HomeMy WebLinkAboutAbundance and Distribution Patterns Of Avifauna on Wetlands in the Vicinty of Bush Field Airport
, Augusta Richmond GA
DOCUMENT NAME: t\ 'b \) N C> F\ ~.flN \:) '1::>, '11. Tit \ e,u-no~ f-l A-TTe:.eNS e-\L
r-J'III .(l.AliNA- 0,.,) WIS-rLA<JilS Iry TIlIG: Vte;",;t-y G~ Gu9.H FieeD
~1~PO~1
DOCUMENT-TYPE: '\<.6 foR T
YEAR: ) qq9
BOX NUMBER: to
FILE NUMBER: 1 L\ D -, Lf
NUMBER OF PAGES:
7D
_:i
- ...,; ...,-
'7\-:.:~ tlj"
~. '~.."...?-::-~..~.
~ <':+' >.~~. ,~:;::;~:;.~:
--:-- ~--~ .,- .,..,..,..-
, '<~~:~{~:+:;)(:~tt:;~; ':~'
..
v ,_,-_"': =.
, '~~~;,:,';St::O~'::' ;'C,
__" ".""-,:-'- ,~. C"_ - "e
'?:~~~~~J}~'
i;':..'
.
'"I.
. .- ~
,',
...",--~ ~"l
- - ~~~.!
-,. :...'/ -
- -*,~.;.. ',",: 1
~ ~':1
; '\' ~ .~,~
'f
;--; =
"
:-4
c,l'
1
'~\j' 7
~, ;~,
"....L,,:.{
, .!
"J
"'\
I
:1
1
-. :J
--"'~'"-,.~~ -
- - ;;. . ~
,~.:>,.' ',.;. -
;;:1.f,~~,1~
-;~.-.:. ,,'
'-~,,:. ...
-'-1'-'
Abundance and Distribution Patterns of Avifauna on Wetlands
in the Vicinity of Bush Field Airport: 1998-99 Report
A Final Report of Activities under Contract Agreement between
The UniversitY of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. .
Savannah River Ecology Laboratory and the Consolidated
Government of Augusta - Richmond County, Georgia.
An Interim Report of Activities under Contract Agreement between
The Clemson Ornithological Group
and the Consolidated Government of Augusta - Richmond County, Georgia
Prepared and edited by:
R. A. Kennamer,I. L. Brisbin, Jr., K. F. Gaines, and W. L. Stephens, Jr.
The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
P.D. Drawer E, Aiken, SC 29802
",_.-,
D. S. Mizrahi, S. 1 Wagner, and S. A. Gauthreaux, Jr.
The Clemson OrnUhological Group
Department of Biological Sciences
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29634-1903
February, 1999
Contents
Page
Executive Summary
Introduction
4
4
5
5
6
7
7
8
12
12
Study Areas
Survey Methods
Aerial Surveys
Ground Surveys
Aerial Survey Results
Migratory vs. Non-Migratory Seasons
Weiland Study Units within the Overall Wetland Complex
Bird Use of Areas within the Artificial Wetland Cells
Wading Bird Breeding Bird Colonies
The 1997-98 El Niiio Event, Local Water Conditions,
and Bird Distributions
Ground Survey Results
Total Bird Counts.
Waterfowl
Wading Birds
Shorebirds
Raptors and Crows
Songbirds (medium-sized)
Songbirds (small-sized)
Species with Protected Status
1998 Bush Field Airport Bird Strikes
Conclusions
Future Research Needs
13
13
14
15
15
16
17
17
18
18
19
20
21
II
Contents, continued
Acknowledgments
List of Tables
Table 1. Habitat areas (hectares) within and around the Bush
Field Airport.
Table 2. Habitat areas (hectares) of wetland units surveyed
by the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.
Table 3. Habitat areas (hectares) of wetland study sites surveyed
by the Clemson OrnithologiCal Group.
Table 4. Species list compiled from the aerial bird surveys
and the guild groupings used in the study.
Table 5. Counts of birds (by guild groupings) from aerial surveys
of all wetlands combined, listed by date.
Table 6. Frequency occurrence of bird species observed
during aerial surveys, by wetland study unit.
Table 7. Maximum number of each bird species observed
during aerial surveys, by wetland study unit.
Table 8. Distributions of birds between ponded and marsh
areas ofthe Constructed Wetlands Project.
Table 9. Species categories of birds from the ground surveys
and representative species types.
Table 10. Proportions of various bird species categories observed
during ground surveys; by study site.
Table 11. Least square means for bird species categories from
ground surveys, within seasons, by study site.
Table 12. Bush Field Airport Bird Strike Log entries for 1998.
Page
22
23
24
25
26
28
30
32
34
35
36
37
38
jii
Contents, continued
Table 13. Bush Field Airport Wildlife Incident Reports for 1998.
List of Figures
Figure 1. Habitat map showing wetland units in the vicinity of Bush
Field Airport surveyed for birds during aerial surveys.
Figure 2. Habitat map of the Bush Field Airport vicinity showing
study sites used for ground surveys of birds.
Figure 3. Counts of total birds from aerial surveys of all
wetlands units combined.
Figure 4. Counts of total birds from aerial surveys of the
Constructed Wetlands Project.
Figure 5. Counts of total birds from aerial surveys of the
Merryland Ponds wetland unit.
Figure 6. Counts of total birds from aerial surveys of the
Upper Phinizy Swamp WMA wetland unit.
Figure 7. Counts of total birds from aerial surveys of the
Lower Phinizy Swamp WMA wetland unit.
Figure 8. Counts of total birds from aerial surveys of the
Natural Wetlands study unit.
Figure 9. Geometric mean (with 95%CI) counts of total
birds by wetland unit for migratory and non-migratory.
seasons, from aerial surveys.
Figure 10. Geometric mean (with 95%CI) tota.1 bird densities
by wetland unit for migratory and non-migratory
seasons, from aerial surveys.
Figure 11. Butler Creek water levels (monthly averages) for
Page
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
IV
Contents, continued
the period 1984-96 versus the 1998 (EI N iflo) survey
Page
seasons.
50
Figure 12. Total birds observed during ground surveys
conducted by the Clemson Ornithological Group,
by study site.
Figure 13. Total birds observed during ground surveys
conducted by EcoEnvironmental, Inc., by study site.
Figure 14. Proportions of bird species categories observed
at each study site during ground surveys (Clemson).
Figure 15. Total waterfowl observed during ground surveys,
by study site (Clemson).
Figure 16. Waterfowl densities (birds/ha) observed during
ground surveys, by season and study site (Clemson).
Figure 17. Total wading birds observed during ground surveys,
by study site (Clemson).
Figure 18. Wading bird densities (birds/ha) observed during
ground surveys, by seas'on and study site (Clemson).
Figure 19. Total shorebirds observed during ground surveys,
by study site (Clemson).
Figure 20. Total raptors/crows observed during ground surveys,
by study site (Clemson).
Figure 21. Map of Bush Field Airport identifying runways and
taxiways.
Figure 22. Total songbirds. (medium-sized) observed during
ground surveys, by.study site (Clemson).
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
v
Contents, continued
Figure 23. Total songbirds (small-sized) observed during ground
surveys, by study site (Clemson).
Appendix A. Example: Summary Data Sheet for aerial surveys .
Page
62
63
VI
Executive Summary
In response to a Federal court order to improve the quality of municipal wastewater discharges,
Augusta, Georgia initiated development of a "Constructed Wetlands Project" in 1997 near the Messerly
Wastewater Treatment Plant to "naturally" treat wastewater effluents prior to their entering the Savannah
River. Because of the project's potential to attract birds and its proximity to the Bush Field Airport, the
Federal Aviation Administration indicated the need to conduct an ecological study of the potential hazard
to aircraft posed by birds attracted to these wetlands. The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
commenced weekly aerial bird surveys of habitats in the vicinity of the airport beginning January 22,
1998. The Clemson Ornithological Group initiated ground surveys for birds beginning on April 18, 1998.
Both temporal and spatial patterns of bird abundance in the vicinity of the Bush Field Airport are
characterized by the data collected. Use of both aerial and ground bird surveys ensured that (1) all
significant wetland habitats in the vicinity of Bush Field Airport could be covered, (2) smaller bird
species not identifiable during aerial surveys could be accounted for, thus increasing the diversity of
species for which information could be obtained, and (3) a characterization of bird use on the airport
property could be made. It should be emphasized that aerial su~eys examined bird use of all areas from
the mouth of Butler Creek on the Savannah River north to the Merryland Ponds, including the
Constructed Wetlands, but not including the airport grounds. In contrast, ground surveys were
experimentally designed to examine bird use of the airport grounds, the Constructed Wetlands, and other
smaller wetland study sites that contained habitats similar to those within the Constructed Wetlands.
Most of the ground survey sites examined were located within the single Merryland Pond unit of the
aerial survey study. As a result of these differences in the areas examined, direct comparison of results
from aerial and ground surveys were not possible.
Bird Strike Reports from Bush'Field Airport indicated that nine bird strikes occurred in 1998.
Seventy-eight percent of these bird strikes occurred from mid summer through early fall and there was
no indication that birds associated with aquatic wetland habitats were involved in any of these strikes;
doves were the most frequent species involved. Bush Field Airport also logged 20 other Wildlife Incident
Reports during 1998. Of the 17 incident reports dealing with birds, starlings were the most frequently
cited species found on the airport grounds. Aquatic bird species were implicated in only 6 of 17 incident
reports. Birds dispersed from the airport grounds by Bush Field personnel flew in directions that were
consistent with movement to the wetland complex under study in only 7 of20 cases. Closer collaboration
with trained ornithologists could greatly improve the information gathered by bird strike reporting
procedures currently used at the airport.
Aerial Surveys
From January 22, 1998 through January 21, 1999, approximately 42,000 birds representing 52
species, including the endangered Wood Stork and threatened Bald Eagle, were observed using the entire
wetland complex north and northeast of Bush Field Airport. On average, more than twice as many birds
were observed during the migratory season (1,048; October -April) than during the non-migratory
season (394; May - September).
Waterfowl and a closely allied species, the American Coot, were the dominant species using the
wetland complex during the migratory season. Aerial counts of birds using the Constructed Wetlands
Project peaked at 980 individuals with93% of the birds being waterfowl and coots. Average numbers of
all combined bird species using the Constructed Wetlands Project during the migratory period were
greater than those using the Phinizy Swamp Wildlife Management Areas and the Natural Wetlands study
unit surrounding the artificial wetlands, but were lower than average bird numbers at the Merryland
Ponds. In contrast to the analysis based on total bird counts, average densities of birds (i.e., birds/hectare
of open water and marsh habitat) at the Constructed Wetlands Project were higher than at the Merryland
Ponds, but did not differ from bird densities at the Natural Wetlands unit.
During the non-migratory season, wading bird species dominated the avian assemblage observed
throughout the wetland complex. Average numbers of all combined bird species using the Constructed
Wetland Project were higher than those using the Phinizy Swamp Wildlife Management Areas, but did
not differ from average bird numbers found at the Merryland Ponds or the Natural Wetlands study unit.
During the non-migratory season, average bird densities at the Constructed Wetland Project were higher
than at some wetland study units, but densities did not differ from those at the Merryland Ponds or at the
Lower Phinizy WMA. From late February through late July, wading bird breeding colonies were active
within the Lower Phinizy WMA.
Savannah River water levels during the first quarter of 1998 were well above long-term average
levels because of the 1997-98 EI Nino Event. Large numbers of waterfowl used flooded lowland areas
just 04tside of the Constructed Wetlands Project and these conditions may have influenced numbers of
birds using the artificial wetland cells at the Constructed Wetlands Project. In fact, bird numbers tended
to be greater at the Constructed Wetlands Project in the first winter of study than in the second. Durin'g
the non-migratory period, decreasing river water levels corresponded with increasing wading bird
numbers throughout the wetland complex, and were associated with the timing of wading bird dispersal
from local breeding colonies.
Within the four wetland cells at the Constructed Wetlands Project, waterfowl and coots used the ponded
areas more than the marsh areas. In contrast, wading birds used the shallow marsh areas more often.
Wading birds using the po'nded areas were restricted to the shoreline, while those using the marsh areas
were found throughout accessible water depths.
Ground Surveys
From April 18, 1998 to January 23,1999, approximately 90,000 birds representing 157 species
were recorded during ground surveys, with medium-sized songbirds (i.e., blackbirds, grackles, doves,
etc.) accounting for the greatest proportion (38%) of birds seen across all study sites, followed by
waterfowl (30%). At Bush Field Airport, medium-sized songbirds were the most abundant group
observed during airport surveys, making up 70% of the birds seen. With the addition of small songbirds,
and crows and raptors, more than 95% of the birds seen at the airport were accounted for. Waterfowl and
wading birds made up only 1.5% of the total birds recorded on ground counts at Bush Field, while these
two bird categories made up 37% of the birds recorded at the Constructed Wetlands and 69% of the birds,
recorded at the Merryland Ponds study site. Average numbers of birds (all species combined) did not
differ among the wetland study sites, but all wetlands had greater numbers of birds than the Bush Field
Airport. During the migratory season, average bird numbers were highest for the Merryland Ponds study
site, though not differing significantly from bird numbers at the other wetlands. For the non-migratory
period, total bird abundance was greater at the Constructed Wetlands than at all other study sites.
Across sites, peak numbers of waterfowl were associated with migration movements and winter
residency. Counts of waterfowl at the Merryland Ponds site averaged greater than at all other sites, across
seasons and during the migratory season. Waterfowl abundance patterns were similar whether based on
numbers of birds or on bird densities.
2
Peak wading bird numbers occurred in July arid were associated with the dispersal of birds from
breeding colonies. Habitat changes (i.e., vegetation and fish kills, water drawdowns) within the cells of
the Constructed Wetlands in June and July, accounted for increased use of that site by wading birds and
shorebirds during this period. Analysis based on wading bird densities similarly found that the
Constructed Wetlands were higher than the other wetland sites during the peak (i.e., breeding) period of
the year.
Across sites, greater shorebird numbers were found during periods of migration, April-May and
July-September. Shorebirds were particular-'y attracted to the Constructed Wetlands in July when pond
drawdowns exposed extensive mudflats.
Numbers of raptors and crows did not differ among study sites, but were most abundant in the
area between August and October. At the Bush Field Airport, high raptor counts reflected the numerous
Mississippi Kites along the Savannah River. Throughout the study, crows were frequently seen on and
along the runways at the airport. Other regular bird of prey visitors to Bush Field were vultures, hawks,
and kestrels. '
Peak numbers of medium-sized songbirds occurred in July and November-January, and were
associated with mid summer dispersal of breeding birds and young, and movements of migrant birds in
the late fall and early winter. A lack of significant season and study site effects on medium songbird
abundance was likely due to high variance in numbers of birds observed.
There were site-specific patterns of small-sized songbird abundance due to different species
dominating this category at the various study sites. The timing of migration differed by species and thus
created multiple patterns of peak abundance. At the Bush Field Airport, sparrows and pipits dominated
the small songbirds seen during fall migration. Large numbers of swallows over theConstructed
Wetlands during the fall migration period resulted in greater small bird numbers being observed there
than at other sites.
Conclusions
Bird strike data for 1998 implicated small and medium-sized terrestrial birds, rather than aquatic
species associated with the Constructed Wetlands Project. This finding suggests that any efforts to
reduce bird strike hazards must include a plan to decrease numbers of small and medium-sized songbirds
and croWs on or near airport property. The results of both !he aerial and ground census counts reported
here indicate that seasonal differences in site use among species groups is an important consideration
when developing a management plan for controlling bird hazards in the vicinity of Bush Field Airport.
