HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuWa289sec10-16Alaska Resources Library & Information Services
Susitna‐Watana Hydroelectric Project Document
ARLIS Uniform Cover Page
Title:
Landbird and shorebird migration, breeding, and habitat use study (10.16),
2014 Study Implementation Report SuWa 289
Author(s) – Personal:
Author(s) – Corporate:
ABR, Inc.-Environmental Research and Services
AEA‐identified category, if specified:
November 2015; Study Completion and 2014/2015 Implementation Reports
AEA‐identified series, if specified:
Series (ARLIS‐assigned report number):
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project document number 289
Existing numbers on document:
Published by:
[Anchorage : Alaska Energy Authority, 2015]
Date published:
October 2015
Published for:
Alaska Energy Authority
Date or date range of report:
Volume and/or Part numbers:
Study plan Section 10.16
Final or Draft status, as indicated:
Document type:
Pagination:
72 pages in various pagings
Related works(s):
Pages added/changed by ARLIS:
Notes:
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 (10.16)
2014 Study Implementation Report
Prepared for
Alaska Energy Authority
Prepared by
ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Services
Anchorage, Alaska
October 2015
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page i October 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
2. Study Objectives................................................................................................................ 1
3. Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 2
4. Methods and Variances in 2014 ....................................................................................... 3
4.1. Point-count Surveys .......................................................................................... 4
4.1.1. Plot-allocation Procedure ................................................................ 4
4.1.2. Field Surveys .................................................................................. 6
4.1.3. Data Analysis .................................................................................. 6
4.2. Riverine- and Lacustrine-focused Surveys ....................................................... 7
4.2.1. Variances ......................................................................................... 9
4.3. Survey of Colonially Nesting Swallows ......................................................... 10
4.4. Migration Survey ............................................................................................ 10
4.5. Comparison with Historical Data.................................................................... 10
4.6. Mercury Assessment Support ......................................................................... 11
5. Results .............................................................................................................................. 11
5.1. Point-count Surveys ........................................................................................ 11
5.1.1. Landbirds ...................................................................................... 12
5.1.2. Shorebirds ..................................................................................... 13
5.2. Riverine- and Lacustrine-focused Surveys ..................................................... 13
5.2.1. Riverine-focused Surveys ............................................................. 14
5.2.2. Lacustrine-focused Surveys .......................................................... 15
6. Discussion......................................................................................................................... 16
6.1. Point-count Surveys ........................................................................................ 16
6.1.1. Landbirds ...................................................................................... 16
6.1.2. Shorebirds ..................................................................................... 17
6.2. Riverine-and Lacustrine-focused Surveys ...................................................... 18
7. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 19
7.1. Modifications to the Study Plan ...................................................................... 20
7.1.1. Point Count Surveys ..................................................................... 20
7.1.2. Riverine- and Lacustrine-focused Surveys ................................... 23
7.1.3. Colonially Nesting Swallow Surveys ........................................... 24
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page ii October 2015
8. Literature Cited .............................................................................................................. 25
9. Tables ............................................................................................................................... 28
10. Figures .............................................................................................................................. 37
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.1-1. Server Location and File/Folder Names for the Field Data for Landbirds and
Shorebirds Collected in 2013 and 2014. ................................................................................ 28
Table 5.1-2. Number of Landbird/Shorebird Point-counts Conducted in the Focal Habitats
Sampled in 2014. ................................................................................................................... 29
Table 5.1-3. Number of Observations and Average Occurrence Values for Landbird Species
Observed During Point-count Surveys, 2014. ....................................................................... 30
Table 5.1-4. Number of Observations and Average Occurrence Values for Shorebird Species
Observed During Point-count Surveys, 2014. ....................................................................... 32
Table. 5.2-1. Total Number of Birds Observed (n) and Percentage of Observations Made by
Habitat Type during Lacustrine-focused Surveys, 2014. ...................................................... 33
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Study Area and Locations of Landbird and Shorebird Point-count Plots Sampled in
2014. ...................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 3-2. Study Area and Locations of Riverine- and Lacustrine-focused Survey Transects
Sampled in 2014. ................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 7.1-1. Study Areas for 2013 and 2014 and Locations of Point-count Plots Sampled in
2013 and 2014. ....................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 7.1-2. Study Areas for 2013 and 2014 and Locations of Riverine- and Lacustrine-focused
Survey Transects Sampled in 2013 and 2014. ....................................................................... 41
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iii October 2015
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Common and Scientific Names, Breeding Status, and Relative Abundance of Avian
Species Recorded During the Landbird and Shorebird Surveys, 2014.
Appendix B: Number of Landbirds Recorded in Focal Habitat Types During Point-Count
Surveys, 2014.
Appendix C: Average Occurrence of Landbird Species in Focal Habitat Types, Calculated from
Point-Count Survey Data, 2014.
Appendix D: Number of Shorebirds Recorded in Focal Habitat Types During Point-Count
Surveys, 2014.
Appendix E: Average Occurrence of Shorebird Species in Focal Habitat Types, Calculated from
Point-Count Survey Data, 2014.
Appendix F: Linear Densities (Birds Per Kilometer of Stream Length) Recorded During
Riverine-focused Transect Surveys along the Susitna River and Tributary Streams, 2014.
Appendix G: Total Number of Birds Observed (n) and Percentage of Observations Made by
Habitat Type During Riverine-Focused Transect Surveys, 2014.
Appendix H: Number of Landbirds and Shorebirds Observed in Focal Habitat Types During
Point-count Surveys in Both Study Years (2013 And 2014) Combined.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page iv October 2015
LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS
Abbreviation Definition
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
AKNHP Alaska Natural Heritage Program
AOU American Ornithologists’ Union
APA Alaska Power Authority
AVC Alaska Vegetation Classification
CIRWG Cook Inlet Region Working Group
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
GINA Geographic Information Network of Alaska
GIS geographic information system
GPS global positioning system
ISR Initial Study Report
n sample size
Project Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
RSP Revised Study Plan
SD standard deviation
SPD study plan determination
USR Updated Study Report
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 1 October 2015
1. INTRODUCTION
This study, Landbird and Shorebird Migration, Breeding, and Habitat Use, Section 10.16 of the
Revised Study Plan (RSP) approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for
the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 14241, focuses on characterizing
baseline conditions (occurrence, distribution, abundance, and habitat use) for breeding landbirds
and shorebirds in the Project area. The migration component of this study was conducted as part
of the waterbird studies (see Study Completion Report Study 10.15, Waterbird Migration,
Breeding, and Habitat Use).
A summary of the development of this study, together with the Alaska Energy Authority’s
(AEA) implementation of it through the 2013 study season, appears in Part A, Secti on 1 of the
Initial Study Report (ISR) filed with FERC in June 2014. As required under FERC’s regulations
for the Integrated Licensing Process the ISR describes AEA’s “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)).
Since filing the ISR in June 2014, AEA has continued to implement the FERC-approved plan for
the Landbird and Shorebird Study. For example:
The second season of field surveys for the study was conducted in May and June 2014.
The cumulative, error-corrected field data for this study for the two study years (2013 and
2014) have been uploaded to the Project server at the Geographic Information Network
of Alaska (GINA).
On October 21, 2014 AEA held an ISR meeting for the Landbird and Shorebird Study
along with meetings for each of the other Project wildlife studies.
In furtherance of the next round of ISR meetings and FERC’s Study Plan Determination (SPD)
expected in 2016, this report describes AEA’s overall progress in implementing the Landbird and
Shorebird Study during calendar year 2014. Rather than a comprehensive reporting of all field
work, data collection, and data analysis since the beginning of AEA’s study program, this report
is intended to supplement and update the information presented in Part A of the ISR for the
Landbird and Shorebird Study through the end of calendar year 2014. It describes the methods
and results of the 2014 effort, and includes a discussion of the results achieved.
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, 2014).
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
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 2 October 2015
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.
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 Study Completion
Report 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) and the Watana Dam and Watana Camp sites; three alternative Susitna-Watana
Transmission Line/Access corridors, and a 2-mile buffer surrounding each of those areas. The
Chulitna Corridor runs east-west north of the Susitna River connecting to the Alaska Intertie and
the Alaska Railroad at Chulitna Pass. Another east-west alternative, the Gold Creek Corridor,
runs south of the Susitna River to the Alaska Intertie and the Alaska Railroad at Gold Creek
station. A third alternative, the Denali Corridor, runs north-south and would connect the Project
dam site with the Denali Highway at one of two points and then would run west along the
existing Denali Highway to connect to the Alaska Intertie near Cantwell.
As explained in the ISR Overview Section 1.4, AEA decided to pursue the study of an additional
alternative north-south corridor alignment for transmission and access from the dam site to the
Denali Highway. Referred to as the “Denali East Corridor Option,” this corridor was added to
the study area for this study beginning in 2014. For this study, the study area addition also
included a 2-mile buffer surrounding the center lines of the new corridor (see ISR Study 10.16,
Part C, Section 7.1.2).
In addition, Section 1.4 of the ISR Overview noted that AEA was considering the possibility of
eliminating the Chulitna Corridor from further study. In September 2014, AEA filed with FERC
a formal proposal to implement this change. Thus, this report reflects a change in the study area
to no longer include the Chulitna Corridor. The study area is depicted in 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 3-2).
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 3 October 2015
As established in the RSP (Section 10.16.3), the study area for the transect surveys for landbirds
and shorebirds in riverine habitats encompasses 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 and Watana Camp 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), the Watana Dam site and Watana Camp, and a
2-mile buffer surrounding those areas (see Figure 3-3 in ISR Study 10.16).
4. METHODS AND VARIANCES IN 2014
The landbird and shorebird study methods include the following components. References to
specific, relevant sections of the RSP and ISR are noted below:
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. The second season of point-count surveys was conducted in
2014 and those survey results are presented in this report (see Section 5.1 below).
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 in quantifying habitat change (i.e., gain/loss and alteration) for landbirds and
shorebirds from the proposed Project. As was done in 2013, habitat-use data were
collected again during the second season of point-count surveys; preliminary habitat-
use analyses are presented in this report (see Sections 5.1.1.2 and 5.1.2.2 below).
Conduct focused linear walking surveys in riverine and lacustrine habitats, targeting
species typical of fluvial, riparian, and lacustrine habitats, which often are under-
represented in standard point-count surveys. The second season of riverine- and
lacustrine-focused surveys was conducted in 2014 and the results of those surveys are
presented in this report (see Section 5.2 below).
Conduct aerial surveys of colonially nesting swallows in riparian habitats within the
inundation zone of the proposed Watana Reservoir. Nesting swallow surveys were
not conducted in 2014 (see Section 4.3 below). The results of the swallow surveys
conducted in 2013 are presented in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Section 5.3).
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). This study task was completed in
2013 and is described in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.6).
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). This study task was completed in 2013 as part
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 4 October 2015
of the Waterbird Study (Study 10.15) and is reported in the ISR and Study
Completion Report for Study 10.15.
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. This study task will be
completed and the results presented in the Updated Study Report (USR), as is
explained in the variance for this task in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.5.1).
4.1. Point-count Surveys
4.1.1. Plot-allocation Procedure
The study team determined locations for the point-count plots surveyed in the study area in 2014
following the procedures described in the RSP (Section 10.16.4.1.1) and modified in the ISR
(Study 10.16, Part A, Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.1.1, and Part B); variances to the plot-allocation
methods implemented in 2014 are described below in Section 4.1.1.1. Complete details on the
plot-allocation methods are described in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.1.1,
and Part B). The steps in that process that are specific to the plot-allocation procedure in 2014
are described below.
As in 2013, the locations of point-count plots in 2014 were determined using a two-stage,
stratified systematic/random sampling design in which vegetation type was used as one of two
primary sampling strata. The vegetation mapping prepared for the APA Project (Kreig and
Associates 1987), which was determined to be reasonably accurate at the Level-III categories of
Viereck et al. (1992) (see ISR Study 11.5), was used as the primary source for mapped
vegetation types in the study area. Because the Kreig and Associates (1987) mapping does not
cover all portions of the study area (the northern and western portions of the Denali Corridor in
particular are not covered), it was supplemented with new vegetation mapping for the Project
completed for ISR Study 11.5 in 2014. However, the addition of the Denali Corridor East Option
to Project plans resulted in a new section of the study area that was not covered by either the
APA Project vegetation mapping or the vegetation mapping prepared for the current Project. To
provide vegetation map data for this new area, recently completed and coarse-scale vegetation
mapping available through the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP; Boggs et al. 2013)
was determined to be the best available data layer to use as the vegetation sampling strata for the
Denali Corridor East Option. Before using in the allocation of point-count plot locations, both
the APA Project and AKNHP vegetation types were cross-walked to Level-III vegetation classes
of Viereck et al. (1992) so as to match the Level-III vegetation mapping prepared for the current
Project (see ISR Study 11.5).
In 2014, the sampling frame used for the allocation of point-count plots included all state,
federal, and native corporation lands (i.e., Cook Inlet Region Working Group [CIRWG] lands)
within the 2-mile buffer study area described above in Section 3, Study Area. To avoid the
allocation of point-count plots on or within 0.5-mile of private lands or Alaska Railroad
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 5 October 2015
Corporation lands, researchers used a 0.5-mile buffer surrounding all known private land parcels
and all Alaska Railroad Corporation lands. The most up to date land status layer for the Project
that was available as of early May 2014 (SuWa Ownership–20130910 HDR) was used to
identify private land parcels and Alaska Railroad Corporation lands within the landbird-
shorebird study area.
The remaining steps in the plot-allocation process used in 2014 to determine the locations of
sampling grids and point-count plots in the study area are as described in the ISR (Study 10.16,
Part A, Section 4.1.1, and Part B). As in 2013, a total of 100 point-count grids and 1,500 point-
count plots were allocated in the study area in 2014.
4.1.1.1. Variances
Three variances from the plot-allocation procedure described in the RSP (Section 10.16.4.1.1)
and modified in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.1.1, and Part B) were
implemented in 2014.
In 2013 no point-count plots were allocated in the Denali Corridor East Option portion of the
study area because that corridor option was added to the Project after the 2013 field surveys were
completed. In contrast, in 2014 the sampling frame used in the point-count plot-allocation
procedure specifically included those portions of the study area encompassing the Denali
Corridor East Option. As noted above in Section 4.1.1, additional vegetation mapping data
(which were not available in May 2013) were used as sampling strata in the plot-allocation
procedure in 2014 so that point-count plots could be allocated in the northern and western
portions of the Denali Corridor and in the Denali Corridor East Option. This variance, which was
also described as a proposed study plan modification (ISR Part C Section 7.1.2), was necessary
to update the study area based on Project changes and allow the allocation of point-count plots in
portions of the study area that were not sampled in 2013.
Second, as described above in Section 3, the Chulitna Corridor was eliminated from further
consideration in 2014. Accordingly, and in contrast to 2013 during which point-count plots were
surveyed in the Chulitna Corridor, in 2014 the study team did not include the Chulitna Corridor
portions of the study area described in the RSP in the point-count plot-allocation sampling frame.
This variance, which was also described as a proposed study plan modification (ISR Part C
Section 7.1.2), was necessary to update the study area based on Project changes.
