 32 13 44 22 1 1 1 2 7 21 14 17
0 American Robin 1 1 5 8 3 2 12
5
90 1 7 1 4 3 21 5 15 29
2 Varied Thrush 1 10 1 28 86 18 12 33
5
13
0 3 6 3 8 17 15 67
3 American Pipit 5 21 1 1 29 1 2 54 1 4 11
9 Bohemian
Wi 26 40 2 2 7 2 79
Lapland
L 9 1 18 2 30
Snow Bunting 20 2 11 33
Northern
W t th h 2 10 3 14 66 9 6 92 59 6 5 22 5 29
9 Orange-crowned
W bl
1 1 3 15 4 18 13 10 8 3 76
Yellow Warbler 3 1 1 5
Blackpoll Warbler 2 9 1 6 73 13 4 14
2
82 2 2 5 2 19 37 26 22 44
7 Yellow-rumped
W bl 1 16 5 26 14
6
22 8 32
7
13
2 1 3 3 5 11 13 18 10 74
7 Townsend's
W bl 2 2
Wilson's Warbler 1 9 2 8 33 6 1 11
1
71 3 10 2 47 89 55 29 47
7 American Tree
S 1 4 1 20 20 7 7 1 25 2 11
4
30
7
17 23 54
9 Savannah
S
1 10 1 2 32 28 5 39 17 2 10
0
3 2 7 94 21
8
9 17 58
7 Fox Sparrow 2 12 1 6 56 15 18 52
3
29
9 2 13 7 14 18 62 10
8
54 67 12
77 Lincoln's Sparrow 1 12 33 4 6 8 64
White-crowned
S
4 1 1 12 2 7 24
4
22
0
1 5 4 2 47 7 23 24 13
5
23
1
11 44 10
25 Golden-crowned
S
6 1 1 14 4 1 6 2 35 2 6 18 9 15 12
0 Dark-eyed Junco 1 5 2 8 71 11 6 26
4
12
3 1 3 8 4 11 11 7 8 54
4 Rusty Blackbird 2 1 7 6 4 4 24
Gray-crowned
R Fi h
1 1
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix B – Page 3 June 2014
Focal Habitat Type1
Common Name Barrens Partially Vegetated Closed Broadleaf Forest Open Broadleaf Forest Broadleaf Woodland Closed Mixed Forest Open Mixed Forest Mixed Woodland Closed Needleleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Riverine Waters Dry Dwarf Shrub Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub Wet Dwarf Shrub Open Dwarf Forest Dwarf Forest Woodland Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Open Tall Shrub Tot
al
Pine Grosbeak 1 1 20 22
White-winged
C bill 8 40 6 2 56
Common Redpoll 2 11 1 28 72 9 3 15
6
91 8 4 5 4 21 39 20 18 49
2 Pine Siskin 12 12
Total 12 96 12 112 24 185 927 159 96 3,314 1,824 12 135 41 17 20 422 31 94 85 608 1306 373 353 10,25 Notes:
1. Level-III classes of the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992); focal habitats are the primary habitats surveyed at each point-count plot (see text).