Both aerial and ground survey data further attest that other wetland habitats within the five-mile safe
distance zone around the airport support as many or more birds, depending on season and bird type, than
the Constructed Wetlands. With proper water level/habitat management at the Constructed Wetlands
Project, waterfowl and wading birds may be successfully displaced to other wetland sites located further
from the airport. Additional years of both aerial and ground surveys for birds, as described in this report,
are needed to address questions of annual variability in temporal and spatial bird abundance patterns now
identified.
3
Introduction '
In 1997, the Augusta - Richmond County Georgia Consolidated Government (hereafter Augusta) ,
was placed under a Federal court order to improve the water quality of its discharges from the Messerly
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP). The plant is located on the Doug Barnard Parkway, south of
, Augusta (Figure I). Augusta officials opted to initiate the development of a "Constructed Wetlands
Project" to "naturally" treat effluents from the WTP. The first phase of the wetland project that included
four wetland cells totaling 60 acres (24 hectares [ha)) was completed and placed into operation by late
1997. Planned additions to the artificial wetlands eventually would increase the project size to 360 acres
(144 ha). Because the Constructed Wetlands Project is on land adjacent to Bush Field Airport (Figure I),
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) expressed concern that birds attracted to the artificial
wetlands posed an increased risk of bird-aircraft strikes. As a result, Augusta officials were required by
FAA Advisory Circular 139, Section 337, to conduct an ecological study on wildlife hazard
management. To that end, Augusta enlisted the services of The University of Georgia's Savannah River
Ecology Laboratory (SREL), led by Dr. I. L. Brisbin, Jr., Senior Ecologist, and the Clemson
Ornithological Group (COG) led by Dr. Sidney A. Gauthreaux, Jr., Professor of Zoology at Clemson
University. In early 1998, the SREL began weekly aerial surveys in the vicinity of the Bush Field Airport
to document use by various species of birds, and in the spring of 1998, COG began biweekly ground
slirveys. Additionally, coq surveyed the airport property and areas bordering the airport. This report
summarizes data that were collected by both groups during a one-year period from late January 1998
through January 1999, over which time, 49 aerial and 19 ground bird survey events were conducted in
the area of interest. This report also summarizes the bird-aircraft strike and wildlife incident reports from
Bush Field Airport during calendar year 1998. A Geographical Information System (GIS) model
describing habitat features in the area of study was also constructed as a part of the contractual
agreement with SREL. This model is provided on compact disk, viewable from within ArcView on
UNIX, Windows 95/98 and NT platforms.
Study Areas
Terminology used in this report refer to specific areas of study as follows: Wetland complex is
used to describe the total study area extending from the mouth of Butler Creek on the Savannah River
north to the Merryland Ponds (Figure 1). The wetland complex is subdivided into smaller areas referred
to as wetland study units by the SREL aerial surveys. The COG ground survey areas are designated as
study sites. Within the Constructed Wetlands Project are multiple wastewater trea~ment impoundments
referred to as wetland cells.
Areas to the north and east of Bush Field were identified as containing the primary wetland
habitats in the vicinity of the airport (Figure I). A GIS habitat coverage developed at SREL by Dr. J. E.
Pinder III from 1997 multispectral Landsat Thematic Mapper Data was used to produce a habitat
characterization for this entire area. Habitatfeatures (consolidated into 17 classifications) within and
around the airport and found within Figure 1 are characterized in Table 1; about 40% of the area is
, considered wetland habitat by this GIS coverage. Immediately to the north and northeast of Bush Field is
the Augusta property where the Messerly Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Constructed Wetlands
Project are located (Figure 1). Lands nearby and surrounding the Augusta Wastewater Treatment Plant
include extensive natural wetlands (Phinizy-Swamp and the lower Butler Creek area, Figure I) that are
primarily forested, and water-filled clay-mining and borrow pits (Merryland Ponds, Figure I). Many of
these man-made ponds have undergone natural succession and have become attractive to birds of the
4
region, particularly migratory waterfowl. These wetland areas were surveyed for bird use in addition to
the Constructed Wetlands Project.
For the purposes of the SREL aerial survey study, the entire wetland complex was divided into
five units, with boundaries as illustrated in Figure 1. Total wetland areas within each study unit were
estimated from National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) GIS coverages. Wetland study units (Figure I)
included: Augusta's Constructed Wetland Project (the four wetland cells proper, 24 ha), the "Natural
Wetlands" of lower Butler Creek immediately surrounding the constructed wetlands (339.5 ha, NWI
wetlands), the Phinizy Swamp Wildlife Management Area (WMA) managed by the Georgia Department
of Natural Resources (above [324.6 ha, NWI wetlands] and below [290.7 ha, NWI wetlands] the Bobby
Jones Expressway extension), and the Merryland Ponds (711.1 ha, NWI wetlands). Additionally, the
1997 SREL GIS habitat coverage was used to produce a habitat characterization for each of the wetland
study units (Table 2). These characterizations confirmed that relatively undisturbed/undeveloped natural
study units such as the Upper and Lower Phii1izy Swamp WMA and the Natural Wetlands unit were
dominated by bottomland hardwood forests and swamp forests, accounting for 76,69, and 44% of the
total areas of these units, respectively, and each ~aving less than 2% open water habitat. In contrast, the
Merryland Ponds unit, with its clay-mining operation, had more than twenty times the open water habitat
as the undisturbed/undeveloped natural study units (Table 2). '
Areas selected as COG study sites (Figure 2) were: the Constructed Wetlands site (i.e., the four
wetland cells, a portion of the settling basin northwest of the wetland cells, and a ponded area directly
north of the wetland cells intended for use as a future cell, 42.6 ha total area), the Bush Field Airport
property, the Merryland Ponds site (136.7 ha, total area), and the Bobby Jones Expressway/Phinizy Ditch
Marsh site (169.7 ha, total area), an extensive natural wetland and borrow pit pond system north and
south of the expressway. The Merryland and Bobby Jones Expressway sites contain open bodies of water
(dominant habitat types at each site, 59% and 38%, respectively; Table 3) and marshes similar to the
Constructed Wetlands (i.e., a combination of man made and natural marsh habitats). Other habitat
features of the Merryland and Expressway Ponds study sites are presented in Table 3. Bush Field Airport
has a small ponded area near the north end of the airport property and is bounded on the southeast by the
Savannah River. Surveys at this site were conducted along the eastern boundary of the airfield, which
maximized views of the runway areas, and also provided information about bird use along the Savannah
River.
Bird Survey Methods
Aerial Surveys
Savannah River Ecology Laboratory contracted with Augusta Aviation, 'Inc. based at Daniel
Field, Augusta Georgia, to provide aircraft and pilots for the weekly aerial bird surveys. Because of
potential bias associated with multiple observers, all aerial surveys were conducted by a single observer.
The SREL observer, W. L. Stephens, Jr., accompanied the pilot in a Cessna 172 aircraft; the pilot was
instructed.to fly at an altitude of approximately 100 - 120 ft and an airspeed of about 80 mph. Surveys
consisted of complete coverages of the entire wetland complex under study by flying adjacent transects,
thus providing what are considered true count data as opposed to randomized line-transect surveys which
yield estimates of bird abundance (this latter technique is often used when study areas are large
geographic regions). Pilots were instructed to circle above larger flocks of birds while species were
identified and counts were made. Bird species and numbers of individuals were recorded directly onto
field maps; after survey completion, observed birds were tallied by species within wetland study units
and recorded on a summary data sheet (Appendix A). Additional data provided on each summary data
5
sheet included: date, time of survey, general weather conditions at the time of the aerial survey (i.e.,
visibility, wind, temperature, rainfall), and Savannah River stage at Butler Creek. Any vehicles, boats, or
people in the study areas were also noted. Generalfy, aerial surveys were conducted during the early-to-
mid morning hours, with 34 of 49 (69%) of the surveys being started by 1000hrs; later surveys often
resulted from delays due to heavy fog in the area. Typically, surveys lasted 1.5 - 2 hours.
The Statistical Analysis System (Statistical Analysis System, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) was
used to summarize aerial survey data and conduct specific statistical analyses described below. In some
analyses, area estimates of habitats similar to those found in the Constructed Wetlands (i.e., open water,
macrophytes, marsh, and stream habitats, see Table 2) were summed within each study unit and were
used to convert counts of birds observed during aerial surveys into bird densities (birds/ha). Those
summed areas used for estimating bird densities were as follows: Constructed Wetland Project (24 ha),
Natural Wetlands (14.67 ha),the Lower Phinizy Swamp WMA (0.99 ha), Upper Phinizy Swamp WMA
(7.74 ha), and the Merryland Ponds (326.07 ha). Note that the Merryland Ponds unit contained over 13
times more of these habitat types than the Constructed Wetlands Project. Data were transformed (e.g.,
square-root, common log) as necessary to improve or meet requirements for data normality in parametric
statistical tests that were used. Fisher's Least Significant Difference (LSD) test was used to make
multiple comparisons among class levels of the main effects or their interactions. The data were scaled to
prevent log-transformation of values of zero. Least square means estimates from resulting analyses were
back-transformed, removing the scaling 'factors, to produce geometric means. We accepted statistical
significance at the P::; 0.05 level, but acknowledged marginal significance when probabilities
approached the P = 0.05 level.
Ground Surveys
Ground surveys were conducted on two consecutive days, twice a month. Typically, surveys
were conducted every other week when weather permitted. Daily surveys were conducted during four
discrete periods: (I) early rriorning(commencing approximately 15 minutes before sunrise), (2)
midmorning, (3) midafternoon and (4) late afternoon (coinciding with sunset). Each of the four sites was
surveyed once each survey day. The order that sites were surveyed each day was rotated sequentially so
that each site was surveyed once ineach daiiy period during a two-week survey cycle (four total survey
days). This experimental design insured equal effort at each site, for each daily period, throughout the
study. Two types of surveys were conducted; ground and fly-over counts. Survey durations were fixed,
depending on survey type. Using fixed area (i.e., sites of approximately equal area), fixed duration
searches reduced variance resulting from biased survey effort.
Numbers of individuals of each species recorded at each site provided an index of daily and
seasonal use of those study sites. Ground surveys were limited to selected bodies of water and the
terrestrial habitats in the immediate vicinity (approximately 50 meters) of those water bodies. Standard
information (e.g., observer, date, time, location, local weather conditions) was recorded before beginning
each ground survey. Ground surveys were conducted at four fixed locations at each survey site visited on
each survey day. Each fixed location ground survey lasted a maximum of20 minutes. Observers used
binoculars and spotting scopes (20-60 power) to conduct ground surVeys.
observers began scans at one end of the survey area (i.e., area viewable from the fixed location)
and panned clockwise to cover the entire survey area visible from the survey point. Hand-held counters
were used to keep a running count of the standing population of each species present, and counts of each
species were recorded. The scan was repeated at least once in a counterclockwise direction. If several
6
species were present, multiple scans were made during each 20-minute scan period. Additionally, a 300-
m transect was surveyed within each study site, during each daily survey. The purpose of this survey was
to record numbers of small birds not easily detected when surveying large areas from a fixed location.
Each transect was walked slowly so that all species encountered could be recorded. All data were
transcribed to data sheets before entry into electronic spreadsheet files.
Recording the numbers of birds in the air spa<.::e around the study sites (i.e., fly-over surveys)
provides information on daily and seasonal movement patterns (e.g., direction, approximate altitudes,
timing) and suggests how each site is used (e.g., foraging, roosting). Because daily movements of birds
often coincide with sunrise and sunset, fly-over surveys conducted during the early morning period
began approximately 15 minutes before sunrise, and surveys conducted during the late afternoon period
ended by sunset. All fly-over scans lasted 10 minutes, with five minutes devoted to scanning each of two
1800 sectors, north and south. When birds were detected, the following information was recorded: (I)
number of individuals, (2) number of flocks, (3) species (if possible) or type (e.g., raptor, gull, duck,
heron, songbird), (4) flight direction (by use of compass or landmarks to determine flight direction), (5)
approximate distance to the observer, (6) approximate flight altitudes and (8) flight behaviors (e.g.,
climbing steadily, level flight, landing, taking-off). Analyses of fly-over data are not available at this
time and will be presented in the COG's final report at a later date.
Distribution of bird abundance was investigated using two-way analysis of variance (ANOV A)
to detect differences between the main effects of SITE (see above descriptions) and SEASON (e.g.,
spring migration, fall migration, breeding [summer], non-breeding [winter]), and the interaction between
main effects (SITE x SEASON). If significant main effects or interactions were found, Fisher's Least
Significant Difference (LSD) test was used to make multiple comparisons among class levels of the main
effects or their interactions. Statistical significance was accepted at the P s 0.05 level.
Aerial Survey Results
Forty-nine aerial surveys were conducted at roughly weekly intervals during the period January
22,1998 through January 21, 1999. During the Masters Golf Tournament week (AprilS-II), no aerial
survey was attempted due to the substantial increase in aircraft traffic in the Bush Field Airport area. In
addition, flights initiated on April 23, September 15, and December 22 were halted by Bush Field Air
Traffic Control because of limited visibility conditions in the area.
Migratory vs. Non-Migratory Seasons
Over the, 12-month study period, nearly 42,000 birds representing 52 species were recorded
(Table 4). Counts of all bird species across the five wetland study units ranged from a maximum of2,275
individuals on December 31 to a minimum of 74 birds on June 4 (Table 5, Figure 3). By the end of April,
the majority of local winter residents and transient migrants had departed the area for more northerly
breeding areas. The 21 aerial surveys conducted from May 1 through September 30, 1998 were
considered the breeding season, hereafter referred to as the "non-migratory" season. The remaining 28
surveys condu,cted from January 22 through April 30, 1998 and from October I, 1998 through January
21, 1999, represented the fall and spring migration periods together with the mid-winter period, hereafter
referred to as the "migratory" season.
7
The aerial survey data spanned two separate migratory periods (1997-98 and 1998-99), with
Savannah River water levels contrasting sharply between those periods. Overall, bird numbers tended to
decrease from the first to the second migratory period (1,289 vs. 918 birds/survey, respectively), ,
coinciding with lower water conditions in the fall/winter of 1998-99. Likewise, numbers of birds at the
Constructed Wetlands Project tended to decrease from the 1997-98 in igratory season (3 07 birds/survey)
to the 1998-99 migratory season (150 birdS/survey). Alt~ough these tendencies were identified as
marginally significant, they should be taken with caution since they refer to non-overlapping periods of
the migratory seasons from two different years. Data from additional years of study will be required to
adequately address any questions of annual variation in bird abundance.
During the migratory season, waterfowl (i.e., ducks, geese, and swans) and a closely allied
species, the American Coot, dominated the avian assemblage observed during aerial surveys, accounting
for an average of 65% of all birds seen (range: 18 - 93%; from Table 5). In contrast, during the non-
migratory season, these same species accounted for an average of only 16% of all birds seen. During the
non-migratory period, however, wading bird species dominated the observations, averaging 56% of all
birds observed (range: 9 - 94%; from Table 5).
To determine whether bird numbers differed between migratory and non-migratory seasons
across the entire, wetland complex, and to determine if Savannah River water level fluctuations
influenced bird numbers in the wetland complex similarly between seasons, we conducted an analysis of
covariance (ANCOV A [homogeneity of slopes model], General Linear Models Procedure, Statistical
Analysis System, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). We used square-root-transformed total bird numbers
pooled across wetland units from each of the 49 flights as the dependent variable, SEASON (i.e.,
migratory versus non-migratory) as a main class effect, RIVER LEVEL as the continuously distributed
covariate, and their interaction. This model explained a significant amount of the variation in bird counts
(F3, 45 = 12.7, P = 0.0001, R2 = 0.46). Counts of all bird species differed (Type I SS for main effect
SEASON, Fl. 45 = 31.8, P = 0.0001) between seasons, with surveys conducted during the migratory
season averaging 1,048 birds arid those conducted during the non-migratory season averaging 394 birds.