Third, in 2014 a more conservative approach to avoid sampling on private lands and Alaska
Railroad Corporation lands was implemented (a 0.5-mile buffer surrounding all known private
land parcels and all Alaska Railroad Corporation lands was used to avoid the allocation of point-
count plots on those lands). No buffer around those lands was used in the plot allocation in 2013.
This variance was necessary to ensure that field crews would not conduct surveys or
inadvertently stray onto private lands or Alaska Railroad Corporation lands during the field
work.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 6 October 2015
4.1.2. Field Surveys
In 2014, the study team implemented the field survey methods for the point-count surveys as
described in the RSP (Section 10.16.4.1.2) and the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.1.2) with
no variances. The field methods are described in detail in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Section
4.1.2). Specific elements of the field methods that were unique to the survey work in 2014 are
described below.
A staff of 8 biologists conducted the field surveys in 2014, working in 4 separate crews of 2
biologists each. This is as opposed to 8–10 biologists working in 4–5 field crews in 2013. Also in
2014, a minimum of 3 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. This is as
opposed to the minimum of 2 days of field training used in 2013.
In 2014, field surveys began on May 20 and continued through June 18, for a total of 30 survey
days. During this period, only one survey day was lost to inclement weather (snow and rain). The
2013 survey period was similar and ran from May 23 to June 20, for a total of 28 survey days. In
2014, biologists attempted to vary the geographic locations, general habitat types, and average
elevation of the plots surveyed on a daily basis. However, because lingering snowpack in the
study area in 2014 limited access and delayed the arrival of breeding birds in alpine and some
subalpine habitats, the field surveys necessarily were focused in lower elevation areas during
approximately the first week of the sampling period.
In 2014, point-count survey data were recorded electronically in the field using a customized
avian point-count app created by ABR staff to run on Android tablet computers. Exactly the
same field data elements were recorded as in 2013, but the electronic data entry in the field in
2014 eliminated the need for post-field data entry and helped streamline the data QA/QC
process. The remaining elements of the field survey methods used during the point -count surveys
in 2014 are as described in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.1.2).
As in 2013, the landbird and shorebird study team also provided data on incidental sightings of
other birds, mammals, and frogs to the researchers conducting other wildlife studies for the
Project in 2014.
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 2014.
4.1.3. Data Analysis
4.1.3.1. Occurrence, Abundance, and Habitat Use
In 2014, the study team implemented the data analysis methods described in the RSP (Section
10.16.4.1.3) and the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.1.3.1) with no variances. As in 2013,
the point-count survey data (uncorrected for detectability; see ISR Study 10.16, Part A, Section
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 7 October 2015
4.1.3.2) were summarized to assess the observed occurrence, abundance, and habitat use of
landbird and shorebird species within the study area. The data analysis methods used for the
2014 survey data are described in detail in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.1.3.1).
4.1.3.2. Distance Analysis and Density Calculations
Distance analyses and calculations of estimated densities for landbirds and shorebirds were not
conducted using the 2014 survey data. Preliminary densities were calculated in 2013 and the
results indicated that the volume of data collected in the first study year was adequate to
calculate densities for the common species; densities were calculated for 38 of 53 (72%) of the
landbird species recorded during the point-count surveys in 2013, but observations of the
naturally uncommon shorebird species were too few to calculate densities (ISR Study 10.16, Part
A, Section 5.1.1.3). For the USR, the full data set for all study years will be combined and both
removal and distance analyses, as described in the RSP (Section 10.16.4.1.3), will be used to
improve the density estimates for landbirds and shorebirds. At that point, the Study Plan
objective of providing density estimates for use in the assessment of impacts from the proposed
Project will have been achieved.
4.1.3.3. Variances
No variances from the methods used for the analysis of the point-count data described in the RSP
(Section 10.16.4.1.3) and the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.1.3) occurred in 2014.
4.2. Riverine- and Lacustrine-focused Surveys
In 2014, the study team implemented the methods for the riverine-focused surveys as described
in the RSP (Section 10.16.4.2) and the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.2); three variances to
the field methods were implemented in 2014 (see Section 4.2.1 below). Details on the methods
used for the riverine-focused transect surveys are described in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A,
Section 4.2) and in Section 4.2.1 below. Specific elements of the field methods that were unique
to the survey work in 2014 are described below.
In contrast to the 2013 surveys, which could not be conducted throughout the entire study area
(see ISR Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.2.1), in 2014 riverine transect surveys were conducted in
all portions of the riverine-focused survey study area except for small parcels of private land
(Figure 3-2); this included sampling on CIRWG lands in the area of the Watana Reservoir and
Watana Dam site.
In 2014, only walking transect surveys were conducted in riverine habitats. This is opposed to
2013 during which point-count surveys were also conducted systematically along the riverine
transects. Point-count surveys along riverine transects were not conducted in 2014 because it was
found in 2013, as described below on Section 4.2.1, that stream noise inhibited bird detections.
In 2014, the riverine-focused surveys were conducted between May 28 and June 17 after the high
water from spring flooding had subsided. This is in contrast to 2013, a year of late winter break-
up when the riverine-focused surveys were substantially delayed because of shorefast ice and
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 8 October 2015
high-water conditions, and occurred primarily between June 15 and June 19 (a pilot survey to
test the methodology was conducted on 25 May 2013).
On the riverine-focused surveys in 2014, the riverine corridors surveyed generally were the
larger, named tributary streams to the Susitna River and the Susitna River itself. The riverine
survey transects were located using ArcGIS 10.2 along stream corridors in the area of the Watana
Reservoir, Watana Dam site, and a 2 mi buffer surrounding those areas (Figure 3-2). Researchers
selected 13 riverine survey transects in areas where foot travel was known (from the 2013 survey
work) to be reliably safe. The riverine survey transects facilitated sampling all safely accessible
portions of riverine habitat within the riverine-focused survey study area.
In 2014, two observers conducted each riverine-focused survey. One observer recorded all birds
(primarily shorebirds and waterbirds) using stream waters and adjacent, open, littoral habitats,
while the second observer recorded all birds (primarily landbirds) using vegetated riparian and
upland habitats occurring adjacent to the sampled stream. For the survey of stream waters and
adjacent littoral habitats, which was the primary focus of the riverine-focused surveys (see ISR
Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.2), line-transect distance-sampling techniques were employed
(Buckland et al. 2001; 2004). For each bird or group of birds observed, the approximate distance
and angle (0° to 180°) to the bird(s) from either side of the transect line (the stream shoreline)
was recorded, along with the habitat being used at the time of observation. Transect lines were
determined in the field by each observer for each riverine transect and were defined as straight
lines running along the stream shoreline from the observer to a clearly visible landmark (e.g.,
large boulder, cut bank, or downed log) in the distance. When stream courses changed direction,
a new landmark was chosen and the transect line was shifted accordingly, so that the transect
lines were an aggregation of straight line segments paralleling stream shorelines. The distance
and angle data recorded during these surveys will be used to facilitate distance analyses and
possible density calculations, which will be conducted for and reported in the USR. For this
report, the data are presented as total numbers of each species observed per linear km of stream
length surveyed (uncorrected for detectability).
In the survey of vegetated riparian and upland habitats adjacent to each sampled stream, the
second observer recorded all birds detected and the habitat being used at the time of observation,
when known. Because line-transect distance-sampling methods can only be used reliably for
birds that are observed visually in open habitats, those methods were not used in the vegetated
habitats surveyed adjacent to stream waters. The data recorded in those riparian and upland
habitats are reported as total numbers of each species observed per linear km of stream length
surveyed (uncorrected for detectability).
Global Positioning System (GPS) track logs for each riverine-focused survey were used to
determine the lengths of stream segments surveyed, and in the case of islands surveyed in the
Susitna River, the lengths of the island shorelines surveyed. The remaining elements of the
riverine-focused survey methods used in 2014 are as described in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A,
Section 4.2, and Part C, Section 7.1.2).
In 2014, the lacustrine-focused transect surveys were conducted as described in the RSP (Section
10.16.4.2) and the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.2) with no variances. Details on the
methods used for the lacustrine-focused transect surveys are described in the ISR (Study 10.16,
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 9 October 2015
Part A, Section 4.2). The portions of those field methods that were specific to 2014 are described
below.
In contrast to the 2013 surveys, which could not be conducted throughout the entire study area
(see ISR Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.2.1), in 2014 lacustrine transect surveys were conducted
in all portions of the lacustrine-focused survey study area except for small parcels of private land
(Figure 3-2). Specifically, lands unsampled in 2013 (the northern and western portions of the
Denali Corridor West Option, the Denali Corridor East Option, and CIRWG lands in the area of
the Watana Reservoir, Watana Dam site, and in the Gold Creek Corridor) were sampled in 2014.
In 2014, the lacustrine-focused surveys were conducted between May 20 and June 18, which is
the same period during which point-count surveys were conducted, as described above in Section
4.1.2, Field Surveys. In this report, the data from the lacustrine-focused surveys are presented as
the total numbers of birds recorded during the survey effort and then the proportions of those
observations are presented for each of the habitats the birds were observed in.
4.2.1. Variances
As described below, three variances to the riverine-focused surveys were implemented in 2014.
The first variance implemented in 2014 was originally described as a proposed modification to
the Study Plan in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part C, Section 7.1.2). In the RSP (Section 10.16.4.2),
the field methods indicate that point counts and walking transect surveys would be conducted
during the riverine-focused surveys, and during the field work in 2013 both survey efforts were
performed. The detections of breeding songbird species vocalizing in vegetated riparian habitats
during the point-count surveys, however, were hindered in many cases because of river noise.
Moving the point-count locations away from stream banks was only effective in some cases in
reducing river noise. In situations with narrow riparian corridors, moving the point-count
locations was not possible without the observers moving out of riparian habitats, which would
have defeated the purpose of the survey. Because of these limitations and because the primary
targets of the riverine-focused surveys are those landbird and shorebird species that use fluvial
and riverine habitats and are typically under-sampled in standard point-counts (e.g., Belted
Kingfisher, American Dipper, Semipalmated Plover, Solitary Sandpiper, Spotted Sandpiper,
Wandering Tattler), not breeding songbirds in vegetated riparian habitats (RSP Section
10.16.4.2), the point-count component of the riverine-focused surveys was eliminated in 2014.
The 2013 data from the walking transect surveys in riverine habitats were compared to the point-
count data, and it was clear that the same sets of riparian songbird species were recorded in both
survey efforts, so there will be no loss of information on species occurrence in riparian habitats
by this elimination of the point-count survey component. As a result of this variance, the lengths
of the stream segments on the walking transect surveys will be increased by eliminating the time
spent conducting point counts. This greater survey coverage will result in more accurate linear
density estimates for birds using riverine habitats, and hence, will improve achievement of the
study objectives.
The second variance to the riverine-focused surveys implemented in 2014 also was originally
described as a proposed modification to the Study Plan in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part C, Section
7.1.2). In the RSP (Section 10.16.4.2), the metric described to represent bird abundance for the
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 10 October 2015
riverine-focused surveys was birds per unit time spent during the survey. This was changed in
2014, partly in response to informal comments made by the USFWS on the draft version of the
ISR for Study 10.16. In this report, the metric used to represent bird abundance for the riverine-
focused surveys is linear densities (birds per km of stream length). This change was made so that
reviewers will be able to evaluate the total number of birds recorded as opposed to a relative
measure of abundance such as birds per unit time; hence, the revised metric better serves to
achieve the study objectives. Additionally, representing the riverine-focused survey data as linear
densities will allow for a rough calculation of the number of riverine-adapted birds that could be
affected by the proposed Project.
The third variance implemented in 2014 involves the addition of line-transect distance-sampling
methods (Buckland et al. 2001; 2004) to the riverine-focused surveys. In contrast to an
uncorrected count of the numbers of birds recorded along the riverine-focused survey transects,
as described in the RSP (Section 10.16.4.2) and in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.2, and
Part C, Section 7.1.2), in 2014 the study team added line-transect distance-sampling methods to
the riverine-focused surveys to facilitate the possible correction of the field data for detectability
and the calculation of densities. These methods (described above in Section 4.2) involved
recording of distances and angles to each bird or group of birds observed in stream waters and
adjacent littoral habitats. This variance will allow for improvement in the quality of the study
results because the field data from 2014 can be analyzed with distance-sampling methods to
correct for detection probability, and may allow for the estimation of a corrected number of birds
that could be affected by the inundation of riverine habitats from the proposed Project. Line-
transect distance-sampling methods were not possible in the vegetated riparian and upland
habitats sampled adjacent to the streams because of restrictions in visibility, so the numbers of
birds recorded in those habitats will remain uncorrected for detection probability. This variance
will not affect analyses involving the combined data from both study years or any comparisons
in results between study years. For those analyses, the study team will use uncorrected, linear
densities (see Section 4.2 above), which can be calculated from the field data for both study
years.
4.3. Survey of Colonially Nesting Swallows
No field surveys were conducted for colonially nesting swallows in 2014. The study team
determined (see Section 7.1.3 below) that the survey data collected in 2013 are adequate to meet
the study objectives, and a second year of swallow surveys was not necessary.
4.4. Migration Survey
No additional field surveys for the migration survey task were conducted in 2014. This study
component was conducted in 2013 as part of the Waterbird Study (Study 10.15) and is reported
in the ISR and Study Completion Report for Study 10.15.
4.5. Comparison with Historical Data
The methods described in the RSP (Section 10.16.4.5) and modified in the ISR (Study 10.16,
Part A, Section 4.5) for comparing current and historical (1980s APA Project) data on landbirds
and shorebirds will be implemented during preparation of the USR, as is explained in the
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 11 October 2015
variance for this task in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.5.1); this change is also listed as
a proposed modification in ISR Study 10.16, Part C, Section 7.1.2.
4.6. Mercury Assessment Support
This literature review portion of this task was completed in 2013 and is described in the ISR
(Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.6).
5. RESULTS
The cumulative, error-corrected field data collected for this study in both 2013 and 2014 are
available at:
http://gis.suhydro.org/SIR/10-Wildlife/10.16-Breeding_Land_and_Shore_birds/
See Table 5.1-1 for details.
The results of each of the 2014 breeding landbird and shorebird survey efforts (point-counts,
riverine-focused, and lacustrine-focused 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 (especially waterbirds) 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 in 2014 during the landbird and shorebird surveys are reported in the
Study Completion Report for waterbirds and the 2014 Study Implementation Report for raptors
(Studies 10.15 and 10.14, respectively). A complete list of the 103 bird species recorded during
all three survey tasks for the landbird and shorebird study in 2014 is presented in Appendix A;
the species list is organized phylogenetically (AOU 2014) and includes common and scientific
names, breeding status, and relative abundance information for each species.
This report summarizes the work conducted in 2014, including the landbird and shorebird
species observed, an initial assessment of their relative abundance, and a preliminary analysis of
habitat associations. Final habitat-association information for landbirds and shorebirds will be
prepared for the USR using the final habitats mapped for the study area in the Vegetation and
Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin (Study 11.5).
5.1. Point-count Surveys
In 2014, the study team conducted 1,207 point-count surveys along 100 transects in the study
area (Figure 3-1) between May 20 and June 18, 2014. Point-count plots were spread throughout
the study area as much as possible (see Section 4.1.1 above). Across all species groups
(landbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and raptors), 14,101 individual birds of at least 103 different
species were recorded during the point-count surveys, including 60 landbird, 14 shorebird, 27
waterbird, and 2 raptor species. Averages of 7.0 ± 2.7 (mean ± SD) species and 11.7 ± 5.0
individual birds were recorded across all point-count plots. No birds were detected on 2 plots
(0.002 percent of all plots surveyed).