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014
PART A - APPENDIX C: AVERAGE OCCURRENCE OF LANDBIRD
SPECIES IN FOCAL HABITAT TYPES, CALCULATED FROM POINT-
COUNT SURVEY DATA, 2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix C – Page 1 June 2014
Focal Habitat Type1
Common Name n Barrens Partially Vegetated Closed Broadleaf Forest Open Broadleaf Forest Broadleaf Woodland Closed Mixed Forest Open Mixed Forest Mixed Woodland Closed Needleleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Rivverine Waters Dry Dwarf Shrub Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub Wet Dwarf Shrub Open Dwarf Forest Dwarf Forest Woodland Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Open Tall Shrub Total
Ruffed Grouse 1 0.003 <0.001
Spruce Grouse 5 0.019 0.009 0.004
Willow Ptarmigan 91 0.143 0.077 0.009 0.005 0.048 0.250 0.039 0.228 0.296 0.022 0.045 0.067
Rock Ptarmigan 45 0.286 0.231 0.286 0.250 0.136 0.571 0.012 0.033
Downy Woodpecker 2 0.006 0.001
Hairy Woodpecker 1 0.010 <0.001
American Three-toed Woodpecker 4 0.009 0.005 0.003
Northern Flicker 19 0.154 0.019 0.026 0.031 0.014
Olive-sided Flycatcher 77 0.010 0.143 0.135 0.113 0.010 0.071 0.067 0.056
Alder Flycatcher 20 0.136 0.143 0.003 0.011 0.006 0.022 0.015
Gray Jay 147 0.117 0.214 0.278 0.149 0.308 0.012 0.108
Black-billed Magpie 2 0.003 0.011 0.001
Common Raven 4 0.026 0.022 0.006 0.003
Horned Lark 108 0.286 0.487 0.750 0.667 0.050 0.750 0.437 0.143 0.018 0.079
Tree Swallow 4 0.006 0.005 0.077 0.003
Violet-green Swallow 3 0.058 0.002
Bank Swallow 6 0.115 0.004
Black-capped Chickadee 16 0.077 0.097 0.015 0.022 0.023 0.012
Boreal Chickadee 92 0.286 0.107 0.083 0.146 0.123 0.022 0.067
American Dipper 1 0.010 <0.001
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 560 0.231 0.500 0.447 0.714 1.333 0.920 0.677 0.538 0.286 0.065 0.030 0.022 0.045 0.411
Arctic Warbler 82 0.011 0.005 0.029 0.196 0.266 0.133 0.114 0.060
Northern Wheatear 9 0.026 0.071 0.049 0.007
Gray-cheeked Thrush 381 0.026 0.154 0.667 0.143 0.175 0.143 0.333 0.312 0.477 0.050 0.126 0.143 0.231 0.214 0.207 0.314 0.600 0.636 0.279
Swainson's Thrush 356 0.615 0.667 2.571 0.990 0.714 0.333 0.395 0.179 0.071 0.289 0.159 0.261
Hermit Thrush 170 0.026 0.538 0.333 0.214 0.311 0.929 0.126 0.113 0.024 0.019 0.010 0.022 0.041 0.467 0.318 0.125
American Robin 292 0.026 0.500 0.357 0.078 0.214 0.167 0.358 0.462 0.050 0.068 0.143 0.308 0.033 0.124 0.111 0.341 0.214
Varied Thrush 673 0.500 0.769 0.333 2.000 0.835 1.286 1.000 0.960 0.667 0.231 0.429 0.033 0.047 0.378 0.341 0.493
American Pipit 119 0.714 0.538 0.005 0.250 0.690 0.050 0.250 0.524 0.143 0.024 0.087
Bohemian Waxwing 79 0.074 0.205 0.154 0.143 0.041 0.045 0.058
Lapland Longspur 30 0.214 0.125 0.175 0.012 0.022
Snow Bunting 33 0.513 0.250 0.107 0.024
Northern Waterthrush 299 1.000 0.769 1.000 1.000 0.641 0.643 0.500 0.264 0.303 0.065 0.030 0.489 0.114 0.219
Orange-crowned Warbler 76 0.077 0.333 0.214 0.146 0.286 0.052 0.067 0.059 0.178 0.068 0.056
Yellow Warbler 5 0.015 0.006 0.023 0.004
Blackpoll Warbler 447 1.000 0.692 0.333 0.429 0.709 0.929 0.333 0.407 0.421 0.038 0.019 0.385 0.143 0.207 0.219 0.578 0.500 0.328
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix C – Page 2 June 2014
Focal Habitat Type1
Common Name n Barrens Partially Vegetated Closed Broadleaf Forest Open Broadleaf Forest Broadleaf Woodland Closed Mixed Forest Open Mixed Forest Mixed Woodland Closed Needleleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Rivverine Waters Dry Dwarf Shrub Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub Wet Dwarf Shrub Open Dwarf Forest Dwarf Forest Woodland Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Open Tall Shrub Total