The covariate effect for river level was not significant (Type III SS, Fl. 45 = 0.54, P = 0.47) in the
ANCOV A, indicating that there was no consistent effect of river level across seasons for the wetland
complex as a whole. Slopes for the simple linear relationship between river level and bird numbers
differed by season (Interaction Type III SS, Fl. 4S = 6.3, P = 0.016), indicating that fluctuating river levels
had different effects on birds in the migratory versus non-migratory seasons. The slope estimate for the
relationship was positive for the migratory period, though not statistically different from zero (P = 0.12),
indicating 110 change in bird numbers with fluctuating river levels. In contrast, the slope estimate was
negative and was marginally significant (P = 0.058) during the non-migratory period, indicating higher
river levels were associated with fewer birds. Because of these marginal seasonal differences in river
level effects at the geographic scale of the entire wetland complex, and the fact that the avian
, ,
assemblages in the migratory and non-migratory seasons were dominated by different species groups
(i.e., waterfowl in the migratory season and wading birds in the non-migratory season), all subsequent
analyses were conducted separately for each season.
Wetland Study Units within the Overall Wetland Complex
Counts of birds peaked at the Constructed Wetlands Project (980 individuals) on March 19
(Figure 4) with 93% of those birds being- waterfowl and American Coots. Twenty-four bird species were
identified at the artificial wetlands during aerial surveys (Table 6). Species observed most frequently on
the Constructed Wetlands Project included North,ern Shovelers, American Coots, Great Egrets, and a
8
shorebird tentatively identified as a species of Yellow legs (Table 6). Northern Shovelers, in particular,
have been known to gather in sizable numbers on sewage lagoons, where they feed on abundant plankton
(Bellrose, F.C. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America. Stackpole, 1980). Species occurring in the
greatest numbers (:e: 200 on an individual survey) on the artificial wetlands included Ring"necked Ducks,
Lesser Scaup, American Coots, Cattle Egrets, Yellowlegs, and Red-winged Blackbirds (Table 7). Most
of the birds commonly found at the artificial wetlands tend to consume large quantities of invertebrate
fauna, and a wetland of this typewould be expected to harbor dense populations of such prey. An
exception to this generalization would be the American Coot, which feeds primarily on aquatic
vegetation, and algae in particular.
, At the Merryland Ponds, a peak of 1 ;885 birds was observed on December 31 (Figure 5), with
52% of the birds being waterfowl and American Coots. A greater diversity of bird species (44) was noted
on the Merryland Ponds than on all the other wetland study units (Table 6). Most frequently encountered
were Canada Geese, Wood Ducks, Mallards, Great Blue Herons, Great Egrets, Double-crested
Cormorants, and American Anhingas, each occurring on more than half of the 49 surveys (Table 6).
Species occurring in the greatest numbers (:e: 200 on an individual survey) were American Green-winged
Teal, Gadwall, American Wigeon, Ring-necked Ducks, Ruddy Ducks, American Coots, Double-crested
Cormorants, and gull species, the latter being dominated by the Ring..,billed Gull (Larus delawarensis;
Table 7).
Counts of birds from the Phinizy Swamp Wildlife Management Area, above and below the
Bobby Jones Expressway extension, are presented in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. Habitats within these
two study units were dominated by forested wetlands, thus increasing the difficulty in aerial censusing of
birds. Consequently, certain bird species maybe underrepresented in counts from these areas, in
particular the year-round resident Wood Ducks. Despite this potential limitation, 27 bird species were
identified in these two study units, with American Wigeon, Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets being
the most frequently observed (Table 6). Only one species, American Wigeon, occurred in numbers:e: 200
on an individual survey (Table 7). Breeding colonies of Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets were
identified by aerial surveys in the southeastern portion ofthe Lower Phinizy Swamp unit. Details
concerning these breeding colonies are discussed elsewhere.
Counts of birds from the Natural Wetlands found in the lower Butler Creek region surrounding
the Constructed Wetlands Project were substantially higher in the first winter than in the second winter
(Figure 8). Although much of this study unit is also comprised of forested wetlands as with the Phinizy
Swamp units, cleared areas surrounding the .artificial wetland cells (i.e., sites for planned artificial
wetland additions) and the oxbow lakes near the river were the primary bird use areas identified in this
study unit. A total of 37 bird species was ide~tified using the Natural Wetlands unit, with Great Blue
Herons and Great Egrets most frequeI:1tly seen (Table 6). Bjrd species observed in greatest numbers (:e:
200 on an individual survey) included Ring-nec~ed Ducks, Great Egrets, Cattle Egrets, and Red-winged
Blackbirds (Table 7).
To examine whether bird numbers differed among the five wetland study units (i.e., Constructed
Wetlands Project, Natural Wetlands, Lower Phinizy WMA, Upper Phinizy WMA, and Merryland
Ponds), and to determine if Savannah River water level fluctuations influenced bird numbers similarly
among the study units, we conducted ANCOV As (homogeneity of slopes models). We used common
log-transformed total bird numbers from each unit during each of the 49 flights (N = 245) as the
dependent variable, wetland study UNIT as the main class effect, and RIVER LEVEL as the
continuously distributed covariate. The interaction was included to test for differences among wetland
units in river level/bird count slopes. When non-significant, this interaction term was removed from the
9
model, and the analysis was rerun. This'statistical approach was performed separately for the migratory
(N = 140) and non-migratory (N = 105) seasons for reasons discussed earlier.
For the migratory season, the full statistical model explained a significant portion of the variation
in bird counts'(F9. 130 = 23.5, P = 0.000 I, R2 = 0.62), with all effects in the model being significant
. (UNIT: Type III SS [Intercept term], F4, 130 = 23.0, P = 0.0001), RIVER LEVEL: Type III SS, Fl. \30 =
9.2, P = 0.003), INTERACTION: Type III SS, F4. \30 = 3.2, P = 0.014). During the migratory season
(Figure 9, top), significant differences (Type I SS, F4, 130 = 47.3, P = 0.0001) in average counts of birds
were found among the five study units, with all study units being different from one another (LSD tests,
Ps < 0.003). Bird counts were highest for the Merryland Ponds (mean = 536 birds/survey), followed by
counts of birds observed at the <::onstructed Wetlands Project (mean = 154 birds/survey). Counts
averaged 53 birds/survey at the Natural Wetlands unit. Numbers of birds from the Upper and Lower
Phinizy WMA were lowest, averaging 17 and 5 birds/survey, respectively. Slope estimates from the river
'level/bird count relationship were positive for fO,ur of five study units, though only statistically different
from a slope ofzero in the case of the Natural Wetlands (slope = 0.067:t 0.016SE). These results
indicate that bird numbers tended to increase throughout the wetland complex with increasing river water
levels. In particular, the positive trend between river levels and bird numbers was evident for the Natural
Wetlands area surrounding the Constructed Wetlands Project where waterfowl made extensive use of the
area under flood conditions.
Dominant species using the Constructed Wetlands Project during the migratory period were
Blue-winged Teal, Northern Shovelers, Ring-necked Ducks, Lesser Scaup, and American Coots. We
found some evidence that birds, particularly waterfowl, moved within the entire wetland complex to
exploit the available resources. For example, peak use of the Constructed Wetlands Project on March 19
was accompanied by concurrent declines in use of both the Merryland Ponds and the Natural Wetlands
(Figures 4,5,8). During the, migratory season, minimal use of the Lower Phinizy WMA by birds was
found (Figures 7 and 9, top), although substantial use by waterfowl of a single flooded borrow pit area
just north of the Bobby Jones Expressway extension was noted for the Upper Phinizy WMA (Figures 6
and 9, top).
For the non'-migratory season ANCOVA (homogeneity of slopes model; R2 = 0.52), the wetland
unit effect (UNIT: Type III SS, F4.95 = 7.9, P = 0.000 I) and the river level covariate (RIVER LEVEL:
Type III SS, Fl. 95 = 9.1, P = 0.003) were statistically significant, but their interaction was not
(INTERACTION: Type III SS, F4.95 = 0.57, P =0.69). This model was subsequently rerun with the
interaction term removed (F5.99 = 20.3, P = 0.000 I, R2 = 0.51) and both the wetland unit effect (UNIT:
Type III SS, F4.99 = 23.1, P = 0.0001) and the river level covariate (RIVER LEVEL: Type III SS, Fl. 99 =
9.3, P = 0.003) were statistically significant. During the non-migratory season (Figure 9, bottom),
average counts of birds observed at the MerQ!land Ponds (91 birds/survey), the Constructed Wetlands
Project (87 birds/survey), and the Natural Wetlands (83 birds/survey) did not differ statistically (LSD
tests, Ps > 0.80), but were all significantly (LSD tests, Ps = 0.0001) greater than average bird numbers
observed at either the Upper or Lower Phinizy WMA (5 and 16 birds/survey, respectively). The
significant river level effect and simultaneous non-significant interaction term in the first model run
indicated that bird numbers at all wetland units responded similarly to river conditions during the non-
migratory season. That common relationship among study units was then identified when the second
model was run without the interaction term. The significant slope estimate (-0.029 :t 0.0096SE) indicated
that birds were drawn to the entire wetland complex as river levels were lowered. The timing of low river
conditions in mid-to-Iate summer coincided with the dispersal of wading birds from local br~eding
colonies, both from those located within the wetland complex as well as from others located outside the
10
immediate study areas. This is probably a pattern of wading bird movements/distributions that may be
expected to take place in most years in the area.
Dominant species using the Constructed Wetland~ Project during the non-migratory season were
Great Egrets, White Ibis, Great Blue Herons and sandpiper species, including Yellowlegs. During the
June II aerial survey, an anomalous event was noted at the Constructed Wetlands Project. All vegetation
in the wetland cells was dead or dying and dead fish were seen floating on the surface. In response tothis
event, numerous wading birds, particularly Great Egrets and Great Blue Herons, totaling 78 individuals,
were actively foraging at the site, presumably on the dead fish.
A substantial change in the pattern of bird distributions from the migratory to the non-migratory
season occurred in the Upper and Lower Phinizy WMA. Wading bird use of the Lower Phinizy WMA
area accounted for greater bird numbers than in the Upper Phinizy WMA during the non-migratory
season (Figure 9), and was associated with wading bird colonies (discussed below) established at the
former wetland unit.
Because the wetland units surveyed were different in overall size and the amounts of habitat
similar to that found within the Constructed Wetlands, an analysis based on counts alone potentially
would not give a complete picture of the importance/attractiveness of these v~rious study units to the
birds. Therefore, similar ANCOV As (with interactions, General Linear Models Procedure, Statistical
Analysis System, SAS Institute, Inc.; Cary, NC) as described above were repeated for both the migratory
and non-migratory seasons, using bird densities (common log-transformed) as the dependent variable.
: For the migratory season, the full statistical model explained only a modest portion of the
variation in the data (F9. 130 = 2.9, P = 0.0037, R2 = 0.17), including a marginally significant effect of
wetland unit (UNIT: Type III SS [Intercept term], F4. 130 = 2.3, P = 0.062) arid a significant river level
effect (RIVER LEVEL: F1.130 = 7.6, P_ = 0.007); their interaction was marginally significant
(INTERACTION: F4. 130 = 2.1, P == 9.086). During the migratory season (Figure 10, top), statistical
differences in average bird density were detected among the five study units (UNIT: Type I SS, F4. 130 =
2.5, P ~ 0.043). The Constructed Wetlands Project had significantly (LSD tests, Ps < 0.015) greater
average bird densities (6.1 birds/ ha/survey) than the Upper Phinizy WMA (1.5 birds/ha/survey) or the
Merryland Ponds (1.6 birds/ha/survey), and marginally (LSD test, P = 0.06) greater average bird
densities than the Lower Phinizy WMA (2.4 birds/ha/survey; Figure 10, top). Constructed Wetlands
Project average bird densities did notdiffer (LSD test, P = 0.26) from those at the Natural Wetlands (3.4
birds/ha/survey; Figure 10, top). These results-contrast from the results for bird counts showing that the
Merryland Ponds had the highest total bird numbers. This difference can be attributed to the differential
bird use of varying amounts of open water/marsh habitat within study units. Although Merryland Ponds
had greater bird numbers than the Constructed Wetlands, birds at the Merryland Ponds were spread over
a much larger area (24 vs 326 ha at the Constructed Wetlands and Merryland Ponds, respectively). These
results would also confirm some level of preference for the Constructed Wetlands, particularly for
Northern Shovelers, Blue-winged Teal, and possibly Lesser Scaup (see Table 6, for waterfowl) during
the migratory season. -
Because of marginal significance of the interaction term, we chose not to remove it from the
model, and instead, examined potential differences among wetland units in the river levellbird density
relationships. Density of birds was positivelyrelated to river levels at the Natural Wetlands (slope =
0.068 :t 0.022SE) and at the Lower Phinizy WMA (slope = 0.045 :t 0.022SE) during the migratory
season. Slope estimates for the river level/bird density relationship at other wetland units were not
significantly different from zero (Ps > 0.10).
II
For the non-migratory season, the interaction term in the full rank ANCOV A model was not
significant (INTERACTION: Type III SS, F4,95 = 1.05, P = 0.39), and that term was subsequently
dropped from the model. When the model was run again (F5.99 = 15.3, P = 0.0001, R2 = 0.44), we found a
significant study unit effect (UNIT: Type III SS, F4.99 = 18.2, P = 0.0001) and a marginaUy significant
river level effect (RIVER LEVEL: Type III SS, FI. 99 = 3.5, P = 0.063) on bird density. Bird densities at
the Lower Phinizy WMA (mean = 10.3 birds/ha/survey) were highest Figure 10, bottom), but did not
differ (LSD test, P = 0.25) from bird densities at the Natural Wetlands (mean = 5.5 birds/halsurvey), and
were only marginally (LSD test, P = 0.056) higher than bird densities at the Constructed Wetlands
Project (mean = 3.6 birds/ha/survey). Wading birds breeding in colonies at the Lower Phinizy WMA
were responsible for this outcome, and largely for the differences between results for bird numbers and
bird densities. Moreover, the low bird densities at the Merryland Ponds as compared to relatively high
, bird numbers there were once again are attributable to the larger area of habitat at the Merryland Ponds
, over which the birds were distributed. There was some level of preference shown by shorebirds and
White Ibis for the Constructed Wetlands during the non-migratory season (see Table 6, for waders, and
Yellowlegs and Sandpipers). The marginally significant overall slope estimate (-0.026 :t 0.014SE) further
suggested that birds were drawn to the entire wetland complex as river levels declined.
Bird Use of Areas within the Artificial Wetland Cells
Because wetland cells in the Constructed Wetlands Project were designed and built with
contoured bottoms, two different habitat types were established. These included (1) a centnil ponded
region and (2) surrounding shallow-water areas where emergent marsh vegetation was planted. During
aerial surveys of the Constructed Wetlarids Project, bird locations were recorded within the wetland cells
to determine if preferences existed for use of these specific habitats. To remove potential bias resulting
from disturbances to birds using the wetland cells, surveys were not included when vehicles and/or
people on foot were observed at the site. Waterfowl used the ponded areas to a greater degree (78%) than
the marsh areas (22%, Table 8); American Coots also tended to use the ponded areas more (73%, Table
8). In contrast, however, and as might be expected, wading birds used the marsh areas (97%) to a greater
degree (Table 8). Wading birds using the ponded areas were restricted to the shoreline, while those using
the marsh areas were found throughout accessible water depths. Elimination of the ponded areas of the
artificial wetlands in future constructions and the maintenance of a shallow ( < 3-4 inches) water regime
with dense emergent vegetation has the greatest potential for reducing numbers of waterfowl, coots, and
wading birds using such wetlands.