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 12 October 2015
Because the wildlife habitat map for the study area is not yet complete, a preliminary assessment
of habitat use by breeding birds was conducted for this report. For this analysis, the Alaska
Vegetation Classification (AVC) Level-III vegetation types (Viereck et al. 1992) recorded at
each point-count plot in the field were used as the primary habitats (focal habitats) sampled at
each point-count location. Twenty-two focal habitat types were sampled at the 1,207 point-count
plots surveyed in 2014 (Table 5.1-2).
5.1.1. Landbirds
5.1.1.1. Abundance
During the point-count surveys in 2014, researchers recorded 57 landbird species (Table 5.1-3)
and calculated averages of 6.7 ± 2.6 (mean ± SD) landbird species and 10.8 ± 4.7 individual
landbirds 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, Common Redpoll, White-crowned Sparrow, Savannah
Sparrow, Wilson’s Warbler, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, and Yellow-rumped Warbler; combined,
these species accounted for 59 percent of the total landbird observations (Table 5.1-3). Seven
landbird species (Dark-eyed Junco, Varied Thrush, Gray-cheeked Thrush, American Robin,
American Tree Sparrow, Blackpoll Warbler, and Northern Waterthrush) each accounted for 2.3
to 4.6 percent of the total landbird point-count observations; combined, these species accounted
for 26 percent of all landbird observations. Another 21 species (each accounting for 0.1 to 1.9
percent of the total landbird point-count observations) when combined accounted for 15 percent
of all landbird observations. Lastly, 21 species each accounted for less than 0.1 percent of the
total landbird point-count observations); combined, those 21 species accounted for less than 1
percent of all landbird observations.
5.1.1.2. Habitat Associations
Landbirds were observed in each of the 22 habitat types sampled in the study area in 2014,
including forests and woodlands; scrub (tall, low, and dwarf types); herbaceous meadows;
riverine habitats; and partially vegetated and barren areas at higher elevations (Appendices B and
C). Landbird abundance was highest in Needleleaf Woodlands in which a total average
occurrence of 8.9 landbirds (of all species) per point count was recorded (n = 284 plots;
Appendix C). Open Needleleaf Forest, Open Tall Shrub, Closed Tall Shrub, and Closed Low
Shrub also had relatively high landbird abundance, with total average occurrence values for
landbirds of all species of 8.7, 8.2, and 8.0 (n = 299, 50, and 50 plots), respectively. Landbird
species richness was highest in Open Needleleaf Forest and Open Low Shrub, in which 35 and
32 landbird species were observed, respectively (Appendix C). Landbird abundance was lowest
in Dry Graminoid Meadow and Lacustrine Waters where total average occurrence values for all
landbird species were 2.0 and 0.0 (n = 1 plot for both habitat types), respectively. Landbird
species richness also was lowest in Dry Graminoid Meadow and Lacustrine Waters (0.0 and 2.0
landbird species recorded, respectively). Of the individual species, Savannah Sparrows were
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 13 October 2015
observed in the greatest number of habitat types (n = 18; Appendices B and C). Other common
species of landbirds occurred in 14–17 different habitat types, whereas the species observed least
frequently occurred in only 1–3 habitats each.
5.1.2. Shorebirds
5.1.2.1. Abundance
The study team recorded 14 shorebird species in the study area in 2014 (Table 5.1-4) and
calculated an average of 0.4 ± 0.6 (mean ± SD) shorebird species and 0.5 ± 1.1 individual
shorebirds per plot during the point-count surveys. Most shorebirds were assumed 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. A few
exceptions included observations of migratory Pectoral Sandpipers and Long-billed Dowitchers.
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 60 percent of all shorebird
observations (Table 5.1-4). Nine shorebird species (Lesser Yellowlegs, American Golden-
Plover, Least Sandpiper, Red-necked Phalarope, Whimbrel, Spotted Sandpiper, Semipalmated
Plover, Solitary Sandpiper, and Long-billed Dowitcher) were much less common, accounting for
1–10 percent of all shorebird point-count observations in the study area. Four other species
(Greater Yellowlegs, Wandering Tattler, Surfbird, Pectoral Sandpiper) were rarely encountered,
together accounting for less than 3 percent of all shorebird point-count observations in the study
area.
5.1.2.2. Habitat Associations
Shorebirds were observed in 15 of the 22 focal habitat types sampled in the study area in 2014,
but they were most common in the open habitats (Appendices D and E). Shorebird abundance
was highest in Wet Graminoid Meadow and Moist Graminoid Meadow, both of which had total
average occurrence values of 0.6 shorebirds (of all species) per point count (n = 36 and 23 plots,
respectively) (Appendix E). Species richness of shorebirds was highest in Wet Graminoid
Meadow and Open Low Shrub (6 shorebird species were recorded in each habitat; Appendix E).
No shorebirds were detected in 8 habitats. Of the individual species, Wilson’s Snipe was
observed in the greatest number of habitat types (n = 11; Appendices D and E). All other
shorebird species were found in 6 or fewer habitats. Spotted Sandpiper, Wandering Tattler,
Greater Yellowlegs, Surfbird, Long-billed Dowitcher, and Red-necked Phalarope were found in
only 1 habitat type each.
5.2. Riverine- and Lacustrine-focused Surveys
The study team conducted 15 riverine- and 89 lacustrine-focused transects in the study area in
May and June 2014 (Figure 3-2). 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 Sections 4.1.1 and 4.2 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
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 14 October 2015
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, the broader Level-III vegetation types, which primarily represent
vegetation structure, were used.
5.2.1. Riverine-focused Surveys
The 15 riverine-focused transects were sampled during a 21-day period between May 28 and
June 17, 2014. The transects were sampled after the majority of shorefast ice melted and high-
water conditions had subsided. The riverine-focused transects were located along portions of the
Susitna River mainstem and the major tributary streams in the proposed Watana Reservoir and
Watana Dam site area, plus a 2-mi buffer surrounding those areas. Two transects were located
along tributary streams (Deadman and Watana creeks), 8 transects were located along the
mainstem of the Susitna River, and 5 were located along portions of tributary streams (Kosina,
Tsusena, Goose, and 2 unnamed creeks) and portions of the Susitna River (Figure 3-2; Appendix
F).
In all, 1,758 individual birds of 50 different species were recorded during the riverine-focused
surveys, including 34 landbird, 8 waterbird, 5 shorebird, and 3 raptor species. Averages of 1 9.2 ±
6.75 (mean ± SD) species and 117.2 ± 68.1 individual birds were recorded per transect. An
average of 21.0 ± 14.4 shorebirds and 10.9 ± 11.4 waterbirds were recorded per transect,
primarily in riverine waters and open shoreline habitats. Most landbirds occurred in adjacent,
vegetated riparian and upland habitats, and an average of 84.0 ± 54.4 landbirds was recorded per
transect. Overall, landbirds were the most abundant species group (72 percent of all
observations), followed by shorebirds (18 percent), waterbirds (9 percent), and raptors (1
percent). Across all transects and species, an average linear density of 12.6 birds per km of
stream length was recorded (Appendix F). The average density of individuals observed per km of
stream length across all 15 transects ranged from a minimum of 0.01 for the least common
species (Lesser Yellowlegs, Common Goldeneye, and Tree Swallows) to a maximum of 2.2 for
the most abundant species (Spotted Sandpiper). The linear densities for all species on tributary
streams of the Susitna River was higher than for the Susitna River (16.5 birds/km and 11.4
birds/km, respectively; Appendix F).
Across all 15 transects, an average of 9.0 landbirds per km was recorded during the riverine-
focused surveys (Appendix F). The most common species observed were Northern Waterthrush,
Blackpoll Warbler, Fox Sparrow, and Wilson’s Warbler. These four species combined accounted
for 47 percent of all observations during the riverine-focused surveys, and each species
individually accounted for at least 5 percent of all landbird observations. Swallows accounted for
7 percent of all landbird observations. Landbirds were most frequently observed in Mixed Open
Forest, Open Needleleaf Forest, and a variety of riparian shrub habitats adjacent to riverine water
bodies (Appendix G). Swallows, Belted-Kingfishers, American Dippers, and Northern
Waterthrush were observed foraging above or in riverine waters.
For shorebirds, across all 15 transects an average of 2.3 birds per km was recorded during the
riverine-focused surveys (Appendix F). Spotted Sandpiper was by far the most abundant
shorebird species and accounted for 96 percent of the shorebird observations and 17 percent of
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 15 October 2015
all bird observations made. Spotted Sandpipers were observed most frequently using riverine
waters and riverine shoreline habitats, but they were also found in low riparian shrub and
herbaceous habitats located along tributary streams and the Susitna River (Appendix G).
Lastly, for waterbirds, an average of 1.2 birds per km was recorded across all 15 transects
(Appendix F). Harlequin Duck was the most commonly recorded species during the riverine-
focused surveys, followed by Herring Gull, Common Merganser, and Red-Breasted Merganser.
These 4 species combined accounted for over 80 percent of all observations of waterbirds. All
waterbirds observed were found either in riverine waters, in rocky, riverine shoreline habitat, or
were observed flying low over the sampled streams (Appendix G).
5.2.2. Lacustrine-focused Surveys
The 89 lacustrine-focused surveys were completed within the same study area used for the point-
count surveys over a period of 25 days between May 20 and June 18, 2014. Thirty-seven of the
surveys were located within or near the area of the proposed Watana Reservoir, 2 in the area of
the Watana Dam and Camp, 36 in the Denali Corridor, and 14 in the Gold Creek Corridor
(Figure 3-2). The surveys ranged from 1 to 67 minutes in length and the size of the lacustrine
water bodies ranged from 0.005 ha (50 m2) to approximately 420 ha (4.2 km2) in area.
Overall, 674 individual birds of 59 different species were recorded during the lacustrine-focused
surveys, including 24 waterbird, 22 landbird, and 12 shorebird species. Averages of 2.8 ± 2.9
(mean ± SD) species and 7.5 ± 11.8 individual birds were recorded per survey. Nineteen of the
water bodies surveyed (21 percent) had zero detections. Waterbirds, the most abundant species
group observed, accounted for 53 percent of all observations (n = 361), followed by shorebirds,
which accounted for 30 percent (n = 205) of all observations. Landbirds were less abundant and
comprised 16 percent (n = 106) of all observations.
The most abundant landbirds found near lacustrine water bodies were Rusty Blackbird,
Savannah Sparrow, Wilson’s Warbler, Yellow-rumped Warbler, and Fox Sparrow, which
together comprised over half of all landbird detections on the lacustrine-focused surveys (Table
5.2-1). Tree Swallows comprised 6 percent of all landbirds observed and were found foraging in
the air directly above water bodies. Landbirds were generally found in Wet Herbaceous
Graminoid, Open Low Shrub, and in Open Needleleaf Forests near the shorelines of lacustrine
water bodies, and were also found foraging directly along the shorelines of ponds and lakes
(Table 5.2-1).
Red-Necked Phalarope was the most abundant shorebird species observed on the lacustrine-
focused surveys, composing 40 percent of all shorebird observations (Table 5.2-1). Other
common shorebird species included Lesser Yellowlegs, Least Sandpiper, Solitary Sandpiper, and
Pectoral Sandpiper, which together accounted for over 40 percent of all shorebird detections.
Shorebirds were found in lacustrine habitats 56 percent of the time and in adjacent Wet
Graminoid Meadow habitats 30 percent of the time (Table 5.2-1).
The most abundant waterbird species recorded during the lacustrine-focused surveys were Mew
Gulls, Lesser Scaup, Northern Pintail, Mallard, and Northern Shoveler, which together accounted
for almost 50 percent of all waterbird observations (Table 5.2-1). Mew Gull abundance was high
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 16 October 2015
on one survey (Survey T31-15-3) because of the presence of 2 aggregations of 54 birds on the
margins of a large lacustrine water body; this single survey accounted for 82 percent of all Mew
Gull observations (n = 66). Observations of Mew Gulls on the lacustrine surveys, however, were
generally low; the species was detected on only 9 percent of all lacustrine surveys. Waterbirds
were observed almost exclusively in lacustrine waters (94 percent of waterbird observations)
(Table 5.2-1).
6. DISCUSSION
The field surveys for landbirds and shorebirds in 2014 were executed as planned while
incorporating the variances described above in Section 4.1.1.1 for the allocation of point-count
plots in the study area, and the three variances described in Section 4.2.1 implemented to
improve the riverine-focused surveys. The weather during the survey period was generally good
and the study team conducted 1,207 point counts, which is more than 400 point counts above the
goal of 800 point counts per year noted in the RSP (Section 10.16.8). 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. The 2014 data analyses presented in this report
(see below) indicate that, when combined with the first year of data from 2013, the two years of
data will be of sufficient quantity and quality to meet the study objectives (see Section 7.1.2
below).
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). The completed wildlife habitat mapping for Study 11.5 will be
used as the basis for the final analyses of landbird and shorebird habitat use and also as a
covariate in the final 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 in the
Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use (Study10.19). The data from Study 10.19 then will be used in
the impact assessments for landbirds and shorebirds.
6.1. Point-count Surveys
6.1.1. Landbirds
During the point-count surveys in 2014, landbirds were by far the most abundant bird group
recorded, accounting for 94 percent of all observations. Within landbirds, sparrows were the
most abundant species group observed in the study area, composing over 39 percent of all
landbird observations. Warblers and thrushes were also common in the study area, accounting
for about 18 percent and 15 percent, respectively, of all landbird observations. In contrast, grouse
and ptarmigan, chickadees, and woodpeckers were recorded infrequently, accounting for only
1.0, 0.7, and 0.2 percent, respectively, of all landbird observations. These ratios are typical 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.
The 2014 results for landbirds compare favorably with what was found in 2013 in the study area.
In 2013, as in 2014, landbirds were the most abundant bird group recorded and accounted for 87
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 17 October 2015
percent of all point-count observations (ISR Study 10.16, Part A, Section 6.1.1). Similar to 2014,
within the broad landbird group, sparrows also were the most abundant species group in 2013,
accounting for more than 40 percent of all landbird observations. As in 2014, warblers and
thrushes also were common in the study area in 2013, and comprised roughly 20 percent and 18
percent, respectively, of all landbird observations. In 2013, as in 2014, again the resident species
groups (grouse and ptarmigan, chickadees, and woodpeckers) were recorded infrequently,
accounting for only 1.3, 0.8, and 0.2 percent, respectively, of all landbird observations.
Substantial changes in abundance ratios of the broad species groups considered here, however,
are unlikely to occur between consecutive years as such changes would involve rather large
shifts in the avifauna in the study area. Changes of that magnitude are possible perhaps over
several decades as conditions in the study area change, and the study team will fully evaluate
possible avifauna changes in the study area in the USR (when making comparisons of the current
data to the historical APA Project data collected in the 1980s). As might be expected, there were
some changes in abundance levels between 2013 and 2014 at the level of individual landbird
species and those detailed results also will be presented in the USR.