Yellow-rumped Warbler 747 0.500 1.231 1.667 1.857 1.417 1.571 0.667 0.937 0.677 0.019 0.029 0.231 0.357 0.120 0.077 0.400 0.227 0.548
Townsend's Warbler 2 0.006 0.001
Wilson's Warbler 477 0.143 0.692 0.667 0.571 0.320 0.429 0.083 0.318 0.364 0.058 0.097 0.143 0.511 0.527 1.222 0.659 0.350
American Tree Sparrow 549 0.026 0.308 0.083 0.057 0.103 0.167 0.350 0.019 0.243 0.143 1.239 1.817 0.378 0.523 0.402
Savannah Sparrow 587 0.143 0.256 0.071 0.167 0.092 0.144 1.250 0.929 0.850 0.250 0.971 0.429 0.154 0.500 1.022 1.290 0.200 0.386 0.430
Fox Sparrow 1,277 1.000 0.923 0.333 0.429 0.544 1.071 1.500 1.499 1.533 0.250 0.126 1.000 1.077 1.286 0.674 0.639 1.200 1.523 0.936
Lincoln's Sparrow 64 0.010 0.034 0.169 0.308 0.065 0.047 0.047
White-crowned Sparrow 1,025 0.103 0.333 0.071 0.117 0.143 0.583 0.699 1.128 0.250 0.119 0.200 0.250 0.456 1.000 1.769 1.714 1.467 1.367 0.244 1.000 0.751
Golden-crowned Sparrow 120 0.154 0.077 0.333 0.136 0.286 0.003 0.031 0.500 0.340 0.286 0.065 0.107 0.200 0.341 0.088
Dark-eyed Junco 544 0.500 0.385 0.667 0.571 0.689 0.786 0.500 0.756 0.631 0.125 0.029 0.615 0.286 0.120 0.065 0.156 0.182 0.399
Rusty Blackbird 24 0.019 0.083 0.020 0.031 0.200 0.308 0.018
Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch 1 0.026 <0.001
Pine Grosbeak 22 0.003 0.005 0.444 0.016
White-winged Crossbill 56 0.078 0.115 0.031 0.154 0.041
Common Redpoll 492 1.000 0.846 0.333 2.000 0.699 0.643 0.250 0.447 0.467 0.078 0.571 0.385 0.286 0.228 0.231 0.444 0.409 0.361
Pine Siskin 12 0.117 0.009
Total Average Occurrence 1.714 2.462 6.000 8.615 8.000 13.214 9.000 11.357 8.000 9.496 9.354 3.000 3.214 2.050 0.327 2.500 4.097 4.429 7.231 6.071 6.609 7.728 8.289 8.023 7.521
No. Point-count Plots 7 39 2 13 3 14 103 14 12 349 195 4 42 20 52 8 103 7 13 14 92 169 45 44 1364
Notes:
1. Average occurrence = total number of detections in each habitat/total number of point-count plots surveyed in each habitat.
2. Level-III classes of the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992); focal habitats are the primary habitats surveyed at each point-count plot (see text).
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014
PART A - APPENDIX D: NUMBER OF SHOREBIRDS RECORDED IN
FOCAL HABITAT TYPES DURING POINT-COUNT SURVEYS, 2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix D – Page 1 June 2014
Focal Habitat Types1
Common Name Barrens Partially Vegetated Closed Broadleaf Forest Open Broadleaf Forest Broadleaf Woodland Closed Mixed Forest Open Mixed Forest Mixed Woodland Closed Needleleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Riverine Waters Dry Dwarf Shrub Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub Wet Dwarf Shrub Open Dwarf Forest Dwarf Forest Woodland Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Open Tall Shrub Total
American Golden-Plover 6 2 16 3 25 52
Semipalmated Plover 9 1 2 12
Spotted Sandpiper 1 45 46
Solitary Sandpiper 1 1 4 6
Wandering Tattler 2 2
Greater Yellowlegs 2 2
Lesser Yellowlegs 1 1 13 10 2 1 4 32
Whimbrel 2 2 4
Least Sandpiper 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 3 3 18
Wilson's Snipe 1 4 8 15 1 1 65 53 3 9 8 3 2 2 27 64 3 4 273
Red-necked Phalarope 2 2
Total 0 15 1 4 0 8 16 1 4 85 68 2 23 18 45 3 40 3 3 2 30 71 3 4 449
Notes:
1. Level-III classes of the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992); focal habitats are the primary habitats surveyed at each point-count plot (see text).
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014
PART A - APPENDIX E: AVERAGE OCCURRENCE OF SHOREBIRD
SPECIES IN FOCAL HABITAT TYPES, CALCULATED FROM POINT-
COUNT SURVEY DATA, 2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix E – Page 1 June 2014
Notes:
1. Average occurrence = total number of detections in each habitat/total number of point-count plots surveyed in each habitat.