Wading Bird Breeding Colonies
During aerial surveys, breeding colonies of Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets were identified
within the southeastern portion of the Lower Phinizy WMA (Figure I). Great Blue Herons were first
noted in the colony on February 5, and on February 12, Great Egrets began gathering nearby. A general
dispersal of birds, particularly Great Blue Herons, from the colony was noted on June 18, indicating an
approximate hatch time of the second week of April, assuming a 65-day nestling period. This estimate
would suggest that egg laying by Great Blue Herons occurred during the second and possibly third week
of March. In fact, by March 12,30 Great Blue Heron nests were identified within the colony. Maximum
numbers of nests observed were 30 and 20for Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets, respectively. Great
Egrets initiated nests a few weeks later thim the Great Blue Herons, so that as late as July 16,25 Great
Egrets were still observed in the colony. By late July, activity in the vicinity of the colony had ceased.
12
Future studies of the movement patterns offoraging adult wading birds from these colonies during the
incubation and chick-rearing periods could provide additional important information on the potential
hazard imposed by these breeding colonies.
The 1997-98 EI Nino Event, Local Water Co,!ditions, and Bird Distributions
Wetland conditions (i.e., the extent of local drought or flooding) are important when considering
birddistributions among study units. Although direct influence from the Savannah River is primarily
limited to the lower Butler Creek region because of protection offered by the Augusta levee, local
rainfall patterns can impact water depths throughout the wetland complex. We thought it useful to
address wetland conditions during the migratory season of 1997-98, particularly those conditions that
prevailed in the lower Butler Creek Natural Wetlands, including areas just outside of the Constructed
Wetlands Project.
The EI Nino event that dominated weather conditions in much of the southeast during the fall
and winter of 1997-98 continued into early spring of 1998, bringing with it greater than average rainfall
for the local area. Savannah River levels at Butler Creek during the first quarter of 1998 were well above
long-term average levels (Figure 11) and these conditions persisted until June 1998. Aerial surveys
indicated that large numbers of waterfowl (sometimes > 800; Figure 8) were using flooded lowland areas
just outside of the Constructed Wetlands Project. These are areas that have been designated as sites of
future constructed wetland cells. But, in their present un impounded condition, these areas likely would
not have been inundated in average years, and therefore typically would not provide suitable habitat to so
many waterfowl. Such anomalous waterfowl use of the Natural Wetlands unit surrounding the
Constructed Wetlands Project may have influenced numbers of birds using the artificial wetland cells by
drawing additional birds to the general area where they might be more likely to encounter the artificial
wetlands.
Ground Survey Results
To date, the Clemson Ornithology Group (COG) and EcoEnvironmental, Inc. (ECO) have each
independently conducted 19 ground~based surveys at each of the four study sites, between April 18, 1998
and January 23, 1999. Approximately 90,000 birds, representing 157 species were recorded during these
surveys. Scientific nomenclature for species mentioned below as being observed on ground surveys, but
not seen during aerial surveys and thus not found in Table 4, are presented as they occur within text. For
data analysis, each species obs~rved was assigned to a "species category" (Table 9): An initial three-way
ANOV A (main effects: SITE, SEASON, OBSERVERS [i.e., COG, ECO)) indicated that COG recorded
significantly more birds (mean = 471 birds/survey) than ECO (mean = 143; FI,282 = 61.2, P < 0.0001).
This difference was consistent across all sites and seasons, as evidenced by the lack of significant
interactions of the observer effect with the other main effects (Ps > 0.3). These distinctions are likely due
to differences in observer experience and are apparent by visual inspection of Figures 12 versus 13.
COG also recorded significantly more birds in each species category (Ps < 0.001) than ECO.
Consequently, separate analyses were performed for data collected by each group.
In the following sections, the results presented are from statistical analyses of the ground data
collected by COG. It is believed that data collected by COG better represent the abundance and diversity
of avifauna present at all sites during the survey period. This 'is especially true regarding bird categories
such as shorebirds, and medium and small songbirds, which are more difficult to detect than waterfowl
13
and wading birds. In addition to presenting the results of analyses for total number of birds, results are
also presented for species categories. Because numbers of birds in the "Gull" and "Woodpecker"
categories were comparatively low at all sites (s: 3%, Table 10), separate analysis results for these
categories are not reported.
Total Bird Counts
At all sites, there appeared to be two main peaks in total bird abundance (Figure 12). The first
peak occurred between July and August, and was likely associated with juvenile dispersal of wading
birds, post-breeding aggregations Of blackbirds and swallows, and an influx of migrating shorebirds. A
second peak occurred between October and January and was likely associated with the migration and
residency of wintering ducks and Double-crested Cormorants.
When all sites were considered together, medium-sized songbirds were the most numerous
category of birds recorded during the survey period (38%, Table 10). Red-winged Blackbirds and
Common Grackles (Quiscalus quiscula) were the most numerous species observed in this category.
Waterfowl accounted for 30% of the total birds recorded (Table 10), with Double-crested Cormorants,
American Coots, and several duck species making up the majority of birds recorded in this category.
Combined, small-sized songbirds, shorebirds and wading birds made up anqther 26% of the total birds
recorded across all sites (Table 10).
Medium-sized songbirds were also the most numerous category of birds recorded at Bush Field
Airport and the Expressway Ponds site during the survey period (Table 10, 70% and 55%, respectively).
Small-sized songbirds and raptors made up another 27% of birds recorded at Bush Field Airport, while
waterfowl and wading birds, species generally associated with wetland habitats, made up only 1.5% of
the total birds recorded. In contrast, waterfowl and wading birds comprised 37% of the birds recorded at
the Constructed Wetlands Project (Table 10). Compared with other sites, birds recorded at the artificial
wetlands were more evenly distributed among the species categories (Figure 14). The two songbird
categories represented 37% of the birds recorded, while shorebirds made up another 21 %. During the
study period, the Merryland Ponds study site had the greatest proportion of waterfowl (60%) and the
lowest proportion of medium-sized songbirds (17%).
For total nurnber of birds recorded, there were significant SEASON (Fl. 143'~ 4.8, P = 0.03) and
SIT (F3. 143 = 3.3, P = 0.024) effects, as well as a significant interaction between main effects (F3. 143 = 4.8,
P = 0.003). Bird numbers across all study sites were significantly higher during the migratory season
(October-January and April, mean = 561 birds/survey) than during the non-migratory season (May-
September, mean = 385 birds/survey). Total numbers of birds recorded at the three wetland sites across
seasons were not significantly different from each other (Table 11; LSD tests, Ps > 0.20), but all wetland
sites had greater numbers of birds than the Bush Field Airport (Table 11). However, the significant
interaction of the two main effects indicated that these relationships were not consistent across seasons.
Total bird abundance was significantly higher at the Constructed Wetlands Project during the non-
migratory season than at all other sites (Table 11; LSD tests, Ps < 0.05). Although bird abundance was
highest at the Merryland Ponds site during the migratory season (808 birds/survey), it was not
significantly higher than at other wetland sites (Table 11; LSD tests, Ps > 0.05).
14
Waterfowl
Waterfowl data were analyzed in two ways: (1) dividing the study period into two seasons
(migratory vs. non-migratory), similar to analyses for total bird numbers, and (2) dividing the study
period into four seasons (spring migration, breeding, fall migration, winter). The four-season model
explained more variation in the data (R2 = 0.86) than the two-season model (R2 = 0.57). However, the
results presented here are from the two-season analysis so that they can be compared directly with results
from the aerial surveys.
Peak numbers of waterfowl appeared to be associated both with spring movements recorded at
the Constructed Wetlands Project, and with fallmovements and winter residency at all three wetland
sites (Figure 15). It is important to note that spring counts in 1998 were I im ited to the last two weeks of
April. Similar to total bird numbers, there were significant effects of SEASON (F1.143 = 73.5, P < 0.0001)
and SITE (F3.143 = 22.1, P < 0.0001) on waterfowl numbers, and a significant interaction between main
effects (F3.143 = 17.9, P = 0.0001). Waterfowl numbers across all study sites were significantly higher
during the migratory season (October-January and April, mean = 263 birds/survey) than during the non-
migratory season (May-September, mean = 34 birds/survey). Across seasons, all wetland study sites had
significantly higher waterfowl counts than Bush Field Airport (Table 11; LSD tests, Ps < 0.001).
Additionally, the Merryland Ponds site had significantly higher counts than the other wetland sites.
Waterfowl abundance at the Constructed Wetlands Project and the Expressway Ponds were not
significantly different from each other (Table II; LSD test, P> 0.1). Although this pattern was similar
during the migratory season, waterfowl counts during the non-migratory season were not significantly
different among wetland sites (Table II; LSD tests, Ps > 0.5). It is likely that the significant interaction
of the main effects was associated with the lack of significant seasonal differences between waterfowl
counts at Bush Field Airport (Table 11).
Waterfowl abundance data collected at the wetland sites was also analyzed as a function of bird
density (birds/ha). The areas surveyed at the Constructed Wetlands Project were the smallest (42.6 ha),
followed by the Merryl~nd Ponds site (136.7 ha), and the Expressway Ponds were the largest (169.7 ha)
of the wetland areas surveyed. Trends were similar between analyses done with absolute numbers of
birds and with densities of birds. Across seasons, densities of waterfowl were significantly higher at the
Merryland Ponds (7.2 birds/ha/ survey) than at the Constructed Wetlands (3.8 birds/ha/survey) or the
Expressway Ponds (3.0 birds/ ha/survey; Figure 16). Across sites, bird densities were highest during the
migratory season (8.2 birds/ha/survey) compared with the non-migratory season (1..1 birds/ha/survey).
During the migratory period, waterfowl densities were highest at the Merryland Ponds (Figure 16),
however, there were no significant differences among sites during the non-migratory season (Figure 16;
LSD tests, Ps > 0.5).
Wading Birds
Similar to waterfowl, wading bird data were analyzed in two ways: (I) dividing the study period'
into two seasons (breeding, non-breeding) and (2) dividing the study period into three seasons (breeding,
post-breeding, non-breeding). The three~season model explained more variation in the data (R2 = 0.40)
than the two-season model (R2 = 0.20). Again however, results are presented from the two-season
analysis so that they can be compared with results from the aerial surveys.
Peak wading bird numbers occurred in July (Figure 17) and appeared to be associated with the
dispersal of hatching year birds. Little Blue Herons and White Ibis were the most numerous species
15
observed, with more than 95% of the individuals being juveniles. High numbers of wading birds
observed in July at the Constructed Wetlands were believed to be the result of a fish kill that was
accompanied by a vegetation die-off. This event, coupled with pond draw-down to facilitate marsh
vegetation replanting, appeared to attract large numbers of wading birds to a concentrated food source.
There were significant SEASON (Fl. 143 = 7.4, P < 0.007) and SITE (F3. 143 == 5.9, P < 0.0008)
effects found on wading bird numbers, along with a significant interaction between main effects (F3. 143 =
4.2, P = 0.007). Although across all sites, wading birds were significantly higher during the breeding
season (April-August, mean = 56 birds/survey) than during the non-breeding season (September-January,
mean = 19 birds/survey), this trend was probably driven by seasonal differences at the Constructed
Wetlands Project (Table II; 140 birds/ survey and 19 birds/survey, respectively). The Constructed
Wetlands Project was the only site that had significantly higher numbers of wading birds during the
breeding season compared to the non-breeding season (Table II; LSD test, P < 0.000 I). During the
breeding season, the, Constructed Wetlands Project had significantly higher wading bird counts than the
other sites (Table 11; LSD tests, Ps < 0.003), while the Merryland Ponds and Expressway Ponds were
not significantly different from each other (Table II; LSD test, P> 0.25). However, during the non-
breeding season there were no significant differences in wading bird numbers among the wetland sites.
Wading bird numbers were also analyzed as a function of density. Similar to patterns found in
the count data, densities of wading birds across seasons were significantly higher at the Constructed
Wetlands Project (1.9 birds/ha/survey) than at the Merryland (0.32 birds/ha/survey) or Expressway
Ponds (0.12 birds/ha/survey; Figure 18). Average densities across all sites were significantly higher
during the breeding season (1.3 birds/ha/survey) than during the non-breeding season (0.27
birds/halsurvey). The results 'of multiple.comparisons again showed that the Constructed Wetlands
Project had greater densities of birds during the breeding season (LSD tests, Ps < 0.0001), but that there
were no significant differences among wetland sites during the non-breeding season (LSD tests, Ps >
0.52; Figure 18).
\
Shorebirds
Peak shorebird counts corresponded with spring and fall migration periods (Figure 19; spring:
mid-April through mid-May, fall: late June through late Septernber). Similar to wading birds, high
numbers of shorebirds observed in July atthe Constructed Wetlands were believed to have resulted from
wetland cell draw-down during the vegetation replanting. This drawdown created extensive mudflat
areas and provided foraging habitat for migrating shorebirds.
In an initial analysis, the study period was divided into four seasons (spring migration, breeding,
fall migration, winter). Although a significant SEASON effect (F3, 135 ='10.5, P < 0.0001) was found, no
differences were evident between the two migration periods (LSD test, P = 0.3) or between the two non-
migratory periods (i.e., breeding, winter; LSD test, P = 0.99). Consequently, a simplified model
including only two seasons, migratory and non-migratory, was chosen. Additi~nally, the amount of
variance explained by the two-season model was only siightly less than the four-season model (R2 = 0.58
versus R2 = 0.60, respectively):
Significant SEASON (Fl. 143 = 29.9, P < 0.0001) and SITE (F3, 143 = 35.8, P < 0.0001) effects on
shorebird numbers were found, and also a significant interaction between main effects (F3, 143 = 22.5, P <
0.0001). Across sites, significantly more shorebirds were observed during the migratory season (71.6
birds/survey) than during the non-migratory period. However, this trend was likely driven by the pattern
16
of shorebird use at the Constructed Wetlands Project, the only individual study site that had a significant
seasonal difference in shorebird abundance (Table II; LSD test, P < 0.0001). Duringthe migratory
season, the Constructed Wetlands Project had significantly greater numbers of shorebirds than all other
sites (Table II; LSD tests, Ps < 0.0001), while shorebird numbers did not differ significantly among the
remaining sites (Table II; LSD tests, Ps > 0.2)~ Although the Constructed Wetlands Project tended to
have higher counts of shorebirds during the non-migratory season, no significant differences were found
in shorebird counts among sites during this period (Table 11; LSD tests, Ps > 0.17).
Raptors and Crows
Data for rap tors and crows were divided into three seasons: breeding (mid-April through
August), fall migration (September and October) and non-breeding (November through January). Peak
raptor/crow counts occurred between August and October (Figure 20) at Bush Field Airport, Merryland
Ponds and the Expressway Ponds. This trend appeared to be associated with post-breeding dispersal and
migration of American Crows (Corvus brachyrhyncos). There did not appear to be a seasonal trend in
activity at the Constructed Wetlands (Figure 20). No significant effects of SITE (F3. \39 = 0.78, P = 0.35)
or the interaction term (F6. 139 = 1.7, P = 0.12) were found. However, raptor/crow counts were
significantly different among seasons (SEASON: F2, 139 = 5.3, P < 0.006), with the greatest bird numbers
occurring during fall migration.
Raptor counts were highest at Bush Field Airport during the breeding season, reflecting high
numbers of Mississippi Kites along the Savannah River, especially near the east/west runway (Le.,
runways 8 and 26, Figure 21). Throughout the study period, American Crows were frequently observed
on and along the runways at Bush Field Airport. Additionally, birds of prey such as Turkey Vultures,
Northern Harriers, Red-tailed Hawks, and American Kestrels (Falco sparverius); were regularly
observed flying over the airport, or in close proximity.