6.1.2. Shorebirds
During the point-count surveys in 2014, shorebirds accounted for only 5 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. Most shorebird species also defend large breeding territories and
naturally occur in low densities.
Wilson’s Snipe was the most common shorebird species observed, and many observations of this
species were made during aerial flight displays (winnowing), which occurred above a diversity
of habitat types. Spotted Sandpipers were uncommon overall during the point-count surveys, but
were regularly recorded along streams during the riverine-focused transect surveys (see Section
6.2 below). American Golden-Plovers were also uncommon and were found most often in open,
higher elevation, montane habitats. Other shorebirds that breed in the boreal forest zone (e.g.,
Solitary Sandpiper, Least Sandpiper, Lesser Yellowlegs) were detected infrequently during the
point-count surveys. This is 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 low detectability.
As was the case with landbirds, the 2014 results for shorebirds also compare favorably with what
was found in 2013. As in 2014, shorebirds were found to be uncommon in the study area in 2013
(ISR Study 10.16, Part A, Section 6.1.2); they comprised only 5 percent of all the point-count
observations in both 2013 and 2014. In 2013, as in 2014, Wilson’s Snipe was by far the most
common shorebird species recorded and Spotted Sandpipers were uncommon except during the
riverine-focused surveys (see Section 6.2 below). Other regularly occurring shorebird species in
the study area (American Golden-Plover, Solitary Sandpiper, Least Sandpiper, and Lesser
Yellowlegs) were uncommon in 2013 as they were in 2014.
As noted above for landbirds, however, substantial shifts in the abundance levels of shorebirds as
a group between consecutive study years are not expected. The study team will evaluate possible
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 18 October 2015
long-term avifaunal changes by comparing the current abundance data for shorebirds with the
historical APA project data collected in the 1980s in the USR. The study team also will evaluate
possible changes between study years at the level of individual shorebird species in the USR.
6.2. Riverine-and Lacustrine-focused Surveys
As in 2013, the riverine- and lacustrine-focused surveys in 2014 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 facilitated the
detection of several species that occur in riverine environments where observations of birds by
ear 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, which complements
the data collected during the aerial waterbird surveys (see Study Completion Report Study
10.15).
With the riverine- and lacustrine-focused surveys, the study team increased the number of
observations of several uncommon habitat specialists, such as Spotted Sandpipers, American
Dippers, and Rusty Blackbirds. Spotted Sandpipers were found to be common in riverine
shoreline habitats throughout the study area. The riverine-transect surveys also allowed the study
team to double the number of American Dipper observations, which were otherwise observed
only at two point-count plots. During the lacustrine-focused surveys, researchers were able to
document Rusty Blackbirds using open needleleaf forests and adjacent lacustrine habitats. A
second study season of the riverine- and lacustrine-focused surveys was valuable for increasing
the information on the occurrence of these and other species that are often under-recorded during
standard point-count surveys.
Across all species, the linear densities of birds per km of stream length recorded during the
riverine-focused surveys along the Susitna River were lower than the densities of birds along
tributary streams. However, the abundance of shorebirds (strongly dominated by Spotted
Sandpipers) was notably higher on the riverine surveys along the Susitna River than on tributary
streams, indicating that shorebirds in general are more attracted to the shoreline habitat along the
Susitna River than along tributary streams (Appendix F). 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.
In general, the 2014 observations of landbirds and shorebirds on the riverine- and lacustrine-
focused surveys compare favorably with what was found in 2013 (see ISR Study 10.16, Part A,
Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2). For landbirds, on the riverine-focused surveys four species (Northern
Waterthrush, Blackpoll Warbler, Fox Sparrow, and Wilson’s Warbler) were the most abundant
landbird species in both 2013 and 2014, and, as a group, comprised over 40 percent of all
observations in both study years. This is not surprising given that each of these species uses tall-
scrub habitats during the breeding season (which are commonly found in riparian areas along
streams), and two species (Northern Waterthrush and Blackpoll Warbler) also are commonly
associated with riparian habitats in particular during the breeding season.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 19 October 2015
For shorebirds, on the riverine-focused surveys Spotted Sandpipers were by far the most
abundant shorebird species recorded in both 2013 and 2014, and comprised over 95 percent of
the shorebird observations (and 17 percent of all observations) in both study years. Spotted
Sandpipers were found to favor littoral habitats more strongly along the Susitna River, as
opposed to littoral habitats along clear-water tributary streams, in both study years.
On the lacustrine-focused surveys, a group of four landbird species (American Robin, Rusty
Blackbird, Bohemian Waxwing, and Savannah Sparrow) were commonly found using lacustrine-
margin habitats in 2013 and comprised nearly half of all the landbird observations. In 2014, the
group of commonly recorded landbird species using lacustrine-margin habitats was comprised of
five species, which comprised over half of all the landbird observations. Rusty Blackbird and
Savannah Sparrow remained in that group of commonly recorded landbird species in 2014 while
American Robin and Bohemian Waxwing dropped out. Three different species (Wilson’s
Warbler, Yellow-rumped Warbler, and Fox Sparrow) were found to occur within the group of
five commonly recorded landbird species using lacustrine-margin habitats 2014. Most likely
these shifts in landbird abundance between years are due to different proportions of lacustrine-
margin habitats at the water bodies surveyed in the two survey years, and this possibility will be
evaluated in the USR.
For shorebirds, on the lacustrine-focused surveys Red-necked Phalaropes were the most
abundant shorebird species recorded in both 2014 and 2013; they comprised 25 percent of the
shorebird observations in 2013 and 40 percent in 2014. Other common shorebird species
included Lesser Yellowlegs and Least Sandpiper in both study years. In 2013, the list of
commonly occurring shorebird species recorded on the lacustrine-focused surveys included
Wilson’s Snipe. In contrast, in 2014 Wilson’s Snipes were less frequently recorded and Solitary
Sandpipers and Pectoral Sandpipers replaced them on the list of commonly recorded shorebird
species. As with landbirds, these inter-year differences in abundance of shorebird species on the
lacustrine-focused surveys may be due to differences in the availability of habitats, in this case
primarily littoral habitats along water body shorelines, and the study team will evaluate this
possibility in the USR.
7. CONCLUSION
The 2013 and 2014 field survey efforts, including the variances and modifications described in
the ISR (Study 10.16, Part C, Section 7.1.2), were successfully implemented. Over the two study
years, greater than 60 percent more point-count plots above the goal listed in the RSP (Section
10.16.8) were collected. Point-count data are now available for all portions of the study area. The
riverine-focused surveys and the colonially nesting swallow surveys also were successful and all
the safely accessible habitat targeted by those surveys in the Watana Reservoir and Watana Dam
site study area was surveyed. Lastly, the lacustrine-focused surveys were successfully conducted
and provide data on the use of lacustrine water bodies by landbirds and shorebirds throughout the
study area; these data will augment the information being collected on use of lacustrine water
bodies by waterbirds (Study 10.15). The data from these survey efforts in 2013 and 2014 are
adequate to achieve the study objectives of providing distribution, abundance, and habitat-use
information for landbirds and shorebirds in the study area, and to compare those data with
similar historical data collected for the APA Project in the 1980s. The data from this study also
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 20 October 2015
will provide the information needed to calculate minimum estimates of the number of landbirds
and shorebirds that could be affected by development of the proposed Project.
7.1. Decision Points from Study Plan
There were no decision points in the FERC-approved Study Plan to be evaluated for this study
following the completion of 2014 work.
7.2. Modifications to the Study Plan
The study team has completed two years of point-count surveys, riverine- and lacustrine-focused
surveys, and a single year of nesting swallow surveys following the methods described in the
Study Plan and modified first in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part C, Section 7.1.2) and then in this
study (see Sections 4.1.1.1 and 4.2.1 above). As explained below, AEA is proposing no further
field surveys and will complete this study by completing the analysis with the cumulative dataset
from 2013 and 2014.
The three modifications described below represent alterations from the activities proposed in the
ISR (Study 10.16, Part C, Section 7) to complete this study and provide justification for why
AEA maintains that no additional field surveys are needed to meet the Study Plan objectives.
7.2.1. Point Count Surveys
The RSP (Sections 10.16.4.1 and 10.16.6) indicates that two years of point-count surveys will be
conducted in the study area and that the point-count plots will be spread throughout the study
area based on a random plot-allocation procedure. However, some portions of the study area
could not be surveyed in 2013 (see ISR Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.1.1.1).After a review of
the two years of data collected for the point-count surveys, AEA determined that an additional
year of field surveys areas not sampled in 2013, as proposed in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part C,
Section 7), is likely to yield diminishing returns for the effort involved, and that the two years of
data already collected will be sufficient to meet the study objectives and assess impacts to
breeding landbirds and shorebirds from the proposed Project.
First, the volume of data collected for the point-count surveys in both 2013 and 2014 greatly
exceeded the yearly goal described in the Study Plan. The goal listed in the RSP (Section
10.16.8) was to collect data at 800 point-count plots in each study year. In 2013 and 2014, the
study team conducted 1,364 and 1,207 point counts, respectively; these values are over 550 and
400 point counts above the Study Plan goal (over 70 and 50 percent more point counts,
respectively) in each year. Over the two years, the study team has conducted 2,571 point counts
spread throughout the study area (Figure 7.1-1), which is a very large sample size and represents
one of the most intensive point-count studies conducted within a local area in Alaska. This large
sample size and the distribution of point-count plots throughout the study area will give the study
team sufficient data to use in the various analyses (see below) that will be required to inform the
impact assessments for landbirds and shorebirds for the proposed Project.
Second, one of the primary sources of information to be provided by this study for use in the
impact assessments for landbirds and shorebirds are the habitat-use analyses, which are required
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 21 October 2015
data inputs for the Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat Use (Study 10.19) (see RSP 10.16.7). The
results from Study 10.19 will be used directly in the impact assessments for landbirds and
shorebirds (see below). In the USR, the final habitat-use analyses for landbirds and shorebirds
will be based on the final wildlife habitat types mapped for the landbird and shorebird study area
in the Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Mapping Study in the Upper and Middle Susitna Basin
(Study 11.5). With large sample sizes (a large number of observations of each landbird and
shorebird species throughout the study area), the distribution of observations recorded across the
range of mapped habitat types will more closely represent the actual habitat-use patterns for each
species.
The large point-count sample sizes in this study will give researchers conducting the habitat-use
evaluations (Study 10.19) more confidence in determining which mapped habitat types in the
study area should be considered high, moderate, or low value for each landbird and shorebird
species during the breeding season.1 These categorical rankings of habitat value for each landbird
and shorebird species and each mapped habitat type will be used to determine the amount of
high-, moderate-, and low-value habitat for each landbird and shorebird species that will be lost
or altered from Project development.
Because the wildlife habitat mapping for the study area (being conducted in Study 11.5) is not
yet complete and final mapped habitat types are not available, the habitat-use data discussed
below are based on the AVC Level-III vegetation types (Viereck et al., 1992) recorded at each
point-count plot by observers in the field. The Level-III vegetation types provide a suitable proxy
for the final mapped wildlife habitat types when evaluating sample sizes because landbirds an d
shorebirds were observed in 23 Level-III vegetation types during point-count surveys in the two
study years (2013 and 2014), and a similar number of wildlife habitat types (approximately 20–
25) is expected to be mapped in the landbird and shorebird study area. This is based on the
results of other wildlife habitat mapping studies in similar forested and mountainous regions in
Alaska in which 20–25 wildlife habitats were mapped (ABR 2008a,b; PLP 2011).
As shown in Appendix H, the combined point-count data for the two survey years shows a large
number of observations of the more common landbird species spread across the 23 Level-III
vegetation types sampled in the study area. Twenty-seven species, including four species of
conservation or management concern (Gray-cheeked Thrush, Varied Thrush, Blackpoll Warbler,
and Golden-crowned Sparrow, see Appendix A) have been observed 100 times or more across
all habitats. Sample sizes of 100 or more will provide robust information for assessing habitat
values across the final mapped wildlife habitat types in the study area because t he habitat types
used most often will be easily identified by repeated observations and those used the least by
substantially fewer or no observations. Another 12 landbird and shorebird species were observed
1 By necessity, the abundance metric to be used in the final habitat-use analyses for this study in the USR (average-
occurrence figures; see ISR Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.1.3.1) will be uncorrected for detection probability.
Calculating corrected densities for individual bird species separately in a relatively large number of mapped habitat
types—using removal and distance analyses, which account for detection probability (Farnsworth et al. 2002;
Buckland et al. 2001; Buckland et al. 2004)—is not feasible and will only be possible for the more common species
(see the main text). Therefore, to provide habitat-use data for all species and all mapped habitat types in the study
area (which is required to derive accurate estimates of habitat loss and alteration from the proposed Project),
uncorrected average-occurrence values will be used.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 22 October 2015
between 21 and 91 times. This group includes four species of conservation or management
concern (American Golden-Plover, Lesser Yellowlegs, Olive-sided Flycatcher and Rusty
Blackbird). Sample sizes within this range will not provide as much confidence to researchers
when ranking habitat values across the range of mapped habitat types, although for the species
with the larger sample sizes in this group (n = 50 or more), the habitats being used most often
will be readily identified. With observation sample sizes less than 20, the ranking of habitat
values across a set of 20–25 habitat types can be more challenging (depending on the species and
its variability in habitat use) because there can be relatively low numbers of observations even in
the habitat types used most often (see Appendix H). In these cases, the numbers observed in a
particular habitat can sometimes be influenced by a few point-count plots. This is the nature of
conducting multispecies surveys, however, and it can take many years of sampling to increase
observation sample sizes for uncommon and rare species.
For example, a relatively large number of species (26) were observed less than 20 times across
the two survey years (Appendix H). To increase sample sizes for those species to levels more
appropriate for quantitative assessments of habitat use would involve an impractical amount of
survey work and it could not been done in one field season. This is why AEA has determined
that there will be diminishing returns from conducting a third year of point-count sampling in the
landbird and shorebird study area. As described in RSP 10.19.4, for those species for which there
are relatively few Project-specific observations, the habitat-value assessments in Study 10.19
will be conducted by relying on habitat-use information from the scientific literature in addition
to the observations made directly in the Project area. What is encouraging about the large amount
of point-count data collected by the study team in the two survey years for this study is that
reasonable observation sample sizes already exist for eight species of conservation or
management concern (see above).
Third, another data product from this study to be used in the impact assessments for landbirds
and shorebirds is the estimation of densities for landbirds and shorebirds, corrected for detection
probability, which will be conducted for the USR. Ideally densities would be calculated for each
species in each of the alternative transmission line/access road corridors and for the proposed
Watana Reservoir and Watana Dam site area. The distance analyses used to calculate densities,
however, are notoriously dependent on large sample sizes; a general rule of thumb is that a
minimum of 60 observations for a species are needed to fit detection functions adequately and
calculate densities (Buckland et al. 2001; 2004). If calculating densities separately for each
Project component proves unfeasible, the study team will calculate densities for each species
based on a set of aggregated habitat types (derived from the mapping data of Study 11.5) and
then extrapolate the density data by applying habitat-specific densities to the acreages of each
aggregated habitat type occurring in each alternative corridor and in the proposed Watana
Reservoir and Watana Dam site area.