2. Level-III classes of the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992); focal habitats are the primary habitats surveyed at each point-count plot (see text).
Focal Habitat Type2
Common Name n Barrens Partially Vegetated Closed Broadleaf Forest Open Broadleaf Forest Broadleaf Woodland Closed Mixed Forest Open Mixed Forest Mixed Woodland Closed Needleleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Riverine Waters Dry Dwarf Shrub Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub Wet Dwarf Shrub Open Dwarf Forest Dwarf Forest Woodland Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Open Tall Shrub Total
American Golden-Plover 52 0.154 0.500 0.381 0.375 0.243 0.038
Semipalmated Plover 12 0.231 0.024 0.019 0.009
Spotted Sandpiper 46 0.003 0.865 0.034
Solitary Sandpiper 6 0.083 0.003 0.021 0.004
Wandering Tattler 2 0.019 0.001
Greater Yellowlegs 2 0.006 0.001
Lesser Yellowlegs 32 0.010 0.083 0.037 0.051 0.100 0.010 0.024 0.023
Whimbrel 4 0.006 0.048 0.003
Least Sandpiper 18 0.083 0.003 0.005 0.024 0.250 0.019 0.077 0.033 0.018 0.013
Wilson's Snipe 273 0.500 0.308 0.571 0.146 0.071 0.083 0.186 0.272 0.071 0.450 0.078 0.429 0.154 0.143 0.293 0.379 0.067 0.091 0.200
Red-necked Phalarope 2 0.100 0.001
Total Average Occurrence 0 0.385 0.500 0.308 0 0.571 0.155 0.071 0.333 0.244 0.349 0.500 0.548 0.900 0.865 0.375 0.388 0.429 0.231 0.143 0.326 0.420 0.067 0.091 0.329
No. Point-count Plots 7 39 2 13 3 14 103 14 12 349 195 4 42 20 52 8 103 7 13 14 92 169 45 44 1364
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014
PART A - APPENDIX F: NUMBER OF BIRDS DETECTED PER HOUR ON
RIVERINE-FOCUSED SURVEY TRANSECTS ALONG TRIBUTARY
STREAMS AND THE SUSITNA RIVER, 2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix F – Page 1 June 2014
Tributary Transects1 Susitna River Transects2 Combined Tributary/Susitna River Transects
Common Name Tsusena Creek Deadman Creek PRM 194.8 Watana Creek Kosina Creek Jay Creek PRM 218–224 Tributary Average
PRM 229–232 PRM 200–205 PRM 205–209 PRM 214–219 Susitna Average
PRM 227–228 Goose Creek/ PRM 233–235
Tributary/Susitna Average Total
American Wigeon 7.11 1.78 7.11
Mallard 5.53 1.38 5.53
Northern Shoveler 0.17 0.02 0.40 0.10 0.57
Northern Pintail 0.17 0.02 1.58 0.40 1.75
Green-winged Teal 8.30 2.08 8.30
Harlequin Duck 0.64 1.72 0.60 0.20 0.48 2.87 0.93 0.22 0.79 3.79 0.26 1.27 0.58 0.69 0.64 12.84
Common Goldeneye 0.34 0.05 0.34
Barrow's Goldeneye 0.48 0.07 0.48
Common Merganser 0.22 0.06 0.22
Red-breasted Merganser 0.22 1.58 0.45 1.80
Mew Gull 0.51 0.07 0.40 0.32 0.18 0.29 0.15 1.52
Waterbird Total 0.64 1.72 0.60 0.20 0.96 4.05 1.17 0.67 24.11 5.68 0.26 7.68 0.87 0.69 0.78 2.39
Spotted Sandpiper 1.42 0.72 1.11 4.73 1.14 2.68 1.58 8.83 5.22 4.58 0.87 2.54 1.71 29.70
Solitary Sandpiper 0.20 0.03 0.20
Wilson's Snipe 0.32 0.08 0.32
Shorebird Total 0.20 1.42 0.72 1.11 4.73 1.17 2.68 1.58 9.15 5.22 4.66 0.87 2.54 1.71 30.22
Bald Eagle 0.72 0.10 0.72
Great Horned Owl 0.20 0.03 0.20