Songbirds (medium-sized)
Data for medium-sized songbirds were divided into three seasons: breeding (mid-April through
July), fall migration (August through mid-October) and non-breeding (late October through January).
Peak counts in this species category occurred-in July and then again between November and January at
the Constructed Wetlands Project, Merryland Ponds, and the Expressway Ponds (Figure 22). This pattern
appeared to be associated with post-breeding and juvenile dispersal of Red-winged Blackbirds and
Common Grackles in mid summer, and the influx of migrant blackbirds, including Eastern Meadowlarks,
in the late fall and early winter.
Although medium-sized songbird counts (averaged across all sites) tended to be highest during
the non-breeding season (218 birds/survey) they were not significantly higher than counts from other
seasons (Table 11). Similarly, bird counts in this species category tended to be highest at the Expressway
Ponds (253 birds/survey), but not significantly higher than counts at other sites (Table 11). No significant
SEASON (F2. \39 = 0.51, P = 0.60) or SITE (F3. 139 = 1.2, P > 0.3) effects were found on medium songbird
numbers. Furthermore, there was no significant interaction term (F6. \39 = 0.50, P = 0.81). It is likely that
this lack of significance is due to the high variance in the numbers of medium songbirds observed. This
is evident in the relatively high standard errors reported (Table 11). Blackbirds can be nomadic during
the non-breeding season, when food resources can be highly variable. Additionally, Red-winged
17
Blackbirds will typically forage in upland and agricultural areas and nest or roost in wetlands, thereby
increasing variability in detection.
Songbirds (small-sized)
Data for small-sized songbirds were categorized, as with medium-sized songbirds, into three
seasons: breeding (mid-April through July), fall migration (August through mid-October) and non-
breeding (late October through January). Peak counts in this category occurred in May (Bush Field
Airport, Merryland Ponds, Expressway Ponds) and June (Constructed Wetlands Project), and again in
September (Constructed Wetlands Project), October (Merryland Ponds) and November (Bush Field
Airport; Figure 23). These site-specific patterns of abundance in fall were likely associated with
differences in the timing of migration of the birds using each site. Swallows and warblers, abundant at
the Constructed Wetlands during fall migration, begin to'migrate in late August and September.
Sparrows and American Pipits (Anthus rubescens) were the most abundant small songbirds observed at
Bush Field Airport during fall migration. Sparrow migration typically peaks in late October and
November.
Significant SEASON (F2. 139 = 6.8, P < 0.002) and SITE (F3. 139 = 11.7, P < 0.000 I) effects were
found for numbers of small songbirds, in addition to a significant interaction between main effects (F6, 139
= 5.8, P < 0.000 I). Across sites, significantly more small songbirds were observed during fall migration
(75 birds/survey) than during the non-breeding (S I birds/survey) or the breeding (34 birds/ survey)
seasons. Across seasons, small songbird numbers were significantly greater at the Constructed Wetlands
Project than at other sites (Table II;. LSD tests, Ps < 0.002). Numbers during the breeding season were
not significantly different among sites (Table II; LSD tests, Ps > 0.34). However, during the fall
migration, bird numbers at the Constructed Wetlands Project were significantly greater than at other sites
(Table 11; LSD tests, Ps < 0.0001). This result was probably associated with large numbers of swallows
foraging over the constructed wetland cells: During the non-breeding season, small songbird numbers
were significantly greater at Bush Field Airport than at the Merryland Ponds or the Expressway Ponds
(Table 11; LSD tests, Ps< 0.03) but not significantly greater than at the Constructed Wetlands Project
(Table II; LSD test, P = 0.46).
Species with Protected Status
Avian species with protected status that utilize wetlaflds in the east-central Georgia region and
that may be identified during bird surveys of wetlands in the vicinity of Bush Field Airport include Bald
Eagles, Ospreys, and Wood Storks. In the State of Georgia, the Bald Eagle is considered threatened and
the Wood Stork is considered endangered. Both of these species are protected by Federal laws requiring
projects that use Federal funds to assess the potential of such projects to impact the well-being of these
species. Historically, Bald Eagles, Ospreys, and Wood Storks have been reported from areas near
Augusta, including the Savannah River Site to the southeast of Augusta (Norris, R. A. Birds of the AEC
Savannah River Plant area. Contrib. Charleston (SC) Museum Bulletin 14, 1963).
None of these 3 species were observed at the Constructed Wetland Project during aerial surveys.
However, Bald Eagles were observed during aerial surveys over the Merryland Ponds on 5 occasions
(January 22, 29, February 5, Novem,ber 10, 1998; and January 4, 1999), and twice in the Natural
Wetlands unit surrounding the Constructed Wetland Project (February 5, November 5). Three Osprey
sightings were made at the Merryland Ponds (August 12, November 18, 1998; and January 15, 1999),
18
and three Osprey sightings were also Imide in the Natural Wetlands unit (May 28, August 21, November
23). The endangered Wood Stork was observed at the Merryland Ponds on five surveys (August 21,
September 25, October 2, November 18,23) and on the Natural Wetlands unit twice (August 12,21).
The maximum number of Bald Eagles, Ospreys, and Wood Storks observed on a single aerial survey date
, was 3, I, and 38, respectively.
During ground surveys, all three of these species with protected status were observed at the
Constructed Wetlands Project. Bald Eagles were observed there on two occasions (September II and
December 21); Ospreys were seen there on 13 surveys, while Wood Storks were observed there on three
different dates in August (II, 18, and 23). At the Merryland and Expressway Ponds, Bald Eagles were
seen on five surveys from late November through January, Ospreys on seven dates from late July through
January, and Wood Storks on eight dates from mid September through mid December. During ground
surveys of the Bush Field Airport, the only species with protected status seen was a single Osprey
recorded i~ flight on May II. For ground surVeys, the maximum nurribers of Bald Eagles, Ospreys, and
Wood Storks seen on a ground survey date were 2, 2, and 26, respectively.
1998 Bush Field Airport Bird Strikes
Bird Strike Reports from' Bush field Airport inqicated that nine bird-aircraft strikes occurred in
1998 (Table 12). Seventy-eight percent of these strikes occurred during the non-migratory season. There
was no indication that birds associated with aquatic wetland habitats were involved in any of the reported
bird strikes for 1998; when species were noted, doves were most frequently cited as the species involved.
In general, there was often a lack of certainty in the identifications made of the bird remains that were
retrieved (Table 12). Most, however, would be placed into the category of small-to-medium-sized
songbirds. Although photos of bird remains were referred to in some of these reports, we did not receive
these photos for examination. For two .of the log entries, birds simply were found dead on runways or
taxiways and there was no accompanying documentation from an aircraft pilot that a strike had taken
place (Table 12). Of the remaining bird strikes reported by pilots (N = 7), four occurred on/over the
grounds of the airport, while only three apparently occurred as aircraft approached (twice) or had already
departed (once) the airspace of Bush Field (Table 12). One pilot reported striking a "large bird" on
approach to Runway 17 (see figure 21) while at an altitude of 1,600 ft (Table 12), possibly placing the,
. aircraft over the Lower Phinizy WMA unit at the point of irnpact.
In addition to the nine reported bird strikes, Bush field Airport logged 20 other Wildlife Incident
Reports during 1998 (Table 13). Of the 1) incident reports dealing with birds (3 dealt with mammals),
starlings were most frequently cited as the species being found on the airport grounds. Flock sizes from
these starling incidents reportedly ranged from 20 to 70 birds (Table 13). Aquatic bird species were
implicated in only 6 of 17 incident reports. These were reportedly gulls, "cow birds", and "cranes".
"Cow bird" is a colloquial name commonly used in the area for the Cattle Egret. The reference to cranes
undoubtedly indicates that some large, possibly wading bird, species was observed. Sandhill Cranes
(Grus canadensis) would only rarely be seen in this region. A report of 10-15 "large black birds" on June
23 (Table 13) were probably American. Crows, which were frequently observed at the airport during
ground surveys by COG. Birds on the airport grounds were dispersed by Bush Field personnel, most
often with the aid of acoustical scaring devices (e.g., horns, blank or shellcracker guns, etc.). Bird
dispersal directions were consistent with movement to the wetland complex under study (Le., Nand NE)
in only 7 of20 cases (35%; Table 13).
i9
Conclusions
The results of both the aerial and ground census counts reported here indicate that seasonal
differences in site use among species groups is an important consideration when developing a
management plan for controlling bird hazards inthe vicinity of Bush Field Airport. This is evident in the
fact that peak numbers of waterfowl and wading birds occurred during different seasons, and that during
off-peak seasons there were no differences in the ground counts of waterfowl or wading birds among
wetland sites. Similar seasonal trends in site use wer'e also evident in ground counts of shorebirds, crows
and raptors, and small songbirds.
Relatively few waterfowl and wading birds were reported at the Bush FieldAirport. Waterfowl
and wading birds made up only 1.5% of the total birds recorded on ground counts at Bush Field, while
these two bird categories made up 37% of the birds recorded at the Constructed Wetlands and 69% of the
birds recorded at Merryland Ponds. Interestingly, medium-sized songbirds were the most abundant group
observed during airport surveys, making up 70% of the birds seen. With the addition of small songbirds,
and crows and raptors, more than 95% of the birds seen at Bush Field were accounted for. Most birds
listed in the Bird Strike Reports, though some were not confidently identified to species, could safely be
placed within the medium-sized songbird category. No bird strikes in 1998 were known to involve
aquatic .bird species. These results suggest that any efforts to reduce bird strike hazards must include a
plan to decrease numbers of s~all and medium-sized songbirds and crows on or near airport property.
One recommendation would be the draining, filling, and leveling of areas on the airport grounds that may
hold water on a temporary basis, particularly following rainstorms. Furthermore, changes in grassland
, management (short vs. long grass, insecticide applications) around the runways and taxiways c'ould be
adapted to minimize bird use. Such management options would have to be carefully considered and
associated with investigations of bird use.
Modifications in wetland habitats can have dramatic effects on bird use. This was apparent
during the marsh vegetation and fish die-off in the wetland cells in mid-June and during the subsequent
pond draw-down at the Constructed Wetlands Project in July. Wading birds quickly moved into the
impacted wetlands for opportunistic foraging during the fish kill. Later, when the wetland cells were
being drawn down for replanting oftne marsh vegetation, the decreasing water depths increased the
amount of available mudflat habitat for migrating shorebirds. Draw-down of the artificial wetland cells
also appeared to concentrate fish not affected by the die-off and exposed other food resources, thus
continuing to attract many wading birds from the surrounding natural wetlands. This anornalous event
,provided clear evidence that the maintenance of normal water conditions during peak periods of wading
bird and shorebird movement through/within the region may make the Constructed Wetlands Project less
suitable for large numbers of these species. If water levels had remained high during this period, it is
likely that most wading birds would have used ,other wetland habitats instead, including possibly the
Merryland Ponds, where there appeared to be an abundance of fish. High fish densities at Merryland
Ponds were, probably also responsible for the large numbers of fish-eating divers, mainly Double-crested
Cormorants, observed at this site during the non~breeding season (November-January). Double-crested
Cormorants were rarely seen at the Constructed Wetlands Project during the same period. With proper
water levellhabitat management at the Constructed Wetlands Project, waterfowl and wading birds may
be successfully displaced to other wetland sites located further from the airport. Use of specific habitat
types (i.e., open water vs. marsh) within the Constructed Wetlands by waterfowl and wading birds,
suggest an advantage that may be gained by designing and constructing wetland cells without open water
habitats. By allowing the marsh areas of the wetland cells to become densely vegetated with emergent
herbaceous plants, even a majority of the wading birds could be excluded. One potential problem with
20
densely vegetated wetland cells however, could be an increase in use by blackbirds. But seasonal burning
of standing senesced emergent vegetation could control use by blackbirds.
We believe that these kinds of habitat management approaches can be effective in controlling'
bird numbers around the Bush Field Airport. It is likely that many birds using the Constructed Wetlands
Project during various times of the year are already resident in the central region of the Savannah River
floodplain. Both aerial and ground survey data indicate that other wetland habitats within the five-mile
safe distance zone around the airport support as many or more birds, depending on season and bird type,
than the Constructed Wetlands. Moreover, thousands of waterfowl and coots traditionally over-winter on
reservoirs of the Savannah River Site (SRS), only about 30 km to the east-southeast of the wetland
complex. Habitat changes there could represent yet another important factor influencing bird numbers in
the vicinity of the airport. For example, the 1991-94 partial drawdown of the SRS's largest reservoir, Par
Pond, caused 3,000 to 5,000 coots to be displaced from the SRS completely. Christmas Bird Counts at
the Merryland Ponds over that period showed increased numbers of coots there.
Future Research Needs
In the future, there is an apparent need for more careful identification of birds that are involved
in aircraft strikes and wildlife incidents at Bush Field Airport. Reports of "large black birds" and
"cranes" offer little confidence in the identification of any birds impl icated in these reports. Photographic
evidence and the training of personnel in bird identification can improve the information gathered by
these reporting procedures used at the airport. Despite the limitations to existing bird strike data, there is
a need to examine Bird Strike Reports and Wildlife Incident Reports from the years prior to construction
of the artificial wetlands, and to then make comparisons with reports following the wetland
constructions. Such an analysis could determine whether patterns (e.g., seasonal, species groups
involved) of bird strikes have changed relative to the habitat changes ongoing within the wetland
complex.
These aerial and ground surveys conducted over the past year provide the background needed to
now design and propose future studies critical to understanding the potential for the Constructed
Wetlands Project to significantly alter the risk of bird strikes occurring at Bush Field Airport. First,
additional years of both aerial and ground surveys for birds, as described in this report, are needed to
address questions of annual variability in temporal and spatial patterns now identified. This is
particularly the case since the 1997-98 El Nino event apparently influenced bird abundance and
distribution during at least some portion of the current study. But moreover, additional years of these
surveys are needed because as the Constructed Wetlands Project expands and ages, habitat change will
continue to produce cI1anges in bird use of the area. Without concurrent monitoring of the bird
populations, changes in the potential for bird strike hazards cannot be determined.
In addition, because wading birds are a dominant species in the summer months, more detailed
attention must be given to the use of breeding colonies within the wetland complex by these birds. While
only about 50 pairs of nesting birds were found in the Lower Phinizy WMA in 1998, breeding colonies
of these species can change rapidly in size and can number into the hundreds. New studies should focus
on the foraging flight patterns of birds using these colonies, as well as monitoring the extent of nest
success and colony expansion.
21
Acknowledgments
We would like to extend our sincerest thanks to Herb Cadle, Ed Johnson, and Elmer Segovia,
first-rate pilots with Augusta Aviation, Inc., wl~o, together with SREL observer W. L. "Cub" Stephens,
spent more than 75 hours at less than 200 feet above the wetland complex surveying birds. G. W. Eidson,
President of EcoSystems Institute, Inc. and EcoEnvironmental Corporation, met with us numerous times
during which we shared information and ideas about the artificial wetlands. 1. E. Pinder III of SREL
allowed us to use a 1997 GIS habitat coverage, developed under his guidance, to quantify various
habitats within our study areas. AI McDill, Manager at Bush Field Airport, now called Augusta Regional
Airport at Bush Field, provided Bird Strike Reports and Wildlife Incident Reports. ZEL Engineers, Inc.,
of Augusta Georgia, provided us with CAD drawings of the Constructed Wetlands Project. D. S. Mizrahi
of COG contributed a critical reading of an earlier report draft. A. L. Bryan, Jr., an SREL colleague
specializing in endangered species and wading birds, likewise provided a critical reading of an earlier
draft of the report. D. 1. Karapatakis assisted with our GIS needs. C. L. Strojan and R. I. Nestor of SREL
assisted with contract arrangements. L. L. Janecek designed our report cover with the use of a David
Scott original photo. Many thanks to all those involved in one way or another.