These analyses likely will involve estimating densities by a small set of aggregated habitat types
(e.g., forests, low and tall scrub combined, meadows, and barren and dwarf scrub combined) as
well as employing detection groups (sets of species that share similar vocalization quality and
behaviors that affect visual detections) to increase the observation numbers available to fit
detection functions and calculate densities for a greater number of species. Detection groups
were successfully used in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.1.3.2) to calculate densities for
38 of the 53 (72%) landbird species observed in the first study year. Note, however, that even
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 23 October 2015
with these methods it is not likely that densities can be calculated for some of the more
uncommon species because low observation sample sizes for those species may still be
constraining. In 2013, for example, low sample sizes prohibited any density calculations for the
naturally dispersed and uncommon shorebird species (ISR Study 10.16, Part A, Section 5.1.2.3).
It is encouraging that, after the second year of surveys, observation numbers by habitat have
increased for some shorebird species (e.g., American Golden-Plover and Lesser Yellowlegs;
Appendix H), which increases the likelihood that densities can be calculated for some sho rebird
species in the USR.
Even if densities cannot be calculated separately for each of the alternative transmission
line/access road corridors and the proposed Watana Reservoir and Watana Dam site area,
densities can certainly be calculated for the entire study area, as was done in the ISR (Study
10.16, Part A, Section 4.1.3.2). With density information for the full study area, estimates of the
numbers of birds potentially affected by the proposed project can be generated to inform the
impact assessments for landbirds and shorebirds. Because of the low observation sample sizes
for uncommon species, which almost certainly cannot be remedied with a single additional year
of field surveys (see the discussion regarding habitat-use analyses above), The study team
expects that even with an additional year of point-count data there would still be some
uncommon and rare species for which densities cannot be calculated. Such diminishing returns
on the effort expended to conduct a third season of point-count surveys for this study suggest that
it would be most practical to complete the study with the existing two-year data set.
7.2.2. Riverine- and Lacustrine-focused Surveys
The Study Plan indicates that two years of riverine- and lacustrine-focused surveys will be
conducted in the study area (RSP 10.16.6) and that the surveys will occur along rivers and
streams and along the margins of lacustrine water bodies located throughout the study area (RSP
10.16.4.2). However, some portions of the study area could not be surveyed in 2013 (see ISR
Study 10.16, Part A, Section 4.2.1).The study team reviewed the two years of data from the
riverine- and lacustrine-focused surveys and determined that another year of surveys in areas not
surveyed in 2013, as proposed in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part C, Section 7), is not necessary to
meet the study objectives and assess impacts to breeding landbirds and shorebirds from the
proposed Project.
Within the riverine-focused survey study area (Figure 7.1-2), the safely accessible shorelines of
all the larger clear-water tributaries of the Susitna River (both named and unnamed) and the
shorelines of the Susitna River itself, including a sample of islands in the river, have been
sampled with riverine-focused surveys. Some stream segments were sampled in both 2013 and
2014.
Using the line-transect distance-sampling data collected in 2014 on the riverine-focused surveys,
researchers also may be able to correct for detection probability and calculate corrected densities
for some species recorded in stream waters and adjacent littoral habitats (depending on the
number of observations available). The 2014 data indicate that density calculations are possible
for the two most commonly recorded species; Harlequin Duck and Spotted Sandpiper were
observed 92 and 305 times, respectively, and both of these sample sizes are above the minimum
rule of thumb requirement of 60 observations for distance analyses (Buckland et al. 2001; 2004).
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 24 October 2015
Although uncorrected for detection probability, linear densities (birds per km of stream length)
will be calculated in the USR for all landbirds and shorebirds recorded on the riverine surveys in
both 2013 and 2014. These linear densities will be based on extensive sampling of streams in the
study area (Figure 7.1-2) and will be useful for impact assessments by providing a minimum
estimate of the numbers of landbirds and shorebirds that are known to use riverine habitats in the
study area and which could be displaced by construction of the proposed Watana Dam and the
filling of the Watana Reservoir.
For the lacustrine surveys, sufficient data on the use of lakes and ponds by landbirds and
shorebirds have been collected in the study area in the two survey years to use in Project impac t
assessments for these species. Lacustrine water bodies were sampled throughout the study area
(Figure 7.1-2) when they occurred nearby randomly allocated point-count plot locations (59 and
89 water bodies were surveyed in 2013 and 2014, respectively).
The lacustrine-focused survey data for the two years also indicate some consistent patterns in
use. For example, Rusty Blackbird and Savannah Sparrow were two of the most frequently
observed landbird species using lacustrine fringe habitats in both survey years; other common
breeding landbird species, depending on the habitats occurring adjacent to the surveyed water
bodies, included American Robin, Bohemian Waxwing, Wilson’s Warbler, Yellow-rumped
Warbler, and Fox Sparrow. For shorebirds, Red-necked Phalarope was by far the most
numerically dominant species recorded using lacustrine habitats in both survey years. Other
shorebird species that breed in the study area and were commonly recorded during the lacustrine
surveys included Lesser Yellowlegs, Least Sandpiper, Solitary Sandpiper, and Wilson’s Snipe.
Additionally, the lacustrine survey data also provide information on the use of lacustrine water
bodies in the study area during late May by small numbers of migrant shorebird species (Long-
billed Dowitcher, Pectoral Sandpiper), which pass through the area to breed in tundra regions in
northern Alaska.
Overall, the current two-year lacustrine survey data set provides an adequate understanding of
how landbirds and shorebirds use lacustrine water bodies in the study area during the breeding
season, and the information augments other data being recorded for the Project by researchers
conducting the aerial waterbird surveys in Study 10.15. Many of the same waterbodies, and
especially the larger lakes, have been sampled with both aerial surveys in Study 10.15 and
ground-based surveys in this study. For both the riverine- and lacustrine-focused surveys,
adequate data are available from the first two study years to provide estimates of the numbers of
landbirds and shorebirds that use those habitats and that could be affected by development of the
proposed Project.
7.2.3. Colonially Nesting Swallow Surveys
The RSP (Sections 10.16.4.3 and 10.16.6) indicates that two years of colonially nesting swallow
surveys will be conducted in the study area and that the surveys will cover the appropriate (cliff
and bluff) nesting habitat for colonially nesting swallows in the study area. AEA reviewed the
data for the single year of colonially nesting swallow surveys (2013) and determined that a
second year of field surveys, as indicated in the Study Plan and proposed in the ISR (Study
10.16, Part C, Section 7), is not necessary to meet the objectives of the swallow surveys and
assess impacts to nesting swallows from the proposed Project.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 25 October 2015
The primary reasons for this are that in 2013 researchers used a much more efficient survey
platform (helicopter-based as opposed to boat-based) and were able to survey a much larger area
than indicated originally in the Study Plan. As described in the ISR (Study 10.16, Part A, Section
4.3), in 2013 the study team surveyed not only the area of the proposed Watana Reservoir (at
predicted maximum-pool elevation) and the Watana Dam and Watana Camp sites (which was
indicated in RSP Section 10.16.3 as the study area), but was able to survey a 2 mi buffer around
those areas as well. Using a helicopter survey platform in 2013, all portions of the study area,
including CIRWG lands, were surveyed for nesting swallow colonies. In that effort, the study
team was successful in locating 25 nesting swallow colonies (both active and inactive) in the
study area. 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 tributary streams, and all of
those areas were searched for nesting swallows in 2013.
The study team also was able to provide an estimate of the number of nesting swallow pairs
(353) at colonies located below the reservoir maximum pool elevation that could be displaced by
construction of the proposed Watana Dam and the filling of the Watana Reservoir. This
information can be used directly in the assessment of impacts to colonially nesting swallows
from the proposed Project. For these reasons, AEA has determined that there are likely to be
diminishing returns, in terms of the information acquired for the effort expended, in conducting a
second field survey for colonially nesting swallows.
8. LITERATURE CITED
ABR (ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Services). 2008a. Chuitna Coal Mine: Wildlife
Protection Plan, Part D7-2. Final report prepared for Mine Engineers, Inc., Cheyenne,
WY, on behalf of PacRim Coal LP, Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc., Anchorage, AK. 153
pp.
ABR. 2008b. Chuitna Project Infrastructure: Wildlife Protection Plan, Part D7-2. Final report
prepared for Mine Engineers, Inc., Cheyenne, WY, on behalf of PacRim Coal LP,
Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc., Anchorage, AK. 147 pp.
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.
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.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 26 October 2015
AOU (American Ornithologists’ Union). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. 7th ed.
American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.
AOU. 2014. 55th Supplement to the AOU Check-list of North American Birds. Auk 131: CSi–
CSxv.
Boggs, K., T.V. Boucher, T.T. Kuo, D. Fehringer, and S. Guyer. 2013. Vegetation map and
classification: Northern, Western and Interior Alaska. Alaska Natural Heritage Program,
University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska. 88 pp.
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.
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.
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.
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].
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
PLP (Pebble Limited Partnership). 2011. Pebble Project Environmental Baseline Document 2004
through 2008. Chapter 16: Wildlife and Habitat Bristol Bay Drainages. Sections 16.1 and
16.6. Available online: http://www.pebbleresearch.com (accessed 1 June 2015).
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.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 27 October 2015
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.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 28 October 2015
9. TABLES
Table 5.1-1. Server Location and File/Folder Names for the Field Data for Landbirds and Shorebirds Collected in 2013
and 2014.
Server Pathway or File/Folder Name Description
http://gis.suhydro.org/SIR/10-Wildlife/10.16-
Breeding_Land_and_Shore_birds/ Pathway to data files
10_16_LSBRD_Cumulative_Data_ABR.zip
Zip file containing point-count, riverine-, and lacustrine-focused field survey
data in a Microsoft Access database and a geodatabase of geographic
information system (GIS) data layers for the landbird and shorebird study
Photos (folder)
Field (JPEG) photos of point-count transects and plots and riverine transects
organized in separate subfolders by study year, transect name, and survey
date
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 29 October 2015
Table 5.1-2. Number of Landbird/Shorebird Point-counts Conducted in the Focal Habitats Sampled in 2014.
Focal Habitat Type1 Number of Point-Count Plots
Barren 2
Partially Vegetated 3
Closed Broadleaf Forest 1
Open Broadleaf Forest 3
Closed Mixed Forest 1
Open Mixed Forest 36
Mixed Woodland 5
Closed Needleleaf Forest 8
Open Needleleaf Forest 299
Needleleaf Woodland 284
Dry Graminoid Meadow 1
Moist Graminoid Meadow 23
Wet Graminoid Meadow 36
Dry Dwarf Shrub 10
Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub 99
Open Dwarf Forest 18
Dwarf Forest Woodland 14
Closed Low Shrub 40
Open Low Shrub 223
Closed Tall Shrub 50
Open Tall Shrub 50
Lacustrine Waters 1
Total 1,207
Notes:
1. Level-III vegetation types following the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992), with the addition of barren and partially
vegetated habitats and lacustrine waters; the primary habitat surrounding each point-count plot was considered the focal habitat (see
text).
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 30 October 2015
Table 5.1-3. Number of Observations and Average Occurrence Values for Landbird Species Observed During Point-
count Surveys, 2014.
Species Total Number Detected % of Landbird Observations Average Occurrence1
Fox Sparrow 1634 12.52 1.354
Common Redpoll 1540 11.80 1.276
White-crowned Sparrow 1397 10.71 1.157
Savannah Sparrow 839 6.43 0.695
Wilson's Warbler 828 6.35 0.686
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 824 6.32 0.683
Yellow-rumped Warbler 693 5.31 0.574
Dark-eyed Junco 595 4.56 0.493
Varied Thrush 583 4.47 0.483
Gray-cheeked Thrush 571 4.38 0.473
American Robin 490 3.76 0.406
American Tree Sparrow 442 3.39 0.366
Blackpoll Warbler 342 2.62 0.283
Northern Waterthrush 301 2.31 0.249
Gray Jay 253 1.94 0.21
Swainson's Thrush 233 1.79 0.193
White-winged Crossbill 191 1.46 0.158
Arctic Warbler 168 1.29 0.139
Hermit Thrush 133 1.02 0.11
Orange-crowned Warbler 117 0.90 0.097
Lincoln's Sparrow 100 0.77 0.083
Golden-crowned Sparrow 95 0.73 0.079
Willow Ptarmigan 86 0.66 0.071
Boreal Chickadee 75 0.57 0.062
American Pipit 72 0.55 0.06
Olive-sided Flycatcher 58 0.44 0.048
Common Raven 54 0.41 0.045
Lapland Longspur 43 0.33 0.036
Rock Ptarmigan 42 0.32 0.035
Rusty Blackbird 40 0.31 0.033
Horned Lark 36 0.28 0.03
Alder Flycatcher 31 0.24 0.026
Bohemian Waxwing 23 0.18 0.019
Black-capped Chickadee 21 0.16 0.017
Yellow Warbler 21 0.16 0.017
Northern Flicker 10 0.08 0.008
Downy Woodpecker 9 0.07 0.007
Tree Swallow 8 0.06 0.007
Snow Bunting 7 0.05 0.006
American Dipper 5 0.04 0.004
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 31 October 2015
Species Total Number Detected % of Landbird Observations Average Occurrence1
American Three-toed Woodpecker 5 0.04 0.004
Northern Wheatear 5 0.04 0.004
Pine Grosbeak 5 0.04 0.004
White-tailed Ptarmigan 5 0.04 0.003
Northern Shrike 4 0.03 0.002
Spruce Grouse 2 0.02 0.002
Townsend's Solitaire 2 0.02 <0.001
Black-billed Magpie 1 0.01 <0.001
Belted Kingfisher 1 0.01 <0.001
Brown Creeper 1 0.01 <0.001
Pine Siskin 1 0.01 <0.001
Red-breasted Nuthatch 1 0.01 <0.001
Ruffed Grouse 1 0.01 <0.001
Say's Phoebe 1 0.01 <0.001
Townsend's Warbler 1 0.01 <0.001
Violet-green Swallow 1 0.01 <0.001
Total 13,047 100 10.807
Notes:
1. Average occurrence = total number of birds detected/total number of point counts conducted in the full study area.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 32 October 2014
Table 5.1-4. Number of Observations and Average Occurrence Values for Shorebird Species Observed During Point-
count Surveys, 2014.
Species Total Detected % of Shorebird Observations Average Occurrence1
Wilson's Snipe 394 59.8 0.326
Lesser Yellowlegs 66 10.0 0.055
American Golden-Plover 50 7.6 0.041
Least Sandpiper 40 6.1 0.033
Red-necked Phalarope 36 5.5 0.030
Whimbrel 20 3.0 0.017
Spotted Sandpiper 11 1.7 0.009
Semipalmated Plover 9 1.4 0.007
Solitary Sandpiper 9 1.4 0.007
Long-billed Dowitcher 8 1.2 0.007
Greater Yellowlegs 6 0.9 0.005
Wandering Tattler 6 0.9 0.005
Surfbird 3 0.5 0.002
Pectoral Sandpiper 1 0.2 <0.001
Total 659 100 0.546
Notes:
1. Average occurrence = total number of birds detected/total number of point counts conducted in the full study area.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 33 October 2014
Table. 5.2-1. Total Number of Birds Observed (n) and Percentage of Observations Made by Habitat Type during Lacustrine-focused Surveys, 2014.