Raptor Total 0.20 0.72 0.13 0.92
Olive-sided Flycatcher 0.20 0.03 0.20
Alder Flycatcher 0.55 0.51 0.15 3.15 0.79 0.69 0.35 0.07
Gray Jay 0.60 0.09 0.22 0.06 0.82
Tree Swallow 0.20 0.03 0.79 0.20 0.99
Violet-green Swallow 0.37 0.05 2.52 0.63 2.89
Bank Swallow 0.63 3.39 1.01 4.02
Boreal Chickadee 0.95 0.24 0.29 0.15 1.24
American Dipper 0.32 0.05 0.29 0.15 0.61
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 0.32 1.40 0.55 0.17 0.35 0.22 0.95 0.26 0.36 0.87 0.23 0.55 4.97
Gray-cheeked Thrush 0.25 1.60 0.26 1.85
Swainson's Thrush 1.22 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.63 0.21 1.16 0.23 0.70 3.64
Hermit Thrush 0.25 0.24 0.18 0.10 0.89 2.21 0.26 0.84 0.29 0.15 4.32
American Robin 0.40 0.10 0.40
Varied Thrush 0.20 0.17 0.05 0.22 0.40 0.26 0.22 0.46 0.23 1.71
Northern Waterthrush 0.49 3.20 1.42 0.48 0.18 0.82 1.12 0.79 0.48 0.92 0.46 8.60
Orange-crowned Warbler 1 0.14 1.00
Yellow Warbler 0.40 0.10 0.40
Blackpoll Warbler 1.23 5.60 2.24 0.24 1.33 0.22 0.95 0.26 0.36 0.58 0.92 0.75 12.24
Yellow-rumped Warbler 0.32 0.80 0.20 0.74 0.17 0.32 0.22 1.89 0.53 0.87 0.23 0.55 5.44
Wilson's Warbler 0.98 0.40 4.67 0.24 0.90 1.56 0.79 2.52 1.22 0.29 0.46 0.38 11.91
American Tree Sparrow 0.95 0.24 0.95
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix F – Page 2 June 2014
Tributary Transects1 Susitna River Transects2 Combined Tributary/Susitna River Transects
Common Name Tsusena Creek Deadman Creek PRM 194.8 Watana Creek Kosina Creek Jay Creek PRM 218–224 Tributary Average
PRM 229–232 PRM 200–205 PRM 205–209 PRM 214–219 Susitna Average
PRM 227–228 Goose Creek/ PRM 233–235
Tributary/Susitna Average Total
Savannah Sparrow 0.24 1.11 0.34 0.24 2.21 0.55 0.23 0.12 4.13
Fox Sparrow 2.20 0.41 0.24 0.51 0.48 1.56 0.40 2.52 1.12 0.58 0.92 0.75 9.34
Lincoln's Sparrow 0.60 0.09 0.60
White-crowned Sparrow 0.32 0.40 0.20 0.18 0.34 0.21 0.79 4.42 1.30 2.03 0.46 1.25 9.14
Dark-eyed Junco 0.32 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.13 0.22 0.40 0.32 0.24 0.87 0.44 2.70
Unidentified redpoll 0.80 0.11 1.12 0.95 0.52 2.87
Pine Siskin 0.40 0.06 0.40
Landbird Total 1.60 3.19 19.60 10.77 1.69 4.06 2.36 6.18 7.81 5.14 27.76 4.44 11.29 8.12 5.77 6.95 7.70
Grand Total 2.24 4.90 20.40 12.60 4.10 5.17 11.15 8.65 11.16 30.83 42.59 9.92 23.63 9.86 9.01 9.44 12.72
Notes:
1. Unnamed creeks labeled according to the Project River Mile (PRM) at the confluence with the Susitna River.
2. Susitna River transects labeled according to the PRMs covered on each transect.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 June 2014
PART A - APPENDIX G: PHOTOGRAPHS OF SELECTED COLONIES
MONITORED DURING SWALLOW NESTING SURVEYS, 2013.
INITIAL STUDY REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Part A - Appendix G – Page 1 June 2014
Photo 1: Colony S14, erosional slope, near Susitna River.
Photo 3: Colony S15, cut bank, Susitna River.
Photo 2: Colony S4, cliff face, Susitna River.
Photo 4: Colony S8, cut bank, sign of bear predation.