22
Table I. Habitat area (hectares) within and around the Bush Field
Airport:
Habitat Type
Habitat Area
Unfilled holes
Industrial/built up
Bare soil/bare surfaces
Herbaceous: sparse vegetation
Herbaceous: grasses & forbes
Agriculture: row crops
Agriculture: pasture and managed
grassland
Scrub forests
Pines: sparse or open canopies
Pines: dense canopies
Hardwoods: evergreen
Hardwoods: uplands - floodplain
Hardwoods: floodplain
Hardwoods: swamps
Water
Macrophytes, marshes & stream
Wetland scrub forests
Total
13.41
457.38
128.79
274.50
556.83
488.88
624.15
457.47
149.04
5.13
102.78
718.47
817.29
287.73
323.19
43.56
1.26
5449.86
a See Figure I for extent of area covered by this habitat characterization.
23
Table 2. Habitat area (hectares) of wetland units. surveyed by the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.
Habitat Type
Upper
Phinizy
WMA
Lower
Phinizy
WMA
Merryland
Ponds
Natural
Wetlands
Total
Wetland
Complex
Unfilled holes 0.72 1.26 8.19 1.89 12.06
. Industrial/built up 036 0.09 99.72 11.61 111.78
Bare soil/bare surfaces 0.09 0.00 48.87 ,18.81 67.77
Herbaceous: sparse vegetation 0.27 0.36 52.02 25.74 78.39
Herbaceous: grasses & forbes 9.00 4.14 112.32 75.78 201.24
Agriculture: row crops 5.04 9.00 77.94 71.28 163.26
Agriculture: pasture and managed 9.99 9.90 29.97 77.76 127.62
grassland
Scrub forests 16.29 15.21 102.24 76.23 209.97
Pines: sparse or open canopies 6.30 10.26 32.76 19.26 68.58
Pines: dense canopies 0.90 1.08 0.81 0.99 3.78
Hardwoods: evergreen 33.75 40.59 4.05 7.11 85.50
Hardwoods: uplands -floodplain 86.58 67.50 127.08 116.10 397.26
Hardwoods: floodplain 126.36 93.69 126.27 156.96 503.28
Hardwoods: swamps 72.81 46.62 102.78 37.80 260.01
Water 5.04 0.54 290.25 13.95 309.78
Macrophytes, marshes & stream 2.70 0.45 35.82 0.72 39.69
Wetland scrub forests 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.36 1.35
Total 376.20 301.68 1251.09 712.35 2641.32
· Wetland units described here are shown in Figure 1.
24
Table 3. Habitat area (hectares) of wetland study sites' surveyed by the Clemson
Ornithological Group.
Habitat Type
. Merryland
Ponds
Expressway
Ponds
Total
, Area
Unfilled holes 2.34 0.63 2.97
Industrial/built up 2.97 14.31 17.28
Bare soil/bare surfaces 0.81 14.40 15.21
Herbaceous: sparse vegetation 2.61 18.00 ' 20.61
Herbaceous: grasses & forbes 3.78 19.26 23.04
Agriculture: row crops 0.81 8.46 9.27
Agriculture: pasture and managed 0.09 2.25 2.34
grassland
Scrub forests 2.52 11.25 13.77
Pines: sparse or open canopies 3.06 4.50 7.56
Pines: dense canopies 0.00 0.18 0.18
Hardwoods: evergreen 0.00 0.36 0.36
Hardwoods: uplands - floodplain 1.53 5.13 6.66
Hardwoods: floodplain 5.13 1.26 6.39
Hardwoods: swamps 21.87 2.34 24.21
Water 80.91 63.81 144.72
Macrophytes, marshes & stream 8.28 3.33 11.61
Wetland scrub forests 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 136.71 169.47 306.18
· Wetland study sites described here are shown in Figure 2.
25
Table 4. Species list compiled from the aerial bird surveys and the guild groupings used in the aerial bird
survey study. '
Guild
Common Name
Scientific Name
26
Table 4, continued
Other species
Black Vulture
Turkey Vulture
Osprey
Mississippi Kite
Said Eagle .
Northern Harrier
Red-shouldered Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Wild Turkey
Yellow legs species
Sandpiper species
Gull species
Rock Dove (Domestic Pigeon)
Mourning Dove
Belted Kingfisher
Red-headed Woodpecker
Pileated Woodpecker
Swallows
Crow (American and/or Fish)
Loggerhead Shrike,
Red-winged Blackbird
Eastern Meadowlark
,Cofagyps atratus
Cathartes aura
Pandion haliaetus
/ctinia mississippiensis
Ha/iaeetus leucocephalus
Circus cyaneus
Buteo /ineatus
Buteo jamaicensis
Meleagris gallopavo
Tringa spp.
Family Scolopacidae
Larus spp.
Columba /ivia
Zenaida macroura
Ceryle alcyon
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Dryocopus pileatus
Family Hirundinidae
Corvus spp.
Lanius ludovicianus
Agelaius phoeniceus
Sturnella magna
27
Table 5. Counts of birds (by guild groupings) identified during aerial surveys of all wetlands in the
vicinity of the Bush Field airport.
Date
Season
Waterfowl
Rails Waders Divers
Other
Totals
22 Jan 98 Migratory 536 275 50 '26 32 919
29 Jan 98 Migratory 394 700 61 74 104 1333
05 Feb 98 Migratory 1293 370 71 55 88 1877
l2Feb98 Migratory 868 341 48 45 32 1334
19 Feb 98 Migratory 829 386 17 38 168 1438
26 Feb 98 Migratory 887 300 24 17 46 1274
04 Mar 98 Migratory 413 457 53 80 128 1131
12 Mar 98 Migratory 1495 445 48 60 163 2211
19 Mar 98 Migratory 772 493 8 76 176 1525
25 Mar 98 Migratory 442 545 9 93 262 1351
02 Apr 98 Migratory 33 749 8 70 124 984
16 Apr 98 Migratory 222 196 44 47 15 524
01 May 98 Non-Migratory 24 15 13 13 13 78
07 May 98 Non-Migratory 16 3 218 12 56 305
14 May 98 Non-Migratory 23 I 172 7 149 352
22 May 98 Non-Migratory 53 0 36 6 47 142
28 May 98 Non-Migratory 23 0 69 2 54 148
04 Jun 98 Non-Migratory 31 0 35 4 4 74
11 Jun 98 Non-Migratory 37 5 98 6 66 212
18 Jun 98 Non- Migratory 93 0 33 3 224 353
26 Jun 98 Non-Migratory, ' 39 0 197 0 105 341
02 Jul 98 Non-Migratory 76 0 536 I 204 817
09 Jul 98 Non-Migratory 27 0 563 6 379 975
16 Jul 98 Non-Migratory 67 0 566 5 56 694
24 Ju1 98 Non-Migratory 64 0 545 5 51 665
31 Ju198 Non-Migratory 6 0 587 5 25 623
05 Aug 98 Non-Migratory 23 0 322 5 125 475
12 Aug 98 Non-Migratory 32 0 321 1 141 495
21 Aug 98 Non-Migratory 46 0 310 I 211 568
28 Aug 98 Non-Migratory 11 0 250 4 283 548
04 Sep 98 Non-Migratory 4 0 509 6 48 567
08 Sep 98 Non-Migratory 238 11 483 11 127 859
25 Sep 98 Non-Migratory 246, 0 _ 242 2 74 564
02 Oct 98 Migratory 310 0 123 8 41 482
09 Oct 98 Migratory 117 0 130 9 74 330
15 Oct 98 Migratory 84 0 74 29 288 475
20 Oct 98 Migratory 66 8 69 9 165 317
27 Oct 98 Migratory 42 30 51 145 47 315
05 Nov 98 Migratory 287 36 126 224 23 696
10 Nov 98 Migratory 253 ' 60 114 295 6 728
28
Table 5, continued
18 Nov 98 Migratory 385 45 94 330 218 1072
23 Nov 98 Migratory 548 144 100 224 62 1078
01 Dec 98 Migratory 466 69 54 227 174 990
08 Dec 98 Migratory 907 5 80 213 60 1265
17 Dec 98 Migratory 497 223 159 323 62 1264
31 Dec 98 Migratory 1176 136 229 389 345 2275
04 Jan 99 Migratory 1264 50 121 333 284 2052
15 Jan 99 Migratory 867 3 33 447 95 1445
21 Jan 99 Migratory 915 110 45 69 104 1243
29
Table 6. Number of aerial surveys when bird species were observed, by study unit, between January 22,
1998 and January 21, 1999 (total of 49 surveys),
Common Name
Merryland
Ponds'
Upper
Phinizy
WMA
Lower
Phinizy
WMA
Constructed
Wetlands
Natural
Wetlands
Waterfowl:
Snow Goose I
Canada Goose 45 I 2
Wood Duck 26 4 3 5
Am. Green-winged Teal 6 5
American Black Duck 1 , I
Mallard 38 3 8 10
Blue-winged Teal 2 12 2
Northern Shoveler I 22 2
Gadwa'll 6 2 3
American Wigeon 12 13 6 7
Ring-necked Duck 20 3 15 9
, Lesser Scaup 3 9
Bufflehead 1 1
Hooded Merganser 2
Ruddy Duck 4
Rails:
Purple Gallinule 1
Common Moorhen I
American Coot 21 I' 22
Waders:
Great Blue Heron 42 10 13 17 23
Great Egret 41 28 39 31 45
Snowy Egret 2 I I
Little Blue Heron I 2
Cattle Egret 6 6 6 2 10
Green-backed Heron 2 1
White Ibis 4 I 16 11
Wood Stork 5 2
Divers:
Common Loon 4
Pied-billed Grebe 18 2
Double-crested Cormorant 29 5 5 12
American Anhinga 27 I 8
30
Table 6, continued
Other species:
Black Vulture 6 7 2 10
Turkey Vulture 1
Osprey 3 3
Mississippi Kite 1
Bald Eagle 5 2
Northern Harrier I 4 2
Red-shouldered Hawk I
Red-tailed Hawk 12 12
Wild Turkey 2 9
Yellowlegs species 3 34 2
Sandpiper species 2 4 1
Gull sp~:cies 18 I 2
Rock Dove (Pigeon) 9 3
Mourning Dove 13 I
Belted Kingfisher 3
Red-headed Woodpecker
Pileated Woodpecker
Swallows 2
Crow (American or Fish) 17 2 2 4 11
Loggerhead Shrike I
Red-winged Blackbird 11 3 4
Eastern Meadowlark I
31
Table 7. Maximum number of each bird species observed during aerial surveys, by study unit, between
January 22, 1998 and January 21, 1999 (total of 49 surveys). '
Common Name
Merryland
Ponds
Upper
Phinizy
WMA
Lower
Phinizy
WMA
Constructed
Wetlands
Natural
Wetlands
Waterfowl:
Snow Goose 3,5
Canada Goose 150 2 16
Wood Duck 32 35 5 15
Am. Green-winged Teal 200 135
American Black Duck 8 5
Mallard 77 5 10 50 27
Blue-winged Teal 20 175 22
Northern Shoveler 10 155 5
Gadwall 220 25 175
Ameriean Wigeon 730 250 50 75
Ring-necked Duck 215 60 450 575
Lesser Scaup 31 200
Bufflehead 3 4
Hooded Merganser 4
Ruddy Duck 200 50
Rails:
Purple Gallinule 5
Common Moorhen 1
Amerkan Coot 575 6 10 400 50
Waders::
Great Blue Heron 20 3 31 43 19
Great Egret 171 33 71 55 231
Snowy Egret 7 52 75
Little Blue Heron I 1
Cattle Egret 153 32 60 200 416
Green-backed Heron I I
White Ibis 16 5 25 135 58
Wood Stork 8 37
Divers:
Common Loon 17
Pied-billed Grebe 26 3
Double-crested Cormorant 432 7 8 5 15
Amerkan Anhinga 23 I 3
32
Table 7, continued
Other sp,ecies:
Black Vulture 3 3 4 60
Turkey Vulture 2
Osprey 1
MississilPpi Kite 2
Bald Eagle 3 I
Northern Harrier I 1
Red-shouldered Hawk I I
Red-tailed Hawk 2 2 1 2
Wild Turkey I 6 8
Yellowlegs species 40 215 15
Sandpiper species 20 120 4
Gull sp(:cies 325 4 10 5
Rock Dove (Pigeon) 125 10
Mourning Dove 79 2 6 24
Belted Kingfisher 2 I
Red-headed Woodpecker 1
Pileated Woodpecker I
Swallows 25
Crow (American or Fish) 34 2 2 10 45
Loggerhead Shrike 1
Red-winged Blackbird 100 75 150 300 200
Eastern Meadowlark 6
33
Table 8. Distribution of birds between ponded and marsh areas of the Constructed Wetlands..
Ponded Area
Marsh Area
Date
Waterfowl
Coots
Waders
Waterfowl
Coots
Waders
'26 Feb 98 75 40 150 2
04 Mar 98 110 300
12 Mar 98 360 200
19Mar98 450 400 60
02 Apr 98 400
16 Apr 98, 35 170 4
01 May 98 10 15
07 May 98 5 2 2
14 May 98 2 12
22 May 98 9
28 May 98 2
04 Jun 98 2 3 3 4
11 Jun 98 11 78
18 Jun 98
26 Jun 98 21
02 Jul 98 81
12 Aug 98 16 71
21 Aug 98 30 37
28 Aug 98 51
09 Sep 98 15
08 Sep 98 150 71
15 Sep 98 4 149
02 Oct 98 125 10 19
20 Oct 98 9 8 20
27 Oct 98 32 8 5
05 Nov 98 36 2 35 2
10Nov98 110 I 2
18 Nov 98 69 45 4
23 Nov98 148 38
01 Dec 98 112 45 8 9
08 Dec 98 30 5 2
17 Dec 98 40 23 20
31 Dec 98 220 35 3
15 Jan 99 239 125
21 J an 99 275
Totals 2435 1278 20 681 476 644
Percent (%)b 78.1 7.2.9 3.0 21.9 27.1 97.0
a Survey dates when vehicles or people were seen at the Constructed Wetlands were excluded.
b Percent of species type observed in either ponded or marsh areas of the Constructed Wetlands.
34
Table 9. Spl~cies categories of birds from the ground surveys and inclusive species types.
Category ,
Inclusive species/bird types
Wading birds
Herons and Egrets
N ight- Herons
Wood Stork
Ibis,
Waterfowl
Ducks and Geese
Grebes and Loons
Cormorants and Anhinga
Coots and Moorhens
Gulls
Gulls
Terns
Shorebirds
Sandpipers
Plovers
Avocet
, Raptors
Hawks and Falcons
Eagles and Vultures
Crows
Songbirds
(medium sized)
Doves
Most Thrush species
Blackbirds, Cowbirds and Starlings
Songbirds
(small sized)
Wood Warblers
Sparrows and Finches
Chickadees and Nuthatches
Kinglets
, Bluebird
Flycatchers
Swallows and Swifts
Woodpeckers
W09dpeckers
Flicker
Kingfisher
35
Table 10. Proportions of various bird species categories observed during ground surveys at all study sites
and combined.