Percent Occurrence1 by Habitat Type2
Species n Disturbance Complex Lacustrine Water Riverine Water Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Open Tall Shrub Open Dwarf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Trumpeter Swan 2 100
American Wigeon 9 100
Mallard 17 100
Northern Shoveler 14 100
Northern Pintail 51 96.08 3.92
Green-winged Teal 30 80 16.67 3.33
Ring-necked Duck 6 100
Greater Scaup 8 100
Lesser Scaup 49 97.96 2.04
Unidentified scaup 23 91.30 8.70
Surf Scoter 9 100
White-winged Scoter 5 100
Long-tailed Duck 5 100
Bufflehead 7 100
Common Goldeneye 1 100
Barrow's Goldeneye 6 100
Unidentified goldeneye 6 50 33.33 16.67
Red-breasted Merganser 1 100
Unidentified waterfowl 2 100
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 34 October 2014
Percent Occurrence1 by Habitat Type2
Species n Disturbance Complex Lacustrine Water Riverine Water Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Open Tall Shrub Open Dwarf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Red-throated Loon 3 100
Pacific Loon 3 100
Horned Grebe 1 100
Red-necked Grebe 1 100
Bonaparte's Gull 2 100
Mew Gull 66 96.97 3.03
Herring Gull 6 100
Arctic Tern 2 100
Waterbird Total 335 94.93 0.60 3.88 0.30 0.30
Bald Eagle 2 100
Raptor Total 2 100
Semipalmated Plover 2 100
Spotted Sandpiper 2 100
Solitary Sandpiper 13 46.15 7.69 23.08 23.08
Wandering Tattler 1 100
Greater Yellowlegs 2 50 50
Lesser Yellowlegs 37 29.73 5.41 54.05 8.11 2.70
Unidentified yellowlegs 2 100
Whimbrel 2 100
Least Sandpiper 17 11.76 35.29 52.94
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 35 October 2014
Percent Occurrence1 by Habitat Type2
Species n Disturbance Complex Lacustrine Water Riverine Water Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Open Tall Shrub Open Dwarf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Pectoral Sandpiper 10 100
Long-billed Dowitcher 1 100
Wilson's Snipe 6 33.33 50 16.67
Red-necked Phalarope 82 91.46 7.32 1.22
Unidentified shorebird—small 5 100
Unidentified shorebird 2 100
Shorebird Total 184 55.98 2.17 0.54 29.89 8.15 0.54 2.17 0.54
Willow Ptarmigan 3 100
Gray Jay 1 100
Tree Swallow 4 100
Unidentified swallow 1 100
Arctic Warbler 4 50 50
Swainson's Thrush 1 100
Hermit Thrush 2 100
American Robin 3 66.67 33.33
Bohemian Waxwing 3 100
Northern Waterthrush 1 100
Orange-crowned Warbler 1 100
Yellow Warbler 1 100
Blackpoll Warbler 4 25 50 25
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 36 October 2014
Percent Occurrence1 by Habitat Type2
Species n Disturbance Complex Lacustrine Water Riverine Water Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Open Tall Shrub Open Dwarf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Yellow-rumped Warbler 9 55.56 11.11 33.33
Wilson's Warbler 10 20 80
American Tree Sparrow 1 100
Savannah Sparrow 15 13.33 13.33 46.67 26.67
Fox Sparrow 9 77.78 22.22
Lincoln's Sparrow 5 20 20 60
White-crowned Sparrow 2 50 50
Dark-eyed Junco 1 100
Rusty Blackbird 21 4.76 4.76 23.81 9.52 9.52 38.10 9.52
Landbird Total 102 0.96 8.65 0.96 6.73 15.38 1.92 37.50 3.85 1.92 18.27 3.85
Total 623 0.96 259.56 3.14 7.87 49.16 1.92 45.95 4.39 1.92 20.74 4.39
Notes:
1. Percent-occurrence values for habitats exclude birds in flight that were transiting through the area and observations in which the habitat being used could not be determined.
2. Level-III vegetation types of the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992).
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 37 October 2014
10. FIGURES
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 38 October 2014
Figure 3-1. Study Area and Locations of Landbird and Shorebird Point-count Plots Sampled in 2014.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 39 October 2014
Figure 3-2. Study Area and Locations of Riverine- and Lacustrine-focused Survey Transects Sampled in 2014.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 40 October 2014
Figure 7.1-1. Study Areas for 2013 and 2014 and Locations of Point-count Plots Sampled in 2013 and 2014.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Page 41 October 2014
Figure 7.1-2. Study Areas for 2013 and 2014 and Locations of Riverine- and Lacustrine-focused Survey Transects Sampled in 2013 and 2014
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 October 2015
APPENDIX A: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES, BREEDING
STATUS, AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF AVIAN SPECIES
RECORDED DURING THE LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD SURVEYS,
2014.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A – Page 1 October 2015
Common Name Scientific Name Breeding Status1 Abundance2
Trumpeter Swan3 Cygnus buccinator Confirmed4 [see SCR 10.15]
American Wigeon3 Anas americana Probable4 [see SCR 10.15]
Mallard3 Anas platyrhynchos Confirmed4 [see SCR 10.15]
Blue-winged Teal3 Anas discors Unlikely [see SCR 10.15]
Northern Shoveler3 Anas clypeata Confirmed4 [see SCR 10.15]
Northern Pintail3 Anas acuta Confirmed4 [see SCR 10.15]
Green-winged Teal3 Anas crecca Probable4 [see SCR 10.15]
Ring-necked Duck3 Aythya collaris Probable4 [see SCR 10.15]
Greater Scaup3 Aythya marila Confirmed4 [see SCR 10.15]
Lesser Scaup3 Aythya affinis Confirmed4 [see SCR 10.15]
Harlequin Duck3 Histrionicus histrionicus Confirmed4 [see SCR 10.15]
Surf Scoter3 Melanitta perspicillata Confirmed4 [see SCR 10.15]
White-winged Scoter3 Melanitta fusca Confirmed4 [see SCR 10.15]
Long-tailed Duck3 Clangula hyemalis Probable4 [see SCR 10.15]
Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Confirmed4 [see SCR 10.15]
Common Goldeneye3 Bucephala clangula Probable4 [see SCR 10.15]
Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Confirmed4 [see SCR 10.15]
Common Merganser Mergus merganser Confirmed4 [see SCR 10.15]
Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Confirmed4 [see SCR 10.15]
Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Probable Rare
Spruce Grouse Falcipennis canadensis Confirmed Rare
Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus Confirmed Common
Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus muta Confirmed Uncommon
White-tailed Ptarmigan3 Lagopus leucura Possible Rare
Red-throated Loon3 Gavia stellata Confirmed4 [see SCR 10.15]
Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica Possible [see SCR 10.15]
Horned Grebe3 Podiceps auritus Confirmed4 [see SCR 10.15]
Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Confirmed4 [see SCR 10.15]
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Confirmed5 [see ISR and SIR 10.14]
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A – Page 2 October 2015
Common Name Scientific Name Breeding Status1 Abundance2
Golden Eagle3 Aquila chrysaetos Confirmed5 [see ISR and SIR 10.14]
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 Probable Rare
Surfbird3 Aphriza virgata Probable Uncommon
Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Confirmed 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
Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Probable Rare
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Possible Rare
American Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides dorsalis Possible Rare
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Possible Uncommon
Peregrine Falcon3 Falco peregrinus Confirmed5 [see ISR and SIR 10.14]
Olive-sided Flycatcher3 Contopus cooperi Confirmed Uncommon
Western Wood-Pewee3 Contopus sordidulus Possible Rare
Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Probable Uncommon
Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya Unlikely Rare
Northern Shrike3 Lanius excubitor Possible Uncommon
Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis Confirmed Common
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A – Page 3 October 2015
Common Name Scientific Name Breeding Status1 Abundance2
Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia Possible Rare
Common Raven Corvus corax Confirmed 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
Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Possible Rare
Brown Creeper Certhia americana Possible Rare
American Dipper3 Cinclus mexicanus Confirmed Uncommon
Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Confirmed Abundant
Arctic Warbler Phylloscopus borealis Confirmed Uncommon
Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe Probable Uncommon
Townsend's Solitaire Myadestes townsendi Possible 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
Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata Probable Abundant
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix A – Page 4 October 2015
Common Name Scientific Name Breeding Status1 Abundance2
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 Confirmed Uncommon
Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Confirmed Common
Rusty Blackbird3 Euphagus carolinus Confirmed Uncommon
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, 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 (SCR 10.15).
5. Breeding status noted in raptor study (ISR and SIR 10.14).
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 October 2015
APPENDIX B: NUMBER OF LANDBIRDS RECORDED IN FOCAL
HABITAT TYPES DURING POINT-COUNT SURVEYS, 2014.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B – Page 1 October 2015
Focal Habitat Type1
Common Name Barren Partially Vegetated Lacustrine Waters Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Dry Dwarf Shrub Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub Open Low Shrub Open Tall Shrub Closed Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Dwarf Forest Woodland Mixed Woodland Needleleaf Woodland Open Dwarf Forest Open Mixed Forest Open Broadleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Closed Broadleaf Forest Closed Mixed Forest Closed Needleleaf Forest Total Ruffed Grouse 1 1
Spruce Grouse 1 1 2
Willow Ptarmigan 1 6 33 7 4 4 55
Rock Ptarmigan 6 8 2 16
White-tailed Ptarmigan 1 1 2
Downy Woodpecker 2 2
American Three-toed Woodpecker 1 1 1 3
Northern Flicker 4 4
Olive-sided Flycatcher 1 20 13 34
Alder Flycatcher 2 4 1 3 2 3 15
Say's Phoebe 1 1
Northern Shrike 1 1
Gray Jay 2 4 5 1 68 2 2 103 2 189
Black-billed Magpie 1 1
Common Raven 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 11
Horned Lark 3 5 17 3 28
Tree Swallow 1 1 1 3
Black-capped Chickadee 1 10 1 1 4 1 18
Boreal Chickadee 2 2 1 30 7 22 64
Brown Creeper 1 1
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 2 1 1 4 5 229 19 25 334 1 8 629
Arctic Warbler 25 17 21 24 11 1 1 100
Northern Wheatear 4 4
Gray-cheeked Thrush 44 25 24 28 3 109 4 5 92 334
Swainson's Thrush 6 5 61 33 1 74 180
Hermit Thrush 6 5 4 15 1 2 1 13 47
American Robin 3 1 2 7 32 3 2 3 5 1 151 4 4 77 295
Varied Thrush 1 4 6 1 4 116 1 20 210 1 3 367
American Pipit 1 2 6 42 4 1 56
Bohemian Waxwing 2 4 9 15
Lapland Longspur 9 8 11 6 34
Snow Bunting 2 3 5
Northern Waterthrush 1 4 7 12 5 63 6 14 61 1 174
Orange-crowned Warbler 13 9 7 14 11 8 1 8 71
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix B – Page 2 October 2015
Focal Habitat Type1
Common Name Barren Partially Vegetated Lacustrine Waters Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Dry Dwarf Shrub Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub Open Low Shrub Open Tall Shrub Closed Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Dwarf Forest Woodland Mixed Woodland Needleleaf Woodland Open Dwarf Forest Open Mixed Forest Open Broadleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Closed Broadleaf Forest Closed Mixed Forest Closed Needleleaf Forest Total Yellow Warbler 5 5 1 1 1 13
Blackpoll Warbler 1 1 2 30 28 17 33 2 2 80 4 12 3 81 1 297
Yellow-rumped Warbler 3 6 3 2 8 4 3 211 10 48 2 229 2 5 536
Townsend's Warbler 1 1
Wilson's Warbler 3 2 1 6 144 73 40 73 1 1 133 5 5 1 69 1 558
American Tree Sparrow 1 1 2 14 182 27 50 23 3 20 2 9 334
Savannah Sparrow 2 5 1 26 29 1 82 228 19 47 17 10 104 17 1 57 1 647
Fox Sparrow 13 118 58 32 58 9 5 354 20 14 1 404 12 1,098
Lincoln's Sparrow 9 5 2 1 1 18 1 12 49
White-crowned Sparrow 6 7 38 292 40 59 30 18 2 333 18 3 214 1 1,061
Golden-crowned Sparrow 1 19 19 3 2 4 48
Dark-eyed Junco 1 2 24 21 1 6 2 1 167 3 19 232 1 8 488
Rusty Blackbird 4 1 5 1 11 22
Pine Grosbeak 1 4 5
White-winged Crossbill 40 2 92 134
Common Redpoll 4 1 2 22 49 44 8 39 5 141 4 33 1 141 494
Pine Siskin 1 1
Total 10 8 0 2 55 68 24 298 1,287 412 318 399 81 31 2,512 125 265 12 2,592 7 2 40 8,548
Notes:
1. Focal habitats are the primary habitats surveyed at each point-count plot, represented by the Level-III classes of the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992) with additions by ABR for barren and partially vegetated areas and lacustrine waters (see text).