Constructed' Bush Field
Wetlands Airport
Merryland
Ponds
Expressway
Ponds
All Sites
Combined
Total birds counted 0.3400 0.1500 0.2600 0.2500 1.0000
Wading birds 0.1224 0.0123 0.0897 0.0437 0.0776
Waterfowl 0.2462 0.0027 0.6005 0.2548 0.3 044
Gulls 0.0005 0.0000 0.0307 0.0188 0.0129
Shorebirds 0.2154 0.0067 0.0062 0.0340 0.0840
Raptors 0.0148 0.0692 0.0251 0.0307 0.0296
Woodpeckers 0.0056 0.0129 0.0099 0.0076 0.0083
Songbirds (medium) 0.2712 0.6989 0.1678 0.5511 0.3782
Songbirds (small) 0.1240 0.1974 0.0715 0.0594 0.1052
36
Table 11. Least square means:!: SE for total birds and bird species categories at ground survey study
sites, acrOS~i and within seasons.
Constructed
Wetlands
Bush Field
Airport
Merryland
Ponds
Expressway
Ponds
Total birds
All seasons 626.7 :!: 80.68 276.9 :!: 79.4 502.4 :!: 79.48 486.5 :!: 80.68
Migration 582.1 :!: 118.58 216.8 :!: 109.2 807.9:!: I 15.28,C 636.6:!: I 18.58.c
Non-migration 67\.4 :!: 109.2 337.2 :!: 109.28 196.8 :!: 109.28 336.5:!: 109.28
Waterfowl
All seasons 159.8 :!: 26.68 0.8 :!: 26.6 305.6 :!: 26.6 128.6 :!: 27.18
Migration 252.6 :!: 38.78,C \.2 :!: 36.7 575.8 :!: 38.7c 223.8 :!: 39.88,C
Non-migration 67.0 :!: 36.78 0.4 :!: 36.7 35.4 :!: 36.78 33.4 :!: 36.7"
Wading bin~
All seasons 80.2 :!: 13.78 3.6 :!: l3.7b 44.1 :!: 13.78 20.9 :!: l3.9b
Breeding 140.6 :!: 19.8c 5.6 :!: 19.88 53.9 :!: 19.8b 23.2 :!: 20.48,b
Non-breeding 19.8 :!: 18.88 1.6 :!: 18.88 34.3 :!: 18.88 18.6 :!: 18.88
Shorebirds
All seasons l4\.4 :!: 11.2 1.9 :!: 11.28 2.9 :!: 13:78 17.3 :!: 11.48
Migration 25\.5:!: l6.3c 2.4 :!: 16.38 1.1 :!: 16.38 31.2 :!: 16.88
N on-m igration 31.2 :!: 15.58 1.4 :!: 15.58 4.7 :!: 15.88 3.3 :!: 15.58
Raptors
,All seasons 10.3 :!: 4.48 17;8 :!: 4.48 16.9 :!: 4.48 19.0 :!: 4.48
Breeding 9.3 :!: 5.98 26.3 :!: 5.98 6.7 :!: 5.98 9.0 :!: 6.18
Fall Migration 15.9 :!: 9.58 14.7 :!: 9.58 38.3 :!: 9.58 39.8 :!: 9.58
Non-breeding 5.7 :!: 7.08 12.4 :!: 7.08 5.7 :!: 7.08 8.3 :!: 7.08
Songbirds (iMdJ
All seasons 157.2 :i: 67.68 200.7 :i: 67.68 80,9 :!: 67.68 253.0 :i: 68.48
Breeding 216.4 :!: 110.18 195.9 :!: 110.18 65.0 :!: 110.18 178.9 :!: 114.28
Fall migration 28.7 :!: l'30.28 247.0 :!: 130.28 74.4 :!: 130.28 194.1 :!: 130.28
Non-breeding 226.4 :!: 110.18 159.1 :i: 110.18 103.3 :!: 110.18 386.1 :!:110.18
Songbirds (smJ
All seasons 94.6 :!: '8.7 55.0 :!: 8.78 37.5 :!: 8.78,b 26.7 :!: 8.7b
Breeding 40.1 :!: 12.88 40.1 :!: 12.88 29.9 :!: 12.88 27.1 :!: 13.28
Fall migration 18\.4 ::l: 18.1 C 48.4 :!: 18.18 52.6 :!: 18.18 17.8 :!: 18.18
Non-breeding, 62.3 :!: l3:78.b 76.6 :!: 13.78,C 30.1 :!: 13.7b 35.3 :!: 13.7b
8 = least square means within a row are nofsignificantly different
b = least square means within a row are not significantly different
C = least square mean is significantly greater than in other seasons
37
Table 12. Bush Field Airport Bird Strike Log entries for 1998.
Date
Time
Runway!
Taxiway'
Situation
at Strike
Type of
Bird
Remains
Recovered
16 Jul98 00:17 17 Approach/all. unknown "small" bird No
23 Jul 98 22:30 17 Approach/landing roll owl Yes
31 Aug 98 09: 15 17 Approach/landing roll sparrows (2) Yes
08 Sep 98 08: 15 26 Departure/climbing out "small" bird No
08 Sep 98 ' 20:55 17 Approach/all. l600ft "large" bird No
14 Sep98 AM 1 7/35 Unknown/no pilot report starling Yes
14Sep98 19: 1 0 17 Approach/landing roll wrens/doves (2) Yes
05 Oct 98 lateAM A Unknown/no pilot report, dove Yes
03 Nov 98 22:10 35 Approach/runway end doves (2) Yes
· See Figure 21, 'map of Bush Pield Airport, for runway/taxiway locations.
38
Table 13. Bush Field Airport Wildlife Inciqent Reports for 1998".
Date
Time
Runway/
Taxiwal
Wildlife
Observed
Number
Indicated
Dispersal
Direction
10 Feb 98 07: 15 17/35 fox I SE
24 Feb 98 10:25 C blackbirds 5 W
08 Mar 98 13:30 8/26 gu lis 50-75 N,NE
09 Mar 98 10:30 17/35 gulls 20-30 N
24 Mar 98 08:30 8/26 turkeys 6-7 S
03 Jun 98 21 :00 8/26 deer I ?
23 Jun 98 ' 06:20 17/35 "large black birds" 10-15 W,NW
16 Aug 98 09:54 A, 17/35 "white cranes" 2 SW,E
17 Aug 98 08:45 east of 17/35 "cow birds" 3 NE
05 Sep 98 07:45 8/26 starlings 50-60 S
05 Sep 98 08:45 8/26 starlings 60- 70 S
05 Sep 98 09:15 8/26 starlings 60- 70 S
07 Sep 98 07:30 8/26 starl ings 30-50 ' S
16Sep98 08:00 E, 8/26 starlings 50-60 E, SE, NE
09 Oct 98 18:45 I 7/35 "crane" 1 N
17 Oct 98 11: 15 I 7/35 "crane" 2 NE
16 Nov 98 07:45 A, C, 17/35 dove, starling, ? 3 found deadc
l6Nov 98 09:30 17/35 starlings 30 W
17 Nov 98 08:30 I 7/35 starlings 20 ?
20 Dec 98 13:45 8/26 'deer 1 E
· Wildlife Incident Reports were filed for bird strike incidents listed in Table 12, but are not duplicated
here.
b See figure 21, map of Bush field Airport, for runway/taxiway locations.
C These birds were not reported as bird strikes in the Bush field Airport Bird Strike Log as was the case
for Table 12 entries dated 14 Sep and,5 Oct when other birds were sirnilarly found dead without strike
documentation from an aircraft pilot. '
39
r
i
I
Ulr
tv
o
o
1"'
I
;
I
I J ~.
I
L. 01
-.
:::.
2; CDI
0 (/JI
3
CD
-
CD
-,
Cfl
cr"
Oj~3!
CCtl(JQ
en .-t- ,.....
::i'pr::;
'Tj:3Ctl
-. c.. ~
~c
0..:3
)>r;j
~
0..
C/'l
0..
C
~
-.
:3
(JQ
~
(1) ~
~"O
-.0
~;:4.
:3
~
~
-.
.-+
a
en
C
..,
<
(1)
~
(/)
.-+
:::r-
Ctl :j
< $:l.)
-."0
()
-. (/)
(1) :3 :::r-
~ -.0
a.'~ ~
o _.
Q1--+,:3
.., (JQ
en
C
'""t
<
~nl~.~I'IDDI'D~DD.D"D'..~I.
i~~t: U ~.~ '. '~f.i' . ':, ;;~~ II
~ :3
(I) ~
~()
~ ...,
::l 0
0.."0
:::r
~'$
2 ~
cr- "
~:3
..., ~
(I) ~
f/) :::r
Vi (I)
f/}
e:
-'
a.
f/}
.-..
...,
(I)
~
:3
f/}
~
~
.-..
(I)
...,
:::r "0 "0
~ ::l :r
0.(1)(1)
... f/} f/}
<:
o
o
0...
f/}
5'
a.
r-
Cii
.-..
:1.
2?.
-
-'
~
...,
0...
...
<:
o
o
0...
f/}
:::r
~
...,
0...
~
o
o
0...
f/}
:::r :::r
~ ~
..., ...,
a. 0...
~ ~
o 0
o 0
0... a.
f/} f/}
::r' ::r' ::r"
(I) (I) (I)
'"1 ..., '"1
cr- CJ CJ
~ ~ ~
() () ()
(ll (ll (ll
000
r- r- C
Vi u; V)
f/}
()
'"1
t::
cr'
?
...,
(I)
f/}
.-..
f/}
f/} CJQ f/}
:::r'"1"O
'"1 ~ ~
t:: f/} '"1
CJf/}f/}
f/} ~ (I)
~ ?? <
- (I)
0.. CJQ
CJQ?~
'"1 ..., ~
~ cr- ::t.
~ f/} :2
(ll -'
f/)
cr-
~
'"1
(I)
f/}
t::
'"1
CjJ
()
(I)
f/}
~
(JQ
:1.
()
S
-
t::
...,
(T)
~
CJQ
:1.
()
S
,....,.
t::
...,
(T)
~
(JQ
:1.
()
t::
-
.-..
t::
...,
(I)
o.f/)
(1)"0
::l ~
f/) [/}
(I) (I)
() 0
~ '"1
::l
o 0
"0"0
-.(1)
~ ::l
()
~
::l
o
"0
_.
(I)
f/}
- . "0 '"1
::l ~ 0
.-.. f/} ~
(I) .-.. <:
::l t:: ()
f/} '"1
~(I)a
"< ?? "0
:3 [/)
~ :3
~ e:
~ -'
(JQ ~
(l)CJQ
0.(1)
a.
~
::l
a.
f/}
,....,.
(I)
=l
~
()
(I)
f/}
~ t:: (I)
0"0<
0.0 ~ ~
::l(JQ
"2. a. (il
~ (I)
::l ::l
~
o
o
a.
"0
~
_.
::l
f/)
~
~
:::l
-'
"0
f/}
40
t::
::l
::h
=
>
0=
l-(
l-3
>
~
00
(I)
a.
:::r
o
(I)
f/}
s
I
i
I
C,.T1 r-
I
I
I
N
o
lei
,N
I
!
L
0\1
~
(1)
en
C:.'
o
3
CD
CD
....,
CJ)
:J:J
;:+.
(1)
"J)
~'-rj
(I)(JQ
-c
Q.."'"'I
>(1)
N
~~IIIIIIIIIID
=
>-
t=
~
~
>
~
00
D",,[J:D,:~&II
. ;" .;. .:-' ;c..A:~~.
.- ,. -., -. ....} ,.
~ 3
(1) ~
:::1.(";)
~ a
""''0
0..::;-
~'$
2 ~
cr'"
~d
.., ~
(1) ~
[FJ --
[ij(D
[FJ
1::
.....
0...
Vl
.......
..,
(1)
~
3
[FJ
<:<!' ::;-::;-::;-::;-::r '0 '0
~ ~ l:l) ~ ~ _._.
~ .., .., ..., .., .., :::; :::;
~0...0...0...0...0...(1)(1)
.., < < < < < [FJ [FJ
o 0 000
o 0 000
0... 0... 0... 0... 0...
[FJ [FJ [FJ [FJ [FJ
Vl l:l)
q~
= 0"
cr'e
O'g
.., o-j
~ (1)
.......
[FJ
~ l:l)
CJQCJQ
::!. :1-
a (";)
e t::
----
...... ......
t:: t::
.., ..,
(1) (1)
::r
(1)
...,
cr
~
a
(ll
o
,....
Vi
::r
(1)
...,
cr'
~
(";)
(ll
o
t::
[FJ
cr'_
~o..
(ll e
[FJ Vl
t:: ~
-1 ~.
S'
[FJ g
Vl
::r
(1)
...,
cr
~
(";)
(1)
o
t::
,.....
....
I"J)
'n>
,..... "'"'I
......'"0
.~ 0 :r
:~ ::4. ~
0'0 ~. g:
,.., 0 .-+
() _.~
,- ::s ~
:3 . 3
l:l.. q.' ~
rn VJ '"0
:= ::r 0
:~ 0 .......,
l~ ~ ::::.
'-< -.......
IJ'l ::s (l)
o (JQ CD
I-t) ~ C
IT C VJ
:~. a.. ::r'
l:l.. '-<
IJ'l
c
:::;
:::tl
--
(1)
0...
0...[FJ
(1)'0
:::; ~
[FJ [FJ
(1) (ll
(";) 0
~ ..,
:::;
o 0
'0'0
-.(1)
(1) -
[FJ .....
::;-
o
(1)
[FJ
-'''0 -.
:::; ~ 0
~:4<
:::; s::::::
[FJ .., a
~(1)a
'< ~~
g 3
:::; ~
~ :::;
CJQ ~
(llCJQ
0...(1)
0...
[FJ
<
~
3
'0
[FJ
.......
(1)
~
~
(";)
(1)
[FJ
:!l t:: (ll
0"2..<
o ~ ~
o...:::;CJQ
~ 0... ri
~ (1)
:::; ::!:l:::S
o
o
0...
'0
--
~
_.
:::;
[FJ CJQ [FJ
::r..,'O
.., ~ ~
e Vl ..,
cr'Vl[FJ
[FJ (1) (ll
~ [FJ <:
:::; ~ (1)
0... CJQ
CJQ ~ ~
@ a- ~
[FJ CI.l 0
~ ;:l
U'l
(";)
~
:::;
o
'0
(1)
[FJ
s
--
~
:::;
0...
[FJ
41
2,500
2,000
"0
QJ
...
~
QJ
~ 1,500
o
rIJ
"0
~
.-
,= 1,000
-
~
.....
o
~
Migratory
season
Non-migratory
season
Migratory
season
500 .'. . . . - - . . .
o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~
"; ", ~ ~ ~ " . ~ ~ ~ ,'" ",,,; '"
Figure 3. Total counts of birds observed during aerial surveys
of all wetland units under study, January 1998 - January 1999.
42
"C
QJ
~
"'"
QJ
fI}
.c
o
1,200
Migratory I Non-migratory Migratory
I
season I season 1 season
1,000 - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - -1- - - - - - - - - - - - -
I 1
I 1 '
,I 1
800 - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - , - - - - , - - - -I: - - - . - - - - - - - -
, I 1
I 1
I ' I
600 - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - --
I I
I 1
J 1
400 - - - - - - - - - - - i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - - - - -
I I
I I
r
200 - - - - , - - - - - - - - - -
I
I
fI}
"C
"'"
.-
l:Q
-
eu
....
o
~
o
,,>" ,.,\" f).\" ~\" ~\" ^'<" 00\" ~\" ,,~\" ",,\" ",,;\" ,,\"
Figure 4. Total counts of birds observed during aerial
surveys of wetland cells of the Constructed Wetlands
Project, January 1998 -January 1999.
43
2:,000
1.,500
"C
'~
>
l.
~
III
.c
o
III 1,000
"C
l.
...
=
-
=
.....
=
~
500
Migratory 1
season :
1
1 1
. . . - - - - - . - - 1 . - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - -1- . - - - - - - - - -
1 I
1
1
I
1
. - - - - - - - - - - ..: - - - - - - - . . - - - - - -1- . . - - - - - - - - . -
1
1
1
1
1
- - - - - - - - - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
. I.
1
Non-migratory
season
Migrator
season
o _.
"; \~ ,., \~ t>.\~ ~ \~ Ia\~ ,,\~ ~ \~ q \~ ~ \~ ~>~ ~ \~ ~ \~
Figure 5. Total counts of birds observed during aerial surveys
of the Merryland Ponds, January 1998 - January 1999.
44
350
II.!
-=
"..
.,. 150
=
Migratory 1 Non-migratory Migratory
1
season 1 ' season 1 season
300 - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - - , , - -
1 1
1 1
- - - - - - -' - - . - - - '- - - - : - - - - - - - - - -I - - - - - - - - - - , - -
1
1
. _ _ _ _' _ _ L _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - , -
1
1
1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - . - . . . . .
1
I,
1
- - - - . . r . . - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - -
1
1
- - . . . -' - - - - - - -
1
1
-= 250
~, '
...
,,",
~
II.!
,Q 200
o
-
~
....
~ 100
o
1'\\" ,.. \" ....\" '- \" -:> \" \" \" \" \" \" '- \"
, " -,J ... '? ~ ~ ~ q, ~ ,-'-,~ ~
50
Figure 6. Total counts of birds observed during aerial surveys
of the Upper Phinizy Swamp (Ga DNR WMA) above the Bobby
Jones Expressway Extension, January 1998 - January 1999.
45
180
Migratory 1 Non-migratory Migratory
season 1 - season, season
160 - - - - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
, 1 "
140 - , - - - - - - - -' - - - - - - - - - - ,- - - - - - - - - - - '-- - - - - - - , - ,
, 1
'0 . 1 '
,~
~ 120 - - - - - - - - - - . -1- - -'- - - , - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
""
~ I'
;t.l
c; 100 - - - - - - . - . : . -:. - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ 1
~::l
.i:: 80 - - - - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - -
~Q 1
~~ 1
~~ 60 - - - - - - . - . - . -I'" . - - . - - . - - . - - - . - - - - - - - ,
E~ 1
40 -.... .. - - .1. .. . - . - . - . - - -
1
1
-1- .
20 -
o
~ <" ,." \", ~ \" ~ \" '" \" ~ \" % \" ~ ,," ~ \" ,," \" ,,~ \" ~.>"
Figure 7. Total counts of birds observed during aerial
, ' ,
surveys of the Lower Phinizy Swamp (Ga DNR WMA)
below the Bobby Jones Expressway Extension, January
1998 - January 1999.
46
Jl,OOO
,"C
~
>
'"
~
'J:J
.c
o
'J:J
"C
'"
...
==
-
~
.....
o
~
Migratory
season
Non-migratory I Migratory
season I season
I
I
- - - - - - ,- - - - - - - - - - - - r - - . - . . . . - - - -
1
1
I
I
- - - - - - - - - - . . - . - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
I
I
1
- - - - - - -1- - - - " - - - - - - - -
I
I
I
I
- - - '" - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
I
I
800 -
600 - - - - . - - -
400
200
o _
'" \" ~ \" .... \" '- \" {~\" ;.. \" \" \" \" \" \", \"
" -.7 \oJ' ? " ' \ ''b " ~ V "'~ '"
Figure 8. Total counts of birds observed during aerial
surveys of the Natural Wetlands in the lower Butler Creek
area surrounding the Constructed Wetlands Project,
January 1998 -'january 1999.
47
1,000
Increasing distance from airport
~
800 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Migratory season
'"d
<l)
>
h
<l)
'"
.D
o
600 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'"
'"d
h
~
~
.....
o
E-<
400 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
200 - - - - - - -
-l.f- ~
0
~ c.," ~~ ~~ (;;>-~
",'" .~
~ ...o~ ~ ~ :-..~
~ ~ ~... ~... :\....~
o~ -\)~~ ~~
200 V
'0 150
<l)
>
h
<l)
'"
.n
o
'" 100
'0
h
~
"@
.....
~ 50 - -
Increasing distance from airport
~
Non-Migratory season
o
~
~ c.," _ ~~ _ ~~ ~
~v'" ~"of ~~. ~~' ...~~~
~ ' ~" ~" -~~...
, ~ ~~ ~.
Figure 9. Geometric mei!:s (Le., b~ck-transformed least
square means) and 95% confidence intervals of total counts
of birds observed during aerial surveys of all wetlands
under study during migratory (top) and non-migratory
(bottom) seasons.
48
14
Increasing distance from airport
. ~
.-12 -
Q)
....
(1;l
.....
as 10-
...c:
-.....
VJ
"2 8 - - - - - - - - - -
......
.0
'-"
.q 6-
VJ
l::
Q)
Q 4-
"
....
~ 2-
.-
Q)
.... 20 - -
(1;l
.....
()
Q)
...c:
-.....
.0 15 -
....
......
.0
'-"
>.
.~ 10 - -
l=:
Q)
Q
'0
.::: 5 - - -
jl:1
~~
~"
o~
V
Increasing distance from airport
,. ~
o
~
,>"
~\;
~
Ci"
.~
"o~
~
Migratory
~~
~
~"
~~~
<:;to
~~
,,,~
~~
25
o
~
,>"
~
~
Ci"
, .~
"o~
~
Non-Migratory
-l_1-
~
<:;to
~~
,,~
~~"
~~ ~~~
~" ~"
- ,\p~ ~~~
Figure 10. Geometric means (Le., back-transformed least
square means) and 95% confidence intervals of bird
densities observlYd during aerial surveys of all wetlands
under study during migratory (top) and non-migratory
(bottom) seasons. .
49
25
~'20
'"-,
./.
- - - - - ..9..9 - - - - - - - - - - - -
CP '
~
~.
.r~~
-
a,)
>
a,)
~
r.. 15
a,)
~
~
~
~
a,)
a,)
r..
U
r..
a,)
-
~
=
~
10 .1.1..,.
-II'" .,
'" ~~
5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --I
J
A SON D
J
o
J
F M A M J
Figure 11. Monthly means (horizontal lines) and 95% confidence
intervals (bars) forButler Creek water levels ori the Savannah River
from 1984-1996. The higher solid line represents monthly mean Butler
Creek water levels during 1998 (EI Nino effect year) when the aerial
bird surveys presented in this report were conducted over wetlands
near the Bush Field airport.
50
1400
1200
13 1000
C
~
~ 800
o
fI.l
"E,
.- 600
=
-
=
....
o
E-- 400
200
.....
Constructed Wetlands
Bush Field Airport
Merryl.andPonds
Bobby Jones Exp. Ponds
..--....
----.
,
.
,
.....
, ......
I , "'-...
I ,,,
" ,. '"
I. "
I , ,.
, . \
" ,
,. :. \
" :.. " ... I __.,,.--,
,.. .. \.. , ..
JI... ~ ...'.
.... ... .--
... ~~. ~
.. . ...
.' I .. .. .._
............ .. - I: .. ....
-~., ..... . ..e
~. .. I. .....
Jp'" ...
_ _ .. .. - - ... .,...t
.
,
.
. ,
,.
,
,.
,.
,.
,. ,..
,.~,"
o
, .
Apr May June July Aug Sept, Oct, Nov Dee Jan
Figure 12. Total birds observed during ground surveys
conducted by the Clemso!l Ornithological Group, by study site.
51
~400
~
~
~
C'I.l
.&'J
'0 300
C'I.l
"0
~
.-
=
-; 200
.....
o
~
100
600
500
..-.-
Constructed Wetlands
Bush Field Airport
Merryland Ponds
Bobby Jones Exp. Ponds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
. '
.
.
.
.
.. "
... , ,
.................... , .. .# ,
.. , ~ . ,
.. ,...... .# ,
... , ,... ...,at'. .....-... ·
.. .. ......... ...-...."'''''...,. ==-.:.... ., , . __ .... It....
... ... .... · 4iIlt ........_...--
-----~..~..~ ~4iIlt
..-----
---..
"
, ,
,
,
,
.--~
o
Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dee
Jan
Figure 13. Total birds observed during ground surveys
conducted by EcoEnvironmental; Inc., by study site.
, 52
0.7
0.6
0.5
s:=
~~
of: 0.4
~~
,~
f; 0.3
~~'
0.2
0.1
,
l\
ij
;
~
\~
i
m
~f
Iii
~
f
~
~::
!if
I
II
~
.
I
)l
t!
i
~!
~
o
Constructed
Wetlands
Bush Field Merryland
Ponds
Expressway
Ponds
Figure 14. Proportions of bird species categories (see Table 6)
observed at each study site during ground smyeys (Clemson).
53
SPECIES
CA TEGORIES
. WFowl
D MSong
. Raptor
. Shore
III SSong
. Wader
1000
900
Constructed Wetlands
· · · .. Bush Field Airport
..-..- Merrylaild Ponds
- . - .. Bobby !ones Exp. Ponds
"0 800
~ '
~
~'700
~
,.Q
0600
-
~
r.S 500
J.
~
......
~ 400
~
-
~ 300
o
~
200
100
o
Apr May June July Aug Sept Oet Nov Dee Jan
Figure 15. Total waterfowl observed during ground surveys,
by study site (Clemson).
54
10
~
..c
i 8
~
...
~ 6
~
~ 4
14
12
2
o
Constructed
Wetlands,
Merryland
Ponds
. TotaL,
o Migratory
iii Non-migratory
Figure 16. Waterfowl densities (birds/ha) observed during
ground surveys, by season and study site (Clemson).
55
300
"'0
~
t: 250
~
rIJ
..c
~ 200
"'0
a..
....
=
bll 150
=
....
"'0
~
~ 100
-
~
.....
Q
~ 50
.
350
Constructed Wetlands
· · · .. Bush Field Airport
...--- Merryland Ponds
- ..... ... Bobby Jones Exp. Ponds
#.".................-.
.. .--
~.,....."'....... ....
.....
-"--1It
o ·
Apr May June -July Aug Sept, Oct Nov Dee Jan
Figure 17. Total wading birds observed during ground surveys,
by study site (Clemson).
,56
~ 2.5
..c:
'"
"-J
"E 2
...
"Q
~
= 1.5
....
"0
~
~ 1
3.5
3
0.5
o
II Total
o Breeding
Ii! Non-breeding
-:1. .c:.
Merryland
Ponds
Expressway
Ponds
Figure 18. Wading bird densities (birdslha) observed during
ground surveys, by season and study site (Clemson).
Constructed
Wetlands
57
450
400
"0350
~
~300
1'-J
..Q
~250
"0
~
, .-
~200
~
o
~150
-
~
.....
0100
~
50
",_...........
Constructed Wetlands
- - - -. Bush Field Airport
..--- Merryland Ponds
- . - .. Bobby Jones Exp. Ponds
.
o
Apr M~y June :July Aug Sept Oet Nov Dee
Jan
Figure 19. Total shorebirds observed during ground surveys,
by study site (Clemson).
58
"0
~
~
"-
~
~
..Q
o
~,
~
o
"-
U
""-
~
"-
o
~
Q.
~
~
-
~
~
o
'~
70
<<)0
Constructed Wetlands (
,".
- - - -. Bush Field Airport ~ . \
..-.... Merryland Ponds :' ~' \
, , '.
- . - .. BobbyJones Exp.,' ; \
Ponds ' , '. . \
, . , .
, " \
, " .
: ,. \ ..t
, , , ..... ~
, , . \..:
, " ~.. ~
, · .4\ :
, ...... . :
, ".. \ ..
: ,!~! \ \
, . . ..
, ..,: \ ..
, , & . :
, .:, \ ..
. I · ..
,. : ' ~
#0 I . \ ·
, ,; . ~
, . : .- "" , '..\
, " , : ' ':"
" " 'I \
,., /; ~ .
.~ ~ ~\
· · ~f .,
, .... (<... . , . , .
. , ... . . '., \. : ... \
(... ,:.~\.." ,! ':
.....-.. ~ ---.-
........---.........
~.O
.,
40
30
....0
~..
]lO
o
Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dee
Figure 20. Total raptors/crQwsobserved during ground surveys,
by study site (Clemson).
59
Jan
@
A
CD
c
@
E
.
E
@
Figure 21. Map of Bush Field Airport identifying runways and taxiways.
60
1000
Constructed Wetlands
900 .---- Bush Field Airport
Merryland Ponds .
..---- I
800 Bobby Jones Exp. Ponds .
---.. I
"C .
Q,,) ,
> .
r.. 700 I
Q,,) .
r:I} I
,.Q .
o 6100 " I
.
, r:I} , , ' I
"C , .
,
' .:: Si()O , ,
.
,.Q , I
OJ) ~
~41~0 __ .."" -t,
.,
00. \,
- . ,
.s 3i()0 ~,
. ,
Q \ ,
E- 21~0 ."
\ ,
. ,
\ ,......
.
100 \
o
Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dee Jan
Figure 22. Total songbirds (medium-sized) observed during
ground surveys, by study site (Clemson).
61
200
.-.-
1:80
1160 -- ..
"'0
~'
C140
~
.1:1)
0120
1:1)
~ 11/)0
.-
,.Q
b1l
= :gO
0
rJ'l
- 160
=
.....
0
~ 40
20
Constructed Wetlands
Bush Field Airport
Merryland Ponds
Bobby Jones Exp. Ponds
'- I
:".'
--: '.
: , ~
:,.. ~
;, \
~ .
lltIt ': ~.
.. .... ' I : ..
. .
. .
. .
. .
:It ; . ... . ..... fit ......................... . .... .
: ... . ~...... II... . ~._....
. r _.
...
... ~4
.... .. .....1
......-
.
I,
I ,
I ,
I ,
I "
I "
"
"
"
"
"
"
.
"- ' -
-~...__...".
"'\ .
" .....
....
..........-
'........ -.,.
o
Apr May June July Aug Sept Oet Nov Dee Jan
Figure 23. Total songbirds (small-sized) observed during ground
surveys, by study, site (Clemson). '
62
Appendix 1. Example: Summary Data Sheet for aerial surveys
AERI}.,L WATERBIRD SURVEYS OF THE BUSH FIELD AIRPORT VICINITY
Observer:
pilot:
hr to
Date:
Aircraft.:
Survey period:
hr
Weather:
Visibility:
Temperature:
Savannah River Stage at
Wind:
Rainfall:
Butler Creek:
Species Observed Merry Ga WMA Ga WMA Wetlands Natural
Land Upper Lower Project Wetlands
Common Loon
Grebes (Horned & Pied-Bill)
Double-Crested Cormorant
American Anhinga
Whistling Swan
Snow Goose
Canada Goose
American Black Duck
Gadwall
Mallard
Northern pintail
American Wigeon
Wood Duck
Northern Shoveler
Blue-Winged Teal
Green-winged Teal
Canvasback
Redhead
Ring-Necked Duck
Scaup (Le.sser & Greater)
Bufflehea.d
Ruddy DuC;!k
Hooded Me,rganser
Merganser ,(Red-B & Common)
American Coot
Common Moorhen
purple Ga.llinule
Gull (Ring-Billed, etc. )
Great Blue Heron
Li ttle Blue Heron
Great Egret'
Cattle E!:[ret I
Wood Stork
White Ibis
Bald Eagle
Osprey
Other spe!cies:
63
For more information, please contact:
Robert Kennamer
Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
Drawer E, Aiken SC 29802
Kennamer@SREL.edu
http://www.uga.edu/srelJ
~.-_ ..l
CfID
--
The University of Georgia
Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
Cover photograph by
David E. Scott