2. Only observations in which the habitat being used could be determined are included.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 October 2015
APPENDIX C: AVERAGE OCCURRENCE OF LANDBIRD SPECIES IN
FOCAL HABITAT TYPES, CALCULATED FROM POINT-COUNT SURVEY
DATA, 2014.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 1 October 2015
Focal Habitat Type2
Common Name n3 Barren Partially Vegetated Lacustrine Waters Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Dry Dwarf Shrub Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub Open Low Shrub Open Tall Shrub Closed Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Dwarf Forest Woodland Mixed Woodland Needleleaf Woodland Open Dwarf Forest Open Mixed Forest Open Broadleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Closed Broadleaf Forest Closed Mixed Forest Closed Needleleaf Forest Total Ruffed Grouse 1 0.003 <0.001
Spruce Grouse 2 0.028 0.003 0.002
Willow Ptarmigan 55 0.043 0.061 0.148 0.140 0.100 0.08 0.046
Rock Ptarmigan 16 0.600 0.081 0.009 0.013
White-tailed Ptarmigan 2 0.100 0.010 0.002
Downy Woodpecker 2 0.007 0.002
American Three-toed Woodpecker 3 0.004 0.028 0.003 0.002
Northern Flicker 4 0.013 0.003
Olive-sided Flycatcher 34 0.004 0.070 0.043 0.028
Alder Flycatcher 16 0.009 0.080 0.02 0.011 0.056 0.010 0.013
Say's Phoebe 1 0.100 <0.001
Northern Shrike 1 0.004 <0.001
Gray Jay 189 0.009 0.080 0.357 0.200 0.239 0.111 0.056 0.344 0.250 0.157
Black-billed Magpie 1 0.020 <0.001
Common Raven 11 0.010 0.020 0.020 0.200 0.011 0.028 0.010 0.009
Horned Lark 28 0.130 0.500 0.172 0.013 0.023
Tree Swallow 3 0.028 0.004 0.056 0.002
Black-capped Chickadee 18 0.004 0.035 0.028 0.333 0.013 1.000 0.015
Boreal Chickadee 64 0.009 0.050 0.020 0.106 0.194 0.074 0.053
Brown Creeper 1 0.028 <0.001
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 629 0.009 0.020 0.020 0.286 1.000 0.806 1.056 0.694 1.117 1.000 1.000 0.521
Arctic Warbler 100 0.112 0.340 0.525 0.480 0.039 0.056 0.003 0.083
Northern Wheatear 4 0.040 0.003
Gray-cheeked Thrush 334 0.197 0.500 0.600 0.560 0.214 0.384 0.222 0.139 0.308 0.277
Swainson's Thrush 180 0.120 1.000 0.215 0.917 0.333 0.247 0.149
Hermit Thrush 47 0.027 0.100 0.080 0.053 0.056 0.056 0.333 0.043 0.039
American Robin 295 0.130 0.028 0.200 0.071 0.143 0.060 0.05 0.060 0.357 0.200 0.532 0.222 0.111 0.258 0.244
Varied Thrush 367 0.004 0.08 0.120 0.071 0.800 0.408 0.056 0.556 0.702 1.000 0.375 0.304
American Pipit 56 1.000 0.087 0.600 0.424 0.018 0.02 0.046
Bohemian Waxwing 15 0.143 0.014 0.030 0.012
Lapland Longspur 34 0.391 0.222 0.111 0.027 0.028
Snow Bunting 5 0.667 0.030 0.004
Northern Waterthrush 174 0.028 0.018 0.14 0.240 0.357 0.222 0.333 0.389 0.204 1.000 0.144
Orange-crowned Warbler 71 0.058 0.18 0.175 0.280 0.039 0.222 0.333 0.027 0.059
Yellow Warbler 13 0.022 0.1 0.020 0.004 0.056 0.011
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix C – Page 2 October 2015
Focal Habitat Type2
Common Name n3 Barren Partially Vegetated Lacustrine Waters Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Dry Dwarf Shrub Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub Open Low Shrub Open Tall Shrub Closed Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Dwarf Forest Woodland Mixed Woodland Needleleaf Woodland Open Dwarf Forest Open Mixed Forest Open Broadleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Closed Broadleaf Forest Closed Mixed Forest Closed Needleleaf Forest Total Blackpoll Warbler 297 0.333 0.028 0.020 0.135 0.56 0.425 0.660 0.143 0.400 0.282 0.222 0.333 1.000 0.271 1.000 0.246
Yellow-rumped Warbler 536 0.083 0.027 0.06 0.05 0.160 0.286 0.600 0.743 0.556 1.333 0.667 0.766 2.000 0.625 0.444
Townsend's Warbler 1 0.028 <0.001
Wilson's Warbler 558 1.500 0.087 0.028 0.061 0.646 1.46 1 1.460 0.071 0.200 0.468 0.278 0.139 0.333 0.231 1.000 0.462
American Tree Sparrow 334 0.500 0.043 0.056 0.141 0.816 0.54 1.25 0.460 0.214 0.07 0.111 0.030 0.277
Savannah Sparrow 647 1.000 1.667 1.000 1.13 0.806 0.100 0.828 1.022 0.38 1.175 0.340 0.714 0.366 0.944 0.028 0.191 0.125 0.536
Fox Sparrow 1098 0.131 0.529 1.16 0.8 1.160 0.643 1.000 1.246 1.111 0.389 0.333 1.351 1.500 0.910
Lincoln's Sparrow 49 0.250 0.022 0.04 0.020 0.071 0.063 0.056 0.040 0.041
White-crowned Sparrow 1061 0.261 0.194 0.384 1.309 0.8 1.475 0.600 1.286 0.400 1.173 1.000 0.083 0.716 0.125 0.879
Golden-crowned Sparrow 48 0.043 0.192 0.085 0.06 0.05 0.080 0.040
Dark-eyed Junco 488 0.028 0.020 0.108 0.42 0.025 0.120 0.143 0.200 0.588 0.167 0.528 0.776 1.000 1.000 0.404
Rusty Blackbird 22 0.111 0.020 0.018 0.056 0.037 0.018
Pine Grosbeak 5 0.071 0.013 0.004
White-winged Crossbill 134 0.141 0.056 0.308 0.111
Common Redpoll 494 2.000 0.043 0.200 0.222 0.220 0.880 0.200 0.780 0.357 0.496 0.222 0.917 0.333 0.472 0.409
Pine Siskin 1 0.003 <0.001
Total Average Occurrence 5.000 2.667 0 2.000 2.391 1.889 2.400 3.010 5.771 8.240 7.950 7.980 5.786 6.200 8.845 6.944 7.361 4.000 8.669 7.000 2.000 5.000 7.083
No. Point-count Plots 2 3 1 1 23 36 10 99 223 50 40 50 14 5 284 18 36 3 299 1 1 8 1,207
Species Richness 4 3 0 2 11 13 8 19 32 26 16 26 18 12 30 21 26 9 35 6 2 8 51
Notes:
1. Average occurrence = total number of detections in each habitat/total number of point-count plots surveyed in each habitat.
2. Focal habitats are the primary habitats surveyed at each point-count plot, represented by the Level-III classes of the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992) with additions by ABR for barren and partially vegetated areas and lacustrine waters (see text).
3. n = total number of observations.
4. Only observations in which the habitat being used could be determined are included.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 October 2015
APPENDIX D: NUMBER OF SHOREBIRDS RECORDED IN FOCAL
HABITAT TYPES DURING POINT-COUNT SURVEYS, 2014.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix D – Page 1 October 2015
Focal Habitat Type1
Common Name Barren Partially Vegetated Lacustrine waters Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Dry Dwarf Shrub Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub Open Low Shrub Open Tall Shrub Closed Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Dwarf Forest Woodland Mixed Woodland Needleleaf Woodland Open Dwarf Forest Open Mixed Forest Open Broadleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Closed Broadleaf Forest Closed Mixed Forest Closed Needleleaf Forest Total American Golden-Plover 2 9 2 15 2 30
Semipalmated Plover 3 1 4
Spotted Sandpiper 1 1
Solitary Sandpiper 1 1 2
Wandering Tattler 1 1
Greater Yellowlegs 2 2
Lesser Yellowlegs 5 1 8 1 7 4 26
Whimbrel 3 5 8
Surfbird 1 1
Least Sandpiper 1 6 5 1 13
Long-billed Dowitcher 6 6
Wilson's Snipe 5 1 22 3 2 1 3 30 2 3 14 86
Red-necked Phalarope 2 2
Total 6 0 0 0 13 21 3 18 48 4 2 1 3 0 38 2 4 0 19 0 0 0 182
Notes:
1. Focal habitats are the primary habitats surveyed at each point-count plot, represented by the Level-III classes of the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992) with additions by ABR for barren and partially vegetated areas and lacustrine waters (see text).
2. Only observations in which the habitat being used could be determined are included.
.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 October 2015
APPENDIX E: AVERAGE OCCURRENCE OF SHOREBIRD SPECIES IN
FOCAL HABITAT TYPES, CALCULATED FROM POINT-COUNT SURVEY
DATA, 2014.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix E – Page 1 October 2015
Focal Habitat Type2
Common Name n3 Barren Partially Vegetated Lacustrine waters Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Dry Dwarf Shrub Ericaceous Dwarf Shrub Open Low Shrub Open Tall Shrub Closed Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Dwarf Forest Woodland Mixed Woodland Needleleaf Woodland Open Dwarf Forest Open Mixed Forest Open Broadleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Closed Broadleaf Forest Closed Mixed Forest Closed Needleleaf Forest Total American Golden-Plover 30 1.000 0.391 0.200 0.152 0.009 0.025
Semipalmated Plover 4 1.500 0.010 0.003
Spotted Sandpiper 1 0.028 <0.001
Solitary Sandpiper 2 0.028 0.003 0.002
Wandering Tattler 1 0.500 <0.001
Greater Yellowlegs 2 0.056 0.002
Lesser Yellowlegs 26 0.139 0.010 0.036 0.020 0.025 0.013 0.022
Whimbrel 8 0.130 0.022 0.007
Surfbird 1 0.100 <0.001
Least Sandpiper 13 0.043 0.167 0.022 0.004 0.011
Long-billed Dowitcher 6 0.027 0.005
Wilson's Snipe 86 0.139 0.010 0.099 0.060 0.050 0.020 0.214 0.106 0.111 0.083 0.047 0.071
Red-necked Phalarope 2 0.056 0.002
Total Average Occurrence 3.000 0 0 0 0.565 0.583 0.300 0.182 0.215 0.080 0.050 0.020 0.214 0 0.134 0.111 0.111 0 0.064 0 0 0 0.151
No. Point-count Plots 2 3 1 1 23 36 10 99 223 50 40 50 14 5 284 18 36 3 299 1 1 8 1207
Species Richness 3 0 0 0 3 6 2 4 6 2 1 1 1 0 3 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 13
Notes:
1. Average occurrence = total number of detections in each habitat/total number of point-count plots surveyed in each habitat.
2. Focal habitats are the primary habitats surveyed at each point-count plot, represented by the Level-III classes of the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992) with additions by ABR for barren and partially vegetated areas and lacustrine waters (see text).
3. n = total number of observations.
4. Only observations in which the habitat being used could be determined are included.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 October 2015
APPENDIX F: LINEAR DENSITIES (BIRDS PER KILOMETER OF
STREAM LENGTH) RECORDED DURING RIVERINE-FOCUSED
TRANSECT SURVEYS ALONG THE SUSITNA RIVER AND TRIBUTARY
STREAMS, 2014.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 1 October 2015
Susitna River Transects1 Tributary Transects2 Combined Tributary/Susitna River Transects
Common Name
PRM
183-223
PRM
192
PRM
200-204
PRM
201-206
PRM
211-218
PRM
216-218
PRM
219-225
PRM
229–236
Susitna
Average
Deadman
Creek
Watana
Creek
Tributary
Average
Tsusena
Creek/
PRM
180-184
Creek PRM
194/ PRM
194-196
Kosina
Creek/
PRM
208-210
Creek
PRM 228/
PRM
226-230
Goose
Creek/
PRM
228-233
Tributary/
Susitna
Average Total
Mallard 0.493 0.062 0.021
Blue-Winged Teal 0.335 0.067 0.021
Harlequin Duck 0.548 1.563 1.235 0.762 0.342 0.079 0.566 0.939 4 2.470 0.795 0.223 2.502 0.117 0.391 0.806 0.657
Common Goldeneye 0.328 0.041 0.014
Common Merganser 0.548 0.561 0.381 0.186 0.121
Red-breasted Merganser 0.411 0.079 0.061 0.104 0.052 0.152 0.030 0.071
Unidentified merganser 0.117 0.023 0.007
Unidentified duck 0.685 0.158 0.105 0.104 0.052 0.093
Mew Gull 0.068 0.164 0.112 0.043 0.021
Herring Gull 0.328 0.561 0.233 0.095 0.171 0.079 0.183 0.104 0.052 0.112 0.227 0.117 0.091 0.143
Waterbird Total 2.260 1.563 1.314 2.469 0.233 1.238 0.512 0.396 1.248 1.253 4 2.626 0.795 0.670 2.881 0.352 0.391 1.018 1.171
Bald Eagle 0.068 0.171 0.095 0.042 0.209 0.104 0.112 0.152 0.053 0.064
Golden Eagle 0.079 0.095 0.022 0.076 0.015 0.021
Peregrine Falcon 0.079 0.010 0.223 0.152 0.075 0.036
Unidentified Raptor 0.098 0.020 0.007
Raptor Total 0.158 0.068 0.171 0.190 0.074 0.209 0.104 0.335 0.098 0.379 0.129
Spotted Sandpiper 2.397 4.688 2.791 1.459 3.652 3.048 2.989 1.108 2.767 0.313 4 2.157 3.092 2.346 1.744 1.758 1.074 2.003 2.179
Solitary Sandpiper 0.104 0.052 0.177 0.035 0.029
Lesser Yellowlegs 0.068 0.112 0.023 0.014
Least Sandpiper 0.137 0.017 0.088 0.018 0.021
Wilson's Snipe 0.088 0.018 0.007
Unidentified shorebird 0.112 0.014 0.007
Shorebird Total 2.671 4.688 2.791 1.684 3.652 3.048 2.989 1.108 2.829 0.418 4 2.209 3.445 2.346 1.744 1.758 1.074 2.074 2.250
Bald Eagle 0.068 0.171 0.095 0.042 0.209 0.104 0.112 0.152 0.053 0.064
Golden Eagle 0.079 0.095 0.022 0.076 0.015 0.021
Peregrine Falcon 0.079 0.010 0.223 0.152 0.075 0.036
Unidentified Raptor 0.098 0.020 0.007
Raptor Total 0.158 0.068 0.171 0.190 0.074 0.209 0.104 0.335 0.098 0.379 0.129
Willow Ptarmigan
0.104 0.052 0.007
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 2 October 2015
Susitna River Transects1 Tributary Transects2 Combined Tributary/Susitna River Transects
Common Name
PRM
183-223
PRM
192
PRM
200-204
PRM
201-206
PRM
211-218
PRM
216-218
PRM
219-225
PRM
229–236
Susitna
Average
Deadman
Creek
Watana
Creek
Tributary
Average
Tsusena
Creek/
PRM
180-184
Creek PRM
194/ PRM
194-196
Kosina
Creek/
PRM
208-210
Creek
PRM 228/
PRM
226-230
Goose
Creek/
PRM
228-233
Tributary/
Susitna
Average Total
Belted Kingfisher
0.209 0.104 0.195 0.039 0.029
American Three-toed
Woodpecker 0.068 0.112 0.023 0.014
Olive-sided Flycatcher 0.078 0.010 0.104 0.052 0.076 0.015 0.021
Western Wood-Pewee
0.164 0.021 0.007
Alder Flycatcher 0.274 0.493 0.544 0.085 0.174 0.379 0.076 0.143
Gray Jay 0.112 0.155 0.095 0.045 0.265 0.335 0.352 0.190 0.093
Common Raven
0.078 0.095 0.022 0.088 0.018 0.021
Tree Swallow 0.223 0.045 0.014
Violet-green Swallow 0.379 0.076 0.036
Bank Swallow 1.575 1.943 0.095 0.256 0.484 0.455 0.091 0.414
Cliff Swallow
0.342 0.389 0.091 0.071
Unidentified swallow 0.313 0.157 0.910 0.182 0.107
Boreal Chickadee 0.095 0.012 0.223 0.117 0.068 0.029
Unidentified chickadee
0.088 0.018 0.007
American Dipper 0.224 0.028 0.088 0.076 0.117 0.056 0.036
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 0.205 0.328 1.235 0.389 0.857 0.085 0.387 0.522 0.261 2.120 1.117 0.076 0.234 0.293 0.768 0.543
Gray-cheeked Thrush 1.563 1.122 0.336 0.626 0.313 0.088 0.559 0.076 0.488 0.242 0.207
Swainson's Thrush 0.068 0.328 1.235 0.466 0.476 0.342 0.238 0.394 0.313 0.157 2.208 0.670 0.152 0.352 0.781 0.833 0.564
Hermit Thrush 1.314 0.898 0.311 0.286 0.351 0.530 0.112 0.455 0.586 0.337 0.293
American Robin 0.068 0.009 0.418 0.209 0.112 0.022 0.043
Varied Thrush 0.137 0.985 0.898 0.762 0.171 0.079 0.379 0.418 0.209 1.502 0.670 0.303 0.117 0.684 0.655 0.471
Unidentified thrush
0.337 0.042 0.021
Bohemian Waxwing
0.559 0.076 0.391 0.205 0.071
Northern Waterthrush 0.548 1.563 0.164 4.153 1.010 0.854 0.079 1.046 0.835 0.418 3.004 2.011 0.834 0.703 1.855 1.682 1.193
Orange-crowned Warbler 0.795 0.159 0.064
Yellow Warbler 0.493 0.062 0.021
Blackpoll Warbler 0.274 0.164 0.786 0.311 0.952 0.512 0.317 0.415 2.610 4 3.305 1.855 2.458 0.682 0.586 1.074 1.331 0.929
Yellow-rumped Warbler 0.274 0.328 0.786 0.389 1.429 0.238 0.430 0.731 0.365 1.855 0.782 0.834 0.117 0.098 0.737 0.600
Wilson's Warbler 0.205 1.563 0.328 1.010 0.699 0.769 0.554 0.641 0.209 0.104 1.117 0.910 1.407 0.586 0.804 0.586
Unidentified warbler
0.104 0.052 0.007
American Tree Sparrow 0.24 0.95
Savannah Sparrow 0.205 0.493 1.010 0.190 0.512 0.344 0.313 0.157 0.088 0.227 0.469 0.195 0.245 0.286
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix F – Page 3 October 2015
Susitna River Transects1 Tributary Transects2 Combined Tributary/Susitna River Transects
Common Name
PRM
183-223
PRM
192
PRM
200-204
PRM
201-206
PRM
211-218
PRM
216-218
PRM
219-225
PRM
229–236
Susitna
Average
Deadman
Creek
Watana
Creek
Tributary
Average
Tsusena
Creek/
PRM
180-184
Creek PRM
194/ PRM
194-196
Kosina
Creek/
PRM
208-210
Creek
PRM 228/
PRM
226-230
Goose
Creek/
PRM
228-233
Tributary/
Susitna
Average Total
Fox Sparrow 0.411 0.328 2.132 0.855 0.667 0.854 0.317 0.695 1.044 0.522 0.883 1.229 0.910 1.407 1.074 1.101 0.893
Lincoln's Sparrow 0.078 0.095 0.085 0.032 0.021
White-crowned Sparrow 0.479 0.328 0.673 0.622 0.381 0.342 0.353 1.670 0.835 0.177 0.559 0.352 0.781 0.374 0.464
Unidentified sparrow 0.313 0.157 0.021
Dark-eyed Junco 0.137 0.164 0.449 0.233 0.476 0.085 0.238 0.223 8 4 0.795 0.335 0.227 0.703 0.684 0.549 0.350
White-winged Crossbill
0.078 0.085 0.079 0.030 0.223 0.045 0.036
Common Redpoll
0.411 0.328 0.786 0.155 0.210 0.313 0.157 1.237 0.112 0.270 0.250
Unidentified redpoll 0.095 0.012 0.076 0.015 0.014
Landbird Total 2.138 9.790 16.947 5.685 5.038 4.688 7.048 6.732 7.258 11.169 12 11.585 7.620 13.408 17.668 9.180 8.112 11.198 9.000
Grand Total 10.68 10.94 10.84 21.10 13.68 11.52 8.71 3.80 11.41 13.05 20.00 16.52 21.91 16.76 13.12 9.73 10.74 14.45 12.56
Notes:
1. Susitna River transects labeled according to the Project River Miles (PRMs) encompassed on each transect.
2. Unnamed creeks labeled according to the PRM at the confluence with the Susitna River.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 October 2015
APPENDIX G: TOTAL NUMBER OF BIRDS OBSERVED (n) AND
PERCENTAGE OF OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HABITAT TYPE DURING
RIVERINE-FOCUSED TRANSECT SURVEYS, 2014.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix G – Page 1 October 2015
Percent Occurrence1 by Habitat Type2
Species n Disturbance Complex Barren Riverine Waters Dry Forb Meadow Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Open Tall Shrub Closed Dwarf Forest Open Dwarf Forest Open Broadleaf Forest Closed Mixed Forest Open Mixed Forest Mixed Woodland Closed Needleleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Mallard 3 100
Blue-winged Teal 3 100
Harlequin Duck 92 1.09 98.91
Common Goldeneye 2 100
Common Merganser 13 100
Red-breasted Merganser 10 10 80 10
Unidentified merganser 1 100
Unidentified duck 13 100
Mew Gull 3 100
Herring Gull 14 7.14 92.86
Waterbird Total 154 1.95 97.40 0.65
Bald Eagle 8 25 62.5 12.5
Golden Eagle 1 100
Peregrine Falcon 5 20 80
Unidentified raptor 1 100
Raptor Total 15 6.67 46.67 33.33 6.67 6.67
Spotted Sandpiper 305 32.79 56.72 1.31 0.33 0.98 0.33 5.57 0.66 0.98 0.33
Solitary Sandpiper 4 50 50
Lesser Yellowlegs 2 50 50
Least Sandpiper 3 33.33 66.67
Unidentified shorebird 1 100
Shorebird Total 315 32.06 56.51 1.27 0.32 0.95 0.32 0.63 5.40 1.27 0.95 0.32
Willow Ptarmigan 1 100
Belted Kingfisher 4 50 50
American Three-toed Woodpecker 2 50 50
Olive-sided Flycatcher 3 66.67 33.33
Western Wood-Pewee 1 100
Alder Flycatcher 20 25 50 5 15 5
Gray Jay 13 7.69 15.38 69.23 7.69
Common Raven 1 100
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix G – Page 2 October 2015
Percent Occurrence1 by Habitat Type2
Species n Disturbance Complex Barren Riverine Waters Dry Forb Meadow Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Open Tall Shrub Closed Dwarf Forest Open Dwarf Forest Open Broadleaf Forest Closed Mixed Forest Open Mixed Forest Mixed Woodland Closed Needleleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Tree Swallow 2 100
Violet-green Swallow 5 100
Bank Swallow 58 12.07 87.93
Cliff Swallow 10 100
Unidentified swallow 15 86.67 13.33
Boreal Chickadee 4 75 25
Unidentified chickadee 1 100
American Dipper 5 20 80
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 75 56 2.67 37.33 4
Gray-cheeked Thrush 29 3.45 3.45 27.59 41.38 24.14
Swainson's Thrush 77 1.30 54.55 38.96 5.19
Hermit Thrush 41 2.44 73.17 24.39
American Robin 6 16.67 16.67 33.33 33.33
Varied Thrush 65 1.54 60 1.54 33.85 3.08
Unidentified thrush 3 33.33 66.67
Bohemian Waxwing 6 33.33 66.67
Northern Waterthrush 167 1.20 1.80 0.60 1.20 2.99 53.29 2.40 1.20 29.94 5.39
Orange-crowned Warbler 9 100
Yellow Warbler 3 100
Blackpoll Warbler 130 1.54 1.54 3.08 1.54 0.77 44.62 1.54 29.23 16.15
Yellow-rumped Warbler 83 2.41 1.20 60.24 2.41 22.89 10.84
Wilson's Warbler 81 3.70 1.23 1.23 3.70 46.91 1.23 30.86 11.11
Unidentified warbler 1 100
Savannah Sparrow 40 5 2.5 2.5 45 2.5 12.5 5 17.5 7.5
Fox Sparrow 120 0.83 0.83 1.67 0.83 2.50 1.67 52.50 0.83 26.67 11.67
Lincoln's Sparrow 3 66.67 33.33
White-crowned Sparrow 65 1.54 4.62 3.08 6.15 3.08 9.23 1.54 3.08 1.54 15.38 36.92 13.85
Unidentified sparrow 3 33.33 66.67
Dark-eyed Junco 48 4.17 2.08 4.17 52.08 33.33 4.17
White-winged Crossbill 3 66.67 33.33
Common Redpoll 15 46.67 46.67 6.67
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix G – Page 3 October 2015
Percent Occurrence1 by Habitat Type2
Species n Disturbance Complex Barren Riverine Waters Dry Forb Meadow Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Closed Low Shrub Open Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Open Tall Shrub Closed Dwarf Forest Open Dwarf Forest Open Broadleaf Forest Closed Mixed Forest Open Mixed Forest Mixed Woodland Closed Needleleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Needleleaf Woodland Unidentified redpoll 2 100
Landbird Total 1220 0.25 1.39 7.30 0.08 0.08 0.49 3.03 0.57 2.05 0.16 0.33 1.39 0.16 45.33 0.66 0.90 27.21 8.61
Grand Total 1704 0.74 42.07 207.87 1.35 0.32 1.03 0.97 1.13 8.43 0.57 2.83 0.16 1.28 1.39 0.16 78.66 7.32 0.90 27.53 15.27
Notes:
1. Percent-occurrence values for habitats exclude birds in flight that were transiting through the area and observations in which the habitat being used could not be determined.
2. Habitat types are the Level-III classes of the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992) with additions by ABR for barren and disturbed areas and riverine waters (see text).
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING,
AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 October 2015
APPENDIX H: NUMBER OF LANDBIRDS AND SHOREBIRDS
OBSERVED IN FOCAL HABITAT TYPES DURING POINT-COUNT
SURVEYS IN BOTH STUDY YEARS (2013 AND 2014) COMBINED.
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix H – Page 1 October 2015
Focal Habitat Type1
Common Name Barren Partially Vegetated Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Dry Dwarf Shrub Ericaceous Dward Shrub Wet Dwarf Shrub Open Low Shrub Open Tall Shrub Closed Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Dwarf Forest Woodland Open Dwarf Forest Broadleaf Woodland Needleleaf Woodland Mixed Woodland Open Broadleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Open Mixed Forest Closed Broadleaf Forest Closed Needleleaf Forest Closed Mixed Forest Total Fox Sparrow 1 2 26 7 225 125 93 109 27 34 1 629 19 12 888 61 2 30 6 2297
White-crowned Sparrow 4 1 11 11 2 85 7 522 82 194 41 42 41 1 506 4 469 14 8 1 2046
Yellow-rumped Warbler 7 3 18 13 10 24 9 13 5 332 25 14 536 191 3 13 26 1242
Savannah Sparrow 3 15 6 65 46 3 182 3 445 36 140 26 17 19 129 1 92 1 3 1232
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 7 3 6 2 8 26 353 15 3 633 68 24 8 1156
Varied Thrush 9 19 3 21 7 4 1 238 21 10 520 105 2 15 28 1003
Wilson's Warbler 4 2 7 16 230 101 86 128 3 5 2 193 7 6 168 34 1 1 8 1002
Dark-eyed Junco 1 1 5 35 29 12 12 6 11 2 278 11 5 476 84 2 14 8 992
American Tree Sparrow 1 1 8 9 38 485 50 164 40 5 2 35 4 33 1 876
Blackpoll Warbler 1 10 4 65 49 32 59 4 9 1 146 15 8 205 79 1 4 6 698
Gray-cheeked Thrush 1 2 12 1 97 53 42 55 6 7 2 195 2 1 186 23 4 2 691
Common Redpoll 4 0 0 1 0 2 24 0 63 51 11 49 8 4 1 169 5 8 188 58 0 1 6 653
American Robin 1 3 2 2 13 1 52 17 4 7 5 8 233 4 192 12 1 2 5 564
Swainson's Thrush 5 7 19 1 2 95 14 6 204 130 4 36 523
Northern Waterthrush 6 9 12 4 32 5 6 3 118 7 5 139 65 3 6 14 434
Gray Jay 4 4 5 6 91 4 196 12 2 324
Hermit Thrush 1 8 1 13 17 2 25 1 1 35 13 3 51 30 3 204
Wilson's Snipe 8 5 1 44 5 6 3 3 3 45 1 2 47 12 1 1 7 194
Arctic Warbler 2 69 22 39 30 1 12 5 180
White-winged Crossbill 2 43 130 2 177
Golden-crowned Sparrow 6 2 1 1 51 2 36 18 8 13 1 6 4 1 1 9 160
American Pipit 4 16 1 30 1 3 87 1 8 1 1 153
Boreal Chickadee 2 2 2 50 69 15 1 4 145
Orange-crowned Warbler 23 12 7 22 1 20 4 1 24 19 3 136
Horned Lark 2 19 3 28 1 9 59 1 6 128
Willow Ptarmigan 1 1 5 10 76 8 17 5 1 1 3 128
Lincoln's Sparrow 9 13 2 6 1 1 5 42 28 1 108
Olive-sided Flycatcher 1 1 2 1 39 2 45 91
Bohemian Waxwing 3 2 4 2 33 26 70
American Golden-Plover 7 2 22 5 32 1 69
Lapland Longspur 15 7 1 27 8 58
Lesser Yellowlegs 7 2 11 1 13 16 1 1 52
Rock Ptarmigan 2 6 9 7 19 2 2 47
Rusty Blackbird 8 1 3 9 16 2 1 40
Snow Bunting 21 2 12 35
STUDY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT LANDBIRD AND SHOREBIRD MIGRATION, BREEDING, AND HABITAT USE (STUDY 10.16)
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project Alaska Energy Authority
FERC Project No. 14241 Appendix H – Page 2 October 2015
Focal Habitat Type1
Common Name Barren Partially Vegetated Dry Graminoid Meadow Moist Graminoid Meadow Wet Graminoid Meadow Dry Dwarf Shrub Ericaceous Dward Shrub Wet Dwarf Shrub Open Low Shrub Open Tall Shrub Closed Low Shrub Closed Tall Shrub Dwarf Forest Woodland Open Dwarf Forest Broadleaf Woodland Needleleaf Woodland Mixed Woodland Open Broadleaf Forest Open Needleleaf Forest Open Mixed Forest Closed Broadleaf Forest Closed Needleleaf Forest Closed Mixed Forest Total Black-capped Chickadee 1 1 1 13 2 4 11 1 34
Alder Flycatcher 3 4 1 1 3 2 3 10 27
Northern Flicker 5 2 13 2 22
Least Sandpiper 1 10 6 1 1 1 1 21
Yellow Warbler 6 6 1 1 1 3 18
Semipalmated Plover 11 1 2 14
Pine Siskin 1 12 13
Common Raven 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 12
Northern Wheatear 1 3 8 12
Pine Grosbeak 1 1 5 7
Solitary Sandpiper 1 4 2 7
Spruce Grouse 4 3 7
American Three-toed Woodpecker 2 3 1 6
Long-billed Dowitcher 6 6
Whimbrel 3 3 6
Downy Woodpecker 4 4
Red-necked Phalarope 4 4
Tree Swallow 1 1 2 4
Black-billed Magpie 1 1 1 3
Greater Yellowlegs 2 2
Ruffed Grouse 2 2
Townsend's Warbler 1 1 2
Wandering Tattler 2 2
White-tailed Ptarmigan 1 1 2
Brown Creeper 1 1
Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch 1 1
Hairy Woodpecker 1 1
Say's Phoebe 1 1
Spotted Sandpiper 1 1
Surfbird 1 1
Total 21 113 15 204 180 42 730 26 2,608 752 890 732 168 216 24 4,122 181 94 5,636 1,072 16 137 172 18,151
Notes:
1. Focal habitats are the primary habitats surveyed at each point-count plot, represented by the Level-III classes of the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992) with additions by ABR for barren and partially vegetated areas (see text).
2. Excludes the point-count data from riverine and lacustrine habitats because those habitats are assessed separately in the riverine- and lacustrine-focused surveys (see text).
3. Only observations in which the habitat being used could be determined are included.